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.

First Blog Post - What Is Sustainable Development To Me

What Is Sustainable Development?

Sustainable development to me means that development of the earth and society are kept balanced with regards to the use and replenishing of non-renewable/renewable resources. By this occurring, future generations will have the opportunity to use these resources to meet their own needs. Resources need to be used for everything as it is basically impossible to create a product without relying on a resource present on this planet. The key concept to this though is to being able to make sure that the resource used is accounted for and/or used in a way that can maximize the lifespan of it. An example of this is the use of trees for creating plywood that would be used for building construction. The organization/company responsible for the use of the natural resource should be held accountable to make sure that the portion that they used would be replenished. So, the company would plant trees in order to sustain the amount they used for the creation of the plywood. By doing this, sustainable development would occur. What is used is replaced so that future generations can have the opportunity to use it and continue the cycle.

If this actually was the case and everything that was used was taken in account for and made sure to be replaced back into the earth, everything would run remarkably smooth. There would never be a shortage of a renewable resource, a non-renewable resources existence would be maximized and made to last as long as possible, and technology as a whole would develop and evolve. The world would advance readily and develop for future generations while maintaining a balance of the resources used.

To me, this scenario seems farfetched. Companies and corporations as a whole do not follow the term “sustainable development”. The majority are looking at making the most profit by doing as little as possible. A good example of this is major oil companies, whom make many promises that they will do many great things for the areas in which they work in and the communities that surround these areas. Millions and millions of dollars are spent this way, which is good and helps out the communities greatly. However, this is “sugar-coating” the actual reality of the situation. They are not seeing the whole picture. Oil production has hit peak oil, which is where production has exceeded known reserves found. This should set off an alarm and make the companies reevaluate their protocols. By seeing this startling reality, I feel that these oil giants should maybe reflect more on how they can minimize the need of oil and try to research and find a different resource that could be used in place of oil. By doing this, the future of their company would be more secure as well as oil production would be slowed down which would make the resource last a lot longer for future generations. All the blame cannot be put on the companies however. It is a large cycle that revolves around the supply and demand of oil. Many companies are dependent on oil for their products to work or be made. Society in general is taking this non-renewable resource for all it has to offer and is not slowing down and re-evaluating what can happen once all of this resource has been used up.

This blog post has ended up to be revolving largely around oil and oil production. I didn’t really intend to finish it like that, however I feel that the use of oil is a major concern and needs to be changed. Society, government as well as oil companies should look at ways in order to minimize the need for this resource. It is a non-renewable resource and at the rate it is being extracted and consumed is not following my idea of sustainable development. If this does not get re-evaluated, future generations will not have the opportunity to use this resource to further better themselves and advance technologically within their own generation.