After reading through the article, I tried my best to explain my understanding of the article into a systems diagram. Since the article itself is on the WikiLeaks, I kept that part right in the center. I feel it draws more attention to the reader and shows that it is the focal point of the diagram by sitting in the middle. From there, I have an arrow pointing towards US motives, which later emphasizes on their negotiation chips they used with other nations. The reason I have multiple arrows coming out from “US’s Motives”, is to explain the relationship between everything. I feel US’s motives had a strategical negotiation tactic which also put pressure on other nations to be associated with the Copenhagen Accord. So in order to illustrate that, I have an arrow going to each one of those box items. The section where it states that some nations were being pressured is basically emphasizing on the fact that economic and monetary incentives were used to get them on board. This eventually led to 116 countries being associated with the Copenhagen Accord, and 26 more still with the intent on being on board. The arrow to the far left that curves around the diagram itself is illustrating that the accord regulates greenhouse gas emissions which ultimately leads to climate change.

I personally believe that climate change is a major issue for everyone in the world to worry about. Just speaking from personal experiences alone is enough to think about climate change. This winter we experienced days with over 70 degrees, and now in April, we’ve gotten snow and below freezing weather. That just isn’t normal. I personally don’t think the climate change diplomacy is being handled properly. After reading the article, it’s almost like the poorer are being exploited to join the wealthier nations in their views if they believe in them or not. The best approach to climate change issues should be a global one. Where everyone puts their minds together, and tries to identify the main source of issues and work together in fixing it. At the end of the day, climate change will affect the entire world, not just the poorer nations.

The WikiLeaks brought up an important issue on the relation between global environmentalism and politics. The news started with the current environmental problem (climate change) due to over consumption of fossil fuel. This problem needed to be tackled by a major global action. This was when a consensus starts taking place, firstly with the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit being organized to involve countries of the UN members to meet and come to an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emission. The Copenhagen Accord was set, but it appeared that the means to achieve it was thought to be unethical. The article mentioned that the United States-one of the major polluter, used political and financial pressure to get nations on board to the accord. Most smaller nations weren’t on board with the accord because they thought they didn’t contribute to the pollution but still felt the negative effects of global warming. They wanted money that they thought were their right to make up for the fact that these other nations have harmed them. These nations were not cooperative to US wishes, so the United States is using the information they wrongfully obtained as ways to convince or blackmail these other nations. In the end, 140 countries pledged to support the Copenhagen Accord, which was what the US had aimed for and accounts for almost 75% of the parties to the UN climate change convention and, accord supporters like to point out, are responsible for well over 80% of current global greenhouse gas emissions.

I have different views on the collective actions that took place. Firstly, I personally, believe that the State Department cables should not have been released with the reason that the leaks may have substantially created a hostile environment between involving countries that could break down negotiations and other diplomatic relationships with the United States. I’m also now a bit more informed of how the ‘big guy’ politics work (by reading this and watching the House of Cards). Although it is viewed as unethical by many, including me, it is almost crucial that blackmail and lobbying effort be part of achieving a unitary decision. From the smaller, less wealthier countries’ point of view, the leaks is probably a godsend to them, showing that wealthy countries do not have the upper hand over them anymore. The actions of the leaker and news organizations to expose the information is like saying to the U.S. “If you can spy and attack these countries, we can spy and attack and expose you too”.

First Paragraph: Find and describe an ecosystem service that is currently used for anthropogenic reasons. Determine if this ecosystem will continue to provide services for humanity, or if it is in danger because of human activities in the area.

Second Paragraph: Create a diagram of how the ecosystem works and some of the services supplied.

Third Paragraph: If this ecosystem is being destroyed, are there any steps being taken to reduce or reverse the damage that has been done to ecosystem?

1.)  I have chosen to describe the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. This ecosystem once provided many fishing and food opportunities for humanity. The Chesapeake Bay would supply the city with plenty of fish for local populations. This bay was used primarily for anthropogenic reasons and the abundance of fish in the ecosystem provided the ecosystem service. However, the Bay provides just a fraction of the fish compared to the 60’s. This reduction in fish is a product of the human interaction with the ecosystem. In recent years, society has polluted the ecosystem with different nutrients. These nutrients fueled the growth of algae blooms which in result lowered the dissolved oxygen in the water. The fish were no longer able to survive in these conditions, and therefore the ecosystem has struggled to survive with these conditions.

2.)  See the attached Diagram

3.)  The ecosystem is being destroyed in this situation. One of the main steps that is being utilized to protect this ecosystem is to reduce pollution. This is reducing the pollution from nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrient pollutions. This is because the major issue in the Bay is the low BOD levels. These levels are not allowing the fish to survive in the Bay. The nitrogen and phosphorus are the main cause of the low BOD levels. There are several ways that this is being done. It can be as simple as lowering pollution by recycling, but other efforts include using less fertilizer. This is because fertilizer tends to have plenty of nutrients in it that can run off in to the Bay. Other efforts to restore the Bay include planting Bay grasses in the water to try and increase dissolved oxygen levels.

Info on the Chesapeake Bay taken from the website:

“The Bay EcoSystem.” Chesapeake Bay Program. Accessed April 11, 2016. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/discover/bayecosystem.

My diagram starts with the root cause of this entire issue: carbon emissions causing climate change. This is an unsustainable behavior which requires some form of global action to solve. That is where the Copenhagen accord comes in. The main issue is how the United States is using political and financial pressure to get nations on board to sign the accord. The United States is the worst offender of the polluters according to the article, and many nations are not on board with the accord as it favors the United States over less developed nations who have felt the negative effects of global warming but have not actually caused it. They feel that money should be given to them by nations in order to make up for the fact that these other nations have harmed them. They view the money as a right not a privilege. These nations are not complying the the United States wishes, so the United States is using the information contained in the secret cables as ways to convince or blackmail these other nations. The United States is using political and financial pressure on other nations in order to get the Copenhagen accord passed in a way that makes it seem well supported. By doing this in secret, they are concealing the truth from the world and obscuring the real reason for the accord. Other nations are being subject to these pressures to in order to get them on board to the accord. The Secret Cables connect to the small nations and others which is why they are coming from the U.S. in support of the Copenhagen accord.

I believe that the cables probably should not have been made public in the way they were but now that they have been it is best to acknowledge the problems and move forward. There is a reason government secrecy exists in most cases. The people making these decisions have more training, experience, and information than we will ever have so we can criticize as much as we want but they probably know what they are doing to a large extent. As for the diplomacy being used, I believe there probably is not much alternative. Other nations are getting money for a reason: it is the only way to solve the problems they have with the accord. The United States is not looking to give away with money. The idea behind diplomacy is to give something you have to get something that you want. The United States exerting political and financial pressure is pretty much exactly what they should be doing diplomatically. As long as you agree that the accord is a good thing, getting nations to support it using these tactics probably is good not bad. However, plenty of people inherently distrust the government and also a lot of the world does not like the United States political power. Overall, the diplomacy is a bit shady and backwards but probably is the best thing for the United States in reference to the Copenhagen accord.

1. In 175-200 words, how would you categorize the level of biodiversity in your own hometown? In regards to this specific level, what factors cause this?

I live in Belmar, New Jersey. I would consider my hometown to have an above average level of biodiversity. The area I live in consists of an abundant amount of farms, protected parks, and fulfilling amount of trees, so we are fortunate enough to be provided with such a diverse amount of trees, birds, plants, animals, and insects. Because of our abundant amount of lakes, forests, and open farm fields during changing climates and seasons, we are granted with such a high range of different species. However, what makes our level of diversity above average is the fact that we live a few blocks from the beach, providing our town with a marine biodiversity as well. Unfortunately, due to the excessive amount of overfishing and water mobile entertainment, many of the past fish we used to have are now either extinct or becoming endangered. Our local restaurants have taken the anthropocentric advantage of profit, using the marine life as a popular fish dish for both local and out of state visitors. Belmar used to have a much higher level of biodiversity, but these specific factors of human activity have caused our town just to be slightly above average.

2. As we are well aware, species are being either endangered or extinct on a daily basis. In 175-200 words, please choose one type of species and explain the reasoning behind the specific extinction/endangerment.

One of the most respected birds in our country is unfortunately endangered in the state of New Jersey; the bald eagle. The main reason behind their high decline is persecution. Eagles are sensitive to human disturbance and will abandon their nest sites if people encroach on the area during the nesting season. Since Belmar is growing in population every day, construction workers need to increase the amount of trees being cut down so we can provide a home for our citizens. Unfortunately, cutting down each tree is cutting down the home of the bald eagle. The inability to have a home to live in gives the bald eagle the inability to nest and produce more babies. Though biologists are currently working with landowners to protect their habitat as well as the state’s land use regulations, New Jersey is guilty in regards to to bald eagles dying on impact by electrical wires, followed by the impact of widespread use of the persistent pesticide DDT. Thankfully, the ban of DDT combined with restoration efforts by biologists within the ENSP increased the number of New Jersey bald eagles to 146 active pairs in 2014.

3.  In your personal opinion, explain in 200-250 words upon ways/ideas we can protect the future of biodiversity.

In order to protect the future of biodiversity, there are several different ideas our township can pursue. Specifically for Belmar, one of them is to make stricter regulations in regards to water mobiles and overfishing. Though jet skiing and wave running are two popular water activities during the summer for tourists that produce most of our profit, the excessive amount of oil entering the ocean releases dangerous toxins and poisons to our fish. If we set certain days to use these devices or a specific number of minutes in a day, we could save so much potential to our ocean and reduce the amount of oil entering the ocean. In addition, Belmar needs to set a law upon how much we are allowed to fish. Even if this means a specific size of a fish we are allowed to keep or let go back into the water, we could save the lives of so much of our marine life.  My hometown also consists of a large capacity of people, even though our town is very small. This causes construction workers to cut down trees to fit more apartment buildings into our community. If we preserved specific areas and turned them into protected parks or land, we could save a significant amount of forests, which is potentially saving a high amount of birds, insects, and even the possibility of plants that could be used for the future of a kind of medicine to a specific cure.

First Paragraph: Find and choose one area that fits under a category of the IUCN protected areas. In 100-150 words, describe what category it fits under and what makes it fit under this specific category.

