Paris Climate Agreement Essay

Another thing that Trump has done to affect us that live in the valley or in Texas, Donald Trump said that he would renegotiate or break the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). "We will either renegotiate it or we will break it," Trump said during an interview on 60 Minutes, following a question about how to keep American jobs from moving to Mexico. "Because, you know, every agreement has an end." NAFTA, which has been in effect since the mid-1990s, allows free trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico." “We need fair trade. Not free trade,” he said. "It’s got to be fair." Trump is not the only GOP candidate to suggest that the U.S. can and should break its international agreements in some circumstances. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina all have said they would renege on the Iran nuclear deal the Obama Administration struck earlier this year. This has a major effect on us because if the NAFTA brakes the agreement that has been since the 1990’s it would stop everyone that comes to here for a better job and just stay in Mexico with that the population would decrease and much more will happen.

Everyone talks about climate change and how the Earth is slowly deteriorating, but no one seems to have specific examples. In Linnea Saukko’s “How to Poison the Earth,” she does use specific examples of what is causing climate change. She uses satire with a hint of sarcasm in her essay. She gives the reader specific examples of how to poison the Earth, but not really wanting to poison the Earth. Gretel Ehrlich writes her essay, “Chronicles of Ice,” a little differently. She uses personal experiences of visiting a glacier and the way that it is falling apart to explain climate change. She uses detailed, sensory description to explain

350 Madison, a non-profit organization that advocates for climate prevention and social justice, and Scott Martelle, a contact reporter for Los Angeles Times, both acknowledge global warming needs to be an important topic to discuss because politics are avoiding the subject. While Scott Martelle talks more about the issue, 350 Madison has more of an understanding to resolve the issue of not having politicians discuss the topic at hand. Both state how President Trump pulled U.S support in the Paris Agreement. Which many lower to middle class Americans may be unaware about. The Paris Agreement is an international climate change treaty. Kevin Gundlach, president of the South Central Federation of Labor, assisting 350 Madison, offered a viable solution.

If President Trump follows through his “America Free Energy Plan” promise it will undo a majority of President Obama’s actions to reduce the United States greenhouse gas emissions. Thus having a negative influence on the climate. Another problem that can occur is

Article 1: This article tells about President Obama vetoing Keystone Jobs Bill on grounds that approval of the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline would damage the U.S. effort to curb greenhouse gases. The article frames Obama as an environmental hero, quoting the president in saying, “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change… And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face — not acting.” The authors also cite Secretary of State John Kerry in saying “The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves.” The

Lastly, the most worrisome of all, there was no mention of global climate change within Trump’s speech. Not mentioning the issue of climate change means that he is not concerned with it, and therefore by association, neither is America. Furthermore, the neglect of mentioning climate change within the speech means that he has no future intentions of addressing the issue, and that we will have to wait for our next president to act. This is time that we do not have to

On November 8th, American citizens will go to the polls and vote for the next president of the United States. During the presidential campaign, both candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, have their own different points of view on environmental issues. Hillary Clinton affirms her commitment to the fight against climate change. She supports the Paris Agreement, which is an agreement among many nations to respond to the threat of global warming and to reverse the worst effects of climate change. Donald Trump, by contrast, does not believe that the shift in the climate is a manmade disaster. He claims that global warming just is a hoax and current global warming is just a part of a natural cycle that is naturally occurring. Donald Trump, then, promises to dismantle the agreement if he becomes the U.S. President. It is important to note that many people and scientists share this same belief with Trump, protesting that global warming is a natural phenomenon. The debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump raises an important issue. Are people primary responsible for global warming? Global warming is due to many reasons; specifically, human activities are the major factors causing the planet to get gradually warmer over time.

