Who Can Benefit from Global Warming Debate - Essay Example

Ala Almoallim Glenn Clifton ENGL 102 24 April Who can Benefit from Global Warming Debate? When the question of global warming rises, which happens very frequently today, we immediately think of carbon dioxide going up in the air and destroying the ozone layer, allowing more sunlight to reach the earth’s surface and creating the phenomenon of global warming. Our planet heats as a melting pot, icebergs are disappearing, and life is just a means of survival to get a drop of fresh water. I can estimate that there is a political debate on climate change where certain parties are trying to gain benefits. Of course, global warming exists. The problem is, how can politics affect it and in what intentions do people act to claim possible solutions? Not only do politics on general legislature impact various different countries, but all people on the earth can be influenced by the effects of global warming and its impacts on our planet and on the human race. Politicians must fight not just for us, but for generations that will come after us. Did you ever hear a new phrase in regards to ‘politics of global warming’? Sometimes we pass the things that should affect our lives, directly or not. When did people become familiar with this term: Politics of global warming? Maybe it is a whole era that we are entering right now and those who will live for the next century only in concerns of climate change. Simply speaking, I think depending on what angle the debate over global warming takes, it will affect our generation by our country’s policy, international position and future plan of actions. How politicians decide what affects global warming, will determine how we will be living tomorrow and how future generations will live. Democrats and Republicans are starting to take some actions toward the climate change issue and that is to enable them to gain the public’s voice to win the elections. The people also are starting to take some step towards having a better climate. Prior to the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina in January 2012, the Charleston-based Christian Coalition of America, flew a representative down to meet with the GOP presidential candidates to discuss this particular issue. This Coalition is one of the most powerful advocacy groups in conservative politics. Kerry Emanuel, a Republican and atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, went on behalf of the group to discuss it with political leaders. Though he may be a person who was an unlikely choice in the matters of where global warming is concerned, he wanted to talk about the logic of the situation from the standpoint of a scientist. The strong Coalition had begun to push Republicans to take action on climate change. Unfortunately, the meetings never occurred with the politicians such as Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney because they were petrified by any extremists in their political party that they dared to not touch the issue and kept quiet about the issue entirely (Davenport). To ignore an issue that is distinctively one of political debate and effects not only everyone in the United States, but also people around the world, it made a mockery of global warming as a significant threat to mankind. The debate on global warming first got public eye 15 years ago, when meteorologists tried to measure the average temperature of Earth. “In 1992, the various researches showed that global surface temperatures had increased about 0.6 degrees Celsius since the late 19th century and about 0.3 degrees Celsius over the past 25 years,” ( Romm, 15). Scientists claimed that yes, it were human beings that contributed to this climate change. Only now it has gotten even more complicated as the rising of temperature hits more people, their economic fundamentals and benefits. The way that the economy works is the main concern of politicians; and so the debate emerges, involving the sciences too. But when the issue was first introduced, it may have just been a hype or a facade that people were imagining. Unfortunately science contradicts that this is a mere issue and is actually occurring at an exponential rate. “Mostly young (people), they identify today’s problem as ‘global warming hysteria’ that should have, probably, chilled our Earth,” (Kauffman, 6). However, those of a younger generation do have minds of their own. We have the forest of opposite opinion, indecisive theories and different measures and plans to stop global warming. The only difference is that the issue has gone beyond science, and today it is the main issue of politics. Despite the various opinions that climate change is sort of a circular process, today it is important to understand that no matter what causes global warming, people will suffer first from its consequences. The story likely has more than two sides, where scientists go even further from blaming human activity solely. Some scientists say that black spots in the sun cause all “noise,” and changed the atmosphere between the earth and the sun which then resulted in global warming. Or it could even be an evolutionary scenario that happens perhaps even before man walked the planet. What if it were the reason dinosaurs were wiped out? Whatever it is, politicians made it the subject of their resolutions, campaigns and documentaries. “Al Gore has increased his popularity roughly three times, and in Montana Senator John Tester along with Brian Schweitzer introduced the whole brand new concepts of the cap-and-trade system, which, certainly, got them more support from Green Montanans,” (National Wildlife Federation). Other countries are also trying not to stay behind from the rush of global warming activities. France, Germany, and Italy are all involved in international discussion over it, racking their brains to come up with solutions such as building carbon-free automobiles and plants which are better