Second Paragraph: Choose one type of species that has either gone extinct or is on the endangered species list. In 100-150 words, explain what is causing the extinction and how the biodiversity is being affected or will be affected after extinction.

Third Paragraph: In the module we learned that biodiversity matters for both anthropocentric and egocentric reasons. It seems that many people do not care for the egocentric reasons.  In a short paragraph, 100-125 words, explain why these reasons are important. If you do not agree, give your reasons behind the argument.

1. The Yellowstone National Park is one of the most commonly known national parks in the United States. It is located in the northwest corner of Wyoming, but is also located in Montana and Idaho. As the name suggests, this reserve fits under Category 2 which is the national parks. The description for this category includes an area that is intended to balance the ecosystem with human recreation. The Yellowstone National Park is exactly this. It is an area that has been set aside for permanent protection, but humans often vacation here. The Yellowstone National Park is the oldest national park in the United States.

2. One animal that is well-known is the White Rhino. However, it may not be known that these animals are titled as “critically endangered”. There is more than one cause of the decline of these animals which includes habitat loss, illegal wildlife trade, and poaching. White Rhinos are important to the ecosystem. It has been discovered that “short grass” grows better and there is a higher quantity of short grass where the Rhinos graze. Short grass is important because where there is short grass, there is a higher diversity in the landscape. Without rhinos, the function and dynamics of the Savanna ecosystem is said to become threatened.

3. Egocentric reasons to value biodiversity is based on the idea that biodiversity has essential value beyond human use. In the module, an example given was that a redwood should be protected in order for future generations to appreciate it. This is exact example is also brought up a lot when talking about climate change, which is another aspect of biodiversity. I believe that it is important for future generations to see and appreciate the environment and wildlife as much as we are able to. I believe that egocentric reasons for conserving biodiversity is important because the different species and wildlife on this Earth are beautiful and should be treated the same as human life.

My diagram simply portrays the relationship among all the factors in between the subjects of climate change, and the Wikileaks’ cables. Although it stops at Wikileaks on one side, a cyclic behavior can be seen on the other side. Ideally, the cyclic process can be slowed down if restrictions effectively help decrease overall emissions before it’s so late that all hope is lost. The diagram also portrays how hacking and bribes were what ultimately led to the Wikileaks, which in my opinion were bound to happen (even overdue). When global climate change became evident enough of an issue, the Copenhagen Accord was the United Nations’ ideal call for action. Nations like the United States displayed heavy interest in the global deal as it showed potential advantages and even complete problem solutions. In order to better persuade developing nations to get on board with the accord, the US used spying efforts, along with cyber attacks on countries’ databases in order to collect resourceful data that could be used in the United States’ favor. The United Nations call for action aimed to cut down on global greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020. The Wikileaks became the bridge that linked the public’s level of knowledge to the United States’ role in getting to the Copenhagen Accord, which included cyber attacks, bribes, data breaches, and international threats. With the recent “Panama Papers” leak, I think A LOT more essential information like this will soon surface, taking into consideration the notable size difference in data.

As respectful as I am of others’ privacy, I do believe the United States Government deserved for this information to be leaked. First, it serves the US right to have their data breached in the same manner they were attempting to breach others’, which can serve as a solid lesson. Asides from that, I also believe the American public has a given right to be made aware of what’s really going on when it comes to international policy, and the practices that tie to it. Although the American public is deserving of information this sensible, it can be beneficial for the rest of the world as well, making other nations more aware of how we (The US) play a role with climate change, as opposed to how we portray it to be. I think spying, data breaching, and hacking are all dirty and corrupt ways to push for an agreement such as the Copenhagen Accord, which can all tie back to financial status, and the role money plays when it comes to global action. Asides from the ethical conflicts faced in this whole dilemma, it also shows how vulnerability is a serious factor, and how powerhouse governments like the United States use this vulnerability in their favor in order to get what they want. As mentioned earlier, the Panama Papers was notably denser than the Wikileaks, and I think once all that data has been sorted through by journalists and investigators, a lot more information similar to this will be made available to the public.

1. In your hometown, how would you characterize levels of biodiversity? What are the main sources of the biodiversity and how do you imagine this has changed over time?

My hometown is Swarthmore PA.  My hometown has a fair amount of biodiversity. There are many species of birds, plants, trees, and other forest based life due to the large park/protected area in my town. There is also a large water shed in the area, meaning there is marine biodiversity was well. A major river along with things like lakes and streams are everywhere so there is bound to be plenty of biodiversity in relation to places without such an intense system of forests and water ways. I am sure that back in the day hundreds of years ago, there were many more species of trees, plants, and insects. The virgin forest map in the module shows that my area was a victim, along with the rest of the eastern US, of total loss of virgin forest. While there has clearly been replanting and forests that exist now, the biodiversity has shrunk because of the loss of all the original forest back in the day.

2. Is the biodiversity increasing or decreasing? Why do you think this?

My assumption would be that biodiversity is decreasing. The main issue why is definitely invasive species that are ruining the natural, and fragile, bio-system in place. These invasive species can be fish that take over the lakes and rivers, plants/weeds to overtake natural species, or insects that take the spot in the ecosystem of others. This is because of the increasing globalization that everywhere experiences. Plants and animals that were given access to my town in the past 50 years from all over the world have drastically changed the biodiversity of Swarthmore. These plants and animals were introduced and before anyone realized it, they upset the balance that was naturally there. There are now laws and such in place to ensure that these invasive species are not newly introduced, but some damage has definitely been done.

3. What could be done to further protect biodiversity? Would it be possible to increase the biodiversity of your town?

My town could do several things to protect biodiversity: increase the pollution standards is one. Some species are very delicate and sensitive and any pollution in the river for example could wipe out a species of fish or insect. The rain falling from the clouds must be as clean as possible so as to not upset the ecosystem. Also, there could be stricter laws on cutting down any tree, this would preserve the species that are present now. As for increasing biodiversity, I believe that is something that is relatively impossible. Biodiversity should be protected not forced. By introducing new species or old ones that are now gone, there is a large risk of further upsetting the balance and in fact hurting biodiversity more than helping.

1. Biodiversity can be a tough subject to understand sometimes and to explain. After reading through this module, in a paragraph of 150-250 words, how would you go about explaining the subject of biodiversity to another person unfamiliar with the term?

Working on a degree in Agriculture at Penn State, I end up hearing this term quite often actually, but what does it really mean? Biodiversity centers on the idea that many different organisms live in the same general vicinity or environment creating a sort of mini-ecosystem. The level of biodiversity can be measured anywhere from a very small scale to a very large scale and researchers on this topic study how these diverse organisms coexist in the same area together and still survive. Sometimes we might even think that when we look at our neighbor next door “how do we do that?”! Biodiversity is an important aspect of the environmental system because if everything was exactly the same, we would all be prone to the exact same diseases and it would be more difficult to come up with new inventions, especially, since so many of our ideas actually come from nature, to name a few issues. This kind of reminds me of discussing monoculture in my Ag classes. Monoculture is when a farmer only grows one crop and one crop only in the same spot from year to year to year. Consequently this means that the soil can be depleted of all of a particular nutrient, the crops are all susceptible to the same diseases, and thus if a pathogen or insect pest arrives on the scene, all could be lost since all of the fields would then be affected. So biodiversity makes things more interesting!

2. Finally in a third paragraph of 150-250 words, talk about what factors might contribute to the biodiversity or lack thereof in a given area.

The level of biodiversity can depend and be affected by a number of different things, such as the weather, the latitude, the population, etc. With regards to the weather, Biodiversity can vary with very humid climates, hot and dry ones, ones with a lot of rainfall and so on. In State College, the climate is fairly cool and somewhat humid. Winters can be very cold, so any organisms which live here must be capable of either withstanding these cold temperatures and the snow and ice or be able to hibernate. Consequently we have some bears, many insects and fungi, which thrive in the humid climate characteristic of our summers and falls. Besides the climate, there are other things which govern the level of diversity. Globalization of business, which may in turn encourage monoculture because certain areas are better for growing a certain crop than others and which can now be transported just about everywhere in the world with globalization.

3. For the last part of this assignment, find one image that represents biodiversity in your understanding of the term. Include it with your blog post and add a short description of why you feel this can relate to biodiversity.

This picture represents biodiversity to me because I can look at the mushrooms there and imagine all of the organisms which nourish themselves on the fruiting structure of the fungus. The dead leaves of fall lay around the mushrooms and one can envision how they will be decomposed by the organisms in the soils, such as insects and worms. The mushrooms are also wet, indicating the weather was rainy and thus very beneficial for the fungi as well as the other plants in the forest along with it. This is biodiversity on a very small scale, but I think it’s pretty neat how many different processes and organisms one can imagine operating there with just one picture.

My flow chart is on the following page: https://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4463/2016/04/homework-1.pdf

Concerning the talk about environmental protocol, the United States decided to do many things that are morally wrong, to push their own agenda. The focus of the discussion was not “What can we do to reduce our negative impact on the environment?” The discussion became “What do we need to do to influence other countries to work towards our goals?” In this conference we decide to bribe other countries with funding for projects. People in the U.S. government hacked the computer of a U.S. citizen to send an email from his email account to deceive the person the email was sent to. Hacking the computer of an individual with the goal of using that computer to deceive the representatives of another country is wrong for multiple reasons. The United States also fell to the level of threatening the Ethiopian officials to gain their support in the matter. We also cut our aid to the countries of Bolivia and Ecuador because they were refusing to support us in this discussion. This is another example of an individual entity taking a collective action problem (global climate change) and being too selfish to make sacrifices to provide everyone with benefits. That being said, I understand countries bargaining for power, but when the representatives of a country stoop to a level in which they are doing things that they would put their citizens into jail for doing, that country is obviously going down the wrong path. Stooping to these levels during a discussion that is supposed to be based on mutually benefitting all current and future countries (by protecting the earth) — I just don’t understand the purpose of these actions in this context.

