Academic Booklet Volume 2 [Participant Release]

8/9/2019 Academic Booklet Volume 2 [Participant Release]

1/75

1


2/75

2

03 Introduction04 Carbon taxation19 Alternative energy29 Overfishing43 Sustainability of aid

58 Trade imbalances70 References


3/75

3

In December 2009, the annual UN Conference on Climate Change, held in Copenhagen, was labelled anabject failure. Yet despite this failure, discussions continue across the world on the issue of climatechange, showing its importance and gravity as a cause for global concern. Today, you join these voices as aparticipant of the very first Sustainable Development Youth Convention in Singapore.

However, sustainable development is more than about stopping climate change; it is about sustaining thedelicate balance between our economy, environment and society well into the future. It is about alsobalancing conflicting needs and differing interests. As you delve deeper into the subject, it is our hope thatyou will better understand the tensions and interplay between these areas and voices.

The inaugural SDYC features five academic topics, covering all three areas of sustainable development asdefined by the United Nations economic, environmental, and social. The five topics chosen cover as muchof the three spheres as possible within a multi-disciplinary and multi-faceted framework; for example, youwill not only consider the environmental impacts of overfishing but also its economic repercussions.

Overfishing: Over three quarters of our planet are covered by the oceans. Their biodiversity is unmatched and they contain over 80 percent of all life on earth, mostly unexplored. Millions are also dependent on theoceans for a livelihood. Yet, they are all threatened by overfishing.

Alternative energy: Most would disagree on, and wo uldnt really know for sure, when the worlds oil reserves would run out; some say in 50 years and others say more. We, however, all agree that we would

not be able to depend on oil infinitely. What then are our options to living sustainably?

Foreign aid: Countries such as The Congo and Ethiopia are justifications to why aid is provided from acrossthe globe. However, do the strings attached to the aid form a noose or are they merely the rope attached toa life float?

Trade imbalances: The recent global financial crisis has brought about the problems of our economic systemin the limelight. One of these problems include massive and sustained trade imbalances between countries,causing problems as seen as in the United States, China and Greece. How can we ensure that suchimbalances do not pose a threat to our way of life into the future?

Carbon taxation: Carbon tax is an environmental tax that is levied based on the carbon content of fuels.While attempting to reduce carbon emissions, it brings about a host of issues that are currently embroiled in controversy. Is carbon taxation a feasible option? If so, how should it be implemented?

The academic guide is simply that a guide. It will not provide you with everything you need to know, butit will help you keep in the right direction. Do feel free to disagree with it, and yet respect the differingviewpoints. Finally, while focusing on each topic is important, learn to see the bigger picture. Sustainabledevelopment is more than just a single topic, it is the overarching principle that should guide our mindsetas guardians of the future world. We wish all of you a fantastic, groundbreaking and insightful SDYC 2010!

Royston Ong & Andy SohHeads, SDYC 2010 Academic Committee


4/75

4

Scenario description

Around the world, as sea levels rise as a result of rapidly melting polar ice caps, low-lying smallislands grow ever more vulnerable to being submerged under the seas. The planet's biodiversity both on land and in the oceans is also being depleted at an alarming rate. Heat waves , droughtsand floods are occurring with astonishing frequency. And, perhaps most tellingly, global averagetemperatures have been on the rise for the past century and a half.

Scientists have ascertained with 90% certainty that this upward trend in global temperatures maybe attributed to anthropogenic (man-made) rather than natural greenhouse gases emissions, of which carbon dioxide is a primary member. As of 2006, carbon emissions levels stood at anunsustainably high level of 4.39 metric tons per capita. In view of this, representatives fromvarious countries and other organizations and institutions will convene to discuss plausible

solutions to bring about a reduction to emissions levels within a sustainable range.

The objective of the convention is to devise a feasible, effective and specific carbon taxationsolution that aims to reduce the global carbon emission levels from 4.39 metric tons per capita tothe pre-1990s level of 4.29 metric tons per capita. The discussion will be centered mainly on thelikely success of carbon taxation as a solution for the reduction of global carbon emission levels,with considerations as to the various other solutions that have been proposed to mitigate carbonemission levels such as cap and trade. The central question that the various stakeholders will haveto answer will be Is carbon taxation a feasible and effective method for curbing carbon

emissions to mitigate the problem of climate change?

Key question: Is carbon taxation a feasible and effective method forcountries to curb carbon emissions?

Committee chairpersons

Brenda TanPek Yang XuanTong Chee Ying


5/75

5

Key definitions & concepts

Carbon taxation is the levying of a tax on the carbon emissions that result directly from thecombustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas 1. The main idea is that the additional cost ontop of the original price of the fossil fuels forces producers to pay more to produce the sameamount of goods. They would then naturally produce less goods in order to pay less tax, in theprocess cutting down on the amount of fossil fuels used and thus carbon emitted. This is whycarbon taxation is often known as a market-based instrument: it makes use of firms' profit-drivenagendas to force them to voluntarily reduce emissions in their efforts to minimize the effect tax -paying has on their profit margins 2.

The reduction of carbon emissions that this reduced fossil fuel combustion would bring about is

expected to somewhat alleviate the effects of anthropogenic activities on climate change, which isin turn hoped to help us avoid the undesirable consequences of climate change (e.g. droughts,polar ice caps melting, or ocean acidification).

Carbon taxation & sustainable development

Since the Industrial Revolution, the twin processes of industrialization and urbanization havealmost literally fueled the drastic increase in carbon emissions. In striving to fulfill our currentneeds, we inflict harm to our environment our legacy to future generations. As can be seen fromFigure 1 , the level of carbon emissions has been rising steadily every year.

Figure 1: Graph showing concentration of global emissions from 1990 to 2015Source: IPCCData Center

Observed and projected atmospheric CO2concentrations since 1990. Triangles showannual average marine surface air CO2concentrations from 1990 to 2008. The red andgreen lines show annual average CO 2 concentrations for two projected emissionsscenarios, representing the upper and lowerlimits of 6 IPCC scenarios respectively. The blueshading shows the range from low to highclimate - carbon cycle feedbacks.

1 Since the taxation of fumes emanating from flue gas stacks or vehicles as they are being emitted is practicallyunfeasible, most carbon taxation measures are instead targeted at the sale of fossil fuels between nations and firms.

2 This practice of forcing firms to bear the cost of their actions is fully in line with the Polluter Pays Principle, a keytenet in both pollution economics and sustainable development alike. This principle recognizes the responsibility of the polluter in bearing the cost of any environmental damage caused by his actions.
http://blog.ctrlbreak.co.uk/?p=297http://blog.ctrlbreak.co.uk/?p=297


6/75

6

If measures are not put in place to reduce carbon emissions, anthropogenic activities are set todangerously exacerbate the situation of climate change. What would happen to our futuregenerations?

Carbon taxation is a method designed to reduce carbon emissions, which could mitigate theeffects of climate change. However, some countries fear that upon implementation, economicdevelopment would be compromised. To what extent is carbon taxation an effective and feasiblemethod to curb carbon emissions? Would it allow us to develop in a sustainable way by reducingthe impact on the environment? Such an issue is thus especially pertinent when one discussessustainable development.

Key issues

The costs & benefits of carbon taxation

Carbon taxation has on many occasions been proposed as a possible measure to mitigate currentrising emission levels. As with every other major policy, there are many reasons to either supportor oppose the implementation of such a measure.

A key issue when one considers carbon taxation is identifying the optimum rate at which countriesshould set the tax. While not exactly a problem per se, setting a rate will nevertheless be a

challenging task, as countries will not be able to adopt a consistent tax rate, in view of thedifferences in their respective circumstances. Each country will have to decide on an optimumrate that is neither too high which would result in compromising the nation's economiccompetitiveness, a path every country would steer clear of nor too low, which would only serveto annoy firms and consumers alike without achieving its true purpose of bringing about asignificant reduction in emissions.

Another contention against carbon taxation is the amount of regulation and administration thatwould be necessary to ensure that the system being implemented will remain effective andrelevant. For instance, if a tax is imposed in some countries and not in others, it would be difficultto prevent the migration of industries from the tax-levying country to the non-tax-levyingcountries. This, as French President Nicholas Sarkozy has said, would lead to a growing shortfall in [the] competitiveness of the countries which tax, a powerful disincentive for countries to tax.

