Why Countries Find It Difficult to Agree on Climate Change Targets - Coursework Example

Why countries find it so difficult to agree climate change targets? You should also offer potential solutions to the barriers that you identify Professor Institution Course Date Undeniably, many of the environmental adverse effects (due to change) currently experienced by humanity globally are self-imposed (Tucker, 2012, p. 837). Since, if humanity insisted on embracing effective measures coupled with devising environmental policies, which each state would adhere to through their implementation, some of the disasters that have so far occurred their effects will not be in existent to date (Tucker, 2012, p. 835). However, due to “dishonest” industrial competition among influential global blocs (led by some of the dominant states) while in the quest of strengthening their respective economic muscles, this has ensued to the present day’s adverse environmental effects (Berger, 2010). For instance, in Ukraine where climate change has adversely affected agriculture through persistent droughts (Lagutov, 2012, p. 78). Consequently, these droughts have yielded to crops’ failure, which in turn prompts the entire region’s populations experience food insecurity. This is a grievous predicament as the state’s economy somehow wholly relies on agriculture. Conversely, some scholars have contended climate alterations experienced in the region are favorable but not all parts of the entire state (Lagutov, 2012). Similarly, alteration in climate has led to heightened temperature levels in Japan leading to augmenting of Japan’s unnecessary morbidity and mortality (Ford & Berrang-Ford, 2011, p. 190). This is due to heat waves mainly associated with varied illnesses, which could have not been in existence if there were effective measures to shun climate degradation. Some of the illnesses associated with this climate mishap commonly experienced include cramps and heat exhaustion whereby the latter with delayed attention graduates to heatstroke, which augments the state’s mortality (Ford & Berrang-Ford, 2011). These alterations are adverse to numerous people especially those may be experiencing other chronic maladies. This is because extent of worsening of a given malady normally depends on one’s physical strength (Ford & Berrang-Ford, 2011). This is quite evident based on incidents that to date have remained in the annals of history as most grievous occurrences ever occurred and whose effects are still felt presently by varied life forms. These mishaps embrace Deepwater Horizon oil spill (Mexico), Chernobyl (Ukraine), Fukushima and Sayano-Shushenskaya power station (Russia) though some of the respective states contend their occurrence was due to inescapable structural failures. In the case of Chernobyl mishap, it yielded to an immeasurable contamination of its immediate environment that approximated to about 200,000 km2 (Mousseau & Møller, 2011b, p. 2788). This is due to massive release of radioactive materials that not only affected the immediate regions but also others in Eastern as well as central of Europe, hence altering their former conducive habitation state. Since then to date, these contaminants though their extent of effect not relayed by numerous researches so far conducted, they disproportionally affect varied types of “populations” that inhabit these regions. Populations in this case embrace all life forms, for instance, birds whose species richness experienced a reduction of 60% whereas their respective abundance 70% (Mousseau & Møller, 2011b, p. 2788). Hence, prompting to the emergency of augmented mutation rates of species not only among birds alone but also in wild animals and plants in quest of adapting to their immediate settings (Mousseau & Møller, 2011b). To humanity, this mishap’s effects most are cancerous including thyroid though not concrete statistics have unequivocal revealed the exact mortality rates (Kobori et al., 2012). Since, numerous people residing in the contaminated regions after clearing most of them including liquidators die of natural causes. However, much of these effects presently are indirect through agricultural products, for instance, inducing of radioiodine in milk from dairy animals that feed on contaminated regions (Kukush et al., 2014). Consequently, this yielded to the augmenting rates of thyroid cancer as well as newborn malformations particularly among children in regions like Belarus and Russia (Zablotska et al., 2011). Studies so far conducted contend these scenarios will persist for centuries due to natives and wildlife from these regions relying on already contaminated environment for their survival (Mousseau & Møller, 2011a). In addition, this mishap’s extensive adverse effects was also evident in the way it yielded to the utter annihilation of large rural as well as forest regions whereby an example of the latter encompasses Red Forest due to the then massive settling of radioactive contaminants on trees (Evangeliou, Balkanski, Cozic, Hao & Møller, 2014, p. 346). Other environmental agents then detrimentally affected embraced groundwater due to radioactive materials’ percolation besides Fauna and vegetative cover (Berger, 2010). Correspondingly, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 2010 based on Nijhuis’ (2010) article its impacts especially on aquatic life and fisheries sectors are there to stay. Since the inception of the spill that took 87 days the oil’s effect on water, fishes and shrimps was grievous. This is not only interfering with their mobility but also respective food regions, for instance in