Support President Obama For Climate Change

This source features a report by Jill U. Adams on the dangers, and current regulations of air pollution and climate change. Holding a Ph.D. in pharmacology from Emory University, the author primarily writes a health column for the Washington Post. She has also been featured in the magazines Audubon, Scientific American and Science. Because this article covers climate change, there is an inherent liberal bias. However, this bias coincides with irrefutable scientific data proving the existence of climate change. The audience for this article is anyone effected by air pollution and climate change; just about everyone. This source upholds my speculation that human beings have a significant effect on the climate. Before reading this article, I wasn’t aware that 55 million people a year died from air pollution. I found this source on CQ Researcher while searching for ‘pollution.’

The United States is the second largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world, and yet is doing very little to fix this startling statistic (Dennis). The US’ reliance upon outdated energy sources continues to harm both the environment and the economy by producing millions of tonnes of pollution every year and costing the government billions of dollars (“Fact Sheet: Clean Power Plan”). Fossil fuels have been the main energy sources in America since the industrial revolution, and it is time to make a change. Renewable energy is energy harnessed from sources like the sun, wind, or water, and has little to no negative effects on the environment (“Renewable Energy Technology Basics”). The United States needs to integrate and increase the use of these types of energy across the country, as well as implement positive environmental policies, to prevent further pollution of the earth and combat the effects of climate change.

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

During the past several hundred years, civilization has made rapid progress in industries like air travel, automobiles, and energy production. These developments were made without consideration of the long-term effects that their emissions may have on the planet. Changing weather patterns are now wreaking havoc around the world, and scientists attribute this to human-caused climate change. During President Obama’s State of the Union address in 2015, he stated that, “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” (“Remarks by the President”). Warming temperatures caused by anthropogenic climate change have disastrous consequences that pose a threat to humanity and the environment.

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

This year we have seen more electric and hybrid vehicle startups than ever before.” (Morrison) Nearly everyone recognizes the benefits of the shift, both in terms of how it would help our environment in the long term, but also the economic impact it would have, (reduced gas costs, lower electric and other utilities bills... etc.) But still, many large companies work to impede the progress in favor of maintaining our dependence on fossil fuels. The American Petroleum institute has worked with many oil industry protection companies to stymie the renewable energy movement, even in some cases, “posing as environmentalist groups in order to attract the support of environmentalists while simultaneously pushing their anti-renewable agenda.” (Blankenhorn) Many of these companies striving against renewable energy also support the building of the Keystone pipeline, using the justification that the building of the pipeline would lower gas prices. But what they fail to acknowledge is the basic economic fallacy of this, “Fossil energy prices are not going to fall. The more you remove carbon-based resources from the ground, the more it costs to get more.”

Beyond the emotional appeal to American greatness in solving technical problems, he presents compellingly logical and ethical arguments. He starts by calling out anyone who would ignore the threat of climate change, a blunt shot at many Republicans in Congress (26:11). The president adopts a nonchalant approach, essentially mocking anyone who isn't on board with climate science. "Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely," Obama says. With tremendous confidence that his logical and ethical arguments cannot be countered, he attempts to win the day by overcoming any emotional

Carbon emissions are changing the planet for the worse. Energy production (mostly coal) is producing a one third of the US 's global warming emissions. Renewable sources produce little to zero percent. The balance of coal and renewable energy in the U.S. needs to be evened out with renewable techniques. Statistics from the Union of Concerned Scientist’s “Benefits of Renewable Energy Use” show that most renewable resources emit less than one pound of CO2E/kWh. These have significantly less of a carbon footprint than coal, which emits 1.4 to 3.6 lbs. CO2E/kWh or natural gas, which emits .6 to 2 lbs. CO2E/kWh. This impressive difference of carbon emissions between renewable and fossil fuel is the key to caring for our environment. A 2009 USC study found that if 25 percent of the US 's

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

Author Lawrence M. Ling is a Project Pull Mentor’s Assistant in the Policy and Government Affairs Team of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. He is an undergraduate student at the University of California: Los Angeles who majors in Political Science, and he strongly believes that CleanPowerSF is the best solution to the growing trend of global warming.

