Emily Carr

Mr. Matson
English 11B B
20 May 2016
The Climate Change Crisis
Humans only occupy one planet, and its important to make sure it can sustain us for
many years to come. Its dealt with many man-made problems over the years, such as air
pollution and oil spills. There has been recent advocacy for making the planet cleaner, and many
people are agreeing on taking action. Despite this, there are still people who are asking why its
so important, and the answer is that the world is currently facing its toughest problem yet:
climate change. Due to the lack of efficiency, humans have spurred this invisible force into
overdrive, and it will take a lot to reverse the effects. Climate change has always been present,
but it is now becoming a concern. Its evident in the melting of glaciers in the North Pole, as well
as temperatures being recorded at all-time highs. Many countries have unintentionally
participated in this global climate change, but the United States has been one of the more
prominent leaders so far. Despite discussion among scientists for years, it had been kept under
the rug until U.S. presidential candidates started using it as a topic for political gain. This has led
to citizens becoming aware of this growing problem, which has in turn led to heated debates over
whether or not it actually exists. Its important to look back at how climate change has developed
and the politics involved, what arguments have resulted, the current causes and effects, and look
forward to the solutions that everyone can agree on and be a part of.
Industrialized countries have contributed to climate change for decades. Each major
industrialized country can pinpoint a moment in its history where its emissions started to climb

higher than before, and the United States is no exception. The turning point for this country
happened during a time that is well-known by every citizen - the industrial revolution. The
United States has been the leader of greenhouse gas (GHG) output since the industrial era began.
This is partly due to the countrys lack of energy efficiency, but also due to its large population
and having an economy built on fossil fuels (Henson, 38). The industrial era is filled with leaps
of improvement and the beginning of mass production. Once mass production started gaining
traction, more oil had to be drilled and more coal had to mined in order to keep up with the
output generated by steel and automotive companies. The United States hasnt changed much
since then; its grown more dependent and accustomed to using fossil fuels, specifically oil. It
could be hard to imagine what the country would be like if its oil supply was cut short, but
peoples response during the 1970s oil shocks were able to provide a glimpse into what would
might happen. During this time, there was a sense of efficiency, and the top interstate speed
dwindled down to 55 mph. Although, once prices dropped, all sense of efficiency was wiped
away (Henson 242). Due to this dependency, the United States has had to become aware of its
impact on the environment, and consequently, become aware of climate change. The topic of
climate change was generally reserved for scientists during the early 1900s. As it slowly got
brought into the publics eye, there have been numerous debates between large, influential
companies and educated scientists. People living in the United States werent exactly sure who or
what to believe, and that resulted in doubt and people becoming misinformed. Despite the
skepticism climate change is faced with, its been steadily gaining more consistent media
coverage since the 1990s (Henson 260). Its worked its way into the United States mainstream
media. People have become more aware of this problem since then, and the number of people
being properly educated on the topic has increased significantly. For as long as climate change

has been known about, there have always been people there to deny the evidence found. In April
of 1998, skeptics created the Oregon Petition. They used it to collect signatures of scientists
who share their opinion on climate change: there is no actual evidence to support the idea that it
is manmade. Its still collecting signatures today, and despite multiple questionable names being
found on the list, climate skeptics will continue to cite it as evidence of agreement among
scientists (Childress 1). Although there has been clear scientific evidence to back up scientists
beliefs, climate change skeptics still fight to prove their side of the debate. The United States has
not just been involved in the history of climate change, but the politics behind it as well.
Every great debate eventually gets dragged into the politics playing field. Its happened
numerous times in the past, and continues to happen today. The debate on climate change is no
different. Scientists have fallen victim to bribery from large companies, and though their names
arent always known, their voices can have a large impact. A few scientists (with very little
experience on climate change science) have been paid by the various fossil-fuel dependent
industries to voice their skepticism, and have been so influential, theyve managed to sway the
U.S. Congress (Henson, 242). The companies were able to achieve their goal of placing doubt
into peoples minds. This, in turn, led to a ripple effect across the nation. This effect reached so
far that climate change is now one of the primary topics for 2016 presidential candidates. It has
become a way for politicians to effectively gain or lose votes, depending on their viewpoint and
their plans for action. However, not all politicians are choosing to take it so lightly. President
Obama visited the state of Alaska late last summer to discuss climate change. He hoped his visit
would increase awareness among the public: Part of the reason why I [took] this trip was to
highlight for people that this is not a distant problem we can keep putting off (Goodell 1). The
trip was short, yet helped show how serious the President was about taking action. Since then,

