Action in National and International Policy, Research Paper Example

Introduction

The newly presented consensus on global warming has taken precedence in international forums and policy meetings. The seriousness of global warming has forced much legislation around the world to implement environmental laws and policies that help in curbing the effects to the environment. One of the main arguments is if global warming actually exists. Although overwhelming evidence points to the existence of global warming and its dire effects, many scientists and critics blame the natural actions of the environment, in combination with the impact of humans. One of the biggest supporters has come from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, in which Gore explores the true impacts of global warming. Throughout his documentary he presents evidence such as the melting glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica, and other cold places which gives strong support that the Earth’s temperature is rapidly increasing.  Using information on the political movements towards environmental policy, as well as factual supports lends to the positions that global warming is a serious real issue that the world leaders must work to find a solution.

It is not actually a question if global warming exists, science and the evidence of extreme climate change, has given substantial support to the concept.  All, but a few scientist and skeptics agree that the earth is experiencing a global warming, as the problem is very real, and the earth will suffer severe consequences from global warming damage. The problem lies in the policy directions of implementing a policy that transcends political and geographic borders. In order to reduce the impacts of global warming, governments and other international organizations must make policy changes to the environment, which help in changing individual behaviors, and show accountability of government officials the fail to act. There has been several political polarization of the problems of climate change and global warming based on the political attitudes of the public. The advances in technology and economic growth, have created an economic system that has accelerated due to the consumption and extraction of fossil fuels. (Dunlap 2) The consequence of this overconsumption of fossil fuels has created an anthropogenic global warming that has led to climate change. It has become the most hotly debated issue of the modern era, which creates a fundamental critique of the continued modernization global growth. Since the discussion in the past two decades, the United States has long dragged their feet on their response to climate change. This has mainly been conceptualized from opposition of the conservative movement, and the industrial sector that is dependent on the capitalist structure of the overuse of fossil fuels. This opposition has steadily denied the significance of climate change as a problem, and has influenced the societal responses to the global environmental problems.

Governments are meant to represent voters, therefore, though most environmental issues are the results of people, folks look to the government to mend environmental issues. Also, it proves to be a lot of economical to hunt to resolve international environmental issues with states and governmental policies. Thus, it is become the duty of states to do to seek out solutions for the ever increasing threats of those world environmental problems. One in all the privileges governments fancy is being the sole social unit on top of things of its own territory; therefore it is the flaming power to make and establish laws and policies among its voters.  The Charter of the United Nations gives citizens the sovereign right to take advantage of their own resources consistent to their own  environmental policies, and therefore, the responsibility to make sure that activities among their jurisdiction or management do not cause injury to the surroundings of different States or of areas on the far side the bounds of national jurisdiction. (Vig, Axelrod, 15). Once larger issues occur outside of national jurisdiction, it is significant that international correspondence be made. This includes each trans-boundary issues (such as acid rain) that have an effect on areas outside of the polluting nation’s domain, and world environmental issues (such as global warming) that have an effect on the whole earth. As a result of these areas are out of hand of any government (as there’s no absolute world government), states are seemingly to abuse these resources, and since these are areas outside of national jurisdiction, few governments can actively promote policies to safeguard these locations and their environments, because it is not their responsibility. As a result, countries will not do abundant regarding environmental degradation publicly realms all the same, over the past number of decades, growing awareness and concern for the world surroundings has junction rectifier to the emergence of different actors within the international environmental policy forming field of battle. Though states hold a privileged position in not solely domestic, however international politics, international organizations are progressively gaining influence in dogmas and international environmental governance.  Therefore, to develop international environmental policy, the manifestation of international organizations is crucial. The international nations contribute to the international environmental policy embraced by international organizations, international firms, non-governmental organizations, scientists, and in fact, nation-states.

