This diagram illustrates the process behind the Copenhagen Accord, beginning with the overarching problem of global climate change. Climate change fosters the need for global and diplomatic change, which happens at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in 2009. At this summit, the Copenhagen Accord is created to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but that cannot be guaranteed, which is why the term “target” was appropriate here. Signing a global treaty on climate was a difficult task, and many countries needed persuading. The accord ultimately worked in the United State’s favor, which is why the US provided financial aid to countries who were affected by climate change. This either caused mistrust and skepticism on whether this compensation would actually happen, or it resulted in political support. 140 countries declared association to the treaty, which falls in favor of their 100-150 country target.

In my own opinion, I am someone who cares deeply about climate change and understands the urgent need for solutions. It concerns me that some people still believe climate change is a myth. Although I do not necessarily agree with the threats, spying, and overall corruption that seemed to take place under wraps, I’m not entirely surprised. Negotiating a solution to climate change with over one hundred countries in the mix is bound to cause issues. I think it is beneficial that the cables were made public because it is very eyeopening to see how countries behaved in this situation, especially the United States. I’m not surprised by the United States policing other countries in order to reap the benefits since we are a huge influence on global diplomacy. I agree that it was crucial for this accord to be signed, but threatening, hacking, spying, and promising money that may or may not be seen is not the most ethical way to go about it. It may be extremely unrealistic, but negotiations should be genuine and made with purpose to benefit all countries involved. For example, in order to get a country to sign the treaty, the US could have provided solar or wind energy sources to that country. If the US was going to provide millions of dollars in financial aid, they could put that money towards something that would help solve climate change. This problem ultimately comes down to ethics, and I think the US handed this in an unethical way.

The first section in the diagram mention Wikileaks cables (leaked cables revealing communications between US and other countries regarding Copenhagen Accord). These cables reveled how US used unfair means of spying on other countries and then using threats and money to get them on board with the Copenhagen Accord on Climate Change as the treaty was not adopted by the UN but was very beneficial to US in solving a lot of problems specifically regarding cut down in emissions. We can see from the information revealed that US misused its power by bribing other countries especially with offers of financial support and aid to poor countries and if they would still not agree, used spying and blackmailing to get them to agree. Though whatever the means, it was successful in gaining support from both developed(rich) and developing (poor) countries for the accord to pass. At the end there were a total of 140 nations who intended on associating themselves with the accord. The 140 nations represent almost 75% countries that are parties to the UN climate change convention and are responsible for well over 80% of current global greenhouse gas emissions. Now, looking into how Copenhagen Accord had ways in decreasing climate change. The diagram shows two major ways. First explaining how US gained support and then specifies the Copenhagen accord let to decrease in greenhouse gases which then leads to decrease in climate change. Secondly, the Accord also led to forcing all the countries to work together and reduce dangerous threats to climate change for example decrease in pollution creating factories, burning of fossil fuels etc. (mitigation), which then over time would make individuals get used to new atmosphere (adaption), and this new less polluted atmosphere leads to increased sustainable development, hence resulting in decreased climate change. Therefore, all in all, linking the Wikileaks cables to climate change, I would say, even though it revealed the truth of US decreasing trust between countries and misusing its power, it did lead to some decrease in climate change although the change was not very significant.

As the diagram explained the situation and revealed misuse of power, according to me, this issue is a great example of politics and also, a situation where ethics comes into play. As we learnt earlier, I would say US practiced action ethics (took charge of the situation) and decided that the consequences of the actions was more important, making this an example of distributive justice. Also, environmental ethics come into play as anthropocentrism was practiced as every country acted selfishly, agreed to accord for reasons such as money, aid and did not see the problem as a whole and how it was damaging our ecosystem. In my opinion, it was right to leak those cables, as public has the right to know how each country’s government was acting. As we live in a democratic world and cutting down emissions would effect all citizens as well, everyone should at least have had a right to know about the issue if not have a say in it. We’ve learnt that “ With great power, comes great responsibility” and this was definitely demonstrated in this situation. The US misused its power and hence ended up losing its trust over economic gains. We also learn that in order to improve the situation and protect the world from further deterioration by climate change, we need to have a collective action on climate change mitigation. Rather than concentrating on what should’ve been done or as of now looking out for selfish concerns, we should use all the intellectual power we have across the world and come up with something better than Kyoto protocol and Copenhagen accord, and the countries responsible for the most emissions, should definitely work more on this and together we can look forward to a better future. US did wrong somewhere as being the largest in emissions, it should take responsibility for that rather than being selfish, although it did have a slight positive effect as there was a slight change, hence I would say the Copenhagen Accord was bit of a boon but more of a bane.

2.  My diagram follows how systematic the entire outcome of climate change is. It starts at the beginning, which follows the module, introducing the industrial revolution, which then increased human consumption. The rise of human consumption paired with the increased emission of greenhouse gases shows the direct correlation between human activity and global climate change. Furthermore, my diagram then shows how following the idea of climate change, the United States still put greed above all and constructs a treaty which will manipulate and essentially discredit other countries who do not follow the Copenhagen Accord. My diagram also displays how some countries were not on board with the Copenhagen Accord, and how they were subjected to manipulation as well, thus creating overwhelming support of this act. Countries like Saudi Arabia are huge in the oil industry, and they are a huge competitor for us, which made it extremely important to get them on our side. We used various angles to give us leverage. After the United States became successful in convincing the necessary countries, we see now that most other countries that aren’t involved almost have no choice but to jump on board as well at this point. Now, we have over 116 countries who support, and a lot more who are planning to actively support the accord as well. This ultimately ends with the US being in control, just as they wanted. The United States’ main goal was to anchor global trade, and we now can continue to off shore oil drill and explore more drilling sights in other countries, thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions, worsening climate change.

3. When thinking critically about climate change, I would say that ethics heavily influence why we do the things that we do. From Module 3, we learned about distributive justice, showing that we think about the consequences after they happen, and we focus on what benefits one half, and disadvantages the other. I feel the same way about global climate change. Making this a global scale, the United States is in control, and we continue to warm the troposphere. I will not place all blame on the United States, but I will put the majority of the causes on our country since we are in total control now. We as Americans are collectively individualistic, and we tend to do things for gain. I personally am happy that information like Wikileaks is available to me. When thinking about the total population, I can’t say that I disagree with others having the information readily available to them as well. I think in order to close the information gap, we need to spread information like this. I think we have a right to know what is happening in the world, despite the corrupt nature of most actions put in place. I do not think that the United States should be going about the Copenhagen Accord this way, but at the end of the day, we want money and control over everything. At this point, I feel like way too many hands are in the cookie jar, and just like our module states, we would essentially be redirecting tons of money into other things, which will disrupt the majority of the economic circulation and change lifestyles totally and indefinitely.

1. 
2. For my diagram I tried to show the flow of how things occurred in order for support to be gained for the Copenhagen Accord. I began at the beginning, the problem, fossil fuels. As we all know burning of fossil fuels create greenhouse gases that result in climate change. That was the first thing I decided to list in my diagram. I put the fossil fuels in a sun to symbolize burning, there was no flame shape other than that. I put the climate change in a circle to symbolize the globe. Next I went on to mention the result of climate change, the Copenhagen Summit in which the Copenhagen Accord was created. A lot of countries initially weren’t in favor of the Accord, however the US was. It would greatly benefit the US if the Accord was accepted so the worked to gain allies and supporters. The US did this in several ways; cables, threats, and financial aid. Countries that were most severely affected by climate change not caused by themselves were promised money if they supported the Accord. Maldives is a small island country that was in need of money so they agreed. Bolivia also agreed, though they did not want to support the Accord, they needed money. Threats came, like that to Ethiopia, that communications with them would end if they did not support the Accord and the threats worked. Ethiopia agreed to support it. Finally cable were sent out that resulted in Wikileaks tapping the cables and leaking information on the aid, threats, and cable spying US was doing in order to gain support for their cause. In the end the efforts of the US and our allies allowed for support of the accord from 140 out of 193 countries involved in the climate change initiative. I illustrated that by having my flow chart end with the results of the US efforts.
3. I don’t like how the US conducted some of its negotiations. By spying and threatening countries I believe they crossed some ethical boundaries. I don’t think it’s right the spy on people or make threats because you aren’t getting your way. However at the same time, thinking about action ethics and if the end justifies the means, what the US did may be ok. There needs to be a plan in place to attack climate change, one where everyone on board is doing their part and working towards a better future. The US was able to make a large jump in that direction by getting so many countries to jump on board. Maybe there was a better way to accomplish this than the methods the US implemented, but in the end 140 of 193 countries are not following the accord, so maybe the means of getting to the end are justified, I don’t know who is entitled to be the judge of that. We will have to see how it works. The bullying and secretive ways of the US in this instance may, short-term, result in a group effort, but long-term we may see countries backing out, doing the bare minimum to say they are following the according, or just pretending to do so. I think I is up to the individual person and country to decide to do something, in order for any progress to actually be achieve.

2. In regards to climate diplomacy, the system diagram that I created is an illustration of a possible solution to the numerous challenges facing collective action as it pertains to climate change. Since climate change is a global issue, political negotiations are required, including and especially international diplomatic relations. This system diagram illustrates the cause and effects of the U.S.’s private diplomatic cables on global climate negotiations. The diagram is initiated by the series of evens stemming from the observed global climate change. As a result of such climate change, monetary and political negotiations are required in order to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses. This led to the implementation of spying and cyber warfare by the Untied States via communication cables. The communication cables released by the U.S. served to understand the overwhelming opposition from other countries in response to the controversial “Copenhagen Accord”, which the U.S. strongly supported. Ultimately, various news outlets exposed the United State’s secret, but after much controversy, negotiations were in place for a new climate treaty. Today, 116 countries have associated themselves with the accord and 140 nations represent about 75% of the countries that are involved in the United Nations Climate Change Convention. As mentioned in the article, negotiations surrounding the implementation of a climate treaty prove to be difficult in terms of compromising multiple views on the issue. In addition, a climate treaty would alter the existing global economy to a “low-carbon model” which would require billions of dollars in funding. So, although the WikiLeaks Cables released by the U.S. caused a great deal of controversy, the accord and the UN Climate Change Convention are the necessary stepping-stones required to achieve sustainability.

