Approaches to fighting climate change heavily debated
On January 7th, 2021, the setting of the MUNSA debate was drastically altered. Many delegates at this conference offered their proposals from the comfort of their own bedroom, nevertheless, the debate ran just as smoothly as any conference in ISA history. In this particular room, delegates representing their respective countries debated plans for reducing carbon emissions. While every representative was united in their goal to fight climate change, many had very different ideas of how they would achieve this.
The delegation of France proposed an education centered solution, partnering developed countries with lesser developed countries to offer students in undeveloped countries schooling for the climate sciences. The delegation of Indonesia, on the other hand, was heavily opposed to this due to inadequate anti-imperialistic measures.
In the delegate’s words, “Rather than a skepticism towards international country partnership, [Indonesia is] more hesitant to the idea that such partnerships will result in cultural imperialism (for lack of a better term). As a country that was previously colonized by European powers in its history, Indonesia hesitates to lean on presently developed nations to solve its domestic and international problems.” Clearly outlining the reality of history repeating itself.
When questioned upon the morality of the proposal, the delegation of France responded with “The Developed nations hope to send students and teachers for only a short amount of time such as 6 months.” The delegate of Indonesia obviously did not find this measure to be sufficient, actively voicing the risks of this plan throughout the rest of the conference.
The El Salvador delegation was equally skeptical of France’s proposal, but for separate reasons. The nation of El Salvador currently is dealing with the crisis of gang violence, poverty, and more. The delegate made it clear that El Salvador would be unable to effectively tackle carbon emissions until the domestic issues were stabilized.
This Delegate expanded on the idea by stating “...This delegation believes that domestic issues can be handled by local governments if they are to receive assistance from Developed nations. France's proposal is promising but a bit vague on how these Developed nations would have checks to ensure their help.” This statement explains the inability of developing nations to tackle climate change, and was quickly seconded by other delegations, such as Pakistan and Afghanistan.
A proposal by Ukraine entered the floor later in the debate, offering tax breaks to businesses and individuals who use low carbon energy. While considered an adequate short term solution in Developed countries, many delegations saw this as an attack on Developing nations. The delegation of Italy even included the fact that the United Nations does not have the authority to enforce tax breaks.
The Indonesia Delegation offered a counterplan, saying “tackling climate change on another forefront: via an international allocation of resources unique to nations through the global market, the dependence on fossil fuels and carbon-contributing energy sources will be lessened, and developing nations, through this coalition, will be able to solve two problems at once: that of climate change, and that of independent economic standpoints in the global market.” to add
Many different ideas were brought into questions, and no one proposal was agreed upon, but it can be concluded that.