Imagine that you are a child living in a country like Bangladesh, Cambodia, or Brazil, struggling with poverty, health issues, malnutrition, and lack of resources. Think of how desperate you would feel for a safe place to live and an untroubled night of sleep. Picture you, a child in trouble, wondering why you are in trouble, and why others have a better living situation. How you would feel if you learned that those people in better living situations have been greedy. So greedy, in fact, that they were willing to sacrifice you for the better of their communities. It wouldn’t feel very good. In reality, global warming is affecting people in less developed countries more than it is affecting other countries.

This is what I had wished I was aware of six or so years ago, sitting on the couch while watching beautiful sounding and looking nature shows, warning us of climate change and the trouble it brings. As a six-to-eight year-old, global warming was not on my list of priorities, and, even as it was being explained in depth to me, tired and comfortable Little Joanna could not comprehend the extent of the issues that come with human development. As an older individual, I have done some research into the causes of climate change, and I was surprised to see how fossil fuel consumption was connected to so many other environmental issues. It’s like a web of concerns, one leading into another, all connecting back to fossil fuels’ impact on global warming. These kids and adults struggling in developing and poorer countries are not being thought of as much as they should when the US is considering maybe, just maybe, climate change could be a problem. They are also not being thought of when the US legislation says “oh, well,” and continues feeding into global warming. I regret not seeing this sooner, or at least not paying attention. The hard truth is that people all over the world are back in my seven-year-old shoes, although they may not be that young. People all over the world are trying to raise awareness, and people all over the world are not listening, nor are they taking action. This is why we need to take a stand.

The United States' dependence on fossil fuels is severely and negatively impacting our environment. Fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gasses, and oil are non-renewable energy sources that help us power engines and provide heat and electricity. Some countries, like the US, are especially dependent on them, which is a problem. Fossil fuels are formed naturally in the earth’s crust from long-dead plants and animals. In an article under the non-profit researching for society group NRDC, the author, Melissa Denchak, explains that “fossil fuels produce large quantities of carbon dioxide when burned. Carbon emissions trap heat in the atmosphere and lead to climate change. In the United States, the burning of fossil fuels, particularly for the power and transportation sectors, accounts for about three-quarters of our carbon emissions” (Denchak 1). Carbon, a chemical element released in these fumes being produced, warms the atmosphere, causing global warming. The United States is aware of this, and has started trying to make a difference, but our planet is still being hammered by the impacts. Even though we are taking steps to avoid this, we have become very dependent on these harmful energy sources, as described in an article under IEA, an agency that works to shift energy policies around the world for a brighter future. This article states that “our first estimates for 2022 show that subsidies for natural gas and electricity consumption more than doubled compared with 2021, while oil subsidies rose by around 85%” (IEA 1) after the Covid-19 pandemic. There are lots of other defining factors when it comes to climate change, but none are as great as fossil fuel usage and the carbon emission that comes with it. The United States legislation should continue to pass laws that regulate and reduce fossil fuel dependency because of the negative impacts fossil fuels have on air quality and climate change, specifically in lower economic communities, which have been affected more.

The need for a consistent and cheap energy source has led many around the world heavily dependent on fossil fuels for electricity, heating, and things of that nature. Humans have always been hungry for more power and money, and, as an ever-growing population, we need energy to accomplish and achieve. With the development of humankind, we have gained more resources, and swapped energy sources based on efficiency and availability. According to Samantha Gross from Brookings in her article “Why are Fossil Fuels so Hard to Quit,” “The first big energy transition was from wood and charcoal to coal, beginning in the iron industry in the early 1700s” (Gross 1), becoming the most popular industrial power source by the 1900s. Next came oil and gasoline. Oil was found to be extremely useful in transportation of vehicles, overtaking coal in the energy business. Fossil fuels also spiked because, according to Gross, “fossil fuels are more energy dense than other sources,” meaning more energy for less weight. Oil was especially easy to transport, because it was liquid, “averaging twice the energy content of coal, by weight” (Gross 1). Due to this efficiency, “since 1900, global population and economic activity have skyrocketed, along with fossil fuel consumption” (Gross 1) Gross says. Even today, we are still taking the easy route, sticking with fossil fuels because of their impact on our history, helping the world while poisoning it. They led to many achievements in history, even helping us in WWII. Because of human nature, everything is about power, and energy is a must to climb ranks and rise above all other life, and to be in control over it. Because of this, people have jumped from the next best thing to the next, constantly developing and improving. This is primarily a good thing, but our hunger and greed may be putting everything at risk.

