Why we must understand the facts of climate change

by Anonymous Student

America is meant to be great again. In our nation, there is a need to care for our brothers and sisters, family and friends, to the authorities which come before you in government, and there is also a need to care for the Earth which is rightfully ours by the founding legislature of this country. Our president is someone who knows that they have the power to encourage the People. Our president is someone we must respect to show the earth and its people the respect it deserves. Lastly, our president is someone who will pull through with enough advocation from our end–the People’s end. Ladies and gentlemen the status of our country is nothing if our Earth is on the slowly fighting against the human kind. Mother nature is in dire need of our help because it is evident that the global temperature is rising, and although it may not be so visible to us, it is very much visible to the species’ which have been ruling this land for centuries before our generation. Only through the government-ordained policies and regulations of our country can we reduce our Carbon footprint and preserve the most-easily accessible resources so that the Earth can replenish itself over time. The question is, do you care?

Here is the truth. No matter the opinion you have on the current President, you will indeed find that climate change is not on President Trump’s agenda. And this means that if the people will so choose to care for the environment, it will be a difficult journey trying to receive support from the oval office. The steward of the nation’s environmental policies will have to be California again; the state that pulled in nine billion dollars towards environmental and natural resource funding in the 2015 fiscal year, compared to all other states, which only pulled in at max a ninth of that contribution. Since 2011, the state with the most monetary contributions towards this cause has always been the same–California.[1] So, therefore California is doing all the work. Why should we (as people from another state) feel compelled to do the same?

Good question. Although some tend to believe it’s a short term, local investment for California solely and its precious natural treasures, the measures taken by the state’s environmental protection agency is just as crucial to us as it is to anyone in California.

Take Kentucky, for example. Or better yet, Colorado. Colorado is a state which provides California water during much of its drought. The water from the Colorado River does pipeline towards California’s water supply– and if that doesn’t scare you, I would encourage you to search the history of LA water and find that the drought will stop at nothing to keep the wealthy hydrated. The places which need the water the most will continue to exacerbate the water supply until it may not be able to be replenished. What is the solution then, if California will take water from Colorado anyway? Stop California’s drought, and stock up on our own water supply.[2] There is no better solution than to ward off the thirsty with a method to retrieve their own water. This may seem like a mediocre solution to another person’s problem, but in reality, the only people being affected by the drought are the ones with the water, not the ones without.

As for Kentucky, droughts have the potential to become a serious issue, especially in the hotter areas. Although there is an increase in precipitation annually, this does not mean much when the rate of evaporation is increasing as well, and the periods of rain which fall from the sky are more periodic than consistent[3]. When droughts are an issue, river transportation is at stake. In 2012, navigation at the Mississippi River had to be restricted due to a historically low river level, and it cost the region and barge companies $275 million dollars or more on alternative transportation and solutions to delayed shipments[4]. Recursively, that money may increase prices of goods the company displays back onto the market, when the company which is providing the goods and the company which is transporting it both are under strict financial loss due to a single period of lower river levels. Imagine how much worse it could be with a more severe drought, where the river level may be exceedingly low, enough to halt transportation for an even longer period of time?

In short, the effects of climate change are not only detrimental to the states which are “known” to be environmentalist activists. They are crucial to everyone. Whether or not you agree with the views of the previous presidency, the Obama Administration did understand the urgency of the global warming crisis and held a firm stance on the progress of the Environmental Protection Agency, expanding the Clean Water act and heightening Hydrofracking regulations, which were not intrusively enforced by the federal government before Obama came into office[5]. And more recently, the Clean Power Plan was introduced in 2015 to cut carbon emissions into the air, Carbon Dioxide, which is the root cause behind the pollution we experience today.[6]

Likewise, with this next presidency, it is the federal government’s fate and duty to publicize and share regulations which will advance the programs used to reduce, reuse and recycle. Climate change is a team effort; if these are not enforced by federal law, other states may ignore the urgency of the matter. Although we have assurance by the words of our newly-appointed Environmental Protection Secretary Scott Pruitt, that he is “willing to look into things, “[7] we must be diligent that climate change is actually being addressed. A bit of skepticism may be needed to keep the world sustainably under control. As loyal citizens for the beauty of the land of this country, we must advocate for unity in this matter and for changes in environmental sustainability.

[1] https://ballotpedia.org/Environmental_spending_in_the_50_states

[2] https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-southwest

[3] https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/impacts-adaptation/climate-change-KY.pdf

[4] http://business.time.com/2012/08/22/as-barges-sit-idle-along-the-mississippi-the-economic-costs-grow/

[5] https://www.alec.org/press-release/new-report-reveals-significant-increase-in-epa-actions-under-the-obama-administration/

[6] https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants

[7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa/?utm_term=.2462050d0bae