Undeniably, climate change is among the most crucial issues of our time. According to major media and vast scientific reports, the effects of climate change are already present in society. These vagaries in climatic patterns have been linked to various calamities, including global warming, rising sea levels, prolonged droughts, severe storms, and contamination of freshwater sources. As the impacts of climate change continuously manifest worldwide, some quarters argue that climate change will inevitably destroy humanity. This notion has led to numerous pessimistic predictions, with a more significant portion of the public believing climate change is irreversible. Alternatively, others argue that although human activities trigger climate change, the impacts of climate change in the future are unforeseeable and can be mitigated through various mechanisms. In this light, this paper compares two articles to determine whether climate change is an existential threat and the possibilities for mitigation.

• Perin’s perspective on climate change

According to Perin, humans are the most prominent cause of environmental destruction and cannot address the effects of climate change. Observably, Perin takes this perspective due to several factors. Firstly, Perin points out that efforts to mitigate climate change have had dismal results. For instance, most environmental policies are challenging to implement because they are expensive and do not favour intensive commercial and industrial activities. In this situation, the political and organizational leaders steering environmental conservation programs find themselves in a dilemma and are soon voted out (Perin, par. 2). As O’Brien concurs, government bureaucrats implementing environmental policies are seemingly unable to compete with entrepreneurs aiming to profit from new technologies (O’Brien, par. 11). In this sense, both writers agree that governments and environmental organizations have failed in mitigating climate change.

Secondly, Perin pointed out that despite the rampant environmental destruction and climate change, there are continuous, increasing trends in production and consumption. As a former landfill owner and an environmentalist, Perin noted that every form of consumption negatively impacts the environment (Perin, par. 3). According to Perin, climate change stems from the increasing global population and consumption. Perin observed that most commercial advertisements on various media promote consumption by enticing clients to purchase more products. Except for insurance and drug companies, all other corporations focus on maximizing sales (Perin, par. 5). technological advances like e-commerce have increased consumption. Much worse, leaders and environmental organizations have failed to educate the public on the importance of permanence in consumer goods (Perin, par. 6)). Due to this situation, people fail to see the link between increased consumption and climate change. Climate change remains an existential threat because humans lack the discipline to mitigate the crisis (Perin, par. 10).

Lastly, Perin observed that the leaders who implement environmental conservation programs fail miserably at their job. This situation is very frustrating, considering that such leaders are perceived as intelligent and receive hefty payments (Perin, par. 11). Besides the shortcomings mentioned, Perin discusses possible ways of mitigating climate change. These measures include implementing a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions and developing less expensive ways of combating climate change.

• O’Brien’s perspective on climate change

Contrary to Perin, O’Brien asserts that climate change is not an existential threat as most of the public perceives. In this sense, politicians, media, and ill-informed research have promoted increasing awareness and fear concerning the effects of climate change. This situation played out during a Democratic party meeting after Donald Trump had won the United States presidential elections in 2016. During the meeting, Zach, a junior party member, lashed out at senior members and blamed them for the defeat while at the same time expressing that his life expectancy would reduce dramatically due to climate change (O’Brien, par. 2). Notably, Zach’s opinion on the effects of climate change had primarily been influenced by his party campaigns and over-emphasis on the threat posed by climate change (O’Brien, par. 1).

While extensive studies predict climate change will ravage the world soon, several factors discredit such predictions. Recently, the federal government produced a comprehensive climate assessment report on climate change. As per the report, the United States will lose over $5 billion annually due to climate change. Again, Bernie Sanders pointed out that making the United States carbon-free would cost about $16 billion. Although these figures are tremendous, they are nothing compared to its gross domestic product. Climate change is not an existential threat as most people would think (O’Brien, par. 4).

Although the above figures demonstrate that climate change is manageable, other scientists might still insist that the costs of mitigating climate change will eventually increase. However, O’Brien differs from such projections based on three perspectives. Firstly, the models used to predict the effects of climate change are not entirely accurate and reliable. For instance, scholars assert that since the world is nonlinear and uncertain, the impacts of climate change in the future are unforeseeable since the methods are incomplete (O’Brien, par. 5).

Again, O’Brien argues that the predictions on the effects of climate change do not consider the ongoing market adjustments and their role in mitigating environmental destruction and climate change. Since consumers are increasingly aware of the present ecological situation, most are shifting to environmentally friendly practices, including eating healthy diets, using renewable energy, and recycling. In tandem with these changes, organizations adhere to environmental standards and make environmentally friendly products to maintain and attract clients (O’Brien, par. 7). Since companies change along with the business environment, the ongoing market adjustments will significantly reduce the global carbon footprint.

Lastly, O’Brien pointed out that the predictions do not consider the current and future technological innovations meant to reduce the effects of climate change. These developments will reduce carbon emissions through efficient energy utilization and other mechanisms (O’Brien, par. 8). It is erroneous to assume from this perspective that all technological advances will ultimately contribute to climate change. Considering these factors, O’Brien asserts that although climate change is a problem, it is not an existential threat since it can be managed using the most suitable approaches, like a carbon tax.

• Similarities and differences in the arguments

Although Piren and O’Brien hold divergent views on climate change, their perspectives link to specific dimensions. Firstly, both writers acknowledge that climate change is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed. In this case, they recognize the impending threat and the need to enact unpopular but necessary measures to curb environmental destruction and mitigate climate change. This similarity emerges because both writers propose carbon tax as a practical approach to reducing carbon emissions. Again, both writers agree that leaders and existing policies have failed to address climate change. In this case, both Piren and O’Brien assert that in most cases, government officials and environmental organizations are powerless against corporations aiming to increase production and maximize profits at the expense of the environment.

Despite the similarities above, O’Brien and Piren differ sharply on various issues. Firstly, O’Brien rejects Piren’s idea that climate change is an existential threat. In so doing, Obrien uses statistics and scientific methods to demonstrate that the effects of climate change may not be as severe as Piren predicts. On the other hand, O’Brien differs from Piren because he thinks humans can address the current climate change crisis. Unlike Piren, who asserts that humans are incapable of averting the effects of climate change, O’Brien postulates that humanity shall overcome climate change by implementing existing policies and developing more practical measures. Lastly, O’Brien calls politicians and others to use factual information when making predictions and educating the public on climate change (O’Brien, par. 12).

In my view, the two articles represent most issues besides climate change. Presently, most online publications are not as reliable as they may seem. Such publications often mislead readers because they lack scientific and factual foundations. Although Piren’s article pointed out a critical link between increased consumption and climate change, it did not make sense to say that people are the problem. Piren made the same mistakes noted by O’Brien by asserting that humans are helpless against climate change. As an intellectual, O’Brien presented facts about climate change from credible research and observations. From this perspective, people should rely on reliable sources to avoid misinterpretation caused by the massive information overflow.

Works Cited

O’Brien, Anthony. “Your View By Leigh Professor: ‘Climate Change Is Not Going To Kill Us'”. The Morning Call, https://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-opi-climate-change-existential-threat-20191019-kdluxxt45vfdhkfavdppz2yjaa-story.html.

Perin, Nolan. “Your View By A Former Landfill Owner: We Need To Reduce Consumption To Slow Climate Change”. The Morning Call, https://www.mcall.com/opinion/mc-opi-consumerism-climate-change-perin-20200222-kdbukv3lcrhrhokxgo74twppay-story.html.