Where Can I Find More Information?

Global warming is a very compelling issue; therefore, I feel that research and supplemental reading are essential to fully understanding this complex issue. I have provided links to reputable sites that I find informative and helpful in understanding and learning more about global warming.

The following sites provide foundational knowledge of global warming, explaining what it is and what is causing it.
http://www.net.org/warming/impacts.vtml http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm

Although global warming is such a formidable threat and may therefore seem beyond our control, there are many things we can do to prevent excess greenhouse gas emission, air pollution, and the increase in climatic temperature! The following sites show how.
http://www.eartheasy.com/article_global_warming.htm
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/78958/10_ways_to_help_stop_global_warming.html
http://www.recycling-revolution.com/ways-to-prevent-global-warming.html
http://www.italladdsup.gov/drivers/alternative.asp

Voluntary preventative action is imperative to the wellness of our atmosphere. Unfortunately, many people are either ignorant of the magnitude of the threat global warming poses, are uninformed of how to prevent it, or simply do not care. Therefore, federal enforcement of environmental action is becoming more necessary as the threat increases. The following sites provide information on legislation that has been drafted, considered, passed, or rejected.
http://www.wri.org/climate/topic_content.cfm?cid=4265
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?56+Duke+L.+J.+1587

• Kerry Snowe Global Warming Reduction Act: http://www.bu.edu/washjocenter/newswire_pg/spring2007/stories/CLIMATE.htm http://www.blueclimate.com/blueclimate/2006/10/kerry_snowe_glo.html
• Kyoto Protocol: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotobrf.html
• Clean Air Act: http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/understand.html http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/
• Lieberman- McCain Climate Stewardship Act: http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/s_139_summary.cfm http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43988-2003Oct30?language=printer

These sites will educate you to the point of being proficient in climatic issues. Only when we are educated about global warming can we work to prevent it. Learn with me, so that together we can make a difference.

Implications

Thus far, I have argued that the government should pass legislature to promote the decrease of greenhouse gases to prevent climate change from destroying our earth. This argument implies that if the government does not act soon, the earth will become overheated and adverse effects will occur in wildlife and our lifestyles. While some may proclaim this an argument to have a rather slippery slope, however, I have proven it to be perfectly logical. In reference to my previous posts, I have discussed the ineffectiveness of voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, how America faces the most imposing threat of global warming, and analyzed various proposed pieces of legislation. Therefore, if the American government does not act quickly, America will feel the effects of global warming even more so than at the present.

A Theory on Why the Government Cannot Agree on Climate- Friendly Legislature

If the solution to global warming was easily obtained, it would not be such a controversial issue. Each draft of legislation proposed carries a consequence which scares government officials into opposition. The Kerry- Snowe Global Warming Reduction Act, for example, would be very effective in reducing greenhouse gas emission, but has too many drawbacks to be enforced. The Kyoto Protocol, if followed as it was drafted, would result in a significant reduction of greenhouse gases; however, President Bush recognized ways in which it was "fundamentally flawed" and withdrew.

Global warming is a formidable issue, and there are many ways to approach it. Avoiding national action is not an effective way to combat the threat. Weighing out the benefits and consequences of proposed solutions is always a good idea; however, I believe that as the climate increases at such a dramatic rate, it would be an even better idea to face the consequences and pass laws that would reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

How about monetary compensation?

President Jagdeo of Georgetown, Guyana, a small South American nation north of Brazil, realized the potential threat of deforestation and created an innovative idea to reduce this threat. Jagdeo proposed a limit on logging in the forests of Guyana in return for monetary retribution. Furthermore, existing logging contracts would not be put in jeopardy; although existing contracts would remain intact, new ones would be rejected.

This idea has much potential; being paid for little work (or in the stead of work), is something most people would not turn down! However, this retribution may be enough to deplete the federal accounts of impoverished nations such as Guyana, where the rainforests exist. An act such as this may be more effective in America, where the federal government doesn't mind superfluous spending and there are many forested areas that would benefit from protection from logging. Though this act would result in a decline in the logging industry, I believe this is a good time to learn to live without tree products being so available. Trees absorb carbon dioxide, which is one of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Paper conservation is essential for the preservation of trees and our atmosphere. If the logging industry is put in jeopardy because of it, so be it. In the long run, it may make all the difference.

