Abstract
From a scientific perspective, the underlying reasons for global warming depends on the extensive body of laborious, peer revised studies. Nevertheless, there is minimal methodical experimental proof about the costs it has on human beings (Kelley, 2017). Utilizing straight queries on gratification with winter and summer seasons, this paper reveals the global warming impacts on the wellbeing of humans as it also covers the global warming issues as experienced presently. Cross sectional surveys information unveil information on temperature fluctuations and even better, the impacts it brought on the natural surroundings.
Introduction
The utter shock of grasping that the earth’s high unsustainable consumer routine is the underlying cause for global warming is a wakeup call for all humans. As scientists sound the alarm over global warming issues, some fundamental ideologies are gradually gaining momentum. Overlook greenhouse emissions reductions, some experts in this environmental area of expertise claim that they are still attempting to investigate the implication of global warming and tailoring a technical fix (Landau et.al, 2015). For instance bouncing sunbeams back into interstellar space via nanoparticles placed into the upper troposphere. Initiating mirrors into the earth’s orbit. Producing an environmental thermostat. All of these mitigation measures sound like unrealistic mechanisms and ancient stories. For more than two centuries, researchers, armed forces, and cons devised structures to influence weather and climate. Similarly, the current crop of climatic engineers enthusiastically overstate issues that may be possible while ignoring political, army and moral effects of trying to handle earth’s climatic challenges.
Global warming issues
Scientists anticipated opposition from European representatives while they were in Netherlands, holding talks holding talks on key restricting global warming treaties. Serving as the secretary for global affairs, Loy was trying to persuade Europeans that Americans were not attempting to take advantage of the treaties’ loopholes, which would cause Americans from making significant cutbacks (Mary, 1999). Nevertheless, the tension-filled meeting was a failure. According to Loy, all he achieved in exchange for his time was an embarrassment launched at his face.
Global warming controversies are not unusual neither are they new (Mary, 1999). The issue faced numerous disbelief and confrontation ever since environmentalist scientists in the early 1970s instigated cautions that fuel usage in factories and automobiles was discharging dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. After that, the warning swarmed in from various quarters of the society.
Previously, critics suspected the existence of global warming and green house emission impacts in which the gases would trap heat from the sun and prevent it from escaping into the atmosphere hence raising temperature on the surface of the earth. Experts cautioned that the confined heat would ultimately generally cause an unprecedented increase in temperature in various places on the earth. Consequently, the trapped heat would melt icecaps and then raise sea levels hence flooding coastal areas (Landau et.al, 2015). Scientists also claimed that enormous losses of flora and fauna species would take place as organisms fail to cope with the changes.
As successive researches validated the existence of gases building up and then increasing global temperatures on the surface of the earth, critics adjusted their concern to questions of whether man was responsible for the global warming or it was a natural phenomenon. Therefore, once again critics began a controversial debate on the role man played in global warming. Even though over the years, the role of man in global warming gradually faded away as most governments all over the world decided to take a cause of action and reduce the greenhouse emissions (Kelley, 2017). By doing so, the governments averted an impending danger that had the potential of killing the world. In summary, humans played a major role in commencing the global warming and have a role to play to minimize its impacts.
Consequently, 1997, more than 150 nations met at Kyoto Japan and sign up a treaty to fight off global warming (Crutzen et.al, 2016). As part of the contract, three thirds of industrialized nations decided to minimize their respective carbon dioxide emissions and other gases with a 5% cut. As one of the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, America approved to reduce its carbon dioxide discharge by an extra 2% that is 7%.
Years after the Kyoto protocol, the aim of the treaty is proving to be an unrealistic feat for the member nations, who signed the treaty (Crutzen et.al, 2016). Even though the mounting data reveals that human tasks are the main reason for global warming, not a single developed nation has fully taken significant steps recommended by the Kyoto protocol. Thus, greenhouse emissions persistently increase as time goes by.