There are many benefits and many disadvantages to releasing information like this to the public. When releasing sensitive information, the government often decides if the information will be a danger to the public or not. If the United States got word that its databases were hacked by another country, this information would not be released to the public because it would likely cause mass panic. This is the reason for many of the government cover-ups we see today. In the case of the cables, the United States government likely did not have to worry about the danger to its people, but the information was not released anyway. Another thing to consider when releasing information to the public is how the information impacts the reputation of the government. This information was likely not expressed because it would have harmed the reputation of the government as it has been doing from the leaks. In this case, the people of the United States deserved to know what their government was doing, while representing them, but knowing would indirectly, negatively impact them by the reputation of their country. If the public knows this information, the world knows this information, and seeing the evils of a country only generates bad feelings toward that country. All of these points become a balancing act between the right of the people to know what their government is doing throughout the world, with the direct and indirect safety of the citizens. I can not personally decide which of these two things outweighs the other. I think the representatives working in that conference should have taken other, more honorable routes towards solving this issue. The money that they would have not spent on bribing other countries could easily have gone to fixing the issue itself or funding for advertisements to better promote topics we learned about in this unit, such as carbon offsetting or reducing our output of carbon.

1. In the module, different levels of biodiversity were discussed. Now, in 150-200 words, discuss the biodiversity in your own home town.  Start by stating the area that you are identifying in, and then go into the biodiversity present and the scale in your town.

ANSWER: My hometown is Westfield, New Jersey.  My town is home to many different species being situated in the temperate climate of New Jersey, with several county parks that help to maintain biodiversity.  A few species in my town include Black Bears, Red-winged Blackbird, Carolina Wren, American Robin, Red-bellied Woodpecker, coyotes, White-tailed Deer, and the Peregrine Falcon.  Many of these species have adapted to living in a place with cold winters and warm summers, basically with a wide degree of variability in temperature.  The biodiversity of my area is quite large given its changing conditions, but not as large as a warmer, greener area like a rainforest.  The parks in my hometown actually do a very good job at maintaining the biodiversity in my area.  People, including myself, are constantly seeing herds of deer and sometimes even bears and coyotes in the parks, meaning that the parks are maintained and can support a wide amount of wildlife.  However, because of reduced habitat, more and more deer are wandering residual areas and golf courses.  Habitat loss has become a large issue in my town.

2. Now, that you have addressed the biodiversity in your town, discuss how the biodiversity is decreasing or increasing. Why is this happening?  Try to do this in 150-200 words.

ANSWER: Invasive species, as well as loss of habitat, are the two largest issues of biodiversity in my town.  The Formosan Subterranean Termite is an invasive species in my hometown.  It arrived in 2003 after hiding on ships coming from the Pacific, specifically from China.  The termites do not have many natural predators, especially because they have been introduced into the area very recently.  As a result, they have been competing with the natural termite species and have caused expensive structural damage because they are not hunted.  Purple loosestrife is another invasive plant to my area.  Purple loosestrife is an issue because it will check out native plant species if they are unchecked.  While its origins cannot be determined, it does become a large problem if unkept. Habitat loss is another large area of concern when it comes to a loss of biodiversity.  Being so close to major cities, New York City and Newark, many people want to live in my town.  This means that trees and woodland areas are constantly being torn down to make room for houses if they have not been already.

3. In 150-200 words, discuss what you would like to see your town or area do in the future to increase its biodiversity or something that your town is currently trying to do.

ANSWER: To help decrease the issue behind the purple loosestrife, my town has planned to release Gallerucella beetles to help decrease the plant’s population.  The bugs are kept in chilled containers before their release, so once they hit the warm weather outside, they become very active and begin munching on the purple loosestrife at very high frequencies. This helps decrease the amount of purple loosestrife to a tolerable level.  The interesting part is that the Gallerucella beetle is actually another invasive species, but their levels are easier to control than the loosestrife, so they are used as a form of defense and then die.  I think I would really like to see my town enact a regulation or uphold a level of woodland density and area.  Given a large amount of deforestation in my area, many animals have become displaced or have died.  I would like to see my town honor the idea that they need to have a certain area of woodland to recover from a lot of trees that they have taken down.  This will help to maintain the biodiversity in the area before it is too late.

Assignment: How you can relate to biodiversity and draw a diagram and explain.

After reading this module I found that the project I am currently working on and the module are discussing similar devastation, biodiversity hotspots and deforestation. The project I am working on mentions the increasing rate the rain forest is declining due to deforestation as a result of agriculture for palm oil.  I would consider the rain forests of Malaysia and Indonesia a biodiversity hot spot since the habitat loss is due to human activity. The orangutans in Indonesia are now critically endangered due to palm oil production and illegal trade.

In my personal life I do not physically see the devastation of the biodiversity hot spots but I see deforestation on a small scale. The type of deforestation I see on a daily basis is the tearing down of area forests to make use for more subdivisions for the ever rising human population in our area.

I chose to start my diagram with biodiversity at the top because it’s what makes this world live and thrive. I wanted to start with the positive and slowly trickle my way down to show how humans, in the end, negatively affect biodiversity. The right side of my diagram shows some of the components that makes up biodiversity and the right side gives examples of the destruction to biodiversity. They both meet at agriculture which is one cause for deforestation and it all comes together at humans because we are the reason for the need for agriculture and for deforestation.

Module 10 Learning Activity

• Let’s get personal with biodiversity. Create a system diagram that illustrates how one activity you do in your hometown that decreases biodiversity in the ecosystems near you.

• In a comprehensive paragraph: Think about the event you chose and explain its importance. Is the activity necessary or is it something that just makes life more convenient? Is the activity something unique to yourself or is something everyone in your hometown does(In other words is it an individual problem or a collective problem)? Explain how you would like to change your own actions or the actions of your peers to help increase or maintain biodiversity in your surrounding area.

Completing My Assignment

1)

2) As we learned in module 7 driving a personal car is definitely not necessary, with successful urban planning cars can become more of an annoyance than a useful method of transportation. I enjoy driving myself into the city because I do not enjoy relying on public transportation unless absolutely necessary. Since my hometown is an automobile suburb most people own cars and therefore prefer to drive into the city like myself. My hometown does have two train stations that have direct lines into many different parts of the city. Collectively as a town if we starting using the train to commute to the city it would effectively reduce the number of cars on the main highways. With less cars comes less traffic, not only will this make every driver super happy it will also reduce the need to build more highways and the pollution that is a result of driving fossil fuel powered vehicles. In addition, I also learned from my final project research the construction of roads produces a lot of pollution, avoiding this pollution is just another benefit of switching from cars to trains. This will allow the local wetlands to stay together as one large ecosystem, by keeping all species together will keep a large gene pool. An ecosystem with more genetic diversity will make it more resilient if the wetlands face a disturbance.

Assignment: Start by researching information about a biodiversity hotspot. The research should include a summary of the location of the area, commonly found species in the area, and factors which lead to biodiversity loss. Then, look at the IUCN Protected Area Categories and determine which category would apply to the area and explain why. The response should be less than 600 words total. Make sure to include links to websites where data is collected.

The hotspot I have chosen is the East Melanesian Islands. They (1,600 islands) are located off the coast of Papa New Guinea and east of Australia in the Pacific Ocean. The islands are diverse in nature as some have mountains which exceed two thousand meters while other islands have active volcanoes. The area is home to over eight thousand species of plants, and the most prized tree is the Kauri Pine. There are around three thousand plants which are endemic to the area. In total, there are over six hundred species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and freshwater fishes. There are several species of birds which are specific to one island. These include the fearful owl specific to the Solomon Island (Nesasio solomonenis, VU) and the Sanford fish-eagle which is located on Eastern islands near coastal forests (Haliaeetus sanfordi, VU). As for mammals, over half of the species are endemic to the area. A few examples are the flying foxes (Pteropodidae), the cuscus (Spilocuscus kraemeri), and the monkey-faced bat (Pteralopex anceps, CR). Furthermore, the region is home to six endemic kinds of reptiles. The most common is a large tailed skink (Corucia zebrata) which lives in epiphytes trees and feeds off their leaves. Finally, there are over thirty-eight endemic species of amphibians and forty-two species of freshwater fishes.

Even though the East Melanesian Islands are home to many endemic species, there are several threats which can lead to their destruction. The main threat to biodiversity is rapid forest clearance. The forests are being cleared to meet the needs of the increasing population and corporations. Copra and oil palm plantations have negatively affected the Bismarck, Solomon, and Vanuatu Islands through massive land clearings and logging endeavors. Only twenty-five percent of the forests are still in their old, original condition. Mining is a threat to particular regions of the islands as well. To protect the diverse species living in the area, something needs to be done. In Module 10, I learned about the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s six levels of protected areas. In the case of the East Melanesian Islands, there are several groups of people which live on them. So, one needs to take into account the lives and income for families when determining ways to protect biodiversity. I believe the Category 1: Strict Nature Reserves protection would work best for the islands. The Category allows for indigenous people to hunt and gather but all other activities must be limited. So, families would still be able to farm on the islands. To meet the needs of the increasing population, the islands could dedicate five percent of the land on each island to new families which contain limited biodiversity. Also, corporations would not be able to clear forests for their own benefit in an area which has over eight thousands species of plants. With some species on the brink of extinction, tourism would be limited in the area as well. The government and locals would need to enforce the protection to ensure the safety and survival of species which are vital to our world.

All information is collected from  http://www.cepf.net/resources/hotspots/Asia-Pacific/Pages/East-Melanesian-Islands.aspx

For my assignment, I will create a systems diagram about how the bee population affects humans, and present some solutions to the problem. I have chosen this assignment because it relates to my final paper topic as well as biodiversity. After completing the systems diagram, I will include a short paragraph of 150-200 words that explains the concepts presented.

In the systems diagram, I outlined the initial causes of the decline in the bee population: pesticides, parasites, pathogens, and poor nutrition. This then leads to higher food prices, especially on certain fruits, vegetables, and nuts. It also leads to growers having to put more land into crop production to ensure they can grow enough food. Some possible solutions and ways we can help prevent more loss of the bee population is to increase the diversity of pollinator habitats, utilize ecological farming, and plant more flowers for the bees to feed on. These are all actions we can take and we should care about the bees. Without bees pollinating our crops, we will loose a lot of food. Many people don’t realize the variety of crops the bees pollinate for us and how their decline will significantly impact our species. With the move toward this issue becoming an anthropocentric problem, I expect more individuals to view this as something that will affect their daily lives.

