United States: Global Warming and its Effects
Moreover, we cannot overlook the actual White House administration’s stance on global warming. President Trump has confirmed all pro-environmentalist’s fears. He has back out of the Paris agreement and pointed an avid opponent of global warming as the new head of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Samet, Jonathan M., and Alistair Woodward argue in their article that, The present administration, comfortable with alternative facts, whatever gap there may be between what is claimed and what is true, is feeding the anti-science agenda and appointing decision-makers who do not consider scientic evidence as holding primacy. Notably, the veracity of human-made climate change and the need for action has become politicized and linked to positions of US political parties, stereotypically the Democratic Party being the action-oriented believers and the Republican Party being the business-as-usual doubters. The Republican Party’s stance its well with the positions of some of its key supporters from the fossil fuel and chemical industries. Such political polarization of science is unfortunate and with regard to climate change quite recent.? (Samet, Jonathan M., and Alistair Woodward.)
As a matter of fact, the U.S chamber of commerce, backed by its Washington lobbyists has furiously opposed the American Energy Clean Act. Its main aim was to remove or weaken this very important piece of legislation that provided a crucial legal barrier against big U.S polluters. The article Stop Climate Denial by Big Business? argues that, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a lobbying and legal organization representing thousands of large and small businesses across the nation, has taken an aggressive, anti-science stance on the pressing issue of climate change. It has actively opposed any meaningful climate legislation in Congress, including the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House of Representatives this summer, and has sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for moving forward with its plan to regulate global warming pollution as a public health threat. In calling on the EPA to hold public hearings for the purpose of debating climate change, the Chamber claimed the need for a new Scopes trial (the infamous evolution case of 1925). These actions have led several major corporations to leave the group, including Apple, Microsoft, and energy companies Exelon and PG&E, all citing irreconcilable differences between the Chamber’s regressive actions and their own view that global warming must be addressed. Ford Motor Company should be the next to leave. Ford has stated its support for the national clean car standards announced earlier this year. It is also expected to drop its participation in lawsuits intended to block efforts by individual states to set their own clean car standards prior to 2016”standards the Chamber is itself suing to block.? (Stop Climate Denial by Big Business.) We have to be aware also that in the U.S, skeptical media paid by big business (polluters) is playing a critical role in minimizing the global warming effect. Consequently, the article of Reconciling controversies about the global warming hiatus, argues that, In a time coinciding with high-level political negotiations on preventing climate change, skeptical media and politicians were using the apparent lack of warming to downplay the importance of climate change. (Medhaug, Iselin, et al.)
Our writers can help you with any type of essay. For any subjectGet your price
How it works
This has caused some people in the scientific community to question the reliability of the overwhelming scientific evidence and its real impact on the planet. According to the article of Conflict about Climate Change at the American Meteorological Society, it is argued that, Regarding the conflict about climate change, members of both groups within AMS”the Convinced? and the Unconvinced” see different actions as appropriate, based on how they perceive the weight of scientific evidence. The Convinced see the weight of evidence leaning in favor of substantial human causation. Accordingly, many of the Convinced see it as unproductive to have AMS members in conflict over this evidence in a way that might send an inaccurate message to the public. On the other hand, because unconvinced respondents see the science as not settled, many of them see actions to marginalize the influence of dissenting voices as unfair and antiscientific. (STENHOUSE, NEIL1, [email protected], et al.) Having said all of that, we must all participate in initiating and implementing practical, innovative and efficient solutions to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint, in order to slow down the rising pace of global warming. Shane Ralston talks in his article about possible actions that we could take to address global warming, he argues that, Proposed geoengineering projects vary widely across at least three dimensions: design, scope, and potential consequences. Here is a sampling of those that have been seriously considered and a brief, though by no means comprehensive, account of each:
- Solar shields: One possible approach is to launch satellites or solar shields into orbit armed with moveable reflective plates. The result, as some computer models suggest, could be an 8 percent reduction in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface (Robock, 2008, p. 15; Victor et al., 2009, pp. 68“69).
- Carbon sequestration: One proposal is to capture and store carbon dioxide deep underground, miles under the surface of the Earth, so that the warming effect of this pollution is effectively removed (Robock, 2008, pp. 14“15).Artful and Ethical Solution to Global Warming 823
- Ocean fertilization: Sometimes called the Geritol cure, this project would involve depositing iron fllings in the ocean as a way to encourage the growth of phytoplankton, which in turn serve as a virtual carbon sink (Coale, 1996).
- Engineered weathering: Scientists propose to substitute hydrochloric acid for carbonic acid in the oceans, which would in theory speed up the process by which carbon dioxide is absorbed and stored in these water bodies.
- Stratospheric chemical injection: Proposed by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen (2006) and respected climatologist Tom Wigley (2006), this response requires that sulfate aerosols be sent into the second major layer of the Earth’s atmosphere, the stratosphere, in order to re?¬‚ect sunlight and cool the Earth’s surface.
- Launch reflective discs or particles into orbit: Sometimes referred to as the sunscreen proposal, this project involves placing dust particles or even compact discs into the Earth’s orbit in order to re?¬‚ect solar radiation and cool the Earth’s surface. The Pinatubo Effect? alludes to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, which had the same effect (Michaelson, 1998, p. 76; Robock, 2008, p. 14).
- Planting forests: Since deforestation removes a major carbon sink, reforesting the planet’s surface with trees would have the effect of removing carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere (Fearnside, 1999).
- Painting rooftops white: Though the most widely frowned upon, painting the rooftops of building white would re?¬‚ect some of the sunlight back into the atmosphere and result in a small, though still valuable, reduction in atmospheric temperatures (Cool Roofs and Title 24,? 2009).? (Ralston, Shane J.)
