Pivotal Argument Analysis

Climate change. It has been on all of our minds as more and more controversy and panic are induced by new data being collected all the time. The very thought of it as the truth begins to fade into the foreground is enough to make many people sick. As this problem begins to take political forefronts, the question is, what are we going to do about it? Fortunately, public opinion and political concern as it has in the past and still does, has motivated individuals and even entire nations to take action against the upcoming threat. However, not all individuals are open to the truth of the existence and significance of climate change.

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.

Climate change is known as one of the greatest threats to the planet. It is not only a threat to the planet environmentally, but it is a threat socially and economically. As we all could feel, see, and know, the weather patterns globally and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been increasing over an extended period of time. Although it may seem like it’s not a dramatic change since it is data from over a large amount of time, it is considering the fact that the large amount of time is not that large as it should be. Climate change is nothing new to us. It’s happened many years ago in the past because a variety of reasons but as the years go on, the rate on charts are just getting higher. As much as I would like to blame this predicament on nature, humans has a fault as well. We release thousands of greenhouse gases into the air through many procedures, but there are things that we cannot entirely control. However, whoever’s fault it is to blame I believe that if we work together and think we will more likely be able to find effective solutions for this problem.

The argument about man’s role in climate change and the role of government, the role of industry and the role of citizens is a significant challenge that crosses all levels of government, crosses all geopolitical boundaries and crosses all sectors of business. National governments across the globe are dealing with the issue in different ways, but one overarching aspect of control and mitigation can be seen in the oversight and regulation of the electric energy industry. One significant challenge facing each nation is the cost to lower carbon emissions and the question of who will pay the additional cost for compliance. Though the cost issue is significant, a much more difficult question is whether any decision on lowering emissions can make

The main claim of Pamela Chaseks’s presentation was that through government and industry climate change can be stopped. Chasek discusses several instances when governments united regarding climate change as well as how these governments have impacted climate change, if at all. For example,a successful negotiation was Lima 2014, the United States and China agreed to reduce emissions; however, at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009 developed countries made an agreement that left developing countries out of the loop. This caused smaller states weary of states who hold more power. This displays that government cooperation and communication is needed to successfully execute the issue of climate change. Without concise agreements and negotiations

Global climate change has been an unresolved issue since the 1970’s. Despite the facts presented by scientists, the governments refuses to take action. It has been estimated that the global mean temperatures have already risen by 0.8°C and the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the temperature to rise by another 0.8°C, whereas 2°C is considered the maximum rise which the earth will be able cope without any major catastrophes (Mckibben, 2012). At the present rate of climate change we are already experiencing a shift in seasonal patterns. The governments’ inability to make strict laws regarding reduction in emission, therefore, stirs the controversy that what is stopping them and why do they refuse to do anything about it.

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

The debate about whether human activity or natural occurrences impacting climate changes has been plaguing scientists, politicians, and journalists across the globe for quite some time. People’s lifestyle must change if a positive effect is to be caused on the climate and recreate a safe environment. Changes such the reduction of burning less fossil fuels which reduces greenhouse gases, changes in public perception are needed to clean the environment.

The dichotomy of climate change can divide the world down the middle. Those who believe in climate change advocate for earth-friendly policy to better the environment and help society as a whole. Those who believe the evidence does not support a climate change theory simply ignore scientists and do not advocate for any type of change in living. However, change is necessary to preserve the planet and maintain the modern democracy- not just in the US, but in the world. Those who deny climate change also deny the chance for cleaner, eventually cheaper energy, long-term jobs, healthier lifestyles, and greater unity between nations. The best and most efficient way to control the path to sustainable, green living is through the government.

U.S. policies towards climate change has continued to develop throughout the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and currently Barack Obama. In this paper I will focus specifically on Clinton. One of the Clinton administration’s main goals was to make the United States the global leader in protecting the environment.  Throughout Clinton’s administration from 1993 to 2001, the ambitious goals of environmental protection had many highs and lows. The United States had to make decisions about how it would go about tackling climate change and what roles of other countries would play. There was opposition in congress about how the U.S. economy would fare with many of the ideas the Clinton administration was coming

Climate change is an issue that affects all life on Earth and is a major concern among researchers across a variety of fields. There is quite little argument against the possibility of mass disaster if human beings continue to consume fossil fuels in the same way we have been since the late 1700s (i.e. the Industrial Revolution). To mitigate the severity of climate change, many different courses of action have been suggested. Dale Jamieson discusses two of these in his article Ethics, Public Policy and Global Warming, and these strategies are what this paper will be focusing on.

“we know that the costs of these events can be measured in lost lives and lost livelihoods, lost homes, lost businesses, hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency services and disaster relief. In fact, those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don’t have time to deny it -- they’re busy dealing with it.”(Barack Obama, ) To what extent should the U.S. government alleviate climate change in America .Climate change can affect our country through a number of factors cultural, social and natural. However what is being done to cut down pollution, global warming and any other factors of climate change that is hazardous to our country are all the perspectives that are into consideration when trying to find a solution to this worldly problem. How the alleviates climate change and do what needs to be done determines the sustainability of America for future generations.

A lack of progress in recent years indicates a low level of concern among world leaders. In recent years, many scientists have implored leaders who seem not to be interested in climate change to show leadership in offsetting the impact of human induced climate change to the planet. As some world leaders seem not to see the urgency to mitigate the impact of global warming, the problem is getting more grounded. It is clear that human activities have altered the composition of the atmosphere since the industrial age. More and more power plants have been built, and their greenhouse gas emissions are causing more discomfort to the

For many years there has been a great debate between scientists who believe that human activity has major negative effects on climate change, and those who argue that climate change is caused by a variety of factors, not just harmful human activity. Those who support that belief that activities such as the burning of fossil fuels could cause disastrous climate changes and global warming and those who believe that research has been skewed to alter the way findings are presented fiercely debate when and how climate change should be addressed by governments. These debates have caused the idea of Global Warming to become not only a scientific concern, but a political concern as well. With both sides having strong convictions with respect to how the issues are addressed, it has allowed events such as “Climate-Gate” come to pass.