Environmental Pragmatism
Kyle Brewster
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines
the word pragmatic as “relating to
matters of fact or practical affairs, as opposed to idealistic”. It is no
surprise there exists a branch of philosophical thought that has the desire to
apply practical thoughts to decisions and justifying decisions. Pragmatism was an American philosophical
movement founded by C.S. Pierce and William James that sought to use practical
considerations of consequences to guide ones’ actions.[1]
Just as the scientific method is used as the standard to provide the
objectivity in the scientific community that we enjoy today – in the form of
advancements in medicine, healthcare, technology, energy, and etcetera –
objectivity with a pragmatic approach can be used to justify political
decisions.[2]
In contemporary politics, political
discussions pertaining to protecting and advocating concerns of the environment
are framed in many ways: environmentalism, the fight against climate change,
being “ecologically considerate”, caring for the planet, sustainability, or
under a myriad of other names. A pragmatic approach provides a perspective that
is free of the theoretical/emotional arguments that often tend to be a dominating
force in these discussions. Such an objective analysis can help guide
policy-makers to the most practical decision, both in terms of
taxpayer-provided resources and the environment.
While the scope of role of government
is often debated, it is directly stated in The Constitution that one of the
purposes for its existence is to promote the general welfare of its citizens.[3]
Thus, maximizing the benefits while minimizing costs (monetary, tangible, and
intangible) to American citizens is and ought to be a foremost goal of the
government.
One of the costs that could arise
resulting from negligence of environmental concerns can be found with global
warming. NASA defines global warming as changes in Earth’s climate system due
to human activities that result in increasing levels of greenhouse gases which
trap heat within the atmosphere. The warming can result in changes in local and
global average weather patterns.[4]
Some examples of changes in climate and weather include recurrent flooding,
droughts, desertification, wildfires, and thawing permafrost.[5]
According to the NOAA 2018 Global Climate Summary, the temperature of land and
oceans has increased at an average rate of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit per decade
since 1880. Since 1981, the average rate of increase has doubled.[6]
These effects of global warming can
be a direct cost to citizens, which is able to be measured and observed with an
analysis of government expenditures that is funded by tax dollars (or borrowed
money, which will accrue interest that will be paid by taxpayers upon repayment).
Consider the US Department of Defense.
Gradual sea level changes increase the effect of storm surges and may lead permeant
flooding of properties. The adverse effect of this can be illustrated with Joint
Base Langley-Eustis (JBLE) in Virginia, which has experienced fourteen inches
in sea level increases since 1930. The property has a three-foot mean elevation
above sea level, which amplifies the effect of flooding.[7]
JBLE has a beneficial effect on the
local economy, with a valued total economic impact of $2.9 billion and
resulting in an indirect creation of 13,989 jobs.[8]
In an analysis of eighteen military bases at risk (including JBLE), recurrent
flooding and rising sea levels is expected to have adverse effects. By 2070,
half of the sites in this analysis could experience 520 or more floods
annually. By 2100, eight bases are at risk of losing 25 to 50 percent of their
land due to rising sea levels, with four installations at risk of losing 75 to
95 percent of their land.[9]
This study included only eighteen
of more than 1,200 installations operating under the Department of Defense. A
three-foot increase in sea levels would threaten 128 Department of Defense
installations along the coasts with an estimated value of over $100 billion.[10]
These numbers exclude overseas installations and non-Department of Defense
installations, which would result in further local economic impacts and loss of
private- and government-owned assets, especially along coastlines.
