This review essay may contain some errors about the objective truth. Also, this review essay is completely written by myself. Therefore might have a biased opinion. Please tell me if this essay includes some errors about the objective truth. Also, I like to hear your idea about my opinion. Please leave them in the comment. I never take responsibility for the content of this essay. Every choice is up to you. So please be cautious when reading it.
In the video, the reporter is keeping track of how the EU is dealing with the climate problems using their power by several policies. The EU's ultimate purpose is to achieve a carbon-neutral society. For the accomplishment, the EU made some middle-stages. First, 55% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2030. And the second stage is not using gas until 2035 and alternating 40% of the energy into renewable energy. For its success, the EU uses two main policies. The one is to make companies that made more greenhouse emissions than the standard pay a copious amount of fines. Another policy is for non-EU companies and countries. The policy is called CBAM, which is a kind of environmental tariff for those who make more greenhouse gas over the standard out of the EU.
In my opinion, the policies are quite powerful and long-lasting. However, it seems to be very hard to achieve what they are trying to get ultimately. There are several reasons why.
The deepening of the competition between the countries, the economical efficiency of the traditional materials in many parts of the industries, and the backlash of the people who suffer from the echo-friendly revolution.
First, the deepening of the competition between the countries is making each country use inefficient methods of making the energy. For example, even though making fewer greenhouse gases is good for the environment, undeveloped countries like China are still making a lot of greenhouse gases since it's cheap. Also, even developed countries like South Korea, are expected to maintain many parts of environmentally friendly industries like the making of irons and steel.
Second, as I mentioned in the first reason, it is obvious that using what we've already had is much easier than develop or alternate new facilities. Something like irons and steel is very hard to make new facilities and educate new employees to transform method of making.
Finally, the backlash seems to be not an easy task to solve. As mentioned in the video, when France raised its cost of oil pretexting of environmentally friendly, many people resisted because of the cost. For many people, raising the cost of something essential might be the matter of maintaining their life. Therefore, pushing environmentally friendly not considering the cost is morally incorrect.
In conclusion, I think considering our ability to hold our life and industries must be considered before pushing the policies. If not, many people around the world would not advocate the policies and no longer work well.
Thanks.
Comments
Post a Comment