France's role in the UN Security Council

Security Council France

Over the last several decades, global warming has become a consistent threat that has the potential of disrupting life on Earth as we know it. This is because the rising temperatures from the activities of human kind are causing the problem to become worse. To mitigate these effects, the world community implemented the Kyoto Protocol. This was one of the first landmark agreements, at attempting to address the effects of global warming. However, since the treaty has begun to take effect, it is clear that various provisions are not achieving the intended goals. What is happening is: not all countries are participating and there are uneven standards for pollution credits. This is problematic, because it is negating any kind of attempts at reversing the underlying causes of global warming. As this is allowing a host of countries to work around the basic provisions of the treaty. A good example of this can be seen by looking no further than, the emissions trading program called the Clean Development Mechanism. Under the program, the developed countries can trade their emissions credits with other nations. However, these credits can be traded for profit, as the developing countries can sell their excess credits to the developed countries. This is troubling, because it is allowing the largest polluting countries to make no effort in reducing greenhouse gases, as they can purchase what credits they need, to be in compliance with the provisions of the treaty. Then, when you consider the fact that the various actions from each country are voluntary, this highlights the ineffectiveness of Kyoto in addressing the problems associated with global warming. (Rainer 2007) As a result, a new agreement must be implemented that will have enforceable standards and will prevent all nations from not following the basic provisions.

Recommended Course of Action

In December, the various delegates from around the world will once again meet to discuss how they can effectively address the problem (with the conference taking place in Cancun). Since France is a member of the Security Council, we have a moral responsibility in addressing the various problems surrounding the issue. The dilemma is that many of these conferences do not yield any kind of realistic agreements. Where, you have the developed countries, which are unwilling to change from the status quo (because it will cost them too much economically). At the same time, you have the developing countries that believe one of the reasons for global warming, is because of the actions taken in the past by the developed countries. As they think that these nations, need to pay more of their fair share for contributing to the problem. To effectively address this impasse, requires being able to create an agreeable solution that will address the views of both sides. This means creating enforceable standards, where various countries cannot buy their way out or unilaterally decide not follow the agreement. Then, you have to ensure that the developing countries are paying an equal amount in comparison to their underlying growth rates. Where, any kind of agreement would hold them accountable to various international standards. If these two different objectives can be met, a comprehensive solution for the problem will help to mitigate the underlying effects. As it will create an enforceable standard that is based on reality. This is the basic problem with effectively addressing the challenges of global warming, where each nation wants to decide for themselves, how the different provisions of international agreements apply to them.

Analysis of the Situation an Evidence to Support the Recommendation

When you analyze the underlying problem, it is clear that the lack of enforceable standards is making the situation worse. This is because, the atmosphere that was created after the implementation of the treaty, allowed for a many nations to question the fairness of the different provisions. (Will the Climate Change Conference in Cancun Yield Better Results 2010) Once this took place, it meant that certain countries (the United States) would walk away from its different treaty obligations. This is because it was not officially ratified by the U.S. Senate. The reason why, was due to the underlying fears of the damage that it could cause to the economy. This would create the atmosphere that various provisions were unfair for the U.S., leading to its eventual withdrawal from Kyoto. (U.S. Withdraws from Kyoto Protocol 2001) When such a large country will no longer follow these different provisions, it creates an atmosphere of voluntary compliance. At which point, the other signatories will not follow the different provision of the treaty as strictly. Once this takes place, it means that any kind of efforts to address the problem is the equivalent of having no agreement at all. This will cause the various environmental issues to become worse, as the constant finger pointing and debate are only creating more problems. Evidence of this can be by looking at the total number of environmental disasters in 2010. Where, a variety of different situations would confirm what is taking place to include: the severe drought / fires in Russia, the extreme flooding in Southeast Asia and the large number of cyclones that are hitting the Pacific region. (Guili 2010) If you look at the situation from a long-term perspective, it is even worse, as 2005 would serve as the busiest hurricane season on record. (NOAA Raises 2005 Hurricane Season Outlook 2005) This includes: the deadly Hurricane Katrina that would devastate the Gulf Coast region of the United States. (Hurricane Katrina 2010) What all of this shows, is that the lack of enforceable standards are making the environmental effects of globalization worse. This is because of: the heated emotions surrounding the effects of these changes and the lack of all nations, in being able to work together to address the issue. These two factors are slowly undermining any kind of efforts, to reduce the effects of global warming.