Agreeing mutually acceptable emissions targets will be more effective in tackling climate change than pressing for tough, legally binding targets for every country.

Current version: 25 Nov 2009 | 01:48 | mridulnaidu

<< Older version | Newer version >>

All versions

Key

  • Text coloured Greenhas been added snce the previous version
  • Text marked red and striked-throughhas been deleted
 

No, because... Legislation is the need of the hour

Legalization on a universal level is not something that is as easy as it seems to achieve. The framework can at best impose financial penalties and or incentivize good practices. Most nations are going to say big deal and totally ignore the targets. The need of the hour is a mutual agreement to work together towards climate change and encourage every nation to take remedial measures with global assistance. Its like the big stick policy , nations would adhere to it but slowly but surely they would also resent it and opt out of the framework eventually.

 

In order to bring about steps against climate change, we need to have legal binding targets for every country. Frankly speaking, the time to make amends through mutual agreements on milder targets has not led us anywhere so far. Unless, we do not have a legislation that imposes a necessary target limitation, we cannot achieve the desired results.