The United States aggravates Global Warming Essay Example for Free

The United States aggravates Global Warming EssayA super power means a State that has control and capacity to effect figure oution the soonest possible time (Greenstein 34). In this regard, the United States, having earned the reputation of a Super power has the capability to address looming environmental productions, divisionicularly those that directly points them as one of the culprits. Global Warming is caused by the abuse of resources and the consequence of a fast-paced, technologic all in ally advanced society, creating a serious environmental issue that warrants dedicated cooperation of various States and government (Jensen 57). United States of America is in a position to effect deviate and address the issue of global warming, scarcely fails to act on it. As a powerful and influential entity, the United States clearly can guide other States into recognizing the global warming issue and initiate the get going for alleviating its impending effects. Nonetheless, the United States remain stubborn and indignant by refusing to participate actively in finding the potential final result to the problem (Baumgartner 63). In this regard, it is but right to claim that United States of America should be blamed for Global Warming.United States append larger shargon of environmental hazards Environmental hazards be e real nations concern (Greenstein 73). In this regard, nations possess opposing views regarding its relevance to present conditions. For one, the United States has been reluctant in ratifying or becoming a segment of convocations pertaining to reduction of carbon gas emissions because it would mean that there is detrimental effect for their economy (Verhoosel 97). But on the contrary, their action would mean more losses in the future because then, all resources would have been exhausted economic Journal 21).Global Warming is a state where the environment undergoes change. More often, this word is associated with change in climate. This is attributable to the fact that changes can only happen when there is human intervention or more appropriately, effects caused by human actions. For this very actor it is appropriate to put the blame on first world nations, more specifically United States. In the quest for improvement and technological advancement, the target is to vex more in order to achieve sustainable development.The United States is the leader in creating innovations and in providing new machineries or equipment to help mankind in the wordy task of manual labor. The vision was concreteized, but the consequences proved to be greater (Ray 72). In 1990s the United States account for a larger responsibility in the total carbon emissions, as proven by the proposed reduction of their carbon emissions up to twelve percent during the Kyoto Protocol. Over the years, the noticeable detrimental effects of the fast-paced, technologically advanced lifestyle have prompted countries and various States to take action.Foremo st of the concern for the protection of the environment is directed at First World Nations that undeniably contribute more to the decline of our environmental condition. This is mainly attributable to the fact that steeply industrialized and technologically advance countries would naturally compulsion more resources to utilize, and in so doing, reach a point of abusing what the environment has to offer. Utilization of such raw materials would require the help of machineries that mostly work by using petroleum or gas that emits harmful substances in our surroundings (Verhoosel 82).Given this scenario and counting the years that have gone by since we first started using such tools, it would ultimately expiry to the inevitable degradation of our mother earth. Environmental summits have been conducted to alleviate the condition of our environment. This is proof that the concern for our environmental situation has tremendously increased over the years. responsibility as Super Power W ay back in the early 1990s, countries and states have searched for ways to curb if not totally eradicate the looming environmental concerns. deduction of that is the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro. The purpose of this convention is to recognize the problem of global warming and to identify its link to human actions (Jeppessen 27). Identifying such human causes could needfully lead to more solutions for the problem. But the efforts remained futile. Member States could not reach an agreement point where all will participate and contribute for the development of the society. The Green brook effect is the result of gas emissions, more specifically carbon dioxide.According to the IPC or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, there has been a significant change in the temperature during the latter parts of the twentieth century, prompting them to analyze and come up with the conclusion that this effect is tremendously caused by the Green house effect. This includes drastic chang es in the environment, noticeable irregularities in the sea level, which could affect the production of crops and other agricultural harvest, thereby creating more problems for farmers and others who rely on the natural resources for food and routine living.World Politics determine the relationship that exists among states today. Even the course of history is greatly affected by the decision of the political elites. These so-called Political Elites bear of State leaders, Prime Ministers, President and Monarchs, all of which have respective power and influence to have an impact in the international community (Neustadt, 17).The designer wherefore leaders are oftentimes called the Makers and the Movers of world history is because highlighting the fact that leaders dominance and influence come into play when politics is concerned, and sometimes doing outdoor(a) with what really happened but focusing on who made it happen. This is attributable to the fact that as world leaders, they are expected to and assumed to make a tyrannical difference in the International Community.It would be logical to deal with the situation having in