The Urgent Need in the US Climate Change Policy - Term Paper Example

?A US Climate Change Policy is Urgently Needed! In 1996, former American Vice President Albert Gore declared that “global warming will be the greatest environmental challenge in the 21st century" (“The Effects of Global Warming”). About ten years later, this same warning was reiterated by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who asserted that "climate change is our biggest environmental challenge" (BBC). While many other politicians, thinkers, and analysts may believe that the world is overwhelmed with other threats and concerns, the issue of global warming should have a priority because it has the potential of affecting the whole world, not just a country, a region, or even a continent. For example, if major actors in the world’s politics, such as President Bush for instance, are asked about the biggest threat in the world, he may have a list of threats that do not include the dilemma of climate change. The long list of possible threats may include terrorism, security in Iraq, and the extremism of Iran. While all these concerns may be important issues to deal with, the problem of climate change should be given equal, or perhaps more, attention from all countries of the world due to its possible global effects. In that sense, Blair’s argument about the seriousness of the climate change issue is not far-fetched. Rather, his claim that global warming and climate changes should be two of our major concerns in the whole world is reasonable and valid. Actually, Blair’s concerns, which were echoed by the United Nations, about the security threat of climate change are justifiable due to the dangerous effects of global warming on health, economy, and the environment. In recent years, the world’s average temperatures are rising, constituting a serious problem, referred to as ‘global warming.’ This phenomenon occurs as a result of the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) on high levels of air. To put it in simple words, the more amounts of Carbon dioxide concentrated in the atmosphere, the higher the world temperatures will grow. Carbon dioxide is one of the main elements in the greenhouse gases that should be reduced in order to keep world temperatures from rising (Houghton). The main source of Carbon dioxide is man’s industrial activities, especially in rich industrialized countries. As made clear by many scientists, “carbon dioxide (CO2) gas generated by man's burning of fossil fuels and the forests is responsible for about half the greenhouse gas warming” (“The Effects of Global Warming.”). Thus, the indirect effect of the increasing industrialization trends in the world is the global rise in the temperature levels. This puts much of the responsibility on industrialized nations in trying to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the change in the climate is not too slight to realize; rather, it can be felt by ordinary people, not only by specialized scientists and environmentalists. In Egypt, for instance, most people are aware that summer weather has become much hotter than the case tens of years ago. Also, there are the recurrent waves of hot weather that hit Europe, which has never used to such high temperatures before. Consequently, the change in global climate should be the concern of all kinds of people in all countries, not only scientists and those who are specialized in the geography of the world. Climate change can cause major economic problems for countries, which would have to spend huge amounts of money curing its citizens from the detrimental effect of this environmental phenomenon on health. Human bodies are unable to cope with the severe changes in weather temperatures, when they go too high or too low. Hence, human bodies are accustomed to bear temperatures that revolve around the average. So, the rise in the world temperatures has its serious negative impacts on health, causing a series of diseases and side effects. Generally, world statistics prove that “extremely hot temperatures increase the number of people who die on a given day” (“Impact of Climate Change …”). There are many people who are vulnerable to be seriously affected by hot temperatures more than others. For instance, people with heart problems are the ones who will most probably affected by any increase in the temperatures “because their cardiovascular system must work harder to keep the body cool during hot weather” (“Impact of Climate Change …”). Actually, the negative impacts of hot temperatures on health are proved via a number of scientific studies and statistics. To illustrate, the world statistics on mortality and hospital admissions show that “death rates increase during extremely hot days, particularly among very old and very young people living in cities” (“Impact of Climate Change on Human Health”). The negative effects of high temperatures on health do not only occur when the temperature goes extremely high; rather, it may occur even with slight increases in temperatures. What happens in Chicago in 1995 gives clear evidence about the impact of a slight increase in temperature on the health of humans. According to US official records, “in July 1995, a heat wave killed more than 700 people in the Chicago area alone” (Randerson). These statistics indicates that “in Atlanta, for example, even a warming of about two degrees (F) would increase heat-related deaths from 78 annually now to anywhere from 96 to 247 people per year” (“Impact of Climate Change on Human Health”). Therefore, the deadly effects of global warming on health are too clear to ignore. Contrary to the opinions which undermine the impacts of global warming on health, this environmental phenomenon has serious negative consequences on peoples’ physical health (Adam, p.2). This necessitates serious efforts to be done in order to limit world temperatures from going high in order to save the lives of people. On