The molecular and cell biologists and geologists have contributed a lot to develop our understanding of evolution of the earth’s ecosystems by concretizing the relationship between biomarkers biomarker structure and biochemical function how new life forms have been developing in the context of evolutionary biology since emergence of life on earth (Dietrich, Tice and Newman, 2006). Recently I have read article about global warming and greenhouse effects (Greenhouse Gases: The Developed World’s Role, Mar. 13, 2008), the horrified revelation of growing imminent dangers of environmental pollution has surprised me a lot.
The industrialized revolution has not only boost up living standard of modern man but it has also brought about impending dangers to his health due to the emission of dangerous gases in industrial areas of the world. It is important to remember that the problem of human induced climate change has been caused by the cumulative emissions of GHGs with concentration levels at 280 parts per million of CO2 in pre-industrial times growing to around 380 parts per million currently (Greenhouse Gases: The Developed World’s Role, Mar. 13, 2008).
Main body
International world community, especially developed countries should take steps to mitigate the harmful effects of emissions of GHGs. According to the analytical well-researched report of IPCC, the ratio of emissions of GHGs has been increased approximately 70%, ranging from 1970-2004. This is very alarming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that global temperature would increase from 2.0-2.4oC in 2015 which is a formidable level of temperature. The world is now facing momentous challenge of global warming and our planet’ climate has been constantly deteriorating.
The U.S. industrial production has been producing approximately quarter of the world’s emission of greenhouse gases on every year which is formidable challenge for US government how to stabilize its economy, health of people and manufacturing production. The question arises what would have potentialities in US, supreme power to fight a war against global warming (How to Win the War on Global Warming, Apr. 16, 2008).
Conclusion
The modern living standard, luxurious life-style has been leading on the verge of total annihilation due to the excessive use of electrical appliances, private cars, air conditioned systems, worked by renewal energy of fossil fuels, carbon footprints. All modern goods and services of industrialized world have harmful impacts upon earth’s ecosystems. With serious human health issues due to these unpredictable global environmental pollution effects which has been changing entirely human climate and whole world has serious concerns about these consumption of energy resources natural and artificial.
This article is well-written and well-researched on global environmental issues how all these energy resources and industrial advancement has become big challenge for modern world. It provides us informative statistics of growing impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases upon ecosystems of earth. It has provoked thoughtful concerns in modern men that there should be immediate action to mitigate such effects of environmental pollutants if they want sustainability of human life on this earth. Steps must be taken to not only clean the environment but to stop exclusion of such hazardous chemicals from industrial processes. Unless we’ll not take some steps to eradicate this problem from its roots, it will become very dangerous for life on earth.
References
Greenhouse Gases: The Developed World’s Role, 2008 By Dr R. K. Pachauri. Web.
The co-evolution of life and Earth by Lars E.P. Dietrich, Divisions of Geological and Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA, Michael M. Tice, Divisions of Biology, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA and Dianne K. Newman, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USALars E.P. Dietrich, Michael M. Tice, and Dianne K. Newman. Web.
How to Win the War on Global Warming, 2008 By Bryan Walsh. Web.
Greenhouse gases play a crucial role in maintaining a climate conducive for human existence on Earth. The natural greenhouse gases trap and hold heat ensuring that the earth does not lose its heat during the night. The greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation when the sun is shining and emit this heat when the sun is not shining therefore contributing to temperature stability.
However, various human activities such as transportation, agriculture, fossil fuel use, power generation, and industrialization have added to the concentrations of GHGs at a rapid rate. These human activities have contributed to rapid atmospheric changes. While the earth’s temperature remained constant for millenniums, GHG emissions have led to significant changes in global temperatures in a matter of a century.1 Scientists have demonstrated the link between global warming and GHG emissions from human activity. The climate change caused by GHGs is responsible for the increase in frequency and severity of natural disasters in some parts of the world.
In addition to this, reports indicate that global GDP will experience reductions of up to 20% because of the impacts of climate change.2 There is therefore a broad consensus between scientists and policy makers that action should be taken to curb GHG emissions. Over the past two decades, calls have been made for countries to reduce their annual emissions and therefore mitigate the adverse effects of GHGs.
Actions taken to reduce GHG Emissions
Starting from the year 1990, countries started adopting standards for new factories. Plants built after 1990 were required to demonstrate a reduction in GHG emissions. A target emission level was stipulated and the plant was required to comply with this target. In some cases, plants were penalized for adding to the country’s total emissions.
This acted as an incentive for factories to take measures to reduce their GHG emissions.3 This arrangement ensured that factories were built with climate change in mind. Unlike in the past where emissions were not given any consideration, the new approach emphasized on the environmental impact that plants have.
Nations have engaged in some proactive actions aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Many of these actions have involved the adoption of low-carbon energy technologies.4
This approach is based on the understanding that up to 70% of the current global GHG emissions are related to energy with fossil fuels for transportation, heating of buildings, and power generation contributing the biggest share.5 Power generation is one of the areas where great reductions can be made.
By moving to low-carbon energy sources such as solar, nuclear, and wind, industrialized countries can significantly reduce their carbon emissions. Policies are already in place to increase the role that this low-carbon energy sources play in total power production in the US and EU countries.
The UK has taken up steps aimed at reducing demand for energy and increasing energy efficiency among individuals and businesses. The government provides incentives for the adoption of energy-efficient technologies by the public and private sector. Financial incentives are offered to encourage the use of low carbon and renewable electricity.6
In addition to this, the UK has set an ambitious goal of reducing its GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. To demonstrate its commitment to achieving this ambitious goal, the UK parliament enacted the Climate Change Act in 2008. By codifying the climate change targets in law through the passing of this bill, the UK made its ambition legally binding. It can therefore be expected that there will be noticeable political will to ensure that the UK reduces its GHG emissions by 80%.
Most developed nations have also adopted strategies to offset carbon emissions by use of carbon sinks. Carbon sinks are “areas of forests and farmland which can absorb carbon though the process of photosynthesis”.7
This approach is favoured by industrialized nations that feel that the emission cuts impose significant burdens on the global economic system. Carbon sinks allow the country to continue with its normal level of industrial activity as long as forests and farmland areas are created to absorb the excess GHG emissions and therefore ensure that the overall target emission levels are met.8
Reduction Targets and Conferences
A notable development in combating climate change was the formation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by the US and the European community in 1992. This convention was charged with reporting on greenhouse gas emissions and proposing ways to mitigate climate change.
