The Cost Of Inaction

Climate change is a very urgent global challenge which can affect the concept of sustainable development greatly. The rising release in greenhouse gases are leading to drastic weather changes such as hurricanes, heat waves and floods. These weather events affect the basic resources in which society needs in order to fulfill sustainable development (water, food, health and the environment). So basically, sustainable development and climate change are related. Climate change is directly affecting the success of sustainable development as a whole.

A large and global plan should be put into effect in order to tackle climate change. According to the Stern Review, A global effort which can span the next 10-20 years will have a large effect on the rate of climate change occurring. If no action is made, the effects of climate change can be expressed as losing 5% of global gdp each year. If the situation is more critical this can escalate up to 20%. However by us acting and implementing processes to tackle climate change, this can be limited to only a 1% gdp per year. Taking action is by far the better choice. If nothing is done with regards to climate change, we will continue to dig our own grave.

I feel that a meager 1% of the gdp per year in order to try and control a situation that can affect the entire global population is quite minimal. The cost of us doing nothing is by far a worse situation. Society’s priorities are by far out of sync with climate change. For example, the global priorities slide which we were shown in class made me really look at and evaluate if people and governments spending habits are taking sustainable development into affect. For example, the spending in Europe on ice cream in 1998 was a staggering 11 billion US dollars; where as the military spending on a global basis was 780 billion dollars. This is absolutely ridiculous when the cost to provide the basic necessities in which society would need to function is far less. To provide basic health care and nutrition for all would cost 13 billion US dollars. Our priorities are not realistic. Money is being spent foolishly on wants, not needs. This is not sustainable development.

The Stern report made a very good argument on how climate change can be tackled and in what ways it can be accomplished. However, this must be done on a global basis. All countries must be willing to participate. An international framework must be set that should include key areas including emissions trading, technology cooperation, action to reduce deforestation and adaptation. Emissions trading can help promote reductions in emissions by governments putting a cap on how much carbon emissions can be released. This should be made a regulatory law, therefore companies will have to follow suit and obey, resulting in a decrease of greenhouse gases released. An increase of funding will also need to be put into the research and development of new low-carbon technology. An international effort of R&D will make it occur faster and these technologies can be put into production quicker. Deforestation, a large player in climate change should be reduced as it is basically taking away a resource that is a large carbon capturer. And finally adaptation by developed countries providing assistance overseas and fully factoring in climate change with development policies.

I feel that the Stern Review makes a lot of good points and overall is what we need to do in order to curb climate change. However, I have a strong doubt with the whole “global participation” factor. A lot of time and effort would have to be made in order to get every country involved. There would also be a lot of opposing ideas and not everyone would agree with the framework for reducing climate change presented. Under developed countries will not have the funding in order to do their part and will have to rely on more developed countries for support. The more prosperous countries may not be willing to assist and thus will create more conflict. Also, if a plan is presented and all the countries participate, what will be the success rate of the countries staying faithful to it? An example that comes to mind is regarding the Kyoto Protocol and the USA. George Bush withdrew the Unites States from the Kyoto Protocol due to the fact that it would be detrimental to the economy of the United States. Another reason was because the protocol was exempt from developing countries. Due to the situation our planet is in right now, climate change must be addressed. By this happening, sustainable development will prosper. However I feel that there are a lot of negative variables that can affect this from moving forward. The cost of inaction on a global basis will be detrimental to the economy, society and the environment. However, I do not see a full scale plan being put into effect any time soon due to the many opposing views that countries and organizations have with the action that should be taken. Past efforts put forward have had a degree of success but have not been able to withstand one key variable, which is time.