Fixing Climate Change Should Be Humanity's #1 Goal

It's Time For Environmentally Friendly Policy, Unless We Want To Live On Mars

The end of the world might be coming faster than we think.

56
views

Listen, guys, I'm from Houston, Texas. If you don't know where that is, shame on you. We were hit by a crazy huge hurricane, had snow, and won the World Series all in one year.

But now it's hot. And humid.

This truly disgusting weather has had me feeling all of three things:

1. Sinister

2. Sickening

3. Spiteful

I am in a bad mood as soon as I step out the front door. To quote John Mulaney: "I am damp... constantly."

This weather is horrible.

Some of it is natural heating of the Earth as it goes through one of it's "phases" (gross). BUT, part of this is humanity's fault.

Carbon emissions become trapped in the atmosphere, creating kind of a "bubble." The heat then cycles through this bubble, making weather more intense. This is known as the "greenhouse effect" and is the main issue the world faces.

Due to this phenomenon, there have been more fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, and record heat. 50 people in Canada recently died due to extreme heat. For those of us who live in Houston, Hurricane Harvey wrecked our hometown. Hurricane Maria killed approximately 1,600 in Puerto Rico, and they still don't have power. There are horrible fires in Greece that have destroyed homes and lives. All of this is due to our emissions.

For exactly one decade, humanity had the issue of climate change under control. In the editorial "Losing Earth," a special report is written about how humanity "settled the science" of climate change and decided to act on it.

So what happened?

There are conspiracy theories penned over how the "Big Oil" companies are preventing the switch to a more Eco-friendly living arrangement, thus fueling the fire for corporations to decide the public opinion on whether or not we, the people, should care about our earth. While this may be true today. the oil companies did not begin to act this way until around 1989, after our designated ten-year span.

It was not a partisan issue either. Republicans, known to be notoriously against environmentalism, actually crossed party lines to work with the Democratic Party in order to try to "fix" our planet.

Agreements were made for a global treaty to be written up and enacted as soon as possible. The world agreed that the United States would have to lead the way in this vast, sans-fossil fuel environment.

So what happened?

Scientists fought with the White House, and it was declared that, simply, the issue of saving our planet is not a political problem.

That attitude towards environmentalism still stands today.

Take the proposed straw reduction: some see it as a way to reduce their carbon footprint, just a little bit (except Starbucks). Others see it as another right the government is trying to take away from them.

Humanity was on the brink of solving this issue, and now, in this bipartisan America that we currently live in, it is likely that we will not unite like we did back in the 1980's. It is not fathomable.

Deniability is an option. However, the Earth's core temperature is rising, and that is due to our carbon emissions.

The 2015 Paris agreement was drafted with the goal in mind to reduce emissions in order to "keep earth's warming trend to under 2 degrees Celsius by 2100." The United States was part of this program until June 1, 2017, when President Trump announced that the United States would no longer be participating in this program.

So, hypothetically, what would happen if the Earth became only two degrees hotter?

1. Sea levels would rise by approximately 1.6 feet. Coastal cities would be underwater, and subtropical regions would lose up to a third of their fresh water supply.

2. Heat waves would intensify. That plus the lack of water could result in a higher increase in deaths, like in Canada this summer (But worse. Way worse).

3. Due to a lack of water and an increase in heat, certain staple crops, such as corn, would not be able to grow at the rate they used to, if at all.

4. Warmer oceans would kill 99% of coral reefs, disrupting ecosystems for up to nine million different species.

This is with only 2 degrees.

In 2017, a group of scientists conducted a study showing that the Earth will likely heat by more than two degrees by the end of the century.

An increase of five degrees would wipe out humanity.

Yes, the Earth does have natural heat cycles (it's why the Ice Age happened, after all). However, even if the Earth is shifting toward the hotter end of the spectrum, humanity has definitely given it a little nudge.

If there was a time for environmental reform policy that favored the environment, now would be a more than perfect time to pass that. It was long overdue in the 1980s.

However, it's not a political thing, right?

Be prepared, the end of the world might be coming a little bit faster than you think.


Popular Right Now

Dear Senator Walsh, I Can't Wait For The Day That A Nurse Saves Your Life

And I hope you know that when it is your time, you will receive the best care. You will receive respect and a smile. You will receive empathy and compassion because that's what we do and that is why we are the most trusted profession.

881
views

Dear Senator Walsh,

I can't even fathom how many letters you've read like this in the past 72 hours. You've insulted one of the largest, strongest and most emotion-filled professions.. you're bound to get a lot of feedback. And as nurses, we're taught that when something makes us mad, to let that anger fuel us to make a difference and that's what we're doing.

I am not even a nurse. I'm just a nursing student. I have been around and I've seen my fair share of sore legs and clinical days where you don't even use the bathroom, but I am still not even a nurse yet. Three years in, though, and I feel as if I've given my entire life and heart to this profession. My heart absolutely breaks for the men and women who are real nurses as they had to wake up the next morning after hearing your comments, put on their scrubs and prepare for a 12-hour day (during which I promise you, they didn't play one card game).

