The Boiling Frog

Focus the Nation Essay Contest Winner - Policy and Technology The Boiling Frog Erica Smith

The Boiling Frog

The year is 2045. I am fifty-seven years old, only a few years older than my parents are today. I’m still living in Colorado, but the intense decades-long drought has turned the once beautiful state into a vast, brown desert, similar to the Sahara. I think about moving north into upper Canada. However, the masses already living there are discovering their own problems. The once great ice caps have melted away and massive storms and floods accumulate as a result. Strange diseases, once known only in the tropics, have emerged.

Sound like science fiction? Indeed not. Welcome everyone, to one scenario of the world in forty years if we do not stop global warming today. This situation is just one example of the many predicted results of global warming by highly regarded scientific organizations worldwide, such as the American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the American Meteorological Society (Wikipedia 1). Such organizations have speculated that there is no longer any credible doubt about the environmental destruction of global warming. Global warming, is in fact, a reality. It is also a reality that global warming is the result of human’s incessant dependence on fossil fuels. Illinois Senator Barack Obama calls it, “the man-made disaster”(Obama 1). Although every nation is responsible for this climate change phenomenon, the United States is by far the largest contributor. Thus, America must take responsibility and implement specific programs to reduce carbon emissions immediately. One such program would be the imposition of an immediate and phased-in tax on gasoline. This policy would decrease the demand for driving, would provide additional revenue for the government to support programs dealing with alternative energy technologies, and would provide money to implement a tax credit program for renewable energy sources.

There is a general consensus among scientists that global warming is mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, which increases the levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. The United States contributes more than any other nation, by far, to global greenhouse gas emissions. Holding only 4.6 percent of the population, the United States contributes 24 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions (NRDC 3). The electricity sector is responsible for roughly 39 percent of the country’s emissions. The carbon produced from vehicles and other sources of transportation follows close behind with a 26 percent contribution (NRDC 2). According to a study by economist Sir Nicolas Stern, the world must reduce emissions by over eighty percent within the next three or four decades if there is any chance of avoiding this looming catastrophe (Stern 1). As Senator Obama warns, “our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return”(Obama 2). Alas, signs of this point have already appeared.

It does not take a scientist to observe the changing climate trends over the last twenty years. Since 1980, the world has experienced nineteen of the twenty hottest years on record, with 2005 as the warmest. Scientists predict that unless global warming emissions are reduced, average U.S. temperatures could rise another three to nine degrees by the end of the century. Such high temperatures are causing unparalleled droughts and uncontrollable wildfires. Over the last four decades, the percentage of the Earth’s surface suffering drought has more than doubled causing a shortage of water and extensive wildfires in the Western United States.

The effects of climate change have been most noticeable in the world’s oceans. As the ocean temperatures rise, hurricanes and typhoons become increasingly abundant and intense. The percentage of category four and five hurricanes has doubled over the last thirty-five years and the wind speeds of these storms have increased by over fifty percent (NRDC 4). The destruction these hurricanes cause to cities, homes, and individuals is unbearable. Every American remembers when Hurricane Katrina thundered into towns along the Gulf Coast, wiping out the booming city of New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina, however, was no surprise to many scientists. According to George Woodwell of the Woods Hole Research Center, the Katrina disaster was already predicted by “the accumulated energy of the superheated Gulf of Mexico…a product of climatic disruption.” He adds, “We have lost a city to biophysical forces we knew of, anticipated-and denied.” Thus, Hurricane Katrina illustrates a clear picture of the severe consequences of global warming that lie ahead. Environmentalists, however, are not the only group who recognize the detrimental consequences of global warming.

Economists and political workers are beginning to voice just as much concern for the effects of global warming as environmentalists. A report released in October 2006 by British economist, Sir Nicholas Stern, assesses a wide range of evidence regarding the impacts of climate change and economic costs. The review estimates that “if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least five percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever.“ This would devastate the world economy on a scale that we have not seen since the world wars and the Great Depression. The report also concludes that the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions now would cost only one percent of the global gross domestic product.

After recognizing the catastrophic effects of global warming, politicians must take leadership to implement changes and to make energy sustainability one of the greatest projects of the twenty-first century. Mark Lynas exclaims, “…defeating global warming must be our priority today, or we will lose this war, and with it our very existence as a civilization.” (Lynas 1). Fortunately, there have already been many proposals on ways of addressing global warming.

A range of options exists to curb greenhouse gas emissions.  A combination of many studies suggests that emissions can be cut through increased energy efficiency, changes in demand, and through adoption of clean power, heat, and transport technologies. Scientists agree that drastically reducing the carbon released from the world’s electricity and transportation industries will play a critical role in reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions (Stern 1). So far, however the US government has demonstrated a minuscule effort. The US, along with Australia, is one of the few nations to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Under this pact, delegates from 163 nations agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 to 2012. President George Bush contested the protocol “on the grounds that it did not bind developing nations and would hurt the U.S. economy”(Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming 1). Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol view the rejection of this treaty as irresponsible, for some have suggested that the treaty cannot succeed without United States participation. Those who argue against the treaty generally believe that its goals are “too large to be practical”(Wikipedia 2). Nonetheless, the Kyoto Protocol was a necessary first step to address global warming on an international level. Should the world meet the goal of reducing carbon emissions by over eighty percent in the next few decades, however, more specific proposals must be considered.

