My systems diagram explains the effect of the burning of fossil fuels and the response the world is taking due to the destruction of our earth. My diagram starts with the burning of fossil fuel these fossil fuels are burned when cars are used along with other modes of transportation. The burning causes emissions known as green house gasses. The greenhouse gas emissions cause the ozone layer of the atmosphere to deteriorate letting in more and more sunlight. This as a result increases the temperature of the earth, with this drastic increase in global climate, there has been a human response. The Copenhagen Accord is issued as an attempt to cut down on the catastrophic causes of the climate change. As most of the world would like to join in the efforts some did not comply. Due to the major investment and use of fossil fuels across the globe, it was only through manipulation and aid that the Copenhagen Accord could be established.

Personally I think that each country should have their own say in the environmental impact they have, this being to some extent. I obviously do not think it is ion anyway right for people to be able to harm the environment in any way, but some countries need to use fossil fuels to survive, I think we should take a more green approach by weaning these fossil fuel based economies into a less disparaging origin of capital. The green campaign is great for the development of a poorer and less technologically advanced. The use of solar panels and carbon offsets can slowly but surely regain the health of the earth if there is a full effort.

­My systems diagram emphasizes the main components of the cable leaks revolving around the Copenhagen Accord. The accord is one of many proposals of the UN Climate Change Conferences to reduce green house gas emissions. The Copenhagen Accord is endorsed heavily by the United States as it reduces the binding obligations of large industrialized nations that the UN process has adapted. This would allow the United States to reduce its emissions in its preferred method, reducing the status of the economy. By reducing the emission restrictions, industrial practices can continue with limited obstacles. Industrial processes are some of the largest sources of green house gas emissions, considerably from fossil fuel excavation and use, which increase the amount of trapped solar radiation that raises the Earth’s surface temperature. Increased temperature is one of the many symptoms of climate change, to mitigate climate change global conferences (such as the UN Climate Change conferences). Industrial practices are also are a source of much economic wealth. Keeping industrial practices from restrictions that the UN process would otherwise induce is in the United State’s interest because of the large surge of wealth it provides for the country. To get other countries to support the Copenhagen Accord (that would allow this), the United States has allotted financial support to other countries in need to sway their position on the proposal. From the diagram, the opposing process listed in the article, the UN process, has support from the Basic Countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) which would be less restricted from the process than the U.S..

My strongest view on the cable leak is that the negotiations should not have been private. As representative members of the public, the State Department’s agendas should be that of the people they represent, and to know how the people would want to be represented the Department has to at least let the public know what is going on. This would slow down some negotiations, but the ends that are meaning to be achieved would be that of the nation and better represent “the people.” This is a community action problem, because individuals might want to continue with their gas emission activities instead of the intent of the UN conference to reduce emissions. However, considering the United States has taken a position already in interest more towards retaining industrial strength than emission reduction, involving the public wouldn’t lesson the nation’s intent of climate change mitigation.

To get supporters for the Copenhagen Accord, the United States has been negotiating aid for (participating) countries in need. Withdrawing aid for those who contend and increasing aid for those who concede influences these poorer nations to sway their votes in favor of the Accord. Although done underhanded, this is a common strategy in negotiations. For anyone to want to adhere to a decision, they must benefit in some way, and the United States has been giving these nations aid for their support on the decision.

This method for gaining support has allowed the consensus to swing largely in favor of the Copenhagen Accord. As for climate diplomacy, it is not being used properly as the Accord would not be able to restrict the overall emissions and just restrict particular practices the country itself allows. The U.S. is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, so if every nation had to reduce their emissions by a certain percentage, the U.S. would be one of the largest affected. This method would be in the best interest of climate mitigation because those with smaller emission rates already do not need to reduce their footprint as much as those with larger ones. The U.S. is a nation that needs to greatly reduce its footprint so that reducing the impact of climate change is achieved. If the U.S. does not have greater restrictions for its large-scale emissions, the mitigation­ efforts wouldn’t be as productive.

My diagram illustrates the steps to the creation of the Copenhagen Accord and the results of its creation.  I began with showing how the excessive amounts of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere lead to the cause of global warming and climate change. Because of global warming it has become aware to many countries that we need to collectively take mitigative action.  In response, a climate change treaty was made between countries (Kyoto Agreement). As an effort to begin the necessary steps for mitigation of greenhouse emissions,  the Copenhagen Accord was created to get participating countries to agree to take specific actions to begin the process of lowering greenhouse emissions. This agreement in particular served interest to the U.S. as the U.S. is one of the leading countries in production of greenhouse emissions. In order to increase participating countries the U.S. took a dishonest route and began bribing, manipulating and phishing other countries into associating. Many of the smaller and poorer countries were against this accord because they are being asked to give up so much when one, they are primarily trying to create a decent standard of living for their people and also are barely contributing to the overall problem. They were being promised money if they join and threatened if they didn’t. Because of the U.S.’s dishonesty, a lot of tension and mistrust was developed between countries. However, the U.S. did manage to be successful with others. As a result 116 countries associated with the accord and more pledging to do so in the future.

It is clear that climate change is a very real event that is becoming more and more serious as time goes on with no act of change. It’s important to note that climate change is not solely one country’s problem. It is a problem for the entire planet and everyone will face the consequences whether positive or negative. The cable leaks I think are important to be made public. Climate change is a universal issue and everyone should be in light of what is happening in efforts to lower greenhouse emissions. Although the approach of the U.S. is dishonest and manipulative, you can’t argue that it wasn’t for a good cause. Collective mitigation is just that, “collective”. Universal lowering of greenhouse gas emissions cannot be done if every country is not making an effort. However, in my opinion the U.S. did not go about it the right way at all. By using dishonesty as a strategy, the U.S. has created unnecessary tensions and mistrust between countries. Third world countries especially cannot be expected to give up as much as first world countries when they do not share even close to the same quality of life. Larger countries need to have more empathy for these smaller and poorer countries and educate rather than try to force. Globally reducing greenhouse emissions is a universal collective action problem and countries need to be honest with each other and build strong relationships in order to successfully work together for positive change.

My diagram is short and sweet. I attempted to design my diagram so that each step leads right into the next. The diagram explains exactly how the climate change lead to different results as a cause of another result. By starting off with the general problem, we know that that is the climate shift. As a direct result, the U.S. was forced to introduce the Copenhagen Accord. The accord took a ton of efforts by the states to bribe and perform other illegal actions in order to get other nations to sign on. When the Copenhagen Accord was passed, a ton of issues began to arise. Mainly, the problems began with deciding on how to handle the potential loss of billions of dollars. As a result of this conflict, a few things happened. Three of the things that happened were that the U.S. had to establish the implementation of the cables, the Phishing attacks began, and we needed to support the people with financial aid in order to keep things stable. My diagram depicts all of this in a simple manner that shows the flow of one event to the next.

In my opinion, the State Department cables should not have been made public. This would only cause more issues by stirring up community members. I feel that it is in the control of the people to reduce pollution and other causes of climate change. The United States government is responsible for the well being of the people. If the well being of the people involves government intervention on policies that affect the shift in climate, than that is what should have been done. What should not have been done though, is that other nations should not have been bribed and performed corrupt actions just to pass the Copenhagen Accords. This was not in the best interest of the people because it brought along other problems such as illegal activities. If this was truly in the best interest of the people, than their would have been no negative affects such as loss of billions of dollars, financial aid support, Phishing attacks, and more.

My diagram shows the many different steps that ultimately went into the Copenhagen Accord coming to fruition. I began with global warming and greenhouse gas emissions because they are the main source of problems that are causing climate change. The emissions are hurting the environment, not in one specific area but all over the world. The UN conventions on climate change were extremely important because they brought many countries together to try and find a solution for climate change. What came out of the convention was ultimately the formation of the Copenhagen Accord. For the Copenhagen Accord to be able to work like they wanted it to, it needs the backing of many other countries, even those that are poorer and smaller. One problem with this is smaller countries that were not causing many greenhouse gas emissions were feeling as if they would not be benefiting from the accord as well as larger, more prominent countries would. The Copenhagen Accord being passed would greatly serve the interests of the United States. Cables that showed these negotiation tactics were obtained by WikiLeaks and released to the public. The United States began to try and coerce other countries that were not as interested in being involved, just for their own benefit. Other countries were being promised money and being threatened if they did not join. All in all, the 140 out of 193 of the countries involved in the goal for climate change are now in support of the accord.

Although I think that it is unfortunate that the United States was put in such a bad light from the release of the cables, I do believe that it is a good thing that they were published for the public to see. What occurred was wrong and people deserve to see what is going on behind closed doors, especially with things such as climate change, something universally affects everyone. It should absolutely be publicized that the strong countries of the world are taking advantage of their power position and trying to bully the smaller, weaker countries into taking the same amount of responsibility. This takes into question the ethics of what was done. I do not believe that it was ethical for the United States to bribe and threaten the other countries into joining the accord just for their own advancement. With such a large issue such as climate change, I think it is incredibly wrong and goes against ethics to bully other countries into doing what the United States thinks is best for our own country. By not taking into consideration how wrong it is to do this, the United States was being extremely selfish and I believe it is important to share the information that was in the cables to show that no one can just get away with these “negotiation” tactics. I believe that in the future, steps must be taken so what the United States did to other countries cannot be done again. There needs to be preventative measures taken where all countries can equally share responsibility for what they have done or still need to do in regards to different issues throughout the world and correct collective action can be put into these large scale issues. 

1. 
2. I decided to make it clear in my diagram some of the major contributing factors to climate change. It is clear that climate change affects everyone on a global scale. This being said, it all starts from the three main points, fossil fuels, methane emissions, and vehicle emissions being some of the primary causes. From here the diagram continues to explain the more corrupt results more than just environmental damage. While trying to achieve a ‘good’ goal the US participates in shady practices such as spying, threats, and bribery. This information was then leaked to the public along with plenty of other ‘incriminating’ information via WikiLeaks. The Copenhagen Accord was doing a good thing to get countries together to fight back against climate change to reduce emissions and greenhouse gasses. The United States, while clearly being a world superpower, still needs other countries on board to make global policy decisions. They took to these shady actions in order to gather these 140 countries to make a positive effect on the Earth, and to try to fight back against this horrible damage being done which affects all 7 billion+ people on the Earth. It’s a fact that the 140 countries involved in the Copenhagen Accord are the cause of more than 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. It is difficult to make any decision when you have over 100 countries involved, all being impacted and affected by the causes and results in different ways. This is arguably the reason that the United States needed to almost ‘strong-arm’ people into making a decision.
3. I think it’s interesting to look at this aspect of climate change. Regardless of the (pretty much one sided) debate, it is interesting to learn about the corruption and actions taken to make regulations. I think transparency is extremely important in any sort of system especially governments around the world. That being said, my opinion of what was done does not lean to either side as I am split. I believe it is a debate of whether or not the end justifies the means. The United States did shady things in order to get other countries on board for what they believed would be extremely beneficial. I believe that had the actions been taken more “in the light” than behind closed doors I would have been more ‘approving’, to so speak, of their actions. A lot of what goes into deciding an opinion of what is right or wrong in this case goes back to Module 3: Ethics. To reference a quote from Module 3, “Sustainable utilization is a simple idea: we should utilize species and ecosystems at levels and in ways that allow them to go on renewing themselves for all practical purposes indefinitely.” I believe that in this case the end does justify the means because of the importance of sustainability. Climate change is a major problem we face not only as a nation but as a collective world, and as a country that is a major contributor to damaging the ozone layer it can be explained that we need to do whatever we can to lessen the impact we make.

My diagram starts with Fossil Fuel Burning; this leads to two outcomes. The obvious gain here is Cheap Power/Energy. It is methods that we have used for a very long time. The industry is well backed and lots of research has gone into these methods. However, burning Fossil Fuels also produces Greenhouse Gases which is not good. It traps heat within the atmosphere which leads to Climate Change. Climate Change is an extreme issue that the world is dealing with right now and there are obvious signs that it is not slowing down. If we wish to live a sustainable life then all countries must begin changing their practices and moving towards more sustainable means of energy production. Climate Change ultimately lead to the Copenhagen Accord which was a proposal to move towards “cleaner” means of energy production. It heavily favored Developed Countries but is extremely expensive for Developing Countries. Change the infrastructure of a developing country can be extremely country, and these countries were showing lots of hesitation as there were very few gains for them in this. This is when the U.S. started bribing and even threatening these countries into backing the Copenhagen Accord. Countries that did not respond well to bribes were threatened and eventually accepted for what the U.S. was asking. These cables however were leaked and released through WikiLeaks. There was lots of backlash after realizing how many countries the U.S. influenced through bribes and threats leading to 140 countries backing the Copenhagen Accord. Ultimately it was an opportunity for the world to start moving towards more sustainable energy production methods but it was not done so in an honest way.

