Global Warming Melts from View Now That Economys on Ice - Essay Example

Argumentative Paper: Global Warming Melts from View Now That Economy’s on Ice Editorial Global Warming Melts from View Now That Economy’s on Ice (Matchett 2008). The article Global Warming Melts from View Now That the Economy’s on Ice is written by Stephen Matchett and was featured in The Australian last November 5, 2008. The article is about how the concerns of a capitalistic society became the reason why such a grave environmental concern like global warming suddenly became relegated to the background. The author, in putting the blame on capitalistic concerns, employed figures of speech like hyperbole to drive home his point. This however, had made his article less convincing because they created an obtrusive effect as these words became the highlight of the article rather than the argument. In addition, the author provided no specifics or details for taking up the position of censuring capitalism as blameworthy for the present negligence of the climate issue. This article therefore was big on words and figures and speech but lack the hard proof to substantiate its claims. The author started his article with the sentence “ GIVEN that we, at least everybody with a government-guaranteed bank account, are all socialists now, everybody understands how cruelly incompetent capitalism is.” Most words used in this sentence have depreciatory ring to them and the object of the criticism is capitalism. The author, in this first sentence, created these antithetical ideas of socialism and capitalism and instantly attributing to the latter dire qualities. He referred to it as “cruel” and “incompetent” while at the same time calling Australians socialists, which is of course, a hyperbole because having some people own a government-guaranteed bank account, do not constitute a country into a socialist one. The idea is perhaps, to picture capitalism and the Australian people as poles apart creating a nemesis effect. The propensity of the author to use hyperbole in the article’s entirety is illustrated in the next sentence which goes ‘Especially people who bet big in the prophecies of doom market.” The words “bet big” used to refer to “prophecies of doom market” is an exaggerated phrase calculated to make the issue at hand sound huge and really important, never mind that it is not clear exactly who these people he was referring to really are. It is for, example, a stretch of the imagination to really pinpoint factions of society or members of the human race whose main pre-occupation is to bet on impending catastrophes. This same tactic of deliberate misuse of words and figures of speech that were deliberately misleading was used in the next sentence, a longer one, where he referred to the country as “this side of Wall Street.” Thus, “This side of Wall Street there is no better example of a bizarre bazaar where stocks soar and prices plummet, where a jeremiad that was trading at many multiples of its intellectual content one day has no buyers the next, where well-capitalised warnings that the end is nigh are shorted by spivs who have found worse news to invest in.” It will take a few reading, for example, to eventually understand that the phrase “this side of Wall Street” does not refer to that business hub in continental USA nor to any particular place in the country but to the latter as a whole to mean Australia as a part of the economic and business community of the world. At first reading, the meaning of the author is not evident and it would take several to realize that what he was referring to was the diminished attention that the environmental issue of the likes of global warming had gotten after some quarters he referred to as “spivs,” a slang for someone who lives by his wits, had found new issues with which to peddle to the public. This is a very complicated sentence which the author had crafted and one reading is not enough to totally comprehend its meaning. In the next few sentences, the author illustrated the points he made in the previous sentences by citing the environmental issue of climate. He cited, for example, that pertinent topics about climate change were so hot just several weeks ago, i.e. China’s promise to provide electricity to everybody, sunscreen for polar bears, became so huge that “doomsters’ opinions “ became highly sought after. Up to this point, the author refers to these “doomsters” mysteriously without naming names or even hinting at their correct identity. The author had another name for them in the next paragraph – “gloomsters.” In the next two paragraphs, the author illustrated his point that at the height of the climate discussion just a few weeks back, the attention given to it was so much that it succeeded in getting the attention of no less than the Prime Minister of the country himself Kevin Rudd. In the next paragraph, the author provided the backdrop for his claim that the issue was dropped like a hot potato when a new issue emerged. Thus, “Then the boom went bust and all of a sudden global warming was off the agenda. People became more interested in the state of their superannuation than greenhouse gases. And as for the damage done by economic growth, instead of worrying that there was too much of it the big issue became whether there would not be enough. “ The economic downturn, the author said in the next paragraph, had resulted in the sudden cooling of interest by the people of the climate change issue so that the chief dilemma of the people now is unemployment rather than the climate issue. In this paragraph, the author assumed the role of an omniscient