YMUNT VII: United Nations Environmental Programme

Letter from the Dais

Dear Delegates,

It is with great joy that I welcome you to the seventh annual Yale Model United Nations Taiwan! My name is Chase Finney, and I am honored to serve as your chair for the United Nations Environment Programme committee.

Before I continue, I would like for you all to get to know me a little better. I was born and raised in sunny South Florida. I am currently a sophomore at Yale in Saybrook College, and I intend to major in Global Affairs. I’m very involved in the Yale International Relations Association (YIRA) and many of its partner organizations including the Yale Model United Nations, Security Council Simulation at Yale, and the Yale Review of International Studies. This is my first year of involvement with YMUNT, and I am already amazed by the community I’ve found in the team. Outside of YIRA, I am also on the executive board of the Black Solidarity Conference, a Senator in the Yale College Council, and a Co-Director of a sketch comedy group on campus. 

In our committee, we will discuss some of the most pressing environmental challenges that global leaders are confronted with daily. Abnormal climate change and a severe increase in natural disasters threaten not only human survival, but also the breathtaking biodiversity of the planet Earth. As billions around the world brace themselves for the accelerating impact of impending environmental decline, it is the responsibility of this committee to find ways to mitigate this global impact. Although the topics we will engage with may be daunting and even disheartening for some, I would highly encourage you to think critically about the questions posed by these topics and the ways in which you can work together with your fellow delegates to find new insights and improve the environmental conditions on the planet.

I hope all of you are as excited about this committee as I am. I look forward to creating a stimulating and positive environment for us to explore all of your wonderful ideas about how to tackle these very complex issues facing our world. Please feel free to reach out with any questions about the committee, the topic guide, the Yale experience, or even if you would just like to say hello! My email is ymunt.dg.committees@yira.org. See you soon!

Best,

Chase Finney

Role of the Committee

The United Nations Environment Programme, also known as UN Environment, is the leading global authority on environmental policies. UNEP is responsible for setting the global environmental agenda and seeing to the implementation of that agenda within the entire United Nations system; special attention and assistance is often given to developing countries seeking to establish sustainable environmental policies and practices. UNEP’s overarching commitment to sustainable development includes resolving massive global problems such as climate change, green economy, chemicals and waste, environmental governance, marine and terrestrial ecosystem management, etc.  

A principal goal of the UNEP is providing the resources for all countries to inspire their respective peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising the quality of life of future generations. This goal has served as the impetus for UNEP’s role in promoting environmental science and policy, developing international environmental conventions, and funding regional institutions’ collaboration with environmental NGOs. While UNEP cannot directly force states to implement any policies, the committee can strongly recommend various resolutions to provide as much guidance as possible for states to take heed of findings.

It is important to note that UNEP relies on voluntary contributions for 95% of its total income. Without cooperation with partners from around the world, UNEP would be unable to achieve many of its goals. 

History of the Committee

UNEP was founded in 1972 by former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations Maurice Strong. Strong oversaw UNEP’s predecessor, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (aka the Stockholm Conference), in June 1972 and later went on to become UNEP’s first director. The formation of UNEP was necessary to confront the growing global pollution problem resulting from industrialization during the 1960s and early 1970s. It began with a staff of about 300 professionals from various fields and approximately $100 million in funds meant to last for the first five years. 

Today, UNEP headquarters can still be found in Nairobi, Kenya. All of the programs run by the UNEP rely on funding volunteered by UN member states; these finances are deposited into the UN Environmental Fund, which serves as UNEP’s core investment source. In UNEP’s nearly sixty years of operation, UNEP has created over 200 guidelines on environment-related topics such as pollution monitoring, pest control, the relationship between chemicals and health, and forest and water management.

Topic History

Before diving into climate change, it is important to understand the complexity of the theory of intersectionality. The term “intersectionality” was coined in 1989 by American critical race theorist scholar Kimberlé (pronounced kim-ber-lee) Crenshaw in a paper published in the University of Chicago Legal Forum titled “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex.” The paper can be read here. As defined in the paper, the original definition of intersectionality sought to understand the unique ways African-American women were discriminated against in the United States due to the intersection of their racial and gender identities In the United States, the race and gender groups that hold the most social and political power are White and male, respectively. White people have oppressed African-Americans since their subjugation during slavery over three centuries ago, and thus racism is a systemic form of discrimination. Sexism is also a systemic form of discrimination against women in the United States. Crenshaw argued that the combined oppression African-American women faced was actually more harmful than the effects of solely racial or gender bias; however, when activists attempted to alleviate the impact of this oppression, they often only focused on one aspect (e.g. the feminist movement).