1. 
2. Support for the Copenhagen accord affects climate change through actions of governments around the world. Threats against parties (e.g. U.S. to Ethiopia) increase support for Copenhagen. Distrust between parties (e.g. U.S. vs. China, India) affects agreement. Aid to poor nations that support Copenhagen (e.g. Maldives) provides incentive to support Copenhagen. Cutting aid to nations that oppose Copenhagen (e.g. Bolivia) serves as a deterrent against opposing Copenhagen.
3. Perhaps it is a good thing that the State Department cables are made public. Now we can see what our representatives are doing. such as the cyberattacks which seem totally unethical.

030 Climate Change

In my diagram, I illustrated the idea behind the Copenhagen Accord and ways in which the U.S. tried to gain the support of countries who did not want to cooperate. Climate change is a major issue and I wanted to make this clear by making it the head of all of the other points. Due to the climate change, the Copenhagen Accord was proposed by the U.S. This meant that the U.S. needed a supporting cast of allies to have their back. Getting allies wasn’t easy however and the U.S. had to bribe countries so that they would join them in their plan. The U.S. targeted countries which were significantly affected by the climate change and offered them large sums of money. If they did not accept the offer, then the U.S. threatened to discontinue communication between the countries. Countries like Ethiopia were put in tough situations because they did not want to form the alliance and join the Copenhagen Accord but because of the U.S.’s threat to stop all further communication, they had no choice but to join. This was almost always a lose situation for countries like Ethiopia because they rely on the U.S. and even if they didn’t the U.S. used confidentiality cables to spy on countries that did not cooperate. Eventually 140 countries pledged to support the Copenhagen Accord. This was what the U.S. aimed for and it accounts for about 80 % of the greenhouse emissions. When it was brought to the U.S.’s attention that WikiLeaks leaked information about the U.S. using these cables to spy on opposing countries they lost all trust for the opposing countries. This destroyed relationships with the U.S. and several other countries that are still not 100 % fixed yet.

The United States did not handle this situation very professionally at all. This was a very shady and unethical approach which should have been handled with more care. As an American, I was not happy to learn about this and it was sickening to hear that they went through with the idea and embarrassing to know that they actually got caught. However, I think that it serves them justice and that the information being leaked was right. Nations with less money are less fortunate and have fewer resources to deal with climate change alone. They need the help of a bigger and stronger country like the U.S. but the U.S. acted like bullies and these countries were not given many choices. The U.S. should have found a way to be more open and sympathetic towards these countries. The Copenhagen does not seem to be too successful either so at the end of the day, the U.S. ruined some important relationships for nothing. I believe that the U.S. tries to do too much sometimes. While it is hard to always do the right thing as such a major player in the world and with the spotlight always on you, this is one failure that is just unacceptable. The U.S. does a lot of good for the world and often times does protect smaller countries, especially with our large and powerful military. However, it is the failures that people remember and this was a big mistake. I hope that the U.S. learns from the mistakes that it made in this situation and does not repeat these mistakes ever again.

From the information that was gathered in the reading  assignment for this learning activity, I was able to create my systems diagram for the Copenhagen Accord. The main driving force in this diagram is the growing climate change stemming from increased greenhouse emissions and other pollutants. This led to the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in 2009. From here, the United States was in support of the Copenhagen Accord, which needed more support from other countries in order for it to pass. In order to pass this, the United States sent intelligence agent and other diplomats to bribe other countries to be their allies in support of the bill. This led to 116 countries signing the proposed document to decrease emissions, with the total in support coming to 140 countries. This led to standards set by the accord that will be carried out by policies in individual countries. This leads to benefits for rich countries such as the United States that are able to adapt to these changes, but leads to developing countries not being able to upkeep these standards. After these events have taken place, this bribery and other unethical practices have come to light from the convention. This highlights how the United States is able to blackmail and bribe its way into getting its way on the international scale whenever it comes to new standards and agreements where they can reap as much reward as possible. This leads to many countries and the general population having a hostile attitude toward the United States that can lead to hostile environments that can cause consequences down the road.

I, personally, do not believe that the State Department cables should not have been released. I believe that they should not have been released to the public for a number of reasons. The first reason was because that it creates an hostile environment between countries that could break down negotiations and other diplomatic advances in relationships with the United States. Another reason is that some of the developing countries that were being bribed may not have had the financial stability of the United States in order to relieve pressure from the oil industry to get their source of energy, even though many of these negotiations were  unethical. Through these negotiations, however, the United States was able to gain over one hundred countries in support of the Copenhagen Accord in order to bring the global greenhouse emissions down as well as providing financials to other countries that have a high dependence on fossil fuels. On the other hand, by having these cables released, it creates a collective action solution to the increasing problem of climate change. The more informed that the general population becomes on the ever increasing problem of climate change, then the more people will want to step up and do their duty to help mitigate this problem by seeing that countries all over the world are taking steps to put a stop to this problem. In addition to this, the United States could have used the data that has been gathered over the years to build a strong case in support of this collective action instead of using bribes where it could have publicly provided financial support to developing countries. This could have also set the stage for the global issue in that the U.S. would have been at the forefront of curbing this problem.

For this learning activity I have decided to assess the biodiversity of my home state of Pennsylvania. The United States has a wide range of biodiversity, varying from North to South and East to West. Pennsylvania has a vast array of forests with many different species of plants and wildlife. The different seasons that we experience here provide different weather that allows certain species to thrive at different times. There is not one constant climate like some areas experience. For example, in the summer we see trees full of leaves and wildlife out and about, but in winter many species are in hibernation and waiting for warmer weather. In contrast, more southern states experience higher temperatures year round and have more of a tropical climate, especially the state of Florida. Go further West and we see a dry climate with little rainfall and different agricultural conditions. It is clear that even in one single country, there can be much biodiversity.

With Pennsylvania having a wide biodiversity, species have a greater likelihood of surviving when threats are presented. If there were ever a certain species facing extinction within this state there are many others that would still be able to thrive and adapt. However, we could face serious problems if our forests were completely cleared, since they are a major part of our environment. Not only would it cause problems for humans, but also for the creatures who make these forests their homes. This could lead to animals invading human spaces and possibly even causing minor destruction. It is important to me to not only preserve the biodiversity in Pennsylvania, but throughout the world as well. As the dominant species on this planet, it is vital that we take account for our actions and do all that we can to decrease harmful effects on the environment. As discussed in the module, it is not always humans that contribute to biodiversity threats, but natural events such as climate change and natural disasters. In these cases, we still have the responsibility to rebuild and help species thrive again.

In my diagram, I presented the main points of the Copenhagen Accord and the strategies the United State tried to use to support other opposing countries. I started with climate change, which was one of the main points in the article. I stated with this because people realized that climate change has become a serious issue. I then connected climate change to how the United state proposes the Copenhagen Accord. To have the Copenhagen Accord put into effect, the United States needs to find allies. In order for the United States to get allies they offered money to other countries if they joined them on their plan. They offered money to smaller countries, like Maldives. The United States offered a large amount of money and the countries would accept the offer because the climate change affected them significantly. The United States also threaten to stop all communication with other countries if they did not agree with them. One country that was mentioned that the United States threatened to stop all communication with was Ethiopia. Ethiopia was against joining the Accord, which is when the United States sent them a confidentiality cable saying to sign the accord. After they realized the threat threat that the unites States was opposing, Ethiopia and decided to join the Accord. If certain countries did not agree with the United States, they spied on them using confidentiality cables. When WikiLeaks leaked about the United States using cables to spy on opposing countries. Because of the spying on the opposing countries, the United states lost the trust of all the opposing countries.

The way the United States handles this whole situation was selfish and untrustworthy. The United States using the cables caused countries to lose their trust and not want to join them on the Copenhagen Accord. Although some of the countries were suffering from climate change, they still chose not to join the United Stated after WikiLeaks leaked about the cables. I think that it was right and fair for the cables to be leaked. The other countries had a right to know about what the United States was doing. The countries had a right to know because the United States bribed them and threatened them. With the United States, the countries signed the Accord for the wrong reasons. Climate change, a collective action problem, is a problem is every country. The United States should have gone about the subject of greenhouse emissions in another way.

My diagram discusses the problem of climate change, the solution of the Copenhagen Accord and the justification of WikiLeaks. Climate change is a global issue while a few nations are far more responsible than the rest of the world. These nations are typically post-industrialized; however, underdeveloped nations deal with the same backlash of climate change because it is global in scale. The Copenhagen Accord was a proposal aimed at remediating climate change. Some countries were in favor, but climate change is just as much an economic problem as it is an environmental one. The agreement would impose different effects on certain nations, as each nation has a differing economy. This particular agreement would work well for the United States, while being opposed by nations like Brazil and Bolivia. Through wiretaps, bribery and computer hacking, the United States was able to get enough developing nations on board with the Copenhagen Accord. As a result, the Accord was adopted by the United Nations. To sum things up, the United States used its economic and political power to corruptly influence a global decision. Had this been about oil or weapons, Fox News would still be airing the story to this day. My diagram aims to communicate the message that the United States wrongfully influenced nations. For example, Haiti will feel the repercussions of climate change, despite releasing far fewer emissions than post-industrialized nations. Once again, money and political power have come before the environment.

The cables deserved to be leaked, plain and simple. As previously stated, climate change is a global issue created by a handful of nations. Poorer nations are less equipped to deal with the end results of the climate change. For example, precipitation changes may lead to desertification, resulting in poor agricultural conditions. The United States is attempting to stay in the driver’s seat and run the world. I would be completely fine with that position if this was an issue of terrorism but it is not. Nations in Europe sustain a high quality of life without such a disastrous environmental impact. Economies are very complex, but in my modest opinion, the United States could survive with a change in economic structure focusing on more sustainable practices. While the Copenhagen Accord was not a terribly binding agreement, the economies of smaller, less powerful countries have far less room for change. I hope the United States is considering the global effects of its decisions. As a whole, the Copenhagen Accord seems like one big failure. Countries do not agree on its success and it does not guarantee much. A document that clearly states what needs to be accomplished by when and who would be a much better solution. Developing nations should ideally have just as much of a say as post-industrialized and industrialized nations, as climate change is global in scale. As an environmental geography student. I hope my own country can get its act together on climate change. I’ll end with the question, “If Al Gore were elected, where would we be?”