3. Prior to reading this article I had not heard of the WikiLeaks Cables and the surrounding controversy that they caused. I of course had heard of climate change, and considered myself to be somewhat knowledgeable on the subject, but this class has enhanced my knowledge on the issue immensely. Not only have I gained knowledge on global warming itself, but also the necessary precautionary measures that are required in order to fix the problem. Based on the content from this class, it is clear that collective action is necessary to reverse the damage that has been done. The United States may have gone about solving the issue incorrectly, but the intent behind it was not malicious in any way. However, I believe that the WikiLeaks Cables should have been made public as the corruption and spying would have only continued if they were not public. The United States went above and beyond to try to get other countries on board with their idea without taking into consideration the ability of other countries to act accordingly. Though the intent behind these cables may have been to simply “understand” what the other countries were thinking, the United States should have gone about it in a different way. Our country is seen as a leader for the most part, but this type of behavior is not something that should be admired, especially when dealing with an issue as important as global climate change. In order to reach an attainable international climate change treaty, the requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions must take into consideration the large number of nations around the world and the living conditions of each nation. Resources, such as fossil fuels, are readily available in some countries but not others. The standard of living and geographic surroundings of each country must be taken into consideration in order for a realistic international treaty to be implemented.

After reading through the article, I have decided to make my diagram about how climate change lead to the creation of the Copenhagen Accord and how is that going to help reduce greenhouse gases and finally lead to climate mitigation. First, the Copenhagen Accord was created by the UNFCC in hopes to grab each countries attention and explain to them the impacts of climate change and what will happen if nothing is done. Some countries support this and some don’t which made the United States take action and look for allies. Along with looking for allies, the United States benefits directly from any support of the Copenhagen Accord. The United States gathers support through various techniques. One technique was providing 30 money dollars to the Maldives to gain their support. Another technique involved threatening Ethiopia to sign the Copenhagen Accord or the discussion is done and United States will stop aiding them in any way possible. Another technique included spying on Todd Stern to gain classified information from him. The final way involved cables which required the United States to support Saudi Arabia and help them move away from a petroleum economy. All of these ways helped to gain the support of 140 countries that have signed or are about to sign the Copenhagen Accord. The article claimed that nearly 80% of carbon dioxide comes from these countries and having their effort will help tremulously. Since all of these countries are working on reducing greenhouse gases and will continue to reduce greenhouse gases. The reduction of greenhouse gases will lead to climate Mitigation.

I think that there needs to be a change and climate change is an important topic. Carbon dioxide needs to decrease and there are going to have to be changes in the world to accomplish that. I agree with what the Copenhagen Accord is about and how it is trying to recognize the impacts that climate change is having and could potentially have in the future. I don’t agree with some of the methods to get support from other countries, but I realize that it is necessary that you have to take certain steps when needed to gain support of other countries. Since the United States is one of the most influential countries, they are going to help lead the way whenever possible. I think that all the countries need to help the people of their country make an individual impact like what was talked about in this module. We have the choice to choose low impact foods and buy carbon offsets and both will help reduce greenhouse gases. As a country, we can come together and put in place more projects to help reduce greenhouse gases. Also, the government can offer more incentives to “go green” to help reduce greenhouse gases by higher tax credits based on what you do on your own. Also, a lot of people in the country don’t know how bad climate change is or just doesn’t care. Being able to tell those people or show them why it’s their business to care will also get more people to help reduce greenhouse gases.

aih5176

2. Global warming is an event that has led to many political, financial and ethical conflicts. Nations were trying to negotiate a climate treaty but agreed on different areas. They were concerned about the billions of dollars being redirected in order to completely adjust the economy into a low-carbon one. This means that the standard of living must change. For instance, Saudi Arabia, which is one of the richest countries, would have to turn their economy away from being petroleum based. This would be difficult since they are the world’s second biggest oil producer. In the event of trying to negotiate a climate treaty, the U.S decided to send out Wikilinks and gather information on other countries. They used this information to bully the countries into using the Copenhagen Accord. Other countries also found out that the United States was bribing other countries and trying to leave out certain countries that they feel cannot handle the financial “aid.” Beijing failed to reach a deal at Copenhagen, whereas the United States and many other countries – due to the United States’ influence – used the Copenhagen Accord. However, the Copenhagen accord cannot guarantee that the global greenhouse cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming will occur. The Copenhagen Accord was mainly pushed by the United States and was made to benefit the United States, one of the biggest polluters. Due to the Wikilinks, the United States succeeded in having 116 countries associate themselves with the Accord. Other countries oppose the Accord because it will negatively impact the extension of the Kyoto Protocol.

3. I feel that the U.S takes advantage of its power. It has an anthropocentric view. We have an issue with global warming and our bi-products are the cause of the issue. The methane and carbon dioxide that we produce are released into the air causing a trap for radiation in the troposphere. This is causing the Earth’s surface to warm but not the core. The United States is violating privacy by using Wikilinks and they’re using the information to fuel their own agenda. It does not seem that countries are actually taking into account the severity of the issue. They’re more interested in the financial and political benefits. This is a collective action problem because we must work together and actually solve the issue at hand. If we’re persuading other countries to join a proposal that is not made to actually change the economy, then nothing will change. I suppose it is good that we have access to this information because we can see the political and financial agenda behind things. However, I do not think it is necessarily right to practically hack into people’s conversations. Just because some people are making unethical choices does not give us the right to make them as well. It seems that the monetary funds are certainly an area of interest but not for the intended cause. If it were, then other countries, such as the island countries, would see this money also. By not attending to the problem, we are testing our Earth’s resilience. If we keep testing it, we will reach a state of instability.

1.

2. My system diagrams starts with greenhouse gases causing global climate. The need to reduce greenhouse gases leads to the need of the Copenhagen Accord. The United States is a top producer of Greenhouse gases. The United States was extra careful in selecting a plan to reduce greenhouse gases, but as the same time make sure the plan benefits them.  The United States seeks support for the Copenhagen Accord. The WikiLeaks cables revealed how the US manipulated the climate accord, by sending secret cables, spies.   It return the U.S. got a spear phishing attack on the office of the U.S. climate change envoy. This spying across nations lead to the Copenhagen Accord talks failing to lead to a global deal. The deals then continued in Cancun, Mexico. The US started to get as many countries to associate themselves with the accord once again. This lead to smaller countries being promised aid by the richer countries. The smaller countries had very little trust in the large countries to actual provide the aid.  Months later, the US cut aid to the Bolivia and Ecuador. A plan for funding the aid for the changes is need. Overall, 116 countries have associated themselves with the accord. Another 26 say they intend to associate. The plan ultimately fell through since there was a lack of trust between the countries involved. WikiLeaks made the negotiations public, show how The United States were intimidating other countries. The U.S. ethics were deplorable. They lost site of the main reason for the talks, to reduce Greenhouse emits around the globe.

3. The module talked about the collective action on mitigation. In this section I feel that the module hit a key point in why many countries cannot agree on one plan to mitigate climate change. In my opinion, the key point is that there are a difference in values from person to person as well as country to country. In my opinion, the main reason it is so difficult to reach international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emission, because it is very challenging to reduce emission. The module stated many reasons that it is hard to reduce greenhouse has emission. In my opinion, the challenging would be that there are major differences between the positions and views of different countries. The module stated that many smaller countries are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as island countries. The shifts in water and the extreme weather events could wipe out the whole country. These countries are eager to have emissions reduced.  I believe the State Department cables should have been made public from the start. Many people are unaware that this mitigation is currently taking place in the world. This would help people believe that climate change is actually happening. I do not believe the United States should continue conducting their climate change diplomacy in the same fashion.  I believe the United States should be more concerned with trying to get other countries to associate themselves with climate change accord, instead of trying to find a way to benefit from the Climate Change Accord. The United States is one of the top greenhouse gas producers, therefor needs to take a stand to reduce greenhouse emissions. In the module, it stated that many poor countries feel that it is unfair when the rich countries ask them to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, when they are not causes the bulk of the emissions. The United States needs to be a leader, and show other countries how to reduce greenhouse emissions without reducing the standard of living.

In my diagram I started with the soul issue behind this entire article and that was climate change and the increase in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution. Due to the potential threats of climate change and the warming of Earth’s surface attempts have been made in order to try and minimize the amount of greenhouse gas emissions made by each country. One of these attempts was the Copenhagen Accord which was strongly supported by the United States. However, trying to get everybody to agree on one thing is quite challenging and of course not every country was on board with this idea. That lead to the use of  secret cables seeking intelligent life by the United States in effort to attempt to manipulate these countries that did not support the Copenhagen Accord to support the Copenhagen Accord. WikiLeaks exposed the United States which lead to a distrust and other controversies. In the end despite all of the doubts there were still 140 countries  supporting the Copenhagen Accord along side the United States. I felt these were the main points of the article and the order that they went in. Resulting in my diagram looking the way it does.

