Garbage Collection And The Waste Of Garbage

Climate change poses a serious threat to Earth and its inhabitants. There is now substantial evidence that human activity is causing global warming because of our large emissions of greenhouse gases. For instance, atmospheric carbon dioxide currently measures at three hundred and ninety seven parts per million, which is the highest it has been for at least the past one million years (National Research Council of the National Academies). Also, scientific data shows that Earth’s average surface temperature has increased more than 1.7 Fahrenheit over the past one hundred years (National Research Council of the National Academies). The evidence is unequivocal that our activities are the main culprit to the disruption of the climate system. In 2013, the top four emitters of carbon dioxide totaled to fifty-eight percent of entire global emissions (Loiseau). Among these four, China is the largest, accounting for twenty-eight percent (Loiseau). The United States accounted for fourteen percent; The EU accounted for ten percent; And India accounted for seven percent (Loiseau). Specifically, China’s total annual carbon dioxide emissions amounted to a massive 8.3 billion metric tons while the United States emitted 5.4 billion metric tons annually (Loiseau). India followed China and the United States with just over 2 billion metric tons emitted annually (Loiseau). This data could, however, be somewhat misleading. For example, even though China does emit the most, it only emits 6.2 metric

Although many people lack concern over the removal of their garbage, as modern sanitation systems leave almost no trace of it whatsoever to the common individual; however, as the collected data supports, garbage poses a significant threat to the global environment, as pollution causes damaging consequences around the globe.

It is becoming increasingly certain that climate change will have severe adverse effects on the environment in years to come. Addressing this issue poses a serious challenge for policy makers. How we choose to respond to the threat of global warming is not simply a political issue. It is also an economic issue and an ethical one. Responsible, effective climate change policy requires consideration of a number of complex factors, including weighing the costs of implementing climate change policies against the benefits of more environmentally sustainable practices. Furthermore, this analysis must take place amidst serious gaps in the existing research and technology concerning the developing climatic condition.

The climate change impacts of greenhouse gases threaten the economic development and environmental quality. These threats indicate that all nations regardless their economic growth should work collaboratively to reduce the emission to a certain level. Hare et al. (2011) argued that “climate change is a collective action problem” thus requires a global coordination from all countries. This indicates that actions from several countries would never be sufficient to address the climate change problem. If a global target to limit warming to 2°C or below is about to achieve (UNFCCC 2010, p.4) a broad range of participation is required (Hare et al., 2011). However, the increasing complexity of negotiation processes is inevitable. Each country will pursue its own interests during the

I analyzed the various complexities of this issue. One complexity was that combatting climate change becomes a point of contention when different countries have different levels of consumption. The second complexity was that climate change isn’t the primary concern of all countries even though it underlies conflicts in many parts of world. The last complexity is that while Global North countries have the greatest capacity to adapt to climate change, the rates of consumption and emissions were historically higher than countries in the Global South who have contributed the least to emissions but will be more negatively impacted by climate change and other environmental

Once trash is taken out, always remember that all have to go somewhere. However, many of us have no idea where exactly it goes. More so, we don't even care

This is not just because more economically developed nations have more carbon emission and should have more responsibility; it is also about the future of these developed nations. Even if the more economically developed nations do not help the less economically developed nations, the effects of climate change will still affect the developed nations. More importantly, the less economically developed nations’ economic impact to the world from climate change will have some amount of impacts to the more economically developed nations. So by taking the lead and help the less economically developed nations to survive in climate change, more economically developed nations can economically benefits

Oscar Wilde once said, “We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell” (Wilde 2015). In other worlds, we bring upon ourselves our own demons, and it is usually not until after the damage is done that when even notice how much damage has been done. Climate change is one of these demons we face, created by our own ambition and our own societal progression. Spanning from the beginning of human civilization, but gaining a tremendous intensity from the occurrence of the industrialization, climate change is a threat to all of us. “Global atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased rapidly since the beginning of industrialization and now far exceed pre-industrial values as a result of human activities” (Zhang 2009). Every country, every nation, and every person, will, and is, effected by climate change. So what do we do? What we do is fight, with the development of more environment friendly technologies and ways of life. That being said, while every nation agrees that global climate change is a battle we must all face together, there is a great debate as to who should be responsible to lead the fight in the battle we have created. The debate going is between developed and undeveloped countries, in regard to whether developed countries should be responsible for funding climate sustaining development in undeveloped

