CLIMATE PLAN IS CRITICIZED AS A RISKY BETPresident Bush is involved in a new topic for once other then the topic of war or terrorists. President Bush has recently re-entered in to the global warming debate by presenting a new plan to override the Kyoto agreement that President Clinton signed in 1997. The Kyoto agreement was a treaty that was put in to effect to dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions in 37 different countries. The most popular greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor.
A build up of these gases is caused by global warming, which is an increase in the earths temperature. This temperature increase is due to the use of fossil fuels and other industrial processes. Human activities are responsible for a significant amount of fossil fuels put into the atmosphere. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.Order now
S. carbon dioxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United States was responsible for almost one-fifth of the total greenhouse gases in the world.
The debate between science and economics play a large part in the decision on how to attack this problem of global warming. Of course the government wants to lower the rates that we release greenhouse gases, but they have to be very carefully how they attack the problem as President Bush has learned. In the article it explains how Asian and European countries are criticizing President Bush because he has abandoned the Kyoto treaty. The decision by Bush was made because the President felt that Kyotos plan was harming the U.
S. economy. The plan he has brought forth offers incentives to businesses to voluntarily reduce U. S. greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 4.
5% over 10 years and to reduce power plant emissions. Bush claims that these changes in the fight against greenhouse gas reduction are more realistic goals with less damage on the U. S. economy.
Other countries are still worried about scientific concerns that climate change could lead to sever floods and droughts, rising sea levels and an increase in malaria and respiratory disease. Parties are also criticizing the plan because Bushs plan is not mandatory, but it is voluntary concluding that companies will not be willing to change their ways. Some people who are in favor of Bushs new policy are scientists who are not convinced that global warming is a serious long-term effect. These same scientists are claiming that short-term aggressive moves would harm the economy and waste resources that could be used to solve other problems. After all is said, Bushs policy is indeed to help the economy as well as the environment.
But not all will be happy with the amount emphasis placed on the environment and at the same time some people will feel even more emphasis should be put on the economy. Government agencies such as the EPA, (Environmental Protection Agency) and other federal agencies are engaging the local, state, and federal governments, to engage in partnerships based on a win-win situation aimed at addressing the problem of global warming a long with strengthening the economy at the same time. BibliographyCrossette, Barbara. (1998). Nuclear Suspicions Cling to Iraq in Latest Report.
http://search3. nytimes/nuclearweapons. html 2000, May 12. Schemo, Diana Jean. (1997).
In Brazil, a struggle to save Rainforest. http://search3. nytimes/search/daily/destruction of environment. html 2000, May 12.
Woolf Ph. D, Linda. Holocaust and Genocide Studies. http://www.
webster. edu/woolflm/holocaust. html 2000, May 12.