The State Department cables really brought to light how many countries the U.S. had influenced in backing the Copenhagen Accord. There is no doubt that Climate Change is a serious issue and the Copenhagen Accord was an opportunity to really start moving away from Fossil Fuel Burning and towards cleaner alternatives that exist today. As a Developing Country, to have laws laid down that force you to completely change your energy production model when you are trying to focus on growth in other areas can be a gigantic setback and you may not even have the money to do so. The U.S. recognized this and tried to gain support for the Copenhagen Accord by bribing and eventually threatening these select countries. This definitely was not an honest way to go about it but it is difficult to argue that it was not for a good cause. The other side of this conflict is whether the cables should have been released to the public. I do agree though that they should have. It’s important to highlight when things like this happen to prevent it in the future and maybe make negotiations more neutral to both developed and developing countries. When it comes down to it, Climate Change is a collective action issue and we need all countries to be moving towards cleaner methods of energy production.

In my diagram, I started at the top with humans, because without them, there would be very little to no pollution on earth. Humans caused an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases, which also lead to a change in global climate. This was an even larger problem than it should have been because of the lack of awareness and lack of effort in coming up with a solution to the problem. With little to no idea of the problem, humans had little reason to change. Finally the Copenhagen Accord was put into place in 2009, which gave every nation a way to choose the target for greenhouse gas cuts. Larger countries benefited more from the accord than smaller countries, so some developing countries had little reason to support the Accord. The United States is the largest polluter, and a large developed country, so the Accord benefitted them greatly, and they wanted all countries to support the Accord. This caused disagreements and threats between the United States and non-supporters. Eventually, WikiLeak Cables exposed these threats form the United States to other countries that did not support the Accord. In the end, 140 countries support the Accord, while over 20 do not. My diagram points from each spot to what it caused. For example, humans caused an increase in greenhouse gases.

I feel that this is a very tough issues and that my view on the issue differs from time to time. On one hand, I do not think that the cables should have been made public because I think this could have caused a lot of confusion, leading to unwanted rumors and misunderstanding. There is definitely some information in these cables that not every person in the world is going to understand, so rumors could be started about what the information contained or what different countries said. I do though believe that we have a right to know what is going on in the world, I just don’t think this was the best way for everyone to find out. If someone could have explained the material in an un-biased manner that everyone was able to understand, maybe countries would have been better off. I also believe that the United States should not have been manipulating countries into supporting the Accord. I do not agree with every way that the United States tried to get people involved, just to benefit themselves. Instead, I believe that the United States should have met more often in person to talk about their views, or put more agreements in place to get other countries involved. If everyone could have benefitted from the Accord, everyone would have agreed to it. Maybe if less developed countries were benefitting more, the United States could have acted in a more stable manner to increase the support.

The core concepts behind my diagram are pretty straight forward. Climate change is obvious and inevitable. People are recognizing this, but a core group of people, UNFCC, finally stepped up to make the Copenhagen Accord. This helped reduce greenhouse gasses and, overall, climate change. Since it was working, the US wanted to back the Copenhagen accord. However, they took the low road and began spying on other countries and threatening them in order for them to be involved to because this issue is so important. There were about 116 countries who also back the Copenhagen Accord, where 34 others were on edge about it. After some WikiLeaks let it be known that the US had these spaying charges on them, they back out. The important thing is, and what Is included in the diagram, is that eventually these countries back the Copenhagen Accord and it is helping the original cause, helping Climate Change.

I think climate change is obvious and there needs to be change immediately. However, I do not understand why the US thought threatening other countries was going to do anything long lasting. I think this obvious issue should be shown to people to make them see how obvious it is. This can happen with more education on the topic, which this course over all does. Although we go in-depth in the topic, key elements can be taken out and shown people. Like monoculture farming and all those videos about trash filled towns in 3^rd world countries. People can also be taught, in simple terms, how to fix this problem. By address specifically who and what is causing these problems and start with those. We can no longer afford to rely on people to “do their individual part” because it’s the big things that are really affecting us. Explaining further…for example, I think it’s great that we can do our part of cutting down on gas emissions by trying to grow our own crops in our back yard or little community gardens, but there are still million of people who go to the grocery store who don’t see the impact they’re making on just the drive there. Because even the common people don’t know the effect it makes, it may help to instate some type of environmental education in schools, so even more people become aware of this issue and really start to make a difference in fixing climate change.

There are many core ideas behind the systems diagram I created based on the article, WikiLeaks Cables Reveal How US Manipulated Climate Accord. To start out, my systems diagram shows that the main issue of greenhouse gas emissions begins the entire cycle of what happens. The increase of greenhouse gas emissions leads to a huge environmental problem of climate change, also known as global warming. Because of the escalation in climate change, the US negotiated a climate treaty with other countries, which caused the flow of billions of dollars to be redirected since the global economy was trying to be re-engineered into a low-carbon model. The climate treaty is called the Copenhagen accord plan; this accord is an unofficial document that emerged from the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009. From this accord, the US sought out allying countries to agree to the accord; getting as many countries as possible to associate themselves with the accord would strongly boost the likelihood of it getting officially adopted. However, negotiating with the accord meant that that country needed to follow specific actions that would cut the levels of greenhouse gas emissions. While some countries negotiated with the accord with little persuading, there were still opposing countries. In order to try and get the opposing countries to support the accord, the US used money, spying, threats, and promises of aid. After using these tactics through cables of communication to get the opposing countries to negotiate, a total of 116 countries associated themselves with it, with 26 countries saying they intend too.

Since the boom in the Industrial Revolution began, humanity has been burning fossil fuels and changed the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The changes in the greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere are drastically causing changes to the global climate. Avoiding climate change is very difficult because there are many aspects that need to be put into this issue to make it eventually stop. Because of the massive scale of climate change, it is a very demanding collective action problem and it involves everyone in every country around the world. This is why the US developed the Copenhagen accord. In order to get this accord officially adopted, the US needed support from other countries. However, I believe that the US used immoral strategies to get countries to negotiate with the accord. Though, I do believe that it was a good thing these cables were leaked and made public so that citizens can see what is taking place. The US is a democracy and I believe each individual should have a say in how to get other countries to negotiate, instead of leaving it to the government to be sneaky. Also, since the accord was leaked, almost all citizens now have the knowledge of what is happening to our atmosphere and can help stop climate change. Taking responsible and ethical actions to halt greenhouse gas emissions in the US can show other countries it is possible, and will allow them to negotiate with the accord without being spied on or threatened. The longer greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere, the longer climate change will persist and worsen.

Section 1:

I started my diagram with just “climate change”.  I did this because climate change is the basis of this whole issue and it is an issue in its self that affects the whole world and the nations that inhabit it.  Since climate change is a very pressing issue that our world faces today it inevitably will lead to a need to find a solution that will either stabilize are resolve the world’s climate change crisis.  This need to stabilize our worlds climate was discussed in the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in 2009.  this was good news fro the future of our world but it unfortunately wasn’t the best thing for business.  If we are successful in finding a way to become less dependent on fossil fuels or eliminate them entirely we will see a massive redirection of billions of dollars which will affect many nations economic well being, some for the better and some for the worse.  This potential redirection of wealth triggered several unethical actions by several nations, including the US and China.  These questionable actions are all to promote each nations own agendas and to make sure that they come out on top after the Copenhagen Accord begins to redirect billions.  The US was found to be requesting personal intelligence on leaders of foreign nations from the UN on several issues, one of which being climate change.  This information that was acquired lead to the US offering financial “support” to foreign nations in order to get them to support the US’ agenda.  The US wasn’t alone in the unethical actions.  China implemented “spear phishing attacks” on the office of US climate change envoy.  These attacks contained a code that would give hackers full access to sensitive intelligence, luckily these attacks were unsuccessful.

section 2:

The Wiki-leaks situation brought a lot of light to an issue that affects the world.  Even though there was a handful of unethical actions during this scandal the basis of the it is good.  The world’s super powers are taking an interest in the well-being of our ecosystem and the practices that are threatening to damage it.  When comes to the issue of the cables being leaked people are on the fence about how they feel about it.  I personally think that its okay that the public knows about the events taking place in our world’s governments.  I think that keeping things a secret is never a good idea because eventually something like the Wiki-leaks incident will happen and people will be upset.  If governments are upfront about issues they are trying to solve and alliances they are trying to make than it will be better for the public and will give the public a sense of involvement in its government’s objectives.  Even though I am in favor of the public knowing about the State Department Cables I am not particularly as happy about the way the US conducted the climate change diplomacy.  After reading the article it seems as though a lot of countries, including the US, were dealing with some sketchy strategies in order to gain power.  Instead of taking the opportunity to try and make the world a more sustainable place, nations used the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit/Accord as a tool to gain power.  When unethical strategies are being implemented I want, and expect, the US to be the moral high ground.

The main ideas behind my diagram revolve around the Wikileaks cables from the Copenhagen Accords. First of all, the issue is formed behind the problem of climate change. This issue led the UN to bring together 193 countries to discuss what the world needs to accomplish in terms of creating a healthier planet. This created the Copenhagen Accords. Once the delegates assembled, however, it became obvious that the US was sending secretive messages to many other countries in favor of signing the weak document. First, the United States used resources like the CIA to discover information about the other countries participating. At times, they chose to work w h the poor countries who needed compensation to deal with the repercussions. One instance that this can be seen is with Bolivia, where the US cut aid because of “cit[ed] opposition to the accord”. The US participated in creating the terms and therefore helped the countries they were working with get the terms that they believed were fair. This participation as well as the “wheeling and dealing” of the United States helped countries like Saudi Arabia sign the document. Moving on, the US participation helped to enlist 140 countries to at least promise to sign the accord. This means that little debate went into the document and the terms were much more lenient than they could, or should, have been. In the end, this situation ended with the US leading the debate on climate change.

In my opinion, this whole encounter was not approached in the correct way. Although I understand that these are private conversations, and the people who took part in them would have liked them to stay private, I believe it is important that the public at least know that they happened. The specific contents need not be discussed or leaked to the point that they were, but I think that the public deserves the justice of knowing what deals our country is making in terms of our environment. I think that the US government should have led the distribution of information regarding this transaction. A very important consequence of the actions of the United States delegates was that the debate and discussion was severely limited. Because of this, some may argue that proper mitigation for climate change will not be fulfilled by the appropriate countries. This has to do with the issue of ethics as well as individual vs collective responsibility. Although the United States has the means and the technology to develop more responsible methods in terms of the use of natural resources, they instead put their ample funds towards coercing other delegates to sign a “toothless” contract, so to speak. I think that if the US had considered what they were doing in terms of ethically sound communications, they would be trying to convince others to do their part in cleaning up our world. In terms of individual action, the United States had the chance to get the rest of the countries on board for a much more thorough accord in which the environment would get cleaned up. However, they chose to use ethically un-sound methods to achieve their goal of lack of actual repercussions.

1.

2.

My diagram starts with climate change, a growing concern on our planet today which is very overlooked. Once people realize what a major issue it is, the diagram then moves to the next stage which is wanting to do something about it. I chose my second branch to be about the US wanting to take charge because the WikiLeaks article is more about US involvement. The Copenhagen Accord is then proposed and it does not receive much backing from other countries. In the diagram, an arrow goes from the proposal of the accord to the US needing other 7countries support.  Because the US needs other countries support, officials used bribes and threats to try and get other countries to support. This results in about 75% of countries backing the accord. The US needing the help of other countries also leads to another branch of the diagram. This branch states that although the US needs more support, less developing countries are willing to give it because they believe the accord only benefits larger countries. This leads to the others 25% of countries not joining. Both the threats, bribes and the smaller countries opinions are all leaked on WikiLeaks. The WikiLeaks article being connected to climate change is all through politics. This is very concerning considering the fact that the accord was so difficult to pass. If smaller countries are hesitant on supporting the issue, the future could be an ongoing process in the fight against climate change. Politics should not be the determining factor of why climate change is such a major issue.

