Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
In extreme climate change, not enough has been done about recycling and lessening carbon emissions. Bill McKibben, who was responsible for The End of Nature book believes that humans should take steps toward creating a sustainable future by reducing their carbon footprint (Dujardin, 2022). The debate between Bill McKibben and Jim Jensen seeks to identify the role humans should play in addressing climate change. The responsibility to address climate change rests with every person on Earth to manage their carbon footprint by placing awareness on the environmental and climactic impact that individual actions will have on global climate change. What sets McKibben and Jensen apart is not their viewpoints per se, but rather the categorization of what each writer views as ‘responsibility’ when addressing the climate crisis (Howarth et al., 2022). This paper will further examine why McKibben’s arguments on the issue of responsibility and the role of ideology in understanding climate change seem far more logical than Jensen’s arguments on this particular topic.
Critical Analysis
In this debate, they argue that the current generation of Earth’s inhabitants should be more responsible than their parents and grandparents and that they must act now. McKibben’s argument is believable because he writes in a logical and persuasive way. He uses clear language that appeals to common sense but has some emotion thrown in for good measure. The author uses rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make his point. His essay makes use of all three strategies: ethos (the author is credible), pathos (the author uses emotion effectively), and logos (the author presents an argument based on facts) (Dujardin, 2022). Jensen does not use much sentimentality or sensationalism in his argument. He focuses primarily on logic instead of emotion when making his points about how people should respond to climate change. It makes it seem like he has a good understanding of the science behind what he is saying, but this does not necessarily mean that people will believe him.
McKibben is trying to make the point that people are responsible for their actions and therefore have a responsibility to act. He states, “This is the moment when we must choose: whether we will be part of the problem or the solution” (Howarth et al., 2022). On the other hand, Jensen says people are not responsible for climate change because it is just an unfortunate occurrence; he says, “It’s not our fault” (Dujardin, 2022). McKibben uses pathos to make his audience sympathize with what they are going through and how they should respond. He writes: “We’re at a moment when this desperate problem demands an urgent response—and we know what action will get us there” (Dujardin, 2022). McKibben believes a huge problem needs immediate attention and feels obligated to lead by example. Jensen uses ethos in arguing against McKibben’s claim by saying that his argument relies too much on sentimentality. He uses emotional appeals instead of logical ones; he talks about how horrible it would be if there were no future generations because of climate change while ignoring the fact that other problems face humanity today, such as poverty or war (Dujardin, 2022).
In his essay, McKibben argues that the responsibility to address climate change falls on those most responsible for creating it. He states that if one wants to stop the destruction caused by climate change, one must acknowledge their role in its creation. The author argues that people should address climate change by taking personal responsibility for our actions and their impact on the environment. He claims that this approach will motivate people to do more than change what they consume and how they live their lives. McKibben uses much evidence to support his argument. He cites studies and reports from scientists who say that human activity is causing global warming and is a severe threat to humanity’s future. He also uses historical precedent: he points out that in the past century, carbon dioxide levels have risen 50% while temperatures have increased by 1°C (1°F) (Howarth et al., 2022).
The author relies heavily on evidence to make his point, but he sometimes neglects pathos, the emotional appeal of words, in favor of cold hard facts. For example, when addressing how much carbon dioxide we have released into our atmosphere this century, McKibben writes, “We have set ourselves on a course toward catastrophic warming” (Dujardin, 2022). This statement is accurate: we have emitted more carbon dioxide than ever before in human history. But there are many other ways to demonstrate this exact point that do not rely so heavily on numbers and facts.
McKibben uses the example of a small New England town dealing with droughts and flooding for years. He says they have done everything they can to protect themselves from these events but cannot stop them. McKibben claims that climate change is different from other natural disasters because humans have caused it, so people are responsible for fixing it. He claims that people need to invest in renewable energy sources and stop using fossil fuels immediately, or they could face serious consequences. While there are many facts about climate change, such as the fact that it has increased in severity since the Industrial Revolution began 100 years ago, which means humans are responsible (Howarth et al., 2022). There is also a lack of evidence that this will cause irreparable damage to our planet’s ecosystem. However, McKibben uses no pathos or ethos in his argument; he relies too much on cold hard facts without any use of emotion.
I believe both are credible people in the debate between McKibben and Jensen. McKibben is very well-spoken and logical in his arguments, while Jensen’s argument is persuasive because he uses statistics to back up his points. The first part of their discussion discusses responsibility and how it can influence climate change. McKibben believes one must be responsible for their actions, especially as a nation. He believes people should be taking action now to reduce fossil fuel use. The author further believes that individuals can impact the climate crisis through actions such as changing light bulbs or carpooling with friends. In addition, McKibben has a lot of credibilities because he has a long history as an environmental activist and climate change advocate (Howarth et al., 2022). He also has a strong voice with which he communicates his message, one that is thoroughly informed by his scientific education yet still has a sense of urgency about the situation. Even though McKibben may not have all the answers on how to solve climate change, he does have a unique and vital perspective on what needs to be done to address it.
Jensen counters these claims by explaining how much more work needs to be done before the change will occur on a large scale. He argues that if everyone acted individually instead of collectively, there would be no real impact on global warming. Jensen’s argument is believable because he uses ethos in two ways. First, he provides evidence from research studies showing how humans influence global warming (Howarth et al., 2022). Second, he provides evidence showing how countries can take action now using their resources but also save money down the road by investing in renewable energy infrastructure rather than later using fossil fuels.
Conclusion
In the case of the climate change argument, one would believe that environmental responsibility should take precedence over individual rights. First, and regarding the environment, humans are not inherently responsible for their environment; they are inherently responsible for each other. As spiritual ancestors have said, people do not inherit the Earth from their ancestors; they borrow it from their children. People are currently borrowing from their future, which is a violation of a sacred trust. It is not meant to be alarmist; instead, this is what the writer believes after researching the subject matter and applying logic and philosophical grounding.
It was an exciting and thought-provoking topic that forced the researcher to now look at the arguments from both sides of the spectrum. Before, the writer had a clear idea of personal stance on this debate. However, after researching both sides for a number of days and reading through numerous articles about the debate, the researcher found that he could no longer remain impartial. He now agree with McKibben more than he did with Jensen. Although Jensen has some good points about being cautious about geoengineering, he does not seem to understand how profound climate change is as a crisis. People often think it is not that big of a deal because it may happen in the future, but we already see the effects today. McKibben makes it very clear in his article why people must make drastic changes immediately before it is too late.
Reference
Dujardin, S. (2020). Planning with climate change? A poststructuralist approach to climate change adaptation. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 110(4), 1059-1074. Web.
Howarth, C., Lane, M., & Slevin, A. (2022). Addressing the climate crisis: local action in theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.