Framing Climate Change As An Issue Of Sustainable Development

Global warming and climate change exist and the two have called for a world attention to reduce their impacts. The Great 8 nations, including U.S., have convened various global summits where heads of states come to debate how to counter the increased climate change. Various recommendations have been proposed to counter the effects of climate change and device ways in which the change can be accommodated. This paper will discuss the rhetorical questions asked by the author in the journal article. In addition, the paper will attempt to answer some of the questions posed by Eric Klinenberg, the author of Adaption.

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

In recent years , there is a colossal upsurge in the number of environmental concerns with climate change being a pivotal one. Although convergent efforts, be it an individual , company or a government, are made to ease this concern. I think government play a vital role in this regard.

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 Western existence of modernization, especially technological and industrial development, economic growth, material prosperity, urbanization, and democracy, has been built upon a long line of industrial capitalism, an economic system predicated on the accelerating extraction and consumption of fossil fuels for energy (Clark & York, 2005). A major unintended consequence of the use of fossil fuels is an increase in the average temperature of the earth; known as global warming or climate change. Recognizing and responding to climate change, arguably the most challenging social problem of the modern era (Giddens, 2009), thus poses a fundamental critique of continued modernization processes around the world (Freudenburg, 2003). Climate change is a major issue that affects all life across the

Climate change has become a major issue in global environmental politics as it has been shown to have a correlation with issues such as deforestation, biodiversity loss, and desertification. As Chapter 45 states “The 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found consensus in the scientific community that greenhouse gas emissions have significantly increased because of human activity and, further, that the modest temperature increases we have already experienced are “very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Due to this report awareness was brought to almost everyone of how serious human activity was to the global climate. In 2009, it was declared that “If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of two degrees C. above preindustrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly”. To me this sounds foreboding and it is something that deserves our full attention immediately. To try and get a better understanding of how serious climate change is, I’m going to try and interpret chapter 45 which deals on climate change through 5 different paradigms of International Relations.

This paper will address the institutionalized road blocks in the United States that have prevented successful climate change action for the last twenty-five years. First, the United States government has become increasingly influenced by and connected to private industries. The private industries and the government work together as partners. While this likely has been beneficial in some ways it has kept out innovation, competition and prevented the implementation of successful health and public welfare regulations. Second, the Banking, Energy and Media Industry are linked together to promote consensually agreed to messages. These industries work together to keep fossil fuels as our major energy source. Third, each industry works together in non-profit

Steve Coll, multiple Pulitzer Prize-winning author, in Private Empire ExxonMobil and American Power, explains “Exxon, and other A.P.I. members joined and newly and more broadly based group, Global Climate Coalition, with influential members from every part of the country and many different industries…A.P.I. also poured money into independent think tanks and advocacy groups that were predisposed to attack Kyoto” ( Steve Coll 85). This organization that was created shows how determined Exxon was to stop any form of policy to be enacted limiting their profitability. After Exxon began promoting climate change denial, the scientific community that once respected their research, now discourages their actions against the facts of climate

‘Is climate change the new apocalypse? Are Western Nations too influenced by capitalism to effectively deal with the problem?’

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

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

There is an issue on this planet that will define this generation. The issue is climate change. Global warming. A world on the collapse as our oceans are acidified, our air polluted, our forests disappearing, and human rights issues getting worse. It seems that people are not aware of how big climate change actually is. It’s not something that only takes place on the ice caps or in the forests on the far corners of the world. This is an issue that happens here, and now. It’s real. It’s happening.