THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Name of Student
Name of Professor
Class Name and Period
Date
Climate change
First, the mercantilist perspective of climate change and environmental conservation. Generally, mercantilism in International political economy (IPE) entails a realist economic policy that perceives the State as the major actor in the international system, and emphasizes the State’s need to accumulate wealth. Hence, in the context climate change, proponents of mercantilism posit that only the government can direct environmental conservation measures (Oartley 33-34).  Using the concept of interests, mercantilists argue that the government has to perceive conservation of the environment as aligning with its interests to design environmentally conscious policy decisions. While recognizing that other actors apart from the government influence decisions in the International system, they perceive this influence as minor and not adequate to make any significant changes especially in environmental conservation that requires efforts of greater magnitude (Oatley 34). Hence, unless States realize benefits that accrue from climate conservation measures, no significant environmental conservation measures can take place on a global level.
In addition, since States act on their interests which is accumulation of wealth, they therefore restrict economic activities that would otherwise lead to environmental degradation (Oatley 33). These activities entail regulating the energy sector to promote clean energy, controlling the mining sector to discourage over exploitation of natural resources and ramping up clean up activities to control waste production. The primacy of the State in conserving the environment is supported by a study that shows that % of individuals prefers that the government should take an advanced role in conservation measures. However, States rarely prioritize activities that promote and protect the environment since in accumulation of wealth, mercantilists prefer investment in manufacture-based economic activities and discourage agriculture (Oatley 33). Manufacture-based industries tend to be associated with industrial wastes and overexploitation of natural resoures (  ). Hence, governments often avoid cooperating in environment conservation.
Secondly, liberalist economics in environmental conservation. Generally, liberalism is an economic theory that argues to the anti-thesis of mercantile economics. The theory gives primacy of action in the international system to the individual in a free market economy based on her economic interests. In the context of environmental conservation, liberalists argue that human beings, multi-national corporations, Inter-national organizations, and Non-governmental organizations influence States to practice environmentally friendly measures in the International system (Oatley 34). Liberalists assert that, in a globalized world, the State loses its status as the sole player in the international system since other entities besides it have the potential to influence the international governments to engage in measures aimed at reducing the effects of climate change. Public support in the contemporary world cannot be understated, for instance, Kulin & Seva (123-125, ) assert that, since investment in environmental conservation requires capital expenditures, the government has to obtain public support. Hence, evidencing their erosion of monopoly to influence action in the international system.
Also, liberal economists argue that since the International market is intrinsically capitalist, individuals will rationally the economic benefits that accrue to them and their grandchildren courtesy of conserving the environment, and act in line with that interest (Obrien  ). Since entrepreneurial the desire for profits drives action in a capitalist system, liberalist argue that capitalism will solve challenges of climate change by designing cost-effective environmentally-friendly products (Obrien 247). The quintessence of this assertion lies in the growth of companies such as Tesla who have utilized the concept of disruptive innovation to force an industry-based shift to achieve the goals of sustainable development (Motkobtsev para. 6). Therefore, liberalists argue that the realization of the the immediate and long-term economic benefits gives individuals a sense of duty and responsibility to conserve the environment without coercion. Similarly, liberal economic assume that actors in the international system are rational beings who perceive that environmental degradation is global problem that affects everyone, hence, must be tackled through cooperation (Obrien 245). Thus, liberalists argue that through democratic and free market ideologies the world can solve the problem of climate change.
The mercantilist’s climate change solutions posits numerous advantages. For instance, the concept of state sovereignty gives the government provides absolute autonomy to act as the final decision makers in a State (  ). Hence, while individuals, international corporations or multinational corporations can pressure a government to legislate eco-friendly policies, the decision to adopt and implement them will lie squarely with the leadership of that state. Additionally, their argument that states must and can perceive common interests in environmental conservation is evidenced by the fact that over 989 governments of the world had to see the mutuality of interests to sign the Kyoto agreement in 2016 (   ). Besides, since there lacks an absolute force to coarse autonomous states to support environmental conservations measures, the liberalist idea that climate change measures must enjoy the backing of hegemonial states explains the present dynamics in the international system that is dependent on US support (  ). Hence, the mercantilist eco-friendly measures can help the world solve climate change problems
However, in the mercantilist perspective does not provide a wholesome solution for an eco-friendly world. For example, it devalues the role of non-state actors in the international system, a flaw that is not consistent with present dynamics where multinational corporations and non-governmental organizations influence autonomous governments through foreign direct investments and as contributors of national revenue (  ). Besides, liberalists do not also explain why even with the lack of a coercive hegemony in the intenational system, states still cooperate in even in activities that are not related to the realist obsession with power and wealth accumulation (Obrien 245). Thus, collective action on a global scale does not necessitate a patriarchal power. A major flaw of the mercantilist environmental conservation policy lies in its disregard for international organizations such as the United nations (UN). According to Obrien (246,  ), international organizations are not epiphenomena with negligible impact, instead, they direct the international  system and its members engage in constructive discussions minus the whims of their countries of origin. A good example is the Kyoto agreement which was developed by the UN.
