Climate Change Policy Memo

Dr James Hansen’s argumentative essay, “A Solution to the Climate Problem,” discusses his premise that it is imperative for humankind to deal with carbon dioxide emissions, which he believes needs to be phased out by the mid-21st century. He begins with the current paradigm in government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and claims that so far it has been a lot of talk and action in the other direction. Dr Hansen argues that while governments pay lip service to agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, they are going full steam ahead with projects that will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, such as going forth with coal-fired power plants, coal-to-liquids, hydraulic fracturing, and tar sands oil extraction. Dr Hansen believes

An urgent issue, climate change is undoubtedly a sweeping global dilemma of paramount importance. Though most people are aware of this fact, many either choose to ignore it, or acknowledge it, but take no action against it. Those who do choose to take action usually attempt to combat climate change by using the methods that are most commonly discussed: becoming more energy efficient, recycling, and reducing emissions through using more sustainable transportation. Though these actions are helpful, they are not the most efficient way to counter climate change.

Majority of carbon dioxide is released from big corporate companies and once this policy is implemented, they’ll start to look for alternative, more green sources of energy. Secondly, initiative from citizens is important as well. When residents start supporting locally grown food, using fuel-efficient vehicles or taking the public transit, it drastically reduces our carbon footprint. Lastly, it’s important to commercialize green energy. Although there are many smart companies like Tesla or First Solar, they are not enough. Coal or coal-reliant technologies are prevalent in our communities and therefore, generate the most profit. Therefore, if green technologies become more accessible to the general public, it’ll lead to the growth of this

As a member of the National Rural Electric Company I am presenting to you the idea of cutting off the carbon dioxide limitations is not the brightest of decisions. It will change the world as we know it.

With a degree in Marine and Environmental Science, I intend to change America and bring us into an era of environmental revolution. I intend to research method through which climate change can be slowed, incite action nationwide with environmental lobbyists, and open the eyes of government administrators to the issue. If enough of America believes in, understands, and acts on climate change deterrence, prevention methods can be instated to protect the nation.

With our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the Clean Air Act” (Reagan,1980) and Reagans lack of policy regarding the environment while pushing for increased coal production seem to mirror his skepticism regarding the environmental issues of the time. The partisan nature of environmental policy spending can be shown most clearly when Reagan’s nonchalant approach to the environmental policy when they are compared to the new technologies that were put in to place during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. In an address to a joint session of congress in 1977, Carter outlined a national energy plan which included “We must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century” (Carter, 1977) and this included “In the long term, to develop renewable and essentially inexhaustible sources of energy for sustained economic growth” (Carter, 1977). This brings a different perspective to the policy changes that are now occurring in the government in a change from President Obama to President Trump. Just as Reagan followed Carter and the shift on environmental policy was moved from developing new technologies to returning to coal burning as a primary source of energy, the change from Obama’s policies to Trump’s may not be totally

Article 1: This article tells about President Obama vetoing Keystone Jobs Bill on grounds that approval of the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline would damage the U.S. effort to curb greenhouse gases. The article frames Obama as an environmental hero, quoting the president in saying, “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change… And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face — not acting.” The authors also cite Secretary of State John Kerry in saying “The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves.” The

Those were my three reasons on why laws should be made NOW on climate change. Sooner actions would help push other countries into agreeing on new laws.Passing a big national climate change law would be a good start.Congress should explore all its tools so it can find ways to appeal to all our leaders. Congress needs to act now on getting those climate change laws in place. You can help by walking or using public transportation instead of using a

