Climate change is one of the major challenges facing the world in the 21st century. Scientists and environmentalists believe that the problem poses a significant danger to humanity. For the same reason that climate change is not friendly for human survival, scientists and environmentalists advocate for appropriate steps in addressing the issue to be adopted by all countries. As a result of this campaign, international treaties have been put forth in a bid to combat climate change. In particular, the effects that climate change poses in future are speculated to be more severe than those it causes at present times. Therefore, a move toward combating the effect of climate change appears to be essential. One of the many ways being proposed is for each state to embrace international treaties. Despite the obvious reason that climate change is a threat for human survival and needs to be addressed, there seem to be a number of difficulties for other countries to adopt the treaties. For this reason, the discussion below intends to show the problems that climate change poses, and at the same time, demonstrate why it is difficult to persuade other countries to adopt international treaties for climate change.
The threat of Climate Change
The impending threats that climate change promises is what makes it a great deal for countries to come up with a number of ways of solving the problem. Thus, it is important to discuss some of these threats. To start with, the well-being of human beings, climate change poses a serious threat to physical injury. This is so because climatic changes have been associated with flooding, storms and high winds. A good example is Hurricanes. In addition to physical injuries, stormy weather may also destroy buildings and essential facilities such as health centers. Therefore, this makes it hard for the victims of stormy weather to receive health services (Hunter, 2003, pp.37-46. Moreover, climate change poses a threat to the general health of a person. For instance, global warming is one of the features of climate change, which increases atmospheric temperature. This is not favorable for the elderly. This is so because they are vulnerable to increased heat and therefore, such a change promotes morbidity and heat-related mortality for this age-group. Although flooding is known to cause damage to structures and can make roads impassable, it is also associated with promoting infectious diseases, such as Malaria (Hunter, 2003, pp.37-46). Therefore, the change is not friendly to human health as it promises to encourage the spread of diseases due to damp conditions and creation of breeding grounds for insect causing diseases such as Mosquitos (Epstein, 2005, pp.1433-1436). In addition to physical health, climatic changes are associated with mental health. In particular, increased heat conditions, stormy conditions and even flooding are suitable to make people experience stress and anxiety. In the event that flooding destroys property, it is possible to think of migration of people as the place becomes inhabitable. Lastly, flooding may lead to chemical spillage which is not safe for human health or even survival.
Another threat that climate change poses is regarding reducing access to services and goods. To start with, coastal land, the increased level of the sea is likely to result in loss of land on the coastline. Although very few agricultural activities take place along the coastal line, there are houses and recreational facilities which may be eroded or damaged as result of the increased sea level. This may be costly for business people and those living along the coastline. On the other hand, there are preparedness strategies that the government may devise to prevent the impeding damage caused by by flooding (Anisimov, and Ginsburg, 2008). Another threat is in relation to accessing fresh water, in that, flooding may make it possible for saline intrusion or sewer overflows, therefore, making it hard for anyone to access freshwater.
In addition to the threats posed by climate change discussed above, changes in weather patterns will negatively affect agriculture. In particular, climatic changes lead to degradation of both water resources and land. This is a threat to the population of the planet as it will ultimately encourage shortage of foodstuff. Therefore, if a solution is not taken in regards to climate change, there would be a threat on food safety (Schlenker, and Lobell, 2010, p.014010). One of the reasons that climate changes pose a threat to food safety is global warming. Scientists project that a temperature rise of more than 3 degrees Celsius is enough to bring about the reduction in agricultural production. Moreover, changes in climatic conditions endanger the existence of fish and other aquatic species. Therefore, to stop such threats in future, it is important for all the country of the world, as this is a global crisis, to join hands in combating changes in the climate.
Lastly, climate change also poses a threat to the economy. The discussion above has highlighted some damages that changes in climatic conditions can cause. For instance, destruction of houses, bridges and other structures need repair or full construction. In addition, shortage of foodstuff and threats to human health are aspects that are not friendly to the economy of any country (Schelling, 1997, pp.8-14). In addition, huge budgetary allocations are needed to manage or rather control climatic changes. Although preventive measures may reduce the amount of funds used for the same purpose, it is worth noting that should such measures fail or be neglected, it would be more expensive to carry out preventive measures in future or respond to the effects of climate changes such as food shortage (Tol, 2009. pp.29-51). For this reasons, climatic changes are not to be neglected or taken lightly, but rather, be looked at as changes that have the potential to significantly affect the economy of any country (Nordhaus, 2015, pp.1339-70). Through this understanding, of the threats posed by climatic changes, appropriate strategies will be put in place to alleviate or rather prevent the changes.
Difficulties in persuading other states to Adopt international treaties
Although appropriate steps need to be taken by every country, as part of the team to prevent climate change, especially, by abiding by international treaties on the environment, it is important to note that it is difficult to persuade other countries to sign the treaties. Firstly, is due to resource constraints, in that, adopting and implementing international climate change treaties need a considerable amount of funds which may be difficult for some countries to set aside in their annual budget solely for strategies to prevent climate change (Sugiyama, and Sinton, 2005, pp.65-88). In line with this kind of thinking, other countries may only be party for such treaty if they get funding from donors, especially from developed countries for the case of developing countries.
