If global warming is a man-made disaster why have governments around the world failed to do very much about it?

If spheric calefacient is a man-make casualty why arrest g ein truthwherenments around the world failed to do very ofttimes about it?One of the near grand phenomena affecting nations in the twenty-first century is orbiculate warming. ball-shaped warming is defined generally as the progressive rise in average orbicular temperatures cause by change magnitude emissions of greenhouse gases, and is often referred to as the effect on the climate of piece activities1. Though there realize al airs been natural cycles of changing climate, planetary warming is recollected to be man-made due to increase burning of fossil fuels and spacious-scale deforestation, which pack led to a large increment in carbon dioxide emissions, coinciding with steadily rising temperatures2. Although efforts nominate been made to overcome the cause of orbiculate warming, governments around the world have failed to effectively rig the neck. There be several(prenominal) reasons for this failur e, including the worry of governing the commons, effects on the economy, as good as the hindrance in achieving spheric cooperation over the screw. This essay aims to discuss and analyse the main reasons why governments have failed to conquestfully write out globose warming. One of the most fundamental reasons why very little has been achieved by governments in the effort to combat global warming lies with the hassle of governing the commons. When a resource is not under jurisdiction of a single sovereign state, it is considered to be part of the commons, implying unrestricted entrance to anyone3. This means that no individual state has reason to preserve the resource, yet rather to take as much of it for themselves as possible, usually lede to over exploitation4. The otherwise issue with the commons is that they atomic number 18 often used as sinks for degraded waste products5. It is generally possible to solve this issue by allocating the commons into private owners hip, indeed creating incentives to preserve and manage them. However, this theme is not viable for the atmosphere because it is impossible to enclose, hence difficult to split between states. As with any other resource that lacks ownership, the atmosphere becomes strung-out to the tragedy of the commons, but without the simple solution of private ownership. Therefore, it is difficult to negotiate an agreement over emission limits because states gain higher individual clear than individual costs from increasing production, as the total cost of contamination is sh atomic number 18d6. However, with the spread of globalization, it is feasible that an increased awareness of a shared global space can increase states self-interest in protect the environment.However, globalization can in some ways be considered to be a reason for the limited success in curbing global warming. The birth between the process of globalisation and the problem of environmental degradation is slightly c omplex, as though globalisation may raise the importance of protecting the commons, it may actually heighten the problem. Globalisation has lead to the spread of industry around the world, resulting in rising levels of production and consumption, which in turn leads to increased emissions7. The demand for open borders and free mickle makes it more than difficult for governments to follow out environmental regulations as firms are more able to evade them by moving to areas in which regulations do not exist or are lower8. The more difficult or complicated the regulation process is, the more unlikely governments are to succeed in lowering emissions. This has led to the melodic line that inter depicted object dish out is incompatible with environmental protection, as increased trade and globalisation lead to further industrialisation, production and consumption, thus increasing global emissions, limiting governments ability to stop global warming. Governments may also have faile d in successfully postering for outerities of befoulment (environmental and social malign) as pollution taxes and regulations have not been at a socially efficient level, thus leading to inefficiently high emissions9. However, many people argue that globalisation actually increases the efficiency of production, as long as markets take into account these externalities10. The spread of wealth and knowledge to new regions brought about by globalisation can also be argued to improve local environments due the facilitation of global awareness.Therefore, possibly a more viable explanation for the failure of governments in regulating global warming emerges from the potential economic costs of lessen production and consumption. It may not be in the national interests of states to reduce emissions, as this would involve limiting production by regulating emissions. Furthermore, cut back the emissions of greenhouse gases would involve regulation of energy, transport, agriculture, and ind ustry, which are fundamental to modern economies11. Therefore, governments are reluctant to