963548

Baby, It's Hot Outside

Pollution is known to cause significant damage to the environment, yet it remains one of the most controversial issues discussed today (why does it remain controversial?). When considering the United States’ global warming policy the eco-friendly approach is always ideal. However, the environment is not the only factor to consider. An effective political leader must consider the complicated political structure and financial constraints in addition to the environment (try not to make this as listy). While “one hundred and forty-one countries ratified the [Kyoto Protocol treaty], the United States…did not” (Source A) (this is just a really big quote. Make it more integrated into a sentence). Because the U.S. is divided politically on every major issue concerning environmental policy, resolution is nearly impossible. Ceding to the terms of the Kyoto Protocol would be a drastic and unfavorable change for businesses and industries (why?). Although environmentalists see the conservation efforts under the Kyoto Protocol as the “first key step to help slow the onslaught of global warming”, the new policy would infuriate industries (Source A). While attempting to make monumental changes in environmental policy, leaders must consider the extreme divisions in public opinions. Because political leaders find it difficult to please one group without angering another, changes must be introduced gradually and constantly neutralized with compromises While compromise leaves everyone somewhat disappointed, it’s the only way we (don't use the word we) can function as a democratic nation. However, it is impossible for our country to move forward when we stand so radically divided. Financial issues should also be taken into account when considering new environmental policies. Environmental friendliness is expensive (very broad statement). It is unclear whether money that we want to “spend on stabilizing global warming….is better spent on alleviating current human suffering” (Source E). The instant gratification of starting environmental projects may not be worth the cost of providing aid for other aspects of life such as basic healthy living conditions. Money that is spent on helping the individual will be more beneficial in the long term than risking money on massive expenditures. For example, if a person is provided with an excellent education, they may go on to study some form of ecology and later contribute to environmental research. Environmentalists may argue “there is very little doubt that global warming will change our climate in the next century”, but to solve the problem of global warming, we must first fix our domestic and local (own) problems (Source E). A strong foundation (support system) is the beginning of any solution. Once this has been established, we can “afford the relative luxury of caring about the environment” (Source D) (dont end paragraph on quote) This is not to say that the environment is a critical issue. It is true that “the slow evolutionary process of species adaptation can’t keep up” (Source F). The tragic implications of global warming have already started to become reality. The public should remember that the solution to global warming does not depend entirely on the government. Even though it is difficult for political leaders to get through all the political and financial muck that has built up within our government, there are other ways to reduce the effects of global warming (good!). Local efforts as well as individual efforts can be made