Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Public policies on climate change
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Public policies on climate change
In 1990 Yale economist William Nordhaus wrote an article entitled “Count Before You Leap” in which he warned of the consequences of doing too much to prevent climate change given the uncertainties regarding both the effects of climate change and the likelihood that these effects would actually occur. Nordhaus advocated careful cost-benefit analysis based on more certain information regarding climate change rather than a knee-jerk reaction to gloomy prophecies about the end of the world as we know it. He argued that very little economic activity in industrialized societies is dependent on the climate and that significant losses to GNP were likely to be incurred in an effort to mitigate climate change at all. In his words, “A vague premonition of some potential future disaster is insufficient grounds to plunge the world into depression. But if scientists can identify the probability of catastrophic risks, people and governments can then rationally decide how much ‘climate insurance’ to buy”. Thus in Nordhaus’ view, what was known about climate change merited further research but it hardly justified aggressive action to prevent the possibility of climate change. There is a lot of pressure for climate scientists to be certain about their theories because of the way policy is made (Norgaard). Policymakers need to allocate money in such a way that the costs of any given policy are justified by the benefits, and climate change mitigation is one item on an agenda of hundreds of different issues. Estimates of the cost of reducing CO2 to neutralize the effects of climate change have ranged from $10/ton of CO2 reduced to $250/ton (Norgaard). Given such a wide range of estimates, it is understandable that policymakers would dema... ... middle of paper ... ...h certain levels of CO2 because by that time it will already be too late to avoid certain unacceptable consequences. Because the consequences of waiting might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of clear scientific data on what exactly will happen, the burden of proof is on those who advocate waiting. Let them prove that we must wait. In the meantime, we must act on what we already know and move aggressively toward a policy of climate change mitigation and prevention. Works Cited 1. Hansen, James, et al. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” Washington D.C.: NASA, 2007. 2. Hansen, James. “Why We Can’t Wait.” The Nation. 7 May 2007. 3. Nordhaus, William D. “Count Before you Leap.” The Economist 7 July 1990. 4. Norgaard, Richard. Lecture. ERG 280. Cory Hall, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. 11 March 2008.
The perhaps surprising answer is that in the U.S. policy process, climate change is not now a scientific issue. Although much of the controversy appears to revolve around scientific principles, political and economic forces actually dominate. In a sense, this is not surprising: in dealing with possible climate change, policymakers, stakeholders, and the public have to confront competing economic interests, significant political change, and such difficult issues as intergenerational equity, international competition, national sovereignty, and the role (and competence) of international institutions. What are the primary factors that determine policy outcomes on this complex subject? Detailing them vividly demonstrates how scientific knowledge interacts with the formulation of policy on a significant issue in the United States.
Stern, Nicholas. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print.
Hoffman, M. (2013) “Global Climate Change” in The Handbook of Global Climate and Environmental Policy
Thesis: As the environment encounters damage from increasing levels of carbon dioxide, actions on both governmental and individual levels need to be implemented in order to protect the welfare of future life.
According to an essay titled “Why Bother?” by Michael Pollan, he is in agreement with the NASA scientist James Hensen who exclaimed that there is “ten years left for us to act and start cutting the carbon emission or we will be facing a different planet” (767). I, for one, do not agree with this statement. People are not the only
Climate change, never has such an impending natural disaster been so heavily ignored. While this problem of Greenhouse Gasses holds more long-term implications than any other problem found today, little to nothing has been done to address this problem. Through the last century, industrialization has revolutionized the world, in all aspects of life from comfort to industry. While this has obviously had its benefits, it has also created a world that is almost entirely dependent on carbon dioxide producing technology. This has caused the single biggest problem when it comes to curbing this issue known as climate change. That problem is the simple fact that in order for the people to make a positive unified change in the C02 levels they produce, they’re going to have to make sacrifices. These sacrifices range from giving up or reducing their use of various CO2 producing technologies, to paying new taxes such as carbon taxes. The causes for Climate Change and the lack of action to curb it are, of course, complex, but there are at least three significant factors: High prices required to produce and implement low-carbon technology; lack of political and corporate support; and an extensive public reliance on technology (Weeks). More than this, the public, along with the government, have been unwilling to sacrifice either money or effort, which has only served to exponentially increase the problem at hand.
