Obama didn’t just sidestep Congress in the international game, but he also tried to sidestep Congress on the domestic stage. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2007 in Massachusetts v EPA where the EPA was given authority to regulate greenhouse gases, Obama used the EPA’s newfound power to pass regulations that may never have made it through Congress (Kincaid and Roberts 2013). In 2014, the EPA created new regulations on the emissions of greenhouse gases in electric production plants, mostly coal power plants (Davenport 2014). This regulation was challenged in court and in February of 2016, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the new regulation (Liptak and Davenport 2016). This seemed to be a major setback in climate change action, especially since this …show more content…
Climate change rhetoric has become increasingly unfavorable in the American populace. In 2010, 45% of Americans reported that they viewed the effects of Climate change as generally exaggerated (Newport 2010). As a result of American’ s lack of concern over climate change and global warming, Obama changed his rhetoric to securing green energy and energy independence. From 2009 to 2011, the ratio of energy rhetoric to climate change rhetoric increased from 5:1 to 11.9:1 (Kincaid and Roberts 2013). Obama wasn’t all bark and no bite, though. He tried substantial government support for renewable energy. For example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the economic stimulus package passed in the first year of Obama’s presidency, appropriated $30 billion “to transform the nation’s energy transmission, distribution, and production systems by allowing for a smarter and better grid and focusing investment in renewable technology” (Obey 2009). Obama didn’t face much opposition, other than from traditional free market advocates, but he did face a significant roadblock to investing in renewable
Climate Change has become an incredibly controversial topic because of the bid to win votes. As with any successful political party, capital and supporters are needed to fund and support campaigns and activities to secure votes. The Democratic and Republican parties have taken opposite sides of the ring regardless of scientific proof. In relation to global warming, the Democrats represent the environmentalists in the green corner and the Republicans represent the current energy tycoons in the red corner. The two opposing parties are simply trying to one up each other with each rhetorical combination thrown. The more irrational or misconstrued the rhetoric, the more the crowd rooting for each fighter reacts and the more independents rally to
The application of allusions successfully helps President Obama emphasize the idea of equality and unity. The author supports this when he mentions the "blood drawn by lash"; referring to slavery. This quotation lets us reflect on the struggle slaves were obliged to endure in order to gain equality with the rest of the White population. He later alludes the preamble to the United States' Constitution when he says, "We, the people..." The preamble is extremely critical to the history of the United States since it summarizes the basic rights that guarantees equality for all. Lastly, President Obama ends with a reference to the Declaration of Independence when he mentions the unalienable rights of "life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.".
It is the responsibility of the developed world to change. They have the resources and technology to significantly curb emissions and dampen the effects of climate change. As the world’s second largest emitter of Co2, and as the world’s largest economy, the US must become a leader in the battle against climate change. However, historical incidents of environmental degradation indicate that will power is simply not enough. Unless environmental problems are seen and felt, the US population has been slow and reluctant to act. Unfortunately this lack of will power is still present. As a citizen of the United States, I see no hope for change without the help and intervention of government. Without economic incentive, individuals and firms will not change. I believe that the US government must intervene and implement emission reduction policies, and work toward limiting emissions to the earth’s natural sink function.
Remarks by President Obama at the eulogy for the honorable Reverend Clementa Pinckney; A man who was killed when an another man rushed into a church in South Carolina and killed 9 people while they were immersed in an afternoon mass. President Obama created different appeals and feelings through the use of different Rhetorical Devices such as Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. The use of logos ethos and pathos help the president convey his central idea which is to ensure the people of South Carolina and the people of the United States that not only are they safe, but they will unite to take this opportunity to create a more united U.S. This will happen through the establishment of new gun reforms.
On December 12, 2015, President Obama and world leaders secured a global agreement to combat climate change” (White House). For the past eight years in the presidency, Barack Obama showed his devotion in addressing the worsening effects of climate change. He proposed and coordinated with different institutions to help solve the problem. However, since this problem has been around for so long, the results of any projects and programs will not be seen right away. It may take several years, decade or even a century. On the other hand, this is a great start for us. This is his legacy and this should be practiced for us to achieve what we really wanted in solving this problem. We should not just wait, we should
On February 28 president Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers on television stunned everyone by saying that we need to restore the gun safety legislation that has been opposed for years. The president went completely away from the National Rifle Association stand on gun control, many Democrats and Republicans were stunned by his comments on gun control. He now wants to extend background checks to gun show and online purchases of guns. He wants to ban sells to the mentally ill and to some young adults, and he even indicated the ban on assault rifles. He even proposed the idea that law enforcement should be able to take the mentally ill’s weapons without going to court. But, his main proposal was the resurrection of a bipartisan bill from 2013 after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. He said in his speech “I like taking the guns early,” later supporting his statement by saying “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” Many representatives from the N.R.A. contacted their associates in the white house about the president's comments, and many replied that it is just a “bad idea.”
During June of 2018, Donald Trump is president and was caught embezzling money for himself and his businesses by stealing money set aside for defense funds which include building a bigger wall between the United States and Mexico, and funding our overseas wars with the Middle East. He is facing potential impeachment and legal action should be he found guilty. Since taking presidency, Trump has taken advise from other more than he has in the past. In July, he issued a public apology to America.