Over the past decade, the theoretical framework of intersectionality gained an unexpected amount of traction in the public social sphere. However, its definition became more ambiguous to include as many groups as possible. Intersectionality is now commonly understood to be a theory that seeks to understand the ways that aspects of an individual’s social and political identities combine to create unique forms of discrimination and disadvantages. These identities can include race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, etc. The image below depicts more identities the modern understanding of intersectionality commonly considers.

While critics of the theory argue that modern intersectionality ignores the struggles of those with more privileged identities, it is important to understand that the agenda of intersectionality is not to create a competition to identify which individuals are the most marginalized. Rather, through the framework of intersectionality, users can recognize how overlapping identities impact individuals and take these relationships into account while working towards social and political equity. 

The consideration of intersectionality in the context of climate change is a fairly recent occurrence. Climate change research originally only focused on its global scientific effects. As the research gained more attention within academic fields such as the social sciences, the social and political effects of climate change were increasingly explored. Researching climate change through an intersectional lens can likely be attributed to a combination of rapidly increasing globalization and theory usage in the 21st century. Fortunately, this general rise in cultural understanding makes addressing climate change through intersectionality more relevant and important than ever. 

At this point, it is important to make a distinction between the modern understanding of climate change and the literal definition of climate change. While the technical definition of climate change describes the long term shift in global climate patterns that is completely standard, climate change is now often used interchangeably with global warming, which refers to the long-term rise in the Earth’s average global temperature. For the purpose of this topic guide, the latter definition is used. However, if you would like to use the literal definition of climate change in your position paper or during committee (e.g. if imploring your fellow delegates to return the Earth’s climate patterns back to normal), please specify that you are referring to “standard” or “normal” climate change.

Current Situation

It is no secret that the unprecedented abnormal climate change of the past few decades has affected the entire Earth. Rising global temperatures, an increase in the severity and occurrence of natural disasters, and an increase in waterborne, rodent-transmitted, and insect-transmitted diseases negatively impact every country in one way or another. However, around the world, some groups and even entire countries feel the direct consequences of climate change much more powerfully.

Typically, the groups most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change live in low-income areas and/or belong to marginalized groups. Furthermore, these groups are often excluded from climate change policy decisions at all levels. 

Currently, most international agreements surrounding climate change do not adequately address the intersectional nature of climate change. Arguably, the most well known universal climate change convention is the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement was created under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) with the purpose of mitigating the global emission of greenhouse gases to an amount that would keep the global average temperature from increasing above 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. Ideally, by preventing the global temperature from rising, many of the impacts of climate change can be reduced. However, similar to the problem explored by Crenshaw when creating the theory of intersectionality, states generally place more emphasis on the immediate needs of developed areas and those with higher social status and political power. Despite multiple studies emphasizing the necessity of the implementation of the Paris Agreement for countries most vulnerable to climate change, none of the major industrialized nations that originally signed the agreement have implemented policies to work towards the goal of getting under 2 °C. Meanwhile, many developing states have set feasible emissions targets because they recognize how much of a threat climate change is to their homes. 

To some, this seems unfair, since it is the unsustainable lifestyles of the world’s more affluent groups that perpetuate many of the causes of abnormal climate change. In order to create solutions to abnormal climate change that put the most vulnerable areas at the forefront of the conversation, the theory of intersectionality must be applied. Currently, the application of intersectionality to the study and research of solutions to abnormal climate change is known as intersectional climate justice.