The UNFCCC was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 with 175 countries becoming official participants when it entered into force in 1994. However, the UNFCCC took on a voluntary approach to reducing emissions and industrialized nations were not under a legal obligation to reach the emission targets stipulated.
UNFCCC members therefore reached a consensus that a more binding agreement had to be reached by the nations.9 This legally binding agreement would place limits on emissions from industrialized countries.
The legally binding agreement was formulated as the Kyoto Protocol, which was the first legally binding international agreement on GHG emissions. The agreement was signed in 1997 and it set binding targets for industrialized nations.10 This agreement amended the UNFCCC by setting limitations on GHG emissions.
The provisions of the Kyoto Protocol stipulated that developed countries should reduce their GHG emissions by 5% from their 1990 levels before the 2008-2010 deadlines.11 The countries with the highest CO2 emissions were required to reduce by a scale of 6-8%. One hundred and forty governments worldwide participated in Kyoto and they made commitments to reduce their GHG emissions.
European nations including the UK have shown great commitment to playing a part in GHG emissions. As of 2007, these nations were already negotiating on new agreements that would be implemented once the Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012. In 2007, EU leaders led by the German Chancellor Angela Merkel endorsed proposals for the reduction of GHG emissions by a minimum of 20% by the year 2020.
The community also agreed to make binding targets for the adoption and use of energy sources that are renewable in nature. The EU has already set a 10% minimum target for the use of biofuels for transport by the year 2020. This target is aimed at significantly reducing fossil fuel usage in the continent.12
What is the current situation?
In spite of the grand plans formulated by governments to mitigate GHG emissions, the results have been uninspiring. The countries that committed themselves to the Kyoto protocol have collectively reduced their emissions by 16%. EU countries have demonstrated a high commitment and they have met the Kyoto protocol targets.
However, most of these cuts have been because of the decline in GHG producing industries in Eastern Europe and a slowdown in industrial activities among the Kyoto Protocol signatories.
Efforts to reduce GHG emissions have been hampered by the lack of commitment by the US. When most of the other industrialized nations were committing themselves to the Kyoto Protocols by ratifying it in 2001, the US under President Bush refused to participate in this binding agreement. This was a major blow to the goals of cutting GHG emissions since the US is the world’s largest polluter. The US has performed very poorly in meeting its GHG emission reduction goals.
The US has been responsible for 29% of global carbon dioxide emissions since the mid-19th century making it the greatest single contributor of GHG emissions.13
The Environmental Protection Agency reports that in spite of the drive towards lower carbon emissions by industrialized countries, the US increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 17% between 1992 and 2007.14 In spite of the fact that the US is one of the largest contributors to global warming, it ranks low in taking steps to fix the damage done by mitigating GHG emissions.15
While the current emission cuts are commendable, they will not halt global warming. The continued economic and population growth in all countries means that more energy will be required. As it currently stands, the economic growth in China, India and Brazil have contributed to a significant rise in global GHG emissions since 1990. As the other developing countries increase their industrial activities, the global GHG emissions can only be expected to rise.
Allocation of Emissions cuts Developed and Developing Nations
The current allocation of emission cuts between the developed and developing nations is asymmetrical in nature. The reason for this is the general consensus that the industrial activities of the developed nations are to blame for the current environmental crisis being faced by the world. Decades of uninhibited GHG emissions by developed nations have led to the climate change being experienced today.16
All the economically advanced nations are required to show demonstrable progress in GHG emissions while there are not binding limits or timetables for the developing countries. The International Environmental Agreements and Associations contend that the rationale for this distinction between developed and developing nations is the fact that most developing countries do not emit as large an amount of GHGs as the industrialized countries.17
Developing nations are given a smaller allocation since most of them do not have the economic capability to achieve larger reduction in their GHG emissions. This consideration is supported by Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, which states that all “countries should take precautionary measures to protect the environment in accordance to their capabilities”.18
This implies that countries do not have an equal obligation in their duty to mitigate GHG emissions. The richer countries have the bigger obligation to engage in actions to reduce GHG levels in the atmosphere.
How the Cuts Should Be
The principle of justice demands that industrialized countries have an obligation to make larger cuts in their GHG emissions since their actions are largely responsible for the pollution of the environment. These nations have been using fossil fuels that emit GHGs to fuel their economic growth for decades. Currently, developed nations have a higher GHG emissions cut allocation than developing nations.
This asymmetrical arrangement is meant to favour the developing countries that are economically weaker.19 By allocating lower cuts, industrial growth can be promoted in the developing nations. However, there is strong opposition against an asymmetrical treatment to emission cuts among developed and developing. This opposition arises from the fact that it would be impossible to achieve the target global emission reduction if developing nations are allowed to continue engaging in unrestrained pollution.
Instead of allocating less emission cuts to developing nations, the industrialize countries should offer incentives for developing nations to adopt green technologies. The Practical action organization asserts that developed nations have no moral authority to demand that the developing nations slow down their economic progress without offering them incentives for doing this.20
Wealthy nations should therefore offer assistance to poorer nations for them to be able to reduce their pollution levels without incurring significant costs.
Many developing nations argue that they have a right to exploit their resources and achieve the same level of development as the developed nations. While a nation has a sovereign right to exploit its own resources and stipulate its own environmental policies, it also has some international obligations.
Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 asserts that states have “the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.21 Developing nations should therefore take precautions and limit their GHG emissions even as they seek industrial growth.
Another principle that supports the idea that developing nations should do more to mitigate climate change is the notion that “the costs of pollution should be paid by the polluter”. This notion, as articulated by Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration, asserts that the damages arising from pollutions should be paid for by the polluter. With regard to the climate GHGs emission problem, it is evident that developing nations are emitting more GHGs as industrial growth is achieved in these countries.
While it is true that the developed nations also engaged in the same rampant pollution in the past, this cannot be used as justification for continued emission of GHGs by countries such as China and India. Developing countries should therefore pay a larger equal penalty for climate change mitigation efforts as the.
Conclusion
This paper set out to discuss the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. It has argued that developing nations should be given a higher emission cut in order to increase the chances of achieving global GHG emission reduction. The paper began by explaining what GHGs are and it showed how the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere has increased dramatically over the last two centuries. It discussed the steps being taken by nations to reduce GHG emissions.
