815031

Prioritization is integral to the problems in modern society. Compromises are made, but usually, especially when discussing immediate problems such as global warming, certain concerns must be addressed before others. Global warming, although an immediate threat to global ecosystems and life, cannot be given such an urgent response. The efficacy or current efforts are not worthwhile. The economy must be put ahead of the environment to ensure the greater well being of the future. The solution to global warming is not in the present, it is in the future. Many argue that the environment must be put ahead of the any other political or economic demands due to the immediacy of the problem; to some extent, their anxiety is credible. The report from __The Nature conservancy__ claims that "one-quarter of carbon dioxide is caused by deforestation" (source A). Deforestation is an act of man to supply goods needed to run the developing world and its impact on the environment is clear. But stopping this action would surely harm the economy worldwide. A graph of "change in Global Ocean surface Temperature from Baseline" also reinforces the detrimental effects of excess Co2 emissions, saying that within the past decade, temperatures have gone up. But there are other factors to consider, such as the natural shift in co2 concentration in the world. Before overreacting, other aspects of climate change must be considered. Although the global warming may be real, there is also evidence against it. Instead of debating and acting against global warming based on its immediacy, people need to back off and consider if urgent action would be truly worthwhile. Despite the awareness of a worldwide disaster, immediate efforts, if not taken, are not even guaranteed to be effective. The Kyoto Protocol has "34 industrialized nations legally bound to cut emissions" (Source C). But by simply cutting emissions, there will be no strong enough (not be a strong enough?) change to truly protect the environment. A report by Maslin Mark notes that "a 60% global cut is required to prevent major climactic change" (Source E). But the emissions cut failed to meet the 60% requirement by a longshot. The plan to cut emissions has only curbed emissions by 3-4%, making all the efforts and sacrifices of several nations worthless. And even by reducing emissions, there is still "The united States and Australia, which together account for one-quarter of the...emissions" (Source A.) This sets back efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions even more. Without major nations participating in the protocol, and other efforts being minimal, there is no justification behind prioritizing the environment. this concentrates a lot on environment, but does not really connect with the fact that economy should be put first. It is good to have these examples, but expand and connect it to your argument. What needs to be addressed, especially due to the recent recession, are the economic and moral issues of today. Maslin Mark has stated that successive Presidents have seen the kyoto protocol as a "direct threat to the U.S. economy and their chances of re-election" (Source E). If global efforts to curtail emissions have proven to be insignificant, the there is no reason that economic and political sacrifices should be made for the sake of environmental problems. In conjunction with the economic security of the world, leaders also need to consider how "the Third world develops" (source E). Instead of focusing mainly on current industrialized nations, the economic growth of third world countries also needs to monitored. By putting their economics first, the long term problems of increased emissions can also be dealt with with a stronger economy. The economic security of any nation is essential to the future. By putting the economy ahead, nations can maintain stability while gradually allotting more funds the worthwhile research and environmentally friendly technology. Any effort right now can be dismissed as futile. The more an economy suffers, the greater need there is to burn fossil fuels and cut down trees just to catch up. The economic and technological growth people invest in now are surely to have promising advancements in dealing with global warming.