Organizational Development and Change
Over the past quarter of a century, global warming has gain immense popularity and the effects being experienced in various parts of the world. According to Finegan (2010) the changes in climatic pattern has come to be termed as a “super wicked problem”, one that direly needs immediate attention both to control and turn it around. Abate (2010) adds to the notion stating that climatic change is not an issue that will come and then disappear but rather it is an issue that is there to stay (p. 199). This means that when countries and Multinational Corporation think about production and environmental sustainability, there needs to be consideration of sustainable development pressures. According to Escobar and Vredenburg (2011), apart from climate change, other factors to be considered include biodiversity, social investment as well as development of renewable energy (p. 39, 50). It is also noted that due to the important roles that Multinational Corporations play in economic as well as environmental aspects, they were the first to be called upon to take decisive actions as well as active roles in substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Escobar and Vredenburg 2011, p. 39).
This emanated from the formation of the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in addition to the Kyoto Protocol as a powerful illustration of sustainable development and the effectiveness of multilateralism (Haug and Berkhout 2010, p. 22) and (Rayner 2010, p. 615). According to Levy, Hipel and Howard (2009), the main contributing reason for the slow pace in implementation of various environmental accords is due to the fact that the approach that has been applied is one of confrontation in place of combating these changes in the climatic condition (p. 319).
Current state of the global problem
The current state of affairs is both worrying and alarming and whatever needs to be done needs to be done fast. Finegan (2010) on climatic change continues to note that these changes have exacerbated the situation causing massive effect especially on the economic front. Finegan (2010) continues noting that when the growth rate is adversely affected by climatic changes, it becomes exceedingly hard to achieve set technological advancement.
In the wake of hurricane Katrina, it is noted that the coastal erosion caused massive irreparable damage such that the Native Village of Kivalina, Alaska had to be relocated (Abate 2010, p. 199 +). The reason for such a radical step to relocate the whole village was due to the susceptibility that the village now possesses in the event of future extreme climatic acts that would be devastating and catastrophic (Abate 2010). On observing the latest climatic change science and the viability of the island, Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that there was a need to have an institutionalised climatic justice framework that would act as part of the post-Kyoto regime (Abate 2010).
Susskind (2010) notes that latest environmental readings indicate that there is a record rise in sea level, storm surge, shifting patterns of precipitation and possible infiltration of salt water into freshwater regions that poses serious problems (p. 217). Currently, what is at stake includes infrastructure, water supply, fisheries, human health, coastal zones, agriculture, forest and ecosystem in addition to possibility of some extreme weather events (Susskind 2010, p. 217) and (Narain, Margulis and Essam 2011, p. 1004).
It is currently estimated that the level of carbon dioxide emission is at an all-time alarming level of 379 ppm and rising at a much faster rate annually than before (Susskind 2010, p. 218). Maslin (2009; Susskind 2010, p. 218) is quite sceptical on attainment of the overly ambitious 450 ppm greenhouse gas emission as of 2020, and continues to note that even if this would be possible, there would still be some 40 % chance that the average global temperature would exceed 20 C, a critical tipping point for profound global climatic changes.
According to Shi (2001; Pani and Mukhopadhyay 2010, p. 184) the main contributor to this increase in average global increase in temperature is aggravated by an increase in population level. According to World Bank’s data on global emission, it is noted that the highest bulk of emission happened in the past decade culminating to some staggering 30 billion metric tons as of 2005 (Pani and Mukhopadhyay 2010, p. 183). Shi (2001; Pani and Mukhopadhyay 2010, p. 184) continues to note that for every 1 % increase in population, there is a corresponding 1.28 % increase in carbon dioxide emission. However, Pani and Mukhopadhyay (2010) on their research found that despite these claims, it was noted that an increase in income contributed three times the effect of population increase (p. 184). As of 2003/2004, income changes with respect to population increase amounted to over six times the contribution of plain population increase (Pani and Mukhopadhyay 2010, p. 189). This raises a debate on whether it would be sustainable to substantially decrease birth rate and the effect this would have in time over the aging population.
