It is commonly known by the majority of us that climatory change is not getting attention of the most of governments. Governments were ignoring the term climate change till the early 1990s. When we came to the mid 90s, couple of climate summits were already held and some countries started taking inadequate minor measures. However some countries considered that the fight with climate change involved in internal affairs of a country and refused to act on it as long as they decide to do so.
As a matter of fact I believe the most effective way to deal with climate issues will happen by countries taking their own responsibilities and regulates their laws accordingly.
The accumulation of CO2 was known and concerned about its possible severe outcomes since the late 1950s by scientists. Not till the late 70s, it was considered as a real threath and that it will happen near future as a couple of decade. After losing precious time like a decade, with the impact of protests and mobilisation of scientists and activists, George Bush organised a global meeting in White House which ended up being non-climate-centered conference.
UN sub-organization IPCC was founded the same year 1988. This organization’s first report was presented in 1990 and couldn’t catch the attention of the media and the leading CO2 emitter countries because of the Gulf War in 1991. In 1997 a different approach like separating the countries as developed(Annex B) countries and developing(non-Annex B) countries in Kyoto Protocol. The Annex B countries would ratify adstrictory goals: for EU ” cutting the emissions 8 percent by 2012 ” was one of them.
Non-Annex B countries like China was not given a mandatory task to be done within a time interval forwhy its per capita emissions were much lower and the country itself was still growing.In the end this not so promising attempt also failed for some reasons like US and Canada withdrawing from treaty and the effort put by Annex B countries were neutralised by the increase of emission from Non-Annex B countries. After numerous unsuccessful gatherings, the basis of a different kind of agreement started shaping in climate conferences held in Lima and Paris in the early 2010s. The difference of this new agreement was having no bindings and being more of a voluntary deal. In this agreement each countries set their goals themselves with their own analyses of political practicality and technological capabilities. More flexible agreement helped more countries to accepted the agreement. By the end of 2015 all states in the world submitted something that they had done on climate issues. In the end every country from rich to poor were of the same mind.
At first this new approach seemed to result in such a positive way that no other attempts did. And the main point that made this agreement succeed in comparison with the former ones, in my point of view, is the independence about their climate-centered actions. Tackling climate issues on a smaller scale like country-by-country was hopefully going to create a race to the top where every country tries to decrease the emissions. But it ended up not in a desired way. In my point of view, the most distinctive deduction we can make from these past attempts is make the countries agree in a common sense is somehow possible but not an important change it makes in stabilisation of climate. Other point that is visible in the preceding lines that may be stated as a cause of fail is the reluctancy in tackling the climate issues among the states.
Climate change is posing menace to human race and it is the responsibility of every nation on this globe. Treating the issues, creating solutions can be done effectively by acting in unison with other nations but the problems should be dealth in a national manner for a climate stable future.
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.get help with your assignment