Equal, Rational World Needed to Confront Climate Change - Essay Sample

Introduction

Climate change is among the most common problem that the world is facing today. If today's world were comprised of human beings who are equal, rational and governed correctly, it would be easy to confront them about the prospects of global warming and come up with a compelling decision that is based on climate science. Such a world would find it useful to stop the emission of greenhouse gas and help avoid the challenges experienced due to climate change. Unfortunately, the world today is not like that. In a real sense, despite understanding about climate change, it has proved to be difficult to tell human beings what to do.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Climate science has informed the world about the severe damage that climate change will cause if greenhouse gases continue to be emitted. However, it seems that the facts given by the scientists are not enough. Before enquiring on the environmental problems, some considerations need to be made. We must consider fairness, equity, and justice, and worst of all, the internal agreement must be made before the confrontations are done. Climate change is said to be a 'perfect moral storm'. It has brought three ethical dilemmas that are mutual.

The three major ethical dilemmas include how to the rights are equalized and the accountability of both the developed and the third world countries; the best methods that can be used to evaluate geoengineering schemes that can be implemented to reduce or stop climate change. The last dilemma is on the strategies that can be used to assess the responsibility that the future generations will have to enable them to cope up with the climate that we are shaping today. All three dilemmas are making it challenging to come up with the right decisions that can be implemented and stop the actions that are causing climate change (Barker, pp.237-263).

Climate change is a global phenomenon. Once the greenhouse gases are emitted, they affect the climate of the whole world despite the source. It often leads to the tragedy of commons that is structured that is played out by the nations and states. All countries would like to reduce or instead stop the emissions so that the severe effects of these emissions are stopped. The problem is that countries want to stop these emissions individually. They forget that the emissions of these gases need to be stopped globally since it is a global effect.

The 1987 Montreal protocol that was passed regarding the chemicals that reduce the ozone layer is referred to as the environmental treaty. In a way, replacing chlorofluorocarbons is far much better than weaning off the global fossil fuels. The ozone treaty is an ethical action for addressing global warming. After realizing that the CFCs are associated with those human-made chemicals that cause ozone depletion, the government and industries developed the ozone-safe substitutes. Also, both developed and the third world countries had other plans. The 'international ozone agreements' urged the developed nations to lead and ensure that the issue is adequately addressed (Hourdequin, pp.270-288). The developed nations were said to have produced the most substance that was responsible for destroying the stratospheric ozone. To show their concern, they decided to establish a fund that will help the developing nations to phase out the chemicals that are causing harm to the ozone. In return, technology transfer was witnessed.

Today, most segments of the communities have understood and agreed that an essential climate treaty should have a proper dimension for it to be accepted. The different religious movements have joined and contributed to the dialogues that address the essential questions like what actions can be taken to mitigate global climate changes. However, despite their involvement in the talks, there is no proper agreement that has been made. Several solutions have been raised that could help in curbing the situation, but no adequate action has been taken. To some people, there are unethical and will be a hindrance to many human activities hence the reason they are not implemented.

Almost all the countries in the world have agreed that the gases are responsible for climate change. Some countries have decided to keep them below the level that would cause climate change. However, there is no clear information on which 'level' of the gas emitted is dangerous. The IPCC (Intergovernmental panel on climate change) is supposed to identify a policy that is neutral. Several authors of the IPCC have written about the policies that the movement has failed to achieve. One author wrote during the assessment report in 2007 that he can testify that IPCC has avoided the entire policy advocacy (O'Mathuna et al). The task of IPCC was to assess all the scientific literature and ensure that they are policy-relevant and not policy prescriptive.

Depending on individual values and the tolerance of the risk, dangerous climate change is a subjective concept. It is the high time that the people understood that science is not able to detect or claim that a particular amount of gases emitted is secure while the other amount released is not. If the nations are expecting such a degree of precision from climate science, then they are unrealistic. It is like expecting the medical personnel to state that a certain level of cholesterol is tolerable while another level is not. Any level of cholesterol, whether high or low, is harmful. Climate change is a difficult issue. Just as Einstein said," Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not more simple than that."

Although stating the level of climate change that is harmful is impossible, the IPCC is capable of suggesting the level of severity of the climate change that is related to a certain amount of the greenhouse gases that are emitted. Most of the IPCC reports contain such information, which is mostly ignored by the nations, yet it might be helpful. Scientists should regard such information as an important standard in their field. Researchers from different universities had suggested that the 2050 global greenhouse gas emissions should at least be reduced by 50 percent to make the emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels. The aim of all scientists is to minimize the greenhouse gas concentration and make it at the CO2 level, which is below 450 parts in every million.

It is not surprising that the Bali negotiations did not come to an agreement. There was a suggestion that the nations should bind their commitments, which had firm timetables and quantitative targets that stated all countries to reduce their greenhouse emissions. The main issue for the cause of the disagreement was not because the science was not reliable or that the people who had come up with the suggestions were not competent in the way they raised their arguments but because the nations just like the people do not know or understand the tactics or making significant decisions solely. The countries are not able to lay their facts on the scientific results and make a proper decision. Some of the states, especially the developed ones, are likely to realize this, which shows how politically naive the scientists are.

A proper international action that will limit climate change does not necessarily require scientific evidence and the interest of the individual states. Instead, the nations should focus on activities that are considered equity and ethics (Daddi et al, pp.456-474). The climate system is a worldwide concern. Results of climate change are not the same on all parts of the world. Also, fossil fuels are known to be supplying around 80 percent of the global energy, which has enabled most of the modern economic progress. The states claim that they are ready to accept the constraints put on the freedom to produce greenhouse gases as long as they are treated fairly and are included as being part of the world concern.

The views of developed and third world countries, as well as the contrast on future and previous actions, seem to be an issue that is not coming to an end soon. Researchers claim that for every four molecules of carbon dioxide, one of the molecules is present in the air because of human activities. Actions such as burning coal, oil, and natural gas are the cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, developing countries are accountable for the increase in greenhouse gases. A good example is the United States. The US is known to have at least 5 percent of the global population and is said to produce at least quarter of the gases that human beings have added in the air.

Contrary, the emission of these greenhouses gases is likely to be done by the developing countries in the future. Developing nations such as China are extracting the fossil fuels to strengthen their economic development. China is said to be building a lump of large coal fired power plant every two weeks. Arguments have been raised on whether this activity in China has passed the emission of carbon dioxide by the United States. Countries will take a more extended period to decide on what to do if the issue of climate change will have to be solved ethically and fairly. Ethical demands require a principled and observe all the differing rights and the obligations of both the developed and the developing countries.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is difficult to agree on what solutions should be implemented to reverse or reduce climate change. The best thing to do is recognize the damage that has been done on the climate system and come up with solutions that will help minimize the additional cost that we as a human being are likely to cause in the future. It is the only moral and ethical strategy that we can implement to protect our neighbors on this planet, to the next generations and planet earth in general.

Work Cited

Barker, Terry. "The economics of avoiding dangerous climate change." Green Economy Reader. Springer, Cham, 2017. 237-263.

Daddi, Tiberio, et al. "A systematic review of the use of organization and management theories in climate change studies." Business Strategy and the Environment 27.4 (2018): 456-474.

Hourdequin, Marion. "Climate Change, Climate Engineering, and the 'Global Poor': What Does Justice Require?." Ethics, Policy & Environment 21.3 (2018): 270-288.

O'Mathuna, Donal P., Vilius Dranseika, and Bert Gordijn, eds. Disasters: Core Concepts and Ethical Theories. Springer International Publishing, 2018.