It has long been treasured that, in relative to the ranges of temperature life varieties tolerate, the climate of our planet has been extremely “uniform” the last million years. However, viewed more directly, it is continuously inconstant. Thus, a growing awareness of what this implies could give “historical climatology” in broader currency. Customarily, it has sheltered the history of climate change, especially as it is exposed authentically in the pre-instrumental era. Thus, it may normally embrace the interaction with human account in the future. How does climate change diplomacy reflect American interests and institutions?
The main facts of the existing international condition about climate change are modestly encouraging. The United States is the single most important power county in a world organized largely along lines of national dominion and free deal that reflect American interest and values. To be sure, the present arrangement of the world power has many defects and deficiencies (Skjaerseth and Skodvin, 2003). Because international relations are more or less civilized struggle between independent states (and, progressively, international agencies), will always be the case.
Economic arrangements in today’s globalized world protect the diplomacies to trade and invest that American administration after World War II have regarded as an important American interest (Ambrose and Brinkly, 1997). International political institutions are too frail and reliant upon U. S. generosity to lessen U. S. sovereignty considerably unless Americans themselves track this course. And the U. S. has built up a system of alliances and bases that give it the deliberate supremacy to protect its interest all over the world. The contemporary structure of world diplomacy and power represent free trade, national dominion and U.
S. strategic prevalence. These are interests well worth defending in American interests and institutions against climate change. In this case, this is a world array that embodies and worth defending. Yet these interest and institutions are endangered. Everyone seems to agree on that point even though they disagree violently about the nature of this danger. Thus, liberals and social democrats tell us that today’s main threats to national and international security are novel including climate change. This is a high-sounding nonsense. There are perfectly good reasons for seeking cure to climate change.
It is better for people to live long, healthy lives in a pleasant environment rather than short, nasty ones in deserts or swamps. For these things to be threats to our security rather than simply social or natural evils, however, there would have to be serious powers seeking deliberately to heat up the world’s climate in order to conquer or intimidate us. Aside from few hysterical leftist who believe that U. S. is not aware about American interests and institutions toward climate change diplomacy, everyone supports international cooperation to solve them.
But people are reasonably diverging on the technicalities of how to do so, or on the level of resources that should be devoted to the problem of climate change around the world. No doubt that the United States is doing its best for the interest of the people and its institutions towards the diplomacy of climate change (Green, 2009). The issue is one of common concern, but every state of the U. S. must also accept the common responsibilities and diplomacies that the national government adopted has towards both resolving the threat and refraining from aggravating the risk of climate change.
Thus, the principle that could get in the international response to climate change could lead to a better diplomacy that United States must do towards issue.
Ambrose, Stephen E. and Brinkly, Douglas G. (1997). Rise to Globalism: American Policy since 1938. Penguin Group: USA. Green, Bryan A. (2009). Lessons from the Montreal Protocol: Guidance for the Next International Climate Change Agreement. Environmental Law, Vol. 39, 23-25. Skjaerseth, Jon Birger and Skodvin, Tora. (2003). Climate Change: Common Problem, Varying Strategies. Manchester University Press.