The Equivalence Between Environmentalism and Human Rights

There has been a great deal of press lately surrounding the UN’s Copenhagen conference. This conference is to hold a large role in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. Mittelstaedt’s article explains that even with the conference so soon, Canada is yet to step up and take a leadership role in compliance with the agenda expressed by this conference in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. The article goes on to explain the general dissatisfaction among Canadians towards this unsettling lack of environmental concern displayed by Canada.

Canada is a country known for its leadership when it comes to making sure the rights of all humans are being respected, but if Canada is not to take part in reducing their greenhouse-gas emissions, then what does that show about the amount of care Canada shows towards the rights of all of its citizens?

According to Beder (2006,) there is a principal in environmental sciences which addresses the relationship between human rights and concern for the environment. This human rights principle essentially describes the allowance of pollution as a chain reaction. First, pollution is allowed to occur, creating a negative impact on the environment. This environmental impact leads to other adverse affects on the earth, and in turn, us. So, by this logic, allowance of pollution in any way means allowance of (or at least risk of) harm to all humans residing on the planet, thus violating human rights.

This principle is easily applied to the issue concerning Canada’s lack of concern regarding greenhouse-gas emissions. Greenhouse-gasses released into the atmosphere contribute to a process known as “global warming” which consequently brings about climate change. Change in the earth’s climate inevitably changes the earth itself, and by changing the conditions of the earth, our health (as well as the health of all living things on the planet) is bound to be affected. Therefore, ignoring the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions means consequently ignoring every living thing on earth’s right to good health.

With all of this considered, it is no surprise that Canadians disapprove of the lack of leadership their country shows towards the reduction of harmful greenhouse-gas emissions. But the government’s decisions must be based on some reflection on the general population. According to Mittelstaedt (2009,) statistics show that the well being of the environment is ranked only as the third most important issue in Canada (below health care and the economy.) while the state of the economy and health care are very valid concerns, the more concerning part of all of this is that the study shows that only 12% of Canadians find the environment to be an important issue needing to be addressed (Mittelstaedt, 2009). If Canadians are expecting their government to take the state of the environment more seriously, maybe it is up to them to express concern first.

On the bright side, the first step in the solution to climate change is often said to be the realization of its existence, and according to Mittelstaedt (2009,) 72% of Canadians now see climate change as an issue which will become quite serious. If so many Canadians realize that this is an issue, this begs the question as to why so little find it worthwhile to address.


References

Mittelstaedt, Martin. "Canadians chagrined over status as climate-change dawdlers" News from Canada and the world - The Globe and Mail. 20 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .

T, M. C. "US hangs back on climate change." Smh.com.au. 23 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2006. Print.

Taxing energy-intensive products

Henry Chu of the LA times interviewed Dieter Helm, an economist and professor of energy policy at Oxford University. Helm is a strong supporter of a carbon tax to reduce global green house gasses, but wants the tax to be applied to not only fossil fuels but also to all major energy-intensive products that are both manufactured within the country and imported.

The professor proposes to tax major energy- intensive products like steel, the use of aviation, and ships first, starting with low prices but increasing the tax overtime. This would allow for future businesses to begin making investments in manufacturing products with lower-carbon emissions. Helm is more concerned about carbon consumption as opposed to carbon emissions and brings into example countries like Britain, which are reducing their carbon production but are increasing their carbon consumption. This occurs because they import many goods from other countries like China, thus making Britain essentially responsible for their emissions. Professor Helms proposes what he calls a border tax where imports are also taxed in order to pay for the pollution being done in other countries. He claims that this is a neutral tax since it does not discriminate against where the product was made. Helm likes this approach since it can be implemented slowly. He understands that the west has a carbon economy which needs to become zero or low-carbon. With the carbon tax it can be implemented at first with a low price, and then over time be used on other energy-intensive products therefore increasing the tax. Helm calls it learning by taxing, you start of on the right track and simply adjust the tax until it is ideal.

The carbon tax is already implemented all around Europe like in Finland, France and Sweden. Other countries like Ireland and Britain might also follow suit. Helm estimates that within five or so years most countries in Europe will have a carbon tax. He admits that the tax is not brilliant at the moment but believes that countries will eventually do some fine-tuning to perfect it. Helm also believes that this sort of tax is very possible in the U.S. He also thinks that it will deal with the China question; where industries from other countries wont lose to competition in countries like China since the border tax will allow a neutral price. Furthermore politicians cannot use the excuse “no one else is doing it”, since other places are implementing the tax.

I agree with Helms and believe that this is an excellent way of promoting low carbon and energy products, especially since it would be implemented slowly, it would give time for businesses to come up with ways to provide their products or services so as to limit their emissions. Also, this tax would not allow industries to loose their business to outside production since the border tax will neutralize competition. Unfortunately the tax would directly affect the consumers who are not directly causing the emissions. I still believe that this is a step in the right direction but should not be a major component in cutting a country’s green house gas emissions. I believe a tax that would significantly reduce emissions should be put on the polluters rather then on the consumers. The polluters are the direct source of the problem and it is their actions that will determine how much pollution they will emit. An economic incentive policy similar to the one implemented in the United States to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions would yield the quickest and most effective results.

Professor Helm’s proposition for a carbon and border tax would promote businesses to invest and use efficient technologies to emit less and would eliminate competition from other countries, thus preventing negative effects on the economy. However this type of tax will be directly punishing the consumer as opposed to the manufacturer. Helm’s tax should be used to promote efficiency but an economic incentive should be used to significantly reduce a country’s green house gas emissions; this way, it will yield more substantial results.

Helm, Dieter. "'Carbon tax' is sensible, and perhaps inevitable, advocate says -- latimes.com." Los Angeles Times - California, L.A., Entertainment and World news - latimes.com. LA Times, 12 Nov. 2009. Web. 26 Nov. 2009. .

Climate Change and the Future of the Human Race

Climate change is one of the largest and most complex issues humanity has ever considered. In an article published by the BBC called “Climate change: What price will future generations pay?”, UNICEF ambassador Lord David Putnam argues that “climate change is not just an environmental problem, it is a human rights issue. In fact it’s the biggest child rights issue of our time”. Furthermore, he calls for “the rights of the child along with those of future generations to be acknowledged in the UN climate change negotiations” (Putnam, 2009). I agree wholeheartedly with Putnam’s position. Climate change is as much a moral issue as it is a scientific and economic one. Of particular concern is the plight of those who will inherit the earth from the current generation; what kind of world will they be left? Putnam’s comments relate directly to two closely related environmental principles studied during this course: the equity principle and the sustainability principle.

