UNFCCC Blog Post #5
Yay! MORE ANALYSYS OF THE PARIS
AGREEMENT!!! One article about vegetarianism brought up a good point regarding
agriculture. It says, “The scarcity of regulations and policies to address this
endemic crisis means that proposed solutions tend to ignore these structural
causes and instead encourage business as usual. For example, a typical response
is to make resources more efficient, such as producing more carbon-efficient
fertilizer. But studies show that efficiencies gained are often countered by
increases in resource use—it’s the farming equivalent of having an extra piece
just because the cake is low-calorie. Other measures have included encouraging consumers
to go vegan or vegetarian. But these solutions fail to challenge the logic of
industrial agriculture, which operates in a paradigm of economic growth at all
costs”. Even though these diets sound better than meat production, one must not
forget the challenges still facing agriculture in general. Even if we switched
completely to these diets, it unfortunately still serves as just a first step
(in the right direction at least).
In my reading of the Paris
agreement I found this statement extremely relevant and important. It comes
from article 5 as part of the conservation side of the agreement and reads, “Parties
are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through
results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance
and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy approaches and positive
incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of
forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; and
alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation
approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while
reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon
benefits associated with such approaches” (23-24). Despite not directly
mentioning livestock or the meat sector in this, I can assume as I have in
previous blog posts that pasteurizing land will be considered when people start
taking action. So much of deforestation and degradation comes from these
issues, so I hope to learn more about the details behind this statement with
further research and studying of the delegations.
I am really concerned how this
agreement isn’t greatly concerning the rights of indigenous people because
frankly they are the first ones effected by all of this. We see in interviews
how people are upset with not only the lack of effort to keep coal in the
ground altogether, but also to not put indigenous people at the top of the
priority list. When forests get cut down, they are affected first and often get
taken advantage of and don’t get much say in the whole thing, (not to mention
their vulnerability to climate change effects already).
google.images
No comments:
Post a Comment