the President has begun to work on plans that could have their own ripple effect in the near
future. While politicians are eager to toss around the subject for their own gain, there are still
very real arguments occurring as people fight to make change in one direction or the other.
One of the biggest conflicts surrounding climate change is the obligation humans have
towards other species to preserve the Earth. Millions of species inhabit this planet, and theyve
fallen under the effects of climate change. Many species are at risk of extinction due to climate
change; therefore, it is widely believed that action is necessary to prevent such an extinction
event out of our moral obligation to other species (Rahme, 13). Evidence of this is already
prevalent - polar bears are dwindling in numbers as the icebergs rapidly melt. All species are
feeling the effect of climate change, and people are beginning to look at who should be
responsible for reversing it. There has been constant debate over which countries will carry the
responsibility of cleaning up the world. The Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. withdrew from
during 2001, was one way of putting responsibility on the countries involved in climate change.
According to Sarah Childress, senior digital reporter at PBS.org, the U.S. withdrew from the
Kyoto Protocol because of the belief that it put much of the burden on the industrialized nations
for reducing emissions. This was quickly challenged with the idea that industrialized countries
have better means of reducing emissions. Third-world countries are unable to afford the costs of
living in an environmentally-friendly way. They must first become more industrialized before
they can attempt to reduce their emissions. Industrialized countries have contributed more to
climate change through mass production and technological advancements. It is often argued that
those responsible for the climate change problem be held accountable, and that there should be
no shifting of the burdens from those that created the problem to the innocents (Rahme, 112).
Countries who output the most GHGs are believed to be the ones who must rectify the problem,

even though it is important that every country does its part. These debates have always been a
game of tug of war between companies and environmentalists, and will continue to be so until a
decision is agreed on. There will always be opinions thrown into the mix, but people are
beginning to take out the facts and start analysing the cause and effects associated with climate
change.
Climate change has many causes that are followed by everlasting effects that will
continue to persist long after this generations lifetime. People must be aware that climate change
has gone beyond what is normal, and that humans are contributing to it. Its tough for citizens of
industrialized countries to believe, but the evidence is out there. Since the 1970s, the global
temperature has been rising due to both human and natural causes; if it were solely natural the
Earth would most likely be 0.4 degrees Celsius cooler (Henson, 10). This is due to the increase
of GHG being trapped in the atmosphere, primarily carbon dioxide. Its known that humans and
animals exhale carbon dioxide, but that alone is certainly not enough to warrant an entire planets
change of temperature. Other causes contribute to it, such as deforestation. Trees hold carbon
dioxide in them, and as they are cut down, that CO2 gets released into the air. Tropical forests are
especially capable of emitting large amounts of CO2. Burning tropical forests releases huge
amounts of carbon dioxide into the air since these forests alone hold almost half of the carbon
dioxide present in vegetation around the world (Henson, 11).Yet deforestation is not the main
cause for climate change, despite how often it happens. The real culprits are fossil fuels - oil,
coal, and natural gas. Whenever these are burned for energy and fuel, carbon dioxide is quickly
emitted into the air. All countries use some amount of fossil fuels since theyve become such a
part of daily life, but industrialized countries use the most. The United States is especially guilty
of fossil fuel use, and its not surprising because of the countys dependence and love for