Equity implies fairness; thus, the equity principle holds that all people should be treated justly and fairly. This applies not only to those currently living, but also to those not yet born. There are, however, several objections to this sense of fairness, and it is the rebuttals to these objections that will solidify the concept of intergenerational equity. How can future generations have rights in the first place? At birth, people inherit the human rights we assign them. If rights are acquired at birth, how then can rights be granted to those not yet born? The answer is that they cannot, at least not individually. But if future generations are treated as a collective group (those people not yet born), then they are subject to collective rights – the very same rights which the living generations currently enjoy (Beder, 2006, p. 81). The cynic may still wonder, “Why should we care about our posterity? They are of no benefit to us.” The fact is that we are morally responsible for our actions, and for the well-being of our planet’s future inhabitants. Our society is producing greenhouse gases, and we know that they will cause harm in the future. Our knowledge gives us a moral responsibility to reduce our emissions in order to lessen the harmful effects of climate change, however far into the future they may be (Ibid, p. 82).

A final concern with the principle of equity towards future generations is that we have no way of predicting their wants, needs, and desires. This objection is no more than a cop-out, for while we do not know what future generations want, we can very well determine what they do not want: “We don’t know what the precise taste of our remote descendants will be, but they are unlikely to include a desire for...the inundation of low-lying areas as a result of the melting of the ice-caps” (Barry, 1999, quoted in Ibid, p. 83). It can now be seen that, as rights-bearing entities, we have a moral responsibility to ensure that future generations receive the fair treatment we extend to those currently living. Putnam is worried that we have neglected our responsibilities. “What price”, he asks, “[will] children have to pay for three or four carbon-happy generations?” (Putnam, 2009).

The only way to ensure equity for our children and for future generations is to abide by the sustainability principle and strive for sustainable development. In the past half-century, it has become increasingly apparent that the Earth’s resources are limited. Initially, the source of these “limits to growth” was seen as resource depletion due to rising human population. This view was since been replaced by resource depletion due to environmental degradation. Indeed, world population is predicted to stabilize within the next several decades, while pollution levels – despite international pledges to reduce emissions – continue to rise (Ibid, p. 16). The solution devised to preserve resources and protect environmental quality has been dubbed sustainable development. This practice is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Beder, 2006, p. 18). Unfortunately, most current economic practices fall short of this goal, using up too many resources and not leaving enough for future generations. Specifically, unless we curb our carbon emissions immediately, we risk dramatic and irreversible climate change, which Putnam describes as “a huge barrier to a fulfilling future” (Putnam, 2009). Unless we reign in our emissions, he claims, we will leave “an indelible mark upon the rights of the child” and all future generations (Ibid).

So, is anything being done to ensure that children and future generations receive equity and that economic development occurs sustainably for their benefit? Thankfully, yes. Many national and international treaties and laws now recognize environmental resources as a “common heritage of mankind”, and have taken measures to utilize them in a sustainable manner (Beder, 2006, p. 81). International climate agreements are making slow but steady progress towards reduced emissions and less drastic climate change, with the upcoming conference in Copenhagen being the most crucial so far. Putnam notes that youth delegates have been accepted to participate in the conference, which he believes to be a crucial first step in the current ruling generation’s realization of the opinions of the younger (Putnam, 2009). However, Putnam argues that more must be done. Specifically, climate change negotiations must focus on solutions for the long term, so that the needs of future generations will be met. While they may not be with us, they still matter greatly, and we should be mindful that they deserve to inherit just as beautiful a world as we did.

REFERENCES

Beder, Sharon. (2006). Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. London: Earthscan Publishing.

Putnam, David. (2009). “Climate change: What price will future generations pay?”. British Broadcasting Corporation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8374965.stm. Accessed 21 November 2009.

Important Factors Of Imperial Oil Policy Statement

The ESSO Imperial Oil Corporation has released a Product Safety Policy and provides detailed information on the environmental considerations being made by the company. The ESSO policy touches upon the six main points of responsible environmental consideration and provides examples to support each of their arguments. The policy has a strong environmental conservational message and seems to use the correct methods in creating a more sustainable environment.

The first factor of a strong environmental policy is usually that it shows concern for ecological sustainability. The company addresses this issue by providing the example of fresh water use. The company has implemented new efficient ways of recycling and reusing which has cut down the fresh water use by 88% since the 1970`s. This shows that the company is truly trying to make a difference in the local ecosystem by conserving valuable resources which are more vital to the ecosystem then the company. The policy also (while perhaps merely trying to sharpen the image of ESSO) mentions that it has taken an active partnership with Ducks Limited Canada to try and reclaim wetlands. This point shows that the company, while recognizing damage it has already created, is trying to make reparations to the ecosystem.

While ecological sustainability is important, another important factor of a responsible environmental decision is the "polluter pays principle". This means that it is irresponsible for the company to expect the land or the public to pay to try and make the company environmentally friendly. In the policy it is clear that ESSO is taking a strong stance on this and takes full responsibility for their actions and for making changes which benefit the environment. This is shown in the policy by the statement that most of the factories, over 100, have had automated building systems installed to try and reduce energy waste and over consumption.

One of the more arguable factors for a responsible policy is use of the precautionary principle. ESSO, while not directly stating the use of the precautionary principle shows it's use in many of the plans and regulations stated in the policy. A perfect example is where it is stated that "[the company will] include identification and control of potentially adverse health, safety and environmental effects as priority considerations in the planning and development of products". This statement shows that the company has decided to put public welfare first and make it a priority by using the precautionary principle. This shows a large amount of responsibility on the company's part since they are willing to give up or change product development and planning (a venture which could cost a company many dollars) in order to protect public welfare.

One of the most important factors of a good environmental policy is that it has public participation and keeps the public involved in progress and changes to the company's policy or actions. The ESSO policy clearly states an open relationship with the public by stating that "[the company will] communicate with the public on environmental matters". This shows that ESSO is committed to keeping the public aware of it's intentions and any changes to the public's community and environment. The company also states in the policy that the company will partake in active research to try and find new, more environmentally sound, ways to develop their products and will keep governments, the scientific community and the public aware.

The equity principle entails the consideration of future generations, and when applied to the enevironmental policy of ESSO it is clear to see that they have effectively used the equity principle. The policy shows clear and correct use of the equity principle in most of it's policies. Specifically where it states "[the company will] conduct and support research to improve understanding of the impact of their business on the environment, to improve methods of environmental protection, and to enhance their capability to make operations and products compatible with the environment". This policy shows that the company is taking active steps in trying to prevent any destruction of the environment presently and for future generations as they state they are trying to develop and understanding of how their business effects the environment.