3.

After reading Module 9, it is clear that climate change is a growing concern in our world today. Impacts of climate change can be as unnoticeable as slight weather changes to as drastic as shifts in ocean levels which consume much of the arctic every year.  The growing concern needed to be tended to, which is why the Copenhagen Accord was proposed. The US needed support to pass this proposal however, and they used very unethical tactics. I believe the people have the right to know what goes on through the politics side of major issues. It is very unfortunate that such a major issue like climate change has to be held down to politics and government. I believe that the cables should have been released to the public as they were. Even though it does not shine light upon the US in a good way, we deserve to know what our officials are doing to treat the issue, and if they go about it unethically, we may need to look into it further. To help the issue without politics, I believe everyone can chip in to help stop climate change. If we were to bypass politics by taking action ourselves, we could avoid the mess that was needing votes for the Copenhagen Accord. Waiting for support also takes a lot of time which is valuable when talking about climate change. Also it may take an extended amount of time to end up with no support which would be the worse-case scenario. Future generations will be severely impacted if we do not take action now.

2. My diagram focuses on the secret cables and bribery that the US used in order to persuade countries to be in favor of the Copenhagen Accord to cut the amount of greenhouse emissions. The Copenhagen accord focuses on each individual country’s plan to cut the amount of emissions. It allows the countries to have their own plan. My diagram starts with climate change. The greenhouse emissions are released into the atmosphere. These emissions are what lead to climate change. Climate change is what led to the creation of the Copenhagen Accord. Since the US has such a large contribution to the amount of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, they were quite in favor of this accord. With the US being so in favor, they were really pushing for other countries to join the accord. If a country was not in favor, they would request a large amount of money from the US. The US then gave in to the bribes. These were not the only tactics of our country however. The US tried to send secret cables to other countries in order to entice them to join. The US actually sent China a cable that was disguised as a file from the National Journal. Whenever the file was opened, the user who planted the corrupt file would have complete control of the computer that opened it. Other countries decided that there was a great deal of money to be made from the US, so they attempted to negotiate. After all the bribery and secret cables, the US ended up compensating many countries to end in a total of 140 countries in favor of the accord.

3. In module 9, we learned about Climate change and in particular, about the Copenhagen Accord. I feel that climate change is a very serious threat to our world. Like stated within module 9, human and non-human systems are adapting to climate change. Whether it be the amount of water in our oceans or the temperature shifts, something has to be done. The impacts of climate change are bound to cause harm. The concept of climate change also brings up another concept that we have learned about, sustainability. There was a definition within module 3 that stated: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This definition is applicable in this scenario. By limiting the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, future generations will grow up in the new way of doing things and eventually have a lower emission rate as a whole, thus aiding in sustainability. Lastly, I think that the State Department should have made everything public. I don’t feel that climate change issues require our country to bug a file and send it to other countries in order to align them with our views. I think that every country should want to team up together as a whole to lower our greenhouse emission rates. The US should not have gone about it the way that they did. The US should have been a little less discrete. Maybe more countries would have joined us in the accord if we weren’t so sneaky and malicious. The use of secret cables just made countries not trust us. This is why I feel that we as a whole should team up to limit our greenhouse gas emissions and try to end climate change.

1. 

2. Once climate change and the idea that civilization is mostly responsible for it gained enough traction, the world began to take action. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol were adopted,
among other initiatives throughout the world. The United States realized that
the targets set forth in these deals were going to end up being extremely bad
for the economy, a short term effect in the grand scheme but something that
would be very significant to the American way of life especially considering
the state of the national economy at the time. Even though a global deal wasn’t
reached at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, they were able to create the
Copenhagen Accord. The U.S. knowing that this was beneficial to us economically, as well as politically, backed this and began to diplomatically seek support using economic aid as encouragement to back the accord. The E.U. knowing the accord wasn’t the best deal for the state of climate change in the world but realizing that having the majority of the world’s greenhouse gas contributors on one page would be extremely beneficial for possibilities in the future. The United States ends up with 140 countries backing the accord, which would make it seem like the compromises that are made presently could be worth it in the future when a new deal could be negotiated between countries that are already members of the Copenhagen Accord. This seems like substantial progress
to me, especially when it’s hard enough to get some of these countries just to
sit down and discuss things like climate change.   

3. My views on this subject probably make me seem like an extremely indoctrinated American, I am a U.S. Marine currently serving at a diplomatic posting so I may have a unique perspective on this topic when compared to other people that are in more traditional roles as students. These cables should not have been exposed. Wikileaks compromised many lives when they did that and they are arguably responsible for American deaths. The State Department and various intelligence agencies have missions appointed to them by elected government officials that are privy to information that is being analyzed by many extremely qualified personnel. They have to balance consequences and try to make decisions that will be most beneficial to their constituency (also known as the American people). I can assure you that Julian Assange didn’t have consequences in mind when he released these to the world. As an American voter you should trust the government to make decisions on policies that affect the world and leave those kinds of things to those people that have resources, like the CIA, at their disposal. If you as an American don’t like the foreign policy of the government, that’s your cue to vote for changes. All of that being said, things like climate change and the processes behind the policies that the world’s governments are are adopting affect all of us. There should be more transparency so that if interested, people can have access to appropriate information to educate themselves on the goings on of the world and form educated opinions. 

For my diagram, I wanted to start with the main idea of Climate Change since that is the event that is the root cause of this entire process diagram. Climate Change results in a call for action, since it is a problem on a global scale. The 2009 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was held to discuss collective action, however as the article states, it was a tricky thing to negotiate. This is because it can be massively expensive to change industries and infrastructure to support lower emissions, which shows later in the $30 billion in aid. There was no official agreement, but the Copenhagen Accord was drafted by the US and was the unofficial document for collective action, and that is what I chose to use as my link in the second row. The US then began secretly contacting its allies to persuade them to agree to it, and that combined with $30 billion promised as aid helped. In my diagram I have both of those as links to the fact that 140 Countries ended up agreeing to the accord. WikiLeaks then obtained and released to the public the cables that the United States sent to some countries. The cables revealed negotiations with many countries including Brazil, India, and China. The cables showed that the US even made threats in trying to persuade some nations. The article stated that even countries like Saudi Arabia, where their main economic source is from oil and fossil fuels, were contacted by the US.

I am in favor of WikiLeaks releasing these cables to the public. It is important to us as consumers of energy to know how and why emissions will be regulated. Collective action when it comes to climate change is difficult, but when the entire world must come together to slow it down, the importance outweighs the difficulties. The way the US has been conducting these negotiations brings about an ethical dilemma, like discussed in Module 3. We read that a core questions is asking, “do the ends justify the means?” In this case, I believe they do. The health of our planet and its inhabitants should be the most important thing, and I believe the US has that, among other interests, at the top of their minds. I think this leak will make future negotiations no more difficult, nor easier, than before. I think the only result of this leak will be that countries will be more careful when sending “secret” messages. Less threats will be made, and sketchy dealings will hopefully become a thing of the past. I think what needs to be done now is make sure all negotiations when it comes to climate change need to be made public. In today’s society, it has become harder to keep things secret, like with the newly released Panama Papers. Public negotiations are the best way forward to have people agree to climate change mitigation.

The main idea of my system diagram is the Anthropocene. While climate change occurs naturally, this diagram highlights the human acceleration of climate change through one example of increased human population. The diagram is systemic; it shows an increase in population increases the demand for goods that leads to increased consumption and production, which the pollution increases with more production resulting in increased greenhouse gasses and climate change. The diagram shows cause and effect of humanity’s impact on the environment. My diagram addresses the disproportionate contributions and experienced consequences of climate change between developed and underdeveloped countries. The variation in the rate of consumption between developed and underdeveloped affects how the UN should mandate emission reduction and how nations accept the decision. The Kyoto Protocol is supported unevenly by most countries because of differentiated responsibilities. As Carrington showed, the countries most affected by climate change view “aid as a right, not a reward.” It is controversial as to whether developed countries should help those developing, even though developed countries are most responsible for climate change. My diagram shows this controversy. According to the article, 75% of the supporters of the Copenhagen Accord are responsible for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions (Carrington, 2010). The U.S. is a large contributor to environmental pollution. Wikileaks shows the U.S. threatening and promising aid to other countries for support of the low carbon model (Carrington, 2010). The Copenhagen Accord is placed at the end of this diagram under the U.S. because the U.S. is an example of one of the countries that need to make deep cuts to their emissions and should not be threatening other countries if the U.S is not reaching their emission cut goals.

A significant issue I encounter around climate change is the belief from individuals that it is indefinite. I meet too many people in the U.S. who feel climate change is not accelerated by human interaction. Also, I encounter individuals who believe that humanity is separate from the natural environment. I see the U.S. striving to make climate change diplomacy, but I see it is difficult when there are citizens who deny the Anthropocene. My diagram highlighted one aspect of human effect on the environment that is human population growth. Without responsible and sustainable practices developed throughout the globe, an increasing population is a threat to our future environmental conditions. The U.S. is one of the developed countries that is responsible for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, diplomacy should occur where the U.S. works to reduce our emissions, and in a way, quit worrying about other countries. I found it interesting how the Copenhagen Accord holds its name. Copenhagen is one of the “greener cities” that takes responsibility to reduce their emissions. As we saw in the video in module 4, Copenhagen has a rate of successful collective action programs such as citizens riding their bikes and the city adjusting infrastructure to accommodate bikes. I support how the U.S. is advancing towards climate change diplomacy, but they are doing it wrong. The State Department Cables should have been public to show the disproportionate actions and corruption occurring between countries. Another country should not be threatening other countries if they are not holding up to their individual set of action plans. I do feel developed countries should support underdeveloped countries because they have the technology and efforts to help. Particularly in the U.S. where we have a large volunteer base to travel to other countries. There should be a collective responsibility to mitigate and adapt to climate change, but it should be each country’s responsibility and those citizens within to reduce their emissions before they are concerned about the actions of other nations.

References

Carrington, D. (2010). WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord. Retrieved April 08, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord 

1. My diagram illustrates how the U.S. gains support for the Copenhagen Accord from other countries because they find it in their best interest to have a lot of countries supporting this. In my diagram I first start by simply stating how pollution and the burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change on earth. There are shifts in temperature and water and more extreme weather events due to this change. In 2009, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) created the Copenhagen Accord which asked countries to try and commit to specific actions in order to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. wanted to gain support for this so they went to their allies and other countries who weren’t against it. They promised countries like Bolivia and the Maldives money if they chose to support the accord even though Bolivia didn’t actually support it. Those countries who didn’t actually support the accord only chose to because they were under financial pressure and needed the money the U.S. promised to give them. It is also revealed through the leaks that they threatened Ethiopia by saying if they don’t support the accord all communication would end between the two countries. Ethiopia then chooses to give the U.S. their support. The cables sent out by the U.S. were leaked and the world saw how the U.S. was gaining political support through threats and giving countries money. 116 countries associated themselves with the accord and 26 more say they have an intent to so 140 of 193 countries support it.
2. Even though this put the United States in a bad light because the way we gained support was wrong, I think that it was good that this was publicized. I personally do not think that the U.S. should have gained their support this way. They used power and money to get people on their side and should have realized that this would most likely get out into the public somehow. It seems like the U.S. chose the easy way out by just promising money to countries or threatening them.  They should have been convincing other countries why they should care about the climate and how their support can help better the world. It might have been more beneficial for the U.S. to discuss with countries who were on the fence in order to see where they stand and try to convince them in a better way. However, we learned in module 9 that all countries care about climate change in different ways due to where they are located. Some countries really use fossil fuels in their production methods so they wouldn’t want to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels in order to emit less greenhouse gases. It is also hard to get everyone to agree on a solution to a problem because they could feel like theirs is better than the one proposed. It is very difficult for 194 nations to come together and figure out a solution but I feel as though the U.S. should have went about their way of gaining support differently.

