PROJECT NARRATIVE

Why Climate Change?

Climate change has been an issue we have heard about since we were younger. We grew up with movies like Wall-E where our planet would no longer be our home. Growing up we heard the rumor/joke that the world would end in 2012 when natural disasters would occur and destroy everything. 2012 passed and we are still here, but for how much longer? We decided it was important to understand how our way of living is impacting the planet. Also, how it will affect us in the long run. We were aware that the climate was changing, but how deadly is it? Can we stop it? Do we need to stop it? Most importantly, why should we care if it will affect those after us more than it will affect us? 

In the past 20 years, we have witnessed so many natural disasters, a pandemic, temperatures rising, and barely being able to differentiate between seasons. Things have changed and it is no longer something we can ignore. We are always uncertain of what is to happen tomorrow, we need to begin making changes now. Ethically, destroying our home can never be justified. As discussed in class, the domino effect is huge and if one person or a group of 30 students learn a little bit about protecting their home, it can possibly even stop the planet from being under water one day.

Climate change effects us all on an individual level. Our tax dollar’s go to these issues, our jobs could be lost or new jobs could be created when making decisions about climate change. We should be aware of what toxins we are breathing in and if they are just destroying the planet or are they killing us too? The questions are unsettling and never ending, but being able to answer even a few can bring a peace of mind.

Ethical Perspective

As climate change—the “perfect moral storm”—continues to take a massive toll on our ecosystems, it falls into our hands to make change. Climate change is a global problem: No one citizen, scientist, government official, or country, is singlehandedly affected by it. So, countries need to work in tandem to limit the greenhouse gas emissions. One large problem that we face is that governments—and even as general as average civilians—point the finger at other countries and blame them for the rapid acceleration of climate change. For example, it is widely known that China is the largest contributor to carbon emissions and with this in mind, countries look to only lessen their emissions so that they do not reach the same “ranking” as China. This, in essence, articulates this notion of a “tragedy of the commons”—where collectively, countries want to lessen carbon emissions, but when they act individually, they still continue to emit more carbon into the air. Many have the tendency to believe that what they are emitting is not as bad as another’s, so to this day we see that, for example, more cars populate the streets even when it has been proven that carpooling and public transportation can offer some aid in slowing down climate change. This, then, raises a plethora of ethical questions: Should we lessen our carbon emissions for other nations and turn away from this mindset that we are in an implicit state of competition? Or should we continue in our current means of production to satisfy demand in the short run, instead of guaranteeing a world for the future generation in the long run? More often than not, the latter is the choice made; budget allocations from the government and manufacturing businesses all flow into means of production that most efficiently produce the most products at one time. While these products are being shifted into an all-electric model, the mass production of these vehicles, specifically, still continues to pollute the atmosphere through coal burning. Scientists have recognized that nuclear energy is the cleanest form of energy, and while it is expensive to maintain nuclear power plants, it would significantly lessen carbon emissions and set us back on the right track. However, the hesitation we see when it comes to this dramatic change in energy comes from either the expenses of it—since government funding is likely to be allocated to production that most quickly produces specific products at a lower cost—or avoiding it as a means to ensure that citizens feel safe if they are to be residing next to a power plant. So, it raises an unintended ethical concern: Will the government allocate funds to renewable forms of energy to ensure a place for future generations or continue to invest in production that does nothing more than add to the pollution and set us further back? Hesitation plays a large role in what seems to be a lack of effort to reduce carbon emission. There is a plethora of questions that come with the scientific research of climate change: Are the forecasts accurate? How long do we really have before we start to see increased temperatures and more natural disasters than we can handle?
    As a means to combat these infinite ethical questions, UNESCO—the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization—adopted a Declaration of Ethical Principles in Relation to Climate Change in November 2017, which is based on six base ethical principles. First, prevention of harm, which entails the understanding and acknowledgement of greenhouse gas emissions and using preventative measures to keep emissions low; second, precautionary action, which states that though there may be inadequate scientific research to a specific method to prevent climate change, measures to slow the increasing rate should not be postponed as new methods are being researched; third, equity and justice, which is a call to action for developments to be made that do not put others at a serious disadvantage and those that are unjustly affected by climate change are given access to redress and remedy; fourth, sustainable development, which is simply the adoption of preventive measures that increase the sustainability of our ecosystems and encouraging an increase in resilience to climate change; fifth, solidarity, which is allocating support to those who are directly affected by climate change, such as Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS); and sixth, scientific knowledge and integrity in decision-making, which calls for a connection between science and policy to ensure that decisions are being made that are tailored to long-term strategies and risk prevention and prediction. These guidelines should serve as the foundation for any chosen route to combat this global issue. The burden of a call to action does not fall on just one country’s shoulders; it is an issue that calls for nations to put in their share of effort to reduce their emissions instead of clinging onto this falsehood that what they put out is not as catastrophic as another nation’s.
    Everyone recognizes that climate change is an ever-growing problem, and many do not realize that cooperative efforts can aid in slowing down climate change. However, cooperation does not come so easy; countries cannot decide on effective measures to regulate carbon emissions and questions of what an “effective” climate agreement would look like continues to arise. Concerns of those immensely affected by climate change has largely been brought up by religious organizations—most specifically the rights of the poor and other developing nations. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops addressed the issue and said in a statement on climate change that “action to mitigate global climate change must be built upon a foundation of social and economic justice that does not put the poor at greater risk or place disproportionate and unfair burdens on developing nations.” Nations constantly struggle to find alternatives that the global society can agree with, but would it raise an ethical concern for developed nations to lead the charge and begin sanctioning out mandates to other countries to ensure that their emissions remain low? Developed countries can lead the charge in combatting climate change and fully protect developing nations from the impending disasters, and while funds are allocated to projects that help in reducing carbon emissions, there begs the question of whether these funds are being allocated to the right programs. Should countries be changing their budgets so that their wealth goes directly to the developing countries so that they can relocate, or should they continue to flow their wealth into programs that ensure that emissions will go down in the long run? There is a constant ethical battle of whether these efforts to slow down climate change should be done as a means to combat it now, in the short run, or guarantee that future generations would have a planet to live on.

