Essay about The Wide Spread Threats of Climate Change

The U.S government has been actively involved in overseeing emission standards for years. This corresponds with the statement made by the U.S Department of transportation that, “Transportation is the largest end-use sector emitting CO2”, and also the statement released by the NRCAN in which, “Fuel usage & carbon dioxide emissions have grown steadily over the past two decades.” These factors are only to be associated with your average four door sedan and/or light truck. These do not include your 18 wheelers, heavy trucks, or the gas guzzling vans that emit more carbon dioxide into the air and are also on the road more today than ever have been before. Cars are readily and easily obtainable more so now than ever have been. This creates more fuel to be burned up in which produces more toxins to be constantly released into the atmosphere. In fact, according to Scientific American “cars relate as much as 30 gallons of GHG, while only driving 3 miles.” These miles can be correlated with something just as simple as your average work commute. According to the United States Census Bureau, “Nearly 600,000 full-time workers had "megacommutes" of at least 90 minutes and 50 miles.” Those workers alone would each be releasing up to 500 gallons of GHG. These can be considered some of the bigger factors that the greenhouse gasses have taken a toll on.

The issue of carbon emissions is an important one not only from an environmental perspective but also an economic one. While reducing carbon emissions is an important one for the health of human beings as well as that of the environment, the larger question is what type of policy strategy is best for both reducing such emissions which might have an impact on efforts to mitigate the effects of pollution on climate change. While ther are options to consider which does not rely on economics-- technological or output standards achieved by command and control regulations--they are often fraught with political resistance by industry because they do not allow industry to make any choices or play a role in solving the problem of

Its adoption in 1997 and ratification in 2002 furthered the fight against anthropogenic interference with earth’s climate system. Canada’s commitment began with a goal to reduce GHGs by 6% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012, or 461 megatons (Canada and the Kyoto Protocol 2016). In order to achieve these goals, legal requirements expected policies and measures prepared by the participating countries to reduce GHGs, by utilizing all available mechanisms, including joint implementation to earn emissions reduction units (ERU) to be counted towards the target, the clean development mechanism and emissions trading (Kyoto Protocol 1997). Every year, on the date set forth, every participating country was expected to keep track of emissions limits and performance standards, develop spending or fiscal measures, as well their expectation for the next year and results from the previous (E. Canada 2013). When the first reduction timeline was up in 2008, instead of a decrease in emissions, Canada recorded an increase 24.1 percent higher than 1990 levels. The lack of commitment was superseded by the new government’s ‘Made in Canada” effort to push country-unified laws, though no significant changes were

Carbon Dioxide emissions in the United States have decreased by 12% since 2005 according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (Lindstrom, 2016). Almost 70% of

Although there isn’t a lot of cases of countries with carbon taxes yet, one success story comes from Ireland. According to the Carbon Tax Center, Ireland was one of the highest producers of greenhouse gases in Europe, with levels close to that of the United States. However, after implementing the tax that charged about $23 per ton of CO2 in 2010, emissions dropped more than 15%. Yet their economy didn’t fall along with the CO2 levels—it grew instead. I think that Ireland is a great example of the potential carbon taxes can have, and that we should factor in their case when deciding on

The government sets an industry-wide limit to carbon production. Corporations that produce more than the set carbon limit are able to buy allowances from corporations who produce below the allowed amount. This creates a market for carbon so that companies can actually make money by reducing their carbon output. As time progresses, the government will incrementally lower the cap, which will reduce the number of allowances issued and increase their price. Ontario's Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016 (the "Climate Act"), creates a cap-and-trade system that covers 82 percent of Ontario's direct emissions. This system covers all fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel and natural gas) used in Ontario by individuals,

Government enacted solutions are probably the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions and to control pollution since unfortunately the majority of individuals mainly act to their own self-interest and are not concerned with the future of the planet. This is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons, which is the exploitation of a common resource. In this case the common resource is the atmosphere. The first method proposed is the carbon cap trade system. The term cap means the limit or the maximum of the amount of pollutant to be emitted. A trade refers to the transfer of permits that have to be bought by firms that need to increase their volume of emissions from firms that require fewer permits 1. The carbon tax method is a tax on the carbon content of fuels — effectively a tax on the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels 2. So, which system would be best for the government to enact to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere?

