910140

Global Warming : Essay

Global warming has been blamed for a host of recent worldwide issues. As global leaders scramble to brainstorm ways to curtail global warming’s environmental effects, the world around us seems to be slowly disintegrating. Polar ice caps melt, sea levels rise, and global temperatures have risen and led to irregular weather patterns globally. But policies that help the environment may hinder other important aspects of life. While protecting the environment is imperative, leaders should consider a policies effect on the people and economy, and its pragmatism. This is a good first paragraph, it flows smoothley and has a clear thesis ﻿You have a good introductory paragraph and the thesis shows a specific argument your trying to make

Since do not say since global warming is a direct outcome of maltreatment of the earth, it only seems fit that we would seek to protect it. Great intro to a new paragraph. It being the root of our problems, policies like the Kyoto Protocol which seek to reduce global warming are seemingly obvious solutions. In 2005, the protocol was set into action, “requiring participating countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions …over a five year period” (A). The atmosphere has a natural supply of these gases which capture heat and keep the earth’s surface warm enough for us to live on. But in the past century, the amount of green house gases emitted from the earth’s surface has skyrocketed, acting as a partial cause of global warming. Agreements like the Kyoto Protocol seek to help countries diminish their green-house gas emission. However, the United States did not agree to sign the protocol. Regardless, in 2005 “18 states…[had] set requirements or goals for renewable energy ” and “more than 160 mayors [had] pledged to curb their greenhouse gasses in their cities according the guideline of the Kyoto protocol” (C). Clearly, even left to their own prerogative, citizens choose to cut greenhouse gas emission. This paragraph is good, it has a good amount of sources and quotes them well and in a good fluid way Ideally, such protocols reduce the effects of global warming by limiting the causing factors. But the Kyoto treaty only calls for countries to cut “3-8%” of greenhouse gas emissions, while “scientists have suggested up to a 60% cut is required to prevent major climactic change” (E). This utopist ideology comes with a price; “8 trillion, or 2% of the worlds’ GDP” (E) to be exact. This money could be better spent on things such as helping third world-countries rebuild themselves, or saving the victims of a natural disaster. Scientists have “very little doubt that global warming will change our climate in the next century” (E), and knowledge that global temperatures have risen only about 1% over the past century. That means the effect on the economy outweighs the effect of rising global temperatures. Global leaders need to take the crashing economy into consideration before requiring irrelevant changes to greenhouse gas emission. It is these irrelevant changes that raise the question of pragmatism. How realistic are the requirements? If scientists say we need a 60% global cut of green-house gas emissions to make a significant change, what is the point a protocol that only reduces 8%? The 8% decrease is already a large portion to extinguish. It is unrealistic to require a 60% global cut, especially when scientists doubt global warming is even greatly affecting our climate. Bjom Lombory compares the having a pollution free environment to “a country with no disease” (D). Obviously, every country would like to rid themselves of disease, but it’s not a possibility. Which is precisely the point he makes about a pollution free economy; it’s impossible! Equipping every family with a hybrid car or requiring homes to install solar panels is too expensive and many families wouldn’t even want them. Scientists know that if everyone was a vegetarian for one day, we would save enough energy globally as turning off all lights for a week. However, there is no way any leader is going to be able to get enough people to become vegetarians to an impact. While global warming policies often have the best intentions, they are often not realistic or performable. REALLY like your use of data, it makes your argument much more convincing because logic appeals to most peope strongly The real change comes with education. Just last year, Wootton highschool YEAH WOOTTON conducted a program which informed all of it’s students about the adverse effects of global warming. They did this by teaching us do not say us, it is informal in terms of our chipotle burrito, something we all can relate to. By teaching us in terms of something we understand, and supplying each of us with a re-usable water bottle, Wootton helped global warming by issuing a realistic policy. I like that you included Wootton which is a great support. Leader’s should not be saying they’re going to fix global warming by not allowing countries to emit fossil fuels. Instead, they should be focusing on their policy’s effect on the people and economy, and how realistic it is! i like your positive ending which leaves the reader with a good feeling!