Decision Memoranda on the Issue of Climate Change

Public Management – A Decision Memoranda
Name
Student ID
Course
Date
Action Forcing Event
NPR has reported that historic levels of flooding have hit Pakistan. As of September 1st, more than a million homes, 2 million acres of crops, and 3,000 miles of roads have been ruined. This flooding has affected as many as 33 million Pakistanis, killed more than 1,100 people, displaced half a million people, and left about one-third of Pakistan underwater. The floods have put more pressure on the nation’s dams. Pakistan experienced the wettest August since the country began maintaining comprehensive national weather records in 1961. For the first time in history, the worst affected provinces got eight times more rain than usual. According to a report by the Pakistan Meteorological Department, the rainfall in August was 243% above the national average. It is unfortunate for Pakistan, which contributes less than 1% of the global greenhouse gases, to suffer the implications of climate change. What makes it worse is that the country is at the convergence of two major weather systems. One can lead to high temperatures, and the other brings monsoon rains. With the majority of Pakistan’s population living along the Indus River, which floods during the monsoon rains, the increase in flooding will continue devastating the country unless corrective measures are put in place. The situation in Pakistan is likely to occur in less developed countries with adverse effects if corrective actions are not implemented.[Hersher, Rebecca. 2022. Climate change likely helped cause deadly Pakistan floods, scientists find. Sepetember 19. /2022/09/19/1123798981/climate-change-likely-helped-cause-deadly-pakistan-floods-scientists-find.] [Pakistan Meteorological Department. 2022. Pakistan’s Monthly Climate Summary August, 2022. Government of Pakistan: Pakistan Meteorological Departmen. /cdpc/Pakistan_Monthly_Climate_Summary_August_2022.pdf.]
Statement of the Problem
Climate change-induced flooding is a perfect example of a world that continues to embrace the wealthy while the poor continue to languish. The current reports of flooding in different parts of the world, with the poor bearing the brunt of the same, is an apt depiction of the statement above. In Pakistan, for example, the flooding experienced in the country since June 2022 mainly impacted the lives of the poor in the country. For purposes of context, in Pakistan, 29.5% of the country’s population lives below the poverty line, with an additional 12.3% considered undernourished. Agriculture is the country’s largest employer taking as much as 42.6% of the country’s workforce. During the flooding, large tracts of agricultural lands were affected, 2 million acres of crops were destroyed, and the country’s food supply was severely dented. The floods are estimated to cost the country more than $10 billion by the end of August. While some people would argue that this is an act of God, studies appear to blame climate change, with the states most responsible for the climate crisis being experienced asked to assume responsibility. A study from World Weather Attribution discovered that climate change contributed to an increase in the intensity of rainfall experienced in Pakistan by 50%. The study further reveals that the intensity of rainfall in Pakistan and the world is likely to increase in the coming years as the country and the world get warmer. However, compared to a country like the U.S., Pakistan’s greenhouse emissions are wildly insignificant and currently stand at less than 1%. So, why should a poor country that contributes far less to the climate change crisis have to bear the brunt while rich and guilty countries like the U.S. are spared?[World Bank. 2021. Climate Risk Country Profile.] [Shahzad, Asif. 2022. Pakistan Floods Cost at Least $10 Billion, Planning Minister Says. Reuters.] [Otto, Friederike., Zachariah, Mariam., Saeed, Fahad., Siddiqi, Ayesha., Shahzad, Kamil., et al. 2022. Climate Change Likely Increased Extreme Monsoon Rainfall, Flooding Highly Vulnerable Communities in Pakistan. World Weather Attribution.]
The study by World Weather Attribution indicates that the world’s temperature has risen by 2 °C since the preindustrial era, and this is a credit to the U.S. and its European counterparts. Such a change is monumental because it means that the earth’s atmosphere can hold more moisture, which eventually translates to intense downpours. A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change echoes the above while also connecting climate change to the increased rainfall as well as the melting of snow. However, despite the above report and others, the world continues to experience an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4, and N2O have had immense increases in concentrations since before the preindustrial era. For example, atmospheric CO2 is said to have increased by 47%, while atmospheric CH4 concentration is said to have increased by 156%. These are significant increases that continually predispose to the impact of climate change. For example, the rise in temperature is directly attributed to the increase in the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. It is reported that the world’s surface temperature has been increasing at a faster rate in the last 50-year period. However, the responsible parties like the U.S. and the corporations that ought to bear the brunt of the impact of these changes continue to further their wealth creation agenda.[Ibid.] [IPCC. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. IPCC.] [Ibid.] [Ibid.]