​

Cultural Perspective

When one thinks about the effects of climate change, weather-related disasters come to mind. Hotter temperatures and rising water levels are the main concerns for most people around the world, as that is all that is spoken about on the news. However, climate change digs far deeper than that. Cultures are expected to shift and evolve with time, while also respecting the foundations and traditions the culture was formed on. Drastic, forced changes to one’s culture can prove to be detrimental in a plethora of ways.

Indigenous peoples are among the first to face the direct consequences of climate change, due to their dependence upon, and close relationship, with the environment and their culture. Unfortunately, these people are disproportionately vulnerable to weather-related disasters, and this vulnerability is exacerbated by issues of violence and brutality, continuing assimilation policies, marginalization, dispossession of land, forced removal or relocation, denial of land rights, impacts of large-scale development, abuses by military forces and armed conflict, and a host of other abuses, which are a reality for indigenous communities around the world. Basic human rights, fueled by political and economic incentives, are being stripped from innocent people simply trying to survive with what has not already been taken from them.

Climate change, added to the continuous abuse sustained, creates a perfect storm for a culture to be gutted of everything it stands for. As stated before, one of the most important features of one’s culture is the land they live on and the resources that it provides them. To these cultures, their land is much more than a temporary place of living. It is their territory, their home. As climate change further pushes these cultures away from their land, they will lose access to most of their resources, including traditional foods, animals, and landmarks that are important to their practices. Their cultural identity, after being passed down for generations, is coming to an end because the rest of the world is too selfish to consider the consequences of their actions.