Before this class I was not very knowledgable on the idea of climate change and did not see understand how serious it actually is. In order to sustain life on Earth collective action needs to be taken around the world. Although the United States might have been wrong in the way they went about trying to get other countries to support the Copenhagen Accord, they had the best interest of other countries in mind. Therefore I also believe that the mistakes the United States made should not have been made public. There are better ways though to start a movement and I think the United States should have done so by showing the steps they are taking to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas they emit. I believe the United States need to be more of a leader in this cause and start taking bigger steps in lowering our greenhouse gas emissions considering we are one of the largest contributors to it. Previous lessons have taught that there are smaller communities in the United States taking steps to more sustainable living, like the cities that are made to walk rather than drive or take public transportation. There are also individuals that grow their own vegetables in cities which helps to filter the air, provides healthier nutrition, and decreases the miles that food travels to end up in local grocery stores. If steps like this were made all over the country there would be significantly less greenhouse gas emissions from the United States. The United States could then take their success and show it to other countries in order to make them want to reduce their emissions too.

2.) This diagram shows the interconnections of Climate change, the USA, and the Copenhagen Accord.  Climate change is a very real and relevant threat to society as a whole.  So the United States drafted the Copenhagen Accord, which was a revision of the Kyoto Protocol, and that would positively impact the United States greatly.  The United States needed other countries to be on board so they used multiple tactics to achieve this.  First to the countries that openly opposed the Accord the USA used cables to spy on said countries to gain “dirt” to use later in negotiations.  Secondly they promised certain countries money if they would agree with the Accord.  Lastly the USA threatened countries to end negotiations with them immediately if they did not agree to the accord.  The Copenhagen Accord didn’t pass because, the USA couldn’t answer how they were going to pay these countries for their compliance. This lead to these said countries to openly question the USA’s ethics, and stopped trusting the USA.

3.) I didn’t agree with how the USA conducted its negotiations at all while trying to pass the Copenhagen Accord.  We shouldn’t be making threats and spying on other countries just to pass a law about climate change.  Our country shouldn’t be trying to pass laws where they benefit greatly, while the other supporting countries do not.  This is never a good approach to foreign relations.  I think when passing a law that can impact the entire world, you need to have open discussions. The law needs to be amended and other countries need to have an active role in the laws creation.  This may take years to pass, but it will have mutual respect with all supporting countries.  Also if you are offering money incentives for other countries to come on board, at least back up the offer, don’t negotiate with empty offers, no country will ever trust you if that’s how you conduct your business.  This is a collective action problem, so it’s going to take a lot of mutual negotiations for an agreement to be reached.

2. My system diagram focuses on the information from the article WikiLeaks diplomatic cables. It mainly focuses on the Copenhagen accord.  A convention in Copenhagen was formed in response to the issue of climate change around the world. Countries got together trying to come up with ways to reduce human’s impacts on the environment. This is where the U.S came up with the Copenhagen accord. This accord would allow countries to set the own goals for cutting greenhouse gases, but it didn’t guarantee the greenhouse gas cuts needed to avoid dangerous warming. These obligations led many countries to disagree with the accord, especially the poorest. Getting as many countries to agree strongly served U.S interest. The U.S. then uses bribery and espionage to gain support of other countries. Some countries needed little persuading, such as the poorest nations who would receive aid.  Through these bribes, bulling, and promises of payments the United States eventually received 75% support for the accord. This was nearly 140 out of 193 of the negotiating countries. Even though the U.S. used bullying and bribery to get its way we can hope that it serves a purpose. Hopefully greenhouse gas levels will begin to decline as countries execute their plans.

3. Exposing the cables kind of crosses ethical boundaries. Action ethics makes us consider do the ends justify the means? The U.S. used dishonesty and bribery to obtain agreements on the accord, but did this need to happen. Maybe through more negotiating they could have come up with a plan that more countries would have agreed on without being pushed. Although, is it justifiable because it enables more sustainability in the world? It’s really hard to determine if the cables should have been exposed or not. However, this dishonesty could lead to other serious issues for the U.S. Now other countries will be skeptical when negotiating with the United States. This could then create collective action problems. If the WikiLeak didn’t happen maybe more countries would’ve agreed with the accord. Also, as we learned in module 9 collective action towards mitigation, there are many different countries, each unique in their own way. They see climate change in different ways than we do, so we shouldn’t pressure them to be on our side. However, the long term goal is to reduce carbon emission and climate change. In that sense I don’t think the cables were a big deal. The U.S. was just doing what they thought would help reach their end goal of reducing climate change.

1.

2. I mainly focused on the exchanges between the climate change, the cables, and their result on gaining support for the Copenhagen Accord. During the article, it tells how each country wanted the accord to be adopted but it also encourages each nation to focus on ways to reduce the greenhouse gases. This allowed easier access to rapidly growing countries than that was proposed by the United Nations. In the beginning of my diagram I tried to explain how climate change fortified the construction of the Copenhagen Accord. The United States was pushed to find ways to gain the approval of countries that did not support the accord. I broke down ways in which the United States fought to change the attitudes of some of these countries. Some of the thing they used to fortify the countries were spying, cables, money and threats. All the countries in the article had to commit to make some changes to reduce greenhouse gases. Many of the countries have agreed to make a change, so in the diagram I tied it together by showing how over one hundred and sixteen countries decided to support the accord. There were a lot of countries in the article, but here are a few that I mentioned were United States, Ethiopia, Maldives, and Saudi Arabia. Also I showed how twenty-six countries are going to commit to the accord on a later date. It seemed that the ways in which the United States encouraged support by spying, cables, money and threats have worked.

3. When I finished reading the article, the cable leak made it more difficult for the collective action than it did before. For the collective action to work it needed groups of countries to work together to reduce the discharges of greenhouse gases. In the article it tells how United States got other countries to support the accord. One of the ways was to promise a country financial aid. Some of the countries did the reduction just for the money it was going to receive. If the countries do not get the financial aid that was promised they might stop any effort to reduce the greenhouse gases. Both countries and individual need to reduce the greenhouse gases because these gases could affect our future. We need to realize that the climate change could affect how plant life survives in the future and how each one of us adapts to the changing of climate. Some of the climate changes that we might experience is the hot temperatures and rising of the rivers or streams due to the melting of the snow that we had during the winter months. The United States might be frustrated by the other countries that do not want to help support the accord. I feel we should not threaten countries to help reduce the greenhouse gases. They should want to do this freely to help their people to survive the climate changes. If we have conversation with our neighboring countries about the greenhouse gases and what each one of us can do to reduce it we might be able to have a better future for our children.

1. 

2. My diagram provides a visual representation of the cause and effect relationship of how WikiLeaks cables revealed the manipulation of climate accord by the United States. This climate accord pertains specifically to the Copenhagen accord, which the United States sought to eliminate opposition of through scandal and unethical means. Their approach had an end goal of wanting to make major improvements regarding climate change and the environment. With a mission to mitigate climate change, an unofficial document, the “Copenhagen accord” was created in 2009 as a result of the Copenhagen climate change summit. One of its goals was to decrease greenhouse emissions. The United States wanted support from other countries for this accord, and so they sought dirt on nations opposed to it. Other countries were persuaded to agree with this document through money and several unethical ways. Today, 116 countries have agreed to this accord, and since 26 have said that they would also like to associate with it, then the total comes to 140 countries. There are several issues that are associated with negotiations regarding climate change. One is finances, and the other is trust that countries will keep their word. Several of these points were not included in my diagram, but they are definitely important and key to the entire issue regarding the Copenhagen accord. I chose to include the most important aspects of the situation.

3. This issue is definitely relevant to today’s society because climate change and the environmental standing of our world is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed. As explained in Module 9, a huge factor into why we have this dire need to fight climate change is due to the use of fossil fuels that is creating this problem. The use of fossil fuels is unsustainable, because when we burn fossil fuels for industry, not only is energy released, but matter released ends up in the atmosphere. Some of this matter is known as greenhouse gases, which were a main topic of the Copenhagen accord. Because this issue faces difficult consequences for the environment and for many forms of life, it has become an important topic of discussion. So, although it was unethical for the United States to use improper ways to promote the accord, it may have been overall beneficial for our world in that it increased awareness of climate change and the actions we can take to improve the problem. I believe that there could have been better ways to get support for the accord, including room for negotiations. It seems as if the United States was a bit pushy with their method of gaining support and eliminating opposition, so they could have considered making negotiations with others. 

The WikiLeaks cables showed how complex the politics of climate change are.  I didn’t want to focus on the specific acts that any one nation was taking, but rather what was driving those actions.  In my diagram I illustrated that climate change is finally recognized worldwide as a scientific fact by the majority of nations.  Private citizens and politicians have begun to understand the dire implications of climate change not only for future generations, but for current ones as well.  I think the world is beginning to act on climate change even if we’re in the early stages.  My second bubble is “Politics” because now that the problem is recognized, the politics of nations comes into play.  WikiLeaks gave us an interesting insight into the behind the scenes actions of our government and governments around the world.  By looking at the actions of these governments and their economic situations, I placed them into either the “Developed,” “Developing,” or “Underdeveloped” categories.  Developed nations like the U.S. have already benefited from the industrial revolution and are moving towards a green economy regardless whether we are forced to or not.  Developing countries have benefited from the industrial revolution and use of fossil fuels, but not to the same extent as the developed countries.  They still rely and will rely on fossil fuels for many years to come.  The developed countries had their turn and ruined the environment in the process.  To them it’s only fair that they be allowed to maximize their economic development through the use of fossil fuels.  We also have the underdeveloped countries.  These countries have not benefited greatly from the industrial revolution, but they often bear the worst of its consequences.  I further categorized “Developed” and “Developing” in to “Countries with Influence.”  The “Underdeveloped Countries” were placed into a category titled “Countries Vulnerable to Influence.”  Essentially the developed and developing countries are using political, economic, and covert tools to exert their influence, while the underdeveloped countries are selling their votes.  The Copenhagen Accord battle is just one battle of many more to come in the climate change saga.

