Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.
Although I know others have read and sourced Procon.org as their resource for this question, I thought it was a very interesting source. This website identifies multiple arguments that reinforce the negative impacts climate change has had and the causes of them. For each “pro’ there is a “con’ of climate change that challenges these facts. While most of the scientific jargon is unidentifiable to me, the basics are simple. For most of the “cons’ research has been done explaining that humans really might not be the primary reason for the current climate changes. Some of the most interesting “cons’ on this website are those describing natural changes that have occurred for centuries just like those we have been seeing in the last 50 years that have been the source of fear regarding this issue.
1)What obligations do we have to future generations?
In my opinion, the section of chapter 7 had some ridiculous philosophical arguments and idea regarding obligations to future generations. Simply, I believe that we should take care of this earth now for all humans, including those currently living on this earth, and those who have yet to be born. There should be the utmost concern of those future generations and what we are doing present day to harm or help our planet; without regard for them, the human species will not survive.
2) Does nature have value in itself?
I believe that nature does indeed have value in itself. Within the chapter, plants and animals and how they are affected by us is mentioned. With this in mind, I do think that these parts of the ecosystems that make up our planet deserve respect and consideration. Whether or not humans think the Grand Canyon is special shouldn’t matter, because at some point, destroying it would mean destroying a functioning ecosystem. The human condition is the reason why questioning nature’s values exists. If humans would stop arguing the philosophical reasoning behind why we do or do not have the right to do whatever we please, and remember that the earth serves us, then our function in this world would be less consequential.
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 that the majority of the cost for protecting the environment should come from those responsible for causing the pollution. I understand the questions that arise from this thinking; the consumers have benefited and continue to buy products and use services from those that create pollution, so shouldn’t they be responsible to some degree? However, individuals may not be able to change as much as large corporations. Because of this, I think that it is mainly the responsibility of these large corporations to make the changes necessary to decrease pollution. Consequentially, consumers and the general population that would benefit would ultimately help pay due to increase costs or taxes, so they would end up paying as well.