Issues in retrospective The world has been looking for answers to the emerging and expectant environmental problems.
Such blatant expectation has been towards the industrialized world including but not limited to the United States, Europe (EU) and emerging economies (China, India) in Asia.
However, problems pertaining to the environment are very widespread and so the onus of its remediation, mitigation and sustainability cannot rest only with the economic powers of the world.
Candidly, these economies have contributed immensely to the production of green house gases (predominantly water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, ozone, CFCs) leading to global warming (rising temperatures on the surface of the earth) and depletion of the ozone layer.
Some concurrent problems include acidification of soil and water sources and climatic disasters such as rising sea levels, ice melting at the poles, floods and biological diversity life destruction among others.
Chemistry tells us that ozone layer depletion and increased carbon dioxide is predominantly from two sources: first ozone (unstable and strong oxidizer) reactions with carbon and nitrous fumes released in the atmosphere and secondly ozone's reactions with emissions of CFCs and similar chlorinated and brominated organic compounds.
Other prominent sources of increased carbon dioxide are fossil fuels and wood or deforestation.
Unfortunately, human activities such as combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation are fast becoming primary contributors to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increase.
Certainly, it can be deciphered that these reactions and activities have dual effects.
First, it leads to increased carbon dioxide far beyond its background levels (that is permissible levels) in the atmosphere.
Second, is the depletion of the ozone layer which means the Ultraviolet (UV) rays from the Sun cannot be filtered efficiently to avoid its harmful effects to life forms including humans on earth.
Preposterously, there are some scientists who argue that the correlation between global warming and ozone depletion is not strong.
That is to say, ozone depletion is not causation for global warming.
Whatever, their theories are, the world is witnessing today increasing warming of the surface of the earth, melting of ice at the poles and concealed damage to life forms besides other climatic disasters.
Again, some environmental activists do want to categorize climatic changes as an isolated scenario of the world's environmental problems.
Unfortunately, this is absurd and is contradictory to the proverbial statement which says that "whatever goes up must definitely come down".
The question is: Where do stack emissions from industrial plants (point sources of greenhouse gases such as Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous fumes, water vapor and other gases such as sulphur dioxide) go? These gases when released go up into the air undergo reactions or not and eventually fall back with a different chemistry onto the ground.
Thus contaminating soil and water through their acidification potential and sometimes fatally affecting biological diversity.
A typical example is when sulphur dioxide, a waste product from coal plants, causes acid rain through its reactions with water and falls back into soils and waters acidifying them.
There is a general school of thought that these emissions and their chemical reactions produce heat which is responsible for rising temperatures and that floods and droughts are part of the natural climatic variations.
In fact, it must be accepted that human activities is explicitly exacerbating the rising temperatures and natural climatic variations.
Generally, the rising temperatures affect life in the air, in water and in the soil which are active players in climatic variations.
Apparently, it is erroneous to isolate climatic changes as a separate entity in environmental degradation issues.
For it's evident from the preceding texts that climatic changes brim over into water and soil media of the terrestrial environment.
Ultimately, it is expedient that one assesses climatic changes from the perspective of environmental stability which stems from air, soil and water management techniques based on holistic pollution control policies.
Again, whatever the altercation is between scientist, activist and the rest of the world, something is wrong with the environment and remedial measures are needed.
The pace of economic growth by some developing and developed nations do suggest that world emissions are likely to increase and likewise the environmental problems.
Thus, world governments do not need to drag their feet anymore as posterity is waiting to judge us if nothing is done.
In fact, the current environmental issues must be categorized not only as a debauchery but also a social stigma or anathema.
Next, the redemption of the environment from the perspective of declining climatic changes and its corollary would require the collective effort of all people from every continent of the world.
Accordingly, strategies and programs to be pursued should not be regionalized, politicized or polarized but rather based on a general consensus and objectivity.
What's more, this is not the time to be judgmental tagging certain nations and continents as perpetuators of environmental pollution and demanding accountability probably because of their unscrupulous emissions and inordinate waste disposal activities.
We are in it together and united we stand divided we fall.
Now, in the context of the discussions so far, this article would seek to address the problem of climatic changes from the view point of environmental stability.
The model must change Many believe the world would be a better place if there is political stability and economic stability and this has created the tendency to relegate environmental stability to the background.
However, experience portrays a high degree of association between political stability, economic stability and environmental stability.
Also, this is an indisputable fact which supports a paradigm of mutual dependence between political stability, economic stability and environmental stability in the design of effective mitigative measures to deal with the climatic changes.
Surprisingly, in the past, world economic powers have failed to back their words or agenda with actions.
They have failed to actuate any pragmatic policies primarily due to financial constraints and also their propensity not to pursue the economics of social benefit against social cost.