Lucas Skiba

4/6/16

Lesson #9

GEOG 030

Climate Diplomacy

In this systems diagram it is explaining the process of which nations are coming together to solve the problem of climate change. As you can see the first box says industrial revolution and use of fossil fuels. This was the beginning era where we first started polluting our country. The second box contains greenhouse gas emissions and bigger population. This was after the industrial revolution and when the world’s population almost doubled in size and the climate of the earth began to change. This is what leads us to climate change. Now today climate change is not just a problem for one country but the whole world, so this leads us to United Nations Climate Control Conference. Nations coming together to to make a treaty on climate change. So in 2009 they held the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit (The Guardian 2010). During the summit the Copenhagen Accord was introduced. This was to get almost every nation to decrease greenhouse gases but it did not guarantee global greenhouse gas cuts to avoid dangerous climate changes. Some poor and vulnerable countries disagreed with the accord because they would need money to fund their emission cuts. The U.S. sending cables to other countries to get information from them and to see if they can be trusted was a result from the Accord as well. This is all just negotiations to figure out what countries need to cut back on, to decrease climate change, and to decrease global greenhouse gases. When there are a total of 140 countries trying to come to an agreement for one problem it is very difficult to agree especially when everyone wants to better their own country. But the result was 116 nations out of the 140 are for the accord.

To make a difference on climate change I believe that we all need to come to an agreement just like what the United Nations are doing. Certain countries and especially the U.S. need to make sacrifices if we want to stop global greenhouse gases from dangerously warming up our earth. Our roots as the United States are deep within the industrial industry and has made us a powerhouse over the years, but now we see that we have been slowly damaging our earth and it is time for us to make a change. I believe the State Department’s cables should be public, as a citizen we have the right to know what our country is negotiating, and who they are negotiating with. Even if the cables were the result of not all the countries joining the accord I am glad they did not agree because the accord doesn’t even guarantee that the global greenhouse gas cuts will stop climate change from reaching dangerous levels. I believe we as the United States need to sit down with other developed countries such as China, South Africa, Brazil, Europe, Japan etc. and see what are the biggest polluters in each country and decrease them in some way. We need to draw a line in the sand saying each country depending on it’s size can only pollute and create this many greenhouse gases. It is just so hard to get countries to change their industrial and transportative ways in a sense it is like changing a culture but the goal here is to live on earth sustainably for as long as possible. The ways and cultures of today are leading us down the wrong path to sustainability. We has nations need to make sacrifices in our industries and lives to cut back on causing so much greenhouse gas emission and start looking for a more sustainable future.

Bibliography/Citation List:

1. GEOG 030 Climate Change (2015). Retrieved on April 6, 2016.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog030/node/389

2. The Guardian “WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord” (December 3, 2010). Retrieved on April 6, 2016. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord

In my diagram, I focused on the Copenhagen Accord, the United States, the WikiLeaks Cables, and the issues between them. Steps needed to be taken in order to begin combatting global warming, and the Copenhagen Accord was one. As described in my diagram, the United States was a proponent of the Copenhagen Accord from the start and tried to get other countries to follow along. Initially, countries were in opposition because they were not polluting to the same degree that the United States was. The United States was aware of how beneficial the Accord would be to them though. With that being said, the United States wanted other countries to be on board with the Accord so eventually the UN would adopt it. In order to get support from other countries, the United States used secret cables. Through messages, the United States promised the more vulnerable, poor countries financial aid if they supported the Accord. A whopping $50 million was offered to the Maldives in exchange for support. The United States also threatened other countries in order to push them to support the accord. For example, Ethiopia was instructed by the United States to sign the bill or the discussion would be ended. In addition to that, the United States also tried to blackmail countries in order to gain their support for the Copenhagen Accord. Eventually, the United States was successful in their goal and got support from other countries. Today, 140 countries support (or intend to support) the Copenhagen Accord.

As we learned throughout Module 9, climate change is a very pressing issue today. The severity of greenhouse gases polluting the planet will be a problem for future generations if something is not done to fix it. Being that the United States is an industrial country, it causes a lot of pollution. With that being said, the Copenhagen Accord is very important. The United States was aware of the importance and tried to gain support for it. In my opinion, the United States did not go about getting that support in the correct way though. Although the motives were in the right place in regards to wanting a cleaner environment and other countries to be on board with that, it was done in a very dishonest manner. The cables being leaked definitely showed that the United States was not ethically correct when gaining support from other countries. The United States does have many allies and is a respected nation, however, this stunt shed light on our nation’s sneaky, manipulative politics that were used to get what we wanted done. Bribing, blackmailing, and threatening other countries is not how we should get things done in this country. These tactics proved that the United States used selfish, altruistic methods in order to gain support for the Copenhagen Accord. Although, I personally do not have a simple answer in regards to how we should have gone about drumming up support for the Accord, I firmly believe it should not have been handled the way that it was. The United States needs to be morally and ethically correct when handling any issue, no matter what it is.

My diagram begins with the interaction of greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, and the subsequent damage to the environment. This interaction is the core issue and it is at the top of the diagram because it is the reason for all of the information found below it. My diagram shows that the negative effects of climate change are real and that there is a real need for a solution to this growing problem. From there, I show how the UN(United Nations) has made an effort to fix this problem by calling a summit of all UN countries to propose a solution. The first summit produces the Kyoto Protocol, which is not accepted by the US. A later summit held in Copenhagen was arranged in order to create a deal that all countries could agree to. The deal that was proposed, the Copenhagen Accord, was highly controversial and my diagram shows that many UN nations were not eager to support it. The US had strong support for the Accord because it greatly benefitted our economic interests. The bottom half of the diagram is modeled to represent the actions the US took in order to gain support for the Copenhagen Accord, as well as the results such actions had. The diagram shows that the US engaged in numerous questionable activities in order to gain support for the accord. Included in these activities by the US to control other nations were spying, bribing, threatening, and offering aide. The diagram depicts how these tactics have largely resulted in these nations agreeing to support the Copenhagen Accord. Whether the remaining countries end up supporting the Accord is for time to tell.

I think that the State Department cables should have been released, and I am very thankful that they have been. I think it is important that the world know how these international treaties are created and supported. I was surprised to see such dirty tactics being used by the US, and I am ashamed that they would approach such a worthwhile goal of fixing climate change with such shady politics. It is apparent that the Accord benefits the US greatly as seen from the intense effort the US put into convincing other countries to support the Accord. I think that negotiating a climate change solution with the main concern being money is ridiculous from the get-go. It is apparent that all of the participating nations are more concerned with protecting/building their economies than they are with saving the environment. I think that the shady tactics used by the US to garner support for their Copenhagen Accord are absolutely despicable, and completely dishonest. When you consider the issue at hand, and realize that it is a problem that will not be solved without collective action, it becomes apparent that every country will need to participate in order to bring a halt to climate change. However, with the current culture of corrupt politics, it may be some time before a solution is found that actually benefits the world, rather than a few countries economies. The best approach to fix this situation would be to hold a UN summit on climate change and enforce transparency. This way, diplomats will be more likely create solutions that help the environment rather than their economy. After all, the world belongs to every human and organism that lives here. It should be our right to know about the solutions being proposed as well as the interests of those proposing them.

The leaked cables play a large part in the actions against climate change. At first, there was a need for change about climate change and our involvement in it. This lead to the Copenhagen Accord, which was trying to get countries to agree to each do their own part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One issue with this accord and also the leaked cables was trust. It is hard for superpowers to keep their deals and negotiations to what they have promised. This is what posed a threat after the cables were leaked. But, the US was willing to support the accord because it would benefit them especially if other nations joined. The US sent out cables to other countries negotiating financial support and benefits along with some blackmail to other countries. Their financial reimbursements negotiated with underdeveloped countries gained them some new supporters. Once they got a few supporters and the cables were leaked, other countries were able to rethink and decide whether they would support the accord or not. If these were not leaked, I do not think other countries would have backed the accord. Many countries were able to see how hard the US, a large superpower, was working towards finding supporters for the accord. This resulted in other superpowers to reconsider and eventually follow the US. Around 75% of the countries that are part of the UN climate change convention have backed the accord now. This is also a big step for climate change and emission reduction because these 140 countries count for 80% of all greenhouse gas emissions. With them on board, there may actually be a chance that each country will stick to their word and work towards effective programs in emission reduction.
I think that the US meant well by convincing other countries to join the accord, but they went about it in a wrong way. Being such a large and influential country, it is important that the US makes beneficial decisions to themselves as well as to others. With the cables being leaked, it definitely showed the world a bad side in our country’s politics. We were proven to be dishonest, untrustworthy, and sneaky. While we are a large influence on many countries and we have many allies, it is hard to gain respect when all the other countries think you’re sneaky and questionable to work with. Our country had good intentions by wanting others to join the accord and wanting others to be in the movement or a greener earth. But, their ultieror motives proved to be altruistic and selfish because they were looking for politic support by bribing other countries. They were caught in a scandelous way of getting what they want. I think the leaked cables being made public was a good way for other countries to gauge what is happening and give them an idea of why it would be beneficial to back the accord. But, I don’t think it portrays our country in the right light. So, depending on who has seen the leaked cables depends on whether or not they it was okay for them to be leaked to the public. The United States should work harder on efforts towards climate change. We are a huge industrial country. There is no doubt that we are one of the world’s largest polluters. I think we could make a little more of an effort to try to get all of the people in the US to be aware and to be active in the role of decreasing our input in polluting the environment

My diagram starts with Climate Change. I believe this emphasizes the need for a global collective action agreement on how to limit green house gas emissions and take responsibility for human action on this planet. I have everything stemming from Climate Change, because ultimately, this is the goal. It is also interesting to see how countries are forgetting this goal and focusing on escaping financial dilemmas. My color scheme moves from yellow to blue. The colors address the connections between the factors and show a cascade from the top to the bottom of my diagram. In a symbolic way, my color scheme shows connection to the colors of the globe including grass, the sky, water and the visibility of the sun. This may not have much effect, but it again draws upon the goal of the Climate Summits, to preserve the world in which humans live. Through the many connections on my diagram, it is easy to see that this predicament is very intertwined and in turn, complicated. Thinking about the links between each factor, it is important to understand that, we as the people may not know everything relevant to this climate issue. My diagram also addresses the fact that the US actions can and have lead to many outcomes that may not benefit the global community. For instance, Japan will not support the Kyoto protocol extension. This not only benefits the US, but it also boosts the Copenhagen Accord. How will this affect the globe? This diagram stressed to me that Climate Change, and environmental issues is highly politicized and in being so, seems to fall victim to strategizing and financial circumstances.

Reading this article, has stressed to me that the countries around the globe have turned climate change into financial issues that each country wishes to avoid. Although I know that money is an important factor in controlling and limiting climate change, it is sad to see such a big issue reduced to politicize, strategic agreements and arguments instead of focusing on the true issue at hand. The US has done a disgraceful thing. To get out of these financial burdens, shows the rest of the world, including the citizens of every country that climate change and the environmental factors as well as how they affect the people of the world, mean less to the politicians than money does. This dilemma also stresses that collective action problems are a real thing. The US uses its abusive powers to control and manipulate the globe to accommodate to their issues. The US doesn’t want to reduce its own emissions, however, looks to put this burden onto the smaller countries that have affected the climate significantly less. This issue speaks widely to ethics. Is it ethical to put these burdens on to the other countries? Is it ethical however, to put the human financial needs above the needs of the environment? When it comes to the Wikileaks, I support total information to the people. I think that if these were not leaked people would feel more positively about the Copenhagen Accord then they actually should have. This information allows for people to rally together and fight to persuade the countries of the nation to actually respond to the needs of the environment and in turn the needs of the people. I believe educating ourselves and doing what we can as a person, and as apart of smaller communities, can develop way to limit our emissions, then these ideals may spread to the larger global community. Starting at smaller communities will make these changes engraved into the world culture and would spread despite the language barriers around the world.

When creating my diagram, I started out with putting the two main categories of “WikiLeaks Cables” and “Climate Change” and then started thinking of the main points in between the two from there. First, I thought of finances because it seems to be one of the biggest concerns that people have with it. Also, I thought it was really important to note because there are billions of dollars being promised and being put into the cables to work to repair problems of climate change. The second was the importance of support. If countries don’t support the cables and the qualifications, it won’t work very well. But if there is support, this can lead to better funding, which in turn would lead to repairs in climate change. The third was trust. Another one of the biggest problems there seems to be with the cables is the uncertainty that promises will be broken. The cables do make a lot of promises, and how can the countries be sure they will be followed through with? Another huge issue with trust is that there was a cable that was kept a secret in the first place. So I can understand why for some countries this may seem very unreliable and like they are missing some important information. The fourth and final major point that I thought linked WikiLeak cables and climate change was involvement. I think the number of countries who are involved and what their affects are on climate change now is really important to note. There are 116 countries are already involved and 26 that plan on being involved. These 140 countries are responsible for over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s definitely saying something and something needs to be done.