the case of grouper and red snapper that rely on coral reefs in their quest to forage as well as spawn (Nijhuis, 2010). Compared to other similar cases that have ever occurred, this incident based on scientists’ studies its impact are long term due to 80% of the leaked oil that is still submerged. Hence, acting as a hindrance to aquatic life’s growth as well as reproduction, this in turn destroys wildlife and habitats (Nijhuis, 2010). Due to this incidence, its direct as well as indirect impacts to the environment grievously have altered the lives of those who rely on the affected regions for fish. Additionally, this incidence also resulted to subsidence, drainage and rising of sea levels whereby the latter is among the most pronounced characteristics of climate change (Corn, 2010). Similar to other incidents, Sayano-Shushenskaya power station incident yielded to significant effects on environment, which included polluting Yenisei River, with heavy spilling of oil. Hence, interfering with aquatic life besides other life forms that relied on this rive similar to what scientists concluded in the case of Deepwater Horizon oil spill 2010 (Bunn & Carson, 2012). Since it is hardly a guarantee the rescuers managed to eliminate all the spilt oil, which besides having affected aquatic life forms poses significant impact on climate change once it ends up in oceans. Solutions to climate change To curb climate change, global states ought to devise policies that will enable them they mitigate this predicament jointly (Pittock, 2013). However, this calls for the commitment of all states irrespective of their status to observe them through embracing strategies that will lessen GHGs emissions. Since, GHGs from heavily industrialized states are core agents that have yielded to the ozone layer’s depletion, hence leading to increased cancer ailments presently. However, this commitment ought to emerge with knowledge that climate change will affect all global states equally thus each ought to embrace ethical industrialization. Since, the need to strengthen each state’s economic muscles has yielded to the aforementioned incidents while in the quest of competition of outdoing each other. Hence, fail to be careful with adequate and correct structural stability of their structures like in the case of the latter discussed incident (Pittock, 2013). To realize commonness in safeguarding environment, global states ought to implement tougher standards that will deter some of the heightened irresponsibility by influential states. This is in setting certain limits, which each state ought not to exceed in terms of emissions as well as adequate regulations of their structures. Since, this is what will ensure incidences there aforementioned would not ensue especially that are due to structural instability. Global states ought to emphasize on emergent technological knowhow especially vehicles and generating power stations need to forgo fossil fuels (Covington & Thamotheram, 2014). This is especially by investors who currently according to Covington and Thamotheram (2014) seem unaware of its impacts while in their quest of investing and maximize respective proceeds. Therefore, they ought to embrace “rapid decarbonization” policy thus prompting them to think of other alternatives like renewable options, which include sun (Covington & Thamotheram, 2014, p. 45). These renewable options are environmentally clean considering their zero-rated GHGs’ emissions, which to date have so far being a problem especially in compelling influential states to reduce. There ought to be an emphasis of general upgrading of infrastructure and other machines ranging from machines to power plants. This is to ensure they have ceased relying on coal and yield to safer alternatives like wind, sun or water. Since, these options are effective for what they need is only charging with either sun or wind, hence lessen emissions (Covington & Thamotheram, 2014). However, to some these options may be insignificant and inferior but with execution will prove their worth. This is especially to investors who deem in failing to use coal they will be unable to keep as par their competitors whose proceeds as well as market share are augmenting by the day. Why countries find it so difficult to agree climate change targets? In drawing common acceptable pact regarding targets, which each state ought to operate within for years up to date has aroused heated debates. Some of the reasons cited by opposing states more so the US when ratifying Kyoto protocol contended the action would not only harm developed states’ economies but also excludes the developing ones (Richter, 2010). For instance, Bush during his regime contended this move was fatal and did not have foreseeable benefits (Richter, 2010). This is because when the developing states commence on regulating CO2­ by 2050 the smaller ones would have reached their level, hence be doing worse than saving (Richter, 2010, p. 208). Since, then to date irrespective of numerous conventions held globally including Copenhagen states when arguing their talks are more on defending disastrous operations that boost respective economies. In addition, there is also the arguments some states ought to have an allowance to develop before compelled to adhere to already set targets. This was the case with China, which has now turned to be the leading CO2 emitter and seems not to give in and embrace collective climate resolution strategies (Richter, 2010). Opposition by other states including even US was quite evident during the Copenhagen Accord whereby the conference’s culmination there was