815542

Global warming, defined by an increase in earth's external temperature, has become the new hot-topic of recent years. Everybody from politicians to ** has **celebrities ﻿ ﻿s hown their awareness and attempted to alleviate the problems that global warming creates. To properly create policies that minimize global warming and its effects, leaders of the world have to consider whether ﻿( or not do not need)﻿﻿ global warming is real, and how a specific policy will affect the economy and nature.

Before leaders begin to create policies that address and minimize global warming, leaders must consider the realness of global warming. Studies have proven that global warming is a very real threat. In the last 100 years, "the world's average temperature rose by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit, the fastest rate in any period over the last 1000 years" (Source A). This statistic is worrisome as it reveals the large impact that human activity has had on the earth. Ever since industrialization, in the early 1900's, people ** machines, technology, whatevs **have been emitting carbon dioxide, a key factor in global warming. The increase in temperature can thus be attributed to human activity, proving that global warming is real because it can be traced back to one factor. In fact, as carbon-emitting activities have grown (like production of goods), so has the earth's temperature. Starting around 1910, the global ocean surface temperature has been on a steady increase (Source B). The positive correlation between time and temperature shows the earth's increasing temperature. It cannot be denied that this graph's data is synonymous with the information provided by Source A << kind of weirdly and randomly put... i do not think you need to explain the correlation between the two sources. Clearly, global warming is a widely supported issue that must be addressed. ** extensive evidence supports it's existence **

To combat global warming, it is necessary to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions are the "primary global-warming gas" (Source A); most of the emission are from industry building tools like factories, planes, boats, etc. These tools all require the "Combustion of fossil fuels" which "accounts for nearly three-quarters of carbon dioxide emissions" (Source A). This fact may lead people to believe that cutting down on carbon dioxide will harm the economy and 3rd world countries, especially after realizing that the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that targets global warming, specifically asks "34 industrialized nations... to cut emissions" (Source C). People will believe that these 34 countries, which are mostly all wealthy and industrialized, are in such a affluent state because of their mode of industrialization (building up on production of goods via combustion of fossil fuels). However such combustion of non-renewable sources is unnecessary because alternative renewable energy like solar power and wind power is a promising substitute for fossil fuels. In fact, "New York... aims to generate 25% of the state's energy from renewables... up from 19% today" (Source C). The goal of increasing the use of alternative energy is a testament to the effectiveness and high-quality of alternative renewable energy. If renewable energy were not a good source of power, it is doubtful that New York would be attempting to increase its use of the power. If more countries and states were to use alternative energy to power its industrialization, then the economy will not be negatively harmed since the same amount of work is being done. ** ends on a different note than started with? **

The economy and development of 3rd world countries will also not be negatively harmed if countries use their current resources more effectively. Currently, "approximately one-quarter of carbon dioxide is caused by deforestation" but "protection and restoration of forests may be able to offset" a percentage of the carbon dioxide emissions (Source A). Much of the land that is being deforested is done so unnecessarily. If countries used the land that is already clear for building and expanding, then the government and companies could offset the effects of global warming without causing superfluous harm to the earth. However, it is often completely necessary that land be cleared, in which case, companies could then prevent rising temperatures by replacing the trees that are cut down. As a result, developing countries will not be negatively harmed because industrialization can still continue, the only difference being that it will be cleaner and more conscientious.

When making policies, leaders must also focus on the negative impacts global warming has on nature. "Robins in Wisconsin are arriving in Wisconsin several days earlier than they did a decade ago" just like how other other birds are laying eggs or migrating at different time periods, possibly interfering with other birds (Source F). This would not be as large of a problem except that "the slow evolutionary process of species adaptation can't keep up" (Source F). What this means for animals and plants is that they will be wiped as because they cannot handle the new temperature shifts. As a result, policy makers have to make decisions on how animals will be treated under certain policies. Without restrictions on global warming, it is likely that organisms will go extinct, destroying the ecology of the earth.
 * sea level, natural disasters? address human aspect as well **

Global warming is a key issue that policy makers have to pay attention to. Which policy makers? be more specific More specifically, they must consider the realness of global warming, the economic effects, and the natural effects of addressing global warming. It is only in this way that leaders can make the best decisions that does not too negatively impact any specific group.