The impacts of globalization due to the rapid expansion of the global economy have created several international environmental problems. While some problems are presented on a national level, problems such as global warming that directly impact the world, has expanded on a global scale. Global warming has become a problem that everyone contributes to and are bearing the burden of. According to research, one of the first international treaties was implemented on climate change from the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Then came the international agreement in the Kyoto Protocol, which was a tool to bring the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) under international control. Even with the passage of the protocol during the 80s, there was still contention in the United States, as it had to deal with,

“Scholarship on the politicization of climate change examines corporate lobbying and marketing activities (e.g., Kolk and Levy 2001; Layzer 2007), the mobilization of social movement organizations (e.g., McCright and Dunlap 2000, 2003; Bryner 2008), the political behaviors of scientists (e.g., Lahsen 2005, 2008; McCright 2007; Oreskes and Conway 2010), and the actions of congressional and administrative actors (Fisher 2006; McCright and Dunlap 2010)” (Dunlap 4).

However effective of the Kyoto Protocol was, it was only limited to apply to developed countries in a short amount of time. (Nordhaus 5)  Furthermore, the Bush administrations did not seek to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which has resulted in a stalling of the emission reductions.  It has not been since the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, that there has been a success on the international front for responsibility in the global phasing out of the consumptions and production of ODS (ozone-depleting substances), CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), and HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons).  The increase of political fallout and pressure to make changes to the problems of global warming, have presented several questions on how environmental policies can be enacted in helping to prevent further damage to the world.

Looking at the politicization of global warming in the international scope demands attention to the research that has been presented on global warming, stemming from the definition, the problems, and the political movements from international and national legislation in implementing environmental laws and policies. From the political and industrial opposition in the 80s with the first international treaty to the actions of the Montreal Protocol presently, there has been substantial evidences of the increased polarization in the range of political and scientific opposition based on human actions, social and economic influences. The goal of this paper is to examine the changes throughout the start of the political action of global warming legislation, until the present call to action in creating environmental policies that will help in curbing the impact of individuals on the environment. This includes a clear definition of global warming and all of its components, as well as an analysis on CFC reductions, and other factors that influence climate change or global warming’s impact on the entire world. This paper will draw upon relevant theoretical perspectives from scientist and political research to analyze the international consensus on environmental policies.

Global Warming is not an issue that might be fathomed by one or a couple of nations. The cooperation of the heading governments all as far and wide as possible, in the same way as the United States, the European Union, China, and India is key to moderating an Earth-wide temperature boost. The Center for Global Development (CDG) is assuming a part in driving natural arrangements as far and wide as possible. It is an autonomous, not-revenue driven research organization. Its mission is decreasing disparities on the planet’s poorest nations by, empowering arrangement changes on the planet’s wealthiest nations through thorough exploration, and dynamic engagement with the strategy making policy-production group. Since 2003, the CDG has transformed the Commitment to Development Index (CDI), which measures the connection between rich and poor nations on remote support, trade, movement, the earth, and military undertakings. “Nature’s turf segment of the CDI looks at rich nations on strategies that influence imparted worldwide assets, for example, the air and seas” (Center for Global Development 1). Poor nations do not have the assets to adjust to the impacts of a dangerous atmospheric deviation as adequately as rich nations. It is imperative that international policy changes so that precedence is taken all around the world.

Global Warming

The concept of climate change or global warming, refers to the historical documentation of the warming of the earth’s layer based mostly upon worldwide temperature records, which are maintained by humans since the eighties. It is the rise within the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans. In the last one hundred years, this temperature has risen in an incremental change with regard to the increase in the last decades.  According to the exponents of thought, the effects of an extra warming at an equivalent rate embraced an increase in ocean levels. Change within the quantity and pattern of precipitation, a probable enlargement of climatic zone deserts, more frequent prevalence of utmost weather events as well as heat waves, droughts and significant downfall events, species extinctions because of shifting temperature regimes, and changes in agricultural yields. Although there has been an issue, considerably additional pronounced within the media, than within the scientific literature, regarding the factors, causes, and consequences of global warming. There is a powerful agreement within the scientific literature that world surface temperatures have raised in recent decades, which the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.  After much debate over the past decades, there is clearly no scientific body within the global environment that disagrees with this assessment, although a couple of organizations hold non-committal positions.