Because of the fumes released into the air when fossil fuels are burned, our environment is steadily feeling the effects of climate change and other environment-related topics. Part of the reason why fossil fuels have such a large impact is because of the number of environmental factors it affects. According to ClientEarth, an environmental charity, in an article titled "Fossil Fuels and Climate Change: the facts,” “already the average global temperature has increased by 1C. Warming above 1.5°C risks further sea level rise, extreme weather, biodiversity loss and species extinction, as well as food scarcity, worsening health and poverty for millions of people worldwide” (ClientEarth 1). Almost all of the most well-known and influential earth-related issues are connected back to fossil fuels, and their carbon footprint. In Gross’s article, she quotes that “In 2019 worldwide, 15 extreme weather events, exacerbated by climate change, caused more than $1 billion in damage each. Four of these events each caused more than $10 billion in damage. The large-scale use of fossil fuels tops the list of factors contributing to climate change” (Gross 1). Even though we aren’t taking huge steps (or putting in very much money) to contribute to the dependency decline of fossil fuels, it is still costing us. This issue also contributes to social justice, because, even though we are the main contributors to climate change that are using fossil fuels, we aren’t the ones most heavily impacted. That role goes to poorer and still developing countries, as they don’t have the resources to support themselves the way the US does. This means that the US isn’t only hurting the environment and US citizens, it is challenging those that already need more support to advance and become strong. Because of all of the hurt and injustices that fossil fuel dependency brings, it would be wise for the US to take a stand against it, (hopefully politically), as they are the most responsible.

The risks and impacts that fossil fuels bring to our environment far outweigh the benefits of efficiency, availability, and transportation ease. Although fossil fuels have proven their extreme efficiency very helpful through human development, the harm they are doing  is not worth the effortlessness. Even if we had a safe energy source, it wouldn’t be wise to be so dependent on it, in case of a disaster, like these carbon emissions coming from fossil fuel fumes. Clearly, this hasn’t sunk in, because, according to Denchak, “even today, oil, coal, and gas serve about 80 percent of our energy needs” (Denchak 1). This dependency comes at a cost, as we are faced with land degradation, water pollution, emissions, air pollution, ocean acidification, job loss, loss of money, and more (Denchak 1).  For the amount of trouble they cause, fossil fuels haven’t been worth it. Fossil fuels have been helping power communities for over 150+ years, mainly because of their low prices, easy and safe transportation, and, of course, their efficiency. This is why they have remained so strong throughout the years. With human development comes more research and science, so why haven’t we done much to prevent the harming of our planet? We have been mass burning these old, carbon-filled resources, and it isn’t slowing down. According to ClientEarth, “a recent report by the UN Environment Programme shows that globally, we are on track to produce more than double the amount of coal, oil and gas by 2030 than we can burn if we are to limit global warming by 1.5C” (ClientEarth 1). These dangers aren’t worth the ease, and something needs to be done. What we need now are a good few choices of energy sources instead of one big, dominant, and dangerous one. We cannot continue like this, as it is affecting our daily and long-term lives.

The laws and plans already put in place to prevent fossil fuels effects have not been strong enough, as we are still steadily increasing climate change with our energy consumption. With the election of President Biden, who promised “to use the power [he has] as President to turn [the] words [‘climate change is an emergency’] into formal, official government actions through the appropriate proclamations, executive orders, and regulatory power that a President possesses” (Biden 1) and to “do everything in [his] power to clean our air and water, protect our people’s health, to win the clean energy future” (Biden 1), things seemed to be looking up. This cause would have prevented some of what we are feeling right now, though it wouldn’t completely wipe out the problem. It would have been difficult to achieve because of how dependent we are on fossil fuels, but it seemed strengthening to know that the issue was being taken into consideration. The prospect of a healthier planet and a strong leader able to address the problem seemed fresh. However, in spite of recent events, this hope has been diminished. According to Matthew Daly, an AP environmental reporter for PBS, whose work mainly focuses on climate change, “House Republicans on Thursday approved a sprawling energy package that seeks to undo virtually all of President Joe Biden’s agenda to address climate change” (Daly 1). Daly states that “the legislation would sharply increase domestic production of oil, natural gas and coal, and ease permitting restrictions that delay pipelines, refineries and other projects” (Daly 1), meaning that the impacts of fossil fuels would also be sharply increased. This will push back all of the work done (and minor laws passed) to protect our planet from the emissions that come with fossil fuel consumption. Although we have grown to use our energy efficiently, it’s not enough to protect us from the harm we are setting upon ourselves. Many people and officials know this, and still have not taken action. At the very least, in the case of our president, we have gotten a taste of what could be coming, but still hasn’t gotten very far. In the words of Biden, “climate change is an emergency” (Biden 1), and needs to be recognized.

