* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Videoconference Protocol
Global warming hiatus wikipedia , lookup
Climatic Research Unit documents wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in New Zealand wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Climate Change conference wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
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