While the proponents of global warming powerfully believe that it is results of human activities, its cynics argue that it is caused by natural fluctuations in climate, not by human actions that are the cause for the past century’s rising temperatures. Opponents that disbelieve that global warming is caused by human activities reiterate that, the earth’s climate has never been stable, and has frequently warmed and cooled over the course of time with none help from human action. Per the human part of recent global warming is believed to be quite small, and therefore, the climate rather cooled between 1940 and 1975, even as industrial activity grew quickly. It has been troublesome to reconcile this cooling with the discovery of the increase in greenhouse gases. Skeptical scientists advocate inserting no limits on the consumption of fossil fuels.

The problem

Since the 80s, there has been a little push for policy on climate change or global warming. It was not until the early 90s that change began, after a whirlwind of exercises by the political parties in the months paving the way to the December 1997 Kyoto Conference, climate change lost arrangement striking nature and subsided to the back burner of our national motivation emulating this worldwide occasion. The legislative issues of environmental change went into a state of torpidity. Throughout this time, numerous fossil powers partnerships (with the glaring exemption of ExxonMobil) withdrew from their assaults on atmosphere science and started expert-natural advertising battles (Kolk, Levy 22), inciting the indignation of moderate development activists (Layzer 112). Environmental change scarcely enrolled throughout the 2000 presidential campaign, being examined just quickly throughout the second civil argument. In April 2007, the Bush organization went before the United States Supreme Court to contend its position that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the power, given to the office by The Clean Air Act, to direct carbon dioxide and other gasses since carbon dioxide is not a toxin under The Clean Air Act. This position was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Bush organization’s unwillingness to confirm the Kyoto Protocol or backing the Environmental Protection Agency indicated that they were not being fair with the American individuals about the potential dangers, because of the unnatural weather change. It is evident that the short term money related effect exceeds the long term worldwide profits.

At the UN Climate Change Conference 2007 in Nusa Dua on Bali Island, Al Gore put forth the accompanying expression about President Bush’s approaches on nature’s turf, in which he says that the United States is answerable for the hindrance in the progression of a policy on global warming. (Walsh and Dua). At the point when the legislature is not eager to make a change that is helpful to the individuals, the individuals must search for open doors to make an effect on the issue. For the past, a few years, the residents of the US are grasping the green development by supporting organizations that are ecologically cognizant, making little changes like decreasing Styrofoam measures in the work place and diminishing carbon dioxide outflow by utilizing open transportation or  carpooling to work. Individuals everywhere throughout the world are encountering uncommon occasions all the more much of the time and realize that something in their reality has changed.

The world is encountering more Category 4 and 5 tropical storms; they are multiplying as per research, increasing ruinous tendency of tropical typhoons in the course of recent years. The ice sheets are liquefying, plants and creatures are constrained from their regular territories, and the amount of serious storms and dry seasons is progressively affecting individuals everywhere throughout the world. The variables connected with a worldwide temperature alteration are a lot of people. Every individual must make changes in the way he or she use the assets of the world with a specific end goal, to ease off the methodology of an unnatural weather change. According to David, Bender and Burns, Al Gore states, “The United States is answerable for more than one-third (36%) of the whole world’s carbon dioxide discharges – much more than any possible nation” (5). The US was one of the first signatories of the Kyoto Protocol and consented to decrease the 1990 carbon dioxide levels by 6%, yet President Bush neglected to endorse the convention in 2001 because of his conviction that the prudent effect might be excessively extraordinary. Since President Bush is not ready to establishment arrangements on a worldwide temperature alteration, neighborhood governments are acquainting strategies with characteristics comparative with the Kyoto Protocol.

