Climate Justice Research Paper

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

Last month, the United States of America and fellow global powerhouse China reached a deal to incorporate more non-fossil fuel energy into their total energy consumption. Through this deal, greenhouse gas production will be cut by up to 26 percent in America, lowering our levels to somewhere around 28 percent of the levels experienced in 2005 (Samuelson). This plan has been hailed as a great first step, and it is likely that smaller countries will make similar emissions cuts. That being said, China and America currently combine for 42 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide according to the International Energy Agency. The world still heavily relies on fossil fuels for about 80 percent of its energy. In order to solve this problem of moving to renewable resources without causing a global economic collapse, countries need to be prepared to make budget cuts in other areas. Weak agreements have been enacted with dates a few years down the road to change this degenerative process. However, with loose restrictions on the way each country will achieve this goal, the discussions feels, according to Climate Research Program Leader Myles R. Allen, like a lost cause. It simply is not enough. The United States of America should be taking stronger initiatives and setting the standards for the transition towards a greener tomorrow. These initiatives would benefit both the Earth and its inhabitants. To do this, the government should take this more active role, through

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

I analyzed the various complexities of this issue. One complexity was that combatting climate change becomes a point of contention when different countries have different levels of consumption. The second complexity was that climate change isn’t the primary concern of all countries even though it underlies conflicts in many parts of world. The last complexity is that while Global North countries have the greatest capacity to adapt to climate change, the rates of consumption and emissions were historically higher than countries in the Global South who have contributed the least to emissions but will be more negatively impacted by climate change and other environmental

[Abstract: It is now an established truth that industrialized developed countries are liable to climate change phenomenon by emitting huge amount of greenhouse gases on biosphere. This truth poses a question whether or not these large emitter countries have an obligation to assist the climate change displacers for relocation. The word ‘relocation’ has two ramifications: internal or within the country and external or across the trans-boundary. American scholar Katrina Wyman depicts climate change displacers identical to other vulnerable people that insist her to say that there may be a moral obligation to assist financially and technologically

The costs of tackling climate change are high but the outcomes outweigh them, we must overcome the logic that preventing climate change negatively impacts the economy. Actions to reduce emissions and to foster adaption must be considered a source of wealth, as they attract investment and warrant new initiatives of sustainable development.

The issue of climate change is people that have created the most carbon dioxide have used more than their share of the atmospheric sink to become rich. The issue of solving climate change though is everyone’s business, rich and poor countries alike need to solve problems together or risk a global catastrophe. The solution should be to use a global cap and trade system per capita which would compensate poor nations for damages that rich nations would cause.

My argument is that those who have taken part in causing global warming, which are the developed countries, should be held responsible by cutting back more than other countries to correct the injustice that they have inflicted on the poorer countries. These nations are infringing on the rights of the victimized nations. Therefore, I would argue that there is an ethical basis for deciding whether some countries should cut back emissions more than others because the situation is not only unfair, but also violates the rights of innocent people. Everyone has a right to life, a right to not be harmed, and more specifically, “the right not to have one’s life taken directly as a means to further one’s end” (Finnis). Immanuel Kant thought reason tells us to, “Act only on a maxim that you can will to be a universal law” (Kant). Under Kantism views, an ethical act is ethical if it can become universal law without undermining some sort of construct. If we say that developed countries can emit greenhouse gases, thus causing harm, without consequence, then it will undermine the principle that the innocent has the right to not be harmed.

Global climate change is a hot point of contention on an international scale. This subject went from ridicule, mockery, and doubt to massive grassroots and nonprofit movements, heated debates, and media headlines. Though there exists scientific research that dates back into the mid 20th century regarding impending climate change, the subject was not take seriously by massive audiences until the 21st century. At first the debate over global warming was whether or not it existed. The debate has evolved into whose fault is it and strategies for counteracting or reversing the damage. The paper will provide a brief history of this debate as well as a current understanding of both side of the argument. The paper aims to define ways in which humanity both contributes and combats global climate change.

