How A State Support Climate Change Action

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.

Climate change is one of today’s most hotly debated topic. Scientists for many decades have made supposed claims that current energy creation and reliance on fossil fuels will lead to inevitable changes to the planet. Today, climate change denial is still a popular to most of the world despite the mounds of evidence to support that it exists. The climate change issue suffers from being mismanaged by various parties through focusing on the wrong issues and the lack of true commitment from the general public, according to Sandra Steingraber.

It is well known that politics and religion are two topics to never to be discussed with someone one does not know well. In today’s society, it feels as if this list of topics that are socially deemed inappropriate to discuss seems to be growing, with climate change now being a conservation to avoid. This aversion to discussing climate change appears to stem from the fact that the issue tends to polarize opinions, in which people fall into one of two groups: climate change skeptics and climate change believers. This paper seeks to address and analyze the ways in which climate skeptics speak about and understand climate change as well as how climate scientists understand climate change phenomena. More specifically, this paper focuses on how climate skeptics comprehend the relationships between grasslands, livestock, methane and nutrient cycling and how these interconnected concepts do not lead to the type of climate change that “green urbanities /green politicians/green activists/green elite” predict. The paper will conclude with an evaluation of the two differing positions between climate skeptics and climate scientists, in which I will determine which argument I find to be the most accurate.

Climate change is the long term shift in global climate patterns attributed mainly to the use of fossil fuels. Many people are aware of this issue, however, there has been an increase in the amount of people who deny climate change. 23 percent of Americans (compared to last year’s 16 percent) believe that climate change is not a problem (Atkin). To conclude that people do not accept cli­mate change because they do not under­stand it or need to be educated about it, is reasonable. However, I believe that it isn’t skepticism driving this denial. Rather, it is the phenomenon of reaffirming one’s identity. Instead of analyzing the evidence, it is intentionally interpreted in such a way as to maintain a pre-existing belief.

The classic rules of international law should not be interpreted somewhat more loosely, or even take a back seat, in the face of the global climate catastrophe which awaits us if we fail. It is noted that, in extreme situations, international law allows states to invoke the defense of necessity as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act, when this is the only way for the state to safeguard an essential interest of the state or the international community. It is possible to legally justify a decision that by failing to adequately address climate change is a greater evil. As the extra-legal defense of necessity undermines the existing international legal framework, creating

In order to even attempt to explain the interactions of states in the global interstate system we typically have to look towards two words, international relations. International relations also try’s to explain the interactions of others whose actions manifests from one country and then is steered towards people of another country. While each state is exploited as ‘sovereign’, specified international groups and organizations are needed as state and non-state actors. These actors include the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and Amnesty International. International Relations involve the study of foreign policy, negotiation, war, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, international conflict, trade, and economics. Each of those foreign affairs essentially makes up the relation between countries. A very important issue going on in international relations today is global warming and climate change. Unfortunately this matter receives very little attention. The reason it is so serious, is it could eventually destroy our world, as we know it today. Global warming is already having severe effects on communities, health, and climate. Our sea levels are rising; heat waves are more frequent, wild fires are growing, were experiencing severe droughts, and also increased storms.

A sociologist could ask if America has turned climate and climate change into a social construct and therefore made a shift into looking at topics with more post modernistic perspective, making it easier for special interest groups not wanting any change in current legislation to sway public opinion. In this essay the author will try to take the reader into a sociological journey to try to make sense of this daunting question of climate change denial by using changing gender roles as well; starting with the country’s collective mind right after the end of the Second World War

In contrast, informing the public of conflict helps a mass amount of people. When conflict is introduced to the public, civilians are inspired to change their opinions. Just recently, on December 12, 2015, the Paris Agreement was created, which is an agreement among countries around the globe, promising to do what they can to prevent or at least slow down the effects of climate change. However, in order to prevent climate change, civilians must be knowledgeable on the topic. Therefore, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change holds conventions, which “calls on Parties to promote and cooperate in research, systematic observation and the development of data archives, including through exchange of information; to support programmes, networks and organizations; and improve the capacities of developing countries” (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).

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.

With the rise of calamitous news regarding extremists groups taking over certain states, countries threatening to go to war, and viruses spreading throughout the world; the outlook of humanity does not look good. In addition to these dire headlines is the matter of climate change, which, unfortunately, is not as alarming to the public eye. Nonetheless, climate change is a pressing matter as it will impact every facet of society from economy to even human survival. Perhaps the general public find climate change as a vapid subject because of its nature to react belatedly to human activity, and how it is often represented with numbers, graphs, and projections; things that are not compelling to those that do not understand its importance. Even

These last two election cycles have demonstrated the importance of climate change in relation to politics and the american people. What is unfortunate is that what seems to be a very crucial and real problem in our human survival, according to scientists, is being debated by people who do not have the scientific credentials to even discuss the science behind the reality of climate change. Those behind the skeptics, have funded a successful campaign against the reality of the facts and have introduce doubt into the sciences.

The following paper is a summary and response to the article “Besieged by Climate Deniers, a Scientist Decides to Fight Back” written by Michael E. Mann, April 12th, 2012. This paper will identify the subject of the article, the occasion that prompted its composition, the intended audience, and the purpose the writer hoped to accomplish in writing it. The purpose of this paper is solely to report the information read in the article.

Political will is hard to maintain on climate change in part because humans react to tangible and immediate threats to survival. The threats of climate change and terrorism to the international community are interesting to look at for which gets more attention and some general possibilities why. Climate change is the type of threat that may never be properly dealt with until it is too late since its effects are slow and mostly unnoticeable to the common person, hence the cliché frog in the pot

The dichotomy of climate change can divide the world down the middle. Those who believe in climate change advocate for earth-friendly policy to better the environment and help society as a whole. Those who believe the evidence does not support a climate change theory simply ignore scientists and do not advocate for any type of change in living. However, change is necessary to preserve the planet and maintain the modern democracy- not just in the US, but in the world. Those who deny climate change also deny the chance for cleaner, eventually cheaper energy, long-term jobs, healthier lifestyles, and greater unity between nations. The best and most efficient way to control the path to sustainable, green living is through the government.

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.