War Council Gets Heated Debating Climate Change

An article written during MUN-tag 2017

The second topic to be debated during our MUN-tag, climate change, prompted serious discussion among delegates. The first clause (submitted by the delegation of Germany) stated that all countries should cut carbon emissions by 30%. In an intense argument with the United States, Germany said, “Is the delegation of the United States not aware that of the consequences of global warming that will result in international economic collapse as well?” In response, the United States argued that cutting emissions would decrease its profit from digging up natural reserves, as it is a very lucrative market, and that the problem is equivalent to “the lives of a couple of polar bears.” “Global warming is more important than a couple of polar bears,” retorted the delegation of Sweden. “New York City is a large commercial and economic hub for the United States, and would also be affected by global warming with the rising sea levels that will occur as a result of increasing carbon emissions.” In response, the United States pointed out, “Reducing emissions would affect New York City economically just as much as the rising sea levels. Therefore, the cuts in emissions would not be in the United States’ favor.”

Moving into open debate, the United States defended its plans in response to the outcry from other countries such as Germany. “The United States should be able to pursue its energy independence plans (from OPEC) without obstruction from other countries … It believes that regulations by other nations are impending America’s progress in energy independence and its ‘America First’ policy.” Germany’s reply was unique in its simplicity and directness, and marked an interesting point in the debate: “Were the United States of America to ignore all other countries and focus its efforts solely to improve itself, the whole world would be affected, and all other countries would eventually be damaged.” Germany then continued, “If the clause goes through, the United States could emit as many harmful gases as it wants. Not only will that shift the global economy, giving priority to the United States, but it will also have a negative impact environmentally, for example creating more hurricanes.” The delegation of Switzerland, Germany’s geographical neighbor, surprisingly backed up the United States. “The United States has thousands of businesses in foreign markets. If the United States loses money due to changes in use of emissions, it would have a huge negative impact on global economies as well as its own.” Switzerland stated that all the delegations should support the United States in its endeavors to grow its economy.”

In agreement with Switzerland, the United States had this to say: “The delegation of the United States has untapped coal reserves that are worth at least $50 billion. While carbon dioxide emissions might rise for a couple of years, the consequences would be miniscule compared to the wealth and economic growth that would result for nations all over the world… The United States has the EPA division to focus on clear air and water, so mining coal and oil would not have as bad repercussions as other delegations would fear.” Whether for better or worse, the United States is not a country known to back down for others. Speaking to the other delegations, it said, “Cutting down 30% would impact the national economy as a whole, and the United States is not ready to make this change yet.” Because there was a draw, the clause to force all countries to cut emissions to 30% failed. Therefore, the United States was able to safely protect its interests.

#ClimateChange #GlobalWarming #CarbonEmissions