Aside from losing the current resources needed to sustain life, the loss of cultural heritage adds salt to the wound. Cultural heritage is an expression of the ways that these cultures have lived throughout numerous generations. It provides many social, well-being and environmental benefits, including a sense of identity and a stimulus for cultural involvement, learning, leisure, and recreational activities. By losing one’s cultural heritage, years of tradition, knowledge, language, and memories are thrown away. In the United Kingdom, much of their cultural heritage is at risk. Changes in temperatures, increasing water levels, coastal erosion, ocean acidification, and extreme weather events are increasing the rate at which natural landmarks, both above and underwater, are deteriorating. People in the Indian Ocean can relate to people of the UK, as a historic port city is at risk due to sea-level rise and erosion. Kilwa Kisiwani, a city inhabited since the 7th century is extremely important to the surrounding area and its heritage. As one student says, “I think heritage is important to us because it’s what defines us, it’s part of our identity. It’s part of our surrounding and it’s what makes us who we are now.” This city that has been around for thousands of years holds much more sentimental than we can imagine. Over in Bangladesh, people are fighting to preserve their mosques and domes that have been in use since 1440. The mosques and domes found in the Mosque City of Bagerhat are not only used for religious purposes but are also people’s homes. A resident of this historical city, when asked about the decaying monuments, said that “all of these buildings here are not just tourist places, they have meaning to the people of Bagerhat, and the people of Bangladesh.” There are nearly an endless amount of cultural heritage sites being eradicated around the world due to climate change. Sites and landmarks that have been standing for thousands of years are crumbling, and the debris is falling at our feet.

This loss of identity of these cultures is heartbreaking to see, and it leaves them confused and helpless. Unfortunately, that still may not even be the most worrying loss for some cultures. Cultural heritage is intrinsically linked to economic activity, so as we see countless heritages being destroyed, we see their sources of income erased. Rooted in the land are plant and animal species that are vital to cultures economies around the world. In Finland, Norway, and Sweden, increasing levels of rain prevent reindeer from accessing their food source. As more reindeer die due to starvation, the Sami culture experiences more and more hardships, as reindeer are vital to their economy. For cultures rooted in or around forests, they are experiencing the same. As climate change continues to ravage through forests causing fires and storms, fungi, plant, and animal species are destroyed with it. The heritage sector in the UK is another example of this. In England alone, 459,000 jobs are created due to the heritage sector, and tourists spend nearly 16.9 billion pounds per year. The rest of the UK supports over 100,000 jobs and brings in over 3 billion pounds per year. Letting these historical (money-making) landmarks deteriorate into rubble would be a shame.

The good news for these cultures is that once the rest of the world realizes that they are running out of time and being to enact change, they will slowly be able to take back what is theirs. The rate at which natural landmarks decay will slow, and it will be easier to protect and rebuild what has fallen. The bad news is that for the past 150 years of knowing that we are slowly killing our earth, very few measures have been taken to prevent this. Nearly 35 years ago climate change was deemed a national issue. Today, we have less than eight years until our earth heats to a level that is unsustainable and will cause mass death. However, the way to begin protecting these historical cultures is by looking into past cultural heritages. To begin, these heritages and traditions can play a large role in climate change mitigation and adaptation. Intangible cultural heritage practices, including traditional land and water management practices, traditional food security strategies, and the use of traditional architecture and building materials, can help communities mitigate and adapt to a changing climate. Apart from protecting their food and water sources, heritage sites can serve as a refuge for any and all communities that have been affected by climate change. Issues ranging from fires to flooding to intercommunal conflicts can arise as a result of climate change, and these sites will be there to support in any way they can.

Despite these cultures and heritage sites temporarily aiding communities in need, it is not nearly enough. Culture is not systematically integrated into any climate change organization or government. Specifically in the United Nations, culture is not considered in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, or the Assessment Reports of the IPCC. Experts are clear in their assertion that climate change must be included in the decision-making process related to climate change. Marky Rockman, a coordinator for the International Council on Monuments and Sites, is prepared to make that a reality. Rockman spoke at a cultural heritage and climate change briefing, highlighting SCAPE Trust. SCAPE Trust encourages citizens in Scotland to look at the effects of climate change in a different way. It encourages communities to think about how their vulnerable cultural sites influence who they are and why the coast is important to them. Instead of bombarding people with horror stories and details of how cultures around the world are being shattered, SCAPE Trust hopes that coming from a place of meaning will lead to a shared sense of identity.