The adverse effects of flooding are
not unique to coastal areas. Urban areas are also susceptible to effects
increased rainfall because of buildings, pavement, roads, and other man-made
structures that do not absorb water-runoff. Flash-floods and river flooding can
also have negative ramifications in areas all over the country in close
proximity to bodies of water.[11]
Climate change leads to an increase
in the severity, frequency, location, and duration of weather and occurrences
of severe weather events. Areas that already experience weather with adverse
local effects are likely to experience worse and more severe effects, whether
that be by increased storm intensity, rates of rainfall, storm surges, or
higher temperatures.[12]
For example, since the 1980s, there has been a substantial increase in Atlantic
hurricane activity that can be attributed to changes in local sea temperatures,
human-activity-induced emissions of greenhouse gases, and particulate pollution.[13]
As aforementioned, rising sea
levels and recurrent flooding are only one aspect of the estimated costs of
global warming. An increase in the number and severity of droughts is another
adverse effect of global warming. Droughts have a myriad of effects, including
of water supply and surface water, drying of vegetation, and increase potential
and severity of wildfires. The effect of droughts on wildfires can have an
amplified adverse effect when rain follows the fire, potentially resulting in
mudslides or other serious erosion.[14]
The emission of pollutants into the
air is one of the major contributors to the greenhouse-gas-effect that results
in the gradual increase in average temperature. They also result in the
deterioration of air quality. According to the World Health Organization (WHO),
air pollution results in 7 million deaths annually and costs an estimated $5.11
trillion in welfare losses globally.[15]
China is the leading emitter of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, followed
second by the United States with emissions of 9056.8 metric megatons and 4833.1
metric megatons, respectively. While China is the leads with overall emissions,
the US emits more than twice as much per capita as China, trailing only Saudi
Arabia and Australia in per capita emissions.[16]
Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel and
industrial processes is the leading greenhouse gas emitted by human activities,
composing 65 percent of all greenhouse gases. Methane, resulting from biomass
burning, agricultural activities, and waste management composes 16 percent of
greenhouse gas emissions. Per economic sector, agricultural, forestry, and
other land usages along with result in nearly half of global greenhouse gas
emissions.
Black carbon (commonly referred to
as soot) is one example of a fine
particulate that is the primary cause of air-pollutant related mortality. Other
greenhouse gases, such as methane, are not directly harmful to human health,
but they contribute to global warming.[17]
Ounce-per-ounce, methane traps more heat in the atmosphere than carbon.[18]
Additionally, methane indirectly affects human health by servicing as a
precursor to ground-level ozone (also referred to as tropospheric ozone, also
referred to as O3 or ozone).[19]
Ozone is
formed from a combination of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and sunlight. When
inhaled, ozone can have a myriad of adverse effects on human health, including
(but not limited to) eye irritation, damage to lung tissue, the initiation asthma
attacks, chest pain, and worsening of heart disease, emphysema, and bronchitis.[20]
While small amounts of ozone
naturally are found in the atmosphere, excessive amounts of ozone can cause
considerable damage to crops, other plants found naturally in the ecosystem,
and inhibits tree growth in certain species.[21]
The damage caused by ozone on crops results in between $11-18 billion value of
crop loss per year.[22]
If concentrations of ozone in the lower atmosphere worsen, this valuation of
loss will increase.
In addition to pollutant particles
in the air, higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere promote the
growth of plants that emit aeroallergens that can further affect outdoor and
can infiltrate indoor air circulation. Higher pollen concentrations in the air
in addition to longer pollen season can adversely affect human respiratory and
cardiovascular health, can increase allergic reaction, asthma episodes, and
therefore limit productivity at school and work.[23]
If we are to apply a pragmatic approach
to analyzing climate change, it is clear that action ought to be taken to
prevent further exacerbation of adverse effects of health, the environment, the
economy, and on finances. If action is not taken out of consideration for the
welfare of the citizens of the county and of the world, then action ought to be
taken before conditions worsen to minimize the costs associated with addressing
current symptoms of global warming and prevent potential future issues that
could be even more costly.
