As explained by Paul Gray, therein lies a technological paradox, that environmental deterioration is brought about by the industrial economy, but the progression of this industrial economy is and will be the road to successful environmental stewardship (Ausubel, 1989). This commentary examines both the pessimistic and optimistic points of technological development to conclude that neither point of view is entirely correct. It will show that technological innovation can be positive for both humans and the environment, but that a healthy dose of skepticism and precaution should be applied nonetheless. It is easy to see how technological innovation could spark the interest of the general public, fascinated as humans are by the prospect of “progression.” While appealing, many of the proposed solutions simply will not work or will worsen the situation, cause significantly more environmental damage and will not be available until the effects have contributed to long-term climate change (Fauset, 2010). Presently, the sum of our technological solutions are not enough to effectively curb the destruction of our environment.
We have developed economic instruments to try to satisfy the needs of the present generation efficiently, but these are not adequate for addressing equity issues with future generations. While the incorporation of externalities is intended to ensure that the benefits from a proposed action exceed the costs and that those who bear these costs be adequately compensated, in practice it operates from the perspective of the present generation. Environmental externalities are focused primarily on the costs that the present generation bears in polluted air, water, and soils from industrial development, in deforestation, and in other aspects of economic development. The discount rate is used to consider future costs and benefits, again from the perspective of the present generation. Reliance on the discount rate to consider
Environmentalist believed that the world was in jeopardy whereas “anti-environmentalist believed that no matter the environmental effect, social and economic health and progress were necessary for people and civilization to prosper” (Botkin & Keller, 2011, Ch. 1). Ultimately, this movement helped make the environment just as important as social and political issues. It has also help open many eyes in regard to finding ways of addressing, solving, and managing the environment and its issues. 2.
In this paper, I plan to analyze the underlying causes of climate change, and the consequences the earth faces. Not only that, but also, I plan to unravel the obscurities and speculations so that we can get to the truth of this environmental issue. Some might say that global warming is not an issue, but rather a natural occurrence. I have investigated driving forces of past climate change such as astronomical and earthly cycles that seem to support this. Furthermore, there are arguments that global warming is not even a threat as assumed by the majority.
Texts construct race as a natural category. Many representations generally describe the interests of dominant groups by defining other races as abnormal. Somewhere right now, there is someone being discriminated for the colour of their skin. Today’s society; you may say all you want about it being better than what is was like in the 1900’s to now but how much better is it really? Yes we have found many cures for severe illnesses and are now aware of Global Warming, which we are doing our best to prevent with renewable energy, but has anyone ever thought of the way people act throughout society?
c) Examples of these environmental events are oil spills and highly publicized threats of extinction of many species. d) Environment became a popular issue. 3) Early days of modern environmentalism a) Environmentalism was dominated by confrontations between those labeled environmentalist and those labeled anti-environmentalists. b) Environmentalists believed that the world was in peril. c) The antienvironmentalists believed that social and economic heath and progress were necessary.
Some people may believe that we are a part of nature only because humans and nature ‘can’t be separated’ because we fundamentally affect it in all situations, and that we are an important part of the Planet Earth’s eco-system. This may be believed because we as humans are one of the biggest and most intelligent species on this planet, and anything that we do will affect our nature for both plants and animals. Some people may believe that we are part of nature as we are humans because of our genes. However, others may disagree with this as people believe that we live apart from nature as we can’t be considered as part of nature as we destroy it, for example; Pollution. Some people may believe that we are classified as a product of Nurture because of our experiences and the environment we grow up in.
Should we support these environmentalists? Or could it be that the human race does not have a participating role in this climate change. Our climate is a combination of numerous weather conditions and meteorological factors. Next to these primary factors, many scientists believe that this model is also influenced by the humans. This human influence on the global temperature is linked with the “ozone depletion” and the “greenhouse effect”.
One possible approach is to regulate agricultural and industrial activity so that pollution and disruption to natural habitats is kept to a minimum. People argue that economic prosperity must be curtailed if it comes at the expense of the environment. However, businesses affected are unlikely to comply with such a strategy. It may even generate hostility to conservation efforts generally if the economic costs are perceived to be too high. An alternative approach would be to protect and expand nature reserves so that complete ecosystems can be kept intact.
At first we thought that this is a gift from Mother Earth, but we now realize its consequences. Pollution and wastes that are excreted into the environment can yield devastating aftermath that will affect not only Earth, but also humans. After centuries from now, these sources will also be depleted. So we should find recyclable alternatives that are more efficient and cleaner than the traditional sources. Energy sources on Earth is finite, nothing will last forever.