the other hand, global warming and climate change have serious security threats as the economy of individual countries may be destroyed by the detrimental effects of this environmental phenomenon. Generally speaking, working hours decrease and the productivity of workers and employees minimize in hot weather. The amounts of perspiration produced from human beings and the effort exerted by the cardiovascular systems all decrease the ability for hard work in people. During times of severe hot weather in some countries such as Kuwait, workers and employees are either permitted to take days off from their work or to decrease their work hours (“Hot Weather Prompts ….”). Thus, the negative effects of the hot weather on the productivity of people seriously hurt local economies. High temperatures lead to lesser working hours, which mean a weaker economy. Environmentalist and economist Richard S. Lindzen argues that "the dangers and costs of those economic and social consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger" (Lindzen, p.4). That is, the serious effects of global warming on the economy should warn official governments and interest groups about the economic dilemma that may be caused by the rise in world temperatures. Besides, high temperatures also negatively affect local economies as workers become les productive in hot weather. The dangerous effects of global warming on peoples’ health constitute a threat on the labor and human resources of individual countries, seriously hurting their economies. In this context, global warming should not be looked upon as just an environmental problem; rather, it is a economical problem that may influence the total GDP of individual countries. This necessitates that all countries of the world, without exception, should cooperate to face the dangerous phenomenon of the climate change. Moreover, global warming can be a serious cause of a security problem because it may produce climate refugees. In severe instances, global warming can cause major environmental destruction to whole cities, especially those which are located on sea shores, producing large numbers of refugees. Actually, global warming has extremely negative effects on the environment, as it leads to the increase of sea levels, loss of biodiversity, and the destruction of coastal cities. The rise of the world’s temperatures leads to the rise in sea levels in an accelerated rate. This constitutes real danger on land and soil, because high sea levels could shrink shores, which will lead to the disappearance of large areas of soil. In a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC), researchers discovered that “between 1993 and 2006, sea levels rose by 3.3mm a year on average, while the 2001 IPCC report had predicted an annual rise of less than 2mm” (Randerson and Sample). This shows that the actual rise in sea levels exceeds the expectations of environmental scientists. With the rise in world temperatures, the ice of the North Pole melts, increasing the levels of waters in seas and oceans, which endangers coastal cities. This raises major security threats to the stability of countries, as climate refugee would probably emerge as a result of coastal destruction. Hence, the rise of sea levels is one of the negative environmental effects of global warming. Also, biodiversity is another negative environmental effect of global warming. The rise of the world temperature affects the kinds of plants and animals that inhibit certain areas. So, as the temperature goes up, certain plants disappear, while others start to grow; also, the animal habitat will be greatly affected by this rise in temperature. Thus, all these changes in the environment and habitat of plants and animals negatively affect the natural biodiversity of the world. This draws a direct link between global warming and the destruction of the environment. Hence, climate change has many destructive effects on the environment and the natural laws that govern the balance that is needed for the existence of plants, animals, and human beings. In order to avoid the security threats caused by global warming, the international community and environmental organizations should react instantly and efficiently. The first step in this direction was in 1997, when a great number of countries gathered in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 in order to agree on a consensus on how to best face climate changes and its possible security threats. The sound approach they agreed upon is to limit the factors that contribute the change in the climate. In particular, participants agreed to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases that go up to the high levels of air, causing the rise in the world temperatures. Accordingly, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, participant countries signed an agreement, which they refer to as the Kyoto Protocol, deciding to reduce greenhouse gases to reach the level of 5.2 % (“Environmental Diplomacy”). Therefore, the world was able, theoretically, to identify the causes of the problem of global warming, and come up with sound solutions in order to face this deadly environmental phenomenon. However, on the practical level, the world fails to reach a consensus about the real responsibility of both rich and poor countries. Although the greenhouse gases are produced primarily from industrialized countries, the United States, which is one of the biggest industrialized countries, refused to ratify this protocol, for fear of changing its life style. Because this protocol puts many commitments on industrialized countries, the United States did not ratify it under the pressure of huge multinational organizations, which were reluctant to take any action that may affect their profitability. Consequently, the withdrawal of the United States from this treaty affects its efficiency, and puts the whole world under the threat of being negatively affected