I agree, it is factual that we are facing severe environmental challenges. Even if the skeptics do not believe in the global warming, it is undeniable that the air and water pollution are caused by human activities. It is unhelpful to argue who is right, who gets more evidences or who eventually wins. If people just ignore the negative environmental impacts and do not implement any practical plans to deal with, our future generation will definitely suffer from
Climate change. Is it really a bad thing? With all the natural disasters that happened in the past decades, society has a firm, deeply rooted belief that the main culprit, the cause of all havoc, is none other than climate change. Thousands of organizations are fighting the war against climate change. They condemn heatwaves for causing water disruption, for melting glaciers, etc.
Comparative Analysis Naomi Klein’s and Collin’s may not have the same ideological terms and definitions to approach global warming; thus, they both share the idea to demonstrate the global warming change as a facing danger that we must eradicate. Collins with “Toxic Loopholes” emphasizes more on investigation and international negotiations in environmental law. Naomi focuses on recruiting people for “blockadia” activism sharing her activism through her journalist job. Naomi believes that we are “guests” on this planet capable of changing the royal society and the nations with renewable energy. Her work stands out because she demonstrates real-life stories together with an analysis in powerful, abrupt and memorable ways.
Coercion would be a powerful tool in controlling the population, the world may be saved, but the people would have not natural freedoms. We would have to agree as a majority on how to save the world with the best outcome for both the earth and the happiness of the people. In conclusion, The Lorax is an essential tool in understanding “The Tragedy of the Commons.” The Lorax depicts what Garrett Hardin wrote in his essay. There may not be a sure fire way of saving the world from ourselves, but if we are willing to act as a whole we could potentially save the world. Let 's
The answer to these questions lies in what we value and how we value. These are questions of ethics and morality. Some of the major underlying norms in climate change mitigation like intergenerational equity, shared but differentiated responsibility and polluter pays principle involves questions of ethics, morality and cooperation. To go a step further, we also need to question the validity of these norms and find out if they are sufficient to deal with climate change. We need science once again.
4). Sometimes I wish that global warming is just the world pulling a prank on us, but I feel its not doing that with us. Global warming is one of the greatest discussions this world has ever had. The U.S.A. is discussing why this is happening. In the unsigned article Global Warming the writer wrote, ” Crowded landfills, polluted water, and poor air quality are just a few of the environmental problems that affect both industrial and developing nations”(“Global” par.1).
There is a quote by President Barack Obama saying, “To truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy,” (“151 Inspiring Environmental Quotes”). He believes as many due that nonrenewable resources are harmful to all aspects of life. The energy we use now is harmful to our planet, to humans, and to animals. Scientists are taking steps to making the world a better place. They found sources that replenished naturally in a short amount of time and are less destructive in all aspects.
We look for social tags or cues and tend to pay much more attention to topics that “people like us” find important. This leads to a self-reinforcing mechanism: social groups can make a specific topic omnipresent – or completely taboo. WE IGNORE INFORMATION ALL THE TIME - FOLLOWING OUR PEERS' SOCIAL CUES The latter happened with climate change in large fractions of society. In the UK for instance, concern for climate change has gradually become strongly politicised and a preserve of the left. COIN did a lot of work in the last elections to shake off this social tag and develop a climate change storyaudible for voters of the centre right: we built on values like localism, energy security or the good life.
Currently, long period of drought, tropical storms, as well as rising sea levels are really and truly existing phenomena resulted from climate change (Global Climate Change: Evidence 2008). Evidently, human activities are the major causes, some people, however, still intentionally disregard that their patterns of behavior are leading to the irreversible climate issues, such as the American Republicans. In order for our Earth to restore to health, national governments as the most commanding organizations within countries have to come up with effective, efficient, and corresponding strategies to guide their citizens to adapt the existing climate change and more importantly to prevent from potential man-made disasters, respectively. Examining causes are definitely the first step to tackle problems, not to mention climate issues. To be more specific on climate topics, burning fossil fuel has been the radical basis of our economy since the Industrial Revolution, whereas a fatal impact is destroying our living planet: carbon dioxide is incredibly accumulating in the atmosphere due to the exploitation of fossil fuel.
So far, conventional solutions to global warming — new government policies and changes in individual behaviour — haven't delivered. And more radical options, such as pumping sulphur into the atmosphere to counteract warming, pose a great deal of risk. There may be another route to avoid the potentially disastrous effects of climate change: We can deliberately alter ourselves, three researchers suggest. Human engineering, as they call it, poses less danger than altering our planet through geo-engineering, and it could augment changes to personal behaviour or policies to mitigate climate change, they write in an article to be published in the journal Ethics, Policy and the Environment. "We are serious philosophers, but we might not be entirely