Tool to counter climate change

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

Rockwell, believe the benefits are worth it.

“Trade is the efficient allocation of resources,” he explained. “If every country had to make all of the things it consumes, we would have a disastrous situation. For all the concern about food miles, this is what the whole principle of comparative advantage is about. At the end of the day, you are producing wealth while ensuring access to such things as solar panels and wind turbines that help fight climate change.”

Also crucial to increasing trade in energy and environmental goods is the other main component of Doha’s environmental agenda — the coordination of trade policies with environmental policies. While the prevalence of trade-distorting subsidies has left many in the developing world impoverished, with farmers unable to compete with the artificially low market prices of imported goods, subsidies have also adversely affected the environment.

“The key point in coordinating environmental and trade policies is to ensure that they really are environmental measures and not protectionist tactics,” said Rockwell. “Governments will employ standards which may not necessarily be for the protection of consumers or the environment, but are merely designed to protect the welfare of domestic farmers, or whatever industry it may be.”

A case in point is fishing subsidies. The World Wildlife Fund estimates that nearly 70% of the world’s fishing revenues come from direct governmental support, as the global fishing supply has dramatically dwindled in the process. Governments and communities, many believe, must accept sacrifices in order to join the fight against global climate change. Critics say that international institutions such as the WTO must not solely advance the age-old paradigms of economic growth, but must also create new frameworks that prioritise environmental progress.

Though all governments have opened their eyes to the menace of increasing carbon emission levels, rapid increase in the production of waste, destruction of natural habitats and many such problems that have cropped up with growth and development, they are yet to reach a consensus on each country’s share of responsibility in mitigating the issues.

As the per capita emission levels of developed countries like USA, Canada and Australia are high, they are mandated by the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions (based on figures in the year 1990) at higher percentages — more than 90% in all cases — which in turn became unacceptable to these countries.