Meanwhile, approval amongst the contract’s signatories collapsed. As Loy learnt, while he was in Hague, the discussions ended in disagreement with European delegates and environmental scientists groups accusing the United States of attempting to cut carbon dioxide emissions without reducing oil consumptions. More over, most of the European nations have ministers as representatives. The European ministers come from green parties hence their perspective on global warming issues are sometimes unpragmatic according to Loy, who chaired the United sated delegations and disallowed the accusations placed on Americans. Loy went to imply the Kyoto protocol was not an agreement but rather an impasse. Loy went further to explain how the situation was a serious matter that needed an intervention.
The present disagreement on the Kyoto protocol pertains to language included in the treaty at United States persistence on allowing nations to meet the Kyoto objectives and also play a part in purchasing carbon credits produced in other nations that surpass their discharge decrease objectives. More so, ‘pollutant trading’ first commenced in the America through initial efforts to restraint discharge of sulfur dioxide responsible for causing acid rainfall.
Climate accountability
Fossil fuel organizations are experiencing pressure from both legal and political sides over the spreading climatic deception. For this particular reason, fossil fuel companies have to integrate their business plans with environmental goals (McGlade, & Ekins, 2015). While some corporations are retorting to this pressure, generally, their efforts fall short and are not effective enough to prevent the effects of climatic change.
In 2016, when researchers assessed the actionable measures eight key oil and coal corporations took to reduce impacts of global warming, they realized that none of the corporations separated facts from fictions (Crutzen et.al, 2016). Acknowledging global warming facts would assist the firms make sound and precise decisions for the sake of saving the community consuming their products and services, which would in turn effectively, reduce the carbon footprint.
In 2018, some of the business corporations openly declared their backing for Paris climate contract whose aim was restraining destructive global warming (Kelley, 2017). Yet, none of the coal and oil corporations achieved their carbon dioxide reduction goals, which aligns with Paris Climate contract. Most of the coal and oil companies assume and continuously downplay climatic information hence endangering human beings and other efforts made toward reducing green gases emissions (McGlade, & Ekins, 2015). In fact, most oil and coal corporations continue to collaborate with institutions that spread misinformation on climatic change and other activities. However, all hope is not lost, as most of the companies that produce most carbon dioxide must eventually take accountability for their actions. Presently technology makes it possible for experts to calculate the amount each corporation emits hence able to factor in their contribution to climatic change.
Key coal and oil corporations need to amend their business models and minimize global warming for the sake of preserving earth. Similarly, most of the corporations intentionally cause civic misunderstanding on matters relating to climatic change (The Climate Accountability Scorecard, 2018). These businesses should mend their ways, release accurate information to the public, and even set a date for a carbon emission free day.
How to reduce global warming
Countries all over the world, are improving their fight against climatic change, in spite of the misinformation presented in front of them. Some nations such as America withdrew from Paris agreement (The Climate Accountability Scorecard, 2018). Nevertheless, American administrators, mayors, county leaders and the common citizens are still adhering to the Paris agreement. Even better is the fact that formers American leaders are rising to the occasion to educate the public on the importance of reducing global warming whenever the need arises.
In summary global warming, is a global issue in need of everyone’s attention. Leaders took the necessary steps to initiate actionable decisions needed to mitigate the issue. Even though some critics try to lay a blame to natural factors, humans too have a role to play in the acceleration of global warming. Therefore, the world should take the bold step of cutting back carbondioxde emissions.
References
The Climate Accountability Scorecard (2018) https://www.ucsusa.org/climate-accountability-scorecard-2018
Kelley, J. (2017). Human gains and losses from global warming: Satisfaction with the climate in the USA, winter and summer, north and south. Social Indicators Research, 131(1), 345-366.
Landau, M. J., Kay, A. C., & Whitson, J. A. (2015). Compensatory control and the appeal of a structured world. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 694.
Mary H. Cooper (1999) .Global Warming Treaty file:///C:/Users/u/Downloads/global%20warming.pdf
Crutzen, P. J., Mosier, A. R., Smith, K. A., & Winiwarter, W. (2016). N 2 O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. In Paul J. Crutzen: A pioneer on atmospheric chemistry and climate change in the anthropocene (pp. 227-238). Springer, Cham.
McGlade, C., & Ekins, P. (2015). The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 C. Nature, 517(7533), 187.
