'445- THE HOTTEST NUMBER AT CLIMATE TALKS' (p18, The Sunday Times, May 6 2007)
I came across this article regarding a meeting that was held to deal with the problem of greenhouse gases emission. The number 445 is the number of parts per million(ppm) of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that is ideal for the environment. Based on a United Nations climate change report, an amount between 445-535ppm of greenhouse gases would cause a rise in temperature by 2 to 2.8 degree Celsius, reaching a peak by 2020. The European Union has been advocating the reduction of greenhouse gases emission, but other countries like USA and China weren't as compliant.
After reading through this article, I can't help but feel disgusted by the way some countries react to this plea. For that, I would choose to focus on the major powers of the world, mainly USA, China and India. As superpowers, they tend to be example setters, so whatever action they take would have made a great deal on impact on the other countries' take on this environmental problem. However, in their pursue for economic development, they are going all out to explore all means to achieve that, even at the expense of the environment. The scientists have done their job- countries jollywell know that the emission of greenhouse gases is harmful to the environment, yet nations choose to neglect this fact in their pursue for economic development. This is a display of selfishness by these countries, as they are putting their own needs before the world's.
Yet, such show of selfishness is rather inevitable. Officials from the respective countries have the responsibility of sustaining their own country's welfare, so in order to achieve that, they would prefer not to let any other factors obstruct their plans for the country. Therefore, I feel that there's a need for countries to come to an absolute consensus to conquer this problem. First, I would like to point out that countries all chase for economic growth cause they want to be able to compete with the other countries. So, there is a need for countries to come to an agreement to put the environment before economic development, such that the actions that they take take environment into consideration first before fulfilling its main objectives. If every country agrees to put that into action, countries won't have to worry about falling behind in today's economy, as every country would put environmental welfare over economic gains. After all, the level of development in a country is relative, and is based on how one country fares with respect to other countries.
One acts in a selfish manner cause they feel others are too. This is why we can't exactly blame the individual countries for displaying a rather apathetic view on these environmental problems. Instead, we need to get the representatives of each country to really sit down and mutually reach a common goal with regards to the environment. The problem right now is that climate talks are not exactly successful in the sense that countries are not open about this environmental issue which they think conflicts their goals of economic development. The countries are just rejecting this proposal because they do not want their goals to be hindered by obstacles like this. They are not willing to even consider this compromise for the sake of the environment. What I feel is that the panel concerned with climatic change should offer some solutions as to how the compromises made to mitigate air pollutions can be offset by. For example, for factories that eject toxic gases as wastes, devices could be installed to filter the harmful gases. However, the cost of the device would reduce the profits of the company. Therefore, the panel could try to come up with a scheme to allow such devices to be sold at lower prices, so that firms that comply to this move do not feel the monetary loss as much.
All in all, I know that countries are in a difficult situation, but what I am trying to point out is that there are things the panel and the countries can do if they really have the heart to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It takes two hands to clap- the panel has to understand the predicament of the countries and seek solutions for them, while the countries themselves should make an effort to try and protect the environment, amidst the minor implications it may have on the country's economy. If we don't save the Earth, who would?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
great job... you gave arguments for both side of the story and were able to express your ideas really well. Very insightful piece of artcle
Post a Comment