Abate (2010) asks a crucial question as to the legal remedies that would help mitigate the effects that global warming and rapid climatic changes have (p. 197). The Kyoto Protocol, according to Abate (2010) was an ambitious response to the imminent global climatic changes that made achievable targets that would be achieved in a specified time frame (p. 199). However, implementation of this protocol faced diverse challenges especially with the U. S.’s announcement of its pulling out of the accord back in the year 2001 by the then U. S. President George W. Bush (Haug and Berkhout 2010, p. 22). Was the deadline too strict or was the U. S. Afraid to take an active role in pushing for a safer environment? Abate (2010) terms Kyoto Protocol as a multifaceted controversial instrument, set to tackle daunting task of an omnipresent global crisis (p. 199 +). The main challenges emanate from the fact that the solutions being sought should be in line with human right-based responses (Abate 2010). Escobar and Vredenburg (2011) on this issue posit that broad social pressures are the real driving forces that can achieve substantial actions in place of coercive and normative isomorphism especially when formulating policies on a global arena for effective change strategies (p. 39, 42).
The World Bank in 2009 launched the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change (EACC) (Narain, Margulis and Essam 2011, p. 1001) as a follow-up action plan after the Bali Action Plan that identified mitigation, technology, adaptation and financing as the key factors in dealing with climatic effects (Haug and Berkhout 2010, p. 22). However, according to Baum Easterling (2010), there is need to focus more on adaptation models than mitigation ones (p. 592). This is a relatively absurd turn of events in that a critical look at the available data and the experienced climatic changes, it would be odd to focus on adapting to the changing weather patterns and not do anything about it. In their research, the only driving forces towards their aver include welfare favouritism, stimulus magnitude in addition to consumption inequality (Baum and Easterling 2010, p. 595), a relatively narrow way of thinking.
According to Finegan (2010), it is noted that those that make the least of efforts in mitigating these causes and the same that possess least immediate incentives in as far as short-term action plans are concerned are in essence the main contributors to the current state of affairs. Abate (2010) notes that some of the stakeholders include the vulnerable population that is adversely affected by the rapidly changing climatic condition including, but not limited to, Eskimos in various regions (p. 197), if at all a viable solution is to be achieved.
Susskind (2010) notes that there exists a slick and potentially delicate line between politics and science and there is a need to strike a balance between the two crucial facets (p. 224). It is further argued, according to National Research Council, that when considering science-intense engagement, public decision-making should be collective, with inclusion of all stakeholders (NRC 2008; 2009; Susskind 2010, p. 224).
Elijido-Ten, Kloot and Clarkson (2010) come up with a controversial issue on stakeholder engagement where it is noted that for big multinational corporations, there is focus on defending the occurrence of environmental phenomena in addition to explaining what is already being done to counter this, instead of taking the blame for the deteriorating environmental activities (p. 1032). This line of thought comes from Frooman’s power-dependence approach that entails low interdependence, stakeholder power, firm power and high interdependence (Elijido-Ten, Kloot and Clarkson 2010, p. 1037).
However, despite all efforts in the distant and recent past to include key stakeholders on the decision-making table, one aspect is still evident; the very fact that without an agreeable and internationally binding accord, it would be next to impossible to mitigate these causes (Haug and Berkhout 2010, p. 26).
The way forward/ solution
Ultimately, climate change is a global problem and should be viewed in it appropriate capacity (Finegan 2010). As noted above, with the absence of a globally acknowledged and functional lawmaking institution as far as climate change is concerned, in addition to complexities from jurisdiction and legal authorities will continue to exacerbate the problem (Finegan 2010) and (Haug and Berkhout 2010, p. 26).
Abate (2010) proposes that it will become a necessity in the near future to have a common law governing various aspects that affect and contribute to climate change. In support of this line of thinking, Susskind (2010) notes that for the said laws to be effective, they need to be formulated such that they are action-oriented, strategic, and adaptive in addition to their ability to be broadly supported by parties across the board (p. 220). For wide acceptance, Susskind (2010) notes, there needs to be collaboration especially in scenario planning (p. 227), role-play simulation (p. 229) as well as joint fact finding (p. 228).
Looking at the most viable way of addressing this challenge of coming into consensus and borrowing from the works of Upadhyaya (2010) and Rayner (2010), a bottom-up approach would be the best way to go. Previously, people have been made to believe that water finds it easier to trickle down from the top instead of dashing from bottom up. However, the top-down model in climatic change decision making has been fruitless especially with the previously noted case of U. S. pulling out of Kyoto Protocol.
