A Stronger Change
As the human race continues to advance, we still seem to be taking a step back in our environment. Since the 19th century, the growing epidemic of climate change has engulfed our world and now is leading to harmful consequences in our wildlife and agriculture (“Global Climate”). Perhaps the best representation of a figure who stepped up and advocated for change in policies in order to benefit the environment was Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In her speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 1989, Mrs. Thatcher brought attention to climate change policies and how this issue can only be solved if international contributions are made. She inspired the United Kingdom and emphasized that it was our responsibility to improve our own nation; thus, all nations should learn from her advice and change the lax environmental policies. In the fast-moving world that we live in today, we must create effective techniques to solve and spread awareness for issues such as climate change. Through social media, we can trengthen policies for climate change globally. Edward Kessler, founder and director of Woolf Institute, highlighted the role of social media in today’s generation and how it can spread the education of similar religions or connect a group of people who practice the same faith (Kessler). Similarly, we can use social media to connect groups across the world to enforce climate change policies and reduce carbon emissions. Enforcing policies to every country in the world is not an easy task, but efforts to maintain such policies will decrease global warming now and only benefit the future. Such considerations raises the question: Why must there be a stricter implementation of international climate change policies? Through the analysis of environmental, economic, and social effects of climate change, one can understand the importance of the impact of climate change policies made internationally to save our world from further damage.
The Earth’s temperature has been rising and is continuing to rise at a faster rate than ever recorded. According to models included in National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s earth observatory research, it is predicted that the Earth’s temperature will be between “2 and 6 degrees Celsius” warmer in the upcoming generations (“Global Warming”). The warming of the Earth causes ice glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise. National Ocean Service presents that rising sea levels “mean that deadly and destructive storm surges push farther inland than they once did”, which results in severe flooding (US). The likeliness of storms increases every year as well due to sea levels rising about an eighth of an inch every year (US).
From an environmental angle, rising levels of carbon dioxide damages and disrupts natural habitats of wildlife. Habitats are being destroyed as “high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels, are absorbed by the oceans, where the gas dissolves into carbonic acid” (“Marine Habitat Destruction”). Because of permissive environmental policies, aquatic and terrestrial habitats are still being razed (Evans). Furthermore, according to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, not only is wildlife being affected, but also human health. Extreme temperatures in terms of the cooler temperatures eventually lead to several consequences, including “toxic algal blooms or waterborne diseases” which “affect human health by creating unprecedented or unanticipated health problems or health threats in places where they have not previously occurred” (Balbus et al.). Not only are increasing CO2 emissions jeopardizing the wildlife habitats and species, but also it is recirculating back to the human race and causing serious health problems. In order to combat these adverse effects, we must change the way we enforce our international codes for climate change by implementing more stringent and mandatory policies. According to the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the Sabin Center on Climate Change Law, the 2017 climate database “includes more than 1,200 relevant policies across 164 countries, which account for 95% of global greenhouse gas emissions” (Evans). However, with current climate change policies in place, why do we still see the increase in temperatures and how come humans and wildlife are still being affected? Why have the last four years been the hottest years ever recorded (Newsflash)? For example, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in May 1992, which agreed upon the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 (“Policy”). This convention and protocol were designed to lower carbon emissions globally and set goals for future years to reduce the overall global temperature (“Policy”). According to the World Nuclear Association, the Kyoto Protocol specifically was placed in order to “set out specific commitments by individual developed countries to reduced emissions by an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels by the period 2008–2012” (“Policy”). However, in order for the Kyoto Protocol to work, it needed to be ratified by at least 55 countries (“Policy”). In 2001, America did not ratify the protocol, which left a major country out of the climate change policy (“Policy”). The goal of reducing global temperatures by 2 degrees Celsius does not require more laws but, stronger ones, according to Professor Sam Fankhauser, a researcher of the climate change database (Evans). To connect back with Margaret Thatcher, she emphasized that “global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level” (Thatcher). We will continue to see rising temperatures, habitats damaged, and human health affected. In order to change this collateral damage, we must take action internationally and learn from our past methods of enforcing climate change policies.