The earth is at a point where change must happen, especially with the discovery of a planetary bound.  Our planet is extremely resilient, but our actions have pushed this resiliency near its limit.  I believe that everything should be done by the U.S. to slow climate change, with the eventual goal of stopping it.  I do not think that the U.S. diplomatic cables should have been released.  Transparency is great, but other nations opposed to our plans would use that information to undermine our efforts.  I see this as a question between distributive justice and procedural justice.  A country subscribing to procedural justice would follow all international rules and not worry about what decisions are made.  The better approach is to follow distributive justice and concern ourselves with the consequences of our actions.  We should weigh each decision and see if it will benefit the people of the world.  The U.S. is in a unique position as the world’s super power to foster change or force change if need be.  We should use our influence to create change diplomatically, while also creating change with our economic resources.  If we can help other nations become more sustainable their economy, quality of life, and the global climate change situation will improve.  In my opinion the ends justify the means when it comes to climate change.  I do not have a problem with the methods used by the U.S. to pass the Copenhagen Accord, but I do have a problem with the consequences.  The Copenhagen accord is a flimsy agreement that will do little to stop climate change.  The agreements passing also weakened other more promising solutions.  It appears that the U.S. was more interested in saving face than actually creating change.  We need the world’s super powers to us any means necessary to solve climate change.  It is a classic collective action problem and I think the solution is a strong country willing to lead.  People will always look out for themselves before they worry about what the world’s climate will be like in 100 years.

2) This diagram shows the global rise in the issue of climate change which eventually lead to the creation of the Copenhagen Accord. Many countries were aware of the increase in global warming, however the US believed that the only way to fix this problem was to implement the Copenhagen Accord. This accord was an alternate form of the Kyoto Protocol and was one that would benefit the US greatly. However, there became an issue of finding other countries to support this law. Therefore, the US tried to gain allies of not only the big countries, but the under developed ones too. There were many approaches that the US used as persuasion which included money, threats, spying and cables. As explained in my diagram financial aid was used as an incentive to those who chose to support the Copenhagen Accord while also threatening those who opposed it. In regards to the threats some countries chose to accept the consequences addressed by the US and some chose to agree to terms such as Ethiopia. In regards to the tactic of spying the US managed to adhere certain cables of which each country could be bribed with. With all of these approaches there became a lack of trust among those countries due to the fact that some questions could not be answered. For example, one of those being that the US could not answer what form of financial aid these countries would receive i.e. cash etc. Due to this lack of trust and knowledge this resulted in the failing of the Copenhagen Accord and the failing in persuading policies on Climate Change.

3) Contrary belief climate change is mainly comprised of human’s interaction and activity in regards to the greenhouse gases. This issue can be compared to the module lessons on ethics and collective action. In helping the environment, we as a society need to not consider these virtue ethics but rather ethically act in order for the ends to justify the means. If we take action on this issue, the means could lead to healthy and sustainable environment. Its these environmental ethics that correspond to the concept of collective action. Climate change is one that affects everyone on this planet, no matter what the country. We can make ends justify the means, however it is very hard to do that without the cooperation of all parties involved. According to WikiLeaks, the United States had taken it upon themselves as an individual interest to change climate change for the sake of our country, no one else’s. This is proved through evidence of the spying and sending of cables. Instead of negotiating, the US also created ultimatums for countries who opposed the Copenhagen Accord. All of these tactics and self interests didn’t provide a solution but rather provided the same outcome as before. These actions therefore influenced my view on the State Department cables. I believe these cables should have been made public. The US was using these cables as a source of espionage in order to gain support from those countries and that is neither fair nor ethical. Despite these unethical decisions made by the US, it is still tough to say what should be done. I think we should start with reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by requiring an education program teaching each country of their fossil fuel use and how it can be reduced within that specific area. This could influence certain companies, vendors etc. to make a change in order to benefit their country. As you can see climate change has and will continue to be a rising area of concern and if we continue this trend our sustainability as a planet will be in danger.

Learning Activity_ Module 9

Climate change has caused us to consider our influence on the environment. Most of the world has become dependent on fossil fuels to maintain our way of life. However, we have data to show that the way our world operates now is unsustainable and if we do not make some drastic changes then the human race may not be able to survive global warming. Therefore, the United States proposed the Copenhagen Accord which favors developed countries more so than the Kyoto Protocol. However, developing countries did not like this plan because they are trying to improve their industries and cutting emissions would halt this process. Therefore, the United States offered $30bn in exchange for the agreement to the plan. This caused many countries to follow through. However, certain negotiations were leaked and some classified it as “bullying” or forcing developing countries to enter an agreement that would not favor them. This resulted in a lack of trust with the United States.
I personally believe that it was right for the cables to be leaked. It shows how negotiations are dealt with between countries. However, to say that the way the United States handled it was wrong is difficult to say because it’s hard to determine the best way to handle a collective action problem. Not every country is going to be on board unless it is benefitting them in some way. Although mitigating climate change is beneficial for all involved it is still not enough for some countries. They need something more immediate in return. Therefore, maybe $30bn in exchange for less carbon emissions is not such a bad thing. In the end climate change is an issue that needs to be the priority of conversations and meetings because if it isn’t then all other conversations would not matter because we might not survive in the long run. Sometimes when people are not listening you have to force them to listen especially when it is something as important as this. I do believe there is a limit to “forcing” someone to listen, for example, physical harm or contracts that intentionally hurt the wellbeing of the people.

CassandraOresko_Module9

Above is the link to my diagram.

The core ideas behind my design relate to the idea of how climate change is actually occurring and the relationship to the consequences. Most individuals ignore the idea on ways we can change our ways to help the climate, but we have became so dependent off these fossil fuels that it’s almost impossible to think of an alternative solution; which eventually we will have to face. From the start of the Industrial Revolution, we have seen an increase in how few of an amount of people nowadays actually make resources by hand. In addition, my diagram focused on what types of molecules fossil fuels burn off in the atmosphere; a harmful consequence known as greenhouses gases. Though the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes the life as we know it possible, this increasement of fossil fuel burning has intensified greenhouse gases, causing global warming, or as discussed from the module and diagram; temperature shifts. By introducing these changes, I wanted to stress the attention to adaptations and ways that we can reduce fossil fuel burning. Though the collective action problems has caused individuals to refuse to reduce their emissions, global collective action has taken action. The Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding document negotiated by US and other countries, was reached in order to reduce these greenhouse gas emissions. An international treaty is difficult due to the large amount of opinions from other nations, each nation wants to focus on the solution that is best for themselves. You would not expect a poorer country to pursue the same actions that the US would, since they are trying to produce a better standard of living. The overall failure of this accord led to the conclusion that we as individuals need to come up with a smarter and more realistic way of transitioning to sustainability, as shown by the amount of harmful consequences located in my diagram and how they impact our impact our growing society.
My views on the climate change issue are on the border in regards to how the United States conducted the diplomacy. Climate change is a growing issue, and isn’t stopping anytime soon unless we make both individual and collective action changes. The cause of human emission in greenhouse gases has caused an overall dramatic change in water shifts, temperature, and extreme weather. Though I believe the United States was trying to be as productive as possible in regards to The Copenhagen Accord, I believe they took it too far. Spying and threatening on other countries was clearly not a success nor the best possible solution. It is so difficult to negotiate on a compromise when each nation is so different. You cannot expect a nation trying to raise their standards of living to decrease their fossil fuel use when this is something they clearly need, while a country like the United States would rather decrease their fossil fuel use since they are in such a high standard of living. Instead, it would of been a smarter idea for the State Department to negotiate on ideas that would be fair for each nation. Whether it be a moralized meeting with the leader of each nation, or even a conference, this would of been a more ethical and reasonable way to negotiate. As stated in module 9, collective action is something that needs to spread across all of humanity. Climate change isn’t just happening in one area, it’s happening worldwide, and we need to come together in a mutual and supportive agreement in order to successfully change our ways for the better.

Through this diagram I decided to show how the recognition of climate change as a serious issue lead to the drafting of the Copenhagen Accord and eventually lead to realization that new climate mitigation is essential to create a more sustainable environment.  Once the Copenhagen Accord was created, all countries did not immediately adopt to the ideas of the Accord and therefore lead to the United States and the BASIC’s to look for allies to support them for their own personal benefit.  In order to gain other countries support these countries had to use a variety of tactics and methods.  The problem in this, and as I showed in my diagram is that some of the methods used by these countries lead to countries questioning how much trust they can put in other countries.  Some questionable tactics used by the U.S and the BASIC’s include cables, spying and threatening.  An example shown in this diagram of how cables came in handy is how US was informed that Saudi Arabia needed to move their economy away from petroleum which lead the US to commit to help Saudi Arabia with its “economic diversification efforts would ‘take the pressure off climate change negotiations’.”  Other ways of gaining allies was to spy, which was used by China through spear phishing as well as countries providing money to others in order to gain support.  The US also at one point used the method of threatening especially in the case of Ethiopia and basically made an ultimatum for Ethiopia forcing them to sign the accord.  In the end, 116 countries ended up joining the Copenhagen Accord however overall the accord resulted in failure mostly because of the lack of trust between countries.  I ended off my diagram by showing that if greenhouse gases continue to reduce i will be because of climate mitigation, or in other words, new methods of reducing greenhouse gases.

