Essay about Global Warming - How Republicans are Endangering Our Earth

Writer, William Blumenfield, in his Huffington Post article, “ Environmental Justice a Form of Social Justice,” details the perceptive and political fallibilities of the Republican party in regards to their courses of action towards environmental justice aims. His inclination is to convey the err in their claims and capitalistic objectives, and to promote his ideology that social justice cannot occur without there first being strives to combat against environmental degradation. He develops a strong, but misplaced, pathos throughout his article, devoid of purposeful facts, resulting in a weak argument seemingly based on his resentment towards the Republican party. Blumenfield’s argument is weak in the fact that is argues based on unapologetically tearing down the other side instead of advocating his point while respectfully pointing out the flaws of conflicting views.

Democrats and Republicans highly differ when comparing views on climate change. The Democrats accept human role in climate change while many Republicans question if climate change is even real. In the 2016 Democratic Party Platform (27), they state “in the first 100 days of the next administration, the president will convene a summit of the words best engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous communities to chart a course to solve the climate crisis.” This is highlighted previously when President Obama, a Democrat, traveled to Paris for a convention about climate change where he met other leaders around the world to make a plan to help fix the issues surrounding climate change. This shows the basic principles of the Democratic Party as internationalist and having the large government—as it states in the

Bush campaigned for the 2000 election, he explicitly opposed Kyoto as it “would cause serious harm to the US economy” (Borger, 2001). The international issue of global warming was thusly labeled as something that could be ignored in favor of local economic profit, and emission reduction was assumed to be impossibly expensive.

Christine Todd Whitman chose to write this op-ed months into the Trump presidency at a time when many natural disasters plague the country. In it she addresses both the administration and her fellow Republicans, many of whom do not view climate change as a threat. Whitman’s principal grievance with Scott Pruitt, the current director of the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.), is his creation of a “red team” to research an opposing view to the scientific consensus on climate change. In her op-ed, Christine Todd Whitman condemns the way Scott Pruitt runs the E.P.A. and tries to convince the reader that climate change is a tangible threat. Whitman makes it clear that her criticism is not that of a lay person or a contrarian but comes from experience and a common worldview.

Most people who hear the politicians’ speeches on the environment are unconvinced by their arguments.

Richard A. Epstein is a frequent contributor to the Hoover Institution, and his piece, “Scott Pruitt And The Environment”, hopes to ease hysteria over President Donald Trump’s selection of Pruitt as the 14th administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt denies the importance of climate change, he is a pro-industry former attorney general of Oklahoma. Epstein dances around rhetoric on both sides of the polarized climate change debate, creating a discourse which seems unbiased to the casual reader. This rhetorical analysis will strive to keep its proverbial ear to the ground and listen to the elephants hustling in the distance. References leading to right-wing contributors, language that evokes a sense of loss, and taking

The 1970’s represent a pivotal point in history that rewrote how America viewed its environmental policies- both on a policymaker and citizen scientist standpoint. As the public became more aware of environmental issues, concern about pollution, improper disposal, dwindling resources, radiation and poisoning enraptured a growing number of supporters. These supporters made it so that unlike the Progressive Era’s conservation movement (1890’s-1920’s), which was mainly elitists, this modern movement was pushed by “the common man.” It was an era that celebrated leaders such as John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Thomas Jefferson. One of those leaders in the forefront of these radical changes was Congressman Morris K.

One topic that is of constant conversation all throughout politics is climate change. Republicans are often characterized by their firm stance on this issue, mostly denying its existence or validity. This has become a

Party polarization is another factor halting action being taken to solve the problem. Both political parties in the United States have divided views among many issues. This polarization between the Democrats and Republicans has formed because over time their membership of the two parties are purer, causing them to grow farther apart, states Jonathan Haidt and Sam Abrams in their article, “The Top Ten Reasons American Politics Are So Broken.” Republicans are becoming more conservative while the Democrats on the other hand, are becoming more liberal. In the issue of global warming, the division between the two parties are very distinct. The Democrats in this matter believes global warming exists and should be dealt with. The Republicans on

From a Republican’s aspect, they generally prefer to have limited government intervention in regards to personal issues, but also take over international relations. Not only that, but they are typically pro-military, pro-religion, and pro-business. In other words, Republicans are known to be conservative. In terms of environment, Republicans are firms with their strict beliefs. According to multiple sources, when asked if the think the government should increase environmental regulations in order to prevent climate change, Republicans are opposed to the idea. Regardless of scientific data proving a temperature increase in the planet’s atmosphere since the late nineteenth century, they still hold a string stance that EPA should

Although many prominent politicians within the Republican Party continue to deny its’ existence, Climate Change is real. Irrefutable scientific evidence proves the earth is facing a serious environmental crisis, and the American public is taking notice. According to the EPA, 61% of Americans recognize the current status of the environment as an issue and believe action must be taken. Take action by voicing your disapproval for HR 5078, which passed in the House this past week. Encourage the Senate to kill this bill and protect America’s lakes, streams, wetlands, and other bodies of water. HR 5078 would prevent the “Definition of Waters of the United States Under the Clean Water Act” or WOTUS, a rule jointly proposed by the EPA and USACE,

The way that innovation is sought after is a prominent player in the way that policy is shaped with regards to the environment. An increase in funds for the improvement of existing technology for burning fossil fuels can be viewed in complete contrast to the increase in funds to develop new solar panel technology to decrease the United States dependence on oil and gas. As is the case with many issues in the US government the approach to this seems to fall in to two distinct categories – republican or democrat. Examples come from the Presidency of George Bush and in 2001 President Bush announced the development of “FutureGen” this was a policy that was aimed at the capture and sequestration of CO2 emissions. The aim of FutureGen was to improve

The Republican Party believes that preserving of the environment is a conservative value so long as it does not interfere with economics. Any environmental policy must in return, promise to increase economic growth, and not infringe on private property rights for it to be deemed practical.

With Republican President, Donald Trump, and the Republican Party holding the majority of both chambers of the 115th Congress, passing environmental protection legislation doesn’t seem to be a priority (or even a thought). Not only are Congress and the President ignoring environmental protection, but they have also worked together to reverse current environmental protection regulations. Normally, repealing any form of legislation is a lengthy and challenging task. However, during the spring of 2017, the Legislative and Executive branches were able to quickly and easily get rid of two environmental protection rules. This ease of change definitively had do with the legislation being bureaucratic agency rules and laws. Though, not only were

This source by Edward L. Hudgins of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science aims to persuade the House of Representatives to not fund NASA’s “Mission to Planet Earth.” The origin, more specifically the testimony’s date of March 19, 1997 on which it was given, is a major limitation because the speaker does not yet have the results of modern scientific research about climate change, some of which was gathered with the Mission to Planet Earth program. This means the effects of greenhouse gases on the environment were not as clear, therefore the speaker’s arguments are somewhat outdated. Additionally, the origin is a value because this testimony comes from a source that is very high up the political ladder of Washington.