Download Different views surrounding management of climate change

Case Study 16 – A case study to explore differing views surrounding the
management of climate change at the local, national and international scale
Focus: Attitudes to a low carbon future in the UK as a whole
A low carbon future could be achieved by combining three approaches.
1. Using new technologies to reduce fossil fuel use.
2. Conserving more energy and being more efficient. This could be by using low
energy appliances in the home, using more public transport and taking fewer
flights.
3. Finding ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in
long-term sinks such as forests.
Each of the above has advantages and disadvantages. Some may also prove to be
more popular than others.
National Views: UK
The UK Government have agreed to those targets set in the Kyoto Protocol and more
recent EU agreement. The UK Government wants to protect the UK from the effects of
sea-level rise to protect votes in vulnerable areas. The UK will have to encourage
individuals and businesses to adopt sustainable practices if it is to be successful.
There are many suggested approaches to a low carbon future in the UK, each has
advantages & disadvantages and opinions & views differ. For example, some argue
Nuclear Power is a solution as it has no Carbon Emissions; however, many are against
this, arguing it is dangerous and produces radioactive waste. Some argue green
technologies are better, such as solar and wind power but many people don’t want these
built near their homes and argue they are unreliable sources of energy. A spokesman for
friends of earth may suggest forest sinks are a sustainable option, as trees store carbon
and soak up carbon dioxide, but others argue this alone is not enough to cut carbon
emissions. It is a massive debate, with many differing views.
International Views
In 1997 world leaders met in Kyoto, Japan to try to agree on how to tackle climate
change. Many developed nations agreed to reduce their emission of greenhouse gases
by 5% below the levels they were emitting in 1990. This agreement is called the Kyoto
Protocol. While countries like the UK try to cut carbon emissions, the growing economies
of India & China are increasing their emissions. They argue that they need to increase
their emissions. They argue that they need to increase electrical production to create
wealth and get rid of poverty. So carbon dioxide levels (currently around 380ppm) are
likely to increase for some years, even if European and other countries reduce their
emissions. At the time this plan was made, the then biggest producer of harmful gases in
the world - the USA, did not sign up to the treaty. The USA government argue there is no
point if other countries such as China do not do anything to tackle climate change. In
2008, the members of the EU agreed to two new targets:
• To reduce overall Carbon Dioxide emissions by 20% of their 1990 levels by 2020.
This would be achieved by investment in renewable energy production such as
wind, solar & hydro-electricity.
• For each country to source at least 10% of its transport fuel from biofuel. Biofuel
is the kind of fuel that is made from natural plant oils. It is considered to be
carbon neutral because these quick growing crops absorb as much carbon from
the atmosphere while they are growing as they give off when are burnt as fuel.
Local views
The national strategies to tackle climate change can cause controversy at a local level.
An example of this is fracking and the building of wind farms. However, this has caused
huge controversy on a national and local level in the UK. Firstly, because it uses huge
amounts of water that must be transported to the fracking site, at significant
environmental cost to the local environment and people. It can contaminate
groundwater, causing water pollution problems for local communities. There are also
worries that the fracking process can cause small earth tremors.
If the UK are to reach their national targets. Individuals will have to take action. There
are lots on things what individuals can do, such as, insulating their homes, using
low energy appliances, using more public transport & taking fewer flights. However,
individuals argue that they cannot afford or don’t have the time to adopt these practices.
For example, insulating homes is costly and a low income family would argue the
government should pay for this. Furthermore, public transport is sometimes more
expensive than driving, so a person may say they cannot afford to do so. Some local
authorities have introduced schemes to overcome opposing views, such as low cost park
& ride schemes and increased cycle paths.