Global Warming and Government Response - Research Paper Example

Global warming and Government response Public awareness about the concept of global warming and its related concerns can be traced back to the year 1988, when in the aftermath of an exceptionally hot year coupled with the failure a failure of crops so disastrous that cattle had to be slaughtered for lack of feeding material, there was a public outcry in regards to the rising levels of pollution. It was after this summer that alerts were sounded around the world that the conditions were likely to continue only with further deterioration in the future (Philander, 2000). This would probably be where the origins of the concerns about the problems of global warming lie and it is in this context that the policy decisions that were conceptualized and implemented around the work need to be studied. Global warming is the term that has conventionally been used to describe the slow yet consistent growth in the earth’s average ground and atmospheric temperatures across the entire planet. It has been indicated by various measurements that the temperature mean has risen by about 1degree Fahrenheit over the past hundred years. There have been periods where this has been more marked than others. In fact it started to rise at the dawn of the industrial revolution and then saw a decline over the period of the Great Depression of the 1930s. It then picked up again rapidly in the face of major industrialization and armament campaigns in the period leading up to and the years in the Second World War. However, the greatest increase has been in the years after 1960s when the process of production around the world saw what can now be referred to the as the second revolution. The warming trend can therefore be safely have said to have grown during the periods when human activities were beginning to increase the carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Concerns about the hazards of global warming emanate from the fact that a warmer earth would result in changes in patterns of rainfall along with a rise in sea level, with manifestations in a wide range of adverse effects on plants, wildlife, and humans. There is however a debate in regards to the nature and the affect that human involvement has on climate change. The idea is that climate change is a natural process and would happen with or without human intervention (Lindzen , 2001). There are on the other hand those that believe that global warming is basically a result of human activities like the burning of fossil fuels. There is in fact now enough evidence to state that is claim might be true after all. The basic premise of the debate is the fact that while there is a rise in carbon dioxide emissions which would lead to global warming, there are uncertainties regarding the timing and severity of such climatic change. On the other hand, there is now proof that demonstrates that humans are responsible absolutely for global warming, climate change, and snows melting in Greenland and Antarctica (IPCC Report, 2007). In fact scientists believe that 90 per cent that burning fossil fuels and other human activities are behind the climate change. The Executive Director of the Environment of the United Nations, Akim Steiner, said that the word “responsibility” is absolutely the essential message of the report, adding that those who complain about the role of humans in climate change could no longer ignore the evidence.  It mentions that global temperatures could increase 4.6 C degrees by the year 2100. It also expected the rise in the level of the seas, increasing the strength and number of hurricanes. Against this background then it would be interesting to note the difference in policy decisions that two countries make on the same issue that affect both in similar manners. For the sake of making the report balanced however, we would take into account the reactions from a developing country i.e. India and a developed country i.e. USA. The Indian Sub continent has two basic weather systems, characterized by the north westerly monsoon in the summer and westerly winds in the winter. The point of reference here is that the country, its agriculture and to an extent its economy is dependent largely on the rivers of North India that are the lifeline behind its bourgeouging growth. The impact of global warming on India would be a catastrophe as it would serve to melt or remove the glaciers that feed the country and its lifeline. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, India's agriculture will suffer more than any other country's. Assuming a global temperature increase of 4.4°C over cultivated areas by 2080, India's agricultural output is projected to fall by 30-40%. Despite this the reaction of the administration in relation to the problem has been bordering on complete nonchalance and ignorance. There can also be outlined a certain kind of haphazard style of policy decisions in regard to the problem. There have been, over the years an absolute refusal of part of the Indian administration to work in cooperation with the international norms and standards such as the Kyoto Protocol. The stands of the governments that have been in power over the last decade and a half have been clear. Despite the fact that India ratified the terms of the Kyoto Protocol (2002), it did not agree to the emission norms but stood to benefit from clauses of energy transfer. The stand is that the emissions that the levels of emission by the developing world are minuscule in comparison with those of the developed countries and thus should be subject to a different kind of regulation. The idea is also inclusive of the presumption that the developed world has already made use of the environmental resources have developed ahead of the third world, they should now bear the brunt of the repair work that needs to be done. There are further ramifications that need to be mentioned. The country is on a major development and industrialization drive. The country has the highest density of population in the world and is looking to develop fast. The priorities are set-development, industrialization driven growth. This would mean promotion of industries that produce greenhouse gases (Ram, 2007). It is because of this attitude infact that the country is now being viewed in international circles as being the most uncooperative one ahead even of China. The argument is that total emissions are comparatively low and that it is relatively energy-efficient. The problem however is that these claims do not have credibility as half the population in the country has no access to power. The numbers tell a different story. The GDP growth has been at 9% for a while when its energy consumption has risen by 4%. And yet, to achieve its target of long-term 8% growth, India will have to boost its power-generation capacity at least sixfold by 2030. Over the period, its emissions are expected to increase over fourfold. The defense for the stand however is morality. The country’s citizens have the right to create wealth. Indeed, given their special vulnerability to climate problems, they have a particularly urgent need for economic development. After all, a factory worker with an air-conditioner will feel global warming less than a subsistence farmer will (The Economist, 2007). It has also been argued that the stand is in line with what the UN proposes in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which launched the Kyoto process. It was recognized here that economic development and poverty eradication were the “overriding priorities” for developing countries. Having said this it has to be mentioned that attitudes are now changing. The PM, Dr Singh, in June 2008 unveiled the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) which is supposed to outline present and potential policy initiative with regards to climate control and greenhouse effects.  