From Kyoto to Copenhagen – Cut Emissions or Cut Jobs?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The options
Possible resolutions
Works Cited

Introduction

Developing and developed countries are confused about either protecting the environment or their jobs. While both goals are noble, countries must make sacrifices in one area in order to realize gains in another sector.

The options

Global leaders agree that global warming is a real problem; if the rate of increase in green house emissions continues, then the world would experience greater flooding along coastal lines, more droughts, heat waves and other unwanted outcomes. However, to cut down on these emissions, nations must commit to green house gas reduction policies that often take a toll on their financial status.

Countries are now confronted with an ethical dilemma. They are concerned about job losses that may emanate from the replacement of environmentally unfriendly energy sources with clean fuels. On the other hand, if they do nothing, then they may have to make drastic sacrifices in the future to save the environment.

This state of indecision was reflected in the latest environment convention – The Copenhagen Accord. Not only did this report lack any precise reporting and verification procedures, but it also had no particular targets on emissions. Countries only agreed on the vague goal of cutting down global warming by 2 degrees Celsius at the end of this century (Peng Global 49).

A number of the leading polluting countries such as the United States and China could not agree on one clear direction. The US wanted to make a deal with China that would require it to finance the country’s environmental efforts provided it met certain conditions. Conversely, China cried foul and argued that this would infringe on their sovereignty rights.

The lack of consensus between such central nations in the emissions-debate implies that international climate conventions are gridlocked. Peng The Global strategy (97) claimed that Chinese multinationals are now global enterprises. Consequently, their polluting effects have international ramifications. If the world aims at solving the problem of global warming then it must work hand in hand with countries like China.

To understand the extent of this ethical difficulty, one can analyze the effects of eliminating or at least reducing coal-dependant power plants. Since the coal industry employs a high number of workers, then eliminating it would result in millions of job losses. In America alone, about 2.7 million people would loose their jobs within the next three years. Clean energy sources cannot match up to the economic viability of the coal industry.

Not only is it expensive to set up infrastructure for the production of renewable sources of energy, but employment rates in these new industries would not be as promising as they currently are in the coal industry. Therefore, taking such drastic measures (such as eradicating the coal industry) could create social unrest due to economic constraints. On the flipside, failure to cut down emissions could leave many countries susceptible to future crises emanating from poor environmental management.

Possible resolutions

No clear cut solutions exist to this ethical dilemma. Nonetheless, players can still attempt to minimize the problem. First, all countries ought to be involved in development of an agreement. Additionally, since the Kyoto Protocol failed because of certain loopholes, then state leaders need to learn from the past and avoid such strategies in the future.

Country heads must think of renewable as investments. Emission reduction stimulates innovations and development of new technologies. Consequently, reluctant nations should be sensitized about these benefits so as to get them on board.

Works Cited

Peng, Mike. Global. Texas: South Western Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.

Peng, Mike. “The global strategy of emerging multinationals from China.” Global Strategy Journal 2(2012): 97-107. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!

From Kyoto to Copenhagen – Cut Emissions or Cut Jobs?

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)