Sustainability and Immigration
16 years ago
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Assigment #7, Part 2
Part 2
1) http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/23/23greenwire-industry-enviro-groups-spar-over-senate-climat-61576.html?scp=15&sq=sustainability&st=cse
2) Wood-biomass electricity has been known as a clean energy to all of us. To use forests for generating biomass fuel coincides with the policy goal of sustainable development if the sustainability standard is abided by. However, the article shows the political conflict and opinions of forest industry and environmental groups about Senate Climate Bill’s biomass provisions of forest to protect climate and improve sustainability of nation level.
Congress and environmental groups request stronger sustainability than the previous standard. Clearing forests to generate biomass fuel would quickly outpace environmental gains in the change from fossil fuels to biomass. On the other hand, forest industry argues that market realities without government intervention would prevent deforestation as landowners keep trees to protect long-term productions. The imposition of new biomass regulations on the industry to ban biomass extraction on federally designated wilderness tracts would add costs and discourage the harvest of forest, so that it won’t be profitable. Nearly 100 forestry organizations such as the American Forest Resource Council, the National Alliance of Forest Owners, Duke Energy Corp., and Xcel Energy Inc. urged the law-makers to place no limits on the harvest of biomass from private property whose 57 percent is private.
Sustainability standard of climate and energy law to put a price on carbon, create a renewable energy and fuel standard can be a big new pressure as well as incentives to use biomass to create energy. Therefore, desirable definition and conceptual coverage of sustainability is required to induce forest industry’s support.
3) States with particularly serious deforestation problem may at times go much further than a national government in development policy as California had led the United States in developing automobile emissions regulations by offering a smaller and more manageable political arena (Wheeler, p.125).
However, above problem should be addressed at the national level in that state governments may not have own pure independent resources and jurisdiction. Forests can be overlapped across states and provision, so that the authority of the forest can be not obvious and authority adjustment among states may be required. To deal with equity-oriented concerns at the national level is very important, while state and local governments tend to vary widely in their ability or willingness to develop their own sustainability plan (Wheeler, p.123).
I think that if policy makers try to implement the issue at the state level, the environmental quality’s improvement is very small and is difficult to measure because environmental problems such as climate protection and renewable resource are also global issues need a national commitment rather than state and local effort. Particularly, climate change by air movement and deforestation happen beyond the boundary between states. Therefore, the performance estimate within state level is ambiguous. State governments alone are able to undertake only piecemeal action on such widespread issues although such small-scale contributions can not be ignored (Wheeler, p.123).
1) http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/23/23greenwire-industry-enviro-groups-spar-over-senate-climat-61576.html?scp=15&sq=sustainability&st=cse
2) Wood-biomass electricity has been known as a clean energy to all of us. To use forests for generating biomass fuel coincides with the policy goal of sustainable development if the sustainability standard is abided by. However, the article shows the political conflict and opinions of forest industry and environmental groups about Senate Climate Bill’s biomass provisions of forest to protect climate and improve sustainability of nation level.
Congress and environmental groups request stronger sustainability than the previous standard. Clearing forests to generate biomass fuel would quickly outpace environmental gains in the change from fossil fuels to biomass. On the other hand, forest industry argues that market realities without government intervention would prevent deforestation as landowners keep trees to protect long-term productions. The imposition of new biomass regulations on the industry to ban biomass extraction on federally designated wilderness tracts would add costs and discourage the harvest of forest, so that it won’t be profitable. Nearly 100 forestry organizations such as the American Forest Resource Council, the National Alliance of Forest Owners, Duke Energy Corp., and Xcel Energy Inc. urged the law-makers to place no limits on the harvest of biomass from private property whose 57 percent is private.
Sustainability standard of climate and energy law to put a price on carbon, create a renewable energy and fuel standard can be a big new pressure as well as incentives to use biomass to create energy. Therefore, desirable definition and conceptual coverage of sustainability is required to induce forest industry’s support.