When it comes to this issue, I have some mixed feelings. To be completely honest, I am still a bit confused on how everything played out and what exactly is going on with the WikiLeak cables. However, in regards to whether or not the State Department cables should have been made public, I do think that they should have. I just don’t think it is fair in any way for people to be asked to enter into something under secret conditions. They shouldn’t have to go into something being blind to some information. They have every right to understand all of the stipulations and pieces to what they are entering into, and then make an informed decision from there. I just don’t think secrecy is the right answer. Because why should there be a need for secrets if the plan is already satisfactory and set up for success? A secret to me sends up a red flag that is something is sneaky or wrong and could potentially harm me in some way in the future. It just sounds unreliable. However, I do think that climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed. There is clearly an issue and there needs to be a solid plan to make changes in the future. What that could be, truthfully I don’t really know. After going through all of the other modules, I truthfully believe that changes have to start on a smaller scale and build to where we want to be. Changes won’t happen over night and it needs to be a collective effort. I think each person needs to do their part, and I think a huge step in making that happen is understanding the consequences behind our bad actions. Also, I think it’s important to inform people and help them to understand that changes don’t have to be anything drastic. Truthfully, we can make a difference by changing small things in our lives that in the end will really only affect us minimally, but affect the health of the environment greatly.

1. The diagram starts out by presenting the concept of climate change as the main starting point. In addition, this node states that the problem of climate change is a collective action problem as it involves the both the many nations that are a part of the United Nations (UN) as well as the ones that are not. The diagram then focuses on depicting the result of climate change. Specifically, the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit was conducted in 2009 as a way to answer this collective action problem. Unfortunately, the nature of this summit was not entirely altruistic. This thought leads to the next node in the diagram, which details the ethical questions that came from actions during the summit. Due to the fact that billions of dollars will be redirected as a result of the summit negotiations, various entities were involved in nefarious behavior. The primary UN member nation that was involved in this type of behavior was the United States (US). The next two nodes depict the actions of United States during this summit. The first of these nodes covers the US State Department requesting human intelligence on other members of the UN from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The second US node is more expansive as it influences other nations. This node details the ethical questions that come from the financial aid the US promised to nations that were not interested in supporting the proposed changes. Finally, the last node in the diagram depicts efforts involving spearfishing attempts on US diplomats to China.
2. I do not believe that the cables sent by the US State Department should have been made public. While requesting human intelligence on other members of the UN does raise ethical questions as to how the US conducts itself diplomatically, I think that this sort action is necessary for a level playing field. This fact is further apparent when taking into consideration the actions of others against the US. The reading addresses spearfishing attacks against the US diplomats to China. However, this only highlights a small percentage of the actual attacks performed by nations ranging from Russia to Venezuela. I do not believe that the US should essentially have tied hands when this amount of reform and assets are involved. In the clearest sense, this type activity is also a collective action problem. I do believe that the US should continue to conduct climate change diplomacy as it has been. However, if a binding agreement could be made by members that would have harsh consequences for espionage, it would lead to a more ethical summit and future talks in general. I do not believe that the financial aid should be taken into consideration though. While nations should strive to do what they can to make a difference, climate change is not the chief concern of many. In light of this, financial aid seems to be one of the tools wealthier nations can use. However, when this aid directly relates to humanitarian efforts or anything else that would influence loss of life, I believe it should not be used.

My system diagram focuses around the US involvement with the Copenhagen Accord. However, my diagram starts very wide, talking about all fossil fuels and their emissions. Then we look at how the UN and really the world to a look at the climate change problem in a formal setting at a designated event specific to climate change. The Copenhagen Accord was created at the UN Conference but it needed the backing of a lot more countries and so the US went into secret negotiations in order to convince other countries to support the accord. The first important part to remember about the accord and climate change. The world leaders of every country new at least one thing, the accord would have an effect costing billions of dollars to change hands and a lot of money was at stake with these negotiations. These secret negotiations revolved around the CIA sending out spies to find human intelligence on UN diplomats responsible for climate change. Another thing the US did to try and manipulate support was to send a secret cable to different diplomats. And in China for example a cable was sent from the US in order to look like it came from the National Journal but instead attached a file that contained a “malicious code that would give complete control of the recipient’s computer to a hacker”. This only continued, the Copenhagen accord was really good for the USA and so they were trying to do everything in their power to get it passed through the UN. However, other countries (realizing they could gain money from the US) began negotiating, many of these countries have not had weight behind their negotiations in a long time. Eventually after the US threatened, bribed and hacked it’s way to the finish line, the US paid various countries compensation for support for the Accord.

This was a very different learning activity than any we have done before up to this point. No other learning activity has gotten me to think as much as this one solely on a moral standard. On the one hand I understand the US adamant push and support for the Copenhagen Accord. It would help restrict the global communities total CO2 emissions especially in some of the developing countries where manufacturing and factories produce large amounts of pollutants while at the same time those factories are countries largest sources of income. The moral standard I have a problem with is that the US felt it was necessary to commit espionage and cyber warfare in order to guarantee that the Copenhagen Accord went through the UN. Now I understand if we are at war and commit these acts without telling the American people. That’s fine. That’s military exploits and the American people don’t need to know that. However, if and when the American people found out the State Department was trying to manipulate the vote of less developed countries that’s absurd. No country should be able to bully other countries into doing whatever they say. However, playing devils advocate, many of these countries were being greedy in my opinion trying to get as much money as possible from the American Government just because they were in a position of power. So on this issue no countries were in the right but they all meant well. And ultimately the results were good for everyone for the most part.

My concept map covers my interpretation of how the WikiLeaks cables revealed the United States plan for the climate accord. This was brought about through global warming and a plan was needed to fight it. Global Warming brought upon the Copenhagen Accord, which benefited the United States. The United States drummed up support for this bill through the secret cables. They sent messages to poorer and more vulnerable countries promising them financial aid if they supported it. Originally the countries did not support it because they were not polluting the environment like the United States was. But they eventually succumbed to the United States and took the bribe. These countries are trying to develop and the influx of money was too great for them to pass up. The United States knew this and employed this tactic successfully. They also made threats to other countries pressing them to support the Copenhagen Accord. For example, they offered the Maldives $50 million to support their bill. They accepted because they could not turn down their offer to support their economy. The United States also made a threat to Ethiopia. It said sign the bill or the discussion ends now. If they still did not sign it, they would have been cut off from the United States and their wealth. The United States also tried digging up dirt on other countries and blackmailing them with it forcing them to support the bill. Through all of this, there are 140 countries that support or intend to support the Copenhagen Accord. The United States got what they wanted to happen with the Copenhagen Accord.

Climate change is an issue in today’s world as we learned in Module 9. There are greenhouse gases polluting the atmosphere and the path we are on might not be sustainable for future generations. Action needs to be taken against climate change and that is where the Copenhagen Accord comes into play. While I do not think the leaks should have been made public, it does shed some light on how the deal happened. There are private diplomatic meetings and conversations that I think should stay between the parties involved. One positive thing about the cables being released is the raised awareness it created. People are now more aware that action is trying to be taken to further prevent climate change. This might make some citizens more proactive in trying to limit their own greenhouse gas emissions. The cable leaks showed that the United States did not go about getting votes for their treaty in a very ethical way. It also did not act in a very trustful way by threatening countries to sign their climate bill. The United States was acting in a way where the bill only benefitted them. That approach works for other situations, but it does not work for a global problem such as climate change. I am sure there was another approach to this problem if the United States took some more time to find them. All the countries need to come together to find a resolution that works for everybody and one that will stop climate change. Until that happens, climate change will continue to be an uphill battle for years to come.

1. In my diagram, I wanted to illustrate the connection between the WikiLeaks cables to climate change. I began my diagram by demonstrating how climate change is taken place. The burning of fossil fuels produces greenhouse emissions, which in the end causes changes in the atmosphere. The change in the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is then led to climate change. The need to reduce greenhouse gases then leads to the need of the Copenhagen Accord. This accord would allow countries to set their own goals for cutting greenhouse gases, but it didn’t guarantee the greenhouse gas cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming. The United State as a whole is one of the top producers of greenhouse gases and with this being said, they were extra careful coming up with a plan to reduce greenhouse gases that was selfish and that would benefit them. Next, the United States used secret cables, aiding, threats, spying, and bribery to target other countries. It seemed that the money was a huge motivation for other countries to sign the accord. In the end, it led to 116 countries agreeing to this accord, 26 countries saying they would also like to associate with it, coming to the total of 140 countries that intended on associating themselves with the accord. The 140 nations that support the accord represented 75% of the countries that are parties to the UN climate change convention and are responsible for over 80% of the current global greenhouse gas emissions. Ultimately, if people continue to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases used, then this collective action problem can be solved and we can eventually reach climate mitigation.

2. In Module 9, we learned that climate change is a problem and is becoming a serious issue in today’s society. As members of society, if we continue using greenhouse gases, sustainability might not be a possible solution in the future. I’m concerned that we’re not taking the proper action to solve this problem and climate change in the future will only become worse. I think as a whole we can come up with a collective action that involves every nation working together in unison towards effective action. I believe that the small and poorer countries need to work together with the large and richer countries to somehow negotiate and discuss climate change mitigation. Also, another important concept I took away from this module is what really causes climate change. Climate change is not caused by temperature increases or the increase in radiation from the sun. People need to be more educated on the topic of climate change and know that, climate change is caused due to greenhouse gases from everyday human activity. Lastly, on the topic about if the State Department cables should have been made public, I believe it was right for the cables to be leaked. Even though the United States approached this situation in a selfish manner and resulted in countries to not trust them, the public had the right to know. In conclusion, I have learned that climate change is a huge issue in today’s society and that nations worldwide need to work together towards reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases to better the world that we all live in.

2. The issue of the climate accord begins with pollution. As pollution leads to many other issues, one of the important aspect of it is that, pollution cause greenhouse gas to be released to the environment. The release of greenhouse gas effects the climate drastically. Because of this, the world was observing climate changes. To stop this issue, United Nations, UN, proposes the Copenhagen Accord. This agreement will allow nations to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas being released to the environment. However, for this to occur, many nations would have to come to an agreement with the plan. United States wanted this accord to pass but many other nations were not interested because they weren’t causing environmental issues compared to United States. Because many nations were not interested in this accord, United States started to threat and bribe those countries. This information was leaked to the public and countries that were opposing the accord request high amounts of money. Since United States desperately wanted this accord, they compensated those countries that were against the Copenhagen Accord. One reason why United States wanted this accord to pass was that United States is and was one of the most pollution countries in the world. This led to 166 different countries agreeing to the Copenhagen Accord and 26 countries that were willing to join the accord. Because of United States action, the accord was placed to reduce greenhouse emission to the environment to mitigate the climate change that was occurring. Furthermore, Japan did not ask for an extension on the Kyoto climate treaty which gave a huge boost to the Copenhagen Accord.

3. In my view what United States did to gain the votes of other nations was extremely bad. One of those reasoning being is that the money they used to compensate or convince those countries were probably tax monies. I would agree with the plan if there were guarantees that the Copenhagen Accord will somewhat decrease greenhouse gas emission world wide. However, according to www.epa.gov, the greenhouse gas emission since 1990’s till 2012 nothing has changed much and showed a very consistent pattern. United States went out of it way to convince and bribe countries to get the Copenhagen Accord passed but nothing has been improved every since the accord was agreed upon. The controversial issue with the public learning about the bribery of United State isn’t a significant issue. As a powerful nation United States is, I believe that in certain ways they would have gotten a desired result. Thus, we need to develop a method to increase sustainability while decreasing greenhouse gas emission. Because of the greenhouse gas emission there has been temperature shifts around the world. The temperature range are shifting towards the north and the south pole. In my opinion, one of the most efficient ways to decrease greenhouse gas is for less people to used cars as a mean of transportation. If we can develop throughout United States where people have access to public transportation or everything is in walking distance, we can significantly decrease greenhouse gas emission. It will be extremely unlikely that decreasing in animal-based diet will occur to decrease greenhouse gas emission.

