A Market Based And An Institutional Approach Essay

Dr James Hansen’s argumentative essay, “A Solution to the Climate Problem,” discusses his premise that it is imperative for humankind to deal with carbon dioxide emissions, which he believes needs to be phased out by the mid-21st century. He begins with the current paradigm in government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and claims that so far it has been a lot of talk and action in the other direction. Dr Hansen argues that while governments pay lip service to agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, they are going full steam ahead with projects that will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, such as going forth with coal-fired power plants, coal-to-liquids, hydraulic fracturing, and tar sands oil extraction. Dr Hansen believes

Imagine that you have decided to open a small ice cream stand on campus called "Ice-Campusades." You are very excited because you love ice cream (delicious!) and this is a fun way for you to apply your business and economics skills! Here is the first month's scenario--you order the same number (and the same variety) of ice creams each day from the ice cream suppliers, and your ice creams are always marked at $1.50 each. However, you notice that there are days when ice creams remain unsold but other days when there are not enough ice creams for the number of customers.

The world economy is a very complex system; in the system harmful externalities disrupt capital flows and determine economic productivity. Most notable of these externalities is inadvertent global warming. Spending towards research and regulation of climate change at both the national and international level are very important in determining current and future business trends. Economists and scientists worldwide continuously debate the pros and cons of emissions reduction and what consequences can quickly follow. Though many have different views on the issue, all can agree that the immediate and long term effects of climate change have become an economic matter of paramount importance. The sweeping impact from climate change will have important fiscal, financial, and macroeconomic ramifications that influence global commerce standards.

What is the main purpose of the economic system? The main purpose of the economic system is method used to produce and distribute goods and service. The three economic questions are: “What goods should be produced?” “How should these goods and services be produced” And “Who consumes these goods and services?” The characteristic of a market economics is that self-interest is the motivating force in the free market, self regulating market. The interaction of buyers and sellers motivated by self-interest and regulated by competition, all happen without a central plan. In a market economy, economic decisions are made by individuals and are based on exchange or trade. However, characteristics of a command economic

The article “Why Bother” written by Michael Pollan explains how bad climate change has become; he uses cheap energy and specialization to slow the phenomenon. He proclaims that people are all waiting around on each other to make the first move but no one is moving. He understands how critical the world has become and suggests people now have to start going green. He says that to modify the way climate change has taken charge, the best ways to slow it down is laws and a massive amount of money. Pollan suggests having a personal garden or even a community garden will help reduce the carbon footprint.

The market revolution in the United States brought a sudden change in the manual labor system originating in south and digressed to the north and later spread to the entire world. The integral part of the economic growth in the United States in the nineteenth century was a good thing that brought change in the market. In respect to the change, America took its first major step in creating the world’s most stable and strongest economy, which gave room for growth among the citizens.

During the late 1700’s, the United States was no longer a possession of Britain, instead it was a market for industrial goods and the world’s major source for tobacco, cotton, and other agricultural products. A labor revolution started to occur in the United States throughout the early 1800’s. There was a shift from an agricultural economy to an industrial market system. After the War of 1812, the domestic marketplace changed due to the strong pressure of social and economic forces. Major innovations in transportation allowed the movement of information, people, and merchandise. Textile mills and factories became an important base for jobs, especially for women. There was also widespread economic growth during this time period

A free market is a type of market that the government is not involved in. Since the government does not care about what happens, the free market is also called “hands-off” or “let it be economics”. The government is limited to protect the citizens from the danger and that is the major goal for the government. In the free market economy, there are three components of the free market economy: competition, active but limited government, and the self-interest. Competition is one of the main components of the free market economy. Competition means that the companies compete with one another to make more benefits to themselves. According to the concept of the free market economy, the competition means a good thing because it is a basic

It is becoming increasingly certain that climate change will have severe adverse effects on the environment in years to come. Addressing this issue poses a serious challenge for policy makers. How we choose to respond to the threat of global warming is not simply a political issue. It is also an economic issue and an ethical one. Responsible, effective climate change policy requires consideration of a number of complex factors, including weighing the costs of implementing climate change policies against the benefits of more environmentally sustainable practices. Furthermore, this analysis must take place amidst serious gaps in the existing research and technology concerning the developing climatic condition.

