Concept of Environmental Management - Term Paper Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Environmental Management Introduction Ecological sustainable development within Australia has been the main agenda of environmental law for more than two decades. Environmental laws make up extensive principles, rules and models of behavior and comprises of practices, institutions and forms of government that are necessary for making it work. Effective and visionary laws are very critical for securing a resilient, healthy and productive environment. Environmental laws have to benefit everyone. Every government has a role to play in the implementation of environmental agreements that are agreed upon in the international space. Countries are collectively contributing to greenhouse emissions and this had led to climate change, temperature increase and global warming (Burck, Christoph & Verena 2014). The effects of all these has been devastating with weather conditions becoming difficult to predict. Famine because of drought, floods and extreme high temperatures have been the order of the day in some countries. The developed countries like Russia, China, Australia, United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, France and United States contributes most to greenhouse gas emissions in the entire world (Victor & Charles 2014). Any effort to mitigate the effects of environmental pollution has to be collective among all players to avoid overburdening the poorer countries. The Paris agreement climate agreement has the purpose of seeing the biggest emitters taking a leading role in implementing initiatives to curb the effects of climate change and avoid further temperature rise. 195 countries signed this climate agreement in Paris in 2015. It came as a shock to many when the United Sates announced that it was withdrawing from this agreement since it was overburdening and draconian (Gupta 2010). Many people have come out to criticize the United States decisions and they see no justification of the United States decision. Majority of states in the United States have shown willingness to continue with the implementation of the agreement despite the withdrawal. Big players like China have urged the US to reconsider its decision. This essay critiques the recent decision by US government to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate and reviews its possible impact. Discussion Many people particularly environmentalists have come up to protest the decision by Trump’s government to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate. Donald Trump announced that the US will be withdrawing from the agreement on climate signed in Paris. Trump claimed that he had to withdraw from the Paris climate accord in order to protect America and its citizens (Rogelj, Joeri, et al 2016). He reasserted the sovereignty of America. The president hoped to commence negotiations in order to reenter the Paris accord or have new transition on terms that will be fair to the US. The withdrawal process will take four years and the United States will join the lonely club. There only two other countries namely Nicaragua and Syria who have vehemently rejected the nonbinding agreement (Scott & Susanne 2010). Sustainable development cannot be achieved if countries like the United States can decide to withdraw from serious agreements on climate without any warning. It is important to note that the United States is the second largest in emission of greenhouse gasses around the world trailing China. It is problematic for such an emitter to decide to exit a noble climate agreement hence giving signals to continuing to pollute the environment. The US has to be leading in finding ways of achieving environmental sustainability and not being an impediment towards the same (McAdam 2011). This has been interpreted by conservation experts and environmentalists as making the US not to be accountable to their role in contributing to carbon emissions in the atmosphere which has resulted in climate change and global warming. Adverse climate conditions like desserts, drought and floods have been attributed to climate change due to environmental pollution being led by developed countries like the United States (Rogelj, Joeri, et al 2016). Environmental management is at the heart of every country owing to the adverse effect of climate change that is brought about by increased pollution. However, Trump did not say that he was pulling the United States out of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change since it predates the Paris treaty. Pulling out would translates to deserting all international cooperative efforts regarding climate change. Whereas many countries have not on track to attain their individual commitments under the agreement, there is a widespread resolve across the globe in taking responsibility for climate change as well as scaling back on greenhouse gas emissions (de Sherbinin 2011). America has to demonstrate that it values environmental conservation. Some people see the involvement of big businesses in pushing Trump to exit the accord. The country has to care about the risks posed by climate change to the planet. This move by the Trump government can be very damaging to strategic position that the United States has in the world as well as position in international negotiations for various issues. The decision by the US is seen as an effort of undermining the climate change agreement that was signed by many countries. This portrays the United States as being careless about climate change challenges. Every country has to be committed to reducing carbon emissions without compromise (Bulkeley & Newell 2015). The United States cannot back down on such a noble agreements that provides leeway to countries to chart their own way towards achieving reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris treaty was signed in the year 2015 by one hundred and ninety-five countries and comprise of four basic things. Firstly, it outlines a global objective of keeping the global average temperatures from rising 2º C by the end of the century. Secondly, it is generally a nonbinding agreement for nations to attain peak greenhouse gas emissions within a short time (Rogelj, Joeri, et al 2016). Thirdly, it brings in another framework for nations to become more active in reaching the goals over time. By the year 2020, delegates are supposed to congregate and outline updates concerning their emission pledges and say how they are becoming more active on attaining the 2 degree target. Lastly, it calls upon the wealthy countries to assist poorer countries by giving them capital in order to invest in green technologies and further help them to embrace the changing world (Rogelj, Joeri, et al 2016). The last point seems to be the greatest issue that Trump has with this Paris climate change accord. The United States president viewed the $100 billion fund for the less wealthy countries as a mere scheme. It is important to emphasize that the Paris agreement as it is formulated cannot stop the global temperatures