Clearly, social benefit which has long-term socio-economic beneficiation outweighs social cost.
However, financial capability has been the central focus instead of social benefit.
Now is the time for change and prompt action.
It is the fervent wish of all that the summit on climate change in Copenhagen would be unprecedented leading to the enacting of holistic, pragmatic, dogmatic and sustainable policies and not ad hoc policies which has been the trend of the past.
Rationally, policies should encompass the integration extensively of economic growth, industrial development and potent environmental policies.
Honestly, what the world needs now is not agendas made up of the setting of unattainable emission targets and cuts by players of industrialization such as U.
S (17% by 2020 - Washington Post Newspaper source) and China (45% by 2020 - Washington Post Newspaper source) or smaller cuts by poorer nations but sustainable policies that amalgamate political stability, economic stability and environmental stability.
Also, the rational for the pursuit and success of this amalgamation is the designing of policy models that simulate the effect of the environmental stability from the perspective of political and economic stability.
Hypothetically, in the policy model, environmental stability should be seen as the mediation between political stability and economic stability.
To consider environmental stability as mediation is to count it as part of the solution to the attainment of economic stability.
Anyway, this is paradoxical for supporters of democracy who claim that political stability provides good governance which is antecedent to economic stability and prosperity besides being a causal link between them.
Sorry to say, it is plausible that political stability provides the platform for economic stability but plausibility is not a proof.
Technically, the association of political stability and economic stability and prosperity is not sustainable unless it is linked consciously with environmental stability and mitigation.
As a matter of fact, the effect of political stability on economic stability is confounded with the effect that environmental stability has on economic stability.
That is to say changes in political stability can be associated with changes in economic stability but environmental stability can be associated judiciously with economic stability, growth and sustainability.
Obviously, it is right to say that political stability effect on economic stability and sustainability is confounded with the effect of environmental stability on economic stability and sustainability.
Also, if the relationship between environmental stability and economic stability growth and sustainability is practically significant then it is conclusive that environmental stability mediates to confound the effect of political stability on economic stability and sustainability.
This does not mean that the association between political stability and economic stability, growth and sustainability does not exist.
Rather, this effect is confounded by the effect of environmental stability.
So, there is the urgent need to tie environmental stability to economic stability and sustainability when designing action plans for environmental problems mitigation.
Realistically, economic growth is not sustainable in the absence of articulate environmental policies.
Why? In simple terms, lack of articulate environmental policies would escalate diseases which in turn would affect the labor force capability and consequently slow down industrialization and economic growth.
This problem is common in developing countries where the labor force capability has been enervated by worker turnover due to upsurge in health problems.
Truly, in pursuits of economic growth some countries have consciously and unconsciously relegated to the background environmental stability.
The aftermath is degenerative economic growth because of weakened labor force strength stemming cumulatively from health issues and reduced life expectancy.
It is in the light of these developments that the author of this article is opting for change in the model from old to new.
The old model sees political stability as causation to economic stability and sustainability whilst the new commends environmental stability as causation for sustainable economic stability.
Some Reflections and Recommendations The world governing body (presumably United Nations) for the climatic changes summit should come out with binding guidelines for all nations involved.
The binding guidelines shall be based on a new model of political stability, environmental stability and economic stability as afore discussed.
The binding guidelines shall also encompass annual report of environmental performance measures by respective countries together with environmental audits by the governing body (presumably United Nations) to ensure implementation and assess progress.
For each participating country or region, environmental performance measures in the form of measurement and reporting shall include oQuantitative and qualitative measurement of emissions (including cost) by country oInstitutional framework involved in the measurements oModels used and the measured impact of emissions (including terrestrial water and soil environment).
This should be preceded by the performance of impact assessment to establish a baseline for the respective country or region.
The governing body (United Nations) shall then perform annual environmental audits on these countries and this shall include oAssessing measurements and costs oVerifying compliance with the laid guidelines agreed upon at the summit oAssessing the effect of the models used for the measurements oIdentifying any problems or deficiencies oMaking suggestions for improvements oFeed back to countries.
Currently, there is the agitation for treating of carbon emissions as a tradable financial commodity and this is a very commendable cost effective measure which would augment the level of sanity and accountability invariably changing the attitude of nations towards industrial activities.
Having to pay for the amount of carbon emitted during production activities would rationalize ones level of consciousness towards the environment.
Next, there is the need for a magnitudinal shift in harnessing of energy from non-renewable resources to renewable resources.
That is to say a shift from non-renewable energy (unsustainable and unreplenishable) to renewable energy ( sustainable and naturally replenishable).
Thus, reducing the pressure on non-renewable resources and slowing down the climatic changes.
Fossil fuels are non-trivial examples of non-renewable resources for energy production.