On the other hand, adopting international treaties put more focus on the national level of governance about the environment. This, more often than not, need proper or rather new regulations, policies, laws and even the right mechanism put in place to strengthen what the treaties stipulate. The new projects or regulations may be very difficult to follow or implement because some projects are internationally financed (Stern, 2008, pp.1-37). This dependency syndrome, according to some states is what makes it difficult to adopt the international treaty as they feel not in control of such projects.
Features of the Country
The existing conditions of any given country may either make it easier for that particular country decide whether to adopt international treaty or not, depending on how well they fulfill their obligations. For instance, developed counties have well-functioning structures that guarantee easier implementation of most of their projects (Bulkeley, and Newell, 2015). On the other hand, developing countries will find it an uphill task to engage in activities they are not contended to carry on effectively. In additional to the well-functioning structures in place, developing countries not only find difficulties in putting in place the right structures but are also not financially strong and have less access to knowledge that is necessary to implement such a change. For this reason, unless some countries facing such difficulties are supported, it is very hard to convince them to adopt such international treaties.
Difficulty in the reduction of the use of Fuel
The use of fossil fuel is the number one cause of climate change; therefore, combating this change requires a shift from using fossil fuel to new forms of energy. This is not an easy step considering the fact that both developing and developed countries need oil to run their industries, without which there would be no economic growth. In addition to the reluctant of states to reduce the use of fossil fuels, there is still no alternative to the use of fossil fuel. Therefore, this may again prove to be an expensive undertaking in finding an alternative to both developing and developed nations (Victor, 2006, pp.90-103). For instance, China is slowly becoming a force to reckon with on the world stage due to its impressive economic growth over the recent decade. The country is still determined to continue with the same and rival other western powers, especially, the USA. For this reason, China and many other states like India experiencing tremendous growth may not readily approve or adopt international treaties that compel them to reduce the use of fossil fuel, primarily because it is going to reduce the pace of their economic progress (Victor, 2006, pp.90-103). Therefore, the absence of an alternative source of energy and the urge or thirst for economic development makes it more difficult to persuade countries to adopt treaties that advocate for the reduction of the use of fossil fuel or use of alternative source of energy in industry and transport sector.
Lack of Proper Coordination of International Organizations
International organizations dealing with climate change, or rather the protection of the environment comprise of numerous organizations that do not work in a coordinated fashion, therefore, making it hard for them to make use of synergies. In particular, it is worth noting that although organizations may be advocating the similar idea, the fact that they work differently makes it hard to come up with a similar approach to tackle the problem of climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2015). In addition to coming up with a different approach, the existence of different organizations does not encourage a sense of authority as it would have been in the presence of one organization that speaks in one voice. This again dilutes the importance and urgency of tackling the problem of climate change, therefore, making it hard to convince some countries to adopt international treaties for climate change for they do not see the need of doing the same. Moreover, for the case of developing countries, they do not have the know-how or manpower to facilitate or implement some of the changes that are recommended by such treaties. Therefore, this makes it a challenging move to adopt that which they cannot implement (Hoppe, Wesselink, and Cairns, 2013, pp.283-300). These are challenges that exist as far as persuading countries to adopt international treaties for climate change is concerned.
Conclusion
Therefore, the discussion above has elaborated on a number of things as far as climate change is concerned. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that climatic changes pose a number of threats to human health, economy, agriculture and human settlement or social structure. For instance, flooding may result from climatic changes which in turn result to destruction of properties, force people to migrate and render roads impassable. In regards to increased temperature, this one may lead to mortality for the elderly or reduce production of agricultural foodstuff. On the other hand, some countries are not eager to adopt international treaties for combating climate change. This reluctance is attributed to the benefits fossil fuels has on economic growth, and lack of funds or knowledge to carry out the necessary changes.
References
Anisimov, O.A. and Ginsburg, A.S., 2008. Russian and Neighbouring Countries: Environmental, economic and social impacts of climate change.
Bulkeley, H. and Newell, P., 2015. Governing climate change. Routledge.
Epstein, P.R., 2005. Climate change and human health. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(14), pp.1433-1436.
Hoppe, R., Wesselink, A. and Cairns, R., 2013. Lost in the problem: the role of boundary organisations in the governance of climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(4), pp.283-300.
Hunter, P.R., 2003. Climate change and waterborne and vector‐borne disease. Journal of applied microbiology, 94(s1), pp.37-46.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2015. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press.
Nordhaus, W., 2015. Climate clubs: Overcoming free-riding in international climate policy. American Economic Review, 105(4), pp.1339-70.
Schelling, T.C., 1997. The cost of combating global warming: Facing the tradeoffs. Foreign Affairs, pp.8-14.
Schlenker, W. and Lobell, D.B., 2010. Robust negative impacts of climate change on African agriculture. Environmental Research Letters, 5(1), p.014010.
Stern, N., 2008. The economics of climate change. American Economic Review, 98(2), pp.1-37.
Sugiyama, T. and Sinton, J., 2005. Orchestra of treaties: A future climate regime scenario with multiple treaties among like-minded countries. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 5(1), pp.65-88.
Tol, R.S., 2009. The economic effects of climate change. Journal of economic perspectives, 23(2), pp.29-51.
Victor, D.G., 2006. Toward effective international cooperation on climate change: Numbers, interests and institutions. Global environmental politics, 6(3), pp.90-103.
Victor, D.G., 2006. Toward effective international cooperation on climate change: Numbers, interests and institutions. Global environmental politics, 6(3), pp.90-103.