by climate change. The reluctance of the United States to take serious measures to lessen the emission of greenhouse gases is the primary reason behind the loose position adopted by the world towards the phenomenon of global warming. As the United States refused to ratify this treaty, the American administration believes that it protects the interests of its citizens and huge multinational corporations. In his article, which is entitled "Ideas Matter: A Political History of the Twentieth-Century Environment," J.R. McNeill, the professor at Georgetown University, argues that the main reason behind the refusal of the US to sign this treaty is pressures practiced on US administration by multinational corporations and interest lobbies. In this context, R. McNeill notes that "in most of the rich countries, some powerful industries resisted environmental regulation successfully by launching endless lawsuits or controlling the decisive ministries" (McNeill). For example, American oil giants are reluctant to implement expensive technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They did not want to increase their expenses, and so, they strongly opposed ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. As argued by Jim Lobe, an American political analyst, American oil giants, such as Shell and Exxon Mobil, practiced extreme pressure in order to prevent the US administration of signing the Kyoto Protocol that would put strict limitations on their oil navigation practices. In this context, Lobe directs harsh criticism to these huge oil corporations for “undermining efforts to combat global warming and lobbying Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling" (Lobe). Accordingly, preserving the interests of huge multinational corporations is one of the main reasons behind the rigid attitude that the US adopts against the Kyoto Protocol. Consequently, it can be argued that the US is internally pressured by huge corporations and lobbies not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, the US administration itself does not want to ratify the protocol in order not to induce radical changes in the life styles of American citizens. According to US administration, an endorsement of the items of Kyoto Protocol requires that the United States should change the way it conducts its industries and runs its business, in a way that would lead to a radical change in the lifestyles of Americans. In this concern, Elmer-DeWitt points out that “"the American life-style is not up for negotiation" (Elmer-DeWitt). To put the issue clearer, the commitments to the recommendations of the Kyoto Protocol would lead to great losses in US economy. That's why the US does not to abide by the strict measures and standards set by the Kyoto Protocol. As mentioned by Larry West, in his article which is entitled “Should the United States Ratify the Kyoto Protocol?” the former Bush administration believed that the treaty requirements would lead to "economic losses of $400 billion and costing 4.9 million jobs” (West). As such, the US has prioritized its own interest over the interest of all humanity when it rejected to abide by the standards set by the Kyoto Protocol. In that sense, it can be said that the United States is ethically responsible to abide by the rules and measures identified globally in order to fight global warming and protect the environment. In conclusion, climate change is a serious environmental problem that needs an awareness policy from the US administration. One of the characteristics of this problem is the inability of any country to face it alone because air has no limits. The activities that are done in a certain country may affect the air, which moves to reach many other countries. Hence, the responsibilities, commitments, and roles are shared by all countries of the world with no exception. Therefore, cooperation is a key word here, as all the countries should exchange experience and information to face this dangerous phenomenon that would affect the whole world. To visualize the global nature of this problem, we can refer to the fact that the ice melt in the North Pole, which may be resulted from the industrial activities of the United States and Europe, may affect countries as far away from the Pole as Egypt, whose Delta is vulnerable to any changes in the sea levels. This necessitates that the whole world be committed by the resolutions of the Kyoto Protocol in order to reduce the greenhouse gases effect on air. Realizing the physical, economical, and environmental threats of the climate change, the whole world should react accordingly in order to be able to face this deadly environmental dilemma. Works Cited Adam, David. "Climate Change Impact Disputed." Guardian Unlimited. 28 Jan. 2005. 07 Dec. 2011. Elmer-DeWitt, Philip. “Summit to Save the Earth Rich vs. Poor.” The Time Magazine. 01 Jun. 1992. 08 Dec. 2011. . “Environmental Diplomacy.” Analysis of the Kyoto Global Climate Conference. 12 Dec. 1997. 07 Dec. 2011. “Hot Weather Prompts Rise in Absenteeism.” 13 Aug. 2008. 08 Dec. 2011. Houghton, John. "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing." Cambridge University Press, 1997. 09 Dec. 2011. “Impact of Climate Change on Human Health.” 09 Dec. 2011. Lindzen, Richard S. "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus." 08 Dec. 2011. Lobe, Jim. "ExxonMobil Takes Heat on Global Warming." 12 Jul. 2005. 09 Dec. 2011. . McNeill, J.R. "Ideas Matter: A Political History of the Twentieth-Century Environment." 2000. 09 Dec. 2011. Randerson, James and Ian Sample. “World's Sea Levels Rising at Accelerating Rate.” Guardian Unlimited. 02 Feb. 2007. 09 Dec. 2011. Sandler, Todd. "Global Challenges: An Approach to Environmental, Political, and Economic Problems." New York. USA. 1999. 09 Dec. 2011. “The Effects of Global Warming.” 12 Jan.1996. 09 Dec. 2011. West, Larry. “Should the United States Ratify the Kyoto Protocol?” 2007. 08 Dec. 2011. Read More