Thousands of years of cultural heritage and countless cultures being eradicated is of the utmost severity. These cultures, who have already endured years of injustice and exploitation at the hands of their governments do not deserve to lose everything they love due to further acts of wrongdoing. Children and adults are fighting to spread awareness and are attempting to revert the damages that are now being escalated due to climate change. For these cultures to have any hope, the world must ensure the inclusion of culture in decision-making processes related to climate change. Perfectly said by Indigenous activist and chief of the Kayapo culture in Brazil, "We all breathe this one air, we all drink the same water. We all live on this planet. We need to protect this Earth. If we don't, the big winds will come and destroy the forest. Then you will feel the same fear that we fear."

​

Legal Perspective

Climate change will and already has altered the legal system as we know it. Our ambitions to solve the issues we face are growing as each and every day passes, however, execution doesn’t always follow. Thus, the gap between what was said to be accomplished and what actually was accomplished has begun to expand. As this gap continues to expand, more individuals, businesses, and NGO’s have turned to the courts to seek relief through the enforcement of existing climate laws. This trend has fostered an increasingly coherent field of law due to the frequency in their occurrence and will continue to grow moving forward. 

Climate litigation has seen a significant spike around the world. The 2017 UNEP Litigation Report identified 884 cases brought in 24 counties, with the US containing 654 of them. As of July 1st, 2020, the number of cases has nearly doubled with at least 1,550 climate change cases filed in 38 countries, with the US containing approximately 1,200 of them. 

These cases are often very broad and ambiguous at the surface level, posing unique challenges for the courts. Some of these challenges include “whether the court has the power to resolve the dispute, identifying the source of an enforceable climate-related right or obligation, crafting a remedy that will lessen the plaintiffs’ injuries and, importantly, marshalling the science of climate attribution.” (UNEP GCLR). 

Some of the types of cases include those surrounding a premise of a defendant’s failure to properly plan for or manage the consequences of extreme whether events and increasingly calling upon the courts to answer to “climate attribution” as cases seeking to assign responsibility for private actors’ or increased government action to mitigate damages are becoming more and more prevalent. 

Many of the fallacies related to climate change are a result of inept enforcement of breaches of contract. As the world continues becoming more interconnected, we must extensively reevaluate the structure and enforcement abilities of the international governmental bodies delegated this responsibility. 

In most jurisdictions, different bodies are responsible for criminal prosecution and the imposition of administrative sanctions. There are some exemptions, the main one being England and their environmental regulator, the Environment Agency, who both initiate criminal prosecutions and impose administrative sanctions.

To make enforcement penalties impactful, sanctions should be designed to change behavior, not purely focus on monetary punishment for the isolated incident. 
In a study conducted by York University, they compared and contrasted Ontario’s criminal system for sanctions for occupational health and safety offenses and British Columbia’s. In British Columbia, regulatory officials assess administrative penalties while in Ontario prosecution occurs in provincial criminal court. The study determined that “a larger portion of offenders are punished under administrative processes than in the Ontario criminal justice system, and the average administrative penalty generally is higher than the average criminal fine.” (R.M Brown). The study also found more benefits that are not solely related to administrative cases more commonly being pursued and enforced with a higher average penalty. 

Additional benefits include lowering the standards of proof, such as the preponderance of evidence, attaching a greater weight to the firm’s compliance history, and does not reserve penalties for offences which actually resulted in physical harm. 
Albeit not perfect, the European Network of Prosecutors for the Environment (ENPE) has drastically improved the means of communication between members and those with whom the members work with. By streamlining the means in which climate cases are dealt with in the courts, ENPE has established a system based upon the sharing of information and experiences related to the environment and public health, in order to maintain consistency and establish a standardization in relation to climate cases moving forward.

