Continuing with the public policy you selected in the Week 3 assignment, Historical Perspective, you will now describe and expand upon the influence, motives, and impacts of your chosen policy and its parameters. Write a 4–5 page paper in which you:
As you develop your paper, you may want to reference Communicating Uncertainty In Policy Analysis [PDF] for a summary of policy analysis principles.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is:
Climate Change Policy
Climate Change Policy
Public policy is the way the government maintains law and order and addresses the requirements of its citizens through actions to deliver results. Climate change policy covers the policies articulated to address the issue on climate, which can be international, national, or local in possibility. The policies are intended to reduce the level of climate change and danger and grab upon opportunities. The purpose of this paper is to discuss climate change as federal policy in two different administrations.
In 1990, president George H.W. Bush directed a legislature in which he established the National Climate Assessment, a study supporting climate variation’s effects in the United States. The Trump management released the replication on Black Friday and has moderated its decisive body of investigation, claiming its precision and unintentionally drawing attention to the science that displays the risks that face the Americans due to climate changes. During Bush’s administration, when bilateral actions to decrease greenhouse fumes and other air pollutants were possible. The presence of the NCA is a reminder that democrats in Washington once created an antagonistic climate policy. The primary fight was for the execution of important goals for countries to stop with the productions of gases (Hudson, 2018). There is a lot of guilt for human beings’ dereliction to address the issue of the climate crisis.
During President Bush’s administration, there was a refusal to improve the policy to lessen the greenhouse gas release and commit to the Kyoto Protocol.Also, several disputes compromised the validity of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Cohen & Egelston, 2010).However, there was no sign that criticisms about the policy had no political impact.
Inequality in the United States increased as a result of the country’s intensifying their determination to meet the Paris Agreement goals were some of the negative social results. Social effects of climate change moderation have received little consideration, with debates about them being scatted across other disciplines, investigating the effects of a strategy in a detailedframework (Markkanen & Anger-Kraavi, 2019).For example, associationwith a defined social group may raise the possibility of prejudice and with disparities like wealth and health, might increase individual’s susceptibilities and reduce their ability to cope with the change. Limiting emission of the greenhouse gases would lead to lowering economic growth. The strategy is to preserve a tolerant structure of ecological amenability to create the affluence required to power the process of revolution. Companies realize the values that can improve environmental routine in ways that are image-improving and lucrative (Cohen & Egelston, 2010). Therefore, constant allegiance in the United States to the cumulative obsolete economic-environmental model is an issue. The Bush government pressured the scientists to reduce the debate on global warming to fit its scepticism. The administration also tempted to hide a report by the United Stascientists concerning the risks of climate change and inconsistency. The administration also barred the public and the senate from getting the crucial CDC estimations about the diseases that would flourish in a warmer climate, amplified injuries and deaths from severe weather patterns.
A memorandum laid summarizes several enterprises to handle global warming and battle environmental pollution. Three strategies were proposed to address global warming, which includes; growing renewable energy, increasing fossil fuel effectiveness, and ways to manage reforestation and deforestation and provision of nuclear energy. All to conserve energy and to contribute to resolving the issue on greenhouse emissions. His government also continues to push for its tactic in the U.N. debates that was later agreed at the Rio de Janeiro Earth conference. A memorandum prepared by William Nitze in 1989, laid the values that should lead an agreement on climate (Wampler, 2018). Increasing a considerate scientific facet of climatic change, protecting the economic, environmental and social well-being from the effects of climate change were some of the principles in the memorandum. Documents posted from then show how to address the question of costs that are due to the burden of greenhouse emission decrease, primarily carbon (IV) oxide and how to market devices can provide encouragements for the reductions with no much harm to the growth of the economy. There is a need to carry out an experiential valuation of climate change strategy possibilities directed by the experts which would aid as a foundation for delighting other administration.Indications of re-engagement at the end of his administration, it set in motionan enterprise known as the Major Economies Process whose job was to bring the critical glasshouse emitters and power users to perform tasks with the UNFCCC a framework treaty on climate change.
In conclusion, despite initial backing from the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush government, they rejected their involvement to the agreement. The public basis for the choice was founded on disputes that the consensus demotes third world nations to the side, abandons a technological and scientific method to the issue and leaves the nation in economic threat. To date, the Bush government’s enterprises are regarded as delicate and scarce.There is an excellent sensibility that the policy involves waiting out the existing government in the hope that the next government would change the situation.
Cohen, M., & Egelston, A. (2010). The Bush administration and climate change: prospects for an effective policy response. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1523908032000171611
Hudson, M. (2018). George Bush Sr could have got in on the ground floor of climate action – history would have thanked him. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/george-bush-sr-could-have-got-in-on-the-ground-floor-of-climate-action-history-would-have-thanked-him-108050
Markkanen, S., & Anger-Kraavi, A. (2019). Social impacts of climate change mitigation policies and their implications for inequality. Climate Policy, 19(7), 827-844. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1596873
Wampler, A. (2018, September 24). The U.S. and climate change: Washington’s see-saw on global leadership. National Security Archive. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/environmental-diplomacy/2018-09-24/us-climate-change-washingtons-see-saw-global-leadership