The discussion of global problems, including those of the environment, is frequent in modern society. Climate changes, air pollution, global warming, and natural resource control are the burning environmental factors that have to be analyzed by authorities at international, national, and local levels. One of the well-known attempts to contribute to the solution of environmental concerns of the 2000s was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen. During this meeting, the representatives of various nations around the globe discussed the relationship between climate change and human society, also known as a silent crisis (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009).
In this paper, the basic assumptions of the silent crisis, its evidence, and challenges will be described to clarify the motifs of industrialized countries to push effective solutions and mitigate existing critics. There are many supporters and opponents of the need to investigate a current climate situation. The events of Copenhagen proved that many nations are ready to take some steps, enhance negotiations, remove unnecessary machinations that resist global development, and solve the environmental and humanitarian silent crisis.
Summaries of Sources
One of the main goals of this essay is to elaborate on the material taken from three sources and underline the most significant points about the worth of international relations in terms of environmental concerns. There are many credible articles, books, and reports where global warming is analyzed. In this paper, attention will be paid to the report by the Global Humanitarian Forum and two online articles written by Anne Petermann for Z Magazine and John Vidal for The Guardian. According to the Global Humanitarian Forum (2009), âclimate change already has a severe human impact todayâ, and this issue requires âurgent attentionâ (p. 2).
Vidal (2009) focused on the outcomes of the Copenhagen climate talks and the roles of developed and developing countries in the climate improvement process. The intention of Petermann (2010) was to describe different aspects of the meeting and define the frames of the climate crisis. All these readings contain interesting facts and details to design the dimensions of the environmental and social factors in communication that occurs at a global level.
As soon as the first details about the United Nations (UN) agreement became available to the world, new doubts and concerns occurred. Many developing countries and those who were challenged but did not participate in the creation of the Copenhagen Accord reacted furiously (Vidal, 2009). Petermann (2010) recognized the contributions of Indigenous people in the criticism of the Accord as they said about the inability of rich people to respect and understand the sacredness of the Earth.
Vidal (2009) said about the promoted inequality between rich and developing countries and the permitted levels of carbon emissions for different nations. Compared to negative attitudes shared by the writers of online articles, the Global Humanitarian Forum (2009) explained why Copenhagen events had to be an ambitious alternative to predict falling humanity. Humanity faced a serious crisis, and changes either in behaviors or national understandings should not be ignored. The Global Humanitarian Forum (2009) underlined that nations, regardless of their incomes and activities, must demonstrate their interest in the Accord because it was the only attempt to change anything. In total, the opinions about the meeting in Copenhagen were dramatically divided.
Basic Assumptions of the Silent Crisis
There are many reasons for paying attention to the information about recent environmental changes and problems that nations regularly observe. The Global Humanitarian Forum (2009) introduced the idea of silent suffering that resulted in the creation of the silent crisis with time. Millions of people worldwide continue suffering silently, meaning that no one is properly aware of the dangers he or she experiences behind.
Several significant organizations, like the World Health Organization or the departments of the UN, are involved in discussions and interventions to protect society. However, the impact of the silent crisis remains considerable, and such areas as âfood, health, poverty, water, human displacement, and securityâ are vulnerable (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009). Therefore, it is expected that leaders of all countries must find courage and introduce a solution to environmental problems through developing preventative measures, greener practices, and new responsibilities.
People may call a crisis based on climate change as silent because of different reasons. Still, in any case, the recognition of its basic assumptions cannot be neglected. As cited in the Global Humanitarian Forum (2009), the silent crisis âfocuses on human impact rather than physical consequencesâ (p. 2). The connection between climate change and human behaviors is close because weather-related disasters and sea-level rise impact the quality of life caused by human activities life fuel fossil burning or desertification. Many livelihoods were compromised due to climate change, as well as traffic accidents and increased disease cases happened because of the same reason (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009).
Degradation of the population includes the cases of malnutrition, poorly educated people within the frames of environmental protection, death ratings, and continuous economic losses. Instead of being a local problem due to the chosen means of collaboration and development, the pollution of the environment becomes a serious global issue. Both developed and developing countries have to be involved in the discussion of the climate change crisis and think about the solution.
Evidence to Prove the Crisis
However, instead of talking about the presence of a critical situation in a country or in the whole world, one expects to have evident facts and numbers to understand the seriousness of the situation. The Global Humanitarian Forum (2009) contains some facts to prove the necessity of taking steps and enhancing communication and collaboration between nations. For example, it is said that about 99% (300,000) of all deaths and 98% (325 million) of seriously affected are from weather-related disasters (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009). The findings also show that climate change results in $125 billion in economic losses annually (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009).
Compared to the results of the 1980s, these numbers have been dramatically raised in about 40% proportion (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009). Besides, scientists and researchers in different fields share the prediction that within the next 20 years. There is a possibility that one in ten of the global population (660 million people) would be affected either directly or seriously (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009). These numbers scare and motivate people at the same time.
The discussion of the silent environmental crisis includes the necessity of every nation to discuss their threats and potentials separately. It was concluded that droughts could be dangerous for many countries in the Middle East and Central Asia (Sudan, Ethiopia, and Yemen) (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009). African countries like Kenya or Uganda face the same problem, as well as stay vulnerable to uncontrolled floods. Asian regions (Vietnam or Philippines) are under a threat of ice sheets.