The US eventually realized that a lack of communication was drastically hindering the EPA’s ability to uphold its duty to the utmost level. In July of 2019, an agreement was reached between the EPA and the states that are implementing federal environmental programs. The policy was divided into three parts. The first is to “articulate expectations and best practices for periodic joint work planning and effective communication between EPA regions and states to further the goal of shared accountability for the consistent enforcement of law”. The second is to “articulate the primary role of the states in implementing authorized programs, while acknowledging the EPA’s responsibilities to the President, the Congress, and the public to take direct action when a state lacks the economic or technical capability or the will to take timely and appropriate action…also describes those circumstances that may warrant direct federal action.” Lastly, the third part “sets out the process by which issues that may arise under this policy will be elevated.” (2019 US EPA Memorandum). 

While this policy is a step in the right direction for the US, it also shines a spotlight on why effective solutions cannot be found widespread across the globe. A lack of shared accountability has not only expedited climate change, but it has also enabled such a large uptick in climate cases because common ground is often very hard to find. In addition to a lack of shared accountability contributing to the climate issues the world faces, failures to supplement the economic or technical inadequacies of certain nations has decelerated efforts elsewhere. Unfortunately, developing nations are not equipped with the necessary means to fight climate change. Developing nations often find themselves spending their finite number of resources on temporary amendments or solutions to long-term problems, when systematic change is needed in order to reach the goals necessary. 

Overall, the legal landscape surrounding climate change is everchanging. As proper retributions become more and more difficult to enforce and the world becomes more and more intertwined, the courts will continue to develop a wider scope, which should enable them to better understand the issues at hand, thus making acting upon these issues more efficient and deliberate. Most developed nations have yet to develop a comprehensive system adequately equipped with the resources necessary. More progress must be made similar to the development of the ENPE and the 2019 EPA Memorandum in developed nations across the globe. This progress will enable these nations to deal with climate related issues within its own borders efficiently, potentially expanding the possible allocation of resources to developing nations who are largely contributing to the overall rapidity of climate change.

​

Social Perspective

As we all know, Climate change is not something that will affect only one individual, it is a current event disrupting the world as we know it. From the environment to the industrial sectors, the risks and uncertainties are severe, “the social problem-solving mechanisms we currently possess were not designed, and have not evolved, to cope with anything like an interlinked set of problems of this severity, scale and complexity”. These words from the Oxford Handbook of Climate change and society illustrate how unequipped as a society we are to deal with climate change. In 2015 at the UN climate change conference in Paris, an international treaty was signed aiming to keep global warming under 2 degrees celsius, preferably 1.5, the plan was to spark low carbon solutions and new markets. This year's COP26 conference held in Scotland discussed the Paris agreement, Kyoto Protocol, and where we are going in the future. The 1993 COP3 resulted in the Kyoto protocol which set out an international agreement for the first time on measuring emissions and putting targets into place to limit these, in 2001 the U.S. formally rejected the Kyoto protocol with 17 out of 36 (almost half) failed to meet GHG targets, this was predicted to happen with the Paris agreement as well. 

  Climate change affects people in many different ways, impacts on the social sector include human health, agriculture and food security, water supply, transportation, energy, eco systems and many more - these are expected to become significantly more disruptive in future years. In regards to human health, the effects of these disruptions include increased respiratory and cardiovascular disease, injuries and premature deaths related to extreme weather events. Climate change is the main cause for wildfires, possibly being the cause of diseases  affecting the air we breathe, both indoors and outdoors, negatively impacting human health and possibly having a long term effect on respiratory systems. The rate at which precipitation is rising in each event has already increased for the nation as a whole, flash floods and tropical rainstorms result in the highest number of deaths within the US alone. When the flooding occurs it is not just land that gets destroyed, the disruptions include damage and the wipe-out of homes, cars, people's livelihoods not to mention death. Along with this, one of the main causes for global warming is gas emissions including carbon dioxide (CO2) increasing the levels of outdoor pollution such as ground level o-zone.
Following from this, due to the increase in temperatures globally we are seeing the effect of melting ice caps not only environmentally but also on human health. According to scientists the permafrost is vanishing, (permafrost being any earth material at or below 0 degrees celsius for 2 or more consecutive years). According to Scientific American, during 2016 a 12 year old boy in Siberia died from an unheard of disease linked to melting permafrost, the same disease linked to killing more than 2,000 reindeer. Not only could the melting ice caps and permafrost possibly release dormant diseases, but climate is one of the factors that influence the distribution of diseases borne by vectors i.e fleas, ticks etc. It can be noted that infectious diseases thrive in certain climates i.e some thrive in wetter climates, some warmer etc and as climate change is having an impact on weather conditions world wide providing floods and wildfires, diseases are thriving causing a great impact on human health, also relating to that of synthetic biology as these viruses have been dormant for a significant period of time it is likely there will not be a vaccine for all diseases unleashed hence where, genetically engineering immune cells to fight of deadly viruses, possibly creating immunity, come into play.

