Jason Chen
November 11, 2019
What Role Do Governments Have in Fighting Climate Change?
A governing body is established to maintain domestic tranquility and promote the welfare of its governing citizens. Despite this fact, the issue with climate change seems to be largely ignored in the political world as many political leaders remain indifferent to the issue. Temperatures and sea levels are rising, natural disasters are becoming more frequent, species are on the brink of extinction, and they continue to focus on international affairs to grow their nation’s economic wealth. Many climate activists have voiced their opinions in the recent global climate strike with leaders, like Greta Thunberg, putting pressure on political leaders to respond appropriately to the situation at large. Climate change an issue that affects everyone, and it’s imperative these conversations continue until proper measures are implemented to avoid worst-case scenarios. Government action is crucial in the battle against climate change as they have the power to enact legislation that affects industries and international policies.
Climate Change
Climate change is a disturbance in Earth’s natural atmospheric temperature that has many known and unknown effects. Earth’s atmospheric temperature has slowly risen in the past century, and its underlying effects can be disastrous. According to a New York Times article “Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think”, by Naomi Oreskes and Nicholas Stern, it highlights some effects climate change brings. It states, “For example, a sudden rapid loss of Greenland or West Antarctic land ice could lead to much higher sea levels and storm surges, which would contaminate water supplies, destroy coastal cities, force out their residents, and cause turmoil and conflict.” (Oreskes et al.). As stated in the quote, rising sea levels can destroy coastal cities, like New York, and cause stronger and more frequent natural disasters that leave residents in turmoil. It’s also important to add that these coastal cities and islands will be devoured by the sea if current levels continue to rise. If that were to happen, it would be both a cultural and a historic loss. Scientists have identified the cause of climate change to be global emissions of greenhouse gases, predominately carbon dioxide. These greenhouse gases trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere, effectively increases Earth’s atmospheric temperature, and can be traced back to the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Its Beginnings
The Industrial Revolution was a period of global technological advancements and birthplace of modern urban societies that radically transformed living standards and lifestyles. As the world transitioned from an agrarian society to an industrial society, demands for industrial production, labor, and energy needs rose to an all-time high. Despite the socio-economic benefits associated with the Industrial Revolution, it unveiled many problems and came with a cost: one of which is at the detriment of the environment. Factories heavily polluted the area around it, reliance on fossil fuels to power cities released large amounts of carbon dioxide, and deforestation was frequent to accommodate the growing population. These activities have greatly exasperated in the past few centuries, and humanity is beginning to experience the brunt of centuries of environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. In the book Choices for America in a Turbulent World: Strategic Rethink, by James Dobbins, Dobbins analyzes the growth in the concentration of greenhouse gases over the past thousand years. He states: “Today, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are 40 percent higher than at the start of the industrial revolution- 400 parts per million today, compared with 280 parts per million in the 1780s, with three-quarters of that rise occurring over the past 45 years (see Figure 6.1). Global mean surface temperature is about 1ºC warmer.” (Dobbins 69). He also includes a visual aid so readers can grasp a greater understanding (shown below), and it unequivocally proves that human activity is the cause of climate change.
Based on the graph, one can see that concentrations of greenhouse gases have considerably risen since the beginning of the industrial revolution. It’s equally important to note that the last time the atmospheric concentration was this high was when humans didn’t exist. Let that sink in. If this fact doesn’t provoke concern about the current state of affairs, then what will? The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is alarming, and it’s imperative that actions are taken to lower greenhouse gas emissions globally.
World Government Response
World governments have already taken some steps in combating climate change in the signing of the Paris Agreement back in 2016. The deal aims to substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in efforts to limit global temperatures from rising above 2 degrees celsius. Although it’s a great initiative, it does nothing to solve the current crisis as it seems to not hold any substantial weight to political leaders. They may say they advocate for this cause, but does that necessarily mean they’ll perform the tasks to support it? Actions speak louder than words, and evidently, statistics seem to agree. The website Climate Action Tracker is created by two collaborating organizations, Climate Analytics and New Climate Institute, that tracks actions taken by governments across the world to what they pledge in the 2016 agreement.
