Download Videoconference Protocol

Global Seminar 3 May, 2012
VC 08 Global Responsibility Video Conference
Host: TC3
Promoting Global Responsibility
This semester we have discussed many of the issues that currently afflict our world and that
make our current use of global resources unsustainable. We have learned that truly
sustainable solutions address the complexity of these problems by considering the
environmental, sociological, and economic facets of the issue. It is clear that changes need
to be made, and that we all have a stake in affecting this change. It is now your turn to
think about how change should occur. To add to the complexity of these problems, we must
seek solutions at the individual, institutional, and governmental levels and implement them
at the local, regional and global scale.
One of the most serious issues facing the world is global climate change. The general
scientific consensus is that humans are increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases
such as carbon dioxide by activities such as deforestation that reduce carbon sinks as well as
those which increase sources of carbon such as the burning of fossil fuels. So far, global
annual temperature has risen by about 0.8°C since the early 20th century. According to the
2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
in the 21st century, the global surface temperature is likely to rise 1.1 to 2.9 °C for their
lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4°C for their highest (IPCC 2007). Data from the
Vostock ice core in Antarctica suggest that the rate of temperature increase during the most
recent interglacial period is approximately 0.0012°C/yr. In the last 30 years, the
temperature has increased at a rate of approximately 0.02°C/yr (Jones et al 2008).
This will result in what NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman refers to as “Global Weirding”,
rather than simple uniform warming. Wet places will get wetter, dry places will get drier,
and hurricanes will get more intense. The climate in which we’ve developed our agricultural
crops will become unpredictable, and the areas in which humans have settled for millennia
will become in some cases uninhabitable. Specific predictions of the impacts global climate
change include:
 Increase in destabilizing positive feedback loops due to melting sea ice and
permafrost as well as coastal erosion, resulting in flooding and the displacement of
human coastal communities.
 Decreased agricultural productivity in some regions, with serious impacts on food
security.
 Increased disease transmission rates in some regions.
 Melting of glaciers and the subsequent reduction in drinking water and irrigation
reserves for hundreds of millions of people around the world.
These impacts are predicted to be felt most heavily in developing nations, yet the causes
originate from industrialized nations.
To address global climate change, several attempts have been made at international
cooperation. At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established, with the objective of preventing dangerous
human interference in the global climate system. The UNFCCC requires that greenhouse gas
(GHG) concentrations be stabilized at a level where ecosystem services are not disrupted and
economic development can be sustained. Since this Convention, greenhouse gases have
risen, largely due to the lack of any mandates on emissions or enforcement mechanisms in
the UNFCCC.
1
The Kyoto Protocol addressed these issues by establishing mandates requiring developing
countries to take the lead in GHG emissions reductions on the basis that per-capita emissions
were relatively low in developing countries. Countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol
accepted legally binding limits on GHG emissions. Kyoto entered into legal effect in 2005,
with the first round of commitments set to expire in 2012. Success has been mixed with
some countries meeting their targeted reductions and others falling short. Notably, U.S.
President George W. Bush rejected the treaty on the basis that it exempts much of the
world, including China and India and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. This is
in spite of the fact that the U.S. is the second largest overall contributor of greenhouse gases
with the highest per-capita emissions (Table 1).
Table 1. Total emissions and per-capita emissions of GHG in partner countries.
Country
Percentage of Global GHG
Per-capita Emissions
Emissions (2008)
(tons CO2/yr) (2007)
(Source: Millennium
(Source: UN Environmental
Development Goals
Indicators)
Indicators)
23.33
4.92
China
18.11
19.74
United States
1.32
19.00
Australia
14
5.64 (Sweden Only)
European Union
0.03
1.82
Costa Rica
At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in Copenhagen in 2009 and the 16th
Conference of the Parties held in Cancun in 2010, agreements were made, but neither were
binding, and most experts believe we need to do much more in order to mitigate the impacts
of climate change.
It is clear that especially in industrialized nations, we need to enact real change in our
consumption patterns, energy infrastructure, and our overall relationship with the planet if
we are to meet the challenges posed by this global issue.
During the semester’s final videoconference we will discuss the meaning, potential and the
limits of this global responsibility and how change should occur. You should refer to the
discussion boards, the videoconferences and background reading when you develop your
arguments and questions for the videoconference. We have listed below three elements of a
change framework for the discussion in order to create a shared frame of reference. Our
question to you is:
What strategies would you advocate within this framework to help your
country or community have a positive impact on climate change?