3) States with particularly serious deforestation problem may at times go much further than a national government in development policy as California had led the United States in developing automobile emissions regulations by offering a smaller and more manageable political arena (Wheeler, p.125).
However, above problem should be addressed at the national level in that state governments may not have own pure independent resources and jurisdiction. Forests can be overlapped across states and provision, so that the authority of the forest can be not obvious and authority adjustment among states may be required. To deal with equity-oriented concerns at the national level is very important, while state and local governments tend to vary widely in their ability or willingness to develop their own sustainability plan (Wheeler, p.123).
I think that if policy makers try to implement the issue at the state level, the environmental quality’s improvement is very small and is difficult to measure because environmental problems such as climate protection and renewable resource are also global issues need a national commitment rather than state and local effort. Particularly, climate change by air movement and deforestation happen beyond the boundary between states. Therefore, the performance estimate within state level is ambiguous. State governments alone are able to undertake only piecemeal action on such widespread issues although such small-scale contributions can not be ignored (Wheeler, p.123).
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Verizon Expands Sustainability Program to Reduce Global Carbon Footprint
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/04/12/verizon-expands-sustainability-program-to-reduce-global-carbon-footprint/
Issue and process on sustainability is very complex and needs high analysis method about the results or outcomes of program for the sustainable development.
To pursue sustainable development in companies is risky in that it requires high technologies and big capital. So, it may not make ends meet to the companies. But, this article shows the possibility of the win-win picture among Verizon employees, customers, partners and suppliers by expanding Sustainability Program to reduce global carbon footprint. Verizon initiated new energy-efficient technologies. Additional endeavor as well as government support such as U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED silver and gold certifications may be required to ensure sustainable exploitation and positive output.
Issue and process on sustainability is very complex and needs high analysis method about the results or outcomes of program for the sustainable development.
To pursue sustainable development in companies is risky in that it requires high technologies and big capital. So, it may not make ends meet to the companies. But, this article shows the possibility of the win-win picture among Verizon employees, customers, partners and suppliers by expanding Sustainability Program to reduce global carbon footprint. Verizon initiated new energy-efficient technologies. Additional endeavor as well as government support such as U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED silver and gold certifications may be required to ensure sustainable exploitation and positive output.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Assigment #6-Frameworks for Environmental Policy
Question1.
The H.R. 391 bill consisted of two sections stipulates about the definition of air pollutants related to greenhouse gases (GHG) resulting in climate change/global worming, and the authority of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). First of all, the bill’s framework can be analyzed through examining the question of whether the issues stem from a behavior fundamental to our lifestyle. One cause of climate change is our lifestyle choices, which depend on our values, and behaviors based on these values have brought population growth and excessive use of fossil fuels (Cohen, p.111). Someone may make much of just now economic development for improving current material affluence, while other people may take care of the future generation, grandchildren in the way to consider that we ourselves are living in the future and experiencing the negative impact. The perspective’s difference is resulted from the fact that the actual dangers of climate change and global worming will happen in the future. Representatively, if the carbon dioxide is included in the GHG, the use of emitter including cars may be more strictly controlled, which can bring the negative impact on economic growth.
The issue is also relevant to the ethical dimension in that poor countries and poor people are likely to be disproportionately influenced by the climate change, which may also worsen the environmental, social, and economic problems that lead to extreme poverty. We should take into account responsibility to reduce the threat of climate change/global warming for the weak and future generations.
Question2.
Though the H.R. 391 bill was introduced by Republican Mrs. Marsha Blackburn, the Obama administration has announced new standards for automobile fuel economy and global warming emissions in order to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The political conflict keeps unsettled. The counterattack of Congress occurred by two additional House bills: H.R. 4396 and H.R. 4572. On the other hand, as responses of government branch, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson laid out timetable for the GHG regulations on 2010 February 23, writing in a letter to lawmakers that she plans to start targeting large facilities such as power plants next year but won't target small emitters before 2016 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022204829.html). The EPA finalized a timeline for regulating GHG on April 1, starting with the formal decision that no power plants, industrial facilities or other stationary sources will be federally controlled for greenhouse gas emissions before January 2011 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/30/epa-greenhouse-gas-regulations).
