Negotiating the future of our planet and survival as a species—that, no less, is the purpose for the United Nations Climate Change conference being held in Paris from Dec. 1 to 11.
The conference seeks to hammer out an agreement binding all countries to implement climate change solutions. Nations will be required to commit to targets reducing their total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Climate change adversely affects the environment and will severely compromise the quality of life for humans. Increasing global temperatures and the other aspects of the phenomenon cause the melting of the icecaps, in turn raising ocean levels and causing concerns with food security, the welfare of coastal communities, and on a general scale, health issues and quality of life.
The impact on health will be severe. The World Health Organization says that between 2030 and 2050, climate change could result in 250,000 deaths yearly because of high temperatures, diarrhea, malaria, and malnutrition. Direct damage costs to health could hit between $2 billion to $4 billion a year.
Warmer temperatures caused by global warming carry serious health risks; the list is a litany of fear. Among the risks are disease outbreaks, increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory ailments, ultraviolet-related diseases such as skin cancer, the spread of infectious vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, and increased deaths from weather-related disasters such as supertyphoons and heatwaves, and other diseases including asthma, lung cancer, schistosomiasis, and allergies.
There is also a graphic on the Internet that shows how much land will be left above sea level if the polar icecaps melt. According to this, the Philippines will be mostly inundated.
The Philippines recognized the threat early on, and the legislature passed the Climate Change Act in 2009 creating the Climate Change Commission for climate change-related actions and policies. In 2010, the CCC drew up the National Framework Strategy on Climate Change, and in 2011, the National Climate Change Action Plan.
These and other efforts led United Nations envoy Margareta Wahlstrom in 2012 to call Philippine climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction laws “the best in the world.”
However good the Philippines’ response to this threat, climate change is a planetary phenomenon and one country alone cannot bring about substantial changes. Efforts to bring about a concrete and measurable effect to halt, and perhaps even reverse the trend, must be done on a global scale. And yes, reversing the trend is possible, at least if we look at the efforts to heal the ozone layer as an example.
For people of my generation, “the ozone hole” was the imminent risk that brought environmental issues to the forefront of public consciousness became a catalyst for change. The ozone layer is a thin layer around the earth that screens out harmful UV radiation. Chlorofluorocarbons—chemicals found in aerosols such as hairspray and paint cans—were found to be depleting the ozone layer, so they were banned by the United States, Canada, and Norway in 1978.
Efforts to bring about public awareness and attitude change at the time employed pop culture, so those of us who were teenagers in the ‘80s will recall throwing away our moms’ hairspray cans and turning to mousse or gel to slick back our siete-cut hair.
By now, all 197 countries of the world have signed the Montreal Protocol treaty on the ozone shield. As a consequence, the depletion of the ozone layer has slowed and it is estimated to recover to 1980 levels by the middle of this century.
The Philippines might have good laws on climate change, and is not among the top 40 CO2-emitting countries, according to Edgar (Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research), but has not managed to reduce emission levels since 1990.
On the contrary, they are increasing every year: (in kilotons of CO2 emitted yearly) in 1990, 40,325.69; 1995, 64.878.06; 2000, 75,315.47; 2005, 78,291.60; 2010, 88,558.37; 2011, 89,297.82; 2012, 94,760.64; and 2013, 101,934.09.
According to Edgar, this time series reports “country-specific CO2 emission totals of fossil fuels use and industrial processes (cement production, carbonate use of limestone and dolomite, non-energy use of fuels and other combustion). Excluded are short-cycle biomass burning (such as agricultural waste burning) and large scale biomass burning (such as forest fires).” The numbers would be greater if biomass burning were included.
Clearly, great laws are not enough. What we need is to bring implementation to a community and individual level. We all need to be part of this change if we want to leave a healthy planet to our children.
***
Facebook: Jenny Ortuoste, Twitter: @jennyortuoste, Instagram: @jensdecember