Are International Negotiations to Control Global Warming Useful?

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 countries are taking implementing policies contributing in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union, China, Brazil, Indonesia, South
Africa, Mexico, and North Korea are all working towards goals they’ve set in order to reduce their countries CO2 emissions.
!

Hayward supports the no side, stating that climate negotiations are implausible

and unpromising. When the issue of climate change first came into play in the 1980’s, the question was: What diplomatic frameworks have worked before for similar kinds of global problems? With this three models for problems of global reach that had success was the arms control and anti-proliferation regimes, trade liberation process, and the
Montreal Protocol. Hayward believes that divide between wealthy and poorer nations is a concern. Poor nations have an overriding interest in affordable energy, which mean cheap energy, which means fossil fuel energy. What approach can replace the UN diplomatic track? Hayward asks. A more likely path to more significant climate outcome would focus not on emissions limits but an emphasis on cheap decarbonization of energy through innovation.
!

After the readings, I support Diringer and the yes side. I personally don’t believe

that nuclear energy is the anwser to global warming. I think that because global warming is something that effects the world as a whole, and also each country, I think

the only way to go about reducing CO2 emissions is International negotiations. Global warming can not be diminished if not every country is working on their ways of contributing.