Is Environmental Activism Good for Humanity - Assignment Example

Is Environmental Activism Good for Humanity? Position Affirmative Response Environmental activism is good for humanity for at least three reasons. First , environmental activism is good because humanity’s survival or comforts depend much on whether or not society adopts mitigation and adaptation measures given climate global warming that is threatening humanity’s existence or “life as usual” on the planet. Although several members of the scientific community have expressed doubts on the scientific basis of anthropogenic global warming, the perspective of an anthropogenic and dangerous global warming cannot simply be dismissed in view that a scientific consensus on an anthropogenic global warming has been expressed in the reports of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that was created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program (Oreskes 2005). This implies that regardless of whether or not the theory of anthropogenic global warming eventually finds a firm and strong support in the peered-reviewed journal, it cannot be denied that there is a consensus in a world scientific body on the anthropogenic root of global warming and its association with fossil fuels. The United Nations-created IPCC “states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that the earth’s climate is being affected by human activities” and that “the observed global warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” (Oreskes, 2004, p. 1686, citing an IPCC document). Further, according to Oreskes (2004), “the IPCC is not alone in its conclusions” because “all major scientific bodies in the United States whose expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements” (Oreskes, 2004, p. 1686). For example, Oreskes (2004, p. 1686) argued that “the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperature to rise.” Further, the United Nations-created IPCC explicitly described its assessment on the anthropogenic and greenhouse gas-associated climate change to be an accurate reflection of the current thinking of the scientific community on the issue (Oreskes, 2005, p. 1686). According to Oreskes (2004, p. 1686), the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have issued statements with a conclusion that “evidence for human modification of the climate is compelling.” Second, environmental activism is good because it is through environmental activism that we can adopt policies that promote good health and a better quality of life associated with clean air, clean seas and oceans, clean rivers, and clean terrestrials. For instance, Wong et al. (2004) examined the health benefits of reducing air pollution under the United States Clean Air Act and estimated that the decrease in morbidity and mortality among children would add at least US$600 billion to the $100 billion benefits through the reduced morbidity and mortality of adults. Third, environmental activism because it promotes intergenerational equity: development must not be at the expense of the future generations, we must meet the needs of our generation but not to disadvantage of future generations. For instance, Weiss (2008, pp. 615-616) noting that “the impacts from warming are predicted to be long-term, widespread and severe” has affirmed that “climate change is an inherently international problem with extremely serious implications for equity between ourselves and future generations and among communities in the present and future.” Thus, in summary environmental activism promotes humanity’s survival or comfort, good health and quality of life, and intergenerational equity. Position 2: Negative Response We can also cite three key reasons why environmental activism is bad for humanity. First, environmental activism is bad because much of environmental activism is founded on incorrect science or inadequate evidence. Take for instance, global warming. The dominant thought today is that global warming is anthropogenic or that it has been principally caused by green houses gases associated with the use of fossil fuels. In contrast, however, there is a good set of evidence that global warming is not anthropogenic but natural and that, therefore, measures to arrest global warming by curtailing use of fossil fuels is an exercise in futility. Carter (2008, p. 177) argued that “before human-caused global warming can become an economic problem, it first has to be identified by scientific study as a dangerous hazard for the planet, distinct from natural climate change.” According to Carter (2008, p. 177), there is no such scientific study but the United Nations-created Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared nevertheless that a “dangerous, human-caused global warming is occurring” because the second chairman of the IPCC, John Houghton, had believed that unless a disaster is announced, no one will listen to the IPCC. In effect, Carter (2008) insinuated that the anthropogenic global warming is merely hype, sensationalism, rather than a result of a scientific investigation. For Carter (2005, p. 178), the presentation of global warming as something dangerous has been a mere “superb marketing by the IPCC and its supporting cast of influential environmental and scientific organizations” as well as a result of “strong media bias towards alarmist news stories in general.” The theory of anthropogenic and dangerous global warming is a result of bad science if not the result of an absolute absence of science because the earth’s climate “has always change, and always will” (Carter 2008, p. 179). Second, environmental activism is bad because it has caused our priorities to be misplaced as history shows that a better environment results from economic development. Thus, there is no need to adopt frameworks that prioritizes environmental concerns because prioritizing economic development concerns suffices in addressing environmental concerns. Economic growth ultimately results to a better environment. Empirical evidence for the inverted u hypothesis on the relationship between economic growth and the environment is provided by the