The climate change crisis is an issue that speaks volumes about the world’s stance on justice and fairness. Today, the wealthy countries are getting wealthier, while the developing countries are somehow struggling to make ends meet. With regard to climate change impacts like flooding, poor countries happen to have worse experiences. In Pakistan, for example, the agricultural sector was severely impacted. This impact is akin to holding the economy of the country hostage, considering agriculture is the largest employer. With such effects in the country whose household welfare was greatly impacted by COVID-19, poverty eradication continues to remain a pipedream. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a World Bank report indicates that half of Pakistan’s working population was exposed to income and job loss. Coming out of such a situation to historical flooding with catastrophic impacts lays bare the unfairness in the world while showcasing the cyclical fight to end poverty that Pakistan will be engaged in in the coming years. However, it would be unfair to work with the assumption that flooding only occurs in poor countries. In the U.S., for example, there have been reported floods that have left many displaced, bereaved, or deceased. Like Pakistan, the U.S. has also seen an increase in the amount of heavy rainfall. In a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, extreme precipitation has been reported in many parts of the U.S. in the last 50 years. Flooding has also been reported to increase in these areas, and flood fatalities are also taking an upward trajectory. But, the common factor or denominator in these changes is that the poor end up more heavily affected than the wealthy. The poor are the ones who live in places and houses susceptible to flooding and will have a difficult time recovering from floods. These experiences are similar to all poor people in the world, further showcasing how unfair and unbalanced the world is.[World Bank. 2021. Poverty & Equity Brief: South Asia – Pakistan. World Bank.] [Union of Concerned Scientists. 2018. Climate Change, Extreme Precipitation, and Flooding: The Latest Science. Union of Concerned Scientists.]
Aside from the above, it is crucial to note that flooding also greatly inflicts financial damages that impact the poor the heaviest. Between 1988 and 2017, a Stanford study indicates that the U.S. has incurred flood-related damages as a result of increased precipitation totaling $73 billion. With elements like housing, infrastructure, destruction of public services, and household assets severely damaged every time a flood occurs, the cost indicated above aptly depicts the horrific impacts of flooding. For purposes of perspective, after the 2010 Pakistan flooding, 728,192 houses were destroyed, 436 healthcare facilities were damaged, and connecting bridges covering a distance of 140 km were destroyed. These costs will only worsen with predictions that precipitation will likely intensify in the coming decades. Such predictions help to paint a picture of what the future holds if the world does not actively engage in activities that will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If countries like the U.S. and China continue to emit more than 35% of the world’s greenhouse gases, floods, and other climate change-related disasters will only increase in magnitude. Therefore, it is crucial that corporations are held accountable and measures put in place to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the world.[Larsen, Kate., Pitt, Hannah., Grant, Mikhail., & Houser, Trevor. 2021. China’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Exceeded the Developed World for the First Time in 2019. Rhodium Group.]
Background/History
Starting point
It took close to a century for research and data to convince most of the scientific community and policymakers that human activity could alter the planet's climate. In the 1800s, studies demonstrating that increased carbon dioxide and other gases because of human activities could insulate the earth were met with curiosity rather than concern. In the 1950s, more readings on carbon dioxide showed that global warming was real. Over the years, data has become more abundant. Scientists have been able to undertake climate modeling with real-world weather events to demonstrate that global warming is real and presents adverse effects. While much has been done since the 1800s, the concept of global warming was more welcomed in the 1980s when the world saw a sharp increase in global temperatures. In 1988, the effects of global warming started becoming more fundamental to the masses, hence drawing considerable attention. While Scientists had warned of the “greenhouse effect” for years, many skeptics had taken them for granted. The summer of 1988 was the hottest on record at the time. The period saw an increase in wildfires and drought all over the US. The heat wave of 1988 prompted Americans to take the threat of climate change more seriously.[Fecht, S. "How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming." Columbia Climate School. Available online: https://lamont. columbia. edu/news/how-exactly-does-carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming (accessed on 25 February 2021) (2021).] [Demeritt, David. "The construction of global warming and the politics of science." Annals of the association of American geographers 91, no. 2 (2001): 307-337.]