mind that whoever are the responsible entities for such dilemma, given the fact that it would be fair and retributive to be answerable for the impact of certain states action in reference to the environment. The more important aspect of this realization is finding what the solution is and who needs to be accountable for the bigger share of the problem. This detrimental effect of green house is directly linked to industrialized countries that make use of high amount of gas, producing emissions.Given this fact, it is but right to point out that the United States, being a first world nation, is highly industrialized as shown by the various industries, companies and technologically advanced gadgets available in their market. This data would put a stronghold on the claim that United States, takes advantage of the environment by utilizing t he resources to the point of exhausting the natural resources provided by mother earth. It would be logical to make United States answerable for the detrimental effects of green house, since they contribute the bigger part to the problem at hand.United States superiority In the Kyoto Protocol, The United States is directly affected because it seeks to lower carbon emissions up to twelve percent (Narula 102). If these conditions are imposed, large portion of the US economy will be affected tremendously, this is the reason why the United States takes advantage of their superiority and uses it to evade such conventions (Ray 213). The reason why up to now, the United States ha snot yet signed the Kyoto Protocol is because they refuse to be controlled. They do not want to take part in the convention if growing countries would not sign.This is a classic example of a super power that refuses to feel obliged to follow other States who are much inferior. Despite the fact that among the effe cts of global warming caused by the green house effect includes extinctions of various species that cannot adapt to the extreme weather, floods and the unbearable drouth can also result from such effect and most importantly, diseases an increase given the irregularity in the weather, the United States remain stubborn. This prompted to more scientists studying and assessing the real causes of the decline in the earths environmental condition.Years after, the analysis was still the same. The environment is suffering a great deal because of human influence. The actions of the muckle towards the surroundings greatly affect the environment which led to its degradation. This served as the alarm bells of environment, leading for the member states to hold another convention called the Kyoto Protocol. This convention emphasized the need for the reduction of emissions caused by carbon dioxide. It is proposed that industrialized countries should make a commitment to lower their carbon gas emi ssions.The United States did not ratify such convention since they are contesting the condition that they should lower their gas emissions unlike exploitation countries. But the question lies in who gives more detrimental effect to the environment? Are the developing countries the bigger contributor of problem? It does not appear that way. The reason why the United States is being given a hard time is because of the fact that as an industrialized country, they contribute more gas emissions than what our environment can handle.Given this scenario, it is but just to impose on the United States higher responsibility for their actions. finis The United States should take an active part in earth summit and convention such as Kyoto Protocol. By becoming part of environmental saving agreements, the United States can show what it means to become a leader. The environment is a very important source of natural wealth. In this sense, it means that all resources that various States and Count ries utilize for the development of their respective nations come from the surroundings.To take care of the environment would be the foremost responsibility of States and Countries alike. The promise of economic growth is very appealing, for it will address various economic problems and even pave way for social dilemmas faced by these countries. However, it would be detrimental to neglect looming environmental issues in the midst of progress. The environment is the lifeblood of all nations. All income sources emanate from the environment. Discoveries and technological advancements would not be realized if the environment does not possess the needed raw materials.In this sense, it is but right to give back to mother earth what she freely gave us. The first world nations, being the powerful States should show its power to lead developing countries in the preservation of the environment. Instead of using their power to contradict positive environmental conventions and use it to their a dvantage, Countries that are regarded as the most influential and powerful nations should extend hard to see to it that the aims of environmental conservation are well favored and observed.Given the influence and the right tools for information dissemination, the United States of America should own up to its reputation as a super power. By using this for the promotion of environmental concerns, their role as a super power is more than just instilling fears but also upholding truths and values.REFERENCES Jensen, Lloyd. Explaining Foreign Policy. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. Prentice Hall, 1982. Ray, James Lee. Democracies and International Conflict. Columbia University of South Carolina Press, 1995. Greenstein, Fred. Personality and Politics . Princeton, N.J Princeton University Press, 1987. Neustadt, Richard. Presidential Power. New York Wiley, 1976. Graham, Allison. philia of Decision. Boston Little Brown, 1981. Baumgartner, Frank. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicag o University of Chicago Press, 1993. Young, Oran. System and Society in World Affairs Implications for International Organizations. New York Mc Millan Narula, R, Dunning, JH, 2000. Industrial development. Globalization and multinational enterprises new realities for developing countries. Oxford Development Studies, vol. 28, pp. 141-167.