THE GLOBAL ISSUE OF CLIMATE

CHANGE AND THE ROLE OF

THE UNITED STATES
The Effectiveness of the Current Global Policy

MAY 3, 2019
Sba5449@psu.edu
AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES ARE
RISING
Carbon emissions are burning holes into the ozone layer of the earth causing an
increased amount of UV-B radiation to enter our ecosystems, thus driving our
climates to change1. The change of our climates has happened throughout the
history of our planet, however, this time the cause is man-made greenhouse gases
instead of nature. One of the main results of climate change is an increase in global
temperatures putting us in a period of global warming. The effects of increasing the
global temperatures by two degrees Celsius, compared to preindustrial levels, on
our ecosystems can cause sea levels to rise exponentially, cooling of the southern
ocean, warming and subsequent mass loss of the ice shelves, and increasingly
powerful storms2. All these possible outcomes of a two degrees Celsius increase in
global temperatures would have detrimental effects on the surrounding ecosystems,
most likely causing mass extinction of almost every species. It is currently estimated
that we passed the one degree Celsius more than preindustrial temperatures mark
in 2015 and are closer to one and two-tenths degrees Celsius at this point3.

The problem, as stated above, is the impact our emissions are having on the ozone
layer has become exponentially more impactful with the greater amounts of carbon
present in the greenhouse gases. Naturally, solar radiation can re-radiate heat
back to space, however, when the atmosphere is full of pollutants, the heat that is
supposed to go through the atmosphere to space ends up being re-emitted back to
earth causing an increase in temperatures. The proof that this an issue in our society
can be seen by the infographic below that illustrates the increase in global
temperatures since preindustrial times.

Advocacy for the Climate | Antonucci 1

As previously mentioned, scientists believe once we reach a two degrees Celsius
increase in global temperatures, that will be irreversible and lead to mass
extinctions4. The part of the graph that needs to be emphasized is the numbers
being calculated are for global temperatures. This means the scope of the issue
covers every nation and forces the solution to come from a collective agreement.
Our national government faces the problem of balancing the priorities of our
country versus those of the world.
Advancement Brings Forth Necessary Changes
Society is changing and technology is slowly pulling us away from using fossil fuels
and pushing us into renewable energy sources that are safer for the environment.
The ability to generate power through wind turbines, solar panels, hydroelectric
energy, geothermal power, and many more, is allowing us to reduce our carbon
emissions and hopefully slow the global increase in temperature. While these
changes are a wonderful way an individual can limit their carbon footprint on the
environment, nothing will change if our political systems do not adapt to the new
sources of energy and regulate the old ways that are causing global warming.
Political ideas towards climate change have transformed over the past forty years,
starting with the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which set out
to study the effects humans have on greenhouse gases. Then in 1988, the

Advocacy for the Climate | Antonucci 2

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up to look at how climate
change was being affected by humans. In 1996, the EU adopted the idea of a
target maximum of two degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels. Finally, on
December 12th, 2015, the Paris climate agreement was reached and eventually
signed by over one hundred eighty countries.
The United Nations Unprecedented
Acknowledgment and Plan of Action Towards
Climate Change
The Paris climate agreement, also known as the Paris climate accord or Paris
agreement, is the only major step taken by the international community in
recognizing the issue of man-induced climate change, while also tying each country
to a promise to reduce their emissions. Prior to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), each country laid out their Intended
Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)5. The most important articles of the
official Paris climate agreement are the following:
• Article 2 (a):
• Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below
2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the
temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels,
recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts
of climate change6.

• Article 4 (1)
• … Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions
as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for
developing country Parties… 7

• Article 4 (2)
• Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive
nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve…8

These articles all hold their own significance to the accord. Article 2 (a) is the goal
of the entire agreement, to keep temperature increases below one and a half
degrees Celsius, but more realistically, two degrees Celsius. Article 4 (1) is the
individual goal for each country, to peak the amount of greenhouse gases as soon
as possible, in order to start the process of decreasing emissions every year from
the point forth. Article 4 (2) states that each country must submit their own plan to
Advocacy for the Climate | Antonucci 3
contribute to the collective goal, and mentions the country is responsible for
upholding this plan.
The key part of the Paris climate accords that must be understood is there is not a
punishment for countries who fail to hit their NDC, just the negative public reaction
they will face9. This is where the agreement falls short, due to its expectations of
each country to maintain the necessary level of emissions that coincide with their
plan. The other part of the accord that is troublesome is each countries plan is
based off of projections that may be inaccurate. Relying so heavily on every
country to accurately predict the impact their new policies and regulations will have
on emissions is ridiculous when considering there are over one hundred and eighty
countries who signed this agreement.
While the agreement may fall short in a couple of places it is a great start, if
nothing else besides the fact that it recognizes climate change is caused by man,
and it is of extreme importance to the global community.
The United States Role in the Paris Agreement
Looking specifically at our nations NDC, we see an overly optimistic goal of cutting
emissions levels by seventeen percent when comparing 2005 to the 2020 target
goal as seen in the graphic below10.

The key outlined actions that were supposed to be taken in order to achieve the
goals stated in the NDC were the following:
• Environmental Protection Agency is developing standards to address methane
emissions from landfills and the oil and gas sector11.