According to the diagram, there is only one country that has implemented proper legislation that meets the 1.5 degree Celsius compatibility stated by the Paris Agreement: Morocco. The majority of parties that pledged either fall under insufficient, highly insufficient, or critically insufficient, and there are two stand out countries: the United States and China. There should be greater effort coming from these countries as they hold significant global influence, and among the most heavily populated countries in the world but have done next to nothing for the greater good.
Two years have passed since the initial signing, and these statistics prove that world governments have not taken this issue seriously. A National Geographic article “Most countries aren’t hitting 2030 climate goals, and everyone will pay the price” by Stephen Leahy, further solidifies this point. He states “… the report’s analysis of the 184 pledges for 2030 found that almost 75 percent were insufficient. In fact, the world’s first and fourth biggest emitters, China and India, will have higher emissions in 2030. The U.S. is the second largest and its pledge is too low… Russia, the fifth largest emitter, hasn’t even bothered to make a pledge.” (Leahy). In other words, out of the 184 countries that pledged to reduce carbon emission, only 38 countries were able to some kind of effort in fulfilling their promises. Furthermore, this quote shows the complete lack of concern displayed by some political leaders as Russia doesn’t seem to acknowledge the crisis, and the U.S. recently announcing they’ll be formally withdrawing from the accords. With subliminal concern shown by these countries, it’s alarming as carbon emissions will continue to rise as the world population continues to grow, only leaving only a few years to act before the effects of climate change become permanent. Without global agreement on the issue and acknowledgment from its leaders, current efforts may very well be futile.
The Paris Agreement is a great collective initiative to combat climate change, but much more needs to be done to reverse its effects considering the time constraints. World leaders have scheduled a follow-up meeting at the United Nations in 2020, where they will discuss current progress, potentially revise the original agreement, and provoke greater urgency so countries will be more inclined to stimulate some change. Hopefully, they’ll address two industries that emit substantial greenhouse gases: the transport and energy production industry.
Nuclear Energy: An Alternative Energy Source
The energy production industry has heavily relied on fossil fuels to supply global energy needs and has just recently dipped their toes into renewable energy sources, like solar and wind. As the world population continues to grow, so will the demand for energy, and current problems will only be exasperated. It’s time to switch to a different energy source that is sustainable and more environmentally friendly: nuclear energy. The word “nuclear” tends to have a negative connotation given the two infamous nuclear meltdowns that occurred at Chernobyl, and more recently Fukushima.
Given the history, it’s paramount to understand that both events were due to human errors. The meltdown at Chernobyl occurred due to a design flaw with the reactor and was operated by inadequately trained personnel. The meltdown at Fukushima occurred after an earthquake which had disabled the power supply and cooling for the three reactors, revealing some poor decisions. Here are some of those poor decisions: not installing filter vent systems, a safety precaution where filters reduce the release of radiation, not stabilizing the electricity supply system, which caused the meltdown, and not storing spent fuel in dry caskets, which are a hazard if not handled properly. The most important is not stabilizing the electricity supply system since that was the direct cause of the meltdown. It’s time to look past these events that mark nuclear energy unsafe as there have been many technological advances and developments in safety protocols to prevent events like these from happening again. Especially at a time like this, where the battle against climate change becomes dire, there needs to be an alternative energy source.
