The Ability of People Handling Global Warming Essay
Global warming affects all the living things in the world. The effects of global warming on human beings are severe because a slight rise in temperature makes the environment uncomfortable for many people. Despite the negative effects of global warming, some people believe in it while others are against it. Proponents of global warming squabble that it is better when the world is warmer than when it is cold.
Besides, are important because they insulate the earth and keep it warm without which, the earth temperature would drop to less than zero degrees centigrade. On the other hand, opponents of global warming squabble that global warming is harmful to all the living creatures in the world. For instance, pollution, which is associated with global warming, can kill people, plants and animals.
It is evident that it is difficult to handle global warming. This is because people have different opinion about it. For example, most people believe that cutting down trees is not good but the proponents of global warming support it. Therefore, the ability of people handling global warming is an issue, which of an individual, the community and the government.
Opponents of global warming argue that an individual play an imperative role in stopping global warming. Therefore, people should be aware of their of global warming so that they can reduce its adverse effects. Farrar and Mastrandrea stated that, in order to reduce the amount of in the air, people should develop the habit of reducing, reusing and recycling wastes (27).
In order to reduce waste, people can procure products, which have minimal packages. People can reuse the packages and if not possible, they should recycle. According to a research done, recycling reduces approximately twenty percent of the carbon dioxide emitted in the air (Len 200). Proponents of global warming argue that when the level of carbon dioxide in the air reduces plants will die because they mainly depend on carbon dioxide for survival.
Although the aforementioned statement is true, the proponents should be reminded that there are other sources of carbon dioxide, which cannot be eliminated from the universe. For instance, human beings and animals exhale carbon dioxide, therefore, it will always be present in the atmosphere and the possibility of plants perishing because of reducing, reusing and recycling is almost nil (Maslin 73).
Opponents of global warming encourage people to use fluorescent bulbs instead of the regular ones. Maslin stated that, the ability of a fluorescent bulb to last for a long period than the regular bulb means that there would be a reduction in the rate of disposing bulbs and this would help in reducing the levels of green house gases in the atmosphere (32).
In another research, Len affirmed that although fluorescent bulb gives little heat, it consume less energy and if many people invest on it, approximately one hundred billion pounds of green house gases will be eliminated (185). On the other hand, proponents of global warming argue that, during the cold seasons, fluorescent bulbs may not produce enough heat to keep people warm and as a result, some people with diseases like asthma may get an attack (Len 164).
Although cold weather aggravate an asthmatic attack, people with the disease condition should put on warm clothing and by so doing the incidence of the disease will reduce. Therefore, there is no excuse for participating in global warming preventive measures.
Other measures, which an individual can use to prevent global warming, include turning off the switch, using little amount of hot water and purchasing products that consume less energy (Farrar and Mastrandrea 99). An individual can reduce the emission of green house gases into the atmosphere by turning off any electrical appliance when not in use.
This is because Schneider stated that, it does not only save energy but also reduces the quantity of gases produced during the electrical energy processing (74). The same principle applies to using little amount of hot water and products that consume less energy.
Proponents of global warming argue that it is hard to control what an individual does and people do not like it when other people tell them what they should do (Maslin 60). On the contrary, opponents of global warming say that when a person is empowered with knowledge about the harmful effects of global warming, he will participate in the preventive program.
According to opponents of global warming, community member can work collaboratively and campaign for awareness about the importance of reducing on the use of vehicles (Schneider 204). This is because motor vehicles usually emit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Maslin conducted a research about global warming and recommended that people should be encouraged to walk or use carpooling in order to reduce the amount of green house gases, which are released into the atmosphere (21). On the contrary, proponents of global warming argue that, even if the community member are encouraged to walk, they cannot do so for a long distance and they would be forced to take a motor vehicle and as a result green house gases would be released in the atmosphere (Farrar and Mastrandrea 100).
The opponents of global warming challenge them by saying that if one needs to use a motor vehicle; he should make sure that it is in good working condition. For instance, Len conducted a research and found out that a motor vehicle, which has well inflated tires, can save the gas mileage by approximately five percent and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by thirty pounds (123).
The community can prevent global warming by planting trees. For instance, they can have a tree planting day when everyone is expected to plant at least one tree. Trees prevent global warming by using atmospheric carbon dioxide during the photosynthesis process (Schneider 209).
Unfortunately, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from the industries, automobile and the absorption ability of the tree (Maslin 50). Therefore, there is need of having many trees. Proponents of global warming bicker that, even if the community try as much as possible to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, they may not succeed because of the many by products from the industries and the gases released from the landfills.
On the contrary, Farrar and Mastrandrea stated that a tree could absorb more than one ton of carbon dioxide and if people adapt the habit of planting trees every time they cut one, global warming could be history (40). They recommended that people should plant trees if they want the world to be a better place to live.
The community members can educate and remind each other about what they are supposed to do in order to prevent global warming. For instance, Len suggested that the community members could remind each other to live a healthy lifestyle, which is friendly to the environment by turning a compost pit so that aerobic respiration can take place and consuming less red meat so that the levels of methane in the atmosphere can reduce (12).
Proponents of global warming argue that it can be difficult to reach every member of the community, thus, global warming will persist. On the other hand, opponents of global warming argue that the community can pass this information through posters, brochures, radio, television and social networks like twitter and face book.