The rise of the sea level is one of the most profound climatic change issues that have garnered much attention among various nations in the world. The problem is taken even more seriously in states that are situated in low lying coastlines. Therefore, the issue is a serious concern in California given that it is affected by melting ice. As Mulken notes, “The melting of ice sheets in Antarctica risks walloping California with a greater rise of the sea-level than the average of world estimates. 1 The phenomenon poses a great threat to the state’s iconic seashores and significant infrastructure.”2 Riding on this understanding, I consider the tabled proposal before me quite fundamental in a bid to find ways of collaborating with other states to mitigate the sea-level rise impact.
The treaty scores highly with reference to the key strengths that I was considering when assessing its viability. First, it addresses a critical issue that is facing California and other nations in the world—climate change.3 Consequently, the proposal’s goal, “…to figure out ways to minimize direct effects of the rising water level and to reinforce cities in danger of flooding” is of paramount importance. It is timely and fundamental in that it does involve not only California but also other states, especially the ones that share the coastline with California. Equally important, scientific researchers found that loss of ice in Greenland and Antarctica is escalating, augmenting the importance of the objective set in the proposal to explore methods of lowering the activities that are leading to melting of ice.
The execution of the strategy proposed by the proposal entails a broad perspective that is pivotal for its acceptability. I agree with the treaty that implementation cannot be delivered by California alone. Consequently, working in liaison with other states and nations will be essential. This feature of the project execution poses the question of foreign policy issues. For instance, the suggestions that our state will work hand in hand with the entire US and Canada to foster Russia aspirations will be a lucrative approach that can almost guarantee a nod from the Russian government. However, the issue of ensuring that there will be no movement restrictions among the nations in question could call for some further investigation. I found the proposal scoring low on this part as it does not lay out the approach that will help us convince Russia to sign the deal. While California may benefit more than Russia from such a collaboration, it would have made much more impact to evaluate what grounds the Russian government would consider for rejecting this extension. Most importantly, coming up with suggestions on ways to counteract such a move would have seen the proposal score even higher. California and other affected states ought to prepare for any adverse reaction from the relevant states.
Moreover, the proposal scored highly due to the suggestion that, “Funding will also go toward the building of six new Coast Guard icebreaker ships to add to the combined total with Canada of seventeen which will be used in tandem with each other for the next five years after which the agreement will be renegotiated.” This would be a very beneficial to California. Besides directly facilitating the lowering the quantity of ice breaking, it will enforce the relationship between California and Canada. The outcome will be critical in enhancing our efforts towards mitigating the central problem. Additionally, the proposal scored even higher points on suggesting that the icebreaking collaboration is done on a contract basis. This is important because it will allow every member to reevaluate their position and restate the personal position which will see to it that every participant has the demands met at every point in time.
Lastly, the environmental impact objective of the proposal rendered it worthier the consideration than it would have had this part been omitted. As Friis notes, most of the environmental hazard in the modern day are caused by global warming.4 Among the climatic challenges that result from global warming is ice breaking which culminates in rising of the sea level. Consequently, agreeing with other nations to lower the level of pollution would be a pivotal move. Further, going ahead with the establishment of the percentages that each country would be required to make in this contribution makes the proposal even more direct and precise.
In summation, I found the outcome of this proposal quite feasible. It details the primary objectives that it will seek to attain. They all are of critical importance. Therefore, the treaty will be easy to implement especially with the modification in the areas that I have highlighted. Precisely, entailing how California will ensure that all the member states agree to the requirement of cooperation with the foreign policy involved will be instrumental in enhancing the feasibility of the proposal.
1 Anne Mulkern, “Rising Sea Levels Will Hit California Harder Than Other Places,” Scientific American. Last modified April 27, 2017.
2 Nobuo Mimura, “Sea-level rise caused by climate change and its implications for society,” Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B 89, no. 7 (2013), 281-301. doi:10.2183/pjab.89.281.
3 Mulkern, “Rising Sea Levels”
4 Robert Friis, Essentials of Environmental Health (New York: Jones & Bartlett, 2012)