The Evolution of the Solution to Pollution

Nick Gerard

Ms. Jacqueline Kerr

English 101 section 38

3 December 2013

The Evolution of the Solution to Pollution 

            The real solution to climate change is found in the minds of those who still want to work for their place in this world. The real solution to climate change lies within the minds of young conservatives.

            We as a nation must abandon the idea that increasing the size of the federal government will solve our problems. We cannot add a carbon tax to the already enormous tax-code.

            In order to solve climate change we must…

1.      Reform the American tax code

2.     Create a carbon tax that does not increase federal revenue

3.     Reach international agreements on this issue

            First when examining the United States tax-code it is easy to see how Middle America ends up paying through the nose in taxes. Large companies hire experts who find loopholes in the tax code resulting in it being very difficult to increase that tax revenue. (“Simplify the Tax Code” par 2) This ultimately makes the middle class pay extremely high taxes. Adding a carbon tax to this broken system would only be detrimental to America. 

Photo courtesy of Christian Science Monito

            Second a carbon tax needs to be purposed that does not increase federal revenue. This tax would be created to help stop further damage to the planet and is not intended to increase revenue. (“How to Tax Carbon” par 5) This carbon tax would replace other taxes within the tax code, perhaps the income tax. The income tax already takes away incentive to work and conflicts with the core American ideal of hard work being greatly rewarded. A carbon tax would essentially tax any business releasing unsatisfactory carbon emissions, this tax would be high enough to force companies to switch to alternative energy sources and be more environmentally friendly.

Photo courtesy of Real World Libertarian

            Third, order for climate change to be solved it must be addressed as a serious problem on an international level. After the United States adopts this tax and successfully lowers its carbon emissions we must set the standard for industrial pollution. We as a nation must urge other countries around the world to follow us in our pursuit of a cleaner world, to solve climate change quickly. The U.S. would need to use economic sanctions on any country resisting the idea of environmentally friendly change. If our generation wants to change the amount of carbon humans emit into the atmosphere we must change lifestyles and make climate change priority one on an international level.

Mankind and Climate Change by Daniel Kurtzman

            These simple steps can solve one of the greatest problems our world has ever faced. Although each step will take tremendous work on many levels of government and international collaboration it can be done. Time and time again the American will to improve society ends up improving society. The United States has the power to lead on the issue of climate change and help push people to live lives that are sensitive to the world around them.

Work Cited

Moylan, Andrew. “How to Tax Carbon.” American Conservative. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.  

Buchanan, Vern. “Simplify The Tax Code.” Tampa Bay Times. 1 June 2013. Web. 13 November 2013.  

THE WORLD'S IN OUR HANDS

Taylor Groom

12/1/2013

English 101

Ms. Kerr

The World's in OUR Hands

            We already know that climate change is here and growing substantially. Bill McKibben has put in great effort in trying to reach out to the people, whether that be through Eaarth, online articles, or other published news articles that he has written about climate change. According to Geoff Dembicki, a reporter on energy and climate change, "McKibben was determined not to waste any more. The bestselling author criss-crossed the U.S., delivering rousing climate talks to readers and fans. Online, he inspired them to organize their own public events, hundreds in total. His sober, but hopeful, narrative of grassroots change went global after he founded the advocacy group 350.org. In the lead-up to 2009's failed climate talks in Copenhagen, it helped catalyze over 5,200 protests in 181 countries." (The Tyee). This shows that Bill McKibben is continuously making his presence known throughout the world.

            In making his presence known, he is allowing people to be aware of the situation at hand involving the climate. With the information he is providing his readers, he is hoping to install a sense of concern in the people of the world to help the climate change destruction. The increase of climate change is only getting worse when it needs to be getting better.