for the environment. Though since the issue is scientifically proved, why are we still confused about causes of climate change and global warming? Some people simply do not care. People tend to argue, because they have different concerns on their mind, different intentions, and, therefore, different arguments. Politics and debate work alike in that they can be both aggressive and controversial. They say that our civil duty is to reduce energy waste, but did any politicians develop certain explicit decisions with a particular plan of solution? It is only a debate because different sides of this debate play for themselves, either with good or bad consequences. Unfortunately, politicians treat these social and global issues as just a platform to gain popularity and power rather than to actually address the subject. As the debate grows further, people side with different political camps. Governments insist on reducing carbon dioxide by using broad national campaign methods, from shifting to alternative energy sources to building awareness of global warming in schools. But there is always someone, who dislikes the authorities. “They will try to be involved in debate. These activists just don’t like any kind of governmental regulation,” (Romm, 45). These people are not even considered to be fighters on global warming, and so they reject it. Take, for example, hundreds of forums where folks discuss their country, government and political leaders. There are a lot of hostility in their words. At one of the forums, the actual topic was global warming policies, and a member said, “I don’t hate America; I hate what the right-wing/Bush has done to America.” In response, another participant said, “If you hate the policies of the United States, then I suggest that you discuss the issues with your intellectual brothers in arms: Al Qaeda.” CITE So, the debate makes people hop atop their political soapbox, and they are getting confused about their government, and what they can look to in order to truly believe any changes that politicians can make and in this case, change policies about global warming. Independent scientists assert that there is no such thing as climate change. During this Great Global Warming situation, Peter Armstrong, a professor at MIT, refers to the natural cycles of climate change that have occurred in the past. Some of these examples are the Ice Age, the warming of Asia, and the shifting from warm temperatures to cool over the course of the whole historical span of the Earth that have been scientifically proven to have occurred. Just take the issue of the rising of sea levels. To acknowledge this change in global warming would include, “that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; and that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average,” (Durkin). Some people may inquire with questions of ‘why can’t we just admit that nothing is stable in nature, and every biological life has to go through evolution?’ NEW PARA New scientists think that global warming can’t be caused by humans. “They have a tiny bit of history comparing to trillions of years of the Universe, and carbon emissions due to their activity is an extremely small factor, as it comes primarily from volcanoes, oceans and rise of sun activity” (Durkin). We can say that these people are trying to postpone concrete decisions on global changes. Some of them may fear that if global warming will be completely due to the effects of humans’ activities, then the nation will be profoundly affected by policies of changes. Of course, it is less likely that someone will want to completely change his or her lifestyle. People tend to reject changes, and they try to find other possible causes of climate change, wanting to place blame elsewhere than on themselves. That is when the army of alternative scientists emerge claiming that the global warming is just a great political swindle. They can be covert speakers for oil companies and gain benefits from that side. Chevron Oil lobbyists were opposing global warming before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was published, saying “there is no more doubt that human emissions, particularly from explosions of automobiles, cause climate change,”(Romm, 56). The debate over global warming has become so universal, that it is hard to find someone without an opinion today. “Developing countries need small businesses’ heavy industries. Oil companies don’t want to be thrown out of profit. Fairly speaking, they deserve compensations if special taxes will be imposed to pollutants,” (IPCC). Of course, there will be losers, and there will be winners. “Green” politicians will gain attention, votes, and of course, fame and popularity. OMISSION MADE The debate grows, as it influences politicians and their campaigns. Politicians try to gain attention, raise money and win elections by taking a certain stance on a platform in order to gain publicity. This platform could be global warming but that does not mean that they will promise to do anything with any proposed policies and changes. It is just a convenient method to gain popularity and votes through manipulation. The problem is that politics go hand in hand with various economic and social interests and one of these is global warming. (You really went off on a tangent here and we had to toss that. This is about global warming. Not hating politicians so we had to switch gears). The concern about global warming is becoming universal. It is impossible to act apart of it, avoid talking about it, and thus, it turns into an argument about its causes and effects. It can be manageable and crucial to create unique decisions and try to come up with possible solutions to fight against the issue. Otherwise, alone and split, politicians will not get to the conclusion to their debate, and people will be an easy target of unethical usage of power, corruption, and possible bureaucracy rather than focusing on the