Debate on climate change

6 June 2017

Debate on Climate Change Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of It may be a change in average weather conditions or the distribution of events around that average. for example more or fewer extreme weather events. Climate change may be limited to a particular region or may occur across the whole Earth. I t is a broader context of human dimensions in which insufficient attention has been given to the Issues on how to cultivate a cross disciplinary approach to address what Is complex and systemic problem.

We will write a custom essay sample on
Debate on climate change
or any similar topic specifically for you
Do Not Waste
Your Time
HIRE WRITER

This essay seeks to bring that issue into focus and for the purpose of this essay shall be discussing, the description of climate change; the western nations too influence by capitalism to effectively deal with this problem with reference to Australia politics. I shall also support my view with what actions from experts should we not take to respond to climate change as well as critically analysing possible solutions to ameliorate the global warming and conclusion.

Climate change Is not d new apocalypse; the climate of the earth has always been changing from year-to-year, century-to-century and millennium-to-millennium charmine EJ Hartel 2010). This Is one of the controversial issues going on In Australia polltlcs at the moment (carbon tax) which shall discuss later on In this topic. one of the greatest challenges that are facing humanity in this century according to Graeme/Pearman (2010) is climate change and degradation of the environment.

It has been observed that humans produce this global impact through our use of natural resources, multiplied by the vast increase In population (reproduction & consumption) seen In the past 50 to 100 years This Is also associated with lots of ther problems such as reduction of glaciers, loss of critical habitats and so on. There is no doubt that this Is a broader context of human dimensions and we need to address, for example the human causes, the consequences, and response (adaptation &mltlgatlon) to climate change.

We also need to address the links between these aspects ot climate change &cognitive, effective, motivational, interpersonal, and organizational responses and processes of human behaviors (Swin etal 2011, Rogerson et all Lord Monckton also supported that there Is overwhelming evidence that humans are the dominant cause of this warming, rimarily due to our greenhouse ges emissions. Based on fundamental physics and mathematics, he stated that “we can quantity the amount ot warming human activity is causing, and verify that were responsible for essentially all of the global warming over the past 3 decades.

In fact, we expect human greenhouse gas emissions to cause more warming than weVe thus far seen, due to the thermal inertia of the oceans (the time It takes to heat them)”. Cached The culture and structure of our economies are related to the nature ot our climate, its regularity,’Variability and severity. Climate change should therefore be a major field of inquiry in the social, behavior and organizational sciences generally.

This Is especially so given because most of the human activities of this current warming are of high degree of Importance and further change need to be anticipated New scientific evidence of responses to it (see for example Hansen et all, 2007; Rahmstorf et al 2007). To avoid more increase warming in the future such responses (actions) need to be both adaptive that is how we and natural ecosystems react and response to climate change and make it less harmful, how the growth of emissions of greenhouse gases an be reduced and reversed (Charmine EJ Hartel, Graeme/Pearman 2010).

In Australia Just as I said earlier on in this topic the issues of carbon tax is the talk of the day. It has been a big struggle between Julia Gillard (prime minister) and Tony Abbott (opposition leader). On the 8th of November, the senate passed legislation towards clean energy which they thought will pave away for one of the most important environmental and economic reforms in the nation’s history.

According to the Julia Government the passage of the clean Energy Future legislative package will allow Australia to begin reducing emissions, developing and fostering new echnologies in renewable energy, which will encourage energy efficiency and create more opportunities in the land sector to cut pollution. The intention is to drive investment in clean energy and ensure Australia play its role as a global citizen. A fixed carbon price of $23 a tonne is set to apply from 1 July, 2012, moving to a flexible price after three years. The carbon price tax is to be paid only by Australia’s largest polluters.

They said For most people, the Government’s comprehensive Household Assistant Package will cover, and in many cases exceed, any prices rises. In fact, nine ut of 10 household will receive compensation from a combination of tax cuts and increases to family benefits (The Australia Affairs December 8, 2011). The carbon tax will introduce costs to approximately 500 businesses which are comprised of Australia’s heaviest polluters. Some of these companies as we know are termed “trade exposed”, which means that they compete with offshore companies who may not be subject to the same carbon pricing scheme.

There are six streams of industry assistance in the carbon price package. The Jobs and Competitiveness Program provides $9. 2 billion worth of free permits to trade exposed industries. They will include steel manufacturers, aluminium producers and cement producers. They will receive either 94. 5% or 66% of their permit for free, depending on the intensiveness of the carbon they produced. Liquefied natural gas producers are set to receive 50% of their permit for free. The overall rate of compensation will be reduced by 1. % per year, and the entire program will be reviewed by the Productivity Commission in 2014 (Environmental Defenders Office Victoria 2011). Murray Deakin in demystifying the proposed carbon tax explain that about 500 of Australia’s highest polluting ompanies will be required to buy and surrender a permit with the initial priced of $23 for every tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent they emit. There is no doubt that the top 500 businesses will pass on this additional “carbon tax” related cost in the form of increased prices for electricity, gas and other emission intensive products (such as steel and aluminium).

