I've taken three environmental courses in my college career (not necessarily by choice) and not once have I felt scared or worried upon completing the course. Professors don't make it their goal to scare students into thinking that we are doomed from global warming. It's true, 95% of scientists agree that global warming is a real concern. Not only are there so many factors to consider, but these environmental processes are offered on extreme timescales. It may seem selfish, but I tend to consider the timescales that affect me, my family, my friends and anyone in the present, and even my future family. Because global climate change is such an extended process, with so much uncertainty, it is often difficult to really become frightened by this phenomenon.
I have no intentions of belittling the issue of global warming. However, I think it is ironic and interesting, especially after Tuesday's readings, to point out that Australia did not even want to include climate change on the G-20 agenda. A recent article on the summit wrote,
"Asked on Sunday if he accepted the climate change was potentially one of the biggest impediments to global economic growth, Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey said: "No. No I don't. Absolutely not."
"You just look at China. China is going to continue to increase emissions to 2030," he said. "Australia is doing the same amount of work on climate change as the United States over a 30-year period. Frankly, what we're focused on is growth and jobs."
Despite Australia PM Tony Abbott's efforts, climate change was put on the agenda. To think it sparked debate makes me wonder how much climate change is prioritized in the international political economy. I feel like it's something that is always squeezed behind monetary policy, trade, tax reform, etc. talks. In other words, how important is this topic in comparison to the other factors considered in economic growth? Because the timeframe for climate change, especially globally, is so large, I, along with Abbott, am skeptical about its place in comparatively short-term economic planning. The effects of fluctuations in the economy are often more tangible and immediate than large-scale climate changes, making people respond more sensitively to factors impacting the economy. If someone loses their job, what will MOST immediately prioritize: how to get back on their feet and back into the job market, or how to stop the factory next-door from environmentally harmful emission practices? I think a similar mindset applies on a global scale.
According to the SMH, "G20 summit concluded on Sunday with agreements to close tax loopholes used by multinationals, improve trade, encourage the setting of early emissions reduction targets, strengthen banks, reform energy markets including gas, and coordinate a stronger response to the Ebola epidemic."
Stiglitz would respond to Australia's proposal with disdain, but would be happy to see that climate change action ultimately prevailed. After spending a fair amount of time criticizing the US for refusing to comply with global climate change initiatives, including the Kyoto Protocol, Stiglitz offers several suggestions towards prioritizing the planet during the ongoing globalization process. As a world leader and contributing polluter, Stiglitz expresses the need for the US "to make small expenditures in order to reduce risks of much larger expenditures down the line" (185). He argues that we can afford it, and by not taking action, we are hurting the rest of the world by evading responsibility and setting a poor example, especially for developing countries. Inflation targets are one solution that Stiglitz offered for the climate change issue. If this isn't enough, he provides an alternative approach based on system of "sticks over carrots", or punishments to deter environmentally threatening practices in relevant industries. I guess the next step is to wait and see how well major polluters and G20 participants actually respond to the emission reduction targets...
Australia likes it some coal.
ReplyDelete