818378

In the world we live in today, policymakers of all fields of expertise (not necessary to put "of...expertise") ﻿ ﻿ are obligated to factor in the effect their policies have on the environment. Over the last 60 years, the state of the environment has taken a turn for the worst as carbon dioxide emissions increase exponentially due to the rapid industrialization of nations all over the Earth. This polluting of the Earth causes what scientists call global warming, which is a sharp increase in global temperatures. Now a prevalent issue, and what some call a threat, it is the responsibility of policymakers to incorporate global warming as a factor in their policies. The key issues leaders must take into consideration are the effect of their policies concerning global warming have on the economy, future generations and the other nations of the Earth. (confusing and unclear thesis)

The optimum way to reduce the effects of global warming is to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Cutting down on emissions would invariably cost coal, natural gas and petroleum companies billions of dollars given that they "[account] for nearly three-quarters of carbon dioxide emissions, the primary global-warming gas" (Source A). If these companies were forced to severely reduce their emissions, the shear cost would result in major job loss as companies attempt to compensate for the expenses. With unemployment and a major loss in production from the coal, natural gas and petroleum mega-corporations, the economy would plummet. It is therefore essential that policymakers in politics and business be cautious when making "green friendly" policy because it could potentially damage the economy. Policymakers must find a balance between profit for business and benefit of the environment. Basically "we have to find a level at which there is sufficiently little pollution" such that people can still spend their money, effort and time on other problems (Source D). Their will never be no pollution just as their will never be "a country with no disease" (Source D). Analysis? The solution here is to find a balance between welfare of the economy and the environment.

(Should not be put as a list) Another important factor all policymakers must consider is the effect of their policies on future generations. Their is no denying that global warming is having an effect on the Earth's climate. In a graph of global temperatures of a period of time, a severe incline of global temperatures is evident from the 1920's and on (Source B). If policymakers allow this trend to continue and do not put at least a bare minimum of restrictions on greenhouse gas emitting industries, the environment will drastically change. For instance, Stanford's Center for Environmental Science and Policy (Good- establishing credibility) states that the global environment is changing too quickly for "the slow evolutionary process" (Source F). This could cause migratory species to go extinct due to lack of evolutionary adaptation. If policymakers do not take precautions they are potentially letting a ticking time bomb of extinctions set to blow for future generations to deal with. Another apparent change in the global environment is "a sea-level rise in the order of a meter" (Source E). Rise in sea level could cause problems for sea life and the global climate. Fish will experience colder waters from melting ice caps and the flow of heat throughout the oceans may be disturbed. If policymakers do not listen to the scientists who suggest up to a sixty percent global cut of greenhouse gas emissions, they will leave our future generations with a polluted, unstable environment with dying species and major climate shifts (Source E).

Lastly, policymakers must recognize the effect of their policy concerning global warming on nations other than their own. For instance, in the Kyoto Protocol, although 145 countries signed the treaty, the United States and Australia, "which together account for one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases," failed to ratify the treaty (Source A). Even though hundreds of countries pledge to cut down their greenhouse gas emissions, it may not have much impact because the world's largest polluters decide cutting down emissions a mere three percent is "a direct threat to" their economy (Source E). Although the limiting of greenhouse gas emissions will slightly damage the economy, the economy will heal as it has many times in the past when it was faced with much more dire situations such as the stock market crash of 1929. On the other hand, changes to the environment caused by global warming can not simply be healed, most are permanent. Policymakers must be aware that they way they handle pollution for their country effects the Earth's populace as a whole.

Policymakers of the world are obliged to take into ﻿ account the effects their policy concerning global warming may have on the economy, future generations and all of the world's countries. Very confusing and wordy sentence. If they are not careful, they could cause irreparable damage to the environment, something man kind cannot afford. (we have already caused irreparable damage, so say something else like further damage.)