The Fight Against Climate Change

The Fight Against Climate Change

Dheera Vuppala, 15 years old, happens to be a sophomore at Nashua High School South, New Hampshire, United States Of America. Growing up inside a household where training was a priority and where it changed the lives of numerous, she aspires to show the worthiness of it to at-risk students. By firmly taking steps in this direction, she hopes that it will lead to training for many in impoverished countries over the world such as India, Nigeria, together with Middle East. Dheera hopes to convey the message that training is more than the core subjects, and rather it should enable you to operate for your beliefs. She is also passionate about politics and economics.

ESSAY TOPIC: Lasting Development Goal #13. Just Take urgent action to combat environment change and its impacts. Propose specific steps for your country (or region or city) to achieve the target’s goals in the next 15 years.


Dinosaurs, once thought to be the most capable and intelligent pets to ever before stroll the face area of the Earth, were wiped out because of geological occasions. Fast forward 60 million years and humans would be the most advanced level competition, distinctly characterized by their message ability. It appears unavoidable that humans will, similarly, experience a mass extinction, but humans being held responsible due to their downfall ended up being unthinkable, that is so far. The human race is ignoring all warning signs associated with impending threat to civilization, environment change, through their deplorable actions. In 2015, it had been 70 degrees Fahrenheit on xmas Day in Boston. This irregular temperature issues most of the international population. To include gas to the flame, scientists have predicted that during the existing rate, 100 million and counting could be dead by 2030 all as a result of environment change. 2030 is 14 years away. You and I may well be alive therefore it is not really a question of whether or not to combat environment change but instead exactly what steps america, a leading force in the combat environment change, can take to deal with this rapidly rising threat.

The risk of environment change is growing more severe than ever before due to unusually high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This prevents heat from being mirrored back to area, allowing for warmer temperatures here on the planet. This trend is much better known as the greenhouse impact. As a nation, environment change must be tackled, without changing the quality of life. To do this goal, you will find three tasks people and policymakers around the country must confront. Very first, the federal, state, and neighborhood governments in collaboration with each other must stop companies from emitting large sums of carbon to the atmosphere. Second, it is essential that consumers/households reduce the level of electricity they use. Last but not least, general public and private businesses plus the government must research affordable renewable energy sources.

The first, and a lot of urgent task the United States must accomplish would be to decrease carbon emissions coming from companies. Industries take into account 21 per cent of total carbon emissions in the U.S. to lessen industry emissions here are several policies, the U.S. can administer. Included in these are the cap and trade system, a fruitful carbon taxation, and marketing efficient technology. Utilizing the cap and trade system, the federal government puts a limitation on the amount of emissions allowed, “the cap,” and divides that amount among each industry/company. The cap and trade system enables each industry with an entity that describes just how much carbon they can give off. If a certain industry emits not as much as its allocated amount, then it can sell its allowance to a different business. This creates a market for carbon emission allowances. Having a cap and trade system works well because if a business is able to decrease their emissions to less than what they are allotted, they have the choice of offering their allowance in return for money or other form of payment, “trade.” Also particular industries that find it hard to reduce emissions can purchase allowances to provide them more flexibility. Whatever occurs, only a specific amount of carbon can be emitted. This limitation can be lowered each year. The cap and trade system is considered the most flexible and affordable way to reduce emissions. It has worked previously to diminish the amount of acidic rain and it will be used once again to fight environment change. Also, a common yet effective technique involves implementing the carbon taxation. The carbon taxation is actually a taxation placed on the amount of carbon emitted by each business. It is easy economics—as the company emits more, the taxation goes up so that as the tax goes up businesses will have an incentive to reduce the amount of carbon they emanate. The revenue from the carbon taxation can be used to reduce other taxes on companies so that it doesn’t burden the business with a numerous amount of taxes that may have a bad economic influence. Last but not least companies can reduce emissions by using more efficient technologies. Many companies, to save expenses, are utilizing older machines that emanate more carbon than the newer technologies for the same production. To encourage businesses to change to newer technologies the federal government should supply subsidies for new machinery. This would solve the problem of charges for businesses, cancelling out the bad influence associated with expensive machinery.

Even with all these policies considerable amounts of carbon will be emitted, so lawmakers have a duty to implement policies to counteract the huge levels of carbon emissions. Policies can be passed in Congress that need each industry to plant a particular number of plants in proportion to the amount of carbon they emanate. The problem lies in the faucet is larger than the drain—the faucet being carbon and the drain being plants. If there are many plants within the surrounding environment then the carbon will undoubtedly be consumed by the plants.

