President Donald Trump

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

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

A common problem with public goods is the free rider problem. The free rider problem occurs when people want to use a public good, but do not want to pay for it. The reduction of greenhouse gasses should be a global effort. The benefits are vague and provided in the future, there is little incentives to reduce emission. If the Trump administration disregards America’s pledge to reduce carbon emission by 26 to 28 percent, the United States can save millions of dollars on climate policies but increase the threat to the planet. This can lead to other countries not meeting their emission quota. If a majority of the nations who signed the Paris agreement goes back on their promise, a market failure will occur, producing an inefficient result. If too many countries become free riders, the cost of the remaining countries will increase trying to reduce emission. This will then exceed the benefits for the counties to fix the climate problem. Eventually leading to the climate problem being too large for the few remaining countries to solve on their own.

Article 1: This article tells about President Obama vetoing Keystone Jobs Bill on grounds that approval of the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline would damage the U.S. effort to curb greenhouse gases. The article frames Obama as an environmental hero, quoting the president in saying, “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change… And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face — not acting.” The authors also cite Secretary of State John Kerry in saying “The United States cannot ask other nations to make tough choices to address climate change if we are unwilling to make them ourselves.” The

“Scientists have been warning about global warming for decades. It's too late to stop it now, but we can lessen its severity and impacts” - David Suzuki. Global warming, a primary topic of debate in various conversations throughout all levels of government, has been an issue for countless years. In fact, of the 134 years recorded, the 10 warmest years have all occurred “since 2000, with the exception of 1998 “(NASA). Solving a global issue such as this is not as easy as it may seem; however ,The Paris Agreement vows to do just that by setting a plan to limit global warming to well below 2°C in “the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal” (Europa). Before signing off on such an agreement one must analyze the many negatives

There are 7.3 billion people on Earth (United States Census Bureau, 2016). More specifically, there are 7.3 billion people who depend on Earth for food, water, and shelter. If there is one thing that every living organism has in common, it’s our dependence on the planet to survive. Unfortunately, since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been systematically degrading the Earth and its resources. President Obama’s final State of the Union address was structured around four main points, one of which was centered around innovation (2016). His points focused on the impending reality of climate change and America’s potential to lead the world down a path of sustainability and green innovation. His hour long speech devoted a mere five minutes to climate issues, further suggesting that climate change remains a less pressing issue than the economy, for example, and I felt that he oversimplified an incredibly complex issue. President Obama’s economic appeals paint a hopeful picture without acknowledging the potential pitfalls associated with climate capitalism. However, President Obama’s strong stance claiming that climate change is in fact happening is an incredibly positive step in the fight against climate change.

tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs”, as well as revoke the policies that prohibit unwarranted restrictions on drilling technology. By doing these things, it is easy to conclude that the United States does not want to make any action towards preventing global warming. Nevertheless, global warming is a real and traceable thing that important people like you should try to prevent. This can be done by the termination of drilling for oil and mining for coal, by taking one more step towards saving the environment, and therefore ensuring a safe future for generations to come. This earth is ours, and when we drill into it to get those energy sources, we are also ruining the planet. By taking actions such as taxing CO2 and putting money towards repairing the damage done to the environment, we can take one step towards a safer life. More money could go towards creating better technologies that use wind and solar power, that use hybrid cars and make the atmosphere less polluted. Jobs may be lost by moving towards renewable energy sources, but if we continue to use fossil fuels, there will be no future to worry about jobs again, and all will be

Gary Stix calls to Americans to halt global warming. The world is changing and not for the better, he writes “The Debate on Global Warming is Over” (Stix 46). CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 650,000 years and are projected to only increase at an exponential rate. No one knows exactly when and what will happen, but all scientist can agree that it won’t be good. Making a difference in the fight against global warming will require a massive alteration in the entire world’s energy economy. Fossil Fuels account for 80% of the world’s energy and if a “carbon budget” is put into place then they will be ineffective (Stix 47). We need to begin to make a shift towards more renewable sources of energy, and adopt a system to help regulate the total amount of emissions. These programs will give us a head start on lessening the effects of global warming, but the

Since the first industrial revolution, in 1840, we have seen major changes to modern technology, and our way of life has been changed completely. With inventions like the cotton mill, the lightbulb, the car, and so many others, we can be more efficient, and provide new and improved services for ourselves, but there is a negative side to all this development. Many of the systems we have discovered are destroying the planet, and as we continue to ignore this obvious deterioration, it gets exponentially worse. As one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world, the United States has the ability to change this trend of destruction. Individuals can rally and recycle, but we need more power behind the cause, and the President can do that. The United States Constitution gives the President the ability to suggest and pass laws, with the help of the other branches; and it is time that they take a stand, and provide legislation that will lead the country to heal the Earth. The President of the United States has the Constitutional power-- and therefore the obligation-- to promote awareness of climate change and introduce legislation to help protect our planet.

America is only one country in the world, but we still carry influence among nations, therefore we all need to work together. Although this article is full of ad hominin attacks against Trump and various other political figures, I agree with the underlying message: the actions of Trump and his administration are harming not only America, but ultimately the world’s efforts to reduce man made climate change. By reducing efforts to stop climate change for the sake of business, we are harming the future generations that will take our place, by damaging the earth now and by not putting in the effort needed to protect it.

The world around us is constantly evolving; decisions are made, technology is produced, and nature takes its toll. Human evolution has influenced the development of the earth we inhabit. Quite literally, the human race has coincided and coexisted with the shaping of the world. The human impact has been both helpful and detrimental to the well being of the earth, and in recent times we have been faced with helping preserve the world’s natural resources. Valuing climate change and global warming has become quite highlighted in the media, as it has become politically debated and blungeoned in light of the recent presidential election of Donald Trump. According to the media, President Donald Trump and many of his selected cabinet members do not

The United States refused to endorse the Kyoto Protocol, basically letting the market drive CO2 reductions to mitigate global warming, which will require CO2 emission taxation. The administration of Barack Obama has proposed an aggressive energy policy reform, including the need for a reduction of CO2 emissions, with a cap and trade program, which could help encourage more clean renewable, sustainable energy development. Thanks to new technologies such as fracking, the United States has in 2014 resumed its former role as the top oil producer in the world. In terms of oil the Keystone XL Pipeline is not in the national interest of te United States due to the large ecological impacts, as well as it being in the United States best interests to

The Paris Agreement is made up of 195 nations who plan to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions in an attempt to slow down the increase in the global temperature. President Obama’s decision to sign this agreement does not only promote his personal climate change legacy but the climate change legacy of the United States of America. Since this environmental pact is only legally binding when “at least 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions sign on,” a United States signature could very well be the difference between a revolutionary global climate change policy and

On June 1, 2017, from the White House Rose Garden, President Donald Trump announced that he will be withdrawing the US from the landmark Paris Climate Agreement. This could be a step back from the progress that was being made during the Obama administration. It was a very puzzling decision because the majority of Americans supported the agreement. Although some people think that the Paris Climate Agreement is not important, it was a poor decision to withdraw from the agreement because it has the potential to be a very important to Earth's future.

On December 12 of 2015, 195 countries made history by committing to the first truly global international climate change agreement (Paris Agreement, 2015). This agreement took place in Paris and was adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The outcome of the Paris Conference on Climate Change was described as “revolutionary” (Venezuela) “marvelous act” (China) and as “a tremendous collective achievement” (European Union) that introduced a “new era of global climate governance” (Egypt) while “restoring the global community’s faith of accomplishing things multilaterally” (USA) (Paris Agreement, 2015).