Whether the issue is a continuing problem of significant importance to society, or a relatively new

With the automobile, came one of the most widely used technologies in the world, the invention of the internal combustion engine which has left a noticeable impact on many parts of today’s world. One of the most widely debated and controversial topics having to do with the automobile is its effect on the environment. Al Gore, former United States Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize award winner, has spent many years trying to argue the negative effects that the internal combustion engine leaves on our planet. In his presidential campaign in 2000, he preached the ideas of a cleaner environment and better ways of living. He said, “When we seek to artificially enhance our capacity to acquire what we need from the earth, we do so at the direct expense of the earth’s ability to provide naturally what we are seeking. We frequently ignore the impact of our technological alchemy on natural processes. When we manufacture millions of internal combustion engines and automate the conversion of oxygen to CO2, we interfere with the earth’s ability to cleanse itself of the impurities that are normally removed from the atmosphere.” He has led many people to believe that the automobile of today is leaving a terrible and lasting effect on the earth’s atmosphere, and that it is one of the primary causes of the term “Global Warming.” Although Gore has had a giant following and

As a kid who has cared about nature his entire life, and an avid modern environmentalist for four years and counting, this issue has been at the center of my psyche for quite some time. I have seen public perspective on this issue change before my eyes. From the original rejection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie on “global warming” to personally marching alongside 300,000 people in our nation's capital to raise awareness on climate change. However, despite all of these avenues the issue is still spoken about as this distant idea that eventually will be a disaster. Many politicians and news networks speak of the need for slow implementation of policies and programs to right our environmental wrongs. The best way to paraphrase the common narrative of this issue would be to say, climate change is going to happen down the road, it will probably be bad and trying to fix it in the near future would be a good idea. That weak call to action shoves climate change onto the long to-do list of the leaders of our world. Not only does it not create the urgency needed to actually curb the effects of our environmental ignorance, but it does not accurately describe the threat of a changing climate. Treating this like a political issue will not allow for the rigorous changes needed to address such a problem in the timely manner that is required.

American author and journalist, Michael Pollan, in the article titled, “Why Bother?”, published in The New York Times Magazine, addresses the topic of environmental issues and argues that the phrase, “why bother?”, is what is keeping society from changing the ways citizens use up resources. His main focus of reasoning is supported by his idea that specialization has a significant role in reducing the average consumer’s chance of changing their lifestyle and also highlights that planting your own garden would be a task which in turn would benefit the consumer in many ways, while also decreasing their carbon footprint size. He concludes that these actions taking place could have a chain reaction that would spread these practices across the nation and lead to positive impacts on the environment.

The problem that the pro- global warming theorists have created is that of social standing and little else. While there may be scientific backing to support some of the theory, the media presents the problem with great sensationalism. Global warming and energy conservation has thus become a trend and losses some of its validity through this. The scare tactics used by the media to “promote awareness” are just that, a linguistic ploy to gain favor. “Awareness of this global threat reinforced public concern and environmental problems and thereby provided environmental activists, scientists, and policy makers with new momentum in their efforts to promote environmental protection.” (McCright, 2000) This statement draws line to the potential benefits that would be received if the pro-global warming theorists were to draw enough attention to the issue. Driven by social empowerment and conviction to environmental protection, these activists misrepresent the actual threat and paint it as being much more

Have you ever thought about how your actions or opinions affected the environment around you? We’re constantly unaware of what we do that impacts the environment’s condition. One author named Wendell Berry blames the public in his article regarding the way society and the industry has treated the environment and its natural resources. This raises concerns whether we should be putting more importance on the economy or the land that we live in for the sake of our future survival. While I agree with most of Berry’s points and perspectives I slightly disagree with a few of his opinions, but nonetheless he brings up a great matter in today’s modern society.

As The World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Stay In Denial, by Derrick Jensen and Stephanie McMillan, is a graphic novel about the state of our environment. They use cartoons and abundant sarcasm to convey the message that the attempts people are making to save the environment are not enough to do any real good. Their message challenges both those of Edward O. Wilson and the University of Connecticut in that Jensen and McMillan’s ideas are much more radical and suggest that the ideas posed by Wilson and UConn, such as the importance of recycling and sustainability efforts, are ineffective at saving the environment. We must resolve the challenges posed by Jensen and McMillan so that all of the ideas put forth in the sources may work together rather than against each other. In order to do this we must accept that some of the ideas given by Jensen and McMillan may be too extreme to do any real good and that the ideas suggested by Wilson and UConn, though slightly ineffective, are nonetheless important steps in saving the environment. Taken alone, none of their ideas will save the environment; instead it is necessary to combine the ideas of Wilson, UConn, and Jensen and McMillan in order to create a more realistic plan to save the planet.

