Reducing the Carbon Footprint While Providing Green, Affordable, Sustainable Solutions
The shift in sustainable green solutions is essential since it is aimed at putting the world on track with the goal of avoiding the adverse effect of climate change. Sustainable green solutions are essential in the attainment of a sustainable future. Issues related with climate change and environmental sustainability poses a significant danger in the world today (Bedsworf and Hanak 4). As a result, the decisions made by countries across the globe on exercising sustainable green solutions are an important investment for the future. It is imperative for nations across the world to work together by combining their innovations, capital and government facilitations to deal with the dangers that are presented by climate change (Bedsworf and Hanak 4). Working together is important since it will lead to the establishment of long-term solutions. However, the measures to practice sustainable green solutions around the globe for the better good of the environment have been disputed by critics such as Bjorn Lomborg. Bjorn Lomborg’s argument is disputable based on the solutions he offers towards achieving sustainable solutions.
It has been argued that the concept of sustainable development has changed to economic development rather than its initial aim of conservation management. As a result, critics such as Bjorn Lomborg have come up with arguments that are intended to proving that the preservation management efforts are not effective.
Lomborg provides disputable arguments such as his opinion that the sustainable green solutions that are employed to address the issue of global warming make energy costlier (Lomborg). He also states that the costs end up harming the world’s poor. He also states that the sustainable green solutions do not have any climate benefits. Such opinions are considered disputable since they fail to have a strong foundation that I backed up with evidence and reflection on the future (Lomborg). In this case, he offers an alternative stating that the funds set aside for sustainable green solutions should be used to enhance health care build better roads, lower taxes and hire more teachers. The author also states that forcing people to buy expensive materials as a green solution increases the price of products throughout the economy. According to the author’s estimates, the cost of EU’s climate policy will be $280 billion annually as from 2020 till the century comes to an end (Lomborg). He claims that the world’s poor will be subjected to suffering since they will have to carry the burden of these policies.
Lomborg through his argument also states that the sustainable green solutions are a failure based on the fact that they attribute to additional costs that affect the poor in the society (Lomborg). He provides an example using the electricity consumption in the UK and how it reduced by more than 10% since 2005. However, he claims that the government has failed to state that the reduction has attributed to a 50% increase in electricity prices (Lomborg). Lomborg’s argument is based on his belief that climate policies carry larger costs in their aims to develop the world. In this case, his beliefs are disputable based on statistical data that proves that sustainable solutions will benefit the globe in the long-run. Additionally, his use of China as an example acts as a reflection of the effects of global warming and climate change. He argues that China powers its economic growth through the use of highly polluting coal. As a result, the country has successfully gotten more than 680 million people out of poverty (Lomborg). On the other hand, Africa gets 50% of its energy from renewables and remains poor. In this case, his main argument is that the world’s focus on renewable energy and sustainable green solutions deliberately leaves a significant number of people in poverty and darkness. Lomborg states that addressing global warming effectively requires long-term innovations to make green energy affordable to all individuals (Lomborg). However, the world will continue wasting large sums of money at the expense of the poor. His argument is weak since it fails to recognize the conditions people in china are subjected to live with on a day-to-day basis based on the effects of climate change and global warming.
Lomborg’s argument is disputed by Shiraev and Zubok (299) who state that sustainable development is essential since it ensures that the needs of the present are met without sacrificing the future generations by limiting their ability to respond to their needs. Sustainable development is viewed to be focused on stimulating economic growth and at the same time protecting the environment and the globe’s natural resources (Shiraev and Zubok 299). The author’s views on sustainable development conflict with those of Lomborg who sees the measures as a waste of money that could be utilized to solve other issues affecting the world. Shiraev and Zubok conduct a study that proves that sustainable green solutions that are applied across the globe have led to a significant decrease in global warming and climate change (Shiraev and Zubok 300). Therefore, Lomborg’s view of the measures towards achieving a sustainable living is irrelevant based on the lack of facts and basis. Shiraev and Zubok also dispute his argument by proving that the poor are the most affected by the effects of global warming and climate change based on the fact that they lack access to health care (Shiraev and Zubok 300). In this case, Lomborg’s solution of addressing poverty ahead of global warming is not applicable since it will place the poor in the society in a worse condition.
Evidently, the construction of sustainable green solutions such as nuclear power plants is expensive. As a result, the price of electricity is bound to increase to facilitate for the expenses. However, the additional costs are a sacrifice the people must be willing to make since the solutions will benefit the future generations. Moreover, the use of sustainable measures is beneficial since they are more reliable and the benefits will be enjoyed for a long time.