Furthermore, enacting this type of regulation would hurt consumers (typically users of gasoline and coal). According to the United States Congressional Budget Office, “Consumers, in turn, would face higher prices for energy and for goods and services that require substantial amounts of energy to produce, which would give them an incentive to reduce their consumption as well” (2). This predisposes they would have ways to reduce consumption, however, for those that have needs to travel to different cities for their jobs, this is not much of an option. Not only does this assume they already had ways to reduce consumption, but that the viable alternatives to CO2 consumption are less expensive, which simply isn’t a reality yet.

A survey conducted by Stanford University and Resources for the Future found that 61 percent of the US respondents supported taxing corporations for releasing Green House Gas Emissions. Additionally, 67 percent of the respondents agreed with a Carbon Taxation policy (Lehmann). Climate change concerns have been growing on a global level due to the substantial increase in green house gas emissions mainly due to human activities. According to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) CO2 emissions are the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the US. Approximately 80.9 percent of human caused GHG emissions are by Carbon Dioxide emissions. Within, Carbon Dioxide emissions, electricity, transportation and

Another unbelievable statistic is that the entire European Union combined produces almost two billion tons less carbon dioxide than the United States. The population of the European Union is also 180 million more. The GDP (total amount of products

Richard Caperton, Director of Clean Energy Investment at the Center for American Progress, believes that having a carbon tax will be a good idea and it is needed to prove weather disasters and for many reasons. First, he thinks that, “Be sufficiently robust that it leads to meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas pollution, getting us on a path that helps us avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change.” I think this will be effective, I mean it might cost companies more but if they refuse and stick to polluting the air, companies will face a tax that in the long run will be far more expensive. “A carbon tax would increase the cost of fossil fuels, encouraging companies to switch to currently more expensive fuels and leading households and companies to reduce energy use” (rff.org). Yes, it is definitely not going to be easy, and it is not going to be fixed in a matter of months. But by slowly changing the ways corporations pollute carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then maybe there can actually be a way to solve climate change.

Human civilization as a whole has always been innovative. They turned sticks and stones to tools, and the Wright Flyer I to the Apollo 11 in a mere sixty-six years. Most importantly innovations turned mud huts into thriving modern cities with billions of people. The secret to success is power. But by continuing to fuel large cities and businesses with fossil fuels, many nations are knowingly releasing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A study done by Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center states that "The world pumped 39.8 billion tons (36.1 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide last year. That is 778 million tons (706 metric tons) or 2.3 per cent more than the previous year" (Zolfagharifard 2014). The United States and

A major and controversial topic in the world today is global warming and climate change. Carbon which is one of the bigger contributors to the greenhouse effect, can influence climate change. In its abundance, most of it is stored in the ground within the soil. It is known that respiration, which is the breakdown of molecules into carbon, water, and energy, plays a very large part in the cycling of carbon on the Earth. Understanding how different aspects of our environment can affect the cycling of carbon within soil, we can then apply it to potential changes of climate change and predict what could happen and can set up some pre-emptive measures.

“When taking the heating of the entire climate system into account, our planet has warmed at a rate equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second over the past 15 years” (Cook). Our planet is becoming warmer. When scientists add up all the heat warming the land, oceans, atmosphere, ice melting, earth is accumulating heat equivalent to four Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second. Global warming is a serious issue faced by our world as there has been a significant increase in temperature over the years. But the article published by Dr. Mark Sircus on “Global Warming -largest science scandal in the history” refutes the theory of global warming. Dr. Sircus states that there is no linkage between carbon dioxide and temperature leading to global warming, the sea level is not rising, arctic sea ice extent is now higher and climate change is due to solar activity. Dr. Sircus also points out that that the recent weather changes are not in line with global warming and “we are in the beginning of a deep freeze” (Global Warming - Largest Science Scandal in US History). NASA and the scientific community states that global warming is not a hoax and there is a rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to greenhouse gases released as people burn fossils. NASA states that the “key indicators of global warming are based on surface, satellite, and ocean temperature measurements, satellite measurements of energy imbalance and of receding glaciers, sea ice, and

Again, this topic is being fed, and is growing bigger. The issue is becoming vital to not only the United States, but other countries as well. Copenhagen promises to cut US emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020; in which, we will rely heavily on the cap-and-trade bill that is still in the process of being approved by the Senate (Jonsson). This topic is controversial, but universal as well.