Burke1

Sophia Burke

POLS 1100-409

Professor P. Gutaj

20 April 2018

The United States and Climate Change

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017 was the third

hottest year ever recorded in history dating back to 1895, with 2016 being the hottest and 2015

being the second hottest (NOAA). Scientists are predicting that 2018 will be the hottest year on

record, surpassing 2016’s record breaking temperatures. Even though skeptics of global warming

and climate change are still choosing to ignore what science is telling us, climate change is real,

and urgent action is necessary if we have any hope in preserving our planet and the life that we

know. Along with rising temperatures, the amount of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere have

been increasing for the last two centuries, due in large part of the burning of fossil fuels. The

effects of this are huge: rising sea levels, severe weather, drought, famine, acidification of our

oceans, increased wild fires, pollution, illness, and war will be our future if immediate action is

not taken as stress is put on our planet- threatening ecosystems as species fight for survival.

Although climate change is a global issue, as a world leader, the United States has the

opportunity to pave the pathway to a sustainable future for our planet and for all life that

occupies it. As individuals, there are many things we can do to contribute to fight climate

change. However, to make a big impact, the leaders of our country need to put policies in place

that fight climate change and reduce global warming on a larger scale. Donald Trump currently

has power to implement such policies, yet he has chosen to do the opposite.

What I propose is that we do three things to try and reduce global warming on a larger
 Burke2

scale. First, the United States should tax carbon. Doing so will encourage people to switch to

clean, renewable energy sources. Second, the U.S. should require all new infrastructure to be

built to meet high energy efficient standards and all new automobiles to meet higher fuel

efficiency standards. Lastly, the U.S. should put an emphasis on efforts that better manage land

used for agriculture and restore/protect forests.

Burning fossil fuels has increased the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere

dramatically over the last two centuries. CO2 is one of the main greenhouse gasses that

contribute to global warming, and if levels continue to rise as projected, life on earth may not be

sustainable. Many climate scientists and economists agree that taxing carbon emissions is one

way (if not the only way) to dramatically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our

atmosphere. An article published by Rolling Stone, Global Warmings Terrifying New Math,

states the problem clearly: “Alone among businesses, the fossil-fuel industry is allowed to dump

its main waste, carbon dioxide, for free” going on to say that, “Nobody else gets that break – if

you own a restaurant, you have to pay someone to cart away your trash, since piling it in the

street would breed rats,” (McKibeen).

We are able to look at other countries as examples to see that taxing carbon does reduce

the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Taxes would be applied based on the amount of carbon a

company produces, with the idea that both producers and consumers would be motivated to look

elsewhere for energy. Yes, taxing carbon would drive up the cost of fossil fuels, but as the

Carbon Tax Canter (CTC) explains, taxing carbon does not have to mean increasing taxes for the

general public. The CTC proposes a “Revenue-neutral” carbon tax, meaning “That government

retains little if any of the tax revenues raised by taxing carbon emissions. The vast majority of

the revenues are returned to the public with, perhaps, small amounts utilized to assist
 Burke3

communities dependent on fossil-fuel extraction and processing to adapt and convert to low- or

non-carbon economies,” (Carbon Tax Center). Ideally, tax revenues would be used by

Americans to invest in and upgrade to cleaner, renewable energy sources.

In addition to taxing carbon, the U.S. should require all new infrastructure to be built to

higher energy efficient standards, and fortunately there are many ways to do this.

The first focus should be on building homes with renewable energy sources that generate

electricity and heat by using solar, wind, and geothermal technologies. The book The Great

Transition discusses how solar panels are becoming a staple in new homes being built in the

U.S., stating that, “Four of the top five home construction firms now automatically include solar

panels on every house in certain markets,” (Brown 74-75). This progress is huge, and these

practices should not only be taking place in “certain markets,” but should act as requirements for

all new construction. It is important to note that as renewables grow to become more

standardized, the price of them drops, making them more accessible to a wide range of people.

Solar panels are no longer just for the wealthy.