The United States should take a leadership role in swapping fossil fuels for more renewable energy sources, because America is one of the most responsible for the burning of fossil fuels, although the most affected communities happen to be developing countries, which have less able resources. Developing countries, like India, South Africa, and Brazil, are more at risk of the negative impacts of climate change because of their lack of money and resources. In an article written by World Economic Forum’s Ruma Bhargava, who is a public health and social impact professional, and Magha Bhargava, from the Joint Commissioner Income Tax, Ministry of Finance, and Government of India, it is stated that “the World Bank reports that only one-tenth of the world's greenhouse gasses are emitted by 74 lowest income countries, but they will be most affected by the effects of climate change“ (Bhargava and Bhargava 1). Because of their lower economic status, these poorer countries do not have the resources to live with climate change. Wealthier and more at fault communities have put these developing countries in a difficult position, struggling to stand up for themselves, and unable to grow into their full potential. This is unjust because the true people to blame have not had to suffer as these already troubled communities have been. According to World Economic Forum, “vulnerable populations in these countries suffer damaging outcomes in terms of health, food and water, education and more” (Bhargava and Bhargava 1). These effects of climate change have severely impacted these developing countries. Some may argue that these damaged topics of education, health, and food and water are some of the most important to a developing country's success. Without them, the future of these communities is limited. This same article claims that “Globally, warming of 2-3°C might result in more than 150 million additional cases of malaria worldwide, or a 5% increase in the number of people at risk” (Bhargava and Bhargava 1). Malaria affects developing countries more harshly than others because of their lack of resources to prevent it and the death that follows. This means that malaria death rates will continue to rise with the increased carbon emissions that go with fossil fuel consumption. Not only does fossil fuel dependency affect the potential for improvement in developing countries, but it is affecting the lives of the people living in them. 

Overall, there are a few steps we can take to mitigate the effects that fossil fuels and climate change have set on our land. Although global warming has impacted everyone, especially less developed countries, there are ways to push back, and lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. This would mean pulling away from one, dominant energy source, and, instead, introducing America to a handful of semi-reliant energy sources. This would diminish fossil fuel consumption, and, while not correcting it completely, it would mean less of the horrible impacts that fossil fuel burning (and the carbon emissions that come with it) have planted in our communities. The results would be a cleaner environment, safer air quality, leading to healthier lives lived by people of the US, and even a better economic state. This comes from being partially dependent on many different sources, so we are not held down by the weight of negative impacts that some sources may have. Some of these sources may include solar power, wind power, or hydro power. First steps from here with this goal in mind would be to enforce the decrease in fossil fuel consumption legally. If the United States can control fossil fuel usage, it could be in a better place financially and environmentally. This is why the US legislation should place laws against burning fossil fuels, as they affect people in lower economic communities and/or developing countries.

Works Cited

Bhargava, Megha, and Ruma Bhargava. “The Climate Crisis Disproportionately Hits the Poor. How Can We Protect Them?” World Economic Forum, 13 Jan. 2023, www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/climate-crisis-poor-davos2023/#:~:text=Poor%20people%20will%20be%20impacted,frequent%20and%20severe%20natural%20disasters.

Daly, Matthew. “House Republicans Pass Energy Bill to Roll Back Regulation of Fossil Fuel Production.” PBS, 30 Mar. 2023, www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-republicans-pass-energy-bill-to-roll-back-regulation-of-fossil-fuel-production.

Denchak, Melissa. “Fossil Fuels: The Dirty Facts.” Be a Force for the Future, 1 June 2022, www.nrdc.org/stories/fossil-fuels-dirty-facts.

“Fossil Fuels and Climate Change: The Facts.” ClientEarth, 18 Feb. 2022, www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/#:~:text=When%20fossil%20fuels%20are%20burned,temperature%20has%20increased%20by%201C.

Gross, Samantha. “Why Are Fossil Fuels so Hard to Quit?” Brookings, 16 June 2021, www.brookings.edu/essay/why-are-fossil-fuels-so-hard-to-quit/.

Iea. “Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022 – Analysis.” IEA, Feb. 2023, www.iea.org/reports/fossil-fuels-consumption-subsidies-2022.

“Remarks by President Biden on Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” The White House, 20 July 2022, www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/07/20/remarks-by-president-biden-on-actions-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis/.