Global Warming- A (Hopefully) Unique Take on a Topic Beaten to Death

The subject of global warming is a controversial one. The differing opinions on it, the consistent denials from some groups, the cries of “it’s a natural cycle!” Global warming is something America has been unable to agree on. But is it even necessary to agree on it? Is the real issue at hand whether or not global warming is “real?” I propose that it is not a question of “if,” but “what if?” What if it’s not just a natural cycle? What if we’re actually killing our planet, however slow the process may be? If we do nothing, if we do not act now as both a country and indeed a people, the chance of us destroying our planet far outweighs any proposed drawbacks to the “green movement” in terms of importance. Americans need to be the first to move forward in energy technologies, something we’re certainly capable of doing.

Consider the implications of our actions. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that global warming isn’t “real.” It’s all a hoax, invented by Democrats to spend all our money, as my very own father would put it. We don’t need to invest in alternative energy sources like solar panels or geothermal buildings! Let’s just buy foreign oil forever, and burn an endless amount of coal; the air’s not getting any dirtier! Disregarding the fact that air pollution is absolutely undeniable, this “lifestyle” the US and most other developed countries live is reckless and self-destructive. We should be setting the example on new energy technologies, but instead we’re far behind, with countries like Costa Rica pledging to be carbon neutral by 2021.

Why isn’t America one of the forerunners? One major consideration- our refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol. Introduced in late 1997 in an effort to stabilize greenhouse gasses in our environment, the United States is the ONLY major developed country to not sign this international treaty, and currently has no plans to. While separate movements and treaties have been passed since the introduction of the Kyoto Protocol in the US and other countries, this initial rejection proved from the start that we weren’t interested in, or at least largely divided by, environmental issues of this importance. However, this contradicts the example we set forth in the Montreal Protocol, designed to eliminate CFCs and other freons in the atmosphere. The United States, along with every other member of the United Nations has signed and ratified this treaty, so why can’t we do the same with the Kyoto Protocol?

As far as foreign oil goes, the solution isn’t, “start drilling on our own land.” It’s to cut oil out of the picture entirely. The fact that such a limited, dirty, hard-to-get resource became so widespread is ridiculous in its own right. The oil industry may be a booming, lucrative, job-providing industry, but it’s an industry on a crash course. It’s going to end soon, and, like the ghost towns created by the Pennsylvanian oil rush, or the Texas Oil Boom, be completely abandoned. Petroleum WILL run out at some point, and we know this as an absolute fact. So why not heavily invest now in alternatives?

All of this needs to be done in grand strides within the next 10 years to set a strong foundation for the inevitable future when oil reserves have run dry. We need to upgrade our infrastructure now to protect ourselves from this event. It shouldn’t be a particularly difficult process, and it will create jobs stateside, something else we desperately need. To relate this back to global warming, it shouldn’t matter to you or anyone else whether it’s a phenomenon that’s actually occurring or not. The proposed solutions to global warming are natural steps we should be taking regardless of whether or not it’s happening. Once the Earth’s natural resources are all but depleted, where will we turn? Cleaner air is a goal we should all strive towards. So is cutting dependency on foreign oil. So is establishing a future for our nation, and the entire planet, that isn’t based on guesswork. That “What if?” should be removed from the equation entirely. We need to err on the side of caution and invest in these new energies, or risk suffering the consequences for it in the future, however drastic those may or may not be.

Bibliography:

• An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Prod. Laurie David, Lawrence Bender, and Scott Z. Burns. Perf. Al Gore. Paramount Pictures Corp., 2006. DVD.
• James Balog: Time-lapse Proof of Extreme Ice Loss. Perf. James Balog. TED: Ideas worth Spreading. TED.com, Sept. 2009. Web. 7 Aug. 2011.
• Knighten, Dana. "Climate Change: Cool Solution for a Warming Planet - Baltimoresun.com." The Baltimore Sun | Breaking News, Sports, Weather and Traffic in Baltimore - Baltimoresun.com. The Baltimore Sun, 8 Aug. 2011. Web. 9 Aug. 2011.
• Pappas, Stephanie. "Heat Unlikely to Cool Climate Change Debate - Technology & Science - Science - LiveScience - Msnbc.com." Msnbc.com - Breaking News, Science and Tech News, World News, US News, Local News- Msnbc.com. MSNBC, 3 Aug. 2011. Web. 9 Aug. 2011.
• Pappas, Stephanie. "Heat Unlikely to Cool Climate Change Debate - Technology & Science - Science - LiveScience - Msnbc.com." Msnbc.com - Breaking News, Science and Tech News, World News, US News, Local News- Msnbc.com. MSNBC, 3 Aug. 2011. Web. 9 Aug. 2011.