M7 – Liam Cassell

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

An article written  by  Matt Ridley and published by The Spector has some different  ideas on global warming then what was presented  in the book [1]. In “Why climate change is good for the world’ Matt Ridley argues why climate is  a good thing. His main arguments are as follows:  fewer winter deaths, lower energy costs, better agricultural yields, probably fewer droughts, and maybe richer biodiversity. The crux of most of his arguments is that since  carbon monoxide help plants grown the rising CO2 levels will provide better condition to grow plants. This in return will help bring down the cost in money and energy to produce our food which would be a huge benefit. There were more ideas presented in this article and it is an interesting read even if I don’t  agree with all of them.    


The traditional business attitudes toward the environment that have encouraged environmental degradation and resource depletion.  

I would argue that  traditional business attitudes  do not encourage  environmental  degradation  but rather does not reward  environmental  conservation. Meaning companies  can get more money from being less eco-friendly, but given the chance to gain or save money they would be more eco-friendly. This can be seen in investments in energy efficient  technologies. As well as  companies  changing their  regulations to obtain tax breaks and other  government subsidies. This why we should encourage  funding for  research and government programs that are involved in these  entities.      


Does nature have value in itself?  

Nature does have a price since you can pay money to obtain some nature. This can either be in the form of buying land or spending money on a trip to Alaska to get the experience the wild. Due to this yes nature does have value.    


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.  

Everyone  is  responsible for the environment. From boy scouts I learned I should leave nature as I found it and only take pictures. I fully believe this think that everyone should be held accountable. Therefore, everyone should be responsible for the cost because we have all added to the problem in one way or another.    

[1] Ridley, Mike. “Do the Benefits of Climate Change Outweigh the Costs?’                        RealClearScience,www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/06/19/do_the_benefits_of_climate_change_outweigh_the_costs.html.  


2 Comments for “M7 – Liam Cassell”



I agree that if businesses could find a way to save money while also being environmentally friendly, they would do so. I don’t think that there are many businesses out there that want to see the world burn. However, I do think that there are many of them that are ignorant about finding a solution. Rather than paying for the cost of research that may save them money later on and be beneficial towards the environment, they might just want to keep with what’s been working for them this entire time.

I don’t think that nature as a whole has a fiscal value, I think it has a sensational value. Land and animals both have prices of obtainment, but nature itself shouldn’t. Nature has a sensational value because of the smells, sounds, and emotions that people feel while they’re in it. I don’t think that that is something that can or should be priced.



You picked a good climate change article. The science conclusions I have read are different than what Ridley suggests, and I do not agree with him either, but it is interesting to note the possibility for better agriculture, less winter deaths, and more biodiversity in places like Alaska.

I looked at a few sources to see if Alaska may be one of the areas to come out ahead in climate change, and this is what I found out:

Army Corp of engineers estimate between 3.6-6.1 billion dollars in damages from melting permafrost. Melting permafrost threatens roads, buildings, pipelines, and powerlines.

In many areas, rainfall has decreased, causing drier conditions and more wildfires.

Arctic biodiversity is in danger due to warming temperature and ocean acidification.

Seabird, fish, and marine mammal populations are on the decline.

No Author. No Date. Impact Zone – US Alaska. Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. https://www.markey.senate.gov/GlobalWarming/impactzones/alaska.html