Paris Global Conference

Question: Discuss about the Paris global conference. Answer: Standardization: Australia should not agree to the proposal announced in the Paris Global Conference. The global agreement was not made previously as the need was not realized. In the last few years that scientist has begun to measure the link between temperature and carbon level. Over the past few years, there has been a sharp decrease in the percentage of American, who believes that global warming is a serious problem. Despite the rising community skepticism about global warming, it was found to have added support than antagonism for a policy to put limits on carbon emissions. Capitalism must slot in reforms to demonstrate absolute and accurate dimensions of the occupied range of value, involving both negative and externalities so that it can successfully react to intimidating crisis like climate change. Nobel laureates are being ignored by the greenies to hide their fraudulence. Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin, there is no climatic change in the world that is brought about by the human actions The prediction was neglected by the greenies.(Althor et al. 2016). Analysis of the argument: Premise one - As per the context, there is significant circumstantial evidence that poorer nations such as China and India wanted financial support from the developed countries in order to invest in developing clean technologies to reduce the emission of the green house gasses and also adapt such an infrastructure that would be possible harm from climate change. Moreover, over the past few years, there has been a sharp decrease in the percentage of American, who believes that global warming is a serious problem. According to Boyd et al. (2015), this conference was held since scientists have warned that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, we will pass the threshold beyond which global warming becomes catastrophic and irreversible. Arguably, no one has thought about the importance and setting up of a global agreement before. The question arises why such a global agreement was not made previously. The reason seems to be that it is in the last few years that scientist has begun to measure th e link between temperature and carbon level. Evidence shows that the developing countries are the main contributors of the global warming, thus Australia should not agree to the proposal that they should financially support the developing nations (Brechin 2016). Premise two - As stated by Den Elzen et al. (2013), in 1997 the Kyoto protocol announced the worldwide reduction in the emission of the green house gas about five percent by 2012. For this, every single developed country was allotted a target on reduction of emission. But developing countries such as China, Mexico, and South Korea were freed from such targets. This is because tax hunger politicians lead to climate-fad. Its apparent as we observe nations around the globe tackle the equilibrium of political, military and economic powers, as they move quicker than we have observed at any occasion in past five hundred years and as advancement in artificial biology carry on to reinvent existence and death. Moreover, Capitalism must slot in reforms to demonstrate absolute and accurate dimensions of the occupied range of value, involving both negative and externalities so that it can successfully react to intimidating crisis like climate change. As stated by Mohamed et al. (2014), for democracy that until present history has provide as a beacon of optimism and headship for the globe it has been lacerated by bulky corporations and particular interests. According to Mace (2016), it no longer imitates the ideals it was customary to exemplify and as an alternative is conquered by the unimpeded influence of wealth in politics. This should be changed immediately so that it can be once more yield the wisdom of throng in self-governance (Mohamed et al. 2014). Capitalism once was considered to be an economic model which contributed in the development of the world. Now it is being aimed to be destroyed. Therefore, Australia should not agree to the terms and conditions. (Clmenon 2016). Remise 3 As stated by Eleonore et al. (2016), the United States has surely not been the glllyob most accountable performer on climate alteration. Its the major chronological emitter of carbon pollution, the Senate did not approve the Kyoto Protocol, and the United States did not get together its goal beneath it, nor has it place the majority motivated targets in front of this Paris conference. The figure total of the commitments complete in Paris is the planned nationally unwavering contributions will not add up to what essential to keep us underneath the intention is place by the accord. The emissions reductions agreements are not obligatory, that, is believed, was the inescapable and correct choice. (Kalua et al. 2014). According to the statement made by the Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin, there is no climatic change in the world that is brought about by the human actions. The greenies as stated have been evidently observed to neglect the assumptions and study in order to suppress their fraudulence and extract money from the developed countries. Thus, Australia should not agree to this. Analysis of language and rhetoric used: According to Rafione et al. (2014), the Paris global conference, it became obvious that disagreements that have blocked a contract over few years of lead-up discussions remain unresolved. The biggest obstacle was money. The main concern of the document was that how to come up with billions of dollars countries to swing from fossil fuels and adapt to the affects of the change in the climate. The argument in the context reflects a relationship between the linguistic choices and effects from a cognitive point of view. (Nugent and Sovacool 2014). The first few paragraphs of the article are full of conflict and contrast. For instance, the developing countries such as India and China are demanding financial support from the developed countries in order to design techniques which could reduce the emission of the harmful green house gasses. The reasons for the existing and elevation of global warming have been shown by UN to be extreme weather, poverty, family violence, alcoholism, etc. The mention of the phrase solution to all crises reflects the fact that tax implementation on goods and services are the main aim of the politicians which they demand in the name of the climate-fad (Rhodes 2016). The use of the term greenmail evokes a sense of injustice. In this context a pun has been used Greenies. The developing countries are being attributed as the greenies that are felt to be dependent on the developed countries to lead a healthy life. As discussed by Kalua et al. (2014), the use of the word greenmail was written sarcastically in order to show a disagreement with the acceptance of the developed country to aid the developing countries financially. A deal in