However, there are clear benefits to carbon taxation. Besides reductions in carbon emissions,these include the encouraging of investment in low-carbon energy sources (most notablyrenewable energy sources such as wind, water and solar energy, as well as the generation of additional tax revenue brought about by taxing carbon emitters. However, there are alsosignificant counterarguments. For instance, large, polluting firms may be able to afford to copewith the added costs of business, while smaller enterprises would not be able to stay in business,


7/75

7

putting a damper on global efforts to promote entrepreneurship and enterprise. On the otherhand, firms may simply pass on the additional cost to their consumers, raising the price of carbon-intensive 3 goods, which creates ill-will towards carbon taxation, both on the part of firms as wellas consumers.

An alternative: Cap-and-Trade

As a result of these objections, there is another solution that is discussed during talks aboutreducing carbon emissions. Known as Cap-and-Trade , this mechanism is simply the creation of acarbon market, where the goods being bought and sold are carbon credits.

Firstly, the government would impose an upper limit, or cap, on the total emissions per missiblefrom all firms as a collective whole. Based on this cap, permits representing the right to emit arethen released (either allocated or sold) to the firms, and since each firm's emissions is limited bythe number of permits it holds and the total number of permits is limited by the cap, carbonemissions are capped at that level. Firms may also choose to trade credits, either buying them if they need to emit more greenhouses gases than they have the right to, or selling them if they areemitting less than they have the right to.

Once again, there are contentious issues with this approach. For one, the level at which the cap isset is almost certainly set to be hotly debated. The related administrative concerns are also more

complicated than those associated with a carbon tax would be, since Cap-and-Trade systems,unlike a carbon tax, incorporate factors such as the level of cap, credit allocations, penalties andexceptions. Nevertheless, its effectiveness given an appropriate cap and incentivization of research by firms in the area of green technology makes it a worthy substitute for carbon taxationin any discussion about curbing emissions.

Previous resolutions passed

Collective action on the scale of a regional cooperation in carbon tax has been notably lacking.Sweden and a few other countries (mentioned later in Stakeholders ) have unilaterally undertakena carbon tax to varying degrees of success. Proposals by French President Nicholas Sarkozy on theimplementation of a carbon tax within the European Union (EU) have met with strong opposition.This follows the failure of his previous attempt at instituting a similar tax within his country, whereeconomic interests eventually won out. On the other hand, American President Barack Obamaannounced plans to pass a law instituting a cap-and-trade system in the United States. However,the law is not expected to pass through Congress this year.

3 This refers to goods whose manufacturing processes give rise to high amounts of carbon emissions either directlyas chemical products or indirectly as by-products.


8/75

8

Stakeholders

The stance of every stakeholder with regards to the issue of carbon taxation can be broadlydivided into three categories:

(i) Those who favor carbon taxation as a means to reduce carbon emissions(ii) Those who are neutral to the solution of carbon taxation(iii) Those against the idea of using carbon taxation as a means to reduce carbon emissions

Those which favor carbon taxation

Stakeholders that favor carbon taxation are generally those who have implemented carbontaxation to no significant adverse effects, or those who have arrived at the conclusion that carbontaxation is a good solution to reduce carbon emissions through academic studies. Some examplesof countries that have already implemented carbon taxation in their nation and experienced nosignificant adverse effects would be countries within the European Union (EU) such as Swedenand Norway. Academic institutes such as the Earth Institute and the National Academy of Sciencesare examples of stakeholders who have, through rigorous academic research, arrived at theconclusion that carbon taxation is a plausible solution to reduce carbon emissions levels.

Other types of pro-carbon taxation stakeholders are those who believe that carbon taxation is theway to go or are corporations and companies that have stated that they have decided to take upthe responsibility of contributing to the reduction of carbon emissions, and have chosen carbontaxation as their preferred solution. Some examples of these stakeholders include the Carbon TaxCenter (CTC) and ExxonMobil respectively.

Those who are neutral

Stakeholders that adopt a neutral stance are generally countries that have not decided toimplement carbon taxation within their nations and have not explicitly expressed their support forit, at the same time possessing relatively good socio-economic conditions that render the adverseeffects of carbon taxation on these nations, if it were to be implemented, to be of relativeinsignificance. No very major push or pull factors exist for these nations to implement carbontaxation, as they usually are considered developed nations, bu t face considerably less pressurethan countries such as the United States and China, who are considered to be world leaderswhen it comes to leading by example in the reduction of carbon emissions to mitigate climatechange. An example of such a stakeholder would be Singapore.

Other types of stakeholders that could possibly adopt a neutral stance would be international

organizations whose main role is to oversee and regulate proceedings, such as the World Bankand the International Monetary Fund, or organizations that represent nations that are neutral


9/75

9

towards the imposition of carbon taxation within their nations. An example of such anorganization would be the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Those who oppose carbon taxation

Stakeholders who are against the idea of carbon taxation generally comprise of countries that arestill developing and would hence prioritize their nations economic development over thereduction of emissions. The economies of developing nations are often reliant on carbon-intensiveindustries such as manufacturing and mining; hence, not only they will bear the brunt of a carbontax if there was one to be imposed on all nations, they will also be less equipped to deal with theeffects of carbon taxation on their economy.

In addition, some of these developing nations may perceive it to be unfair that developed nationsduring the process of industrialization were able to pollute and emit greenhouse gases largelywihtout restrictions, while they are now being pressured to do otherwise 4. Other types of stakeholders that may be against carbon taxation as a means to reduce carbon emissions wouldbe countries with extremely high carbon emissions, such as the United States or China, as thiswould mean that they would have to bear higher costs than other countries if a worldwide tax oncarbon is imposed. The economies of such nations are also significantly dependent on industriesthat are carbon-intensive particularly China, which is in the process of rapid industralization.Furthermore, considering that such nations are extremely large and politically influential, it maybe difficult to reach any form of consensus with regards to the usage of any one method to reducecarbon emissions.

Lastly, Inter-governmental Organizations (IGOs) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)that are representative of countries that are against carbon taxation or are founded on the belief that carbon taxation is not the most viable solution would naturally be against the idea of carbontaxation as a solution to reduce carbon emissions. Some examples of such organizations would bethe African Union (AU) and the Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).Companies that deal mainly with products that are high in carbon content, and have not explicitlyexpressed support for any form of carbon emissions reduction method, would also be against theidea of carbon taxation or indeed any other method that aims to reduce carbon emissions asthis may significantly reduce their profit margins. This is especially true for companies that dealwith commodities such as oil, and have businesses operating worldwide, which may result inthese companies being taxed heavily because of their widespread operations. This means thatthey could be heavily taxed multiple times due to the carbon-intensive of their products and theworldwide nature of their operations.

4 This is based on the assumption that pursuing economic growth and development must be at the cost of theenvironment although this may not necessarily be the case.


10/75

10

Pro-carbon taxation

Type of stakeholder Name Brief description of stakeholder

Countries

Sweden

Sweden imposed a carbon tax on January 1, 1991, onthe use of oil, coal, natural gas, liquefied petroleumgas, petrol and aviation fuel used in domestic travel, aswell as on industrial users who paid half the taximposed on the domestic users. Certain industries thatrequire high-energy to operate were exempted fromthe carbon tax. Despite this, carbon taxation inSweden was a great success, resulting in a 20% drop incarbon emissions from 1991 to 2001, with little or noeffect on the economy. This drastic drop in carbon

emissions was largely due to the switch from fossilfuels to clean energy that was encouraged by thetaxing of carbon in Sweden. The success of carbontaxation in Sweden can serve as a good example of how carbon taxation can be imposed in a nation togreat success with little ill-effect.

Canada These nations have imposed carbon taxation in theircountries to little or no ill-effect on economic growth,although success based on the reduction of carbonemissions varies amongst these countries. Someexperience little or no reduction in carbon emissionswhile others experience an increase or slight reductionin carbon emissions levels. Despite the varying results,these countries have continued to impose a carbon taxwithin their nation and as such, we consider them tobe stakehold ers that favour the solution of carbontaxation as a means to reduce carbon emissions levels.