In the combat environment change everyone has a part, including consumers and families. On a day-to-day basis consumers and families utilize electricity for lights, technological gadgets, cooking, etc. All of this electricity is produced through power plants with the most common one usually being coal. Coal power plants would be the nation’s top supply of carbon dioxide emissions and one typical coal plant releases about 3.5 million tons of CO2. By reducing the amount of electricity residential houses utilize, less electricity will undoubtedly be produced leading to lower carbon emissions. There are lots of steps the government can take to sway consumers to reduce the amount of electricity they use. Households can install more efficient appliances such as the brand new refrigerators that don’t use as much electricity to run, and new windows that keep consitently the cold air out. This way the heater does not have to operate as much resulting in a lower amount of electricity getting used. The U.S. government can supply taxation breaks to households that just take these steps by allowing the money allocated to these appliances to be tax-exempt. Second, the federal government can educate people on the easy things that will help to reduce the amount of electricity used such as for instance turning off the lights, together with TV. These might seem cliché but if everyone acts on them, then it could make a dramatic distinction.

The last and final task this nation must accomplish would be to encourage study in methods to harness energy without endangering the environment. Simply put, the United States needs to utilize renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and biomass rather than coal which, according to the EIA, currently accounts for 39 per cent of our total energy source. Unfortunately, coal releases considerable amounts of carbon to the air—the major reason for environment change. But coal is also the least expensive energy source, driving companies to make use of coal rather than renewable energy sources to grow their profit. Since they see no benefit in using renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and biomass, businesses don’t tend to utilize them. Research needs to be carried out to determine affordable ways to implement renewable energy sources so that little, brand new companies plus the big, old companies can take part in the fight against environment change. The U.S. government can encourage study by providing taxation bonuses to general public and private restricted businesses along with offering funds to government agencies that conduct study in the areas of renewable energy. By encouraging study to find more efficient and affordable ways to utilize renewable sources, america can be the key country in the journey to using more renewable sources.

Even though government does play a big role in encouraging study, the free market with no government intervention would eventually spur interest in businesses to research less harmful methods of producing energy. This is certainly led by the proven fact that eventually companies must look for a brand new source of energy to be able to stay in business and satisfy future demands, since coal will not be around forever. Also if environment change hits a place where it leads to the next mass extinction, renewable energy sources must be offered, so businesses, thinking about the future, will begin to research with or without the help associated with government; but this is not to express that the federal government is not useful to achieve this goal.

Climate change is going on. Nine out of ten scientists say it’s. America needs to cope with it, so let us carry out the task of stewards of the Earth and use the appropriate steps to fight environment change. It is as simple as that. Limiting companies’ carbon emissions, lowering families’ utilization of electricity, and investigating and switching to renewable energy forms are just some of those significant steps. Over time, whenever we, as a nation, just take these steps and more, we will achieve the top of the staircase where Earth will undoubtedly be safe from environmental threats.

Over half of a billion city‐dwellers live in coastal zones below ten meters’ level. Like many other New Yorkers, when Hurricane Sandy struck in 2012, I viewed a dirty atlantic ocean pour into my house. Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005 and Hurricane Sandy in nyc in 2012, detailed in Climate Change and Cities, were the very first‐ and second most costly ‘natural’ disasters in US history. They are the opening breeze of a storm of ‘natural’ disasters which will to come to the united states together with world without, and perhaps even with, prompt, large‐scale action on environment change.

I put ‘natural’ in quotes because the person and economic expenses of Katrina and Sandy were because much artifacts as insults of nature. For instance, from 2005 to 2009, the South Ferry subway station—in a high‐risk flood zone of the latest York City—underwent a construction project that cost $530 million. The place wasn’t flood‐proofed. Sandy’s 4.3‐meter (14.1‐foot) storm surge damaged it severely. Both hurricanes, according to Climate Change and Cities, ‘disproportionately impacted social groups with lower incomes and social condition, particularly ethnic minorities and ladies.’ The main victims weren’t the those who decide our environment future. Regardless of the expenses of these and several similar current disasters, regardless of the documented expectation that storms of such magnitude will become more and more frequent within decades (Lin et al. 2016; Garner et al. 2017), politics and leadership in the pocket of fossil‐fuel interests have stymied adequate reactions.

Because cities are on the front line of environment change, some urban leadership has been enlightened. New york has actually set an objective to lessen its greenhouse gasoline emissions by at the least 80 per cent by 2050. The most recent progress report from nyc’s ’80 × 50′ initiative begins, ‘Climate change is definitely an existential threat to the city, our country, and our world.’1 The language ‘existential threat’ may have been intended as political hyperbole, but they are unfortunately plausible for the more than half‐billion city folk around the world who reside at water’s side.