Lomborg’s view of sustainable green solutions is disputable on many levels. In this case, his reflection on price and the poor in the society lacks a strong foundation to back up his points. The price of energy is less costly in the long run based on the fact that the natural systems incorporated will continue to provide natural resources that the society and economy will depend on for many centuries. On the other hand, the use of fossil fuels is focused on the here and now. In this case, cutting down of trees for fuel will serve the world with energy for a limited time unlike the use of sustainable green solutions such as solar, wind and nuclear power (Heal 4-21). His view fails to take the future into consideration making his argument weak and unreasonable. Evidently, sustainable green solutions play a significant role in providing the world with a desirable future that envisions enhanced living conditions and resource utilization across the globe. Such benefits will be achievable without compromising the stability, beauty, and integrity of natural biotic systems.
Lomborg’s argument is disputable since it is focused on enhancing the lives of the poor in the society by compromising the stability of the natural biotic systems. His argument fails to realize that instability in the biotic systems will attribute to adverse effects that surpass poverty in the society. Sustainable green solutions are aimed at enhancing sustainable living by reducing the use of natural resources. The shift in sustainable green solutions is essential since it focuses on the preservation of resources that are considered necessary to the provision of the needs of future generations and life on earth (Castillo 374). His argument lacks basis based on his failure to take the ecological stability into consideration. The relationship between human beings and the environment is an integral part life that ensures the facilitation of water, food, quality air and shelter. These benefits are only achievable from a stable natural biotic system (Castillo 374). Application of Lomborg’s recommendation of China’s actions and achievements is bound to attribute to a public health risk based on compromising the ecological foundations for sustainable growth and development.
Lomborg’s argument is disputable since it offers an unsustainable solution to the issues affecting the globe. It is untenable since natural resources are used up faster than they can be replenished. As a result, global warming and climate change issues will increase significantly over the years of his strategy. On the other hand, sustainable green solutions as reflected by Kahle and Eda are aimed at encouraging the use of natural resources at levels that can allow them to be replenished. The long-term effects of failing to implement sustainable green solutions are the inability of the world to sustain human life. Lomborg’s view of enhancing the lives of the poor in the society by compromising the stability of the natural biotic systems will attribute to a degradation that will affect the whole globe. The long-term effects of such a situation are an increase in the rate of human deaths until the number falls to a level that is sustainable (Kahle and Eda 34). Consequently, the progression of degradation will lead to the extinction of humanity.
The Paris Agreement is aimed at ensuring that countries across the globe reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions in the shortest time possible. Evidently, the deal is also aimed at providing an increase in the ability of countries to adapt to the adverse impact of climate change. All countries across the globe are also expected to foster climate resilience and at the same time lower their greenhouse gas emissions in ways that do not affect their food production (Castillo 374). Additionally, the agreement is also aimed at making the finance flows consistent with a direction that leads to climate resilient development and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (Castillo 374). Moreover, the agreement is aimed at ensuring that the global average temperatures increase to below 2 degrees centigrade above the pre-industrial levels. It is also focused on ensuring that the temperature increase is limited to 1.5 degrees centigrade above the pre-industrial levels. Evidently, this would lead to a significant reduction in the risks and impacts of climate change. The financial contributions of countries to achieve the global goal are determined by the nations individually.
As of November 2016, the European Union and 192 other states had shifted to sustainable green solutions. The countries are applying sustainable green solutions through the implementation of a balanced solution. In this case, they focus on paying more attention to their environment, financial and human/social responsibilities (White, Stallones and Last 54-56). As a result, the countries can develop and implement green solutions in the form of technology and sustainable services. Ultimately, the countries efforts of applying sustainable green solutions will lead to the creation of a better world. The countries also exercise their roles of enhancing sustainable green solutions by designing activities that are focused on meeting human needs while paying attention to the planets life support system (White, Stallones and Last 54-56). Some of the measures taken into place include using renewable energy sources, improving water sustainability, sustainable material supplies and using sustainable material supplies. The countries also apply sustainable green solutions in regards to their agricultural, economical, manufacturing, and energy industries.
The countries actions will benefit climate change by fostering climate resilience and at the same time lower their greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, they will benefit climate change by reducing their natural resources uses for the purpose of energy. The shift to sustainable green solutions is bound to attribute to environmental stability. Environmental security is concerned with the natural environment ensuring that is enduring and remains productive and diverse. The countries actions will benefit climate change based on the fact that the natural resources are obtained from the environment (White, Stallones and Last 54-56). As a result, the state of water, air, and the environment will enhance significantly.
The shift to sustainable green solutions will be determinable to the rise in global warming and climate in the event the green solutions are not implemented quickly. Consequently, the primary human needs such as water, quality air, shelter and food are compromised. The consumption of non-renewable natural sources at a rate that is relatively equal to nature’s ability to replenish leads to a steady economy (Castillo 375). Moreover, the consumption at a less equivalent possibility of nature to replenish is considered environmentally unstable. The rise in global warming and climate change can be controlled by ensuring that natural resources are used at a rate that can be replenished.