One of the biggest and most important things to take away from this module is what causes climate change.  It is common for people to believe that climate change is caused by temperature increases and the increase in radiation from the sun.  Unfortunately, these people are misinformed, and need to be aware that the reason for climate change is mostly due to greenhouse gases from human activity and not from sun radiation.  Another important idea to take away from this module is understanding that we are trying to “foster collective action among all of humanity” or in other words, have collective action on mitigation.  The reason this is so hard to come by is because different areas of the world have different languages causing a language barrier, people are aware to different extents of climate change and people have different values which cause debate in every major issue.  To show how values could come in the way of negotiating mitigation, I recall reading a section of this module that outlined the difficulty in reaching agreements between poorer and richer countries.  The small and poorer countries would become bothered by the larger and wealthier countries asking them to watch their use of fossil fuels when they don’t use nearly as much fossil fuels as the bigger country.  Looking back on so many failed attempts of reducing greenhouse gases, in this particular case it could be beneficial to instead of, for lack of a better word, “calling out” smaller countries in order to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, to make it a national requirement to be informed of the damage the excessive use of fossil fuels can be detrimental to the earth especially since we are burning up fossil fuels at a much faster rate than they are regenerating.

I started out my diagram by explaining how greenhouse gases are affecting climate change and the World Powers produced the Copenhagen Accord in order to fix the problem by mitigating climate change. The U.S. needed support for the plan so they set out to get this support by threatening, bribing with money, cyber war faring, and spying on other countries. The United States wasn’t the only country that was using progressive actions in order to gain support. Money was promised and negotiations were made, some countries supported the plan and others didn’t. The major let down to this accord that I didn’t go into much detail with on my graph was that the Dutch refusing to join due to the fact that they didn’t want to use financial aid for political reasons, but on a positive note Saudi Arabia did join the accord which was a major benefit, because they are the number one producer of petroleum. Saudi Arabia agreed that it was good thing and no key economic interests were going to be compromised. The cables attained by the WikiLeaks finished at the end of February 2010. Today 116 countries have associated themselves with the accord, and another 26 say they attend to associate.  In conclusion, according to the article 140 nations represent almost 75% of the 193 countries that are parties to the UN climate change convention and, accord supporters are responsible for well over 80% of current global greenhouse gas emissions which is a huge success.

After reading the WikiLeak article and the module 9 information I have been informed how climate change is a large growing problem, and actions need to be taken in order to fix it. These changes in climate are caused mainly by human emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate change can lead to temperature shifts, shifts in water, and cause extreme weather events. It can sometimes be hard to adapt to these changes. Something has to be done, and the efforts of the U.S. and the Copenhagen Accord were very successful in my opinion, but not the most ethical. I don’t believe they had to threaten and spy on other countries in order to gain support, it was seen as inappropirate. Also, instead of stating in the cable, “sign the accord or discussion ends now,” the State Department could have negotiated differently to make the conditions fair for each side. Overall, compromises could have been made in a more ethical way. I’m not really sure what approach I would have taken, but it could have been dealt with differently with maybe a meeting or press conference where everything could be set out on the table. As I read Module 9 it mentioned how climate change is a collective action problem, this means everyone should be working together to fix the issue and be on the same page. It is affecting us all and it should be in everyone’s best interest to solve these problems in the right way, with the help from all the different countries.

2. I created the diagram so that it explained how the Copenhagen Accord came about and the effects it had on different countries. Because climate change was receiving more global attention, the UNFCCC created the Copenhagen Accord, after the Kyoto Protocol was largely unsuccessful. The United States needed other countries to support this accord because it would benefit them. In order to gain support, the United States went about it in a questionable manner. For example, they spoke with Saudi Arabia to discuss their alliance. Saudi Arabia agreed but needed money from the United States to make the transition and to diversify their economy away from petroleum. The U.S. also threatened some countries, such as Ethiopia, saying they should “sign the accord, of discussion ends now”. Lastly, the United States gave money to Maldives to gain support. There was also a “spear phishing” attack on Todd Stern, in which hackers were given access to individual’s computers through emails with malicious codes. Because of all of this, getting trust from poorer countries proved difficult, but not impossible for the United States. Various countries were concerned about where this money would come from and if it would come in the form of cash. Nevertheless, in the end, 75% of the 193 countries involved associated with, or intended to associate with the accord. This means the world is getting closer to achieving success with this collective action problem. However, it is a question of ethics whether or not the ends justified the means.

3. I believe that climate change is a very important issue, one that needs attention right away. However, large amounts of people do not think about the effects of greenhouse gases and how they may be contributed to their abundance in the atmosphere. Because of this, I think it is important that the UNFCCC is working on mitigation efforts and to reduce emissions around the world. I also think that the cables being made available to the public may actually be a good thing. Although making threats may not have been the best way to gain support, I think the United States is doing the right thing. Working towards gaining support means fixing an issue that many people do not want to adjust their lives for. For example, most people would agree that it is in our best interest to reduce emissions but it is in our individual interest to keep emitting. Therefore, this raises the question of whether or not the United States could have gone about this in any other way. For instance, if the U.S. simply asked for support by explaining why this accord will help the world as a whole, we may not be where we are now. The changes that need to be made cost money, and by offering this money, it makes it nearly impossible for nations to say no. In this way, I think the ends justify the means. Now, there are many countries in support of this accord and the UNFCCC continues to work toward adapting our way of life so that generations can live on.

In this diagram I wanted to display the connection between climate change and mitigation. As discussed in this module, climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. By burning these fossil fuels, greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere and this leads to the troposphere increasing in temperature. This then leads to climate changes around the world and is a problem for many nations. They understand that collective action needs to be done in order for effective changes to take effect. Although countries meet to discuss how each of them can take action in reducing climate change, there are always some difficulties in determining a method that will work for every country in the agreement. As shown in the diagram, the Copenhagen Accord was created in the hopes of reducing climate change, but in this, there were levels of distrust in other nations. This led to cables being sent out to determine the trustworthiness of other nations. In addition to this, although many nations want to participate in this mitigation, less wealthy nations have a more difficult time in agreeing to certain treaties. While these treaties request that nations reduce actions that lead to greenhouse gas emissions, poorer nations cannot afford to do so. These countries still need to industrialize and, therefore, not as likely to agree with these obligations. A third reason that these treaties have not worked so far is that some countries do not agree with the use of finances as political leverage. If they do not agree with using their money in the same way, they will not agree to the accord. With the need for mitigation to reduce climate change, there have been many attempts to negotiate adequate treaties.

After reading this module, it concerns me that decisions relating to climate change will never be solved. I’m concerned that it will all be talk and there will not be much action, and as this happens there will be even more climate change for the worse. I think that issues like this are extremely important to solve, as they influence everyone on the planet and if they are not solved, there will be consequences. I think that there is a collective action problem in this situation since these many nations are not working collaboratively towards effective action. As collective action refers to actions done by a group on a collective decision, the nations of the world need to negotiate to make an agreement. Although this decision is a hard one to negotiate, it is understandable. As stated earlier, less wealthy nations still need to use machinery to maintain their country’s economy and lifestyle so they still need to emit the same amount of greenhouse gases and cannot afford to reduce them. In this case it is hard for them to settle on an agreement. In addition to this, more wealthy nations typically are accustomed to using cars and similar methods of transportation for travel and it would be difficult to change the accustomed actions of the citizens of these countries. What I do not necessarily comprehend is why the cables have been made public. I assume that they were publicized in order to receive feedback from the public, in the case that the public would loudly voice their opinions, but through this, I feel like this would more so create more varying opinions and mitigations would be less likely to happen. I think that there are many ways that climate mitigation can occur, but I am concerned on when it will happen and the extent of which it will happen.

1)

2. My systems diagram includes the flow of ideas behind the Wikileaks article and climate change. The United Nations Convention of Climate Change in Copenhagen was formed as a response to the rising issue of climate change throughout the world. As a result, various countries, large and small, attempted to come to an agreement over a way to reduce the harm of humanity’s progress on the planet.  After a few failed attempts, the United States found themselves with the “Copenhagen accord”, which favored many of the ideas and feelings that as one of the largest polluters in the world, the country favored.  The accord would allow countries to set their own goals for the cutting of greenhouse gases, without determining what levels were actually beneficial.  However, various countries were hesitant to sign the deal, which resulted in the United States’ interactions.  Through bribes, such as a payment of $30bn to Maldives, sheer bullying based off the United States’ power, and promises of payments, almost 140 countries have signed on for the accord itself.  These accounts and records were exposed finally around February 2010.  But, still, countries like Japan, though not supporting the Kyoto climate treatment anymore, are supporting the accord.  One can hope that through the United States’ playground like tactics that the greenhouse gas levels will begin to decline as more countries begin to execute their plans.  Although there is no set plan to how much or what levels each country should decrease their emissions, a start is still a start for a larger issue.
3. My view on the issue at hand looks at the situation more holistically. As a collective action towards mitigation as seen in Module 9, there are many different countries, oil based, small, and wealthy, that see emissions and climate change in different ways. However, the long term goal is to reduce climate change from an unsustainable source of fuel, fossil fuels, and into a form that will not pollute the planet.  I think that the State Department cables do not play a large role in the public knowledge, whether we know or not.  I simply care about the progress of the world as a whole.  As a result, I have to agree with the United States’ diplomacy during the meeting in Copenhagen.  If a country does not wish to participate in a goal or movement, that is their right.  However, on the basis of the planet, the countries that are able to participate should help those that are hesitate, such as Maldives who cared for some money, being a small island nation.  On the other side, I would have liked to see a more regulated set of boundaries for emissions set up. Being realistic though, I understand the difficulty in organizing a movement that includes 140 countries.  As a result, I believe that ethically the ends justify the means, and the United States’ behavior was appropriate.  While changing climate could be one of the world’s most pressing issue, I believe that some action is much better than no action at all.  In addition, possibly through new acts, such as making large cities more energy efficient and communities less fossil fuel dependent with more walking roads, other countries will begin to follow. I think that having multiple countries on board for one cause, even with flaws, is much better than no countries on a well formed plan.