It is noted that basing the approach from developing country level and working the way up, large and developed countries would be motivated to act instead of these developed countries leading the way and setting the standards (Upadhyaya 2010) and (Rayner 2010, p. 616, 617). However, there is need to consider and find modalities that will ensure smooth transition from the top-down approach to the bottom-up approach (Rayner 2010, p. 620). Khor (2009; Upadhyaya 2010, p. 561) notes that the Copenhagen accord is quite weak and cannot assure a strong response to climate change problems in addition to the fact that it is not legally binding.
In conclusion, climatic changes have exacerbated the situation causing massive effect especially on the economic front. It is further noted that for every 1 % increase in population, there is a corresponding 1.28 % increase in carbon dioxide emission. As of 2003/2004, income changes with respect to population increase amounted to over six times the contribution of plain population increase. The Kyoto Protocol was an ambitious response to the imminent global climatic changes that made achievable targets that would be achieved in a specified time frame. The World Bank in 2009 launched the EACC as a follow-up action plan after the Bali Action Plan that identified mitigation, technology, adaptation and financing as the key factors in dealing with climatic. Vulnerable population that is adversely affected by the rapidly changing climatic condition including, but not limited to, Eskimos in various regions should also be considered in finding a viable solution. Ultimately, climate change is omnipresent. The Copenhagen accord is quite weak and cannot assure a strong response to climate change problems in addition to the fact that it is not legally binding. Finally, a bottom-up approach in addition to creation of a legally binding framework is the best and most viable solution to the problem
Abate, R.S. 2010, “Public Nuisance Suits for the Climate Justice Movement: the Right Thing and the Right Time”, Washington Law Review, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 197-252.
Baum, S.D. & Easterling, W.E. 2010, “Space-time discounting in climate change adaptation”, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 591-609.
Cook, B.J. 2010, “Arenas of Power in Climate Change Policymaking”, Policy Studies Journal, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 465-486.
Escobar, L.F. & Vredenburg, H. 2011, “Multinational Oil Companies and the Adoption of Sustainable Development: A Resource-Based and Institutional Theory Interpretation of Adoption Heterogeneity”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 39-65.
Elijido-Ten, E., Kloot, L. & Clarkson, P. 2010, “Extending the application of stakeholder influence strategies to environmental disclosures”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1032-1059.
Haug, C. & Berkhout, F. 2010, “Learning the Hard Way? European Climate Policy after Copenhagen”, Environment, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 20-27.
Khor, M. 2009, “Blame Denmark, not China, for Copenhagen failure”, Guardian. Available at www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/28/copenhagen-denmark-china
Levy, J.K., Hipel, K.W. & Howard, N. 2009, “Advances in Drama Theory for Managing Global Hazards and Disasters. Part II: Coping with Global Climate Change and Environmental Catastrophe”, Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 317-334.
Maslin, M. 2009, Global Warming: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press: London.
Narain, U., Margulis, S. & Essam, T. 2011, “Estimating costs of adaptation to climate change”, Climate Policy, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1001-1019.
NRC (United States National Research Council) 2008, Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision-making, NRC: Washington, DC.
NRC (United States National Research Council) 2009, Informing Decisions on a Changing Climate, NRC: Washington, DC.
Pani, R. & Mukhopadhyay, U. 2010, “Identifying the major players behind increasing global carbon dioxide emissions: a decomposition analysis”, Environmentalist, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 183-205.
Rayner, S. 2010, “How to eat an elephant: a bottom-up approach to climate policy”, Climate Policy, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 615-621.
Shi, A. 2001, Population Growth and Global Carbon Dioxide emissions, Paper Presented at IUSSP Conference in Brazil/session-s09
Susskind, L. 2010, “Policy & Practice: Responding to the risks posed by climate change: Cities have no choice but to adapt”, The Town Planning Review, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 217-235.
Upadhyaya, P. 2010, “Is emission trading a possible policy option for India?”, Climate Policy, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 560-574.
WRI (World Resources Institute), 2009, ‘“Taking note” of the Copenhagen Accord: what it means’, by J. Werksman, World Resources Institute. Available at www.wri.org/stories/2009/12/taking-note-copenhagen-accord-what-it-means