Case Study: Climate Refugees

A clear example of a marginalized group being adversely affected by abnormal climate change is that of environmental migrants, also known as climate refugees. Climate refugees are people that are forced to leave their homelands because of changes to their local environment. These changes can be relatively sudden such as abnormally powerful climate-related disasters. They can also be long-term such as increased desertification and droughts, rising sea levels, and increased abnormal climate patterns. Regardless of the timing of the climate changes, refugees home regions are made uninhabitable. Climate refugees are forced to either flee to another area in their own country -- they also fit under the umbrella of internally displaced persons (IDP) -- or migrate to another country entirely. This migration can be temporary or permanent.

Climate refugees are certainly not a recent phenomenon. Prominent British environmentalist Norman Myers found that over 25 million climate refugees existed in 1995; this was a significant discovery, especially considering the estimated 22 million traditional refugees that existed at the time. This number has only increased over time. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Center found that in the first six months of 2019 alone, a record 7 million people were displaced from their homes due to extreme weather events caused by abnormal climate change. This number is nearly double the amount of people displaced by conflict and/or violence during the same time period.

The report covered multiple incredibly powerful cyclones across Southern Asia and Southern Africa, as well as spring flooding in Iran, the Philippines, Ethiopia, and Bolivia. This supports the 2018 World Bank report that declared sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America to be the most vulnerable regions to climate-induced migration. As extreme weather events grow even more extreme, these regions of the world will continue to be a large source of climate refugees throughout the next decade.

As shown on the map above, which accurately predicted the areas most vulnerable to extreme weather events in the past decade, large portions of South Asia and the Pacific are exposed to all three events tracked by the map. For example, between the years that this map was created (2010-11), over 42 million people were displaced by abnormal climate change in the region; that number is more than twice the population of Sri Lanka. Because the region is increasingly storm-prone, a 2012 study by the Asian Development Bank urged countries to address environment-induced migration in their development agendas due to the large economic and social impact of migration. 

However, despite evidence of the volume of climate refugees over time, they still do not have any international protection. This is largely due to the lack of internationally accepted definition of who does and does not count as a “climate refugee.” Because there is no universal definition, climate refugees are not recognized under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Thus, climate refugees have no legal precedent for how to properly relocate either domestically or internationally while their home regions are under environmental siege. There is also no protocol for supporting voluntarily immobile people, such as indigenous communities that perceive retreat as a last resort due to cultural and spiritual ties to the land.

According to the International Organization on Migration, between 150 to 200 million people could be displaced by abnormal climate change by 2050. As the number of climate refugees increases each year, it is imperative to address this effect of abnormal climate change.

Case Study: Gendered Impact of Water Scarcity in Rural Communities

In 2010, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution explicitly recognizing the human right to water and sanitation (HRWS). This was determined on the basis that clean water is “essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights.” However, around the world, access to clean water still proves extremely difficult. According to a 2019 World Health Organization report, approximately 785 million people do not have a basic drinking-water service; this includes 144 million people that are fully dependent on surface water. Abnormal climate change is severely affecting the availability of water.. According to the WHO, by 2025, approximately half of the entire world will live in water-stressed regions. Rising global temperatures continue to limit the amount of drinkable freshwater available. As average temperatures increase, the likelihood of drought also increases, drying up freshwater.

Additionally, in regions closer to the oceans, rising sea levels push more saltwater into underground and stream freshwater sources, making the water undrinkable. 

As more and more freshwater dries up and/or becomes undrinkable, the impact of water scarcity grows larger, especially in rural communities. Across the world in low-income and rural communities, it is typically the responsibility of women and girls to manage the household water supply, whether its usage was for sanitation or health. However, as water grows scarce, it becomes significantly harder for women to live safe and healthy lives. 

When rural women and girls have to walk long distances to find fresh water, the already arduous journey becomes even more time-consuming. This is time that women could otherwise spend doing another occupation to contribute to the household income or girls could spend in school getting a proper education. The long walks and unsafe open toilets and defecation sites also leave women and girls vulnerable to abuse and attacks. Moreover, water scarcity prevents women and girls from maintaining personal hygiene during menstruation, pregnancy, and childrearing.   

Additionally, because rural women’s roles usually preclude any other occupation or form of education, the longer it takes for women to find clean water, the longer they are prevented from beginning to break down traditional societal roles. 

Addressing the specific needs of women in the context of water scarcity is a key component to working towards global gender equality.