 

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=climate+change&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=climate+change&sc=8-13&sp=-1&sk=#view=detail&id=AF371F1C4B30CC5869737B0611A77A5DE869B279&selectedIndex=1

            However, Bill McKibben believes we have wasted resources in the last 20 years. He is determined that we can fix the issue of climate change despite wasting "27 trillion dollars" to carbon emissions. He, along with many other people, is worried concerned about all of the national monuments that will be lost due to climate change. Bill McKibben states, "Montana's Glacier national park is predicted to lose its lasts glaciers by 2030" (Worried? Us?). I tend to agree with Bill McKibben based upon his genuine concern about climate change. These statistical concerns are proof that there needs to be a change in peoples day to day life to start resolving this situation.

            I personally believe that global warming is an upcoming issue that many people do not take the time to read into. Climate change and global warming effects each and everyone of us daily. There needs to be a change of ways in the people of the world today because the consequences are slowly and surely beginning to show.

            To enter the debate, several argue that we have to act accordingly if we want to see our national parks not be destroyed by CO2 emissions. Bill McKibben uses proposal of fact in several of his articles. Using these facts are important to make readers understand the consequences and advantages to changing the populations ways in the environment. There are so many facts about how humans have destroyed the environment, whether that be factories or oil spills. We still need to figure out how we are going to adjust our habits to better the environment in the future. Unless the world as a whole can improve their attitude towards saving the environment, our world will continue to suffer.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited:

Dembicki, Geoff. "The Tyee – Is Bill McKibben Making the Climate Change Fight        Harder?" The Tyee. TheTyee.ca, Aug. 2013. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.

Horgan, John. "Overheated Rhetoric: Why Bill McKibben’s Global-warming Fear-       mongering Isn’t Helpful | Cross-Check, Scientific American Blog Network."      Overheated Rhetoric: Why Bill McKibben’s Global-warming Fear-mongering       Isn’t Helpful | Cross-Check, Scientific American Blog Network. N.p., n.d. Web.      15 Nov. 2013.

 

McKibben, Bill. "Worried? Us?" Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.

McKibben, Bill. "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math." Rolling Stone. N.p., 19 July 2012. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.

McKibben, Bill. "Global warming’s terrifying new math." Rolling Stone 2 (2012).

McKibben, Bill. "Global warming’s terrifying new math." Rolling Stone 2 (2012).

McKibben, Bill. "Global warming’s terrifying new math." Rolling Stone 2 (2012).

McKibben, Bill. "Global warming’s terrifying new math." Rolling Stone 2 (2012).

McKibben, Bill. "Global warming’s terrifying new math." Rolling Stone 2 (2012).

McKibben, Bill. "Global warming’s terrifying new math." Rolling Stone 2 (2012).

McKibben, Bill. "Global warming’s terrifying new math." Rolling Stone 2 (2012).

McKibben, Bill. "Global warming’s terrifying new math." Rolling Stone 2 (2012).

McKibben, Bill. "Global warming’s terrifying new math." Rolling Stone 2 (2012).

 

 

Boom Here Comes the Boom, Ready or not. (Credits to P.O.D.)

Born in Indiana and raised in Tennessee, I have grown to really appreciate the south and everything it has to offer.  One of those things in particular is the land, stretching from Tennessee, through Kentucky, and straight through West Virginia and Virginia.  This region is home to the Appalachian Mountains, a mountain region that is being consistently destroyed due to mountaintop removal coal mining.  In the picture below to the left you see a perfectly natural landmass, then to the right a gigantic crater created by explosions.  People live in the mountains, kids go to school in this region, and animals also reside here, this method of coal extraction is unnecessary and should be eliminated.

Before

Image courtesy of Google Images.

According to Sierraclub.org, mountaintop removal coal mining blows

up forested mountains to extract the underlying coal, and then dump

the mining waste into adjacent valleys.  This pollutes wastelands and

severely impacts local communities.  

Every single one of us loves our home and would never want to be ran

off of it, have it destroyed, or just be violated.  The people of the 

Appalachia for years have been terrorized by heartless coal mining companies

and the NRDC, (The Natural Resources Defense Council) is exposing these

companies to stop them. 

