A Consensus On International Climate Change Policy

Dr James Hansen’s argumentative essay, “A Solution to the Climate Problem,” discusses his premise that it is imperative for humankind to deal with carbon dioxide emissions, which he believes needs to be phased out by the mid-21st century. He begins with the current paradigm in government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and claims that so far it has been a lot of talk and action in the other direction. Dr Hansen argues that while governments pay lip service to agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, they are going full steam ahead with projects that will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, such as going forth with coal-fired power plants, coal-to-liquids, hydraulic fracturing, and tar sands oil extraction. Dr Hansen believes

In order to even attempt to explain the interactions of states in the global interstate system we typically have to look towards two words, international relations. International relations also try’s to explain the interactions of others whose actions manifests from one country and then is steered towards people of another country. While each state is exploited as ‘sovereign’, specified international groups and organizations are needed as state and non-state actors. These actors include the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and Amnesty International. International Relations involve the study of foreign policy, negotiation, war, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, international conflict, trade, and economics. Each of those foreign affairs essentially makes up the relation between countries. A very important issue going on in international relations today is global warming and climate change. Unfortunately this matter receives very little attention. The reason it is so serious, is it could eventually destroy our world, as we know it today. Global warming is already having severe effects on communities, health, and climate. Our sea levels are rising; heat waves are more frequent, wild fires are growing, were experiencing severe droughts, and also increased storms.

In recent years , there is a colossal upsurge in the number of environmental concerns with climate change being a pivotal one. Although convergent efforts, be it an individual , company or a government, are made to ease this concern. I think government play a vital role in this regard.

The main claim of Pamela Chaseks’s presentation was that through government and industry climate change can be stopped. Chasek discusses several instances when governments united regarding climate change as well as how these governments have impacted climate change, if at all. For example,a successful negotiation was Lima 2014, the United States and China agreed to reduce emissions; however, at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009 developed countries made an agreement that left developing countries out of the loop. This caused smaller states weary of states who hold more power. This displays that government cooperation and communication is needed to successfully execute the issue of climate change. Without concise agreements and negotiations

Climate change has become a major issue in global environmental politics as it has been shown to have a correlation with issues such as deforestation, biodiversity loss, and desertification. As Chapter 45 states “The 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found consensus in the scientific community that greenhouse gas emissions have significantly increased because of human activity and, further, that the modest temperature increases we have already experienced are “very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Due to this report awareness was brought to almost everyone of how serious human activity was to the global climate. In 2009, it was declared that “If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of two degrees C. above preindustrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly”. To me this sounds foreboding and it is something that deserves our full attention immediately. To try and get a better understanding of how serious climate change is, I’m going to try and interpret chapter 45 which deals on climate change through 5 different paradigms of International Relations.

“Scientists have been warning about global warming for decades. It's too late to stop it now, but we can lessen its severity and impacts” - David Suzuki. Global warming, a primary topic of debate in various conversations throughout all levels of government, has been an issue for countless years. In fact, of the 134 years recorded, the 10 warmest years have all occurred “since 2000, with the exception of 1998 “(NASA). Solving a global issue such as this is not as easy as it may seem; however ,The Paris Agreement vows to do just that by setting a plan to limit global warming to well below 2°C in “the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal” (Europa). Before signing off on such an agreement one must analyze the many negatives

In my paper, I plan to explain why the United States and other nations cannot get along when it comes to environmental issues. I plan to break up the paper into three sections that contains what global warming is and how it affects the world, the United States problems and conflicts with other counties about this subject, and my own conclusion based on the information I have found.

Political will is hard to maintain on climate change in part because humans react to tangible and immediate threats to survival. The threats of climate change and terrorism to the international community are interesting to look at for which gets more attention and some general possibilities why. Climate change is the type of threat that may never be properly dealt with until it is too late since its effects are slow and mostly unnoticeable to the common person, hence the cliché frog in the pot

The climate change impacts of greenhouse gases threaten the economic development and environmental quality. These threats indicate that all nations regardless their economic growth should work collaboratively to reduce the emission to a certain level. Hare et al. (2011) argued that “climate change is a collective action problem” thus requires a global coordination from all countries. This indicates that actions from several countries would never be sufficient to address the climate change problem. If a global target to limit warming to 2°C or below is about to achieve (UNFCCC 2010, p.4) a broad range of participation is required (Hare et al., 2011). However, the increasing complexity of negotiation processes is inevitable. Each country will pursue its own interests during the

Through the last decades, climate change has sparked up a controversial issue not only in the US but around the world. We have been told time and time again, what we, as people, are currently doing to our planet has been demonstrated scientifically to be ruining our planet. However, beyond the facts, and past the statistics, there’s something that gives these scientific demonstrations meaning. This happens to be the people of the world that these numbers fall behind. How do we work with and counter these grueling numbers that diminishes the world? And more importantly, what is the relationship between global climate change and international relations?

