In Part 4 Of The Quest, Daniel Yergin Does A Nice Job Of

Climate change is one of today’s most hotly debated topic. Scientists for many decades have made supposed claims that current energy creation and reliance on fossil fuels will lead to inevitable changes to the planet. Today, climate change denial is still a popular to most of the world despite the mounds of evidence to support that it exists. The climate change issue suffers from being mismanaged by various parties through focusing on the wrong issues and the lack of true commitment from the general public, according to Sandra Steingraber.

As a kid who has cared about nature his entire life, and an avid modern environmentalist for four years and counting, this issue has been at the center of my psyche for quite some time. I have seen public perspective on this issue change before my eyes. From the original rejection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie on “global warming” to personally marching alongside 300,000 people in our nation's capital to raise awareness on climate change. However, despite all of these avenues the issue is still spoken about as this distant idea that eventually will be a disaster. Many politicians and news networks speak of the need for slow implementation of policies and programs to right our environmental wrongs. The best way to paraphrase the common narrative of this issue would be to say, climate change is going to happen down the road, it will probably be bad and trying to fix it in the near future would be a good idea. That weak call to action shoves climate change onto the long to-do list of the leaders of our world. Not only does it not create the urgency needed to actually curb the effects of our environmental ignorance, but it does not accurately describe the threat of a changing climate. Treating this like a political issue will not allow for the rigorous changes needed to address such a problem in the timely manner that is required.

Climate change has been a subject of discussion in the media for many years, supported with the use of arguments against oil polluting the environment and extreme scare tactics of Polar ice caps flooding civilians backyards. The issue has been ignored by the majority of lay people as seeming too complicated, and with all the conflicting information in the media in the past, who can blame them? However, scientifically, climate change and what perpetrates it is fairly simple to understand and society as a whole is beginning to come to a clear consensus on climate change. Thanks in part to more readily available forms of media and information, people have become cognizant of the fact that climate change is a legitimate problem which requires immediate amelioration. While this may seem melodramatic, society is realizing that climate change is an issue which can no longer be denied if the human race wishes to continue.

Climate change has been happening over the last century, and the debate of its effects has become more intense over the last years. The issue of the climate change has become national, to the point that even the government has gotten involved. The fight between the government and the environmentalists has created a controversy in the United States, but not many changes have been done to protect humanity.

Climate change is one of the leading global and political problems we face today. Recently, Texas experienced the worst flooding from a major hurricane in their history. Aside from Harvey in the United States, India, Bangladesh, and Nepal also had dangerous monsoons that caused massive loss of life and property. Although there have been fewer hurricanes in the last decade they have become significantly stronger causing more devastation wherever they make landfall. While Harvey gained strength just before landfall it stalled over Houston causing massive flooding before returning to the Gulf again. Climate change remains a divisive political issue, with a significant percentage of Republicans saying they don’t believe the scientific consensus that man-made industrial emissions are accelerating the rise of global warming due to climate

The election of 2000 took place during a time that was mostly peaceful, unemployment rates were historically low, but however, there were a record number of terrorist threats (Muhlhausen). Despite all of these headlining topics presidential candidate Al Gore and Vice President Joe Lieberman were far more concerned about global climate change (“Al”). Gore was, and still, is very passionate about this topic (“Al”, 9). He has challenged the two biggest polluters in the world, China and The United States to, “Make the boldest move in climate change.” Figure 5

When manifest destiny began it was entirely focused on westward expansion. Americans had to fight through harsh terrain and gather many resources. The destruction of the environment causing a lack of resources for anyone in their wake, throwing whatever ecosystem the trailblazers crossed into dysfunction. As a means of protection from a potentially violent Native American tribe, the need for advanced technology began. They needed new guns and new trailblazing items to make things run more efficiently. While this did help those things, it was also hard on any workers that may have been made to create these products. This was part of manifest destiny, the need for new resources, technology, and advancements to make things easier. This led all the way into the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution began as Americans realized they were rich in oil. The factories popping up supplied jobs. The oil supplied the factories. The factories supplied the consumers with variety of items to make their lives easier. Then consumers supplied the rich factory owners by buying their goods. This was a win win situation, with the exception being the environment. Throughout all this, smog was going up into the air and greenhouse gasses being absorbed into the atmosphere, trapping heat inside. This processed has continued even until present day, except multiplied by many times. Today, oil fuels the US

