A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, By Stephen M.

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

The globe is being rocked by extreme weather and the hottest temperatures on record. As the average global temperature soars, there are floods, droughts, unusually cold winters, forest fires, and huge storms. Are all of these horrors being caused by human-induced global warming?

As a kid who has cared about nature his entire life, and an avid modern environmentalist for four years and counting, this issue has been at the center of my psyche for quite some time. I have seen public perspective on this issue change before my eyes. From the original rejection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie on “global warming” to personally marching alongside 300,000 people in our nation's capital to raise awareness on climate change. However, despite all of these avenues the issue is still spoken about as this distant idea that eventually will be a disaster. Many politicians and news networks speak of the need for slow implementation of policies and programs to right our environmental wrongs. The best way to paraphrase the common narrative of this issue would be to say, climate change is going to happen down the road, it will probably be bad and trying to fix it in the near future would be a good idea. That weak call to action shoves climate change onto the long to-do list of the leaders of our world. Not only does it not create the urgency needed to actually curb the effects of our environmental ignorance, but it does not accurately describe the threat of a changing climate. Treating this like a political issue will not allow for the rigorous changes needed to address such a problem in the timely manner that is required.

The argument about man’s role in climate change and the role of government, the role of industry and the role of citizens is a significant challenge that crosses all levels of government, crosses all geopolitical boundaries and crosses all sectors of business. National governments across the globe are dealing with the issue in different ways, but one overarching aspect of control and mitigation can be seen in the oversight and regulation of the electric energy industry. One significant challenge facing each nation is the cost to lower carbon emissions and the question of who will pay the additional cost for compliance. Though the cost issue is significant, a much more difficult question is whether any decision on lowering emissions can make

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.

Global climate change has been an unresolved issue since the 1970’s. Despite the facts presented by scientists, the governments refuses to take action. It has been estimated that the global mean temperatures have already risen by 0.8°C and the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the temperature to rise by another 0.8°C, whereas 2°C is considered the maximum rise which the earth will be able cope without any major catastrophes (Mckibben, 2012). At the present rate of climate change we are already experiencing a shift in seasonal patterns. The governments’ inability to make strict laws regarding reduction in emission, therefore, stirs the controversy that what is stopping them and why do they refuse to do anything about it.

Kerry Emanuel starts off by explaining that the Earth’s climate does not naturally stabilize (hence the chapter title, “The Myth of Natural Stability”) and that even the slightest human interaction could send our climate on a downward spiral that we may not be able to recover from. Emanuel also talks about what he calls the, “two strands of environmental philosophy”, which is simply the scientific vs. religious or mythological view of the stability of the natural state of the universe. The scientific viewpoint credits things like heliocentricity and continental drift, while the other claims that the floods and comets were the works of god or gods.

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

In “ Think Again: Climate change,” Bill Mckibben addresses the climate change catastrophe. The damage has already begun and it may be too late to save the planet. There has been many debates and controversies on climate change, but that is about to change, and scientists have accepted the fact that humans are warming the planet. In 2007, the Arctic Ocean melted more ice than ever before. Again in 2008, more ice was melted and the Arctic is now open water. In addition, other regions will eventually suffer from crop loss and food shortages. Eventually, climate change will force states to start conflicts and wars over resources.

Since climate change unfolds over long periods of time, we tend to overlook the dangerous outcomes; we focus and react to immediate, urgent events instead like our kids or bills. Although scientists have agreed that climate change has significantly altered the atmosphere, we still don’t have a majority of the population taking action. We need to restraint ourselves from using fossil-fuels and fracking before we reach an irreversible tipping point and to protect our way of life, our children, and future generations (Keya Chatterjee, Disruption video). Global warming is determining every aspect of our lives, and if we don’t acknowledge this environmental issue and take action, we will not live, we will die. Alternatively, a post-carbon environment is definitely within our grasp, with 100% renewable energy sources. A change to friendly energy doesn’t mean economic instability; we’ll still have job opportunities installing solar panels and wind turbines, for example. Although we need political will from world leaders, in order to establish this transition, we as individuals must take action and get

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

Earth is an immeasurably complex planet, and the processes that make it so are equally as intricate. It is this same intricacy, however, that makes the Earth so vulnerable to even the slightest variation in overall temperature or change within the gases that which compose the atmosphere. What We Know About Climate Change by Kerry Emanuel aims to address this issue of Earth’s vulnerability head-on as it suggests the plausible causes for the undeniable planetary warming observed in the last century all the while proposing pragmatic solutions to discontinue the unnatural processes credited with the abnormal warming.

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.

Present generations are reaping what their forefathers had sowed for them; future generations will reap what present generations have been sowing whether they like it or not. Past, present and future generations are dependent on each other’s choices. Technologies are zooming rapidly. Humanities prefer to overwork natural resources and often fell into technologies’ competitive temptations. Generations are getting smarter and innovative each day. New products are constantly changing to catch customers’ attention, while current products are still young and are not even ready to mature yet. While many are embracing technologies, few are concerned with the scars that have been embedded on natural resources. It is so easy to fall into the

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.