333198

Global Warming Synthesis Essay

For the past cent ﻿ury towards ﻿ the present ,<--- confusing [very cliche opening; think of creative ways to introduce the hook] the climate and environment have started to change, and not in a good way. The culprit behind these higher temperatures and random blizzards is apparently Global Warming. Many leaders are skeptical of its existence, and when pressured to make a decision based upon Global Warming, their policies are formed heavily around that belief. Leaders throughout the world are all facing different effects of Global Warming, and should consider whether the visilbe problems at hand are real or just a myth, they must decide the economic factors, and also the environmental issues of the changes. (weirdly worded) [awkwardly worded paragraph. Don't use also in your thesis.]

Before a leader decides to change everything to more environment friendly stages, he/she must consider the reality of the problem. Is the constant rise in temperature the effect of the terrible, impending Global Warming, or is it just because of more greenhouse gases being sent into the ozone [?]. According to the temperature graph in Source B, the temperature has gradually increased throughout the past 100 years or [don't use or, it makes you sound unsure of your own stance/ideas] at at rate that would make people worried about the future. However, even though this is factual data, people in the world deny it. ["Despite these statistics, individuals continue to deny that this is a serious environmental issue"] This has only led them to become even more skeptical of what's really going on. In the year 2005, the "Kyoto Protocol was formed to allow countries to take the incentive and help reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. 141 countries signed it, yet the United States and Austrailia, which are the main contributers to greenhouse emissions, did not" (Source A). Why is it that the two primary contributers to the problem did not want to sign the Protocol? Clearly, those other 141 nations have become serious [rephrase] and decided to cut back. And they have reason to [too]. Global Warming is technically not real, but the effect of it is very visible everywhere. [you just undermined your whole argument] we need to care whether it may be real or not, the threat is clearly straight forward. [bad transition/concluding sentence]

On top of that, leaders should also think of the economic factors when changing policy for global warming. Changing our long grown policies to be more eco-friendly is not a cheap endeavor. According to journalist Mark Marlin, if the US were to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, "they would have to cut their emissions by over a third, which Presidents see as a direct threat to the US economy" (Source E). By cutting emissions, our energy supply of coal and oil would go down a pitfall, and people would lose jobs because there would be no work available to their professsions. Also, if a President were to cut back and spend more money, their chances of reelection might not go so well since the people would be bankrupt and unemployed. In that case, there are huge effects to the economy because of global warming. Also, a leader must consider whether "the money spent on stabilizing Global Warming, "$8 trillion, to protect future generations is better spent on alleviating current global suffering" (Source E). Why use up so much money for something that could just be a coincidence and not use it on problems taht are happening all over the present? It appears that the ends justify the means in this issue. If one protects their country now, then in th future the masses will live in a better state. [this paragraph was better than the last but still written on a rough draft/primary level]

The final factor that must be taken into consideration is the environment. should we use more money to help reforest areas and protect the wild life? Seth Bernstein states that all over, "robins are arriving earlier then they did a decade ago and cherry trees are blooming a month earlier then over a century ago" (Source F). The main culprit, he said, was man made Global Warming. While these changes seem to be good, they are actually omens or signs that the environment is changing at a faster pace then that of the animals and it is disrupting the cycle of life. By combating these changes with lowering of emissions and waste, we can return these cycle back on track and allow species to survive. If a leader took into account that the environment as a main target by Global Warming, they would have to set policies taht protect and restore the forests to their former glory, and in the process, reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide by over 20% over a period of 50 years. It would take a while to do so, but we as humans "learn to prioritize with what we already have to make change" (Source D). Why go for 100% when you can just use the resources at hand and accomplish change in some areas of imortance, not every single sector. Leaders, instead of using up needed capital, ask the people to change with what they have available and go for something great. The economy is intertwined with the environment, where changes in our environment affect how much money we will need to sponsor reform.

No concluding paragraphs