Blog 4

                                                         Paris climate accords


The Paris Agreement, which required the United States to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was a horrible deal for American taxpayers, energy corporations, and every single American who relies on inexpensive, reliable energy. It was also not ideal for any of the countries involved, therefore Trump made the correct decision by pulling out of it. The first reason it was a bad deal was its economic impact it would have on the United States. If the Obama administration's Paris energy restrictions were implemented, they result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm to American industry, and a loss of $2.5 trillion in GDP by 2035. The United States was also paying more than any other country which is a crear indicator that this agreement was not in our best interest. It is certainly not in the best interest of our people to suffer economic loss for this agreement.

The second reason it was the right decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement is that it doesn’t even make a big difference in the climate. Hypothetically, if the agreement actually made a big dent in the issue of climate change it may be worth it, however this is not the case. First of all countries have only made voluntary commitments to keep air temperatures below 2.7-3.0 degrees Celsius, which is nowhere near the 1.5 degree Celsius target (which is where scientists say we need to be). Another reason it does not work is that while the US and others play by the rules, countries like China and Iran do not. There is also no way to enforce any member of the Paris Agreement to abide by the rules. Since the world is not all in on fixing the climate, it is not best for the United States to spend her taxpayers money overseas for this cause. I believe that it was the right move to withdraw not because I don’t believe in climate change, but because this agreement is ineffective. In order to move in the right direction there must be a better agreement that can enforce its rules. Therefore, Trump did the right thing that is in the best interest of the American people. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Diplomatic Risk: Global Powers and the Shortcomings of Realism

Jack Cahalane Professor Shirk POLS 170 May 4, 2022 Diplomatic Risk For our last week of classes, our class played Diplomatic Risk in order to visualize International Relations firsthand. From my point of view, I perceived that the game portrayed the historical or future hypothetical interactions of major powers in the world through the lens of conflict. In turn, I believe that it can be argued that the Diplomatic Risk simulation played in class (at least how it was played in our class simulation without extensive bargaining or diplomatic incentives other than to go to war) relates to the idea of the international relations school of Realism. As a result of the simplified nature of Diplomatic Risk, I believe this notion coincides with the shortcomings of Realism: the simplicity and perception which ignores incentives which do not promote morality or coalition building.      The game was prepared using a world map board from the actual game of Risk and consisted of five ...
Read more

The Unintended Consequences of NGOs

  Cassie Lawler International Politics: POLS 170-03 Professor Shirk Due: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 Blog Post #4 The Unintended Consequences of NGOs Non-governmental organizations are non-profit that operate outside of the government, are independently organized and run to further a political motive, whether that motive be in the realm of humanitarianism, labor protections, or environmental, among many other things. Although the overwhelming majority of the time, these entities are well-meaning with aspirations to pick up where the government leaves off and serve a purpose for the greater good, they are typically not as advantageous for those they seek to help as they intend. The major caveat among NGOs in modern society is that they reap unintended consequences upon creation at whatever community, national, or international level they require mainly due to the fact that they crowd out government services and impede the existing and future efforts for the cause. Unfortunately, this ...
Read more