If we don’t act now, all of humanity will suffer the consequences. Plants, weather patterns, humans, animals, the oceans, we all have everything to lose. Why not act now? Bernie Sanders doesn't listen to the fossil fuel lobby and neither should anyone else. Large energy companies have billions of dollars to advertise “Clean Coal” and lobby to imbecilic congressmen who were elected through gerrymandering and would rather eat a hundred dollar steak, or keep their seat in the House or Senate than do what their constituents sent them there to do. The evidence for climate change is riveting: sea level rise, temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme weather events, ocean acidification, and decreased snow cover. Today the level of carbon dioxide in the air is 400 parts per million meaning every million parts of the atmosphere we breath in is .04% carbon dioxide. Although four hundredths percent may not seem like very much, but carbon dioxide is a Green House Gas which means it can store and emit radiation. Green House Gases are also the reason for the Green House Effect which causes the Earth to heat up by the storing of radiation from the Sun’s rays in Green House Gases. Common green house gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Since 1880 Earth’s temperature has raised 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (“Climate Change: How do we know?”). In order for the Earth to not completely ruin our climate, we will all need to emit less than one trillion metric tons of carbon between now and 2050. Basically there is only enough space in our atmosphere to burn or vent less than a quarter of all known oil, natural gas and coal reserves

Conference Focus: Implement a new policy within five years to move into renewable energy, with a focus on solar power, while decreasing the use of fossil fuels. This policy will examine the barriers to implement new renewable energy technologies that will decrease the carbon dioxide emissions and identify ways to overcome these barriers through incentives, tax breaks, and attitudinal changes.

In contrast, some believe that renewable energy is a key factor involved in helping the economy to grow. Many jobs are created in the manufacturing and running of renewable energy plants. The renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies created 8.5 million new jobs and $970 billion in revenue in the year 2006 (Langwith, “Renewable Energy is Economically”). The American Solar Energy Society says by 2030 it could generate up to $4.5 trillion in revenue for the U.S and create 40 million new jobs. This would represent one in every four jobs (Langwith, “Renewable Energy is Economically”). This shows how vital it is to get renewable energy companies in the U.S. It is important to build a stable economy again and do it all while helping the environment.

They looked at two scenarios, inaction, where business’ continue finding and using carbon as they see fit, and action, where business’ use a low-carbon energy mix. They found that not only would the investment cost of the action scenario be no more than inaction, but it would even cost a bit less- 190.2 trillion dollars for action and 192 trillion dollars for inaction. This is before even considering the amount of money saved by the effects of the action scenario itself. The report found that, “the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion” (Business Insider). The effect of such a large economic company reporting this data is the perfect example of how using economics for the sake of reversing global warming can be really beneficial. The argument often used by economists is that becoming more sustainable would hurt the economy, but the data in this report proves just the opposite, and how terrible it would be if we did nothing. For the sake of investment in industry’s like coal and gas, this information is often denied. But this is not anywhere near the first time industry’s have had to adapt due to uncontrollable events. This report emphasizes the importance of recognizing

Did you know that the United States is the second largest contributor of CO2, and the less concerned about it? Climate change has been a problem for decades, but just recently we start to see how big of a problem climate change is, and can be. Climate change is one of the biggest problems that we are facing right now, even if keep trying to act like is nothing. Everybody, the people, the government, and big companies are a big contributor of this phenomenon. The more we keep denying its effects, the more we are going to regret it later, and going to wish that we could go back and try to fix the issue. You going to know one day, and its going to be late. Climate change should be the U.S government main focus this decade and the ones to come. Climate change can affect a country in every way economically, destroyed …., cause a lot of deaths.

When one encounters the concept and idea of global warming, we inquire a wide range of opinions, facts, assumptions, and philosophies. As the general population of the world, the idea

Although some believe that Global Warming has been created due to manmade pollutants, I believe that Global Warming is a natural process that has been accelerated due to the excess emissions of pollutants from nature and manmade devices into the atmosphere. The world has been said to be on a cycle of global warming and cooling, this process can neither be stopped nor prevented, but it can be accelerated with the addition of non-natural emissions from automobiles and factories; because this is a natural process, even if constraints were to be put on the amount of pollutants released into the air global warming could not be prevented—it could only be slowed. When the inevitable happens and global warming occurs, there are many