The core ideas behind my system diagram is how the U.S. used espionage and funding’s (which I called bribery since that’s more or less what it is) to get countries to join the Copenhagen Accord, which was mostly written by the U.S.  When countries heard that about 30 billion dollars in financial aid would be available to help assists in projects that would reduce their climate change impact, they jumped on board almost immediately.  Some countries did not take the deal, but not nearly the same amount that joined the accord.  One person from Brussels asked if the money would be in the form of cash, which I found to be sort of sketchy.  The second part is making use of espionage.  For example, the U.S. sent secret cables to Meles Zenawi, who heads the African Union for climate change.  In the cable, the U.S. lays out an ultimatum stating that they “sign the accord or all discussion end now.”  In my diagram, you can see that whatever course the U.S. took to get countries to back the Copenhagen Accord, more often than not, the countries joined.  It would make sense to join if you are being offered money, but if you are being forced to join, you might show some resistance, like how the Netherlands found it hard that one of the conditions to receive any financial backing was to join the accord.  As you can see from the diagram, the Copenhagen accord has been accepted by about 75% of the countries within the United Nations.

In my opinion, I think the cables should have been made public.  My biggest problem with the Copenhagen accord is how the U.S. went about getting countries to join it.  The cables probably should not have existed in the first place, as it can and has sparked some controversy.  Also, the U.S. had the biggest hand in creating the accord.  I’m sure that it is written in a way that can only make the U.S. reap the benefits to the maximum.  I think that the U.S. should have went about this in a more diplomatic matter where each country helps to contribute to the accord.  If the all the countries worked together to work towards a common goal or agreement on how to control the climate, it would probably be a much more powerful movement.  What the Copenhagen accord really illustrates is that countries want money so that they can continue developing.  There is a chance that they will not use the money properly, and that it may go towards something else.  It also shows that the countries that were pushed into the accord don’t think that it is a good document to control the climate.  However, they do not really have a choice, because its either there in and receive help, or they are left behind.  Forcing someone into a cause without them understanding the cause almost never works.  They are either there for something else, or because they have to be there.  Unfortunately, this is often how politics works out.

Just as my diagram shows, the need for a renewable energy source to overtake that of fossil fuels is in high demand.  Fossil fuels, one of the most used forms of energy since the industrial revolution are not only unsustainable but when burned, produce greenhouse gasses. Such an increase in greenhouse gasses greatly affects climate change.  Climate change can be a hard issue to combat.  Not only are greenhouse gasses hard to stop because fossil fuels are so heavily imbedded in our country’s industry, but climate change is such a huge collective action problem, making it one of the biggest problems our world faces.  Because of this, the climate accord was proposed by world leaders.  This accord set out to find ways that would decrease the emission of harmful greenhouse gasses helping to warm the troposphere and Earth’s surface.  It also brought up more assistance to less fortunate countries facing climate change.  This climate accord was backed by espionage on the U.S. front in the form of cables in the attempt to bribe developing countries into accepting and joining their views of how to combat this issue.  Conversation and interactions between the U.S and said developing countries were then publicized by Wikileaks.  This then exposed the U.S.’s manipulation of climate change.  Following the leak, 116 countries have since jumped on the accord bandwagon while another 26 say they intend to associate with the initiative.  Following this, UN climate change negotiations in Mexico proved to give the boost a huge boost.  

On the topic of the State Department making the cables public, I would say they should have instead of leaving them to be leaked.  I believe they should have made the climate accord a public matter.  Just as climate change is a collective issue, the public should be entitled to know about what is being done to combat it.  Withholding such information almost makes the accord seem like something illegal, which even though it had some bad instances, was mostly just trying to take positive steps towards solving the issue of climate change.  Despite what may, deep down had been good intentions, Wikileaks still caught the U.S. red handed in the sense that it was not acting in a diplomatic manner.  I think the U.S. should have set a better example as a country and should not have partaken in political bribes and threats to get their way.  I feel like instead of using bribes, the U.S. should have instead tried to convince places such as Zenawi why the accord would be useful in resolving climate issues, and why they need it.  They should have been more sympathetic to each country’s needs as well.  Not every country is the same, and many are on different ends of the wealth spectrum.  I believe personalization for each county and calm negotiation would have worked in the U.S’s favor.  The desire for each country to actually want to work together to combat climate change is what really matters.  No amount of bribery or threats can put the kind of passion and interest into something the way an actual desire can.  

The core ideas behind my design is that many of the countries around the world recognize that there is a need for climate change. The problem is that many of the countries around the world are looking for a plan that is best for themselves. This is shown by the United States. The United States opposes the Kyoto protocol because in this protocol the richer countries have binding obligations. This leads the United States to push for the Copenhagen Accord. This accord is more favorable to the United States and some of the richer countries, but hurts many of the poorer countries that are using cheaper fossil fuels for development. This opposition leads to the accord offering some financial aid to some of the poorer countries that would be hit by this accord. The accord promised $30bn in aid to the poorer countries. This led to the Maldives Prime Minister to quickly back the Copenhagen Accord. The U.S. also threatened to cut off discussions with some countries such as Zenawi if they did not sign the accord. The more powerful countries also had several problems in determining how the cuts in emissions would be policed. All of these issues led to a lack of trust between many of the countries that were interested in implementing this accord. This lack of trust then led to many people believing that the Copenhagen Accord was an overall failure. The overall reason for the failure was the lack of trust, and the selfishness of different countries not willing to give up too much to achieve real climate change policies.

I believe the two major concepts that we have covered that apply to the climate change situation are ethics, and the idea of collective action. I think ethics is a major topic in climate change because climate change deals with a lot of what is right and wrong. Most people believe that implementing climate change policies is the right thing to do. However, most countries are selfish and continue to use cheaper fossil fuels to continue to develop countries. This selfishness pushes other countries to act selfishly to remain competitive with other countries. This goes into the ethics topic of altruism vs. selfishness. If all of the countries act in an all altruistic manner then it may be possible to make a dent on climate change. This idea of acting altruistically is very close to the idea of collective action. The entire world needs to work together on these issues to make real changes in the world. I believe the more developed nations need to make the biggest first steps to lead the way for smaller countries. It is for these reasons that I believe the State Department cables should be made public, so everyone can remain informed as to what is going on. I also think that this shows the United States should not be conducting climate change diplomacy in the way that they have been. I think the United States have been too selfish in their diplomacy, and if we want to see real change in the world we need to lead by example and make heavy cuts on our own emissions. The United States needs to make these cuts and then urge other countries to follow in an effort to cut back on the effect that humans have had over the years on the Earth’s climate change.

1)

2) My diagram focuses on the major issue of climate change and the attempts of the Copenhagen accord and WikiLeaks cables to help trigger climate mitigation. Climate change is an issue for all nations, which is why the Copenhagen accord was created. We must reduce human activities that are causing excess greenhouse gases in order to reduce climate change. Unfortunately, not all nations view climate change as a priority issue due to their lack of money or resources. Most countries focus on what is most beneficial to their economy and therefore don’t concentrate on environmental issues. As a result, the US State department started bribing and spying on other countries in order to gain support. Some countries refused US aid because they didn’t want to take financial aid from the US only for political purposes. Saudi Arabia, the 2^nd biggest oil producer, decided to accept US aid as long as their economy wouldn’t be comprised. The US aid within Saudi Arabia would cause a decrease in the amount of oil or fossil fuels used in efforts to reduce climate change. Similarly, poorer countries accepted the US aid because they overall needed assistance and money from an outside source. However, this is where the question of ethics comes into play. Is bribing other countries with money in order to support the US ethically correct? Or should we let these countries decide their course of action on their own? 116 nations are apart of this climate treaty showing that if we collectively take action, we can accomplish more. However, it is essential that we make sure the measures we are taking to achieve climate mitigation are ethical.

3) I believe it’s important to recognize that climate change is an ongoing issue, especially with our increased use of greenhouse gases. We are rapidly using up fossil fuels, which can’t be replaced. Overtime, this will lead to an unsustainable environment along with the loss of essential resources. I think it is imperative that the public knows what is happening within the world, especially when it could ultimately affect our own lives, from an anthropocentric point of view. Even though the leaking cables, as discussed in the article, informed everyone about the issues arising, there could have been a better way to update the public. The goal of the government is to create policies and regulations that benefit the people, therefore the people should have a say in what is happening around the world. The US initially had an altruistic, collective goal in mind by wanted all countries to reduce green house gases in order to achieve climate mitigation. However, the way the US approached this issue was wrong. It is not ethical to bride or threaten other countries into supporting certain views. Although climate change affects the entire world, it is important for countries to want to limit their use of greenhouse gases on their own or unless they specifically ask for help. Bribing only makes the US seem brash and immoral. Maybe if countries provide videos and statistics of what the future could look like with a depletion of fossil fuels then the public, along with other country climate leaders, would want to get involved with the accord and sustainability. From listening to each other, we can come up with collective ways to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases used, while also coming up with new innovative alternatives.

The main idea behind my system diagram is the relationship between trying to establish global climate change rules and regulations and the trust that can become a barrier on the international diplomacy. The beginning of my diagram starts with the lack between the trusts of the countries. The lack of trust starts with the secret cables and the “spear phishing” tactics. This Spear phishing tactic was sent to the US to look like the National Journal had sent it out and had threatened to take all the information they had on their computer systems. This showed malice and the cruel acts countries were willing to take to get their hands on classified documents. The meeting that was held in Copenhagen was to help move forward with the issues at hand, global climate change. The outcome of this meeting was The Copenhagen Accord which was a political agreement on how to handle global climate change and greenhouse gases. The countries that suffered the greatest global warming due to other countries were offered aid to assist in becoming a “healthier” country. Some countries, again, felt that they could not trust that the aid would come through for them and it held back their process to move forward. Eventually countries were able to come to terms with the accord and now 116 countries have identified with the accord while 26 countries maintain they have intentions to work with the accord. If there was trust between countries then the timeframe to get everyone involved for the sake of our environment would not take so long. Since trust was broken immediately some countries simply couldn’t see the positives in The Copenhagen Accord.