One of the other possible solutions to reduce our fossil- fuel input is to adopt a new organic agricultural strategy in the U.S. According to J. LaSalle, The article discusses the application of organic farming as a solution to global warming. Based on the research conducted by Rodale Institute, organic farming favors soil health, one of the most effective strategies for mitigating and adapting to global warming. Organic farming decreases fossil-fuel based inputs and expands the amount of carbon dioxide stored as soil carbon. Moreover, carbon sequestration protects the atmosphere by maintaining farming productivity and viability. (LaSalle, J.) Another possibility is to use technologically enhanced bio-refineries to reduce oil based pollution footprint. This article argues that, This work aims at side-by-side comparing different rice husk-to-fuel conversion technologies in terms of technical and economic efficiency and environmental burdens to provide indications on the sustainability of such biorefineries. Three different possible rice husk conversion technologies using (1) hydrothermal carbonization and pelletization, (2) catalytic pyrolysis and (3) anaerobic co-digestion were evaluated using TE and LCA to identify the most cost-effective, impactful processes. The materials and energy flows involved in these three processes and the subsequent combustion of their products for energy production were analyzed. Cost and environmental footprints relating to production process were compared. The relative economy and environmental performance from comparative TE/LCA analyses could provide guidance as a decision making tool for selecting the production process meeting bioeconomy and climate change mitigation requirements. This work also provided TE/LCA platform for different biomass feedstocks to fuel to meet the renewable energy standards of economically viable and environmentally sustainable.? (Unrean, Pornkamol1, [email protected] t., et al.)
We could also use a technology that can trap carbo dioxide and stops it from being released into the atmosphere. Chris Emery claims that, The article reports on a study which shows that greenhouse gas escape may be prevented by pumping carbon dioxide below petroleum reservoirs in the U.S. It states that carbon capture and storage has been suggested as one of the possible techniques of decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. An overview on how the new technology works in removing the residual carbon dioxide is offered.? (Emery, Chris.) Nowadays, environment scientists are concluding that climate change cannot be only one country’s problem, but due to aggravated pollution factors; it has become a world problem. However, we are still seeing a big divergence among industrialized countries when it comes to dealing with the proponent of global warming effects. It is argued that, Dutch nature protection organizations frequently collaborate with the government in acquiring and managing protected areas, receive substantial subsidies, and cooperate with the government in projects abroad. Major decisions concerning nature protection are often preceded by formal or informal consultations with major environmental organizations. The US system, by contrast, places environmental groups, which receive almost no government funds, in the role of outsiders attempting to influence politics and policy (Dowie 1995; Bosso 2005). A second key aspect of the political opportunity structure is public opinion about climate change and the influence of forces claiming it is not a significant problem. In contrast to Germany and the Netherlands, powerful interest groups and think tanks in the United States continue to argue vociferously that climate change is a hoax or grossly exaggerated. This viewpoint is also well represented in the media and in statements by some politicians and corporations. Partly as a result, public opinion about climate change remains much more divided in the United States (Boykoff 2007; Dunlap and McCright 2008, 2010; Brechin 2010). (William T. Markham, and C. S. A. (Kris) van Koppen.)
According to the article about the Rebound policy in the Paris Agreement: instrument comparison and climate-club revenue offsets, It is argued that without an international climate treaty, or with a soft treaty in the form of voluntary pledges, well-intended local and national climate strategies will seriously rebound in terms of energy use and CO2emissions. I unravel the complexity of rebound in an international context, for which purpose the distinction between national and international rebound is introduced. The main climate“energy strategies and policies are assessed based on their capacity to control rebound, with carbon pricing especially cap-and-trade appearing to be the best approach. It is argued that motivations for further negotiations on amendments to the recent Paris climate agreement, namely on national policy coordination, can be strengthened by rebound concerns. (Van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M.)
In conclusion, I must admit the battle for curbing the effects of global warming is one that must be won. For that to happen, people need to use every pacific mean possible to their government officials to push for radical environmental policy change. Humanity cannot afford to have political leaders out there that do not believe in modern science or the scientific method or empirical truths. Upcoming generation’s survival on this earth cannot afford to waste time having people in power that choose to believe in the two percent of the scientific community that is bought off by lobbyists and big polluters. To many, political lobbying is a way to advance special interests at the expense of the greater good. So when it comes to lobbying on climate change, the prevailing public view is that most firms lobby against climate regulations, such as those aiming to curb carbon emissions because greater regulation threatens industry. It is not hard to see why this might be. In fact, there is so much evidence in just the enormous amounts spent on lobbying around this issue. Nonetheless, climate change and global warming is a proven scientific fact. Melting ice caps is a fact! Greedy companies and their powerful lobbyists are a fact! People not paying attention and not trying to do even the simplest things they can in their own homes to reduce their carbon footprint is a fact! Destruction of our Forest is a fact! Fishing industry having less and less is a fact! Recurring global natural disasters, rising sea levels, and temperatures are a fact! And, the destruction list of this planet is facts upon facts! One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see what is happening all around us.
Even the hardest skeptics are having more and more problems claiming otherwise. These are some of the tragic examples happening all around the globe today, which should give all citizens of this world a sense of urgency, and make them solicit immediate steps and actions to begin reducing their overwhelming pollution footprint. Introducing a carbon tax and swaying a capitalist economy to try to invest in renewables, could be another to way to reduce pollution levels by bringing less money and subsidies out of oil companies and finding new ways to invest in clean energy, which has already shown promising results. Finally, I really believe that this is only the beginning of what could be more devastating and critical for humanity’s survival if the US government leaders and all the rest of the world leaders do not take immediate actions to stop the ever-growing emissions of harmful gases from heavy polluters and attempt to reverse global warming to acceptable levels, so that we can all protect the earth from certain destruction and death.