As these extreme weather events have such an effect on both the societal daily life and health matters this in-turn impacts the mental health of those affected by a climate change event such as a storm, flash flood, wildfire or other. Following disasters mental health problems increase a phenomenon known as “common reactions to abnormal events” Events such as hurricanes can displace people from their homes or flash floods which create mudslides can also do this, in-turn causing elevated levels of stress, anxiety and possibly depression within communities due to climate change. Stanford researchers found that suicide rates rose during the warmer weather, along with people becoming more aggressive leading to fights. Along with this the heat is known to cause potential problems interfering with the temperature regulation, this may cause disruption for those with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, again this is another health impact caused by climate change.

Climate change does not only have effects on the health sector of society but also on things like livelihoods, housing, finance. It is proposed that climate change will increase the severity and frequency of extreme weather events, such as floods, drought, heat waves, wildfires and rising sea levels.  Extreme weather events harm the production of crops, it affects the soil fertility, can cause disease to the crops, putting pressure on food stability within some countries, and putting pressure on farmers coming from a financial point of view.  Climate change is severely impacting the water resources globally, which in turn affects food supply, health, industry transportation and ecosystem. It is due to heat waves that during the hot dry summers there are severe periods of drought and agricultural farming is unable to go ahead and animals can not survive.
Associated with this is the rise in sea levels, today sea level is from five to eight inches higher on average than it was in the 1900 and sea levels are expected to continue rising at a higher rate annually. As we know sea levels rising are due to human activities and the emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, it is not only because ice caps are melting the sea level is rising but also because warm water takes up more space than cold water due to expansion causing the volume of water in the sea to increase. As sea levels rise it is predicted that coastal areas such as New york city and Dublin city will become immersed in water by 2050 if not sooner. With the displacement of people from these areas there will be an outcry for homes, jobs and food. Not only will rising sea levels displace families from their homes it will also destroy the industries, manufacturing centers, business offices and factories all of which is needed to keep the economy stable, without these key pieces of the economy it will collapse, causing severe detrimental effects on society.

We as a society only have one job to do and that is protect our own, this includes where we live. Billionaires such as Bill Gates have invested into non-profit organizations in order to aid the fight against climate change. Following from the UN COP26 which is currently ongoing as of November 2021, it will be vital to ensure globally humans contribute to the fight against climate change as well as governmental figures. 

Political Perspective

The United States has been divided on the issue of climate change for various decades. However, as time has gone on, the split between the two major parties, Democratic and Republican Party, has only become wider. Since 1992, the parties have always seemed to be on opposing sides when it concerns climate change. Everytime a party takes a step forward in the right direction, the other party will shut down the idea and take 5-steps backwards. It is highly ironic to go against climate change when it clearly affects every individual living on the planet. 

The United States began to take action concerning climate change in 1992, during President G.W. Bush’s presidency, when he signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. This was the first time the United States committed to decreasing the amount of greenhouse gases it was releasing into the air. In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was introduced, with the intent of decreasing carbon and greenhouse emissions by industrialized nations. With the United States being an industrialized nation, President Clinton legally binded the country to decrease greenhouse gases by 7% through the protocol. For the first time, the United States would be held accountable if it was not to follow through with it’s pledge. 

