Provide a reply to the post below

 

  International agreements to limit greenhouse gases appear to be  hard to create and organize. Much of this is due to the lack of ability  to enforce punishments on countries and corporations from an  international standpoint (Module 7 Notes, National). Many countries are  not willing to partake in agreements and treaties that prevent their  growth and development. They also appear to have an issue with the idea  of being fined or punished for their growth and progress. The main part  of the problem appears to be politics. A treaty like this would require  countries to hold each other accountable, thus causing them to be  involved in the economics and geopolitics of other countries. Many  countries may have an issue with other countries knowing so much about  their internal business and workings. The Montreal Protocol of 1987  seems to be effective, which makes it the first treaty of this kind to  be accepted worldwide. This treaty discussed the rise in skin cancer and  cataracts rates and the dangers of not partaking in this treaty. The  treaty is meant to phase out the production of ozone-depleting  substances, which will in turn help the ozone to repair itself, as it  was on a dangerous track to being destroyed (The Montreal Protocol). I  think that this treaty is more successful as it expresses the dire need  of repairing the ozone. With the evidence that was used, it could be  shown that the ozone was on a path to destruction. Unfortunately with  other treaties involving reducing greenhouse emissions, countries often  view this as reducing their growth. One might wonder if some of this is  due to people not believing that climate change is much of a problem.

          I am not sure there are elements of tragedy involving  limiting greenhouse gas emissions. That being said, I think that people  will be affected as limiting GHG emissions could affect the economy and  possibly slow down growth and development for many countries. If this  limiting were to plummet people further into poverty, reduce the  production of food, or harm people I think there would be tragedy  involved. I find the solution put forth by these men in bringing the  problem down to a state level to be helpful. By bringing it to a state  level, I think that the states could manage GHG emissions through  smaller aspects that can still make a difference. California has the  largest solar-powered energy system and is pushing for electric and  hydrogen vehicles (Module 7 Notes, New Initiatives). By working on the  problem at a national level, larger aspects can be changed, whereas  putting it on a state level can make smaller changes that add up.

Module 7, Notes. National and International Governance of the Energy and Climate Dilemma.

Module 7, Notes. New Initiatives: California, Japan, and the People.

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Retrieved https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of-environmental-quality-and-transboundary-issues/the-montreal-protocol-on-substances-that-deplete-the-ozone-layer/