The world economy is a very complex system; in the system harmful externalities disrupt capital flows and determine economic productivity. Most notable of these externalities is inadvertent global warming. Spending towards research and regulation of climate change at both the national and international level are very important in determining current and future business trends. Economists and scientists worldwide continuously debate the pros and cons of emissions reduction and what consequences can quickly follow. Though many have different views on the issue, all can agree that the immediate and long term effects of climate change have become an economic matter of paramount importance. The sweeping impact from climate change will have important fiscal, financial, and macroeconomic ramifications that influence global commerce standards.
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
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
Climate change in our natural ecosystems are at risk; since human economics and cultures depend on. Caused by human factors such as greenhouse gases, the evidence of climate change is becoming more clearer. These ecosystems, it threatens humans as well. According to Stephen M Gardiner, money and morals block our way to stop global warming. In his essay “A Perfect Moral Storm”, he lists these types of dilemmas, or “storms”that prevent meaningful action against climate change: the global storm, the intergenerational storm, the theoretical storm, and the moral storm. By “theoretical storm”, Gardiner refers to the fact that the ongoing climate change is a result of uncontemplation. On the other hand, Climatologist John R Christy believes that global warming isn’t something that we should worry about and our impact will be minuscule if we try to stop it. Of these dilemmas, the theoretical storm is most critical to Christy’s testimony because the time to fixate global warming is now before the future populations decide it’s too late.
It is becoming increasingly certain that climate change will have severe adverse effects on the environment in years to come. Addressing this issue poses a serious challenge for policy makers. How we choose to respond to the threat of global warming is not simply a political issue. It is also an economic issue and an ethical one. Responsible, effective climate change policy requires consideration of a number of complex factors, including weighing the costs of implementing climate change policies against the benefits of more environmentally sustainable practices. Furthermore, this analysis must take place amidst serious gaps in the existing research and technology concerning the developing climatic condition.
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
In December 2015, almost 200 countries around the world, gathered in Paris to sign an accord to slow global warming. Only three developed countries did not agree with the accord. To most, it may seem that preventing global warming is necessary to protect future generations from heat waves, super storms, and extreme flooding. Classical liberalism can provide the best explanation of why some countries choose to ignore global warming.
When looking at the corporate businesses and the undoing of the human habitat; the United Nations has sanctioned many organizations to track climate change such as the UNEP, the World Meteorological Organization and the IPCC. Since the mid-eighties, these agencies have monitored the changes, yet have failed to convey the significance. Studies done by these agencies have concluded that the last fifty years are attributable to human activities and big corporations which lead to the changing in the compositions of the atmosphere throughout the 21st century (Saltori). These activities that are mentioned are those by means of businesses that grew into national conglomerates. Concurrent with business growth, the greenhouse gas emissions have grown seventy percent from 1970 to 2004 (Lehner). Recent studies have shown that 122 corporations produce eighty percent of greenhouse gases (IPCC). The climate is going to drastically change the world forever, but at whose expense? What exactly does the political eminence of these companies have
Throughout the expanse of this paper I will be utilizing terms and phrases that may be unfamiliar to some individuals. This particular potion of this essay will be dedicated to defining any foreign jargon before delving more deeply into the topic at hand. A prima facie wrong, a phrase already employed in this paper, is the notion that an action may look wrong at first glance, but upon further inspection, and in actuality, nothing may be wrong at all. A couple acronyms will also be stated during the course of this argument: AGCC, ICI, and GHGs. Anthropogenic global climate change can be broken down into the term AGCC, while GHGs are the shortened manner of saying greenhouse gas emissions. The most vital acronym of the three is most certainly ICI, which when elaborated means individual causal inefficacy. Individual casual inefficacy states that common individual actions are too causally insignificant to make any difference with regard to climate change . The definition and importance of these terms will play a role throughout the duration of this paper.
Across 800,000 years of data of Earth’s atmosphere, carbon dioxide levels at record highs, and being added daily, have already begun disrupting established climate patterns and damaging ecosystems upon which nearly all living things depend (CTC). Tremendous and rapid reductions of carbon emissions in the United States, and developed nations around the world, are essential to avoid runaway climate damage and minimize severe weather events. Inundation of coastal cities and islands, infrastructure destruction, failure of agriculture and water supply, forced migrations, political upheavals, and international conflict are among the devastating and costly side effects of climate change, many of which have already begun to be seen (CTC). Enacting a transparent and equitable tax on carbon dioxide emissions is imperative to hand over a sustainable Earth and habitable climate for future generations. A robust tax on carbon would provide compelling incentives to reduce emissions and pollution through conservation, substitution, and innovation (Sutter). The carbon tax is also a crucial policy tool for achieving the “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDC’s) to which the 193 countries that signed the Paris Climate Agreement in December 2015 committed to in effort to prevent global warming from reaching two degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels (CTC).
Oscar Wilde once said, “We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell” (Wilde 2015). In other worlds, we bring upon ourselves our own demons, and it is usually not until after the damage is done that when even notice how much damage has been done. Climate change is one of these demons we face, created by our own ambition and our own societal progression. Spanning from the beginning of human civilization, but gaining a tremendous intensity from the occurrence of the industrialization, climate change is a threat to all of us. “Global atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased rapidly since the beginning of industrialization and now far exceed pre-industrial values as a result of human activities” (Zhang 2009). Every country, every nation, and every person, will, and is, effected by climate change. So what do we do? What we do is fight, with the development of more environment friendly technologies and ways of life. That being said, while every nation agrees that global climate change is a battle we must all face together, there is a great debate as to who should be responsible to lead the fight in the battle we have created. The debate going is between developed and undeveloped countries, in regard to whether developed countries should be responsible for funding climate sustaining development in undeveloped
It is a moral imperative that change is occurring in the global climate system and the impact will be largely felt. However, certain states are unaware of the threat posed to the international and domestic economies, while others are reluctant to cooperate. Extreme weather, global warming, human health and war are among the few threats it poses on the environment.
If CO2 removal is to become feasible climate policy, determining the differentiated climate responsibilities of states will be as important as determining its expense and negative impacts . Ethical questions about justice and consent with respect to control over C02 levels and other complex political issues will arise . Should contribution to historic cumulative emissions, financial capabilities and access to advanced technology be factors in determining differentiated responsibilities of nations towards NETs?