The article WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord tells us how America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen accord. It reveals the hidden dark side behind the global climate change negotiations and the U.S. is the centre of this event. This diagram shows how the U.S. use diplomatic tactics to overwhelm opposition to the Copenhagen Accord. The beginning of this event is the increasing greenhouse gas emission, which results in global climate change. In order to better determine every country’s responsibility, an international climate treaty is needed. After long-term negotiation, Copenhagen Accord is the one that best fit the U.S. interest. In order to support this accord, the U.S. would need help from other countries to back this treaty. The U.S. use money and threats to buy political support and use spying and cyberwarfare to seek out leverage. WikiLeaks reveal diplomatic cables that the U.S. used to persuade other countries into signing the Copenhagen Accord. For example, although Saudi Arabia was not a fan of the accord, but the U.S. committed to help with its economic diversification on the condition of Saudi Arabia back the U.S.. By February 2010, 116 countries had associated themselves with the Copenhagen Accord, and 26 countries were intending to associate. The total of 140 nations represent almost 75% of the countries that are parties to the UN climate change convention and are responsible for over 80% of current global greenhouse gas emissions. With the majority of countries supporting the Copenhagen Accord, it would be beneficial to climate change.

Although the end result is to lower greenhouse gas emission and help the climate change problem, I think what the U.S. has done to gain more supports is not the best option. Climate change mitigation is a collective action problem, which means the individual interest conflicts with the group’s interest. Reaching an agreement on an international climate treaty is difficult, since every country has its own interest and different opinions. Poor countries thinks that it’s unfair for rich countries to ask them to reduce emissions since the the poor are just trying to develop a good living standard which the rich cause most of the emissions. Furthermore, reducing emissions is also very difficult since most greenhouse gases are emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, and limiting emission would also limit the use of fossil fuels. The U.S. used political and financial aids as leverage to persuade other less powerful countries to back the Copenhagen Accord, while not every one of these countries favor the treaty. But in order to receive help from America, these countries had to support the treaty and somehow “ignore” its own interest in this treaty. So I think it’s unfair to the other countries. Some ways to improve the current situation can be used to make this process fairer for every country. For example, countries can be devided into different development level, more developed countries can set a higher goal in reducing emission. Or they can be grouped by emission level, high-emission countries should take more responsibilities in reducing emission.

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.

Untitled document

In my diagram I attempted to give an overview of all the events that took place in the article “WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord”. The first core idea shown in my diagram is the over consumption of fossil fuels. The excess amount of fossil fuels causes emission of greenhouse gases. As discussed in the article, the US is one of the world’s largest polluters which makes their role in these events extremely significant.  The emission of the greenhouse gases leads to climate change. Climate change is such an important issue because it affects all living things. This is what led to the Copenhagen summit. The summit was intended to create a plan for countries to collectively deal with climate change. However, the plan that was developed mostly benefited the US. For this reason, many countries refused to sign the agreement. This led to the US using extremely unethical practices to gain the signatures if the opposing countries. In the end 116 countries have associated with the accord. Another 26 countries intend to associate with the copenhagen accord.This is good for climate change but created a hostile political environment.

I think that climate change is a huge issue that society needs to face. I do not think the issue is being taken as seriously as it should be. The creation of the Copenhagen accord is a big step in the right direction in regards the effects climate change has on the environment. However, I disagree with the events and actions taken that led up to the creation of the Copenhagen accord.  I think that the state department cable should have been public from the beginning. This would eliminate the drama that was caused when wikileaks leaked the article. Also, I feel that the accord was way too important for the public to be uninformed about. I think allowing the public to know what is going on could help to reach the goal of stopping climate change faster. I also think this could help to find more monetary support for countries, especially those that are considered to be developing

The core concepts behind my diagram are the problem (fossil fuel emissions), the proposed solution (Copenhagen Accord), and then the means used to create agreed upon political action (Wikileaks Intelligence). The problem of green house gas emissions causing climate change is the core and reasoning behind Wikileaks. Climate change became a global issue that required political action and agreement in the United Nations. The proposed idea for climate change was the Copenhagen Accord. The Copenhagen Accord was a treaty proposal favored by large developed countries and more specifically the Unite States. The United States favored this “global deal” for the purpose of it having the potential to benefit the US and even fix issues for the country. Developing countries, such as China, opposed the accord because it wouldn’t benefit them and had no promise to actually cut enough emissions to actual prevent climate change. With not enough countries onboard, the US had to come up with some persuasion in order to get developing countries to agree to the Copenhagen Accord. This is when cyber warfare and spying by the United States came into play. According to Wikileaks, the United States sent out wiretaps to collect information from the developing countries opposed to the treaty. They US also attempted to hack diplomats’ computers through a code encrypted email that would grant access and control of the diplomats’ computers. This email hack attempt failed fortunately for those diplomats though. Even with the failed hacking attempts, the United States was able to use it power, collected data from the wiretaps, and money to get enough underdeveloped countries to agree to The Copenhagen Accord. This accord then became the UN’s solution to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020. Wikileaks is how this information became public about the US using spying, cyber warfare, money, and threats in order to gain support from underdeveloped countries for the Copenhagen Accord.

In my opinion, the State Department cables deserved to be leaked since the United States was using a similar type of spying and warfare. My opinion follows along the lines of if you are going to “dish it” you better be able to “take it.” Even though this made our country look bad, I think that it was a beneficial for the information to be accessible globally. I think this because it was definitely a wake up call for the US. The Wikileaks showed the US that we aren’t invincible and that we can be hacked. It also is good for the American people to have access to this information, because it shows that US citizens cannot hold full trust in our government. Wikileaks also brings up the issue of how the US is conducting political action. The ethics question we should ask is, “Did the US select the Copenhagen Accord because it was the best solution for climate change or for the United States?” By backing a solution to climate change that holds no guarantee of reducing enough fossil fuel emission and being more beneficial for developed countries may be the answer to the question. In my opinion, I think that the US pushed so hard for the accord in order to have the best solution for the US. I think this because of how they went about getting support for the accord. They were able to gain supporters of the Copenhagen Accord by using threats, money, and spies. This in my opinion is unethical and undiplomatic. The United State morally should conduct climate change diplomacy in way that creates solutions to the emissions problem that are the most beneficial to the majority of the world along with the environment. Without thinking about what is best for the environment when dealing with an environmental issue, the US is not creating the best solution for the problem. Since the Copenhagen Accord held no promises of success or change, it was definitely not the environment’s best option. The Wikileaks helped to show how the US government decided to take collective action in a way that was to benefit the US, rather than the world as a whole.

My diagram basically outlines what went on behind the scenes of the events surrounding the Copenhagen Accord, or how the article says.  This all starts with, in my opinion, the United States is trying to do its part in cutting carbon emissions and other harmful gasses because they are the historical leader in the world’s pollution and want to make up for it in a way.  So the United States tries to supply financial aid to other countries in exchange for their support of the accord in a way similar to the shady dealings of Frank Underwood in House of Cards as Majority Whip.  If the United States wasn’t going to get the signature it wanted from one of the nations, it would simply revoke its aid as a ploy to get its way.  It’s a simple strategy.  Bribes for support…very mobster of them.  These back-channel communications of world leaders made for some interesting negotiations.  “Sign the accord of discussion ends now” the United States threatens to Ethiopia.  In which Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi responds with a request for assurance from President Obama.  This was all made available through WikiLeaks in 2010.  At the time of the article, 140 nations were in compliance with the accord, which was near the target signatures that were intended by the United States.  That is 75 percent of United Nations climate change convention members and those 140 nations are responsible for nearly 80 percent of the current greenhouse gas emissions in the world.

Using my own thoughts and from lessons we discussed in this class in prior weeks like ethics, this was not the most ethical way to gain support for climate change discussions.  And that is not the only other ethical issue at hand.  Was it ethical for these dealings to be made public by WikiLeaks?  That is up for debate.  In my opinion, the country and the world deserves the right to know how its own country does business with allies and other nations across the world.  WikiLeaks took the country by storm in 2010 with details about a bunch of government secrets similar to this issue of the Copenhagen Accord.  What about the ethical issue of the back-channel trades between the United States and others?  Aid for Signatures.  Am I supposed to believe that this doesn’t happen every day between counties in the United Nations?  After learning more about how government works in classes in high school and college, it becomes apparent that trades like these happen a lot in everyday government business whether it is gathering votes for a bill or what have you.  Although I understand its reasoning, I still do not like how the United States was conducting business here.  Sure, trade aid for a signature.  However, don’t threaten the countries for not being willing to be forced into signing something they do not want.  That is where I draw the line.

My diagram is relatively simple. It starts off with countries emitting greenhouse gases, which we know has an effect on the climate. The majority of the emitted gases come from developed countries, like the U.S. because there are more people and more industrialization. People have seen the climate change in recent years and have begun worried as to what to do. People are beginning to realize that action needs to be taken in order for us to reduce our greenhouse emissions and take care of the planet. This is where the government steps in through the UN to see what they can do on their part. The Copenhagen Accord was a proposed plan for countries to take action to lessen their emission of greenhouse gases. Of course, countries who were not emitting many greenhouse gases (island countries) were not for the plan. This is where the U.S. began sending spies and creating bribes in order to get people to support the Accord. The U.S. began to get countries to back them, but not through very honest means. At one point, the U.S. threatened Zenawi to “sign the Accord or discussion ends now.” Through these means and other persuasions, the Copenhagen Accord is now associated with 116 countries. After all of this was said and done, WikiLeaks got a hold of some of the cables that went back and forth between nations and leaked them to the public so they could see what was happening, which brings us to the end of my diagram.

