Climate change is now widely recognized as a  big environmental problem that have many effects and challenges of the mankind life.

"Global climate change will affect people and the environment in many ways. Some of these impacts, like stronger hurricanes and severe heat waves, could be life threatening. Others, like spreading weeds, will be less serious. And some effects, like longer growing seasons for crops, might even be good! However, as the Earth keeps getting warmer, the negative effects are expected to outweigh the positive ones".

For more information you may look at the link here-under.

http://www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/kids/impacts/effects/index.html

Climate change is now widely recognized as a  big environmental problem that have many effects and challenges of the mankind life.

"Global climate change will affect people and the environment in many ways. Some of these impacts, like stronger hurricanes and severe heat waves, could be life threatening. Others, like spreading weeds, will be less serious. And some effects, like longer growing seasons for crops, might even be good! However, as the Earth keeps getting warmer, the negative effects are expected to outweigh the positive ones".

For more information you may look at the link here-under.

http://www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/kids/impacts/effects/index.html

Climate change affects temperatures, sea level, landscapes, plant and animal lives, and everything else that we can think of. A good resource is here.

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/threats-impacts/

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2014/09/19/how-systems-thinking-can-impact-climate-change

Thanks for a challenging question.  "Could climate change drive a more collaborative approach to international relations?"  YES, we have to collaborate to tackle issues of climate change that includes trans-boundary pollution, just as we collaborate against international crime.

How?  We take care of the condition of our own backyard (our country) and also "establish networks for research collaboration and active participation of all members of the international community".  (I have some threads on this.  Allow me to place just one parallel thread here.)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_best_ways_to_control_the_air_quality_when_it_is_affected_by_activities_in_neighboring_countries_as_well

People face new threats beyond their experience or capacity to cope.

The changes in agricultural systems and their management that are needed to enable the rural poor, resource managers and policy-makers to adapt to these stresses and challenges will not come about in sufficient time unless the best of science based solutions are developed and the best of delivery mechanisms are put in place. Climate change is occurring amidst global economic, demographic and social change, resulting at times in unexpectedly uneven outcomes on rural livelihoods. Minor changes in climate and climate variability may push some areas and households to food insecurity. In addition to local effects, agricultural losses in developing countries will translate into macro-economic impacts that will exacerbate problems of food access for the urban poor. Negative effects of climate change could push up food prices, seriously affecting all poor consumers. 

http://www.gecafs.org/related_meetings/documents/Pre-proposalforaCPonclimatechangeagriculturefoodsecurity.pdf

Thank you Miranda for comments and link addressing my intended question.

We know that international organizations such as the UN, the OECD, OSCE and other international financial institutions, global and regional fora, have been promoting and coordinating the efforts for the joint confrontation of global environmental problems, on a multilateral level. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was established, as one of the productive consequences of the 1972 Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Conference). The UNEP provides a basis for comprehensive consideration and coordinated action within the UN system on the problems of environment. We must make efforts in the areas such as  cleaner production and eco-efficiency, and achieve a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of biological diversity in all countries, Suggestions and solutions to counter climate change crises should may bring more collaborations and activities> I think, RG network is a good place for such discussions and cooperation among its members. . 

Yes @dear Umachandran and friends:  'Minor changes in climate and climate variability may push some areas and households to food insecurity. In addition to local effects, agricultural losses in developing countries will translate into macro-economic impacts that will exacerbate problems of food access for the urban poor. Negative effects of climate change could push up food prices, seriously affecting all poor consumers.'

 We need to collaborate for the survival of our human race, and our home, EARTH.  We have to put in effort to get rid of 'accidents' due to carelessness like MH17, MH370 etc.  We want PEACE for all; at this point we pray for peace in UKRAINE.  We have enough problems struggling with our environment and climate change; we cannot afford a war at all.

I agree with what have been mentioned above. I don't we can do anything towards this climate change to better situation. It is not in our hand. It is beyond our imagination; this is the reality which we cant escape from it. We probably should concentrate on survival strategy to reduce causalities.  

Dear Hashem. I disagree with what you said "It is not in our hand. It is beyond our imagination; this is the reality which we cant escape from it. "  Who made the mess? We did it. So we should clean it too. We should think about a "survival strategy" not for us but future generations, too.

