Navarro, Jose

U.S Approach to climate change

Although usually reserved as a second priority, climate change is quickly climbing the ranks
of importance in terms of its potential to drastically affect U.S foreign policy. This paper will not
address the uncertainty of climate change, but it will instead assume that it exists and is
correlated with human actions. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, climate change becomes
more defined which makes our infrastructures (agriculture, urban development, cities) more
vulnerable. The U.S should take further action (to a reasonable extent) in order to curb both its
emission of greenhouse gas and deter others from doing so in the current manner.
Before offering any solutions, the problems involving climate change should be clearly
elaborated. Unlike some instabilities that are merely restricted to one confined geographical area,
climate change can still impact U.S interests even if the impact is outside U.S soil. For example,
climate change is commonly identified as a catalyst or agitator for unstable areas in which effects
resulting from climate change can exacerbate conditions for its inhabitants. Thus, lack of water
or lack of food can cause instabilities, riots, and uprisings in areas already unstable. Because of
this instability, climate change is correlated with extremism (Pentagon quadrennial defense
review), and recently directly associated with terrorism by the pentagon. In other words, foreign
policy towards certain features such as extremism would be made difficult due to the propensity
to which it occurs. Furthermore, damaged infrastructures in cities can cause a large influx of
migrants and a sudden need for humanitarian aid: both of which can coerce the U.S into
unfavorable positions (extreme need of foreign aid, humanitarian workers, and immigration
problems). By exacerbating the already unpredictable field of foreign policy, climate change can
put the United States in a difficult position.
Now that the importance of climate change has been presented, problems associated with
implementing a solution arise. These problems usually deal with costs associated with cutting
back greenhouse emissions and how that cost should be distributed among nations. Nations tend
to freeload off an alliance or any concert when one major power dedicates most of the resources
for a specific cause. A perspective of that sort argues that climate change should be dealt with;
however, because there is no international cooperation present, the U.S should not be the greatest
contributor towards curbing Greenhouse emissions because that would signal to other nations the
lack of a need for them to do the same. Although it is pivotal for all nations to contribute and do
as much as possible in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions, it is most likely unrealistic for an
ideal cooperation to occur in the near future, for most nations dont view climate change as a top
priority. However, this is not to say that because a general trend among all nations is absent there
should be no action taken. On the other hand, China and the U.S are the largest 2 nations to
contribute to greenhouse emissions. If there is a strong mutual understanding between both
nations regarding climate change, their efforts alone will curb greenhouse emissions, and they
can set a precedent for other nations by working as a successful model and coercive economic
measures (carbon tax, limiting trade with rouge carbon nations). The first major collective
organization to enact international action towards the reduction of CO2 emission was the
European Union Emission Trading Scheme According to the U.S chamber of commerce, the U.S
can cut back 50% of its greenhouse emissions through $50 billion per year invested. This ranges
to about 0.2% GDP. Although not trivial, this number is not unreasonable. Furthermore, the U.S
can slowly shift subsidies for fossil fuels more towards renewable resources of energy.