For many years, the issue of climate change has been thorny mostly because it affects the whole world yet a few countries are the greatest contributors. Climate change has led to global warming that has affected many countries in terms of weather variation, flooding, poverty, and desertification. While the great debate rages over whether to apply the constraints previously agreed on, climate change continues to have its toll on the environment (Goldenberg 2015). Owing to the devastating impacts of climate change over the years, the world leading environmental bodies need to apply some constraints to corporations, individuals, and nations to curb the menace. Without a concerted effort towards cutting carbon emissions, the planet will get only warmer. Of course, the possible restrictions may not be palatable to all nations, individuals, and corporations. It is so because such limitations may curtail some freedoms previously enjoyed by various countries, organizations, and people (Pielke, 2015). In this respect, this paper examines the kinds of constraints that when applied to corporations, nations, and individuals, will curb the climate change menace, and the potential conflicts with such measures.

Population growth and its effects on climate change have been hotly debated in recent years by scientists and politicians alike. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC has sparked great interest and concern over climate change and how it affects countries differently. The concept of environmental justice has focused on climate change’s unbalanced effects on developing countries, whose populations are more vulnerable to climate change. With rapidly growing populations and inadequate resources and technologies, developing countries have struggled to develop their economy sustainability. The relationship between population and climate change is grossly oversimplified by the idea that as population increase so does its effect on climate change. Realistically, population and climate change affect each other through economic trends, development patterns, society, institutions and the government. Population dynamics is not simply the number of people in a given space. Rather, it is the distribution and continuously changing demographics that make population dynamics a complex but important factor in climate change policy. In recent climate change and environmental protection discussions, developed countries have strongly suggested or even imposed environmental policies upon developing countries. This has caused tension and misunderstandings on both sides as developing countries strive for the economic success of their

Policy decisions in the context of climate change are uniquely tenuous. The impending magnitude of a potentially inhabitable planet combined with political inexpediency creates a status quo where big decisions must be made with relatively few case studies to draw upon. It is therefore imperative that we question what the best method is for mitigating private sector emissions. There are multiple factors at play that fundamentally implicate how this question should be answered. The balance between ecological sustainability and economic progress must be addressed when understanding whether a policy will remain feasible. Solvency for this solution must reach a global scale, due to the amount of carbon emissions that must be reduced by foreign nations. This means the best policy would likely have a mechanism to facilitate international cooperation. Lastly the magnitude of the situation calls for economic overhauls in times too short to be feasible under normal circumstances. The ability to scale up to accelerate a transition will also be considered.

Framing climate change as an issue of sustainable development also has positive impacts for the governance of adaptation measures. It has been recognized that mitigation efforts have not sufficed to stop or even minimize the damage of global warming, with experts agreeing that the INDCs will not reach the intended reduction target of 2 degrees (International Energy Agency 2015). This has been argued to be the result of a ‘top-down’ approach that centers on nation states making international treaties concerning climate change (Harris 2012: 285). This is often unsuccessful because, not only do states have competing interests, but this approach “divorces” the problem from important economic issues (O’Brien 2006: 3) However, the discourse of sustainable development recognizes that the causes and effects of climate change are integral to all aspects of global society. This entails that climate change policy is not only environmental but is also concerned with decisions concerning aid lending, energy markets, and such decisions, are not only made by states but by corporate bodies, but also by civil society and the everyday person (Bulkely and Newell 2010: 106).

Development is a key priority in developing countries, and climate change mitigation comes a very distant second. South Africa has numerous mechanisms in place to tackle its developmental problems such as poverty and inequality (Rennkamp & Wlokas, 2012). In addition South Africa has pledged to reduce GHG emissions through mitigations actions by 34% relative to business-as-usual by 2020, and 42% by 2025 (Rennkamp & Wlokas, 2012; RSA, 2011).

In the current globalized world, where new technologies are being invented every day to make people’s lives easier, there’s one thing that people tend to forget about: climate change. While many people perceive climate change as simply a “global” issue, a lot of countries ignore their responsibilities to tackle this fatal crisis. There are quite a number of factors working directly and indirectly behind the ways various countries have different policies in facing this issue, as climate change is a multi-dimensional phenomena. This paper will briefly analyze the political economic reasons of why different nations adopt different policies regarding this matter.