Because of the imminent danger of climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) collaborated to establish the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The major objective of the IPCC was to offer governments scientific information to assist them in developing climate policies. The organization would make instrumental in generating reports needed in the international climate change negotiations.[Kovats, Sari, Kristie L. Ebi, and Bettina Menne. Methods of assessing human health vulnerability and public health adaptation to climate change. No. EUR/03/5036776. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe, 2003.]
Major Laws
Congress has been at the forefront in addressing climate change for over three decades, but with varying results. Laws and congressionally approved findings have established programs aimed at minimizing emissions and incentivizing the use of clean energy. However, it is essential to note that efforts to tackle the issue holistically, including using market-based approaches, have not borne fruits. These are some of the major milestones Congress has made regarding the matter. Firstly, in 1992, Senate approved the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The process of formulating a global agreement to handle the issue started in the early 1990s. UNFCCC required the member nations to work towards implanting future agreements towards combating global warming. When President George H.W. Bush signed the framework, he indicated that America intended to become a world leader in protecting the global environment. The same year, Senate included the renewable energy production tax credit in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. The tax credit wants meant to expand the use of the wind energy industry.[O'Rourke, Ronald, and Michael Moodie. US role in the world: background and issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, 2020.]
In 1997, world leaders started discussions to combat the increase in the outflow of greenhouse gas emissions to avert the world from the imminent danger of climate change. Consequently, the Kyoto Protocol became the first global agreement meant to minimize the emission of greenhouse gases. It called for reducing the emission of six greenhouse gases in 41 countries and the European Union to 5.2% less than the 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. However, Senate had warned the president from entering into the international climate agreement because it harmed the economy of the US. However, President Bill Clinton negotiated and ultimately signed the Kyoto Protocol. The Clinton Administration did not submit the agreement to Senate for advice and consent. Consequently, in 2001, President George W. Bush indicated that the US would not join the Kyoto Protocol. President Bush cited that the agreement was flawed and adversely affected the US economy. This was a major blow towards combating climate change, given that the US was among the world's major contributors to greenhouse gases.[Lopez, Todd M. "A look at climate change and the evolution of the Kyoto Protocol." Natural Resources Journal (2003): 285-312.] [Kahn, Greg. "The Fate of the Kyoto Protocol under the Bush Administration." Berkeley J. Int'l L. 21 (2003): 548.]
Between 2003 and 2007, bipartisan efforts were made to minimize the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 introduced a cap-and-trade program to minimize emissions from the most prominent sources that accounted for the most significant percentage of emissions like electricity, manufacturing, and transport. The Energy Policy Act 2005 passed tax breaks for nuclear power and renewable electricity production. The government encouraged innovative technologies that led to the advancement of nuclear reactors and clean coal facilities. The bill also provided subsidies for wind energy and enhanced the competitiveness of geothermal energy compared to fossil fuels. In 2007, the Consolidated Appropriations Act was passed and signed into law. The law required the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to formulate a rule mandating public reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from the largest contributors. The US could have comprehensive nationwide data on greenhouse gasses through the reporting program.[Lu, Yuehong, Zafar A. Khan, Manuel S. Alvarez-Alvarado, Yang Zhang, Zhijia Huang, and Muhammad Imran. "A critical review of sustainable energy policies for the promotion of renewable energy sources." Sustainability 12, no. 12 (2020): 5078.] [Ibid]
President Obama pledged to prioritize combating climate change when he was elected. The US House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The legislation sought to establish a nationwide cap-and-trade system. In the same period, more legislation was proposed, including the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, the American Power Act in 2010, the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act, and the Practical Energy and Climate Plan. Because of the many proposed legislation, Senate Majority Leader was required to consolidate elements of the proposals to form a comprehensive climate bill. However, because of the lack of support, the Majority Leader indicated that the legislation would not include a cap on greenhouse emissions.[Waxman, Henry A., and Edward J. Markey. "American clean energy and security act of 2009." Washington: US House of Representatives (2009).]