no set targets (Budryte & Resende, 2013). Since, each state feels in agreeing to certain targets would be a disadvantage in terms of economic advancement. Hence, opt to “game of wits” despite having the desire to counter climate change, which evident with US and china though the latter’s official walked out in Copenhagen meeting. Another reason why states to date have not agreed on certain targets was due to each state pledging what it ought to adhere towards saving the planet earth (Newson, 2010). Some of the targets due to the absence of political will are far from realization despite being too low. Since those pledged to date wait to see their counterparts actualizing own targets for them to implement. Consequently, this scenario continues to recur among leading states for none is ready in compromising their industrial operations for they will affect own economies adversely (Newson, 2010). However, states in their quest to safeguard climate can effectively do so though by first compromising their political stands. Since it is the absence of each state’s political will coupled with fear their economies will sink that prompts them not to adhere to the targets they have solely pledged (Newson, 2010). Therefore, jointly global states ought to devise policies that each ought to comply with without giving allowance to certain parties based on economic levels. Since this is what prompts emergency of unending debates as evidence with Copenhagen incidence, where the Chinese delegates walked out leaving Obama and other political icons due to incongruity (Newson, 2010, p. 5). To counter climate change, states willingly ought to compromise their standings more so political ideals, which to date have influenced some players not to give in. this is because many deem due to economic-based competition, they will give their counterparts a platform to wield unequaled influence globally, hence dictate them. Therefore, they opt to stick to continue with respective operations thinking a time will avail itself whereby all parties will wholly commit to saving planet earth from a level ground by implementing same targets but not differing ones. References Berger, E. M 2010, The Chernobyl Disaster, Concern about the Environment, and Life Satisfaction, Kyklos, 63, 1, pp. 1-8 viewed 18 February 2015. Budryte, D. & Resende, E. (2013). Memory and Trauma in International Relations: Theories, Cases and Debates. London: Routledge Bunn, A, & Carson, P 2012, Explosion at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydro-electricity power station, Loss Prevention Bulletin, 228, pp. 4-8, viewed 18 February 2015. Corn, L. M. 2010. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Coastal Wetland and Wildlife Impacts and Response. Collingdale: DIANE Publishing. Covington, H, & Thamotheram, R 2014, How Should Investors Manage Climate-Change Risk?, Rotman International Journal Of Pension Management, 7, 2, pp. 42-49, viewed 18 February 2015. Evangeliou, N, Balkanski, Y, Cozic, A, Hao, W, & Møller, A 2014, Wildfires in Chernobyl-contaminated forests and risks to the population and the environment: A new nuclear disaster about to happen?, Environment International, 73, pp. 346-358, viewed 18 February 2015. Ford, J. D., & Berrang-Ford, L. 2011. Climate change adaptation in developed nations: from theory to practice. Dordrecht, Springer. Kobori, H, Kamamoto, T, Nomura, H, Oka, K, & Primack, R 2012, The effects of climate change on the phenology of winter birds in Yokohama, Japan, Ecological Research, 27, 1, pp. 173-180, viewed 21 February 2015. Kukush, A, Little, M, Masiuk, S, Shklyar, S, Carroll, R, Lubin, J, Kwon, D, Brenner, A, Tronko, M, Mabuchi, K, Bogdanova, T, Hatch, M, Zablotska, L, Tereshchenko, V, Ostroumova, E, Bouville, A, Drozdovitch, V, Chepurny, M, Kovgan, L, & Simon, S 2014, Impact of Uncertainties in Exposure Assessment on Estimates of Thyroid Cancer Risk among Ukrainian Children and Adolescents Exposed from the Chernobyl Accident, Plos ONE, 9, 1, pp. 1-9, viewed 18 February 2015. Lagutov, V. 2012. Environmental security in watersheds the Sea of Azov. Dordrecht, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Møller, A, & Mousseau, T 2011b, Conservation consequences of Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents, Biological Conservation, 144, 12, pp. 2787-2798, viewed 18 February 2015. Mousseau, T, & Møller, A 2011a, Landscape portrait: A look at the impacts of radioactive contaminants on Chernobyl’s wildlife, Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists, 67, 2, pp. 38-46, viewed 18 February 2015. Newson, N. (2010). Debate on 14th January: The Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change. [pdf] House Of Lords Library. Available at: [Accessed 25Th February 2015] Nijhuis, M. 2010, Crude Awakening, Smithsonian, 41, 5, pp. 10-14, viewed 18 February 2015. Pittock, B. A. 2013. Climate Change: The Science, Impacts and Solutions. London: Routledge. Richter, B. 2010. Beyond smoke and mirrors climate change and energy in the 21st century. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Tucker, W. C 2012, Deceitful Tongues: Is Climate Change Denial a Crime? Ecology Law Quarterly, 39, 3, pp. 831-894, viewed 17 February 2015. Zablotska, L, Ron, E, Rozhko, A, Hatch, M, Polyanskaya, O, Brenner, A, Lubin, J, Romanov, G, McConnell, R, OKane, P, Evseenko, V, Drozdovitch, V, Luckyanov, N, Minenko, V, Bouville, A, & Masyakin, V 2011, Thyroid cancer risk in Belarus among children and adolescents exposed to radioiodine after the Chornobyl accident, British Journal Of Cancer, 104, 1, pp. 181-187, viewed 18 February 2015. Read More