Arguments for tackling climatic arguments
Climatic changes are the major causes of other negative social-economic impacts in the world. Ideally, climate change has been registered as one of the most challenging occurrences that have been facing humankind for a longtime. Particularly, climatic changes include the unexpected changes in temperature levels and alteration of the four seasons. These calamities affect economic activities such as agriculture that are the basis factors that lead to economic growth. Therefore, it is essential to note that it is advisable for the international communities to embrace tackling the changes (Kirby, 2014). The cost that would be undergone when trying to tackle the climatic changes includes the finances used to hold summits to discuss the means by which economic activities as agriculture can be saved from the dangers imposed by unfriendly climatic changes. It is essential to note that improved agriculture helps manage food security.
Additionally, the efforts to tackle climatic changes are essential in reducing probable medical illnesses caused by changes of the climate. For instance, if efforts such as planting trees are not put into place, the level of greenhouse gases reduces. Therefore, the impacts of greenhouse gases are reduced. The efforts to carry out these activities are very expensive. However, they cover up for the long-run impacts of degraded climatic changes.
Arguments against tackling climatic changes
Ideally, climatic changes are said to be primarily caused by the remittance of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. However, it is not fully certified that these gas result into the climatic changes that occur. These are scientific conclusions that have a probability of being wrong. Preferably, climatic changes are part of the natural revolutions which must take place and cannot be changed despite all efforts to control the changes.
Accordingly, the cost of controlling and designing projects to help curb climatic changes is very high. This means that the cost undergone in the process is undeserving. Particularly, most of these policies that are funded for them be enacted as political tools used by political leaders to gain favor. For instance, for a political leader to show that he is functional in his duties, he insinuates that some of the funds are allocated to the programs designated to curb climatic changes (Neumayer, 2007). The funds end up being embezzled on unessential programs. In addition, must the nature changes are respected. In terms of religious interpretation, the whole universe was created by God. Therefore, it is not important for one to try and tame the nature according to his believes and aims. This argument is based on the environmental theory of the Christian Bible. Precisely, the creation should not be treated as a form of property. Its nature should be respected.
Conclusion
Climatic changes have occurred since the time in memorial. However, the changes have been gradual. Efforts by different governments and non-governmental organizations have played a part in controlling the changes in climate that have been pervasive over time. However, very few steps have succeeded to control the climatic changes. In fact, most of the efforts that succeed are those that enable people to survive medical impacts through developing curative drugs. Ideally, it is a responsibility for the environment specialists to work on the changes in climate. However, most of their conclusions are just good for knowledge. Their practicability is questionable.
References
Kirby, A. (2014). ‘Forget the cost – tackle climate anyway’ | Climate News Network. Retrieved June 6, 2014, from http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2014/04/forget-the-cost-tackle-climate-anyway/
Neumayer, E. (2007). A missed opportunity: The Stern Review on climate change fails to tackle the issue of non-substitutable loss of natural capital.Global Environmental Change, 17(3), 297-301.
