816182

Global Warming has been increasingly apparent and is without a doubt an important global issue. Legislation regarding Global Warming has an effect, either good or bad, on everything we do. This is why leaders need to be informed about Global Warming and must take economic, political, and moral issues into account when they create policies regarding Global Warming. Environmental almost always policies always have an effect on the state of the economy. Often times these police can have a positive impact on the economy by introducing new markets. Legislation reducing carbon emissions could potentially create a “bolstering [in] the market for pollution control gear” (source C). New “green” markets could spur economic growth, creating jobs and spurring innovation in the area of renewable energy. Innovation in renewable energy “is also getting more compelling as oil and gas prices reach record highs” (Source C). The creation of a reasonable renewable energy source could be extremely helpful to the economy because it would make trade less expensive and would allow energy independence that would keep a substantial amount of money in the country’s borders. Despite these economic benefits of environmental legislation it is clear that it is “only when we get sufficiently rich that we can afford the relative luxury of caring about the environment” (Source D). It costs money and resources to reduce carbon emissions, which may be dangerous in an unstable economy. If global warming policies are enacted they must be done the correct way and must take the state of the global economy into account. Political factors should also be taken into account when leaders make global warming legislation. The Kyoto Protocol is an example of how global warming can affect global politics. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty that agrees to cut carbon-emissions. In 2005, “one hundred forty-one countries ratified the Kyoto Protocol”, excluding the United States (Source A). The United States decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol essentially shows it’s lack of interest on tackling the global warming issue. This creates a negative global image for the United States, which is typically a global leader eager to tackle all international issues. Agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol could be a potential boost to the global image of the United States. Accordance with the Kyoto Protocol could also be beneficial to politicians eager to please their constituents. In fact, as of 2005 “more than 160 mayors have pledged to curb greenhouse gases in their cities according to the guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol.”(Source C). Going “green” could be a means to boost popularity and could increase votes in the ballot box. However, environmental legislation is often harmful to the economy. Because of this, “many presidents have seen [this issue] as a direct threat to the US economy and their chances of re-election”(Source E). Green legislation could have political benefits both internally and externally, but it also entails risky political maneuvers. There is also a great deal of moral issues at play on global warming policies. Carbon emissions clearly have a negative impact on are world and it would be the right thing to do to go green. Due to global warming “mother nature has rushed spring forward nearly 10 days” which could cause “early blossoming flowers such as the columbine –{to} be wiped out by spring snowstorms” (Source F). If we do nothing about global warming, are we really willing to live with the moral consequences? However carbon emission legislation can be harmful to the economy and could slow the development of poor countries and create a larger proletariat. With this legislation “how do we ensure the third-world develops as rapidly as possible?”[Source E]. Sacrifices have to be made but should we spend our money to “protect future generations [or] on alleviating current global human suffering?”(Source E). Ultimately moral consequences must be weighed on when green legislation is made. Before policies regarding carbon-emissions are passed, the economic, political, and moral consequences must be determined to make the right decision. Noting good can come without sacrifice, but our our policy-makers must know how much is being sacrificed before they enact anything