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.
At present, there is no verifiable assessment of the costs and benefits in pursuing alternative forms of energy relative to the values of a typical citizen. This research paper will aim to reveal the favorability of individuals toward new forms of energy and attendant costs.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Before approaching the issue at hand, it is important to first outline the basis of opinion formation. Breed and Ktsanes (1961) detail a process known as “personal sampling” – informal, person-to-person interactions that essentially inform an individual of how other members of their peer group will react toward the issue. Large majorities with re...
... middle of paper ...
...uman Values 17: 139-53.
Lichter, Robert, and Linda Lichter. 1992. “The Great Greenhouse Debate: Media Coverage and Expert Opinion on Global Warming.” Media Monitor 10: 1-6.
Pizer, William A. 2006. “The Evolution of a Global Climate Change Agreement.” The American Economic Review 96: 26-30.
Saunders, Mark A. 1999. “Earth’s Future Climate.” Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 357: 3459-3480.
Ungar, Sheldon. 1992. “The Rise and (Relative) Decline of Global Warming as a Social Problem.” The Sociological Quarterly 33: 483-501.
Vedlitz, Arnold, and Dan Wood. 2007. “Issue Definition, Information Processing, and the Politics of Global Warming.” American Journal of Political Science 51: 552-68.
Wilenius, Markku. 1996. “From Science to Politics: The Menace of Global Environmental Change.” Acta Sociologica 39: 5-30.
Solis, Hilda. “Environmental Justice: An Unalienable Right for All.” Human Rights 30 (2003): 5-6. JSTOR. Web. 13 February 2014.
Global Warming, much of what does or does not happen forty years from now, rests on our actions or inactions taken between now and then. The crucial question is whether we should pour all our resources into mitigation – reducing our carbon emissions. According to scientists who study the climate, there are other environmental problems; “we now face a global crisis in land use and agriculture that could undermine the health, security, and sustainability of our civilization”. Rather than worry too much about emissions, we should accept the world is going to get warmer anyway and adapt to global warming by building better flood defenses and developing drought-resistant crops. We cannot dispute that automobiles, factories, and power plants, displace an unprecedented twenty tons of carbon monoxide per person per year.
Many people’s opinions are influenced by political leaders and their beliefs, which can have a negative effect on science’s efforts. Mere word changes have shown to make a difference in people’s willingness to pay for taxes that they don’t necessarily support or are even aware of. The use of storytelling has shown to be a powerful means in communicating science to the public as well. Although education and science understanding are not directly correlated with the acceptance of climate science, there is evidence that shows that a brief explanation of greenhouse effects “enhance acceptance across the political spectrum”. Researching source credibility has also boosted the political acceptance of certain scientific information.
Global warming has become on of the most controversial issues in the media today. While most of the Western world countries have generally accepted the premise that man's chemical emissions in the atmosphere can and are affected by the world’s climate patterns, in the United States, the issue has become so politicized with many republicans challenging the science behind the theory. Global warming is a greenhouse effect whereby gases are trapped on the earth’s surface causing it to heat up (Maslin 14). It is based on the worldwide temperature records that have been maintained by human beings through their activities since the 1880,s. In addition, global warming is not only caused by human activities only but also through climate changes in solar radiance. The problem is that, humans continue to contribute to the global warming phenomenon. All citizens should work in reducing human activities that cause global warming and also support the development of nuclear power. Scientists deem that, global warming is mainly caused by human activities which accelerate the natural process by creating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Human activities have become a great contribution to the greenhouse effect and this means that climate changes are inevitable. They further argue that, if these activities continue and are not reduced, it will lead to more trapping of energy radiated from the earth and this will likely lead to extreme weather and global warming. Global warming should be at reduced levels or else, it will be catastrophic.
The authors are trying to investigate how the different frames of climate change affect the opinion of the members of the public on the issue. They aim to use global climate impacts, as well as, frames to determine the perceptions of individuals on the issue of climate change. The authors argue that impact frames that focus on the issue of climate change help to influence public opinion. Furthermore, the use of local frames contributes to increasing people's perception regarding the severity of the problem. Additionally, it contributes to encouraging more individuals to support local policy action in a bid to address the impacts of climate change. On the other hand, providing
The Web. 04 Feb. 2014 -. The Effects of Global Warming. National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web.