The human rights principle is directly stated in the policy. One example is when the policy states "[the company will] respond quickly and effectively to incidents resulting from their operations, in cooperation with industry organizations and authorized government agencies". This shows that the company is taking the security and well being of the public and it's employee's (aka. humans) very seriously and that the well being is something which the company will respond to very rapidly.

The ESSO policy seems to follow all of the guidelines for a responsible policy. The policy incorporates actions geared towards reparation, preservation and a sustainable future for a global environment. The use of each of the factors makes this a prime example of a responsible policy.

References

ESSO, Imperial Oil. (Copyright 2006) "Imperial oil environmental policy" Accessed from http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/Thisis/SHE/Policies/TI_SHE_P_EnvironmentalPolicy.asp Novemeber 24th 2009.

ESSO, Imperial Oil. (Copyright 2006) "Imperial oil product safety policy" Accessed from http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/Thisis/SHE/Policies/TI_SHE_P_ProductSafetyPolicy.asp November 14th 2009.

The Benefits of Cap and Trade

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54Q4AU20090527

In a recent article from Reuters, authors Frank Pingue and Allan Dowd explain that the province of Ontario has adopted the cap and trade legislation for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in industries (2009). The cap and trade system, or emissions trading, is a form of economic incentive in which there is a limit or cap on the amount of emissions that a group or company can produce. They are then given credits for that limit. When it comes to carbon credits, one credit is equivalent to one metric tonne of carbon. If a company stays under the limit, they will have leftover credits which can be traded off to others for money. Companies that go over the limit will be required to purchase credits from those who have leftovers from staying under the limit. By looking at several environmental principles and laws, it can be seen that by initiating the cap and trade system, Ontario is making the right decision.

First of all, there is the Polluter Pays Principle. This principle states that the party that pollutes must pay. All industries create some form of pollution; however, some produce fewer emissions than others. The Polluter Pays Principle states that they should all pay. With the cap and trade method, it is accepted that all industries will pollute and a limit on emissions is set. Companies that pollute less are rewarded and companies that pollute more than the set limit must pay. This still coincides with the fact that polluter must pay because any company that goes over the limit must pay.

There is also the idea of Ecological Sustainability. There is a definite link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. With a change in the climate, ecosystems are under increased pressure and species will either have to adapt or will become extinct.

Next, there is the Human Rights Principle. This principle states that humans have the right to a healthy environment. Since the cap and trade system is an economic incentive, companies are more likely to reduce their emissions. Pingue and Dowd state that in Ontario, the cap and trade system will reduce emissions by 6% below 1990 levels by 2014 and 15% by 2020 (2009). This is mainly due to the fact that companies will be forced to reduce emissions in an effort to save money from the cap and trade system. An environment with fewer emissions would be a healthier environment and according to the Human Right Principle, we all have the right to that.

The Equity Principle must also be considered. This principle states that future generations deserve fairness and justice. In the context of the cap and trade system, this principle is very similar to the Human Rights Principle. It would not be fair to future generations if they are forced to live in a world of low air quality and climate change due to what we failed to do. Reducing emissions would prevent this and can be achieved by the cap and trade system.

This system also falls under the Precautionary Principle which states that we must take action against irreversible damage even if there is no concrete evidence. There is no concrete evidence on the effect that greenhouse gases and climate change will have on the world because it’s difficult to test. However, by reducing emissions through the cap and trade system, we can prevent any irreversible damage that could occur due to emissions and climate change.

The cap and trade system is a good example of an economic incentive. Sometimes, economics and the environment can be seen as two polar ends of a spectrum. However, by applying several key environmental principles, it can be seen that implementing a cap and trade program in Ontario could be very beneficial to the environment.

References

Pingue, F. and Dowd, A. 2009. Ontario introduces cap and trade legislation. Reuters, [Online], <http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54Q4AU20090527>, Accessed November 2009.

Reducing green house gas emissions using regulatory control

Environmental News Network summarizes the findings of a United Nation Environment Program (UNEP) study that analyzed the efficiency of using different policy tools to reduce green house gas emissions caused by buildings. It concluded that a regulatory control policy would be most effective.

The UNEP states that a regulatory control policy can effectively target energy efficiency in buildings. The study compared twenty different types of policy tools, including economic incentive, and concluded that regulatory and control instruments such as building codes and appliance standards are the best way to reduce energy use in buildings. The UNEP admits that for this policy to be effective sufficient resources and effort need to be in invested in order to implement and enforce these policies resourcefully.

If economic incentive were to be used to cut green house gas emissions by reducing energy consumption, an optimal energy use level would have to be determined. Then a permit system would have to be devised and implemented in order to reach the optimal level. A tax or fee could also be used to control the amount of energy being used. Using economic incentive could be more problematic since determining an optimal energy consumption level would be difficult. Different buildings, whether they are residential or commercial, will use different amounts of energy. Two factories that have production on the same scale could use very different amounts of energy to produce the same revenue. If a tax or fee system would be implemented it could possibly be more profitable for a firm to simply pay the fee and continue consuming energy. Also, it would be very costly to have to monitor such a vast amount of buildings of all different types.

It seems that the most effective way to decrease energy consumption is to require an increase in efficiency. This can be simply done by using better insulation or windows in buildings and using more energy-efficient appliances. This could also encourage the use of renewable energy such as solar panels or solar water heating to reduce a building’s energy consumption. A regulatory policy would give quicker results without having to monitor individual energy use and it would promote sustainable housing, research in improving energy efficiency, or at least the use of energy-efficient technologies. An economic incentive policy would require either a tax or permit system, would result in high costs to monitor energy use, and would be difficult to establish an appropriate energy level. As concluded by the UNEP regulation control would be a better approach to reducing green house gas emissions through improving energy efficiency in buildings.

"Sustainable Housing and Green Building News:." Environmental News Network -- Know Your Environment. Environmental News Network, 24 Sept. 2007. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. .