The GHG problem of H.R. 391 bill involves other political issue. Several lawmakers of Congress argue that the EPA has already been granted substantial unconstitutional powers and wield such big power as to ignore Congress’s legal responsibility. Therefore, H.R. 391 can be evaluated as one of bills that aim to reduce the authority of EPA to regulate the greenhouse gases emission (http://www.jbs.org/energy-blog/5909-stop-the-unconstitutional-job-killing-epa-regulation-of-carbon-dioxide). If enacted, Blackburn bill would protect the U.S. economy and reassert Congress’s responsibility for national policymaking.
Question3.
We should consider the question of whether there is scientific certainty about the causes and effects of the problem. The earth’s climate is an extremely complex system, making it difficult to identify trends and their causes. However, there is certainty that greenhouse effect is making the planet warm and its climate change unlike a conventional pattern. Uncertainty of global problems exists since we do not have accurate measures of global environmental conditions and have never engineered technology on a global scale. If technical findings about components to bring the GHG were uncontroversial, supporters of the H.R. 391 will not oppose to involving elements such as the carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide in the term of air pollutants as EPA. Also, opponents to strong measures to reduce CO2 emissions tend not to believe that the cost of such measures exceeds the benefit (Cohen, p.112-113).
Many efforts for devising cost-effective substitutes for the technologies causing harms have been made. Some technologies focus on removing the gases from emissions and storing them, the process called sequestration, rather than decreasing the use of carbon-based fuels. This approach means that we can continue to use fossil fuels until they can be substituted with hydrogen-based sources of energy. Unless we develop technical alternatives to reduce CO2 emissions, our economy will suffer again and world poverty will probably increase. For example, if nuclear power had not brought a dangerous waste and security issue, it may well have replaced oil and gas, and we would all be living in the completely electric houses expected in the fifties. If we fail to devise a technology that can mitigate global warming and climate change, the consequences of the unanticipated negative impact could be catastrophic (Cohen, p.117-119).
Question4.
This bill reflects the strategic thinking of Congress to check the bloated authority of the EPA, based on political considerations, as we can see the second section of the bill which is that nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming. The EPA’s current determinations of the GHG would not be made, if there are no judgment of 2007 the Supreme Court, that the EPA has the authority to regulate GHG tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles, and the Agency must also do so if it finds that these emissions cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/environment/Supreme-Court-Tells-EPA-to-Regualte-Greenhouse-Gases.html).
We can expect that the bill comes right out of the oil/coal lobbyist's claim that Jobs will be lost. However, we can on the contrary think that it will help to create more jobs in the alternative energy field than loses job in the current industry that make rich guys richer. These potential interest groups in alternative energy industry may oppose to the pass of the bill.
Question5.
We should consider that the U.S. has the organizational and managerial capacity to devise alternative energy technology. If the capacity exists, the substitute industry will be able to offset the production shortage by lower level use of carbon fuel than current level. Plants may as ever emit carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride that the H.R. 391 bill stipulates, in order to produce goods and profits unless they have the capacity. Therefore, the companies will need the pass of the bill for their profits. If the industrial associations of oil/coal companies have useful strategic plans to control and prevent the greenhouse gas emissions, it will also become positive news in protecting the environmental problem. The public sector including Congress will have to support them for the plan to be realized, which will also reduce the political conflict in environmental policy process.
The H.R. 391 bill consisted of two sections stipulates about the definition of air pollutants related to greenhouse gases (GHG) resulting in climate change/global worming, and the authority of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). First of all, the bill’s framework can be analyzed through examining the question of whether the issues stem from a behavior fundamental to our lifestyle. One cause of climate change is our lifestyle choices, which depend on our values, and behaviors based on these values have brought population growth and excessive use of fossil fuels (Cohen, p.111). Someone may make much of just now economic development for improving current material affluence, while other people may take care of the future generation, grandchildren in the way to consider that we ourselves are living in the future and experiencing the negative impact. The perspective’s difference is resulted from the fact that the actual dangers of climate change and global worming will happen in the future. Representatively, if the carbon dioxide is included in the GHG, the use of emitter including cars may be more strictly controlled, which can bring the negative impact on economic growth.