By the early 1990s, the US ecological group—the natural development, standard atmosphere researchers, and ecological policymakers—had effectively characterized a worldwide temperature alteration as a true blue issue meriting the consideration of policymakers. Around this time, a composed against-natural countermovement, initiated by moderate establishments, research organizations, and government officials, rose in light of the ascent of worldwide environmentalism, and its apparent danger to the spread of neoliberal financial arrangements around the world (Jacques, Dunlap, and Freeman 8). The ecological development and the opposition to-natural progressive development both have attracted upon researchers thoughtful to their individual positions. Regular researchers have since a long time ago assumed a focal part in the ecological development, and have been instrumental in the improvement of key natural associations (Mitchell, Mertig, and Dunlap 2). The moderate development started to underscore the use of “scientific skill” when it activated in the early 1990s to test the authenticity of worldwide natural change (Jacques et al. 5). From that point forward, the moderate development has pushed a little number of “contrarian” researchers who challenge standard atmosphere science as a feature of its more extensive deliberations to expose the actuality and reality of environmental change (Lahsen 5).

The early 1990s saw just direct levels of assembly by the ecological development to keep up a dangerous atmospheric deviation on the national motivation, maybe maneuvering up after Al Gore got to be VP. The window of chance for the Clinton–gore organization and the Democratic Congress to manage environmental change shut sharply with the 1994 national race, when Republicans picked up control of Congress in what got known as the “Republican Revolution.” This new dominant part quickly tested ecological science and strategy (Dunlap 6). Maybe no place was this more obvious than with the issue of environmental change. Republican Congressional pioneers propelled a full scale-ambush on atmosphere science, particularly exposing the associate-evaluated work of standard researchers while advertising the nonpeer-audited cases of environmental change contrarians (McCright and Dunlap). Expanding on its prior experience in activating against the opposition to-ecological Ronald Reagan organization, the natural development attempted to bring issues to light of the Bush organization’s hostile to-ecological motivation, including its medicine of environmental change. The ecological group regardless attained a few achievement in bringing issues to light, as media regard for environmental change since 2004 has predominated its past top in 1997.

As it has already been mentioned, there’s a powerful agreement within the scientific literature that world surface temperatures have raised in recent decades. This is mainly because of human activities leading to a big increase of greenhouse gases and, most significantly, that no national or international body disagrees with it, the views of global warming exponents appear to be additional convincing. Therefore, the climate model projections, summarized within the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Temperature Change (IPCC), indicate that at present, the worldwide surface temperature is probably going to rise an extra one degree for an all-time low of emissions gases. The primary international effort to forestall dangerous amendment is coordinated by the 194-nation UNFCCC. Hotter world temperatures also are expected to supply an additional vigorous hydrological cycle, with the robust prospect of additional severe droughts, floods in geographical areas susceptible to those styles of global events. This proof has caused scientists to conclude that the burning of fossil fuels or the discharge of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is that the cause for warming. Whereas this theory was true for an enormous a part of the history of global warming, recent studies show that this ostensibly positive issue to the presence of temperature change is not as indisputable because it once was.

New analysis suggests, that whereas humans are having a bearing on warming, CO2 is that the wrong waste product in charge.  An in-depth applied mathematics analysis of gasses and cosmic rays, gas depletion, and temperature changes, suggests that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the key reason behind warming since the early 70s. CFCs is chemicals that are employed in aerosols, as propellants, and within the production of packaging, insulation and alternative forms. They were initial introduced within the 1920s, and their use peaked within the 70s. CFCs were frequently used for refrigerators, and air conditioners within the Eighties, however, were not found to be harmful to the setting till a couple of years later. The negative effects of CFCs on the Earth’s ozonosphere is well-known. The United Nations’ Protocol on Substances that run through the ozonosphere, introduced within the late Eighties, was legal by 197 countries to curtail the assembly and emission of harmful gasses, as well as CFCs. Canada, CFCs are virtually utterly phased come in developed countries. Developing countries were to start phasing out the chemical in 2010. This analysis reveals that an equivalent chlorofluorocarbon gases paired with cosmic rays that junction rectifier to gas depletion, and notably the ozonosphere hole over the Antarctic, also are the cause for rising world temperatures.