Finland Norway Denmark India

United Kingd om

Academic institutes The Earth Institute

The Earth Institute is a research institute established inColumbia University that aims to address complex

issues facing the planet and its inhabitants specifically focusing on sustainable development andthe needs of the worlds poor. They are also a widelyaccepted scientific and academic authority on theissue of sustainable development, which includes theissue of carbon taxation, and will be able to offer ascientific and academic perspective on the issue of carbon taxation. The Earth Institute should be able toexplain how they have, through academic study,arrived at the conclusion that carbon taxation is aplausible solution to reduce carbon emissions and arethus in favour of it.


11/75

11

American National Academy of Sciences

The National Academy of Sciences (US) is an honorificsociety of that was signed into being by PresidentAbraham Lincoln in 1893, with a mandate under its Actof Incorporation to investigate, examine, experiment,and report upon any subject of science or artwhenever called upon to do so by any department of the government. The NAS is made up of researchesthat are elected into the NAS annually by existingmembers, and are elected based on theirachievements in research. The members of the NASprovide advice pro bono to the United States onmatters concerning the sciences, the issue of climate

change and hence carbon taxation being one of them.Members of the NAS should be able to present why,scientifically, is carbon taxation a plausible solution forreducing carbon emissions and climate change, andwhy specifically, the United States should adoptcarbon taxation.

Corporations ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil is the worlds biggest oil company, a factthat would render the notion of carbon taxation highlyunpopular due to the large amount of taxes that thecompany would incur as costs as they are dealing

mainly in fuels that have high carbon content. Thiswould reduce the profit margin of ExxonMobil theone thing that every company seeks to maximize andincrease. However, in recent years, ExxonMobil hasreversed its stance on climate change and hasoutwardly decided to support the solution of carbontaxation over the other carbon reduction solutions likecap and trade in the face of mounting pressure withregards to their environmental policies. Exxon Mobilconcedes that they are not enthusiastic about anysolution proposed to reduce carbon emissions, as itwould invariably affect their business, but wouldprefer carbon taxation over other approaches such ascap and trade as they believe that it is a more direct,a more transparent and a more effective approach.

Non-governmentalorganizations

Carbon Tax Center

The Carbon Tax Center was founded with the mainpurpose of giving voice to Americans who belief firmlythat carbon taxation, specifically the taxation of carbon emissions, is imperative in order to reduce

greenhouse gases emissions and thus, mitigate globalwarming.

Inter-governmental The European Union The European Union is an economic and political union


12/75

12

organizations of 27 member states, a significant number of whomhave imposed carbon taxation within their nations andstill continue to do so. The EU has previously proposedgeneral carbon taxation on all EU member states, butit was later decided that each member state should begiven the freedom to choose their own solution to theissue of carbon emissions reduction and the generalcarbon tax proposal was dropped. The EU does havean energy taxation directive that sets the minimumvalues applicable to fuels for industrial or commercialuse for its member states, which indicates that the EUin general, as well as its member states, favour carbon

taxation as a solution to reduce carbon emissions.

Neutral


Countries

France

France has previously proposed a carbon tax plan thatwas supposed to take effect in 2010, although thisnever materialized as the plan was blocked by theFrances constitutional council based on the re asonthat the carbon tax plan had too many exemptions

that would render the carbon tax to be ineffective inreducing carbon emissions. The French governmenthad decided to impose the tax despite the two thirdsmajority of the French voters voting against it,showing the two conflicting opinions between thegovernment and the general public, rendering theposition of France on the issue of carbon taxationuncertain and hence, placed under neutral.

Italy These are countries that have never explicitlyexpressed support for carbon taxation nor rejectedthe idea of carbon taxation as a means to reducecarbon emissions level within their nations. They havealso never imposed a carbon tax within their nation,although their socio-economic conditions areconsidered to be good enough such that theimposition of a carbon tax would not have a significantimpact on their nations. Thus, there are no majorpull or push factors that these countriesexperience with regards to the issue of carbon

taxation.

JapanSingapore Australia

South Korea

Inter-governmentalorganizations

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

The IPCC is a scientific body that is established by theUNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and


13/75

13

Change (IPCC) the WMO (World Meteorological Organization). Itseeks to provide a clear scientific view and assessmenton the issue of climate change, and hence as a result,carbon taxation. It must be stressed here that the IPCCaims to provide rigorous and balanced scientificinformation to decision makers, and thus, does nottake any stand for or against carbon tax, merelyreporting its scientific merits and demerits.

Anti-carbon taxation


Countries

China

China is the country with the highest carbon emissionslevels as of 2006, with a rapidly developing economythat is fuelled by numerous carbon intensive industriessuch as manufacturing. These factors, combined withthe perception that it is unfair for China to berestricted by environmental considerations when theWestern powers such as the US had time in the past todevelop freely without such constraints, place Chinasposition to be strongly against the idea of carbontaxation as a means to reduce carbon emissions levels.

Saudi Arabia Members of OPEC (please refer to the description forOPEC in order to get a better perspective of why thesecountries are against carbon taxation)Iran

United States of America

The United States of America is one of the countrieswith the highest carbon emissions levels in the world,thus it is unlikely that they will favour the solution of carbon taxation as a means to reduce their carbonemissions levels as this would incur more costs forindustries and the general population. Given that theUnited States is currently attempting to recover fromthe devastation of the sub-prime crisis, the idea of acarbon tax would very likely be rejected by the generalpublic. There are, however, some states or cities in theUS such as Boulder, Colorado and California that haveimposed a carbon tax and experienced success withregards to reducing carbon emissions levels andspurring a movement from fossil fuels to clean energywithin these states.


International Air Transport Association(IATA)

The IATA is a global trade organization whose main

purpose is to represent the airline industry. It hasmembers from about 230 airlines around the world,and has explicitly rejected calls for compulsory tax on


14/75

14

international flights in order to fight global warming. Apoint of contention with the IATA may be that airlinesare often targeted for taxes and pressured withregards to the issue of climate change due to theirtrans-boundary nature, although aviation accounts forless than 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions. TheIATA insists that they are giving the environment avery high priority with a very clear plan to reducetheir carbon footprint.

African Union

The African Union consists of 53 African States and isconsidered to be a representative body for countrieswithin the African continent with regards to the issue

of carbon taxation. Since most African states areconsidered to be developing nations, with asignificant number of them being some of the leastdeveloped nations in world, it is highly unlikely thatthey will be supportive of carbon taxation as a meansto reduce carbon emissions level and will, in fact, bemore likely to not even consider taking any form of action against climate change, choosing to focusinstead on national interests and economic growth.

Intergovernmentalorganizations

Organization of Petroleum Exporting

Nations (OPEC)

OPEC is a cartel of 12 countries that consists of

countries that are net oil exporters such as SaudiArabia and Iran. According to their statute, one of their main goals is to protect the cartels interest,which can presumably be to continue exporting oil inquantities that can generate profit for the producingnations, with a sufficient provision of oil to consumernations. Since this is the case, the countries in OPECcan be considered to be those that are most impactedby a carbon tax, as petroleum is a commodity that ishigh in carbon content and any carbon tax that taxeson the carbon content of a fuel will impact thesenations. However, if the carbon tax solution taxes thecarbon emissions and not the carbon content of thecommodity itself, these countries might not beimpacted as heavily as they might not necessarily usethe carbon intensive fuel that they export, althoughthere is a tendency for these countries to have highcarbon emissions as well as petroleum is easilyaccessible for them.

Corporations Royal Dutch Shell Royal Dutch Shell, more commonly known as Shell, is amultinational petroleum company that operates inove r 140 countries. It is one of the six supermajors,


15/75

15

or International Oil Companies (IOC), alongside ExxonMobil and BP. Shell was listed as the worlds largestcorporation for 2009 by Fortune , and as such, can beassumed to be against the solution of carbon taxationas means to reduce carbon emissions. This is due tothe fact that Shell has businesses operatingworldwide, and would be impacted by carbon taxationin any country that it has operations in, incurring highcosts that would reduce its profit margins. If thecarbon tax taxes the carbon content of the fuel insteadof the carbon dioxide emitted, Shell would be severelyimpacted as the main commodity that it deals with is

high in carbon content

Food for thought

1. In what ways is carbon taxation undesirable for implementation? Is it always effective?2. How is carbon taxation different from cap-and-trade? What advantages does carbon taxation

have over cap-and-trade?3. What are the various factors that determine a stakeholders position with regards to the issue

of carbon taxation?4. How do these factors affect the position of a stakeholder with regards to the issue of carbon

taxation?