The paper has highlighted how the failure of voluntary initiatives to limit emissions led to the establishment of the legally binding Kyoto Protocol. The role of international conferences on climate change has been elaborated on. The paper has articulated the reduction targets of some nations and proceeded to note that the global reduction targets are still very low.
The asymmetrical allocation of emission cuts has not helped the situation since growing industrial powers such as China and India contribute significantly to the global GHGs emissions. The emission cuts for developing nations must be raised in order to mitigate GHG emissions and avoid the devastating effects of climate change on the planet.
Bibliography
Casper JK, Greenhouse Gases: Worldwide Impacts, Infobase Publishing, New York, 2008.
Enkvist, P & TA Naucler, ‘What countries can do about cutting carbon emissions’, McKinsey Quarterly, vol.12, no.2, 2008, pp. 34-41.
FitzRoy FR & Papyrakis E, An introduction To Climate Change Economics and Policy, Routledge, London, 2009.
Hansen J, Can We Still Avoid Dangerous Human-Made Climate Change? Social Research, California, 2006.
International Environmental Agreements and Associations, ‘International Policy Development in Regard to Global Warming’, Turkmenistan Review, vol. 11, no. 3, 2013, p. 212-226.
Kaplan, KH, ‘EU hammers out pact to cut greenhouse gas emissions’, Physics Today, vol.60, no.5, 2007, pp.26-28.
Malcolm NS , International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008.
Rolf F & Grosskopf S, ‘Technological change and timing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions’. J Prod Anal, vol. 37. No. 1, 2012, pp. 205–216.
Stern N, The Economics of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
UK Government, Reducing the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, 2013. Web.
Footnotes
1 J Hansen, Can We Still Avoid Dangerous Human-Made Climate Change? Social Research, California, 2006, p.1.
2 F Rolf & S Grosskopf ‘Technological change and timing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions’, J Prod Anal, Vol. 37, no. 2, 2012, p. 206.
3 FR FitzRoy & E Papyrakis, An introduction to Climate Change Economics and Policy, Routledge, London, 2009, p.121.
4 N Stern, The Economics of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, p.560.
5 P Enkvist & TA Naucler, ‘What countries can do about cutting carbon emissions’, McKinsey Quarterly, vol.12, no.2, 2008, p.34.
6 UK Government, Reducing the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, 2013.
7 International Environmental Agreements and Associations, ‘International Policy Development in Regard to Global Warming’, Turkmenistan Review, vol. 11, no. 3, 2013, p. 214
8 Stern, p.351.
9 Ibid, 212.
10 FitzRoy & Papyrakis, p. 106.
11 Ibid, p.212.
12 KH Kaplan ‘EU hammers out pact to cut greenhouse gas emissions’, Physics Today, vol.60, no.5, 2007, p. 26.
13 Kaplan, p.26.
14 Rolf & Grosskopf, p. 205.
15 JK Casper, Greenhouse Gases: Worldwide Impacts, Infobase Publishing, New York, 2008, p.10.
16 Hansen, p. 4.
17 The International Environmental Agreements and Associations, p.213.
The question of individual moral obligations concerning the subject of personal greenhouse gas emissions has become particularly relevant with the increase of global warming. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong explores this issue and argues that individual actions do not have the impact to sway such global phenomena, claiming that, thereby, individuals do not have moral obligations to regulate their greenhouse gas emissions. As a counterargument, Avram Hiller states that both human lives and individual human actions have significant causal effects, and it is crucial for people to be morally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions.
Sinnott-Armstrong presents the gravity of the issue of global warming by describing how it affects and will continue to affect people around the world, pointing out that this is a dire global problem. However, Sinnott-Armstrong also concedes that this problem should not affect how individuals live their lives (333). He illustrates this by describing how wasteful driving by separate individuals cannot be viewed as morally wrong (Sinnott-Armstrong, 343). Sinnott-Armstrong supports his main point by claiming that individual moral obligations are not the same as collective moral obligations (Sinnott-Armstrong, 333). Since there are no moral principles that effectively support the need for individual moral obligations, it is governments, rather than individuals, that should be responsible for greenhouse gas emissions.
Hiller presents a different point of view on this issue, claiming that ICI, or individual causal inefficacy, fails to grasp the impact of both individual human lives and single individual actions (349). As a result, taking leisurely Sunday drives and believing that they are not harmful in any way is also wrong. Hiller states that taking wasteful drives and discounting any responsibility for them is prima facie wrong (350). In other words, Hiller objects to Sinnott-Armstrong’s claim that individual actions do not have sufficient impact and that leisurely Sunday drives are permissible.
While Hiller argues for individual moral responsibility when it comes to personal greenhouse gas emissions, Sinnott-Armstrong disclaims this obligation. The main reason for the rebuttal appears to be the belief that collective moral obligations are not the same as individual ones (Sinnott-Armstrong, 333). Sinnott-Armstrong exemplifies this by pointing out that the government’s failure to perform its specific duties does not mean that these duties become the responsibility of individuals (333). For example, if a bridge needs to be repaired, the government solely must see that it is successfully maintained (Sinnott-Armstrong, 333). Therefore, individuals should not be accountable for responsibilities that are not directly assigned to them.
Hiller, on the other hand, explains that it is within the bounds of human nature to relinquish moral responsibility for the potential harm of global phenomena (349). Since such phenomena have many possible causes and their impact is indirect, it is easier to question the influence of individual actions (Hiller, 349). Based on this, it seems that Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument about the inefficiency of individual actions regarding Sunday drives and global warming is not valid. If individuals have a measurable impact on the environment, then how can they refute moral responsibility? As a follow-up, Hiller’s main point states that it is prima facie wrong to “perform an act which has an expected amount of harm greater than another easily available alternative” (352). It appears that whenever individuals can mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions, it is morally justified that they should do so.
Based on the principle that it is appropriate to replace more harmful acts with less harmful alternatives, Hiller argues that going for Sunday drives is likely to contribute to an increase in AGCC, or anthropogenic global climate change, and increase the possibility of harm (352). On the other hand, holding back from Sunday drives is an alternative without any evident harmful effects (Hiller, 352). This argument seems valid and sound as cars inevitably expel greenhouse gases, a contributing factor to global warming, which is linked to various damaging and harmful effects. Moreover, since Sunday drives are an optional activity related to an individual’s tastes and preferences, it is always possible to refrain from engaging in this activity.
