Climate change, or global warming, is a current problem that can be seen from both environmental and IR perspectives. The reasons why it is an environmental issue are obvious. Still, someone may ask why global warming is a fundamental problem of international relations. Firstly, that is because countries all over the world benefit from the use of fossil fuels burnt to produce energy, drive vehicles, operate homes and businesses, and so on and so forth.
Thus, every single state is responsible for high levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere and making our planet warmer; each country is a greenhouse-gas emitter, to a greater or lesser extent. Secondly, none of the nations is able to deal with the overall outcome of climate change on its own: since every one of them emits greenhouse gases, each one should do something to reduce those. Therefore, cooperative efforts are essential. One more reason for considering global warming as an IR concern is the fact that every state and nation will suffer the consequences if nothing is done now.
Even though it is evident that climate change should be fought with joint efforts, that is a controversial question of how exactly the world will respond to it. After the Kyoto Protocol failed and it became evident that not only developed countries should participate in the fight against the global warming, the big question arose during the Paris Climate Talks: who and how much would pay for developing countries to build economies that would produce fewer greenhouse emissions (Joyce par. 7)?
Even though many countries have agreed to participate and sacrifice something to the common cause, a lot of concerns remain in brackets in the last version of the draft agreement and require additional negotiations (Needham par. 12).
As for the US, it has already done more than other countries to address global warming, both locally and at the international level. According to the information provided on the site of the White House, since 2005, America has reduced its carbon pollution more than all other countries in the world (“Climate Change” par. 4). Now, we use three times more wind power and ten times more solar power than a decade earlier (“Climate Change” par. 4).
The US is also rather active as an international player. As a prime example, the President gave 3 billion dollars to strengthen developing countries so those could reduce their carbon pollution levels (“Climate Change and President Obama’s Action Plan” par. 8). And the Climate Action Plan presented in 2013 contains even more steps regarding the US efforts to address global warming, both locally and internationally.
Considering all of this, many people believe that America is leading global efforts to fight climate changes, that is, performs the role of a hegemon. Indeed, since the 1990s, the US has dominated the international system, and the fight against climate problem is not an exception. Therefore, the American foreign policy regarding global warming can be explained by the hegemonic stability theory (particularly, its liberal version) best of all.
To conclude, it is hard to predict now if the world will succeed in its efforts to address the climate problem since there are reasons to be both optimistic and pessimistic about it. On the one hand, many countries have agreed to fight climate change together, and that gives hope. On the other hand, negotiations are going too slowly while the planet needs the solution as soon as possible.
Works Cited
Climate Change and President Obama’s Action Plan 2015. Web.
Climate Change n.d. Web.
Joyce, Christopher. Why Negotiators At Paris Climate Talks Are Tossing The Kyoto Model 2015. Web.
Needham, Judith. Guide to Paris Climate Talks: Halftime Notes 2015. Web.