The Pros And Cons Of The Gore Solution

Dr James Hansen’s argumentative essay, “A Solution to the Climate Problem,” discusses his premise that it is imperative for humankind to deal with carbon dioxide emissions, which he believes needs to be phased out by the mid-21st century. He begins with the current paradigm in government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and claims that so far it has been a lot of talk and action in the other direction. Dr Hansen argues that while governments pay lip service to agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, they are going full steam ahead with projects that will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, such as going forth with coal-fired power plants, coal-to-liquids, hydraulic fracturing, and tar sands oil extraction. Dr Hansen believes

Fossil fuels and other power generates are slowly changing the world. Alternative power sources are slowly becoming more popular in everyday life while the technology progresses. Using these power sources that don’t pollute the atmosphere could be the change in the world that completely changes the way the world uses energy. Engineers and technicians have been producing these alternative ways for years and years. A few, but not limited to consist of: Solar panels, Wind turbines, Wave tech and much more.

However, Gore does not just present the problem. He issues the challenge for the scientific community to seek ways to solve the problem, but he points out that these measures must be taken now. The problem is so severe that actions must be immediate in order to be effective. Comparing today’s environmental problems to the wartime challenges faced by the World War Two generation, Gore urges today’s citizens and scientists to rise to the occasion and be willing to sacrifice, if necessary, to solve the problems that society has created.

In 1988, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had conclusive proof products adding to the output of carbon dioxide and methane gases in the atmosphere were causing the earth to warm; and, if not stopped will make it inhabitable for human life. In the 1970’s the United States had conclusive proof that products releasing Chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere were causing the ozone layer to deplete; and, that if continued would be dangerous for human life. The United States took international global action, by joining the Montreal Protocol, to phase out the products producing chlorofluorocarbon and the ozone layer has been successfully replenished .

Gary Stix calls to Americans to halt global warming. The world is changing and not for the better, he writes “The Debate on Global Warming is Over” (Stix 46). CO2 levels are higher than they have been in 650,000 years and are projected to only increase at an exponential rate. No one knows exactly when and what will happen, but all scientist can agree that it won’t be good. Making a difference in the fight against global warming will require a massive alteration in the entire world’s energy economy. Fossil Fuels account for 80% of the world’s energy and if a “carbon budget” is put into place then they will be ineffective (Stix 47). We need to begin to make a shift towards more renewable sources of energy, and adopt a system to help regulate the total amount of emissions. These programs will give us a head start on lessening the effects of global warming, but the

In order to examine and combat global warming, Senator Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer introduced the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007 on Jan 15th, 2007. The act was proposed to increase performance abilities for electricity generation and motor vehicles with the choice in emissions “cap and trade” system. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass committee in 2013. (Environmental Defense Fund, 2007)

An urgent issue, climate change is undoubtedly a sweeping global dilemma of paramount importance. Though most people are aware of this fact, many either choose to ignore it, or acknowledge it, but take no action against it. Those who do choose to take action usually attempt to combat climate change by using the methods that are most commonly discussed: becoming more energy efficient, recycling, and reducing emissions through using more sustainable transportation. Though these actions are helpful, they are not the most efficient way to counter climate change.

Have you ever wondering where your electricity comes from? How your car uses gasoline to run? What about how these things impact our environment or how we are going to keep producing them? As a country, we need to start looking ahead to the future and planning for what is to come. Currently, 86% of America’s energy comes from petroleum, natural gas, and coal. All of these resources will run out eventually. We need renewable energy sources that will keep producing in a clean, more efficient way for a long time. Before committing to an idea and going all the way with it, we need to compare all the different energy sources available to the U.S. and choose the one that is best for everyone.

The Alternative energy industry in the United States has been at a steady rate of growth for the past decade, however there is still controversy over the use of renewable energies, their impact on the economy, and their impact on the environment. As controversial as the topic is, the argument boils down to a moral need to support environmental regulations, and an economical need to sustain domestic growth in the Energy industry of the United States. Mainly, the question is can alternative energy effective replace fossil fuels? There are of course arguments for both sides of this question.

I am writing to ask for your administration to support the development of initiatives and policies to stop the climate change. Four decades from now, we do not want to repeat the story in The Age of Stupid, movie in which a man lives in the devastated future world of 2055. The man looks back to today’s date and asks himself why we did not stop the climate change when we had the chance. However, today global warming is out of control, global temperatures are steadily rising. “The primary cause, a consensus of scientists has said, is the rising emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane” (Stone, 2013). The carbon dioxide (CO2) stays in the atmosphere for 50 to 100 years, nitrous oxide

Over the past several years, scientists have researched the impact fossil fuels currently have on our world today. These sources of energy have an irreversible and devastating consequence on our environment. Fossil fuels are disliked due to being non-renewable and unsustainable. As more technological advancements have occurred, more efforts have arisen related to replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy. Due to the integration of existing technology the public has become reluctant to adopt new energy technologies. Renewable energy brings many desirable health, environmental, and economic benefits. These renewable methods may ultimately provide a brighter future for generations to come.

The International Energy Agency estimates that by the year 2003 forty percent of the world's energy production will be from sources other than fossil fuels or nuclear power. Nevertheless, the need for

Whilst it may seem a “no-brainer” to cease investment in non-renewable power and transfer our effort, resources and investment into developing renewable energy sources, the reality is that we have become so reliant and dependent upon non-renewable energy – particularly fossil fuels – that we must continue to use, develop, and invest in such energy to maintain the living standards that we enjoy today. In our short to medium-term future, and in spite of our ever-increasing scientific knowledge about the environmental price that we pay in using non-renewable energy, we must continue to invest in it. Let me explain why.

In this day and age, we have new energy sources that could be used to power our homes and transportation. Wind and solar power are used all over the world, but are still used far less than fossil fuels. Most would say it’s not reliable or it doesn’t make any profit. While both statements are true, it doesn’t mean we can’t make a better future using renewable energy. In fact, the only reason we don’t use renewables for everything is that we don’t want to change. The hard truth is we need to change. Fossil fuels are great right now, but if we run out, humanity must have another source of energy.

For years man has relied on energy in order to be successful in life. The industrial revolution relied on coal for the new inventions brought into the world. Life as has never been the same since then. However since that time, there has been little done to improve on energy efficiency and humans still primarily rely on fossil fuels for energy. For over a hundred years the Earth has become more polluted and dirtier than ever before. Now, with new, innovative technology there is an opportunity to change that and to rely on renewable, cleaner sources of energy. The main source of energy for the world should be alternative energy instead of energy from fossil fuels.