America 's First Energy Plan

Throughout history there have been many examples of tragedy of the commons. Tragedy of the commons is when people in a certain area over exploit a common resource which leads toa higher problem. Tragedy of the commons normally happens when people get greedy and get more than they really need. For example, if one farmer is public grazing area were to add a cow over the limit the field can sustain it won’t do much damage but if the other farmers also add another cow to the field it could end up harming it to the point where it is no longer usable.This comes to show that if even a single person becomes greedy it could ruin so many things for other people. Ideas will be pulled out from Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” to be used in this essay.

Dame, U. o. (2006, November 28). Public Goods and Common Resources. Retrieved from University of Notre Dame: https://www3.nd.edu/~adutt/courses/documents/19PublicGoodsandCommonResources_Lecture.pdf

Since the beginning of International Relations and foreign policy, especially in the United States, environmental issues have not been its top priority. this problem has gained much momentum sense the environmental movements of the sixties and the passing of landmark pieces of policy. From domestic policy decisions of the Clean Air and Water Acts to the international ban on CFC’s, environmental policy has showed a degree of promise and precedence. Many critics of past and current mitigation efforts have pointed out that our current efforts are much too slow and International Protocols and not lived up to their projections. In order for climate policy to be successful it must appertain to three distinct criteria; It must be adopted broadly, have the ability to stay in place indefinitely, and it needs to have incentives to reduce emissions that make it beneficial for firms and the public sector to invest (McKibbin 2006, 9). According to some it will be motivation, not feasibility as to the deciding factor of whether or not we are successful in mitigating and adapting to climate change (Jamieson 2013, 466).

Garrett Hardin first proposed in 1998 that the tragedy of the commons cannot be solved with a technical solution, which he claims is the most socially acceptable type of solution. Hardin goes on to point out and question social boundaries by challenging his reader to ask him or herself what is “good” (Hardin 1244). He acknowledges that “good” is usually considered to be a varied concept that is open to human interpretation and construction; however, “natural selection commensurates the incommensurable” (1244). Hardin’s proposal that freedom is the catalyst for ruin in a communal society is one of his most controversial claims because he argues that autonomy leaves room for selfish motivations that lead to the destruction of the overall good. For example, Hardin briefly discusses world pollution. The atmosphere and oceans are shared resourced or “commons” for which many people do not feel responsible, and thus, they are commons which have been damaged and polluted, affecting both those culpable and inculpable of the created “cesspool” (1245). Hardin’s interpretation challenges traditional morals that stem

Laws partially exist to impose self-control where it might not otherwise occur. As a society, we have a tendency to view our freedoms and resources as limitless, to use as we see fit. Individuals are willfully blind, they are the cause of their now limited freedoms and resources. If a person owns something, they are absolutely free to use it right up until it threatens another person. In the case “The Fight over the Redwoods”, the environment’s free, but limited God-given resources are continuously depleting, from our exploitations. Adam Smith’s invisible hand theory and Garrett Hardin’s “tragedy of commons” make prevalent in their theories the consequences of these particular attitudes. An individual’s along with society’s self-interest can

Answer 1: Tragedy of the commons exposes the ignored truth that supply of resources is limited. Everyone has equal right on common resources and this freedom works if there are limits. Increase in demand by an additional unit will reduce supply by same and at certain stage the demand will overwhelms the supply. This situation occurs when individuals tries to maximize the benefit while neglecting the society. Water is going through same phase due to which it’s being privatized and may be in future it is not -common.

I believe the underlying issue is that societies fundamental understanding of morality is utilitarian in nature, meaning a moral action must increase the most amount of good for the most amount of people. Of course, removing the United States from the accord seems like a choice that benefits only business owners. To make it worse, the choice is going to harm the average American citizen in several ways. For one, with US businesses not complying to environmental standards, it is America’s future generations that will suffer. Beyond that, this choice harms US relations with other countries. In fact, there are only 3 countries that are not part of the paris climate accord; Syria, Nicaragua, and the United States. The global frustration with America on this issue and the Trump presidency is making foreign relations colder, even our closest allies. Overall, choices like these are isolating America from the rest of the world, which can only harm the average

The Paris Accord is an international pact in which 195 countries agreed to the common goal of reducing carbon emissions in attempts to keep the Earth from heating up 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius more. With the election of President Trump, the importance of global climate change shifted on America’s agenda, with Trump even proposing a withdrawal from the accord. Negative impacts such as an undermining of the whole pact, the U.S. falling behind in the clean energy movement, and the closing of a window of time that is not replicable could ensue. America is a key player in the agreement and was one of the first countries to buy into it. If the country decides to leave, other countries may follow suit. The rest of the more developed world all seems

Considering the recent controversy over the United States’ devolvement Paris climate accord, many of the arguments logically point in against Trump’s decision. It is true that the accord places restrictions on the fossil fuel industry which may lead to a loss of jobs. Furthermore, Congress’ recent spending does not include any amount of the three billion dollars promised to the UN Green Climate Fund, making it difficult for the nation to spare the money to the global cause. However, these arguments are very shortsighted. As many business leaders have pointed out, there is much potential for more jobs in clean energy in the future to balance out, maybe even overcome, the loss in the coal industry.

