816397

It is human instinct to prioritize (prioritize-kinda cliche/pop business talk. try rank) the present over the future. From their humble beginnings in the heart of Africa, people focused on how to survive day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute. Even today, when simple survival is no longer in the forefront of human concern in developed nations, this instinct is more prevalent than ever, as the world must now accept what former Vice President Al Gore coined, "An Inconvenient Truth." Global warming is a climactic catastrophe that humans alone created and humans alone have the capacity to solve; but it will not be easy. Don't change tenses so much, this sentence has present then future tense ﻿glad to see you're acknowledging that global warming is real, julia! sorry for being such a jerk about it on monday You did a really good job tying the human instinct to survive and long term/future, more abstract awards to global warming-- really interesting and perceptive way of looking at it!

Global warming is a complex issue and therefore, in making policies involving the environment, political leaders must recognize and prioritize economically-friendly and publicly accessible methods of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and preparing the Earth for future generations. Make sure the thesis introduces the body paragraphs- the order they're presented in should correspond to the body paragraphs Global warming is a legitimate concern with the potential to permanently devastate life on Earth and consequently should be a top priority of policy-makers everywhere. Over the last century, Earth's average surface temperature rose at "the fastest rate in any period over the last 1,000 years" (Source A). Introduce this argument with more background information Similar rises in ocean temperature have been recorded even in a smaller span from 1880-2004 (Source B). These unnatural and rapid temperature spikes in the Earth's crusts and oceans suggest not only human involvement, but that life on Earth will be dramatically impacted extremely soon if rises of such magnitude continue. In fact, some species are being harmed already. According to a 2005 study by Stanford University, "man-made global warming is clearly to blame" for rapid seasonal and environmental changes; and, as a result, "the global environment is changing so fast that the slow evolutionary process of species adaptation can't keep up" (Source F). Not only should politicians be concerned with the moral implications of wiping out entire species, but the future implications for humankind as well. Lest people forget, humans are living creatures as well, and in polluting the environment they put themselves in danger to a host of health hazards: extreme natural disasters, poor air quality, as well as famines and droughts.

While the threat of global warming should remain a chief concern, leaders cannot ignore the economic ramifications that accompany environmental reform. Over time, people "have grown to believe that [they] are faced with an inescapable choice between higher economic welfare and a greater environment" (Source D). In reducing emissions, oftentimes corporations must sacrifice production. Expand upon this However, the capitalistic interests that drive the world market rely on growth, not reduction, and hence, conflict arises. This conflict of interests can lead to a gridlock in policies affecting the economy and the environment, slowing progress in both areas. Politicians must strive to find a balance between the economy and the environment, especially now in light of the current global recession. Back up your argument more- the environment is important, so they should do more to reduce than they are By sponsoring and pursuing "fuel-saving technologies and renewable energy," governments will not only create new industry and new jobs, but will encourage "multinational companies...to cut CO2 emissions" (Source C). While a complete extreme one way or the other is simply unfeasible, compromise will enable people to preserve the environment while simultaneously protecting the high standard of living many have grown accustomed to.

Leaders ﻿can make the first step towards change? are the first step towards change, but nothing can be accomplished without public support. Governments must strive to educate the public and provide them with incentives to adopt environmentally-friendly habits and support "green" policies. Such policies are pointless unless they are effective (this part is a little redundant), and governments must therefore heavily invest in making change by educating and influencing the public. The question is not if global warming exists, but rather what humans can do to fix it. Good job addressing what public leaders shouldn't focus on. Since human behavior caused this problem, it is human responsibility to resolve it. Humans have pushed the limits of the Earth's resources and now the Earth is pushing back. -This sentence is unnecessary, doesn't help your argument People can no longer afford to "monkey around" with the planet and ironically must now push back their animalistic survival tendencies in order to save themselves and the planet from imminent destruction.

ADD ANALYSIS AND MAYBE THIRD BODY PARAGRAPH. OTHERWISE VERY WELL WRITTEN. IM ONLY WRITING IN CAPS B/C I DON'T FEEL LIKE CHANGING FONT COLOR, SORRY! :)

Quotes are well integrated, but need more development to be effective.

Aiiight, you need to indent or skip spaces because I can't tell where your paragraphs end and/or begin.