Is a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions plausible in today’s society?
Climate Change is one of the largest threats facing the world today.
According to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, “the global community only has ten years before the damage caused by climate change becomes irreversible”(Global Warming and Climate Change). Climate change refers to a scientific process where the globe warms up due to the decreased size of the ozone layer. The Ozone layer absorbs some of the sun’s radiation, and when its size decreases, the Earth directly absorbs the radiation which results in global warming. Global warming results in negative changes in the climate and the environment. These negative changes have adverse effects on the ocean, weather, plant life, animal life, and human health. Carbon emissions are widely regarded as a major contributor to global warming so decreasing Carbon emissions will reduce global warming. Carbon dioxide gases are catalysts for chemical reactions that destroy ozone molecules. Over a long period of time, this reaction decreases the overall size of the ozone layer. Anthropogenic forms of Carbon dioxide, such as Hydrofluorocarbon(HFC) and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), are far more potent than naturogenic forms of Carbon dioxide(Global Warming and Climate Change). Man-made forms of Carbon dioxide are often emitted from industrial factories or automobiles while natural forms of Carbon dioxide are sourced from livestock. Since there is a large correlation between increased carbon emissions and climate change, lowering global Carbon emissions combats the potentially devastating effects of climate change. World leaders disagree on the best course of action regarding Carbon emissions, politics and individual economic interests inhibit progress. Even though it is an undeniable scientific phenomenon, some world leaders still question if climate change is occurring or if it is even a significant threat. Supranational organizations such as the United Nations push to create solutions that combat climate change in a unifying manner. The Kyoto Protocol and the Paris treaty Accord are two solutions that have sparked discussions about climate change. Climate change is a global issue because every country participates in the emission of Carbon gases and every nation will be affected by the potential implications of climate change. Reducing Carbon emissions may hypothetically be the most plausible method to reduce climate change since it is the leading cause of climate change, but the lack of global recognition of specific sources of Carbon emissions, insignificance to the public, and various other political barriers make meaningful reductions of Carbon difficult in the current day.
Livestock is an immense source of Carbon emissions but is not recognized as such by supranational organizations. Although it may not be obvious, maintaining livestock is a Carbon intensive process “20.4% of global Carbon emissions are sourced from livestock, with Livestock byproduct creating 7,516 million metric tons of CO2 per year”(Luetkehans). As there is a massive population on Earth, there is a huge demand for meat and as a result, huge amounts of livestock are needed to be raised to satisfy that demand. There are also hidden processes associated with maintaining livestock that are unknowingly emitting Carbon gases into the environment. For livestock to roam around, they need a significant amount of land. Burning land is a common practice to make the land suitable for farming or livestock, and this process directly emits unwanted gases into the air. The disposal of waste created by livestock is also Carbon intensive as most disposal methods like incineration or landfills are not environmentally friendly. Packing and distributing meat from livestock is a Carbon intensive process as livestock has to be shipped to various parts of the world which often involves a large amount of fuel. Even the consumption of meat has an indirect effect on Carbon emissions as cooking meat in developing areas entails the use of charcoal or kerosene, both of which emit undesired gas. Considering that there are various associations between Carbon emissions and livestock it is baffling that “livestock respiration is not considered to be a net source under the Kyoto Protocol”(Kingston). The overall lack of awareness surrounding the effect of livestock on carbon emissions is a major obstacle that is in the way of combating climate change. One of the world’s first attempts to solve climate change was the Kyoto Protocol, but failed and was replaced by the Paris Climate Agreement. It is concerning that Kyoto Protocol does not acknowledge livestock as a source of carbon emissions because the Kyoto Protocol was a solution geared towards combating climate change. One possible explanation for the lack of recognition in the Kyoto Protocol is that this issue is interwoven with human needs. Solving the issue of excess Carbon emissions from livestock means that the amount of livestock would undeniably need to be reduced. This would mean that there would be less meat available and in a world still plagued by malnutrition in certain undeveloped parts of the world, reducing the supply of meat would not be beneficial to solving world hunger. In most international communities, hunger is deemed more important than Carbon emissions so asking countries to reduce the amount of livestock they have is preposterous. Still, if livestock is not recognized in the Kyoto Protocol then potentially immense amounts of Carbon Dioxide will be emitted into the air without being addressed at all. Even though livestock is completely disregarded as a source of carbon emission, it is even more disheartening to understand that the majority of individuals do not have aggressive opinions on climate change.