In an interview with Matt, an upcoming senior reactor operator at Exelon Corporation, a nuclear power generation company, he shared his thoughts regarding the current state of climate change, role of government in this battle, etc. He shares the same belief that “World Governments are […] the only way to achieve meaningful impact to reduce CO2 emissions and hopefully one day even lower atmospheric CO2”(Matt). When asked about his thoughts on burning fossil fuels and the need to switch to nuclear energy, he had this to say:
…I think that sustainable extraction of natural resources is good. Electricity has improved the human condition more than any invention since the internet. And much of the developing world still needs it. I do not begrudge India, China, or African nations the burning of coal. They need to do what is best for their people, just as our forebears were able to do when they electrified the US. What we DO need is a strategy in place to minimize those emissions and wean young economies of them. And [those] leaders [are] who must step up, who must pay the economic price first, are the ones who have already gained so much from electricity and carbon, and can afford to pay us. [They] do that by switching to nuclear. And by paying for the plants as if they are infrastructure, as important as highways and bridges. We support designing the best plants possible, and exporting them to any country who will take them at cost. We train others to operate their plants efficiently. And together we rise up. We prevent emerging economies from releasing the emissions we used to. Because we know better, and it is everyone’s planet (Matt)
As Matt has stated, the objective isn’t to completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels, but to reduce its usage to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Countries like the United States, Russia, and China should be among the first to take initiative to switch to nuclear energy as they have the funds and influence to support projects like these. Nuclear power plants produce immense amounts of energy with subliminal waste. They need to be the ones supporting the development of nuclear power plants, fund research, design state of the art reactors, and develop safety protocols so the rest of the world follows suit. As Matt had said it best, we need to prevent emerging economies from releasing the emissions we used because we know better, and its everyones planet.
The Electric Vehicle Hurdle
The transport industry another industry that emits massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Millions of people across the world rely on combustion vehicles to get them from place to place, and one can only imagine the amount of carbon emitted from these vehicles alone. In an Observer article called “Why Haven’t We All Switched to Electric Cars Yet?” by Harmon Leon, he highlights some reasons why people aren’t making the switch and some inherent flaws with electric vehicles.
However, the main reason comes down to the inconvenience. Leon highlights this aspect and provides an example showing this. He states, “…when touring America in a gas car, you don’t have to worry about finding a gas station or pre-planning where you can stop to fill up. It’s a given that there will be service stations; they’re pretty much everywhere” (Leon).
The quote highlights the lack of infrastructure for electric vehicles. Charge times can often take a significant amount of time, and scarcity of charging stations in certain areas makes owning an electric vehicle impractical. Furthermore, when an electric vehicle runs out of power, drivers have to call get their car towed, which can be expensive, or push their vehicle to the nearest charging station. Compared to the conventional combustion vehicle, drivers have the option to carry a portable gas can, so when they do run out of gas, it’s a simple quick refill. With all this in consideration, it’s understandable why most people haven’t switched.
Most people prefer convenience over inconvenience, and although it’s impossible to eliminate all inconveniences, there are ways to minimize it: one of which is to build better infrastructure. Governments can help build a better infrastructure by incentivizing electric vehicle companies to build more charging stations. One option is to give those companies tax breaks for X amount of charging stations built in X amount of years. This incentive can rapidly help grow the charging station network, and aid the development of a supercharging station minimizing two of the greatest hurdles of owning an electric vehicle. With these hurdles gone, there will be more reasons for consumers to purchase electric vehicles.
Opposition
Opponents may argue that world governments shouldn’t support projects to combat climate change, because it’s an expensive task and other “more” serious issues should be taken care of first. As a reiteration, climate change affects everyone, and the world is beginning to notice its effects. Although these effects are not drastic now, it will be significant in a few decades. If the masses continue to ignore the issue, then humanity will remain on the course to mass extinction and perish due to ignorance and incompetence. Change occurs when people acknowledge an issue and actively work to come to a resolution, not by pushing it back. Considering what’s at stake, most people would rather be safe than sorry, and to those who vehemently oppose this idea, is wanting a cleaner environment so terrible? Does it deserve such opposition to the very idea of it? There are benefits associated with a clean environment that isn’t just limited to the environment; there are social and economic benefits as well.
