Climate Change And The Quest For Clean Energy

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 2009 Copenhagen Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC epitomizes the stalling of international negotiations on climate change mitigation and adaptation. In the grim days of climate change governance, the literature tends to neglect ethical arguments on the responsibility of polluting states. Rather, it turns to a desperate thing for ‘whatever works’. It addresses the development of a discipline round an emerging regime. It reviews in particular the principled approaches of climate governance, the shift from ‘enforcement’ to ‘facilitation’ and to ‘liability’, the adaptation in the human rights, development and migration regimes, and innovative scholarship on concerning climate change. Climate change responses have impact on a

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

It requires all parties to put their best efforts and requirements to report emissions on a regular basis. Every 5 years, there will be a global stock take to assess the progress toward achieving the purpose of the Agreement (UNFCCC- The Paris Agreement, 2018). A climate change conference where leaders all over the world came together to address climate change, have a goal to deliver action by 2020. In order to be successful, participating countries must make enough provisions to develop financial and technological support to help developing countries. The Marrakech partnership for good clime change action provides agreed outcomes in Paris, by providing a detailed structure to help speed up and get rid of gas emissions, scale down the pace of climate action among parties and non-parties steak holders in all parts of the world. Each year the action plan will continue to evolve as progress is made and new challenges and opportunities arise. The Paris agreement requires all parties to forward their effects nationally determined contributions. This includes regular reports on emissions and plans to success. As all parties have agreed to work together during the time frame 2017-2020, there has been current progeress to minimizing emissions (UNFCCC- Marrakech partnership for global climate action,

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

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aspires to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.” The Paris Agreement, created under the UNFCCC, helps make that goal a reality. Signed by Canada on Earth Day 2016, the agreement “requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts. There will also be a global stocktake every 5 years to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the agreement and to inform further individual actions by Parties.” As of 5 November 2016, ninety-seven parties out of one hundred ninety-seven have signed the agreement that went into effect on 4 November 2016. Canada’s involvement in the UNFCCC and the Paris agreement is just the tip of the iceberg, and it is quite a contribution to global efforts to reduce climate change.

One of the most unique aspects of climate change is its ability to impact every person in every nation across the world. Its omnipotent presence calls for, what I predict will be, the largest global initiative and

In 1988, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had conclusive proof products adding to the output of carbon dioxide and methane gases in the atmosphere were causing the earth to warm; and, if not stopped will make it inhabitable for human life. In the 1970’s the United States had conclusive proof that products releasing Chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere were causing the ozone layer to deplete; and, that if continued would be dangerous for human life. The United States took international global action, by joining the Montreal Protocol, to phase out the products producing chlorofluorocarbon and the ozone layer has been successfully replenished .

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

According to an article focused on environmental awareness, “the world’s average surface temperature rose by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit, the fastest rate in any period over the last 1000 years” (Source A). Damage has already been done to the environment but it is not the time to throw our hands up, it is the time for leaders in all sectors to tackle this issue head on. We know that carbon dioxide is the culprit, so now it is imperative to implement the solution and take a hard look at who is producing the most greenhouse gases. Big changes need to take place but they can only be done in steps and not all at once to be effective. In an excerpt from a book about global warming, Mark Maslin brings up the point that many feel the Kyoto Protocol does not go far enough; scientists believe that a 60% cut of greenhouse gas emissions is necessary in order to “prevent major climate change” (Source E). A sixty percent cut of emissions should be what countries work up to achieving but first and foremost, every country needs to agree to the Kyoto Protocol guidelines. The Kyoto Protocol itself should not be viewed as the end in the discussion of greenhouse gas restrictions, but rather the first stepping stone to a much broader and effective

The most significant existing platform for climate change action is the UN, and UNFCCC in particular. The essay will now move on to the overall assessment of the evolution of the EU actorness in the climate change policy area during 1990-2000s, and, in the process, focus on the case study of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit (also known as COP15). COP15 is a particularly interesting case to review when analysing the EU actorness in this area due to the fact that EU’s performance is mostly assessed as disappointing. Thus, it is an opportunity to take a closer look at the correlation of actorness and effectiveness, explore which actorness criteria caused these outcomes, as well as see if there were

The issue of climate change is one of the most decisive matters, in determining the ecological state of the world in the foreseeable future. The fact is that the globe has been steadily increasing at an alarming rate since the industrial revolution. It is estimated that over the next eighty years, the ecosystem in which we live, will look nearly unrecognizable in a matter of decades. As the magnitude of the problem increases, we will continue to deal with devastating weather events, that will occur as a result. Events, such as extreme weather, increase in temperature, ocean acidification, depletion of our polar cap, and a number of other environmental repercussions are likely to occur, if we do not act with reasonable care and timeliness. As policymakers and politicians, it has always been a question of whether or not this concern is something that should be dealt with within the span of our lifetimes. For a number of years, it has always been a question of whether or not a concern such as this should be prioritized. Under the Petersen Administration, environmental security will be regarded as more important than economic security. The U.S. will continue to honor its pledge from the Paris agreement, which states that the U.S.’ pledge is to cut emissions by twenty-six percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and to make its “best efforts” to reach twenty-eight percent in the coming years. Many global nations will partner with the U.S to assert that unilaterally and multilaterally,

Ban Ki-moon(UN Secretary General) said after the conference in Paris : “We have entered a new era of global cooperation on one of the most complex issues ever to confront humanity. For the first time, every country in the world has pledged to curb emissions, strengthen resilience and join in common cause to take common climate action. This is a resounding success for multilateralism” (Historic Paris Agreement on Climate Change, December 2015).

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.

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).