Homeworks academic service


Reaction paper about climate change at global warming

More Information Reactions The US has been vocally against effective action on climate change due to its reliance upon fossil fuel for its economy. Being a producer of oil and coal, they feel more threatened by action on climate change. Europe, on the other hand, is calling for stronger action. One reason it does so is that it currently imports its fossil fuels so has more incentive to reduce this dependency and seek out domestically grown alternatives.

In both regions, local populations have a reasonable awareness of environmental issues. However, in the US, the business lobbies mainly fossil fuel based industries are very strong and powerful and have been able to affect decisions and outcomes. Following the Hague conference collapse, and U. President George Bush saying he will oppose the Kyoto Protocol to tackle greenhouse emissions, subsequent talks and negotiations have, according to the Environmental News Service non-cooperative.

Instead of going via the international route and the Kyoto protocol, the U. See the Kyoto section a bit later on in this site for more details on the U. In it, it points out how since the 1980s and 1990s nations such as the United States, and former Soviet Union have in the past been against the notion of setting specific targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Other nations and blocs around the world are primarily for strong action as well, but have their own mix of concerns. The various island nations are already seeing a rise in sea levels. OPEC and various industrialized countries are obviously concerned about their economic ramifications and are pushing forth more research into creating carbon sinks to soak up carbon dioxide emissions. Such groups are therefore seeking economic effectiveness.

Many developing countries are concerned about their right to develop, to use their resources, and to not be penalized for climate change problems that are largely caused by the industrialized countries. They are therefore also seeking social justice and equity. After all the political ramblings and conferences of the past few years as discussed later on this web siteas expected, the interests and influences of the most powerful nations and groups has been the primacy. As a result, as summarized by CSEThe Kyoto Protocol has focused almost entirely on economic effectiveness, to the detriment of the other two concerns my emphasis.

For more discussion about the US position and the issues that developing countries have highlighted, refer to the Kyoto section on this web site. Of course, the above is a generalization as there are mixture of concerns. These do seem to be the ones that are primarily shown by the various groups in the past negotiations.

As an example though, some Latin American and Asian nations are also supportive of some sort of forestry program, as it reaction paper about climate change at global warming attract possible investments. Current consumption patterns also see far more greenhouse emissions per person in the rich countries than the poorer ones as also discussed later on another page in this section of the web site.

Back to top Business Interests Initially big business had been extremely hostile to action on climate change. However, many businesses are now thinking differently. Greenhouse Market ManiaCorporate Europe Observatory, 2000 Largely due to US resistance and the need to get them on board for any meaningful action, various trade-offs were made to the text of the Kyoto Protocol.

Reactions to Climate Change Negotiations and Action

Critics argue that business interests have been a driving factorwhile proponents argue that private innovation is needed and that some of these things have to be looked at because otherwise the costs to the US economy is so great, that emission reductions would not be carried out. As well as the United States, Japan, Australia, Canada, Russia and Norway formed part of a consensus known as the Umbrella Group that wanted things like the flexibility mechanisms to have no limits, unlimited use of carbon sinks, all technologies to be counted in Clean Development Mechanism projects not just known clean energy projectsetc.

Many of these positions are similar to industry lobby positions too. Business interests have historically played an important part and had a large influence in the climate negotiations. Particularly active during the Kyoto Protocol, the misleadingly named US-based Global Climate Coalition formed to actively oppose measures on climate change for fear of economic repercussions.

As see previous link noted, the coalition had been the most outspoken and confrontational reaction paper about climate change at global warming group in the United States battling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This coalition contained many big oil, energy and automobile companies. The coalition was effective at the time, but also extreme.

As PR Watch continues, Prior to its disbanding in early 2002, it collaborated extensively with a network that included industry trade associations, property rights groups affiliated with the anti-environmental Wise Use movement, and fringe groups such as Sovereignty International, which believes that global warming is a plot to enslave the world under a United Nations-led world government. As evidence of climate change mounted, major corporations had to pull out of the Climate Change Coalition, as it was bad PR for them to be associated with the coalition, and some accepted the evidence and began to invest in cleaner technologies.

But much damage had already been done, and the influence on the Bush Administration, for example, has resulted in continued anti-international cooperation on this, as is discussed further below.

  1. A number of businesses are researching alternatives to fossil fuels, or more efficient forms, but lack similar subsidies or conversely, suffer from lack of market penetration because of the huge subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
  2. In it, it points out how since the 1980s and 1990s nations such as the United States, and former Soviet Union have in the past been against the notion of setting specific targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  3. Critics argue that business interests have been a driving factor , while proponents argue that private innovation is needed and that some of these things have to be looked at because otherwise the costs to the US economy is so great, that emission reductions would not be carried out. As see previous link noted, the coalition had been the most outspoken and confrontational industry group in the United States battling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
  4. But much damage had already been done, and the influence on the Bush Administration, for example, has resulted in continued anti-international cooperation on this, as is discussed further below.

But some organizations may still be at it. And with the help of right-wing media, such as the Wall Street Journal, … columnists deliberately spread disinformation about climate change. As The Guardian This old federation, a lobby group, also called for a public trial on both the US policy decision to regulate CO2 emissions and the science behind climate change concerns.

WWF also pointed out in February 2000 that many large businesses are keen to support the Kyoto treaty. Ross Gelbspan for example, shows that economic issues can be addressed by supporting Kyoto ; that jobs can be created, not lost, etc.

Transitioning those subsidies to renewables, as Gelbspan also discusses, and helping fossil fuel companies be part of that transition, would be positive, rather than detrimental to their concerns.

Author and Page information

A number of businesses are researching alternatives to fossil fuels, or more efficient forms, but lack similar subsidies or conversely, suffer from lack of market penetration because of the huge subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

Some leading businesses urging world leaders to tackle climate change British Telecom is already feeling the impact of climate changethe company has revealed, as extreme weather has hit its British operations.

Yet BT also fears that the imapcts will be worse for more vulnerable people around the world, and could destabilize the world economy.

Since the years of the Kyoto Protocol, as extreme weather and more and more data about climate change has been emerging, a large number of multinational companies have reversed their previous positions, or raised their voices on this issue.

Leading up to the July 2005 G8 Summitfor example, a number of large companies called for urgent action on climate change.

This would help address a catch 22 that the British government faces: But now with major businesses and polluters themselves urging for more action, perhaps progress can be made. Even some major companies in the airline industry some of the heaviest polluters and contributors to greenhouse gases in Britain have been part of this chorus urging action. Their recommended solutions are in emissions trading, rather than aviation taxation almost predictablythough they make an economic case for trading emissions based on the incentive factor.

Yet, at least some of these big companies are also weighing in on the debate, rather than trying to derail it, which sounds like a step forward. Leading up to the UN Climate Change summit for the end of 2011, some 200 major companies from around the world have also called for tougher action on climate changethe BBC notes. Meanwhile, some have worried about the economic costs imposed by fighting climate change or by being subject to emission reduction targets. Yet, the economic costs of inaction are in the trillions: Economic studies have consistently shown that mitigation such as putting a price on carbon emissions is several times less costly than trying to adapt to climate change.

The economic impacts of carbon pricingSkepticalScience.