Improved air quality wasn’t a subject of national concern until the mid 1900s. After decades of coal burning, unregulated gas emissions from cars and the excessive burning of fossil fuels, people started noticing bad air quality as a hazard to their lives. Over several decades, after seeing the costly effects air pollution was having on the environment and people’s health, interest groups like the Friends of The Earth club and the influences of Theodore Roosevelt and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring finally came together to persuade the government to enforce legislation that would reduce air pollution. Because of these efforts, the policies of the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Act of 1965, that aimed to control air pollution and raise air quality standards, helped create the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on December 2, 1970. Since then, the EPA has passed more air quality improvement acts, and amendments to previous acts passed, to increase restrictions on air pollutants, with their main policy concern being the Clean Air Act. Improved air quality acts imposed by the EPA have been successful in cleaning the United States’ air quality by reducing ground-level ozone pollution and reducing emissions, allowing for a decrease in pollution related deaths/illnesses and a better standard of living. The EPA, through regulations and the Clean Air Act, has delivered it’s promise to improve air quality in the United States.

Shifting the majority of energy consumption in the U.S. to clean energy would affect people and businesses both in and outside of the nation. This inevitably creates concern surrounding the topic and causes delays due to necessary controversy and questioning. While plenty of concerns are valid, others have been answered by studies and reports by various organizations but have yet to reach the public in masses.

I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, most of my childhood I felt very healthy. However around the age of 10 my pediatrician diagnosed me with Athletic Asthma. It is a specific type of Asthma that only occurs when engaging in strenuous activity or having an increased breathing rate. In 2009 I decided to move to Fresno, while I knew other people in the bay area who suffered from Asthma it shocked me to learn how prevalent it was in central California, particularly in Fresno. Quite often people in Fresno will make reference how terrible the air is in a given day. Residents of the central valley are constantly reminded about our air quality with programs such as Check Before You Burn, a local government solution to help control the

None of the Republican House Representatives would vote for his proposals and plans, which made it difficult at first for Obama to do much towards climate change (Kramer 29). After various proposals being turned down, one of the proposals were actually passed. Obama was able to provide “[...] $80 billion in funding for renewable energy, which sparked the subsequent stratospheric growth in wind and solar power, and a substantial boost in vehicle fuel efficiency” (Hertsgaard 72). This was one of the first actions Obama was able to accomplish towards climate change, which ended up helping companies use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels for their energy. A mistake that Obama made during the early parts of his first term was that he did not make much of an effort to inform the common people about the issues and causes of climate change (Coen 306). This mistake made it hard for Obama to get much support or understanding from the people, which made it even more difficult than it was to propose ideas about climate change.

The second article is about another issue that is causing our climate to change that can be of higher risk that would be the ozone layer. Our ozone layer seems to be dimensioning it’s been said that pollution gases. Scientist have found evidence that increased pollutants in the air this study shows this comes from cars factories and these are some examples. Some of the sicknesses that occur because of this and our ozone layer not being protected could be bronchial asthma as we know this is a syndrome which can cause shortness of breath and make it difficult for one to breath, the air pollutants on health have been the focus of attention on this factor. During the years they have conducted many experimental studies these studies have shown that even the gas from diesel exhaust have been causing the upper respiratory disease and is able to control the immune system response by increasing bad side effects with animals and humans. There have been studies and during these studies that have been done they have found evidence that air pollutants can work with in the atmosphere or on human airways, this is a very strong effect on the human body. In fact, if the airways start the inflammation some pollutants start to overcome the chest making it hard to breath which would lead to allergen-induced responses. But, air pollution and with the changes in the climate would cause a human to have an effect this would be an allergic