Environment vs Development
Again I lived up to billing that when I don't have work for the day I wake up earlier. Wait, today is Friday but the office has outing today at Lamma island and I will meet colleagues later at 11 at Pier 4. So no need to worry about getting late in the office for the day.
I woke up watching the BBC News on United Nations discussion on climate changes held in Montreal. It's aimed to review the Kyoto Protocol which was aimed to cut global emission of gases responsible for global warming and climate change.
OK, let's understand Kyoto Protocol first. It was a pact signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. The pact stipulates that gas emissions of developed countries be reduced by 5.2 percent of the 1990 levels in 2008 and 2012. 156 countries ratified it so it's a relatively strong pact.
The emerging concerns of climate change stemmed in the 90s when global warming, ozone layer changes and the likes have become immediate threats as experienced in changing climate patterns. "Earth Summit" has began to be held (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) and a global crusade on environmental protection soon followed. Use of biodegradeable materials and implementation of recycling has become a customary practice aimed to conserve the dwindling Earth resources.
The Pact has been legally binding since 16th Feb of this year. But the United States has since pulled out because the imposition of such Pact is deemed to expensive and only focused on developed countries; developing countries experiencing rapid growth in economy such as China and India also contributes a significant amount of the problem.
This has started an outrage that in the name of development, environment takes a backseat. I believe that something can be done to alleviate the costs of enforcing the Pact without harming the coffers of the US so as to compromise its economy.
Looking at the performance of nations in abiding the Pact, there has been inconsistencies. While many countries have reduced their emissions, it was partly because of the ceasing of operations of the Soviet-era industries in Eastern Europe.
The United States, undoubtedly the world's biggest polluter, has a staggering emission figure: it increased by 13.1% (Reuters Alertnet).
So as Mr Stephane Dion, Canadian Environment Minister and president of the Montreal conference started to talk to about representatives of 30 countries on moving forward, he circulated text about "long-term co-operative action to address climate change". There have been numerous talks, a lot of willing hosts, and as usual the prying eyes of environment activists, but not much has been made to move Kyoto Protocol to the next level.
And as the need becomes more imminent, the 5.2% reduction may change to as much as 30% by 2020. Environmentalists agree about having deep reductions to make up the slow progress of the earlier agreement. Drastic changes have to me made. But as many industrial countries would argue, giving in to environment could be costly: laying off people who work for heavy industries, in compliance to such agreements for example. And it seems that the two sides are irreconcilable. I still believe otherwise though.
Do you know that the Philippines is one of the world's most disaster-prone areas of the Earth? Happy Filipinos live in a land where earthquakes meet typhoons and typhoons meet floods, floods meet landslides. Surely it's one of the front liners who tend to absorb the effects of global climate change (except earthquake, everything else owes to climate change).
It is sad to realize that we only have one Earth to live and we don't take care of it enough that when our children (my future ones) gets their chance to live here, they don't see what we saw when we were young -- a land less visited by floods, hurricanes, snowstorms and desertification.
I woke up watching the BBC News on United Nations discussion on climate changes held in Montreal. It's aimed to review the Kyoto Protocol which was aimed to cut global emission of gases responsible for global warming and climate change.
OK, let's understand Kyoto Protocol first. It was a pact signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. The pact stipulates that gas emissions of developed countries be reduced by 5.2 percent of the 1990 levels in 2008 and 2012. 156 countries ratified it so it's a relatively strong pact.
The emerging concerns of climate change stemmed in the 90s when global warming, ozone layer changes and the likes have become immediate threats as experienced in changing climate patterns. "Earth Summit" has began to be held (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) and a global crusade on environmental protection soon followed. Use of biodegradeable materials and implementation of recycling has become a customary practice aimed to conserve the dwindling Earth resources.
The Pact has been legally binding since 16th Feb of this year. But the United States has since pulled out because the imposition of such Pact is deemed to expensive and only focused on developed countries; developing countries experiencing rapid growth in economy such as China and India also contributes a significant amount of the problem.
This has started an outrage that in the name of development, environment takes a backseat. I believe that something can be done to alleviate the costs of enforcing the Pact without harming the coffers of the US so as to compromise its economy.
Looking at the performance of nations in abiding the Pact, there has been inconsistencies. While many countries have reduced their emissions, it was partly because of the ceasing of operations of the Soviet-era industries in Eastern Europe.
The United States, undoubtedly the world's biggest polluter, has a staggering emission figure: it increased by 13.1% (Reuters Alertnet).
So as Mr Stephane Dion, Canadian Environment Minister and president of the Montreal conference started to talk to about representatives of 30 countries on moving forward, he circulated text about "long-term co-operative action to address climate change". There have been numerous talks, a lot of willing hosts, and as usual the prying eyes of environment activists, but not much has been made to move Kyoto Protocol to the next level.
And as the need becomes more imminent, the 5.2% reduction may change to as much as 30% by 2020. Environmentalists agree about having deep reductions to make up the slow progress of the earlier agreement. Drastic changes have to me made. But as many industrial countries would argue, giving in to environment could be costly: laying off people who work for heavy industries, in compliance to such agreements for example. And it seems that the two sides are irreconcilable. I still believe otherwise though.
Do you know that the Philippines is one of the world's most disaster-prone areas of the Earth? Happy Filipinos live in a land where earthquakes meet typhoons and typhoons meet floods, floods meet landslides. Surely it's one of the front liners who tend to absorb the effects of global climate change (except earthquake, everything else owes to climate change).
It is sad to realize that we only have one Earth to live and we don't take care of it enough that when our children (my future ones) gets their chance to live here, they don't see what we saw when we were young -- a land less visited by floods, hurricanes, snowstorms and desertification.
posted by Unknown at
7:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home