Tyler DoroEnglish 123Harry KronickMay 14, 2012

Carbon Emissions: Our Problem to Fix?How often do you read a newspaper or watch the news? How closely do you follow global events? Do you consider yourself to be a person who is up to date on current issues? Well, if you consider yourself to be this kind of person than you most likely have heard of carbon emissions. If you are not, then pay attention because your welfare depends upon it. Should the United States take the forefront on reducing global carbon emissions? One must first understand the concept of carbon emissions in order to fully comprehend this question. Carbon emissions have been in the news for quite some time, but most people still do not know what carbon emissions are or how they affect the worlds future. Carbon emissions are created when carbon dioxide leaks into the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels (What Are Carbon Emissions? para.1). These fossil fuels are used in just about every industrialized process. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, (1750-1850) carbon emissions have been on the rise. The United States Environmental Protection Agency stated: In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution (EPA para. 3). This vast increase has led many global scientists to believe that the world will undergo a drastic global warming if the continuous release of carbon emissions is not stopped.With global warming being such a major topic, rarely is it possible to find someone who does not fall on either side of the issue. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Growing quantities of greenhouse gases produced in large part by human activities have been accumulating in the atmosphere. Most experts expect that those accumulated gases will result in a variety of environmental changes over time, including a gradual warming of the global climate, extensive changes in regional weather patterns, and significant shifts in the chemistry of the oceans. (Dinan pg. 1) This increase could shift the temperature enough to melt the polar ice caps. This in turn would cause widespread global flooding.This global warming theory is causing a movement which is driving people to action: something must be done about these carbon emissions. Even if you dont believe in the theory of global warming, the manner in which carbon emissions are handled can still affect your lives. As the call for proper regulation of emissions has increased, many legislating officials have tried to place this global issue on the American government, by creating limits on the amount of carbon emissions produced. There are bills proposed right now (such as the Kyoto Protocol) to either drastically cut back on carbon emissions or require certain filters to reduce the emissions. The Kyoto Protocol is a global agreement that the United States is pressured to sign that said we would reduce our carbon emissions to be below levels from the 1990s. According to an article from the Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News: The protocol requires the United States to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 7% below the 1990 level (U.S. Opposes Deadline for Ratifying Kyoto Protocol Para. 2). A commitment of this magnitude could be difficult for the US to take on while it is still recovering from tough economic times. The United States should not take the forefront on reducing global carbon emissions because; It could lead to an economic shift and tax increases for US citizens, it would reduce other nations accountability for their own emissions, and it could create a dangerous precedent for future global issues.One reason the United States should not take the forefront on reducing carbon emissions is it could greatly affect our nations economy. Carbon emissions are created in just about every industrial process, such as making products out of plastic and burning certain fossil fuels. Now, imagine if these processes were limited by either a cap on how much they can produce, or if they were forced to add new processes in order to filter the carbon dioxide. The carbon capture and storage method could be one of these new processes. This method separates carbon dioxide from industrial exhausts and condenses the extracted carbon for transportation. After it is condensed, it is transported to its final location through a pipeline. Upon arrival, the condensed carbon emissions are either stored in the ground or underwater (Ronca pg. 2-3). This process is certain to cost money. In order to store as little as 15 percent of sequestered carbon it could cost as much as 300 billion dollars a year, and that is without all the costs of creating the infrastructure to carry out this method (Smil pg. 92-93). If companies are forced to spend extra money on a process to filter carbon emissions, it would force either budget cuts, or a rise in price for their products. Limited production according to a cap on carbon emissions could cause a shortage of a desired product. If the supply of a product is limited, then the price of that product will go up. Both of these scenarios would put pressure on the consumer, because it would add to products a cost that, without a limitation on the carbon emissions of companies, would not exist.Companies would not be the only ones affected by a limitation of carbon emissions. This reduction could directly affect the lives of everyday people. The government could tax people according to how much carbon dioxide they produce, from driving a car to heating their home. Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, stated that The new regulatory proposals are misguided because they would impose billions of dollars in carbon emissions fees on U.S. manufacturing plants and on everyone in our country who fills up a car or truck with gasoline or diesel fuel without achieving any significant global emissions reductions (Drevna para. 4). Although most of the previously stated scenarios lead to an increase in prices or an increase in taxes, supporters of American global regulation of carbon emissions object to the notion that the United States economy would not benefit from such an endeavor. The cap on how much carbon emissions a company can produce would stimulate the market for carbon dioxide filtering companies. This new search for filters could also further the development of new carbon filtering technologies. BBC news stated, More than 5,000 Scottish jobs could be created if three proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) schemes go ahead, according to a new study (Carbon capture schemes could create 5,000 Scottish jobs para. 1). It could also create new government officials that oversee the taxation on the carbon