1. To begin with, the setting is a serious fast pace of global warming and the main cause of it is greenhouse emission, which mainly is consisted of water vapor and carbon dioxide that traps the heat between the troposphere and earth surface. Years ago back in 1997 countries realized about this and reached the agreement of Kyoto Protocol at Kyoto, Japan by recognizing that the developed countries are ‘principally’ responsible for the greenhouse gas emission. The protocol took into affective in 2004. Lots of countries signed to cut 55% of carbon dioxide emission. This left plenty of room for later amendments and further committees like the Copenhagen one. The Copenhagen Accord requires countries to cut their greenhouse gas. However, there is a dilemma. More-developed countries emitted most of the gases in the world now and triggers sea level rises and extreme weathers that damage poor countries most. While poor countries aren’t the contributor of the gas emission. What’s more. less-developed nations need industries for further economic growth and development. United States saw a huge benefit and an incredible money flow through this meeting. And that’s what we see from the graph of several diplomatic offensives through the secret cables that being leaked, for example, offering $30 bn to countries like Maldives to let them agree upon the Accord. Maldives is like a less-developed country I just discussed, known for world-famous tourist destination in the middle of Indian Ocean now facing the threat of rising sea level. Another case is Saudi Arabia, which is a wealth country for oil exporting. America offered the aid to help diversifying Saudi Arabia’s economy rather than simply relying on oil production. After all this, 116 countries agreed on the accord and another 26 intended to agree. As being discussed in the class text, reaching an agreement is difficult, taking certain actions will always hurt someone’s interest. Hope further protocols would make further achievement while satisfying the public’s interest.

     2. I would like to applaud America for taking an extremely active role in Copenhagen Accord. America worked hard secretly to achieve its interest through this committee.  Above all, global warming, more frequent and intensive extreme weathers and natural disasters, has been addressed an urgent and serious issue numerous times across the globe. Through many amendments, summits and protocols we realized that it’s both governments and public’s responsibility to sustainably. Governments make decisions on macro level, while as individuals, we could change our decisions, choices, and lifestyles for sustainability. The place we choose to live, the diet we choose to have and the type of commute transportation we choose to travel. These many individual mitigation actions are the way we could do. Implementing emission regulations, enforcing the inspection and punishment are something the government can do, rather than ‘buying’ the less-developed countries to satisfy their interests. The news about Wikileaks really made a huge disturbance between nations and caused credit and trusts crises. Would it be better if they make these actions transparent and make them accessible to the public? Maybe and maybe not. The public would be able to see how the governments mitigate, while the government might face many critiques about their mitigation plans. This Wikileak issue shows that no matter what the mitigation be, the poor countries would suffer from that ultimately. They are the ones who are most vulnerable to disasters and global warming impacts. They are also easiest to be manipulated. Every country should be treated equally. They could take advices but not be manipulated.

1. The diagram above illustrates how the United States was able to influence the acceptance of the Copenhagen accord by over 75% of the 193 countries in the United Nations. When dealing with global climate change it is difficult to try and come up with a solution that everyone could agree on. There are a number of different countries who all have different governments with different opinions on the issue at hand. The United States is a large, and powerful nation who single-handedly influenced the opinions of a majority of these countries through the use of bribes, espionage, and negotiations. As you can see I prepared this diagram using a color coded scheme. The yellow blocks represent the Copenhagen accord and who was initially for or against it. The red blocks are used when outlining the problems preventing the Copenhagen accord from being accepted. The blue blocks I added were just a few of the examples of what lengths the United States had to go to in order for them to get the backing they needed for a popular opinion on the accord. Lastly the green block at the very bottom of the diagram shows how effective the United States was at implementing their plans for near uniformity in the decision on the accord. This diagram is just supposed to give the reader a basic understanding of what happened throughout the process and how influential the United States was in all of the this. All of the information provided was required by the State Department cables that were leaked to the public.
2. The United States has been considered a superpower for quite a long time now. The amount of power and influence the U.S has on other countries was made abundantly clear after the State Department cables were leaked. I don’t believe that the cables which were leaked had any significant affect on the end goals of the U.S so whether or not leaking them was right or wrong does not matter; I at least do not see a big deal with it. However it has shown to the rest of the world that the United States’ tactics are questionable and dishonest. The end result of the Copenhagen accord did have a positive impact on climate change (albeit small) and I would have agreed with how the United States was conducting their climate change diplomacy if it wasn’t in fact for their own selfish intent. On the outside they made it seem like their efforts were altruistic, making it appear that they wanted to ban together with other nations in order mitigate greenhouse gases. Their true intentions were different, they wanted to buy political support and attain leverage. I think it is okay for the U.S to guide other nations and lend support towards a global effort of sustainability or fighting climate change; however they should not continue using the tactics they did in order to achieve their goals. Ethically what the U.S did is still up for debate, yes the ends justified the means but this may not always be the case.

First, as someone who deals with climate as a form of study, the word “climate” is an extremely dangerous word to say around politicians. This article unveils, through WikiLeaks, how the United States conducted surveillance, and how they also bribed and/or threatened other nations, particularly smaller ones, to adapt to the Copenhagen Accord which would inherently benefit the United States.

Climate change graph/diagram showing the interconnection between climate, politics, and big money.

“The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, based on the premise that global warming exists, and man-made CO₂ emissions have caused it.” It also states that restrictions are made on a global level for emissions. The Copenhagen Accord states that nations are responsible for their own emission control. This sparked a huge fire between large, economically sound nations versus those whose economy has yet to have enough support to sustain major mitigations to adapt to controlling their own emissions.

Since the United States conducted bribes and particularly, and I emphasize the usage of particularly, conducted surveillance to see what other nations were going to do in response to the Accord, it was later exposed by WikiLeaks to the world. Thereafter, over 100 nations are in support of the Copenhagen Accord, which is a good thing. I highly, highly disagree with the U.S. conducting bribes and threats, as well as surveillance (despite climate change posing a very high threat to national security, but it will happen regardless of human induced emissions).

These cable leaks really put a sore on the United States, I think. They were highly unethical and served a great injustice towards smaller nations such as Ethiopia, for instance. What throws me to this day is that the U.S. is one of the richest and most powerful nations in the world, despite a near 200% debt to GDP. The fact that U.S. was not in this case looking to help developing nations and rather spied sets a precedence unlike any other, especially since the U.S. is not the only nation dealing with climate change. Climate change has transpired for millions of years, and is a global issue that needs to be resolved from a perspective of humans enhancing global warming, increased salinity in the oceans, etc.

Section 1:

Section 2:

I started my diagram with the main cause of climate change which is technological advancements (industrial revolution) and how it leads to increase in emissions in the process. Apart from this, lack of awareness and not taking the issue seriously in the beginning led to a higher degree deterioration in the environment. This was how climate change came into the whole picture. Now that it has become dangerous, a solution is required. Many concepts say that a solution should be more or less at the same scale as the problem. This brings the “global” concept in my diagram. This brings on the Kyoto protocol and its basis of setup. The Kyoto protocol restricted the rate of emissions of industrial giants at a global level. Coming to main topic, the Copenhagen accord was another approach to the problem, which majorly focuses on the concept of countries forming their own restrictions for the rate of emissions. This highly contradicts the Kyoto protocol. United States strongly agrees with the Copenhagen accord and it requires the support of the Copenhagen accord to maintain its development, for diplomatic reasons and not cross the limits of emissions. The Copenhagen accord was opposed by less developed countries as they did not have a strong economical field to support such an accord. This led the US to spy, threaten, and promise money to such countries, etc. to have the Copenhagen accord pass. The WikiLeaks cables exposed the acts of the US. As of now 116 countries are in support of the Copenhagen Accord and 26 countries are intend to support making it a 75% support of all the UN participants.

Section 3:

I think that the State Department cables should have been made public. After all the public has the right to know what is happening between countries. The things that the US did were not ethical. They shouldn’t have conducted the climate change diplomacy in such an incorrect manner. The US has to be more honest. She has to regain the trust of other countries. Being a developed country, the US should think of not only itself but also of all other countries including underdeveloped countries. The issue of climate change is at a global level and therefore the necessary steps required should involve the betterment of the world as a whole and not only a part of it. I think it is time that all countries unite and establish a healthy way to fight against the environmental degradation and climate change. In my opinion, this could be carried out through the Kyoto protocol because it will bind a large set of nations to reduce emissions. After all, climate change is a collective action problem on the scale of nations, so they have to sit together and agree on policies that would solve this problem. I understand that reducing emissions is closely related to industrial activity which is why most developed nations prefer to avoid it. However, we aren’t putting the lives of future generations into perspective. We are supposed to be solving problems and not creating more problems. Continuing at this rate, resources are being depleted and the same time the climate is getting worse.

In my diagram, I mainly focused on the interactions between the US and other countries involving the Copenhagen Accord. I first started off my diagram with the issue of climate change. The burning of fossil fuels and the releasing of greenhouse gas emissions contributed to climate change. There was not a plan to find ways to stop climate change, so the US created the Copenhagen Accord. Therefore, seeking negotiation chips, the US state department sent a secret cable in 2009 seeking help from UN diplomats across a range of issues, including climate change. In order to pass the Accord, the US needed to gain support from other countries. The US thought by spying, hacking, and sending death threats to other countries that they’ll gain their support. Their plans did not work. The communications of these bribes and threats were released to the public when the cables were released. The countries that were against the Accord, were upset with the ways the US were trying to negotiate. After the cables were released, other countries demanded the US to pay high amounts of money to gain their support. Therefore, the US paid the demanded money. This led to 116 countries associating themselves with the accord and also 26 others having intentions to. I personally think this wasn’t the best solution for decreasing climate change. I did not agree with how the US used threats and bribes to handle things. However, the Accord did make an impact and led to decrease in climate change.

There was a lot of information to take in after reading this article. Prior to reading this article, I have never heard of the WikiLeaks Cables and the problems that have occurred. Climate change is a very important topic and needs to be addressed in the right way in order to solve it. Human activities have contributed to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat trapping gases to the atmosphere. Climate change is already starting to transform life on Earth. As I stated before, I do not agree with some the methods the US used to get support from other countries. Threatening other countries is absolutely not the right way to go about things.  I’m sure the US could have thought of different approaches to gain support and help other countries. For example, the US could have tried to convince other countries in favoring for the Accord or set up conferences with other countries and try to come to a conclusion together. The US did however raise awareness of how important climate change is and how it’s affecting Earth. In my opinion, I think the State Department Cables should have been publicized and notified to the public. As a person, you have the right to know what’s going on where you live. From module 4, the collection action problem was discussed. I believe this article falls under this problem. Collective action problems are widespread throughout environmental issues such as climate change. Climate change is a challenging collective action problem due to its massive scale.

ClimateChangeWesleyPhipps

In my Diagram I wanted to start with climate change as this is the whole reason all these events came about.  From Climate Change we get world wide attention on this issue and so nations from all over the world come together at the Copenhagen summit.  i thought it was really important to point out why a country like the U.S. would be so for something like the Copenhagen accord and why a lot of countries were not.  The U.S. is already developed and therefore can look to do other things with its vast resources, such as becoming a greener more sustainable country.  As well the U.S. really gains nothing from countries growing more wealthy and powerful through industrialization.  Countries who oppose the bill simply realize that if stricter regulations come about the will struggle to grow at the same rate they have been and thus will take longer to become more industrialized and more wealthy.  Also investing in taking your country that is built to use fossil fuels and now switch it over to new renewable resources is quite expensive.  The U.S. therefore needed to persuade these opposing countries to agree to the accord.  The do this through spying, false emails meant to hack info, basically anything they could do to dig up dirt on foreign dignitaries so they will be forced to sign the bill.  The large switch to support of the accord drew the attention of the Guardian newspaper.  After some digging they uncovered the dirty political games the U.S. had been playing and exposed them.  This lead to the WikiLeaks articles we are reading now.