Keeping One Hand on the Gas Valve

Alister Doyle’s article, “Binding climate treaty may slip far into 2010”, Doyle explains a recent international treaty which is currently going through the decision process at the United Nations which aims to limit global greenhouse gas emissions by creating rules and regulations which all countries must follow. As outlined in the article, there are a number of conflicts slowing the conclusion of this binding treaty. These conflicts include the bill to pass carbon-capping laws which is also currently under review in the United States, and the conflict surrounding how the wealthier countries and poorer countries share the costs associated with the treaty.
An international treaty such as this is a perfect example of regulatory control with respect to climate change, as it regulates the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted globally by requiring the countries of the world to comply with a certain set of restrictions. The obvious major positive side to this method is that it would result in a severe reduction of the harmful greenhouse gasses emitted by our world. A negative aspect to this approach is that many countries will be forced to change the way they do such things as manufacturing for example. This could be especially hard on developing countries, because with the limited means which they are already given, changing the way such things are done could be impossible.
An alternative method which could be implemented in order to control greenhouse gas emissions is the use of economic incentives. In this method, a system could be established where a country would suffer an economic penalty per increment of emissions produced above a designated amount. Again, this has the obvious positive result of having a great chance of severely cutting global emissions. Another benefit that could be offered by this method is that it could be more efficient for poorer countries. The economic penalty could be country specific, meaning each country would have different penalty which would be suitable for them specifically (for example, Canada would have a much larger economic penalty compared to a developing country because Canada can afford it much easier.) A downside to this method is that, particularly in the current trying economic times, is that while losing money would provide incentive to reduce the countries emissions, it would also result in a lot of money being siphoned out of countries all over the world, which has the potential to create a poverty crisis.
Of the two methods discussed above, I would have to say I prefer the regulatory policy. While the strategy based around providing economic incentives would likely inspire a great deal of improvement, it is likely that it could have a harmful or even crippling effect on a country’s economy. While the problem of forcing countries to change things such as their manufacturing methods exists with regulatory control, and while this problem does have many implications for poorer countries, the treaty used in this method can take that into consideration in order to ensure that the poorer countries are treated justly.

References:

Doyle, Alister. "Binding climate treaty may slip far into 2010." Canada.com (2009). 17 Nov. 2009. Wed. 18 Nov. 2009.

Dealing with developed countries: control or incentive?

On October 9 2009, the Group of 77 (or the G-77, a coalition of developing nations) and China issued a press statement on the last day of the Bangkok Climate Talks concerning developed countries’ continued commitment to the Kyoto Protocol (KP), insisting it is a critical component to the success of the upcoming Copenhagen climate change summit.

According to the statement, throughout the talks in Bangkok, developed countries had averted their interests away from the KP and instead shed favourable light on forming a new agreement which would set new national targets, rather than the international legally-binding targets of the KP. This new attitude is dangerous, especially at this crucial time where the growing threat of a devastating global crisis urges the need for intensified action against climate change; this concern, the following statement addresses:

" The replacement of the KP with such a loose internation arrangement will result in the drastic downgrading of international disciplines over developed countries in their emission reduction targets and efforts." (G-77, 2009).

To avoid such leniency in developed countries, the G-77 and China demand that the developed countries in the KP enter the 2nd commitment period in 2013 (the 1st commitment of the KP ends in 2012) as legally obliged to, and pledge to deepen emission cuts, collectively and individually, while the US (not part of the KP) should also make such commitments. This would ensure the necessary action against climate change from the developed countries, and the G-77 and China voice that it is also expected and demanded by the world public.

The solution the G-77 and China presented in their statement is one of regulatory control, as it demands the developed countries of the KP to specific figures of emission cuts. An alternative would be an economic incentive, a process of control which would motivate the developed countries towards a course of action. An economic incentive suitable for this case would be the application of marketable pollution permits. Instead of the developed countries establishing solid figures of emission cuts, the total emissions goal of all the countries together would be the only figure in consideration. Permits would be distributed to the developed countries in the KP, and the countries would freely trade permits amongst themselves. As long as the total emissions goal is sufficient, and the each country obtains the appropriate number of permits in accordance to their individual emissions by the specified goal time, this process would be effective in preventing the consequences of climate change we would otherwise face.

However, such an ideal outcome is not realistic. As this is a critical case on an international level, we cannot risk the uncertainty of marketable pollution permits, especially since it would be ineffective in comparison to the stricter policies of the 2nd commitment of the KP as proposed. The economic incentive allows for complications and leniency. There would be conflict in the establishment of a single emissions goal, as some countries are greater emitters than others. The trading of permits would cause problems, since it could be done irrationally, or based on economic or political - not environmental - agendas. In comparison, the regulatory control as proposed by the G-77 and China includes a collective goal for all the countries as well as the individual goals for each country. It is legally-binding internationally, and therefore leaves less room for lax commitment from all the countries.

The G-77 began as a coalition of 77 countries, but expanded to include 130 developing nations. It was established for the very purpose of giving leverage to those nations in the United Nations. As developing nations, they must support their own developing economy; they do not have the wealth and the means to take significant action against climate change, yet they are the ones who suffer from the consequences of climate change brought on mostly by the developed world. In the press statement, they ask the developed countries to not abandon the KP, enter the 2nd commitment of the KP as legally obliged to, and possibly prevent the world from suffering a global crisis; it’s their plea to the developed countries to take responsibility.


References

G-77. “Group of 77 and China press statement on the imperative of the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol as a key component of the Copenhagen outcome.” Third World Network. 9 October 2009. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/info.service/2009/20091003/G77_press_statement_9.pdf. Retrieved 15 November 2009.

“About the Group of 77.” The Group of 77. 2008. http://www.g77.org/doc/. Retrieved 15 November 2009.

You Won! Averting Climate Change with Monetary Incentives

The unfortunate truth about climate change is that it is our fault. Human activities are responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse gases currently polluting the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most common form of greenhouse gas, and unless levels of carbon emissions decrease soon, the planet will undoubtedly experience dramatic and permanent climate change. In an article published in the London Guardian on 2 December 2008 entitled “Whistling in the Wind”, author George Monbiot argues that in order to avert the catastrophic global warming predicted by even the most optimistic models, immediate emergency measures must be taken. His suggestions take the form of regulatory controls meant to quickly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere. One particular suggestion made by Monbiot pertains to the aviation industry. He argues that the level of air traffic must be severely reduced by “setting a cap on the number of [airport] landing slots, which will fall every year until it reaches 5% of current capacity” (Monbiot, 2008). While forcibly limiting the number of aircraft permitted to fly will certainly lead to a notable reduction of carbon emissions, I believe there is a more effective, albeit slightly unconventional, method by which the emissions produced by the aviation industry can be lessened. It calls for the development of new, more environmentally-friendly types of aircraft, through implementation of an economic incentive in the form of a monetary prize.