The Solution

In order to combat the impact of global warming, there needs to be a review of the policies and legislation from the national and international bodies in order to find solutions. Since the 1990s, annual international greenhouse emission emissions have tripled abundantly within the atmosphere. Scientists believe that due to the greenhouse emissions that have been generated by humans, have accelerated warming. Determining the issues is far additional difficult than springing up with an answer. Within the social context of global warming, there are several national and international negotiations on legislation and policies. As a result, some countries have abridged their greenhouse emission emissions, however overall they only keep continued to increase. They are debates on the pricey restrictions on greenhouse emission emissions, and other plausible solutions. Global warming could be an internationally generated development that has global impacts, but the answer should involve international negotiations.  There are futile International negotiation on imposing economically damaging emissions restrictions and instead launching an enormous U.S effort to develop energy that may generate fewer or no emissions, together with atomic energy.

The issue of environmental change is one that we disregard at our own particular risk. There may in any case be debate about precisely the extent to which we’re helping the warming of the world’s climate, and the amount is characteristically happening, however, what we might be deductively sure of is that our proceeded utilization of fossil fuels is pushing us to a final turning point.  As these nations keep on experiencing financial growth, their interest for oil, coal, common gas, and other constrained assets will keep on growing bringing on deficiencies. On the off chance that the Obama Administration does not drive arrangements, for example, renewable vitality (characteristically recharged), the opposition for these constrained fossil energizes will result in political and monetary uprisings all around the created and creating countries. Brazil understood the requirement for an elective to oil and created one of the biggest renewable vitality programs on the planet. Eighteen percent of their car fuel is given by ethanol fuel a product of sugar stick. Renewable innovations can additionally be utilized for little off-lattice provisions like sun oriented. Kenyans is utilizing sunlight based controlled frameworks as the vitality hotspot for their homes.

The Montreal Protocol was set into place and represent the foremost tangible method inside the UNFCCC negotiations. They memorialize pledges taken by over eighty countries accounting for over eightieth of worldwide emissions. (Velders, Ravishankara, Miller, Molina, Alcano, Daniel, Fahey, Montzka, Reimann 1). The agreements recognized the need for a stronger network for developing countries, and a stronger structure for countries to validate whether or not alternative countries are protruding to their pledge. All nations share a typical interest in adverting dangerous temperature change and pursue clean energy are in the direct national interest yet. There are several reasons, whether or not from a national security, economic, or environmental perspective. Whereas international agreements and commitments are crucial to success in addressing international temperature changes. Additional necessary efforts of the policies and actions countries are taking implementing policies contributive in reducing greenhouse emission emissions. The European Union, China, Brazil, Indonesia, African nation, Mexico, and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are all operating towards goals they’ve set so as to cut back their countries greenhouse emission emissions, and work towards a solution for global warming.

Conclusion

Signatory countries recognized in the preface that they are conscious of the potential climatic impacts of emanations of these substances ODSs. (Velders et al 1). The atmosphere commitment of future HCFC outflows was an imperative thought for the quickened phase-out consented to by the gatherings in 2007. Since 2010, 108 countries have marked an assertion expressing their “intent to seek after further activity under the Montreal Protocol pointed at transitioning the world to naturally sound choices to CFCs and HCFCs reduction”. (Velders et al 1) The United States, Mexico, Canada, and additionally the Federated States of Micronesia, submitted recommendations in 2010 and 2011to control HFC use by altering the Montreal Protocol. (Velders et al 2). The suggestions and statement were roused by the enthusiasm toward restricting environmental change from future emanations of Hfcs with high an Earth-wide temperature boost possibilities (GWPs).  Nations were propelled by the enthusiasm toward constraining environmental change from future emanations of Hfcs with high a dangerous atmospheric deviation possibilities (GWPs).