I personally think that what the U.S. is doing is okay.  We are facing a global crisis that has scientific backing and something needs to be done.  So I am fine with the U.S. using its power and resources to manipulate other nations into addressing and dealing with this issue.  This is a collective action problem and the whole world needs to get involved.  With that being said The U.S. is the largest polluter in the world co it cannot just simply bully countries into the accord. The U.S. needs to be the example for all countries on how to change from a fossil fuel dependent country to a clean, efficient, and climate friendly one.  The time for the U.S. to make its moves is now because as they said in the ted talk scientist believe we have already reach our threshold and something is bound to give.  As for making the tactics of the U.S. public, I think its great.  I like exposing the government and politics for what they are, its a cutthroat game.  We as citizens need to be exposed to this so we can see what’s going on, what’s at stake, and why decisions are being made.  I think the Guardian did a service to everyone as the bring so much attention to an issue that affects all of us.  Lastly I’ll just say that even though I believe strongly its gonna come down to governments making policies to help the climate.  We as individuals can all make a difference as well.

2. As you can see according to the chart, climate change is definitely connected to the wiki leaks situation.  The thing that started it was the over emission of green-house gases. This led to the gradual onset of climate change, which has been talked about for years already.  This climate change being as serious as it was, led to officials creating the Copenhagen Accord Plan, which was an attempt to cut back a lot of greenhouses gases and other harmful products that may have been hurting the environment.  However, not every nation had signed this bill to protect the environment.  When all these other countries heard of the secret negotiations that the US and its allies were involved in from the leak, they were obviously upset.  This forced the United States to pay hundreds of other countries to participate in this act, which in the end cost the United States thousands of dollars.  If the wiki leaks had never happened, these secret documents would never have made the public which would would have allowed us to continue our ongoing negotiations, without having to pay thousands to all other countries.  This is where the bad comes in from these leaks.

3.  I still think that everyone has a right to see these documents, no matter how much money it may cost the government.  The people of this country are the ones who pay taxes, and if we can’t even be informed on what our government is doing with this money the citizens will start to revolt.  This is somewhat related to the idea of sustainability, where we the government has to give us information in order to keep us happy, but also wants to keep as much as they can away in order to save money.  The way that wiki leaks does this however, should not be allowed because it is breaching the trust of every employee in the government.  If nobody in our government can even trust each other, there is no way that our country can continue to thrive and develop.  I believe information should be free for all, but if you have to break the law to obtain this information than you are just as bad as the people trying to hide it from everyone.

My diagram starts with fossil fuels and deforestation, which is causing global warming and climate change. Because of the climate change we are in need of a global cooperation and agreement that climate change is an issue and impacts all countries. The flow chart then points to The Copenhagen Accord with is an adaptation of the Kyoto Protocol, which was a treaty to reduce effects greenhouse gas emission impacts on climate warming. The Copenhagen Accord was developed to help reduce deforestation and emissions, as well as assist developing countries to adapt to cleaner technology and do their part in the reduction of global warming. With anything, it comes down to it, politics and money are generally the main drivers for countries to adapt policies, and this was no different. The Accord did help countries more than others, thus in the flow we have supporters and opposition to the plan. With the U.S. being a huge supporter of the Copenhagen Accord, and needed more supporters to the plan. As indicated in the flow chart, the U.S. would take any measure to find ways to get opposing countries on board. To gain more support the U.S. sent cables to try to dig up dirt on other countries using spying techniques to threaten countries, bribing countries and making promise to countries. In this day in age everything can be tracked and traced, a journalism from the Guardian helped Wikileaks with the cable leak. Even after Wikileaks revealed how the US manipulated the Accord, a majority of the countries did sign, if fact in total there will be 140 countries that adopt the accord. Those 140 countries contribute 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. With so many countries associated with the Accord, did the U.S. even need to do any of their shenanigans? Did the U.S. impact either side of the results, make some countries not agree because of the U.S. deception and we could have had an higher adoption rate, or is the adaption rate so high because of what the U.S. did?

I have mixed reviews on whether or not the State Department Cables should have been made public because I think it really puts the U.S. in a terrible and non-trusting light. Being a U.S. Citizen I think having this information public could impact world relationships as a whole. On the other hand, having some transparency can be good to really know that the U.S. government can be manipulative. I guess being a little naive; I had no idea that we would play so dirty. I do not condone the actions taken by the United States to persuade other countries. I understand the importance of a global focus on Climate Change, because I do feel that it is real issue in our world today. The areas that the Accord focuses on are emissions, deforestation and encouraging countries using clean technology, which area important and a global collective action is what it is going to take to make it work, but taking such drastic actions such as bribery and spying is bullying the world. The United States should not be conducting diplomacy in this self-interested manner. Every country is looking out for their her own countries WIFM’s (what’s in it for me) to any policy, rather than taking a negative approach, the U.S. should try to sell it to the world in how it benefits everyone. What should be done? For those country’s that are not going benefit as much as others, changes should be made to the agreement for countries to adapt the proposal. There will probably never be total agreement among countries on any plan or proposal, but coming up with a solution that benefits at least 80-90% of the countries should be considered. The UN should revisit the topic of a Global Climate Change, but not allow the US to drive the policy, but rather have an open forum where the policy is developed collaboratively.

Climate Change

2. I had difficulty uploading my google doc and inserted a pdf.  My diagram outlines some of the issues regarding climate change negotiations. Due to the increased release of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution, we have seen a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions. In an attempt to combat the issue on a global scale, the UN proposed a convention to discuss this issue. The US was in support of the Copenhagen Accord which would bypass the majority support required by the UN and streamline the political process. In order for the plan to succeed, the United States needed support from many other nations. To get this support they used political power and the promise of aid and money to get more countries on board. They also engaged in hacking and threats that were all exposed during an information leak. The US met the demands of the other countries in order to get the plan approved in order to reduce greehouse gas emissions.

3. In my opinion, the US did what was necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Although the ethics behind it are questionable, the end result was a benefit for all. In agreeing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, many countries received aid and money they needed (or wanted). The problem with collective action issues is that you ultimately depend on others to do the right thing. The US garnered their power in the world community to strong-arm nations who may have been unwilling to reduce their footprint. Unless everyone willingly jumps on board to “right the ship”, we will be in similar circumstances in the future.

My systems diagram begins with the burning of fossil fuels at a faster rate in which they can regenerate. Over the past several years, we are becoming reliant on fossil fuels as a source of energy. Whether it is to heat our homes or to drive our car, people around the world are burning fossil fuels each and every day. This is a major problem because we are burning them at a faster rate so eventually we will run out and also because these gases are being emitted into the atmosphere. They are being trapped and this ultimately leads to Climate Change. Often times, global warming is the only topic that comes to mind but we fail to recognize the change in precipitation patterns as well. Noticing that issue needs to be addressed, the United Nations Climate Change Conference proposed the Copenhagen Accord. The Copenhagen Accord is an upgraded version of the previous document known as the Kyoto Protocol, which focuses on bettering the Climate Change issue worldwide. Since the United States is by far the leading country in the amount of fossil fuels burned, ultimately resulting in the country that has the largest impact on climate change, they were a big catalyst to get this bill passed. Originally, many countries were not in favor of the Copenhagen Accord so they went beyond legal measures to try to persuade them to approve. The first tactic that they used was money. The poorer countries were promised financial aid to help repair the global warming that they did not cause. Next, they spied on several countries that originally opposed to access information from them and give them reasons as to why they should sign the proposed treaty. Lastly, they used a little hostility to threaten countries like Ethiopia by saying if they would not sign, the United States would not longer aid them in anyway. With these three tactics that many question whether or not they are ethical, 140 countries signed the treaty. That is 75% of the world agreed. Coming together to fight the Climate Change problem as a whole is known as Climate Mitigation.

In my opinion, I think the State Department Cables was wrong to keep this information secret. If they publicized this information, they would not have been exposed by WikiLeaks. One other problem that I have with this issue is that I have never heard of the Copenhagen Accord or any of the components of the treaty. The reason I think this is a major issue is because Climate Change will only be achieved through collective action. It is great for individuals to ride their bike or walk to work instead of driving a car, but there will not be a noticeable difference unless a collective action is taken. We learned a few units back about the impact Copenhagen as a city had by encouraging the people to ride their bikes everywhere in the city. Many people adapted this practice and they were aware of the positive impacts both on their health as well as the benefits on the environment. Since this Accord was kept secret, the people had no say in how they would go about Climate Mitigation. The State Department should have informed the public about possible ways that the country could go about these changes and possibly had an open brainstorm or vote as to what we the people believe will be the best option. Furthermore, I think the United States needs to lead this charge. Instead of worry about what other countries are doing, we need to focus on ourselves first. We are the leading country in greenhouse gas emissions. If we show other countries that we can adapt sustainable practices that better the environment, they will follow. This is a large complex issue around the world that can be broken down by country, to state, all the way down to an individual person, that all need to come together to fight against Climate Change.

1)

2)  This systems diagram outlines the issues associated with climate change negotiations occurring around the world. The main driver of this diagram is climate change, which is caused by greenhouses gasses trapping radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The core idea behind this systems diagram is the principle of collective action being used to lessen the effects of global warming around the world. The logistics of solving this problem are very difficult. Figuring out ways to manage seven billion people and negotiate among differing countries can be very hard to do. This diagram outlines the negotiations among many different nations regarding a solution to climate change. Unfortunately, there is a lot of political mistrust surrounding the Copenhagen Accord. As mentioned before, it is very difficult for so many nations to come to an agreement, a core reason behind the mistrust among countries. The Accord is designed to create a plan for each nation for greenhouse gas emission cuts. It also intends to give financial aid to poorer countries who are affected by climate change, but are not necessarily the largest contributors to the problem. Most of the mistrust is among richer, larger countries like the United States. Nations must balance the negotiations between environmental benefit and financial feasibility. Solving climate change calls for the redirection of billions of dollars due to moving the global economy to a low carbon model. Despite the mistrust among the many countries, the negotiation talks have results in about 140 countries associating themselves with the Copenhagen accord. While this does not completely solve the problem, it brings the world one step closer to finding a solution to climate change.

3) I personally believe that climate change is an issue that can only be solved by every country on the world cooperating with one another. This is a collective action issue as well as an individual action problem. We must collectively work together, but also must take it upon ourselves to do whatever we can to help solve climate change. That being said, I do not believe the United States has been handling the issue of global warming very well. I do not think that we as a country are taking as much responsibility as we should for the damage we have caused. The United States is one of the largest greenhouse gas producing countries, making it our responsibility to compensate for the damage we have done. It is not ethical for the US to make other countries suffer for our actions. The concept of distributive justice explains the tradeoff between poorer and richer nations when it comes to climate change. Regardless of responsibility, the entire world’s population needs to shift from an anthropocentric view to one that focuses on ecocentrism. We must put the future of our Earth ahead of our immediate human needs. In regards to the negotiations between political entities, I am somewhat conflicted on whether or not the cables should have been made public. When it comes to making a decision and coming to an agreement, I think that the politicians would be able to come to a quicker solution if they were able to work without the pressure from the public on them. On the other hand, this is a world issue that affects all of us, so the public also has a right to know what different nations are thinking in regards to the negotiations. I think in order to solve the issues of climate change, we need to have more trust among each other and act less in self-interest and more for the benefit of all.

1. 
2. The WikiLeaks article was a little confusing to me, but I did my best to dissect the article to get the main points out.  Looking at my diagram, it starts with the green boxes, then the blue, then either red or yellow, then the purple boxes, and it ends back up at the blue box.  This article describes how the whole problem originated with an increasing release of greenhouse emissions due to fossil fuels and other things that are bad for the environment.  All of these things are coming together to create climate change throughout the world.  In order to fix this, the UN had a convention for climate change, and there was the creation of Copenhagen Accord plan.  The goal of this plan was to help with climate change, and reduce the amount of greenhouse emissions.  The US was in favor of this plan, but not many other countries were.  The US needed allies with them to be in favor of this plan so they started secretly negotiating that included threats, hacking, and more.  Eventually the information was leaked and there was distraught brought on by the other countries.  They demanded a large amount of money in order to be in favor of this plan.  Since the US was focused on getting their way, they paid the large amounts of money to the countries.  Once the US did this, then those countries would be in favor of the Copenhagen Accord plan.  In total, there were 146 countries that were going to be in favor of the plan, as well as 26 countries that had the intention of joining.  All in all, the US bribed these countries to be in favor of the Copenhagen Accord plan so that green house emissions could be reduced, and climate change could hopefully be reduced as well.
3. In my opinion, I do not think that the United States went about this issue correctly.  In this class we have discussed the concept of ethics, and I believe that what occurred was unethical.  The US was just focused on creating their end means that they did not care about the route taken to get there.  I understand that greenhouse emissions and climate change is a serious problem, but I do not think they went about this the right way.  I also do not think that the negotiating should have been leaked.  There are a lot of foreign affairs go on that most of the world does not know about.  These negotiations or whatever else goes on should be kept private, and between the parties involved.  On the same note, climate change is a collective action problem.  All of the countries that eventually were in favor of the Copenhagen Accord plan are contributing to climate change.  If together each country owned up for their contribution to this issue, a change could have been made.  Instead, United States was worrying about themselves, and switched the problem from collective action to individual action.  They did this by only being concerned about what they wanted, and tried to solve the problem on their own when in fact a lot of other parties should have been involved.  I don’t think that the United States should have been conducting the climate change diplomacy in the way that it did.  But I also do not think that there is a simple solution.  There are many different countries involved in this problem, and until the UN has a better solution to come up with it, I think this is where our world will remain.  Every participant in the UN should be in some type of agreement of a plan to follow in order to fix this ongoing problem of climate change.

