All Nonfiction
- Bullying
- Books
- Academic
- Author Interviews
- Celebrity interviews
- College Articles
- College Essays
- Educator of the Year
- Heroes
- Interviews
- Memoir
- Personal Experience
- Sports
- Travel & Culture
All Opinions
- Bullying
- Current Events / Politics
- Discrimination
- Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
- Entertainment / Celebrities
- Environment
- Love / Relationships
- Movies / Music / TV
- Pop Culture / Trends
- School / College
- Social Issues / Civics
- Spirituality / Religion
- Sports / Hobbies
All Hot Topics
- Bullying
- Community Service
- Environment
- Health
- Letters to the Editor
- Pride & Prejudice
- What Matters
- Back
Summer Guide
- Program Links
- Program Reviews
- Back
College Guide
- College Links
- College Reviews
- College Essays
- College Articles
- Back
Why the United States Must be a Leader in the Fight to Stop Climate Change
The United States (U.S.) must be a leader in the fight to stop climate change. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the overall temperature of our earth is rising at an astonishing and unnatural rate. Climate scientists estimate that we have 12 years to act on climate change before irreparable damage is inflicted on the environment. Although many countries have put considerable effort into work towards preventing further ecological destruction, the countries contributing the most to pollution are putting the least amount of work into global conservation (Gore, Will). The majority of the world has recognized that the window of time we have to stop the destruction of our home is rapidly diminishing. Climate change conferences such as the Paris Agreement address this issue by encouraging countries to work together to prevent further environmental change (Armstrong, Martin). While most of the world is actively contributing, countries such as the U.S., India and China are continuing to produce obscene amounts of pollutants. The U.S. has the global influence to become a leader in the fight to prevent further destruction. The level of pollutants we produce marks us as one of the top countries in need of change.
On a global scale, the U.S. economy is thriving. According to a new Pew Research Center analysis in 2011, the official poverty line in the U.S. was $23,021 for a family of four meaning a daily income of $15.77 per person. This is quite high in comparison to the average global threshold of $10 daily income. Therefore, Americans classified as “poor” by the U.S. government would have a middle class income globally (Kochhar, Rakesh). The U.S. has considerable economic and monetary advantage over the majority of other countries, but our contribution to stopping global change is surprisingly minimal (Armstrong, Martin). Our thriving economy and stable financial situation give us a considerable amount of political influence, placing the U.S. in a position to take on a leadership role in preventing further damage to the earth.
In addition, other countries being criticized for contributing to climate change such as India look to the U.S. for reasons to change their methods of energy production. In an interview between Indian environmentalist Sunita Narain and Leonardo DiCaprio in 2016, Narain stated that there are over 300 million people without power in India. The easiest method of energy production for lower class citizens in India is coal, even though it contributes considerable amount of pollution to the atmosphere. The rest of the world is pushing countries like India to change their forms of energy production to more ecological methods while ignoring the lack of commitment by the U.S.. According to Narain, when countries with the resources to make changes put no effort into moving towards greener energy production, it causes countries less capable of change to question why they should spend money on altering their economy. The U.S. is seen as a role model for global political change and if we take up a leadership role in changing to environmentally friendly energy production, others will follow suit (Narain, Sunita).
Although most of the globe has taken political action towards stopping climate change, some argue that if the rest of the world is participating in reducing emissions, the U.S. shouldn’t need to. According to data collected by the New York Times’s climate team, the total carbon emissions the U.S. has produced since 1850 trumps that of any other country. While China is currently the biggest carbon polluter, with a production of over eight billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2014, the U.S. has consistently been producing well over four billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually for decades. China on the other hand, only reached that level recently. This makes the U.S. the largest carbon polluter in the world (Gillis, Justin and Nadja Popovich) and if we don’t control our emissions they will swamp the work other countries have put into preventing climate change (Levi, Michael A. and Bernard Gwertzman).
Additionally, many Americans worry that changing methods of energy production will lead to higher energy costs and job loss. Although moving to cleaner energy production will cost more, standard economic models show only small increases in price as long as the change is done gradually. In addition, implementing new methods of energy production will create job opportunities for displaced workers. In order to maintain our economy, the government must implement changes in ways that do not impose an unsustainable burden on the most vulnerable parts of the economy. For reasons not related to green technology implementation, energy prices have already begun to rise in the U.S. and the projected increases from climate legislation are minimal in comparison to what we are already seeing. The U.S. needs to show that low carbon development is consistent with a robust economy and taking this position of leadership will encourage other countries with high carbon production to adopt mandatory emissions reductions (Levi, Michael A. and Bernard Gwertzman).
Humans don’t have much time to save the earth from permanent damage. The U.S.’s thriving economy and stable financial situation places us in a position to take on a leadership role in preventing further damage to the earth. If the U.S. takes action by implementing new methods of energy production, we can demonstrate to countries with high carbon production rates that if the U.S. can accomplish technological change while maintaining a stable economy, they can as well.
Works Cited
Armstrong, Martin. "The State of the Paris Agreement." Map. WCPO Cincinnati, 2 June 2017. Accessed 25 Apr. 2019.
Gillis, Justin and Nadja Popovich. "The U.S. is the Biggest Carbon Polluter in History." Chart. The New York Times, June, . Accessed 9 Apr. 2019.
Gore, Will. "We have 12 years to act on climate change before the world we know it is lost. How much more urgent can it get?" Independent, Independent, 8 Oct. 2018. Accessed 25 Apr. 2019.
Kochhar, Rakesh. How Americans Compare with the Global Middle Class, Fact Tank, 9 July 2015. Accessed 9 Apr. 2019.
Levi, Michael A. and Bernard Gwertzman. "Climate Control Should be Important Component of US Foreign Policy." Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 12 June 2008. Accessed 25 Apr. 2019.
Narain, Sunita, and Leonardo DiCaprio, narrator. Before the Flood. Produced by Leonardo DiCaprio2016. Accessed 8 Apr. 2019.
Similar Articles
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
This article has 0 comments.
This article argues that the United States's global influence and prosperous economy can give it leadership role in preventing furthur climate change. I feel very strongly about protecting our environment. Through this article, I hope to bring light to the U.S.'s lack of contribution to solving the global issue of climate change, while providing evidence that U.S. efforts could have a positive affect on reducing climate change.