It is important to robustly
consider measures that are taken to address climate change rather than
superficially choosing an approach to take. Some approaches that claim to be
“climate friendly” or “the right choice”, but in reality, are not (or are not
the best option). For example, the burning of biomass and other biofuels for
transport or heating is often discussed as a way of being environmentally
friendly, but in reality, the burning may emit more particulate matter than the
methods that it replaced and thus continue to harm the environment.[24]
Expanding investments in nuclear
provided energy is one way to address this growing issue. It is not only more
efficient, but is better for global human health compared to current energy
sources and is able to meet current demand. According to the Energy Information
Administration, nuclear energy provided more carbon-free-produced electricity
than all other sources combined.[25]
Approximately 85 percent of adults
surveyed by Pew Research said that they were in favor of expanding reliance on
solar and wind provided energy from farms. The public support for expanding
nuclear-produced energy, however, is viewed favorable by only 43 percent of
those surveyed. Nuclear energy is seen less favorably than offshore drilling
and only slightly more favorably than expanding energy reliance from coal
mining and fracking.[26]
Public opinion tends to be
relatively unsupportive of expanding nuclear power, especially when seeing its
failures on the media such as with the Fukushima meltdown in Japan in 2011.
While such disasters are unfortunate, nuclear still proves to result in less
deaths than fossil-fuel energy sources. Using nuclear power in place of these
fossil-fuels has globally prevented approximately 1.8 million air-pollutant-related
deaths. Replacing nuclear power with natural gas usage would result in an addition
420,000 deaths worldwide and replacing current nuclear-sourced energy with
coal-based energy would result in an addition 8 million deaths.[27]
When compared to the long-term costs (financial, effects on health, waste
disposal, and etcetera), nuclear energy continues to be deemed as a lower-cost
alternative and more efficient than other renewable sources and fossil fuels
alike.[28]
While
public sentiment may be relatively unsupportive of nuclear energy compared to
solar and wind, a pragmatic approach would advocate for a greater reliance on nuclear energy that current usage. When
compared to other sources of energy production, nuclear energy has the highest capacity
factor.[29]
Capacity factor as defined as the ratio of net electricity generated, for a
given time considered, to the energy that could have been generated if the
energy source would have been operating at maximum capacity.[30]
Since energy produced from renewable sources is contingent on the environment
(amount of sunlight, presence of wind), there is variability in the energy they
are able to produce. Solar, wind, and hydropower produced energy have capacity
factors of 26.1, 37.4, and 42.8 percent, respectively. Coal and natural gas
have capacity factors of 54 and 57.6 percent. Nuclear energy has a 92.6
capacity factor, making it by factor more efficient than other both renewable
and non-renewable energy sources.[31]
With the changes in typical
weather patterns that result from climate change, higher temperatures during
the summer and lower-than-average temperatures in the winter will lead to
increased demand for energy to meet cooling and heating costs.[32]
From 2017 to 2018, US demand for energy increased 4 percent to reach almost
4,000 TWh. While renewable sources, nuclear, and natural gas meet some of the
energy demand, CO2 emissions resulting from coal- and gas-powered plants still
rose globally by 2.5 percent.[33]
Therefore, when considering the cost and benefits of reliance on nuclear power
compared to other sources, it is practical to expand this sector of energy
production for the sake of human health and to realistically meet current
energy demands.
In a study conducted specifically
measuring the relationship with economics incentives for practicing “green”
approaches to their business, it was found that there is a positive
relationship between the small firm performance and green economic incentives. Older
studies also show that improving the environment is not associated with harming
business performance in larger firms.[34]
While subsidies would be one way to provide financial incentives for firms
making green investments, they would likely result in a deadweight loss to
society at large, the cost of which will be paid for by taxpayers.[35]
In addition to the net loss to
societies that results from subsidies, the International Renewable Energy
Agency (IRENA) states that the renewable energy is now a cost-competitive
source of power/energy. Renewable energy sources have been consistently experiencing
cyclical reductions in costs. Since 2009, solar PV module prices have decreased
by approximately 80 percent while wind turbine prices have also fallen by 30 to
40 percent.[36]
By 2030, total costs are predicted to decrease by an additional 50 to 60
percent. The reduction in price could be further
magnified with advancements in other climate-friendly fields, such as technology
in power storage/battery technology.[37]
These subsidies were designed to help a blossoming industry remain
cost-competitive. Now that these firms have lowered costs to this point, the
government no longer needs to provide money to these private firms and should
allow free market competitive factors lead to improvements in the energy
sector.
A popular method that would
service as an incentive and has the goal of reducing carbon emissions is with a
carbon cap-and-trade system. In its essence, this method creates permits issued
by the government for the emission of a given amount of carbon by a firm.
