Need a perfect paper? Place your first order and save 5% with this code:   SAVE5NOW

Global Warming and the Future of International Politics

The issue of climate change and politics are inseparable and more so in the Anthropocene era. Despite the severe consequences of climate change, leaders need to be more confident and resistant to taking action against climate change. Worse still, current politics, based on geospatial originating from the twentieth century, are very productive to people aspiring for economic dominance while escalating global warming. Scholars and researchers have tried effortlessly to show the growing relationship between geopolitical territories and climate change, even suggesting consideration to changing the context of politics to save the globe. Simon Dalby, for instance, has composed an informative journal proving that there will be no life after the Anthropocene since states do not consider creating new political spatial based on the climate. The author has put out Cleary the connectivity of global warming and global governance, referring to the historical and theoretical evidence to support his argument. It is, therefore, essential to elaborate on the author’s argument and their evidence to understand why global warming and the future of politics matters.

What is the author’s argument?

In his contest (Dalby 3) argues that modern politics must assume a different structure for life after the Anthropocene rather than following the traditional definition of politics, which is concerned with territories, leadership, and organizations. Modern geopolitics, in his contest, should acknowledge humanity’s actions, such as technological innovations and industrialization. Viewing humanity as the most significant precursor of climate change (Dalby 5) advocates for humanity to be termed as a geological force, just plate tectonics, and volcanoes. He shows how humanity has contributed dramatically towards severe climatic conditions, and yet political leaders turn a blind eye since they are aspiring for state prosperity. He uses such implications to argue that pollution does not know boundaries or geospatial politics. Despite living in the post-modern world, the lever of modernity for every territory should be analyzed. Otherwise, humanity is not apart from nature. Since they contribute significantly to change in the physical biosphere, geopolitics should readjust to accommodate humanity’s social activities for a survivable globe in the future (Dalby 5).

Notably (Dalby 6) calls for an urgent and stolid look at the escalating relationship between climate change and politics which he thinks is underestimated by global leaders. (Dalby 6) recognizes that the categorization of states which he refers to as classical geopolitics is a significant threat to climate change. He sees extreme rivalries and competition as the major cause of states needing to focus on the primary interest, which would protect nature. The rivalry pushes states to focus on attaining their strategic goals and economic activities that push humanity to over exploiting the already scarce resources. He refers to the work of Bonnet (Dalby 6), who advocates that economic stability in states can be attained by laying down climatic conditions rather than over-utilizing resources. His arguments bring him to a consensus that climate change is not stirred by the scarcity of resources but by their overexploitation. The states should therefore control resource exploitation. The implications make Dalby believe that climate and politics are intertwined, and political decisions should be made to lay down necessary policies to incline climate change.

Lastly, the author argues that new clean energy sources must be adopted to replace fossil energy and petroleum products. He gives clear evidence on how humanity’s use of coal and fossil energy resulted in climatical change. He even supports the application of green energy in the army, suggesting that in the long run, it will have greater good than harm compared to nuclear and atomic energy use.

How does the author support their argument Theoretically and historically?

Historically, the author refers to the initiation of humanity’s industrialization, which led to the Anthropocene’s birthing. He terms the period before Anthropocene as a period of climate stability. England and Europe began to rise agriculturally, producing cotton during the period. Subsequently, England and Europe transformed cotton into other products, initiating industrialization. Japan and America followed in the transformation of raw materials into other products. Dalby 4 points out that the consequences of industrial initiation resulted in significant effects on the biosphere in the eighteenth century, in the biosphere. The phase was marked by the extinction of dinosaurs, nitrogen level changes, and even the melting of the glaciers.

The continuous growth of industrialization led to the application of steam which initiated the burning of coal, subsequently raising the carbon dioxide level from 128 parts per million (ppm) in the pre-industrialization period to 400 ppm in the 1950s (Dalby 7). A desire for power stirred America to use fossil fuels, which escalated the already worsening climatic conditions. However, the urge for power and the emergence of classical politics led to the creation of enormous war machines, which led to the use of petroleum products.

Applying the above historical evidence, Dalby supports his argument that humans should be considered geological factors creating change in the biosphere just like other ecological activities such as plate tectonics and volcanoes. To make his argument more relevant, he shows how the population around the globe has drastically risen from 1.7 billion in the eighteenth century to 7 billion in the twenty-first century (Dalby 5). In conclusion, the consequences of humanity to the biosphere in the twenty-first century will be dire and political policies, together with compensation of fossil energy with green energy, should be implemented with great urgency for a better future.

Theoretically, Dalby has shown how politics have contributed to adverse climatic conditions. Severally in the journal, he gives instances that show the deterioration of climatic conditions, but still, the ruling parties show no concern. No one is concerned about technological developments, modernization, or industrialization. The states are only concerned with economic development while depriving future life (Dalby 9)

Why does this matter for understanding global warming and the future of global politics?

We are living in Anthropocene necessary formulation must be applied to manage resources and cool down the escalating global temperatures resulting in adverse climatic conditions. Since the climate is multifaceted and there is a significant transformation, how it will be handled remains at the heart of politics. States are therefore obliged to come up with policies which, even if does not favor their economic output, will incline the danger posed by the immensely deteriorating climatical conditions.

Secondly, it matters to understand global warming and the future of politics, emphasizing that states should understand that their economy entirely depends on the climate and environmental conditions. Agriculture, for instance, requires conditions that enhance crop growth. Failure of states to create regulations that control human ecology will reduce cultivatable land leading to severe droughts and a crippled economy. Additionally, all species of nature, including humans, require habitable conditions to survive on planet earth. Surprisingly, aquatic life is diminishing every day due to continuous acidification. Oceanic acidification originates from the excessive emission of carbon dioxide from burning petroleum products. Shortly economic activities such as fishing will diminish.

In conclusion, political decisions on climate and global warming are profound. Everything has changed in a way to invoke political powers to lay down policies to ensure continuity of life after the Anthropocene. It is high time political systems move from geospatial politics, which tend to be classical and embrace policies that will enhance a better future. These policies should monitor the lever of modernity, technological innovation, and industrialization. Advocation for green and clean energy, for instance, solar energy, should also be advocated. The main concern in the future of global politics should be global warming, where all nations act in unison towards having a sustainable future.

Work Cited

Dalby, Simon. 2014. “Environmental Geopolitics in the Twenty-first Century.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 39, no. 1: 3 – 16


Don't have time to write this essay on your own?
Use our essay writing service and save your time. We guarantee high quality, on-time delivery and 100% confidentiality. All our papers are written from scratch according to your instructions and are plagiarism free.
Place an order

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Copy to clipboard
Need a plagiarism free essay written by an educator?
Order it today

Popular Essay Topics