Since 1993, the international sea level has actually risen each year, on average, by a lot more than it rose the entire year before. The acceleration, if continued, would more than double the sea‐level rise by 2100 in comparison to a sustained sea‐level rise during the existing rate. Instead of a one‐foot rise, choose a rise of more than two feet 65.4 centimeters rather than 26 to 33 centimeters as a whole (Nerem et al. 2018). Some regions, just like the Chesapeake Bay area, are going to experience faster rises; others, slower. Predictions for the next century have large margins of doubt. They are likely to err on the reduced side, as brand new instabilities in polar ice masses and ocean currents are recognized.

Cities are specifically vulnerable to the results of environment change, through their place, infrastructure, social and economic inequality, together with constraints on the power to govern by themselves imposed by higher levels of government. During the same time, cities are also particularly empowered to combat the results of environment change and prepare well for normal disasters, through their population size, economic and recruiting, closeness to the issues of environment change, and possibility of acting collectively within and among cities. These five books2 offer really different perspectives on just how cities can and really should respond to climate change. None offers all of the answers, but each contributes crucial parts of the picture.

Jeff Goodell, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, reports firsthand from the Greenland ice sheets, Obama’s Air power One, and coastal cities where rising seas have forced a reckoning with environment change. His book The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities, therefore the Remaking of the Civilized World is really a beautiful account of present realities from Venice to Lagos, the opening act of a harrowing drama.

While early humans adapted effortlessly to rising seas by moving to higher surface, Goodell points out the ‘terrible irony’ that rising seas threaten very first and foremost the human constructions which make the Fossil Fuel Age possible: the coastal residential, commercial, and industrial advancements, the coastal roads, railroads, tunnels, and airports.

Goodell tells the history of the development of Florida, beginning with 14,500 years ago when sea levels were lower, interweaving accounts of his wading through inundated streets with neighborhood organizers and scientists. Miami gets special attention. If you want to be dissuaded from buying Florida property, check this out book. In the spring of 2016, Goodell asked developers whether sea‐level rise has changed their thinking about climate change research paper example the real estate industry in South Florida. Florida real estate magnate Jorge Pérez told Goodell that ‘in twenty or thirty years, someone is going to look for a answer with this. … If it is a problem for Miami, it will likewise be a problem for New York and Boston—so where are people likely to go? Besides, by that point, i’m going to be dead, what exactly does it matter?’

Another property broker Goodell spoke with ‘was apoplectic over a talk she’d heard that afternoon about whether real estate brokers should be required to disclose flood risks linked to sea‐level rise on properties they sell. ‘ That would be idiotic,’ she explained, gulping down a gin and tonic. ‘It would simply destroy the marketplace.”

In fairness, Goodell reports that some developers combine an admiration of details with conscience. Wayne Pathman, underneath the umbrella associated with Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce, which he chaired, organized a evening program on the economic impact of sea‐level rise. As Goodell put it, ‘The unstated theme associated with evening was Holy shit, this is real—what are we going to do about it?’ (p. 97). The purpose of the big event was to get property developers to begin considering their options. Goodell, who attended, reports no plans were developed from the meeting, but points out that, as seas rise, so will expenses of flood insurance and so will banks’ demands for flood insurance on vulnerable properties. Both will hurt property values.

The trip from reality in Miami is not the most crazy one Goodell describes. A far more frightening story of denial and blindness issues civilian political interference in the continuing future of US armed forces preparedness for rising ocean levels along with other consequences of environment change. Naval Station Norfolk, during the south end associated with Chesapeake Bay, hosts the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet, and is the biggest naval base in america. Typical ocean levels are rising in Norfolk, the encompassing towns and military bases of Hampton Roads, additionally the remaining portion of the mid‐Atlantic coastline about twice as fast as the international average. When former Secretary of State John Kerry visited the bottom in 2015 and asked naval officers the length of time it may stay practical, one of them told him, ‘Twenty to fifty years.’ a former commander of naval Station Norfolk, Joe Bouchard, told Goodell, ‘You could move a few of the vessels with other bases or build brand new smaller bases in more protected places. However the expenses would be enormous. We’re speaking hundreds of vast amounts of dollars.’

Ninety‐five per cent associated with naval base’s power originates from Dominion Energy, the largest electrical power business in Virginia and one associated with biggest burners of coal in the United States. Dominion Energy’s burning of fossil fuels contributes straight to the increase in ocean levels that is drowning Naval Station Norfolk. Goodell wryly calls the military’s use of Dominion Energy ‘fossil‐fuel‐assisted suicide.’

Until recently, the united states Congress encouraged this disregard for the armed forces impacts of environment change. In 2009, Leon Panetta, then director associated with CIA, launched the CIA focus on Climate Change and National safety. Climate change deniers in the Congress, especially some from major coal‐producing states, did not such as this work to understand just how climate change could affect the US armed forces and the world. Following Panetta’s replacement and under budgetary force from the House of Representatives, the CIA shut the middle in 2012. In 2016, the Republican‐controlled House barred the Department of Defense from evaluating just how climate change would impact armed forces assets, acquisitions, and preparedness.

