Provide a reply to the following post below
- How successful have international agreements on limiting greenhouse gases been in general (e.g., why was the Montreal Protocol of 1987 a success, whereas the ability to cap global greenhouse gas emissions by binding treaty has met with less success?)?
As it pertains to the success of the Montreal Protocol, the Agreement signed by the attendees may have been executed out of appeasement more than implementation of a plan to make a difference. Public scrutiny and a lack of concern associated with ozone depletion risk may have been the vehicle driving the Helsinki meeting. The Agreement may have also temporarily pacified those accountable and redirected sanctions for non-adherence to proposed solutions. Ass a result, numerous revisions of the Agreement followed.
As Bradshaw (2013: 191) indicates, the entire effort to reduce fossil fuel emissions has stalled due to an inability of world leaders to agree to disagree when it comes to reducing or increasing fossil fuel use in developed and undeveloped countries. This stagnation has served as the main reason several conferences/forums succeeding Montreal have failed to produce solid infrastructure leading to actual protocol that would result in GHG reduction. Bradshaw (2013: 191) also points out that the political hierarchy operating as a top-down governance structure has failed to find operable solutions that can be amenably interchanged between energy security, globalization and climate change.
- International relations theory speaks to the difficulties of foregoing self-interest for the common good, implying there are elements of tragedy in preserving public good. In your view, is the current state of international agreement on limiting greenhouse gas emissions tragic? Of the optimistic solutions put forward by Michael Bradshaw, Tim Wirth, Tom Daschle, and David Victor, which do you find most likely to succeed?
The GHG emission dilemma served as a staunch example of how responsible actors adhere to the obedience of economic platforms while pushing futile resolution agendas. As Leck, Conway, Bradshaw and Rees outlines, the nexus connecting water, energy and food (WEF), are consistently introduced as business initiatives as opposed to overcoming significant barriers that have previously presented challenges to global environment change. If given the correct backing, this would be an approach that can be considered realistic and has an actual chance to really work. Beddington (2009), identifies the issue as the “Perfect Storm”. By interchangeably addressing the WEF trilogy, the resource and availability challenges predicted by global population increase, which in turn, increases total WEF use, can be minimized.
References;
Bradshaw, M. (2013). Global energy dilemmas: Energy security, globalization, and climate change (Links to an external site.). Cambridge, UK: Polity
Tracing the Water–Energy–Food Nexus: Description, Theory and PracticeHayley Leck (Links to an external site.) , Declan Conway (Links to an external site.), Michael Bradshaw (Links to an external site.), Judith Rees (Links to an external site.), First published: 17 August 2015