To protect the world against the natural disasters, some countries have already demonstrated their readiness to control negative outcomes. For example, the United States invests about $14 billion annually to control the sea-level rise and build walls on the coastline (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009). The United Kingdomâs $42 billion funding focuses on the protection of London against the River Thames (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009). Still, all these improvements and control are usually observed in rich countries where people have alternatives. Many developing countries with a low level of life are exposed to serious natural complications that could happen in a short period.
Challenges and the Copenhagen Accord
The investigations of modern scientists prove the presence of certain climate changes and problems in the world. The Global Humanitarian Forum (2009) indicated a number of definitions, explanations, and specific evidence to prove the urgency to make some improvements. One of the attempts made in 2009 (ten years ago) was the meeting in Copenhagen, where the agreement, also known as an accord, was struck between the governmental representatives of America, China, Brazil, India, and South Africa (Petermann, 2010). The crisis is a serious issue for consideration because of its possibility to influence people in different ways.
The challenges are usually observed in food security (environmental degradation results in poor agricultural, livestock, and fish supply and hunger), health (temperature changes promote diseases), and poverty (weather-related accidents destroy livelihoods) (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009). After the Kyoto Protocol, the developed industrialized countries began elaborating on a new agreement to expand national borders.
The main idea of the Copenhagen Accord was to introduce new safe and fair conditions under which every human being could live. There is no other excuse to neglect the impact of climate change anymore, and experts must share their opinions about what can be done. The Accord was an official but not legally binding document supported by five global leaders (Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and the United States) that took note of it (Petermann, 2010; Vidal, 2009).
The fact that only a note was taken means that no actual agreement was signed at that moment. Therefore, it is normal for someone to consider the Accord as a meeting or a document. Still, its basic points cannot be ignored, as they include the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, the discussion of the steps to prevent dangerous natural accidents, and the recognition of the human impact on climate change.
Motifs of Industrialized Countries
It is necessary to admit that the Copenhagen Accord was not a spontaneous action of several countries. Their decision had been well-weighted and properly discussed during two years before the meeting (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009). The motifs of the participants varied, which caused certain disagreements and concerns. For example, Hilary Clinton was eager to spend $100 billion for adaptation and mitigation that could be promoted in developing countries (Petermann, 2010).
After a thorough evaluation, it was clarified that the United States did not want to invest such a sum but use different sources, whilst developing countries expected to receive about $400 billion (Petermann, 2010). Financial motifs remained unclear for a long time because the same countries demonstrated their desire to offer personal help to developing countries and use the World Bank system to promote financing.
Industrialized countries also wanted to help poor nations adapt to climate change with fewer losses and challenges. It was expected to hold temperature rise up to 2-3 degrees and allow CO2 levels up to 500 ppm (Petermann, 2010; Vidal, 2009). The Accord was based on the principles of international solidarity in regard to which nations could develop necessary professional relationships and control internal changes. The main motive was to address the global situation in the 2010s and predict the areas that were the most vulnerable (Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009). Human activities had to be changed at the expense of ambitions and personal needs. If rich countries were more or less ready for unpredictable changes, poor countries faced serious problems in controlling and predicting potential threats.
Critics and Machinations
In many official resources, the idea of the Copenhagen Accord was defined as a positive attempt to contribute to the solution to climate change-related problems. However, in reality, a number of issues remained poorly examined and understood. Vidal (2009), one of the critics of the meeting, admitted that it seemed that rich countries were motivated by their selfish goals to force developing countries to cut emission rates and add new classifications. There were invisible machinations to reduce the power of the only legal document, the Kyoto Protocol, and impose new conditions that were beneficial to a certain group of countries only.
Besides, the decisions made by the United States caused a variety of concerns and new questions. For example, Petermann (2009) discovered how ironic the situation with the agreement actually was from the American side. In the middle of the Conference in Copenhagen, the US leaders approved the necessity to drill the coastline of Alaska for oil, which negatively influenced the ecosystem and impacted the global warming situation (Petermann, 2009). Another significant influence was connected with the impossibility of the local population to control the activities of other people on their land. Such machinations and inability to follow the ideas offered to other countries raised one serious question if the participants of the Copenhagen Accord would be able to follow their own regulations. Finally, the worth of the whole meeting and its imposition could change the environmental situation in the world.
Conclusion
Taking into consideration the current global situation and the role of human beings in the promotion of climate change, there was a burning need to take a step and offer a novel idea. The Copenhagen Accord was a serious political agreement between the countries from different parts of the world. Still, due to the inability to identify the main problems, offer adequate alternatives and follow regulations, a number of questions were raised.
The process of negotiations was challenged by the absence of many developing countriesâ leaders and the lack of attention to their actual problems and opportunities. At this moment, the document remains a non-legally-binding agreement where more than 180 countries demonstrated their support, but a stalemate is evident. It seemed that people are at the stage of understanding of how dangerous and provocative their activities in regard to the natural world. The consequences of their decisions cannot be ignored. Still, the world of politics and properly defined economic relations still matter in the modern world. Therefore, governments have much work to do and many meetings to organize to come to one common conclusion and save the planet.
References
Global Humanitarian Forum. (2009). The anatomy of a silent crisis. Web.
Petermann, A. (2010). What really happened in Copenhagen?Z Magazine. Web.
Vidal, J. (2009). Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after âDanish textâ leak. The Guardian. Web.