The government seems to have a lot of power when it comes to climate change and the reduction/elimination of greenhouse gas emissions. It is very important that the U.S. government and other world governments take part in discussion on preserving and keeping the earth healthy for our safety and the safety of the future. Whether or not global warming is a real phenomenon or not, we still need to be aware that it is a possibility that we are really hurting the Earth and endangering its inhabitants. Gas emissions are a problem for environmental and physical health and it is something that has to be addressed by the government.Thinking of this, I don’t the way the U.S. government handles climate change diplomacy is appropriate. The U.S. government should take initiative on their own to create policies or programs that aim to reduce emissions rather than bribing and threatening other countries in the way that they did for the Copenhagen Accord. As for the cables being made public, I am glad that they were. I feel like the United States of America is a leading country and we cannot be acting in a fashion that puts a negative light on us in the matter of global climate responsibility. We need to realize the mistakes we have made and move on from them. We should be pushing for creating our own initiatives and being environmental leaders. It’s great that governments are talking about climate change, but real action needs to be taken and we can’t wait around for that any longer. The U.S. needs to make moves – and soon.

chart (please click here to see my diagram; sorry, I couldn’t get it to upload)

1) My diagram shows how the United States negotiated a climate treaty by gathering information from other countries.  Low-carbon models redirects billions of dollars.  The Beijing talks failed to bring about a global deal.  The United States has always been one of the world’s biggest polluter and climate enemy.  The Copenhagen accord could have solved many of the United States problems.  So, the United States needed to get as many countries as possible to go along with the accord.  Money was offered to countries for their support.  There were also other bonuses offered.  Threats were also made to remove some support that countries were already receiving.  The United States used threats to get countries to back the adopting of the Copenhagen accord.  Of course, trust was a big issue.  It wasn’t known if countries would keep their word on what they were promising.  It wasn’t certain that the countries going along with the Copenhagen accord would keep their word to cut emissions.  It also wasn’t certain that the United States would up-hold their promise of the financial and the other aid it promised to these countries for their support.  Also, it couldn’t be guaranteed that the necessary greenhouse gas cuts would be maintained on a global level to avoid dangerous warming.

2) For the purpose of sustainability, governments must do as much as they can to make the public aware of the changes that must be made to protect the earth and its inhabitants.  This must be done on a global scale.  The United States getting involved in this matter on the scale that it has is just what the United States does.  Needing all the countries’ involvement in climate change diplomacy is necessary as each person’s part of the world effects each other person’s part of the world.  I guess the only way to get this done would be to help out financially in the undertaking of projects.  Maybe educating other countries on redirecting their own funds for these corrections would be a possibility but some countries just may not even have the funds to redirect.  Making threats to get things done just doesn’t seem right.  Offering incentives for a countries’ positive actions for climate change diplomacy would be an idea that might keep that country on the right track.  I think it was good that the State Department cables were made public.  The citizens of the United States need to be aware of the actions of the people they put in charge in order to see if change needs to be made.

One of the biggest problems with climate change is that not enough people know about the real threat that it poses. Just in the past 200 years, climate change has become a reality due to the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels creating green house gases. In the last 50 of those years, climate change has begun to be realized by the general population. As this becomes an ever growing threat, especially as we produce 3 tons of carbon emissions every year individually, people need to start reducing their output. The problem is people don’t want to change what they do on a daily basis. There is an added monetary factor to helping the environment that stops people from changing their ways. Due to this people ignore climate change. That is reflected in how the United States government handled the Copenhagen accord talks (this is from what I was able to gather from the document that was very hard to fully understand). In those talks the US paid money to developing countries to get them on their side for the accord that would get the US and larger countries out of their obligations in the Kyoto Protocol. The US would rather pay money for the damage caused so far than to pay money to help stop the problem that will cost a lot more to fix later. Overall smaller countries lose the most as they still will reap the consequences of larger countries and the larger countries will continue to press against the boundaries that make this planet habitable.

The Unites States made a mistake in my mind with the cables. They should’ve have been made public and because they were leaked on Wikileaks the public has benefitted. With these documents the public should realize that the government needs to change their diplomacy. As stated before, as a collective people we need to realize the threat that has been apart of our lives for the past few decades. The government along with everyone else needs to stop putting it off to the side as a smaller problem that can be solved by paying off countries. That money needs to be going towards efforts to halt the process we are in. The planet is very close to the lump we cannot get back from, where life is no longer sustainable. Initiatives like BP has made should be more common around the world and on a larger scale than it has been. The government has its fair share of money problems which I get, but more money should be put towards the sustainability of this earth. As mentioned in the module, cities like New York, LA, and others around the world can be lost if the ocean raises the few feet it is predicted to in the near future. Instead of coal we can use wind power or heat that can be changed into electricity. Something as little as just using public transportation or riding bikes like in Copenhagen can create a large impact if enough people do it. We need to act fast so we have enough time to create a reaction against this force that will push past the planetary boundaries.

The article was quite long, so it was little bit hard to draw diagram for me. So, I tried to draw a big picture and put important and main ideas. Everything was started from greenhouse gas and CO2 emission. As greenhouse gas emission with development of industries, climate has changed. So nations gather together to solve the problem, the first result was Kyoto protocol. Few years later, Copenhagen accord emerged which aim to cut down greenhouse gas. Not every nation agreed with Copenhagen accord especially poorer countries and rapidly growing countries like china. Those countries support Kyoto protocol it is because Kyoto protocol is which rich countries have binding obligations. So this is more favorable for them. For richer nations, at the same time, Copenhagen accord which can prevent to extend the Kyoto protocol need to pass the Copenhagen accord. Therefore US as a rich nation, they need support from nations that opposed to Copenhagen accord to pass the accord. This lead US to spend money secretly for opposed nations. The best example from article is Maldives. Maldives got 50 million dollars for supporting the accord. They even support actively than any other countries from poor countries. The other example is Ethiopia, US threat to Zenawi, Ethiopian prime minister that sign the accord or discussion ends now. So they also supported the accord. US did similar action to other nations and exchange financial aid with support. All this action ended up with 140 countries signed up for the Copenhagen accord.

As we learned from now, climate change is very serious problem. Because climate change is global scale problem, we all need to aware of it and try to solve the problem together. I think that’s why the political action is important like negotiation between countries and make protocol. I think what US did for get a support from other countries was not a good choice. In my opinion, Copenhagen accord which all nations without excepting developing countries and poor countries need to cut off the CO2 emission is better than Kyoto protocol which rich countries have obligation to cut off the CO2 emission. It is because as I said, climate change is global scale issue. All nations need to cooperate to solve the problem. So you might think that I agree with what US have done. But my response is no. US choose wrong way to persuade them. In politics, giving money to other country to get what they want is considered cheating. US cheated for their benefit, and this is from selfishness. This is problem in ethics view. But I can’t blame only US, all this event occurred because all nations take their profit and not considering environmental issue. For example, developing countries are one of the most emissive place because industrial development. This mean they need to cut off the CO2 emission for environment and sustainability. But they support Kyoto protocol since only rich countries obligatorily cut off CO2 emission so that they don’t have to reduce the CO2 emission and keep development. Today, earth already passed some planetary boundaries. All countries in the planet need to cooperate to save the planet.

In my diagram, I talked about how climate change caused the Copenhagen Accord to happen. The abundance of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and the amount of fossil fuels being burned lead to the Copenhagen climate change summit that was called to solve this problem and stop global warming. At this summit, the Copenhagen Accord was established which favored the United States because it said that countries must pledge to lessen the amount of greenhouse gas emissions released into the atmosphere. This caused the United States to seek out allies to help support this accord since the United States is the greatest contributor to climate change. In order to rally support, the United States used manipulative methods such as secret cables, the CIA, and threats/bribes in order to ultimately gain support of 140 countries for the Copenhagen Accord. Ultimately, this was an act of power on the United States rather than an act of trying to preserve the environment. I focused primarily on the Copenhagen Accord to highlight the importance the United State’s contribution to climate change. In my diagram, I began with Co2 emissions since this is the root cause of climate change and the Copenhagen Accord works to bring countries together in order to mitigate the emission of greenhouse gases – primarily the Co2 emitted from burning fossil fuels. The Copenhagen Accord would require specific actions taken by each country in order for each country to cut down on greenhouse gas emission. This affected poorer countries, who did not support the Copenhagen Accord, since these countries did not have the funds to implement a program to reduce their already close to zero emissions. The United States rallied the poor country support through the schemes stated previously.

The cables should have been leaked to the public because everyone has a right to know what happened. The United States should not have acted and conducted the accord in the way that they did. The public deserves to know how the United States acts especially when it comes to concerning issues such as climate change. This behavior upsets people and is not in the public’s interest if it is kept a secret. This was unethical and there was no distributive justice for poorer countries because they did not contribute as much to global warming. They do not have the same technology that can cause as much pollution as the United States can and is therefore unfair to these poorer countries. The United States needs to take individual action and decrease the amount of green house gas emissions that they are producing and not worry so much about other countries as the United States is the leading contributor to greenhouse gases. The United States should implement its own carbon reduction policies along with influences other countries that produce an abundance of carbon to do the same as climate change can only be solved through collective action. All countries need to take action in stopping the problem of climate change, as all countries are contributors even if some more than others. It may be more important that the United States take actions because of the amount of carbon that it produces, but this problem cannot be solved just by individual action of the United States.

I chose to examine the biome I am most familiar with, Los Gatos-Monte Sereno and the surrounding area. I intend to examine the actions taken by the town, and by the county, to preserve the biomes that surround the ‘developed’ areas within the region. And I will offer a proposal as to what can be done to further conservation efforts already in place.

Los Gatos-Monte Sereno, is a thriving California town tucked in between three mountains just inland from the coastal city of Santa Cruz. There are many nature reserves in the area I went to high school. These places were set aside by the county, and besides the elaborate trail system, there has been very little human intrusion. Of the human intrusion that has occurred, the effects on the biodiversity of the area are negligible, as the reserves span most of the mountain ranges surrounding the town of Los Gatos. The climate of the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno area of California is one of a coastal chaparral. That is to say, the further inland you go, the more arid the climate, but overall it remains temperate for most of the year. The biodiversity of this area increases the further away you move from the human settlements that populate it. The sanctions on the park restrict human infringement,

Many people living in urban-developed areas, it seems, overlook Biodiversity. There is little need (nor time) to stop to examine the multi-layered biome around you when one is late for work and driving seventy miles an hour on the highway. In my humble opinion, most of the people in the area do not recognize the natural biome as it is, or understand their effect on it. I think this could be (in the long-run) detrimental to both the biome, and humanity within the biome. Therefore, I propose that the responsibility should be that of the schools. The elementary schools, to my knowledge, do not facilitate any interaction between the students and the nature reserves. Perhaps a field trip to learn about the local flora and fauna would encourage young people towards ecocentrism. If not wholly ecocentric, then, at the very least, young people would be aware that humanity is not alone in the region, and that they have a responsibility to preserve the biodiversity of the region. Not only because many flora and fauna of the region are interesting to study, but some may prove useful for future generations.

