As we have learned throughout this course, climate change has substantial effects on the world’s environment such as an increase in extreme weather events, changes in biodiversity, and global warming. Due to these environmental changes associated with current climate change, people have already lost their lives, homes, food sources, water sources, and way of life. Therefore, the discussion of COP21 and COP23, both of which address the issue of climate change, is an increasingly important narrative if we hope to prevent these adverse effects in the future. To begin, it is necessary to discuss what COP actually stands for. It represents the “Conference of Parties”, an annual meeting of all nations that make up the United Nations Framework …show more content…
The most well-known and discussed is COP21, in which “The Paris Agreement” was drafted. It has been seen as a pivotal point in climate change combatance by many people as all the present nations, both developed and developing, agreed upon an initiative to keep global warming below what most scientists say is the critical threshold of two degrees Celsius warming by 2100. Not only does this force an important change in environmental policy across several countries, but it also demonstrates a unity never before seen before on this issue. Interestingly, however, after the goal of the agreement was set, each nation was able to submit its own plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, while there is a unified goal, there is not necessarily a unified plan. Other conditions of the agreement include complete transparency by each nation on the progress of their own plans, and an assessment of their progress every five years, allowing for any changes which must be made to meet the goal of COP21. A big criticism by conservatives, though, is the cost of the proposed plan. Not only will it cost trillions of dollars to adapt to the effects of climate change and develop renewable energy sources, it is also vital that every country participates, even though many can’t afford it. Faced with this financial crisis, the COP21 agreement included a condition that developed countries must send 100 …show more content…
The United States is, after all, the second largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, and was set to play a large financial role in The Paris Agreement’s implementation.
Fortunately, however, it appears that the withdrawal may not be as catastrophic as it may have once seemed. Yes, the financial burden will be placed on other developed countries, and this could leave developing countries shorthanded once again, but as far as the United State’s following of the climate change initiatives set forth by The Paris Agreement, not much has changed. Many states, cities, and companies within the United States have pledged to honor The Paris Agreement, even without federal support. In fact, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg said he will pay the $15 million administration costs related to the deal if the U.S. remains unwilling to recognize the
Climate change is no doubt one of the greatest threats to this planet today. Coastal cities flooding due to melting ice caps and rising water levels, cities experiencing extreme weather, and ocean life dying because of warmer water temperatures, it is not wonder why so many scientist and country leaders are worried about the safety and future of their country. The U.S. is just one of these countries where climate change endangers 333 million people. That is why the U.S. must take action to assure the future of their residents and safety of their numerous coastal cities. Due to the rising coastal water levels, previous legislative mistakes, and the risk of further climate change consequences, President Trump should acknowledge the need for the
in Christianson 255). It was quite obvious that the United States did not want to be there – and for good reason. The reason has everything to do with cost and benefits. The Protocols would require that the United States reduce its 2008 – 2012 overall greenhouse emissions by about a third of the current levels. The economic costs are quite significant, and the benefits are not.
The perhaps surprising answer is that in the U.S. policy process, climate change is not now a scientific issue. Although much of the controversy appears to revolve around scientific principles, political and economic forces actually dominate. In a sense, this is not surprising: in dealing with possible climate change, policymakers, stakeholders, and the public have to confront competing economic interests, significant political change, and such difficult issues as intergenerational equity, international competition, national sovereignty, and the role (and competence) of international institutions. What are the primary factors that determine policy outcomes on this complex subject? Detailing them vividly demonstrates how scientific knowledge interacts with the formulation of policy on a significant issue in the United States.
The Kyoto Protocol was developed in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 and came into full force on the 16th of February 2005 in an effort to compact climate change (“Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual,” 2008). By targeting green house gas emissions, the Kyoto Protocol created an effort to “promote sustainable development (“Kyoto Protocol To The United Nations,” 1998).” The protocol’s goal was to reduce green house gas emissions from 1990 by 4.2% by 2008-2012, which 37 developed countries signed and pledged to (Schiermeier, 2012). With such a specific target, the goal was clear and quantifiable, making it easy to measure, when the time came, whether or not the Kyoto Protocol’s goal had been reached. Also, the involvement of these 37 countries was crucial in obtaining the goal. Without international cooperation the goal of reducing carbon emissions would never be effective as green house gasses effect the entire globe’s atmosphere not one local
...i, X., . . . Johnson, C. A. (Eds.). (2001). Climate change 2001: The scientific basis : contribution of Working Group I to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
The purpose of this paper is to review the Department of Energy's (DOE) programs and recommend future directions for US policy to address President Obama's desire to save our planet from climate change and reduce reliance on oil (Roberts, Lassiter, & Nanda, 2010, p 4). The context of this review is following the 2008 election of President Obama and the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) in February 2009. This paper will evaluate the effectiveness of the measures implemented by the Act and compare their effectiveness with an alternative strategy of implementing a carbon tax, then make a recommendation on which strategy would have achieved the President's aims in view of the political, economic and environmental situation that he faced.
