U.s. Policies Towards Climate Change

The purpose of this section is to set standards for federal agencies to follow in regards to global issues. Climate change and clean energy efforts are of great importance in regards to environmental assessment law. International treaties to lower greenhouse gases (GHG) are of special importance. Therefore, it has become evident that federal agencies will be forced to play a global role in the decades to come. ‘Public involvement in regards to environmental decision-making increases environmental awareness,

The election of 2000 took place during a time that was mostly peaceful, unemployment rates were historically low, but however, there were a record number of terrorist threats (Muhlhausen). Despite all of these headlining topics presidential candidate Al Gore and Vice President Joe Lieberman were far more concerned about global climate change (“Al”). Gore was, and still, is very passionate about this topic (“Al”, 9). He has challenged the two biggest polluters in the world, China and The United States to, “Make the boldest move in climate change.” Figure 5

Article 1: This article tells about President Obama vetoing Keystone Jobs Bill on grounds that approval of the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline would damage the U.S. effort to curb greenhouse gases. The article frames Obama as an environmental hero, quoting the president in saying, “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change… And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face — not acting.” The authors also cite Secretary of State John Kerry in saying “The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves.” The

Dr James Hansen’s argumentative essay, “A Solution to the Climate Problem,” discusses his premise that it is imperative for humankind to deal with carbon dioxide emissions, which he believes needs to be phased out by the mid-21st century. He begins with the current paradigm in government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and claims that so far it has been a lot of talk and action in the other direction. Dr Hansen argues that while governments pay lip service to agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, they are going full steam ahead with projects that will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, such as going forth with coal-fired power plants, coal-to-liquids, hydraulic fracturing, and tar sands oil extraction. Dr Hansen believes

In recent years , there is a colossal upsurge in the number of environmental concerns with climate change being a pivotal one. Although convergent efforts, be it an individual , company or a government, are made to ease this concern. I think government play a vital role in this regard.

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.

Heat is an important resource. It helps us grow crops and other things. Using Greenhouse gasses will temper the climate change. This is a problem. If the united states makes laws it can probably limit greenhouse gasses. This is important because it points out when United States makes laws It can help us improve the environment by preventing greenhouse gasses. Providing more greenhouse gasses keep them trapped in our atmosphere. Providing laws will prevent this from happening. Providing laws will also help us reduce the use of electricity. We can make bills if there is an overuse of electricity you. This way it can make a HUGE impact on saving energy. This is important because it points out by saving electricity now we have one objective of our mind. Now you just need to find out a way to stop

The following paper will provide an overview of Canada’s current climate change policy, under the Trudeau administration. Then, an overview of the climate change policy for the Trump administration will be introduced. Finally, Canada’s options in the face of these circumstances will be introduced, along with the decision that should be made for Canada’s future policy on climate change.

Climate change, specifically in reference to C02 Emissions released by human use of fossil fuels and their consequential effects on the environment, is perhaps one of the most pressing issues we, not just as Americans, but as human beings face in our lifetimes. Though it may sound like a sensationalist statement the facts are hard to deny. In May of 2013, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The 21st century has begun with one of the most challenge security threats to the United States of America have had to face. The perils of climate change have the ability to impact the national interest concerning power, prosperity and peace. The continued challenges around the world, and domestically, it is critical the US implements a comprehensive grand strategy. Cooperative security gives the US the best possibility to achieve the goals that will lessen the effects and place the US ahead of the international agenda. Combating climate change will require successful policies such as international climate pacts, collective-action and cap and trade initiatives. In the past, we have seen the US shy away from such accords worried about the

1. The first element I identified in S.2835 is the general consensus reached by several different organizations, such as the G8 Summit on Climate and Energy, the Energy Information Administration, and the National Intelligence Council, who all conclude that global emissions will peak by 2025 due to increased environmental demands by a growing world population. This consensus helped frame the intent for S.2835 while also establishing the second element: the Strategic Interagency Board on International Climate Investment. The “Board”, will serve to monitor government in reducing climate change with funding and support via various initiatives and programs. While the elements of the bill are more concrete in their purpose and action; two of the policy’s notable characteristics are more general and vague. The two I identified, promise to protect Americans from the impacts of climate change through reductions in greenhouse gases by providing assistance to developing countries. While doing so, the U.S. will recognize and respect the natural resource rights of those developing countries. Both of these objectives seem noble, but they are broad and contradictory. By helping developing countries reduce deforestation, greenhouse gases will lower, but the bill itself states that deforestation in developing countries is not the major culprit in climate change, however the bill is still more focused on adapting developing countries than the U.S. who is the bigger culprit. Additionally,

Not two weeks ago, I was floating on a noodle, beer in hand, life and conversation good; when the topic of climate change came up and I was presented with an opportunity to ponder why people see the same things so differently.

ratification on the Kyoto Protocol with certain amendments would be necessary to it secure America’s role as world leader. The Kyoto Protocol and the evolving United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) are excellent ways to restore U.S. reputation and showcase America’s eagerness to flight a major global crisis – climate change. As outlined by Charli Coon in his article, “Why President Bush Is Right to Abandon the Kyoto Protocol,” the U.S. did not spearhead the global warming agenda for many reasons. While, President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, requiring emission levels to fall below their 1990 benchmark by 2012, the State Department rejected the protocol in 2001 because it would hurt the U.S. economy and it excused developing countries from the reduction requirements. During the Bush administration, the U.S. was withheld from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol because of the lack of participation from the developing world. Although the U.S. has the highest carbon emission rate, developing countries are increasingly burning up fossil fuels for energy and are expected to surpass U.S. emission level. The Bush administration argued signing the Kyoto Protocol would threaten the U.S. economy and at that time. Also, the U.S. did not possess any technologies for removing or storing carbon dioxide. They also refuted that there was any scientific evidence for global warming. The conversation on climate change has since progressed among members of the international community. With the topic becoming more urgent, U.S. participation in a successor agreement is possible under certain conditions. Firstly, the successor agreement should allow states to individually strategize initiatives to mitigate climate change that best meets their needs and are within their capabilities. Secondly, there should be “anti-dumping” clauses within any new agreement to protect American green industries, thus incentivizing U.S.

The United States of America as a developed country and also the second most polluter country have sign the Paris Agreement on 22 April 2016 and ratify it on 3 September 2016. Since the United States of America join the Paris Agreement, its Nationally Determined Contribution has a target to reduce greenhouse gas emission by 26-28% below the emission level on 2005 in 2025. As a developed country, based on Article 9 of the Paris Agreement that mention the developed countries should provide financial resources to assist the developing countries to meet their goals in countering the climate change, the United States of America also submitted a commitment of US$3000 million as part of the Green Climate Fund.

Often times, when there is a new innovation and it is spectacular enough, people seldom pause to look into the possible adverse side effects. Starting in the eighteenth century, with the invention of the steam engine, humans had an amazing new way to travel and produce goods. Yes, this dramatically reduced the price of textiles and travel time, but it also was the start of something horrible: the pollution of our planet. It began with the burning of wood, then coal and finally fossil fuels. It was not until the early twentieth century that scientists started to realize the repercussions of such actions. The greenhouse gasses, released from these energy sources, build up in the atmosphere, while deforestation reduces the planet’s ability to convert these harmful gases back to clean air. Compared to today, “the concentration of these gases is 30 percent higher than it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution” (Haley). The majority of scientists believe that if the people of the world continue to emit greenhouse gases, the repercussions will be catastrophic. To help slow this poisoning of the planet, Japan put together a treaty in 1997 and proposed it to the world.