Sinnott-Armstrong also touches upon the principle of harm, claiming that Sunday drives do not cause harm in most cases and that global warming will not occur unless many other people also expel greenhouse gas emissions (334). Accordingly, an individual act of driving a car on Sunday does not contribute directly to global warming and cannot cause harm. The objection to this premise is that the act of driving a car is difficult to define as an entirely individual act. Hiller also points out that there is an element of error in separating individual drives from the system of driving, which includes the building of roads and oil drilling (354). Moreover, it is implausible that the collective use of cars should lead to greenhouse gas emissions and the subsequent harm of global warming while the effects of individual driving should be close to null (Hiller, 354). Accordingly, Sinnott-Armstrong’s objection to the harmful effects of individual driving does not seem to be completely valid.
On the other hand, Sinnott-Armstrong is inclined to agree that if individual driving does release a few greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, these gases may even have a positive effect and will not cause any harm to the environment (335). The positive effect is grounded on the fact that the compounds of these gases, such as carbon dioxide and water, are beneficial for the growth of plants (Sinnott-Armstrong, 335). However, it is doubtful how insignificant individual greenhouse gas output is in the long term. If a person engaged in the habit of taking Sunday drives, it is likely that their greenhouse gas contribution would increase over time and have a more significant impact on the environment. Hiller also takes this point of view into account when presenting John Nolt’s data about the contribution of individuals to global warming (357). Based on Nolt’s calculations, each American’s lifetime contributes roughly enough greenhouse gas emissions to seriously harm one or two people from developing countries (Hiller, 357). As a result, individual impact, particularly when accumulated throughout a lifetime, is quite significant.
Consequentially, it seems that Hiller’s arguments are more valid and sound in their presentation of individual moral obligations regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Individual driving, when viewed as a recurring act incorporated into the system of driving, has much more far-reaching consequences than those presented by Sinnott-Armstrong (Hiller, 354). In addition, Sinnott-Armstrong’s view that individuals are not morally obligated to carry out the responsibilities of the government is somewhat unclear. How can we adequately define the boundaries of individual and collective moral obligations? Is it possible that some responsibilities can be shared by both individuals and the government? Moreover, as Hiller points out, similar arguments could be used to refute the causal effects of political efforts as were implemented to undermine the effects of individual driving (365). Therefore, Hiller’s arguments appear to be more valid and sound when exploring the issue of individual moral obligations and the significance of taking into account personal greenhouse gas emissions.
On the other hand, Sinnott-Armstrong’s arguments are valid as well. Sinnott-Armstrong reasons that although it is very difficult to find moral principles to back up the issue of individual obligations regarding greenhouse gas emissions, it does not mean that no such principles exist (343). Furthermore, as far as global warming is concerned, only governments can considerably impact this phenomenon (Sinnott-Armstrong, 344). While it is uncertain whether governments alone can impact global warming, it is likely that government laws and regulations are crucial in decreasing the factors that contribute to this phenomenon. Thus, while Hiller’s arguments seem more valid and sound, there is still reason to take into account Sinnott-Armstrong’s claims.
Hence, Hiller’s arguments in favor of individual responsibility for acts that contribute to global warming refute Sinnott-Armstrong’s claims to refrain from individual obligations regarding greenhouse gas emissions. While Sinnott-Armstrong presents a strong position regarding the role of governments in mitigating global warming, it is made evident by Hiller that individuals are also responsible when it comes to influencing this phenomenon. Moreover, the accumulation of individual actions over a lifetime increases the impact that individuals have on global warming.
The article “Forgotten carbon: indirect CO2 in greenhouse gas emission inventories” is written by Michael Gillenwater who is a doctoral candidate in the Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Program at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. The author’s immersion into the subject indicates that the research problem is clearly identified and expressed by him. Michael Gillenwater intends to conclude if the new category of CO2 emissions (indirect CO2) accounting needs to be introduced. On the ground that the ecological problems’ solutions make up the complex of measures, the significance of this research requires no proof.
The core issue is finding how new category magnifies the global and regional GNG emissions (Kaylee, Kaffine, 2013). It can be noted that the specialized terminology like “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” is narrowly defined. All abbreviations are decoded which makes it clear to the reader what the GNG is, as well as UNFCCC and NMVOCs etc. After investigating the article’s list of references one can say that the literature review provided by the author is satisfactory and appropriate. In addition to reports and researches author presents an appropriate link to the websites of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). He also focuses on his own website which is called the Greenhouse Gas Experts Network.
Thereby, one can see that this article is written by the professional who goes into details. In his study Michael Gillenwater discusses current issues about CO2 emissions, and the main research objective is that “project-based methodologies … may need revising to account for indirect CO2” (Gillenwater, 2008, p. 195). The article has such main parts: weighing up all the pros and cons of the indirect CO2 accounting, estimation methodology and its implications, uncertainties and the cases against including indirect CO2. The author’s intended audience is groups of scientists and students in the field of ecology.
One of the main advantages of the author’s research is that the described methodology, which is properly explained, is developed mainly by the author himself. He claims that indirect CO2 emissions can be easily calculated from the estimations of the carbon content in the methane, carbon monoxide and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs). The author gives the descriptions of simple calculations with the methane and carbon monoxide (Hetherington, Raven, 2005), and for the NMVOCs calculating he proposes the sequence of computational steps.
Besides, the author has downloaded other necessary regulatory documents and added that one can see them among appendixes in the list of online materials. The author emphasizes that “indirect CO2 estimates were made only using data for fugitive emissions from fossil fuel production activities (e.g., coal mining and petroleum and natural gas production)” (Gillenwater, 2008, p. 198).
The next part of the study provides that the author gives the datasets of indirect CO2 estimations and analyzes them before the comparing. He scrutinizes how the record of indirect CO2 influences on the global and national GHG emission accounting.
One can observe that the author added the table with detailed arguments against of his calculations related to the indirect CO2 in the guidelines and it indicates the author’s immersion in the subject and his analytic abilities. His research has a considerable practical significance because of the global focus heart of the problem (Juanjuan, Wenping, 2011). The GNG emission problem is a global ecological issue which requires the analysis a lot of resources to find solution to this problem.