The plan also lays down the definition and recognition for eight core “national missions” who are supposed to be operative till 2017(NAPCC Plan Document, 2008). the plan also lays emphasis on the prioritization of the maintenance of high economic growth rate to raise the standards of living while identifying that there is a requirement of methods “that promote our development objectives while also yielding co-benefits for addressing climate change effectively.”  On the other hand, there is the sole super power in a uni-polar world. The US policy on the issue can be studied in three major phases, this would also give one a fair idea about the kind of difference that internal politics along with change in the political head can make in a sovereign state. Clinton was a major proponent of integrationist policies and followed an avid global warming control agenda. It was in fact under his vision that the Kyoto Protocol was formulated and implemented. The US also attained a significant reduction on the emission of greenhouse gases. Most of this began to change with the beginning of the Bush era. Priorities changed and the US withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol making a mockery of the agreement that had been created by US policy makers. The administration went on to reject mandatory caps on emission of carbon dioxide and other gases that are the major contributing factors to global warming and climate change. Ironically it was within this period itself that the US witnessed the Hurricanes Rita and Katrina two of the worst in its history. In fact during the period between 2001 and 2004, European countries were ahead of the US in curbing carbon emissions. The problem of Global warming found little or no reference in President Bush’s domestic agenda, with only passing references made to the issue in State of the Union Addresses. This however does not mean that there were no discussions on the matter. In fact the environmental lobby led by the US Environmental protection Agency or the EPA, was seen more in action during the Bush regime than ever before. Other than this there were efforts that were made at the regional or the local levels to get a grip on the problem. Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, an Arizona Republican and a Connecticut independent, introduced legislation made it a requisite that there be an upper limit on the carbon emissions (Reuters Report, 2007). It was predicted by Lieberman that by the end of 2009 there would be in place some kind of legislation that would make requirements of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions mandatory. This was however, eclipsed by the recession and the sub prime crisis. Now with the motor giants like GM and Chrysler in trouble, the introduction of the law seems more of a distant possibility than ever. Other initiatives included legislators, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who had longstanding and well established views with regards to the requirements on change in policy on environmental issues, addressed a World Bank-sponsored global forum on climate change. The talk of mandatory U.S. emissions caps received a good response from participants from the G8 industrialized nations, as well as developing countries China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. The verdict reached in the forum was clear: "Climate change is a global issue and there is an obligation on us all to take action, in line with our capabilities and historic responsibilities." Beside this there has been in place a lot of token documentation and research that has been carried out by the EPA such as the Clear Energy environment partnership, the Climate leaders, the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Partnership, the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality Voluntary Programmes and the Green Power Partnerships among others. There have also been allegations that given the fact that the country is obviously the world leader and has till now played its part in the emission of green house gases, it is just not doing enough to push the agenda for climate change control. There are reports that argue that wealthy countries like the US are responsible for a majority of the growth in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels and thus they have on ethical responsibility to the rest of the world to address the problem. However, the seriousness that the situation demands is just not present in the attitude that the US has towards Global warming threats as manifest in policy conceptualization and manifestation. Priorities are still economic development and if that comes at the cost of the environment then so be it. The only point is that most of this could probably now see a shift because the White has a new occupant. Obama has made promises that he will put mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions from industry and has spoken about it often enough to imply it was one of his top priorities (Washington Post, 2008). A comparison of the stance that have been taken by the two countries over the years are in fact a mirror for the stance that has been taken by the world at large with relation to global warming. It is an issue that comes right at the bottom of the priority spectrum for most governments around the world only the ways of hedging the topics differ. The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcing) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates. What can be said for sure however is that it now time for change if not in actual policy manifestations but at least in attitudes with regard to a problem that threatens to be a bigger one than oil if not tackled soon and in an efficient manner. Reference: Philander S, 2000, Is the temperature rising?: the uncertain science of global warming, Edition: illustrated, Published, Princeton University Press, p191-195 Lindzen S R, 2001, On the Meaning of Global Warming Claims, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, accessed May 13, 2009, http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:HGa6O61u-hwJ:climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/kuehnast_lecture/ppt_files/kuehnast_lindzen.ppt+Global+warming,+meaning+and+definition,+Journals&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, accessed May 13, 2009, < http://www.ipcc.ch/> Policy responses to Global Warming, accessed May 13, 2009, < http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf105.html> Melting Asia, pub, The Economist, June 5, 2008, accessed May 13, 2009, http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11488548 Ram N, 2005, Green House emissions, G8 and India, pub, The Hindu, accessed May 13, 2009, NAPCC Document, 2008, Summary: India’s National Plan on Climate Change, accessed May 14, 2009, < http://www.pewclimate.org/international/country-policies/india-climate-plan-summary/06-2008> EPA on Global warming issues, accessed May 14, 2009, < http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/> Reuters Report, 2007, Is US near a tipping point on global warming, accessed May 14, 2009, < http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-02-19-tipping-point_x.htm> Obama Pledges to attack global warming, Baltimore Sun, accessed May 14, 2009, < http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1968877/posts> Global Warming, accessed May 14, 2009, < http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html> Read More