Flying in an airplane may be one of the greatest negative environmental impacts an individual can make; this is made painfully clear in a previous article submitted to the Guardian by Monbiot (Monbiot, 2006). Although the carbon emissions per person and per unit distance of a jet aircraft are about half that of a conventional automobile, the vast distances travelled by airplanes and the large number of passengers they carry mean that the overall amount of carbon dioxide produced per flight is about 1.2 tonnes per person. Another issue with high-flying jets is the contrail they produce. These small, high altitude clouds can trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to a warming effect 2.7 times that of carbon dioxide. To make matters worse, there is no known “technofix” to these problems: according to the UK’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, “[The basic gas turbine engine] has been the dominant form of aircraft engine for 50 years and there is no serious suggestion that this will change in the foreseeable future” (Monbiot, 2006). There is no easy and economically desirable way to lower the amount of emissions produced by the aviation industry, argues Monbiot. Therefore, regulatory controls must be enforced.

One potential form of control is to tax aviation fuel. However, this proves to be impossible, because the taxation of aviation fuel is prohibited under international law (Monbiot, 2006). Therefore, the only feasible form of control is to limit the number of aircraft allowed to fly. Monbiot’s argument makes sense, but I believe it would prove extremely difficult to implement. According to the US Bureau of Transport Statistics, American airports alone receive nearly 9.5 million individual flights annually, and that number is increasing every year (BTS, 2009). The modern global economy relies on aircraft for the fast transport of people and goods across the world. Even those flights which serve only to convenience wealthy vacationers cannot be eliminated, for it would wreak havoc in regions heavily dependent upon tourism as a source of income. To do away with the vast majority of international air travel would have serious negative effects upon the world’s social and economic systems, and is therefore unacceptable. While the aviation industry’s emissions must be drastically reduced, Monbiot’s regulatory control over air traffic levels may not be the most effective method.

With neither taxation nor flight capping feasible options, perhaps attention should be again turned to the notion of a “technofix”. Although there is little innovation left in the gas turbine engine, other propulsion systems and types of aircraft may let prove effective at meeting the aviation industry’s needs, while keeping carbon emissions to a minimum. It is therefore my suggestion that, instead of placing restrictions on airlines, an economic incentive should be provided to aircraft manufacturers to promote the development of alternative styles of air travel. This could be in the form of a monetary prize similar to the X Prize. Many different X Prizes are currently available in a wide array of fields, including environmental research. The most successful X Prize to date has been the Ansari X Prize, which, through the promise of $10 million for the first privately-funded team to build and launch a spacecraft into orbit, literally created the commercial space industry. Surely, a prize for the first non-fossil fuel powered aircraft to carry a certain payload from London to New York could accomplish a similar feat. Such a prize could prove far more effective at reducing the aviation industry’s carbon footprint than any regulatory control. Rather than cause social and economic instability, a prize could foster economic growth and further scientific and technical understanding as new companies are founded and new technologies are developed. If the new aviation technologies prove affordable enough, then the prize could result in eventual replacement of the global air fleet. Thus, regulatory control and economic incentive may bring about similar results: a dramatic reduction in the number of operating jet-powered aircraft. The key difference is that one is brought about by forceful restriction, while the other comes through encouragement of creativity and experimentation.

When it comes to carbon emissions, the aviation industry is one of the world’s most guilty parties. In the absence of taxations or effective technological fixes, the only possible options are to limit the number of aircraft allowed to fly, or develop an entirely new form of environmentally friendly aircraft. George Monbiot’s flight-capping plan would certainly work, but it may come at a very high social and economic cost. Thus, given the options, the establishment of a prize as an economic incentive is far more appealing. The world faces a very real threat of catastrophic climate change. The worst-case scenarios predicted by many scientists will almost certainly come to pass unless a focused and concerted effort is made to reduce our carbon emissions. Action must be taken; will history view our era as a time of oppressive regulations, or of remarkable innovation?

REFERENCES

Bureau of Transport Statistics. (2009). "Flights - All Carriers, All Airports". Table. United States Bureau of Transport Statistics. http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=2. Accessed 11 November 2009.

Monbiot,George (2008). "Whistling in the Wind". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
2008/dec/02/climate-change-lord-turner. Accessed 11 November 2009.

Monbiot, George. (2006). "On the Flight Path to Global Meltdown". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/21/travelsenvironmentalimpact.ethicalliving. Accessed 11 November 2009.

The Ethics of Eating Less Meat to Stop Climate Change

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/save-the-planet-eat-less-meat/1562439.aspx?storypage=1

In a recent article published in the Canberra Times, the author, Roland Miller McCall, argues that people should reduce meat consumption in their diets in an effort to reduce emissions and stop climate change. The Australian author states that meat is a very large part of a typical diet in his country and that there is now a large campaign being fronted by Sir Paul McCartney that encourages people to have Meat Free Mondays (2009). McCall proceeds in presenting several facts and statistics throughout his article. For instance, McCall (2009) states that 18% of global emissions are due to livestock production and “the greenhouse effect from methane is 23 times greater than carbon”.

With all of these facts and statistics, however, the ethical issues surrounding this action are not discussed in the article.

First of all, the demarcation problem must be addressed. The demarcation problem is establishing who or what matters morally to the author in the situation. There are several views that could be taken (anthropocentric, sentient, biocentric, holistic) and the author seems to take a sentient view with this argument. With this view, humans and sentient animals count morally.

A consequentialist’s, or utilitarian’s, view states that the rightness or wrongness of actions is based on the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of the actions. In other words, the consequentialist is concerned about the consequences of the actions they make. In regards to the change suggested in McCall’s argument, there are several consequences. One of the main consequences of people reducing the amount of meat they consume is a decrease in emissions caused by livestock because less livestock would not be required as much. In turn, this would slow down climate change. McCall states that the consumption of red-meat is strongly linked to cancer, heart disease and other diseases so a decrease in meat consumption could reduce the likelihood of being d with one of these often fatal illnesses (2009). Another consequence of consuming less meat would be a decrease in livestock population and this is not a good for these animals. High populations result in a more successful species. As well, a lack of meat in a person’s diet could result in iron deficiencies if not obtained from other sources. Iron is an essential nutrient so deficiencies can be quite harmful to a human and can lead to anaemia, fatigue, hair loss, and other health problems (Iron deficiency anemia, 2009). There are other dietary options in which a person who doesn’t eat meat, such as vegetarians, can obtain iron. These food sources include oatmeal and cereals, chickpeas, figs, bagels, beans, and many more (Sources of iron). In the end, the good consequences outweigh the bad so a consquentialist would see this as a good change.

