The Balance Between Ecological Sustainability And Economic Progress

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 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.

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 the beginning, the writers present the process of the research conducted by the MIT researchers and conclusions that showed how even a low carbon tax would be effective at lowering carbon emissions. The writers continue the article by pointing out the effects of different policies, relating to the revenue created from a carbon tax, on corporations and lower income households. Finally, the writers draw attention to the fact that this carbon tax will greatly influence the effects of global warming. This article was written for Americans and is a solution that is perfect for the political spectrum of any government institution within the United States. The article addresses ways that a carbon tax can be used to please both liberals and conservatives. Though the writers did not conduct their own research, they did cite a study conducted by university researchers and a government organization and use interviews with key researchers in the study. Though this article cites only one research study, the idea of a carbon tax is still a viable solution and it will be used in my research to show that there is a viable solution to the problem of air

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.

“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

On August 3, 2015, President Obama announced new carbon pollution standards for power plants under the Clean Power Plan (CPP).[1] The purpose of the plan was to decrease carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to promote better air quality. This plan will impact not only coal fired power plants and the coal industry, but also individuals who live around them and the greater populous. This paper seeks to answer if such a plan should go forward and the impacts of such a plan on the parties listed above. To answer this question, this paper will look

It is becoming increasingly certain that climate change will have severe adverse effects on the environment in years to come. Addressing this issue poses a serious challenge for policy makers. How we choose to respond to the threat of global warming is not simply a political issue. It is also an economic issue and an ethical one. Responsible, effective climate change policy requires consideration of a number of complex factors, including weighing the costs of implementing climate change policies against the benefits of more environmentally sustainable practices. Furthermore, this analysis must take place amidst serious gaps in the existing research and technology concerning the developing climatic condition.

Government enacted solutions are probably the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions and to control pollution since unfortunately the majority of individuals mainly act to their own self-interest and are not concerned with the future of the planet. This is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons, which is the exploitation of a common resource. In this case the common resource is the atmosphere. The first method proposed is the carbon cap trade system. The term cap means the limit or the maximum of the amount of pollutant to be emitted. A trade refers to the transfer of permits that have to be bought by firms that need to increase their volume of emissions from firms that require fewer permits 1. The carbon tax method is a tax on the carbon content of fuels — effectively a tax on the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels 2. So, which system would be best for the government to enact to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere?

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

They looked at two scenarios, inaction, where business’ continue finding and using carbon as they see fit, and action, where business’ use a low-carbon energy mix. They found that not only would the investment cost of the action scenario be no more than inaction, but it would even cost a bit less- 190.2 trillion dollars for action and 192 trillion dollars for inaction. This is before even considering the amount of money saved by the effects of the action scenario itself. The report found that, “the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion” (Business Insider). The effect of such a large economic company reporting this data is the perfect example of how using economics for the sake of reversing global warming can be really beneficial. The argument often used by economists is that becoming more sustainable would hurt the economy, but the data in this report proves just the opposite, and how terrible it would be if we did nothing. For the sake of investment in industry’s like coal and gas, this information is often denied. But this is not anywhere near the first time industry’s have had to adapt due to uncontrollable events. This report emphasizes the importance of recognizing

Countries’ past and future contributions to the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere are different, Comprehensive strategies in response to climate change that are consistent with sustainable development take into account the co-benefits, adverse side effects and risks that may arise from both adaptation and mitigation options. {3.1, 3.5, Box 3.4} The design of climate policy is influenced by how individuals and organizations perceive risks and uncertainties and take them into account. Methods of valuation from economic, social and ethical analysis are available to assist decision-making. These methods can take account of a wide range of possible impacts, including low-probability outcomes with large consequences. But they cannot identify a single best balance between mitigation, adaptation and residual climate impacts. {3.1} Climate change has the characteristics of a collective action problem at the global scale, because most GHGs accumulate over time and mix globally, and emissions by any agent (e.g., individual, community, company, country) affect other agents. Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents advance their own interests independently. Cooperative responses, including international cooperation, are therefore required to effectively mitigate GHG emissions and address other climate change issues. The effectiveness of adaptation can be enhanced through complementary actions across levels, including international cooperation. The evidence suggests that outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective

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.

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.

Pollution, specifically global warming, is of growing concern to people and governments. It is a controversial issue whose validity is still being debated by scientists. The Kyoto Protocol is an international attempt to address global warming through emissions controls. Traditional neoclassical economic models do not incorporate pollution in rudimentary theories of supply, demand, or pricing, as a result, firms do not consider pollution as a cost of production, which leaves government regulation as the primary method for controlling these externalities. The goal of emissions trading is to allow one business, which can make greenhouse gas emission reductions for a relatively low cost, to sell