The issue is also relevant to the ethical dimension in that poor countries and poor people are likely to be disproportionately influenced by the climate change, which may also worsen the environmental, social, and economic problems that lead to extreme poverty. We should take into account responsibility to reduce the threat of climate change/global warming for the weak and future generations.
Question2.
Though the H.R. 391 bill was introduced by Republican Mrs. Marsha Blackburn, the Obama administration has announced new standards for automobile fuel economy and global warming emissions in order to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The political conflict keeps unsettled. The counterattack of Congress occurred by two additional House bills: H.R. 4396 and H.R. 4572. On the other hand, as responses of government branch, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson laid out timetable for the GHG regulations on 2010 February 23, writing in a letter to lawmakers that she plans to start targeting large facilities such as power plants next year but won't target small emitters before 2016 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022204829.html). The EPA finalized a timeline for regulating GHG on April 1, starting with the formal decision that no power plants, industrial facilities or other stationary sources will be federally controlled for greenhouse gas emissions before January 2011 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/30/epa-greenhouse-gas-regulations).
The GHG problem of H.R. 391 bill involves other political issue. Several lawmakers of Congress argue that the EPA has already been granted substantial unconstitutional powers and wield such big power as to ignore Congress’s legal responsibility. Therefore, H.R. 391 can be evaluated as one of bills that aim to reduce the authority of EPA to regulate the greenhouse gases emission (http://www.jbs.org/energy-blog/5909-stop-the-unconstitutional-job-killing-epa-regulation-of-carbon-dioxide). If enacted, Blackburn bill would protect the U.S. economy and reassert Congress’s responsibility for national policymaking.
Question3.
We should consider the question of whether there is scientific certainty about the causes and effects of the problem. The earth’s climate is an extremely complex system, making it difficult to identify trends and their causes. However, there is certainty that greenhouse effect is making the planet warm and its climate change unlike a conventional pattern. Uncertainty of global problems exists since we do not have accurate measures of global environmental conditions and have never engineered technology on a global scale. If technical findings about components to bring the GHG were uncontroversial, supporters of the H.R. 391 will not oppose to involving elements such as the carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide in the term of air pollutants as EPA. Also, opponents to strong measures to reduce CO2 emissions tend not to believe that the cost of such measures exceeds the benefit (Cohen, p.112-113).
Many efforts for devising cost-effective substitutes for the technologies causing harms have been made. Some technologies focus on removing the gases from emissions and storing them, the process called sequestration, rather than decreasing the use of carbon-based fuels. This approach means that we can continue to use fossil fuels until they can be substituted with hydrogen-based sources of energy. Unless we develop technical alternatives to reduce CO2 emissions, our economy will suffer again and world poverty will probably increase. For example, if nuclear power had not brought a dangerous waste and security issue, it may well have replaced oil and gas, and we would all be living in the completely electric houses expected in the fifties. If we fail to devise a technology that can mitigate global warming and climate change, the consequences of the unanticipated negative impact could be catastrophic (Cohen, p.117-119).
Question4.
This bill reflects the strategic thinking of Congress to check the bloated authority of the EPA, based on political considerations, as we can see the second section of the bill which is that nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming. The EPA’s current determinations of the GHG would not be made, if there are no judgment of 2007 the Supreme Court, that the EPA has the authority to regulate GHG tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles, and the Agency must also do so if it finds that these emissions cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/environment/Supreme-Court-Tells-EPA-to-Regualte-Greenhouse-Gases.html).
We can expect that the bill comes right out of the oil/coal lobbyist's claim that Jobs will be lost. However, we can on the contrary think that it will help to create more jobs in the alternative energy field than loses job in the current industry that make rich guys richer. These potential interest groups in alternative energy industry may oppose to the pass of the bill.
