Multilateralism In America

Bush campaigned for the 2000 election, he explicitly opposed Kyoto as it “would cause serious harm to the US economy” (Borger, 2001). The international issue of global warming was thusly labeled as something that could be ignored in favor of local economic profit, and emission reduction was assumed to be impossibly expensive.

The United States refused to endorse the Kyoto Protocol, basically letting the market drive CO2 reductions to mitigate global warming, which will require CO2 emission taxation. The administration of Barack Obama has proposed an aggressive energy policy reform, including the need for a reduction of CO2 emissions, with a cap and trade program, which could help encourage more clean renewable, sustainable energy development. Thanks to new technologies such as fracking, the United States has in 2014 resumed its former role as the top oil producer in the world. In terms of oil the Keystone XL Pipeline is not in the national interest of te United States due to the large ecological impacts, as well as it being in the United States best interests to

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

The European Union expressed its disagreements with The US (during Bush administration) on cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate change required “clear vision, political courage and an extraordinary effort of international cooperation”, so it’s necessary for Europe and US to hold urgent talks on the issue in the Hague last year. However, the US president’s national security adviser said the process to cut greenhouse gases established in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 was dead which provoked the EU leaders to take action. Bush’s administration strongly oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80% of the world (major population centers such as China and India were not exempted) and it would harm to the US economy. He did the opposite of what

The science and public policy institute found that even if the U.S. stopped emitting all carbon dioxide today, the global temperature would only decrease by 0.17 degrees celsius by the year 2100. That would be a very small impact on any climate change. It would take thousands of years for a big difference to be made. According to the final report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the transition from fossil fuels would need to occur within decades. This is something that the U.S. plans to do alone without help from any other countries, but no country can accomplish something as big as this alone. Global warming will not only occur in the United States, it will occur all over the world. The U.S. cannot and will not accomplish this alone. All in all it would be a waste of money to continue the climate change program. If it isn’t accomplishing anything there is no reason to do it. The whole idea of the climate plan was to make the air more healthy and slash global warming, but it is proven by many sources that the climate plan will have no effect on global warming. "What is an extremely powerful message in this report is the need for human society as a whole to start looking at changes in lifestyle and consumption patterns." The panel's chair, Rajendra Pachauri said.

The current state and nature of the international systems is characterized as both conflict and cooperation of advanced nations. To further elaborate, World War I allowed the United States to grow as a nation and be recognized on a global scale. Afterwards, the Cold War further brought together the nation through fear of nuclear war giving away to a nation sense of patriotism. That was a huge progress from earlier beliefs. Some may look at our international system and believe that it is more of a realist approach, however, I believe that the current international system is very liberal in how it handles situations. Realists believe in looking out for their state 's own selves and ensuring state 's protection above all else. Each state in the international system does consider their safety as priority, but that doesn’t stop other states from trying to help states that are in trouble, which is the purpose of foreign aid. Not only that but our international system hopes to manage global

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

Although the Kyoto Protocol had the right intentions with the desire to lower greenhouse gases, however, lowering gas emissions would hinder the economy for many of the nations without a proper substitution or solution. This is a proposal that would not sit well with many of nations; especially since the nations did not all agree climate change. The Kyoto Protocol would produce concentrated costs because lowering gas emissions would affect nations differently, and in addition to that, there would exist a distribution of benefits because not all nations would benefit equally because their polluted atmospheres vary. With a proposal that could hinder the progress of they industry, “both economics and politics deal with problems of scarcity and conflicting preferences” in which nations would rather support the economy than take a risk at an opportunity to help the atmosphere (Wilson 363). The Kyoto Protocol falls under the categorization as entrepreneurial politics where the overall conclusion contains distributed benefits and concentrated

Multilateralism is the principle of participation by three or more parties, especially by the governments of different countries. According to Dieter’s opinion Multilateralism is at fault, as he believes that it doesn’t personally benefit him. Dieter argues that he doesn’t think he should have to pay taxes for something that doesn’t benefit him, and explains that the United Nations merely brings about trade disputes, military conflicts, trade deficits, and expensive foreign commitments. Dieter’s opinion is true at some level, and there are many others that agree with him for their own personal reasons and political beliefs, but I disagree because we have organizations that we created to sort with issues such as these. The EU sorts out trade disputes and deficits, NATO deals with military conflicts, and the WHO connects people around the world, not only allowing us to assist others through the foreign commitments, but causing others who are committed to us to assist us however we need as well.

The Kyoto Protocol was the first step in a comprehensive security program but without the 2 largest world emitters of greenhouse gas - China and US. It was a small and crucial step to combat the issue.

The protocols worthy of attention from the UNFCCC are the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris agreement. The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997 by the liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien and was passed onto Stephen Harper’s Conservative government where it was implemented in 2005 (Schiermeier, 2012). The liberal government had the target of 6% total reduction of GHG by 2012 compared to 1990 levels (Curry, 2017). The Kyoto Protocol did not include both of the world’s largest emitters: USA and China which resulted in Canada withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol by the Harper government in 2011 (Curry, 2017). Canada should not have pulled out because Russia and Japan who also disliked the commitments in the protocol tried to fix and adapt to the changes (Curry, 2017). The Harper government, infamous for its political decisions on climate change had failed to fulfill Canada’s responsibilities towards climate change. On the other hand, the Paris Agreement which wanted to control the global temperature rise below 2 °C (Shepherd, 2015) showed Canada’s resilience to take on a leadership role without the USA.

The earths average surface temperature has risen by 0.76 degrees Celsius since 1820. Much of the rising has happened within the last 50 years (Climate Change). The “greenhouse effect” is the global trend responsible for the increase in surface temperature. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons being the main factors of the greenhouse effect. Many industries in the United States depends upon have raised carbon dioxide levels and are continuing the same routine that’s causing the damage. It seems most Americans, including government officials are not willing to create significant change to reverse or restrain global warming trend. California’s emissions just this year are exceeding those of Brazil, a change needs to be created (Climate Change). President Trump even called global warming, a “hoax” and during his campaign he explained he’s not a big believer in man-made climate change. Which in fact, more than 95% chance human activities have warmed our planet (Nuccitelli). It is predicted if our own president doesn’t take

The objective was simple: reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases. The United States has not ratified the agreement. The Bush Administration currently explains their views on the agreement not as a direct reflection of their concern on the environment, but as a result of the strain the protocol would put on the economy and the lack of enforcement of quotas for several other nations including China and India. The United States must become a figurehead for environmental reform by addressing international issues and enforcing their quotas.

The pattern of climate change denialism and the Trump administration’s stance on climate change policy indicates a bleak outcome for climate change mitigation policy. Trump, on Twitter, has repeatedly called climate change a hoax and even said “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive” (Trump). Recently, Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement intended to lead a worldwide effort to reduce global warming. The United States and China, the largest CO2 emitters, do not view climate change as a very serious problem compared to the global median, according to a report by the Pew Research Center. In this same report, however, it states that “even in China and the United States, where overall concern about climate