Hence, all kinds of corrections in accounting of gases emission are significant (Wygonik , Goodchild, 2011). The author plans the further investigation and that will provide an opportunity for further researches. He claims that “… project-based methodologies … may need revising to account for indirect CO2” (Gillenwater, 2008, p. 202).
One can observe that the article is structured well enough and the sections have sufficient length. The presented data are worthwhile and it is possible to categorize them as significant for resesrch. Through the article the author explains his subject with clarity. It should be noted that the author is respectful of other researches for their comments and provided data.
References
Gillenwater, M. (2008). Forgotten carbon: indirect CO2 in greenhouse gas emission inventories. Environmental Science & Policy, 11, 195 – 203.
Hetherington, A., Raven, J. (2005). The biology of carbon dioxide. Current Biology, 15, 406 – 410.
Juanjuan, D., Wenping, Z. (2011). The analysis to the Influence of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Different Countries. Energy Procedia 2010 International Conference on Energy, Environment and Development , 5, 2426-2431.
Kaylee, A., Kaffine, D. (2013). Greenhouse gas emissions, waste and recycling policy. Journal of Environment Economics and Management, 65 (1), 74-86.
Wygonik, E., Goodchild, A. (2011). Evaluating CO2 emissions, cost, and service quality trade-offs in an urban delivery system case study. IATSS Research, 35 (1), 7-15.
The ethical issue in this article is the emission of greenhouse gases. Every country should address the issue of carbon dioxide emission. Coal produces over 40 percent of electricity in China (Mann, 2014). The outstanding fact is that many people are unaware of this scenario. The article also explains why many countries are using coal to produce electricity. China’s generates most of its electricity from coal. Most of the manufacturing companies in the country use coal to assemble different products such as the iPhone.
China is also the leading producer of cement and steel. The country uses coal to produce most of these commodities (Ladanai & Vinterback, 2009). The universe cannot ignore the importance of coal. The world consumed 7.6 billion tons of coal last year (Mann, 2014). This situation explains why the threat of greenhouse gases is on the rise. Our sources of energy are unsustainable. This article explains why the world should be ready to deal with the problem of climate change.
My Thoughts Before and After Reading the Article
My understanding was that every state was working hard in order to make the planet sustainable. I have always embraced the best practices in order to make the world sustainable. This article explains why our world is facing a major energy crisis. The article explains why the current rate of global warming is a major challenge. The changing weather patterns also explain why we should deal with these greenhouse gases. Some countries, such as China will always use coal to produce electricity (Mann, 2014).
The Chinese government uses coal to improve the living conditions of its citizens. The current effort to use solar, wind, and nuclear energies might never be sustainable. These energy sources cannot address our increasing energy needs. The world will always use coal “despite the protocols and laws formulated to reduce the level of carbon emission” (Ehrenfreund, 2014, p. 2). This article explains why the universe should be ready to address this problem.
My Values and Opinion
The facts presented in this article are meaningful and timeless. According to Ehrenfreund (2014), the current wave of globalization consumes a lot of energy and resources. The global population requires a lot of energy. Many countries, such as China will continue to burn more coal in the coming years.
The practice will emit more carbon dioxide. Some of our energy sources, such as solar and wind, will not meet the world’s energy needs (Ladanai & Vinterback, 2009). The problems of greenhouse gas emission and global warming might never end soon. Every country should come up with new practices in order to deal with this challenge (Mann, 2014). This will be the first strategy towards a sustainable world.
My Final Position
I have gained new ideas after conducting this study. The universe is becoming less sustainable. Every company is trying to produce environmentally friendly products, such as cars and electronic devices. Some companies and industries are also using coal to generate electricity (Mann, 2014).
The current wave of globalization is forcing the world to produce more goods and services. This situation makes our universe less sustainable. Every country should be ready to deal with this problem. This practice will make our world sustainable. The increasing level of carbon emission remains a major ethical challenge in every society. According to Mann (2014), we should be ready to capture these greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. This is the best practice towards dealing with climate change.
Reference List
Ehrenfreund, M. (2014). Clean coal might work in China, but here’s why we won’t see much of it here. The Washington Post, p. 1-2.
The major contributors to the release of greenhouse gases
One of the main contributors to the release of greenhouse gases is considered to be industry. Increased emissions of greenhouse gases cause greenhouse effect. This effect is mostly known as global warming. Nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulates, hydrocarbons, and sulfur oxide are the main greenhouse gases, which lead to negative environmental effects. Carbon dioxide, which traps heat, is often called a man-made greenhouse gas.
Despite the fact that numerous factories are responsible for carbon dioxide emissions, one is to keep in mind that there is a small percentage of CO2, which humans are responsible for; although, on the other hand, even a small percentage of the so-called man-made carbon dioxide aggravates the situation and alters the balance. “Fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and coal, while important sources of energy and revenue worldwide, have been identified as major contributors of man-made greenhouse gases” (“The Greenhouse Effect,” n. d.).
The thesis statement
Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are mostly related to the burning of fossil fuels. Industry and the transport sector are considered to be the principal contributors to greenhouse gases’ release; so, an anthropogenic factor impacts on greenhouse effect, because it changes the balance.
The body
Underdeveloped countries’ emissions of greenhouse gases vs. developed nations’ emissions
Canada’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is considered to be one of the highest in the world, as Canada’s carbon dioxide emissions are equal to 2%. As far as Alberta’s fossil fuel industry is one of the largest in the world, one can conclude that it is one of the major manufacturers of various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.
The transport sector cannot be neglected, as it can be regarded as the biggest source of energy-related emissions. Thus, in our days, emissions of greenhouse gases in underdeveloped countries seem to be lower in comparison with developed ones. However, the situation will be changed in the nearest future.
“Developing countries’ emissions are expected to grow above the world average at 2.7 percent annually between 2001 and 2025; and surpass emissions of industrialized countries near 2018” (“What is the Prospect for Future Emissions,” 2003). As far as man-made greenhouse gases emissions are mostly related to the consumption of energy in the form of fossil fuel combustion, the USA is recognized to be the major contributor to anthropogenic emissions.
While speaking about other countries, it is necessary to highlight some important data of the U.S. Energy Information Administration. According to EIA, non-OECD countries consume more energy than OECD nations. Keeping in mind the period from 2008, it becomes evident that non-OECD nations use much more energy than countries, which are the members of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, because of the global recession. Furthermore, inflation pressures underdeveloped nations experience cannot be ignored. It should be pointed out that even the countries with advanced economies experience tough times, and for this reason, the process of economic recovery seems to be rather slow. Financial turbulence of underdeveloped nations can be regarded as the key reason of non-OECD nations’ irrational energy use.