Question5.
We should consider that the U.S. has the organizational and managerial capacity to devise alternative energy technology. If the capacity exists, the substitute industry will be able to offset the production shortage by lower level use of carbon fuel than current level. Plants may as ever emit carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride that the H.R. 391 bill stipulates, in order to produce goods and profits unless they have the capacity. Therefore, the companies will need the pass of the bill for their profits. If the industrial associations of oil/coal companies have useful strategic plans to control and prevent the greenhouse gas emissions, it will also become positive news in protecting the environmental problem. The public sector including Congress will have to support them for the plan to be realized, which will also reduce the political conflict in environmental policy process.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
New Jersey’s lead on ‘Clean Cars’
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/science-updates/white-house-follows-new-jerseys-lead-on-clean-cars
I found that New Jersey did a huge win for its environment, public health and energy security by pursuing ‘Clean Cars’ program announced by the Obama administration.
It will imply that the Clean Cars effort led by New Jersey shows that states can provid innovative solutions that lead to broader efforts required to result in progress on climate change, therefore, it is critically important that state authority should be kept undamaged as Federal climate legislation is drafted.
I found that New Jersey did a huge win for its environment, public health and energy security by pursuing ‘Clean Cars’ program announced by the Obama administration.
It will imply that the Clean Cars effort led by New Jersey shows that states can provid innovative solutions that lead to broader efforts required to result in progress on climate change, therefore, it is critically important that state authority should be kept undamaged as Federal climate legislation is drafted.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Conflict between political party about greenhouse gases
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/opinion/02fri2.html?scp=3&sq=greenhouse&st=cse
The linked site show political conflict status between republica and democratic party about greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The conflict happened in federal level rather than local and state government. The opponents also are trying to roll back strengthened environmental reulation of the Obama administration as we can see H.R.391 introdced in 111th congress. These conflicts are expected to maintain during the whole term of the government.
The linked site show political conflict status between republica and democratic party about greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The conflict happened in federal level rather than local and state government. The opponents also are trying to roll back strengthened environmental reulation of the Obama administration as we can see H.R.391 introdced in 111th congress. These conflicts are expected to maintain during the whole term of the government.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Assignment #5 Part 2 and 3
Part 2
1. Do you think that currently developing countries have the right to exploit forests (and other natural resources) as Europe and the U.S. did to increase their economic well-being?
a. Why or why not?
I think that developing countries should exploit natural resources including forests as developed nations did to enrich people’s lives. Developed countries have huge capital and technologies to use less carbon-intensive energy sources such as wind, solar, and hypo power. On the other hand, developing nations don’t hold sufficient technologies and money to utilize renewable sources of energy and develop alternative sources of energy such as hybrid car. According to the logic of “the Tragedy of Commons”, because natural resources is not unlimited, in order of the developed and developing nations to survive together, developed countries, which are able to decrease the use of natural resources by using substitute energy, should reduce the exploitation and supplement the decreased part with alternative sources of energy through high level of technology.
If this trend to consider each country’s development level continues, the “Tragedy of Commons” will not happen and the equity among countries in using natural resources will not break up. Instead, both of the developed and developing countries’ economy will improve. Particularly, the environmental technologies development of developed nations will more gain momentum by focusing on technologies rather than resources exploitation. Developed nations can export the eco-friendly technologies to the developing nations. In the long run, guarantee the right to developing nations will lead to coexistence of all countries in current environmental risk.
2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate?
The relationship between them is expected to be positive if industrialized nations, that have more responsibilities in climate change due to the environmental pollution by earlier economic development, take the initiative in enhancing the relationship. Industrial countries should expect that developing nations can follow international laws of climate change such as United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This expectation will be able to improve the mitigation of environmental conflict about resources utilization between both of them. Global issue such as climate change can not be solved without cooperation among all countries. The developed nations to hold high-eco friendly technology should show concern and support to developing countries in order to maintain the collaborative relationship.
a. Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate?
