Assignment Task:
In 2005, psychology professor Glenn Shean published a book titled Psychology and the Environment. Dr. Shean argues that we are behaving as if we have no environmental problems to face, and that therefore the biggest first step to solving problems related to environmental degradation is to make people aware of and concern of the interconnected issues of climate change, the heavy use of fossil fuels, and species extension. Because we are programmed to make quick decisions based on immediate dangers, we find it difficult to engage in dangers that stretch out into an indeterminate future. There is always tomorrow to worry about the polar bears or the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, or the rapidly melting ice caps. And, besides, who wants to give up a comfortable lifestyle because it might affect future life on this planet?
By 2008, the Bush administration began to give voice to the concerns of environmentalists such as Dr. Shean. During the Obama administration, concerns with the rising sea levels and water pollution and widespread destruction of coral reefs led to the 2016 international Paris Agreement that set goals and guidelines for nations to use to hold temperature increases around the globe. In 2017, the Trump administration announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which took effect on November 4, 2020. Under the Biden administration, however, the United States rejoined the Agreement on February 19, 2021. Quite a wild ride. And yet climate change deniers persist, perhaps couching their objections in the context that mandating restrictions and controls is not the business of government.
Why do we resist accepting responsibility for adding to the problem? Because to admit to being a cause means that we have to accept being part of the solution-we have to agree to change some of the things we are doing that are heating up the atmosphere. And here is where sacrifice and cost enter the picture. Do we accept factories to shut down? No, but regulations governing the pollutants from their smokestacks will help the atmosphere-at a cost to doing business. Do we accept people to stop enjoying the beach? No, but we could have restrictions on the buildings that destroy the barrier islands and marshlands protecting shorelines from erosion and destruction from storms. Do we accept people to stop driving cars? No, but the government could require manufacturers to build more fuel-efficient cars-at a cost to doing business.
And so, even though the conversation has changed somewhat since 2005, the debate continues over the extent to which human actions make a difference and then what should be done, at what cost, and at whose expense. In six articles, a variety of voices are heard on this debate.
Professor Allan Townsend of the University of Colorado has expressed an even larger worry-a concern that even though science "sustains us, transport, protects us", our trust in science seems to be eroding. When "science is chewed up in the ugly machinations of partisan politics" Townsend writes, it "threatens society as a whole". Do we want vaccines that save lives to be called into question? Do we want to stop funding the work of protecting endangered species? There is much to consider as explore the issues raised by the writers in this chapter.
Based on the essay above:
1. Why did the author write this? What does he/she want to accomplish?
2. Who is the author's intended audience? Am I part of that audience?
3. What techniques does the author use to get his/her point across? How is the essay organized? How do the words selected; the images drawn work to influence the reader?
4. How well does the author make his/her point? Is this a source worth using?
5. Where can I learn more about the writer, his/her subject, or the intended audience? How does this background information deepen my understanding of what this author has written?