The Issue Of Global Climate Change

“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

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.

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 Paris Agreement is made up of 195 nations who plan to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions in an attempt to slow down the increase in the global temperature. President Obama’s decision to sign this agreement does not only promote his personal climate change legacy but the climate change legacy of the United States of America. Since this environmental pact is only legally binding when “at least 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions sign on,” a United States signature could very well be the difference between a revolutionary global climate change policy and

On December 15, 2011, the Government of Canada authoritatively told the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that Canada would practice its legitimate right to formally pull back from the Kyoto Protocol. The Environment Minister, Peter Kent, was the one who announced this. The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement connected to the UNFCCC that sets internationally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets for each country that is in the agreement. There are a lot of benefits as to why Canada should stay in the agreement, but at the same time there are a few complications and setbacks that we will have to face as well. Canada will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases, save money and create jobs, and reduce drastic

Global Warming has been highly accepted as an inconvenient truth that if not resolved, will have serious consequences for the future of the human race. Recently, however, America’s newest president, Donald Trump, has openly coined Global Warming as a “hoax”. Therefore, Trump has pulled the United States out of an agreement made between numerous countries to make actions to lower carbon emissions. This agreement is called the Paris Accord. President Trump’s decision to pull the United States of America out of the Paris Accord Agreement has sparked many discussions on how just his actions were and how valid the agreement really is. A surplus of news organizations have provided their opinions on the matter as well as all the facts associated with 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

According to an article focused on environmental awareness, “the world’s average surface temperature rose by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit, the fastest rate in any period over the last 1000 years” (Source A). Damage has already been done to the environment but it is not the time to throw our hands up, it is the time for leaders in all sectors to tackle this issue head on. We know that carbon dioxide is the culprit, so now it is imperative to implement the solution and take a hard look at who is producing the most greenhouse gases. Big changes need to take place but they can only be done in steps and not all at once to be effective. In an excerpt from a book about global warming, Mark Maslin brings up the point that many feel the Kyoto Protocol does not go far enough; scientists believe that a 60% cut of greenhouse gas emissions is necessary in order to “prevent major climate change” (Source E). A sixty percent cut of emissions should be what countries work up to achieving but first and foremost, every country needs to agree to the Kyoto Protocol guidelines. The Kyoto Protocol itself should not be viewed as the end in the discussion of greenhouse gas restrictions, but rather the first stepping stone to a much broader and effective

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.

Regardless of the people who do and do not believe in global warming, climate change is a pressing issue that has been accepted scientifically and politically for the past few decades. Although seemingly insignificant, a global temperature increase of 2°C is enough for worldwide pandemonium. To mitigate the effects of greenhouse gases that are trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, nation leaders have gathered to settle and promise a fixed reduction in their country’s carbon emissions; the target emission level will cause an increase of only 1.5°C. Prominent examples include the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accord, with the most recent being the Paris Agreement. Nevertheless, disappointing carbon emission results from the Kyoto Protocol

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.

Take a deep breath and imagine it is Sunday morning. The birds are chirping, the air is crisp with freshness, and the sun is radiating at a perfect temperature of 62 degrees. The coast is a 6-minute drive away, and this is the perfect day to take a short journey to the rocky shore and splash in the water. However, there is one problem, an action such as driving to the beach front will almost certainly contribute to the destructive effects of climate change. Due to this claim, is it then morally obligatory to not go on this Sunday morning drive in an effort to prevent greenhouse gas emissions?

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 issue of global warming should be on the list of our top priorities. Studies show that the average of global temperatures have risen since the Industrial Revolution began. Since the Industrial Revolution, human emissions has quadrupled the frequency of certain heat extremes and many scientists have warned that a failure to bring greenhouse gases under control could eventually lead to a 62-fold increase in extreme heat blasts (Gillis Justin A17). Most of the increase is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These activities contribute to a build-up in carbon dioxide and other gases in Earth’s atmosphere. The Earth’s atmosphere is made of gases like nitrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen. These gases act as a blanket that covers and gives us warmth, but once these gases such as carbon dioxide absorbs heat, but does not release it back into space in which causes the increase in global temperature. This is called the greenhouse effect because it only traps heat but does not release it.

Different attempts have been made to stop global warming or to slow down its progress. For instance, the Kyoto Protocol was signed by numerous countries in 1997 (Retallack, 2000). This agreement called for countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 (Retallack, 2000). Since that time, the levels identified in this Protocol would do very little in terms of stabilizing the concentration of these gases (Retallack, 2000).