I think the state department communications should have been made public. It makes people more aware of how the state department works behind closed doors and the malicious intent they may have. I think that issues relating to climate change and global warming should be open to the public. Wikileaks may not have had the most ethical approach in retrieving the information but I think that it was necessary that it was leaked. I don’t have much of an opinion on how they should or shouldn’t conduct their climate change diplomacy considering politics is a topic that I don’t have a good understanding. The one way that works best with communication is being truthful and from this article it doesn’t look like they conducted business truthfully or ethically. Since climate change is a global crisis and is happening quicker in more populated areas or in the more poor nations, all nations should come together and help the crisis as a whole. The poorest countries that have less opportunities to improve their way of living to the more green approach, need the assistance from other countries because without our support how will they be able to improve and make positive changes.

2. The core ideas behind my systems diagram have mainly to do with distracting ourselves from the main problem and how backhanded strategies will lead to further distrust and less action toward the real goal at hand. Since WikiLeaks occurred, now everyone knows what is going on and what to watch out for. Everyone will be on their guard to protect themselves. This makes people even greedier for what they feel they need, deserve, or are owed. Others might even begin doing similar things in order to accomplish their own personal agendas. Through this, appeasement and bribery may even take place and increase, however where would this money come from? Furthermore, even if this money was collected, what is the point in giving it to these countries, when instead it could go toward new technologies and strategies to reduce our emissions and help us to devise ways of adapting to the changing climate? By simply trying to convince other countries to agree to our desired agenda, what is really being accomplished here? This plan can only lead to greater dissent and further distrust among nations, indicating that we still don’t understand the real issues at state. This effort must be a collective action in order to actually do anything, whether that be to reduce our emissions or simply adapt to the situation, we must work as a team to get things done, not as enemies and thieves. This issue concerns everyone on this planet and not only is it a collective effort, but is also not just a question for governments and politics, but for everyone and must also include individual efforts as well.

3. I think that it was probably for the better overall that these schemes have come out into the open. It’s kind of like when a child steals a piece of candy or does something else wrong, if he is not caught, then he won’t learn from his mistakes and will continue to do that wrong things as long as he sees that it works for him. On the flip side, if the young child is caught and warns against doing such a thing again, he may learn from his mistake and refrain from such immoral actions in the future.

In this situation, the US, as well as some other countries it would seem to me, was trying to push their own agenda and make happen what would be solely in their best interest. The US wanted other countries to back them in their agreement and some other countries wanted monetary compensation for “not being as responsible for the climate change as other nations”. This doesn’t make sense to me though because where are these funds going to come from? Where will the US obtain them and if they do not succeed in procuring them, then they have just blatantly lied to these other nations, which can only lead to negative consequences in the future.

Personally, I can’t seem to understand why government officials and politicians can’t simply discuss the issues at hand and work together to accomplish their goals, especially when it may literally mean our survival or destruction if we cannot adapt to our changing environment. I feel that the time spent on such petty problems as personal gain should be put to the wayside and that money ought to be spent on better ways of mitigating the changing climate and/or adapting ourselves and our technologies to the changing environment.

1.)

2.) For my diagram, I wanted to focus on the interactions between the cables, climate change, and their effect on gaining support for the Copenhagen Accord. The article describes how large countries such as the United States wanted the accord to be officially adopted as it encourages each nation to focus on a way to reduce greenhouse gases. As a result, it allows for easier access to bind to rapidly growing countries than the process proposed by the United Nations. So, I started my diagram by explaining how climate change encouraged the creation of the Copenhagen Accord. Many countries did not support the accord, so it pushed the U.S. to find ways to gain their approval of it. I decided to break down the different ways the U.S. fought to change the opinions of these countries. They used spying, cables, money, and threats to encourage countries to join the Copenhagen Accord. There were several countries mentioned throughout the article, so I decided to group them based on how their opinions were manipulated by the U.S. (Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Maldives, and others). Finally, each country involved in the accord must commit to some change within their country to reduce greenhouse gases. Many countries agreed to make a change, so I tied the entire diagram together by showing how over one hundred and sixteen countries decided to support the accord. Another twenty-six countries plan on committing to the accord later in time as well. The various means of encouraging support performed by the United States seemed to have worked!

3.) After reading the article, I believe the cable leak makes climate change collective action more difficult than before. Collective action in terms of climate change requires groups to make a change together to reduce emissions, even though the individual might want to emit more gasses. The article discusses America’s means of bribing other countries to support the accord, including giving countries financial aid. Many countries might not want to change or reduce their emissions, but they are doing it for the money. As soon as the money is removed, the country might stop their efforts to save the environment. It is similar to the idea of carbon offsetting! Companies pay people to reduce their emissions. Yet, people may need money to motivate them to reduce their carbon footprint on their own. Countries and individuals need to find it in themselves to reduce emissions because it can affect the future of our world. They need to realize climate change creates issues with plant life and how they adapt to rising temperatures, rising water levels due to melting, and even humans! So, they should voluntarily want to help and not be manipulated by our country to do so. It may have been frustrating for the United States to see other countries not willing to support the accord. Yet, I do not think it is right to force countries through threats to agree to it. Conversations about why they would not agree or what they believe should be done might have been more successful than manipulation of their beliefs. Allowing for countries which are near each other to have conversations about what they can do to decrease greenhouse emissions might be easier than having the whole world try to communicate. It might allow for countries nearby to work with one another to mitigate the effects of climate change in their area.

1)

2) I started my systems diagram at the original cause of all the spying and diplomatic activity, the Copenhagen Accord. Without the hastily written accord in the last moments of the Copenhagen climate change summit, the United States would not have had any drive to diplomatically influence other countries. I then highlighted 3 of the biggest events that were influenced by the U.S. secret cables. The first example was the Saudi Arabian negotiations. The article points out these negotiations with Saudi Arabia were driven the most by financial assistance. The Saudi Arabian oil industry is one of the biggest in the world, as we have learn throughout this course the combustion of fossil fuels produce lots of greenhouse gasses, which directly effects climate change. The United States won over the support of the Saudi Arabian’s government by promising to help transition the source of income of their economy. The second example was low income counties that were easily influenced by 30 billion dollars. This money went to project similar to those highlighted in the carbon offset video.  The final issue I outlined in my system diagram was the significant divide between high and low income nations. The United States, through a secret cable, was able to bully Ethiopia, a low income country, into supporting the accord. I feel this example really helps show the ethical issues involved with getting so many parties to collectively agree on a common issue. Finally, I had all three U.S. cable influenced events linked to preventing climate change as long as countries that received financial assistance used it properly.

3) After reading this module and the assignment article I am honestly scared for what the future holds. Climate change is an issue that can theoretically decimate humanity if left unchecked. The module stated that this severe climate change can push the earth’s planetary boundary. The isotope data suggest civilization thrived because of relative stability, the change in climate is threatening to disrupt the earth’s stability. The only way the world is making any progress to fix it is through spying, cyber-attacks, and large amounts of financial assistance. I believe it is good that these U.S. State Department cables were leaked. Hopefully showing the dirty diplomacy will cause some organization or country to step up to help stop it. As the module stated climate change is a collective action problem, this means everyone should be working together to fix the issue, not one rouge nation (the United States) bribing other countries to follow plans that benefit them the best. While I believe the United States had the right idea by trying to stimulate action, their means of doing so were wrong. I believe the countries involved in the UNFCCC, need to act like adults and understand that this issue is not a financial gain opportunity. I do believe a large scale implementation of carbon offsetting would help solve the climate problem. As the carbon offset video said before the funds that are gained by countries and private businesses need to be used honestly. While just capping the amount of carbon dioxide is a good start, the best case scenario would see the total amount of Carbon dioxide begin to decline.

The main idea of my diagram is obviously surrounding the idea of climate change and climate mitigation. In the article, it was talked about how the United States had a major problem creating greenhouse gases which are affecting the climate. After realizing this was a problem, the Copenhagen Accord was produced in order to fix the problem at hand. The Copenhagen Accord was a plan produced by World Powers to mitigate climate change. Overall, the United States needed support for the plan and was bribing, spying, and threatening other countries in order for this support. However, the United States wasn’t the only country that was using unconventional means in order for support. There are other incidents reported through the article that show how China uses spear phishing. A major let down to this accord was that the Dutch refused to join due to the fact that they didn’t want to use financial aid for political reasons. However, on the positive side, Saudi Arabia joined the accord which was a major benefit. Being the number one producer of petroleum, Saudi Arabia agreed to join in order to diversify the economy and take the economy solely away from petroleum. Saudi Arabia agreed that it was good thing and no key economic interests were going to be compromised. In the end, the Copenhagen Accord had 140 countries supporting the plan with more countries that intend to join. The statistics say that 75% of the countries that are involved in the Accord are responsible for over 80% of the greenhouse emissions.

In this module, we learned that it is clear that climate change is a problem and a growing problem in fact. If continuing our ways that involve greenhouse gas emissions, sustainability may not be possible in the future. There is direct information within the module that says we won’t be able to keep using fossil fuels at the same rate without depleting them fully. It is obvious that something needs to be done in order to mitigate climate change. I believe that there may have been a better way to conduct the climate change diplomacy by the United States. However, I am not sure what this way would be. I imagine that it would be difficult to gain interest and support from other countries on an issue that may not seem to benefit these countries right away especially if it is changing their economy. Even though it may be difficult, I do not believe we should ever threaten another country for something of this matter. Since we talked about how climate change is often a collective action problem, it is important for countries to want to take part in this accord. If they are being bribed or threatened, they may not want to be apart of this for the right reasons. To solve a collective action problem, the people must want to change and reduce the problem. I believe that the State Department cables should be made public to an extent. It is a right for the citizens to know what is going on in the country to a certain extent. I do not believe that the public knowledge of these cables would be harmful. However, it may have been executed in a different fashion.