Case Study: Global Waste Trade

Another issue in need of an intersectional climate justice approach is the global waste trade. The global waste trade describes the international trade of waste between countries for further recycling, treatment, or disposal. This waste often contains toxic and/or hazardous materials. Generally, these dangerous wastes are imported by developing countries from developed countries. A World Bank Report explains this phenomenon through their finding that more economically developed and urbanized countries (i.e. the Global North) usually produces more waste than developing countries (i.e. the Global South).

As seen in the pie graph above, developed countries produce almost half of the entire world’s waste, whereas Africa and South Asia regions produce the least waste. 

Many contribute the surge in global waste trade in the late 20th century to increasing interest in neoliberal economic policy. This economic policy was, of course, at the expense of lower income countries. In fact, some developed countries were envious of the pristine environments of many countries in the Global South due to lack of industrial pollution. In 1991, former Chief Economist of the World Bank Lawrence Summers issued a confidential memo strongly supporting global waste trade, writing “I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that… I’ve always thought that countries in Africa are vastly under polluted… Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the Least Developed Countries?”

It was this type of attitude that led to the increased shipping of waste overseas in the name of economic development. By 1992, the Basel Convention, a UN treaty designed to regulate hazardous waste trade and reduce the amount of waste dumped into developing countries by developed countries, was put into effect. However, many of the convention’s conditions are ignored or not enforced. Additionally, despite being one of the world’s largest waste producers, the United States never ratified the Basel Convention, and thus is not bound by its stipulations.

However, following China’s lead from 2017, many South and Southeast Asian countries are recently rejecting the waste being sent from developed countries. The graphic above shows the United States’ shift in waste exports to Asia across the past decade. By 2018, waste exports to Asia had been cut by more than half.

Currently, an amendment to the Basel Convention, the Basel Ban Amendment, was created as a more aggressive approach to the original convention. However, without a majority of support, there is an opportunity for another solution to the shortcomings of the Basel Convention.

Bloc Positions

Although almost every country in the world has signed the Paris Agreement, each country does not necessarily have an agenda that is both sustainable and intersectional. Typically, countries align with geographically proximal countries, as their resources, populations, and interests are similar. However, this is not always the case. Especially in matters related to climate change, countries along the same latitude also tend to become allies due to the similarities in climate patterns and related negative impacts. 

Questions to Consider

1. What sort of desirable resources does your country have? What groups in your country are affected in order to obtain these resources?
2. What forms of energy is your country reliant on? Is your country looking at other forms of energy to develop in the future?
3. What kind of groups are marginalized in your country? Are these groups also marginalized in other areas of the world?
4. How much is your country willing to invest in the betterment of marginalized people?
5. How much is your country willing to invest in sustainability programs?
6. How much is your country willing to invest in assisting other countries’ efforts to become more sustainable?

Additional Resources

1. Crenshaw’s TedTalk on Intersectionality
2. Paris Agreement
3. Climate Change 101 with Bill Nye
4. Climate Refugees (2010 documentary)
5. Environmental Exodus: An Emergent Crisis in the Global Arena by Myers and Kent
6. World Bank Press Release on Climate-Induced Migration
7. UN Resolution 62/292: The human right to water and sanitation
8. UN Water and Women Report
9. Searching for Solutions to Global Waste

Topic History

Global biodiversity is a measure of biodiversity that refers to the total variability of life forms on the planet Earth. This includes organisms as small as algae and as large as the blue whale. According to the National Science Foundation, it is possible that the Earth is currently home to approximately 1 trillion different species; however, as of 2016, only one-thousandth of 1% had been identified. 

Typically, biodiversity is measured by the volume of species in a geographic area. Scientists often study species biodiversity in categories delineated by ecosystem. In this way, they are able to determine where the areas with the most concentrations of various species lie. Generally, these regions lie around the Equator. The closer a region is to the Equator, the more suitable it is for a wide range of flora and fauna. For example, the Amazon rainforest, one of the most biologically diverse areas on Earth, is home to over 40,000 different plant species. On the other hand, Canada’s Quebec province, whose climate is cold and temperate, only hosts about 2,800 plant species. The Pacific and Indian Oceans are home to the most diverse marine environments due to their warm waters. Meanwhile, the Arctic Ocean is only home to a total of 5,500 different species.