With the rise of calamitous news regarding extremists groups taking over certain states, countries threatening to go to war, and viruses spreading throughout the world; the outlook of humanity does not look good. In addition to these dire headlines is the matter of climate change, which, unfortunately, is not as alarming to the public eye. Nonetheless, climate change is a pressing matter as it will impact every facet of society from economy to even human survival. Perhaps the general public find climate change as a vapid subject because of its nature to react belatedly to human activity, and how it is often represented with numbers, graphs, and projections; things that are not compelling to those that do not understand its importance. Even

Seeing climate change as an emergency doesn't always make people make actions because of many psychological barriers that limit the mitigation of climate change. Frantz and Mayer in their article" The Emergency of Climate Change: Why are We Failing to Take action? "Published in Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (2009) and Gifford in " The Dragons of Inaction. Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation" published in American Psychology (2011), discussed the reasons why the American public are failing to take action to Climate Change even though they know that it is a grave issue. They also offered some suggestions that help in getting over those barriers.

The authors are trying to find a relationship between climate change, public health, and national security. They argue that climate change poses a threat to national safety and public health hence; it needs to be addressed. Currently, a majority of Americans are dismissive of the issue of climate change. The authors argue that portraying climate change as a threat to national security and public health will make the population have an interest in it. In particular, they assume focusing on the causes, impacts, and solutions to climate change will trigger curiosity among the citizens. As a result, they will want to find more information on the issue. The

The meaning and understanding of climate change has been a critical issue of concern to development, scientific and environmental researchers in the world. All over the world, there have been a lot of issues surrounding the causes and impacts of the phenomenon which led to the establishment of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to help assess and provide information about climate change to society (Agrawala, 1998). This essay presents arguments on who is qualified to be an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert and who should be qualified. It begins by describing the role of IPCC and its structure including the roles of the authors of the IPCC reports such as lead authors, coordinating lead authors, contributing authors, expert reviewers, review editors and government focal points (IPCC, 2008). It then concludes by arguing in favour of the need for the inclusion of other experts as part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The concept of climate change has been around for quite a while. The earliest mention of climate change dates back to the 19th century. Swedish scientist, Svante Archenius was the first scientist to study the effect of CO2 on climate. (Rodhe et al 1997)

What will kill the Earth faster, terrorism or global warming? Humans are imperfect beings, that create nasty messes and it’s hurting the planet. Now, humans are faced with the responsibility of cleaning up their mess. The question is, are humans capable of facing terrorism and global warming at the same time? USA Today’s article “Why Paris Climate Talks Matter: Our View” argues that the world can fight these two issues at once because of the difference between them. However, Marc Morano disagrees in his article: “U.N. Accords Can’t Control Climate: Opposing View”. Marc Morano’s argument lacked a true purpose on overcoming the topic issues. Instead Morano talked about the connection of the issues and his belief that the U.N. can’t be trusted. USA Today developed a more successful argument than Marc Morano because it's purpose was more clearly displayed and it used stronger logic and ethos.

The NIPCC argues that the IPCC possesses no substantial evidence to support their claims of carbon emissions causing global warming, and are basing their efforts in excessive precaution, rather than science. Additionally, they scrutinize the use of authoritative statements, calling them the “antithesis of the scientific method,” and stating that they curb progression, understanding, and debate

"Two thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, engaged in the most elaborate, well organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have produced long-since a consensus that we will face a string of terrible catastrophes unless we act to prepare ourselves and deal with the underlying causes of global warming."