One such program would be the imposition of an additional federal tax on gasoline in the United States. Under this plan, the government would slowly raise the price of gasoline by fifty cents every six months, until the tax reaches three dollars per gallon. By gradually increasing the tax in six-month increments, a three-dollar tax would be established in only four years. The high gasoline tax is an aggressive policy to reduce the number of carbon-emitting vehicles in a short period of time. A step-by-step program allows people time to adapt to the new tax and to change their lifestyles accordingly.

Americans would respond to a three-dollar tax by consuming less gas.  Europe is an ideal example of this. Europe currently has the highest gas prices in the world. A gallon of gasoline in Amsterdam now costs $7.13, compared with just $2.61 in America. On average, sixty percent of the price European drivers pay for gas goes to the government in taxes. As a result, Europeans are more mindful of their gasoline consumption and drive less than people in the United States. "There is really good evidence that higher prices reduce traffic," states Stephen Glaister, a professor of transportation at London's Imperial College. "If fuel prices go up 10 percent ... fuel consumed goes down by about 7 percent, as people start to use fuel more efficiently, not accelerating so aggressively and switching to more fuel-efficient cars. It does change people's behavior"(Ford 1). What Glaister is describing here is the economic theory of “price elasticity.” According to the elasticity of demand, as the price of gasoline rises, the demand for gasoline decreases. As a result of the high prices, people will respond by shortening car trips, switching to fuel-efficient vehicles, carpooling, or even biking occasionally. If individuals were to follow in this mindset, the nation’s overall carbon emissions would decrease significantly.

The imposition of a gasoline tax also provides additional revenue for the government to support programs dealing with alternative transportation technologies and other sources of conservation. Scientists and politicians alike see technology as a key solution to global warming. Recent technologies have introduced more fuel-efficient vehicles such as hybrid and diesel cars. In addition, scientists believe that technologies which utilize renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power will solve the majority of the global warming problem. Such innovations play a significant role in the world’s future environmental shift. However, the initial expenses for the research and design of these inventions are costly. The additional funds raised by a three-dollar gasoline tax could support such development.

Although a high tax reaps numerous benefits, the United States has neglected to adopt this strategy to conserve oil. Why is the idea so unpopular? Some claim the tax affects the poor more than the rich. If this is true, the government can subsidize the poor in different ways, such as reducing their income taxes or supporting low-interest loans. Other opposers have stated that a tax on gasoline goes against the “American Dream.” Gasoline gives people freedom to travel where they want and when they want--for work, school, or travel. Times writer Andrew Sullivan contests to this idea exclaiming, “conservatism in America rightly emphasizes personal responsibility alongside freedom…when your driving habits lead to higher levels of pollution, when your ownership of a gas-inhaling 2-ton SUV puts others on the road at risk, don’t you think you might give a little back in return?” (Sullivan 2). The fact is that the “American Dream” is no longer affordable from the standpoint of the environment. Until people pay for the true costs of gas consumption, including the environmental effects, the nation will continue to spiral down this one-way road to disaster.

Perhaps the main reason Americans neglect a gasoline tax, however, is that it is a heavy burden on the consumer. People have financial concerns already and an additional tax only adds to these anxieties. In contrast to the consumers, the government's key concern with  implementing a gasoline tax is due to the power of the oil companies. Some who tend to live solely in the present moment may find it difficult to foresee and prepare for the future. However, it is essential to recognize the upcoming consequences of our current habits, for they will appear before we know it.

Global warming may seem gradual from the perspective of a single lifetime, but in the context of the Earth’s history, it has intensified at lightning speed. Many are familiar with the story of the frog in boiling water, which Al Gore mentions in his recent documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. A frog that is placed in a tub of boiling water will jump out immediately. However, put the frog in a pot of cool water and then slowly increase the temperature, and the frog will remain still and boil to death. “We’re like the frog in water slowly heated up to boiling that doesn’t know to jump out,” Gore exclaims. Unlike the frog, however, we have the ability to rescue ourselves. We have the technology, the knowledge, and the power to respond to global warming (Gore). We simply need to find the cohesive willingness to take on this new challenge. Will we stand by and watch while droughts, floods, and famine take over our planet? Or will this year be remembered as the time when we turned our world around? It is solely up to the people of this generation to decide. 

Works Cited

Stix, Gary. “A Climate Repair Manual.” Scientific American 295.3 (2006): 46-49. Academic Search Premier. 11 November 2006.
http://search.ebscohost.com
           
Woodwell, George H. "New Orleans: Only the Beginning." World Watch 19.5 ([YEAR]): 34-35. Academic Search Premier. 11 November 2006. http://search.ebscohost.com               
"Why we must ration the future." New Statesman 135.4815 (2006): 12-14. Academic Search Premier. 11 November 2006.
http://search.ebscohost.com.
      
Gore, Al. “An Inconvenient Truth.” Paramount Classics. Rodale, 2006

"Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming." World Almanac & Book of Facts (2006): 299- 299. Academic Search Premier. 11 November 2006.
http://search.ebscohost.com

 “Climate change fight ‘can’t wait.’” BBC News. 31 October, 2006.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm

Henderson, Mark. “New proof that man has caused global warming.” Times Online. Times Newspapers Lcd. 10 November, 2006. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

Townsend, Mark and Harris, Paul. “Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will Destroy us.” Guardian Unlimited. 22 February, 2004.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html