Moreover, some places have many endemic species. Endemic species are unique to a particular region, and thus, only exist in one place. For example, South Africa is home to the Cape Floristic Region, where there are approximately 6,200 flower species that can not be found anywhere else in the world. Regions with high numbers of endemic species are known as biodiversity hotspots, and scientists often stress the necessity of giving special protection to these areas. 

Global biodiversity is heavily affected by speciation and extinction. Speciation is the evolutionary process of populations diverging to become separate species. Extinction is the absolute termination of a species. While both phenomena are a natural part of evolutionary process on Earth, abnormal climate change has recently offset the balance between speciation and extinction. For example, although approximately 99% of all life forms that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct, the normal extinction rate prior to human existence was approximately one extinction per million species years. However, due to human interference with the Earth’s ecosystems, extinctions are more frequent than ever. This determination was made by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, which remains the most comprehensive and authoritative inventory of the global conservation status of biological species in the international community. The IUCN aims to re-evaluate each species category every five years, and in recent decades, the Red List has consistently increased over time. Below is the universally used scale of conservation status. In the 21st century, more and more species have moved left on the scale towards the vulnerable and endangered categories.

In an attempt to address the problem of declining global biodiversity, in 1992, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity drafted and ratified a multilateral treaty intended to make biological conservation a priority for the entire international community. The treaty recognized that ecosystems and the exploitation of species must be used by humans for survival. However, with this in mind, it implored countries to become more sustainable in their use of biological resources, warning that the threat of loss in biological diversity would spell disaster for all of the Earth’s organisms, humans included. Since 2000, the convention has met every other year and updated its terms with new protocols such as the 2003 Cartagena Protocol and the 2010 Nagoya Protocol. Yet, many are displeased with the Convention’s weak implementation, especially since many felt that the treaty was promising in its steadfast goals. Additionally, many Western countries have been resistant to the implementation of provisions mainly included to benefit countries in the Global South.

Current Situation

Currently, the Living Planet Index (LPI) serves as an internationally accepted indicator of the state of global biodiversity. LPI is a joint project between the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Zoological Society of London. According to the LPI, since 1974, vertebrate populations have declined by approximately 60%. Since 1970, freshwater populations have declined by about 83%, and tropical populations in Latin America have decreased by 89%. This global trend suggests that the Earth’s ecosystems are deteriorating at an unprecedented rate.

Global biodiversity is essential to the wellbeing of the Earth. As illustrated by the graphic of the forest ecosystem of Zanzibar, Tanzania below, each ecosystem contains a complex network of relationships between the Sun, the plants, and the animals.

However, due to human activities such as pollution, habitat fragmentation, resource consumption, and urban sprawl, the Earth is now experiencing its sixth mass extinction. It is now estimated that between 30 to 50% of all species will become extinct by 2050 if human interference in ecosystems does not become more sustainable. The biodiversity web above is extremely fragile, and if even one of the relationship arrows was altered, the entire ecosystem would be at risk of collapse. As the Earth approaches the biodiversity threshold, it is imperative to address the human-induced factors that are negatively impacting global biodiversity before it is too late.

Case Study: Coral Bleaching

Coral bleaching occurs when coral polyps expel their algae. This process is known as “bleaching” because after the algae exits the polyps, the color of the corals lighten and in many cases turn completely white. Algae is crucial to the health of the coral and the reef. Algae and corals exist in an endosymbiotic relationship. The coral provides the algae with carbon dioxide and ammonium necessary for photosynthesis. In turn, the algae provides up to 90% of a coral’s energy by living in the tissue of corals and providing the corals with the products of photosynthesis. However, when this relationship is disrupted and the algae no longer lives within the corals, the corals bleach and begin to starve to death. While corals can recover from short-term disturbances in their relationships, the longer the algae is away from the corals, the more quickly the corals will die.

The leading cause of coral bleaching is rising global water temperatures. Changes as little as 1°C higher than average can cause coral bleaching in a reef. Unfortunately, the world’s oceans have already accumulated a great amount of thermal inertia from the effects of climate change slowly building up over time. One study found that the average interval between coral bleaching events around the world has halved between 1980 and 2016. Between 2014 and 2016, the longest recorded global coral bleaching events killed coral at an unprecedented scale. By 2017, it was estimated that half of the coral making up entire Great Barrier Reef was bleached beyond repair. 

