Climate Change Summit - Too Little, Too Late?

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 UNFCCC is working with the various governments around the world to stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere to keep the planet from warming more than 2ºC above pre-industrial temperatures (Watts, 2015). The most noted of the work is the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings that began with COP1 in Berlin back in 1995. The COP3 adopted the Kyoto Protocol, even though it wasn’t fully accepted by all member nations. The COP21 was an effort to legally bind members to their submitted plans of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), defining what level of greenhouse gas production each nation would commit to not exceeding from 2025-2030. Prior to the INDCs, a bleak outlook was forecast in 2009-2010 of global temperature rising between 4-5ºC. That figure was restated by the UNFCCC prior to the COP21 in Paris, to below 3ºC, due to the commitments of the INDCs (Watts, 2015).

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

The election of 2000 took place during a time that was mostly peaceful, unemployment rates were historically low, but however, there were a record number of terrorist threats (Muhlhausen). Despite all of these headlining topics presidential candidate Al Gore and Vice President Joe Lieberman were far more concerned about global climate change (“Al”). Gore was, and still, is very passionate about this topic (“Al”, 9). He has challenged the two biggest polluters in the world, China and The United States to, “Make the boldest move in climate change.” Figure 5

The Unites States of America is currently working to combat climate change in order to protect people from its effects. By combatting climate change, the USA hopes to prevent its effects from becoming worse in the future because the USA cares for its citizens and doesn’t want them to keep experiencing the consequences of climate change. The USA is putting great effort into dealing with climate change and also hopes that other businesses, organization, and individuals will join them in their effort (Environmental News Service). One concern the USA has towards climate change is its cause of natural disasters. Climate change is bringing more natural disasters by making weather patterns stronger, and weather patterns are becoming stronger as climate change grows which is bringing more natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and drought to the USA (Rice). One example of a natural disaster that occurred in the USA as a result of climate change is the tornado in Moore, Oklahoma. In this event, a tornado rated 5 on the Enhanced Fuijta scale hit Oklahoma and had a negative impact on this city by destroying many of its houses and buildings also resulting in the destruction of businesses such as schools (Cable News Network). Another major concern of the USA towards climate change is that it will cause a rise in the global sea level which will result in many of its coastal cities to be submerged underwater. There will be a permanent 4 feet rise in the global sea level

Article 1: This article tells about President Obama vetoing Keystone Jobs Bill on grounds that approval of the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline would damage the U.S. effort to curb greenhouse gases. The article frames Obama as an environmental hero, quoting the president in saying, “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change… And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face — not acting.” The authors also cite Secretary of State John Kerry in saying “The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves.” The

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

He ordered the head of the EPA to declare carbon dioxide as a pollutant. His signature air quality achievement imposes new restrictions on mercury and other emissions from power plants (America Magazine). At a United Nations meeting about climate change in Peru, Barack Obama engaged China to agree, for the first time to substantial carbon reduction goals. This one action is likely to have more of an effect in mitigating climate change than other symbolic actions taken to date (Star

That same year, Obama reached a climate agreement in which China and the U.S. agreed to significantly reduce carbon emissions. That accord helped launch the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2015, at which almost every country in the world agreed to control its emissions and create a plan to diminish them.

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

They looked at two scenarios, inaction, where business’ continue finding and using carbon as they see fit, and action, where business’ use a low-carbon energy mix. They found that not only would the investment cost of the action scenario be no more than inaction, but it would even cost a bit less- 190.2 trillion dollars for action and 192 trillion dollars for inaction. This is before even considering the amount of money saved by the effects of the action scenario itself. The report found that, “the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion” (Business Insider). The effect of such a large economic company reporting this data is the perfect example of how using economics for the sake of reversing global warming can be really beneficial. The argument often used by economists is that becoming more sustainable would hurt the economy, but the data in this report proves just the opposite, and how terrible it would be if we did nothing. For the sake of investment in industry’s like coal and gas, this information is often denied. But this is not anywhere near the first time industry’s have had to adapt due to uncontrollable events. This report emphasizes the importance of recognizing

Did you know that the United States is the second largest contributor of CO2, and the less concerned about it? Climate change has been a problem for decades, but just recently we start to see how big of a problem climate change is, and can be. Climate change is one of the biggest problems that we are facing right now, even if keep trying to act like is nothing. Everybody, the people, the government, and big companies are a big contributor of this phenomenon. The more we keep denying its effects, the more we are going to regret it later, and going to wish that we could go back and try to fix the issue. You going to know one day, and its going to be late. Climate change should be the U.S government main focus this decade and the ones to come. Climate change can affect a country in every way economically, destroyed …., cause a lot of deaths.

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).