In 2012, the need to protect communities against flooding gained attention. There was a need to enhance the funding of the National Flood Insurance Program, which had been established in 1968. The US recognized the threat of flooding because of the rise in the level of the sea and the increasing instances of an extreme downpours. In this regard, Congress enacted the National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act. The bill was instrumental in providing a comprehensive audit of the climate risk. Through the bill, calculations about the future flood risk could be made. The same year, Sen. Jeff Bingaman introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012. The legislation was meant to modernize America’s power sector and propel it towards a future where more electricity would be produced with cleaner energy. The legislation used a straightforward, market-based approach to encourage entities to invest in various electricity-generating technologies. It sought to establish a framework to allow resources to compete based on their level of cleanliness. It then would allow the market to determine the best alternative. Sen. Bingaman envisioned a future whereas the country continued to grow, it leveraged the clean resources that were available and offered a continuing incentive to formulate cheaper and cleaner technologies needed.[Brown, Jared T. Introduction to FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2016.]
The extension of renewable energy tax credits was done in 2015. Congress agreed on a multi-year extension and the phase-out of the earlier incentives. Through tax credits, entities could continue making renewable energy more competitive. The following year, Reps. Carlos Curbelo and Ted Deutch proposed the Climate Solutions Caucus. It aimed to educate members on the most economical means to minimize climate risk and protect the country's critical sectors, infrastructure, and sources. Additionally, the Methane and Waste Prevention Regulation 2016 sought to minimize natural gas wasted in activities associated with oil and natural gas production on onshore Federal and Indian lands. The objective is to curb wastage and hence reduce air pollution. In 2018, Congress allowed a two-year budget deal that enhanced key financial incentives to boost carbon capture. Climate change became a priority when Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives in 2019. During this time, a select committee on Climate Change Crisis in the House was formed. The committee is responsible for publishing reports with policy recommendations on what should be done to deal with global warming. Further, more market-based climate change measures were implemented to ensure that the government addressed the issue from a broad perspective. In 2020, America witnessed Congress passing the first major energy policy since 2007. The bill provided for research and deployment of clean energy technologies and tax incentives. It also required the EPA to systematically reduce the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons over a 15-year timeline.[Marshall, Renae, and Matthew G. Burgess. "Advancing bipartisan decarbonization policies: lessons from state-level successes and failures." Climatic change 171, no. 1 (2022): 1-22.] [Ibid] [Ibid] [Rabe, Barry George. Can Congress govern the climate?. NYU Wagner, 2007.]
Major Executive Orders
a) Obama Administration
On October 2009, through Executive Order 13514, President Obama required federal agencies to demonstrate leadership in environmental, energy, and economic performance. The order required the agencies to outline greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2020 within three months. The order outlined the needed reduction in the burning of fossil fuels for the transport sector and the efficient use of water and energy. The order further directed the formulation of practices aimed at using environmentally preferable products.[Columbia Law School. 2022. Executive Orders. https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/executive-orders.]
June 2013 saw the publication of the President’s Climate Action Plan. It outlines the steps the executive should follow to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The plan rested on three key pillars. Firstly, it required America to enhance efforts toward cutting down carbon pollution. Secondly, the plan sought to prepare the country for the impact of climate change. Here, the US would enhance its preparedness for the adverse effects of climate change, like flooding. Lastly, the plan outlined the need for America to lead efforts to combat global warming and prepare for the consequences. However, in 2017, President Trump, through an executive order, revoked the President’s Climate Action Plan. Such an action had adverse effects on the efforts toward climate change, given that it affected America’s commitment to addressing the issue on the global stage.[Ibid] [Columbia Law School. 2022.]