Additional articles

Article 1: Time to put green growth strategy into action

As developed and developing nations failed to strike a new pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol at the U.N.climate change conference in Copenhagen in December, international efforts against global warming seemto have hit a snag. However, countries around the world should not neglect implementing their own planto voluntarily curtail CO2 emissions.

South Korea is no exception. In November, it announced a plan to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 4percent below its 2005 levels by 2020. The nation should not sit on its hands just because the world has yetto narrow differences over a reduction framework. President Lee Myung-bak's much-publicized ``low-carbon, green growth'' strategy can never produce successful results without detailed action plans. Now,it's time to take concrete measures to implement the strategy.

On Tuesday, a government official said the Lee administration is studying ways of collecting a carbon tax toachieve its voluntary CO2 reduction target and provide momentum for green growth development. Webelieve that the tax will be a starting point for the nation's campaign against climate change.


16/75

16

A potential debut of the tax is likely to enhance the public awareness about the severity of the acceleratingglobal warming and the importance of slashing greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the government-initiated energy saving campaigns, South Koreans have been wasting electricity and other forms of energy,most of which come from fossil fuels. This wasting habit is closely related to people's way of life, publicinfrastructure and the socioeconomic environment.

The country is the world's 10th largest emitter of carbons. Its emissions were estimated at 600 million tonsof CO2 in 2005. About 40 percent of the emissions stemmed from the industrial sector, 30 percent frompower generation and 20 percent from transportation. A carbon tax can be put in place after a concreteemissions reduction quota is allocated to each economic sector and each industrial field.

Along with a planned emissions trading system, imposing a carbon tax on products and services should beaimed at containing the use of fossil fuels and promoting renewable energy sources. However,

policymakers must overcome major obstacles to create the tax.

First, they will have to work out measures to absorb a possible shock to manufacturing industries. Skepticspoint out that a tax on CO2 emissions may weaken the nation's industrial competitiveness and hurt itspotential for economic growth. Therefore it is urgent to push structural reform of the nation's economyand industries so that businesses can adjust themselves to the low-carbon, green growth strategy.

Second, a carbon tax should not serve as a means to raise tax burdens on consumers. No matter how goodthe purpose of the tax is, people will resist it if they are forced to give up their money. Thus, it is necessaryto press ahead with overall tax reform. Most of all, the government must make efforts to build public

consensus on the tax issue in particular, and the fight against climate change in general.

Source: The Korea Times. Time To Put Green Growth Strategy Into Action. Retrieved May 26, 2010, fromhttp://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2010/05/202_60889.html

Article 2: We need a global carbon tax: The cap-and- trade approach wont stopglobal warming

By Ralph Nader & Toby Heaps

If President Barack Obama wants to stop the descent toward dangerous global climate change, and avoidthe trade anarchy that current approaches to this problem will invite, he should take Al Gore's proposal fora carbon tax and make it global. A tax on CO2 emissions -- not a cap-and-trade system -- offers the bestprospect of meaningfully engaging China and the U.S., while avoiding the prospect of unhingedenvironmental protectionism.

China emphatically opposes a hard emissions cap on its economy. Yet China must be part of any climatedeal or within 25 years, notes Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, its emissionsof CO2 could amount to twice the combined emissions of the world's richest nations, including the UnitedStates, Japan and members of the European Union.


17/75

17

According to the world authority on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), itwill cost $1.375 trillion per year to beat back climate change and keep global temperature increases to lessthan two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

Cap-and-traders assume, without much justification, that one country can put a price on carbon emissionswhile another doesn't without affecting trade or investment decisions. This is a bad assumption, given falsecomfort by the Montreal Protocol treaty, which took this approach to successfully rein in ozone-depletinggases. Chlorofluorocarbons are not pervasive like greenhouse gases (GHGs); nor was the economy of 1987hyperglobalized like ours today. Good intentions to limit big polluters in some countries but not others willturn any meaningful cap into Swiss cheese. It can be avoided by relocating existing and new production of various kinds of CO2-emitting industries to jurisdictions with no or virtually no limits. This is known ascarbon leakage, and it leads to trade anarchy.

How? The most advanced piece of climate legislation at the moment, the Lieberman-Warner ClimateSecurity Act, contains provisions for retaliatory action to be taken against imports from carbon free-ridingnations. Married with the current economic malaise, the temptation to slide into a righteous but runawayenvironmental protectionism -- which Washington's K Street lobbyists would be only too happy to grease --would almost certainly lead to a collapse of the multilateral trading system. This scenario was presented tothe world's trade ministers last December at the United Nations climate talks in Bali by David Runnalls of the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

True, trade anarchy might reduce emissions via a massive global depression. But there would be a lot of

collateral damage. Because of the sheer scale of the challenge and the state of the hyperglobalizedeconomy, we will need the same price on carbon everywhere, or it won't work anywhere.

President Obama can define his legacy in the first 100 days by laying the groundwork for a global tax oncarbon dioxide emissions that is effective, efficient, equitable and enforceable. An effective, harmonized taxon C02 emissions must stabilize the growth of atmospheric concentrations of GHGs by no later than 2020.The tax must also be adjusted annually, by a global body, according to this objective.

The IPCC has crunched the numbers and says this means a tax of about $50 levied on every metric ton of GHGs, or carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e to use their terminology). In the short-term, consumers wouldfeel the pinch. But the tax would pave the way for cheaper, cleaner energy and ways of getting around. Themost efficient way to apply a carbon tax is at a relatively small number of major carbon bottlenecks, whichcover the lion's share of GHGs. The key points where flows of carbon are the most concentrated include:trunk pipelines for gas, refineries for oil, railroad heads for coal, liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals, cement,steel, aluminum and GHG-intensive chemical plants.

Collecting and spending the bulk of revenues from a carbon tax must remain the sovereign right of participating nations. For instance, nations could decide to make the tax revenue-neutral by reducing taxeson income or helping finance industrial retooling for a green economy.

However, we in the rich world must recognize our culpability for creating three-quarters of this globalwarming mess, as well as our greater capacity to finance industrial retooling. Thus, there could be a carrot


18/75

18

for developing-world nations which commit to applying the phased-in carbon tax: Access to a portion of thecarbon tax levies from rich countries to help preserve forests and to prepare for climate change throughflood walls, improved irrigation, drought resistant crops, desalination facilities, and the like. This is no smallchange: 10% of $50/metric ton CO 2 carbon tax levied in all rich countries would be $100 billion per year.The stick for carbon free-riding countries would come in the form of incrementally severe penalties, leadingup to countervailing duties on carbon-intensive imports.

A global carbon tax levied on a relatively small number of large sources can be monitored by satellite andchecked against the annual surveillance of fiscal and economic polices already carried out by IMF staff.Thus, the accounting involved is much more precise and much less subject to the vagaries of corruption andconflict over which industries and companies get their free handouts of carbon credits -- carbon pork --than in a cap-and-trade system.

There are three reasons why countries such as China and India that have traditionally resisted any notion of a common responsibility to make current polluters pay would do well to enlist in this effort.

First, while there is no limit on the downside for missing a hard cap, with a carbon tax you just pay as yougo. If a fast-growing country like China accepted an emissions cap and then overshot it, they would have topurchase carbon credits on the international market. If they missed their target by a lot, carbon creditswould be scarce, and purchasing them would suck dry their foreign exchange reserves in one slurp. That'swhy a carbon tax is much easier to swallow and, anyway, through the power of the price signal, it wouldproduce the same desired result as a hard cap.

Second, administering billions of dollars of carbon credits in a cap-and-trade system in an already chaoticregulatory environment would invite a civil war between interest groups seeking billions in carbon credithandouts and the regulator holding the kitty. By contrast, a uniform tax on CO2 emissions levied at a smallnumber of large sites would be relatively clear-cut. During the Montreal Protocol talks in the 1980s, Indiasmartly balked at a suggestion to phase out CFCs in certain products and not in others because of the chaosthat would result from the ambiguity.

