Mankind is on the verge of a global apocalypse. The polar caps are melting, the ozone hole is depleting, and global temperatures are rising. Sea levels and international tensions have risen, threatening to overwhelm and submerge islands like Singapore. Amid frustrations that global union has failed to combat global warming, it has been suggested that individual nations should take their own steps to curb global warming. However, this is ultimately a naïve view, as such an initiative would be hard to implement, and ineffective in combating global warming. Instead, focus should be targeted towards achieving global cooperation to solve this crisis in unity.
Throughout the past decade, global warming activists have been furiously attempting to convince citizens and governments to take active measures against global warming. They advocate the need for someone to start taking action against global warming, even if others are not doing so. However, trying to curb global warming alone will, at best, only achieve a symbolic outcome. From the point of view of the average Joe, measures to curb global warming are time consuming and sometimes more expensive. Having to turn off the air-conditioner during summer to reduce carbon emissions may be unbearable and extremely trying. Having to bring your own recyclable bag during grocery shopping may be troublesome and irritating. Having to take public transport instead of driving your own car may be time consuming and tiring. Evidently, measures to stop global warming come at a considerable cost and effort – which is hard to maintain for the average individual. Therefore, I believe that it is important for governments to legislate regulations on such matters, to create an added moral and legal impetus for citizens to act against global warming. However, it will be difficult, and highly unlikely that governments will produce strict and necessary legislature against global warming, if international pressure is non-existent. Very often, preventing global warming comes at the cost of economic progress or citizen welfare – to force companies to add pollutant filters to their factories would increase the price of producing goods, which in turn would increase the cost of living. Without pressure from other nations, it would be an extremely unpopular decision to act decisively against global warming. This would be a common mentality – if my neighbouring country isn’t doing it, why should I? Such a line of reasoning would make implementing tight regulations on global warming very difficult in strongly democratic countries, where governments have to respect voter sentiments highly. The trouble is, global warming is an externality. This means that the impact of global warming is not directly felt by a nation would pollutes more. The carbon dioxide released to the environment does not only destroy the ozone layer above the country which released it – it travels all around the globe to destroy the ozone layer of some other country. Therefore, to many governments, there seems to be little direct punishment for contributing towards global warming. In the status quo, nations such as China which pollute heavily are only reprimanded by the international community – a small cost to pay for maintaining its economic growth at the cost of the environment. As such, it is necessary for the world to unite and create a legally binding treaty which would punish and place pressure upon nations which contribute to global warming heavily.
It may be easy to say that a single nation which goes the extra mile to curb global warming can inspire other nations to act similarly – even without international agreements. However, this effect is far from pronounced. Nations are sovereign entities, which have the ability to act independent from each other, based on their individual interests. Therefore, it is unlikely that just because a neighbouring country is taking steps against global warming, a nation would be compelled to combat global warming, against its national interests. At best, influence from other nations would serve as fodder for environmental activists and posters, but not drastically or even substantially affect the course of a nation’s action. Despite the fact that Australia, a country that places paramount emphasis on environmental protection, is relatively near to Indonesia, Australia’s influence has not seemed to affect Indonesia – pollution is rife in the country, with farmers who notoriously ‘slash and burn’.
Additionally, it has been proposed that it is advantageous for nations to act individually, as this allows them to choose their own course of action, and customise their path towards a greener future. However, while this may seem to work theoretically, such a policy falls into the trap that countries may shirk away from implementing necessary and decisive measures, in the absence of international regulation. Large nations, such as China, India and even America, are unlikely to act seriously against global warming if left alone. America and China were two of the few nations to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. There seems little reason that these nations would fight against global warming if not subject to international control. In America, some Republicans, which comprise half of the political system, do not even acknowledge the existence of global warming. How then can be trust them to legislate against an enemy that they do not even thinks exist? Additionally, global unity and synchronisation is needed to effectively combat global warming, especially in today’s interconnected world. For instance, a carbon tax will only be useful if it is applied in most major cities. If a carbon tax is implemented in only one country, multi-national corporations (MNCs) might migrate their operations to other countries, and continue polluting there. Furthermore, global cooperation would foster the sharing of best practices on how to fight global warming across nations. Green technology, carbon tax models and legal frameworks can be shared between nations, something which would not happen if only a few nations were interested in fighting global warming.
We stand at the turning point in history today – with the fate of the world in our hands. Whether we live to see 2013 or whether the world crumbles under the wrath of global warming may very well be contingent upon the presence of stronger global unity and resolve. True, such a resolution is hard to achieve in today’s polarised world, but we have to try – or face a destructive global climate never seen since the Ice Age.
No comments:
Post a Comment