There are various factors and hypothesis that claim what changes our climate. The most certain and influential factor is the pollution by human activities. Thus, emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs), especially carbon dioxide (CO2) make the planet to become warmer. Global warming increases the sea level and melted icebergs not only change the salinity of seawater but also make currents unpredictable. Extreme climates make our lives more unstable, more frequently. Among MDGs (Millennium Development Goals), the seventh goal focuses on hygiene and living condition of the poor society, but it is now losing its direction towards systematic reformation in the means of industrial system. With only four years left before the deadline, 2015, talks between nations about sustainable development is receiving lots of attention while not making much progress.

In front of the United Nations

 

Maldives and Tuvalu gave up their sovereignty, and rising sea level presses the people to be submerged in the middle of an endless ocean. While time is ticking off, no government has been able to come up with a practical, measurable solution. MUNCCC (Model United Nations Climate Change Conference) seeks bright youths to solve it for the adults who are confined to economic benefits and worried about its losses.

 

Before the debate, each delegate wrote their Position Paper, a short essay stating their nations’ goals to achieve throughout the meeting. Here is a part of mine:

Germany would like to achieve two things in this climate change conference: 1. Setting framework policy that reinforces both economic growth and conservation of nature capital. 2. Coming up with measures to provide incentives to use natural resources efficiently and making pollution more expensive. Both idea stress that environment should no longer be free. Germany finds the most basic reason why nations have been free to abuse nature capital without hesitance in that it is nobody’s responsibility to restore what one has taken. However, while number one requires international and long term compromises, the latter calls for the measures for the time being, before the green economic structure completely stabilizes in societies.” (Tip: In all sessions, in writing or during the debate, everyone including yourselves must be recognized as a third person pronouns.)

 

Every participant represents a nation in a committee as a delegate. Each committee has its own agendas, and mine was ‘OECD and Green Growth’. Only OECD member nations were open to the debate, so there should be a different focus compared to a session in the General Assembly. It is important to grasp which countries with certain economic and social capacity is participating in the debate. Whereas OECD members can more easily afford money costing projects, not all members in GA are capable. Also, there are always main countries in the center leading the debate, ones highly involved in the agenda. It is important and inevitable to form power structures around those delegates. Also, always take notes, because almost all the speeches made during the conference are impromptu; delegates take notes while they listen to the others, and at the same time how to refer to it. But above all, do not get too emotional, or you might personally hurt the other delegate.

 

In the debate session, delegates from US, ROK, Spain have expressed their recent concerns over their fiscal difficulty compared to Switzerland, Germany or UK. But a decision paper written by Switzerland and UK merely suggested already comparably eco-friendly nations to take part in green technology share without the mention of IPR (Intellectual Property Rights). In vice versa, there were no incentives for the technology/ fiscal aid donor nations. The entire decision paper was appeasing to environmentally developed nations for their benevolence. Since decision papers are not mandatory or legally binding, the paper was merely a justification to deny their window dressing. In the mean while, highly developing nations (ROK, Mexico and Brazil) were helplessly waiting for developed nations’ aid. This was not going to work. The paper did not encourage any of the developing nations to voluntarily strive harder to achieve the knowledge of green management, nor for developed nations, pass on to other nations to make this world greener.

 

With Spain, ROK, US and Ireland, we introduced BAMP(Bilateral Appropriate Mitigation Program / 양국간적절완화프로그램). This is a practical form of NAMA (Nationally Appropriate Mitigaton Action), which the president of ROK has brought attention to in 2009 COP (Conference of Parities) in Copenhagen. Developing nations would have to pay small payment to developed nations in exchange for the green technological support, thereby establishing a world sized immense partnership. If the developing nations have failed to achieve the CO2 emission percentage, they had to pay interest to the developed nations; the rate was left to be determined according to their fiscal situation. World Bank will be participating as a mediator. This idea gained the support from the majority and refined the paper in a more practical manner.

Members and student officers of Committee 8, 'OECD and Green Growth'

          

           MUNCCC 2011 was held by YTN in Korea University with cooperation of British Embassy. Prize winners were later invited to a reception in the British Embassy in Seoul, and had a luncheon. Smaller number of people among them will be lucky enough to participate in COP 17, South Africa as observers. For those of you students wishing to be a diplomat one day, this experience is indispensible and priceless. Become a face of one country for a few days! This experience has motivated many youth including me to find their passion, career, dream and potential. Do you want to feel the goose bumps? Dive in one of the Model United Nations and voice your opinion.


+ Recent posts