A non-consequentialist’s, or deontolost’s, view states that the rightness or wrongness of actions depends on what is intrinsic to the action. The outcome of the situation or change is not important ethically to a non-consquentialist. In this case, a non-consequentialist would see humans and the livestock as morally important. Non-consequentialists also find rights of the intrinsic beings to be very important. In this case, they would see that the livestock have a right to live and not be slaughtered and eaten. At the same time, though, there are those who believe that humans have a right to eat whatever they want, namely meat. On top of this, future generations have a right to live in a world that was not destroyed by the current generation and climate change. As well, it is sometimes seen that non-consequentialists abide by the notion that all intrinsic beings should be treated in an equal manner. In this case, it is morally correct to reduce meat consumption.

All major changes in policy and the way we live carry ethical implications that can be assessed using many different points of view. Often, the views oppose one another. When it comes to eating less meat to reduce emissions, it seems as though there would be a consensus between consequentialists and non-consequentialists even though they view the situation with different priorities in mind. Overall, there may be a possible agreement in which both sides find it morally correct for humans to decrease meat consumption in an effort to reduce emissions.

References

2009. Iron deficiency anaemia. canada.com, [Online], <http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/condition_info_details.asp?channel_id=0&relation_id=0&disease_id=274&page_no=1>, Accessed November 2009.

McCall, R.M. 2009. Save the planet – eat less meat. The Canberra Times, [Online], <http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/save-the-planet-eat-less-meat/1562439.aspx?storypage=1>, Accessed November 2009.

Sources of iron. Capital Health, [Online], <http://www.capitalhealth.ca/NR/rdonlyres/eq3uez72ubprrsnmc354jslhl2witvfzygjaenfwveec3mdvsthukxuxbab2bflpiu6fmr6uumgni7nmeml3qfjwhth/SourcesofIron.pdf>, Accessed November 2009.

Climate Change: Address the Rich and the Poor Differently?

When it comes down to addressing climate change and reducing emissions, it is a universal issue: the consequences will affect everyone, and everyone is responsible to doing their own part. The question is, what part does one play and how does it differ? This question is clearly one with no easy answer, especially when applied to countries, the rich and the poor, the developed and the underdeveloped. Duncan Green is the author of the blog posts for Oxfam International, and touches on the issue in the blog titled “Trade v climate change: what should developing countries be asked to do?”, and supportively presents Oxfam’s point-of-view.

The problem is how climate change should be addressed differently by rich and poor countries, and to what extent. Green presents Oxfam’s informal solution, which roughly suggests that rich countries carry a heavier burden of responsibility than poor ones, as they are responsible for the majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up in the past century (Green 2009) and have the means to significantly reduce their emissions. It is also suggested that the best current solution is for developed countries to reward and fund underdeveloped countries in their efforts to reduce emissions, since they do no have the means to support an underdeveloped economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

By supporting this solution, Green indirectly addresses the demarcation problem. According to Oxfam and supported by Green, it is morally correct for developed countries to take on the greatest responsibility, as they have the wealth, and therefore, the ability to take meaningful action in reducing emissions, as well as the ability in aiding underdeveloped countries to do so as well. Protecting the environment is what is morally correct, and by taking action in dramatically reducing emissions and funding underdeveloped countries, high financial priority is morally incorrect.

Green establishes what is morally correct (protecting the environment) and morally incorrect (financial priority), which is the basis for his point-of-view. From there, one can apply the consequentialist’s and nonconsequentialist’s views to the proposed solution. In this case, the solution supports both the consequentialist and nonconsequentialist viewpoints. According to Green, highest priority lies in the issue of climate change and the consequences everyone will face if there is a late and insufficient amount of action in preventing them; this coincides with the consequentialist’s viewpoint, since it addresses the needs of the majority. The proposed solution also addresses individual needs, being those of the individuals in underdeveloped countries. Again, underdeveloped countries do no have the means to support both a weak and developing economy and the climate change cause, and it would be unfair to ask as much action from them as from the rich, developed countries; this concern for individual needs concurs with the nonconsequentialist’s viewpoint.

Though the solution proposed by Oxfam seems extreme, it does not seem to be enough, as the situation appears to be ominous no matter the solution, as outlined by the following:

‘A pathway to keep warming well within 2°C demands both that emissions in industrialised countries are reduced, well below the 1990 baseline adopted by the UN Climate Convention… Yet even if industrialised countries were to cease all emissions from today, developing-country emissions alone would overshoot the 2°C pathway by 2020 on current trends…’ (Green 2009).

However, no matter how dire the situation seems to be, actions must be taken immediately, and applying the proper ethical implications, the right solution can be drawn and the outcome beneficial to all of humankind.

References

Green, Duncan. “Trade v climate change: what should developing countries be asked to do?” From Poverty to Power. 19 June 2009. Retrieved 3 November 2009. http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?tag=ngo-policy

The Philosophy of Climate Change

Ellen Roseman summarized a speech held at the University of Toronto by John Broome, a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford University in England. The topic of the speech was on the ethics and philosophy of climate change. Broome believes that people’s existence and well being is what counts morally and looks at the solutions to climate change from a consequentialist’s point of view.

The professor talked about the potential casualties from an increase of floods, droughts, and famine due to climate change. He estimated the casualties to be about a million each year if the climate becomes significantly hotter. He even mentions the possibility, although very unlikely, that human species may become extinct due to climate change. Broome sees human life as having significant moral value, which he believes should be an important factor in deciding what must be done when dealing with climate change.

The issue of climate change was approached from a consequentialists point of view by professor Broome. He compared economists with philosophers on how they make decisions. Economists use a cost benefit analysis while philosophers similarly make decision based on which would result in more good than bad. He believes that whatever decisions we make on climate change, they need to provide more positive effects on humans than negative. Broome makes the statements that “We can't judge properly what to do about climate change until we have found an answer to the question of how these future lives can be valued.” He recognizes that people’ s existence has moral value and whether their existence will yield more good or bad should govern what decisions we make about climate change.

If you were to look at this issue from a non-consequentialist’s point of view, you could argue that it is not a factor of how much good would result, but what the costs of acting on climate change would be. If cutting green house gas emissions means reducing the use of coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, then that would lead to weakening many large industries, causing many job losses. This could also weaken many economies, since these industries may be heavily depended upon. Acting on climate change could have negative and immediate impact on people’s lives and well-being. From a non-consequentialist’s point of view you might choose not to fight climate change, even if in the future it will have positive effects, since the appropriate actions that need to be taken will cause immediate suffering.