ban greenhouse gas emissions or to call for toilsome cuts as this could potentially have devastating effects on their economies, thus lowering living standards. Moreover, the cost of developing new technology and renewable energies to replace current production methods is vast, even though there are potential economic benefits from investing in alternative energy technologies12. Governments may therefore forego sustainability at the expense of economic growth. However, probably the most important reason why governments have not succeeded in significantly reducing global warming is the barrier in achieving global cooperation on the issue. Although the tragedy of the commons, globalisation and economic effects play a large role in the past failure in the reduction of global warming, most of these problems ultimately stem down to the lack of cooperation between states in dealing with the issu e. Global warming is an issue that transcends national boundaries, involves irreversible damage to the environment, and affects all states, thus requiring international cooperation13. Many attempts have been made at reaching cooperation in the past, through numerous summits and meetings, and the creation of treaties and global institutions, such(prenominal) as the Kyoto protocol and the United Nations Environment Program14. These attempts have had limited success in bringing the issue of global warming onto the global agenda. For example, the issue of governing global commons has been approached by creating a framework of in return acceptable standards of behaviour, and the issue of economic costs for states has been tackled by setting global emission targets (Kyoto Protocol for example). However, regardless of these attempts, it has been impossible to forge global cooperation for several reasons. Firstly, international environmental meetings often serve many other policy-making objectives, thus making it less likely that states will reach an understanding15. In conjunction, states may have conflicting national interests over political issues, the economy, trade policies, as well as the environment, making it difficult to forge a deal that adheres to each states needs. In addition, since international cooperation involves transboundary regulation, some have made claims that environmental action and new forms of global governance may be a threat to state sovereignty, thus further complicating cooperation16. Furthermore, it is important to consider the role of hegemons, especially the United States, in forging international cooperation. In recent years, the US has rejected many global efforts in environmental policymaking, withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol, challenging the need for new treaties and questioning the precautionary principle in environmental protection17. If the US fails to act on global warming by accepting emission limits or by taking enviro nmental leadership, other nations will find it difficult to do so while hush remaining economically competitive. Therefore, there are many reasons explaining why governments have failed to do so little about global warming, largely arising from the difficulty in global environmental cooperation. In my opinion, although governments around the world have failed to fully prevent the negative effects of global warming, there have been many achievements that have brought the world closer to successfully understanding how to do so. In many cases, environmental problems can be managed through cooperation in global institutions and treaties18. Despite USAs failure to ratify Kyoto, there is significant conclusion that emissions targets do work in slowing down global warming19. Furthermore, solutions such as tradable permits and carbon taxes have gone a long way in finding a market based solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions20. world-wide action could be further boost by the acknowledgement of global warming as a national security risk, as environmental degradation leads to both internal and external conflicts by potentially deepening poverty cycles and leading to mass migration forward from degraded areas21. By accentuating the security risks associated with global warming, governments may be more inclined to act, as security issues are crucial to governing a state.Even though global warming is acknowledged as a man-made disaster, governments have failed to fully stop its effects. This can be attributed to the difficulty in governing the global commons, the spread of globalisation and the potential effects on the economy of cutting emissions, as well as the difficulty in reaching global cooperation in environmental policy. Governments still slope the task of finding a socially optimal level of regulation, the difficulty of ensuring emission standards are met once a treaty has been signed22, as well as managing the connections between climate change, security, and globalisation. However, if powerful nations take the lead in promoting environmental norms, and if states adopt a precautionary principle on global warming, international cooperation can potentially succeed in providing governance regimes for important global commons.Word count 1500BibliographyBaylis, J. Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds), The Globalization of World governing An interpolation to International Relations, 4th mutant (Oxford Oxford University Press).Steans, J. and Pettiford, L. (2005), International Relations Perspectives and Themes, 2nd variance, (Harlow Pearson Education).Krugman, P. Wells, R. Graddy, K. (2008), political economy European Edition, (Worth Publishers).Cline, W. (1992), The economics of Global melt, ( appoint for International economics).Victor, D. (2001), The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the contend to slow Global warming, (Princeton University Press).Nordhaus, W. Boyer, J. (2000) Warming the World Economic Models of Global War ming, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).Hardin, G. (1998), Extensions of the calamity of the Commons, Science New Series, 5634(280) 682-683Barnett, J. (2003), Security and Climate Change, Global environmental Change, 13(1) 7-17Falkner, R. (2005), American Hegemony and the Global Environment, International Studies Review, 7(4) 585-599Hersch, J. Viscusi, K. (2006), Allocating Responsibility for disappointment of Global Warming Policies, Responses to Global Warming The Law, Economics, and Science of Climate Change, 155(20) 1657-1694Barrett, S. (1990), The Problem of Global environmental Protection, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 6(1) 68-79Robert, K. Basile, G. Kuehr, R. (2002) Strategic Sustainable study Selection, Design and Synergies of apply Tools, Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3) 197-214Houghton, J. (2005) Global Warming, Reports on the Progress of Physics, 68(1) 1343-1403Flohn, H. (1980), Possible climatical Consequences of a synthetic Global Warming United Nat ions Environment Programme, at http//www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/RR-80-030.pdf1 Houghton, J. (2005) Global Warming, Reports on the Progress of Physics, 68(1) p.13432 Flohn, H. (1980), Possible Climatic Consequences of a Man-made Global Warming United Nations Environment Programme, at http//www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/RR-80-030.pdf, (Date Accessed 20/02/2010)3 Hardin, G. (1998), Extensions of the Tragedy of the Commons, Science New Series, 5634(280) p. 6824 Barrett, S. (1990), The Problem of Global Environmental Protection, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 6(1) p.685 Baylis, J. Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds), The Globalization of World Politics An mental home to International Relations, 4th Edition (Oxford Oxford University Press) p.3586 Hardin, G. (1998), Extensions of the Tragedy of the Commons, Science New Series, 5634(280) p. 6837 Baylis, J. Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds), The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction to International Relations, 4th Ed ition (Oxford Oxford University Press) p.3528 Nordhaus, W. Boyer, J. (2000) Warming the World Economic Models of Global Warming, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) p.39 Hersch, J. Viscusi, K. (2006), Allocating Responsibility for Failure of Global Warming Policies, Responses to Global Warming The Law, Economics, and Science of Climate Change, 155(20) p.165910 Krugman, P. Wells, R. Graddy, K. (2008), Economics European Edition, (Worth Publishers) p.48311 Baylis, J. Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds), The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction to International Relations, 4th Edition (Oxford Oxford University Press) p.36212 Robert, K. Basile, G. Kuehr, R. (2002) Strategic Sustainable Development Selection, Design and Synergies of Applied Tools, Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3) p.20213 Cline, W. (1992), The Economics of Global Warming, (Institute for International Economics) p.914 Baylis, J. Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds), The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction to International Relations, 4th Edition (Oxford Oxford University Press) p.35615 Houghton, J. (2005) Global Warming, Reports on the Progress of Physics, 68(1) p.139116 Steans, J. and Pettiford, L. (2005), International Relations Perspectives and Themes, 2nd Edition, (Harlow Pearson Education) p.21417 Falkner, R. (2005), American Hegemony and the Global Environment, International Studies Review, 7(4) p.58518 Steans, J. and Pettiford, L. (2005), International Relations Perspectives and Themes, 2nd Edition, (Harlow Pearson Education) p.20619 Hersch, J. Viscusi, K. (2006), Allocating Responsibility for Failure of Global Warming Policies, Responses to Global Warming The Law, Economics, and Science of Climate Change, 155(20) p.166220 Krugman, P. Wells, R. Graddy, K. (2008), Economics European Edition, (Worth Publishers) p.48121 Barnett, J. (2003), Security and Climate Change, Global Environmental Change, 13(1) p.1022 Victor, D. (2001), The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to slow Global Warming, (Princeton University Press) p.55