Provide a reply to the post below
International agreements to limit greenhouse gases appear to be hard to create and organize. Much of this is due to the lack of ability to enforce punishments on countries and corporations from an international standpoint (Module 7 Notes, National). Many countries are not willing to partake in agreements and treaties that prevent their growth and development. They also appear to have an issue with the idea of being fined or punished for their growth and progress. The main part of the problem appears to be politics. A treaty like this would require countries to hold each other accountable, thus causing them to be involved in the economics and geopolitics of other countries. Many countries may have an issue with other countries knowing so much about their internal business and workings. The Montreal Protocol of 1987 seems to be effective, which makes it the first treaty of this kind to be accepted worldwide. This treaty discussed the rise in skin cancer and cataracts rates and the dangers of not partaking in this treaty. The treaty is meant to phase out the production of ozone-depleting substances, which will in turn help the ozone to repair itself, as it was on a dangerous track to being destroyed (The Montreal Protocol). I think that this treaty is more successful as it expresses the dire need of repairing the ozone. With the evidence that was used, it could be shown that the ozone was on a path to destruction. Unfortunately with other treaties involving reducing greenhouse emissions, countries often view this as reducing their growth. One might wonder if some of this is due to people not believing that climate change is much of a problem.
I am not sure there are elements of tragedy involving limiting greenhouse gas emissions. That being said, I think that people will be affected as limiting GHG emissions could affect the economy and possibly slow down growth and development for many countries. If this limiting were to plummet people further into poverty, reduce the production of food, or harm people I think there would be tragedy involved. I find the solution put forth by these men in bringing the problem down to a state level to be helpful. By bringing it to a state level, I think that the states could manage GHG emissions through smaller aspects that can still make a difference. California has the largest solar-powered energy system and is pushing for electric and hydrogen vehicles (Module 7 Notes, New Initiatives). By working on the problem at a national level, larger aspects can be changed, whereas putting it on a state level can make smaller changes that add up.
Module 7, Notes. National and International Governance of the Energy and Climate Dilemma.
Module 7, Notes. New Initiatives: California, Japan, and the People.
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Retrieved https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of-environmental-quality-and-transboundary-issues/the-montreal-protocol-on-substances-that-deplete-the-ozone-layer/