BAGRANT-M7

• Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.

https://climatechange.procon.org/

For an alternative article, I found an opposing view of people who don’t think humans are to blame for climate change. This con side argues that human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are to small to substantially change the earth’s climate and that the planet is capable of absorbing these gases on its own. A 2012 Purdue University survey found that 47% of climatologists challenge the idea that humans are primarily responsible for climate change and instead believe that climate change is caused by an equal combination of humans and the environment, mostly by the environment, or that there’s not enough information to say (Procon,2019). The article then begins to argue that with the rise of hurricanes, and other extreme weather is a result of natural weather patterns, not human induced climate change. This con perspective in my opinion is just a cop out to put blame elsewhere. (hard to stay focused reading these things).

 

• Does nature have value in itself?

As human beings, we revolve around a monetary system. Wake up in the morning and work hard for something that has no real existence.. money… a made up piece of value to us humans as we work like crazy people to obtain it. Nature such as trees and plants are living things that we do not treat with the same respect. Because nature is so complex, we often overlook the benefits provided by different types of these natural species. As we continue to degrade our nature system, we are inhibiting the ability for them to provide us with essential services to help regulate climate. Nature has more value than we as humans will ever have. Forests, oceans, and even soil play massive roles in absorbing carbon emissions, which in turn helps defend from climate change.

• What obligations do we have for future generations?

In my opinion, obligations to future generations require taking accountability for our climate disaster. In   our business ethics book, it states that the public does a great job of overlooking slow-moving environmental disasters. For example, there was little to no attention when a coal-ash pond ruptured and disgorged nearly a billion gallons of toxic sludge across 300 acres of eastern Tennessee, destroying homes, killing fish, and threatening the local water supply (Shaw, 245). instead of continuing to overlook national crisis such as oil spills and harmful substance release, we need to push towards sustainable healthy electricity for our future generations.

• Lastly, as you read through Chapter 7, answer this question: Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.

I believe those responsible for causing the pollution as well as those who stand to benefit from the protection and restoration both should pay the cost for protecting the environment. Those responsible for causing the pollution should be held accountable for minimizing it at the same time. On the other hand, those who stand to benefit from the protection and restoration should also play an active roll in decreasing our emissions and green house gases. It is easier to point the finger at someone than it is to all join and become productive members of our planet in order to reduce climate change.