OECD
Non-OECD
Total
1990
198,6
155,1
353,7
2000
234,5
171,5
406,0
2008
244,3
260,5
504,7
2015
250,4
323,1
573,5
2020
260,6
358,9
619,5
2025
269,8
401,7
671,5
2030
278,7
442,8
721,5
2035
288,2
481,6
769,8
(“International Energy Outlook 2011,” 2011).
The conclusion
Underdeveloped nations seem to be more responsible for the release of greenhouse gases in comparison with developed countries. Taking into account the fact that the economy of non-OECD nations is developing, one can probably notice that the situation is aggravated with the global recession.
References
International Energy Outlook 2011. (2011). Eia. Web.
To start with, ecological shifts that have been witnessed so far and linked to anthropogenic conservatory gases may end up developing health complications affecting the respiratory system, skin problems due to exposure to ultra violet rays, skin pigmentation changes as well as inhibiting the cell invulnerability ability. Subsequently, such shifts can straightforwardly lead to temperature induced comas, sinking, intestinal complications as well as mental breakdown. Furthermore, the shifts set off by environmental modifications may amplify the speed of undernourishment, hypersensitivities together with predisposition to diseases spread by micro-organisms and insects as well as rising contagious infections.
Hands on attention along with precautionary measures undertaken by medical personnel, investigations paying attention to disparities in the consequences of ecological shifts on the age groups (which incorporates kids) and procedural backing by both personal and governmental stages may perhaps mitigate environmental degradation as well as enlightening on the correct deterrence measures and reaction.
Universal temperature changes recorded so far are due to the interplay involving greenhouse emissions, the global environment at large and the solar system. The major greenhouse gases are methane and carbon dioxide. Alongside these two are nitro and sulfur oxides, ozone and higher carbons which are emitted by petroleum conversion into energy and farming actions.
In order to maintain a thermal equilibrium, the heat given out by the globe should be equivalent to the heat received from the solar system. These gases lock in the heat which leads to universal rise in temperature. An initial optimum combination of these gases is required for livable settings here on earth except for the fact that manufacturing involvements by man has provoked the rise in temperature. For instance, it has been noted that the level of Methane has doubled since the emissions by industries began and that the intensity of the atmospheric gases has been.
Young ones are particularly thought to be susceptible part of the planetary inhabitants due to their budding bodily processes and the extended time which they are expected to be predisposed to these conditions. It has been discovered that at least three quarters of the entire avertable infections attributed to global changes in climate are reported by children patients. Thus in this research paper, we shall concentrate on the existing inquiries into the effects of ecological shifts on wellbeing, examine its significance on other age groups as well as recommending viable solutions.
The possible linkage that connects the change in weather conditions and young peoples’ well being is three pronged. First, the environmental alterations like the space contamination and distorted UV waves which lead to change in weather conditions. Second is the alteration itself that enhances acute temperature differentials and the accompanying calamities. Third is the transformation in natural conditions that affects accessibility of foodstuffs, hypersensitivity and predisposition to infections as well as the rising contagious illnesses.
Literature review
On the adults
According to Has, Whitelegg & Kohler (164) the consequences arising from ecological alterations experienced by grown ups (old and adults) may be graded into two. The first are individuals who are more predisposed to the hazard and secondly, people who are in initially predisposed and have superior sensitivity it being a component of maturity (thus biological vulnerability) or collective aspects which differ from a person to the next (communal vulnerability).
It is argued this immense response, as a result of rising biological and communal vulnerability, may well be responsible for the several harmful consequences of greenhouse gases on the well being of the children, adults as well as the old. However the discrepancy in vulnerability of the old people can be attributable to the prior contact with the changed climate, their physical and medical conditions together with mental and communal aspects as indicated by Aguirre(89). This necessarily means that as an individual grows older, then the deteriorating physical conditions is a sure foundation for the adverse effects of climate change to be effectual. It should be noted that sequential maturity comes in handy as a rough calculation touching on the basic exposure situation, bodily deterioration and even infirmity according to McGeehin & Mirabelli (201) Furthermore, individuals who may be ill with persistent diseases and others on prescriptions which aggravate the effect of prolonged contact to high temperature, contaminants and illnesses spread by organisms. Absence of exercise also contributes to associated threats.
Communal and financial wellbeing together with related aspects add to the susceptibility among the aged individuals that come into contact with the harmful effects associated with the alterations of weather conditions. The individual’s financial status as well as relative paucity hampers this or her ability to evade the harmful effects of the weather change. Individuals who are underprivileged in wide ranging aspects, from literacy, finances, accessibility to food and basic amenities, are more prone to the destructive effects of innate calamities as reported by Haq et al. (2008). This communal kind of segregation, as Wilkinson & Marmot, 2003 put, societal separation, little or no connections at all to the wider public may as well be connected with health problems and resultant deaths. The blending of persistent ailments with societal separation can be said to be tricky. It is obvious that such indicators are excessively concerted in aging individuals and thus their exposure to even more hazards, Haq et al. (2008).
One’s medical condition does in practical sense react when he or she experiences higher temperatures. The presence of persistent illnesses like the HIV/AIDS, heart problems, diabetes and many others also intensifies vulnerability (McGeehin & Mirabelli, 2001) so are the prescription drugs that hinders the human body from adjusting accordingly to the modifications in temperature (Bouchama, 2004). Therefore, it is necessary to use appropriate intercession measures to counter the effects of high temperature that must accommodate individuals whose vulnerability stem from innate physical states.
On children
The children are more vulnerable to the effects of green house gases. The main reason for this is that their bodies are still developing hence any changes on the environment will lead to many effects on their health. The greenhouse gases have been indicated to be natural in the process of the earth process and the coexistence of all the living things which has resulted in the balanced amount of gas and the climatic conditions. According to Rom and Markowitz (79) the human beings have increased the amount of gas in the environment which distorts the balance of the weather which results in too much heat. This is due to the increased cutting down of trees, burning charcoal, oil, coal and natural gas. This increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment. This increase in the levels of the carbon dioxide distorts the balance of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. There is production of chlorofluorocarbons from the use of fridge, hairsprays cans and the aerosols. These chlorofluorocarbons are so dangerous type of gas which leads to the atmosphere being very hot or extremely cold. It’s what brings about the global warming. This poses a threat to the life of all the mankind with higher effects being on the children.