Although it is often a topic for contention in politics, global warming over the span of several decades, has led to climate change, which has had an alarming impact globally. Climate change needs to ...
The year is 2200. The world is going through a fossil fuel shortage. Oil reserves are almost completely consumed and it is becoming impossible to find new fossil fuel sources. Not prepared for this event to occur, The United States, has no alternative options. As a result of the oil shortage, the standard of living deteriorates. Heat in homes, supermarkets full of food, and transportation, all basic necessities taken for granted, will be depleted because fossil fuels are used to power almost everything. The key to the prevention of this future is renewable energy. Unfortunately the support for the use of renewable energy is weak and ineffective. Unless the US puts forth effort to research and promote the use of renewable energy to consumers, conversion from fossil fuels to renewable energy will no longer be an option.
For these reasons, global warming stands as one of the most daunting policy issues facing our world today. This is compounded by the debate over the very existence of climate change. While countless sources of empirical evidence testify to the very real presence of climate change the world over, considerable denial of the phenomenon still exists. The argument has been made that evidence about climate change is a gross overstatement, or in some cases, a complete fabrication. Despite the evidence to the contrary, many interest groups with considerable political clout have successfully perpetuated the argument that documented changes in the environment are a product of natural cyclical changes in climate, and are not associated with human activities. However, even the acceptance of this particular brand of reality is no grounds for the disregard of environmental consciousness. Even if one accepts the premise that recent climate change is not resultant of human activity, the rationale behind environmental conservation remains ...
In the debate of traditional energy vs. renewable energy the clear winner is renewable energy. Renewable energy is vastly superior over traditional energy because it decreases dependence on foreign resources, produces no emissions, and is not limited in quantity. Opponents of renewable energy are likely to argue that this is not the case and that instead, traditional energy is better because it creates job growth, is reliable during all hours and climates, and comes with a lower cost. These advantages however are either misconstrued or hardly outweigh the long-term positive benefits of renewable energy.
Chasek, P. S., Downie, D. L., & Brown, J. W. (2014). The Development of Environmental Regimes: Chemicals, Wastes, and Climate Change. In P. S. Chasek, D. L. Downie, & J. W. Brown, Global Environmental Politics (6th ed., pp. 101-173). Boulder: Westview Press.
The Earth is currently locked in perpetuating spiral of climate change. While the global climate has unarguably been changing since the dawn of it's manifestation, the once steadied ebb and flow of climate change has become increasingly more unpredictable.The risk of rising sea levels, and drought plaguing the fresh water supply, during the time that flooding and sporadic storm conditions turn once fully inhabited regions into uninhabitable death traps. Climate change catalyzed by human's increased production of carbon dioxide, is more noticeable than ever in our recorded history (United States, 2014 National Climate Assessment). Thankfully however, with the changing weather conditions due to carbon related emissions, the change in public opinion about their personalized influence on climate change is also increasing. Kevin Liptak Jethro Mullen, and Tom Cohen note that In reaction to the most recent governmental report on climate change, even the U.S. government believes that a stronger approach needs to be taken to correct our self-generated cataclysm.
Williams, Laurence O. An End to Global Warming. Ohio: Pergamno, 2012. Web 13 May 2015
Subpoint A: Not long ago, a documentary film called “An Inconvenient truth” came out in 2006. This film raised international public awareness of climate change and reenergizing the environmental movement. A former U.S Vice president Al Gore campaigned to educate citizens about global warming through a simp...
The world that we live into today affords us the expectation that the flip a switch will turn the lights on. As populations increase and developing nations undergo dramatic economic growth, this energy demand will only continue to grow. The International Energy Agency (IEA) believes that “the world’s energy needs could be 50% higher in 2030 than they are today” (ElBaradei). Given this projected growth, it is necessary for world leaders must take action to secure the energy supply. Meaning that world leaders need to start seriously considering an alternative to non-renewable energy sources. “In 2012, the United States generated about 4,054 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal” (U.S. Energy Information Administration). The fossil fuels that are used to supply over half of our country’s energy are in finite supply and are increasing in price to astronomical heights.