Third, key people in China read our newspapers. They see the ominous clouds of protectionism under theguise of environmentalism in bills like Lieberman-Warner and they don't want to be harmed; neither shouldwe, given the trillions of dollars of Treasury bills they hold. Showing compliance with a harmonized carbontax at a small number of large bottleneck points would be child's play compared to cap-and-trade.

If President Obama hits the ground running fast in the direction of a global carbon tax, he can usher in anew dawn that might finally make peace between man and climate.

Source: Wall Street Journal Online. We Need a Global Carbon Tax: The cap-and-trade approach won't stop global warming. Retrieved May 26, 2010, from online.wsj.com/article/SB122826696217574539.html


19/75

19


The worlds energy needs are almost entirely met by fossil fuels, which emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, and thus contribute to global warming and climate change. In addition, therapid fluctuations of oil prices have caused great concern among policymakers as well ascorporations. Under these circumstances, the United Nations has organized a session where

countries are invited to discuss issues relating to alternative energy. The session focuses on thefeasibility of alternative energy as a means to replace traditional sources of energy, howalternative energy sources should be utilized within each country, and how developed countriesmay assist developing countries in offsetting the costs of such an ambitious venture.

Key question: How can a country adjust its policies to balance between

the short-term benefits of fossil fuel usage and the long-term benefits of alternative energy use?


Andy SohNguyen Duy LongXu Qiusi


20/75

20

Definitions & key concepts

Carbon Emission is the release of carbon dioxide gas into the environment. The widespreadburning of fossil fuels, coupled with deforestation of carbon-absorbing plants, has caused theamount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase exponentially in the industrial age.

Global Warming refers to the increase in overall temperature of the Earth, which is a form of climate change.

Alternative Energy refers to energy that is not derived from fossil fuels such as oil and coal.Specifically, it includes solar thermal, photovoltaic, biomass, wind, hydro, tidal, ocean, andgeothermal forms of energy.

OPEC stands for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. These are oil-rich nationswhich, to a large extent, control the supply and price of oil. It includes Algeria, Angola, Ecuador,Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.

Alternative energy & sustainable development

Fossil fuels have fuelled industries, economies, transportation systems and many other aspects of society since the onset of the Industrial Revolution over 200 years ago. Although specific opinionsmay differ, there is a general consensus among scientists that known fossil fuels reserves will becompletely exhausted within the next few decades at the current rate of consumption (over 30billion barrels a year) 5. Some have stated that this may occur as early as in 2030 or 2050.

The consumption of fossil fuels such as oil and coal causes the emission of carbon dioxide into theatmosphere the main cause of global warming. In an ideal world, forested areas would be ableto absorb the carbon dioxide emitted. However, due to increasingly high emissions and large-scaledeforestation, carbon dioxide levels on the whole continue to be on the rise. This causes globalwarming, which has already caused many polar ice caps to melt and decrease in size. This resultsin higher sea levels, which has the potential to affect the millions of people around the worldliving in coastal areas. This is especially dangerous for countries comprising of islands located inthe middle of large oceans such as The Maldives and the Solomon Islands.

In addition, major oil producing regions in the world such as the Middle East and Nigeria are oftenpolitically unstable. Political unrest, civil wars and revolutions pose great threats to the stability of international energy market. The price of oil is also mostly dictated by OPEC, which in the past hasused oil as political weapon, as seen in 1973 oil crisis which saw the organization imposing anembargo on oil exports to the Western powers. In addition, the threat of terrorist attacks on oil

fields or principal transit routes also presents serious challenges to energy security.

5 "BP Statistical review of world energy June 2006" (XLS). British Petroleum. June 2006.


21/75

21

In contrast, alternative energy sources are entirely sustainable and self-sufficient. We discusssome examples here:

Solar energy uses energy from the sun to produce electricity.Wind energy results from the movement of air masses, due to the air being heated andexpanded by sunlight.The various forms of biomass energy result from the growth of plants that require sunlight forthe plants to grow in the first place.Hydro-energy is a result of rainfall, which is caused by the natural evaporation of water fromthe heat of the sun.Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) is the extraction of heat energy from the warm

surface waters of the ocean that are warmed by sunlight.Tidal energy comes from the motion of the Moon around the Earth.Geothermal Energy comes from the heat generated deep within the Earth from the decay of naturally radioactive ore, which exists in small concentrations within the Earth. Although thisenergy source is not being replenished, it has the potential to last for billions of years, and istherefore usually categorized as a renewable source of energy.

Alternative energy sources do not contribute to global climate change like fossil fuels do becausethey do not increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Most alternative energy is

generated without emitting any water or air pollutants. Biomass is an exception to this rule,because it emits a similar amount of pollution as some types of fossil fuels, but still does notdirectly emit carbon dioxide. However, biomass may indirectly result in massive emissions of carbon dioxide if displaced food crops are grown in deforested regions.

Thus, to stop undesirable climate change that increased emissions of carbon dioxide will inevitablybring, the usage of fossil fuels such as coal and oil should be limited and replaced by alternativeenergy resources. However, a myriad of issues exist with regard to increasing alternative energyusage. We detail some of the issues in the following section.

Key issues

A number of issues are limiting the adoption of alternative energy sources worldwide. Some aretechnical in nature, including the limited availability and the inefficiencies of such sources when itcomes to generating energy. Some relate to human behavior such as the low priority given toenergy issues by governments or the tendency to rely on fossil fuels due to their low cost. Otherissues are related to money (e.g., subsidies or exclusion of social and environmental costs in

energy prices). On the other hand, institutions as well as public policies play a key role indiscouraging possible transitions from the usage of traditional fuels to alternative energy sourcesby instituting regulations or tax policies that discourage alternative energy use.


22/75

22

Technical difficulties

Small-scale alternative energy technologies such as solar heating and electricity systems may not

be readily available, particularly in rural areas where they can be most economically viable. Also,larger scale wind and biomass conversion technologies may not be available in, for example,poorer African countries. The demand for alternative energy technologies is either too low or toodiffuse to justify local production, import, or marketing. Hence, this creates a vicious circle private firms are reluctant to enter the alternative energy business in new regions where thetechnology is not yet established, resulting in the market never getting established due to thenon-presence of suppliers and infrastructure.

Although production of many alternative energy technologies is increasing, it is still not at a scalelarge enough to achieve significant economies of scale and be cost-effective. With limitedproduction and sales, marketing and transaction costs can be high. And as long as prices are high,demand will remain limited. Solar photovoltaic (PV) modules, for example, still exhibit costs suchthat demand is relatively inelastic and limited to a variety of niche applications, although efforts towidely promote and install PV systems are expanding.

Alternative energy technologies can be costly in countries where they are not yet manufactured,relative to locally produced energy sources. Grid-connected wind power has not made a majorcontribution so far in China, for example, because large-scale wind turbines are not yet producedin China, and the cost of electricity from imported turbines is relatively high. Also, the absence of local PV module production increases the cost and limits the market for PV systems in manydeveloping countries. Import duties on alternative energy technologies and components cancontribute to this problem.

Some alternative energy technologies such as solar PV and bio energy systems lackstandardization and quality control. In addition, systems can be improperly assembled orinstalled, thereby degrading performance. Likewise, service and repair capabilities can be lacking

or inadequate. For example, the poor installation, maintenance, and repair capability for rural PVsystems has been noted as a serious problem in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and South Africa.

Social difficulties

Consumers and society at-large may be unaware of alternative energy options, local productsuppliers, or financing opportunities. Likewise, consumers may lack credible information on theperformance, reliability, or economic merit of alternative energy options. Obtaining thisinformation can take considerable time and money.

On the supply side, alternative energy project developers need accurate data about the wind, thesun, bioenergy, and geothermal resources. This is critical for properly installation of alternative


23/75

23

energy systems. However, alternative energy resource assessments are often lacking, which hasbeen noted as one of the reasons limiting the development of wind energy in China.

