Assignment Instructions: 1000 Words, Use 3 References

Assignment Instructions 1000 Words Make Use Of 3 References Othe

Discuss the reasons why the Copenhagen summit on climate change failed to produce binding legislation. What is a Green IT audit? List and discuss the purpose for conducting such Green IT audits. Reference: Unhelkar, B. (2016). Green IT strategies and applications: using environmental intelligence.

Paper For Above instruction

The Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change, held in December 2009, was a pivotal international conference aiming to establish binding agreements to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the high expectations, the summit ultimately failed to produce binding legislation, largely due to a complex interplay of political, economic, and diplomatic factors. Understanding these reasons requires an examination of the geopolitical landscape, economic interests, and the diplomatic dynamics that characterized the negotiations.

One fundamental reason for the summit's failure was the divergence in priorities and commitments among participating nations. Developed countries, such as the United States and members of the European Union, emphasized the need for legally binding agreements that mandated emission reductions. In contrast, developing nations like China and India prioritized economic growth and expressed skepticism about binding commitments that might hinder their developmental aspirations (Kok et al., 2010). This divergence created a deadlock, with developed countries unwilling to accept binding targets without assurances from developing nations regarding their emission reductions.

Another significant obstacle was the lack of legally binding commitments from the United States. Although the U.S. played a leading role in initiating climate negotiations, it did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol — a precursor to the Copenhagen Accord — due to domestic political opposition and concerns over economic impacts. This absence of U.S. commitment undermined the enforceability and credibility of any binding international legislation emerging from the summit (Burtraw et al., 2010). Without the participation of such a key emitter, achieving comprehensive binding legislation proved unfeasible.

Economic considerations also heavily influenced the summit's outcome. Many nations were concerned about the economic costs associated with reducing emissions and transitioning to greener technologies. Developing countries were wary of commitments that might impede their economic development, while developed countries faced internal political pressures from industries resistant to change (Levi, 2010). The absence of financial mechanisms and incentives—such as the Green Climate Fund—to support developing nations further hampered progress toward binding agreements.

Diplomatic tensions and negotiations played a crucial role in the failure. The summit was characterized by a lack of trust and mutual suspicion among participating nations. Countries prioritized national interests over global goals, leading to watered-down agreements like the Copenhagen Accord, which was non-binding and voluntary. The summit highlighted the deep divides within the international community regarding climate responsibility and equitable burden-sharing (Bodansky, 2019).

In contrast, a Green IT audit is an evaluation process that assesses an organization’s information technology infrastructure and practices concerning environmental sustainability. It examines how efficiently IT resources are used, the energy consumption patterns, and the overall environmental impact. The purpose of conducting Green IT audits is to identify areas where energy use can be minimized, reduce carbon footprints, promote sustainable procurement of IT equipment, and ensure compliance with environmental regulations (Unhelkar, 2016).

The primary goal of a Green IT audit is to help organizations implement environmentally responsible IT strategies that contribute to sustainability goals. It involves analyzing the energy efficiency of data centers, server rooms, and computing devices, as well as evaluating software and hardware lifecycle management. Conducting such audits enables organizations to develop strategies for reducing energy consumption, decreasing electronic waste, and promoting the use of energy-efficient technologies.

Furthermore, Green IT audits support organizations in managing costs associated with energy use and waste disposal. By identifying inefficient practices, organizations can reduce operational expenses while simultaneously decreasing their environmental impact. It also encourages organizations to adopt green procurement practices, such as selecting energy-efficient hardware and environmentally friendly suppliers, fostering a culture of sustainability within IT operations (Unhelkar, 2016).

In addition to environmental benefits, Green IT audits align with corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and regulatory requirements. In an era where environmental issues are gaining prominence, organizations that prioritize sustainability through Green IT practices can enhance their reputation and stakeholder trust. Moreover, compliance with environmental standards and regulations can prevent penalties and facilitate access to environmentally conscious markets.

In conclusion, the failure of the Copenhagen summit to produce binding climate legislation stems from geopolitical, economic, and diplomatic challenges, including divergent national interests, lack of U.S. participation, and concerns over economic costs. Conversely, Green IT audits serve as a strategic tool for organizations to evaluate and improve their environmental performance, focusing on energy efficiency, waste reduction, and sustainable procurement. Both instances underscore the importance of coordinated efforts and strategic planning in addressing global and organizational sustainability challenges.

References

• Bodansky, D. (2019). The Art of Climate Change Negotiations. Climate Policy, 19(6), 696-706.
• Burtraw, D., Kruger, F., & Palmer, K. (2010). U.S. Climate Policy and International Negotiations. Environmental Economics, 1(2), 73-89.
• Kok, M. T., et al. (2010). Analysing the causes of failure of climate negotiations: A case study of Copenhagen. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(4), 388-396.
• Levi, M. (2010). Climate change and economic trade-offs: An analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics, 20(3), 245-263.
• Unhelkar, B. (2016). Green IT strategies and applications: using environmental intelligence. CRC Press.