813043

One of the huge issues that have ﻿ ﻿**has** been in discussion the past decade is global warming. It has ** ﻿is ** been such a big topic, ﻿**one** that it has specifically been argued in presidential campaigns. However, it is not a simple issue, but rather an extravagant ** correct word choice(?)﻿ ** ﻿ ** ﻿ ** topic that must be looked at in microscopic detail. Issues that should be looked at when policies are being made include whether or not it actually exists, and whether or not solutions including economic consequences are practical. ** confusing sentence, clarify subject/verb relationships **

One of the biggest and first issue (s)  that should be discussed is the reality of global warming and if it is consequential enough to have a sizeable impact. There is much data such as rising sea levels and rising temperatures that increase, (Your dependent clause seems unrelated to your preceeding clause. I'm having difficulty understanding what your sentence is supposed to say)  the number of followers and the legitimacy of the argument that global warming exists. Over the past 100 years or so, the average global ocean surface temperature raised from -1 degree C to .3 degrees C. (B) While that may not appear to be a staggering difference, the temperature has been constantly increasing since the early 1900’s and the graph predicts that it will continue to increase in the future (Unfortunately not. Extrapolation is one the first sins of statistics, and is especially unreiable for nature-oreientated data  .) While it may be clear to some people that it exists and impacts us, others argue that the data is by consequence  (do you mean coincidence?)  or doesn’t have a sizeable impact. One specific argument against global warming is that the amount of pollution is not great enough to have negative consequences and even if we try to cut down on pollution, there will always be some left. (D) Even if leaders can come to an agreement of whether it exists, they will still have to deal with how practical some solutions are, including their impact on the economy. **talk less about abstract existential ideas and more about public opinions/reasons behind doubt** (It's becoming more difficult to identify your argument. )  ﻿ When attempting to make policies, leaders should take into effect how practical policies are to carry out. This ** subject ** includes determining the consequences the policy will have on immediate and future economic changes. Many people argue that some policies are too cost effective and will harm the economy. Due to the Kyoto Protocol, multinational companies will have to play (WC) ﻿ ﻿ if they cannot cut down on Carbon Dioxide emissions ** not capitalized **. (C) It may seem simple that all they have to do to avoid punishment (What do mean avoid punishment? There doesn't seem to be any reason to use those words.)  is cut down on emission, but cutting down also take a substantial sum of money. Either way, companies are being forced to spend money which translates to their economic problems such as rising product costs (companies already spend quite a lot of money on tradable licenses/pollution fines. How much would companies have to spend and what do you mean by 'cutting down'?). Another economic issue is whether the world Gross Domestic Product should be going to fighting global warming, instead of trying to eliminate current global human suffering. (E) Both arguments could be used in the efforts against spending money (How? Can you illustrate?   ). However, some people argue that while such policies will indeed have a negative impact on the economy immediately, they will on the contrary end up benefiting the economy in the future (There is no 'economy.' Its seems however that you are referencing the global economy). With rising gas prices, people argue that money should be put into efforts to find and make use of different energy sources such as solar or wind power. In return, gas would be more plentiful and cheaper. Also, because of the negative impacts global warming is though to have on the environment, other resources such as wood (?)  will eventually run out in the future if nothing is done. If policies are not practical, while appearing to the beneficial, actually end up doing nothing.

In the end, I think everyone would agree that they would rather have global warming than global freezing. Hey Adam