The equity can be divided into procedural equity and distributive equity. I think that the procedural equity between industrialized and developing countries should be considered as goal in the debate, but distributive equity is not necessarily required to all industrializing nations. Even though there is difference of significant capacity in technology and knowledge level between wealthier countries and poor countries, the developing nations have the right to participate in the environmental negotiations and assessments in democratic causes because they are entities in the whole world as small alienated groups within developed countries can not be neglected in the policy process by pluralistic perspective. However, it is difficult of distributive justice regarding how climate change affects people to be applied to all developing countries. Currently, major developing countries such as China and India are coming under increasing political pressure to abide by greenhouse gas (CHG) reductions unlike smaller developing nations (Vig, p.280). Major developing countries should in balanced way deal with the impact of economic development on environment as well as the development because poverty has improved and environmental technologies are substantial. Nowadays, the poverty problem of smaller developing nations is very serious, so that their economic development can be prior to environmental concern. But, they also need environmental support such as technologies transition from industrialized nations.
b. What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case, should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not?
Developing nations should make an effort to reduce the emissions because many poor countries as nations in Southeast Asia with low-lying coastal areas, such as Bangladesh and India, will experience a lot of negative impacts of sea level rise and intensive storm (Vig, p.280). They don’t have better management power of sea level rise than wealthy countries such as Netherlands and North American countries. The possibility that the developing countries will become the first victim of the global warming is very high now. Therefore, they will have to seek for the way to do more investment in adapting to accelerating climate change as well as in economic development.
c. Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations?
Developing countries can expect that developed nations will make an effort to reduce the negative impact of climate change. For example, president Obama had pledged to regain American leadership in global climate negotiations by reengaging in talks under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Vig, p.355). Also, EU leadership to reduce the CHG emissions can be a example to developing nations (Vig, p.272~5). We can expect that the endeavor will contribute to alleviating global environmental conflicts between developing countries and developed nations. However, the expectations will persist when the intention should not be displayed by just the specific country, but cooperative attitude from many countries including developing nations should consistently maintain.
Part 3 H.R.391
The bill name for my paper is H.R.391: To amend the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act, and for other purposes. U.S. Representatives in Tennessee’s 7th District, Republican Mrs. Marsha Blackburn introduced the bill in September 1, 2009 in the first session of 111th congress. The bill consists of two sections. The first section as greenhouse gas regulation under Clean Air Act is that the term “air pollutant” shall not include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride. The second section as climate change not to be regulated by Clean Air Act is that nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming. 153 persons including U.S. Representative in Alabama’s 4th District, Rep. Robert Aderholt participated were recorded as sponsor of the bill.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. As latest major action, the committee was discharged by Mrs. Blackburn in July 23, 2009. However, this bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first went to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions are not reported by committee yet.
As bills may have multiple titles in this and previous sessions of Congress, we need to track the status of provisions of this bill by looking for an omnibus bill. H. R. 4396 indicating “Save Our Energy Jobs Act” introduced in 111th Congress and now dead H.R. 6666 in 110th Congress is same to the H.R.391.
1. Do you think that currently developing countries have the right to exploit forests (and other natural resources) as Europe and the U.S. did to increase their economic well-being?
a. Why or why not?
I think that developing countries should exploit natural resources including forests as developed nations did to enrich people’s lives. Developed countries have huge capital and technologies to use less carbon-intensive energy sources such as wind, solar, and hypo power. On the other hand, developing nations don’t hold sufficient technologies and money to utilize renewable sources of energy and develop alternative sources of energy such as hybrid car. According to the logic of “the Tragedy of Commons”, because natural resources is not unlimited, in order of the developed and developing nations to survive together, developed countries, which are able to decrease the use of natural resources by using substitute energy, should reduce the exploitation and supplement the decreased part with alternative sources of energy through high level of technology.
