354871

(connect setence 1 and 2--> this will be a good lead in) Global warming is a serious problem. This is definitely not a good opening sentence. Start with more of a hook. But just how serious is debatable. The previous sentence is a sentence fragment; fix it. The next sentence is also an incomplete sentence. Clearly something must be done, but no one really knows what to do. When making policies that affect global warming, one must consider the effect on the economy, the impact on species of animals and the fact that this process will occur too slow for some people’s liking. Check your grammar. Go back and proof read this entire essay. I suggest reading it out loud because some parts sound very informal and you have a couple sentence fragments and run on sentences.

No matter the policy, the economy will be affected. The Kyoto Protocol reduced carbon emissions in countries and, to a certain extent, introduced a new market. Policies modeled after the Kyoto Protocol will be “bolstering the market for pollution-control gear” because it increases the “potential for fuel-saving technologies.”(Source C). This means jobs for some people who are currently unemployed as this new sector can prove to be promising. However, reducing carbon emissions will also mean losing the prominent oil-industry. Fossil fuels account for nearly three-quarters of carbon dioxide emissions and in order to make a policy that has significant impact, oil must eventually go.(Source A) While this will mean a momentary increase in unemployment, it is a necessary step in ensuring that the environment of our generation passes on to the next. In fact, the ideal policy would cut fossil fuels slowly so that there is time to start the new industries (windmills, etc) and also time for people to start removing themselves from the oil-based mindset. Clearly renewable energy is the way of the future, so why delay something that can be so beneficial? You are not supposed to be making the argument that the economy will be impacted; add in more about the fact that policy makers need to consider the effect on the economy. This reads more like an essay arguing that global warming exists, not any essay taking a stance on key issues to be considered when leaders make policies regarding it. Also, analyze quotes. Don't simply reword them/define them.

Another issue to consider is the impact a policy will have on humans as well as animals. The predicted rise of sea level over the next century is about one meter. Changes in weather are also predicted as well as extreme climate elements. (Source E) Water based cities like Venice will slowly start to disappear and people might have no place to go. Climate changes will change the course of migratory birds that depend on the weather to know when and where they have to fly. If wind patterns change, animals will be mixed up and probably will freeze to death because they won’t know to fly south at the right time. Indeed the environment is “changing so fast that the slow evolutionary process…can’t keep up.”(Source F). Taking all these factors into account, an ideal policy would be one that acts quickly enough to prevent mass mayhem while at the same time keeping a steady and easy to follow pace.

Unfortunately, there is one other fact to consider and it is perhaps the most important of them all. Policy makers MUST keep in mind that any changes will occur slowly; there is no overnight cure. It took hundreds of years for the environment to become what it is today and it will take hundreds of years for it to go back to the way it was. This is not to say that one should five up, far from it. As a society we must not look too much on immediate gratification, but rather at the long term benefits. Unfortunately, there is no way to “ensure that the Third World develops as rapidly as possible, while preventing a massive explosion in the production of CO2”(Source E) because it’s trying too hard to do the impossible. If the priority was the environment (which it should be) then we must accept the fact that there will be some countries that will lag behind. There will always be opposition yet it is important to keep in mind that the environment is the greater good. The ideal policy would introduce pollution-reducing technologies to Third World countries so that they will never have to go through the oil-dependent phase. while you really do need to go back through this essay and overhaul your grammer in some areas, the arguments that you have really good!

To conclude, leaders must take into account the economy, the impact on humans and animals, as well as the slow recovering progress. The ideal policy will be slow enough to allow economic readjustment but be quick enough to allow minimum impact on animals and humans. It must also introduce readily available technology to Third World countries. Impossible? Could be, but only because we make it so. After all, is it too much to ask that we give back to something that gave us so much in the beginning?