Mountaintop removal coal mining is environmentally wrong and it can be 100%

avoidable.  As stated on Energy.gov, the Energy Department says that coal is 

the largest domestically produced energy source, and generates a significant

chunk of our energy.  Instead of mining coal or blowing up mountains to 

obtain it, these companies should realize the environment and the people 

living in it are having to pay the price (Sierraclub.org).  Coal is plentiful 

and it is nothing but harmful.  Instead of looking at "Going green" in

money terms, the companies should see it in environmental terms by finding 

alternative energy solutions.

We have to become more aware of mountaintop removal coal mining. 

Although the population in the Appalachian Mountains is very minuscule

when compared to other regions, those people there still matter.  If this method

of coal mining isn't stopped, the area where you live could be next to be blown

up.  

Image courtesy of Twisted Sifter.

This method of coal extraction shouldn't exist any longer, it has no positive

effects on the environment.  People and animals are being harmed, land is

being torn up and more fossil fuels are being used.  The question is, 

are you finished with companies doing whatever they want to the environment,

 and no one stopping them?

Image courtesy of Twisted Sifter.

Works Cited

"Destroying Appalachia One Mountain at a Time." Sierraclub.org. 

       Web. 25 Nov. 2013. 

"Coal."  Energy.gov. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.

Haney, Bill. dir. The Last Mountain. Sundance Film, 2011. nrdc.org.

       Nrdc, 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. 

                                                 

After

Image courtesy of Google images.

                       

It's Not Left or RIght, It's Global

The government has a nefarious way of turning every situation into a politically divided issue.  Whether the situation be healthcare, infrastructure, international affairs, hell even internal scandals; every single topic becomes a senseless bickering fest between the left and right as they try to beat out the other side.  Recently enough, the issue of climate change has also been sucked into this futile whirlwind of inactivity.  Take a moment to reflect that one over.  Climate change has become a political issue.

Since when is there anything political about the climate?   The climate has been in existence since the earth was formed and has been continuing right along ever since.  Does Congress really feel the need to establish illicit dominance over Mother Nature, and if not that then at least abuse her for its own trifling aims?  The climate is an international entity.  It can’t be made to belong to a certain group of people, nor can it be politically deliberated by a single nation.  Due to that fact, there is no reason climate change needs to be debated as intensely as it is.

            In an academic article by Debra Javeline, Jessica J. Hellmann, Rodrigo Castro Cornejo, and Gregory Shufeldt titled “Expert Opinion on Climate Change and Threats to Biodiversity,” the authors took a survey of 2329 environmental biologists and asked them what their predictions were for the future of climate change.  According to the article, “they expect larger temperature increases, higher percentages of species extinctions, and a high percentage of species' ranges will change in response to climate change over the next 100 years” (Javeline, Hellmann, Cornejo, Shufeldt par. 1).  However, they also came to the conclusion that the scientists with the most expertise on the subject were the ones who projected more severe consequences.  The authors said, “Climate experts (i.e., those with a high self-assessed level of knowledge and high number of publications) estimated, on average, that temperature will increase between 3.3°C and 3.5°C over the next 100 years” (Javeline, Hellmann, Cornejo, Shufeldt par. 25).  However, “these estimates are conservative relative to the range of ‘likely’ projected temperature change by the end of the century” (Javeline, Hellmann, Cornejo, Shufeldt par. 25).  This article basically states the fact that climate change will continue to become a bigger problem with growing temperatures, species extinctions, etc. due to the fact that so many knowledgeable biologists agree on that matter.   If this is the case then there really shouldn’t be an argument over whether or not it exists.  Obviously it exists since there is proof that temperatures have risen, ice caps have melted, and habitats have drastically changed on top of the fact that these scientists, whose living is acquired totally around this subject, concur with the evidence, so what is the debate here?  Global warming has happened.  It’s here.  It’s real.  The real question is how responsible humans are for it, but that’s a debate for another day. 

