Climate Change: the Most Serious Challenge Facing the World Today - Literature review Example

DISCUSSION ON CLIMATE CHANGE by Student’s Name Code + Name of Course Date Essay Topic “Climate change is clearly the most serious challenge facing the world today and should be made the priority for urgent action from the world’s governments. Critically discuss” Discussion Climate change is a process that causes a shift in atmospheric conditions over a long period (Karl and Kevin 1719). It is commonly believed that humans are to blame for the rising climatic conditions due to their harmful undertakings, which cause discharge of greenhouse gases into the air, leading to warmer temperatures. The global warming debate has generated a lot of reaction, with different sides giving different viewpoints. Various perspectives and positions range from environmental activism to scepticism. In spite of the numerous widely held fallacy proposed by sceptics that there exists no scientific unanimity on climate change, and the idea that the climatic conditions have transformed before, the reality is that climate reacts to any forces, which compel it to change at any point in time. It is true that the temperature on the earth surface have risen over the previous few years. As Hansen and Larissa (423) posit, climate change usually leads to many effects such as release of poisonous gases that lead to pollution, which pose a great danger to human health. Climate change has also endangered the polar bears lives threatening their habitats. Global warming furthermore leads to melting of the polar ice. This will most likely lead to flooding of the coastal areas in the near future. These effects suggest that a different approach of the issue should be put in place altogether; that the world’s governments need to put in place measures that will ensure minimal discharge of carbon dioxide gases discharged into the atmosphere. This will help in minimizing global temperatures and avert a rise in sea levels. Governments need to mitigate the present atmospheric levels in order to protect our children’s future. My argument is that climate change renders a huge challenge in the universe and should be given priority for urgent action by the world’s governments. Hansen (2004) maintains that the combustion of carbon elements increases amounts of carbon dioxide gas in the air, which together with discharges from other greenhouse gases causes a rise in ocean acidification and global temperatures. The high temperatures cause melting of ice and therefore rising of sea level. About 97 % of climate specialists affirm to the statement that human beings are the causal agents of global warming, and therefore, the global warming issue should be given consideration. According to Hansen, rise in sea level is the main issue or time bomb, as many residents adjacent to coast areas will be affected. He therefore claims that there is need to mitigate the present atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide of 387 ppm, which are the highest in the history of humans. He proposes a rapid return to 350-ppm levels of carbon dioxide or less in order to slow or avert the increasing rise in worldwide temperature levels and ocean acidification (Hansen and Larissa 425). According to Hansel, our grandchildren will blame the current generation for destroying the remarkable universe, which we inherited (Hansen and Larissa 426). He considers that we thrive in a “false economy “where we use cheap non-renewable energy whose prices do not mirror their real costs to the environment, the society, and future generations. The earth faces a universal climate emergency. Additional upsurges in ocean acidification and global temperatures pose looming and extensive dangers to the natural environment, human health, national security, the economy, and an intolerable risk of unsurmountable catastrophic effects to human civilization. He continues postulating that for as long as coal will remain inexpensive such that it cannot compete with low-carbon energy, people will lack the capacity of changing to a clean energy future. He also makes the claims that the lawmakers should prioritize the global warming issue while urging the public to refuse the “smoke and mirrors” energy bills that depend on “offsets” and “cap-and-trade” (Hansen and Larissa 425). He further claims that there is need for governments to design bills meant for the public, and not for fossil-fuel companies or big banks (Rahmstorf et. al, 709). His recommendations agitate for an “honest, simple” carbon fee for the fossil-fuel firms. According to him, the money generated through this fee would be dispensed as a “green check” or monthly “dividend” to the public. By distributing, all of the income equitably to households, the measure will guarantee that families can manage to pay for the energy they require during the switch to a cleaner energy future. Moreover, it would assist winning public backing for an increased carbon fee. But is it enough to come up with such a movement to assist in reversing the effects of climate change as well as the supposed negative impacts to the future generations? Hansen’s argument is still questionable. This approach could be just another hysteria designed for a select number of people to cash on it. The proposal sounds great on the surface but it is paradoxical for the public to receive a “green check” from oil firms; then they will all frown when they are taxed ruthlessly for their “carbon foot print” (Hansen and Larissa 427). Definitely, someone else (and not the future descendants or the public at large) is going to benefit. Moreover, whereas the environment and its bionetwork is linked globally, the solutions are inevitably local, starting with different taxation systems in other parts of the world and