UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME - With more and more of the world realizing the eminence of climate change and its consequences, greener alternatives are becoming more and more prominent and receiving more attention.
The delegate of Canada had a very strong passion for the topic, firmly believing that “carbon tax is the way”. Countries should be punished for having carbon emissions, and a carbon tax would lead to a chain reaction in companies competing to see “who has the greenest technology”. The delegate of Chile shared these ideas, stating that the “carbon tax is an efficient way [for countries] to realize the profit [that] greener alternatives can provide”. It would help countries transition from non-renewable energy to renewable ones. The Delegate of the Republic of Korea also supports this argument “if companies are denied access to carbon and fossil fuels, [this will] fuel new innovative technologies and [lead to the discovery] of new methods of production”.
The delegate of Sweden started off with a very realistic statement: “There are problems with every solution”. While many countries have supported to implementation of carbon taxes, the delegate presented an issue “For richer countries (such as Sweden), why would they have [an] incentive to pay [a] tax that would be given to less-developed nations? What benefits do we get?” The only way to incentivize developed countries paying carbon tax is to provide some sort of benefit. The delegate of Iran proved a similar point “Countries should not be punished [for not paying a carbon tax] because developing countries also have carbon emissions”.
As a counter, the delegate of Venezuela righteously said “The incentive should be the preservation of life on planet Earth.”
Delegates from countries such as Kiribati also disowned the idea of “punishment” for not paying the carbon taxes. “Rich countries would not want to donate and help poor countries because who wants to give money to other countries (and get punished if they don’t)?” The delegate suggested looking towards renewable energy source such as thermal energy and the use of solar panels. The delegate of China also agreed, stating “Carbon tax [could] compromise an economy.” The delegate encouraged the financing of green alternatives with partnerships and looking towards the future for benefits. Education should be considered part of a “multi-faceted plan to create a global solution”.
The delegate of Cuba had comments on the partnership ideas, “Every country has their own priorities. Is not [easy] for two or three countries to match their priorities to help each other out? Why not make a workforce with developing countries to boost the economy and provide capital for the encouragement of greener alternatives.” The delegate of Denmark already had standing partnerships with several countries, “Helping other countries is the key to encouraging greener alternatives in developing countries”.
The delegate of Canada had a very strong passion for the topic, firmly believing that “carbon tax is the way”. Countries should be punished for having carbon emissions, and a carbon tax would lead to a chain reaction in companies competing to see “who has the greenest technology”. The delegate of Chile shared these ideas, stating that the “carbon tax is an efficient way [for countries] to realize the profit [that] greener alternatives can provide”. It would help countries transition from non-renewable energy to renewable ones. The Delegate of the Republic of Korea also supports this argument “if companies are denied access to carbon and fossil fuels, [this will] fuel new innovative technologies and [lead to the discovery] of new methods of production”.
The delegate of Sweden started off with a very realistic statement: “There are problems with every solution”. While many countries have supported to implementation of carbon taxes, the delegate presented an issue “For richer countries (such as Sweden), why would they have [an] incentive to pay [a] tax that would be given to less-developed nations? What benefits do we get?” The only way to incentivize developed countries paying carbon tax is to provide some sort of benefit. The delegate of Iran proved a similar point “Countries should not be punished [for not paying a carbon tax] because developing countries also have carbon emissions”.
As a counter, the delegate of Venezuela righteously said “The incentive should be the preservation of life on planet Earth.”
Delegates from countries such as Kiribati also disowned the idea of “punishment” for not paying the carbon taxes. “Rich countries would not want to donate and help poor countries because who wants to give money to other countries (and get punished if they don’t)?” The delegate suggested looking towards renewable energy source such as thermal energy and the use of solar panels. The delegate of China also agreed, stating “Carbon tax [could] compromise an economy.” The delegate encouraged the financing of green alternatives with partnerships and looking towards the future for benefits. Education should be considered part of a “multi-faceted plan to create a global solution”.
The delegate of Cuba had comments on the partnership ideas, “Every country has their own priorities. Is not [easy] for two or three countries to match their priorities to help each other out? Why not make a workforce with developing countries to boost the economy and provide capital for the encouragement of greener alternatives.” The delegate of Denmark already had standing partnerships with several countries, “Helping other countries is the key to encouraging greener alternatives in developing countries”.