March 11, 2011 rocked the peace and brought the world to its knees while witnessing one of the largest energy disasters in history, the Fukushima Accident. This disaster occurred because of a tsunami that resulted from a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. Failed safety protocol for tsunami resistance led to the meltdown of three of the six nuclear reactors resulting in the emission of a substantial amount of radioactive material. In response to this grave incident, President Barack Obama addressed his “Speech on Japan” to the Americans and Japanese affected by this horrific event. Obama delivered this speech in hopes of implanting the idea of safety within the mindsets of his listeners and reassuring success for the future. Barack Obama behests a hopeful atmosphere through demonstrating careful consolation of the people affected and explicating confidence in the recovery of Japan.
The president Barack Obama brought up climate change up in every state in the Union address. Obama went bigger when he decided to lay down 500 word defenses to address the issue. Also that majority of the military and the American people, and even the community scientific companies will attend the problem. Obama’s main issue was that Paris climate change agreement, caused global warming. This effect would affect the ending a decade of political stalemate. The effect will also low risks of ecological subsided.
Global warming and climate change has ascended to prominence in normative, political, and scientific domains in recent years. This salient and contested concept implicates citizens and officials across the globe – the ramifications of which pose immediate and future threats to mankind, natural resources, biodiversity, and environmental stability. Proponents of this theory support laws, regulations, emissions policies, and international protocols that seek to control the phenomenon and mitigate its effects. As of late, an emergent priority to reduce carbon emissions from human origins (automobiles are a common symbol) has been advocated; scientists primarily attribute the shift in climate to anthropogenic sources. However, there are distinct variations in support for such measures, particularly when those policies would impact the economy on both microeconomic and macroeconomic levels. Due to an unavoidable increase in short-term costs, accounting for individual enthusiasm is problematic. It would behoove political actors to track opinion patterns, and adjust potential policies accordingly.
It is difficult to turn on the news or surf the internet without hearing about global warming. It is currently a very controversial topic in America. Many politicians use the idea of global warming to alarm their target audience and earn their votes. Billions of dollars are spent each year to reduce America’s carbon footprint, whether it be on cleaner technologies or alternative fuel sources. This is all done without concrete evidence that proves global warming is actually taking place. If it is actually taking place, there is no convincing evidence that verifies it is directly being caused by the human population. The topic of global warming has become more than the protection of our planet. It is becoming a game of politics. Our lawmakers are supporting the spending of these large amounts of money towards a cause that hasn’t been verified; when the funds could be used on other problems our country is faced with, such as healthcare or the rapidly-increasing national debt. This is a problem that continues to grow. Our country is becoming more comfortable with the idea of big spending, and the issue is starting to be swept under the rug. This is an important issue. Our taxpayers’ dollars are being wasted and this issue is contributing to the election of officials for a fictitious cause. If it is not stopped, America will continue to spend billions of dollars per year on something that will not change and political leaders will continue to be elected for the wrong reasons.
In the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore emphasizes on ethical responsibility. He keeps stating multiple times that climate crisis is not a political issue, but rather a moral one. He stresses that we are accountable for our actions as individuals for our contribution to the matter either by denying it or by our inability to take a stance. The morality reference establishes that the public may actually hold deliberate opposition on climate change not because of confusion, but because of the consequences related to facing it. To supplement this point, in his article, “Climate of Denial,” Al Gore uses President Obama’s attempt of stirring bold actions for climate change crisis by attempting to pass the green package as halfheartedly. The president’s efforts to pass the green package fell short because he did not fully persist nor succeed in pressuring the Senate for funding. Obama also called for the continuation of oil
In the Climate Change debate, there are two sides, both hoping to make real differences in the lives of Americans. Climate change proponents, or people who believe that the continual emission of carbon dioxide poses real risks, hope to change America—make it a leader in renewable energy and reverse the International Panel on Climate Change’s projected outcomes regarding global temperature and sea level rise. On the other side, climate change deniers believe in a free market, not disrupted by regulation on industry for a cause they believe is untrue. Currently, there is a stalemate in the debate; neither side has gained an overwhelming victory over public opinion, effectively silencing action on climate change. Both sides have major incentive to continue pushing their views, however. ‘Winning’ the debate means vastly different economic, political and social futures. In order to “win” their preferred future,
...te change effecting people globally. Republicans, demises these concerns and argue for an increase in domestic oil, natural gas and carbon based sources of energy in order to produce more jobs and economic growth ( Weeks, 2011). However, the Obama administration continues “pressuring for more federal investment in renewable energy, such as solar and wind power, and emerging technology such as ‘clean’ coal plants that could capture and bury their greenhouse gas emissions” for its benefits outweighs its negatives (Weeks, 2011, p.459)”.
Political will from leaders is critical for spearheading any action towards addressing the challenge of climate change. Political leaders play the role of establishing the desired norms or legislation that can address the issues that lead to climate change and can play a pivotal role of garnering public support towards such efforts. Political leaders can also play a role in encouraging communities and individuals to rapidly adopt practices that promote the protection of the environment and make those practices more accessible. Today, we hear of many changes we could do to help our environment, but many of those actions are just not accessible to everyone. For example, we know that solar power is very efficient and renewable source, but the solar panels needed to absorb that power are hard to come by and sometimes very pricey. Therefore, to stabilize greenhouse emissions and drastically reduce the rate of climate change, political leaders need to first of all acknowledge that this is a very crucial problem and take the necessary steps to make climate change the most powerful political