Companies would then be able to sell and trade these permits according to their
carbon-producing needs.[38]
When more deeply considered, there
could be other options that would be more cost and result effective than a
carbon cap and trade system, such as with a carbon tax. While both methods who
have the goal of limiting greenhouse emissions by providing an incentive for
polluting firms who do not have to pay for the cost of pollution they create on
society (and thus fixing a market failure), a carbon tax can be more
economically efficient. A cap-and-trade system may result in price volatility
and other policy errors resulting from uncertainty in the endogenous pricing
model. The government is unlikely to have ample information and certainty from a
given model they create to determine at what level to set the cap to correct
the market failures without imposing additional burdens on firms that are
passed to consumers in the form of higher prices.[39]
A carbon tax would limit
government intervention, limit the potential influence that lobbyists would
have on policy makers, provide an incentive for companies to lower costs by
moving away from carbon-emitting activities (as opposed to the cap-and-trade
system, where a company may be willing to take the incur the cost of a fine or
be willing to purchase additional permits in order to continue current levels
of carbon emissions), and would avoid potential problematic interactions with
other climate-related policy measures.[40]
As previously discussed, the agriculture
industry accounts for around 16 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.[41]
An environmentally pragmatic approach can also be utilized to addressing issues
in this sector in ways that may not be conventions or have a strong public
following, but are nonetheless cost-effective ways to begin to address the
issue of climate change.
Consider the livestock industry.
Livestock (cattle in particular) produce methane (CH4) from their digestion of
food in a process referred to as enteric fermentation. This accounts for
one-third of the greenhouse gas emission from the agriculture sector. Manure
management composes another 14 percent of emissions, and other processes such
as liming, urea application, rice cultivation, and the burning of crop resides
additionally contribute to the emission of compounds such as CH4, CO2, or
nitrous oxide.[42]
The US is the leading producer of
beef and veal products, followed by Brazil.[43]
Brazil is also the largest exporter of beef.[44]
Since the 1960s, cattle numbers in the Amazon River Basin has increased from 5
million to over 75 million. About 15 percent of the Amazon forest has been
replaced and 80 percent of areas that have been deforested are now the home to
pastures for cattle grazing. Annual expansion of cattle in the area is
estimated to increase by 5 to 8 percent annually.[45]
A study conducted by NASA found
that 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide are absorbed from the
atmosphere.[46] Over
the past 40 years, the Brazilian Arc of Deforestation has experienced a
decrease in forest cover by over 24 percent.[47]
If these rates are to continue, not only will we lose several different animal,
plant, and insect to species to extinction and lose potential medical
developments that could spur from discoveries of plants and herbs in the
forest, but there will not be as many trees to help absorb carbon from the
atmosphere.
Some of those who choose to live
vegetarian lifestyles do so to minimize the demand for beef and other animal
products. While that philosopher may be enough for some to minimize the impact
of cattle farming in the US, Brazil, and other areas, many people would be
unwilling to sacrifice the tasty, high-nutrition, and vitamin/mineral-packed
meats from their diets.
There are several unique angles by
which the issue if lowering the demand for cattle (and thus the demand for
deforestation for cattle grazing). For example, there have been companies who
have begun experimenting with and developing cultured meat. Cultured meat is
developed by in vitro cultivation of animal cells rather than the killing of an
animal. In a study conducted at Oxford University and Amsterdam University,
lab-grown tissue would produce up to 96 percent less greenhouse gas emissions
compared to conventional livestock in addition to requiring less energy.[48]
Increasing demand for cultured meats would decrease demand for beef from
slaughtered animals, and thus decrease the amount of methane produced and
deforestation required for sustaining this industry.
Taking a pragmatic approach to
environmentalism does not imply that there is any one given option by which
climate change should be addressed; rather, policy measures that are being
contended must first undergo rigorous consideration and be compared to other
alternatives. The options that are to be chosen should be realistic in both
terms of cost-effectiveness and desired outcomes achieved. Taking emotions and
theoretical propositions out of the discussion allows for an objective analysis
of the given issue. With such objectivity, it is clear that it is in the best
short- and long-term interests of the United States along with the rest of the
world to address climate change before it becomes even more costly to do so, or
the ramifications of the hanging climate yield irreversible disastrous events.