Now it is the turn associated with Executive Branch to enforce this refusal to prepare for environment change’s impacts on national safety. In 2017, President Donald Trump signed a protection policy law that required the Department of Defense to list the most truly effective 10 armed forces bases most vulnerable to climate changes over the next twenty years and also to specify steps (and their expenses) that could make the bases more resilient to climate change. The Pentagon released a study January 10, 2019, that began: ‘The effects of a altering environment are a national safety problem with possible impacts to Department of Defense (DoD or even the Department) missions, functional plans, and installations.’ The report listed the climatic vulnerabilities of 79 DoD installations in america. Not just one ended up being overseas. Not just one was in the Marine Corps. No detailed mitigation plans were provided. The chair associated with House Committee on Armed Services, Representative Adam Smith, responded that the report ‘demonstrates a continued unwillingness to honestly recognize and address the threat that environment change poses to the national safety and armed forces preparedness.’ He and two other Representatives requested a revised report by April 1, 2019. If a revised report is out there, it had been perhaps not established by that day.3

Goodell’s view of whether people affect the environment is clear: ‘if you’re still questioning the hyper link between person activity and environment change, you’re reading the wrong book. … The best way to save coastal cities would be to quit burning fossil fuels.’ How to make that happen transformation he doesn’t say. He urges cities to organize in the temporary by tightening building codes in flood zones and hardening coastal infrastructure, for instance. He leaves open the bigger question of whether and exactly how cities can help wean the world from fossil fuels.

Extreme Cities: The Peril and Promise of Urban lifetime in the chronilogical age of Climate Change, by Ashley Dawson, professor of English during the City University of the latest York (College of Staten Island while the Graduate Center), surveys a lot of the same landscapes from the political left. For Dawson, ‘extreme city’ refers to a city of ‘stark economic inequality, the defining urban characteristic of our time, and one of the greatest threats to the sustainability of urban existence.’ just How and whether city responds to or ignores economic inequalities of competition, class, and gender determine ‘how well it will weather the storms which are bearing down upon humanity.’

Dawson discusses the Red Hook Houses, built in the late 1930s for dockworkers. Red Hook Houses were among the first and largest federal housing tasks in the nation and are the largest general public housing development in Brooklyn. Since the 1950s, the area has suffered an extended economic drop as containerized shipping replaced workers and waterfront jobs fled.

By the time superstorm Sandy struck new york, the New York City Housing Authority had turn off electricity, and consequently elevators, boilers, and water pumps, in public places housing in the areas during the highest danger of flooding, including Red Hook. This preventive action remaining roughly eight thousand residents with no heat, water, or electricity. The Red Cross together with government did perhaps not bring materials to the neighborhood for days. While the Federal Emergency Management Agency could not be reached by phone, Sheryl Nash‐Chisholm, a resident of Red Hook, together with Red Hook Initiative, a residential area company for the youth associated with neighborhood, stepped to the gap. Nash‐Chisholm organized electrical power for charging cell phones and a hot area to stop hypothermia. Utilizing the help and contributions of volunteers, for three days Red Hook Initiative built-up and distributed key materials including food and water. A colleague dispatched medical delegations to check up on vulnerable elderly residents of Red Hook Houses.

This community reaction to Sandy is definitely an example of exactly what Dawson calls ‘disaster communism’:

Communal solidarities forged in the teeth of calamity is visible as a form of catastrophe communism, under which people start to organize by themselves to generally meet one another’s fundamental needs and also to collectively [sic] survive.

Dawson’s political perspective shapes his take on just how and why climate change threatens cities:

Urban growth is driven at bottom by capitalism… There is no green capitalist exit from the extreme city, when capitalism is founded on the principle of ‘grow or die.’ The fossil capitalism that is driving planetary ecosystems toward a mass extinction event ended up being used for the profit of a miniscule [sic] powerful international elite.

Notwithstanding Dawson’s belief that capitalism drives urbanization, cities grew before capitalism existed and still grow in the current minimum capitalist countries. Demographers say that urban populations grow from normal enhance (births minus deaths), net migration (immigrants minus emigrants), annexation (as when the five boroughs united to create new york), and reclassification (when formerly rural, now densely settled areas are recognized as urban). Throughout the world, with regional variations, natural increase makes up about roughly three‐fifths of urban population growth. Economic development (including but not restricted to that driven by capitalism), cultural development, and environmental quality make locations appealing to their natives and also to migrants.

Dawson highlights the importance of exactly what he calls ‘climate justice’: protecting the poor and vulnerable from the effects of environment change on an equal footing with the rich and powerful. For example, if new york develops a wall around lower Manhattan to safeguard Wall Street from rising seas, what about dealing with low‐lying low‐income residential areas on an equal basis?