My diagram depicts the main ideas behind WikiLeaks and its connection to climate change. There are several factors that link the leaked cables to climate change. Starting with the Copenhagen accord, disagreements arose amongst the nations in regards to how to handle climate change. The U.S. State department then issued secret negotiations, with some acting as attacks on leaders of climate change. For example, an attack was aimed at the US climate envoy, Todd Stern in regards to obtaining support from Beijing. The poorest countries affected by climate change who were not directly contributing to it were also promised money for their support. Here the question of ethics arises, for it was as if the US was bribing other countries. Some countries like the Maldives accepted such negotiations and expressed their eagerness to support the accord, while others resisted. This leads to a collective action problem, as discussed in Module 9. There are some nations who are willing to work towards helping the effects of climate change and those who are stuck in their ways and are not willing to transition to more sustainable ways of energy. Those who had money offered to them were more eager to accept the bribes from the United States, but as discussed this is not necessarily ethical. If everyone is not on the same page about climate change, it will be hard to adapt to it and even change our ways. Thus, it becomes a continuing cycle and our environment will continue to suffer.

 The leaked WikiLeaks cables present many issues that are not necessarily ethical nor that I agree with. For one, it is somewhat embarrassing that a country as prevalent as the United States, would try to secretly send messages, let alone attack climate change leaders through emails and bribes. In some ways, it was beneficial for the public to see the State Department cables. If they were never leaked, the general public would still have no idea of what went on between political powers and the bribery and threats that were used to obtain support from other nations. It was anthropocentric for the State Department to reach out to those countries who did not necessarily support the Copenhagen accord, for it was only in their interests to keep things the same so money did not shift in a different direction. Instead of conducting climate change diplomacy in this fashion, other tactics need to be discussed and implemented. When every nation in the world is involved, it becomes difficult to overcome the collective action problem, as mentioned previously. As discussed in the module, mitigation could be used to reduce the amount of climate change by reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere. Few countries may know about such techniques or lack the knowledge to do so. Adapting to climate change and working to reduce our role in it is a complex cycle of ideas and actions that everyone needs to be on the same page about. With time and cooperation, we may eventually be able to think as one and reduce the rate of climate change.      

My diagram displays the connection between the Wiki Leaks Cables and climate change. The diagram begins with the Copenhagen Accord and the need for support to mitigate climate change. The Copenhagen Accord is a plan drafted by World leaders to handle climate change through mitigation and sustainable development. The need for support led to world powers seeking support through unconventional means in which cables were eventually leaked. For example China unsuccessfully attempted to use spear phishing to hack the US Climate Change Office. The United State of America used the Central Intelligence Agency to spy on other countries in search of information that could be used to gain support and political backing. The information placed in the cables was used by the United States to bribe and threaten countries into supporting the Copenhagen Accord and the United States stance on climate change. The Dutch rejected and did not support the Copenhagen Accord, stating disapproval of financial leverage for climate change negotiations. However, Saudi Arabia chose to support the Copenhagen Accord with the promise that the United States would help to diversify the country’s economy. The Saudi Arabia economy is centered around petroleum. In the cables, Saudi Arabia requested economic diversification in exchange for supporting the Copenhagen Accord. The United States threatened Ethiopia until Zenawi announced support for the Copenhagen Accord. Between the threats and bribery, the United States was able to gain backing and support for the Copenhagen Accord. This ultimately led to 140 nations supporting the accord, which comprised of 75% of the countries. These countries represented 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions.

Meetings like the Copenhagen Accord are vital for mitigation of climate change and sustainable development. Climate change is a worldwide issue that effects the poorest and the richest nations. Climate change affects everyone in the world, as well as future generations. I believe that any meetings or correspondence regarding climate change should be a public matter. I think that it is a good thing that Wiki Leaks Cables were made public and in the future should be available to the public. However, I disagree with the way in which the United State of America has conducted climate change diplomatic issues. I feel that the United States should act in a more ethical manor and set an example as a world leader. I believe that the support for the meeting should not be gained through political bribery and threats. In the case of Saudi Arabia and Zenawi, bribes and threats were used, respectively, to gain political backing in the Copenhagen Accord. Instead, I believe the meetings should focus on the countries on an individual scale and the countries should have a strong desire to help the global climate situation. I believe the results would be more beneficial if the countries are participating for the correct reasons, not because they are threatened or bribed. It has been seen that some poor nations do not support the Copenhagen Accord. I do not think that an overarching plan can be applied to all countries. Every country requires specific climate change mitigation plans that are plausible in each situation. I believe a proper plan that fits every countries situation, along with each countries desire to change, is the only solution to the global climate change.

This whole story starts with humanity’s need for an energy source. In today’s world, the majority of that energy source comes from fossil fuels, which have shown to be one of the biggest contributors to climate change. The burning of fossil fuels leads to a buildup of greenhouse gasses in the troposphere, which leads to a greenhouse effect caused by the gasses reflecting radiation back towards the earth’s surface. This trapping of heat has caused warming of the Earth’s climate, and most politicians and world leaders believe that we need to slow down or stop this change. World  leaders congregated at the UN’s climate change summit, and tried to push a climate accord that would decrease the amount of greenhouse gasses that we  put into the atmosphere, and provide assistance to poor countries that were the most effected by climate change. As with many international political processes, each country had its own agenda for what should transpire from the treaty. The U.S. attempted to bribe developing countries to reach its agenda, with many of the conversations being via cable. Wikileaks hacked the servers and gained access to the private conversations and then made them available to the public, exposing the U.S.’s attempted manipulation of the smaller developing countries. Some argue that this knowledge should have been public knowledge from the begging, but others condemn Wikileaks for leaking these private conversations. Your view on the U.S.’s attempted manipulation is probably determined by whether you value ends ethics or means ethics. The U.S. was attempting to resolve the climate change dilemma, but could have been conducting itself in a more diplomatic manor in this case.

The thing about climate change that separates it from nearly every other conflict going on in the world right now is that it has the potential to effect every single country in one way or the other. Some countries may find their coastal cities underwater, while other countries may experience extensive droughts, and others may be at greater risk from hurricanes and other massive storms. The point of this argument is that since climate change doesn’t discriminate which countries if effects, all countries should have an incentive to try to bring an end to it. Climate change is also unique in the fact that it requires all countries to work together to solve it. If just the U.S. or just China made efforts to reduce it’s share of greenhouse gas emissions we may see some minor decline in global warming, but certainly not to the extent as if all countries made those changes together. This is why I believe that while the U.S. probably should have conducted itself in a more diplomatic manor while dealing with the climate accord. I believe you should always conduct yourself with the assumption that someone is watching. In other words, don’t do something differently just because you don’t think someone will see. If the U.S. believed that it was conducting itself in an ethical manor, then it shouldn’t have anything to hide. I don’t believe that Wikileaks was ethical in the way that it obtained these conversations, but then again I don’t believe that it should be something that the government should have hidden from us.

My diagram explains the connections of the Wikileaks Cables to climate change. Since the US was aiming to dig up dirt on nations in regards to handling global warming and financial aid, they sent a secret cable seeking human intelligence from diplomats, asking the diplomats to provide evidence of UN environmental treaty circumstances. However, the US continued to become involved other ways by sending a cable describing a spear phishing attack on the office of US climate change envoy. Taking place in Beijing, 5 people received emails that were credibly disguised but actually contained a malicious code that hacked their information. The attack was unsuccessful but lead to the discovery of the Copenhagen agreement which was certain nations limiting their greenhouse gas emissions to better the environment. The US further took great interest in this accord and encouraged smaller island states to join and become their best allies due to their need for financing. Another cable that was revealed was the US sending a threat to Zenawi, resulting in the participation in the Accord from Ethiopia. This territory was uncertain about its involvement in the Accord because a lack of trust was present from president Obama. A meeting was then held to assure these smaller states that financial loyalty will be provided, eventually convincing full engagement in the Accord and avoiding climate destruction of 3^rd world countries. One let down was that the Dutch refused to join because they are against using financial aid for political leverage. However, to compensate for this loss Saudi Arabia, one of the top richest countries in the world, agreed to join in order to diversify their economy and become petroleum free. Overall, the Accord has about 75% of the countries that acquire almost more than 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions that will result in more control over the environment and climate change.

I think the State Department Cables should have been made public but in a different way. I think it was improper to “leak” the cables. Yes, leaking the cables unexpectedly leaked the truth and real information I feel as if it was immoral. Rather I strongly think that the US State Department should have set up a press conference and explained the situation. Although revealing the cables this way could cause withholding information or simply lying to the public because the State Departments actions were inappropriate even though it was for a good cause. Threatening Zenawi was completely inappropriate and unnecessary. Instead of stating in the cable, “sign the accord or discussion ends now,” the State Department could have negotiated with the representative to make circumstances fair for each side, rather than giving them an all or nothing option. However, the immaturity of the situation was somewhat made up for when a meeting was held to assure loyalty. I think nations should want to join the Accord not join just because they were bribed or threatened. Even though greenhouse has emissions are extremely important regarding climate change, I also think meetings should be held for each nation to focus on a specific way they can help climate change weather it be focusing on pollution or using natural products to reduce the emissions. Wanting to work together to accomplish this single goal is the key to helping climate change.