Bibliography
A. Crimmins, et al. The Impacts of Climate Change
on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. 2016.
https://health2016.globalchange.gov/ (accessed November 24, 2019).
Anil Markandya, Paul Wilkinson. "Electricity
Generation and Health." Energy and Health (The Lancet) 370, no.
9591 (September 2007): 979-990.
Beef2Live. U.S. Beef Imports: Ranking Of
Countries. November 13, 2019.
https://beef2live.com/story-beef-imports-ranking-countries-0-116237 (accessed
November 25, 2019).
Brewster, Kyle. "Protectionist Trade Policies -
The Wrong Move for America." Policy Brief, Maryville, 2018.
Bullock, Marcus M. JBLE brings a positive
economic impact to the community. May 22, 2019.
https://www.jble.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1854791/jble-brings-a-positive-economic-impact-to-the-community/
(accessed November 24, 2019).
Clemens, Bruce. "Economic incentives and small
firms: Does it pay to be green?" Journal of Business Research 59,
no. 4 (April 2006): 492-500.
Dahlman, Rebecca Lindsey & LuAnn. Climate
Change: Global Temperature. September 19, 2019.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
(accessed November 25, 2019).
Department of Defense. "Report on Effects of a
Changing Climate to the Department of Defense." Department of Defense,
2019.
Environmental Defense Fund. How Cap and Trade
Works. 2019. https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works
(accessed November 24, 2019).
EPA. "Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Data." 2019.
EPA. Sources
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Land Use/Forestry. Environmental Protection
Agency. September 13, 2019.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#land-use-and-forestry
(accessed November 25, 2019).
Harvey, Fiona. "Artificial Meat Could Slice
Emissions, Say Scientists." June 20, 2011.
IASS Potsdam. Air Pollution and Climate Change.
2019.
https://www.iass-potsdam.de/en/output/dossiers/air-pollution-and-climate-change
(accessed November 24, 2019).
International Energy Agency. "Global Energy
& CO2 Status Report." 2018, 1-15.
IRENA. Costs. International Renewable Energy
Agency. 2019. https://www.irena.org/costs (accessed November 25, 2019).
J. B. Veiga, J.F. Tourrand, R. Poccard-Chapuis and
M.G. Piketty. "Cattle Ranching in the Amazon Rainforest." US Food
and Agriculture Organization, 2003.
Lawerence H. Goulder, Andrew R. Schein.
"Carbons Taxes Versus Cap and Trade: A Critical Review." Climate
Change Economics 4, no. 3 (November 2013).
M.D. Velasco Gomez, et al. "A Long-Term Perspective
on Deforestation Rates in the Brazilian Amazon." 36th International
Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, Berlin, 2015.
Merriam Webster Dictionary. Pragmatic. 2019.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pragmatic (accessed November 24,
2019).
Mueller, Mike. Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable
Energy Source and It's Not Even Close. February 27, 2018.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close
(accessed November 24, 2019).
Mustafa Zia, James Hansen, Kim Hjort, and Constanza
Valdes. Brazil Once Again Becomes the World’s Largest Beef Exporter.
USDA. July 1, 2019.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/brazil-once-again-becomes-the-world-s-largest-beef-exporter/
(accessed November 25, 2019).
NASA. NASA Finds Good News on Forests and Carbon
Dioxide. December 29, 2014.
https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/nasa-finds-good-news-on-forests-and-carbon-dioxide
(accessed November 25, 2019).
NASA. Overview: Weather, Global Warming and
Climate Change. Edited by Randal Jackson. November 19, 2019.
https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming-vs-climate-change/
(accessed November 24, 2019).
National Climate Assessment. Extreme Weather.
2014.
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather
(accessed November 24, 2019).
National Parks Service. Ozone Effects on Plants.
April 11, 2019. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/nature-ozone.htm (accessed
November 24, 2019).