god who knows everything as he made the sweeping statement that the people were no longer interested in the climate change issue because of unemployment concerns. This is an inevitable conclusion considering that such kind of statement is not only sweeping but really difficult to prove, and the author understandably did not provide for any, considering that this concerns the state of mind of the people. In addition, that the people are preoccupied now with the issue of unemployment does not necessarily imply that they are not concerned with the issue of climate change on the other hand. More importantly, what exactly is the basis of the author in stating that the people are concerned with unemployment? After all, it has only been weeks, he said. The author does not provide answers to this question nor did he attempt to substantiate this, a characteristic style he used all throughout his article. In short, this article was really merely big on words but not on proof, which is really unfortunate because the multiple figures of speech and other heavy words seemed to cloud the real point that the author was making. Or perhaps this was a mere ploy to hide the lack of substance of the article. References Matchett, Stephen 2008, Global Warming Melts from View Now That Economy’s on Ice.The Wry Side. The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24602400-23375,00.html Global warming melts from view now the economys on ice THE WRY SIDE: Stephen Matchett | November 05, 2008 (from The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24602400-23375,00.html GIVEN that we, at least everybody with a government-guaranteed bank account, are all socialists now, everybody understands how cruelly incompetent capitalism is. Especially people who bet big in the prophecies of doom market. This side of Wall Street there is no better example of a bizarre bazaar where stocks soar and prices plummet, where a jeremiad that was trading at many multiples of its intellectual content one day has no buyers the next, where well-capitalised warnings that the end is nigh are shorted by spivs who have found worse news to invest in. Consider the sad circumstances of the climate catastrophists. Just weeks ago their arguments were hot stuff, the hottest, accepted as fact by everybody who knew anything about environmental science and many more who didnt. With every announcement that the Barrier Reef was becoming beige, every denunciation of Chinas outrageous aspiration to provide everybody with electricity, every appeal to supply sunscreen to polar bears, demand for the doomsters opinions heated up. They were so successful that when they demanded Kevin Rudd do something about global warming, he did. This was terrific news for the greenhouse gloomsters, which gave the climate change lobby the chance to explain that it was not enough and that the world had 15 minutes max to avoid the environmental abyss. This in turn generated more attention so that the phone numbers for media-savvy scientists plus Green politicians and their comrades in the commentariat were every ABC producers go-to guys and girls for explanations of everything involving the weather. Then the boom went bust and all of a sudden global warming was off the agenda. People became more interested in the state of their superannuation than greenhouse gases. And as for the damage done by economic growth, instead of worrying that there was too much of it the big issue became whether there would not be enough. Instead of people promising pollsters that they would be willing to make using electricity a Christmas treat to save the planet, its unemployment, not the environment, that is now top of the polling pops. This is all terribly unfair to people who invested decades of intellectual capital in warning us about global warming, but thats the caprice of the market for you. It has inflicted the same unfair fate on intellectuals who have built their careers by explaining how unhappy we all are. For years they have written about the way we really did not want to work hard to buy bigger houses and better barbecues, how we only thought we wanted to eat out and travel overseas, how meditation was much more fun than cable TV and that it was OK to own a second shirt only if it was a hair one. In an era of unparalleled prosperity for most Australians they managed to convince people that if they werent miserable they should be. They did not let the absence of incontrovertible evidence get in their way and built a brand by applying their own beliefs to everybody else. And what a success the conspicuous critics of consumption were, appearing in the media to explain how awful everything was nearly as often as global warming warners. Not since the global economy tanked. Instead of welcoming the chance to live the lives of frugal fun unemployment offers, people want to know how they can get back to the days of having enough money to live the way they think they want to. All of a sudden the idea that shopping makes you miserable is as convincing as an original essay by Julie Bishop. Of course the switch in the misery market has produced new winners, such as economists who argue that things are going to get so bad that the best investments are tinned food plus guns and ample ammunition to protect it. They should enjoy their fame while it lasts because in a world where interest in ideas changes to suit circumstances no seller is safe. Its all terribly unfair to intellectuals who bet the farm on causes that people who should pay attention to what experts advise are now ignoring. But what can you expect from any sort of free market? Read More