http://www.flickr.com/photos/lwr/3719258451/
The United States of America, China and India are among the top three countries with the most carbon dioxide emission (Nation Master). Sadly enough these countries rank high when it comes to power but low when it comes to saving the planet. The global warming debate has grown into surface over the past few decades. The need to reduce its overwhelming effects on Earth has been on the minds of not only environmentalists and scientists but politicians as well. The Kyoto Protocol was the first approach taken by government officials to regulate climate change. By the end of 2011, Kyoto was in the mist of its expiration date when the United Nations Climate Change Conference took place in Durban. This conference provided political parties around the world an opportunity to discuss the impact of global warming in their country. It resulted in the creation of the Durban Platform. This platform allows “parties to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change as soon as possible, and no later than 2015” (Farber). Many people are very doubtful of the effectiveness of government involvement when it comes to dealing with global warming. According to the Nature.com article “The Mask Slips”, government involvement when dealing with climate change will not help to reduce it. However, there is strong evidence to support the fact that government regulation is exactly what is needed to regain control over greenhouse gas emission and overall climate change.
The Kyoto Protocol was the climate change monitoring system that was created before the Durban Platform. The Kyoto Protocol sets a binding target for 37 industrialized countries and the European community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was agreed upon on December 11, 1997 but wasn’t enforced until February 16, 2005. The Protocol required the involved countries to monitor and report accurate records of greenhouse emission through inventories and national reports (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change).
The Durban Platform for Enhanced Action was created due to the fact that the Kyoto Protocol had reached its designated time period. Several developing countries were worried that the developed countries would not agree to extend the commitment making climate change seem more irrelevant. The Durban Platform is a legally binding treaty that allows developing and developed countries to consult the amount of carbon emission that should be cut (Farber). It helps ensure that government regulation on climate change is still prevalent.
“Masks slips” article claims that, “the science of climate change and the politics of climate change, which claims to represent it, now inhabit parallel worlds” (Nature). This means that climate change and politics are topics that are never meant to cross. The author argument is an attack on the political aspect of the treaty but they fail to see the big picture. The article mentions reasons as to why the treaty will never work based on biased opinions rather than substantial facts.
The Durban Platform is a global agreement meaning that it pushes the nations involved to create opportunities for international cooperation to reduce their emissions (Light). If every country in the world knew how to manage their carbon dioxide emission then there would be no need for this treaty. And most importantly, global warming would probably not exist. However, that is not the case. Even though most countries were aware of the harmful effects of global warming, they now realize the need to put an end to it. The Durban Platform lays out a plan that every country can work towards. By allowing the government to become involved gives the countries a sense of urgency. It forces them to take action to prevent global warming from worsening. And since it is a considered a “legally binding agreement”, the countries will have repercussions for not cooperating with the treaty.
Countries vary in shape, resources available and most importantly greenhouse gas emission. Developed countries such as the United States of America and China are among the ones that emit the largest amount of greenhouse gases. And the developed countries are the ones that are most effected by it. The Nature.com editorial claims that this treaty would yield more unfavorable results among all the countries. However, it fails to acknowledge that the Durban Platform can establish unity among the countries. Allowing the government to intervene and create a universal agreement pushes the countries to become more united. This means that all the involved nations are held to a certain standard. Being able to monitor how much greenhouse gas each country emits makes the nations accountable for themselves. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of States, summarizes this points lovely when she states, “for the first time, ends this differentiation between the developed and the developing, in terms of what we all have to do to meet this global challenge” (Light).
In conclusion, the Durban Platform should be seen as a positive stride towards reducing global warming effects. Although it takes a political perspective on dealing with the issue, it is better than doing nothing at all. The belief that some people hold that this perspective will resolve nothing seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. The platform lays out an agreement that all of the involved countries are responsible for to help cut down on carbon dioxide. By holding the countries accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions, it should give them an incentive to reduce it. The Durban Platform marks only the first step and I’m excited to see what the future has in store.
Work cited
Bateman, Brendan. "COP 17 and beyond - the challenges posed by the Durban Platform."
Clayton Utz. N.p., 22 Dec 2011. Web. 28 Feb 2012. <http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/22_december_2011/20111222/cop_17_and_beyond_the_challenges_posed_by_the_durban_platform.page>.
CO2 Emission." Nation Master. N.p., 05 Aug 2007. Web. 28 Feb 2012.
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions>.
Farber, Dan. "What happened in Durban?." The Berkeley Blog. N.p., 12 Dec 2011. Web.
28 Feb 2012. <http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2011/12/12/what-happened-in-durban/>.
H, Maria. "The Durban Platform." Sustainable Table. N.p., 13 Dec 2011. Web. 28 Feb
2012. <http://www.sustainabletable.org.au/TableTalk/tabid/53/EntryId/26/The-Durban-Platform.asp&xgt;.
Kyoto Protocol." United Nations Framework Convention on Climate change. N.p., 20
Dec 2011. Web. 28 Feb 2012. <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php>.
Light, Andrew. "Why Durban Matters." Center for American Progress. N.p., 19 Dec
2011. Web. 28 Feb 2012. <http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/12/why_durban_matters.html>.
The mask slips." Nature. Nature Publishing Group, 14 Dec 2011. Web. 28 Feb 2012.
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7377/full/480292a.html>.
