354135

The extreme rise of temperatures in the past several years has created an enormous debate regarding the possibility of global warming, or the idea that the weather and environment has been negatively impacted by human uses of fuel, abuses of nature, and the creation of pollution. The idea of global warming has affected countries politically, economically and socially as politicians and individuals debate whether it is a real concern and how best to solve it accordingly. When making policies, governments must **take into account** recognize that global warming is a real issue **and** so governments should put money into finding renewable energy sources to help the environment and economy. However, governments should **but also** focus more in aiding humans than the environment.

Global warming is a serious and destructive occurence that is already having huge consequences in the world. Although some politicians argue that it is a myth of no importance, global warming is real and it must be considered when goverments create policies that will influence the environment and will possibly make global warming even worse. (sentence is hard to follow ) As seen in a graph compiled by government data, global ocean surface temperature has drastically increased in the past century, proving that the world's weather has been affected somehow (Graph). Some people believe that this is merely a repeating trend of temperature changes that has always naturally occured. However, a study by the National Academy of Sciences (good way to integrate quote) "statistically links global warming from the burning of fossil fuels has led to unnatural changes in temperatures and seasons," supporting the theory of man-caused global warming (Borenstein). These environmental changes have been linked to disastrous "average temperature increase... sea level rise... significant changes in weather patterns, and more extreme climate events" (Maslin). Many more natural disasters have recently occured (what kinds of natural disasters? give examples), linked to the increase of temperatures and weather changes. These concerning consequences of global warming should be considered by the government when making policies, so that they can improve conditions (what conditions? because you talk about natural disasters you can maybe say that the number of natural disasters will be less) and possibly slow the process of global warming. (good connection of sources)

Governments should prioritize in funding renewable energy sources as this would help both the environment and the economy. Since global warming must be taken into account by policy makers, they must be able to balance between policies that help the environment and help (repetitive ) the economy as generally a policy that helps one tends to damage the other. The short term usage of money in this environmental area would eventually benefit the economy as well since "oil and gas prices reach recond levels" in the current years, creating a huge negative impact on the economy (Fonda). The use of "combusion of fossil fuels... acounts for nearly three quaters of carbon dioxide emissions, the primary global warming gas," negatively impacting the environment as well (Kyoto Protocol). Therefore, money should be currently prioritized by government policies to currently help the environment in the search of new renewable energy sources, because (make into 2 sentences) the economy will be helped as well once a less expensive, more efficient source is found and the large prices to pay for the current fuels will not be necessary.

Although global warming is a looming threat to the lives of many, its eradication must not be placed above the importance of people who are already in need (weird shift from rest of the ideas in the essay ). Government money must be spent in helping third world countries develop their economies as well, so that the people living in poverty in these areas can improve their lives. In the book The Skeptical Envionmentalist, the idea of completely eradicating environmental problems is ridiculed and compared to the impossibility of having a "country with no disease" (Lomborg). It is virtually impossible to make all the sacrficies necessary for a world without disease or a world without any environmental issues. Humans must "choose to prioritize in using... limited resources" (Lomborg). There is only so much money that government have available to spend and "how do [people] ensure that the third world develops... while preventing a massive explosion in the production of carbon dioxide" that causes global warming? (Maslin). In this case, governmental policies should focus on "alleviating current global human suffering" than on stopping global warming when it will never be completely eradicated anyway. Focusing on developing the economies of poverty-filled nations will help humans now.