Are International Negotiations to Control Global Warming Useful?
Since 1990 annual global CO2 emissions have more than tripled, much of this
being retained in the atmosphere. It is clear to scientists that human-generated CO2 has accelerated global warming. Figuring out the problems is much more difﬁcult than coming up with a solution though. There have been long international negotiations and as a result, some countries have reduced their CO2 emissions, but overall they just keep continuing to grow. They’re are also debates on how costly restrictions on CO2 emissions will be. In this debate Elliot Diringer argues that since global warming is a globally generated phenomenon that has global impacts, the solution must involve global negotiations. Stephen Hayward favors abandoning what he sees as fruitless International negotiations and on imposing economically damaging emissions restrictions and instead launching a massive U.S effort to develop energy that will generate fewer or no emissions, including nuclear energy.
Diringer supports the yes side, believing that International negotiations to control
global warming are useful. The Cancun agreement was set into place and represent the most tangible process within the UNFCCC negotiations. They memorialize pledges taken by more than 80 countries accounting for more than 80% of global emissions. The agreements established the fundamentals of a stronger support system for developing countries, and a stronger system for countries to verify whether other countries are
sticking to their pledge. All nations share a common interest in adverting dangerous climate change and pursue clean energy are in our direct national interest as well. There are many reasons, whether from an environmental, national security, or economic perspective. While international agreements and commitments are critical to our success in addressing global climate change, more important efforts are the policies and actions...