Integrative Bargains On Climate Change

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.

Imagine your hometown underwater; the places you once hoped to show your grandchildren lost completely and swept away into an abyss. It doesn’t sound great, does it? Unfortunately, this could very well become reality. Maybe not during this generation, but eventually. Climate change is a severe issue that affects us all. Icecaps are melting, sea levels are rising, and many Americans are either unaware of the issue or have listened to major politicians dismissing the issue without much knowledge of it.

Global warming is hot topic nowadays. Alarmists and scientists fight to make their statements known, but while the alarmists avoid the scientist, non-governmental organizations pass themselves as scientist. They not only give out exaggerated data, they also have the nerve to accuse humans of being the cause of global warming. Also, we cannot be certain that we are being told the truth without knowing exactly what is really going on behind the scenes. We blindly trust those in authority because we think that they have our greater good in mind and that whatever they say must be the truth.

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

“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

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

Climate change, a global scale challenge that is most important due to its present and long-term dangers, deserves not only much discussion, but attention as well. In particular, one former president who wanted to fight this challenge head on was Al Gore. When speaking to this challenge, former President Al Gore stated, “It is wrong to use the sky as an open sewer, it is wrong to condemn future generations to a lifetime haunted by continual declines in their standard of living, and give them a world of political disruption and all the chaos that scientists have warned us about” (Carrington 2017). To put it differently, Al Gore is simply implying that climate change is the leading force of great destruction to come. For this reason, Al Gore

We have all heard statistics over how unmitigated global warming can lead to rising sea levels, increased temperatures, lower rates of precipitation. The Congressional Budget Office recently found that climate change, if unmitigated, would create costly damage not only to the United States’s economy, but also to the world as a whole (source). Despite a scientific and general consensus that climate change is real and a problem, actual committed action against climate change has been disappointingly slow, until recently. We also know the cause of climate change. The United States EPA finds that “Carbon dioxide accounts for most of the nation’s emissions and most of the increase since 1990” (EPA). What we don’t know is a solution.

In his article, “Is This What it Takes to Save the World?” Oliver Morton introduces two possible solutions to climate change to his audience; Morton shares the story of a recent event and the ideas for solutions concerning climate change from credible scientists and geoengineers, Paul Crutzen and Roger Angel. Crutzen focuses on providing a solution to global warming to the whole earth, while Angel focus on climate change on polar ice caps. I agree and think it is best to offer a solution to climate change to the entirety of the earth, but I cannot agree it is the most efficient process. I agree with Angel’s solution to focus on one region at a time because it is more efficient.

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

Mainly, its coal and oil that is burned. When those two materials are burned they produced a toxic gas known as Carbon dioxide. The first way to cut down on emissions is Nuclear energy. Specifically, Nuclear Fission. The other type, Nuclear Fusion is not yet possible with our technology. It’s not theoretical though, every star in the universe uses Nuclear Fusion to create its’s energy. It is also much more powerful than Fission. Bobby Magill of Scientific American says “To accomplish the needed CO2 emission cuts to keep warming no greater than 2° C, the IEA says global nuclear power generation capacity needs to increase to 930 gigawatts from 396 gigawatts by 2050.” Currently 72 new reactors are being built. Though mainly in Asia. Which is good because China only produces 2% of its energy by Nuclear plants. The other 98% is mainly carbon dioxide emitting production plants. Recently, China has surpassed the US in Carbon emissions and now is dealing with dangerous amounts of smog in their capital, Beijing. Even though 930 gigawatts of nuclear energy are a lot, not all of it has to come from reactors. How about Solar energy. Neil deGrasse Tyson explains how that could happen. “All the while, the glorious sun pours immaculate free energy upon us, more than we will ever need.” Tyson does have a point. The sun releases so much energy in one day, there would not be a need for any other type of energy. The only problem

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.

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.

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).

To overcome this problem though sustainable forestry could be taken into consideration, where for every tree cut down one or even two new trees are planted. The best way of reducing the output of carbon dioxide is to reduce the amount of fuel which being burnt, by exploring other ways of producing energy such as using wind turbines or solar panels. Encouraging people to become more energy efficient helps too, by buying washing machines, refrigerators and other machines that are more energy efficient. Newer washing machines consume a third of the amount of energy compared to the models made 15 years ago.