Under the Protocol, 37 countries ("Annex I countries") commit themselves to a reduction of four greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride and two groups of gases hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons produced by them, and all member countries give general commitments. At negotiations, Annex I countries (including the US) collectively agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% on average for the period of 4 years from 2008-2012. This reduction is relative to their annual emissions in a base year, below 1990 levels. Since the US ha...
It seeks to implement post-kyoto agreements applicable to all UNFCC nations. According to the France Diplomatie website “The meeting will mark a decisive stage in negotiations on the future international agreement on a post-2020 regime, and will, as agreed in Durban, adopt the major outlines of that regime.By the end of the meeting, for the first time in over 20 years of UN negotiations, all the nations of the world, including the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, will be bound by a universal agreement on climate.” (“France Diplomatie” 2013) In order to prepare for COP21; as of November 12th, 2014 the governments of the US and China have come to an agreement in which the US will lower it’s emissions by about a third by 2025, and China will taper off its emission and begin to reduce them by one third by 2030. China has also agreed that by that time at least 20% of their electricity will come from renewable resources. This would constitute an increase of 1000 GiW of energy from current levels. (Hoye, Yan. 2014) Although some, like US senator Mitch McConnell, have argued that this agreement allows China to “do nothing” for 16 years and places the burden on us, this sentiment is misguided. Because US emissions are down by roughly 10% from 2005 levels, as discussed earlier, The United States will have an easier time of reducing our emissions further to 26%-28% by 2025. By comparison over the last decade China has been developing very rapidly, lifting more than 100 million people out of poverty. The new Chinese middle class consumes more energy, causing China’s emissions to skyrocket during that time. In the last 10 years China has added one and a half the entire US number of coal-fired power plants. In order to reach the agreed upon cuts of up to 30% by 2030 while still maintaining growth China will have to change business as usual drastically. This is one reason for the agreed upon increase in renewable energy
Although it is often a topic for contention in politics, global warming over the span of several decades, has led to climate change, which has had an alarming impact globally. Climate change needs to ...
For these reasons, global warming stands as one of the most daunting policy issues facing our world today. This is compounded by the debate over the very existence of climate change. While countless sources of empirical evidence testify to the very real presence of climate change the world over, considerable denial of the phenomenon still exists. The argument has been made that evidence about climate change is a gross overstatement, or in some cases, a complete fabrication. Despite the evidence to the contrary, many interest groups with considerable political clout have successfully perpetuated the argument that documented changes in the environment are a product of natural cyclical changes in climate, and are not associated with human activities. However, even the acceptance of this particular brand of reality is no grounds for the disregard of environmental consciousness. Even if one accepts the premise that recent climate change is not resultant of human activity, the rationale behind environmental conservation remains ...
Former Vice President, Al Gore’s speech, The Climate Emergency, was a highly accurate prediction of the circumstances our planet would be under in coming years. The facts relevant as of 2004 are still true in the year 2015. While many companies and individuals have learned to contribute to helping our plant go greener, the dangers of the climate change are still a pressing issue supported by scientific evidence. With occurrences such as extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and ice cap disappearances, global warming is physically being show on our planet and in order to prevent a complete reversed climate on our hemispheres, the population of Earth as a whole must ban together to reduce our carbon footprint.
“An introduction to climate change.” Natural Resource Defense Council. Natural Resources Defense Council 8 November 2015 n. pag. Web. 28 November 2015.
To sum up, the EU drawn attention on climate changes and has essential goals to help other regions and countries to change the world. According to the Kyoto Protocol, the EU and other countries have big dreams about changing climate in positive way. That how the EU manages to accomplish the defined aims on the Kyoto Protocol depends on the EU leaders and Europeans also on the major emitting countries and other powerful world’s countries which have essential impact on climate changes.
Nowadays, we can see a lot of campaigns to reduce this humans’ contribution of greenhouse gases to atmosphere. These campaign’s missions are usually about reducing the energy that we use, convincing us to use recyclable energy, stopping the deforestation... These missions are all about mitigating to climate change. Climate change mitigation is the actions to limit the significant rate of long term climate change. In other words, climate change mitigation is all of the actions about lowering the humans’ greenhouse gas contribution to atmosphere. It is now too late for humans’ to prevent the effects of climate change, but these effects can be reduced in the future with mitigation. The most popular treaty, disenchant of humanity, is Kyoto Protocol. The main goal of Kyoto Protocol is reducing the human emitted greenhouse gases, in other word, mitigation. Also in ways that underlying national differences in GHG emissions, wealth, and capacity to make th...
In conclusion, global climate change is a very long discussion with many ways to improve the environment, but a long journey to finding a solution. Although we can 't do away with our main sources like power plants, cars, and factories we must continue to find solutions to making our environment safer and suitable to live in. Hopefully in the near future we will have a better understanding of how to address our global climate changes, but for now, we can focus our ideas on preventative ways to not harm ourselves and our