automobiles. Any type of motor vehicle is used daily within the United States, for both
entertainment and transportation needs. The country puts out a lot of GHG emissions with
automobile use alone, but that isnt counting in industrial, electrical, and agricultural emissions.
Despite the public knowledge of how much emissions the United States puts out every year,
people are reluctant to change their ways. This reluctance has already begun to affect the world.
Arctic sea ice has lost nearly half its summer thickness since 1950, and the range of 12 bird
species in Britain shifted north in the 1980s and 1990s by an average of 12 miles (Henson, 5).
CO2 takes a long time to break down in the atmosphere, and the amount the world currently has
is enough to last for decades to come. Thousands of species could be lost to a preventable cause.
Climate change between now and 2050 may commit as many as 37% of all species to eventual
extinction (Henson, 13). While its not due to the United States alone, it is important to take
action as soon as possible. Already there are scientists and environmentalists working to figure
out solutions that could help slow down (or hopefully halt) this global climate change.
The three primary goals for people working in the climate change field are stabilizing
emissions concentrations and temperature. Despite their relation, theyre complicated by the
same factors - sensitivity of the climate, GHG emissions remaining in the atmosphere for
decades, and how long it will take for the concentration to level off and the temperature to stop
rising (Henson, 263). The United States has decided to tackle these goals by first working on
emission outputs. President Obama has already begun working on and introducing many
different plans. In a Rolling Stone magazine article, Jeff Goodell reports that earlier this year,
[President Obama] introduced the Clean Power Plan, which will use the EPAs regulatory
authority to cut power plant CO2 emissions by 32% by 2020. The President has begun leading
the United States towards a much-needed change in behavior. He has been involved in creating

awareness of climate change by visiting states where the fossil fuel industry is prominent, such
as Alaska. His plans are based on the idea of not denying people want they want, but offering
them a safer, cleaner alternative choice to fossil fuels. President Obamas aim has been to reduce
the demand of fossil fuels to wean the economy off of them rather than completely shut off the
supplies (Goodell, 1). This effort to bring the United States towards a new way of thinking could
increase the demand for more sustainable energy sources. Most modern societies require energy
to function, and they generate that energy from fossil fuels. They are not renewable sources, and
will eventually run out. There are new, sustainable forms of energy that are out there - water,
sunshine, and wind. Solar panels are steadily becoming more affordable to have installed, and
wind turbines arent far behind. Solar panels create generous amounts of electricity, yet they are
not always reliable. If its too cloudy or rainy, solar panels could be rendered useless. Wind
turbines are able to offer electricity during times where sunlight is not readily available. While
criticized for noise, unattractiveness, and killing birds in flight, wind turbines do have a low
impact on the environment and are a sustainable source of energy (Rahm, 149). They do well in
open fields where there are no hills to block the wind coming their way. Compared to other
sources of sustainable energy, wind turbines have been the fastest growing alternative energy
source during the last few decades (Rahm, 149). These sources are alternatives to fossil fuels that
the United States could easily switch over to. The United States has the capability of contributing
to the climate change solution, and while its already beginning to participate, it will take many
more years of acton until climate change is stabilized.
Hundreds of countries are involved in the global phenomenon of climate change. The
United States has repeatedly been the leader for many of the causes leading to climate change,
and the country must now begin to look at the effects brought on by it. Solutions are being

brought to the table from every country as politics launch the topic into the mainstream media,
making it unavoidable to anyone living in a modern society. The great debates that relate to
climate change have persevered through the years, and will likely to continue for as long as it
remains important. Looking back at climate change through the years, though, has helped the
world begin to understand when and why there has been so many dramatic changes in the last
few decades. People must begin to look at climate change as a persistent problem that cannot be
resolved without human influence in order to find a way to stabilize and control the worlds
climate.

Works Cited
Childress, Sarah. Timeline: The Politics of Climate Change. PBS. PBS, 23 Oct. 2012. Web, 12
Apr. 2016.
Goodell, Jeff. Obama Takes on Climate Change. Rolling Stone 1245 (2015): 36. MasterFILE
Premier. Web. 23 Mar 2016.
Henson, Robert. The Rough Guide to Climate Change. London: Rough Guides LTD. Sept. 2006.
Print.
Lerner, K Lee. Climate Change Impacts in North America. The Gale Encyclopedia of Science.
Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. 5th ed. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale, 2014.
Science in Context. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

Rahm, Dianne. Climate Change Policy in the United States. McFarland & Company Inc, 2010.
Print.
Regulatory Initiatives. Regulatory Initiatives, EPA. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
United States Signs Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Issues in Science and
Technologies. 15.2 (1998): 28+. Science in Context. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.