The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris, from 30 November to 11 December is drawing near. Every eco-conscious persons are anxious what would emerge from that conference; “Would they be able to pass a viable resolution that could harness the climate change?”, is the question most of them must be asking, in their minds.
Some are doubtful that any significant improvement would be achieved. However, I am optimistic there would be some encouraging results, though minor they may be. My assumption is based on the fact that the whole world is aware of the adverse effects of the global warming and the climate change. Thus if every country, especially the large emitters of the greenhouse gases cooperate, I believe that a sustainable solution to harness the climate change could be found.
Though I do not know what the actual agenda of the conference would be, I am sure the necessity to maintain the temperature rise at no more than 2°C above the average temperature of the pre-industrialization period, would be top priority. According to some experts, that could be achieved if the rain forests of the Amazon and the Indonesian Archipelago could be conserved properly. These are the two places where large scale deforestations are taking place due to extensive logging, mining, industrialisations and agricultural developments. However, that assumption would be just a theory, which would not be practical.
In my opinion, burdening those two countries with the responsibility to fight the global warming wouldn’t be fair. No country would be spared from the consequences of the climate change although it don’t have a hand in causing it. Thus every country should be involved in the process of curbing the temperature rise. The countries that caused more damage to the enviroment should shoulder more responsibility. Meaning, the largest emitters of the greenhouse gases, or in other words, the countries with more industries should be held responsible and enforced to curb their Carbon Dioxide emissions drastically.
Concerning the CO2 emissions, the present system of allowing the Carbon Emission quota allotments and trading them should be reassessed and revised. In my opinion the present practice of allowing the trading in excess Carbon Emission quota is rediculous. If a country had used up its Carbon Emission quota, it should not be allowed to emit more. The effects of the extra CO2 emitted by that country would not be isolated only to that place, it would affect everywhere. Instead of allowing the purchasing, that country should be enforced to increase its own Carbon Emission quota by growing more trees or reduce their emission by reducing their industries. It may sound unacceptable, but I believe it is the only logical approach.
For us, as we are located close to two or may be three industrially fast-growing countries, we would suffer more if they produce more greenhouse gases made possible by the purchased Carbon Emission quota from far away countries that have excess. If you would observe my statement with a rational mind, you would find it logical, if not scientific.
“Every country should be made aware that the consequences of the climate change would not be confined to the large Carbon emitting countries only, but it would be widespread all over the world. Thus it is necessary for all nations to contribute to
the reduction of CO2 emissions as a duty.”
Thus the trading in the Carbon Emission quota should not be allowed.
There is a saying in Myanmar: “While the deer is breeding, the tiger is eating”, which I think has the same meaning as “back at square one”. There wouldn’t be any progress, not withstanding how many more trees are grown, if the trading goes on. It may deprive some countries the opportunities to earn money and thus may reduce the incentives for them to conserve the forests. However, every country should be made aware that the consequences of the climate change would not be confined to the large Carbon emitting countries only, but it would be widespread all over the world. Thus it is necessary for all nations to contribute to the reduction of CO2 emissions as a duty.
It is learnt from the reports that China topped the list of most emitters of the greenhouse gases, followed by the US. Others are not as bad as those two. Those two countries should be grilled at the upcoming conference. If the UN is not prepared to apply pressure on them, the conference would not yield any significant result. Unlike wars, the climate change is everyone’s problem. The wars would be confined to a certain region and mostly affect the populace of the belligerent nations, whereas the climate change would doom the whole world.
Why not use the sanctioning as a tool, to forcefully harness the climate change? My ideas may be far fetched, but if those two countries are left unchecked, it would be very devastating to all living things including the trees and plants, which would be worse than a war. So the UN should consider taking the climate change issue to the Security Council and pass a binding resolution, if the Paris convention should fail to achieve the objectives.
I had been persistently writing about the catastrophic consequences of the climate change. I used to emphasize the importance of conservation of the forests and the ecosystem whenever I get the opportunity. Once again, I would like to highlight that fact. Depletion of the forests and destruction of the ecosystem lead to the imbalance of nature. The most noticeable and damaging is the increase in temperatures. I hope, by now, it wouldn’t be necessary to go into detail how that increase could be caused, so I would concentrate on the consequences of the temperature increase.
The rise in temperatures caused more evaporations to take place and led to more rainfalls, triggering a chain action — flooding and landslides — causing loss of lives, properties, livestocks, agricultural products, land and spread of epidemic diseases, etc. The worst are the El Nino and the La Nina phenomenas that occured alternately. If the temperatures should continue to rise, they could further cause more catastrophes. The most devastating would be the inundating of those places in the low lying areas, the whole year round. Even now, people living in low lying regions, such as Bangladesh are being driven out of their homes and in most cases out of their country. A new breed of migrants had emerged due to the effects of the climate change. They are appropriately called “the Climate Change migrants”.
If the Paris convention is unable to pass binding resolutions that could harness the climate change in time and reduce it, our country is headed for our doom. I am including a map showing the levels of risk each country would be facing, to make my point. It was based on a study by the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, USA. If the readers would study the map closely, they are bound to see that our country is in the “maroon”, darker than “red”, meaning: we are among the most vulnerable group. However, those countries that are causing the most climate change are in the “green”. It’s quite clear that the culprits are getting away scot-free, while the innocents have to bear the brunt of the consequences of the climate change. The risk levels are said to be calculated based on the ability of a country to cope with the climate change: how well equipped and prepared to fend off, in the event of the climate change reaching life-threatening levels.
I may sound naive or absurd, but I would like to make a request to those delegates, who will be attending that conference, to push through a resolution that would sanction heavy monetary fines on the large Carbon emitters. Money thus acquired should be dispersed to the poor nations, like ours’, who are at the highest level of risk, to equip ourselves to prevent from the effects of the climate change. In conclusion I would like to suggest again that they should seriously consider abolishing the Carbon Emission trading.
That practice is not contributing much to the controlling, but instead, encouraging the Carbon emissions.