Blog Post 4- Carter Goltermann

                             Debilitating Polarity: Will the Paris Accord Prove Successful?  


The question must be asked why the Montreal Protocol successfully worked in reducing the amount of Chlorofluorocarbons that were emitted into the atmosphere, but the Kyoto Protocol failed in reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted in the atmosphere. In fact, the “greenhouse gas output has increased since 1997, not decreased” (National Geographic). Some would equate this failure to the structure of the United States Government, more specifically, the polarity that it fosters. This polarity, alongside a democratic government that was designed to represent the public, produces a nation that changes its political stances based on the majority party for a given presidential election. Considering that the U.S. is one of the most vital nations in the process of international agreements, their lack of ability to consistently stand behind a decision made by a previous president makes the success of international regimes very difficult. 

The success of the Montreal Protocol, specifically the U.S.’ ratification of it can, in part, be equated to the general agreement between both democrats and republicans that this issue needs urgent attention. This agreement was mostly focussed on helping reduce the growing prevalence of skin cancer throughout the world. Its success would not have been possible without President Regan being “able to see how [the skin cancerous growth on the right side of his nose] all related to the ozone hole” (Waxman). Prior to Regan’s discovery, “environmental policy hadn’t been a priority for him and his advisors”  (Waxman). Without the fluke of the President himself as the advocate to the public on a global issue and taking a stance that isn't the norm for their party, the ease that Montreal Protocol possessed to be internationally implemented is not possible. 

The U.S. today is more politically polarized than ever in the past twenty years. This polarity, in addition to the increasingly negative light that each party views the other, inhibits any political decision to truly hold weight. For instance, President Trump's campaign hinged on reversing the decisions of left leaning prior presidents in order to “make America great again.” This clearly is an effective way to rally the citizens of the U.S., as seen by his inauguration in 2016. This polarity not only presents itself as an issue when trying to take action against climate change, but it can also be seen in other global issues such as the U.S.’ involvement in international civil issues. It shows great progress that the U.S. “rejoined the Paris Agreement on climate change” on February 18, 2021 (NPR). Although, progress is not as much as is truly necessary because the Paris Agreement itself is not legally binding. The mere fact that the U.S. showed such discomfort in signing a non-binding agreement designed to prevent global warming, emphasizes how truly difficult it will be for real change to be seen on the issue of climate change. 

While some may argue that younger generations care more about the issue of climate change, therefore real change will be seen when they are in power; the U.S.’ internal issue of polarization and political hostility will likely remain unchanged. If the U.S. popularity does not learn how to empathize with one another, no organizations will be able to produce successful treaties that take international regimes. 






Sources 

Lecture 20: Kyoto and Montreal 

Mai, H.J. “U.S. Officially Rejoins Paris Agreement on Climate Change.” NPR, NPR, 19 Feb. 

2021, 

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/19/969387323/u-s-officially-rejoins-paris-agreement-on-climate-change. 

National Geographic Society. “Kyoto Protocol Signed.” National Geographic Society, 7 Nov. 

2013, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/dec11/kyoto-protocol-signed/. 

Waxman, Olivia B. “What Convinced Ronald Reagan to Take Action on Ozone Hole.” Time, 

Time, 10 Apr. 2019, https://time.com/5564651/reagan-ozone-hole/.


Comments

  1. Max GilbertApril 25, 2022 at 1:09 PM

    I really liked the point that you made regarding US political hostility. There can definetly be times where it feels like within our government we have something to prove to other nations, when in reality this just creates further divide in understanding. Especially within an issue as important as climate change, empathy is paramount in creating progress , which you outlined.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog post 5

Implications of Diplomatic Risk Game  The Diplomatic Risk Game provided valuable insight as to how international political decisions are executed, morevor what leaders place emphasis on when choosing their political strategies. In a fictional game, the chosen leaders and diplomats were not concerned with the true implicit and explicit costs of war, rather, the focus was on total dominance in resources. Similarly, as Russia's invasion of Ukraine continues to progress it can be seen that leaders like Vladimir Putin operate under those same principles.  In principle, war should operate as it did throughout the Risk Game: two nations that cannot reach an agreement go to war and the dominant nation will emerge victorious. The Risk Game allows its players to focus solely on the international dynamics and their corresponding power changes emerging post-war. In order to settle a conflict,  “both the defender and the attacker roll X dice, where X is the amount of units they ...
Read more

POLS 170 Blog Post (1)

          International Relations realism, International Relations Liberalism, and Constructivism were very apparent in the time leading up to World War I and the time period immediately succeeding it. There were many reasons for the outbreak of WWI, however, one of the major reasons was the  European powers’ building up their respective militaries. As each nation saw another improving upon a facet of its military, it began looking for ways to counter it. This was very apparent in both Germany and England engaging in a massive build up of their navies, in order to ensure that in the event of war, they would have control over the oceans. Every nation saw a build up of forces in another as a threat to its own security, thus ultimately leading to the events of WWI. Also importantly during this time period, in terms of IR realism, was the colonization of territory across the world by European powers, significantly in Africa. European nations saw how resour...
Read more

BLOG 4

   Blog #4 Max Gilbert Elon Musk and Twitter: An Unlikely, Yet Sound Partnership      As of recently, and specifically this morning, Elon Musk seems to be on the precipice of buying the social media platform Twitter for roughly 46.5 billion dollars, and taking the company private. In total, Musk is worth more than two hundred and eighty billion dollars, and is most known for electric car company Tesla, and space exploration venture "Space X." Amidst this corporate drama, there remains the question of why does he want to buy twitter, what's in it for Musk? To begin with, he has spoken about the platform's harsh moderation of content, and free-speech, and would most definitely lessen those restrictions if purchased. Furthermore, Twitter as a whole has not capitalized on it's larger than life user base, and is notoriously dysfunctional. Musk would bring a fresh mindset to the table, and provide a more in-touch view, and perspective of younger generations.  ...
Read more