Due to the use of fossil fuels, there has been a large production of carbon in the atmosphere, causing climate change. As global warming becomes a bigger issue, governments around the world have tried to resolve this by working together and setting limitations. Both the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accord are examples of this effort, as their aim was to lower carbon. The first option, though, places a binding obligation on rich nations. Developed nations, like the United States of America, dislike this and favor the latter agreement, which allows nations to set reasonable but lower targets for future carbon emissions. Yet, this strategy does not guarantee avoiding dangerous global warming, whereas the other option is more likely to do so. Unfortunately, developed nations, once again like the United States of America, tend to have a larger carbon footprint, while the developing nations are often largely impacted by their actions. Thus, they not like the Copenhagen Accord, especially since they do not have ample financial support to follow through with it. As a result, developed nations offered financial aid to developing nations as a way to bribe them into supporting the Copenhagen Accord.

These main points of the article are shown in exactly this order throughout the diagram. For example, the fossil fuels creating carbon causing climate change is the beginning. This moves onto show that countries working together worked on a political movement, which included the Accord and Protocol, both aiming to lower carbon- a core factor of global warming. The chart shows the difference in how the two methods try to achieve this similar goal and the varying effects of each. Next, it shows how developed nations favor one and the developing nations favor the other because of the gap in the unfair allocation of responsibility for carbon footprints. Lastly, the flow ends with developed nations attempting to convince developing nations otherwise.

As the module explains, climate change threatens crossing the planetary boundary and making the Earth unstable. Therefore, it as a global effort is an important issue. Therefore, the cables should have been publicized because transparency is necessary for global effort; it is important for everyone to work together, as tacky as that sounds. It is hard to claim whether the United States should have been conducting climate change diplomacy in the way that they were. Ethically, I suppose it’s wrong, even if just for their effort to make it a secret. Logically, it seems the most effective unfortunately. It is extremely difficult to have a nation (not only the U.S.) revert from its norm; the country heavily depends on coal, oil, and other polluting sources for energy. Module 9 admits that the increase in our use of fossil fuels during the Industrial Revolution improved our health and wealth. A sudden strict limitation would be hard and may not even work, possibly causing motivation for more secrecy. Also, convincing developing nations to support the Accord seems to have another advantage: aid in finance, which may be beneficial. Ethically, U.S. and others should take full responsibility for their actions and stop further harm, especially since it has had harmful temperature and water shifts. Logically, it will be more possible and effective to attempt to improve their methods and prevent further harm. This logical step would be an attempt to adapt and as the module explains, that could “reduce the amount of harm caused.”

2. In the diagram above I outlined the social and environmental aspects of the cables associated about the Copenhagen Accord. The Copenhagen Accord resulted from the collective action that was the UN Summit on climate change. I explain that through the need of fossil fuels for energy, manufacturing and transportation the amount of greenhouse gas emissions created led to global warming. This global event led to the need for a collective action from the major countries of the world. However, the United States did not agree with some of the ideas presented during the summit which led to some unethical actions on the part of the U.S. The Copenhagen Accord is a collective action the U.S. created to combat fossil fuel usage, greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. The UN wanted to charge the major countries that are responsible for greenhouse gas emissions a large sum of money along with forcing those countries to change their manufacturing practices. The U.S. decided to create the Accord in order to ensure these major changes did not happen by taking a different route. Many countries did not want to support the Accord because they were already supporting the UN’s plan. This led to U.S. officials offering promises of aid from $32 billion from the Accord. When offering this aid didn’t work, the U.S. threatened to cut aid to the countries. The U.S. also used spy tactics to learn more information about each countries involvement with global warming. Eventually most countries that supported the UN bill decided to support the Copenhagen Accord as well which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help the world fight global warming.

3. I agree that a collective action needs to be mitigated in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help fight against global warming. The events associated with the Copenhagen Accord led to political boundaries being crossed. I think that many private political conversations should be released at least a few years after the event occur. The leaks of these documents should not have even happened because those documents should have been released by the government. What the leak shows is that the government was trying to cover up the details of how they got support for the Accord. I think that how they received support was not entirely wrong. Although many of the actions were taken in an anthropocentric manner, the actions were partially ecocentric as well. The main purpose of the Accord was to benefit the U.S. so that manufacturing practices would not have to drastically change, but there is still funding associated with the Accord so that countries can lower greenhouse gas emission in the fight against global warming. The threats of cutting aid are not uncommon and are hardly considered unethical anymore as funding cut threats are always used in situations where support needs to be gained. Honestly, if the country that wants the aid isn’t willing to support an economically beneficial plan that also fights global warming, then that country doesn’t deserve funding. The use of spying to discover information is unethical because the U.S. does not have the right to meddle in foreign affairs that aren’t associated with national security. Offer countries aid for their support of the Copenhagen Accord is warranted because that is the real purpose of the Accord. Overall, the U.S. government should have handled the situation without the use of spying, and actually focused on a collective action instead of anthropocentric means of getting the support they wanted.

1. 
2. In my diagram I drew out the main events of the article describing how WikiLeaks demonstrated to the world who is responsible for greenhouse gases. The beginning of my diagram started with the need for energy production because that is how the greenhouse gas was produced. As we learned in this module the excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can cause serious issues. Due to this creation of greenhouse gases, there was an increase in climate change. This increase made other powers look at the US for a solution. With such a large increase in climate change the US decided to create the Copenhagen Accord. The Copenhagen Accord was created to mitigate climate change or simply reduce it and its negative affects. Countries outside the US were not big fans of this plan, but they needed the backup of other countries. The US would be unable to get the agreement to pass without other countries’ backing. Unfortunately, the US used extreme measures such as bribery, spying and threats in order to receive outside support. WikiLeaks then leaked all the strategies the US has been using and the public was very dissatisfied. In the end 116 signed the Copenhagen Accord, so in turn it was actually successful. Though the methods were looked down upon, the accord did show the 75% of the countries who signed were responsible for 80% of all greenhouse gases. Even with this success targeted to mitigate climate change, a large amount of political mistrust has been created.

3. I feel the actions taken towards to get the Copenhagen Accord to pass were extremely inappropriate, but not out of the ordinary. There have been many cases on bribery, threats and scandal to pass things in the US. The fact that this plan was aimed towards climate change does not make me as upset by the actions taken. I do believe that it was important for the state department cables to be made public because people should always be aware of the happenings in their country. Though it is important for people to have this knowledge, their ability to act is very limited. The US will use their power to do what they can, even if it is behind the backs of their population. I feel that the US should use different methods when conducting climate change diplomacy because their current methods are created distrust among not only their own people, but other countries as well. Though the intentions of the US are for good, forcing and bribing others to agree is extremely unethical. I also do not like the fact that the US took more benefits than any of the other countries involved. In a way this is the US saying that they are above other countries, so in turn they deserve more of the benefits. Once again I believe that the strategies used by the US were unnecessary. In no way do I think that the end result justifies the US’s actions taken in order to reach it.

2)  The universal problem of Climate Change is a global issue that has a need to be addressed because it is having major negative effects on our world as a whole. To begin my Climate Change Diagram I started with the burning of fossil fuels. Connected to the subject  of Fossil fuels I added another, entitled “Not Sustainable” by this I am referencing to the limited amount of fossil fuels remaining available to us. After the box of Fossil Fuels I next went onto the emission of Green House Gases which is in hand greatly leading to a large negative impact on our atmosphere. This of course is then traveled through to the Climate Change Box. I connected these two boxes especially because greenhouse emissions are directly related to the issue of due to the amount of CO2 being produced and pushed into our atmosphere. From there I finally put in the UN climate change convention. This is a major turning point in the area of climate change, where the Copenhagen Accord was created. From this representatives were able to mitigate for climate change on a global scale. Allow many countries did not want to participate in the accord, the US was able to persuade them using funds to support lesser financially stable countries. By this I mean the US offered aid to countries in need in order to gain support for the Copenhagen Accord. This was a massive step in the correct direction towards a prevention of climate change circumstances.

3) In my opinion I do believe even though it is slightly heavy handed in our manner the way the US was able to almost force the hand of some countries for the Copenhagen Accord it was the right thing to do. I do believe that the methods of withholding aid may have been intense in order to force the hand the topic of climate change is serious and needs to be taken seriously. I personally would have gone along the same path as far as using pressure for the greater good. If we think about the issue on a global scale which obviously it exists every country is responsible for the help to improve the problem. Without help and understanding from the rest of the world we can not make an impact large enough to make a change to the current situation. Although we may have taken into account the opinions of other countries as a valuable resource to improve overall quality of solutions to climate change. Furthermore I am an environmental engineering student who hopes to make a difference in the quality in which we are treating our world. We are only given one world in this lifetime so if we have to force other countries into aiding in the fight to not destroy it, I don’t have a problem with it.

2. My core focus was on how greenhouse gases, from our use of fossil fuels, led to climate change; which, ultimately formed the Copenhagen accord.  This was the United State’s idea of forming a plan to counter climate change.  The Copenhagen accord was formed at a convention in Copenhagen where countries got together trying to come up with ways to reduce counteract the impact that greenhouse gases had on the environment.  Although the initially reaction to the accord was both for and against the accord, the U.S. used techniques of espionage and bribery to get the approvals of other countries.  In terms of espionage, the U.S. sent secret cables to the African Union’s Meles Zenawi stating that “sign the accord or all discussion end now.”  In terms of bribery, the U.S. was promising aid and financial relief to poorer countries.  Even though this was done the views on the accord were still split between being for and against it.  Although as a result the U.S. received backing of most of the United Nations, it wasn’t purely voluntary.

3.  I think that the cables should have been made public.  This is because climate change is world wide problem and the way the U.S. got the other countries to sign the Copenhagen accord was just underhanded.  To me, the idea of obtaining support through the use of such underhanded methods could result in a lot of backlash form both the countries that were the targets of these methods as well as the citizens.  Such backlash could include: information not being released as it should be, countries planning against the U.S., having even less team work on solving the current problem on hand, and ultimately trust in the U.S. being lost.  This is the best example of what we learned in the ethics module, where the ends justifies the means.  However, in this case I do not believe we will ever meet the end since our means to go about this problem just causes more animosity.

