Paris Climate Agreement

The Paris agreement is effective because it ensures that countries are making a solid effort to prevent temperatures from rising. As one of the most powerful countries in the world, it should be our duty to take the lead in making our Earth a better place. 68% of Democrats strongly believe that the government should regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars, and factories in an effort to reduce global warming, compared to only 28% of Republicans (Washington Post 2017). The data show that Democrats have made reducing global warming a stronger priority than Republicans have. “The best science tells us that without ambitious, immediate action across our economy to cut carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases, all of these impacts will be far worse in the future (Democrats.org 2017)”. The majority of Democrats look to scientific facts that show that we have no time to waste for stopping climate change. Republicans believe that “information concerning a climate change, especially projections in the long-range future must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data” (Republican Platform 2017). They don’t have the same urgency to take action to prevent climate change that is necessary.

A common problem with public goods is the free rider problem. The free rider problem occurs when people want to use a public good, but do not want to pay for it. The reduction of greenhouse gasses should be a global effort. The benefits are vague and provided in the future, there is little incentives to reduce emission. If the Trump administration disregards America’s pledge to reduce carbon emission by 26 to 28 percent, the United States can save millions of dollars on climate policies but increase the threat to the planet. This can lead to other countries not meeting their emission quota. If a majority of the nations who signed the Paris agreement goes back on their promise, a market failure will occur, producing an inefficient result. If too many countries become free riders, the cost of the remaining countries will increase trying to reduce emission. This will then exceed the benefits for the counties to fix the climate problem. Eventually leading to the climate problem being too large for the few remaining countries to solve on their own.

“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

Why start something if you can’t finish it? Because, we cut down greenhouse gasses because we started using more natural gas.It would also allow the technologies that we would need time to develop, and become great, magnificent even, and popular. And since jobs and money have been tight, people are buying less. These are my three reasons to support my claim. I think that the U.S. should not make laws on climate change right away. Climate change is a very serious issue but, we won’t be able to start and stop it with the technology that we have. Also if the U.S will do something about climate change, then so might others. Yet, these gases are dangerous risks to the world's businesses, its environment and the health of all people. We have increased our demand of burning fossil fuels.

Global Warming Blown Out of Proportion The United States by no means should consider complying with the Kyoto Protocols. My conviction in the negation towards passing this bill is that the whole Global Warming idea is highly blown out of proportion by politicians and the mass media. Global warming, as it may exist in the most gentle form, is the result of natural changes and could yield positive benefits. It is a predictable, quantifiable process.

I feel that the United States could be doing a lot more to help prevent the climate changes. Producing oil and coal to better our economy seems to be the main focus rather than making the changes necessary to take some effective action. Europe has more interest in reducing fossil fuel dependency and wants to see stronger action with the United States. President Bush’s energy plan supporting fossil fuel use increase just makes other countries believe that the United States is being uncooperative.

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

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.

Did you know that the United States is the second largest contributor of CO2, and the less concerned about it? Climate change has been a problem for decades, but just recently we start to see how big of a problem climate change is, and can be. Climate change is one of the biggest problems that we are facing right now, even if keep trying to act like is nothing. Everybody, the people, the government, and big companies are a big contributor of this phenomenon. The more we keep denying its effects, the more we are going to regret it later, and going to wish that we could go back and try to fix the issue. You going to know one day, and its going to be late. Climate change should be the U.S government main focus this decade and the ones to come. Climate change can affect a country in every way economically, destroyed …., cause a lot of deaths.

On June 1, 2017, from the White House Rose Garden, President Donald Trump announced that he will be withdrawing the US from the landmark Paris Climate Agreement. This could be a step back from the progress that was being made during the Obama administration. It was a very puzzling decision because the majority of Americans supported the agreement. Although some people think that the Paris Climate Agreement is not important, it was a poor decision to withdraw from the agreement because it has the potential to be a very important to Earth's future.

The United States, as well as all other developed and developing countries, must chose the welfare of the earth over the huge amounts of money to be made by exploiting the earth 's riches. Our great country should become the leader in paving the way for a brighter and safer future for our next generations. The United States should also continue to develop treaties with other major countries such as China, Russia, and Japan to slow the poisoning of the earth 's air and water supply. We must act and invest now in new technologies which assist in detecting and proving theories such as global warming.

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.

I feel that the United States could be doing a lot more to help prevent the climate changes. Producing oil and coal to better our economy seems to be the main focus rather than making the changes necessary to take some effective action. Europe has more interest

Prior to the Paris Agreement, participating countries have submitted national plans that addressed their intentions for combatting the climate change after 2020 (Dimitrov 2016). These nationally determined contributions outlined a number of issues – all being relevant to adapting and coping with climate change challenge. Although these contributions are not final, they are representative of the intended climate actions that countries will pursue after 2020.

Slowing the process of global warming would allow us, as a worldwide power, to take preventative measures that could cut back the amount of damage that global warming can cause—though it would be hard, if we could cut back on work hours of large factories and put together more public transportation for the working class then we could slow global warming within the next few years. This idea, if enacted, has the potential to harm the economy of many nations, because the working hours would be cut in factories that employ thousands of employees, but it also can allow for scientists and engineers to come up with a plan that could prevent/lower the amount of risk we have environmentally from being impacted by global warming and its effects. It has the potential to harm the economy of other nations, because shortening the amount of hours that their factories are allowed to run can raise production time and cost—this would lead to the increase in price of items, because it would take more money and time to produce these goods rather than if they were able to work for a longer amount of time and produce more goods in this time period. The reward outweighs the risk, though; this is because if global warming is not slowed down, then the sea level can rise sooner than we are able