The Environmental Crisis Of The Republican Party

Over the past decade, the floods have been striking a lot more frequently than they used to. The state of Florida is predicted to soon be completely underwater and if nothing is done to help this issue, then it will only spread and soon the entire world will be under water. Climate change has been drowned out in the US presidential primary elections (Plester). Since many Americans are aware about the issue of Climate Change, many of them also refuse to believe that it 's happening. They tend to push it away which is why it 's not the most discussed topic at presidential campaigns or debates. Climate Change, otherwise known as Global Warming, has been a growing factor in Florida and should be taken into accountability. My research proposes that the state of Florida should cut down on fossil fuels, invest in an infrastructure upgrade, and residents unplug their electronic devices whether they’re on/being used or not.

Imagine your hometown underwater; the places you once hoped to show your grandchildren lost completely and swept away into an abyss. It doesn’t sound great, does it? Unfortunately, this could very well become reality. Maybe not during this generation, but eventually. Climate change is a severe issue that affects us all. Icecaps are melting, sea levels are rising, and many Americans are either unaware of the issue or have listened to major politicians dismissing the issue without much knowledge of it.

Global warming is a big issue a lot of people like to ignore. Why? Because people don’t want to focus on the future; unless it’s when the new iPhone is coming out. An amendment should be made that all 50 states should have some type of program to help slow global warming; because if we don’t do anything to prevent this catastrophe, there might not be a planet to live on. If America has an effective program in place, then we might be able to show the world why we should take care of our planet. But if we don’t care, then the world would get too hot because of excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the ice caps will continue melting leaving the polar animals nowhere to live, and there will be so much pollution in the air that it will be

“The Milwaukee Water Works (MWW) is recognized as a national leader for providing safe, high-quality drinking water, and for our water quality monitoring program. We treat Lake Michigan water with ozone disinfection, biologically active filtration, and chloramine disinfection. Since 1993, the Milwaukee Water Works has invested $508 million in its infrastructure, to ensure a reliable supply of pure, safe drinking water” (MWW,

During the late 60’s and early 70’s a series of studies were conducted on public water supplies due to health concerns, which concluded that many treatment facilities were inadequate (2000). In an effort to address public health concerns, Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974, which was amended in 1986 and 1996 (2000). The SDWA outlines the federal standards for public drinking water, waste management, protection of drinking water sources, and the financial infrastructure for projects (Tiemann, 2014).

Shermer, Steven D. "The Drinking Water security and Safety Amendments of 2002: is America's Drinking Water Infrastructure Safer Four Years later?" UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, Winter 2006, p. 355+. Environmental Studies and Policy, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=PPES&sw=w&u=sims65323&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA162243012&it=r&asid=493e8c0ca998e138667cbcf4eaa126ce. Accessed 22 Jan. 2017.

The majority of controversy over the CWA exists on the premise of the improvements that have yet to be made. Even about fifty years after the passing of the Clean Water Act, the nation still “remains far short of the Clean Water Act’s goal of swimmable and fishable waters” which “Congress intended the country to reach by 1983” (Devine). The most recent date reveals that of the tested water bodies, 70.5 percent of the lakes, reservoirs, and ponds, equating to around 13 million acres, fail to meet at least one water quality standard (Devine). Because of the remaining existence of water pollution, there also exists debate concerning the Act’s effectiveness. Many people argue the possibility that the reduction of water pollution in the past century “may reflect forces other than the Clean Water Act,” as pollution trends were already declining prior to enforcement of the Act (Keiser and Shapiro 21). Not only are people in disagreement regarding the efficacy of the Act, but also the high costs of the CWA’s regulations have stimulated tension among the people. Many question whether or not the CWA’s benefits have exceeded its costs, which have been over one trillion dollars since 1972 (Keiser and Shapiro 1). Since the CWA entered legislation, there has been concern about its ambiguity. The exact

The newer wave of environmentalism has set out in several different, yet efficient ways in the United States. Back in 1970, the United States introduced the Environmental Protection Agency. Since then, people have created efficient and simple ways to reduce plastic waste, to help prevent the Earth from becoming a landfill.

The formative republican model has a few qualities as a governance structure for Greenpeace: it imparts ideals in its voting individuals through the administration necessity; the voting populace of Greenpeace is consistent in its objective of securing the earth; the most temperate individuals are elevated to the positions of most noteworthy obligation and

Water pollution and lack of clean water is affecting our health. Water pollution and contaminated water is hurting us here in the United State and all around the world. We need to take charge and stop throwing harmful things into our

The environmental movement in the United States has typically focused its resources on public education, legislative lobbying and litigation. However, the movement’s success in the latter two is highly dependent on the quality and character of elected officials. Successful public education on behalf of the environment translates into greater environmentalist electoral success.

Climate change is a monumental problem in today’s American society, as it took center stage in the election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Both candidates had separate ways of going about the problem, introducing contrasting platforms. Hillary Clinton focused on continuing the regulations we have today through the Environmental Protection Agency, while Donald Trump wanted to roll back the regulatory funds considerably given to the agency.

Climate change is real. It is something that is affecting our world in ways we can’t even imagine. A change needs to be made. The effects of climate change are terrible and need to be prevented. Climate change will affect generations to come if action is not taken. It has been made clear that climate change must be taken care of now to ensure that America has a bright future. Dealing with this issue in the present would be a lot easier that trying to reverse all the damage in the future, no matter how costly the solution may

In accord with 97 percent of scientists, I agree that climate change is real and a major threat to humanity. In fact, I feel that it is one of our largest national security threats. The funny thing is, the global community agrees with democrats on this. In 2015, world leaders came together to sign the paris agreement, in which major countries around the world “pledged to do all they could to hold the rise of the planet’s temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius (Lee).” However, President Trump appears to be renegading on this promise, giving up Obama’s clean energy initiatives in favor of more coal. He has additionally cut the EPA and put a climate change skeptic at it’s highest position. He has even called climate change a “hoax perpetrated by the Chineese.” All of this is nearly comical, but also has grave dangers with it. I believe that if we do not curb climate change, we will be seeing serious negative effects, as habitats are destroyed, weather becomes more extreme, and the ice caps begin to melt (Lee). To me, this is terrifying, and why it is one of my most important reasons for taking the democratic stance. I believe that we should invest in clean energy, with the help of government subsidies, so that we can develop solar, nuclear, and wind energy to the point where we can eventually begin to cut out fossil fuels. Companies should also only receive a very limited number of tradeable carbon

health and are known or anticipated to occur in water from public water systems.” (United