different debates regarding policy. However, polluters who are not distinct parties in such a bill are the ones who should be taxed for them to shoulder the effects of their activities on the environment. These measures of imposing a bill as a solution to global warming on the users absolve the contaminators who largely produce things that are not necessarily needed by the entire public. Even though taxation is a deterrent, the behaviours of the polluters comprising the global corporations have to be addressed. In my opinion, with more taxation on the general population, the main root of the challenge will not be addressed because corporations will keep on polluting while creating artificial demand for things not needed by the public. Conversely, Lomborg the sceptical environmentalist (2007b) argues that Al Gore and the IPCC predictions concerning global warming effects are highly exaggerated. Lomborg does not refute that global warming is occuring and that it is a severe long-term challenge. Instead, he documents that doomsday situations of rise in sea levels is not a catastrophe (Lomborg 16). He considers these effects as overblown, and that the impacts to minimize drastically greenhouse gases through law making caps are unsuccessful. According to Lomborg, people have not been affected by rise in sea level in the past and therefore global warming will not be catastrophic in the near future. Lomborg further contends that the determination to scare people into minimizing carbon emissions is misguided and disingenuous. He therefore, suggests that people should channel the huge amounts of money it would cost to minimize temperatures by a very low fraction in the course of a century into ventures that are more productive (Lomborg 19). He recommends, for instance, designing resources of renewable energy and fighting malaria, poverty, and other plagues in the developing universe. Lomborg suggest that climate change should not be made a priority. The solution to people’s problems is the “wonks” (Lomborg 18). He posits that the wonks will find a reason and invent a solution to people’s problems despite of some problems being attributed to the wonks (politicians). Generally, the World Bank economists are not hailed as deliverers in the developing world. He mentions other areas that need more attention such as the technological marvel of massive irrigation projects that have intensified water crises in many places, the huge population boom brought about by globalization in Africa that pushed human beings into forested regions from where they were exposed to the HIV virus. According to Lomborg, he has been engaged in research in order to determine different aspects over the global warming issue. He concludes that global warming is not really an imminent threat in this millennium. He suggest that people should not be scared, stop agitating for meaningless individual actions such as replacing light bulbs, and investing money wisely-all, which appear reasonable (Lomborg 32). Nevertheless, there are some problems with this argument. Ultimately, such statements that ignore scientific facts is a major barricade to effective deeds on the human predicament. Lomborg seems to reach to his conclusions in a radically different way compared to other scientists. He seems to suggest that most scientists are naïve, short-sighted, and wrong. His assertions seem to be the wrong choices like the statement that the money not used on preventing climate change should be spent on taking clean water to the developing nations, thereby redeeming more lives for every dollar of expenditure (Lomborg 121). These choices are almost impractical in the real world. Generally, Lomborg’s statement that humans cause climate change, which could be otherwise averted if money was spent on other things first. His assertions have no meaningful impact on addressing climate change all over the world. Notwithstanding these statements, the issue of climate change and global warming should be tackled Human beings are currently the dominant force transforming the universe. However still, there are no specific approaches for tackling the issue of climate change, which apply globally. It has been established that despite of mechanisms in place such as bills to control the use of fossil fuels, there are still authenticity questions as to whether they are geared towards the public’s interest or for a select few. Nevertheless, corporate-financed propaganda campaigns like those asserting that the disruption of climate is a hoax, are likewise crucial. If we affirm that climate change needs to be addressed, then the key to reversing this scenario is for governments to take up actions such as adding carbon fees to the fossil fuels’ prices. This will reduce reliance on foreign oil, stimulate developments in low-carbon energy expertise, increase job growth in energy conversation, and reduce non-greenhouse-gas pollutants discharged by fossil fuel burning that causes environmental and health harm. Reference List 1. Hansen, James, and Larissa Nazarenko. "Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101, no. 2 (2004): 423-428. 2. Karl, Thomas R., and Kevin E. Trenberth. "Modern global climate change." science 302, no. 5651 (2003): 1719-1723. 3. Lomborg, Bjørn, ed. Global crises, global solutions. Cambridge University Press, 2004. 4. Lomborg, Bjørn. Cool it: the skeptical environmentalist's guide to global warming. Random House LLC, 2007. 5. Lomborg, Bjørn, ed. Smart solutions to climate change: Comparing costs and benefits. Cambridge University Press, 2010. 6. Rahmstorf, Stefan, Anny Cazenave, John A. Church, James E. Hansen, Ralph F. Keeling, David E. Parker, and Richard CJ Somerville. "Recent climate observations compared to projections." Science 316, no. 5825 (2007): 709-709. Read More