Similarly, the liberalists approach for an eco-friendly international system entails numerous strengths. For instance, it  gives the individual an advanced role in environmental conservation measures (oatley 33-34), therefore, allowing a subjective understanding of the responsibility that humanity owe to the world and the future generations. In emphasizing on the role of the government, the mercantilists disempower the citizens, an conceptual flaw that the liberalist avoid. In relying on democracy and free markets, the liberalists ensures that every individual has a role to play in conservation of the environment (  ). Besides, multinational corporations and non-governmental organization’s influence in the contemporary world cannot be easily wished away therefore hence evidencing their ability to lobby for eco-friendly policies (   ). Also, the ability of the capitalist entrepreneurial potential is unlimited and can be trusted to come up with cost-effective and environment friendly modes of production that limits on wastes while maximizing benefits (  ). Thus, the capitalistic economic policy on environment can aid in constructing a climate conscious international system.
On the other hand, just like the mercantilist perception of eco-friendly economic solutions, the liberal theory is also partially agreeable. For instance, proponents of mercantilism  theory argue that the capitalist system that is proposed by the liberals is inherently exploitative (Obrien 246), a nature that it transfers to the over exploitation of natural resources for profits which leads to environmental degradation and environmental pollution. Besides, it is difficult to convince individuals of an existence of a responsibility to protect the environment for the interests of a future that the individual would not directly benefit economically (Sagof 9). A major flaw of the capitalist system is its individualism (   ), hence, it is ironical to suggest that the individualistic liberal concept can mind about altruism when its central contention does not provide for the same. Additionally, liberalism idea of comparative advantage may render states option-less therefore, forcing them to focus on environmentally degrading products such as oil. A perfect example for this assertion is Saudi Arabia economy’s total reliance on oil (   ). Hence, liberalism’s proposals is limited in designing an eco-friendly international system.
Consequently, this paper doubts the effectiveness of both the theories of mercantilism and liberalism in making humanity to think about potential solutions for the climate change issue. For example, while these theoretical perspectives have been adopted by governments in the past, minimal changes if any has been registed, according to Nunez (para. 2, 2019), the world has lost over 502,000 square miles of rainforest between 1990-2016. Besides, economic theories tend to explain a path for economic growth and development (Sagof 9-11), in contrast, growth and development is associated with climate change risk factors such as urbanization and industrialization. Hence, economic policies cannot eradicate environmental pollution. In addition, economic policy decisions tend to focus on environmentally conscious capital investments such as smart cities only for political reasons (Sagof  ) while avoiding small but effective measures such as livestock grazing, mining and drilling which cumulatively accounts for more than half of deforestration (Nunez para. 4).
As a result, this paper proposes a paradigm shift from environmentalists preoccupation with economic-based theoretical perspectives to deal with the climate change issue, to an emphasis on the following measures, sensitization, ethical responsibility and stringent legal procedures to deal with individuals and corporations that do not adhere to the eco-friendly requirements. First, a focus on re-education. According to Sagof (9-15, 2019), theoretical-based economic policies that propose solutions for environmental pollutions argue that eco-friendly activities done by the present generation would only benefit a future generation (Sagoff 9). However, the current generation would be more environmentally responsive if they would enjoy the fruits of their environmental consciousness (Nunez para. 8). Thus the need to sensitize the public about the importance of practicing eco-friendly activities. For instance, while the Brazilian government is rolling back on conservation of the Amazon forest, its population does not know that Brazilian cities directly depend on it for water (Nunez 8). Hence, building awareness about the immediate benefits of eco-friendliness would inspire environment consciousness.
As evidenced above, reliance on individuals or states to prioritize environmental conservation and preservation measures has proven to be ineffective. Therefore, eco-friendly activities can be achieved by emphasizing on the ethical objective of individuals and states to act environmentally. According to Sagoff (11, 2019), the sacrifices expected by the concept of sustainable development urges individuals to act environmentally in the present to enjoy provide favorable terms for a future generation. He argues that this concept cannot be a market issue since the current generation cannot a perceive a benefit that they will enjoy when they are already gone, while the future cannot possible pay the present. Hence, he suggests that the present-future generational differences can be offset by emphasizing on the ethical responsibility of the present towards the future (12, 2019). This assertion tallies with the religious ethical responsibility that is premised on duty of a deity even without coercion.
Finally, this paper argues that certain aspects of the mercantilist theoretical ideation and the liberalist perspectives should be integrated to develop an environmental theory that combines state’s coercive and non-coercive factors with the democratic perspective of the liberalists. The importance of environmental conservation is non-negotiable (Obrien 244-249). However, there is no guarantee that everyone shall take it serious, for instance, in America, most republicans % do not see the need for the government to implement climate change policies (Kulin & Seva  ). While at the same time, the primacy of environmental conservation is such that it cannot wait, therefore, there is an urgent need for an entity in the International system with the powers to implement ecofriendly strategies. This power will have absolute autonomy over all states, especially the US and china that have the highest pollution rates. In addition, the proposed theory would promote democratization and capitalization of the International system to enable increased innovation in eco-friendly products and free association of citizens of the world to help in open discussion of the climate change issue. Thus, the author of this paper hopes that such a theory would solve most of the problems that have characterized the issue of climate change in the world.

Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason may is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Our essay writers are graduates with diplomas, bachelor’s, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college diploma. When assigning your order, we match the paper subject with the area of specialization of the writer.
Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

Plagiarism free papers
Timely delivery
Any deadline
Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
Subject-relevant academic writer
Adherence to paper instructions
Ability to tackle bulk assignments
Reasonable prices
24/7 Customer Support
Get superb grades consistently

How It Works
1.      Place an order
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
2.      Pay for the order
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
3.      Track the progress
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
4.      Download the paper
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH ESSAY SCORES TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT