Global warming is an issue that should be of major concern in the United States. However as the name implies it's a global issue. One country that's of particular interest to me is China. China was heavily criticized for its emissions leading up to the Beijing olympics and many athletes even refused to train in Beijing because of such high emissions. So how much is China contributing to the climate change?
USA Today put out an article last year which really puts things into perspective. China relies heavily on coal to provide energy, almost 70 % to be exact. None of this being the clean coal that our presidential candidates reference. It also appears unlikely that any moves will be made in the near future to remove their dependence from coal. China is regarded as an emerging superpower, however it still hasn't reached that status yet and therefore it seriously lacks the funds to invest in alternative fuels. It's a scary thought because according to USA Today China is on pace to pass us as the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.
China happens to be one of the major countries which has chosen to not ratify the outlines put forth in the Kyoto Protocal. It's a move which could substantially hurt china. Many of their rivers have already begun to shrink in size due to evaporation and many of the ecosystems in China are predicted to face major damage. As a developing super power China needs to understand that it needs to put itself in a position where they are taking responsibility for global warming and are setting an example for others as well.
Many understand the idea of global warming and climate change, but how real is it? Countless articles have been written, documentaries have examined the issue and scientists have pushed for action, but there isn't much acknowledgment in regards to climate change so how real can it be? Those who are for it have made numerous claims, citing our melting polar ice caps, increased greenhouse gases, as well as other reasons as proof of the dilemma. However many scientists are clearly opposed to the idea of global warming and feel the temperature changes are nothing to worry about.
The topic of climate change seems like a straight forward topic, however it does attract believers and disbelievers. Although there may not be as many reasons for being for or against climate change as other controversial topics, climate change still receives much attention from two sides. For those who believe in climate change, their motivation for believing in it is pretty simple. They see that damage in the arctic regions has already begun to take place and feel we need to change our ways soon if we're ever going to reverse the effects of greenhouse gases. The drastic consequences would be detrimental to future generations if scientists are indeed correct. Extreme storms and the extinction of species in the arctic regions are only a few of the possible outcomes if trends continue.
The disbelievers of climate change are a little more complicated to understand. Their reasoning is very unclear however I have theories as to why they choose to not believe. One obvious reason is we have yet to experience many of the extreme conditions scientists are predicting will come from climate change. Until they get hard concrete evidence they will remain disbelievers. Secondly, there's evidence which points to a possibility that changing temperatures may not be as harmful as believed since this wouldn't be the first time in earth's history where temperatures were rising. Perhaps to be more skeptical though, many disbelievers choose not to believe because of how much more expensive it would be to believe. In a nation that relies heavily on fossil fuels, the changes needed to take place to reduce fossil fuel emissions would require a greater effort into the use of alternative energy. Although it could possibly be better for us in the long run, our struggling economy has no room to make such a commitment toward alternative energies that could reduce the effects of greenhouse gases.
Theoretically I feel the proper solution towards global warming would be a cap-and-trade system. It would slowly ween us off of fossil fuels and provide incentives towards researching alternative fuels. In addition there need to be tax breaks for automobiles and machinery which run on alternative energy. Only with set limitations and big incentives will we finally look away from fossil fuels which damage our environment and its a sad realization we don't put greater effort into alternative energy considering many of our providers of fossil fuels don't think too highly of us. Overall, climate change is very under discussed and politically there isn't much at stake. I feel people are too uneducated on the issue and don't understand the seriousness of the situation. People also choose to be very naive about the situation. A visit to either presidential candidates website shows various goals, including reductions of fossil fuel emmisons; Obama claims a reduction of 80% by 2050, and McCain 60%. I would be surprised if either candidate reduces emissions by 5%. For years candidates have thrown out solutions and goals towards solving global warming and each year the situation gets worse. Also, there are those who think because 2050 is so far away the candidates are setting a realistic timeline. However i feel each candidate just wants to push the issue as far back as possible because by 2050 no one will look this far back and say either of these candidates failed if the goals were not accomplished.
My solution isn't necessarily a simple one. It will force industries perhaps into harder times by capping their emissions. However i feel too much effort is being put into keeping us one of the current dominant power and more effort needs to be put in keeping us stable for the long run.
Lately i've been pretty critical of the current environmental policies as well as possible future policies. However as a student in North Carolina i have been completely negligent of efforts being put forth on a local level. According to EnvironmentNorthCarolina, North Carolina is the third most vulnerable state to rising sea levels. So what exactly have politicians done to help in the fight against global warming?
EnvironmentNorthCarolina provides clear points of the numerous actions North Carolina has already taken to improve our environment. In 2002 the Clean Smokestacks Act was passed, requiring the dirtiest coal powered plants to reduce smog pollution by 70%. In 2004 a bill was passed which would make more clean energy cars available for consumers. In 2005 legislation was passed MTBE, a toxic gasoline additive. Norh Carolina has also dedicated 1%percent of its budget towards preserving ecosystems which could be gone if more isn't done to combat the climate change.
State representatives are also working vigourosly against global warming and offer hope in the fight to save our environment. EnvironmentNorthCarolina reports that 98% of the time Representative Heath Shuler voted to implement more eco-friendly initiatives. He voted on bills that would have created over 60,000 green jobs as well as saved North Carolinians 800 million dollars in energy costs. Shuler has managed to face tough opposition from Senior Senator Elizabeth Dole who according to EnvironmentNorthCarolina has offered big tax breaks for oil companies and has consistently voted against bills that could reduce North Carolinas dependence on oil. It's good to see a young politician like Shuler who hasn't been corrupted by the big industries and the lure of making a profit.
A cap-and-trade system appears to be the overwhelming favorite among the solutions to reduce our greenhouse emissions in America. However, not many fully understand whats entailed with a cap-and-trade system. In addition, Americas economic woes may leave many politicians reconsidering how we will solve our environmental troubles. What's not surprising is that we are not the only country which is dealing with environmental issues. Canada, our neighbor to the north is also trying to put forth an effort in reducing green house emmisions. In British Columbia there have been huge debates over whether a cap-and-trade system is truly the best solution.
The Vancouver Sun recently put out an article where two of the major parties in B.C. are in a major argument over the issue. The Liberals want to impliment a carbon tax and the New Democratic Party wants to see a cap-and-trade policy. Two different policies which look to provide similar results. What are they and which would work best considering our economic conditions?
A carbon tax is as simple as the name. With a carbon tax a tax would be placed on all fossil fuels. A carbon tax would encourage industries to search for alternative fuels while at the same time we would receive funds from those who continue to produce heavy emissions. Its a tax that would be easy to enforce and granted that no loopholes are involved would be very effective. On the other hand you have a cap-and-trade system. In this system the government implements a set limit on the amount of emmisions an industry is allowed to produce. If a company fails to maintain their emissions below the limit they will have to pay a cost similar to a fine. However in a cap-and-trade system a monetary value would be assigned per each tonne of emmision which would be known as permits. This would allow those who significantly reduce their emmisions to trade or sell away permits. Once again it encourages companies to reduce emissions, but the difference here is that there is a set limit so you're virtually guaranteed to reduce emmissions to a point that would be beneficial for the environment.
Personally I feel the best thing that can be done at the moment in the U.S. is to implement a carbon tax. Altough a cap-and-trade program would be ideal, now is not the right time to set limitations on already struggling industries. At Carbon Tax Center they point out flaws in having a carbon tax. For starters many industries would just pay the tax and avoid alternative fuels. Not to mention that most industries would most likely raise prices to make up the costs. The positive consequences however are that we would at least be setting a precedent towards moving away from fossil fuels and looking for incentives to use alternative eco-friendly fuels. Its a plan that would get us started in the right direction and would be a good compromise for all.
As I bring up my web browser, msn.com comes up and on their front page they are discussing how much money will be left in our economy for the environment. Most people by now are aware of the 70 billion dollar bailout plan which was recently passed. Although in the past three presidential debates moderators have asked the candidates what they intend to cut back on due to our economic woes, neither have given a straight answer. However one area that will most likely lose funding is environmental spending.
John McCain has promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions 60% by 2050, Obama is even bolder, promising an 80% reduction. It's very unlikely that we'll see those reductions if our economy continues to weaken. The most popular remedy for global warming as mentioned by msn is to have a cap-and-trade system. However placing limitations on industries would seriously hurt the possibility of any economic growth.
The obvious implication of delaying efforts to improve the conditions of the environment is that by 2050 many environmental goals will not be reached. As a result, many scientists are predicting Greenland as well as the west Artic will lose its ice sheets and thus we'll have a dangerous rise in sea levels. This would be detrimental to the habitats of many animals, plants and of course humans. The time to act is now and we need a leader who will recognize that althouhg the economy must come first, the environment is not something that can be tossed to the side.
Our banks were suffering great losses, so our government has stepped in to bail them out. 250 billion dollars will be put into banks to get them out of the hole they've put themselves into. With help from the Europeans a plan has been crafted which should help us avoid going into a recession or worse a depression. The banks won't be allowed to hold the billions, they will have to use it in a way intended to stimulate the economy. In other words, the U.S. has nationalized our banks, and the banks will be slightly regulated, its a very socialistic idea for a democratic country.
Our banks are being bailed out and recent news shows they're in need of dire help. Our stock markets have been dropping at a frightening rate. The DOW is well below 10,000 points and steadily dropping. By bailing the banks out of huge losses, the government hopes to regain the strength of the stock market while also profiting from this ordeal at some point. Of course Conservatives are heavily opposed to such a bill, but we've allowed bad investments to build up to a point where the only thing that could save us was to take a socialistic point of view at our economy.
This may be off topic, but what does this mean for our war overseas. We invade foreign territories and try to bring democracy to countries overseas as if its the best form of government. However our recent failure makes you wonder if we should be telling anyone else how they should run their country.
Over the past 200 years our nation has been utilizing harmful fuels as well as partaking in acts which have been detrimental to our natural environment. As a result our concentration of greenhouse gases has significantly increased and has begun leading our temperatures to increase to levels past necessary. Many scientists and researchers predict the effects of global warming in the coming years could be devastating. Ranging from an increase of extreme weather to the disruption of ecosystem, we’re travelling down a dangerous path yet it doesn’t seem like much is being done about it.
In the primaries, climate change was a prime issue along with health care, foreign affairs and the economy. Just a few months ago candidates were using energy policies to attack the opposing. We’re weeks away from elections and it seems both presidential candidates have tossed the idea of the environment as an issue to the side. Sure our economy is in turmoil and should be our focus, but when our economy is dealt with will climate change still be pushed to the side? Candidates have continued to heavily discuss energy, which one would think would give our climate good hopes. After all, if we change the energy we consume which is contributing to the problem, we could reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. However the situation is not as good as it seems. As these politicians craft many of their energy policies the climate is not their first priority. Energy is a major issue for the candidates because of the implications it could have on our economy. So what is being planned out for our climate?
Although the debates yield few answers on what the candidates have planned for our environment, their respective websites offer slightly more insight. In the Obama camp there is a huge focus on implementing an economy based cap and trade program. It’s a policy that some feel is the first thing that should be done to address the problem. In addition Obama would like to reconvene with the United Nations Framework Convention on global warming in hopes of making the U.S. leaders on climate change. On a more commercial level they look to increase the amount of hybrid cars on the road and focus on researching technology that would provide cleaner energy such as clean coal. The McCain camp doesn’t disagree too much with Obama’s in relation to climate change. He also looks to implement a cap and trade policy. McCain also recognizes this is a global issue and looks to work closely with foreign nations to deal with climate change. Not only would companies in our nation have incentives for reducing emissions, McCain would have incentives for countries like India and China as well.
The candidates each provide compelling solutions to a difficult problem. However their solutions contain flaws. Obama for example has stated he would like to see a mass production of clean coal which would help the environment. The idea of clean coal is an oxymoron. What’s worse is a report published by Greenpeace detailing the numerous problems of clean coal. Perhaps most noteworthy is that we’re not expected to have the technology to mass produce clean coal until 2030, by then global warming will have taken a dangerous toll on our environment. Over in McCain’s camp there is an insistence of looking to participate in offshore drilling. It’s understandable that he’s looking for a means to reduce our reliance on foreign fuels, however let’s do it in a more eco-friendly manner. Drilling would only provide a short fix to a difficult problem and he would be better off focusing on alternative energy that would not only reduce our dependence on foreign fuels but also would be better for the environment. In addition to this his running mate, who many are lauding as an energy expert has, managed to make a statement which does not go well with her policies. She stated on numerous occasions that the cause of global warming and climate change doesn’t really matter, instead we just need to fix the problem. In most cases, big or small, it is very difficult to come up with a solution for a problem if one doesn’t focus on what’s at the root of the problem. With that said with the issue of climate change I am a supporter of Obama. Although each candidate looks to have cap and trade policies, with Obama’s policy by 2050 U.S. emissions would be cutby 80% as opposed to McCain who is only looking to cut by 60% in that same time frame. Obama is also in opposition of offshore drilling and is slightly opposed to nuclear energy, two unsafe ideas being proposed by McCain. Lastly Obama is looking to raise fuel standards while McCain only looks to enforce current standards. Obama has a more clear cut plan that would be safer and looks to accomplish more in the future so it’s not hard to pick him as my preferred candidate.
Perhaps to further the success of his policies our future president could look into an untapped resource known as star-power. Since the Olympics China’s harmful emissions have been in the spotlight. It’s interesting because it takes an event like the Olympics for people to even take notice at such an issue. I wonder however if China would ever have even been called out if the Olympics weren’t being held in China, but in a place where the emissions would not affect the athletes. Our society can become very focused on a particular issue when some kind of celebrity status is attached. Al Gore and Leonardo Dicaprio are prime examples of the powers celebrities hold and maybe even a possible solution to the problem. With his film An Inconvenient Truth he got average movie goers out to see an educational documentary, the fact that his film became the fourth highest grossing documentary proves so. Countless celebrities have posed and spoken out for PETA and as a result we’ve seen drastic changes in animal care. If the same is done for climate change then perhaps the issue will be acted upon with more hast.
The time to act is now, it’s an issue which has been in discussion for years, and it’s time a leader came along that actually focused on change. I would like for my children to grow up in a safe environment where there aren’t numerous storms and extreme weather. Where ice caps still contain ice and polar bears continue to roam. Our generation may not suffer, but for once let us not be the selfish beings that we instinctively are and let us do something for our future generation. They didn’t cause the problem and they shouldn’t have to be the ones to deal with the repercussions.
I am a stern believer of global warming. However I won't ignore the opposition. To truly understand the situation one must look at both sides and examine if their argument is convincing enough. The American Policy Round Tablehas posted various reasons why global warming is a hypothesis which isn't true.
They present many valid points. First they point out the fact that 31,000 American scientists have signed an online petition who denounce global warming and wants the government to reject its global warming agreement written in Kyoto. The site argues temperatures in the lower troposphere have not changed and this is supposed to be the area which would show the most changes. Surprisingly, they also argue that global warming would be good for the environment. Temperatures in 800 AD were higher than the worst case scenario for current predictions of global warming, and Vikings in this period managed to inhabit inhospitable land because of the warmth.
These are there most convincing arguments for global warming and I find their arguments to be flawed. Just because you have numbers does not mean you have power. Although 31,000 American scientists may have signed a petition the National Academy of Sciences of the G8 nations have issued declarations since 2005 that global warming is happening. The site uses the lower troposphere in its argument, however they conveniently choose to completely ignore the melting polar ice caps. Furthermore they use Vikings who lived in 800 AD to support their argument. The site even points this as one of the strongest arguments against global warming. However the increased temperatures Vikings experienced came naturally, the increased temperatures our generation is seeing is man made and we're having trouble identifying the main cause. You can choose to believe either side, but be wise in your decision. The American Policy Round Table mentions we should do nothing about the environment unless it is makes sense economically. Perhaps their thinking more about money than anything and with an issue which such dangerous potential, money should not be on your mind.
Our generation is undergoing many changes which could have dire consequences for us in the future. The war, the economy, foreign affairs and education are all issues which should come to mind However an issue that always seems to get the short end of the stick is global warming. Sure everyone's heard of it and a little known politician released a documentary on the matter, but the issue still doesn't get nearly as much attention as issues like social security or foreign affairs. How is it that something that something which could potentially ruin our environment as we know it get so little airplay? Perhaps politicians have become so selfish that they no longer worry about our future or our children's future, and would rather let future generations deal with the repercussions.
Although I would label myself as a liberal, global warming should not be looked upon as a partisan issue. The presidential and vice presidential debates, as well as their respective websites have given me insight on what our potential leaders have planned and our future looks like a tossup. Surprisingly both Mccain and Obama plan to implement plans that would "punish" those who emit large levels of pollution while providing incentives for those who reduce emissions. Its a plausible solution that could lead to great reductions in our greenhouse emissions over the years. I am troubled however by comments made by Sarah Palin. Twice Palin has stated she doesn't care about whats causing the problem, she just wants to solve it. That's just ridiculous! Could you imagine walking into a doctors office with an ailment and not even being told what's wrong with you, he just give you some pills and a band-aid and hope for the best. They say don't fix what's not broken, our environment is broken and we need to address the cause in order to fix it.
There are many who have chosen to acknowledge global warming as a real existing issue that could have dire consequences. However there are many who choose to ignore it, joke about it or believe it's not real. There are many good arguments for the side against global warming. It's not the first time in our history that greenhouse emission levels have been so high so maybe scientists really are blowing things out of proportion. However, I would rather play things safe than sorry. Why gamble with something that has the potential to wipe out polar bears, produce extreme weather and melt our polar ice caps? That's only a short list of what could be ahead of us and hopefully politicians will soon begin to acknowledge the issue at hand. Even cartoons like Captain Planet have acknowledged the problem, there's no reason they should be making more sense than our potential leaders.