In November 2013, President Obama required federal agencies to make efforts aimed at preparing for climate change effects and supporting both state and local resilience efforts. Through Executive Order 13653, the president established a task force on climate preparedness and resilience. The task force published recommendations on how the federal government could ensure smooth adaptation efforts. The order was instrumental in ensuring that federal agencies remained at the forefront in supporting state and local governments in combating climate change. Through Executive Order 13677 in September 2014, President Obama mandated agencies concerned with international development work to factor in climate change resilience.[Ibid]
President Obama, in January 2015, issued Executive Order 13690 mandating the federal investments targeting floodplains to adhere to higher flood risk management standards. However, it is essential to note that President Trump, in August 2015, through executive order, revoked Executive Order 13690. In March 2015, President Obama through Executive Order 13693 had the federal government commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2015. The major federal suppliers were required to plan to effect the emission reduction.[Ibid]
While President Obama championed actions aimed at combating climate change, none of them focused on holding businesses responsible for the menace directly liable for their actions. Instead, President Obama focused on measures to cut house gas emissions in the long term. Instead of being forceful towards corporations, the Obama Administration sought to work with government agencies and businesses to find a collaborative solution to climate change. The efforts bore some fruits, with businesses committing to cut down on their emissions at a specified time. While the measures were critical, they could not counter the adverse effects that climate change continued to rake on the globe. President Obama’s approach yielded few results, hence the need for developing a new policy that can address the problem more comprehensively.[Ibid]
b) Trump Administration
Through Executive Order 13771 in January 2017, President Trump instructed agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs by repealing new regulations and ensuring that there is no cost for any regulation. On April 2017, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs indicated that agencies should factor in costs rather than benefits when calculating the cost of rulemaking. Starting in March 2017, President Trump made numerous changes aimed at dismantling major actions taken at the federal level to deal with climate change. The president directed EPA to rescind or rewrite critical regulations through an executive order. At the same time, President Trump revoked several executive orders and actions the previous administrations had made regarding climate change. For instance, he established a national policy encouraging offshore energy exploration, revoking President Obama’s decision to withdraw particular areas of the Outer Continental Shelf from leasing. Further, President Trump, in May 2018, canceled Executive Order 13693, which President Obama had signed in March 2015 to cut federal greenhouse gas emissions by 40% in the next ten years.[Ibid] [Ibid]
Unlike the Obama Administration, which championed actions to combat climate change, Trump's Administration revoked all efforts to address the issue. President Trump considered the idea of climate change a “hoax” and made efforts to ensure that corporations and federal agencies focused on other “more important” issues rather than climate change. Consequently, Trump’s administration did more harm to the globe because the federal government ignored the issue. Businesses responsible for the problem continue to emit more pollutants, subjecting the world to more challenges. A policy like corporate criminal liability was not possible during the Trump Administration.
Biden Administration
On inauguration, President Biden, through Executive Order 13990 in January 2021, ordered a review of the actions undertaken during the Trump Administration towards health and the environment. Further, via Executive Order 14007 in January 2021, President Biden formed a Council of Advisors on science and technology. The council would ensure that decisions regarding major issues, including climate change, were made based on evidence. On May 2021, the president, through executive order 14027, created the Climate Change Support Office. Moreover, through Executive Order 14067, the president directed the need to consider how the use of technologies like blockchain can monitor and mitigate the impacts of climate change.[Melillo, Gianna. 2022. A look at Biden’s past executive orders on climate change. August 16. https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/climate-change/3603947-a-look-at-bidens-past-executive-orders-on-climate-change/.] [Ibid] [Ibid]
While President Biden has made efforts toward addressing the issue, he has failed to consider the role of corporates. Like the Obama Administration, the Biden Administration is careful to avoid colliding with corporates by holding them liable for climate change. Instead, the president continues to take soft measures toward American businesses, most of whom have created the current mess. There is a need to develop a policy that considers the role of corporates in climate change and takes action against them.
Policy Proposal
Corporations in the U.S. and the world continue to grow their wealth at the expense of the environment. From fighting regulations in court to lobbying against regulations to aligning with radical politicians and legislators, corporations have done it all as they try to ensure their continued exploitation of the environment. The underlying factor or reason for the above is greed and money, and as history indicates, corporations are willing to do everything they can to safeguard their money-making channels. The most shocking admission here is that death, flooding, hunger, or unrest in the world are not deemed crucial enough for corporations to cease their exploitative endeavors. As is always the case, there are corporations that have devoted themselves to making honest changes as they seek to enhance the health and condition of the world. Honorable mentions would include a corporation like Google, which boasts of being carbon neutral for about 15 years. Such commitment, coupled with initiatives like cloud sustainability, has helped the company to maintain its sustainability plan.
Studies continue to point the finger at corporations as some of the guiltiest culprits in greenhouse gas emissions. While tracing global emissions from natural gas, coal, cement manufacture, and crude oil corporations, Heede from Climate Mitigation Services discovered that 90 companies are responsible for 63.4% of CO2 emissions. Heede chose to trace these emissions from 1854 to 2010, and these conclusions were indeed shocking. However, his results appear to be affirmed by the Carbon Majors Report produced by Dr. Griffin, which indicates that 100 corporations worldwide are responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions. The arrogant bit here is that all these companies hap...