There is no argument that the proposed carbon price will not have an impact on all businesses, regardless of their size and shape. Murray went further to say that global warming is real, man-made and vital, but the present esponse has not worked for 20 years, wont work now and wont solve it in the television, radio, newspapers-bad plan. This is especially true for Australia, which has introduced a carbon tax that will not work, while developing debate on an alternative solution (Dynamic business Published 2011).

Furthermore, Bjorn Lomborg said the real problem with the carbon tax is not that cant be academically Justified but that it is not a significant part of the solution to environmental degradation. According to Bjorn “it creates a feeling of doing good while achieving very little, and has led to a olitical polarisation on the issue, obscuring the real problem, and solution”. The green energy is too expensive and not ready to replaced fossil fuels that is the real truth. Let not deceive ourselves, any realistic carbon tax right now wont be sufficient to change that.

To reach the much-vaunted 2C target would require a worldwide tax on carbon of about $4000/tonne, or more than $9/litre of petrol towards the end of the century, obviously this is not politically feasible in Australia, let alone in emerging nations such as China. More also, such a tax would lead to costs many times more than the problem it was meant to fix. There is another way. The issue is that green energy is too expensive, ameliorating that by making fossil fuels so expensive no one will want them is never going to work. Instead we should be aiming on how to make green energy so cheap so that everyone can afford it.

As a group of Nobel laureate economists concluded when convened by the Copenhagen Consensus Centre to identify the smartest solutions to this challenge, “we should devote Just 0. 2 per cent of global GDP, roughly $100bn a year, to green energy research and development”. I believed that this would have a much higher likelihood than the introduction of arbon tax which is kind of game-changing breakthroughs needed to fuel a carbon- free future. The global warming will be fixed if we could provide solar panels that are cheaper than fossil fuels in the next two to three decade for everyone to switch to.

Not only would such a solution be much less expensive than trying to cut carbon emissions, it would also reduce global warming far more quickly. The developing countries would be likely to embrace this solution rather than the carbon tax. Australia as one of the leader on climate change, should aim to be a real leader in solving the problem. It could do so by smartly funding green research instead of increasing people burden by this present carbon tax. By doing so Australia would save more money with cheaper climate policy that could actually work and could bridge the gap between the government and opposition (The Australian Affairs 2011).

I agree we live in global economy with much of it having a lower production costs than our own in the developed world and we must prudently respond to the threat of climatic changes. Irrespective of where we live whether in Australia, Europe, USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand or Japan, we know our Job losses are draining our ountries and making it more difficult to support our retirement plans, health benefits, and even our national defence. But we must be careful not to further increase the costs of our products and services.

Therefore we ought not to commit ourselves to actions that will put us at disadvantage, whether it is the Kyoto protocol or some other vehicle Increase our taxes on fuels (e. g. , a carbon tax) that are inputs to production and services. We should not forget that the most valuable things we have are our health, our lives, and our family, and it is not wise to place them at risk y driving, or riding in, vehicles that put them at risk in order to save energy or other even though it would be one of the most immediate steps to slow C02 emissions. There are many ideas that may not have advantage.

For example, using biofuels that have a high fossil energy input in fertilizer or machinery, or planting trees to reduce C02, but finding out they also absorb solar radiation more than what they replace. In responding to global warming, we should take actions that make sense in their own right and which will be important whether the Earth warms or cools in the near uture. It is a certainty that the Earth in distant future will warm beyond what we have today and that the next ice age is waiting in the wings, but not for another 30,000 years or so, according to IPCC 2007- present knowledge of solar variability and orbital mechanics.

If we are concerned about global warming, a guiding principle is to do things that yield a cost savings or are neutral. Overall, we should focus on how to reduce our cost of goods sold and, at the consumer level, our living expenses, while at the same time “cleaning up our act” and looking for ways to Improve Energy Efficiency and Energy Sources (Rogerson et al 2010). In conclusion, from all the points carefully illustrated above I believed I have been able to convince the audiences that western nations are too influence by capitalism to deal with the problem of climate change.

We all can play a critical role in addressing these issues by fostering a sustainable environment. We need to develop multiple strategies for fostering a sustainable environment which could be draw from the diversity of topics and areas of specializations or discipline. A well- developed research should be carried out on how to foster environmentally ustainable behaviors. These interventions should be targeted on education of the public, message framing, feedback, decision making, the media, incentives and disincentives, and social marketing.

In fostering a sustainable environment, other sciences and professions as well as religion and ethics need to actively involve on it. We ought to be more involved directly, systematically, and visibly to draw on our current knowledge and to have palpable impact (Swin et al 2011). One of the problems we have today is that we want the world to change, but that is not true- is ot the world that need to be change it is we that need to be change because we can only change the world if we change ourselves.

Those that have been in relationship for some length of time will agree with me that it’s not easy to change someone that is close to us but rather for us to change ourselves. So it is very important for us to re-orientate ourselves, change our attitudes for this is the only way we would serve the world very well and make it a better place to live. The last and not the list this essay has lots of limitations. The need for further and ongoing multi-disciplinary and nternational research is both necessary and pressing.

A limited
time offer!
Get authentic custom
ESSAY SAMPLEwritten strictly according
to your requirements