Have you ever wondered why going green has not completely resolved the issue of climate change? On the one hand, going green does help the environment around us, it reduces the amount of pollution in the air, which allows all living things to thrive. On the other hand, going green also cannot assist the environment unless it is done in large amounts. Although those with more wealth are causing more damage to the environment, innovation in higher numbers could aid in the battle against climate change.
In the essay, “Wealthier People Produce More Carbon Pollution — Even the ‘Green’ Ones” by David Roberts, he introduces the idea that the wealthier a person is, the larger their ecological footprint is. An ecological footprint is the amount of nature it takes to support the economy. Meaning that the larger a person’s ecological footprint is, the more land, natural resources, etc. that person is using the more space that person is taking up. Roberts argues this by using ethos; he persuades people that going green for the environment is a wonderful idea, but it does not help climate change: “Please, go forth and be green. You will be a better person for it…Global warming is not only of a different scale than past environmental problems; it is of a different kind” (134). He then goes on to say that even if every American were to change their lifestyle it would not be enough to solve climate change. To make a substantial dent, the world’s wealthiest would dramatically have to change their lifestyle. However, this type of innovation would take years to evolve.
Barack Obama introduces in his essay, “The Irreversible Momentum of Clean Energy” four ideas as to why he believes the trend toward clean energy is beyond repair. His first point begins with economic growth; by mitigating greenhouse gases it will not conflict with economic growth, but it will improve efficiency, productivity and innovation. Another point made is through private sector emission reductions, Obama uses logos to show that companies that make investments using less gas and following new building codes, will save money and create jobs: “This kind of corporate decision-making can save money, but it also has the potential to create jobs that pay well” (127). The innovation used does involve budget cutting, but it allows for jobs with higher pay as well; which improves innovation in the private sector emission reductions.
In his essay, “Pleistocene Park” Ross Anderson introduces Nikita Zimov, a scientist who wants to improve Pleistocene Park. His plans include spreading Pleistocene Park across Arctic Siberia and into North America, which would help to slow down the thawing of the Arctic permafrost. Zimov also wants to bring back the extinct woolly mammoth; these mammals would help the process of spreading grasslands by knocking down trees to create more grasslands. According to Andersen, “A version of this behavior is on display today in South Africa’s Kruger National Park…As the population has recovered, the park’s woodlands have thinned, just as they did, millions of years ago, when elephants helped engineer the African savannas that made humans into humans” (15). This appeals to pathos, many scientists in the field have a passion of bringing extinct animals back to life, it is not just a dream.
While cloning woolly mammoths is a considerable idea, Roberts would disagree with this action since it does take more of an ecological footprint. Climate change has to change over “long timescales” just because woolly mammoths would be around does not mean that the effects of climate change would decrease immediately (Roberts 134). While Obama discusses the change is in renewable energy resources; most American businesses are making the change to “wind and solar” power (128). Roberts would agree to this since renewable energy resources, but only to the degree that they are cost effective; creating new jobs would add more to everyone’s ecological footprint.
Pleistocene Park would assist the world in slowing down the Arctic Permafrost. While renewable energy resources have helped America’s business save money effectively, creating new opportunities and jobs. Innovation through money and energy saving techniques are currently improving the environment. Upper-class citizens are causing the most damage to the environment, but because of innovation the battle against climate change will be easier.
Works Cited
Anderson, Ross. “Pleistocene Park.” The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2018, Sam Kean, Houghton Mifflin 2018, 1-22.
Obama, Barack. “The Irreversible Momentum of Clean Energy.” The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2018, Sam Kean, Houghton Mifflin 2018, 124-132.
Roberts. David. “Wealthier People Produce More Carbon Pollution — Even the ‘Green’ Ones.” The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2018, Sam Kean, Houghton Mifflin 2018, 133-137.