The Environment - Report Example

Environment – Question 1 Name Course Tutor’s Name Date Question 1 Climate change is an interesting phenomenon. The polluters and non-polluters will most likely share the same negative effects. Based on its geographical position however, it is estimated that Australia is likely to suffer harsher effects of climate change than any other continent (Green et al. 2009, p. 7). Therefore, it is understandable that in a desperate move to save itself and its people, Australia takes measures that will domestically reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. While any reduction of CO2 emissions is welcome, question one suggests that some of the approaches that Australia may take in an attempt to reduce the emissions may greatly disadvantage the country’s business and may not have much effect on climate change. The question specifically suggests that measures such as carbon tax and emissions trading scheme (ETS) may only be disadvantageous to Australia especially if pursued outside a multinational agreement. The question makes a valid scientific argument. However, when viewed from an ethical perspective, the question implies that one should continue doing wrong things just because others are doing the same. Ethicists may therefore disagree with the question’s proposition. However, from a scientific perspective, the proposition in the question has merit. By 2000, Australia was not among the top five emitters of greenhouse gases globally (Arcas 2011, para. 6). Instead, China, the US, countries in the European Union (considered a regional entity), India and Russia were ranked as the world’s largest emitters. Combined, the five countries were responsible for more than half of the world’s greenhouse gases. Interestingly, China and India are considered as developing countries by the United Nations, and as such, the Kyoto Protocol does not oblige them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. By 2005, Kopp (2011) notes that there were a handful of countries which were responsible for greenhouse emissions which if not checked, were projected to have dire consequences on the climate. Notably, Australia was not in that list. Carbon emissions will continue having negative effects on non-polluters and polluters alike. Arcas (2011, para. 7) specifically notes that there are indications to the effect that climate change consequences will be harsher on countries located along the equator. The foregoing indication means that emission reduction is a collective responsibility of all countries, and especially those that continue being ranked as major emitters. Kopp (2011, p. 6) notes that one of the main reasons why emissions have become so hard to tame or cap is because they are closely linked to business operations in specific countries, which affects the competitiveness of the country on the international front. Therefore, emissions have an indirect link to economic growth. Kopp (2011, p. 7) further notes that countries need to realize that every country has a desire for economic growth. Notably, all countries need to agree that practices that have negative consequences on the environment should not be justifiable or allowed to happen. While most countries and major emitters perhaps agree with this argument, Kopp (2011, p. 7) notes that reluctance from most countries (especially the large emitters) to subscribe to a legally binding agreement that will limit CO2 emissions is evident. The emitters are arguably aware that such commitments may force them to slow their domestic business activities, and such an action would compromise their respective economic growth and competitiveness. The absence of a legally binding international commitment on how to reduce or mitigate carbon emissions does not mean that individual countries are oblivious of the consequences occasioned by their activities. According to Kopp (2011, p. 11), domestic circumstances have been seen to drive commitments to reduce CO2 emissions by individual countries. Japan for instance undertook to develop and implement domestic strategies of reducing emissions by a significant percentage by 2020 (Mansell 2013, p.1). Japan had its 1990 CO2 emission level as its benchmark. In its plan, the country sought to reduce its emissions by 25% based on the 1990 levels. On the domestic front, Japan has adopted several policies which include the anti-global warming measure tax, the feed-in tariffs and the emissions trading system – all intended to reduce the country’s carbon emissions (Mansell 2013, p. 2). Japan further developed four pillars that would guide its carbon emissions reduction strategy. The first pillar sought to provide incentives to corporate organizations or individuals that succeeded in making significant CO2 emission reduction. The second pillar was based on effectively calculating and reporting CO2 emissions. The third pillar was based on developing and implementing policies that would disseminate low carbon technology, while the fourth pillar was based on a combination of green financing, low-carbon infrastructure, research and the development of human knowledge on matters relating to the reduction of emissions (Mansell 2013, p. 2). Interpreted, Japan’s actions could be perceived to imply that although there is no international agreement on how well to manage climate change or its causes, the country has designed approaches that will reduce CO2 emissions on the domestic front. As would be expected, Japan’s strategies have related costs. Still, the country has gone ahead and proposed them for use in order to mitigate climate change. Notably, analysts agree that Japan trends carefully in its emissions-reduction strategies in order to avoid hurting its economy. On its part, Australia has engaged in a ‘pledge-and-review’ process, which was designed in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). According to Buhr, Roth and Stigson (2014, p. 794), the pledge-and-review strategy appreciates that a joint international commitment may be hard to design or even implement, and as such, has given individual countries the leeway to implement whatever voluntary pledges they wish to use in order to mitigate climate change. Australia has adopted the pledge-and-review strategy in addition to the carbon tax that is currently levied on businesses to dissuade them from reckless CO2 practices. Based on the current discussion, the proposition made in question 1 is arguably skewed. The absence of an international agreement on CO2 emissions should not be a good enough reason for Australia not to engage in combating climate change on the domestic front. As Kopp (2011) notes, the absence of an international agreement has resulted to countries developing their own commitment based on perceptions of climate change, willingness to pay for purposes of mitigating the climate change threat, and the cost of undertaking mitigation activities. Arguably, Australia’s actions may act an example to other countries that mitigation is still possible even though there is a price to pay. While a carbon tax or ETS may make doing business costly, especially for top emitters, Australia should arguably not scrap them. Notably, governments choose between the two options based on which is a better dissuader of emissions. Currently, Australia is using carbon tax after an attempt to drop it and adopt ETS was rejected in parliament in 2014. Through carbon tax, the Australian government effectively places a price tag on pollution. Polluters hence have to pay taxes to the government for their activities. Scrapping the carbon tax and failing to replace it with an ETS or other measures that dissuade emitters would mean that Australia is encouraging its people to emit greenhouse gases with reckless abandon. Arguably, that is something that Australia should not do. As implied in Japan’s example as discussed above, there is widespread knowledge that each country needs to do its part in reducing CO2 emissions. Japan is doing its part, just like many other countries including the US. As Buhr et al. (2014, p. 797) indicate, most countries are aligning themselves to the pledge-and-review strategy, which is not as good as a multinational agreement in mitigating climate change, but, which countries may just have to settle with for the lack of a better choice. Based on this argument, one would therefore opine (and rightly so) that if Australia deems carbon taxes or ETS as a good way of mitigating carbon emissions within its borders, the decision must be based on considerable political, economic, social and environmental reasoning. If the strategies taken by Australia are disadvantaging the country economically, then it would be upon stakeholders who feel aggrieved by the same strategies to lobby the government for a change. In conclusion, it is worth observing that a multinational agreement to combat climate change is highly unlikely in the present global political climate, where even the UN attempt’s under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol has failed to bear significant results for climate change mitigation. However, the absence of an international agreement cannot be used as a reason for countries to stop pursuing different strategies that can mitigate climate change. Arguably, if all countries pursued different strategies that limit CO2 emissions, the results would be significant reductions in emissions on the global front. It is also the prerogative of each government to evaluate the strategies it pursues relative to other countries in order to ensure that its strategies do not disadvantage its economy. Nonetheless, the truth of the matter is that emission reduction will be a costly undertaking that each country must be willing to pay for. In future, countries may just have to decide which between losing a few businesses and losing an entire future to climate change is the lesser evil. References Arcas, RL 2011, ‘Alternative architecture for climate change – major economies’, European Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, viewed 24 April 2015, . Buhr, K, Roth, S, & Stigson, P 2014, ‘Climate change politics through a global pledge-and-review regime: positions among negotiators and stakeholders’, Sustainability, vol. 6, pp. 794-811. Green, D, Alexander L, McInnes K, Church, J, Nicholls, N & White N 2009, ‘An assessment of climate change impacts and adaptation for the Torres Strait Islands, Australia’, Climate Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-009-9756-2. Kopp, RJ 2011, ‘The climate has change – so must policy’, The Center for Climate and Electricity Policy (CCEP), Issue Brief 11-03, pp. 1-14. Mansell, A 2013, ‘Japan: the world’s carbon markets: A case study guide to emissions trading’, Environmental Defense Fund and International Emissions Trading Association, viewed 24 April 2015, . Read More

