Case_Study_on_Climate_Change

Cole Young Cyril Klein Zoe Mullendore Jelle Barkema PS205 Thurs. 9AM Word count: 1021 United States Climate Change Case Study Our government’s position on climate change has taken a sharp turn since the inauguration of President Obama in January of this year. Where previous administrations have followed a course of lukewarm (in the Clinton era) or outright obstruction (under Bush) of restrictions on emissions, our administration is determined to lead the effort to gain control of and reverse climate change. Although the Clinton administration, particularly Vice President Gore, supported the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the United States signed it, we have never ratified it. Analysis of economic costs, estimated in 1998 at between 1.0% and 4.2% of GDP by 2012, combined with the long-held Republican position that global warming was “unproven”, supported Bush’s hostility to ratification and compliance. Their stance was that China’s exemption was a fatal flaw and that it would be too costly to our economy and the job security of millions of Americans. The Bush administration continued to block climate change regulations until he exited office in 2009. President Obama has begun to reverse our nation’s position. Within two weeks of taking office he altered the global equation, putting us at the forefront of climate change policy. He changed federal rules, requiring that by 2030 all U.S. made cars average 35 mpg or better. He reversed the federal government’s position on blocking California’s tougher air quality standards. He started talks about a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, that would include restrictions on “developing” countries, such as China and India.. We are finally on the right side of this important issue. Yet impacts of climate change are felt across the globe .The Global Recession has had a great impact on the United States, but according to a report by the World Bank, “the recession hurt the developing countries the most, since they are highly dependable on free trade”. President Obama has set the goal to reduce climate-altering emissions by 80% by 2050. Implementing the necessary changes in order to be able to meet this target by the developed nations will cost a lot of money. Therefore, we argue that financial transfers and other incentives ought to be put in the post 2012-agreement in order to help those nations cut their carbon dioxide emissions. Developing nations largely contribute to the climate change, therefore leaving it the way it is will make it impossible to achieve this mitigation of greenhouse gases. There are several ways for the wealthier countries to assist developing nations in cutting their emissions. Firstly, financial transfers can be submitted in order to help the poorer countries pay for the changes they will have to make in the production process, for example. Secondly, developed nations could commence the process of so-called capacity building. Building a country’s capacity basically means providing a particular transitioning nation with knowledge and skills to address climate change (in this case). Capacity building includes activities focused on Greenhouse gas reduction, technology transfer, land-based carbon sequestration, vulnerability and adaptation to climate impacts, and climate change science. However, setting targets or a deadline for when non-Annex I countries should have reduced their emissions is not a practical thing. Depending on where each country is in its development makes for a different plan for each state. What Annex I countries need to do now is help prevent the developing countries from letting their CO2 levels from getting too high. Helping the non-Annex I countries is helping out the future just as much as it is reducing Annex I emissions. These developing countries usually have an uneducated population and by training scientists, engineers, politicians, and the general public about the dangers of increasing greenhouse gasses and how to decrease the problem would greatly help the world. All countries no matter developed or developing need to take responsibility for this Earth. Annex I countries should set other goals for themselves other than getting 5% below their 1990 levels, though. Industrialized countries should take in the footsteps of the United States by applying new CO2 emission caps on cars and companies. The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States is making it a requirement for facilities to have reports on the amount of emissions they produce. They, along with the Department of Transportation, have proposed an integrated rule for cars. By 2016 all cars need to achieve 35.5 miles per gallon. Also industrialized countries should look more into alternative energy resources. Wave, wind, and solar; there are numerous ways of getting energy but these ideas need to be looked into more and then developed into a viable, well working way of attaining energy. In the end, it is becoming more and more apparent that climate change is an issue of utmost importance on the global stage. As global leader it is crucial that the United States set a powerful example in regards to curbing climate change. The evidence of global warming is overwhelming. Global warming is no longer only of concern to developed countries. As President Obama put it in his speech to the UN, “The security and stability of each nation and all peoples—our prosperity, our health, our safety—are in jeopardy.” As a result global collaboration is essential if a working is to be put in place. Annex I countries must focus not only ways to reduce their own carbon dioxide emissions but also assisting developing countries in facing the challenges of sustainable development. If the focus is on collaboration then developing countries will have a stronger incentive to participate and not feel as if they are being punished for the industrialization of developed countries. While the upfront cost of fighting climate change is great, the world bank estimates $575 billion will be needed annually to develop low carbon technology and adapt to changes caused by global warming, the cost of not addressing the issue could be exponentially worse. Additionally the costs of not addressing global will be disproportionally thrust on developing countries, where both droughts and flooding could cause significant loss of crops and rises in disease. As we can see, climate change is truly a global issue and therefore the solution must also be global. Works Cited Friedman, Lisa. 'World Bank Report Slams 'Inertia' in the Face of Climate Change.” NY Times (2009) Web 19 Nov 2009. MacFarquhar, Niel. “Proposals Lag Behind Promises on Climate.” NY Times (2009) Web. 19 Nov 2009. . Obama, Barak. U.N. Summit on Climate Change. New York City, NY. 22 Sept. 2009. Rosenthal, Elisibeth. "Obamas Backing Raises Hopes For Climate Pact." NY Times (2009): 1. Web. 16 Nov 2009. . White, Deborah. "About.com: US Liberal Politics." About.com. 2005. Web. 16 Nov 2 009.