 A republican president took the right steps to decrease emissions and a democratic president followed in his footsteps. However in this story, Father and Son weren’t on the same page as President George Bush pulled out from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. His argument was that developing countries were not held to the same standards and weren’t asked to cut emissions. From a climate perspective, this had negative impacts because the United States, at the time, was leading in carbon and greenhouse emissions. By decreasing emissions, it could have possibly slowed down climate change on a drastic level. On an economic level however, lowering emissions would hurt the country because it was cheaper to use fossil fuels and increase productivity. The republican party is known to make better economic decisions which lead them to pull back, however they aren’t as environmentally friendly.

History repeated itself again during President Obama and President Trump’s era. President Obama, a part of the democratic party, pledged to decrease emissions by 26-28% by 2025 through the Paris Climate Agreement. Multiple countries had come together to make this pledge with the intent of keeping the increase in temperature to be lower than 2 Celcius. For the first time, so many countries were united with the same goal of avoiding global warming. Once President Obama’s Presidency had come to an end, President Trump decided to pull out of the Paris Agreement. The republican party along with President Trump believed in isolating the country and putting “America First” instead of worrying about global issues. He was more pro-fossil fuel, which meant higher emissions. Although he announced this decision in 2017, it went into effect in 2020 due to legal reasons.

Since the pull out from the Paris Agreement began in 2020, the United States pledged to enter the Paris Agreement again during the first week of Joe Biden’s Presidency. The Biden Administration has made very drastic commitments of decreasing 50% to 52% emissions by 2030. Although these goals aren’t necessarily practical, they are ambitious and environmentally friendly.

The two party system within the United States has made climate change a political issue instead of an environmental issue. Both parties try to take away any success the other party makes without considering the negative impacts it has. Based on past events, it seems as though the Republicans believe that climate change isn’t a massive concern while the Democratic party makes various pledges towards slowing down climate change. Instead of tearing the other party’s success down, bipartisan solutions may be the answer to truly slowing down the negative impacts of climate change within the United States. There are members of both parties that are aware of the drastic impacts of climate change. 

One of the most recent bipartisan bills passed called the Growing Climate Solutions Act which encourages farmers to stay sustainable, reduce greenhouse gases, and increase reforestation through incentives. If farmers are to do so, it would decrease up to 37% of emissions which could benefit different bird species. Another bill named the Green New Deal, proposed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from the Democratic party, was deemed unconstitutional by a majority conservative Supreme Court. The Green New Deal intended to create a clean United States by 2030, by bringing down greenhouse gas emissions to a net-zero. It also intended to create 20 million new jobs and help revive the economy. Although the cost of the Green New Deal was extraordinary, it was shocking to see the Senate voted 57-0 against the bill and 43 out of 47 Democrats voted "present" in order to not take a formal position. Based on these results, it is pretty evident that climate change has become more of a slogan than an issue on their to do list. 

Climate change needs to shift from being a political issue or political tactic for votes and instead become an issue both parties agree on. The United States is the 2nd highest country after China to emit carbon emissions. If the United States is to decrease it’s emissions or even go net-zero, it could drastically slow down the increase in temperature and overall negative impacts. 

If climate change doesn’t slow down, there will be various international issues within the next few decades. Heavily populated states and cities like Miami, Atlantic City, New York City, and many others will most likely be underwater by 2050, if not sooner. These cities are hubs for millions of jobs and inhabit millions of people. This could cause a huge infliction of movers into the midwest and unemployment could be at an all time high. All the Small Island Developing States (Maldives, Kiribati, Vanuatu, etc) could also be underwater within the next few decades based on how fast sea levels have been increasing. With natural disasters occurring more often every year, lower developing countries will be consistently destroyed. This could possibly destroy economies, take away millions of lives, and cause various wars for land and resources

If the United States doesn’t stop emitting gases and taken action in the direct direction, climate change will continue to destroy the planet. Climate change is a global issue and affects every individual. The issue needs to become more of a bipartisan issue in order to see any changes. If not, we will continue to destroy the planet and may face limited resources, wars, and unimaginable natural disasters.

​

​