Society’s indifference about climate change is impeding the ability of governmental bodies to create effective solutions like a global reduction of Carbon emissions because governments reflect the interest of the people. The current events that have unfolded have emphasized the dangerous effects of climate change. In Australia, the wildfires burn seemingly without end, but still, the public is not swayed to take action. A poll from Brookingin’s Insulation asked the question, “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” Jobs, the economy, and health care are often at the top of the list. “Environment/pollution/climate change” garnered only 3% of the public”(Kamarck). This is concerning because efficient change comes from individuals, but if people do not care about the issue, the change will never persist. Government figures act in the interest of their constituents to maintain their popularity, so if their constituents are not moved by an issue then they will not act. Even though there is an imminent threat of permanent damage to the planet, people do not care, then the fate of future generations will be sealed by this indifference. There is a physiological reason behind why people are supposedly not concerned about climate change. Potentially it is fear that imprisons people into inaction “we don’t worry about climate change because it’s too overwhelming and we’re already in too deep. It’s like if you owe your bookie $1,000, you’re like, ‘OK, I’ve got to pay this dude back.’ But if you owe your bookie 1 million dollars, you’re like, ‘I guess I’m just going to die”(Kamarck). There has not been huge progress towards climate change because coming up with a viable solution requires deliberation that is difficult to achieve in the current political climate. According to previous statistical evidence, people do not care about climate change, and because politicians are the voice of the people, they do not have the motivation to deliberate on an issue that is not of significant prevalence to the public. Maybe public indifference to climate change is a coping mechanism to deal with the realization that climate change is a gigantic issue that has immense and disastrous impacts. If climate change was a more manageable issue then people would be more willing to take action. Even if the public remains stagnant about climate change, some political leaders recognize the importance of combating climate change so they create solutions like the Paris Climate Accord to combat this issue.
The Paris Climate Accord is the most recent attempt to fight climate change and is a bit problematic. Created in April 2016, the Paris Climate Accord Emphasizes flexibility and individual pledges from countries to reduce global carbon emissions. Global leaders do not sufficiently reduce Carbon emissions because the “Paris agreement does not legally force countries to cut emissions, world leaders in Poland will have to rely on political and moral persuasion to push for more action”(Dennis and Brady). If global leaders are not legally forced to do something, they probably will not unless it is in the interest of their country. Global leaders take action if their constituents desire action, and in some countries, climate change is a priority while in others it is not. In the United States, climate change is not a priority to people, so the President is not going to continue to participate in the Paris Climate Accord if individuals are indifferent about the topic. In order for countries to take action, forcible legal action needs to occur, or individuals need to pressure their political leaders to care about climate change. Another key issue of the Paris Climate Accord is the distinction between developing and developed nations.
The Division of the world into developed and developing countries “cast a shadow over almost every discussion in Paris, since developing countries are determined to see developed nations bear most of the cost”(Dennis and Brady). The difference between developed and undeveloped nations is still a key part of climate treaty talks and even though there is an emergence of ‘middle-class’ nations such as China, Brazil, and Korea, this distinction is still not recognized in the Paris Climate Accord. China, Brazil, and Korea are still recognized as developing so although the source identifies these nations as “middle-income” nations, they are not seen as so in the Paris Climate Accord. It is unfair to categorize certain countries like India, Brazil, and China as developing even though they have a bustling economy. China is also the largest emitter of Carbon gases on the planet, but because they are considered developing, they do not have as much political pressure to reduce carbon emission. If this model does not change, the effective reduction of carbon emissions will never occur. Debates about the distinction between developed and developing take time away from meaningful discussions because they are prominent at every Paris Climate Accord meeting. Meaningful discussions about climate change are needed as Carbon emissions are not decreasing. Solutions like the Paris Climate Agreement are not working as “the rise[of carbon emissions] in 2018 is projected to be 2.7 percent, which is being driven by a nearly 5 percent growth of emissions in China, more than 6 percent in India, researchers estimated, and 2.5 percent in the United States”(Mooney). The Paris Climate Accord is not bringing about effective change as Carbon emissions are increasing in some areas. The United States recently left the Paris Climate Accord, which supports the indication that individual economic interests impede countries like the United States from reducing their carbon emissions. Although the Paris Climate Accord is problematic there are positive aspects of this agreement.
The flexibility of the Paris Climate Accord is somewhat effective in promoting the reduction of carbon emissions by giving countries room to make personalized goals for their country. The pledge-and-review system “helped transform climate diplomacy from the gridlock and impotence of the past, and it did so because it created flexibility”(Victor). Allowing countries to customize pledges for their Carbon emissions means that they will create goals that are realistic to meet. Compared to other previous international solutions where there was immense international pressure to make unrealistic goals, the pledge and review system is far more effective. There can be gridlock in international politics, so allowing individual countries to make their own goals, lessens the need for unnecessary and tense discussion. The creation of individual realistic goals is the most effective solution that may reduce Carbon emissions as it allows countries to individually ponder about their economic situation. A majority of the solutions that have come from the Paris Climate Agreement “include the national pledges, which are not strictly binding. If commitments are strictly binding, then countries will offer only conservative promises, which is one reason the Kyoto Protocol failed. The nonbinding status of commitments has been liberating because there is a well-known trade-off between legal status and the precision and ambition of commitments”(Victor). Flexibility is imperative in climate change agreements as each country has various individual needs so it is resourceful to create realistic tailored goals for each country. The issue arises in that there is no assurance that the country will even attempt to create goals or meet their goals if there is no legal punishment. The threat of punishment motivates people to pursue action, if that motivation is taken away then countries may not do anything. Flexible pledges allow “for nations from both sides of the divide could take action in Paris”(Victor). Although both countries can participate in the Paris Climate Agreement, the discussions about how much developing and developed nations need to contribute are still heavily discussed. Discussions about the distinction of these labels inhibit meaningful communication about combating climate change Although flexibility is critical in the Paris Climate Agreement, global leaders need economic or political motivation to meet their goals.
