As a moderator for the Mock UN Negotiation simulation in my ENVS 326 class, I was able to gain a unique perspective as an outside observer of policy. The negotiations were centered around 5 key factors: Emission Peak Year, Reductions Begin Year, Annual Reduction Rate, Rate of Deforestation Prevention, Rate of Afforestation Promotion. Each region worked together in order to reach a resolution to lower the rate global warming below 2° C, however in the end, the regions failed to collectively do so. Reflecting on the policies presented, the US presented no change in policy which was one of the main areas that could have improved the warming conditions. Not only did they initially fail to present a policy change, even after further negotiations, they still continued with the business as usual approach (no change). If I were to adjust one portion of the trial, I would have changed the US policy to commit to an annual emission reduction rate of at least 2%. Going into the negotiations, I had no expectations as I was not aware of what the delegates would be bringing to the table. From the simulation, the process of negotiations seemed to lack many aspects of the SUCCES framework. In order for the negotiations to successfully proceed, there should have been more persuasive/emotive language. Targeting emotions and utilizing stories would have been beneficial in persuading regions to strive for lower emission standards as well as greater rates of deforestation prevention and afforestation promotion. Also, by using language that evokes emotion, this could help push the regions to target a faster peak and reduction year as the urgency would be more apparent. Often times, simply using credible and concrete facts is not enough to push for great change as humans are mostly run by emotions. Overall, the importance of achieving strong resolutions is greatly tied to the ethics of reducing emissions and stopping global warming. There must be a reason why we care to even think about our environment and the state of our future. Many question if we even “Have a Moral Obligation to Take Action to Protect the Future of a Planet in Peril?” The simple answer is yes. As humans, we have an obligation to fix the damage we have created. Not only this, but for the sake of our generations as well as future generations of both humans and all organisms that are impacted by climate change. As the Introduction to Climate Science Chapter on Ethics states, “If severe planetary change threatens to undermine the foundations of human thriving, and if human thriving is a fundamental value, then we have an obligation to avert the degradations that threaten us.” One of the biggest philosophical questions is with regards to the intrinsic value of humans as well as other organisms. In order for us to save our planet, we have to care about others rather than ourselves by giving value to all beings. At the end of the day, our compassions towards ourselves, others, and future generations will define who we are and how we can adapt to save the planet.
2 Comments
11/16/2022 09:46:59 am
Impact property deep south record church. Control military positive.
Reply
3/23/2023 09:51:12 pm
Lovely blog, thanks for taking the time to share this
Reply
Leave a Reply. |