Debate
Debate
The Nation State vs The Climate. Place your bet. By Cedric Dreyer Are national borders preventing us from solving climate change? This section is going to take this issue apart, by unpacking the discussion into an evaluation of cause and consequence. The debate, arguably, is more important than ever. Our answer, if there is one, will determine whether the nation-state, or the climate wins and thus form part of the solution to climate change.
created by a changing climate. In short, climate change. What causes climate change? On gates notes, Bill breaks it down into emissions sources. They are: 1. Making electricity (around 25% of greenhouse emissions yearly) 2. Agriculture (around 24%...) 3. Manufacturing (around 21%...) 4. Transportation (around 14%...) 5. Buildings (around 6%, this includes AC, Lighting, Heating…) 6. Other (around 10%)
While most of us are likely to think that electric cars and solar panels on our homes will solve climate change – it now no longer looks as simple. These categories make it clear that the issue spans To begin, let us define our meaning of the across a wide "nation-state" and “the climate”, our two range of sectors competitors in this debate. We argue that with their own the nation-state is a collective of citizens who principles, and are united under common laws, customs and laws. Either way, language. Additionally, the nation-state for the nationmaintains borders (i.e. territory), and behaves state to win with agency toward the other nation states against climate change, all six of these (through foreign and defense policy). The categories must be reduced to zero net climate on the other hand, for us, refers to emissions in the next fifty years (as the increasing costs (both human and economic) International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC
KCL Politics Society
found). Bill Gates argues that innovation and new discoveries are key, and we agree. However, the nation-state may also be able to help in other ways. An economist will tell you that taxation reduces demand for a good (sort of). So why not tax meat, gasoline, and electricity? That should, in theory, reduce emissions from agriculture, transportation and energy sectors by cutting demand? Perhaps, but not quite. Where you are, and who you are, plays a role in your preferences and habits. If you’re in Norway, you are much more likely to drive a Tesla than someone in Dubai who is more inclined to cruise through the city in a GClass Mercedes. Two States, two preferences. Breaking it down into potential causes yields that in Norway fuel is taxed at 57.95p per liter, whereas in Dubai its subsidized by the state (though these subsidies have been declining steadily in the past few years). Therefore, in Norway, it makes more sense to drive an electric vehicle (exempt from fuel taxes), whereas in Dubai an electric vehicle’s sales price outweighs the benefits of not having to purchase fuel. While this is a significant
“When taking into consideration global disparities in preferences, development and wealth it becomes clear that the fight against climate change is in disarray.“
