313031

Global Warming In Class Essay

Global warming, an increase in the Earth's external temperature, is being blamed for numerous issues including massive natural disasters like hurricanes and droughts. These environmental changes are currently being looked at to come up with a balanced plan to decrease the time frame of global warming, since it's happening so quickly in comparison to previous years. Kind of awkward and wordy sounding However, leaders need to consider if people have enough money to take action, if it is morally correct, and if the action will be enough to make a difference. very difference viewpoint on your thesis ﻿ ﻿LAUREN FIX YOUR INTRO-hannah ﻿﻿this states the construction of the essay well Economic development tends to help environmental development, according to professor Lomborg at Cambridge University. is he a professor? He says, "only when we get sufficiently rich can we afford the relative luxury of caring about the environment" (Lomborg/D). This should make leaders re prioritize, because there is only so much money to be spent. If people spend all the money on ideas to lessen global warming, the "cost will always be ridiculously high" because there is no such thing as a "pollution- free environment" (Lomborg/D). People have more things to worry about right now than just fixing the environment, especially when there is no quick fix for global warming so any money spent on changing it would not be well invested. Instead of being an asset, the money spent on global warming is actually a liability because it requires more and more money as time goes on while producing little results. When money comes in to consideration, morals come in to the picture by default. Good supportive paragraph here. Good job on this paragraph!

When it is suggested that money is spent on changing the environment, the question that comes to mind is whether or not the action is ethically correct. It is wondered if the money is "better spent on alleviating current global human suffering" than to use "$8 trillion or 2% of the World's GDP" to reduce carbon dioxide and other green house gases (Maslin/E). Another pending argument is between humans and other animals. Due to global warming, birds migrate sooner which leaves them an "insufficient food supply" (Borenstein/F). If the money is spent on the environment, it saves animals and plans in the environment, but if the money is spent on alleviating hunger in third world countries, the environment suffers. These are both close questions to examine in regards to the amount of money being spent, but an even more pressing question is if the action will be enough to make any significant difference at all. it is unclear what POV you have here--are you supporting alleviating hunger or are you supporting reducing global warming for endagered animals? Yes, this paragraph is not strong, what is your point here?

Needs a better transition from previous paragraph to this paragraph. The Kyoto Protocol started in 2008, and although 148 countries ratified the treaty, the United States and Australia did not. Together, the United States and Australia "account for one-quarter of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions" (Kyoto Protocol/A), and by those two countries alone not entering the treaty, greenhouse-gas emissions are already guaranteed to not go down more than 3/4 even if every other country joins the treaty. Realistically, however, there is an extremely small chance that all of the other countries in the world will be part of this treaty, which leaves about 1/2, if that many, to the treaty to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions. It is suggested that the Kyoto Protocol "will do nothing to prevent global warming and is not significantly different from a business as usual situation," which is what many "developed countries" need to maintain a stable economy (Maslin/E). Assuming that no more than "half the developed world with no restrictions for the less developed world" follow the Kyoto Protocol, a 60% global cut is required to prevent major environmental changes (Maslin/E). Even with this significant cut, the emissions would only be relative to 1990, when the levels of emissions were between three and eight percent. Concluding sentence?

Before making any snap <--informal decisions, leaders need to understand what they are looking for and the consequences affiliated with the actions. Major issues such as how the money is spent, how much money is necessary and whether or not the economy can handle it, and if the actions taken will be enough to make a difference need to be considered as well. Last sentence in conclusion is slightly awkward...