Pamela Chasek Summary

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

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.

Climate change is one of the most concerning issue in the history foriegn policy. It encompuses not only the United states but the entire world. Which is why it is hard to create procedures and establish alliances concerning global climate change because greenhouse admission are not created by the actions of one nation. Addressing climate change is going to be a massive task. Every nations who emitts green house gasses must become part of some sort of a global agreement. This agreement will require new thinking when it comes to foriegn policy. The United States has recently created a Task force to deal with climate change. The task force recomends creating a treaty between the world's biggest emitters including China

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

A lack of progress in recent years indicates a low level of concern among world leaders. In recent years, many scientists have implored leaders who seem not to be interested in climate change to show leadership in offsetting the impact of human induced climate change to the planet. As some world leaders seem not to see the urgency to mitigate the impact of global warming, the problem is getting more grounded. It is clear that human activities have altered the composition of the atmosphere since the industrial age. More and more power plants have been built, and their greenhouse gas emissions are causing more discomfort to the

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.

Everyday, people are waking up to climate change. What scientists predicted decades ago is happening now; we have little time left to preclude desolation. The governments look on the world is an hallucination. Those in power have not yet woken up,from their “dream world” to see the harsh reality we live in, and those that have are unwilling to act. In September 2014 there was the ‘‘People’s Climate March’ which was shortly followed by the ‘Time to Act on Climate Change March’ on March 7th 2015 which brought people together again on the

Both are international organizations. But the UNFCCC recognizes that problems with the climate are real and evident, but hasn’t implement a system that would help lessen the problem. In 1988 the US had monumental problems with their climate, but rejected a proposal to lower counties’ discharge (273). The author’s evidence proves that there is a recognition for the need of climate control on an international level, but further steps are only taken if they do not impede on economic interests of these

Undesired climatic change necessitates the need to look for solutions to curb the trend through planetary-scale interventions. However, the major challenge is the lack of integrated, top-down bargaining strategies. To deal with this challenge, the U.S. has resulted to the use of new bottom-up methods such as building blocks and climate clubs to coordinate national climate change policies (Victor & Sabel, 2015). The bottom-up approach has great uncertainty because of the feasibility and cost of implementation of various projects. However, the approach can work smoothly with the support of various institutions that promote joint

To make a substantive and significant deal on climate change, there is a need to integrate various parties that focus on the issue. United Nations (UN) is one of the leading parties in the world that make fundamental and major deals on climate change. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the UN’s arm that carries out climate change negotiations. The UNFCCC is committed to a decarbonized the world through its commitment to 40-70% reductions in carbon emissions by 2050 (UNFCCC, 2014). However, this can only be achieved if all countries phase out fossil fuels and rapidly scale up the usage of

Over the past century, the Earth has experienced a dramatic change in temperature and we need to work to reverse it. Politicians have debated the idea of climate change for years now and nothing has really been done to improve the situation. Some politicians have been exposed to the facts about climate change, while others believe in a hypothetical theory that the Earth goes through “cycles”. The government needs to stop arguing and act now, to educate the public and regulate the phenomenon of climate change, before it is too late.

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).