from going up (Parks & Timmons, 2010). The objective of the Paris accord was to offer incentives for countries to put in efforts to avoid a warmer future. The decision by the United States government sends mixed signals to other players who may want in the United States arrogance and continue with greenhouse emissions unabatedly. President Trump announced that the United State will stop any implementation of nonbinding agreements sighting that it brought a draconian burden on the country (Rhodes, 2016). The governor of California during his tour in China reiterated that he will go against the directive by Trump and work towards fulfilling their obligations towards all nonbinding agreements. Trump termed the nonbinding agreements as draconian and overburdening. The US president said that the Paris accord unfairly places constraints on the country’s coal industry and somehow permits other countries to continue to pollute unabated. The US president said the agreement was a threat to the country’s sovereignty (Rogelj, Joeri, et al 2016). The US president predicated that the United States will have huge legal liability if they stayed within the accord. However, Trump fails to understand that the Paris agreement is nonbinding which is a good deal for any country. It is voluntary and non punitive. The Paris Accord does not place any legal or practical constraint on any country’s actions. It does not place sanctions or trade or any domestic policy. It is not true for the United States president to say that the Paris agreement is not a good deal since it is not affecting US trade or US coal industry (Davenport, 2015). The United States has made a decision that is very unpopular even within the United States itself. Environmental champions wonder about Trump’s intentions to pull out of the Paris accord. The reasons that he provides are flimsy and not convincing at all. All big polluters have to work towards alleviating the challenge of climate change due to increased greenhouse emissions (Keohane & David 2011). It is surprising that the United States wants special treatment when all the big players have agreed to this accord. Many of the states in the United States support the Paris agreement considering the objectives behind it and the goal towards a safer future. A survey conducted in America indicates that over 69 percent of Americans believe that the US should stay in the Paris agreement (Rhodes, 2016). Majority of the registered voters are of the view that the United States has to take part in International agreements in order to curb global warming. The decision made by the United Sates government will take four years before it becomes a reality due to the process involved. The withdrawal by the United States can cause countries either to galvanize towards the course or rethink their participation in the accord. It is hoped that other nations will double their initiatives of promoting clean energy as well as curb emissions (Rong 2010). Majority of the countries still hold vested interest in avoiding adverse temperature rises. There is the potential risk that the momentum for stronger action will be rendered weak. There is also high chance that the United States could encounter serious diplomatic repercussions for her actions. China, Europe and other countries can threaten to be uncooperative on other issue that the United States is interested in (Rogelj, Joeri, et al 2016). Already China has voiced its reservations about the action by the United States government. In extreme cases other nations can threaten to impose carbon tariffs on the United States hence precipitating a trade war. This means that The United States will not be among the delegates who will be congregating in 2020 to provide updates concerning their emission pledges and explain on how they are becoming more active in attaining the 2 degree target (Stern 2016). The Paris agreement provided leeway to individual countries to chart their own course in reducing carbon emission and working towards attaining the two degrees target. It is practical a good course of giving incentives to countries to champion environmental conservation courses. Conclusion Global agreements on climate change are meant to make the world better by calling on individual countries to implement initiatives that will preserve the environment and ensure sustainability. It is quite unfortunate that the United States views the Paris agreement on climate change as overburdening and draconian. This is far from the truth because the Paris accord gives countries the incentive to implement their own initiatives to work towards attaining the 2 degree target. Global warming has been a big challenge and the livelihood of posterity is threatened by the industrial actions of the developed countries. It goes without saying that big emitters of greenhouse gases have to take the biggest responsibility in alleviating the problem. President Trump sees this as a trap to interfere with American sovereignty and overburden the country through supporting less wealthy nations. The withdrawal of the United States from the Paris agreement will be detrimental to American herself and other players targeting to reduce global warming and climate change. Work Cited Bulkeley, Harriet, and Newell Peter. Governing climate change. Routledge, 2015. Burck, Jan, Christoph Bals, and Verena Rossow. The climate change performance index: Results 2015. Berlin: Germanwatch, 2014. Davenport, Coral. "Nations approve landmark climate accord in Paris." The New York Times 12 (2015). de Sherbinin, Alex, et al. "Preparing for resettlement associated with climate change." Science 334.6055 (2011): 456-457. Gupta, Joyeeta. "A history of international climate change policy." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1.5 (2010): 636-653. Keohane, Robert O., and David G. Victor. "The regime complex for climate change." Perspectives on politics 9.01 (2011): 7-23. McAdam, Jane. "Swimming against the tide: Why a climate change displacement treaty is not the answer." International Journal of Refugee Law (2011): eeq045. Parks, Bradley C., and J. Timmons Roberts. "Climate change, social theory and justice." Theory, Culture & Society 27.2-3 (2010): 134-166. Rhodes, Christopher J. "The 2015 Paris climate change conference: COP21." Science progress 99.1 (2016): 97-104. Rogelj, Joeri, et al. "Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 C." Nature 534.7609 (2016): 631-639. Rong, Fang. "Understanding developing country stances on post-2012 climate change negotiations: Comparative analysis of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa." Energy policy 38.8 (2010): 4582-4591. Scott, Daniel, and Susanne Becken. "Adapting to climate change and climate policy: progress, problems and potentials." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18.3 (2010): 283-295. Stern, Nicholas. "Economics: Current climate models are grossly misleading." Nature 530.7591 (2016): 407-409. Victor, David G., and Charles F. Kennel. "Climate policy: ditch the 2 C warming goal." Nature 514.7520 (2014). Read More