Alternative energy businesses may also lack information on potential customers and theirwillingness to adopt alternative energy technologies. The lack of market information can beespecially problematic for companies trying to sell newer technologies such as solar PV ordistributed bio-energy systems. In addition, utility companies often lack information on how theoutput of alternative energy technologies such as wind and solar systems would affect thereliability and the amount of power being generated.

Financial difficulties

Investment

Given that alternative energy technologies have a relatively long payback time, it is critical to offerlonger-term financing at low interest rates and with long loan terms. Traditional lenders such asnational development banks or private banks have been reluctant to provide loans for alternativeenergy technologies because of small project size, unfamiliarity with the technologies, and otherconsiderations.

The access to credit is especially problematic in rural areas of developing countries where poorerhouseholds lack acceptable collateral. Many low-income rural households already pay $3 to $15per month for energy in the form of candles, kerosene, and batteries. They are willing to pay forhigher-quality energy sources and services (e.g., solar PV systems or lanterns), but they need long-term credit at low interest rates to make this choice affordable.

The availability of low-interest financing can also make a major difference in the feasibility of alternative energy technologies in industrialized countries. In the United States for example,financing of solar PV panels by publicly-owned utilities results in a cost for solar power that isnearly two-thirds less than the cost if the project were to be financed by private developers.

Pricing & tax barriers

Alternative energy is at a disadvantage if the price for conventional energy sources is subsidized orstructured such that the price is not based on its actual cost. For example, it is very difficult forbiogas-powered water pumps (or other alternative technologies) to compete with diesel andelectric pumps when the price of rural electricity and diesel fuel is heavily subsidized in India. Inaddition, electricity prices often do not reflect the full cost of electricity grid extension in ruralareas of developing countries. This discourages the adoption of decentralized alternative energy

technologies such as solar PV systems, which can in fact be more cost effective than gridextensions, if one can compare the full costs of the service. In fact, energy prices rarely reflect the


24/75

24

full costs to society associated with conventional energy production and usage, including socialand environmental costs such as carbon emission and pollution. Likewise, buyback rates offeredby utilities may not reflect all the benefits of alternative energy for example, the value of supply diversification, increased system reliability, and peak demand reduction. These pricingdistortions make it difficult for alternative energy sources to compete effectively withconventional energy sources.

Tax policies can discourage the adoption of capital-intensive alternative technologies. This is thecase when businesses are allowed to deduct fuel purchases from revenues when calculatingincome taxes, but must depreciate alternative energy devices over many years. Some countriessubject imported alternative energy technologies or components such as PV cells and wind

turbines to high import duties, thereby driving up their cost. Alternative energy sources can alsobe discouraged by the tax breaks such as depletion allowances provided to conventional fossilenergy resources.

Previous resolutions

World Solar Program (1996-2005)

The World Solar Program aims to enhance the understanding of the role of alternative energy in

preservation of the environment, creation of employment and improvement in the socio-economic conditions of the rural people, as well as provision of energy services. It also seeks topromote increased energy independence from fossil fuels by developing a favourable political,social and economic climate for the implementation of alternative energy-friendly policies,including the demonstration of the economic viability and social acceptability of alternativeenergy projects. In addition, the World Solar Program is intent on fostering cooperation ineducation, training and research, as well as the sharing of alternative energy research findings atregional and international levels. The program also expects to reinforce the commitment of international community with regard to alternative energy technologies and promote the

establishment of companies working in the field.

Energy policy of the European Union (EU)

Energy-related emissions account for 80% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union.In addition, Europe is becoming increasingly dependent on imported hydrocarbons. Analysisshows that the EUs energy import dependence will jump from 50% of total energy consumptiontoday to 65% in 2030. The regions r eliance on imports of gas is expected to increase from 57% to84% by 2030. Similarly, its reliance on oil imports will increase from 82% to 93% within the same

period. The EU has since crafted an energy policy to combat climate change and to limit itsreliance on imported hydrocarbons. It also aims to promote growth and employment in thealternative energy sector. Its objectives include a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from all


25/75

25

primary energy sources by 2020 and the creation of an international agreement to cut downgreenhouse gas emissions by 30% in all developed countries by 2020. The policy also establishesthe European Strategic Energy Technology Plan to foster the development of alternative energytechnologies. The EU has also stated that it intends to help Africa implement alternative energytechnologies.

Stakeholders

There are three main blocs of stakeholders those who wish to maintain the status quo (akarefrain from promoting alternative energy sources), those who advocate an increasedcommitment towards the development of alternative energy sources, as well as those who are

neutral on the issue.

The first group consists of countries such as the OPEC nations, the United States, China, and Japanas well as large petrochemical companies such as British Petroleum (BP) and ExxonMobil. OPECwould want to maintain their influence on the world economy and power by controlling the priceof oil. Thus, it is extremely plausible that they would not wish for alternative energy to replaceglobal oil reliance. Hence, OPEC would probably not support the development and usage of alternative energy technologies. However, one should note that OPEC has not released any publicstatement relating to its stand on the issue of alternative energy.

The United St ates accounts for about 25% of the worlds oil consumption. Despite its considerabledomestic reserves, it depends largely on imports from Saudi Arabia and other Middle Easterncountries. Due to this great dependency, the United States has been entangled in the politics of that region for decades, best exemplified by its twin involvements in Iraq over the past twodecades. However, one should note that the United States is also home to a powerful non-governmental and intellectual lobby which advocates greater commitment towards alternativeenergy sources.

Oil companies like ExxonMobil and BP have spent enormous amount of money on fossil fuels

technology research and reap billions of dollars worth of profits from the extraction and sale of fossil fuels. Alternative energy sources thus pose a severe threat to their profit margins. As profit-making entities, these companies are thus unlikely to welcome further commitment towardsalternative energy sources.

The second group consists of countries and organizations such as the EU and its members andother organizations such as Greenpeace. Most European countries such as Germany and Swedenare world leaders in the development of alternative energy-related technologies Despite the factthat the European Union is the worlds largest importer of fossil fuels, its members have agreed

on proposals to cut down on their greenhouse gases emissions and increase their use of alternative energy sources.


26/75

26

The third group consists largely of smaller or poorer nations such as those in Africa and countrieswith unclear stances. Those in the former group have little financial or technical ability to invest inalternative energy sources, but have limited political clout to say otherwise. Those in the lattergroup may have differing reasons to support or not support increased commitment towardsalternative energy sources. For example, Russia has large reserves of fossil fuels in vast Siberia andhence is self-sustainable with regard to its energy needs. It thus has little incentive to committowards alternative energy sources, but has released no public statements with reference to this.

Pro-alternative energy


Countries

France

Exporter of electricity and owner of numerous

powerplants providing nuclear energy. Member of theEU, which is pro-alternative energy.

Germany Countries which rely on alternative energy sources toa considerable extent. Members of the EU, which ispro-alternative energy.

Denmark Spain


Greenpeace

A non-governmental environmental organizationwhich offices in over 40 countries worldwide, foundedin Canada and headquartered in Amsterdam, Holland.It refuses to accept funding from governments and

corporations, and is known worldwide as one of themost adament advocates of green initiatives.

World Wind Energy Association

A key wind energy association in the world whichadvocates the usage of wind energy and other formsof alternative energy around the world.

International Hydropower Association (IHA)

The IHA comprises of an international group of engineers, researchers, and corporations advocatingthe increased use of hydropower around the world.

European Alternative

Energy ResearchCouncil (ERC)

A representative of the European Alternative Energyindustry and research community, which acts as a

forum for exchange of information and discussion onissues related to alternative energy.

International Network for Sustainable Energy (INFORE)

An international, non-profit non-governmentalorganization which comprises a network of environmental organizations tasked with promotingsustainable energy sources to protect the environmentand reduce poverty. It has consultative status in theUnited Nations Economic and Social Council.

Corporations Verenium

A Cambridge, Massachusetts-based biotechnologycompany that specializes in the synthesis of enzymesused in biofuel production. It is regarded as a pioneerin the field.


27/75

27

Q-cells

A German manufacturer of photovoltaic cells, whichrecently announced a joint venture to construct large-scale solar powerplants in Europe and China. It is oneof the top ten photovoltaic manufacturing companiesin the world.

