814591

Ever since the idea of global warming has emerged, people have been discussing whether or not it is a legitimate issue. Most policy makers have concluded that global warming is in fact a real-life issue, and they now have to prioritize their policy-making agendas, based on their own opinions as well as science.

Although people debate as to whether or not global warming is man-made, or just a natural heating of the earth, most have agreed that the earth's temperature is increasing. A graph compiled from government data shows an upward trend in the earth's ocean surface temperature. Even though there are multiple dips in the temperature in one year, it spikes back up in the next year. The temperature has sharp increases and decreases, but the general trend in the temperature is steadily increasing, from around -1.2 degrees Fahrenheit in 1910, to 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit in 2004 (B). The graph provides reliable evidence that the earth's ocean surface temperature is increasing. Also, the world's average surface temperature has risen about one degree Fahrenheit over the past 1000 years (A). The fact that the earth's temperature is increasing is not disputed. Many of the global warming debates are about what policymakers should do about the problem.

To policymakers, staying in office and being re-elected is extremely important. Therefore, they want to implement policies that do not badly hurt the economy. The economy is very important in deciding how to attack the global warming issue. For example, the United States did not sign the Kyoto Protocol because the nation's carbon dioxide emissions are extremely high. If the United States had agreed to the conditions in the Protocol, the country would have had to "cut [its] emissions by over a third" (E). Cutting emissions in such a dramatic manner would have negatively impacted the United States' economy, so the nation did not sign the Protocol. Policymakers have to think about how helping prevent global warming can effect the economy. However, most policymakers are only thinking about the present economy. If changers were made to the economy because of global warming, the nation could probably survive the economic effects. Politicians should place their focus more on the future than the present. Yes, perhaps the economy will suffer in the present because of the environmental changes, but in the end it will help the environment. It is better to have a cleaner future and a difficult current economy than to have a prospering current economy and and dreadfully polluted future environment. The policymakers must prioritize their decisions, knowing that the environment and the economy will both never be completely perfect (D).

Policymakers should also focus their decisions on what is best for the environment. One way that would be beneficial for the environment is to use renewable energy sources, especially now that oil and gas prices have greatly increased. Policymakers should recognize that renewable energy sources can help not only the environment but the economy as well. Indeed, some states have already implemented "requirements or goals for renewable energy" use (C). These decisions greatly help the environment; instead of burning fossil fuels, states use renewable energy such as solar energy. If policymakers require companies to be more environment conscious, they can also help the economy. Policymakers can require companies to cut their emission rates, or they will have to "pay to pollute" (C). A large number of companies would reduce their emissions, which would help the environment, and other companies would choose to pay the fine instead of cutting emissions, which would help the economy.

Policymakers have quite a lot of issues to consider when deciding what to do about global warming affects, and prioritizing the economy an environment are both important for them to consider.