Science Behind Climate Change discussion question

[BjanesRamirez]

If we accept that global climate change is occurring and caused, at least in part, by human activity, then do we have an ethical responsibility to combat this phenomenon? What obligations, if any, do we have towards future generations?

What should the role of governments be in our response towards global climate change? If this is a global concern, should decisions be made at the level of individual nations or as part of a broader group such as the G20 or United Nations? How does a country’s right to ‘national sovereignty’ fit in to the discussion of an issue with global consequences such as this one?

Given the amount of scientific evidence thus far presented in favor of global climate change, why do so many people, and politicians in particular, refuse to accept and act upon it? What are the underlying causes behind climate change skepticism and denial?

Consider the similarities between this article and John Muir’s article, The American Forests. Are they written for similar audiences? Muir appeals largely to emotion (pathos) whereas Collins et al. rely chiefly on scientific evidence and reasoning (logos). Why do these authors rely on such different rhetorical strategies? Which do you consider more effective?

[Vincent Searfoss]

There is no doubt that human beings seem to have more of a net impact on Earth than any other species. From the way we use certain types of energy to the way that we dispose of waste and unwanted products of industry, our presence greatly affects other inhabitants of this planet, both directly and indirectly. Because of this, I believe that it should be a worldwide effort to limit our impact on the environment since an unhealthy environment would adversely affect us all unconditionally. It is a duty for us to do as much as we can to incorporate clean energy into our activity and be responsible about the decisions we make because passing an unhealthy world on to future generations is akin to forcing them into a conflict they did not start. Though some highly industrial nations may be more at fault than others for the current condition of the environment due to the scale of their activity, it must nonetheless be a global task to work to better the environment. Assigning blame or responsibility to certain nations and ignoring others would be counterproductive as a widespread amount of effort is necessary to combat our enormous influence on the environment. Therefore, we must all see it as our obligation to contribute to limiting negative effects on the earth and being more mindful of the consequences of our activity in every instance.

[ltusar]

Since we accept that global climate change is occurring, the human race definitely has an ethical responsibility to prevent this from happening. We live on this planet, and we can't just live here and destroy it, making it uninhabitable to live on. When I am at home, my mom always tells me how important it is to clean up after myself because no one wants to live in a dirty house; it makes for an uncomfortable, uninhabitable environment. Humans should follow this same protocol; we must respect "mother" earth and her home, or else we may not be able to live here anymore. Even though most people don't see the direct damage that they are causing to the earth when they disrespect it by littering or driving a car, there are so many negative consequences from these actions that damage the environment. If we don't respect the earth, then it may not be a good place for people to live in the future. We have an obligation to our future generations, and even just to our earth in general, to make smart decisions and be aware of the damage that we are inflicting daily on our earth. Our families in the future will be living on this earth, and most people wouldn't want to create an unhealthy environment for their family members to live in. People should care about the health of our earth because it could affect so many things in the future, for example where one lives, natural resources and oil, decisions the government makes, etc. In general, we need to make sure that our earth is able to provide a home for our future families, community, and country. This may not be possible if people don't think of the consequences of their actions.

[Shannon Snell]

I agree that we definitely have an ethical responsibility to help combat climate change if we are indeed contributing to its cause, which research has shown that we are. I have had a similar experience as one of the previous posters in that my parents made me clean up after my own mess, but they told me the reason I had to do it is because I was the one who made the mess. If we as humans get ourselves into trouble due to our own actions, then we must be the ones to fix the problem. Who else will? Obviously, it's hard to conceptualize the impact that our actions will make upon future generations, and even more difficult for everyone to care about these future generations, when we have enough stress and turmoil in our own lives. But think of how much more difficult a job that a President has if the previous president has left the economy in ruins, or started a war. This will be the same situation with our planet. If we cause problems with climate change and deplete our resources now, it may be even more difficult or even impossible to fix the problem later.

I think that the politicians who don't accept climate change reject it because of their own political agendas. Congressmen of both parties seem to be more concerned with bringing wealth back to their home district than taking the time to solve a very difficult and costly task. Also, constituents could be alarmed if their Congressman suddenly announces that there is a climate change problem. It's possible - though I'm not entirely sure - that politicians steer away from climate change discussions to avoid causing a stir.