A greater percentage of the world's energy is obtained from burning of fossil fuels which includes energy production from coal, natural gas, petroleum e.
t.
c.
With the world's population expected to grow, dependence on fossil fuel energy is expected to grow as well and one wonders if energy production from fossil fuels is sustainable considering its impact (that is production of carbon and other toxic substances) on the environment.
Additionally, overdependence on non-renewable energy suggests dependence on oil aggravating the situation when oil prices rise.
Hence, there is the need for a shift primarily to renewable energy production.
As at 2006, renewable energy accounted for only 18% of world energy production which means there is still room for improvement [Global Status Report, 2007].
Now, renewable energy includes wind energy, solar energy, bio-energy, geothermal energy and tidal energy.
They are better because they are pioneered by natural resources such as the wind, sunlight, biomass, heat from the earth's crust and water tides.
In addition, renewable energy production tend to have moderate - high starting cost but lower operating cost.
Unlike renewable energy, non-renewable energy has higher starting cost as well as higher operating cost even in the absence of environmental issues cost.
Now, following is some engineering economics of renewable energy production.
Wind energy uses the power of airflows to run vanes and turbines converting wind power into electrical energy.
Solar energy uses solar panels or thermal collectors that are installed to collect the Sun's energy (rays) and convert it into electrical energy or heat energy respectively for homes and offices.
Geothermal energy uses harnessed steam or heat from the earth's crust through heat pumps and some sophisticated accessories to produce heat and electrical energy and this makes it suitable for heating offices and homes.
One may argue that geothermal energy generation may be suitable for cold regions of the world and not the warm regions.
However, its generation in warm regions can find other uses reducing the pressure on non-renewable energy resource.
Truly, wind and geothermal energy technologies are currently being used pervasively in Scandinavian countries like Denmark and Iceland.
Also, several places in the world are endowed with suitable geologic units whose heat power can be harnessed for geothermal energy production.
There are also abundant wind (airflow) and Sun in places like Africa and South America that would be suitable for production of wind and solar energy.
Regarding bio-energy, chemical energy from biomass (animal waste, landfill or plant materials) or fermentable material is converted into heat or electrical energy.
Bio-fuels energy is also obtained through ethanol fuel production from fermentable substances such as sweet sorghum, sugar cane, corn similarly converting chemical energy into heat or electrical energy.
In fact, there is abundance of these resource materials in many places in the world today available for conversion into energy.
If the world governing body would want to support funding programs which promotes mechanized or sustainable irrigation systems in the developing and under-developed world then it might as well as support massively production of renewable energy so as to reduce dependence on energy from non-renewable resources.
Coincidentally, promotion of renewable energy would stimulate economic growth through the creation of more green jobs besides ensuring sustainable growth.
Next, countries would at this time be seeking for funding for these programs that are pioneered towards mitigating threatening environmental instability in their respective countries but this should call for extra graveness, accountability and probity by their governments and communities.
If the rich nations are making pledges to the needy nations or developing nations at the summit to help curb the deteriorating climatic changes, it should be conditional on graveness, accountability and probity to avoid misappropriation of funds and a fiasco.
Developing countries and under developed countries instead of asking for funding should manage their business environment well to create favorable investment climate that would attract Direct Foreign Investment into the renewable energy sector.
Also, the world governing body should encourage developing and under-developed world to embark on tax-breaks and if possible government rebates for foreign and local investors who invest in the renewable energy sector in their economies.
Likewise, developed countries governments should encourage investments into the renewable energy sector in their economies through tax breaks incentives for this sector so as to stimulate economic growth and promote environmental stability.
Countries with budget surpluses can embark on meticulous spending in the renewable sector of their economies.
Technically, these action plans would stimulate job growth in the renewable energy sector which has a chain reaction of sustainable economic growth and environmental stability.
Finally, it is not what happens at the summit that is important but what happens afterwards.
Whether nations are reluctant to adhere to the guidelines and agenda laid down and how the world governing body is going to enforce that without violating a country's sovereignty.
Conclusion The world's climatic changes problems continues to be a matter of concern.
Governments, research scientists are at the crossroads because of the differences in perception of each with regards to the real causes of these problems.
In spite of the diffuse perspectives, a consensus may have been reached that emissions of carbon and other gases are primarily the driving force for these climatic changes.
Regrettably, past encounters on this issue were accompanied by passive response from nations supposedly signaling nations indifferent attitude to climatic changes.
Nevertheless, there is a new sense of awareness and urgency on this issue and new strategies are being drawn under the auspices of the world governing body the United Nations.
Whatever the outcome, policies that is conducive to attainment of environmental stability and sustainability is needed.
Such policies must reconcile political stability, environmental stability and economic stability.
Additionally, the policies would call for new direction in the production of energy favoring renewable energy a candidate for job growth, economic growth and sustainability.