795387

A recent controversial issue that has affected the world as a whole is global warming. With the world living ** (this doesn ﻿' t really flow ﻿ ) ** ﻿ in the industrial era, factories have been creating an extreme amount of CO2 gases causing the ozone layer to diminish. With the ozone layer diminishing, the world has noticed changes in temperature, sea level, and much more. Noticing the changes, Japan decided to create a world-wide treaty called the Kroto Protocal; which states that each country that signs this protocal will have to reduce there CO2 gas emission below there 1990 levels over a five year period, begining in 2008 (A). Although several countries have signed the treaty, large manufacturing countries like China and the United States rejected the treaty, and refused to sign it. The Kyoto Protocal is not a solution to global warming, but in fact it would cause serious problems if the entire world had to follow these measures. **You kind-of change your position throughout this paragraph. You begin by talking about the negative effects of global warming, then discuss how the kyoto protocal would reduce co2 emissions, but then you say this is not a good thing and don** ** ﻿' ** **t really explain why.** ﻿The above paragraph is neither a complete introductory paragraph nor a proper body paragraph to answer the prompt. The prompt asked for key issues that leaders should consider when making policies regarding global warming, and this reads more like part of an essay just about the issue global warming itself. A lot of people did that, though, so don't feel bad!

The Kyoto Protocal is a good idea to the solution of global warming, but the Kyoto Protocal is not realsitic to large manufacturing countries who produce large amounts of CO2 gasses. The Kyoto Protocal stated that each country needed to "reduce their green-house gas emisions to below 1990 levels" (A). Small manufacturing countries wouuld gladly sign this treaty because it will not cause them to significantly change their way of life. On the other hand, large manufacturing countries like China, would have to cut there emissions by "over a third" to follow the Kyoto Protocal (E). Cutting emmision by more than 30% would mean shutting down more than 30% of the factories ** (this is not true, factories don ﻿﻿ **** ﻿' **** t necessarily need to shut down because of reduced co2 emissions, and even if they did it would not be to that great of a percent) **, causing several workers to be laid off. Economically, this would cause "a direct threat to there economy" (E). With a sudden economic downdfall, this could lead to riots and possible civil wars. A sudden drop in a large countries economy would do more harm than good and the countries living off of there goods. ** Check your facts ﻿ ** This paragraph is a good explanation of the Kyoto Protocol, but it does not state why this is something leaders should consider when making policies regarding global warming (it doesn't even mention the leaders making policies).

Although every country would like to live in perfect eco-friendly enviorment, it is not as simple as it may seem. The reason this is unfulfillable is because "the cost of getting rid of the last bits of pollution would be ridiculously high"(D). Bjorn Lomborg, author of the novel, __The skeptical enviormentalist: Measuring the Real State of the Ward__, compares cleaning the planet to cleaning dishes. He states that " we do the dishes not to get them clean but to dilute the dirt to an acceptable degree" (D). Although some people may spend their lives getting rid of those last specks of dirt, most people would "prioritize and choose to live with some specks" (D). So, if people applied the same concept of washing dishes to washing plates, they would see that pollution is something that we will continually see in the future. So, to compromise, Lomborg stated that "we have to find a level at which there is sufficiently little pollution, such that our money, effort and time is better spent solving other problems" (D). For Large countries like the US who have opted out from the Kyoto Protocal; this does not mean they are just sitting around. In the US, "more than 160 mayors have pledged to curb the guidelines of the kyoto protocal" (F). Instead of destroying there economy all at once, the countries like the US should prioritized themselves to create a better solution for there countries enviorment. ** This body paragraph is better, but it still needs more analysis ﻿ ** I agree that you need to work more on analyzing. Also, this still does not really answer the prompt.

Overall, the world should be aware of what is happening to the enviorment they are living in. Countries that have signed the Ktoto protocal are doing their part in helping the world and for those that haven't, they are slowly progressing to a better enviorment. Large contries do not need the Kyoto Protocal to tell them what is right and what is wrong in fixing the ozone layer, but large countries should be prioritize what they need to do to fix the enviorment. As long as each country is doing their part, the world will eventually be a cleaner place to live. This isn't a bad essay, but it does not seem to me that it answers the prompt (which asks you to take a stance on what key issues leaders should consider when making policies regarding global warming). I think this could be fixed fairly easily if you just went back through it and added bits here and there which mentioned the leaders who are making policies.