            Another article by Jonathan P. Schuldt, Sara H. Konrath, and Norbert Schwartz titled “’Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’” points out that Congressional Republicans seem to prefer to use the term “global warming” while Democrats prefer “climate change.”  The article reveals that “Republicans were less likely to endorse that the phenomenon is real when it was referred to as ‘global warming’ (44.0%) rather than ‘climate change’ (60.2%), whereas Democrats were unaffected by question wording (86.9% vs. 86.4%)” (Schuldt, Konrath, Schwartz par. 1).  This finding hints at the fact that Republicans generically don’t believe that the planet is actually warming; yet they still believe in the more vague term “climate change.”  Does it really matter what the issue is called?  If they believe in climate change enough to have a motive to do something about it, then it must be pretty detrimental, but God forbid they believe the planet is warming since that’s what the Democrats believe.  The authors go even further to say that “as a result, the partisan divide on the issue dropped from 42.9 percentage points under a ‘global warming’ frame to 26.2 percentage points under a ‘climate change’ frame” (Schuldt, Konrath, Schwartz par. 1).  Isn’t that ridiculous?  The political parties are literally arguing over what to call it.
 
 It doesn’t matter what the hell you call it if it’s actually happening and is happening quickly enough to have 2329 scientists agree that the consequences of the issue will be detrimental.  Besides that, why do they even feel that the issue is their issue to debate?  If it’s going to affect every single person in the world, doesn’t that make it everyone’s issue?  It’s embarrassing to the nation that the parties have to come to terms with what they are even going to refer to a crisis as before they act on it, and it’s embarrassing that the name actually affects the partisan divide. 

            A third article by Brian Dickerson titled “Conservatives Warming up to Climate Change” explains exactly what the title says.  Apparently conservatives are warming up to climate change.  This article is an Op-Ed piece designed to persuade an audience to believe that the liberals are not the only people concerned with climate change.  Dickerson states in his article, “One of the most courteous people you could hope to meet, Inglis will tell you straight out that he would rather discuss global warming with tea party conservatives than with any left-of-center newspaper columnist” (Dickerson par. 13).  In this quote, Dickerson is discussing Bob Inglis’ contributions to fixing climate change and explains how much he prefers conservative ideology on the matter as opposed to liberals.  Being a conservatively one-sided article, Dickerson is trying to convey the argument that conservatives are just as concerned about climate change, if not more concerned.  Again, this is just another article filled with propaganda about a certain side’s view of climate change and how that view is better.  If the politicians really do want to help with the issue then it would probably be a wiser idea for them to work together and work together with other nations since it is, after all, an international issue. 

            To recap, I believe it is pointless to argue so intensely over climate change, especially politically.  The United States Government has no authority to decide what to do about the climate.  I believe that it is important to take care of the environment and try to do something positive about the situation the planet currently seems to be in, but there is no need for there to be any legislation regarding the climate, especially by a single nation, and the issue should not have such an immense partisan divide.  If Congress really wants to help the planet, they should spend less time bickering over trivial matters like what to call it and who agrees on what aspects and start focusing about how to start making a difference for the future. 

           

Works Cited

Dickerson, Brian. “Conservatives Warming Up to Climate Change.” Detroit Free Press. October  6, 2013.

Javeline, Debra, Hellmann, Jessica J., Cornejo, Rodrigo Castro, Shufeldt, Gregory. “Expert           Opinion on Climate Change.” BioScience. Aug2013, Vol. 63 Issue 8, p666-673. 8p.

Schuldt, Jonathan P., Konrath, Sara H., Schwartz, Norbert. “’Global Warming’ or ‘Climate           Change.’” Public Opinion Quarterly. Mar2011, Vol. 75 Issue 1, p115-124. 10p. 2 Charts.