The United Nations Energy Program focussed its sights on green alternatives to decrease the potential harms of climate change. The majority of the delegations present agreed that measures should be taken especially to aid developing nations, as those countries and their quickly industrializing economies are responsible for a large portion of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the delegation of France felt frustrated at the lack of sense of urgency, stating that “we do not have a century to implement international coalitions”. Wanting to buy more time to find the best solution, France urged the committee to heavily consider the possibilities and benefits of carbon taxes and nuclear power. The delegation felt that these options provided an immediate solution with tangible effects in a world with “no time for soft negotiations”.
The delegation of Nigeria did not agree with France, as they felt that France was focussing solely on developed nations and “developing countries are countries too”. Nigeria went on to propose that a proper plan of action could include three levels: education as a short-term solution, a mandatory carbon reduction as a long-term solution, and finally carbon taxes if all else failed. The delegations of Sweden and Germany elaborated on this sentiment, dissociating the debate into two main solutions – France’s carbon tax, a punitive measure, and a cooperative international undertaking. Sweden spoke convincingly of how all of the countries in attendance were in agreement that a transition to greener alternatives is beneficial, and thus an international coalition should be formed to share resources and work together towards reducing carbon emissions. Germany added that the coalition could mediate the limiting effects of small budgets on climate change solutions in developing countries by effectively distributing increased funding.
Seeing the redundancy of forming a coalition, the United Kingdom questioned the committee. They explained the benefits of simply investing in the PAGE program, a pre-existing summit of five agencies who are already working together towards a greener future, as opposed to the funds and time necessary to form a new coalition with the same mission. Germany whole-heartedly supported the United Kingdom’s statements, saying that Germany already “harbours international cooperation” and they consider the PAGE program to be highly beneficial and that it will have “a plethora of various effects as it brings together various committees”. Although the delegations continued to be vague about the actual benefits of increased reliance on the PAGE program, all of the countries came to a mutual consensus that they were in favour of investing in it, or reworking it.
Using their own country as an example, the delegation of Denmark pointed out that the committee need not feel limited to only one solution. In accordance, Nigeria stated that the PAGE program is one step towards the future, and that the committee has introduced many broader potential steps, but they need to focus on the details. Conservation International enthused that the committee should implement more than one solution and not limit themselves. The representative pointed out that the committee should not dismiss the possibilities of education, even if education is not part of the United Nations Energy Program’s mandate, but consider working with an education committee. His speech received resounding applause, and a refreshed approach from the other delegates. By the end of the first un-moderated caucus of the day, the original four clusters of ideas had coalesced into two blocs in the spirit of true international cooperation, and clear solutions for finding green alternatives were beginning to emerge.
The delegation of Nigeria did not agree with France, as they felt that France was focussing solely on developed nations and “developing countries are countries too”. Nigeria went on to propose that a proper plan of action could include three levels: education as a short-term solution, a mandatory carbon reduction as a long-term solution, and finally carbon taxes if all else failed. The delegations of Sweden and Germany elaborated on this sentiment, dissociating the debate into two main solutions – France’s carbon tax, a punitive measure, and a cooperative international undertaking. Sweden spoke convincingly of how all of the countries in attendance were in agreement that a transition to greener alternatives is beneficial, and thus an international coalition should be formed to share resources and work together towards reducing carbon emissions. Germany added that the coalition could mediate the limiting effects of small budgets on climate change solutions in developing countries by effectively distributing increased funding.
Seeing the redundancy of forming a coalition, the United Kingdom questioned the committee. They explained the benefits of simply investing in the PAGE program, a pre-existing summit of five agencies who are already working together towards a greener future, as opposed to the funds and time necessary to form a new coalition with the same mission. Germany whole-heartedly supported the United Kingdom’s statements, saying that Germany already “harbours international cooperation” and they consider the PAGE program to be highly beneficial and that it will have “a plethora of various effects as it brings together various committees”. Although the delegations continued to be vague about the actual benefits of increased reliance on the PAGE program, all of the countries came to a mutual consensus that they were in favour of investing in it, or reworking it.
Using their own country as an example, the delegation of Denmark pointed out that the committee need not feel limited to only one solution. In accordance, Nigeria stated that the PAGE program is one step towards the future, and that the committee has introduced many broader potential steps, but they need to focus on the details. Conservation International enthused that the committee should implement more than one solution and not limit themselves. The representative pointed out that the committee should not dismiss the possibilities of education, even if education is not part of the United Nations Energy Program’s mandate, but consider working with an education committee. His speech received resounding applause, and a refreshed approach from the other delegates. By the end of the first un-moderated caucus of the day, the original four clusters of ideas had coalesced into two blocs in the spirit of true international cooperation, and clear solutions for finding green alternatives were beginning to emerge.