Another way to improve infrastructure is to provide tax incentives for those interested in

updating their existing homes to be more energy efficient. Upgrading lighting, insulation,

windows, and appliances are all small changes people can make to reduce their impact on the

environment. These people should be rewarded for doing so.

Along the same lines as improving infrastructure to reduce energy usage, all new

automobiles should be required to have higher fuel efficiency standards. As explained in the

movie The Inconvenient Truth, around the world, other countries are already implementing this

technology and the United States should be too. In 2012, the Obama Administration finalized

“groundbreaking standards that will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars
 Burke4

and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025,” (Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5

MPG Fuel Efficiency Standards). However, with many countries already doing this, why should

the United States take an addition 13+ years to implement this standard? Beginning next year,

the United States should only allow imported cars that can uphold the 54.5 mph standard,

perhaps allowing domestic manufactures more time to create updated vehicles.

The book Dire Predications explains that “farming and agriculture are responsible for

about 12% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions,” (Mann 184), while “in 2010 the forestry

sector (including land use other than agriculture) emitted roughly 11% of the total greenhouse

gases released to the atmosphere,” (Mann 188). Together, they account for roughly 23% of

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with much of these emissions coming from developing

countries. As far as agriculture goes, we will have the largest impact on climate if we are able to

learn how to better manage land. Along with better land management regarding agriculture, we

mustn’t allow deforestation to continue to accelerate around he world if we hope to reduce

carbon emissions. Because both of these practices primarily involve developing countries, it is

up to the developed countries such as the United States the aid in better land management

practices.

The New Economy Climate Report explains that if we wish to reduce emissions as

demand increases, it will include “both supply-side measures, such as the use of new crop

varieties and new techniques of livestock management, and demand-side measures, such as

reducing food loss and waste,” (The New Economy Climate Report 2015). The report goes on to

explain that addressing land use issues will requires international support. In addition to

providing aid, the financial support, the U.S., can put in place policies that require consumers to

be responsible when purchasing imported goods.

 Burke5

To summarize, the United States must act as a world leader in fighting climate change by

enforcing policy changes that work together to reduce emissions. First, we must tax carbon. This

is the fastest and most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions and encourage citizens to switch

to renewable energy sources. Next, we must require all new infrastructure to be built to high

energy efficient standards and all automobiles to have fuel efficiency standards that, at the very

least, compare to what other countries are already doing. Finally, we must provide aid to

developing countries where land use is emitting large amounts of greenhouse gas into the air and

require our citizens to consume responsibly. Each of these changes come at some cost, but the

cost of doing nothing is much greater than that of the small sacrifices related to them. Addressing

climate change encourages innovative thinking, and companies profiting from the harm they are

doing to the environment have the opportunity to adapt. When we look at fighting climate

change individually, it seems like an impossible task, but when we come together and address

specific areas of improvement, we can and will make a difference.

 Burke6

Work Cited

Brown, Lester R. “The Solar Revolution.” The Great Transition. New York, NY: W. W Norton

& Company, 2015. 67-83. Print.

“Carbon Tax Center.” Carbon Tax Center. 2007-2016. Web. Retrieved April 20, 2018.

“Energy-Efficient Home Design.” Department of Energy. (n.d.) Web. Retrieved April 20, 2018.

Greshko, M., Parker, L., & Howard, B. C. “A Running List of How Trump Is Changing the

Environment”. National Geographic, April 2, 2018. Web. Retrieved April 20, 2018.

“Home Page.” The New Climate Economy Report 2015. (n.d.) Web. Retrieved April 20, 2018.

Mann, Michael E, and Lee R Kump. “Part 5 Solving Climate Change.” Dire Predictions. New

York, NY: DK Publishing, 2015. 184-189. Print.

Phillips, Brady. “NOAA: 2017 Was 3rd Warmest Year on Record for the Globe.” National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Web. Retrieved April 20, 2018.

“Obama administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standards.” The White

House. The White House, August 28, 2012. Web. Retrieved April 20, 2018.