Climate Change Or Climate Derange :The Debates Behind The Headlines
By Lorna Birkby
​
At the start of the 2018 MUNGA, opening remarks were made by the President of the event - Dr Bebb- who introduced the delegates to the pressing, and possibly demanding, subjects which would be discussed and negotiated later that day. Dr Bebb stated that the United Nations has a ‘vital role… for a better world’, which links to one of the most important topics of discussion: climate change.
Of course, this vital subject is, without a doubt, on the mind of every politician, president, worker and citizen, even though it may not be perceivable in our everyday lives. Whether it is burning fossil fuels, currently the biggest suppliers of energy in the world, or if this is having an increased amount of cows grazing on fields for the food industry: all of these actions release greenhouse gasses. From what we currently know, this action is irreversible and due to these gasses, heat rays from the sun are allowed into the atmosphere, but become trapped due to this thick band of gas, and are forced into being absorbed into the Earth. Undoubtedly, to any person, it is evident here, that this will cause a colossal change in the climate and, in turn, many aspects of our modern life will have to change.
Many of the delegates representing their countries addressed climate change in their opening speeches. Australia stated that they would ‘reduce their emissions by 74% by 2038’, and stressed the concern for climate change, by quoting their president with the quote “no planet thee”. Many other delegates were keen to emphasise this crucial topic also in their opening speeches, with Brazil stating that they were ‘environmentally aware’ and looking to find a ‘sustainable management’ and Germany stating that ‘44% of Germans are worried about about climate change’, therefore highlighting the need for a pressing negotiation within the United Nations.
To start the debate , which concerned the organization of the legislations about climate change, greenhouse gasseswas discussed and negotiated: ‘Strongly Urges China as one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas producers, to act now to reduce greenhouse emissions and to agree to achieve a reduction of 40% by 2025’. Instantly, it was obvious that Bolivia and Afghanistan had a lot to say on the subject, both delegates stating that, due to China’s emissions being so harmful to the world’s environment, it should be ‘required’ that China decrease their emissions by 40% in the next 7 years. Alternatively, the USA argued that, if China were to reduce their emissions by 40%, China would not be ‘getting a good deal out of this’- therefore taking the economic viewpoint. But, due to the continuous arguments set out by the lesser developed countries, it was settled to a vote that China should be ‘required’ to complete the demands. However, what could be most demeaning for the country, was that China wasn’t even represented by a delegate, which explicitly shows us that China did not want to confront the excessive amount of CO2 emissions they have released, and the extent of the damage to the environment they caused.
Next, to little surprise, the topic that was negotiated between this debate was the standing of USA, in regards to greenhouse gasses. On line 15, the legislation only ‘urges’ the USA to reduce their emissions by 40%- which did not seem equitable. Italy states, in terms of this legislation, that because the USA is such a large country, they should be ‘setting an example for climate change’. Furthermore, the delegate for Bolivia argues that the famous quote stated by Trump: “America First”, could alternatively mean that America should be the ‘first’ to throw themselves into the future of energy. However, USA reply in a much similar perspective in which they displayed with China, the delegate stating that they need to ‘make sure we have jobs for our citizens’, therefore showing a highly economic perspective, instead of the wellbeing or sustainability which will be required in the future. But, many delegates wanted to accentuate the fact that, in reality, the work the USA does in regards to climate change, does not only affect the USA, but it affects others. For example, the delegate for Bangladesh highlighted that the land is only ‘1.2 meters above water’ and , if our emissions persist to the extent we are at currently, ‘a lot of lives could be lost’. However, the USA are still only focused on their economy and themselves, with the delegate stating ‘we want to keep it [the economy] at number one… we are focussing on ourselves and our economy and our people’. Therefore, it was put down to a vote that it should be ‘required’ for the USA to reduce their emissions by 2025- however it is also important to consider and reflect on the mindset of USA in regards to climate change, in comparison to the less developed countries, who are aware of these larger countries that ‘talk the talk but don’t necessarily keep up with the slack’.
The final, and possibly most heated part of the debate, especially between Bolivia and Canada, was over line 22 ‘calls upon Canada… to now put forward a target of reduction of GHEs of 40% by 2025 and to make it a binding legal requirement; further, to stop destroying their temperature forests which, according to scientific evidence, locks major quantities of CO2 emissions.’ Instantly, Canada defended itself, with the delegate protesting that ‘we are wanting to domestically produce our own oil… we will be much more self sustainable and reduce our figures by 17%’. However, it is within oil sands that Canada intends to find this ‘sustainable resource’, which requires a lot of energy and only reduces the emissions by 17% (23% less that needed). This therefore left Ecuador to argue that ‘surely a country as wealthy as Canada could leave their own forests alone’ , and Afghanistan suggesting that ‘Saudi Arabia will extract their oil whether you use it or not’. Canada was also constantly describing this new oil source within their own country as ‘sustainable’ which was highlighted within the debate as being ‘ironic’ as, quite promptly stated by Bolivia, ‘the future of energy cannot be exports, as they will simply run out’. Nevertheless, after a long debate over the ‘future’ of Canada, but also how Canada would keep up with the ‘short term… demands’, it was put to a vote and, simply to make it fair between China and the USA, it was decided that is should be required that Canada are ‘required’ to lower their emissions by 40% by 2025 too.