Science Forward

Recently, talks about having an international climate agreement have begun in Lima, Peru.  Many of the countries meeting there are looking to decrease the amount of fossil fuels burned throughout the world.  However, some countries are resisting this change.  Interestingly enough, these places are developing countries.  One such country is India. Countries like India, where many of the people do not have access to any type of energy source, are opposing this major cut on energy derived from fossil fuels. Yes, cutting down on the use of fossil fuels is good, but it can have large effects on the people in the developing world.  To be honest, I had never really thought about this effect.  Many developed countries are pushing for this cut and the United States wants to make it legally binding.  However, this is unfair to people who need any source of energy they can get.  Not only will this be detrimental to individuals in the developing world, it may also hurt the economies of these countries.

Energy sources are not easily accessible in the developing world, forcing industries to take advantage of whatever resources they have to make a profit. If the agreement in Lima is legally binding these countries will be forced to cut down on the energy they use and, thus, cut down on the amount of products that they produce. Despite this, what is the rest of the world to do when the effects of global warming have become apparent in recent years? Will forming this agreement without making it legally binding be effective if most countries will most likely not be as diligent on their fossil fuel cuts? As we discussed in class, scientists and politicians do not agree on whether global warming is something that we need to worry about.  Thus, is it worth it to hurt the economies of developed countries in order to prevent something that we don’t think we are responsible for?

Despite this, developing countries have decided to accept limits on their emissions for the very first time. Many believe that this was due to China’s new view on limiting its own emissions. China’s leaders have made cleaning up their cities’ emissions a top priority. As the largest developing country, this may have pushed some of the other developing countries to follow suit. However, China did refuse to have their emissions monitored. The purpose of emissions monitoring was to make sure that the countries involved would keep up their end of the deal. However, China refused, weakening the agreements made in Lima, so that countries would not have to provide information about their reduced emissions.

As we discussed in class, it is difficult to tell whether or not doing things to prevent global warming is worth it. However, the natural disasters that have been occurring in different parts of the world have told us otherwise. Thus, it would seem obvious that we would strive to do anything that would prevent further disasters from occurring, as New York City is doing. This is difficult, however, when doing so can hurt countries in different ways, such as weakening the economies of developing countries. Perhaps, countries should still focus on doing things locally. The problem with this is that it might not be enough. What affects the globe comes from people all over the world. Politicians, with the advice of scientists, must find some middle ground in cutting down on fossil fuel emissions to quell global warming without hurting other countries in the process.

You can read more about this in the op-eds that I got my information from: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/the-soft-path-to-a-climate-agreement-from-lima-to-paris/ and http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinion/chinas-double-edged-pact.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0