Pablo Ralon, et al. " Electricity Storage and Renewables: Costs and Markets to
2030." Executive Summary, International Renewable Energy Agency, 2017,
1-20.
Pew Research. The Politics of Climate.
October 4, 2016.
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-opinion-on-renewables-and-other-energy-sources/
(accessed November 24, 2019).
Rebecca Lindsey, Michon Scott. "After 2000-era
plateau, global methane levels hitting new highs." NOAA, 2017.
Sabine, George H. "The Pragmatic Approach to
Politics." The American Poltical Science Review (American
Poltical Science Association) 24, no. 4 (November 1930): 865-885.
Schrope, Mark. "Nuclear Power Prevents More
Deaths Than It Causes." Environmental Science & Technlogy,
April 2013: 2. https://newera.enschool.org/ourpages/auto/2019/1/28/44109153/Nuclear%20Power%20Prevents%20More%20Deaths%20Article%204-9-19.pdf
Shahbandeh, M. US Beef Market - Statistics &
Facts. March 15, 2018. https://www.statista.com/topics/1447/beef-market/
(accessed November 25, 2019).
The Constitution. "The Constitution of the
United States: A Transcription." National Archives. 1787.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript (accessed
November 24, 2019).
The Nuclear Energy Institute. Climate. 2019.
https://www.nei.org/advantages/climate (accessed November 24, 2019).
UCAR Center for Science Education. Ozone in the
Troposphere. 2014. https://scied.ucar.edu/ozone-troposphere (accessed
November 24, 2019).
UCS. "Each Country's Share of CO2
Emissions." 2019. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions
(accessed November 25, 2019).
UCS. "The US Military on the Front Lines of
Rising Seas." Executive Summary, UCSUSA, 2016, 119.
USNRC. Capacity factor (net). United States
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. March 21, 2019.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/capacity-factor-net.html
(accessed November 24, 2019).
World Health Organization. Health benefits far
outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals. December 5, 2018.
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/05-12-2018-health-benefits-far-outweigh-the-costs-of-meeting-climate-change-goals
(accessed November 24, 2019).
[1] Merriam
Webster Dictionary. Pragmatic. 2019. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pragmatic
(2019).
[2] Sabine,
George H. "The Pragmatic Approach to Politics." The American Political
Science Review (American Political Science Association) 24, no. 4 (November
1930): 865-885.
[3] The
Constitution. "The Constitution of the United States: A
Transcription." National Archives. (1787).
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
[4] NASA.
“Overview: Weather, Global Warming and Climate Change”. Edited by Randal
Jackson. (November 19, 2019).
https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming-vs-climate-change/
[5] Department
of Defense. "Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of
Defense." (2019).
[6] Dahlman,
Rebecca Lindsey & LuAnn. “Climate Change: Global Temperature”. (September
19, 2019).
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
[7] Department
of Defense. "Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of
Defense." (2019).
[8] Bullock,
Marcus M. “JBLE brings a positive economic impact to the community”. (May 22,
2019). https://www.jble.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1854791/jble-brings-a-positive-economic-impact-to-the-community/
[9] UCS.
"The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas". Executive
Summary. UCSUSA. (2016). 119.
[10] UCS.
"The US Military on the Front Lines of Rising Seas". (2016)
[11] National
Climate Assessment. “Extreme Weather”. (2014).
https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/report-findings/extreme-weather
[12] A.
Crimmins, et al. “The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United
States: A Scientific Assessment”. (2016). https://health2016.globalchange.gov/
[13] National
Climate Assessment. “Extreme Weather”. (2014).
[14] Department
of Defense. "Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the Department of
Defense." (2019).
[15] World
Health Organization. Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate
change goals. (December 5, 2018).
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/05-12-2018-health-benefits-far-outweigh-the-costs-of-meeting-climate-change-goals
[16] UCS.
"Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions." (2019).
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions.
[17] IASS
Potsdam. “Air Pollution and Climate Change”. (2019).
https://www.iass-potsdam.de/en/output/dossiers/air-pollution-and-climate-change.