1.

2. In my diagram, I showed the main points of the Copenhagen Accord and the tactics that the United States uses to gain the support of other opposing countries. At the beginning of the system diagram, it shows that the climate change starts the whole thing. The increase in climate change causes the Copenhagen Accord to come about which is a plan to decrease the greenhouse gasses emitted. In order for the Copenhagen Accord to be put into effect, the United States needed to gain the support of many different countries. The United States did this by unethical means. In order to get the support of the smaller, island countries like the Maldives, the United States bribed them with large payments and the countries accepted these bribes because the climate change affected them the most and they needed help. Another tactic used was to threaten the opposing country. For example, Ethiopia was initially against joining the Accord and having United States aid them, but the US sent them a confidential cable saying to “sign the accord or discussion ends now”. Ethiopia realized the threat and accepted to join the Accord if President Barack Obama personally assured that they will receive their aid money. For the larger, more opposing countries, the United States used confidential cables find information on the opposing countries. After all of this is done, the Copenhagen Accord was supported by 75% of the countries in the United Nations. Having the support of the majority of the countries could lead to the improvement of the climate, which is the endpoint of my system diagram.

3. I believe that the cables should have been made public because the people have the right to know what is being done to try and help the environment. I think that the more people that know about it the more of a collective action it would become. If fixing the change in climate becomes a collective action, the more people would be trying to fix the problem so it would be more affective. Also, I believe that the governments should partly base their decisions about fixing the climate change on the thoughts of the majority of the people. I do not agree with some of the methods that the United States used to gain the support of the opposing countries, but I cannot say that it did not work. Although it was unethical, the United States gained the support of over 116 countries in the United Nations and there are more that are going to join. With the support of all of these countries, the Copenhagen Accord can be put into effect and the climate change would decrease by reducing the greenhouse gas emission. The United States had good intentions when trying to gain support, but the methods were complete unethical propaganda. Other methods could have been implemented like honest negotiations when trying to gain the support of opposing countries. The United States should have tried change the opinion of opposing countries by educating them on the danger we are getting ourselves into and making them genuinely want to help the environment instead of being forced to or being bribed.

1. 
2. In my system diagram, I wanted to show the relationship between climate change and WikiLeaks cables. I started off by showing some main contributing factors of climate change, which we know as Greenhouse Gases and the use of Fossil Fuels. Because the talk of climate change has become such a major issue in these recent decades, the Copenhagen Accord was created. Climate change is starting to show its effects on certain parts of the Earth. For example, ice caps are melting and the sea level is rising. The United States agrees with this Copenhagen Accord idea, so they go to seek allies in support of this action.Being that the Copenhagen Accord really benefited the United States, action was taken in order to get other countries to agree with this method. Some unethical methods, such as bribery and cyber attacks, were used against other countries which ended up forcing them to sign on to the agreement. Perhaps some challenges will arise in the future, but only time will tell. I can, however, definitely see that happening being that some of the ‘forced’ agreeing countries might rise up against the accord some time down the road. In the end, there were many countries who did not agree with the dishonesty of the United States, but 116 countries signed on and an additional 26 agreed in the end. Even though the countries were manipulated into signing this agreement, one can state that the Copenhagen Accord was successful in reaching its goal of having such a large amount of agreements.
3. When it comes to my own personal opinion, I certainly have a dead set point on the cables and climate change diplomacy. The cables should definitely be made public. It is the right of the human body to be able to observe and attain such knowledge. The United States is always concerned about the money and getting the better end of a deal. With that being known, it concludes in the overall goal of a project (such as the Copenhagen Accord) to be lost. The goal is to eventually slow down or stop the change of the climate with the census of countries around the world. The United State is obsessed with the fact that they need the POWER when inn fact they need to worry about their STATUS. Giving a bad name by manipulating other countries to agree with such accord is not a way of gaining a higher global status. Even if the act was incorrect, of releasing the State Department Cables, we can only embrace how it was done and hope for a better outcome in time. The cables showed the blunt truth as to what the exact negative impacts are of greenhouse gas emissions and burning of fossil fuels. This should have been done in a less aggressive manner by the United States. The whole truth should have been made aware and nothing should have been left off of the grid to anyone. Secrets are never a good way to get anywhere, especially in politics.

2. My diagram focused on the main events in the article to improve the climate. Such as climate change, the negotiating climate treaty, the United States paying for allies, and the result of the       166 countries associating with the accord. Greenhouse gases which cases global warming, is gas compounds in the atmosphere that absorbs infrared energy. The United States then wanted to re-engineer the global economy. In result of climate change a negotiation climate change treaty was created between the United States and allies. This was then called the Copenhagen Accord. The Accord assured thirty billion dollars to the poverty nations in aid to the global warming that they had not caused. This aid helped that United States gain support and allies from other countries. However, another concern was if they U.S.’s aid would be in cash. Also, another issue with finance is that countries will keep their word with improving climate change. However, the U.S. threatened Zenawi. They stated that they sign the accord or the discussion ended. Zenawi responded back that Ethiopia was in support, but there was concern that the assurance of the aid was not being respected. Currently, 116 countries are associated with the accord and twenty-six countries intend to have association with the accord.

3.I think that we have the right to see these documents. However, it tends to make the United States look bad. The reason is because they are trying to do the right thing but in the wrong manner. I think that it is important for the public to see this for many reasons. The government should be ran by the people, so it is important for the public to see the cables in order to gage whether it is right or not. If there is an outcry then the government should cease that way of doing things. It is very important for the United States to attack global warming because it is a leader country. If the Unites States can use diplomatic strategies in order to combat global warming. Global warming is not something that is caused by one single nation but rather several developed nations, which is why you need several countries to participate. I think that the Unites States should go about things differently to those countries that oppose the fight for a greener planet. The United Sates should combine with other nations in developing ways like machinery, business plans and other things that require greener actions. The countries that do not want to hop on bored will be forced to conform to the global warming fight or it will hurt their economy if they do not.

The diagram I have made depicts how the United States manipulated various countries into signing the Copenhagen Accord. Although it was not necessarily in their best interest for these various countries to sign the Accord, political pressure from the United States made opposition to the Accord incredibly difficult to maintain. The diagram begins in the upper left hand corner with climate change as the first step. Current fosil fuel usage and unsustainable economic, political, and societal practices have increased the temperature of the planet, which shows signs of incredibly deleterious effects on the planet. Climate change is recognized by the entire world, which is highlighted in the next box. A Copenhagen Accord is then drafted in order to promote more sustainable practices, reduce the use of unsustainable practices, and promise aid to countries who would be severely damaged by climate change. In the next box, the United States promise to provide aid to countries severely damaged, in accordance with the Copenhagen Accord. This box then links to two other boxes, one of them being the total number of countries who signed the Accord. Some countries signed the document just by the promise given by the United States. However, the former box is also connected with another box which highlights the United States manipulation of different countries to gain votes. In one box, the United States uses threats the to force different countries to sign the Accord. In another box, the United States bribes other countries with aid, and funding for various “projects” that the countries require. Both these boxes points to the final box which highlights the 140 out of a total of 193 countries that signed the Copenhagen Accord.

In order to combat climate change, there needs to be serious collective action on mitigation from every single country from around the world. Because every single country is contributing to climate change, every single country needs to reform their unsustainable practices to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and find alternative energy sources that would not significantly affect the climate. Of course, different countries contribute to the issue in different ways, like the United States being the largest contributor to climate change whereas a small island country would not, but regardless every country needs to contribute. Collective action needs treaties like the Copenhagen Accord to very strictly change the way countries behave, but they need to be written to maximize the reduction of climate change. I believe what the United States did is highly unethical, where the Accord was definitely not agreed upon by other countries, whether or not for strictly political reasons or that the Accord did not combat climate change whether enough. But regardless, political manipulation by the United States was not done to reduce climate change, but to harm other powerful countries and make the United States more powerful. This practice is therefore highly unethical, as manipulation was conducted under a guise instead of actually promoting some positive change. I believe that the cables should definitely be made public, beforehand and afterwards. Ideally there should not be any secret discourse about climate change issues where countries can actually harm negotiations, deals, and political and economic progress.

My diagram describes the events that led to the creation of the Copenhagen Accord and the effects of the accord. The creation of the Copenhagen Accord started because of the great amount of fossil fuels being burned all across the world. The burning of these fossil fuels put out an excessive amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases then created climate change and were leading to global warming problems. Global warming is a global problem that is very difficult to reverse which is why each country needed to be a part of the change to actually make a difference and slow it down. Many countries were being difficult with agreeing to negotiations which is why the Copenhagen Accord was created. The Copenhagen Accord was created to get the other countries to agree to actions to fight global warming by lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The accord would make bigger, faster growing countries bound to certain rules. However, the accord threatens the UN negotiations with the richer countries.These threats have made many countries object the accord and that is where the US ran into problems.  To get these other countries to agree the US bribed and manipulated them by offering money to the poorest nations effected by global warming. There was also a distrust that countries would not keep there word. There were many countries on the fence after all this dishonesty and manipulation from the US but 116 countries ended up agreeing with the accord. 26 other countries have agreed to associate themselves with the accord.

I think that the cables should be made public so there isn’t so much of an outcry after they are leaked. I also think that climate change and global warming isn’t taken as seriously as it should be. The whole world must work together to fight global warming because the efforts of a single country will not mean anything if many other countries continue their lives normally. When a large country like China is bound to the same rules as a smaller, poorer country there isn’t going to be a change. China is a huge country with many people and industrial areas and as it keeps growing and industrializing itself there will be much more greenhouse emissions created. China needs to have stricter rules binding it to fight against greenhouse gas emissions so that we actually have a chance against global warming. However, smaller countries also need to have strict binding rules and keep up with their end of the deal. Honestly, although it was wrong, I don’t think if the US hadn’t manipulated the other countries that anything would’ve been agreed to. Money talks and if the poorer countries hadn’t been offered/bribed money they probably still would never agreed to the accord. The US has created unnecessary distrust by this method but other countries need to be more acceptable to ideas that are for the greater good of the future. In the future the US should think more about international relations before it manipulates other countries.