When there are changes on the weather, the children are the ones who will be affected the most. The main reason to this is that the children are always outside the houses playing and are very adventurous when it comes to moving from one place to another. This exposes them to the various changes and the increased emissions of the greenhouse gases. This affects the children’s respiratory system, and the skin diseases among other types of diseases which may be experienced.
It has been reported by the world health organization that over 140, 000 deaths are reported annually with respect to the greenhouse effects in the world. Three quarters of this are children aged below 9 years. The health of children is very easy to be attacked by any kind of diseases which results in a very severe illness causing deaths. Kawachi and Wamala indicated that the climatic changes bring in a polluted air which is harmful to the health of the population. The water also which is being consumed is not pure hence chronic waterborne diseases attacks people. Since children are not so cautious of what they take, they are mostly affected. It’s out of their ignorance of the situation going on which is scientific that results in their careless consumption of these unpurified natural and artificial things. The water vapors which constitute ninety five percent of the air we breathe come along with many effects. The kids since they are mostly outdoors take this type of air which results in them having great exposure to the diseases which are so contagious. This is the main reason why most them have been diagnose with several illness which are contagious. The deadly diseases attack the children easily since their immune system is very weak hence most the deaths are experienced.
According to World Health organization, the health problems are mainly caused by the environment we live in. This exposes to us the need of high numbers of the children who are mainly exposed to the environment so much which leads to their main sickness. The health of people mostly children are threaten by the climatic changes which are faced in the environment they live in. WHO indicates that the changes on the atmosphere as a result of the global warming induce a lot of effects on the health necessities of the population. There have been adverse effects from the health damage as a result of the climatic changes. The children are mostly exposed to the several health problems which poses great deal of health risks.
There is the heat stress which really affects the children. This affects the blood vessels, heart and the lungs.This is a very deadly disease to the children which result in great effects on them and finally ends their lives. Hardy (97) indicated that the children also experience trauma as a result of the climatically changes. They are more prone to these diseases than the elderly. There other allergies which are encountered as a result of the green house effects which affects the children The allergies are so severe that the deaths of the children due it is increasing. There are regions which are adversely affected by the long term droughts where the cases of the mental illness and the trauma are being reported the highest. These diseases are not as a result of the natural existence of the people with the environment but are caused by the human actions which affect the natural atmosphere. The natural atmosphere once affected brings a lot of disorders and disastrous diseases which are severe to the mankind and leads to the deaths of many people even without their consent of the type of the sickness. The airborne diseases increase due to the effects of the green house effects which affects the mankind so much. The children are the main ones affected hence their systems are so low which greatly results in the diverse effects and chronic diagnosis of deadly airborne diseases. The air pollutants also lead to the several respiratory diseases which kill so easily.
The increase in the effects on the green houses leads to the rise in the diseases such as gastroenteritis which results from the food poisoning. There are also increased effects of the mosquitos’ transmitted diseases hence the conditions of most children are affected so fast. This is because the children are the vulnerable to such diseases especially the ones which are being transmitted by the mosquitoes. There is need to increase the use of the treated mosquito nets in the population especially for the pregnant mothers and the children. This is not possible throughout the world as most people in many countries are poor and cannot access such facilities hence the effects also affects the economic point of the population. The people of various countries especially the less developed and the developing do not have access to the adequate health facilities hence the effects of green house gasses is really a big mess to them. The most disadvantaged are the children and the mothers who need the protection of the other people. The children are mainly affected by such chronic diseases which has increased the child mortality rate.
The young people are prone to the diseases which are brought about by the climatic changes which explain why their death rate is really high. The children also have a lot of weaknesses in their bodies hence the attacks by such infectious diseases really affect them and ruin their health. The people who have accessed to the health services are very few hence the deaths reported is at an increasing rate even at the time when the people who are responsible are not concern at all. This affects the arid and poor nations severely. There is need for the scientist and the political class to be able to come up with necessary policies which regulates the emissions of the green house gas.
Discussion
The green house effects are great concern to the whole world as it really affects the future generation severely. The number of the deaths has been increasing every year especially that of the children. The young people are greatly affected by the changes in the climatic conditions. The food stuff which is available to the young people is not healthy and has a lot of carbon in theme. This inhibits itself in their bodies and results in many diseases at their tender age ending their lives without any control over the causes. There have been several effects to the young people as they are energetic and their cells are still developing on the daily basis hence the attacks by the infectious diseases is rampant on them (DiMento and Doughman 112).
The greenhouse effects have resulted in many effects to the children on their way of life. The effects on the freshwater hinders their health matters so much and this results in the various waterborne disease being diagnosed on them. This has been the case in many parts of the world where the health care facilities are so minimal and far from the location of the people. The food insecurity also which is being experienced by many parts of the world is due to the greenhouse effects. Lack of adequate balance diet as a result of the food insecurity affects the children in a high level. This leads to the children suffering from the several diseases caused by the lack of enough nourishment. This contributes a lot to the death of the children at an early age and several other lifelong diseases which may not be easily treated.
The various relocations by the coastal people as a result of the floods and storms greatly affect the children. This affects the children the most as to their used to place. The children have several concerns when there is any slight change of relocations and that the people who cause it are not anywhere available to assist them in the handling of the adverse effects of the climate changes. The changes in the locations of affects the children psychologically and hence there are instances of disturbances. The children also are exposed to levels of health risks which are of great concern to the health well being of the children. This is because the people have to relocate as a result of the floods and the rise in the sea level. This threatens the life of people especially the children. This results in the many people being renders homeless and forced to be refugees in their own country. These situations affect the children as their future depends on their stability in a location so as to be able to work hard to attain their own goals. The children also are exposed to the chronic situations which affects their health in the refugee camps. The health care in the refugee camp is very low and the supplies of the medication also are not adequate as to be enough to the whole population. This also has escalated the need for the nations to care for the increasing number of the refugees in our environment (McMichael 131).