The USA and other industrialized countries can take several initiatives to reduce the carbon footprint. Additionally, the industrialized countries can apply integral elements that enhance sustainable development such as innovation activities and research. The first method they can use to reduce carbon emissions in the environment is by conducting public awareness campaigns. By educating the general public on the dangers that carbon emission has on the environment; it makes them aware of their environments and ways in which they can contribute to cleaning the atmosphere (Castillo 376). Aside from educating, they can offer solutions for the day to day living. For instance, people can find alternatives to driving like riding bicycles or walking. At the home level, people can reduce the amount of energy they use by installing solar panels. In most homes, solar panels are in place to heat water but increasing the usage to lighting and powering appliances as well will be a vast improvement.
Secondly, the United States and other industrialized countries can avoid the carbon footprint is by finding other sources of fuel for vehicles. It is known that the enormous amounts of carbon are emitted into the atmosphere when there is traffic on our roads (Kahle and Eda 34). The emission is harmful to humans as well as congestion may cause severe health complications. It was identified that electric cars do not emit carbon monoxide. However, car manufacturers have been hesitant to manufacture the cars for the mass market. These governments can encourage and fund car makers around the world to help clean the environment.
Thirdly, continuously increasing the use of carbon-free sources of energy is encouraged. The use of solar energy to power homes and industries has been widely accepted in most states in the United States. With solar power, the tapped energy can also be stored for future use ensuring its continuity. With the research done on solar energy, it is seen to be one of the best sources of energy, however, the most untapped. Wind power is also a form of energy that emits no carbon (White, Stallones and Last 54-56). The form of energy is best used in areas with plains. Geothermal energy and hydrokinetics are other untapped sources of energy. With the full utilization of other sources of energy, the environment has fewer carbon emissions. It is also proven that these forms of energy can produce as much or even more energy to power homes and industries than other carbon emitting methods.
The fourth way of reducing carbon footprints is by carbon capture and sequestration. The methods involve the carbon dioxide already emitted in the atmosphere and storing it within plants or in the soil. However, with this method of carbon control, the government needs to sensitize people on the importance of reforestation. Planting more trees will ensure that the carbon is adequately used as opposed to being buried where it could also have diverse effects on the soil (Bedsworf and Hanak 76). The method has been written off as a last resort as there are ways that individuals, companies, industries and the government can use to reduce the carbon in their environment.
Finally, industrialized countries can enhance sustainable development through the process of reuse and recycle. The recycle symbol has been embedded in almost all products available today. This is both a responsibility at the personal level and the government level. Within local communities, allocating areas to throw items for recycling will help them become responsible and aware (Heal 16). The government also needs to follow through with recycling materials that have been marked for such. Avoiding accumulation of garbage in certain areas will also drastically reduce the emission of carbon to the environment. Such measures are essential in reducing pollution in public resources. Evidently, pollution contributes to a significant amount of global warming.
In conclusion, the shift in sustainable green solutions is essential since it is aimed at putting the world on track with the goal of avoiding the adverse effect of climate change. In this case, the measures to practice sustainable green solutions around the globe for the better good of the environment have been disputed by critics such as Bjorn Lomborg. According to Bjorn Lomborg, the sustainable green solutions that are employed to address the issue of global warming make energy costlier. Lomborg states that the sustainable green solutions are a failure based on the fact that they attribute to additional costs that affect the poor in the society. However, Shiraev and Zubok state that sustainable development is essential since it ensures that the needs of the present are met without sacrificing the future generations by limiting their ability to respond to their needs. Lomborg’s solution of addressing poverty ahead of global warming is not applicable since it will place the poor in the society in a worse condition. His view of sustainable green solutions is disputable on many levels since it is unsustainable since natural resources are used up faster than they can be replenished. The Paris Agreement is aimed at ensuring that countries across the globe reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions in the shortest time possible. As a result, the countries actions will benefit climate change by fostering climate resilience and at the same time lower their greenhouse gas emissions.
Bedsworf, Louise, and Hanak Ellen. “Adaptation to Climate Change.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 2010: 76:4.
Castillo, Daniel. “Integral Ecology as a Liberationist Concept” in Theological Studies, vol. 77, no. 2, 2016, pp. 374.
Heal, Geoffrey. “Climate Economics: A Meta-Review and Some Suggestions for Future Research.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy Oxford Journals, vol. 3, 2009, pp. 4–21.
Lomborg, Bjorn. “The Poverty of Renewables.” Project Syndicate, 17 May 2014, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/bj-rn-lomborg-says-that-the-prevailing-solution-to-global-warming-is-hurting-the-poor-more-than-the-problem-is. Accessed 11 Nov 2016.
Kahle, Lynn, and Eda, Gurel-Atay. Communicating Sustainability for the Green Economy. New York University Press, 2014.
Shiraev, Eric and Zubok, Vladislav. International Relations. Oxford University Press, 2013.
White, Franklin, Stallones, Lorran, and Last, John. Global Public Health: Ecological Foundations. Oxford University Press, 2013.