“If we do not take action to solve this crisis, it could indeed threaten the future of human civilization. That sounds shrill. It sounds hard to accept. I believe it's deadly accurate. But again, we can solve it.” These words were spoken from Al Gore; the crisis he speaks of is global warming. Global warming is defined as the overall increase in Earth’s average temperature due to greenhouse gas emissions. This climate change has been a growing problem for many years. Al Gore properly states that the consequences can be fatal to our civilization, but he, also, states that we can help pacify the damages.
Scientists have suggested many solutions. Reduce your carbon footprint, which is the amount of carbon dioxide gas that you emit into our atmosphere. This can be done by minor fixes like using cold water to wash your clothes. A different, more complex, approach to reducing our carbon footprint proposes a range of technical fixes, one being placing millions of mirrors into orbit around Earth in order to reflect some of the Sun’s energy.
Both fixes would reduce our energy usage, which would, in turn, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, thoughts on the actual efficiency of these fixes differ when looked at from an economist’s point of view and from an environmentalist’s. Economically, minor fixes are very efficient. It is very affordable and can easily be installed with no major labor. However, the major technical fixes would not be looked at with so much openness. Major technical fixes can be very expensive; economists would look at these fixes as a waste of money. Unlike these economists, environmentalists would look at the technical fixes as a great way to prepare our future generations for the resource depletions. Environmentalists would actually favor the major technical fixes over the minor fixes. They would argue that not many people would actually be willing to change some of their daily routines. The people who would engage in minor fixes would be a minority, and the energy they would save using these minor fixes would be negligible. The effect of the minor fixes would, therefore, be inferior to the effect of the major fixes to an environmentalist. Light bulbs that are energy efficient are now available. Recycling bins are picked up every Tuesday. Some companies have come up with laundry detergent that is effective with cold water. These are just a few of the many minor fixes that have come into play in our modern society. Economists would approve of these minor fixes because of their simplicity. Laundry detergent and many other minor fixes are inexpensive. Light bulbs require little effort to be installed. Affordability and easy installation make minor fixes very appealing to economists. Unlike light bulbs and laundry detergent, the major technical fixes that have been recently suggested would not be looked at with an inviting smile from economists. Economists would think these fixes are a waste of funding. The funding could go into education, roads, and bailing out companies that have suffered from the recent recession. Economists like to solve present problems rather than stressing about what could possibly happen in the future. Economists would want a raise in taxes to help our economy, not to fund some energy saving project. A technical fix that has been suggested is placing millions of mirrors into orbit to reflect some of the sun’s energy to the earth, allowing us to use solar energy as a way to power appliances. Economists would not only think of this as a waste of money, but they would look at it as having a high risk. What if, for some reason, the mirrors do not serve their purpose, or what if solar energy is not the best energy to power certain appliances? Economists would totally be against a high-risk project, especially if it involves millions of dollars. The slight idea of even incorporating one of these projects into our budget would completely have economists overwhelmed with stress.
Whereas economists would agree with the installation of minor fixes around the house, environmentalists would not favor the minor fixes over the major technical fixes. They would probably make the argument that they effect of the minor fixes would be negligible compared to the effect of the major technical fixes. The number of people who are willing to change little parts of their normal life, such as using cold water to wash their clothes, using less water to take a bath, and changing their special lights to light bulbs that are energy efficient, would be small relative to the total population of people.
While the typical economist would look at cost as the biggest factor, an environmentalist would look at the actual effect on the environment as most important. This is why environmentalists would agree with the installation of major technical fixes. Sure, it would be expensive, but, to an environmentalist, the technical fixes would be a great investment. It would help out future generations. Our children, grandchildren, and their children would have cleaner air to breathe, rather than having to wear a mask every time they go outside.
Changing your light bulb or changing your energy source, both have their strengths; both have their weaknesses. To come up with a solution that is favorable to many types of people, one must abstain from the view of just one type of person, such as an economist or environmentalist, and look at environmental fixes from both perspectives. Rather than installing small fixes that might or might not be helpful to reducing energy or installing large technical fixes that might or might not be a waste of money, the strengths of one technique could combine with the strengths of another technique to create a universally accepted solution. An example of this type of solution would be installing solar panels on the roofs of public buildings. It is more affordable than putting mirrors around the earth to reflect the sun’s rays, and it is more affective at reducing energy than just changing a couple light bulbs. It would satisfy environmentalists and economists. By getting both sides to agree on one solution, there is a better chance that the solution will come into play. By coming into play, our earth will be one step closer to a better planet. AL GORE ENDING QUOTE!