Clean Air Act

The United States, as can easily be imagined, experiences more side effects of global warming than anywhere else in the world. This may be explained by the increasingly large amount of greenhouse gases we emit each day, and our reliance on motor vehicles. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the number of registered vehicles has more than tripled since 1960; therefore, the amount of exhaust emission coming from registered vehicles alone, has more than tripled. This obviously poses a threat to our environment.

The Clean Air Act, updated in 1990 from its original 1970 version, is an act passed by the American government to "clean up air pollution." The act works to reduce the amount of air pollution created by vehicles and other sources of pollution, and reduce the amount of chemicals used that deplete the ozone. The goal of the act was to "set and achieve" National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for each state, and a maximum pollutant level would be set accordingly for each state. Many states were not proactive in establishing NAAQS, and missed the deadlines set by the Act. There have been revisions since the original version, so the Act has not been completely ignored.

For a proposal with so much potential for beneficial effects, it is a shame that it could not be acted upon as planned because the state governments were so careless as to miss the NAAQS deadlines. The original version of this Act, if enforced as it should have been, would have greatly reduced the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by each state. Furthermore, since the NAAQS was created for each state instead of the country as a whole, each state's industry and economy would not be put in jeopardy because they were taken into careful consideration when establishing an appropriate NAAQS. This would have been a very effective bill, and it is a shame that the American people are unmotivated to the point of carelessness.

Kerry- Snowe Global Warming Reduction Act

Drafted by senators John Kerry and Olympia Snowe, the Global Warming Reduction Act "requires that the U.S. freeze emissions in 2010 and then calls for a gradual reduction each year to 65 percent below 2000 emissions levels by 2050." Furthermore, the Act requires direct involvement of American citizens, requiring them to reduce exhaust emission; to use more renewable energy sources; for communities to evaluate their "vulnerability" to climatic change based on the community's harmful emissions and energy- consuming lifestyles, and how to prepare for such a change. This evaluation would follow the guidelines of a National Climate Change Vulnerability and Resilience Program. The Act also calls for technology advancement that would promote the utilization of cleaner energy consumption.

This Act would result in drastic, immediate decline of greenhouse gas emissions, and would require much sacrifice from American citizens. In order to completely eliminate the emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases Americans would not be able to live life as we do now- airplanes, trains, and vehicles would not be allowed to be used. Since there would be no mode of transporting merchandise and goods, stores and factories would close. Schools, workplaces, and even hospitals would all have to run off alternative energy, which tends to be slightly less efficient and more expensive due to scarcity. Therefore, I declare this proposal unobtainable in modern American society. America is among the most industrially and technologically advanced nations in the world; this title would be lost without enormous consumption of scarce resources for energy.

Lieberman- McCain Climate Stewardship Act

The Lieberman- McCain Climate Stewardship Act that was drafted by senators Joseph Lieberman and John McCain in 2003 was rejected by the US Senate on October 30th of that year. The Act proposed a greenhouse gas emission limit on any "entity that... annually emitted more than 10,000 metric tons of [greenhouse gases]." There would be, however, some exemptions to these restrictions. The emissions of residential and agricultural areas would not be restricted, therefore making this proposal a very obtainable goal that would not threaten American residential life or agricultural methods. Each entity would report its emission amount to an EPA administrator, who would create a National Greenhouse Gas Database to organize the national level of hazardous emissions. "Any covered entity not meeting its emissions limits would be fined for each ton of GHGs (greenhouse gases) over the limit at the rate of three times the market value of a ton of GHG," <http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/s_139_summary.cfm>.

This act would effectively cut the emission of fossil fuels produced by industries, factories, and other facilities without compromising the comfort of the traditional American home. The act also would ensure the stability of agriculture, so what reasons could senators find that are influential enough to reject the entire proposal? The Washington Post found that the senators who opposed the bill did so "because it would require 'deep and immediate cuts in fossil fuel use' to meet an 'arbitrary' goal and would drive up home utility bills and gasoline prices." Although the argument held firmly enough to oppose the bill, I do not find it stable enough. The goal to which this senator is referring would not be at all "arbitrary" if bills such as these weren't rejected each time they were proposed! if we would actually begin to take action in reducing the amount of national emission, the goal would eventually be obtained as Americans became more used to a less polluting lifestyle. Since the government cannot agree on a single plan, they should revise the plan which they feel carries the least amount of cons, and decide how much sacrifice the nation can afford in order to preserve the earth on which we live. Perhaps, since they are not satisfied with the work of others, they can brainstorm to create an efficient plan to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases this nation emits, before it is too late.