For example, on the issue of climate change, weak states bear the greatest burden of rising global temperature, despite holding little responsibility for the cause of the issue. As stated in the theory of The Tragedy of the Commons, the global domain is a public common, however, because there is no international enforcer to allocate and distribute resources, states have a disposition towards acting unchecked in their own self-interest. Unfortunately, this leads to the overall degradation of resources for all participants. For instance, while well-established states expel massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere to remain industrially competitive and cement their own position of power, they are not forced to deal with the negative repercussions of their actions. Rather, small states with little influence, such as the Marshall Islands, must endure the brunt of the resulting environmental degradation, such as rapidly rising sea levels or the deluges of tidal flooding that stem directly from anthropogenic climate change. Within the coming decades, it is likely that their homes will soon be unfit for habitation, leading to massive population displacement and overall human anguish. Just as the Delian’s were forced to suffer as a result of the Athenian quest for power, the Marshall Islands are similarly forced to face undeserved

The phrase, “tragedy of the commons” is well known from the passage, Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor. The author, Garret Hardin received a lot of criticism for his thoughts and how he felt about the topic. Tragedy of the commons is a very controversial topic because of the different opinions. Hardin’s theory, Tragedy of the commons, is still used today as a source for comparison for many common day problems.

Within the article “The Tragedy of the Commons,” ecologist Garrett Hardin asserts that eventually all resources used in common will encounter overexploitation or degradation as these difficult to enclose systems incentivize individuals to pursue their own self-interest while simultaneously behaving contrary to the common good of all users (Anukwonke, 2015, p. 3). Affirming that the absence of both state regulation as well as privatization inescapably encourages individuals to act selfishly so as to maximize personal gains, Hardin claims that when there is no ownership over a specific resource than there is a tendency to overexploit it as no one is responsible for ensuring that the vitality of that resource remains intact (Marlow, n.d., p. 3). With an individual inclination to overuse or pollute a resource as it precipitates economic advantages for the individual, Hardin emphasizes that when a resource can be used by anyone yet is owned by no one than it not only generates private benefits but it also distributes the costs among all those who are sharing it (Hintz, & Moore, & Robbins, 2014, p. 55). Sacrificing the good of everyone involved by refraining from using a resource sustainably, Hardin underscores that when individuals are motivated by personal advantage rather than what is favourable to everyone, then they inevitably end up destroying the very resource upon which they all depend (Bargum, & Kokko, & Rankin, 2007, p. 643). While Hardin concentrated extensively on the

In discussions of climate change, one of the controversial issues has been supporting President Barack Obama. His video announcement in the East Room of the White House, President Obama announces the “Clean Power Plan --- our biggest step yet in the fight against climate change” argues that, “Since the President took office, the administration has made the largest investment in clean energy in American History.” The United States has cut more carbon pollution than any other nations since 2008, and solar power has grown 20 times while generating three times more electricity. Obama has created access to solar energy for low and moderate-income households. On the other hand, Obama’s administration

Nevertheless, Trump has gone against this theory and made a decision against human welfare. In the language of Aristotle, Trump is not recognized as the virtuous person because he is unable to determine the situation properly and not capable of bringing happiness to humans. So, there was another reasonable and beneficial choice which Trump did not choose. Instead of pulling the United States from that agreement, Trump has an excellent chance to help his country and lead the world for the better future of human kinds. If only Trump decides to participate in the Paris agreement, United States would have been important part of that agreement because United States has the highest emissions of greenhouse gases which is the main cause of global warming. So, that country can focus on alternating the use of fossil fuel and coal with renewable energy sources. This action will lead to a maximum reduction of carbon dioxide and other dangerous greenhouse gases which finally helps to control global warming.

Slowing the process of global warming would allow us, as a worldwide power, to take preventative measures that could cut back the amount of damage that global warming can cause—though it would be hard, if we could cut back on work hours of large factories and put together more public transportation for the working class then we could slow global warming within the next few years. This idea, if enacted, has the potential to harm the economy of many nations, because the working hours would be cut in factories that employ thousands of employees, but it also can allow for scientists and engineers to come up with a plan that could prevent/lower the amount of risk we have environmentally from being impacted by global warming and its effects. It has the potential to harm the economy of other nations, because shortening the amount of hours that their factories are allowed to run can raise production time and cost—this would lead to the increase in price of items, because it would take more money and time to produce these goods rather than if they were able to work for a longer amount of time and produce more goods in this time period. The reward outweighs the risk, though; this is because if global warming is not slowed down, then the sea level can rise sooner than we are able