Advocacy for the Climate | Antonucci 4

• Environmental Protection Agency is moving to reduce the use and emissions of
high-GWP HFCs through the Significant New Alternatives Policy program12.
• Environmental Protection Agency is moving to finalize by summer 2015
regulations to cut carbon pollution from new and existing power plants13.
The unfortunate part of the timing of the accords was the change in presidency soon
after. Many of these actions were either not taken or removed due to changes in
policy. One program still in effect though is the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) program. This was put in place to identify acceptable and unacceptable
substances, which seems to have a minimal impact on reducing emissions because it
is only informative and did not take any action. In addition to the change in policy,
President Trump vowed to exit the agreement and begin immediate negotiations
for re-entry. Without the United States in the accord, the global impact will be
significantly less, and other countries will most likely leave as well. The thing holding
the United States back currently from leaving is the binding nature of the
agreement, which will expire in November of 202014. Once the date hits President
Trump, whether he has two months left or another four years, can withdrawal from
the accord.
After the accords were finalized, most countries NDCs were submitted by mid-
2016. As a result, we can examine the level of an effect these agreements have
had over the past three years and decided whether the renegotiation is necessary.
When looking at the report of 2018’s carbon emissions by the Global Carbon
Project, the top four emitters (China, USA, EU, and India) accounted for 58% of
total emissions15.

Advocacy for the Climate | Antonucci 5

This graphic shows the United States was successful at dropping its carbon emissions
in 2017, however, the other countries in the top four emitters failed to lower there’s,
with the worst being India, who increased their CO2 emissions by four percent16.
While this infographic only shows the carbon emissions and not the other types, it
does provide a solid indication as to what to expect from the other emissions rates.
In analyzing whether leaving the accord is a beneficial idea or not, let us reflect on
the positives and negatives that come along with it. It is great to see the number of
countries recognizing the issue of climate change and agreeing it is a problem,
along with the limit it sets for the global increase of temperature would hopefully
be enough to slow the effects of global warming. The negatives are the unfair
amount of weight each country is putting into the agreement. If three of the top four
global emitters are still having an increase in emissions and at that drastic of a rate,
then what is the accord actually doing? Since the United States successfully cut its
emissions, but China did not, this could affect the American economy if the cost of
the decreased emissions is increased prices. Meanwhile, China would not have to
increase its prices due to regulations on emissions causing a boost to its economy at
the cost of ours.
Is This all Truly a Hoax?
There are obviously going to be counter-arguments to the topic of climate change,
the biggest being that mankind’s impact is exaggerated and the earth is just on a
warming cycle like it has done throughout history. One of the longest lasting theories
against climate change is The Milankovitch Theory. Milutin Milankovic was an
extraordinary mathematician that was able to come up with a model that
calculated how the sun affects long-term climate based on the global positioning in
relation to the sun17. The model is based on three cycles depending on the way the
earth is positioned with respect to the tilt of its axis and location on its elliptical
orbit18. His calculations lead to the explanation for why the global temperatures
have gone through cycles for the 600,00 before the 1800s19. The issue with the
modern usage of the theory is the rate at which temperatures are increasing is
drastically faster than preindustrial revolution.
Ways to Fix the Issue
We have come a long way in recognizing the issue of climate change is real, and
that there needs to be a quick turnaround before it is too late. The Paris climate
agreement was a great way to start the talks, however, the accord is nothing more
than a ceremonial recognition of the issue if there is no enforcement of the NDCs.
Therefore, to maintain a safe global temperature, we must back out of the

Advocacy for the Climate | Antonucci 6

agreement, as long as we immediately begin renegotiations for a better global
plan.
The United States can lead by example if we put in a few changes to our
regulations and laws. Simple actions such as taxing factories and other high-risk
emitters for the amount they pollute, provide tax and other incentives for companies
to lower their emissions, and provide subsidies for electric cars. These few things
would easily get the United States on track to meet their NDC, and if other countries
follow, we may even see a global decrease in temperatures.

Advocacy for the Climate | Antonucci 7

1. J. F. Bornman et al., "Solar Ultraviolet
Radiation and Ozone Depletion-Driven
Climate Change: Effects on Terrestrial
Ecosystems," Photochemical and
Photobiological Sciences 14, no. 1
(2015): 88, https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-
9432.76.4.482.
2. James Hansen et al., "Ice Melt, Sea
Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence
from Paleoclimate Data, Climate
Modeling, and Modern Observations
That 2 °C Global Warming Could Be
Dangerous," Atmospheric Chemistry
and Physics 16, no. 6 (March 22,
2016): 3762,
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3761-
2016.
3. Ed Hawkins et al., "Estimating Changes
in Global Temperature since the
Preindustrial Period," Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society 98, no.
9 (September 2017): 1849, accessed
May 2, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-
0007.1.
10. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.A
First NDC Submission, 1, March 9,
2016, accessed May 2, 2019,
https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStagin
g/Pages/Search.aspx?k=United%20Stat
es%20of%20America.
11. Ibid
12. Ibid
13. Ibid
14. “Paris Agreement,” conclusion date:
December 12, 2015
15. "Top Emitters: Fossil CO2 Emissions,"
infographic, Global Carbon Project,
December 5, 2018, accessed May 2,
2019,
https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/car
bonbudget/18/files/GCP_CarbonBudget
_2018.pdf.

4. Hansen et al., "Ice Melt," 3762. 16. Ibid

5. Joeri Rogelj et al., "Paris Agreement
Climate Proposals Need a Boost to
Keep Warming Well below
2 °C," Nature 534 (June 30, 2016): 631, 17. Andre Berger, "Milankovitch Theory and
accessed May 2, 2019, Climate," review, Reviews of
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307. Geoscience 26, no. 4 (November
1988): 630,
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
6. “Paris Agreement,” conclusion date: doi/pdf/10.1029/RG026i004p00624.
December 12, 2015, United Nations
Treaty Series Online, registration no. I- 18. Ibid
54113,
https://treaties.un.org/pages/AdvanceSe
arch.aspx?tab=UNTS&clang=_en
19. Ibid
7. Ibid

8. Ibid

9. Ibid