Countries have found economic and social motivation for reducing Carbon emissions. Nations like China and India “have learned more about the dangers of unchecked climate warming, and that has made the country a bit more willing to act. But the nation has other much more pressing priorities — like clearing the urban air of smog. And India, another big emitter, is also mainly focused on priorities other than global warming, such as making the nation’s power grid more reliable”(Victor). As world leaders learn that there are grave implications within their communities if climate change is not addressed, they are becoming more willing to control their carbon emissions. Since there are various economic and social benefits of reducing carbon emissions, leaders are becoming more invested in combating climate change. Creating a Carbon tax can generate revenue which would later be used to fund“an estimated $90 trillion in sustainable infrastructure, like mass transit and energy-efficient buildings”(Dephillis). Economic gains could be a motivator for countries to cut carbon emissions, when the current agreements, the Paris Climate Accord, have no legal precedent to force world leaders to act. Imposing taxes is a political issue and could be problematic to enact in every country to obtain the 90 trillion dollars the study suggested. Some individuals are very adamant about not raising taxes and the current United States administration, as well as other world leaders, emphasize tax cuts as part of their political agenda.
Due to the lack of recognition of several sources of Carbon emissions, differences of the public and political obstacles, reducing Carbon emissions in a significant manner in the current societal environment is difficult. There is immense importance in combating climate change as it is an issue that will impact everyone on Earth, it is a truly global issue. Considering the grave and undeniable implications of climate change, global cooperation is imperative to create solutions. Global cooperation involves the effort of global leaders to push their countries to make changes. Global leaders will only cooperate if they are motivated and acts in the interest of their country and their constituents. Citizens have to showcase interest and concern for the environment so global leaders mimic that sentiment. Young people have to be interested in climate change because our future is most at risk as climate change is not being solved by the current world leaders.
Causes and Effects of Climate Change. National Geographic, 2017. Accessed Feb 15.2020.
David G. Victor. “Why Paris Worked: A Different Approach to Climate Diplomacy.” Yale University, Dec. 5, 2015, e360.yale.edu/features. Accessed Feb 18. 2020
Dennis, Brady, and Chris Mooney. “‘We are in Trouble.’ Global Carbon Emissions Reached a Record High in 2018.” Washington Post, Dec. 2018,www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/05/. Accessed Feb 15. 2020
DePhillis, Lydia. “Curbing Carbon Emissions Could Boost the Economy Way More Than Doing Nothing.” CNN, 6 Sept. 2018. CNN Business, money.cnn.com/2018/09 06/news/economy/climate-change-economy-carbon-emissions/index.html. Accessed Feb 16.2020.
Gates, Bill. “If Cattle Were a Country They Would Rank Third in Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” The Blog of Bill Gates, Oct. 2017, www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/ My-plan-for-fighting-climate-change. Accessed 17 Feb. 2020.
“Global Warming and Climate Change.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2019. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/PC3010999211/OVIC?u=jwrobinson_e&sid=OVIC&xid=11403fe1. Accessed 7 Feb. 2020.
Goodland, Robert, and Jeff Anhang. “Livestock Contributes to Global Warming.”Vegetarianism, edited by Amy Francis, Greenhaven Press, 2015.Current Controversies. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010705238/OVIC?u=jwrobinson_e&sid=OVIC&xid=8097907d. Accessed 7 Feb. 2020. Originally published as “Livestock and Climate Change,” World Watch, vol. 11, 2009.
Kamarck, Elaine. “The Challenging Politics of Climate Change.” Brooking’s Institute, 23 Sept. 2019. Brooking’s Institute, www.brookings.edu/research/the-challenging-politics-of-climate-change/. Accessed 17 Feb.2020.
Luetkehans, Nate. “Where Do Greenhouse Gases Come From?” University of California Carbon Neutrality Institute, Apr. 2017, www.universityofcalifornia.edu/longform/where-do-greenhouse-gas-emissions-come. Accessed 17 Feb. 2020. Infographic.
Obama, Barak. “Strategy to Combat Climate Change.” Georgetown University, 28 June 2016, Washington DC. Speech.
Westing, Arthur H. “Overpopulation and Climate Change.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Feb. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/opinion 18iht-edwesting.html. Accessed 2.17.2020