Neutral


Countries

RussiaHas large domestic reserves of fossil fuels, but itsprecise stance on emphasis on alternative energysources is not clear.

Australia

There is considerably large support for alternativeenergy sources among the Australian public. Inaddition, Australias large and underutilized land masswould allow it to harness technologies such as solarand wind power very effectively. However, at thegovernmental level, support for alternative energyefforts is at most lukewarm.

Ethiopia These are poor African nations which do not have thetechnical expertise or financial ability to independentlyinvest in alternative energy-related projects. They thuslargely do not have much direct clout on the worldstage in this regard.

Democratic Republic of The Congo

Inter-governmentalorganizations

International Energy Agency (IEA)

A Paris-based intergovernmental organizationestablished within the framework of the Organizationfor Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in1974. It is dedicated to responding to physicaldisruptions in the supply of oil and providesinformation about the international oil market.However, many state that the organization often

understates the global reliance on oil despite alsohaving a mandate to promote alternative energy.

Anti-alternative energy


CountriesUnited States of America

Single largest energy consumer and has demonstratedan extreme reluctance to cut down on energyconsumption in the past. However, under theleadership of President Barack Obama, it is beginning

to move slightly towards adoption and increasedresearch on alternative energy sources. Nonetheless,the US is more often than not seen as a country which


28/75

28

does not favor the adoption of alternative energytechnologies.

United Arab Emirates Members of OPEC which rely on oil for revenues to alarge extent. Thus, they would not be very keen onwatching future alternative energy sources usurp theirlivelihood.

Saudi Arabia

Venezuela

Indonesia These are large, developing nations which areindustrializing rapidly and thus emitting large amountsof carbon emissions. However, they are reluctant toinvest more in alternative energy over fears that theadded cost would compromise their spectaculareconomic growth. They also add that developed

nations should bear most of the costs associated witha global shift towards alternative energy.

India

China

Corporations

British Petroleum (BP)These are large, influential petrochemical companieswhich depend on fossil fuel extraction and sales tomake money. They would thus be reluctant to seetheir proft margins being eroded by further supportfor alternative energy, and would probably be one of the more ardent opponents of alternative energy.

ExxonMobil

Chevon Corporation

The Rio Tinto Group

A British-Australian mining firm which mines coal,amongst many other natural resources. Due to thecarbon-intensive nature of its operations, it wouldlikely oppose a paradigm shift towards alternativeenergy. However, it has also contributed to somealternative energy-related projects, such as a jointproject with BP called Hydrogen Energy.

Food for thought

1. Who should bear most of the cost associated with a shift towards alternative energy?2. How should a shift towards alternative energy take place?3. What are the various factors that determine a stakeholders position with re gards to the issue

of alternative energy? Are there conflicting factors?4. To what extent is alternative energy a pressing issue across much of the world? Should it be a

pressing issue? Why? If so, how can we make it a pressing issue such that all governmentsacross the world recognize it as such?


29/75

29


During the 175-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) on March25, 2010, Monaco tabled a proposal to ban international trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna. Japanlobbied hard against the proposal and the vote outcome weighed in its favor. However, it didacknowledge that recent rates of exploitation would probably lead to dwindling fish populations,but insisted that enforcing strict quotas, not a total ban, was the solution.

Environmental groups have warned that if nothing is done to resolve overfishing, fish stocks willeventually collapse and fishing industries would suffer severe revenue and job losses in the likes of the early 1990s, when Canadian cod fish stock collapsed. In fact, at the current rate of consumption, most seafood would very likely have to be wiped off the menu by 2048. Therefore,CITES has decided to convene again, this time to discuss declining fish stocks around the world,and to propose concrete measures to mitigate the problem.

Key question: As the worlds population grows exponentially and a newmiddle-class emerges, how can we preserve our fish stocks whilesustaining fishery industries and coastal communities?


Darren GohLi YuandaZhang Shaoxuan


30/75

30

Key definitions & concepts

Overfishing is the result of high-intensity fishing activities that:

(1) Reduce the breeding stock (adult fish) levels to such an extent that they can no longersustain their population.

(2) Lead to a reduced fish population being no longer able to support a sufficient quantity of fish for sport or commercial harvest.

Overfishing & sustainable development

Under the broad umbrella of sustainable development, overfishing often gets less attention than it

deserves. Public awareness of deforestation, human-caused global warming, ozone layerdepletion, and other environmental problems is high and receives a lot of media attention andsubsequent action. But as dire as the problem of overfishing already is, there has not been aglobal consensus on the sustainable management of fish stocks around the world. Countries arestill at loggerheads as to whether overfishing of certain fish species is indeed happening; targetsset by transnational organizations to limit fish catch are often ignored; governments are unableand unwilling to see the benefits of limiting fish catch in the short-term.

As such, increasingly more fish are being taken out of the seas. Currently, most fish are captured in

numbers so large that these fish populations are not able to replace the fish caught. According tothe United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 76% of fish stocks in the world arefully-exploited, over- exploited or depleted. This percentage would only rise as the world humanpopulation steadily increases.

Yet among other global problems, the solutions to overfishing are relatively less complicated andmore feasible. The science and technology to provide low-cost and self-supporting solutions toeven the most dire fish stocks currently exists. The fishing industry, if managed and developedwisely, could provide enough seafood for a burgeoning world population. However, as with allsolutions which require international cooperation, compromise is hard to reach and a globalagreement on how to sustainably manage fish stocks has not been attained.

Key issues

Why does overfishing occur?

The seas have fed human populations for as long as human civilization has been around. However,it is only in recent years that overfishing has evolved to be a problem because of (1) Rapid growthof human population, (2) Growth of coastal communities, (3) Growing wealth and an emergingmiddle class in developing countries and (4) The development of new and sophisticated fishingtechnologies.


31/75

31

The world population has been growing rapidly ever since the Second World War. From 2.6 billionpeople in 1950, the world population currently stands at 6.85 billion people, and is set to rise tonine billion by 2040. In particular, coastal populations are growing especially rapidly. In 2003,approximately three billion, or half of the worlds population at that time resided within 200 km of a coastline. This figure is predicted to almost double to six billion by 2025. Since coastalpopulations attain a higher percentage of their calorie intake from seafood, the demand for fishhas and will continue to rise dramatically.

The growing wealth in developing countries has also fuelled the demand for seafood. East Asiancountries have seen spectacular economic growth in the last few decades. This has given theirconsumers, who obtain 27.8% of their animal protein intake from fish, much larger buying power.In comparison, the share of fish protein in Western European and North American diets stand only

at 9.7% and 6.6% respectively.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, fish-spotting and capture technology has improved vastlyover the years. New refrigeration techniques such as flash freezing have enabled fishing fleets torange far out to seas for days at a time; powerful ships can now drag nets hundreds of metresbelow the sea; the adoption of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and other computerized fishfinders has enabled fishing vessels to target schools of fish with ease and accuracy. This hasallowed fishing fleets to venture out into fish stocks that were once protected not because of choice but because of their isolation.

The severity of overfishing

The global marine fish catch peaked at 80 million tons in 1987 and has been falling ever since.According to research done over the last ten years, 76% of fish stocks are being depleted fasterthan fish reproduction rates while 29% of commercially pursued fish species have collapsed,meaning that they are at least 90% below their historic maximum catch levels. This implies thatthe extent of overfishing has been very severe in the past decades.

The impacts of this severe decline in fish populations are worrying. Overfishing as a globalproblem may seem specific but its potential consequences are vast. From the direct impact on thefishing industry and the marine ecosystem, to national economies and even the consumer, theprocurement of wild fish and the subsequent collapse of fish stocks can have far-reaching effects.

While the world's attention has recently been focused on the severity of climate change, theimpacts of overfishing on marine life and water-based ecosystems is not to be underestimated.According to Professor Nicholas Polunin of Newcastle University, direct human actions (such asoverfishing) have long been exceeding - and will long continue to exceed - the effects of climatechange in almost every case. These effects include:


32/75

32

1. Breakdown of the ecological cycle and food chain2. Loss of aquatic food sources

3. Habitat destruction and by-catches4. Collapse of fishing industries & local economies5. Collapse of coastal communities6. Erosion of traditional cultures

1. Breakdown of the ecological cycle and food chain

Within any ecosystem, living organisms are dependent on each other for nutrients through acomplex network of prey and predation. When overfishing of a particular fish species occurs, thenatural balance of this network is disrupted: the species this fish preys upon multiplies in itsabsence while the species which predates upon this fish are unable to find sufficient nutrients andsubsequently decline in numbers. Environmental degradation occurs and in the case whereoverfishing is severe, the ecosystem may collapse.