Another leading cause of coral bleaching is ocean acidification, which is the ongoing decrease in the pH level in the oceans due to absorption of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As seen in the graph below, the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has skyrocketed in the past few decades. This increase in air pollution accelerates the stress on coral reefs, increasing the likelihood of corals expelling their algae and setting in motion their demise.

Coral bleaching is devastating for reef ecosystems. Despite covering less than a tenth of the Earth’s ocean surface, coral reefs are an incredible display of biodiversity, home to up to 9 million species. This includes species such as clams and small fish, which take shelter and nurse their young in the reefs, as well as species such as sharks and manta rays that visit reefs to feed and/or be cleaned. The collapse of reef ecosystems through coral bleaching places all of these species at risk, endangering even more ecosystems such as mangroves, as well as human civilizations. For example, they are essential to maintaining the food supply, supporting the economic system, and protecting the shorelines of approximately 850 million people around the world. Currently, UNEP estimates that up to 50% of all of the world’s coral reefs have died, and another 60% are severely threatened.

Case Study: Deforestation

Another large contributor to declining global biodiversity is habitat destruction. Habitat destruction describes the process of a natural habitat becoming unable to properly support its inhabitants. One of the most common and devastating forms of habitat destruction is deforestation. Deforestation generally defines the cutting down of large swathes of trees in order to clear the land for non-forest use. Due to an exponentially growing human population and shifts in human diet, expanding agriculture is responsible for most of the world’s deforestation. Many forests are cleared to create palm oil plantations. Palm oil is cheap and versatile, as it can be used in products ranging from lipstick to biofuel to animal feed; in fact, palm oil can be found in over half of the products in an everyday supermarket. 

Approximately 80% of all documented species on Earth can be found in forests. When forests are cleared, these species are often unable to sustain themselves in the slivers of forest left behind; in a catch-22, they are forced to either choose to stay in an inhabitable are or make the dangerous attempt to relocate. Regardless of their choice, they become more vulnerable to hunters and poachers, causing their population sizes to dwindle; in some cases, species eventually go extinct. For endemic species, deforestation is especially threatening, because these unique species have nowhere else to go.

The indirect impacts of deforestation also negatively affects global biodiversity. When forests are cleared, the trees that would normally absorb carbon dioxide in the air emit more of the gas into the atmosphere. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere directly affects global climate, which can alter the habitat of forest-dwelling species and decrease the amount of food and water available. Trees are also a large player in local water cycles, and without them, precipitation patterns and river flows eventually change. Additionally, about 750 million people (20% of the world’s rural population) live in forests, and deforestation upends their livelihoods. Moreover, without trees to anchor fertile soil, there is increased soil erosion. This leaves the soil too dry to use for agricultural purposes, prompting producers to clear more forests and perpetuate the cycle of soil loss.

Every second, a forest the size of a football field is cleared. According to a WWF report, if current deforestation trends continue, up to 420 million acres of forest could be lost in the next decade. Moreover, 11 of the world’s most ecologically important forest landscapes -- the Amazon, the Atlantic Forest and Gran Chaco, Borneo, the Cerrado, Choco-Darien, the Congo Basin, East Africa, Eastern Australia, Greater Mekong, New Guinea, and Sumatra -- will account for up to 80% of global forest loss. While reforestation efforts are certainly valid, unfortunately, once a forest is lost to agriculture, it is usually lost forever along with all of the species it supported. 

Currently, the IUCN is supporting 26 countries in their application of the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM). By using this framework, countries are able to assess how much damage has been done to their landscapes and identify strategies for how to best restore them. 

Case Study: Pollution

Pollution is the introduction into the environment of a substance with harmful effects. The three forms of pollution that will be discussed in this subsection are light, plastic, and noise.

