Global Warming and US Intervention Policy - Assignment Example

The rise in temperature leads to the melting of ice caps in the northern hemisphere and thus an increase in water levels in body masses across the world. Floods in the U.K. have become more frequent and equally tragic. The United Kingdom is one of the nations that ratify the Kyoto protocol. Under this agreement, the United Kingdom aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, methane, HFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride. This negatively impacts the transport and industrial sectors of the country through regulations set up to standardize their functioning. Efforts to reduce the impact of global warming such as minimal use of fossil fuels, and utilizing clean energy such as wind have yielded meager results even with U.K’s vast resources. The storms and resultant floods continue to destroy infrastructure and homes and even claim lives. Other hazards associated with global warming in the U.K. include heat waves and droughts (Maslin, 2009).

Intervention and non-intervention policies in the U.S. change depending on security needs and the economic aims of the nation at a given time. The main guiding principles in intervention and non-intervention in the U.S. are isolationism, conservatism, and neo-conservatism. These principles derive from realism such that intervention and non-intervention in their regard aim at preserving national interests. There are a number of acts that are government intervention and non-intervention. For instance, the Neutrality Acts passed, by congress, prevented the U.S. from getting involved in world war two. Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. stood firm against foreign entanglement. However, this attack posed a threat to U.S. security thus the need to intervene (Lock-Pullan, 2006).

The president at a given time will make a decision that he in the best interests of America only for the next president to water it down. An example of a controversial intervention is the Iraq intervention by President Bush in 2003. A more recent debatable intervention is in Libya during its civil war in 2010. Some political figures hold that intervention was necessary for both instances because sanctions failed. However, the debate is whether in both instances the presidents overexercised the powers which the constitution affords them. Despite the controversies,  we are doing a commendable job in regard to these policies (Lock-Pullan, 2006).