Difficulties of climate change policies include the cost to pass the policies. In early May of 2018, a ballot was proposed by the Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, promising, “reductions in CO2 emissions: 20 million tons per year, which, by 2035, would be 40 percent lower than they were in 2014” (Abramsky). However, this new “Green New Deal” (also referred to as Initiative 1631), will cost millions of dollars to pass (Abramsky). Even though this initiative seems unrealistic and costly the reality is that climate change policies will actually improve national economies by contributing positively to the employment rate. Garth Heutel, an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, at Georgia State University, explains how at the “University of California, Berkeley researchers found that California’s efforts to cut emissions have bolstered the state’s economy and created more than 37,000 jobs” (Heutel). The increase in jobs resulting from instilling climate change policies can appeal to the public and therefore, we can make impactful contributions to the growing climate change problem.
Additionally, it is important to observe climate change policies through an economic viewpoint. As discussed before, the effort for climate change policies can be expensive, it is a cost that must be endured to prevent detrimental effects on our world. If we continue to prolong the problem of climate change, the costs will eventually add up and we will not be able to reverse the repercussions of climate change. Taking action now and enforcing climate change policies everywhere to avoid long-term problems is worth the expense. Another issue to consider is the determination the price of carbon emissions. This can be solved by the cap-and-trade system, in which companies are given a carbon “allowance” and awarded if they are under or meet their target (Johnson). The cap-and-trade system can also “provide incentives for energy saving and low-emissions technologies. Revenues from purchasing credits that offset emissions could be used to spur investment in green technologies that help the economy transition” (“Economics of Climate Change”). These new green technologies would contribute to the overall job increase and ultimately benefit the economy.
Global warming has been an issue since the 19th century and continues to be a prominent topic in the media. Its effects are apparent as we see polar bear habitats being destroyed and temperatures rise to start wildfires. Activists like former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, have responded to the problem, taking action on an international level. She suggested that contributions from all countries include building a common facility for scientists who are finding ways to reduce our carbon footprint and keeping this facility open to any scientists around the globe (Thatcher). Mrs. Thatcher also emphasized the importance of making new products to help reduce climate change “widely available” so nations can easily have access to these tools and easily contribute to lowering their carbon footprint (Thatcher). The necessity of working together globally and sharing resources will get us farther in fixing global warming; Mrs. Thatcher’s suggestions must be implemented into the real world. These suggestions and revisions to policy can only come into effect with the support of the public; thanks to advancing technology, such a prospect has become a reality. According to Statisa, a German statistics database, , social media users are continuing to increase, and in 2021, it is predicted that over 3.02 billion people will be using social media (“Number”). Edward Kessler, director of the Woolf Institute, also explains “the fact that social media will continue to evolve and extend its reach, its influence will expand. It will be a fundamental failure if we fail to grasp its potential” (Kessler). By spreading awareness and rallying the support of the public, the severity of the issue can become more widespread and common knowledge, ultimately resulting in a stronger push for change.
The first step to enforcing stronger climate change laws is to educate the public, and subsequently offering mutual benefits to other nations to incentivize our world to reduce the carbon footprint. This idea of mutual benefits given amongst countries, or reciprocity, was explained in an article from Stanford University in which they observed, whether citizens in 25 of the American states supported the idea of reciprocity (Evans). Specifically, they explained the responses of the public on extrinsic reciprocity, which means “countries could make cooperation in one sphere contingent on cooperation in another. For instance, countries could apply trade sanctions against nations that emit high levels of carbon” (Evans). This would help international contributions to be done as all countries would gain mutual benefits by participating in enforcing policies, but if they did not, they would not be able to have these benefits. However, the problem with enforcing stronger climate change policies creates new problems with people who may not believe the extremity of climate change, not to mention the international difficulties of enforcing these policies globally. A study done by Chandra Lal Pandey, a senior researcher at the South Asia Institute of Advanced Studies, and Priya A. Kurian, a Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, conducted a study amongst international newspapers and how they framed climate change reports as “climate change news is often pegged to national positions and national interests” (Lal). The study explains how “New Zealand news media… tended to both overstate the effects of climate change as well as demonstrate confusion between a greenhouse effect and ozone depletion” (Lal). This scientific uncertainty frame was seen by many critics as “disrupting international climate change negotiations” (Lal). But, we must not let our efforts of strengthening climate change policies to decrease as we can give countries mutual benefits in order for them to participate and show them the immense amount of damage that carbon emissions do to our planet.