study of Grossman and Krueger (1995). Grossman and Krueger (1995, p. 353) used econometric methods on 42 countries and reported that they found “no evidence that environmental quality deteriorates steadily with economic growth.” Instead, Grossman and Krueger (1995, p. 353) found that “economic growth brings an initial phase of deterioration followed by a subsequent phase of improvement.” The Grossman and Krueger (1995, p. 353) study found out that improvements in the environment for various types of pollutants vary but “in most cases they come before a country reaches a per capita income of $8,000.” Thus, based on the Grossman and Krueger study, it suffices for a country to focus on her economic growth---economic growth starting somewhere at US$8,000 per capita will lead to improvements in environmental quality. Third, environmental activism is bad for humanity because life basically consist in making tradeoffs. Viewed in this light, the environment can be sacrificed in the interest of economic growth and development. Expenditure for environmental concerns must only be at that level that is consistent with society’s willingness to pay. Otherwise, spending for environmental concerns that is without regard to the rule is inefficient and is bought at an unnecessary sacrifice or hardship for society. Related to this point, Hepburn (2010) argues that the design of environmental policy, including spending, must be somewhere at the middle between the state and market. Environmental advocacy, therefore, is not too important because the market can also be relied on for improving the environment. Thus, in summary, environmental activism is bad because much of it, especially those on global warming, is founded on a wrong science or inadequate evidence, leads to misplaced priorities, and leads to inefficient or inappropriate levels of spending for environmental concerns. References Carter, R. (2008). Knock, knock: Where is the evidence for dangerous human-caused global warming. Economic Analysis & Policy, 38 (2), 177-202. Grossman, G. and Krueger, A. (1995). Economic growth and environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (2), 353-377. Hepburn, C. (2010). Environmental policy, government, and the market. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 26 (2), 117-136. Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306 (5702), 1686. Weiss, E. (2008). Climate change, intergenerational equity, and international law. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 9, 615-627. Wong, E., Gohlke, J., Griffith, W., Farrow, S., and Faustman, E. (2004). Assessing the health benefits of air pollution reduction for children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112 (2), 226-232 Annotated Bibliography Carter, R. (2008). Knock, knock: Where is the evidence for dangerous human-caused global warming. Economic Analysis & Policy, 38 (2), 177-202. This work attempts to refute the view that the perspective of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is founded on sound science. The work pointed out that science is not about consensus or authority but about evidence. Further, it argues that climate change is naturally occurring. With regard to greenhouse gases, the article pointed out that in the past carbon dioxide concentrations has reached similar proportions to the present but has not been dangerous. Grossman, G. and Krueger, A. (1995). Economic growth and environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110 (2), 353-377. While the data set used by this work covered a fluctuating number of countries, around 42 countries were covered by this study just the same. The work examined and obtained evidence for the view the economic growth worsens and then improves environmental quality, similar to what Kuznets has found out on the relationship between economic growth and equity. Thus, the description inverted u hypothesis and the work presents support for an inverted u hypothesis on the relationship between environmental quality and economic growth. Hepburn, C. (2010). Environmental policy, government, and the market. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 26 (2), 117-136. This work identifies the tools government can use to advance environmental quality. Other than financing or large government expenditure, other policy instruments government can use to improve environmental quality includes the market, provision of information, moral suasion, regulation, and various modes of intervention. Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306 (5702), 1686. The key theme of this work is that there is already a scientific consensus on climate change. The key scientific consensus is reflected in the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations. Other scientific bodies in the United States were reported to have taken a stand in favor of an anthropogenic and harmful climate change. Weiss, E. (2008). Climate change, intergenerational equity, and international law. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 9, 615-627. The work focuses on the reported allegedly harmful and highly dangerous climate change reported by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Confronted with this, the author focuses on intergenerational equity and on the role international law can play in promoting international intergenerational equity in addressing the risks of climate of change. Wong, E., Gohlke, J., Griffith, W., Farrow, S., and Faustman, E. (2004). Assessing the health benefits of air pollution reduction for children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 112 (2), 226-232. The work assessed the benefits of reducing air pollution under the United States Clean Air Act. In making the estimate, the work considered the costs of addressing various illnesses in several cities and in several studies based on reports produced by several studies on the hospitalization and management costs on several illnesses among children. The study came up with a specific figure and added the said specific figure to the health costs of pollution for adults to arrive at a total health cost of pollution. Read More