Classical Liberalism And Global Warming

In modern America few problems prove to be as fundamentally problematic as the theory of human induced global warming. Its repeated coverage from within the media and political arena are influencing people worldwide, putting those who think differently in an outcast shadow. The truth of the matter is, to not believe in human induced global warming has become politically incorrect and unacceptable in the public eye. The theory of human induced global warming can be defined as the rise in temperature through human pollution of greenhouse gases resulting in catastrophic alterations in the earth 's environment. However, human pollution of greenhouse gases is so minor that it is not a contribution to the

The North American Drought of 1988 marked the very first time global warming crossed over from scientists to mass media coverage. Following an American professor’s address to the Senate correlating abnormal weather to global warming, European nations addressed the issue, and many countries began to reduce greenhouse gas. The European Union ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 to make it legally binding. In Europe, global warming was acknowledged as a problem, with the only debate centered around how serious of a problem it was- 87% said it was a very serious problem, where around 10%

conservatives caricature liberal ideas in highly misleading ways”(Manza, 2010, p. 478). Liberals believe, and it has always been my opinion, that states can come together to overcome problems that, will eventually, affect everyone (Goldstien, 2005, p.55). A realist would say that this is a key weakness of liberalism, envisaging utopia, when we should be focused on how the world really is (Goldstien, 2005, p.55). In response I would hold my optimistic/ idealistic head high and wave the current news headlines in front of them; “World leaders make history with climate deal in Paris (Al Jazeera and AFP)”. Jeremy Bentham, one of liberalisms key thinkers, argued that creating an international law, in this case a climate change treaty, that pushed aside self-interest and made sacrifices on behalf of the state would make way for a universal ideal, resulting in the most possible happiness of all nations as one (Sutch, Elias, Juanita, 2007, p. 67). On the 12th of December, in the French capital, leaders from 195 nations came together to sign an unparalleled agreement on climate change, a legally binding deal to limit carbon emissions (Al Jezeera, 2015). This is an example of Bentham’s ideals and Liberalism’s core values, the presence of a real harmony and homogenization of

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.

“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

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

Global warming is a serious issue in today?s society. World powers such as the United States, Japan, Canada, and Australia can usually see eye to eye with each other about global warming. Other countries, either less developed or more climate aware, do not agree with the countries that are more

Throughout this article, most of it pertained to how the environmental community has shown that global warming is a social problem, while the public determined that global warming is a legitimate problem and supports policies that work against it. However, during the 1990s, the United State’s policies and beliefs on global warming were put into question. This is a result of the conservative movement challenging the notion whether or not climate change and global warming are social problems. The conservative movement pushes this further by using the media, creating policy forums, and sponsoring press conferences for policy makers in order to emphasize their point on how global warming is not a serious social issue.

The dichotomy of climate change can divide the world down the middle. Those who believe in climate change advocate for earth-friendly policy to better the environment and help society as a whole. Those who believe the evidence does not support a climate change theory simply ignore scientists and do not advocate for any type of change in living. However, change is necessary to preserve the planet and maintain the modern democracy- not just in the US, but in the world. Those who deny climate change also deny the chance for cleaner, eventually cheaper energy, long-term jobs, healthier lifestyles, and greater unity between nations. The best and most efficient way to control the path to sustainable, green living is through the government.

Global Warming has been highly accepted as an inconvenient truth that if not resolved, will have serious consequences for the future of the human race. Recently, however, America’s newest president, Donald Trump, has openly coined Global Warming as a “hoax”. Therefore, Trump has pulled the United States out of an agreement made between numerous countries to make actions to lower carbon emissions. This agreement is called the Paris Accord. President Trump’s decision to pull the United States of America out of the Paris Accord Agreement has sparked many discussions on how just his actions were and how valid the agreement really is. A surplus of news organizations have provided their opinions on the matter as well as all the facts associated with it.

Global warming, a major concern in today’s society, is the increase in the temperature of the oceans and atmosphere that occurs when incoming energy levels are greater than outgoing energy levels. There are numerous causes of global warming that can potentially affect every aspect of life on Earth. Typically, the causes of global warming are divided into two primary categories: human causes and natural causes. And while there is very little that humans can do to eliminate the natural causes, there are several ways we can reduce the human causes.

Global warming, a global cause that has gained the attention of millions in this day and age. If one were to roll back a decade or two later global warming would of been something that was looked over and completely illegitimate but as actual evidence began to show that global warming was a legitimate thing that needed to be addressed in the world. Some countries were on board with changing their views on global warming to do something about it and some countries didn’t. Realism in relation to global warming would best explain why some countries are ignoring global warming.

Many people simply don’t believe global warming is a serious problem. The president, Donald Trump, even has mixed feelings on the topic. In 2012, he made a comment that he fears global warming was made up to negatively impact United States manufacturing. However, he has since said he is open-minded on the issue and will look into it. Global warming is not simply an American problem but a global issue, and something must indeed be done. The rising temperatures have already caused numerous negative effects on the environment, but the temperatures could potentially cause negative effects on the human population as

Liberalism is another concept that has significant arguments regarding international relations. Liberal economics have determined the shape of the monetary system and support the concept of open markets, where individuals have the freedom to engage in commerce. Unlike realists, liberals oppose mercantilism and the zero-sum game much like the countries in NAFTA. This disagreement is the cause of many disagreements during the NAFTA negotiations. If countries are able to work together and trust one another to attain power, conflict is less likely to occur and overall economic wealth for countries can be gained. Through free trade, the goal is to have a decreased amount of wasted resources on inefficient production because the more individuals that engage in this collective use of resources the more likely the system would become efficient and acquire heightened economic gains such as wealth. ) Finally, there is the liberal institutionalism perspective which approves of regimes and international organizations. Utilizing these rules through rapid growth of regimes, regulate economic affairs, determine which activities are allowed and disallowed, and assure that

To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and