The world is currently a little global village. We all should share our knowledge and expertise and learn with each other (we all should be less selfish). We all are winners when the knowledge advances and we are all great losers when the ignorance takes advantage. With respect to pollution and environmental concerns, the education and correct information is very important since the familiar context and the school context of the little children. I do not know much about climate change, but my humble perception (perhaps wrong) is that perhaps we can and we have the duty to do much more to combat the pollution in the earth (air, water and soil pollution), than to have the illusions that we can change easily some laws of the universe.

Climate change as an important challenge of marine environment is showing its face in health of marine organisms. Recent news about mass mortality of different species of fishes, sea birds, mammals, and marine invertebrates in some instances has been related to viral and bacterial outbreaks. Gradual warming of sea surface temperature, ocean acidification, sea level rise, melting sea ice, and other side effects of climate change can be a major cause for increasing trend of mortality of marine organisms. So far, there is an apparent increase in many infectious marine fish diseases, including some newly-circulating ones (VNN, KHV, EHNV, etc.). It is expected that forthcoming climatic changes could make situation worse. Marine disease outbreaks can impact the world fisheries in quantity and quality as well as marine aquaculture.

Reference: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265732783_YOUMARES__5_BOOK_OF_ABSTRACTS

Conference Paper YOUMARES │ 5 BOOK OF ABSTRACTS

If the human mind fails to help us carry out such noble missions, I do not think that climate-change can drive a more collaborative approach to international relations, dear Mahmoud!

Dear Mahmoud Omid,

Climate change could be considered a "Public Bad", meaning it's originated in multiple transactions among people having negative externalities for the whole world.  Individuals or countries alone cannot mitigate Climate Change, and a cooperative and collaborative approach is required. Climate is a "common property" with no individual and specified "property rights", so the system of economic incentives is oriented to depleting this common property.

Nobel laureate Ronald Coase wrote a seminal paper on this issue: "The problem of social cost", wrongly identified as the "Coase Theorem"

Supranational organizations, such as the UN, have little effect on this problem. Why? Because they are "legally binding", with a poor governance and an inconsistent "system of economic incentives"

New generation World Organizations have been born, e.g. the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, being voluntary and not legally binding. These new generation organizations, focus on problem solving, not from a political point of view, but from a more technical and professional standpoint.

So far there are at least two (2) of these organizations apart from the GRA, one for Biofuels and another for soils. In my humble opinion, this kind of organizations will replace old mandatory and bureaucratic entities. The nature and spirit of them is "COOPERATION".

So the answer to your question is YES, the only way to solve this kind of problems is through cooperation and collaboration, with specific actions and activities to mitigate and to adapt to climate change.

The right theoretical framework to address this issue would be the "New Institutional Economics", more specifically the writings of three Nobel laureates, Ronald Coase, Douglass North and Oliver Williamson. An adequate governance will yield lower transaction costs, the highest gross production value and will internalize externalities or environmental/social costs.

Hope this helps to answer your question

Let me give a simple, but plausible example of issues that might better force or foster global cooperation.  Right now (and perhaps forever) we live in a world which essentially has no accountability.   Behavior changes when there is accountability.

When the industrial acts of mostly the "Western" world eventually trigger the flooding of Bangladesh - who do they SUE for relocation, loss of culture, and loss of their entire COUNTRY.   Without accountability/legal protection in these matters, then us greedy consumers simple continue with our unfettered consumption as there is not accountability related to that unfettered consumption.

Change that and you will see real change in the world.

Thank you all for emphasizing the importance of the issue. I also find a report into the human cost of climate change commissioned by the Global Humanitarian Forum. It warns: "More than 300 million people are vulnerable to climate change and that number is set to double within the next 20 years".

Findings of the report [from attached link] are rather frightening:

- 300,000 lives are lost each year due to climate-related malnutrition, diarrhea and malaria. 99% of these deaths are in developing countries which are estimated to have contributed less than one percent of the world's total carbon emissions.

- Around 45 million of the 900 million people estimated to be chronically hungry are suffering due to climate change. Within 20 years that number is expected to double. At the same time food production is expected to fall, driving food prices up 20%.

