814615

Global warming is a worldwide issue that leaders must recognize as a problem that will only escalate as time goes by. This generation must take action to prevent the increase in Earth's temperatures to preserve the world's natural resources. The United States must create an agreement similar to the Kyoto protocol and put a tax on machines and factories that produce an excessive amount of greenhouse gases. This seems a bit choppy and too direct. There some be more backgroud information and a better transition to the thesis.   ﻿void the last edit on account of it having bad grammar.

"The United States and Australia, which together account for one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, did not [ratify the Kyoto protocol]" (source A). The US, as a world power, must follow the trend of conservation and eco-friendliness. The country is already falling behind in technology and education (is it? explain how abstaining from the kyoto protocol hinders education and tech development ; to save face it must redeem itself environmentally. How will this compensate for technological and educationional faults? The refusal to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions confirms the view many nations have of the US as being selfish and greedy for profit. By creating something like the Kyoto protocol, the US will prove that it is open to change and willing to cooperate with the efforts of other countries to save the environment. Another benefit of this action is the creation of millions of jobs in industries that will develop to cater to a green nation. According to the business section of one weekly news magazine, good legit sounding sorce "The potential for fuel-saving technologies and renewable energy is getting more compelling," (Source C). Already more people are switching to hybrids to save on gas. A mandate concerning CO2 emissions will promote a huge surge of purchases of fuel-efficient cars, creating many new jobs for the US citizens who desperately need them in this time of recession. Tie your two main points together before moving on to the next central argument

This industrial boom will also occur as a result of taxes on CO2 emission. If such a tax is created, "multinational companies will have to cut CO2 emissions or pay to pollute," (source C). Another incentive to create this tax is the shocking fact that "the global environment is changing so fast that the slow evolutionary process of species adaptation can't keep up" (source F). Many species that reside exclusively in the US may die out if carbon emissions continue to damage the environment. It is the government's responsibility to conserve the country's wildlife and ecologic diversity. By creating a tax on emissions, they will take care of two problems; the amount of CO2 emitted, and the cost of caring for the endangered animals.

Bjorn Lomborg in __The Skeptical Environmentalist__ says that minimizing pollution is not a priority. He believes that "our money, effort, and time is better spent solving other problems" (source D). Lomborg does not realize that if global warming is not taken care of now, it will become a more severe and costly problem in the future. If steps are taken to cut back on greenhouse gases, the country will gradually invest money in the problem over many years, rather than having to invest billions in it when the issue becomes too severe to ignore. This counterargument is good but should be better related to the proposals in the previous body paragraphs.

Also, many say much of the effort so far to curb emissions is useless. (source E) That i a strong point that should be argued against.

The creation of an American Kyoto protocol combined with taxes on CO2 emissions will ensure that the problem of global warming is taken care of before it starts to wreak havoc on the environment. A few simple steps will guard the US against future loss of American money, and create jobs for those who need work. The supervision of greenhouse gases will make the US the economically stable, respected nation it used to be.