In December 2015, almost 200 countries around the world, gathered in Paris to sign an accord to slow global warming. Only three developed countries did not agree with the accord. To most, it may seem that preventing global warming is necessary to protect future generations from heat waves, super storms, and extreme flooding. Classical liberalism can provide the best explanation of why some countries choose to ignore global warming.

Climate is inherently variable. Climate changes from place to place and it varies with time. The world now faces one of the complex and important issue it has ever had to deal with: climate change. Climate change today is one of the biggest concerns of human beings on the planet and the effects of climate change are undeniable and it may cause environmental, social, and economic threats to the planet. We already know and easily can highlight several signs of climate change. They are: rising global sea level, widespread melting of snow and ice, rapidly changing ocean and global temperatures, and other signs. So, what are the causes of climate change? Is it natural or do human beings cause it? Well, in both cases we would be right. The climate change can be affected by natural factors, such as solar output, volcanic eruptions, and the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Also, climate change can be affected by human activities such as, deforestation, burning fossil fuels, causing ozone hole, and building mass destructive weapons and using them on earth that causes a huge radioactivity on earth. Currently, the threat of global climate change does not threaten some nations to the extent of others. Compare the United States with the rest of African countries. We live in prosperity and in much easier time than the rest African countries. Most African countries cannot grow anything on their lands because of climate change. At the end, climate change might affect everyone on

Why has a collective, global solution to climate change become stuck? What international relations theories can explain this and how can they facilitate better cooperation between countries? A global climate change solution has been stuck due to the unwillingness or inability of developed nations like the U.S. to take responsibility of their large share of the past and current greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing emissions in developed countries is not enough, and the weighted action needed cannot be equal between developed and developing nations. This means we cannot expect large developing countries such as India and China to reduce their emissions at the same rate as the U.S., or other developed nations. The Paris Climate Agreement has been ineffective in the sense that the agreement is not binding or you could say lacks obligation. Another reason why a collective action has been stuck is the problem of the lack of uniform acceptance that climate change is real, most notably in the U.S, which creates a battle internally on how to address it. This lack of acceptance can influence the policy of states, such as the U.S., which has directly contributed to the U.S.’s inability to meet their requirements in the Paris Climate Agreement. Also, the power of private interests can have major effects on policy, especially in a political system such as the U.S.

For many years, the issue of climate change has been thorny mostly because it affects the whole world yet a few countries are the greatest contributors. Climate change has led to global warming that has affected many countries in terms of weather variation, flooding, poverty, and desertification. While the great debate rages over whether to apply the constraints previously agreed on, climate change continues to have its toll on the environment (Goldenberg 2015). Owing to the devastating impacts of climate change over the years, the world leading environmental bodies need to apply some constraints to corporations, individuals, and nations to curb the menace. Without a concerted effort towards cutting carbon emissions, the planet will get only warmer. Of course, the possible restrictions may not be palatable to all nations, individuals, and corporations. It is so because such limitations may curtail some freedoms previously enjoyed by various countries, organizations, and people (Pielke, 2015). In this respect, this paper examines the kinds of constraints that when applied to corporations, nations, and individuals, will curb the climate change menace, and the potential conflicts with such measures.

On December 12 of 2015, 195 countries made history by committing to the first truly global international climate change agreement (Paris Agreement, 2015). This agreement took place in Paris and was adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The outcome of the Paris Conference on Climate Change was described as “revolutionary” (Venezuela) “marvelous act” (China) and as “a tremendous collective achievement” (European Union) that introduced a “new era of global climate governance” (Egypt) while “restoring the global community’s faith of accomplishing things multilaterally” (USA) (Paris Agreement, 2015).