Americans, as a whole, do not care about the environment anymore. When we watch the news or simply talk about our day, there are always more pressing topics that come up. However, as a nation, the threat of a failing environment seems to be forgotten because the effects are not as obvious as other threats. Bill McKibben’s “Waste Not, Want Not” discusses how much time, money, resources, and people America has actually wasted and how little effort has been made to try to change. McKibben causes readers to think it is too late to save the environment from our wastefulness because we put our efforts into systems that do not help the environment, spend more money and resources than necessary, and refuse to acknowledge how much were wasting.

In this paper, I will be outlining the costs and benefits of social and technological fixes, and then I will be assessing the use of social and technological fixes of air pollution through the use of automobiles.

Though people are uneducated about the problems we have at hand and even some still seem to not care when informed, I still hold out hope. There are people who care, and those people will make a difference because every small difference leads to a bigger difference. “Attitudes are also changing… the thousands of protests against chemical plants and waste incinerators show the extent of concern about the environmental health.” (320-321, When a Billion Chinese Jump). I hold out hope that we can change the global environmental problems we faced and make a difference. Though this won’t be easy to change it won’t be impossible.

Many have begun to get the notion that the media decides who or what areas/ subjects are important enough to receive national attention. Bullard said, “Embrace the principle that all people and communities are entitled to equal protection of the environmental and public health laws and regulations” (Moore, Lanthorn, 2017. Pg. 1) In the 1980’s a civil rights group protested against the government of North Carolina because they were going to throw polychlorinated biphenyls in a landfill close to where they lived. (Moore, Lanthorn, 2017. Pg. 9) Heinz (2005) argues that in numerous amounts of cases previous environmental issues do not get enough media coverage unless it threatens a predominantly white

Modernism represents an optimistic view of human impact on the environment that has been the dominant viewpoint for the last 200 years. The knowledge that mankind holds the ability to control the environment heavily stresses why climate change is not such a problem to worry about. One of the core beliefs of the modernistic perspective is that people have no need to fear future environmental disaster because the next technological advancement that will prevent it is right around the corner. Furthermore, those who share this view do not include themselves in their image of the ecosystem, believing they are detached from it. Lastly, a laissez-faire approach is taken to environmental problems, focusing on progression through technology, stressing that as long as progress is made in this area all problems will be fixed. For a modernist, climate change is nothing to worry about. This may be a real situation, but it will be solved with advancements in technology before one’s way of life is changed. What people should be worrying about is ensuring a laissez faire approach to the market with sponsorship to new technologies. As a result of reusable energy technology already existing, modernists believe that the problem of climate change has been solved and without disrupting free market system these technologies will be further implemented. As long as there are people given the opportunity to innovate, some will focus on and ultimately solve the concern of climate change. The issue of

The Article, “Uncertainty, Risk, Trust, and Information: Public Perceptions of Environmental Issues and Willingness to Take Action” written by Reneé J. Johnson and Michael J. Scicchitano in its current form is unfit for publication. Johnson and Scicchitano should be commended for identifying a gap in our ability to accurately quantify the strength and intensity of environmental concerns. This gap is certainly worthy of further study; however, their execution and attempt to quantify this phenomena does not have the necessary wherewithal to close the gap in the literature as it stands.

The fourth stage called drive to maturity is a longer stage which occurs over an extended period of time. This stage sees a steady rise of the use of technology, standards of living and an improving economy which is

Your day has been great so far. You went on vacation, you found a dollar bill on the floor, you ate your favorite dish, nothing can be better than this. As soon as you walk on the boardwalk you are hoping to see big waves and fish in the sea, instead, you see dead fish and some animals floating in the water next to old car tires, trash, and fertilizer. Now you feel terrible and want to go home. Pollution is devastating. The reason why I researched this topic is that I do not want my family nor my planet to get sick. Pollution can be stopped very easily, it’s just that people “don’t know” how to stop or they just don’t care, which is a serious problem. I want people to see that pollution is mainly caused by humans, and also for them to see that it is a horrible thing that is happening. Some kids litter because they see their parents and their whole family doing it. When I was researching this topic, I noticed that I needed to find out more information, so I asked questions to myself. When did pollution get so bad? How many animals have gone extinct because of pollution? How many people die each year because of pollution? How much does everyone on the planet pollute each year? What is the best way to stop pollution? Can just one person make a difference? After a lot of research, I found out lots of ways that we can stop pollution, so it is possible to end it. Or at least improve the air.

Environmental issues have been a cause of a lot of debate in the recent past. Governments and nongovernmental organizations have been in constant consultations on how to help protect the environment. Apparently, as a result of man’s many actions, the natural environment is getting torn apart so quickly that the coming generations will not enjoy this kind of environment, unless a