One of the most compelling and difficult environmental problems society is facing today is climate change. People do not realize how much the environment has changed for the worse in the last ten years, until they are told that the last two decades of the 20th century have been the hottest in the last 400 years, according to climate studies (Conserve Energy Future). Today the carbon dioxide levels have reached 396.81 parts per million (ppm). “Carbon dioxide (CO2) has also increased over the last 100 years-- from about 300 ppm to 370 ppm. Interestingly, the majority of these additions have occurred in the last 50 years, when temperature increases have been slowest” (geocraft). There are no known solutions yet to reverse these effects in the environment, however there are many things people can do to prevent it from increasing. By implementing a carbon tax the government can tax corporations on how much carbon they emit into the atmosphere. With the extra money from the tax, scientist can invest in alternative ways to reduce how much carbon is emitted. Reducing climate change is going to take years and so nothing is going to get fixed anytime soon, but meanwhile we can use that extra money to begin cleaning up the atmosphere. There are many ways to explain climate change, some say its due to the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, others say it is the burning of the fossils fuels, some even say it’s the greenhouse gases. All of these sayings mean the exact same thing, no matter how one says it. I believe there are more convenient ways to solve climate change; and if the government would to implement a carbon tax on companies they will then be forced to re-evaluate all the carbon they emit to the environment and red...
"Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere." Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere. University of California, San Diego, 2002. Web. 26 June 2014. .
In the article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”, written by Bill Mckibben, he firstly opens up by saying that back in 2012, according to the statistics, we surpassed the global record high for climate temperature in our nation, destroying other previous records. Despite the research and the displaying of data, nobody is doing anything to adress the following issue. Mckibben outlines three distinctive numbers that outline the following issue., 2 degrees celsius, 565 gigations, and 2795 gigtons, which he uses to validitate and support his argument. Firstly, the ongoing problem of climate change in society is fundamentally a matter of individual moral responsibility that is inspired by the insight individuals are intentionally harming the environment. Secondly there is yet to be an effective collective state response to the issue of global warming, despite approaching two full decades of ongoing and reoccuring negotiations and the very near universal participation by states in the UNFCCC. Thirdly, because this issue has been put on hold for longer than it was innitially expected, greenhouse gases are being emitted into our atmosphere, polluting our environment. The South-North issue and an ongoing debate comes into effect as all the greenhouse gases that are created and used in the Northern hemisphere are being emmited into the southern hemisphere. Hence, my thesis is; despite the fact that global warming and climate change has been an ongoing problem globally for years, humanity has failed to resolve thiis issue as it quickly begins to escalate.
Inaction is becoming increasingly more risky. For many years it has been the consensus to keep the rise in global temperature under 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial
Ever since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution at the end of the 18th century, fossil fuels have been used constantly, slowly changing the planet’s atmosphere. According to Mann, “the preindustrial level of CO2 was 280 parts per million (ppm)” (N. pag). He predicts that at current rates, we will reach 560 ppm by the end of the 21st century. To make matters worse, Mann states that 450 ppm is dangerous as it will cause an increase in Earth’s average temperature by 2 Celsius. He recommends taking measures to keep CO2 at less than 405 ppm (N. pag). Mann takes note that in 2013, the value managed to reach 400 ppm (N. pag). It is needless to say that the point of no return is right around the corner. Unfortunately, the affects of pollution are already felt around the world. Pollution can cause many health issues and damage several organs in the body. When people think ...
The first part of this essay discusses what the human species has done to deal with the problem of climate change. While some improvements have been made, the problem has not been addressed aggressively enough to stop the damage. What is amazing about this is the denial of so many people that problems exist. If they do realize the risks, they are simply not taking actions to contain the damage.
It is becoming increasingly certain that climate change will have severe adverse effects on the environment in years to come. Addressing this issue poses a serious challenge for policy makers. How we choose to respond to the threat of global warming is not simply a political issue. It is also an economic issue and an ethical one. Responsible, effective climate change policy requires consideration of a number of complex factors, including weighing the costs of implementing climate change policies against the benefits of more environmentally sustainable practices. Furthermore, this analysis must take place amidst serious gaps in the existing research and technology concerning the developing climatic condition.
Everyone knows that it’s important to reduce our impact on the environment, but some may not know exactly how crucial it is. It doesn’t seem to be a big secret that global warming is already upon us, and we need to do all we can to stop serious climate change before it happens. But some of the most recent studies indicate that climate change is already happening and will continue for the years to come regardless of actions taken henceforth—it is already too late.
Now then, as expected most topics can be and usually will be subjected to a form of bias opinion, which are primarily focused on debunking any claims being made ever; and like most subject being debated, climate change too has this counteracting side. There are very few people who attempt to go against all defences being made against the reasons for climate change. However, they unfortunately lack the validated evidence required to support any of the claims being made against climate change, all the points made by scientist have been thoroughly investigated, with these investigations have come vast amounts of collected data, facts which have been proven. Even so there have still been those who approach the rising issue in hopes to disprove