Naomi Klein's novel, This Changes Everything highlights the most imperative actions that need to be taken towards climate change. Klein discusses that as a society we overlook the causes and the changes that need to happen to the systems that are making the crisis inevitable. She encourages formulating a mass movement for climate change that supports changes in the economic system. Klein’s main argument is that, most people think that climate change is a threat, “we have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism” which is the “reigning ideology” of our time (p.18). The purpose of the book is that Klein is supplying society with a challenge: are we on the right path, are we doing the right things for ourselves and for the future, or is this the best we can be?
Nancy Lord’s Early Warming and Elizabeth Kolbert’s “The Darkening Sea” both discuss how global warming is affecting the world. Lord and Kolbert talk about the negative result of climate change and try to raise awareness to global warming. Both Lord’s Early Warming and Kolbert’s “The Darkening Sea” use many different kinds of rhetorical strategies throughout their text. In Lord’s Early Warming, Lords relates to the community about climate change and tells stories about how global warming has affected many people around us. In Kolbert’s “The Darkening Sea”, Kolbert explains how scientist view global warming and uses scientific evidence to show the effect of global warming.
1. Describe the most important conceptual foundations of weak sustainability. The position of weak sustainability holds that resource depletion and environmental degradation will not constrain human consumption possibilities in the future. What is the basis for this optimism? Weak sustainability is defined as the sustainability of a society that can utilize manufactured and human capital instead of natural capital.
There are bountiful acts of cruel abuse that cannot be exposed and combated, but there could be hope within Michael’s case. The editor believes, “A case like Michael Fay’s is important because it provides a chance to challenge an inhumane practice that out to not exist anywhere” (TNYT 179). Michael Fay’s case can influence a propagation to end the savage punishment of caning. Traditions can be modified; change is how we make the world a better place. As the editorial states, “At times like this, Americans need to remember that this country was also founded by dissidents--by people who were misfits in their own society because they believed, among other things, that it was wrong to punish pilferage with hanging or crimes of any sort with torture” (TNYT 179).
In the introduction of Michael Pollan’s Why Bother?, he addresses the title’s question , what he calls the “big question” that people concerned with the fate of the planet must face themselves. Through exploration of global warming and environmental crisis, Pollan’s desire is that his readers gain a deeper understanding to what “really is the big question facing us as individuals hoping to do something about climate change.” (Pollan 312) In expressing his goal of writing Why Bother?, Pollan greatly relies on ethos in the introductory to strengthen his argument. By asserting the different aspects, both scientific and personal, of global warming that he has considered and researched. Pollan effectively establishes credibility and authority as
Although, agreements made by people in the original position are both historical and hypothetical, the Theory of Justice can act as a guide in a society that pursues equality, whereby inequality is only acceptable if it is to the benefit of the underprivileged. Principles of the Theory of Justice Rawls Theory of Justice is guided by two primary guiding principles that are derived from the very workings of the theory including (Sen, 2006). The First Principle of
In an era where many unfortunate events; such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, economic recession, massive immigration across regions, and civil war in many countries, are occurring, it is crucial that we find a way to stop or prevent further damages. It is inarguable that many of those unfortunate events are the results of our own actions. Therefore, it may be said that it is our duty (and probably karma) to find a way to co-exist not just with the world, but also among ourselves as individuals, communities, and states. And sustainable development might be just an answer for that. The term ‘sustainable development’ for many people may be understood as related to environmental matters only.
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
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.
In chapter three we discovered that Rawlsian fairness requires that we give up our surplus to provide what others lack. This impartial perspective can only be achieved, however, under what Rawls terms a ‘veil of ignorance’ experienced by an autonomous legislator or an impartial spectator, respectively. Actually, Rawls argues at great length why we should accept the difference principle, namely because no one knows behind the veil of ignorance if he might end up as the least well-off, giving him a reason to adopt a risk-avoiding strategy, i.e. implementing the difference principle. It is prima facie unfair, according to Rawls, to allow the least-well-off to starve to death simply because of their own bad luck, which merely appears to point to ‘formal impartiality’ as ‘formally concerning for all’.