2. Loss of aquatic food sources

Published research in Science (2006) says that unless humans act now, seafood may disappear by2048. The loss of ocean biodiversity is accelerating, and 29% of the seafood species humansconsume have already disappeared. If this trend continues in the long run, there will be little or noseafood available for sustainable harvest within 30 years, leaving consumers with little option butto eat jellyfish or the small bony species left behind, even if they have the spending power topurchase fish species readily available today. With close to a billion people currently relying onseafood as their main source of protein, seafood scarcity may result in malnourishment and a

forced change in diet.

Figure 2: Effect of overfishing on marineecosystems


33/75

33

3. Habitat destruction and by-catches

The depletion of fish stocks is not the only concern within the scope of overfishing as a discussion

topic. The intense demand associated with fish species that are over-fished drives fishingcompanies to employ fishing methods which utilize cyanide, dynamites, as well as sea-floorscraping trawler nets. These methods often cause irreversible damage to marine habitats. Trawlerfishing also cause the inadvertent capture of unwanted marine species which suffocate in the nets.It is estimated that close to 8%, or 7.3 million tons of global catch is caught as by-catch anddiscarded. This proves disastrous not only to fish but also marine bird and mammal species.

4. Collapse of fishing industries & local economies

The current problem of overfishing is a result of increasing demand for seafood. Though short-term large catch volumes may bring huge profits to fishing companies, the loss of self-sustainability in fish populations would mean certain collapse of fish stocks and fishing industries.These companies may be the first to bear the brunt when fish stocks plummet and fish catchdwindle. It thus seems strange that these fishing companies are unable or unwilling to cut fishcatch when fish populations show signs of decline. Instead, many fishing companies appear to beset on destroying the very thing they profit from.

According to the FAO, the global fishing fleet is two and a half times its optimal size; the sameamount of fish could be caught with 40% the number of ships. Undue competition and the needfor expansion have driven fish populations to their limit, yet the short-sighted fishing industrywould also be the first victims of their own actions. Already, collapsing fish stocks around theworld has affected fishermen worldwide.

This is best exemplified by the 1992 cod industry collapse in Newfoundland, Canada, whichexperienced a direct loss of over 2 billion US dollars and 40000 jobs. By 1996, unemployment inthe region had risen to 34%, 4 times higher than the national average. The collapse was drastic 250000 tons of cod were caught in 1991, but not a single fish appeared in 1992. Till now, codstocks have not recovered and research indicates that drastic changes to the ecological balance

may mean that the cod would never come back. This event was attributed to voracious overfishing and lack of foresight, and serves to remind theglobal fishing community of the severity of fishing beyond just the direct impact on fish populationand availability.

5. Collapse of coastal communities

Many coastal communities have fishing as their economic mainstay, and are particularly exposedto the vagaries of fish catch. The fishing industry provides jobs ranging from fishing itself,

shipbuilding and food processing, among many others. These jobs provide income which is crucialin sustaining the coastal communities, as they rely overwhelmingly economically, socially, evenculturally on the fishing industry to survive.


34/75

34

When fish stocks collapse, so do they. Population shifts reflect changes in employment prospects towns near fisheries in Newfoundland recorded a loss of 15% of its population after the demise of cod fishing.

6. Erosion of traditional cultures

Traditional fishing communities have fostered cultures that are intrinsically tied to fish and fishing.The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in its UniversalDeclaration on Cultural Diversity, states that The defense of cultural diversity is an ethicalimperative, inseparable from respect f or human dignity. Yet for every day overfishing occurs, thechances of protecting these cultures may become increasingly slim.

Japanese culture, for example, is closely connected with fish. Sushi-making and Sashimi-eating areconsidered art forms in Japan. However, by deciding against cutting fish catch quotas in an effortto protect their culture, they are inadvertently bringing their culture one step closer to extinction.With no fish left in the oceans to catch, how can there be sushi?

Previous resolutions

Most resolutions passed regarding overfishing focus on particular species of fish as it is impossiblefor a blanket resolution. However, the number of resolutions passed and the actions taken hasbeen woefully few.

In 1999, the United Nations International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg granted aninjunction sought by Australia and New Zealand in an effort to ban Japan from increasing itsbluefin tuna 6065-tonne catch quota. The Tribunal weighed that it has no jurisdiction over thematter and Japan continued to hunt tuna excessively.

At the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) on March 25, 2010,Monaco also tabled a proposal to ban international trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna, 75% of which is

consumed in Japan. The proposal was voted out.

On June 19, 2006, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting backed a resolutioncalling for the eventual return of commercial whaling. The resolution, tabled by six Caribbeannations and strongly supported by Japan, passed by a razor thin margin of 33 to 32. It declaredthat a 1986 moratorium on whaling was intended only as a temporary measure, suggesting thatwhale populations have increased and that the IWC should move away from conservation towardmanaging whale numbers. Anti-whaling nations such as the United States and countries in Europeexpressed concern and determination to challenge the resolution. However, this effort would once

again be led by Australia.


35/75

35

1. Quota & catch restrictions2. Fishing bans & No-fishing zones3. Removal of subsidies4. Aquaculture5. Regulate international waters6. Heightening consumer awareness

In May 2010, the Australian government announced that it would again commence legalproceedings against Japan at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its whaling activities.Though Japan purports that the hundreds of whales culled every year some in Australia'sterritorial waters are for scientific research, Australia claims that this is use d as a cover forcommercial whaling, which is effectively in violation of the moratorium issued by the IWC.

Proponents of Japanese whaling activities indicate that the consumption of whale meat is acultural practice which foreigners should not oppose simply based on cultural differences.Representatives from the Japanese Fisheries Agency, Japan's main fishery management authorityhave also stated that Japan unfairly endures stronger opposition than Iceland and Norway,countries which also conduct whaling.

Possible solutions

Though the path to mitigating the effects of overfishing and eventually eradicating it appears to befraught with many obstacles, the possible solutions to overfishing are decidedly more feasiblethan when compared to many other environmental issues. At the same time, solving the problemwould only get tougher as world population continues to soar and the demand for seafood fromburgeoning middle classes rises in tandem. However, the sustainable management of fish stocksaround the world is nonetheless crucial for environmental conservation, economic stability, job

security and cultural preservation.

There exists certain established mitigation methods, all feasible given today's technology andcapital available. These include:8

1. Quota & catch restrictions

National fishery management agencies and international fishery watchdogs pass species-specificquotas every year which delimit the amount of fish allowed to be caught for that particular year.However, undue competition from fishing companies, as well as unregistered and informal fishingfleets often cause actual fish landings to exceed the set limit, eroding the potential efficacy of quotas in ensuring the sustainable management of fish stocks.


36/75

36

2. Fishing bans & No-fishing zones

Fishing bans and no-fish zones policed by national agencies have been set up in many areas which

have experienced severe decline in fish stocks and fish sizes. These bans may range from a fewweeks to a few months a year and serve to allow fish population recover after each fishing season.

No-fish zones, in particular, have been very successful in meeting the interests of bothconservationists and fishing companies. By demarcating areas as fish sanctuaries, resurgent fishpopulations often spill over and replenish fish stocks in areas where fishing is authorized. Fishingcommunities around the world which employ similar measures have begun to yield dividendswithin just a few years of imposing no-fish zones.

3. Removal of subsidies

Currently, many fishing industries especially those in Europe are propped up by subsidies fromtheir governments. Seen as an industry worth protecting for the large number of jobs theyprovide, some governments dole out large amounts of subsidies to non-profitable companies,even as fish catch drop below economically-viable numbers. The subsidies sustain fishing fleetswhich bring back any fish which are still left in

Documents

Academic Booklet Volume 2 [Participant Release]