- The countries considered to be most vulnerable are those in the semi-arid dry land belt that runs from the Sahara/Sahel to the Middle East and Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Latin America and parts of the U.S., small island states and the Arctic region.

- Australia is singled out as the developed country most vulnerable to the direct impacts of climate change. Over the past 15 years, the combination of rising temperature and lower rainfall has produced the worst drought in the country's recorded history.

Accordingly, values, not just science, need to be central when we address the climate change issues. Two contradictory approaches are being debated : one believes climate change can be 'fixed' and prevented by technological wizardry; the other that it will happen but needs to be controlled.  what you favor?

https://www.dosomething.org/blog/chatterbox/report-climate-change-crisis-catastrophic

I would turn the question almost upside down claiming that in order to solve climate change we need a more collaborative approach to international relations? In order to achieve this we need first to end the current blame game on who is responsible for climate change and start to concentrate on finding solutions. Here is a link to my suggestion how to achieve that: 

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300701/planId/1308202

The actions agreed today will reduce poverty, enhance food security ... and benefit communities around the world.- Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general.

On Sep 24, 2014 at United Nations - Leonardo DiCaprio told leaders, "I play fictitious characters often solving fictitious problems. I believe that mankind has looked at climate change in that same way, as if pretending that climate change wasn't real would somehow make it go away."

Dear all: See what a "Harvard earth sciences Professor" said, according to the following link:

http://www.sott.net/article/241057-Natural-tilts-in-earths-axis-cause-ice-ages-and-their-cycles-could-help-predict-the-next-one

See what VIKIPEDIA says in "Solar and celestial effects on climate", and particularly in its “Synopsis”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_celestial_effects_on_climate

http://www.sott.net/article/241057-Natural-tilts-in-earths-axis-cause-ice-ages-and-their-cycles-could-help-predict-the-next-one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_celestial_effects_on_climate

Short answer:

all of the orbital effects operate on much long timescales than those of human induced climate change through accelerating GHG emissions.

Small fluctuations in solar output have relatively minimal impact on actual climate change, such fluctuations are pretty short term and have small short term effects

The best way to preserve nature and the environment (and ask for the sacrifice of all) is to be totally rational and consequent in the approaches. Everybody knows the importance of the sun in the climate (I suppose) and there are many natural phenomena (without mankind interference) producing gases responsible for the planet warming (as CO2 or methane). Nobody crossed two glacial ages, or two meteorite impacts, so I agree "eventually" with Bothun, it should be more prudent do not have absolutely sure of nothing of this.

Dear @Mahmoud, it is a global issue, trans-boundary! Climate change must drive a more collaborative approach to international relations, of course. There are many examples about such approach! UN should be the top level organization in issue of global warming, ...! Latest news follow!

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE is referent reading about this issue - excellent research!

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/publications/pikreports/.files/pr21.pdf

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/un-climate-summit-a-game-changer-for-global-warming-1.2775281

The human contribution to climate change, are all connected to our production of energy (power stations, internal combustion machines etc.) and foodstuffs (just think how much Methane cows produce)

Unfortunately, the supply of energy is concentrated in a handful of companies(oil, gas, coal), that gets no financial benefit from greener alternatives. When we start feeling th pinch of climate change, people will start to put pressure on the system to do something more drastic. On the other hand, there is also a cost to greener energy, which few will willingly accept without a fight.

As research community, we need to find cheaper alternatives and manage to get it into the market, without the energy giant's interference, and here I see the real challenge.

Given the incredible amount of inequality between nations, it might take a series of catastrophic events tied to climate change that seriously impact the most powerful nations before we will see strong international relations in dealing with climate change and other global environmental issues. A major hurdle obviously is the reluctance of powerful nations to take real responsibility for their disproportional contribution to anthropogenic GHG emissions and thus climate change.

In my opinion, David gave an excellent answer. Energy requirements, particularly with the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and decay of the forests, bad agriculture and livestock practices, and uncontrolled industrial growing are in the center particularly for the atmospheric pollution and human contribution for the GHG (Greenhouse gas) emissions.