I found all of the WikiLeaks articles very difficult to understand.  What I know is that most of our world agrees that carbon emissions have pushed our Earth close to a “Planetary Boundary” and humans have got to agree on what to do so as not to reach that “unsafe state.”  To reach such an agreement, many “treaties” have been developed, argued, and voted on, but none agreed upon globally.  The US found the “accord” developed at Copenhagen in 2009 to be very advantageous to its personal welfare.  As a result, the US set out on a mission to get all other UN countries to agree on this “Copenhagen Accord”.  During this mission, US politicians and ambassadors, among other things, offered “grants”, financial incentives, gave ultimatums, and implied that they were the targets of a “phishing” scam in order to get countries (big, small, wealthy, and poor) to agree to this accord.  What happened next was not anticipated by US authorities; WikiLeaks cables revealed how the US manipulated countries and “offered negotiating chips” to get this accord passed.  In the end, approximately 75% of the UN countries have backed this Copenhagen Accord.  Was the US morally corrupt in its actions?  I believe so, because it had been using its huge finances to accomplish its own goals.  Is it good that the “WikiLeaks” occurred?  I think yes because even though it has been embarrassing, it showed the public (both domestic and foreign to the US) how US politicians work and will stop at almost nothing to accomplish it own ends.  
Without a doubt, the US is one of the, if not the, biggest producers of toxic “greenhouse gases.”  Also, without a doubt, many people do not conduct “individual mitigation”! So many of us, and I include myself in this, believe that it is “everyone else’s” problem to lessen greenhouse emissions.  I believe many Americans ask themselves why we should have to reduce our standard of living just so others are not overcome by increased water levels, extreme weather events, and the negative impacts of global climate change.  Unless we are directly affected by global warming (either physically or financially), I believe the average American will not change their ways in order to prevent us from reaching a “planetary boundary”.   Yet I believe that we who are the primary “emitters” should be the people who monetarily pay for greenhouse mitigation.   Should the residents of small, poor countries who add very little to greenhouse emissions have to change their way to prevent global warming?  I believe yes.  Anything that anyone can do to increase individual mitigation should be done!  On my individual end, I can help by eating locally grown produce because that is definitely available to me and I can make sure that I recycle every can and bottle that I use, not just the ones that are easy for me to recycle.  For that matter, I need to use refillable drink containers whenever possible!  These might seem like very small actions, but they keep me mindful of the precipice that which our Earth sits.  As I stated above, I think it was good that the State Department cables were made public, because it served as a check as to how American and others do business.  It is so easy for wealthy individuals and governments to push their weight around so they can get what they want.  Truthfully, I do not know what is right in this realm of global warming. Certainly this course has opened my eyes and mind to the footprints that I leave here on Earth.  The only tenets that I can adhere to are those of individual mitigation (recycling my wastes, using reusable containers, eating low on the food chain, buying locally).

My systems diagram shows the connection between the leak of the cables to climate change. It starts off with how humans have started releasing more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as time has progressed. This is bad for the environment as it can cause the climate to rise. With this serious problem on the rise the world came together and had the United Nations climate change convention. At this convention, no solid plan was developed to solve global warming, so the US created the Copenhagen Accord, which was a plan developed to mitigate climate. The accord needed to gain support from many countries in order for it to pass. To gain support, The US started using bribery, threats, and violence in order to convince other countries to sign up to support the accord. The communications of these threats and bribes were released to the public when the cables were released. When these cables were released the public and other powerful countries, who were against the accord, were upset with how the US was negotiating. Even after the cables were leaked, countries were still demanding high amounts of money in order to support the accord. With the United States needing support, they paid the other countries and gave in to their demands. This led to 116 countries joining the accord with 26 more saying that have intentions to. With all of these countries supporting the accord, it puts into place a plan to help mitigate climate change. It is not the best solution, but it is something that will help for now until the United Nations can come together again and form a better, strong plan of action against greenhouse gasses and global warming.

I do not agree that the State Department cables should have been made public. The way our country talks to other countries should be kept private. The public does not know about government affairs and how to interact with other countries. Also, by only leaking a portion of the cables, the whole conversation between some of the countries was not seen. By only seeing parts of the conversation the wrong message can be received. Before the United States created the accord, the United Nations was in the middle of a collective action problem. If all of the countries worked on reducing their greenhouse gasses emissions, it would help the entire planet, however it is easier for individual countries to not change anything they are doing. If they all came together with one plan, the Earth would benefit, and that’s what the US was trying to accomplish with the accord. Also, I believe this is a matter that can be related to something we learned earlier in the year, which talks about ethics. This is an example of how the ends can justify the means. The United States wants a system in place to help mitigate climate change and protect the Earth. To accomplish this, they took some questionable measures to get the support they need, but in the end they gained enough support to start doing something about the climate changes. The means of bribing and using threats justify the end of having a system to place to help fight/reduce global warming.

1.

2. My diagram starts off with the burning of fossil fuels which is the key contributor to climate change. I showed how fossil fuels create greenhouse emissions which lead to climate warming and ultimately a transformation in climate. Since climate change is the single most important issue in civilization today, an agreement needed to be made to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale. Subsequently, I showed how the UN Climate Change Conference created the Copenhagen Accord. Many countries that were involved in the climate change initiative were initially not in favor of this political agreement. The accord could not guarantee the global greenhouse gas cuts needed to prevent dangerous warming from occurring. The Accord also threatens to bypass the UN’s Kyoto protocol, in which many rich nations have liability. Due to these reasons, many of the most vulnerable and poorest countries were not in favor of the accord. However, the United States supported the agreement. I created an arrow pointing from the United States to Needs Allies because the United States benefited from this agreement. They wanted to gain allies for a majority vote. In order to gain allies they manipulated countries that didn’t have a large carbon footprint, with financial aid. Many of these countries are impoverished and agreed to the accord just because they were in need of financial assistance. The United States also threatened countries with various ultimatums and secret cables for spying purposes.They mounted a secret global diplomatic offense to overwhelm opposition. Furthermore, the United States persuaded and encouraged 140 different countries to support the Copenhagen Accord.

3. Although it is extremely difficult to negotiate a climate treaty to reduce greenhouse emissions, I believe the way the United States gained allies for the Copenhagen Accord was unethical. There are better ways to handle the situation. Sending the secret cables was an invasion of privacy to the other countries. I also do not like the fact the US threatened innocent countries for selfish reasons. Although our method was effective, I believe there are more ethical means to handle this situation. I strongly believe the Copenhagen Accord could be very beneficial on a global scale. It is steering countries in the right direction of mitigation which will ultimately reduce greenhouse emissions. Nevertheless, I do believe other countries should have the right to decide whether they oppose or support an agreement. I also felt like it was very dishonorable for the United States to use aid to gain political backing. Brazil’s vice-environment minister stated that the United States could advertise its new commitment to bettering climate change by contributing to the Amazon Fund. Instead of contributing, we basically decided to use subversion and manipulate the country to agree to the document. Donating to different causes is just one of the many ways we are capable of getting our voice heard. Using our money to threaten and manipulate is not an ethical option to climate diplomacy. The United States could have also created a presentation or document about mitigation and sent it to the other countries. I believe disclosing the numerous social and environmental benefits of the the Copenhagen accord could ultimately convince others to collectively re-engineer the global economy. 

Climate Change

2. On my diagram, it shows how the discovery of fossil fuels created both positive and negative things for humanity.  It helped us improve our health and our wealth. It brought upon us the Industrial revolution, which would pave the course of our planet from that point on. Although health and wealth were the most positive outcomes of the industrial revolution, the massive amounts of released CO2, better known as greenhouse gases, were by far the most negative outcome of the Industrial Revolution. These greenhouse gases are crucial to the increase of climate change in recent history. Because of so much greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it does not allow the radiation from the sun to go back out to space, making the surface of the earth much warmer. The release of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere created a great change in the earth’s climate. These changes could possibly go beyond the planetary boundaries, which will bring about great problems not only for the planet we live on but for humanity itself. Humanity thrived because the planet was in stable conditions, a lot of research backs this up. If we were to go beyond the planetary boundaries, it is not believed that our race would survive on this planet. Everything that we grew knowledgeable until now would change, especially in the agricultural fields. It would change the way we grow things and other various factors that play an important part of how we live. In other words, all of this would be catastrophic for mankind.

3. Personally, all of this information is terrifying to me. Climate change is a huge problem in today’s society. Essentially the change in climate could bring the end of humanity. Because of this climate change, it could change drastically our agricultural fields. What is even worse is the fact that we are the ones who are responsible for the climate change that the earth is experiencing. I think it is a great thing that the U.S. State Department cables were leaked. This helps us open our eyes to what is really going on in our world. The only way that we may be able to save our planet and ourselves is by working together as the human race to clean up our planet as much as possible before it is too late for all of us. I see this happening already all around us. It is easy to tell that as the years go by we experience much hotter summers and much colder winters. All of this I think is due to how rapidly climate is changing. Another reason why all of this information is very concerning is because climate change isn’t something that can be changed quickly. As stated in the module, it will take a very large amount of years for us to be able to fix it. This would also only work if everyone in the world would take action, which may never happen. The unfortunate truth of it all is we may very well not be able to save our planet, and we are slowly killing the chances for future generations to continue thriving in this world.

1. I wanted to try my best here to show how climate change was the initial cause for political action. Personally I found the information provided by the leaks to be difficult to include in the assignment but I believe I have a grasp on how the information was meant to be used here. The key points here being that the Kyoto Agreement and the Copenhagen Accords were a function of climate change and in order to address the issues and to ensure that action was taken, there was some what I like to call, political maneuvering. As it turns out the real world does not work where you can rouse all nations with bolstered speech and rhetoric, but the world is a very complicated place where something that is seen as a necessity for the entire world, or for the human population can be used as leverage to get some sort of means to an end. For example like discussed in the article, some countries such as the Maldives which backed the Accords after financial aid was introduced as a resource. Then there is the more harsh view of the negotiations with the leader of Ethiopian Prime Minister which served as a sort of ultimatum to withdraw support for the country (The Guardian 2010). These actions are examples of how the United States was determined to gain support for the Copenhagen Accords and how the necessity for action was determined by the looming threat of climate change. Overall it should show progress and shows positive action from climate change, and ideally if the Accords are enacted and followed, could show significant impact towards climate change.
2. These actions shown in the leaks come down to ethics and show a determination to make positive changes. Climate change is a significant factor in determining the future of the human race, I do not believe that these leaks show a lack of ethics and honestly do not have an opinion whether they should have been released or not. There is a necessity for transparency in government, that is something most people today will agree upon, however these seem to be normal political dealings and do not imply unethical behavior. These leaks are not damaging and do not affect my opinion of the US government. The dealings themselves are how I believe political dealings to occur. That may be a slightly sardonic view of political dealings but the world is a complicated place, perhaps financial backing for foreign countries to entertain the idea of furthering renewable energy projects is something that the US government should invest in, and maybe not, but I see this as a means to very noble end. Now perhaps if there was something more sexy and thrilling like political intrigue like an assassination attempt or something of that nature that you could see in a movie, I would be singing another tune, but I believe the actions were ethical and just, and this is the way international politics occur. As far as what should be done, the only thing this article shows me is that something has to be done, leadership shows making hard decisions and the United States is a world leader, you lead from the front and pick your metaphorical battles hoping to get the right (calculated) outcome.

References

The Guardian. “WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord.” Last Updated December 3, 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord