Environment Issues in Business
The environmental pollution has led to climate change issues that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) notes that is no longer a scientific curiosity and has become the major environmental issue in our time and the greatest challenge to environmental regulators (2009). In addition the UNEP notes that climate change has economic, food production, health and safety, and security dimensions among others. There have been several climate change conferences and institutions that have been instituted to come up with strategies to look at the climate change issue. The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference is one of the meetings that have been held. Other earlier meetings and agreements include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1980s and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1944 (UNEP, 2009).
This paper addresses the latest United Nations climate change conference that was held in 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The meeting failed to reach an agreement on climate change targets leading to some business and political implications. This paper will highlight these implications as well as look at the major losers and winners brought about by the failure of the member states
Question Failure to reach agreement on climate change targets in Copenhagen in 2009 delayed political action on the implementation of market mechanisms to encourage greenhouse gas reductions in industries.
What do you regard as the wider business implications of this policy failure and who do you consider to be the winners and losers of the Copenhagen outcome
Goal of the Summit
The agenda of the summit was to demonstrate how well adopted policies in combination with creative business models can help in the transformation of the economy and stimulate job creation and low carbon solutions (Copenhagen, 2009). The main agenda of the meeting however was to sign a new climate change treaty that would have ensured that there is control of emission of toxic gases to the environment by industries.
According to Copenhagen (2009), the meeting also addressed the following key areas how to create robust global carbon markets, finance clean energy, boost energy efficiency, how to promote investment in technology Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment (RDDD), how to underpin technology collaboration and solve IPR issues, how to protect forests and develop sustainable land use, how to manage and fund adaptation to the effects of climate change and how to measure and report progress.
Failures of the Copenhagen Climate Change Meeting 2009
The world leaders strived to ensure that the Copenhagen climate change meeting of 2009 was a success by signing an implementing the Copenhagen Accord. However, this was just on paper practically this has proved to be a hard task. Dvorsky (2010) has outlined the five major reasons that worked against the success of the agenda at the conference. The first reason that led to the failure of the conference was that most nation-states are self serving. This means that when it comes to major decision making and implementation, the relevant governments think first about themselves and what they stand to gain before they think of what they have to offer.
Another reason that contributed to the failure of the summit is that most nations democracies are too ill-equipped and irresolute to deal with impending crises. This is mainly because there is no common constitution that governs the member states. In addition to that, the Peoples Republic of China has been isolated by other world super powers. This is despite the fact that the Peoples Republic of China is among the world leading superpowers and a force to reckon with in economic growth, development as well as the control of emission of toxic gases in the universe. The fourth reason that led to the failure of the meeting was as a result of the powerful corporatist mega structures. This was mainly witnessed after the onset of the world economic crisis that affected most countries from 2007.
In conclusion, there was a weak consensus by the members on the reasons for global warming. This is because not all nations and investors supported the call for the reduction of the emission of greenhouse gases to the environment especially politicians who used the forum to propel their careers in the pretence of supporting the agenda of the meeting.
Business Implications of the Failure of the Copenhagen Climate Change Meeting
The failure of the negotiations has been greatly blamed on the United States negotiators who aided in preventing the signing of the necessary measures against global warming and instead made unnecessary vows of greenhouse gas emissions. This threw the whole debate into confusion (Lovins, 2010).
According to PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2010) the implication of the failure to reach an agreement during the Copenhagen summit is not just business and economy related, but it also has social, environmental and political impacts. Just like the Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997 but implemented in 2001, the Copenhagen Summit cannot be ruled out as a total failure. Kulovesi and Gutierrez (2009) observed that the summit has been widely seen as a failure, but from a critical look high-level political compromises were required. It is important to note that some business communities have not been waiting for the failed policy of the Copenhagen to implement some environmental policy. They adapted a policy known as themes and trends (Post Copenhagen Analysis Implication for Business). It was supposed to be implemented and submitted by companies to the UN by December 2010. The themes and trends are Taxation, Carbon Markets, Marketing, Carbon Management, Regulation and Standards and Energy Efficiency (PWC, 2010).
Under taxation, there is an expectation that the taxes on carbon and greenhouse gases will be increased. This will ensure that companies and industries strive to reduce the emission of the gases in order to reduce the higher taxes imposed on them (PWC 2010).
The carbon marketing aspect was not spared also, the carbon prices are on the rise. This will help companies regulate their purchase of carbon for industrial use and as a result opt for cheaper and more sustainable approaches. The end of the recession has opened a new door for companies to do marketing and advertising as well as sensitizing the public about the effects of global warming (PWC 2010). In terms of reporting, companies are required to annually submit emission reports for different analysis and regulation to the government. This will help the government be able to determine the amount to greenhouse gases being released in the environment by specific company.
Carbon management policies are also being put in place for companies that rely on carbon as the main source of raw material (PWC 2010).Regulation and standards are to be put in place for market procedures and non market policy. The regulations and standards are to separately cover the areas for home and office appliances as well as the transport and industries sectors.
The energy efficiency aspect of the theme and trends will address the area of fuel saving measures that can be used by companies and industries as well as individuals. This will help reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the environment (PWC 2010).
On an environmental point of view, the effects of the policy failure have a direct impact on the environment. According to Williams (2010), the delay in reaching a concrete agreement will continue to contribute to the abnormal weather patterns and conditions. This can be witnessed in terms of high temperatures and an increase in the number of earthquakes and tsunamis. This in turn will affect the quality of soil which most of the population depends on for farming. This is a real environmental disaster.
Another implication of the failed policy is that the attention of the world has now shifted from coming up with solutions on how to deal with global warming and now more focus is on adapting strategies and means to deal with the consequences brought about by global warming. Yngve (2010) noted that the climate change problem has now been embraced. In addition to that, he observed that the current generation of leaders failed to make an impact and solve this problem and now it is their grandchildren who must take up the mantle and come up with a lasting solution. He finally concludes that the summit was the last chance to change course before chaos descend
Winners and Losers of the Copenhagen Climate Change Meeting
In every forum where there is debate on a particular issue, there are always the winners and the losers. This also applies to the Copenhagen meeting where there emerged victors and losers after the end of the forum.
The Peoples Republic of China was a major winner after the summit. However, this win represents other countries like South Africa, Brazil, India and other small developing nations. China has grown economically and has emerged as a world superpower and economic giant (Cable and Ferdinand, 1994) that has been generally ignored by other world super powers and members of the G8 and G20. Chinas presence and arguments at the talk introduced a new group of economic and superpower giants, the G2 which consists of China and US. Chinas views represented views of most of the 193 nations that were present at the summit. The G8 and the US were considered the losers of the day. It is argued that the US and the G8 settled for what they could get out of the accord but not what they hoped for. Lovins (2010) however observes that the US under the leadership of President Barrack Obama may not completely tackle the menace but the president will help take the process to the next level. Ninety percent of global warming is caused by a group of about 30 nations and it is these nations that Obama tried to convince to sign a deal to finance poor and developing nations to help them develop climate change and greenhouse gas emission strategies (Revkin and Broder 2009).
The major elements of the Copenhagen Accord favoured most parties involved which were the US, China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the G8 nations. This left the poor nations with no option but to agree with the documents. The key elements of the Accord stated that nations agreed to work together in reducing emissions and heeded warnings to prevent temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above the normal levels (Revkin and Broder, 2009). Secondly, developing nations will report every two years on their chosen strategies of reducing greenhouse gases emissions. The reports will then be taken through international consultations and analysis, for further action a special privilege given to the United States by China. Lastly, economic giants are required to contribute 10 billion a year, in a 3 year program to pay for poorer nations projects to deal with drought and other climate-change impacts, and to develop clean energy. The amount is set to rise to 100 billion a year in future (Revkin and Broder, 2009).
Conclusion
Global warming and climate change has been a thorny issue for many years. The worlds superpowers have held forums to try and come up with the best way to deal with this. In most cases however, they have only come up with paper policies and board room decisions which are impossible to implement. There are several factors that led to the failure of the Copenhagen Accord. In contrast though, the accord has had some positive outcomes for major players in the industrial world as well as the developing and the poor nations.
Although the outcome of the Copenhagen Climate Change meeting in 2009 did not meet the expectations of the world population, it is a sure sign that there is light at the end of the tunnel. This is can be reflected in the major Copenhagen Accords that were agreed upon by China, the US, and other nations that were in attendance. The agreement by the world superpowers to reduce greenhouse gases emissions and give financial support to the poor nations is a sure sign of good things to come. The task however is for the nations to stop being self centred and greedy and ensure that they do not breach the agreement.
In addition, there is a need to adopt sustainable strategies that will mitigate the causes of climate change and global warming rather than relying on strategies to deal with the effects of climate change.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment