UN 1
--Alex Giardino
EWRT 2 DL
21 Mar 2016
Our Relationship with Nature and the Battle against Climate Change
Climate change is one among the most daunting threat to the environment today. It threatens
not only the degradation of our health and environment, but it also impends to destroy the global
economy and political security. In the United States, there are many steps taken to combat the
threat caused by climate change. However, in the book entitled This Changes Everything, the
author, Naomi Klein proposed that the attempt to work against climate change will surely fail,
unless people will unite into a common understanding that it is a “part of a much broader battle
of world views” (Klein 397). Further, while some people believe that there is no way to solve the
current problem of climate change, the author suggested otherwise. As Klein argues, changing
our views in terms of our relationship with nature will lead us to act collectively towards the
attainment of better economic and political system that can completely address the problem on
climate change.
The signing into law of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970 reflected the
will of the government in initiating legislative acts that welcomes regulatory measures for the
modern day environment. The noteworthy transformation of the U.S environmental law after the
signing of the NEPA was a result of a “remarkable burst of federal legislation adopted in
response to the perceived inadequacies of the common law” (Percival 160). The emergence of
many legislations is considered as a response to the shortfalls of the existing laws and the
disappointment over the decentralized manner of securing the environment. There was an
UN 2
overwhelming support towards these environmental rulings that engaged the federal agencies to
institute regulatory programs on a national level. These regulatory programs that were
implemented resulted in the reduction of many pollutants that for the most part, come from the
emissions of big industries. Saving the environment was considered by many political leaders of
the time to be more pressing than any other issues; however, Klein thought that these leaders
were wrong. Klein argued that a sufficient and broad conception of the environmental crisis
“neither trumps nor distracts from our most pressing political and economic causes: it
supercharges each one of them with existential urgency” (Klein 134). For instance, almost all
the environmental policies were comprised of either an explicit or implicit mechanism, that is, of
defining a certain goal and the manner by which to attain that goal. Accordingly, these
mechanisms “often are linked within the political process, because both the choice of a goal and
the mechanism for achieving that goal have important political ramifications”(Stavins 31). Klein
also noted that the example of industrialized countries in protecting the environment, such as
cutting on in the amount of industrial emissions, determine how other countries will follow
through in the future. This supports the argument that the fight for climate change should not be
considered as a politically unconnected movement.
Changing our perception of free trade and market fundamentalism will likewise result in a
changed perception of our relationship with nature. Free trade has always been viewed in a
positive light, that is, of being a source of economic growth. On the other, the concept of free
market fundamentalism promotes the idea that societal well-being is upheld when businesses
work mainly towards their self-interest, thus, generally directing their efforts to maximize profits
(Stiglitz 346). However, a closer examination of free trade leads one to conclude that it can be
destructive to the environment. Further, a closer look towards market fundamentalism exposes
UN 3
one to the idea that it reinforces “the aggressive export of US ‘free market’ principles, the
continuous tax cuts of the current administration, the deepening economic inequalities in the
USA ..” (Block 327). In contrast to the general belief that market fundamentalism can help in
the promotion of societal well-being, Klein argued it has in fact “become the greatest enemy to
planetary health (Klein 23). The author noted that in the past several decades, people held the
better part of the relationship as the physical requirements of the environment are carved to suit
the people’s need for continuous growth, development and profit. This exemplified how market
fundamentalism has implemented “policies that so successfully freed multinational corporations
from virtually all constraints” (Klein 18). That is, the lack of stricter regulations on large
industrial players resulted in the rise of gas emissions that cause global warming. When the
Reagan administration suggested that “technology will ultimately be the answer to the problems
of providing energy and protecting the environment” (Oreskes & Conway 182), the focus of the
administration was more on the positive impact of technology and industrialization, and there
was a clear disregard for how progress would impact climate change. Many environmentalists
suggest that when mismanaged, “climate change will reverse development progress and
compromise the well being of current and future generation” (World 37). However, Klein
suggested that it was not yet too late to act and there is still a chance “to transform our economy
so that it is less-resource intensive” (Klein 19). There is a need for people to change the
perception towards the environment, that is, the natural resources are not ours to exploit just to
suit the needs of the free trade and market fundamentalism.
The reality that free trading or the absence of restrictive measures on commercial activity
leads to climate change and environmental damage was being denied. For instance, there is a
claim that the expansion of trade was known to have a scale effect because the higher level of
UN 4
economic activities. These activities will “require greater energy use and since most countries
rely on fossil fuels as their primary energy source, the scale effect will lead to higher levels of
greenhouse gas emissions” (Tamiotti et al 50), however, this claim was vehemently denied by
industrial capitalist who refute the concept that climate change is a major societal problem
(Dunlap & Mccright 155). For example, fossil fuel industries have their own reason why they
promote the idea that global warming is not caused by human activity, and that the threat is
inflated and can be easily resolved (Davis & Rosen 2015). Consequently, it was difficult for
many industrial players to attack legislations that support the environment because it could
adversely impact their standing with the public. Their recourse shifted on the promotion of
environmental skepticism, where the scientific evidence about environmental damage and the
factors that cause it are challenged, most often citing that the evidence gathered by the scientific
community was not sufficient to warrant restrictive regulations (Dunlap & Jacques 700). Klein
suggested that we have to take a closer examination on market fundamentalism and its cultural
implications “still block critical life-saving climate action on virtually every front” (Klein 55).
People have to identify the political and cultural paradigms that deter them to work towards the
prevention of climate change and the protection of the environment.
A result of environmental assessment suggested that in order to avoid further deterioration of
the environment and the occurrence of hazards brought by climate change, the global population
and industries has to live within the limits imposed by the government. For example, a study in
Latin American recommended that for the region to avoid 2 degrees increase in temperature,
“about 40% of Latin American oil, about 55% of its gas, and 75% of its coal reserves, (…)
would have to stay in the ground” (Edwards et al 6). Consequently, the challenge on the
sustainable management of natural resources is not restricted to the Latin American region, but
UN 5
to almost all countries around the world as well. For one, there are the perils of extractivism
where a country relies on the extraction of its natural resources for a sound economy, to the
impairment of the environment, and the deterrence of collective efforts towards climate change
(Edwards et al 6). Klein pointed out that because of the point of view of extractivism, there is
the wrongful perception that “there would be more earth for us to consume” (Klein 162). Further,
the author of This Changes Everything stated that only when people are able to “leave
extractivism behind and build the societies we need within the boundaries we have” (Klein 163),
can we bel able to resolve to the existing environmental problems and climate change.
The message of Naomi Klein in her book This Changes Everything is clear. There is a need for
people to change their views towards nature, if we have to achieve sustainability. The
transformation lies in the ability of us to change their point of view in areas such as the use of
natural resources, progress, the link between the environment, climate change and political
movements, as well as the idea of extractivism. There is fear that the inability of people to adapt
towards changes that leads to the true form of sustainability may get them and the world into
trouble in the near future. Nevertheless, while the looming climate change crisis threatens the
survival of life on this planet, Klein offered that hope still exists. In a positive light, climate
change can be viewed as an opportunity for people to unite and work as one towards a common
goal.
UN 6
Work Cited
Block, Fred. "Confronting Market Fundamentalism: Doing ‘Public Economic
Sociology’."Economic Sociology as Public Sociology (n.d.): 326-334. Web. 18 Mar 2016
Rosen, Bob, and James Davis. "Teaching About Climate Change." Radical Teacher 102 (2015):
n. pag. Web. 18 Mar 2016
Dunlap, R., and P. Jacques. "Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks:
Exploring the Connection." American Behavioral Science 57.6 (2013): 699-730. Web. 18
Mar 2016
Dunlop, Riley, and Aaron McCright. "The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in
the American Public's Views of Global Warming." The Sociological Quaterly (2011): n.
pag. Web. 18 Mar 2016
Edwards, Guy, Timmons Roberts, Monica Araya, and Christian Retamal. "A new Global
Agreement can Catalyze Climate Action in Latin America." Global Economy and
Development (2015): n. pag. Web. 18 Mar 2016
Klein, Naoimi. This Changes Everything. Alfred A. Knofp Canada, 2014. PDF File.
Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik Conway. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured
the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. A&C Black, 2011. Web. 18 Mar
2016
Percival, Robert V. "Regulatory Evolution and the Future of Environmental Policy," University
of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1997: Iss. 1, Article 7. Available at:
http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1997/iss1/7 Web. 18 Mar 2016
UN 7
Work Cited
Stavins, Robert N. "Market-Based Environmental Policies." Public Policies for Environmental
Protection. 2nd ed. Routledge, 2010. Print.
Tamiotti, Ludvine, Robert Teh, Vesile Kulaçoğlu, Anee Olhoff, Benjamin Simmons, and
Hussein Abaza. Trade and Climate Change. World Trade Organization, 2009. Web 18
Mar 2016
World Bank. Development and Climate Change: World Development Report. World Bank
Publications, 2010. Web. 18 Mar 2016
STEPS to a SUCCESSFUL ARGUMENT
THE OVERVIEW
An Argumentative essay takes a position on a debatable issue, such as abortion rights, same-sex marriage,
gun control, tax increases, and so forth.
In writing your argumentative essay, you think out the issues and take a position, which is called your
thesis. You use the body of your essay to defend and explore your position. The goal is to persuade the
reader to agree with your side of the issue.
THE STEPS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Create a Strategy by exploring both sides of the argument and considering who will be your
audience. To do this you will LIST the arguments on both sides of the issue and take notes on
whom your readers will be.
Consider the Merits and Weaknesses of Both Sides by looking over the lists of arguments
and weighing them against how you previously felt about the issue. You also reconsider the
audience as you do this.
Take a Position by writing out your thesis. This is your firm stance on the issue.
Create an Outline by using the items in your list that support your side of the issue.
Draft an Introduction that clearly states your thesis, your position, and invites the reader
into your argument.
Use the Body of the Essay to Support Each Point in Your Argument with specific
evidence. You may want to use statistics, evidence, examples from real life, expert opinions,
and other reasonable sources of evidence.
Present and Refute Opposing Arguments by drawing from you original lists. Show the
weaknesses and problems in the other side’s position. This will bolster your case.
Build a Link to Your Readers by finding some common ground between the two sides. This
is often done by sharing the common values underlying a position on an issue, such as a sense
of justice or fairness.
Be Sure to Avoid Common Mistakes in Reasoning by carefully using inductive and
deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning means: you arrive at a conclusion based on several
facts. Deductive reasoning means you reach a conclusion based on premises, which may or
may not be proven true. Also be sure to avoid logical fallacies, such as making hasty
generalizations, using circular language, or employing biased language.
Always provide a thorough bibliography for your well-researched argument essay.
(taken from Rules for Writers, by D. Hacker [pp. 348-361])
Purchase answer to see full
attachment