For a small price, you can help solve global warming. Problem is, you actually can not. Most of the scientists’ goal is that 50% of the global warming problems will be solved by 2050. There’s a lot of things to do to make the world a better place. People have multiple ideas and plants, but there is not much hope because of economical, political, and environmental obstacles.
On Saturday, March 29, Earth Hour will occur, where everyone in the US turns off their light bulbs for an hour. This hour exists to raise awareness for climate change. Raising awareness is good, yes, but it’s not useful because global warming has enough awareness as it is, they need to take action now. Realistically, self-control isn’t going to make much of a difference.
The International Energy Agency says that if the current trends continue, energy-use worldwide will rise more than 50% by 2030, and China and India will be 45% of the problem.
There is good news: the planet's not beyond saving because of the growing awareness. The more people that care and find out, the more chances there are that the world will be healthy again. But the question is, how are they supposed to make carbon dioxide emissions expensive, but also reduce the cost of alternative energy, for example, solar energy.
The premier of British Columbia, Finlayson, started taxing carbon emissions like gasoline. The premier was applauded for that. Apparently putting taxes on carbon emissions is an enormous step towards solving global warming.
Considering the current situation and prediction, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said global emissions from fossil fuels will double in 21 years, not 53, like they predicted.
NASA scientist James Hansen says the safe limit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million. The current concentration: over 380 parts per million. Harvard Law and Policy Review have agreed that carbon tax systems may be the only solution to the problem because their point is that if carbon gets expensive, then fewer people will buy it or use it. But then again, alternative solutions like solar energy for example are insanely expensive.
Thomas Homer-Dixon has said that we have to put the money we have in things like nuclear power, carbon capture/storage, where carbon dioxide from industrial sources is all pumped underground, where it will be safer for the Earth’s atmosphere.
There is a risk that the panic over global warming will sooner or later start getting boring. Recent polls in Britain and the US show that there is in fact awareness about how urgent global warming is, but people are slowly losing the enthusiasm they once had and some are even questioning what’s happening.
Parts I Agree With
I agree with a couple of points in the summary here. I agree with China and some other countries being in the wrong, as they continue to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Second, I agree that the more awareness there is about global warming, the more chances there are that people will take action. I’m not in favor of the opinion that the only chance of ending global warming is raising as much awareness as possible. As long as you have a good amount of influence and authority with the group of people you have supporting the fight against global warming.
Lastly, I agree with Homer-Dixon that we have to put money into nuclear power, carbon capture/storage, where carbon dioxide from industrial sources is underground, where it will be better for the environment.
Parts I Disagree With
There is not much that I do not agree with, but something from the article caught my eye: the ex-premier of British Columbia who started taxing carbon emissions. I do not support that. People do so many different things to get around taxes, and to steal gas. Putting extra money on something to stop it? I don’t think it is that simple.
Another thing that was brought up in the article was how expensive alternative energies, like solar energies, are. Not everyone can afford that, which might not even make that much of a difference to the world, if you think about it. If it is made cheaper or given for free or on a discount to people who can not afford it, for the sake of saving our planet, then there is a chance that we could get somewhere.
Some significant improvements that people have made in the past many years: Firstly, after so many polar bears and penguins have been slowly getting endangered, and many other marine animals, people have started working on a solution. They started protecting endangered species and cleaning the oceans, seas, lakes, and more. Other than that, people start recycling more to make sure plastic does not end up in the wrong place, and have started growing their own, fresh vegetables and plants, that don not have a bad effect on the environment. All of these things were outstandingly beneficial for Earth.
What I Think It Will Take To Stop Global Warming
If we are talking about the moral aspects of this problem and the solution to it, then first of all, I think everyone, political leaders included, need to open their eyes and realise that this is supposed to be a world-wide effort to end global warming. Our planet will start melting sooner or later if we do not realize the severity of this problem. If a bunch of people start practicing Earth Hour every year, let's be honest and realistic, how much of a change is it going to make? Not that much. There are countries that are pumping carbon dioxide on pretty much an hourly basis. Yes, I agree that there will be some economical issues to deal with, but keeping in mind the future generations, will provide hope, because we will know that they will not suffer the way we are now, but much worse.
Let’s consider the political leaders and everyone have come to a common point: global warming must end as soon as possible. Governments should provide people with free or discounted alternative energy sources, for example, solar panels. Governments should then make sure that all of the carbon dioxide from industrial sources is pumped underground. Or at least, as many as possible. Car manufacturers should do their best to discontinue advertising mechanical cars that need gas and start advertising hybrid cars instead and selling more of those. Basic things like not using up so much electricity can also make a difference.
Response essay to:
a/n: pls dont take any of this to offense if you think differently about any of this thank you this was for school and i wanted to share it bc i did good and i want to perfect it and somehow throw it into the newspaper ahh. idk what i'm looking for in the review if you decide to leave me one, but if it isn't grammar/punctuation related, i'd be thankful haha.