My diagram illustrates how the U.S. gains support for the Copenhagen Accord from other countries because they find it in their best interest to have a lot of countries supporting this. In my diagram I first start by simply stating how pollution and the burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change on earth. There are shifts in temperature and water and more extreme weather events due to this change. In 2009, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) created the Copenhagen Accord which asked countries to try and commit to specific actions in order to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. wanted to gain support for this so they went to their allies and other countries who weren’t against it. They promised countries like Bolivia and the Maldives money if they chose to support the accord even though Bolivia didn’t actually support it. Those countries who didn’t actually support the accord only chose to because they were under financial pressure and needed the money the U.S. promised to give them. It is also revealed through the leaks that they threatened Ethiopia by saying if they don’t support the accord all communication would end between the two countries. Ethiopia then chooses to give the U.S. their support. The cables sent out by the U.S. were leaked and the world saw how the U.S. was gaining political support through threats and giving countries money. 116 countries associated themselves with the accord and 26 more say they have an intent to so 140 of 193 countries support it.
Even though this put the United States in a bad light because the way we gained support was wrong, I think that it was good that this was publicized. I personally do not think that the U.S. should have gained their support this way. They used power and money to get people on their side and should have realized that this would most likely get out into the public somehow. It seems like the U.S. chose the easy way out by just promising money to countries or threatening them. They should have been convincing other countries why they should care about the climate and how their support can help better the world. It might have been more beneficial for the U.S. to discuss with countries who were on the fence in order to see where they stand and try to convince them in a better way. However, we learned in module 9 that all countries care about climate change in different ways due to where they are located. Some countries really use fossil fuels in their production methods so they wouldn’t want to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels in order to emit less greenhouse gases. It is also hard to get everyone to agree on a solution to a problem because they could feel like theirs is better than the one proposed. It is very difficult for 194 nations to come together and figure out a solution but I feel as though the U.S. should have went about their way of gaining support differently.
2 thoughts on “Climate Change”
Hi Molly,
I am Laurene. I enjoyed reading your post. I noticed some similarity between our diagrams and opinions in that we both address burning of fossil fuels and the Copenhagen Accord. You can access my post here: http://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/2016/04/08/disproportionate-climate-change-diplomacy/. You made an excellent point that the U.S. is going about obtaining support in a wrong way. I agree. I feel the U.S. should address our greenhouse gas emissions before they address other countries because we are involved in 80% of the responsibility. Great job incorporating module 9! It should be each countries responsibility, particularly those that make the most contribution.
Hello Molly it is Lucas Skiba. Your post caught my eye because your diagram really shows the influence the United States has. It shows how we negotiate from different countries to try and get them on our side. As you can see the United States wants to go down the road of greenhouse gas cuts the way they want it to be. We has a big well developed country need to make sacrifices and teach and support these smaller countries not to go down the same path we have in the past. It just goes to show how much power we as a developed nation actually has. Thanks molly for your post here is a link to mine. http://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/2016/04/08/lesson-9-climate-diplomacy-skiba-ljs5300/
Hi Molly,
I am Laurene. I enjoyed reading your post. I noticed some similarity between our diagrams and opinions in that we both address burning of fossil fuels and the Copenhagen Accord. You can access my post here: http://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/2016/04/08/disproportionate-climate-change-diplomacy/. You made an excellent point that the U.S. is going about obtaining support in a wrong way. I agree. I feel the U.S. should address our greenhouse gas emissions before they address other countries because we are involved in 80% of the responsibility. Great job incorporating module 9! It should be each countries responsibility, particularly those that make the most contribution.
Best,
Laurene
Hello Molly it is Lucas Skiba. Your post caught my eye because your diagram really shows the influence the United States has. It shows how we negotiate from different countries to try and get them on our side. As you can see the United States wants to go down the road of greenhouse gas cuts the way they want it to be. We has a big well developed country need to make sacrifices and teach and support these smaller countries not to go down the same path we have in the past. It just goes to show how much power we as a developed nation actually has. Thanks molly for your post here is a link to mine. http://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/2016/04/08/lesson-9-climate-diplomacy-skiba-ljs5300/