As Brandus also points out, “Trump’s actions… have spoken louder than any words…”, not only has he pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords, but he has also scrapped a bill that was put in place to curb carbon emissions for the sake of more ‘efficient’ business. The worst part is that this decision seems to already be backfiring on President Trump. President Trump cut former President Obamas Clean Power Plan, with the result being that businesses are not required to calculate how much their project cost in terms of carbon emissions and the effect on our planet. This will cost so much in the future, not just because we will be further damaging the earth, but our later attempts to repair any damage will be that much more expensive. Brandus also points out how Trump’s EPA head, Scott Pruitt “He has weakened water safety rules and moved to eliminate programs that limit children's exposure to lead-based paint -- which is known to cause brain damage” (Brandus 2). This is directly affecting our nation’s future in a negative way. These actions that are being made are going to damage our children, and leave them hurting worse than we are now. Of course there are some criticisms to the Paris Climate Accords as well, such as the points made by Marcos Arruda, in Political Challenfges of the Paris Climate Agreement. Arruda rightly comments that the agreement

None of the Republican House Representatives would vote for his proposals and plans, which made it difficult at first for Obama to do much towards climate change (Kramer 29). After various proposals being turned down, one of the proposals were actually passed. Obama was able to provide “[...] $80 billion in funding for renewable energy, which sparked the subsequent stratospheric growth in wind and solar power, and a substantial boost in vehicle fuel efficiency” (Hertsgaard 72). This was one of the first actions Obama was able to accomplish towards climate change, which ended up helping companies use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels for their energy. A mistake that Obama made during the early parts of his first term was that he did not make much of an effort to inform the common people about the issues and causes of climate change (Coen 306). This mistake made it hard for Obama to get much support or understanding from the people, which made it even more difficult than it was to propose ideas about climate change.

Global Warming has been highly accepted as an inconvenient truth that if not resolved, will have serious consequences for the future of the human race. Recently, however, America’s newest president, Donald Trump, has openly coined Global Warming as a “hoax”. Therefore, Trump has pulled the United States out of an agreement made between numerous countries to make actions to lower carbon emissions. This agreement is called the Paris Accord. President Trump’s decision to pull the United States of America out of the Paris Accord Agreement has sparked many discussions on how just his actions were and how valid the agreement really is. A surplus of news organizations have provided their opinions on the matter as well as all the facts associated with it.

The European Union expressed its disagreements with The US (during Bush administration) on cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate change required “clear vision, political courage and an extraordinary effort of international cooperation”, so it’s necessary for Europe and US to hold urgent talks on the issue in the Hague last year. However, the US president’s national security adviser said the process to cut greenhouse gases established in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 was dead which provoked the EU leaders to take action. Bush’s administration strongly oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80% of the world (major population centers such as China and India were not exempted) and it would harm to the US economy. He did the opposite of what

The Trump Presidency has lead to major changes in foreign policy, but none sparked as much shock and outcry as the removal of the United States from the Paris Climate Accord. Perhaps the underlying problem is that the accord, which trump described as “draconian”, was seen as a step in the right direction for so many others. At its core, the accord put restrictions on companies all over the world to help decrease the effect of global warming and climate change. More than anything else, it was a symbol of our country's commitment towards protecting the environment, along with it the lifestyle of generations to come. This change in policy shifts America away from international environmental cooperation, and signals Trump’s alignment with American freedom above all else.

Climate change is a rising issue of importance in our day and age, and one that is threatening our global society on many levels. In the past few decades, scientists have discovered that our planet’s climate has been changing at an alarming rate. The way in which we have changed the land to

Climate change has been a topic of debate for decades. Scientists support climate change is happening with hard scientific evidence whereas the people who oppose climate change have evidence which is mainly opinion-based. This report will cover what climate change is, why climate change is happening, the science that supports climate change, the different views and opinions on climate change, the effects of climate change around the world and particularly the effects in New Zealand, my opinion on climate change and my conclusion on the issue.

On December 12 of 2015, 195 countries made history by committing to the first truly global international climate change agreement (Paris Agreement, 2015). This agreement took place in Paris and was adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The outcome of the Paris Conference on Climate Change was described as “revolutionary” (Venezuela) “marvelous act” (China) and as “a tremendous collective achievement” (European Union) that introduced a “new era of global climate governance” (Egypt) while “restoring the global community’s faith of accomplishing things multilaterally” (USA) (Paris Agreement, 2015).