Paris would be by far the strongest ever agreed to bind both rich and poor nations to limit greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists say have blanketed the earth, raised global temperatures and begun upending the planet's climate system (Spash 2014). In one of the context of the article it was discussed that there is no evidence of the climate change rather every step was the leftist conspiracy. The statement of that a Nobel laureate was ignored and less percentage of the Americans have knowledge about the seriousness of global warming according to the context indicates the delusions and greedy features of the greenies. This paragraph serves the rhetorical purpose of suggesting economic collapse (Tillman 2015). The statement of the UNFCCC executive secretary C. Figueres produced arguments that were durable, historic and ambitious that many developing countries are demanding more than $US100 billion a year to meet the targets of the Paris conference. This statement reflects the dominance in the attitude. On the contrary, Australian President Turnbull shows a negative response by stating that Its up to you to do what you want with your own money, but dont come here expecting me to hand over mine! (Tillman 2015). Moreover, Figueres with her firecracker personality, one individual who stood in stark contrast to the monotonous conference rooms and airless political language and persuaded international leaders to make a radical reduction in theirgreenhouse gas emissions andshun catastrophic global warming. In this context, Figueres, being the United Nations climate chief, acts as an essential role in getting diplomats, community groups, and business executives to the consult the discussions all with the aspiration of attainment a global agreement to brawl climate change. As stated by Tillman (2015), she effectively sates that the real aim of the economist nations should be destroy the capitalism which according to her is the real rival of the planet. Her statement contradicts the evidence mentioned in the context that capitalism was the only economic model that give true development billions from poverty in the past. The metaphor used by UN where it states that stabilise greenhouse gas concentra tions in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system is just not a mere metaphor rather a rhetoric piece.(Spash 2014). In the last paragraph, the Australian government shows disagreement to accept the responsibility proposed in the draft of the conference which states about the financial aiding to the developing countries. On the other hand, it was strong believe that the "Green Climate Fund" was a mode of redistribution of wealth from rich to the poor nations. As stated by Rhodes (2016), this paragraph superficially seems to portray sympathetic, diligent and understanding characteristics of the developed countries, but ironically its cleaver step to achieve benefit out of the measure. Generally, the language used in the context is quite well tempered, but the errors greenies does commit do undermine their argument somewhat (Spash 2014). Conclusion: The argument made in the first context of the Paris global conference is not overloaded with emotional language and highly charged rhetoric, which given the topic is quite an achievement, a second argument which is still weak and does not support the conclusion. The Australian government shows disagreement to accept the responsibility proposed in the draft of the conference which states about the financial aiding to the developing countries which was agreed by the other developed countries. The use of the term greenmail evokes a sense of injustice. The use of the word greenmail was written sarcastically in order to show a disagreement with the acceptance of the developed country to aid the developing countries financially. The exploitation of the systems vulnerability to corruption in the area of climate research is solid evidence to global warming is proved in the context. In this context, Figueres, being the United Nations climate chief, acts as a essential role in getting diplomat s, community groups and business executives to the consult the discussions all with the aspiration of attainment a global agreement to brawl climate change.Although the develop countries agrees to aid the developing nations like China, India, Mexico financially to help them design technique to reduce the emission of green house gas, the arguments of the context proved that the vital reasons for increased global warming has been avoided to achieve benefit out of the agreement. Reference List: Althor, G., Watson, J.E. and Fuller, R.A., 2016. Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change.Scientific reports,6. Boyd, R., Stern, N. and Ward, B., 2015. What will global annual emissions of greenhouse gases be in 2030, and will they be consistent with avoiding global warming of more than 2 C?. Brechin, S.R., 2016, June. Climate Change Mitigation and the Collective Action Problem: Exploring Country Differences in Greenhouse Gas Contributions. InSociological Forum. Clmenon, R., 2016. The Two Sides of the Paris Climate Agreement Dismal Failure or Historic Breakthrough?.The Journal of Environment Development,25(1), pp.3-24. Den Elzen, M.G., Hof, A.F. and Roelfsema, M., 2013. Analysing the greenhouse gas emission reductions of the mitigation action plans by non-Annex I countries by 2020.Energy Policy,56, pp.633-643. Eleonore, G., Fotso, M. and Martin, T., 2016. The Global Scale of Climate Change: Cameroon Government Contribution.Available at SSRN 2767937. Kalua, A., Zhan, C. and Chang, C.C., 2014. A review of green building advocacy in least developed countries. InProceedings of the CIB W(Vol. 107, p. 2014). Mace, M.J., 2016. Mitigation Commitments Under the Paris Agreement and the Way Forward.Climate Law,6(1-2), pp.21-39. Mohamed, A.A., Eweda, W.E., Heggo, A.M. and Hassan, E.A., 2014. Effect of dual inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and sulphur-oxidising bacteria on onion (Allium cepa L.) and maize (Zea mays L.) grown in sandy soil under green house conditions.Annals of Agricultural Sciences,59(1), pp.109-118. Nugent, D. and Sovacool, B.K., 2014. Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar PV and wind energy: A critical meta-survey.Energy Policy,65, pp.229-244. Rafione, T., Marinova, M., Montastruc, L. and Paris, J., 2014. The Green Integrated Forest Biorefinery: An innovative concept for the pulp and paper mills.Applied Thermal Engineering,73(1), pp.74-81. Rhodes, C.J., 2016. The 2015 Paris climate change conference: COP21.Science progress,99(1), pp.97-104. Spash, C.L., 2014.Better Growth, Helping the Paris COP-out? Fallacies and Omissions of the New Climate Economy Report(No. sre-disc-2014_04). Institute for Multilevel Governance and Development, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business. Tillman, S.P., 2015.Anglo-American Relations at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Princeton University Press.