According to VIKIPEDIA in “Greenhouse gas", this is the ranking by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect: Water vapor and clouds (H2O) 36 – 72%; Carbon dioxide (CO2) 9 – 26%; Methane (CH4) 4–9%; Ozone (O3) 3–7%, and a large increase of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere have occurred since the industrial revolution.

The return of climate change to the top ranks of international politics follows on

the heels of the release of several major global scientific assessments that have

sharpened our understanding of the impacts of and solutions to climate change.

We now know that climate change is absolutely real: Scientists agree the evidence

is simply unequivocal. Virtually no scientist doubts that the Earth’s atmosphere

is warming.

http://www.climateadvisers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ClimateAmbition-print.pdf

I would like to thank you all for giving interesting comments so far.

Four key reasons ranging from the fact that global warming

This has led us to limited cognition or ignorance of the problem, ideologies or worldviews that may prevent action, social comparisons with other people and perceived inequity.

http://science.time.com/2013/08/19/in-denial-about-the-climate-the-psychological-battle-over-global-warming/

Dear @Mahmoud, EPA (The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)  Releases Additional Information on Clean Power Plan!

http://www.powermag.com/epa-releases-additional-information-on-clean-power-plan/?hq_e=el&hq_m=2971872&hq_l=5&hq_v=3b171a1d10

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/20141028noda-clean-power-plan.pdf

Thank you dear Ljubomir for providing the resource on Clean Power Plan. One ultimate way to stop climate change is the use of renewable energy. World is faced with the choice of deadly, dirty, dangerous energy like coal, oil and nuclear power, or safe, clean and renewable power, what would you decide? Renewable energy, smartly used, can and will meet our demands. No oil spills, no climate change, no radiation danger, no nuclear waste – simply energy we can trust. We can achieve a world with 100% renewable energy.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/

The following EPA link (same basic source of the link mentioned by Mahfuz) tries to explain the “Causes of Climate Change” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

Hi Mahmoud Omid; Global climate change will affect people and the environment affecting agriculture, forests, water, plants, animals, ecosystems, human health etc. Alink given may be seen for Indian conditions:

It is evident from the Working Group II (WG II) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that climate change will impact the world severely and the risks are intensifying. This is expected to put the lives of the world’s poor at stake. India is especially vulnerable since it houses 33 per cent of the world’s poorest people. 

According to the WG II report, India will experience decrease in seasonal mean rainfall and an increase in mean and extreme precipitation during monsoon. This will increase both floods and draught. Freshwater resources will be affected due a combination of climate change and unsustainable practices.

$7 billion agricultural loss

Projections on agriculture are stark: over US $7 billion loss in agriculture in India by 2030; sorghum yield will reduce by 2-14 per cent by 2020; there will be large reductions in wheat yield in the Indo-Gangetic plain; and substantial increase in heat stress for rice, affecting yield in the country. Agriculture apart, temperature variations will lead to outbreak of diseases as well and disturb the already poor health indicators of the country. Climate change will slow down economic growth and make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security and “prolong existing and create new poverty traps”.

Dear Dr. Dubey. Thank you for explaining the situation in India and the negative effects of climate change.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released reports (see attached link) in March and April 2014 that predicted dire environmental and economic consequences if the world's leading economies do not act to reduce GHG emissions immediately. According to the IPCC "climate change has already caused the melting of glaciers, coral reef damage, and drought," In fact, several scholars and experts blame some of the current political instability in the Middle East on drought. In order to prevent such crises, the IPCC said the world's wealthy nations must begin to cut global emissions by 40% to 70% by 2050. The panel recommended reducing the world's reliance on fossil fuels and turning to renewable sources of energy. It said fracking for natural gas is an attractive alternative to coal. The report said given the decrease in costs of solar energy, hydropower, and making vehicles more fuel efficient, reaching the goal would not create a financial burden for most countries and businesses, nor would it require individuals to sacrifice their quality of life.

"There are those who say we can’t afford to act," Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement. "But waiting is truly unaffordable. The costs of inaction are catastrophic."

Poor and developing countries, which contribute the least to global warming, are the most at risk and require some $100 billion in aid each year to adapt to climate change, according to the report.

On the bright side, the report acknowledged that many countries and businesses understand the scope of the problem and their role in it and have begun to address it.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/