Impact Of Public Policy On Global Energy And Climate Change

The U.S obtains more than 84% of its energy from fossil fuels including oil, coal and natural gas. This is because people rely on it to heat their homes, power industries, run vehicles, manufacturing, and provision of electricity. It is apparent that the country’s transportation industry highly depends on conventional petroleum oil, which is responsible for global warming, thus threatening economic opulence and national security. Apart from that, increasing consumption of fossil fuels have elevated health problems in the state, destroyed wild places, and polluted the environment. After conducting Environmental Impact Assessment, projections showed that the world energy consumption would increase by more than 56% between 2010 and 2040. However, fossil fuels will cater for more than 80% of the total energy used in 2040. Sadly, it will be a trajectory to alter the world’s climate, as well as, weaken the global security environment. Importantly, the rate at which the US relies on fossil fuels needs to reduce since it has adverse effects on the planet’s supplies. The society needs to realize that fossil fuels are nonrenewable, thus taking millions of years to form (Huebner, 2003). Notably, the country can reduce dependency on fossil fuels by practicing energy conservation and efficiency,

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

Since the beginning of International Relations and foreign policy, especially in the United States, environmental issues have not been its top priority. this problem has gained much momentum sense the environmental movements of the sixties and the passing of landmark pieces of policy. From domestic policy decisions of the Clean Air and Water Acts to the international ban on CFC’s, environmental policy has showed a degree of promise and precedence. Many critics of past and current mitigation efforts have pointed out that our current efforts are much too slow and International Protocols and not lived up to their projections. In order for climate policy to be successful it must appertain to three distinct criteria; It must be adopted broadly, have the ability to stay in place indefinitely, and it needs to have incentives to reduce emissions that make it beneficial for firms and the public sector to invest (McKibbin 2006, 9). According to some it will be motivation, not feasibility as to the deciding factor of whether or not we are successful in mitigating and adapting to climate change (Jamieson 2013, 466).

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.

Indeed, if we are to combat global warming, of course we need to stop the rampant use of fossil fuels. In its place, the grand vision and hope is to transition our economy from relying on fossil fuels to using renewable energy sources. (This becomes an additionally pressing issue for those who are concerned with the U.S.’s “soft power” as China vies to become the world leader in clean energy.)

On the same note, the energy revolution spoken of above brings forth another advance in the ongoing global climate situation. The nature of the Kyoto Protocol calls for nations to increase research and eventually semi-convert their energy usage to accommodate for cleaner energy. Products such as solar power, wind power, biomass, geothermal power, and hydropower are now widely being studying to create processes that use less coal, oil, and natural gas in production. Altogether the results have

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.

“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

Officials in the Obama administration are nearly ready to unveil their unprecedented regulation of the oil and gas industries by ordering the reduction of methane emissions in the United States by 40 to 45 percent within the next ten years. Such a drastic alteration would significantly change how natural gas is produced and consumed and transform the entire electric industry in the country, potentially shifting its reliance on fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy. Though methane constitutes only nine percent of emissions, far less than carbon dioxide, it has over twenty times the effect toward global warming as carbon dioxide has and is therefore important to regulate. Also, the Obama administration has initiated reductions in emission

Gary Stix calls to Americans to halt global warming. The world is changing and not for the better, he writes “The Debate on Global Warming is Over” (Stix 46). CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 650,000 years and are projected to only increase at an exponential rate. No one knows exactly when and what will happen, but all scientist can agree that it won’t be good. Making a difference in the fight against global warming will require a massive alteration in the entire world’s energy economy. Fossil Fuels account for 80% of the world’s energy and if a “carbon budget” is put into place then they will be ineffective (Stix 47). We need to begin to make a shift towards more renewable sources of energy, and adopt a system to help regulate the total amount of emissions. These programs will give us a head start on lessening the effects of global warming, but the

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

Naturally the capitalistic world that we live in breeds competition, in turn leading to powerful private interests. This has resulted in powerful industrial partnerships with political figures. In order to bring our society forward we must act for change, to encourage modernization, overcoming the stacked odds. The only way to influence our country’s dependency on carbon-based energy is to make way for environmental advocates at all levels of policy. The Paris Climate Change efforts have us headed in the right direction, even though they hold no legal international clout. Individual countries are held responsible through the social pressures created by groups like the UNFCC, along with renewable industrial interests, has led to country social responsibility. Country social responsibility has been promoted by voluntary climate efforts, which resulted in ambitious goal allowing countries to claim leadership on a global issue. Our efforts would ideally result in net-zero emissions in developed and developing countries alike by 2050. The technology is available, but modernization has a social aspect as well. This is essential to promote environmental policy, in order to pressure industrial powers. We can only be successful if we change our current social patterns into virtuous environmental forms.

Naturally the capitalistic world that we live in breeds competition, in turn leading to powerful private interests. This has resulted in powerful industrial partnerships with political figures. In order to bring our society forward, we must act for change to encourage modernization, overcoming the stacked odds. The only way to influence our country’s dependency on carbon-based energy is to make way for environmental advocates at all levels of policy. The Paris Climate Change efforts have us headed in the right direction, even though they hold no legal international clout. Individual countries are held responsible through the social pressures created by groups like the UNFCC, along with renewable industrial interests, has led to country social responsibility. Country social responsibility has been promoted by voluntary climate efforts, which resulted in ambitious goals, allowing countries to claim leadership on a global issue. Our efforts would ideally result in net-zero emissions in developed and developing countries alike by 2050. The technology is available, but modernization has a social aspect as well. This is essential to promote environmental policy, in order to pressure industrial powers. We can only be successful if we change our current social patterns into virtuous environmental forms.

Energy has been a huge problem in the past decade in the United States, primarily because of global warming and climate change. Clinton said, “I won’t let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change.” Hillary Clinton has proposed two main national goals to fight climate change, create jobs, protect the health of American families, and make the United States of America the world’s clean energy superpower. The first goal that Secretary Clinton proposes is to have more than 500 million solar panels installed by the end of her first term- this will create good-paying jobs. This will also cut energy waste in homes, schools, and hospitals by a third, as well as reduce American oil consumption by a third- energy will be secured by reducing the amount of oil consumed in the United States and around the world. Her second goal is to provide enough clean renewable energy to power every single home in the United States within ten years of taking office.

Through the last decades, climate change has sparked up a controversial issue not only in the US but around the world. We have been told time and time again, what we, as people, are currently doing to our planet has been demonstrated scientifically to be ruining our planet. However, beyond the facts, and past the statistics, there’s something that gives these scientific demonstrations meaning. This happens to be the people of the world that these numbers fall behind. How do we work with and counter these grueling numbers that diminishes the world? And more importantly, what is the relationship between global climate change and international relations?