Light pollution describes the presence of artificial light during the nighttime. This form of pollution is exacerbated by excessive and misdirected light, which is a common side-effect of urbanization. When this artificial light affects biological life and ecosystems, it is known as ecological light pollution, and in most cases, this form of pollution is very harmful. Although the effect of this night light can be neutral or even beneficial to some species, it is important to remember that the light still disrupts the natural ecosystem. Ecological light pollution is a serious threat to nocturnal wildlife. Because nocturnal species’ rhythm of life revolves around the Earth’s natural diurnal pattern, light pollution can confuse their nighttime navigation, change competitive interactions, alter predator-prey relations, and even cause them bodily harm. Moreover, lights on tall structures disorient migrating birds and have been found to be the cause of death for up to 5 million birds in the US each year. Young seabirds often risk disorientation from artificial light when they leave their nests and fly out to sea. 

Plastic pollution is the accumulation of plastic objects that adversely affect the environment. Unlike paper or food waste, plastic is not fully compostable; in fact, plastic often ends up in water, where it releases toxic chemicals and can be confused for food. A study by Science found that about 8.8 million tons of plastic enter the ocean each year, threatening the livelihoods of over 700 marine species. Entanglement in plastic debris has posed a serious threat to species such as fish, birds, turtles, and seals. If these animals do not first die from starvation or their inability to escape predators, they usually perish by suffocating or drowning. Ingestion of plastic debris is also a serious problem, especially for sea turtles, which often mistake plastic bags for jellyfish (their natural prey) and eventually die from the plastic obstructing their esophagus.

Whales are also particularly susceptible to ingesting plastic. Following the beaching of five whales in locations such as Thailand, the Philippines, and Sardinia and the discovery of over 125 lbs. of plastic waste in their stomachs, WWF declared plastic pollution to be one of the deadliest threats to marine life. Plastic even makes its way down to the mesopelagic zone in the ocean, which ranges from 200 to 1000 metres below the ocean surface. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography estimates that between 12,000 to 24,000 tonnes per year are consumed by mesopelagic fish. This does not bode well for the entire ecosystem, because the inappropriate diet of these fish mean that their predators will not receive the nutrition they need to properly function.

Noise pollution describes the propagation of noises that are harmful to the environment; like light pollution, it typically coincides with urbanization. Noise pollution can adversely affect the delicate relationship between predator or prey avoidance and detection by interfering with sounds of communication, especially those related to navigation and reproduction. As these communication changes indirectly alter other interactions in the ecosystem, a domino effect ensues, threatening the stability of the entire ecosystem. Because noise pollution can affect the communication methods of species as small as birds or crabs and as large as whales, the likelihood of just one species in an ecosystem setting off the domino effect is increased. Moreover, as found in this study, the more anthropogenic noise present in urban parks, despite efforts to protect green spaces in urban areas, the less biodiversity urban parks contained.

Bloc Positions

Although almost every country in the world has signed the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, each country does not necessarily have an agenda that is biologically sustainable. Typically, countries align with geographically proximal countries, as their resources, populations, and interests are similar. However, this is not always the case. Especially in matters related to climate change, countries along the same latitude also tend to become allies due to the similarities in climate patterns and related negative impacts.

Questions to Consider

1. What is your country’s general climate? Does the location and climate of your country pose any special threats for your country’s inhabitants?
2. What types of ecosystems exist in your country? Are these ecosystems shared with any neighboring countries? Have any of these ecosystems been degraded to the point of collapse?
3. Is your country home to any endemic species? Do these species live in protected areas? Does your country face any challenges with protected areas?
4. Has your country followed the guidelines set forth by the Convention on Biological Diversity? If not, has your country taken any measures to preserve biodiversity?
5. How much is your country willing to invest in the protection of its native species and sustenance of its biodiversity?
6. How much is your country willing to invest in the protection and sustenance of other countries’ biodiversity?

Additional Sources

1. UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ Call for Global Action on Climate Change
2. National Geographic Article on Biodiversity
3. 2020 Update to Convention on Biological Diversity
4. Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the US 
5. Causes and Consequences of Biodiversity Declines
6. Stanford University Microdocs on Coral Reefs and Their Importance
7. UNEP Research on Coral Reefs
8. BBC Future clip on the dangers of palm oil
9. WWF on Deforestation and Forest Degradation
10. IUCN on Deforestation
11. National Geographic on Pollution