If this trend to consider each country’s development level continues, the “Tragedy of Commons” will not happen and the equity among countries in using natural resources will not break up. Instead, both of the developed and developing countries’ economy will improve. Particularly, the environmental technologies development of developed nations will more gain momentum by focusing on technologies rather than resources exploitation. Developed nations can export the eco-friendly technologies to the developing nations. In the long run, guarantee the right to developing nations will lead to coexistence of all countries in current environmental risk.
2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate?
The relationship between them is expected to be positive if industrialized nations, that have more responsibilities in climate change due to the environmental pollution by earlier economic development, take the initiative in enhancing the relationship. Industrial countries should expect that developing nations can follow international laws of climate change such as United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This expectation will be able to improve the mitigation of environmental conflict about resources utilization between both of them. Global issue such as climate change can not be solved without cooperation among all countries. The developed nations to hold high-eco friendly technology should show concern and support to developing countries in order to maintain the collaborative relationship.
a. Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate?
The equity can be divided into procedural equity and distributive equity. I think that the procedural equity between industrialized and developing countries should be considered as goal in the debate, but distributive equity is not necessarily required to all industrializing nations. Even though there is difference of significant capacity in technology and knowledge level between wealthier countries and poor countries, the developing nations have the right to participate in the environmental negotiations and assessments in democratic causes because they are entities in the whole world as small alienated groups within developed countries can not be neglected in the policy process by pluralistic perspective. However, it is difficult of distributive justice regarding how climate change affects people to be applied to all developing countries. Currently, major developing countries such as China and India are coming under increasing political pressure to abide by greenhouse gas (CHG) reductions unlike smaller developing nations (Vig, p.280). Major developing countries should in balanced way deal with the impact of economic development on environment as well as the development because poverty has improved and environmental technologies are substantial. Nowadays, the poverty problem of smaller developing nations is very serious, so that their economic development can be prior to environmental concern. But, they also need environmental support such as technologies transition from industrialized nations.
b. What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case, should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not?
Developing nations should make an effort to reduce the emissions because many poor countries as nations in Southeast Asia with low-lying coastal areas, such as Bangladesh and India, will experience a lot of negative impacts of sea level rise and intensive storm (Vig, p.280). They don’t have better management power of sea level rise than wealthy countries such as Netherlands and North American countries. The possibility that the developing countries will become the first victim of the global warming is very high now. Therefore, they will have to seek for the way to do more investment in adapting to accelerating climate change as well as in economic development.
c. Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations?
Developing countries can expect that developed nations will make an effort to reduce the negative impact of climate change. For example, president Obama had pledged to regain American leadership in global climate negotiations by reengaging in talks under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Vig, p.355). Also, EU leadership to reduce the CHG emissions can be a example to developing nations (Vig, p.272~5). We can expect that the endeavor will contribute to alleviating global environmental conflicts between developing countries and developed nations. However, the expectations will persist when the intention should not be displayed by just the specific country, but cooperative attitude from many countries including developing nations should consistently maintain.
Part 3 H.R.391
The bill name for my paper is H.R.391: To amend the Clean Air Act to provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to the Act, and for other purposes. U.S. Representatives in Tennessee’s 7th District, Republican Mrs. Marsha Blackburn introduced the bill in September 1, 2009 in the first session of 111th congress. The bill consists of two sections. The first section as greenhouse gas regulation under Clean Air Act is that the term “air pollutant” shall not include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride. The second section as climate change not to be regulated by Clean Air Act is that nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming. 153 persons including U.S. Representative in Alabama’s 4th District, Rep. Robert Aderholt participated were recorded as sponsor of the bill.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. As latest major action, the committee was discharged by Mrs. Blackburn in July 23, 2009. However, this bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first went to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions are not reported by committee yet.
As bills may have multiple titles in this and previous sessions of Congress, we need to track the status of provisions of this bill by looking for an omnibus bill. H. R. 4396 indicating “Save Our Energy Jobs Act” introduced in 111th Congress and now dead H.R. 6666 in 110th Congress is same to the H.R.391.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
