p.p1 #000000; min-height: 15.0px} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}p.p1 #000000; min-height: 15.0px} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 28.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px; line-height: 28.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; background-color: #ffffff}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; background-color: #ffffff; min-height: 15.0px}
p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 15.0px}
p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 48.0px; line-height: 28.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p6 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 15.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
span.s2 {font-kerning: none; color: #4c4c4c; -webkit-text-stroke: 0px #4c4c4c}

The increase in temperature of the climate near the Earth’s surface over the course of the last century is a phenomenon called global warming. From 1906 to present day, average global surface temperatures have increased from between 1.1 to 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (National Geographic). Side effects of climate change are deadly like Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which was an indirect result of a changing climate (EPA). Nevertheless, President Trump’s Administration is exacerbating the issue. For example, on December, 18 2017 President Trump dropped climate change from the list of national security threats. The U.S. government must prioritise climate change to protect the health of their citizens, stop further environmental damage, and improve economic benefits. 
One of the U.S. government’s fundamental roles is to protect their citizens. Every year, the U.S. is spending hundreds of billions towards national defence, but despite the importance of military they are turning a blind eye to one of the biggest threats to humanity; climate change. Citizens of America are suffering as a consequence of climate change. Natural disasters are becoming greater in magnitude and more frequent. In fact, this year has been one of the most catastrophic hurricane seasons in U.S. history. The U.S National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Centre forecasted that, “We have seen between fourteen to nineteen named storms and five to nine hurricanes this season” (NOAA). In contrast to the average hurricane season from 1981 to 2010 spawning an average of twelve named storms and six hurricanes (Greshko). Not to mention future citizens of America who will be endangered by climate change. According to the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sea levels will rise between 11 to 38 inches by 2100. Which will be high enough to submerge many cities on the U.S. East Coast, risking the lives of countless American citizens (IPCC). Considering the amount of influence and wealth the U.S. government possesses, the U.S. should be able to affect meaningful change towards climate change.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The U.S. government not only has a responsibility to protect its citizens, but they are also responsible for protecting the environment. Although President Trump has neglected climate change, historically, the U.S. government has proven its ability to advocate for and protect the environment. For instance, the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  projected the Clean Power Plan (CPP) would have provided several benefits like bringing around $54 billion in climate and public health benefits. Furthermore, the CPP mandated a 32% reduction in the U.S electricity sector from 2005 to 2030 (Greshko). The CPP’s Main goal was to minimise carbon emissions of coal using power plants and increase the use of renewable energy. In 2017, 29% of global warming emissions from the U.S. originate from the U.S.’s electricity sector (EPA). Most of the emissions are made by fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. The CPP demonstrated that the U.S. government could implement a policy to use renewable energy as opposed to fossil fuels. Moreover, renewable energy produces almost none, if not any greenhouse gas emissions. The CPP would have lessened the biggest contributor to the US’s carbon emissions. Even though President Trump repealed the CPP it still proved the U.S. government capable of stopping environmental damage. President Trump campaigned for the repeal of the CPP decrying it an, “Unfair burden on the coal industry and overall economy” (President Trump). 

“The price tag is one reason some American leaders have refused to take serious action on global warming” (McKibben, Pg 13). Which begs the question; why should the U.S. government devote resources to fight climate change? After all, the U.S. government could be spending their money on other things like improving hospitals or schools. In fact, President Trump is investing less money into climate change as opposed to Obama. Trump’s proposal for his budget in 2017 reduced the EPA’s budget by 2.5 billion (Plumer). Although the EPA and numerous other environmental organisations spend a considerable amount of money on climate change, helping to mitigate the effects of climate changes will save more money than ignoring (or not acknowledging) the issue. In 2017, the EPA’s budget was 8.2 billion dollars (EPA). The U.S. government spent around 125 billion dollars on disaster relief for Hurricane Harvey (FEMA). Changes in climate were responsible for making Hurricane Harvey larger, stronger, and deadlier according to many climate scientists. Hurricane Harvey is just one of the many natural disasters that have been made more severe due to climate change, costing the economy much due to cleanup efforts. To conclude, spending money to lessen the repercussions of climate change would save more money  than cutting the budget for environmental protection organisations that help combat climate change.

Resources from the U.S. government should be used to help climate change because doing so  could benefit the U.S. government economically. Helping climate change could avoid some costs of cleaning up natural disasters. The government could also protect the environment from future harm. Like mentioned before, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, predicts sea levels will rise anywhere from 11 to 38 inches by 2100. The sea level in 2100 will be enough flood many cities on the U.S. East Coast. The duty of the U.S. government is to protect their citizens but if they do not there could be deadly consequences. The 2003 European heatwave killed at least 15,000 people, around 5 times more than 9/11 (BBC). Climate change will make natural disasters like heat waves even worse. Adding on, in the future the weather patterns will become more extreme making natural disasters worse than in the present time. Helping to stop climate change should be one of the U.S. government’s top priorities.