The Argument Against Climate Change

The climate change is overall change, which has taken place in global climate pattern due to increase of carbon dioxide in many folds. Whether it is responsibility of individual or the government to control the climate change has become a moot point for many years. Proponents and opponents of both the views have their own strong arguments. Before coming to an end, I would like to light on both the views in my imminent paragraphs.

An urgent issue, climate change is undoubtedly a sweeping global dilemma of paramount importance. Though most people are aware of this fact, many either choose to ignore it, or acknowledge it, but take no action against it. Those who do choose to take action usually attempt to combat climate change by using the methods that are most commonly discussed: becoming more energy efficient, recycling, and reducing emissions through using more sustainable transportation. Though these actions are helpful, they are not the most efficient way to counter climate change.

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

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.

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

In recent years , there is a colossal upsurge in the number of environmental concerns with climate change being a pivotal one. Although convergent efforts, be it an individual , company or a government, are made to ease this concern. I think government play a vital role in this regard.

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.

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.

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.

In their introduction to the chapter "Why International Organisations Matter," which was contributed to Business and the Politics of Globalisation: After the Global Financial Crisis, authors Xu Yi-chong and Patrick Weller begin the rhetorical defense of international organisations (IOs) by providing a review of recent global crises, and describing the various roles that global groups like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) played in addressing these most complex of dilemmas. The work performed by both the IMF and the World Bank in mitigating the disastrous effects of the global financial crisis is presented as a prime example of the efficacy of international organisations, as is the authoritative Report issued by the IPCC in response to mounting evidence in support of climate change as a demonstrable scientific phenomenon. As Yi-chong and Weller state unequivocally, "globalisation could not have taken place without the desire of states to pursue cooperation; neither could it have happened without IOs acting as effective facilitators of that cooperation" (2010), because communication on the international scale often requires an objective third-party for purposes of negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution.

As one of the most pressing issues of our time, it is of paramount necessity to speculate

Although we believe limiting carbon omissions by 15 percent in the next five years will reduce our oil exports and contribute to a catastrophic decline for our economy, we are willing to consider should there be a national enforcement mechanism. We are willing to pursue international initiatives to contest the issues of climate change, although we are one of the largest oil-producing countries. In order to comply, we demand reimbursement in case of a future offset in losses in oil revenue. We as a country understand the effects of global warming and the fact that our future is deteriorated because of it. However, many of our people do not recognize climate change as an immense issue that needs to be addressed. Many often believe that our climate in Saudi Arabia is tremendously hot already; there is no point in limiting our carbon omissions, as the chance of lost revenue is present. Additionally, with a growing economy, we will not have the ability to maintain sufficient standards of living with possible dwelling oil reserve revenue. With enforced compliance, being one of the richest countries in the world, will attempt to influence the poorer countries to also limit their

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).

The structure of the Prisoner’s Dilemma (Kreps, Milgrom, Roberts & Wilson, 1982) and the solutions offered to it can be said to be more or less the way in which states have organised the creation and protection of collective goods. We pay tax to build a dam to protect us from the water, and get sanctioned if we do not. It also seems to be the manner in which (international) environmental governance was – and often still is – largely organised. Within the rationality of game theory, regarding the risk of climate change, one should simply extent the game to a plurality of persons that