At the 2011 Durban atmosphere arrangements, it was chosen that new atmosphere duties will become effective just from 2020 forward, leaving the impending 8 years or more without any legitimately tying worldwide measures under an atmosphere consent to lessen potential atmosphere impacts of Hfcs and different GHGS. The importance of the Montreal Protocol is substantial to the movement of international policy regulating agencies and individuals on global warming. The political polarization on the pushes to environmental policy still exists, but more critics that argue against the existence of global warming, still cannot deny the changes in the atmosphere, nor the changes in the temperatures. For the future challenges in environmental policies, more countries need to pledge their commitment to preserve the benefits of Montreal Protocol, and also help in expanding further on the knowledge of HCFS and CFS that directly impact global warming.  The future of international policy development, and other legislation is essential to the further damage that global warming will do.

Works Cited

Dunlap, Riley E. “Polls, Pollution, and Politics Revisited: Public Opinion on the Environment in the Reagan Era.” Environment 29(July/August):6–11, 32–7. 1987. Print.

Dunlap, Riley E., McCright, Aaron M. “The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming, 2001-2010.” The Sociological Quarterly. 2011. Web. 7 May 2014. http://www.okepscor.org/sites/default/files/u6/McCright%20%26%20Dunlap-TSQ%202011.pdf

Dunlap, Riley E. and Aaron M. McCright. “A Widening Gap: Republican and Democratic Views on Climate Change.” Environment 50(5):26–35. 2008. Print.

“Environment.” Center for Global Development. N.d. Web. 7 May 2014. http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/_components/environment/

David, L., Bender, L., and Burns, S. Z, Guggenheim, D. An Inconvenient Truth. US: Paramount Classics and Participant Productions. 2007. Film.

Hansen, James, Sato, Makiko, Ruedy, Reto, Lacis, Andrew, Oinas, Valdar. “Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 29 Aug, 2000; 97(18): 9875–9880. 2000. Print.

Jacques, Peter J., Riley E. Dunlap, and Mark Freeman. “The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Skepticism.” Environmental Politics 17:349–8. 2008. Print.

Kolk, Ans, David Levy. “Winds of Change: Corporate Strategy, Climate Change, and Oil Multinationals.” European Management Journal 19:501–9. 2001. Print.

Lahsen, Myanna. “Experiences of Modernity in the Greenhouse: A Cultural Analysis of a Physicist ‘Trio’ Supporting the Backlash against Global Warming.” Global Environmental Change 18:204–19. 2008. Print.

Layzer, Judith.  “Deep Freeze.” Business and Environmental Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2007. Book.

Mitchell, Robert Cameron, Angela G. Mertig, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1992. “Twenty Years of Environmental Mobilization.” American Environmentalism. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. 1992. Book.

Nordhaus, William D. “After Kyoto: Alternative Mechanisms to Control Global Warming.” The American Economic Association and the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. 2001. Web. 7 May 2014. http://www.angelfire.com/co4/macroeconomics302/c.pdf

Roberts, S. “Changes coming on emissions?” Business Insurance, 42(46), 11-14. 2008. Print.

Velders, Guus J., Ravishankara, A.R., Miller, Melanie K., Molina, Mario J., Alcano, Joseph, Daniel, John S., Fahey, David W., Montzka, Stephen A., Reimann, Stefan. “Preserving Montreal Protocol Climate Benefits by Limiting HFCs.” Policy Forum. 2 Mar 2012. Web. 7 May 2014. http://igsd.org/documents/Science-2012-Velders-922-3.pdf

Vig, Norman J., Axelrod, Regina S. The Global Environment: Institutions, Law, and Policy. Earthscan. 1999. Book.

Walsh, B., & Dua, N. “Is America the Villain in Bali?” Time World.  2007. Web. 7 May 2014. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1694259,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-t