Overdramatic or Nonchalant: Debating Irreversible Environmental Damages

Overdramatic+or+Nonchalant%3A+Debating+Irreversible+Environmental+Damages

By: Bella Vargas and Kaitlyn Becker

Business needs to change 

Since the industrial revolution, the world has been struggling with how to deal with the climate change crisis while still improving economies. Recently, large corporations have been ignoring the irreversible effects they are having on the environment and that needs to change.

By placing influential businesses, such as the fossil fuel industry, over the well-being of the environment, we as a nation are speeding up the process of global warming.

With an increase in drilling, fracking and other methods of extracting fossil fuels and natural gasses, temperatures across the globe have been steadily increasing due to an excess amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.

According to NASA, “The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years.”

Humanity as a whole is putting more focus on how to make money quickly as opposed to the long-term effects of our actions on the environment.

According to NASA’s climate change page, a long-term increase in global temperatures will lead to loss of sea ice, sea levels rising and more intense heat waves resulting in loss of valuable ecosystems, such as rainforests, across the planet.

I believe people who are not concerned about the well-being of the environment should at least be concerned about the impacts of increasing temperatures on people across the globe. Even something that seems small, like rising sea levels, can demolish coastal cities, displacing thousands of residents.

Instead of completely pushing the value of business acquired from the fossil fuel industry aside, the world should transition to renewable energy sources like solar and wind power that will not negatively affect the environment while still benefitting the national and global economies.

A transition as large as moving from a source of energy we are so heavily reliant on to a completely new energy source will take time and effort from everyone. In the meantime, you can call or write to your state representative and express your opinions. Organizations such as Greenpeace USA, fight to change policies to save our environment and will take monthly donations to help their cause. Even something as small as switching to more ethical and environmentally friendly brands will make an impact.

 

Environment can handle it

Everytime I drive past a “Save the Earth” bumper sticker, or hear about a new celebrity advocating for the environment, I can’t help but think I’m supposed to feel guilty for not placing the environment above all else. However, I don’t feel guilty.

Most will argue that large corporations using natural resources are causing irreversible changes at a magnitude too high, and are interfering with the natural state of Earth. The environmentalist movement today fights to keep the Earth in an unchanging environment, making sure people leave no trace whatsoever. What they fail to understand is that while it is important to be mindful of the environment, a changing climate and other so called “environmental crises” are not the end of the world, literally.

In fact, it seems that a so called “man-made crisis” is actually just a biological process that may actually benefit people and the state of the Earth. One major argument against the very economically beneficial use of fossil fuels is that the carbon dioxide being released is causing global warming.

However, there is no evidence to prove an increase in carbon dioxide in the air even causes an increase in temperature. In fact, an increase in carbon dioxide usually means that the Earth’s temperature has already begun the natural process of a brief heating period, which is a process that has occurred since the Earth began. It’s always been followed by a cooling period.  So global warming cannot be labelled as man-made, simply because an increase of carbon dioxide is an effect of increasing temperature, not a cause.

So, instead of feeling angry towards businesses for causing the end of life as we know it, I think it would be more beneficial for people to look more closely, and less dramatically about the often minimal, relatively harmless impacts on the environment.

Not to mention, what’s so bad about a slight increase of carbon dioxide in the air? I would definitely appreciate warmer winters, and, according to satellite data collected by Boston University, a 14 percent increase in the productivity of ecosystems. For all the farmers around here, and really for anyone who eats food, that means that a longer growing season and more vegetation is all due to a small increase in carbon dioxide levels and warmer temperatures.

In a study done by the CSIRO Land and Water Department in Australia, their satellite data showed increased vegetation in areas of Africa that had trouble in cooler climates growing plants and crops to sustain themselves. Not only has this reduced famines in many areas, but it has also helped entire ecosystems due to the greater amount of rainfall. No one could argue against increasing the amount of food available to people in famine-stricken areas.

It’s definitely scary hearing Florida will soon be underwater because big, heartless corporations are causing irreversible damage. A few simple web searches will show, however, that even if global warming exists, the idea that life on Earth would change drastically, in any near future, is not true. I would encourage everyone to remain conscientious of the environment, and continue to do things like recycling and not being wasteful of food and resources. I would also encourage everyone to unplug their smart cars, and stop the unnecessary dramatics concerning unproven environmental issues.