##ving Our Environment, Gun Control, And Rights For The LGBT Community

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

The Declaration of Independence affirms that the country is founded upon the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, the Democratic and Republican Parties do not always uphold these ideas in their decisions regarding social issues. The Democratic party believes in Protecting the lives of inmates, allowing women to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and support LGBT rights. While the Republican Party’s ideals consist of allowing the death penalty, being pro-life, and not supporting the rights of the LGBT community. We almost must remember to integrate our faith into the decisions we make by electing people who support those who uphold biblical ideology. The Democratic Party best upholds the natural rights given to us because they support life sentences rather than the death penalty, the right to choose to have an abortion, and the rights of the LGBT community, which comes closest to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

I believe that I am more Republican. Some of the biggest issues that are important to me are abortion, immigration and taxes. Even though my beliefs on abortion do not line up with that of republicans, I still generally side with their beliefs more. I believe in prochoice, I think that people should be safe when it comes to things like pregnancy but if they want to get an abortion, it is up to that person. The government should not be allowed to control what someone does with their body in this aspect. Immigration is another issue I find very important feel that if someone is here illegally, they should not be allowed to stay. I feel that immigration is ok as long as the person coming into the country does it right. America is a country of immigrants so of course our arm should be open to those who wish to live here. However, the moment they are here illegally and are not planning to legally be part of the country they should be deported. Finally, taxes are a somewhat important issue to me. I think that the very rich should have higher taxes since it makes more sense that they would have the money to pay for it. Those who do not make a lot a year should be minimally taxed so that they are able to pay their taxes each year.

What I found fascinating is when it came to economic issues I leaded towards republicans but when it came to social issues I was definitely the average democrat, overall I was considered a independent on, “Where Do You Fit? The Political Party Quiz” Which I think makes a lot of sense on the social side because there was a statement over abortion and I believe that in some cases it should be allowed for example if a woman is raped she should be able to have that choice if she would like to carry the baby. Another examples is adult choice I believe anyone should marry whomever he or she pleases why should the government stop you from loving who you want to love. I believe we live in a world today that is nothing as it was many centuries ago its time to let go of the past and focus on today. But then when it came to a statement that stated, “the government should help more needy people even if

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.

Each year scientists cast a prediction on how much the sea levels will rise by the end of the century, but they keep changing to higher numbers because they keep finding that glaciers are melting at an unstoppable rate. Even though glaciers started to melt in the after the Ice Age, our nuclear factories and burning of fossil fuels have been feeding the heat to the Earth, creating our Earth to start changing its climate to higher temperatures. Democrats are trying to change this problem by trying to enforce laws of making more factories go green and power their plants by sawdust and water instead of burning fossil fuels. In my perspective, I believe neither party will fix global climate change because it will cost more to install solar panels and build new plants. The natural human instinct is to be cheap. America depends too much on Wall Street and unhealthy factories in China to produce products and make money. Face it, if someone offered you an organic donut for $5, and then someone else offered you an ordinary donut for $1, you’d pick the ordinary donut because it's cheaper even though it's bad for you. Let’s be real, fixing global climate change is like trying to fix a broken vase with a hot glue gun, it’ll never be the same because the damage is already

Look around. Every day, everyone will witness some sort of carbonic emission in some form dispersing into the atmosphere. You hear enough about it on the news, whether you care or not. However, the question lingers: is it even that big of a deal? Most likely, if you are a Republican, you will say that Democrats are blowing the whole climate change situation out of the water, or that the warming of our earth is completely natural. Notice how they switched it from global warming to climate change; that is because their previous assumptions and models have not been completely accurate, right? On the other hand, if you are a Democrat, you are most likely seething over the statements you just read and want to do anything you can to prevent this possible catastrophic disaster. 97% percent of climate scientists agree that Climate Change is here and now, caused by all of us… right? Democrats are also more likely to target and blame carbon emissions on the rising temperatures. Nevertheless, William McDonough, a famous urban planner, says that targeting carbon is a purely political move. Further, carbon should be a useful resource for humans, and an imbalanced carbon cycle is to blame. In fact, McDonough claims this imbalance is the result of poor and inadequate urban designing. Are any climate change believers right? Or are Donald Trump and friends correct in pointing the finger at the problem and saying, “wrong!” First and foremost, let us explore the partisan views on the issue.

Personally I feel as though most of my political views align with the Democratic Party platform more so than the Republican Party platform. However I think that both sides have points that I very

After researching the beliefs of the two presidential parties in greater detail, I have come to the conclusion that I share more qualities and beliefs with that of a democrat versus a republican because of foreign aid, gun control, and immigration policies. I am convinced that these three issues have helped me further the process in choosing a side because I tend to have more of a liberalistic view, rather than a conservationist view. I’ve realized that I want change for the benefit of the greater good, rather than for the individual. I also believe that since our society is evolving, our country’s views must build new ideals in order to continue what the country values most, peace and freedom.

The issue that stands out to me as most important is that of environmental justice and environmental racism, as discussed in chapter 3. The book described environmental justice as "the efforts to ensure that hazardous substances are controlled so that all communities receive protection regardless of race or socioeconomic circumstances” (Schaefer). Environmental racism is the disproportionate impact of environmental hazards, mainly how intentionally neglecting the needs for pollution control in urban areas and its effects on the community’s health. Minorities and low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by polluting industries, environmental justice is the movement’s response to environmental racism.

As Brandus also points out, “Trump’s actions… have spoken louder than any words…”, not only has he pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords, but he has also scrapped a bill that was put in place to curb carbon emissions for the sake of more ‘efficient’ business. The worst part is that this decision seems to already be backfiring on President Trump. President Trump cut former President Obamas Clean Power Plan, with the result being that businesses are not required to calculate how much their project cost in terms of carbon emissions and the effect on our planet. This will cost so much in the future, not just because we will be further damaging the earth, but our later attempts to repair any damage will be that much more expensive. Brandus also points out how Trump’s EPA head, Scott Pruitt “He has weakened water safety rules and moved to eliminate programs that limit children's exposure to lead-based paint -- which is known to cause brain damage” (Brandus 2). This is directly affecting our nation’s future in a negative way. These actions that are being made are going to damage our children, and leave them hurting worse than we are now. Of course there are some criticisms to the Paris Climate Accords as well, such as the points made by Marcos Arruda, in Political Challenfges of the Paris Climate Agreement. Arruda rightly comments that the agreement

In December 2015, almost 200 countries around the world, gathered in Paris to sign an accord to slow global warming. Only three developed countries did not agree with the accord. To most, it may seem that preventing global warming is necessary to protect future generations from heat waves, super storms, and extreme flooding. Classical liberalism can provide the best explanation of why some countries choose to ignore global warming.

There are a few hot topics that are running around the political world such as homosexual rights, freedom of speech, and gun ownership rights. The Democratic Party is seen to be liberal political party. Looking on my views I do believe to see myself as a more democratic thinker even though there are a few things that do line up with the republican side. With all three of these topics that we are talking about it really makes me realize what all the ups and the dons are with each of these topics.

The Merits of Liberal and Realist Arguments: Explaining the decisions of all major states to sign the 2015 Paris Agreement to address climate change and global warming

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).