M7 (Levenson)

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.

Learning Objectives:

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.

 

Resources

https://climatechange.procon.org/

2 Comments for “M7 (Levenson)”

sjwade

says:

I agree with you that the majority of the cost of protecting the environment should come from those who are responsible. Companies are a big factor that causes pollution, which is more than a single person causing pollution. Additionally, I believe that most individuals on this planet take part in some way or another in pollution, so humans should step up to take action to recycle, use more renewable energy, or take part in some way or form to prevent further pollution and to restore Earth’s natural habitat. I also agree we should focus on taking care of the Earth right now for all humans, with the specific goal of creating a better world for future generations. Future generations deserve a world that is better than the condition it is in today.

msmaglaya

says:

Hi Levenson
I very much agree with you that our nature has value, probably more than us. The only reason why we are thriving is because of all the human activities that we have been doing for many many years. Our greediness as human beings is finally paying the toll. Our planet is drastically heating up due to all the carbon that we are burning through using oil. Although we need all these resources to produce energy for us to keep building and producing things, I feel like we should at least let nature recover from all the activities that we’ve been doing such as over logging, overfishing, and neglecting waste materials being produced by factories and other facilities. Our responsibilities as inhabitants of this planet should be balanced and refrain from overusing our resources. Businesses similar to the paper mill company mentioned from the reading should stop overlooking at their actions and start thinking about the negative effects of the waste they are producing. Overall, your blog was very intricate and was interesting to see other people who have similar opinions and ideas about how important our planet is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.