In the academic article “Considerations Regarding the Quantification of the Benefits of a Clean and Healthy Environment” by Paul Zamfir, he analyzes the economic benefits. Zamfir observes, “Typical results show that in U. S. A. an increase of 1 percent of pollution leads to lower prices on their homes with about a tenth of percentage point. So for example, at 100 000 dollars price of this rate would mean a loss of $100 for each percentage of increase pollution.” (Zamfir). This aspect would affect those who own property as it significantly lessens their opportunity to earn a profit. When people are seeking for a home, they typically factor in the appeal of the neighborhood and its surrounding area. Most people do not want to live in unsanitary conditions, and will most likely look into other homes if that area is heavily polluted, noisy, or has an uninviting atmosphere. Then there are the social benefits. It’s no doubt that the environment one is in affects how one behaves. In a cleaner environment, it tends to boost individual moods, productivity, and promote healthier lifestyles. Conversely, in a more polluted environment, it promotes unhealthy lifestyles, decreases productivity, and mood.
Final Thoughts
Human civilization has exploited Earth and its natural resources for centuries, and the climate crisis is the byproduct of centuries of human exploitation. It poses an imminent threat to humanity as its effects will be disastrous. It increases the frequency and strength of natural disasters, put species at risk of extinction, cause sea levels to rise, and many more unforeseen effects. Government action is crucial in the battle against climate change as they have the power to enact legislation that regulates industry standards. The transport industry and energy production industry are among the most carbon-intensive industries and are subject to government regulation to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
Rhetorical Analysis for Model Essay
I modeled after my essay after a New York Times article called “Biden Faced His Biggest Challenge, and Struggle to Form a Response”. This article, in my opinion, has elements that make it seem professional, and I wanted to capture that same professionalism in my research essay. I incorporated some illustrations to give readers some reference and to make it more engaging, broke paragraphs into sub-paragraphs where I talked about multiple ideas to make it more concise, and titled paragraphs to create a sense of structure and cohesion. As for the contents of the model essay, it largely discussed how Biden respond to the allegations of what he did in Ukraine. The purpose of the article is to inform readers about events that lead up to Joe Biden’s dilemma and his inability to formulate a response when Trump made the allegation. Trump’s allegation has already affect Biden’s poll numbers and his fundraising, which is detrimental when elections come. The tone is informative and is indicative of the neutral stance and language the author has. The author makes sure that he uses words that shows him being unbiased, and the contents of the article show he’s stating more facts than opinion. Considering that the article deals with politics, I presume that the author intends to target those who are political enthusiasts which is a very niche group as most people tend to stay away from politics and its affairs. This composition takes the form of an digital article where its contents are meant to inform.
Work Cited
“Climate Change.” Choices for America in a Turbulent World: Strategic Rethink, by James Dobbins et al., RAND Corporation, 2015, pp. 69-84 JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/ 10.7249/j.cct17mvhfj.13.
“Home: Climate Action Tracker.” Home | Climate Action Tracker, Climate Analytics and New Climate , 2019, climateactiontracker.org/.
Oreskes, Naomi, and Nicholas Stern. “Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/ 2019/10/23/opinion/climate-change-costs.html.
Paul-Bogdan Zamfir. “CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE BENEFITS OF A CLEAN AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT.” Analele Universităţii Constantin Brâncuşi Din Târgu Jiu : Seria Economie, vol. 3, no. 3, 2012, pp. 236–239.
Leahy, Stephen. “Most Countries Aren’t Hitting 2030 Climate Goals, and Everyone Will Pay the Price.” Most Countries Aren’t Hitting Paris Climate Goals, and Everyone Will Pay the Price, 5 Nov. 2019, www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/11/nations-miss-paris- targets-climate-driven-weather-events-cost-billions/#close.
Leon, Harmon. “Why Haven’t We All Switched to Electric Cars Yet?” Observer, Observer, 30 Sept. 2019, observer.com/2019/09/electric-cars-climate-change-hurdles/.