Climate change policies can reverse the damage that has been done to the environment. If we take global actions, climate change may not be a pressing issue for future generations. These policies will not happen overnight, but we must change our ways to enforce these policies internationally in order to save our world and keep our planet healthy for years to come. We know how to reduce carbon emissions, but we must adjust our methods of advocating for action on climate change. Changing the way we enforce and advocate for climate change policies will ultimately help our wildlife, restore human health, and allow our Earth to provide a healthy environment for future generations.
Word Count: 1998
Works Cited
Abramsky, Sasha. “A Green New Deal in the Evergreen State.” Nation, vol. 307, no. 4, Aug.
2018, pp. 20–23. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=130806632&site=ehost-live.Balbus, John, et al. “Ch. 1: Introduction: Climate Change and Human Health.” The Impacts of
Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment, 4 Apr.
2016, health2016.globalchange.gov/climate-change-and-human-health.
“Economics of Climate Change.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 9 Feb. 2018,
www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/economics-climate-change.
Evans, Simon. “Mapped: Climate Change Laws around the World.” Carbon Brief, 6 Aug. 2018,
www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-climate-change-laws-around-world.
“Global Climate Change: Effects.” NASA, NASA, 28 Nov. 2018, climate.nasa.gov/effects/.
“Global Warming.” NASA, NASA, 3 June 2010,
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php.
Heutel, Garth. “Do Climate Policies Have a Negative Effect on Jobs?” Do Climate Policies Have
a Negative Effect on Jobs? -, 14 Dec. 2018,
www.hcn.org/articles/economy-do-climate-policies-have-a-negative-effect-on-jobs.
Kessler, Edward. “Social Media and the Movement of Ideas.” AP Seminar Performance Task 2:
Individual Research-Based Essay and Presentation — Directions and Stimulus Materials,
The College Board, Jan. 2019, pp. 5–14.
Johnson, Toni. “Economic Challenges for Climate Change Policy.” Council on Foreign
Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 7 July 2009,
www.cfr.org/backgrounder/economic-challenges-climate-change-policy.
Lal Pandey, Chandra, and Priya A. Kurian. “The Media and the Major Emitters: Media Coverage
of International Climate Change Policy.” Global Environmental Politics, vol. 17, no. 4,
Nov. 2017, pp. 67–87. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00430.
“Marine Habitat Destruction.” National Geographic, 27 Apr. 2010,
www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-marine-habitat-destruct
ion/.
Newsflash. “Last Four Years Have Been the Warmest on Record — and CO2 Continues to Rise.”
Copernicus, 7 Jan. 2019,
climate.copernicus.eu/last-four-years-have-been-warmest-record-and-co2-continues-rise.
“Number of Social Media Users Worldwide 2010–2021.” Statista, 2019,
www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/.
“Policy Responses to Climate Change.” World Nuclear Association, June 2017,
www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/policy-response
s-to-cli
mate-change.aspx.
Thatcher, Margaret. “Speech to United Nations General Assembly.” AP Seminar Performance
Task 2: Individual Research-Based Essay and Presentation — Directions and Stimulus
Materials, The College Board, Jan. 2019, pp. 17–24.
“Urbanization Effects.” Urbanization Causes and Impacts | National Geographic, 12 Mar. 2017,
www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/urban-threats/.
US Department of Commerce, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “Is Sea
Level Rising?” NOAA’s National Ocean Service, 27 Oct. 2008,
oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html.
