Economic Viability

An urgent issue, climate change is undoubtedly a sweeping global dilemma of paramount importance. Though most people are aware of this fact, many either choose to ignore it, or acknowledge it, but take no action against it. Those who do choose to take action usually attempt to combat climate change by using the methods that are most commonly discussed: becoming more energy efficient, recycling, and reducing emissions through using more sustainable transportation. Though these actions are helpful, they are not the most efficient way to counter climate change.

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.

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

Shifting the majority of energy consumption in the U.S. to clean energy would affect people and businesses both in and outside of the nation. This inevitably creates concern surrounding the topic and causes delays due to necessary controversy and questioning. While plenty of concerns are valid, others have been answered by studies and reports by various organizations but have yet to reach the public in masses.

Recent doubt in country’s energy supply as a result of political concerns in the Middle East nations, and other foreign oil generating nations, also volatility in the prices of oil, and natural gas have contributed to increase country’s energy independence through a greater local energy supply and to minimize the greater effects of the economy from any prices fluctuation in the fossil fuel markets, including the natural gas price hike in 2004 and 2005 cyclone

The current energy policy for the United States of America is quickly becoming obsolete in current times. With issues of national security, pollution and global warming, and sustainability all becoming ever more important in today’s world the nation is in need of a serious energy overhaul. As it stands now government entities and officials rely primarily on private companies to create and transport the energy that the American public uses daily. The problem with this energy policy stems from the three main features of how private companies handle the production and acquisition of energy: relying on fossil fuels, importing fuels, and operating in an unsustainable fashion.

Whilst it may seem a “no-brainer” to cease investment in non-renewable power and transfer our effort, resources and investment into developing renewable energy sources, the reality is that we have become so reliant and dependent upon non-renewable energy – particularly fossil fuels – that we must continue to use, develop, and invest in such energy to maintain the living standards that we enjoy today. In our short to medium-term future, and in spite of our ever-increasing scientific knowledge about the environmental price that we pay in using non-renewable energy, we must continue to invest in it. Let me explain why.

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

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.

The United States clearly consumes more energy than needed, but it is not all due to wastefulness and apathy. For example, if one were to compare the US with the European Union, he/she would see that the US consumes about twice as much energy. However, such an observer must take into account other factors, such as population density. The US as a whole is four times less dense in population than the EU, and therefore needs more energy for basic tasks such as commuting. In addition, the US has greater climate extremes than the nations in the EU and therefore consumes more energy for heating and air conditioning. The same facts work when comparing the US to China or Japan (Lehrman 2). Nevertheless, there is a problem in the United States that must be addressed.

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.

Germany is by a long distance the largest consumer of energy in Europe it is especially reliant on foreign sources of energy in the form of fossil fuels. ‘Germany is the seventh largest consumer of energy in the world,’ (EIA 2013) and because Germany has an insufficient amount of local oil and gas reserves to fuel its economy it imports most if not all of its gas and oil needs. Germany’s central position and size on the European continent ensures that Germany’s relationship with its neighbours is affected to a large degree by this dependence as ‘Oil remains the most significant although declining energy source in Germany, accounting for 32% in 2010.’ (IEA 2012 p.6) Oil is imported to the country through its pipeline infrastructure and ports. Imports mainly come from Russia, Norway, the United Kingdom and Holland. Germany is also a huge consumer of Natural Gas imported from Russia, and Norway through various gas pipeline infrastructures. Because, of Germany’s European Membership and thus its European Energy Community membership its Energy system is deeply interwoven with its European Allies and from outside this framework also with Russia. Germany’s reliance on the latter for a significant portion of its energy needs is a worrying situation for its European allies, most specifically in the Eastern European Countries of Poland and Lithuania. The newly built Nord

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).

Energy is a critical component for every economy and society around the world. Energy is divided into two groups, nonrenewable (coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear) with a finite amount found around the globe and renewable (hydro, tidal, solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass) that are constantly being replenished so that they will never run out (Green Energy Choice, 2011). The international economic impact of renewable energy is explored by examining subsidies, strategic policies, and comparative advantage of renewable energy.

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.