I have spent the last three years of my life surrounded by nurses. I'm around them more than I'm around my own family, seriously. I have watched nurses pass more medications than you probably know exist. They know the side effects, dosages and complications like the back of their hand. I have watched them weep at the bedside of dying patients and cry as they deliver new lives into this world. I have watched them hang IV's, give bed baths, and spoon-feed patients who can't do it themselves. I've watched them find mistakes of doctors and literally save patient's lives. I have watched them run, and teach, and smile, and hug and care... oh boy, have I seen the compassion that exudes from every nurse that I've encountered. I've watched them during their long shifts. I've seen them forfeit their own breaks and lunches. I've seen them break and wonder what it's all for... but I've also seen them around their patients and remember why they do what they do. You know what I've never once seen them do? Play cards.

The best thing about our profession, Senator, is that we are forgiving. The internet might be blown up with pictures mocking your comments, but at the end of the day, we still would treat you with the same respect that we would give to anyone. That's what makes our profession so amazing. We would drop anything, for anyone, anytime, no matter what.

You did insult us. It does hurt to hear those comments because from the first day of nursing school we are reminded how the world has zero idea what we do every day. We get insulted and disrespected and little recognition for everything we do sometimes. But you know what? We still do it.

When it's your time, Senator, I promise that the nurse taking care of you will remember your comments. They'll remember the way they felt the day you publicly said that nurses "probably do get breaks. They probably play cards for a considerable amount of the day." The jokes will stop and it'll eventually die down, but we will still remember.

And I hope you know that when it is your time, you will receive the best care. You will receive respect and a smile. You will receive empathy and compassion because that's what we do and that is why we are the most trusted profession.

Please just remember that we cannot properly take care of people if we aren't even taken care of ourselves.

I sincerely pray that someday you learn all that nurses do and please know that during our breaks, we are chugging coffee, eating some sort of lunch, and re-tying our shoes... not playing cards.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Dear Nancy Pelosi, 16-Year-Olds Should Not Be Able To Vote

Because I'm sure every sixteen year old wants to be rushing to the voting booth on their birthday instead of the BMV, anyways.

225
views

Recent politicians such as Nancy Pelosi have put the voting age on the political agenda in the past few weeks. In doing so, some are advocating for the voting age in the United States to be lowered from eighteen to sixteen- Here's why it is ludicrous.

According to a study done by "Circle" regarding voter turnout in the 2018 midterms, 31% of eligible people between the ages of 18 and 29 voted. Thus, nowhere near half of the eligible voters between 18 and 29 actually voted. To anyone who thinks the voting age should be lowered to sixteen, in relevance to the data, it is pointless. If the combination of people who can vote from the legal voting age of eighteen to eleven years later is solely 31%, it is doubtful that many sixteen-year-olds would exercise their right to vote. To go through such a tedious process of amending the Constitution to change the voting age by two years when the evidence doesn't support that many sixteen-year-olds would make use of the new change (assuming it would pass) to vote is idiotic.

The argument can be made that if someone can operate heavy machinery (I.e. drive a car) at sixteen, they should be able to vote. Just because a sixteen-year-old can (in most places) now drive a car and work at a job, does not mean that they should be able to vote. At the age of sixteen, many students have not had fundamental classes such as government or economics to fully understand the political world. Sadly, going into these classes there are students that had mere knowledge of simple political knowledge such as the number of branches of government. Well, there are people above the age of eighteen who are uneducated but they can still vote, so what does it matter if sixteen-year-olds don't know everything about politics and still vote? At least they're voting. Although this is true, it's highly doubtful that someone who is past the age of eighteen, is uninformed about politics, and has to work on election day will care that much to make it to the booths. In contrast, sixteen-year-olds may be excited since it's the first time they can vote, and likely don't have too much of a tight schedule on election day, so they still may vote. The United States does not need people to vote if their votes are going to be uneducated.

But there are some sixteen-year-olds who are educated on issues and want to vote, so that's unfair to them. Well, there are other ways to participate in government besides voting. If a sixteen-year-old feels passionate about something on the political agenda but can't vote, there are other ways of getting involved. They can canvas for politicians whom they agree with, or become active in the notorious "Get Out The Vote" campaign to increase registered voter participation or help register those who already aren't. Best yet, they can politically socialize their peers with political information so that when the time comes for all of them to be eighteen and vote, more eighteen-year-olds will be educated and likely to vote.

If you're a sixteen-year-old and feel hopeless, you're not. As the 2016 election cycle approached, I was seventeen and felt useless because I had no vote. Although voting is arguably one of the easiest ways to participate in politics, it's not the only one. Since the majority of the current young adult population don't exercise their right to vote, helping inform them of how to stay informed and why voting is important, in my eyes is as essential as voting.

Sorry, Speaker Pelosi and all the others who think the voting age should be lowered. I'd rather not have to pay a plethora of taxes in my later years because in 2020 sixteen-year-olds act like sheep and blindly vote for people like Bernie Sanders who support the free college.

Related Content

Facebook Comments