Speeeeeeeeech

Technology is constantly changing. These changes can lead to unintended side-effects, not thought of by the inventors of the technology. Such cases have been found throughout history every time a major advance comes through. An example of this is an issue hotly debated to this very day: the effect of greenhouse gasses on the environment. My answer: lower emissions over a period of time for the benefit of everyone.

Firstly, it must be established what creates these gases. They are naturally created when animals breathe out, but mankind has been creating them for 200 years by processes such as burning coal, oil, and gas. This produces lots of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, which head into the atmosphere and help keep heat from leaking out. This keeps us all from freezing to death, for without this, the Earth would be very very cold. Unfortunately, all the gases being produced are adding up, and they're starting to have a negative effect on life on our planet. A good example of this is the ocean life. Phytoplankton are microscopic plants that help support the rather large ocean food chain. However, they grow slower in warmer water. This means that due to global warming, the oceans will start to warm up. With warmer water, there will be fewer phytoplankton. Fewer phytoplankton means less food and, just as bad, less consumption of carbon dioxide for use in photosynthesis. Phytoplankton use as much carbon dioxide as all land plants combined, as well, so that's a huge loss, but it doesn't stop there. Less carbon dioxide consumed means more of it overall, which increases global warming. This spreads into a vicious cycle that wont end until the Earth is barbecue on a rock in Death Valley. Ouch. Obviously, this is an urgent problem that must be rectified immediately. Irritatingly enough, it's not that easy. There are some that are against this movement. Some that would lose from "going green." I'm talking about the bigwigs here, the people running the oil and automobile companies. They are doing all they can to stop this movement from succeeding, which includes putting up counter-arguments. One of these say that many jobs would be lost if the standard for emissions became much stricter. This is true. Many jobs WOULD be lost. However, they are conveniently not mentioning the fact that many jobs would OPEN. Many jobs that deal with the new energies, such as water, light, or even the ethanol in corn, would replace the old jobs dealing with fossil fuels and the like. Another argument against environmentalism is that it would cost a lot to do this. Increased energy taxes and regulations would make us lose up to $300 billion a year! Not only that, but what if global warming is wrong? It'd be a waste of money in that case, no? The answer is simple. Would you rather gamble with money, or your life?

However, a compromise has the most chance of getting through, or so it seems to me. I propose this: a 20 year-long plan that slowly reduces then finally bans major producers of greenhouse gases (excluding breathing, of course), such as gasoline-powered automobiles and coal-burning power plants. This 20-year span will give people time to get used to and convert to a more environmental lifestyle, while also allowing companies to change what they're selling to cope with the new standards. With this, we can save our planet and ourselves. Let's make it happen.

Bibliography:

University of California - Santa Barbara. "Global Warming Is Reducing Ocean Life, Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Say Scientists." ScienceDaily 7 December 2006. 14 December 2009 /releases/2006/12/061207084052.htm>.

"Greenhouse Gasses." Ace.mmu.ac.uk. Web. .

An Inconvenient Truth. Perf. Al Gore.

"Arguments Against Global Warming." www.aproundtable.org. Web. .