emissions. However there are responses to this objection. Though the reduction of carbon emissions could create new jobs, industries would be forced to use the money from the increased prices of products to fund the new carbon reducing jobs. The limitation of carbon emissions could also force American companies to move jobs overseas to keep up with competitors. So those who say it creates jobs and helps take care of the carbon emission problem do not always realize that it is the consumer who really ends up paying for all of these new implementations. These limitations could create new jobs for other countries if American companies are forced to move overseas due to regulations of the amount of carbon produced (Drevna para. 5 ).A second reason why the United States should not take the forefront on reducing carbon emissions is that is gives the rest of the global community a free ride on the issue by not making them accountable. Have you ever been in a group where you all had to clean up a mess even if it wasnt you that created the mess? It doesnt seem fair that all of the people in the group would have to be accountable for the mess, just because they are part of that group. Well thats how the global reduction of carbon emissions is. Why should the United States have to clean up the mess for other countries of the world, and put a burden on its own people? As mention before the United States has signed the Kyoto Protocol, but what about other nations that produce large amounts of carbon emissions? Bryan Fischer from Renew America stated that Several of the world's fastest growing economies, such as China, India and Brazil, are not signatories to Kyoto, and yet China this year surpassed the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of CO2. Thus the U.S. would only be harming its economy and its families by limiting its own carbon emissions, while China would more than offset our reduction in carbon emissions and continue merrily growing its way to prosperity. (Fischer para. 14)Now I am not condoning leaving this issue for other countries of the world, but the United States should only take care of their fair share. This would eventually help the global carbon emission problem without allowing other nations free reign to abuse emission regulation. Thats what we all want, a cleaner world and safer world, but not at the expense of American citizens who would be suffering from the restrictions on carbon emissions. Throughout a 20 year span Chinas carbon emissions are expected to double, and industrializing countries emissions could be double that of already industrialized nations such as the US. Therefore taking co-operative action to relieve the carbon emissions problem in all countries is important (Oberthr and Ott pg. 27).The final reason why the United States should not take the forefront in reducing carbon emissions is that it could create a dangerous precedent, an earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. Because of its status as a global hegemon, the United States has often come to the aid of struggling nations. However, in these tough times how practical is it that Americans have to constantly pay for expensive government investments around the world? When other countries are in dire need it makes sense for the United States to help out where it can. Yet, this is an issue of stewardship; if other nations have the capability of building industry that produces carbon emissions, they also have the capacity to regulate it. Not only is Americas stake in the situation different, but also the responsibility of global carbon emissions reduction might only be one of the future worldwide burdens America could be forced to bear.Creating a precedent for future American generations is very dangerous. It could leave them vulnerable to the abuse of their resources and technology by other countries. How far of a step is it from helping other countries with their carbon emissions problems, to just bolstering their economies and infrastructure with our own wealth? It doesnt seem right to put that on the people of America when they already have their own issues. Imagine another global issue such as purifying global drinking water. If the United States took the forefront on reducing carbon emissions, we would be looked at as the ones responsible to clean up the new global problem, because we had done so previously. The problem shouldnt be put on the shoulders of American citizens but on the countries of the world as a whole. This would create equality in how we handled our global issues and a more balanced use of world-wide resources.It would be detrimental to the countrys economy if the United States took the forefront on carbon emissions. It also could create a world where countries just let the United States take care of global issues for them, simultaneously taking away from other nations accountability for cleaning up their own problems. Taking such action could affect how Americans live their lives. Prices of everyday items could go through the roof, along with increases in taxes, or the creation of a new kind of tax that could be placed on goods directly affected by the amount of carbon emissions produced. Do you want to live in an America where prices are controlled by the governments limitations, or where taxes are placed on goods based on carbon emissions? It also could leave America responsible to clean up the problems of the world. Lets not put any more burden on the United States than there is already. This is why the United States should not take the forefront on carbon emissions for the welfare of the American people. We dont want to be the reason America loses its way. As the great president Abraham Lincoln once said, America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.Works Cited MLACarbon capture schemes could create 5,000 Scottish jobs. 17 May 2011. .Dinan, Terry. Managing Allowance Prices in a Cap-and-Trade Program. Government Document. Washington, D.C.: Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office, 2010.Drevna, Charles. "Carbon charges will hurt America." The Hill 7 May 2010.EPA. 14 April 2011. 4 April 2012 .Fischer, Bryan. "Reducing CO2 emissions won't work, will hurt the poor." Renew America 21 September 2007.Oberthr, Sebastian and Hermann Ott. The Kyoto Protocol: International Climate Policy for the 21st Century. Springer, 1999.Ronca, Debra. How Carbon Capture Works. 9 July 2008. 14 May 2012 .Smil, Vaclav. Energy Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 2010.What Are Carbon Emissions? n.d. 14 May 2012 .U.S. Opposes Deadline For Ratifying Kyoto Protocol. Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News 209.16 (2000): 21. Business Source Premier. 16 May 2012.