Liberal Studies (2)

1. Liberal Studies (2) Why did the US eventually agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

2. a) According to Source 1, why could the US withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol at will? As the Kyoto Protocol was not legally binding, participating countries could decide whether they would execute the protocol or withdraw from it. (2 marks)

3. b) According to Source 2, what were the changes in the US attitude towards the emission reduction target before 2050? What were the factors leading to such changes? • The US originally did not agree with the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by half before 2050. She only agreed to ‘seriously consider’ cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It was only until the end of the G8 meeting that the US agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by half before 2050. • What made the US compromise was the insistence of the other seven countries. After discussion, they eventually reached a consensus with the US. (4 marks)

4. c) Referring to Sources 1 and 2, compare the effectiveness of formal and informal institutional arrangements. Explain with the example of the US attitude towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. • Free answers. Any reasonable answers are acceptable. For example: • Informal institutional arrangements can be more effective than formal institutional arrangements. • The Kyoto Protocol was a formal agreement, but the US withdrew in 2001 at her own will. The G8 discussion which is a formal group, and even it merely provided an informal norm, the US eventually agreed with the emission reduction target after discussion with the other countries. This shows that informal institutional arrangements can be more effective. • Formal and informal institutional arrangements can bring about different results under different circumstances. The US withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 and agreed to the emission reduction target of the G8 in 2008. During these seven years, the US might have realized that the environmental problems were worsening and thus agreed to significantly reduce the emissions in 2008. This does not mean that informal institutional arrangements are more effective. Instead, it only reflects that under different circumstances, different institutional arrangements can bring about different results. (6 marks)

5. d) Howdoes global warming affect people’s health? Explain. • Free answers. Any reasonable answers are acceptable. For example: • Global warming provides many bacteria and viruses with a suitable environment for breeding. This may lead to an outbreak of epidemics. • Natural disasters like floods and storms caused by the climate change may also expand the scope of the spread of diseases. • Moreover, global warming also leads to crop failures. The lack of food may worsen people’s health, thus causing lower immunity to diseases. (6 marks)

6. e) ‘Globalization has brought more good than harm to the environment.’ Do you agree with this statement? Explain. • Free answers. Any reasonable answers are acceptable. For example: • Agree. This is because environmental problems have existed before contemporary accelerated globalization took place. Therefore, globalization is not the first cause of the damage to the environment. • Moreover, global conferences, regulations and people’s widespread concern are very important to environmental protection. Achievements made by the efforts of various countries to protect the environment can gradually be seen. It shows that globalization has brought more good than harm to the environment. • Disagree. This is because we should prevent damage to the environment, like diseases, before it happens. Globalization indeed provides a necessary framework to curb behaviour that harms the environment, such as pollution. • However, before this framework has succeeded, globalization has already speeded up people’s damage to the environment, resulting in irreversible and persistent damage. It is already too late to remedy afterwards. Therefore, globalization has brought more harm than good to the environment. (8 marks)