In the final 2016 presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, climate change received a mere two seconds worth of airtime. Surprisingly, Clinton’s brief recognition of the issue represents a substantial improvement from the 2012 campaigns, an election in which climate change was never formally mentioned during a live, national debate (Zeller Jr. and Zelman). Based on this synopsis, one might conclude that neither politicians nor the general public is at all concerned with global warming; however, this deduction couldn’t be more fallacious. In fact, the majority of Americans “overwhelmingly believe” that global warming is a major issue, and that “carbon emissions should be scaled back” (Popovich et. al). The unfortunate reality …show more content…
The GHG mitigation commitment made possible by international collaboration between China, India, and Brazil improved fuel efficiency through new technologies that conserve natural resources. (Lomborg 365). The United States and Chinese governments have agreed to “transition towards green, low-carbon and climate-resilient economies both domestically and internationally” (The White House). In the last decade, global renewable energy investments have skyrocketed both in developed and developing countries (Harrington). Wind and solar energy now contribute nearly 10% of the world’s total energy supply and that percentage continues to grow as a greater effort is made to ensure the prosperity of future generations. Although there is still a long way to go, there is still hope for a better future global climate. In the future months to come, the United States has an important decision to make. The Paris Agreement (Article 4.11) states that “[a] Party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition” (Sutter). This clause essentially allows nations the opportunity to withdraw their pledge in order to pursue national interests, a statement which could result in devastating impacts for the global