My diagram shows the closed loop between climate change and climate negotiations. The need for energy in our day and age has caused major climate change as a whole which is what starts the whole loop. From there people identify the issue and call for things like collective and individual action to help fix it. One collective action method practiced by our world community is having climate negotiations were they come up with agreed upon accords to collectively change in order to better the environment. However, as seen in the diagram while countries like the U.S. who have a big carbon footprint agree to the easily achievable goals compared to our economy, smaller countries refuse to agree as they cant meet these goals as well as hardly contribute to the problem as a whole. This is were bribes and threats from bigger countries come in to play. This can be seen in the cables released by wikilcnks showing how the U.S. was able to pay compensation to smaller countries to just agree for the United States benefit. Although it gives power to the richer countries it does in turn close the loop by forcing these countries to join on ad support increasing mitigation around the world and reducing climate change. In fact with 75% of all countries who signed being responsible for about 80% of the all greenhouse gasses, showing that although the methods may have been flawed and go against most peoples ethics the end product was successful leaving the question of does the end justify the means?
In my own opinion what the United Sates did is completely unethical and wrong. It is not fair for larger countries to use its economical and political muscles to overpower the best interests of everybody around the world. While some people may argue that sometimes you need to just do what you need to do to get something done, I am more of a means justifying the end kind of person. Just as in our very own tax system there should be a sliding bar responsibility depending on the carbon footprint of each country. The United Sates being the largest contributor to green house gases, we should ethically be responsible for making more efforts to reduce, while smaller countries or countries who have a low carbon footprint should have lower minimum responsibility. So while everybody is encouraged to contribute as much as possible since were all in this together, there would be a sliding quota depending on independent variables of each country. With this being said I completely think that these cables should be released for everybody to see, the government in put in place by the people and for the people so any actions of our politicians is a direct reflection of us and what we want so we shall be informed. In fact with more people informed it makes it easier to make a collective action effort to better the environment so people are aware of the issues and how we are trying to tackle them.
Hi Nicholas, I’m Natalie. The first thing I noticed was the simplicity of your chart. it was very easy to navigate. I agree with your statement that our government is a direct reflection on us, and gives us a bad image. It is scary to think these are the people who run our country. It is also interesting to think about how political issues like climate change are. If you want to check out my blog heres the link:https://sites.psu.edu/geog30/wp-admin/post.php?post=54792&action=edit
Hi! My name is Siying and here’s the link to my post: http://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/2016/04/08/climate-diplomacy-4/
I like your diagram, it’s simple yet shows enough information. I agree that what the U.S. did was not the best way to solve this problem. And I think referring to the tax system is a good example. And I agree that releasing the cables can help the collective action.
Hi my name is Aaliyah here is the link to my blog https://wp.me/p3RCAy-epA
I think it is interesting that you decided to make your diagram a closed loop.I agree that the increasing need for energy perpetuates this cycle.That is what leads to climate change. I chose to make my diagram a process with a beginning and end.