Climate change is one of the worst challenges the world is confronting today. Mitigating global warming and harmful emissions have led to heated global climate change debates. The chapter session analyses the role of small and large corporations in global climate change debates and other mitigation strategies. First, their role in inherently complex, as it is difficult to make a clear distinction whether it is a voluntary or legal obligation. Often, the role of corporations in climate change debates is entangled with business matters and politics. The concept of “low carbon development” has been popularized in many developed countries. However, many emerging economies like China, Mexico and Brazil have increasingly contributed to environmental pollution. The negative impact of large corporations on environment dates back to the industrial revolution which was characterized by exploitation of natural resources, dumping toxic chemicals and obsolete technologies in developing countries. Though some corporations seem to invest in climate change mitigation strategies, it is evident that they do so with an aim of increasing their competitive nature in the markets. Thus, they explore few innovative ways of climate mitigations that have a direct impact on national climate structures. For example, Clausen et al. presented such mitigations like presence of internal and external emission trading plans. Secondly, does the adoption of such less stringent laws by these corporations allow enforcement of laws that ensure environmental sustainability? For instance, the formation of US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) in 2007 by 28 corporations and environmental organizations has been defined as strategy based on “soft” laws; hence, the increased levels of climate change. It means that the role of corporations in climate change mitigation remains unclear, as there are no clear indicators that can identify what corporations have done and achieved in curbing global climate changes (Clausen et al., 2005).
Who Is the Best to Take the Responsibility of Addressing Climate Change?
Responsibility taking is essential in curbing further climate change menace. Individuals, environmentalists, scientists, corporations and governments have a huge role to play in global warming mitigation. However, individuals are the best prepared entity that can help prevent climate change mayhem, because corporations, governments, industries and other stakeholders have shown low commitment in the matter. They have also mixed several interests in the matter; hence, the evident slow implementation of mitigation strategies. Individual responsibility, awareness and concern about global change are a prerequisite for behavioral transformation towards environmental sustainability. For example, in Australia, it has been reported that individuals, especially women, consider environmental protection an important task that should be accorded full attention.
Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council Case Analysis
Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council case (1988) is a popular case in South Carolina courts. Lucas (petitioner) owned a piece of land in South Carolina beach, and he intended to build homes. In 1988, the South Carolina council passed legislation that banned construction of buildings around beaches and storms. As a result, Lucas claimed this legislation resulted into taking of his property, as Lucas could not use it. The majority ruled that deprivation of beneficial land use is equal to deprivation of property. It means that Lucas’ land had been deprived economical benefits. In terms of law of takings, there are uncertainties, as there is no formula that determines lands for taking. It is assumed that the council intervention could have so little, especially if Lucas’ land was valueless. A total loss of property is also questionable, as the petitioner could have been allowed to enjoy some benefits like picnics, camp in movable automobiles and swimming near the beach (Ruhl et al., 2007).
The Best Possible Path for the U.S. to Take in Regard to Climate Change
The climate change mayhem continues to threaten the US economies, corporate citizenship and global governance, and it is obvious that mitigation of climate change is necessary. It is evident that there have been contradictory and overlapping interests between states, firms, environmental organizations and other stakeholders. There is a need to shift emphasis to new forms of public such as private partnerships that strongly advocate for climate and behavioral change. A more coherent methodological approach entails the introduction of incentives and policies that can push for all stakeholders’ participation in climate change mitigation. Another strategy that is essential in curbing climate change is the involvement of civic society, because it can actively participate in behavior change, lobbying and monitoring, contribute in designing of new policies and incentives and devise clear actions plans that can help in climate change mitigation.