Module 2: The Global Perspective
As we dig deeper into the conversation of sustainable development, this module explores some of the main contributors towards an increasingly unsustainable world from the global perspective as well as some of the actions being taken to improve the situation. As you work through the content below, read around the topics of greater interest and share your thoughts in the slack channel #discussion.
The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It’s purpose is to limit global warming to well below 2 (preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius) compared to pre-industrial levels. Countries involved in the Paris Agreement are taking steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions with the goal of achieving a climate neutral world by 2050.
Whilst the Paris Agreement made huge steps forward in terms of nations coming together for a common cause, there has been a lot of debate surrounding countries abiliity to set their own targets as some nations pledges aren’t ambitious enough, additionally there are no consequences should a nation not keep its promise.
“Governments are planning to produce about 50% more fossil fuels by 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 2°C and 120% more than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C.” – The Production Gap Report
The Production Gap Report uses publicly available data and scenarios from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report to estimate the difference between what countries are planning and what would be consistent with 1.5°C and 2°C pathways…
During the pandemic, personal protective equipment (PPE) has driven increased plastic pollution. In response to high PPE demand among the general public, health care workers, and service workers, single-use face mask production in China soared to 116 million per day in February, about 12 times the usual quantity (2). The World Health Organization has requested a 40% escalation of disposable PPE production (3). If the global population adheres to a standard of one disposable face mask per day after lockdowns end, the pandemic could result in a monthly global consumption and waste of 129 billion face masks and 65 billion gloves.
After rising steadily for decades, global carbon dioxide emissions fell by 6.4%, or 2.3 billion tonnes, in 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic squelched economic and social activities worldwide, according to new data on daily fossil fuel emissions.
The United States contributed the most to the global dip, with a nearly 13% decrease in its emissions, due mostly to a sharp decline in vehicle transportation that began with lockdowns in March and continued as the pandemic escalated at the end of the year. Globally, the energy sector most affected by pandemic lockdowns and restrictions was aviation, where emissions fell 48% from their 2019 total.
The previous chart defines the top 10 emitters based on their total annual emissions, also known as “absolute emissions.”
Population and the size of the economy are two major drivers of absolute emissions. The largest absolute emitters today have a larger role to play in determining the climate of the future. Regardless of other factors, these total annual numbers will have to be reduced for the top 10 emitters if global warming is to be limited to 2 degrees Celsius.
This chart by Statista highlights the enormous variations between the major world economies in CO₂ emissions measured at the individual level.
The average American, for example, is responsible for 14.95 metric tons, compared to 6.57 metric tons per person in China and only 1.57 metric tons in India.
There’s also a huge difference in CO₂ emissions per person among the US states. Wyoming has the highest CO₂ emissions per capita at 110 metric tons, while New York has the lowest with under 9 metric tons, according to US Energy Information Administration figures from 2015.
Points to Consider: Are there any nations that are higher in total output, but lower in per capita? Why may this be?
In 2015, around 50% of the emissions worldwide came from the richest 10 percent – people with net income over $38,000 (approx. £29,000), which is around the UK average wage.
Deforestation refers to the decrease in forest areas across the world that are lost for other uses such as agricultural croplands, urbanization, or mining activities. Greatly accelerated by human activities since 1960, deforestation has been negatively affecting natural ecosystems, biodiversity, and the climate. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the annual rate of deforestation to be around 1.3 million km2 per decade.
Within Fiji, the government are currently implementing a ‘4 million trees’ initiative, whereby all types of trees are being planted from timber trees to fruit trees to ornamental trees.
There are more trees in the U.S and Europe than there were 100 years ago, which may come as a surprise to some. Whilst this is great, some forests aren’t as mature and so therefore are home to less wildlife. However, a bigger concern is that in developing countries, deforestation is happening at an alarming rate. Can this be overcome by raising all nations out of poverty, so that people can earn a living without destroying nature?
Twenty companies are responsible for producing more than half of all the single-use plastic waste in the world, fuelling the climate crisis and creating an environmental catastrophe, new research reveals.
Among the global businesses responsible for 55% of the world’s plastic packaging waste are both state-owned and multinational corporations, including oil and gas giants and chemical companies, according to a comprehensive new analysis (The Guardian).
Over 300 million tons is now produced every year. Most is never recycled and remains on our land and in our seas for ever. This United Nations story shows the damage to all creatures who depend on the ocean for their food – from birds… to us.
What happens when you stream videos on Netflix? Is watching videos on YouTube damaging to the health of the planet? Take a look in this video below and decide for yourself.
Global Steps Forward
We’ve learnt about the negative impacts that humans are having on the environment, but where can we go on a global scale from here?
A carbon tax aims to make individuals and firms pay the full social cost of carbon pollution. In theory, the tax will reduce pollution and encourage more environmentally friendly alternatives. However, critics argue a tax on carbon will increase costs for business and reduce levels of investment and economic growth.
An additional difficulty with a carbon tax is getting consistent pricing across the world in order to make this policy effective.
Companies and individuals can account for their unavoidable emissions by buying carbon credits from certified activities that support community development, protect ecosystems or install efficient technology to reduce or remove emissions from the atmosphere (South Pole).
However, this concept has been criticised as this can offer excuses or ‘an easy way out’ for emitters to pay for their emissions, rather than forcing them to reduce them.
Nevertheless, a combination of offsetting and reducing emissions could be a brilliant way of improving the health of the planet overall, as long as the correct projects are funded.
We need to continue to fund research and development in order to drive down the cost of sustainable energy. Until we are able to produce renewable energy that is the same price or cheaper than fossil fuels, there may always be those who cannot afford or choose not to use renewable sources.
However, new technology is often non-profitable and comes with significant start-up costs. How might this limit a truly global development of green solutions?
Furthermore, if green solutions are reserved for the more economically developed countries, how might a green approach further disadvantage countries reliant on fossil fuels?