http://www.businessinsider.com/r-mexico-unveils-national-strategy-ahead-of-paris-climate-talks-2015-3
Mexico declared a strategy to cap its greenhouse emissions by 2026. Mexico formally declared their strategy way ahead of the United Nations Key Climate Summit that will be held December 2015 in Paris. Their plan is to reduce their green house emissions by 2026, with a 22 percent reduction of their usual levels by 2030. After Mexico announced their new strategy to combat climate change the United States President Barrack Obama announced a new joint climate change policy task force with Mexico. The United States is praising Mexico for setting an example. Mexican Foreign Minister José Antonio Meade hopes that the future summit will help reach the United Nations goal to prevent a 2 degree celsius rise in temperatures. The United Nations also hopes this will motivate other nations to submit strategy plans to help combat against climate change.
Although states have been part of the problem in the causes of environmental degradations, they need to be part of the solution to combat the effects on the globalized world and with creating a new set of global environmental norms. The United Nations Key Climate Summit in December and the joint policy between Mexico and the United States shows the emergence of a possible new transnational identity. The multitude of environmental problems blend and challenge rules on what is domestic and international through the convergence of international policies around the world. Is the continuance of globalization actually a bad thing with the newfound cooperation to combat climate change? Is globalization necessary to advance processes in the future for global sustainability as a whole?
This entire strategy sounds like the Kyoto protocol 2.0. Mexico says it plans to reduce emission from their "usually levels" but what does that even mean? Couldn't the Mexican government come up with some inflated prediction of future emissions just to appear as if their emissions are being reduce. Real reductions need strict goals and accountability, and this plans does not seem to have either.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the thought that nations may not actually have real accountability. Along with that I also think that moves and statements towards addressing environmental degradation are necessary, even though they may not be accurate. Without addressing an issue how can we ever come up with a solution or preventative measures? I believe this is one of the initial steps to improving polices. I am not saying it is great, but I think it at least sets some standards and precedents for other nations to take incentives on monitoring some effects for the future.
DeleteWould the US and Mexico create a transnational identity or an international one? There is a key distinction here.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Shirk I believe we could argue both. These nations display a close distance in location and necessity for political cooperation. Since these nations are so close you could argue that it is a transnational identity in their necessity to collaborate across boundaries, rather than an international one. But for the global scale since more nations will possibly add their own plans it could be an international relationship. Dealing with the united nations implies that multiple nations, internationally, will be participating in regards to the thought of a plan on climate change supporting the idea of an international agreement. So between Mexico and the United States it is currently a transnational identity, but in the very near future it will be an international identity,
DeleteIn instances where nations come together to attempt to fix environmental problems together globalization is a great think. Since states are so interconnected in today's world it is easy for nations to cooperate on issues like Mexico and the United States are doing with this partnership especially when the countries share a border. However, like Noah said I am skeptical of the term "usual level" because usual is an ambiguous term with no clear definition and can allow the US and Mexico to not make as much progress as they are trying to portray to the public.
ReplyDeleteIn instances where nations come together to attempt to fix environmental problems together globalization is a great think. Since states are so interconnected in today's world it is easy for nations to cooperate on issues like Mexico and the United States are doing with this partnership especially when the countries share a border. However, like Noah said I am skeptical of the term "usual level" because usual is an ambiguous term with no clear definition and can allow the US and Mexico to not make as much progress as they are trying to portray to the public.
ReplyDeleteFor the ideas on the positivity of globalization, I also thought that the attempt to fix the global environment is an important measure. Although the "usual level" is questioned I think the importance of a formal statement speaks volumes. Regardless of right now, the emissions can be prevented from rising in the future. The statements made by the Mexican government also will have an influence on the other nations participating in the UN conference.
DeleteIn response to your question, Riannon, I think globalization is absolutely necessary for a worldwide response to current environmental degradation and universal sustainable practices. Without a global effort to cap emissions and decrease current levels of resource consumption, the future is unclear. I think that a global enforcement of these regulations is ideal, but perhaps idealistic as countries have little incentive to adhere to policies and not falsify reports. We must approach this problem with a healthy dose of skepticism and a growing future-oriented morality to preserve the environment for future generations.
ReplyDeleteSarah I definitely agree with both your approaches. I do also think that globalization is necessary to combat the worldwide response to environmental pollution. I believe that this proves to be a step in the right direction. Although, I do think more regulatory measures are necessary to successful implement and monitor environmental plans for the future.
DeleteI believe that whenever more than one country is involved in a situation, globalization really has to take place in order to have an effective outcome. Because of this, I do believe that globalization is necessary to advance processes in the future for global sustainability as a whole. Environmental issues are global in nature. Each country does not have its own environment. If that were the case, very few would be very bothered by the pollution and ruined resources of one country as long as their own was fine. But this simply is not the case. We must work together as a whole because if one country does not comply, it puts the burden on other countries to make up for it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that globalization is necessary in order to have a wide spread and effective response to environmental changes that are occurring. Particularly since this is after all a global problem and not a problem that is just affecting one particular country. I found Noah's point to be really interesting. How are they actually managing to track any real improvement in their greenhouse emissions?
ReplyDelete