[18] Rebecca
Lindsey, Michon Scott. "After 2000-era plateau, global methane levels
hitting new highs." NOAA. (2017). https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/after-2000-era-plateau-global-methane-levels-hitting-new-highs.
[19] IASS
Potsdam. “Air Pollution and Climate Change”. (2019).
[20] UCAR
Center for Science Education. “Ozone in the Troposphere”. (2014).
https://scied.ucar.edu/ozone-troposphere.
[21] National
Parks Service. “Ozone Effects on Plants”. (April 11, 2019). https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/nature-ozone.htm.
[22] IASS
Potsdam. “Air Pollution and Climate Change”. (2019).
[23] A.
Crimmins, et al. “The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United
States: A Scientific Assessment”. (2016).
[24] IASS
Potsdam. “Air Pollution and Climate Change”. (2019).
[25] The
Nuclear Energy Institute. “Climate”. (2019).
https://www.nei.org/advantages/climate
[26] Pew
Research. “The Politics of Climate”. (October 4, 2016). https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-opinion-on-renewables-and-other-energy-sources/
[27] Schrope,
Mark. "Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes."
Environmental Science & Technology, (April 2013). 2.
[28] Anil
Markandya, Paul Wilkinson. "Electricity Generation and Health."
Energy and Health (The Lancet) 370, no. 9591 (September 2007): 979-990.
[29] Mueller,
Mike. “Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It’s Not Even Close”.
(February 27, 2018). https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close.
[30] USNRC.
“Capacity factor (net)”. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (March
21, 2019). https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/capacity-factor-net.html.
[31]
Mueller. “Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It’s Not Even
Close”. (2018)
[32] International
Energy Agency. "Global Energy & CO2 Status Report." (2018). 1-15.
[33] International
Energy Agency. "Global Energy & CO2 Status Report." (2018).
[34] Clemens,
Bruce. "Economic incentives and small firms: Does it pay to be
green?" Journal of Business Research 59, no. 4 (April 2006): 492-500.
[35] Brewster,
Kyle. "Protectionist Trade Policies - The Wrong Move for America."
Policy Brief. Maryville. (2018).
[36] IRENA.
Costs. “International Renewable Energy Agency”. (2019).
https://www.irena.org/costs
[37] Pablo
Ralon, et al. "Electricity Storage and Renewables: Costs and Markets to
2030." Executive Summary, International Renewable Energy Agency. (2017). 1-20.
[38] Environmental
Defense Fund. “How Cap and Trade Works”. (2019). https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works.
[39] Lawrence
H. Goulder, Andrew R. Schein. "Carbons Taxes Versus Cap and Trade: A
Critical Review." Climate Change Economics 4, no. 3 (November 2013).
[40]
Goulder, Schein. “Carbons Taxes Versus Cap and Trade”. (2013).
[41] EPA.
"Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data." (2019).
[42] EPA. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Land
Use/Forestry. Environmental Protection Agency. (September 13, 2019).
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#land-use-and-forestry
[43] Shahbandeh,
M. “US Beef Market - Statistics & Facts”. (March 15, 2018).
https://www.statista.com/topics/1447/beef-market/
[44] Mustafa
Zia, James Hansen, Kim Hjort, and Constanza Valdes. “Brazil Once Again Becomes
the World’s Largest Beef Exporter”. USDA. (July 1, 2019).
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/brazil-once-again-becomes-the-world-s-largest-beef-exporter/
[45] J.
B. Veiga, J.F. Tourrand, R. Poccard-Chapuis and M.G. Piketty. "Cattle
Ranching in the Amazon Rainforest." US Food and Agriculture Organization.
(2003).
[46] NASA.
“NASA Finds Good News on Forests and Carbon Dioxide”. (December 29, 2014).
https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/nasa-finds-good-news-on-forests-and-carbon-dioxide
[47] M.D.
Velasco Gomez, et al. "A Long-Term Perspective on Deforestation Rates in
the Brazilian Amazon." 36th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of
Environment, Berlin, (2015).
[48] Harvey,
Fiona. "Artificial Meat Could Slice Emissions, Say Scientists." June
20, 2011.