main topic we need to address: global warming and climate change. PUT IN A DIFFERENT SPOT A series of surveys that were designed by Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University and Edward Maibach and Connie Roser-Renouf of George Mason University and conducted by Knowledge Networks summarizes every category with their percentage of agreement and disagreement with the global warming. According to this study, the majority of Democrats, (78%) believe that global warming is occurring. Of other political parties, 71% of Independents and 53% of Republicans believe that global warming is real. By contrast, only 34% of Tea Party members believe global warming is happening, while 53% say that it is not, (Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, and Hmielowski). In one of the surveys, this group of researchers asked many people a series of questions which were designed to determine the peoples knowledge about the global warming. One of these questions: “To the best of your knowledge, what proportion of climate scientists think that global warming is happening?” Of people surveyed, they were also asked some other questions, both specific and general. Some of these included: “When do you think global warming will start to harm people in the United States?” and “When do you think global warming will start to harm other people around the world?” (Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, and Hmielowski). Depending on the answers the people give, they were categorized into several groups. The authors present opposing viewpoints of different political camps on climate change. Some contend that global warming is a myth and others attribute the situation to human activities. OMIT Entirely BECAUSE the entire paragraph is REPETITIVE and was already in another location. Pick up here with this new paragraph. When being faced with these new global conditions, people in different countries and social strata are voicing their opinions. For example, more people in the Caribbean and in Latin American countries are on higher alert due to the magnitude and frequency of hurricanes. Women in sub-Saharan African cultures spend many much more time in search of water. A lack of snow in Switzerland during recent winters has significantly affected mountain shelters. In Australia, the ancestral drawings that were done by the aboriginal women predicted the changes that the fish and the coral reef have undergone. Climate change will affect people differently based on social categories such as ethnic groups, age, gender, age, and economic level. Regardless of these factors, global warming will affect everyone. If attention is not paid to its causes and effects, climate change may increase inequality all over the world (Garmer). Garmer acknowledges the premise that only equitable representation of all segments of society in decision-making can deliver effective change in reducing the impact of climate change. OMIT already mentnioned Garmer helps contribute to the understanding of the climate change phenomenon, causes, effects, and impact of human societies. There are recommendations towards integrating and promoting gender specifics to contain climate change. In relationship to politics in regards to climate change, this makes sense because some governments maintain the idea that the gender aspect is one of the best approaches to tackling the issue of climate change. MOVED Why are we still confused about causes of climate change? Why do some of us simply not care? People tend to argue because they have different concerns in their mind and different intentions. OMIT Some may say that our civil duty is to reduce energy waste, but was any policy developed with certain explicit decisions as a particular plan of solution? No, because it is only debate. But why? It is simply because a certain topic of concern can shed a positive or negative light on politicians. They are talking heads about global warming and then do nothing to slow it down. ADDED However, if they talked about global warming, as public figures, they could create more awareness. People turn to these leaders to look for methods of hope and they hear about global warming and there is nothing that a single individual can do to fix the situation. It takes an entire group of people, whether it be a nation, a group of allies, or even the whole world to make a difference on the environment. However, a leader needs to take a stand to say that this is what needs to be done and have a formulated plan in action. This is where people start to increase their knowledge in this issue and how it affects each and every one of them and their future generations. Work Cited “Climate Change: Pictures of a Warming World.” National Geographic. National Geographic Society, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2014. . Davenport, Coral. “The Coming GOP Civil War Over Climate Change.” National Journal. 9 May 2013. Web. 09 Apr. 2014. . Durkin, Martin. “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Top Documentary Films RSS. Video clip. 09 Apr. 2014. . Garmer, Lance W. Resource Guide on Gender and climate change. Mexico. United Nations Development Programme. 2009. Print. IPCC, “National Analysis.” New York Post: 35. 25 February, 2007. Print. Kauffman Mark. “Chill Out Global Warming.” Denver Post: 6. 15 March, 2008. Print. Leiserowitz Anthony., Maibach Edward., Roser-Renouf, Connie. & Hmielowski, Jay, D. “Politics and Global Warming: Democrats, Republican, Independents, and the Tea Party.” Politics and Global Warming: 1-34. 2011. National Policy for Public Analysis. “Global Warming.” Myths of Global Warming. Web. 9 April 2014. . National Wildlife Federation. “Change the Forecast for Wildlife: Solutions for Global Warming.” Web. 9 April 2014. . Romm, Joseph J. “Hell and High water: global Warming-the solutions and the Politics- and What We Should Do.” New York: William Morrow & Corporation, 2007. Print. Read More