The emitters are arguably aware that such commitments may force them to slow their domestic business activities, and such an action would compromise their respective economic growth and competitiveness. The absence of a legally binding international commitment on how to reduce or mitigate carbon emissions does not mean that individual countries are oblivious of the consequences occasioned by their activities. According to Kopp (2011, p. 11), domestic circumstances have been seen to drive commitments to reduce CO2 emissions by individual countries.

Japan for instance undertook to develop and implement domestic strategies of reducing emissions by a significant percentage by 2020 (Mansell 2013, p.1). Japan had its 1990 CO2 emission level as its benchmark. In its plan, the country sought to reduce its emissions by 25% based on the 1990 levels. On the domestic front, Japan has adopted several policies which include the anti-global warming measure tax, the feed-in tariffs and the emissions trading system – all intended to reduce the country’s carbon emissions (Mansell 2013, p. 2). Japan further developed four pillars that would guide its carbon emissions reduction strategy.

The first pillar sought to provide incentives to corporate organizations or individuals that succeeded in making significant CO2 emission reduction. The second pillar was based on effectively calculating and reporting CO2 emissions. The third pillar was based on developing and implementing policies that would disseminate low carbon technology, while the fourth pillar was based on a combination of green financing, low-carbon infrastructure, research and the development of human knowledge on matters relating to the reduction of emissions (Mansell 2013, p. 2). Interpreted, Japan’s actions could be perceived to imply that although there is no international agreement on how well to manage climate change or its causes, the country has designed approaches that will reduce CO2 emissions on the domestic front.

As would be expected, Japan’s strategies have related costs. Still, the country has gone ahead and proposed them for use in order to mitigate climate change. Notably, analysts agree that Japan trends carefully in its emissions-reduction strategies in order to avoid hurting its economy. On its part, Australia has engaged in a ‘pledge-and-review’ process, which was designed in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). According to Buhr, Roth and Stigson (2014, p. 794), the pledge-and-review strategy appreciates that a joint international commitment may be hard to design or even implement, and as such, has given individual countries the leeway to implement whatever voluntary pledges they wish to use in order to mitigate climate change.

Australia has adopted the pledge-and-review strategy in addition to the carbon tax that is currently levied on businesses to dissuade them from reckless CO2 practices. Based on the current discussion, the proposition made in question 1 is arguably skewed. The absence of an international agreement on CO2 emissions should not be a good enough reason for Australia not to engage in combating climate change on the domestic front. As Kopp (2011) notes, the absence of an international agreement has resulted to countries developing their own commitment based on perceptions of climate change, willingness to pay for purposes of mitigating the climate change threat, and the cost of undertaking mitigation activities.

Arguably, Australia’s actions may act an example to other countries that mitigation is still possible even though there is a price to pay. While a carbon tax or ETS may make doing business costly, especially for top emitters, Australia should arguably not scrap them. Notably, governments choose between the two options based on which is a better dissuader of emissions. Currently, Australia is using carbon tax after an attempt to drop it and adopt ETS was rejected in parliament in 2014.

Read More