Carbon footprint at its worst, raging California fires, and living underwater by the 2070s are some familiar headlines raising our concern about climate change. The consequences of two important ideas — the irreversibility of global warming and the quantity of climate change already in the system owing to previous greenhouse emissions have been misconstrued by the media, politicians, and, to some degree, the general public. For decades, we have been certainly convinced that global warming will lead to our destruction. We’ve been informed that irreversible change is on its way. Even though what we’ve been shown is not entirely false, it’s a long way from the verity.
The message becomes more apparent after reading Anthony Patrick O’Brien’s article “Your View by Lehigh Professor: ‘Climate Change Isn’t Going to Kill Us,’” posted at 10:00 AM, on 19th of October 2019 for The Morning Call. O’Brien discusses figures to elucidate the problem. There is significance in this since many individuals, such as a Clinton youth volunteer called Zach, screamed at a high-ranking official, “You and your mates will die of senility, and I will perish from global warming.” Zach insists that the government officials would not completely comprehend the problem because they allowed it to occur, reducing his life span by forty years.”
When hundreds of scientific experts from thirteen federal departments produced the one thousand, five hundred research pages, it was determined that said modification would have no significant consequence. Even in the worst situation, implying an annual loss of five hundred and seven billion US dollars, we would still be okay. O’Brien gives us three grounds to doubt any long-term climate forecast, economic projection, or other projections. The first reason is the inescapable inaccuracy of the models utilized. The second is failing to account for market changes and, finally, accounting for technical progress.
First, any weather prediction is usually inaccurate, so any long-term forecast would also appear to be imprecise, given that the weather (and the world) is non-linear, uncontrollable, and constantly changing. Secondly, any climate change model overlooks the reality of business modifications already taking place. Hence, the economy will shift to accommodate the purchasing customer. For example, a rise in recyclable or ecologically friendly businesses might lead to a shift in businesses. They would adjust to serve the customer better, thereby altering the market.
Finally, few technical advances will be available soon, much alone determining a means to mitigate climate change. Therefore, the quickest and most efficient method would be to employ carbon taxation. A carbon tax would increase the cost of electricity, gasoline, and other carbon-related commodities. The national government can utilize tax money to provide refunds or reduce the income tax to assist low-income persons. Rather than the state, the economy would determine the ideal approach to reduce its carbon footprint. The general message made by O’Brien is that while climate change is unavoidable, there are solutions available.
Compared to Nolan Perin’s article, “Your View by a Former Landfill Owner: We Need to Reduce Consumption to Slow Climate Change,” posted at 11:00 AM on the second month of 2020, is less factual and more prejudiced. Greta Thunberg, a Swedish ecological activist, chastised the world’s policymakers. Perin didn’t understand the point because they couldn’t fix the situation. He maintains that the remedy to global warming is to quit making reckless decisions and enact crucial and costly regulations, but doing so might result in many individuals being thrown out of power, which is why no one does it.
Even if we strive to reduce consumption, it makes little difference because everything that comprise an item, like packaging, end up as waste regardless. Perin asserts that something is always sold regardless of where we travel globally. Overall, Perin expresses worry that international officials have done little to educate the people. He recommends adjusting rules that affect our lives, such as starting small to permanent credit. Perin thinks there are two main issues: too many inhabitants on the planet consuming many resources, which his peers appear to concur. Perin’s solution is to debate with an influential leader about what should be implemented rather than putting allegedly “intelligent” individuals in control of our environmental decisions. At the same time, they do little for the future and still receive huge salaries. Perin repeatedly faults materialism, indiscipline, and a lack of commitment and action. He also frequently declares that we are “headed for disaster when Mother Nature unleashes her ire and destroy around ninety percent of the inhabitants, and we will have to start all over again.”
After reading and analyzing both articles, I gained a new viewpoint. Perin and O’Brien discuss climate change, albeit in different ways and styles. As I already indicated, O’Brien employs figures and actual proof in his argument. Hence, it allows the audience to recognize that what he is stating is factual and, if feasible, can be explored. On the other hand, Perin does not express anything that might be proven once in his piece; instead, he explains what he thinks about the topic.
O’Brien was impartial, honest, and frank in his language and interviews. Perin utilized doublespeak, metaphorical language and was fully bais on several occasions. According to O’Brien, many experts from thirteen federal departments created 1,500-page research that indicates that by 2090, the American economy will bear $507 billion in yearly losses due to climate change. Although it appears large, it represents less than one per cent of the country’s total internal production in a year. Bernie Sanders has advocated investing sixteen trillion dollars to make the American economy carbon-free, more than thirty times the yearly harm that climate change is predicted to do. He not only employs this, but he also employs clever and credible interviews.” A similar logic was used in climate models by Edward Lorenz. He concluded that from the perspective of the incompleteness and inaccuracy of weather information, precise long-range projections would appear to be non-existent. Perin says, “The lions’ portion is urging for buys, which seems unprofessional for an author attempting to make a clear point. (Perin, para. 6).
O’Brien bases his arguments about global warming on concrete facts, while Perin writes from intuition. Hence, I firmly feel that people should be extra cautious while reading stories or the news. A lot of authors write away from reality, a profoundly misinterpreted fact.
Works Cited
O’Brien, Patrick Anthony, “Your View by Lehigh professor: ‘Climate change is not going to kill us.” The Morning Call, OCT 19, 2019 AT 10:00 AM, Perin, Nolan
“Your View by a former landfill owner: We need to reduce consumption to slow climate change,” The Morning Call, FEB 22, 2020 AT 11:00 AM,