For many years, the issue of climate change has been thorny mostly because it affects the whole world yet a few countries are the greatest contributors. Climate change has led to global warming that has affected many countries in terms of weather variation, flooding, poverty, and desertification. While the great debate rages over whether to apply the constraints previously agreed on, climate change continues to have its toll on the environment (Goldenberg 2015). Owing to the devastating impacts of climate change over the years, the world leading environmental bodies need to apply some constraints to corporations, individuals, and nations to curb the menace. Without a concerted effort towards cutting carbon emissions, the planet will get only warmer. Of course, the possible restrictions may not be palatable to all nations, individuals, and corporations. It is so because such limitations may curtail some freedoms previously enjoyed by various countries, organizations, and people (Pielke, 2015). In this respect, this paper examines the kinds of constraints that when applied to corporations, nations, and individuals, will curb the climate change menace, and the potential conflicts with such measures.

Comprehensive report on the economics of climate change says that policy proposals exist to make the stock of greenhouse stable. Also, there are varieties of environmental problems, such as, transboundary air pollution, shared freshwater resources in the world in this era. However, because of the Stern Review, not many countries are taking actions for the environmental problems. On the other hand,

The American people unintentionally destroy Waste Management by reducing and recycling the amount of waste. There is a disconnection between the people and Waste Management. Even though Waste Management has more landfill capacity than others, no one wants to increase its wasteland profit. The business environment and sociocultural have changed. The changing environment and the trend analysis has supported the idea of many companies choosing the zero-waste route. This will therefore reduce revenues for Waste Management, creating an ambiguous future for the corporation.

Researchers have proved that more than the increasing rate of population in certain developing countries; it is the per-capita negative impact that First world countries are having on sustenance of the world environment that is responsible for the climate change in the world. According to Environmental Research Letters, seven advanced countries are responsible for 63% of the world’s activities leading to global warming (Malone 2014). Though United States emits most of the carbon and greenhouse gases but when evaluated based on national population UK has the highest per person pollution levels. Recently some developing countries like China are catching up in pollution emission with developed countries but yet again a large portion of these emissions in transferred to the countries that consume these products produced in developing countries (Matthews 2014). Thus as the paper states “As a consequence, a substantial portion of recent emissions from developing countries could be equally allocated to the developed countries that consume the goods produced” (Matthews, 2014, p.8). Despite this huge amount of historical contribution in large scale of air, water

According to Sujauddin et al. (2008) the generation of waste is influenced by family size, their education level and the monthly income. Households attitudes related to separation of waste are affected by the active support and investment of a real estate company, community residential committees’ involvement for public participation (Zhuang

In addition to the mandatory uniform standards, voluntary agreements can play a significant role in greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Firms may commit to some steps in controlling greenhouse gas emissions if they fear more costly mandatory controls will arise if no voluntary reductions executed. On an international level, a regulatory approach could be setting up an emission target in which countries agree on a fixed national emission levels. (Stavins, 1997)

A case study was conducted by Colon & Fawcett (2006).The example from the EXNORA’s waste management scheme in south India is one more very good example.EXNORA which is an acronym for ‘‘EXcellent NOvel RAdical’’ is an NGO which is based on the zero waste management setup, and which is run and enhanced by the residents themselves. The study has been quoted successful widely and various studies have been carried out regarding this. In Chennai and Hyderabad various residential areas have attained the zero waste goal. Though the success is limited it has also led to significant reduction of the waste from dumping and in rehabilitation of the poor. The overall reduction of the cities is around 37% and 33%. This study shows that it just needs motivated people to successfully setup and manage the waste collection systems which lead to overall improvement of the environment. This effort also provided employment to the local socially deprived people. The middle class people of chennai supported this approach. Initially it the scheme had to face problems like lack of motivation and political support, community involvement which actually threatened the long time sustainability of the program but later on the results were evident of its effectiveness and then the policy flourished. It required significant amount of local resources. Another success story is about the Visakhapatnam project which is based on on the triangular contracts between the municipality, the residents and the micro