There have been various concerns by the doctors on the increasing health complications which are caused by the effects of the green houses. This has prompted the doctors to institute the world health day which mostly centers on the health of the people as a result of the green house gas emission. The doctors are also predicting that there will be increased number of people with chronic disease as a result of the green house gas. The green house gas is very disastrous and relates to the surrounding of the people who are greatly affected. The children are the most vulnerable ones and they are expected to be treated well without any instance of the complication being carried forward. There have been rising number of those dying annually as a result of the effects of the green house gas. The mortality rate is expected to increase by the year 2020 which means that the cases related to the children is severe. The increase number is mostly of the children who are vulnerable to the effects. There is need there fore to have several policies which regulates the effects of the environment due to the release of the gas. The government should be in the forefront in safeguarding the interests of the people in the country as the most vulnerable ones and the future of the country.
The children do not get the medical attention required so as to reduce the adverse effects of the greenhouse gases. The children have the ability to regain their normal health if well treated hence the lack of medical attention escalates the effects of the green house gas on the health of the children. The effects of the greenhouse gas vary from country to country depending on the countries abilities to fight against such effects. The adaptability of the people also in a country do affects the rate of effects with the health related complications. The response of a location to the changes in the climate is also what contributes to the increasing number of health related problems in various parts of the world.
The heat stress is considered to be the main disease which results from the effects of the greenhouse gas. This is as a result of the adverse effects of the climatic conditions which increase the heat in the environment resulting in adverse effects on the environmental conditions. This affects the health of many people worse of it all is the young people. The environmental stability also is threatened by this hence there is a direct effect on the environment as a result of the greenhouse gas.
There have been heat waves which have been experienced by many countries as a result of the greenhouse gas. The heat waves when its get in contact with the children really affects their health. Too much heat to the young people is very disastrous to their health. In Australia, the heat waves killed over thirty five thousand people in the year 2003. The majority of this was the people who could not easily move fast such as the young and the elderly. Their mobility was restrained hence the health of the citizens should be well equipped with the necessary equipments and control so as to control the effects of the green house gas (Friis 210).
The heat waves increases the temperatures in the environment and hence the people living there are greatly exposed to several health problems. The children are the most affected as they are physically active and hence the increase in the temperatures may affects them as it may restrict them in their mobility. This is because people have to respond to the adverse heats by reducing the physical exercises or anything which may increase their physical movement. This reduction of physical exercise will lead to the cardiac problems hence it’s a chronic disease which kills most of the people and mostly the children. The heat wave also brings about the problems of the mental illness and the effects of the reduction of fluid intake. The fluid intake is a necessary for the digestion and others function in the body. Its reduced consumption increases the chances of one affected by health complications. These heatwaves effects coupled with the low income of the people will result in increased mortality rates. There is expectation of further rise in several countries by the year 2020. The people who are located in the urban centers have high chances of being affected. The rural people are less exposed but they are also affected by this predicament. The main reason for the high risk of the urban people is that there is no vegetation in the area. This result in the increase in the heat absorption by the buildings in the day and the same heat is being released at night. This increases the temperatures which results in chronic effects to the inhabitants in the environment.
The people who are located in the warmer cities are less vulnerable to the effects of the increase in the temperatures as a result of the increase in the greenhouse gas emission. This is as a result of the people in the warmer areas being used to the high temperatures while those in the colder areas have problems in adapting to the high fluctuations of the temperatures. There are increased heat related sicknesses on the population and the children are mostly the victims. There are also expectations that the greenhouse gas resulting in high temperatures which will result in increased level of bushfires. These bushfires have been so far been experienced in several parts of the world. The bushfires such as the one which was experienced in Australia among other countries is expected to increase. The increase in the bushfires exposes many children to such risky environments which lead to many of them dying. The adverse effects of the green house gas are very risky and have big effects on the environment as well as the health of the people. The people with serious health complications such as asthmatic when in contact with the smoke affect them and may result in a sudden death. The children are more vulnerable to such conditions which affect them so severely and this need to be controlled and restricted (McElroy 117).
Bushfires results in the fatalities, burns and severe injuries are experienced which are serious health problems as the vulnerable are the children. The bushfires also results in the pollution of the air which really affects the respiratory system of the people. This is because there will be increase in the particles of high density in the air making it to be of poor quality.
The effects of the greenhouse affect the weather of the world in a very adverse way. The means in which the people get infected is through the infectious diseases and other natural calamities. The floods which are expected as a result of the changes in the temperatures brings about the severe diseases such as the traumatic injuries and the post traumatic stress with the increase in the number of the Ross river virus which is brought about by the breeding of the mosquitoes. The sewerage systems also will break down and overflows making the water which is being used to be contaminated. Children are vulnerable to the use and consumption of the dirty water and the contaminated foodstuff. This increases the infections of diseases such as the diarrhea which is a deadly disease especially to the children and the elderly.
Conclusion
The effects of the greenhouse gas are very severe and the vulnerable ones are the children. There are several effects which are brought about by the greenhouse gas which affects the climatic conditions of the environment. This results in the various serious conditions which affects the health of people and mostly the vulnerable people such as the children. The various diseases range from the airborne diseases to the waterborne diseases. There are also many infectious diseases, air pollution, allergic illness and the long and severe droughts. All these affect the people in many ways which results in adverse effects of deadly diseases. There is need for the whole world to be contagious of the mankind activities especially the scientific so as to reduce the instance which results in the increase in the greenhouse gas emission. There should be policies and treaties being signed by all the nations so as to control the adverse effects of the changes in the climatic conditions. The nations also should consider that the vulnerable people are the young which means that the future generation is greatly affected. The control of what is emitted to the environment is necessary so as to reduce the adverse effects on the environment which has direct influence on the people (Claussen 145).
Works cited
Aguirre, Alonso. Conservation medicine: ecological health in practice. London: Oxford University Press US, 2002
DiMento, Joseph and Doughman Pamela. Climate change: what it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren. New Jersey: MIT Press, 2007
Friis, Robert H. Essentials of environmental health. New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2007
Haq, George. Growing old in a changing climate: Meeting the challenges of an ageing population and climate change. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute, 2008
Hardy, John T. Climate change: causes, effects, and solutions. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 2003
Kawachi, Ichirō and Wamala Sarah P. Globalization and health. London: Oxford University Press US, 2007
McElroy, Michael B. The atmospheric environment: effects of human activity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002
McMichael, Anthony. Climate change and human health: risks and responses Nonserial Publication. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003
Rom, William and Markowitz Steven B. Environmental and occupational medicine. 4th ed. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007
