Environmental reforms on climate change have been discussed for decades by the UN, separate countries governments, environmental groups, and individuals. The need for change is evident, but getting a national response, much less an international response, is difficult to see through.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was created almost 20 years ago. This framework aimed to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations below a dangerous level. What this dangerous level is, however, has been a topic of debate. Last year’s Copenhagen Climate Conference tried to turn the UN’s framework into a reality, but failed to do so. The simple drawback in this environmental reform was the unrealistic goals it set with no precedent or way of implanting without a country going bankrupt or losing power.
The Copenhagen negotiations (UN backed) attempted to strap down 200 nations committing themselves to drastically change green reforms. This UN decision has not yet been implemented due to the holes in the program and the non-urgent threat of climate change.
The following are the different environmental reform strategies that different environmentalism specialists have hypothesized, as well as the plan created by the UN.
Global Agreement Strategy from the UN Copenhagen Conference
* Assumes national governments can set a meaningful threshold beyond the point where climate change can become dangerous, and then create a plan that assures never getting to that point. However, environmentalism specialists cannot find any such threshold. * If a threshold was found, this would mean cutting off all greenhouse gases from fossil fuels, which no country has ever been able to do and still stay profitable. * Because there are no set strategies on how to meet the requirements of this strategy, many nations have been reluctant to join in the UN efforts and have created environmental reforms of their own.
Clean Energy Revolution Strategy by Separate National Governments
* Individual countries will take their own actions in reducing an impactful climate change. * The pros for this argument center on the power that national governments have in where spending goes in their own countries. Increase the spend and support of research and green reforms as well as put caps on greenhouse admissions that make sense per country and (in this theory) you will see results. * The assumptions of this strategy assume that the actions of individual nations will eventually make green energy less expensive than today’s fossil fuels quickly enough to positively effect and limit the changes to the climate. This represents what economists call a collective action problem, meaning “successful solutions require many different parties to respond in a coordinated manner” which is highly unlikely to occur.
Combine National Efforts with UN Watchdog
* National governments (driven by environmental factors as well as economic) will pursue their own ways of lowering emissions and greenhouse gases. * Global negotiations would watch separate nations and keep certain countries from lagging too far behind by supporting early results and creating circumstances in which countries who are not implementing environmental reforms would suffer economically.
The next round of climate negotiations is going to be in Mexico in December. Hopefully, with the aforementioned plans in mind, this meeting will help create international reporting standards for monitoring greenhouse gases, as well as other international standards for climate control.