According to an article focused on environmental awareness, “the world’s average surface temperature rose by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit, the fastest rate in any period over the last 1000 years” (Source A). Damage has already been done to the environment but it is not the time to throw our hands up, it is the time for leaders in all sectors to tackle this issue head on. We know that carbon dioxide is the culprit, so now it is imperative to implement the solution and take a hard look at who is producing the most greenhouse gases. Big changes need to take place but they can only be done in steps and not all at once to be effective. In an excerpt from a book about global warming, Mark Maslin brings up the point that many feel the Kyoto Protocol does not go far enough; scientists believe that a 60% cut of greenhouse gas emissions is necessary in order to “prevent major climate change” (Source E). A sixty percent cut of emissions should be what countries work up to achieving but first and foremost, every country needs to agree to the Kyoto Protocol guidelines. The Kyoto Protocol itself should not be viewed as the end in the discussion of greenhouse gas restrictions, but rather the first stepping stone to a much broader and effective

They looked at two scenarios, inaction, where business’ continue finding and using carbon as they see fit, and action, where business’ use a low-carbon energy mix. They found that not only would the investment cost of the action scenario be no more than inaction, but it would even cost a bit less- 190.2 trillion dollars for action and 192 trillion dollars for inaction. This is before even considering the amount of money saved by the effects of the action scenario itself. The report found that, “the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion” (Business Insider). The effect of such a large economic company reporting this data is the perfect example of how using economics for the sake of reversing global warming can be really beneficial. The argument often used by economists is that becoming more sustainable would hurt the economy, but the data in this report proves just the opposite, and how terrible it would be if we did nothing. For the sake of investment in industry’s like coal and gas, this information is often denied. But this is not anywhere near the first time industry’s have had to adapt due to uncontrollable events. This report emphasizes the importance of recognizing

When looking at the corporate businesses and the undoing of the human habitat; the United Nations has sanctioned many organizations to track climate change such as the UNEP, the World Meteorological Organization and the IPCC. Since the mid-eighties, these agencies have monitored the changes, yet have failed to convey the significance. Studies done by these agencies have concluded that the last fifty years are attributable to human activities and big corporations which lead to the changing in the compositions of the atmosphere throughout the 21st century (Saltori). These activities that are mentioned are those by means of businesses that grew into national conglomerates. Concurrent with business growth, the greenhouse gas emissions have grown seventy percent from 1970 to 2004 (Lehner). Recent studies have shown that 122 corporations produce eighty percent of greenhouse gases (IPCC). The climate is going to drastically change the world forever, but at whose expense? What exactly does the political eminence of these companies have

Paul Hawken studies the many faults of the economic practices we adhere to globally. Whether or not we agree with his beliefs is a decision we as readers need to make. While an understanding of the environmental impacts is evident, as well as the biological changes it has put forth on humans, I question if individual change really makes a difference to the environment and the overall way the economy works. Hawken demonstrates a clear explanation to back up his statement of absolute resource destruction, but I believe he underestimates the change that may need to be done. I strongly believe we have reached a point in time where individual change is inadmissible, and in order to save our planet, large corporations and their accountability should be questioned. A world without sustainability, or more importantly a world without economic integrity,

For many years, the issue of climate change has been thorny mostly because it affects the whole world yet a few countries are the greatest contributors. Climate change has led to global warming that has affected many countries in terms of weather variation, flooding, poverty, and desertification. While the great debate rages over whether to apply the constraints previously agreed on, climate change continues to have its toll on the environment (Goldenberg 2015). Owing to the devastating impacts of climate change over the years, the world leading environmental bodies need to apply some constraints to corporations, individuals, and nations to curb the menace. Without a concerted effort towards cutting carbon emissions, the planet will get only warmer. Of course, the possible restrictions may not be palatable to all nations, individuals, and corporations. It is so because such limitations may curtail some freedoms previously enjoyed by various countries, organizations, and people (Pielke, 2015). In this respect, this paper examines the kinds of constraints that when applied to corporations, nations, and individuals, will curb the climate change menace, and the potential conflicts with such measures.

For this week’s forum, I hold the view of a normative pluralistic which relates the environmental and natural resource issue of irreversible changes caused by negative consequences for a healthy planet. Normative pluralism is considered not to be as radical as the belief of a fundamentalist pluralist. Formally, a normative pluralist assumes that there is a plurality of bearers of value (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011). The irreversible changes caused by negative consequences for a healthy planet can be associated will the failure to widely produce agreements globally to tackle environmental and natural resource issues. In the article, Global Green Pluralism, pluralistic values discussed that support my argument are comprised of the division of labor amongst governments and nongovernmental actors to govern the environment.