Pivotal Argument Analysis

The climate change is overall change, which has taken place in global climate pattern due to increase of carbon dioxide in many folds. Whether it is responsibility of individual or the government to control the climate change has become a moot point for many years. Proponents and opponents of both the views have their own strong arguments. Before coming to an end, I would like to light on both the views in my imminent paragraphs.

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.

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 Pivotal Dichotomies of Science and Religion Science can help identify and elaborate upon the laws of nature, help humans ascertain an improved understanding of the universe, and enable people to acquire powerful thinking skills to generate innovative and beneficial ideas. However, in the recent centuries many scholars have addressed the numerous conflicts that have emerged between the fields of science and religion. Although certain similar factors can render science and religion compatible, many differences have caused a contentious divisiveness to permeate between the two fields. Many philosophers have contemplated and debated the relationship between science and religion.

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.

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

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.

Going green its great for the Country and it should be by choice not by law.Americans already recycle at high rate, we do not need a law pushing us beyond what we are already doing.

Michael Pollan author of “Why Bother?” (an article from The New York Times) was very clear on delivering his message on climate change. Throughout his article he uses many different sources and reasons to explain, not only what is happening, but things we should be doing to create solutions to the problems we created. Micheal directs us to think about his thoughts about how climate change is a real problem, and demonstrates with examples from other authors, consequences that we could very soon be facing, and what we can do to evade these problems that are coming our way. With the few solutions we are presented with it is unrealistic to try to solve the climate change problem we have arrived to.

“A Solution to the Climate Problem” by James Hansen, offers it readers many reasons as to why the solution to climate change is in the hands of the people and not in the hands of the government, as well as outlining the solution. Hansen begging’s by stating that we are being faced with a climate problem that must be dealt with and completely abolished by the middle of the century, and that our governments are completely aware of this dire situation. He also makes it clear that our governments are in fact “lying” (Hansen 434) to us when they say that they will take the necessary action to combating the problem. Hansen gives many examples of what our governments are doing such as constructing new coal fired power plants as well as many others

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

Over the past century, the Earth has experienced a dramatic change in temperature and we need to work to reverse it. Politicians have debated the idea of climate change for years now and nothing has really been done to improve the situation. Some politicians have been exposed to the facts about climate change, while others believe in a hypothetical theory that the Earth goes through “cycles”. The government needs to stop arguing and act now, to educate the public and regulate the phenomenon of climate change, before it is too late.