Personal vs. Political
Many people argue that fundamental shifts in consumption choices, such as eating local food
or traveling by bicycle instead of by car, (or any number of consumption choices with clear
environmental and social impacts) would be a big step towards addressing climate change. If
2
we accept this to be true, then we must ask ourselves how we can make this shift happen.
Should we encourage and persuade people to reduce their consumption fossil fuels? Or
should we lobby for legal changes that would ban or put high taxes on carbon emissions?
This question also relates to the question of policies that address awareness or structure.
Should we put our effort into raising peoples’ awareness of causes and impacts of climate
change in the hope that they will act in accordance with this awareness? Or should we,
through legislation, impose structures on people that make them act sustainably and
responsibly regardless of what they think about sustainability and responsibility?
Local vs. Global
“Think Globally, Act Locally” has been a familiar refrain over many years. Are our mitigate
climate change best directed at the local level, for example at organizing local businesses
and colleges, or at the national/international level, for example trying to influence national
policies regarding carbon emissions? What about national versus international? Will it be
effective for individual countries to develop their own strategies or should we continue to try
for international agreements like Kyoto, Copenhagen and Canucun? Given the lack of
progress on policy so far, what is the likelihood that a meaningful and effective international
agreement can be implemented in time to mitigate the most serious impacts of climate
change?
Efforts aimed at promoting sustainability (including environmental, social and economic
aspects), can be addressed at a variety of levels. There are those who suggest that the most
effective way to promote change is to focus action on the local arena, while others argue
that without altering the ‘big picture’, local efforts will not amount to much. Taking into
account the discussions we have had with respect to the issues tackled during this year’s
Global Seminar, what are the implications of these two approaches?
Immanent vs. Transcendent
Are certain systems (such as: capitalism, communism, global free trade, industrialisation
etc.) unsustainable by themselves, or is it the way in which we do things within these
systems that causes them to be unsustainable? Maybe it would be helpful to frame this
discussion in terms of working for change within the ‘system’ as opposed to working for
change by changing the system (or working outside the system).
If we believe that the root of the problem is located within the system, then we need to
formulate our critique and our alternatives in a transcendent way, i.e. a way that aims
beyond the existing systems. Is it at all possible to imagine an alternative to today’s world?
If we believe that the systems are not bad in themselves (or that we cannot change them)
then we would look for immanent solutions. Such solutions would include technological
improvements, refining policies and regulations.
Technological solutions and demands for education are immanent solutions; they do not
really question any system. Is it not both cheaper and less controversial to ask for an
educational system than for altering world economy? But what if they do not solve the root
of the problem? But how could a change in system take place? And what would an
alternative system look like? So far in history, alternative systems seem not to have worked
out very well, just look at all socialist states. Consider also the DIY-movement (do-ityourself), the demand that individuals should take action as consumers, buy sustainable
products, recycle and so on. That looks really as if it questions the capitalist system. But
does it really? Maybe that in fact just reinforces the system of marked economy, as it sees
3
the fundamental unit of action to be the individual consumer in the market. Is this what was
intended?
Videoconference Protocol
For this videoconference, each university will propose 2 strategies for addressing the
challenge of climate change in the 21st century. Each strategy should be articulated in a
single clear, concise statement. Each university will then explain how their strategies will
help to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and how they propose to implement
their strategies. For the implementation part, each university should explain how their
strategy best fits within the personal or political approach or a local or a global approach,
immanent or transcendent approach.
Time
0–5
5 – 13
13-17
17-27
27-35
35-39
Activity and actors
Introduction and orientation by host (TC3)
Presentation of strategies: BNU (8 minutes)
Microphones off (4 minutes)
Questions to Beijing about strategy (10 minutes)
Presentation of strategies: Melbourne (8 minutes)
Microphones off (4 minutes)
39-49
Questions to Melbourne about strategy (10 minutes)
49 – 57
57-61
61-71
71 - 79
79 – 83
83 – 93
93 – 100
100-102
Presentation of strategies: Uppsala (8 minutes)
Microphones off (4 minutes)
Questions to Uppsala about strategy (10 minutes)
Presentation of strategies: TC3 (8 minutes)
Microphones off (4 minutes)
Questions to TC3 about strategy (10 minutes)
Concluding comments from faculty around the world
Goodbye
References
IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt,
K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L., ed., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press
Jones, P.D., D.E. Parker, T.J. Osborn, and K.R. Briffa. 2008. Global and hemispheric
temperature anomalies--land and marine instrumental records. In Trends: A Compendium of
Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
4