Broome counts human life and future human existence as having moral value. He believes that whatever decision is made on climate change, it needs to yield a positive outcome for humans well beings. While if you were to look at it from a non-consequentialist’s point of view the actions needed to fight climate change would also cause suffering to humans which gives reason not to combat climate change.

Roseman, Ellen. "Author frames climate change as ethical dilemma - thestar.com." News, Toronto, GTA, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Canada, World, Breaking - thestar.com. 28 Oct. 2009. Web. 04 Nov. 2009. .

Climate Change and the Family Pet: An Ethical Examination

Many people wonder about how they many reduce their carbon footprint and help lessen the effects of climate change. A particularly controversial suggestion is reported by Kate Ravilious in her recent New Scientist article “How green is your pet?” (23 October 2009). Ravilious references a new book by the environmentalists Robert and Brenda Vance entitled Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living”. The couple’s calculations show that the carbon footprint of the family dog or cat exceeds that of many vehicles. If we wish to reduce our household’s impact on the environment, the most effective way to do so is to stop raising pets. Naturally, this argument offends many people, and to better understand why, we should explore the ethics of pets and climate change.

The initial issue is whether or not pets count morally or not. Those with an anthropocentric viewpoint argue that humans are the only beings with intrinsic value, and that ethical choices are those that benefit the most humans. On the other hand, there are many that believe animals such as pets to possess intrinsic value. Therefore, when discussing issues such as climate change, animals and humans should be given the same moral weight. It is under this viewpoint that the controversy arises: if animals and humans matter equally, then the Vance’s book may as well be titled Eat the Child. Determining one’s position on who or what matters morally – referred to as the demarcation problem – is the crucial first step for assessing ethical issues.

For simplicity’s sake, the rest of this analysis will focus on the animal rights view. Within this viewpoint two general forms of ethical reasoning exist: consequentialist and non-consequentialist. Non-consequentialists, or deontologists, take a “rights” approach to ethical issues. They hold that the most ethical choice is that which respects the rights of the most individuals. A deontologist would feel that the elimination of pets is a violation of the animals’ right to life and happiness, and is not an ethically sound option. Rather, pets and humans should be given equal consideration when discussing solutions to the problem of environmental impact. Since the eradication of either species is unacceptable, a more humane solution to the problem of reducing our environmental impact must be found.

The counterpoint to the non-consequentialist deontological view is the consequentialist, or utilitarian, view. Utilitarians believe that the ethically correct choice is that which results in the greatest aggregate happiness. Under this definition, it is apparent that utilitarians would generally support the Vance’s argument. Although the rights of pets will be violated by their elimination, a world without pets will be a world less affected by climate change, and thus a happier world overall. In this way, the end justifies the means, and so, for the good of the entire biosphere, the elimination of pets should be sought after.

The study of ethics is a difficult and often confusing endeavour, and environmental ethics especially so. The suggestions put forward by Robert and Brenda Vance and reported by Kate Ravilious remain very controversial among environmentalists, pet owners, and animal activists. The purpose of this brief analysis has been to help explain why there is such disagreement over ethical issues, and demonstrate that there are often a multitude of solutions to each philosophical and environmental problem, none more legitimate than any other. This variety of opinion can be overwhelming, but there is one crucial concept that must be remembered: for a philosophy to be valid, it must be consistent.

REFERENCES

Ravilious, Kate. "How green is your pet?" New Scientist. 23 October 2009.>www.newscientist.com/.../mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html<. Accessed 1 November 2009.

Ethical Review of NGO Policy Statement

In a recent policy statement by NGO many aspects of climate change were reviewed. The statement suggests ways of helping to curb carbon emissions and lead a more sustainable life. Among these many suggestions it was recommended to governments and industries "(halt) the development of nuclear facilities as they are neither safe nor environmentally sound [nor] sustainable]." From examining the context of the policy and the nature of the suggestions, it is clear to see what the suggested moral agents are, however, the ethical right or wrongness, depends on the nature of the two very different philosophies.

The nature of the policy statement was of salvation and sustainability of the earth's atmosphere and climate. The suggestions which were listed were categorized into such subheadings as "climate change" and "sustainable development" which shows an obvious emphasis on the environment and sustainability as each subheading offered ways countries could improve upon their current policies. The demarcation problem in this sense has a clear answer. The NGO policy is directed towards improving our future development and sustaining an atmosphere and climate which is healthy. Since the policy is acting to try and help the earth as a whole, it can be seen that the policy is treating the inhabitants of earth as moral agents worthy of help and support, which is a view shared by most humans residing on earth. However, the policy has to sides to it. The changes the policy suggests, depending on either a consequentialist's point of view or a non-consequentialist's point of view.

In the eyes of a nonconsequentialist, or a deontologist, the change suggested, to not build nuclear power plants, would be seen as morally incorrect. Since the outcome of an action does not matter to a deontologist, the negative effects towards an industry or company would outweigh any bad that may or may not occur later. Since the company is, as seen in the eyes of a deontologist, a moral agent, it carries rights and needs and has wants. Since deontologists follow the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you", it cannot be morally correct to stop a company from profiting since a lack of profit would go directly against that companies wants and, technically, needs. The company has rights wants and needs which, being a moral agent, means that we as a society need to fulfill them when looking at the issue through the eyes of a deontologist, and therefore the changes can only be seen as bad.

The other point of view that needs to be considered is one which takes into account the long term effects of the changes suggested. This point of view is the utilitarianism philosophy, or a consequentialist view point. In the eyes of a utilitarianist, the change would be a good thing, assuming that the change would later affect the health of the planet or could help create a sustainable life style. A utillitarianist must think only of the aggregate happiness. While, in the present day, not building a nuclear power plant affects the power plant and perhaps industry, the effects of building would create a lot more unhappiness. The salvation of the planet, from a utilitarian standpoint, is a more ethically right decision than embarking on a quest for individual growth and profit.

It is clear that while the policy shares a common moral agent, the change can be viewed in two highly contrasted ways. One which states that we have a moral obligation to a company and one which states we have a moral obligation to ourselves and our future. Perhaps there is no clear cut correct moral stance and we all just need a philosophical hug.

References

NGO. October 21, 2009. "Cures: NGO policy statement for CSD 15: a new paradigm" Retrieved November 2nd, 2009 from http://www.cures-network.org/docs/csd_statement.html .

Paper and Forest Industry's "Green-Offsets" Need Clarification

Paper and other tree-oriented companies are usually seen as culprits in greenhouse gas emissions. So it comes as no surprise that these companies make it a top priority to change this image of themselves, and be considered instead as an environmentally-friendly industry. The industry’s attempts at “greening” their image is covered in the article “A Role for Trees in Climate Change Legislation?” by Anne Mulkern.

The paper and forest industries present several points in their argument. For example, one of their claims is that the products made from trees - for example, paper, lumber, and furniture - store carbon (Mulkern, 2009). Of course, such claims are made for self-beneficiary purposes, in their attempts to avoid the policy that would cap their greenhouse gas emissions, which leads to the following statement by Mulkern:

“The forest industry wants to be included on the list of what Congress considers as ‘green offsets’ the credits that companies can buy to counteract their carbon emissions…” (Mulkern, 2009).

Mulkern defines green offsets as “credits that companies can buy to counteract their carbon emissions”, but does not clarify as to what exactly those green offset credits achieve. Green offsets can be loosely defined as a way of having both economic development and environmental protection. Therefore by buying credits, the companies would be paying others to take actions in offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions, so that the net impact on the environment in terms of emissions is zero.

If the paper and forest companies did succeed in buying green offset credits, it would appear that the total carbon emissions is zero and would change the industry image to an environmentally friendly one. But green offsets have not been applied to forest industries before because lawmakers offer credits in favour of more permanent trees. Commercial forests, which are routinely cut down and replanted, in turn, cyclically capturing and releasing carbon. Permanent forests have more to offer: not only do they capture carbon, but are also important for air, water, and habitat reasons. Until there is a better understanding of how much carbon the forest industry is producing - which includes the energy used for transporting and processing - compared to how much carbon commercial forests absorb, the concept of green offsets cannot properly be applied to the industry.

It is important not to misinterpret terms such as ‘green offsets’. It can effectively give the illusion of an environmentally-friendly company. If the paper and forest industry were to receive green offset credits, it would go toward their commercial forests, which are routinely cut down and replanted; therefore, carbon emissions still remain in the atmosphere. The credits are better off given to permanent forests, which are more beneficial to the environment. Of course the paper and forest industry would rather resort to green offsets than a carbon cap - a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide released - but the environment would benefit more from the latter.

References

Mulkern, A. “A Role for Trees in Climate Change Legislation?”. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=trees-in-climate-change-laws. 11 May 2009. Retrieved 27 October 2009.

Straightening Biological Terms

Diana Six’s article explains one of the major potential effects on the world which would result from climate change. This effect, is the delicate balance of mutualism. Throughout this article Six makes many strong, valid points regarding the importance of mutualism to various organisms and ecosystems, however, the article does not seem to contain a clear or outright explanation of the author’s meaning of the concept.

Mutualism is, as the author means it, any kind of interaction (ie. biological) between two or more organisms in nature which is resultantly beneficial for all parties. Examples of this process are noticeable everywhere in nature, even in such primary processes as a bee pollinating a flower. The bee collects pollen from a flower to make honey (beneficial for the bee,) and consequently carries pollen from one flower to the next resulting in cross pollination (beneficial for the flowers.)

This definition would make sense, as it fits with what the Six says in her article, like when she makes the statement: “In particular, mutualisms are important drivers of ecosystem structure and function.” (Jrank 2009.) Applying the above definition of mutualism to Six’s statement, the statement seems valid.

Without the proper background information on the concept of mutualism, the term could be easily misconstrued by the reader, and the article would become much more complex and difficult to read. The reader could easily misinterpret the term mutualism to mean any number of things, likely thinking that it would mean something along the lines of a single external process which effects a number of organisms equally, the article’s point could become warped and difficult to read.

Errors like this are all too easy to make as a reader, sometimes a term will seem familiar or self-explainitory, but it may mean something different than it appears. For this reason it is the obligation or the reader to always make sure all terms in the article are fully understood before reading, just as it is the responsibility of the author to make sure all terms are clearly outlined and understandable to the reader.

References:

Six, Diana. Climate Change and Mutualism. www.nature.com October, 2009. http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v7/n10/full/nrmicro2232.html

Jrank. Mutualism. www.jrank.org 2009, http://science.jrank.org/pages/4535/Mutualism.html

The Tipping Point

In the article titled “Real action on climate change is needed now in B.C. and at Copenhagen” the author, Bill Henderson, uses the term “tipping point” when speaking about climate change. Henderson uses the term in a misrepresentative manner, which can lead to confusion and leave room for ambiguity.

The author uses “tipping point” in his article when he says “what action do we have to take globally at Copenhagen so as to not go over the tipping point of a melting Arctic ice cap or methane-producing melting permafrost or a drying Amazon?” It is evident that he is confused over the definition of the tipping point. Henderson lists positive feedback loops when using the term, which are a result of rising global temperatures and may cause the effect of a tipping point but that is not the meaning of the term.

Cambridge Dictionaries online defines tipping point as the time at which a change or an effect cannot be stopped. When using this term regarding climate change it can refer to a point in time where climate change will be irreversible. It becomes irreversible due to the fact that so many positive feedback loops will have taken effect that theoretically, it would be impossible to reduce carbon emissions efficiently enough to lessen climate change. The author uses the term to describe the triggering of positive feedback loops, which are reversible. If global temperatures decline the ice will form again, the permafrost will stay frozen, and the Amazon will continue to thrive, while if we cross this tipping point global temperatures will rise continually and at a greater rate due to these positive feedback loops. Henderson had the right idea when describing the tipping point as an irreversible event however his interpretation of tipping points was as the effects of feedback loops when in reality they are the causes.

I believe that the point the author is trying to make when using the term tipping point is that strong action against climate change is imperative. If we allow global temperatures to rise then the tipping point will be triggered causing an irreversible effect. We have a small window of opportunity and once that window is shut there is no going back.

The term tipping point used by Henderson could have caused some misunderstanding although his point that action on climate change should be immediate was still clear. The author’s use of the term implied that the tipping point causes positive feedback loops when in reality the positive feedback loops are the causes of the tipping point and not the effects.

References:

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Web. 28 Oct. 2009. .

Henderson, Bill. "Real action on climate change is needed now in B.C. and at

Copenhagen | Vancouver, Canada | Straight.com." Homepage | Straight.com. 23 Oct.

2009. Web. 28 Oct. 2009.

change-needed-now-bc-and-copenhagen>.