Michael Pollan presents an argument on the World’s changing climate and what individuals can do to save life on earth. In his argument, he notes that individuals are left wondering why they should be bothered with climate change. What Pollan calls an “Inconvenient Truth” struck his mind after Al Gore managed to convince him (Pollan) that the climate change was threatening the survival of life here on earth. When it, finally, came to a time to change such electrical devices like bulbs, it was a really dark and depressing moment for Pollan. There was a big disparity between the intensity of the problem described by Gore, and the discomfort arising from the measures people had to take in order to save life on earth.
Pollan notices that even if you bother as an individual, there is little that can be achieved towards addressing the problem of climate change. You stop driving your fuel guzzler and instead use a bicycle, plant many trees on your garden, forsake the sophisticated cloth drying methods and resort to hanging them on a line across your farmyard, sell your station wagon in exchange for a hybrid, avoid taking beef, and go completely local. Theoretically, all these are possible. However, here is the question; what really is there to show for every bit of CO2 that you struggle not to emit. Why do this when you know that someone else in this world is eager to use his car that he bought recently, take meat and replace every trace of carbon that you consciously avoid emitting?
We may consider environmental conservation to be a virtue that we develop personally. But of what benefit is it when the term virtue is becoming only a thought and not a reality? This appears on the popular newspapers or utterances by government that conscious environmental conservation is a “sign of personal virtue.” It seems that the term virtuous is used ironically when being referenced to personal environmental responsibility. That, doing the right thing for the environment to eat local and by a hybrid sets you up to be treated as a lesser being.
There is also the question of what could be the right thing to do. An individual may decide to bother, but does walking to work or eating local reduce carbon emission? The most likely answer is, no. this is supported by an analysis that if walking causes you an increased appetite, you may consume more milk or beef. As a result, carbon emission from walking people may actually exceed that from an automobile. Also, some food products from places as far as New Zealand may, in some cases, account for less carbon emission than domestic products of a comparable nature. One may also wonder about the complexity of the methods of determining the carbon footprint in foods considering their origin, and their mode of transportation to designated consumers.
The justifications for not bothering are numerous, but it will incite you more to hear that whatever you do, it is already too late. The climate change is here with us, well ahead of our expectation. The scientists had projected effects that would become evident in a decade, but those effects are obvious now: the global warming and the melting of snow is occurring at a faster rate than that predicted by models. Now, the rate of climate change is truly terrifying. The white ice at the Arctic is changing into blue water, which absorbs more sunlight. Everywhere, the warming soils have become more active biologically, hence releasing their huge deposits of carbon into the atmosphere. These facts are really scaring climate scientists.
Michael Pollan presents arguments that people pose as reason for their lifestyle that proves destructive to the environment. One example of such is Michael Specter. In his New Yorker article on carbon footprint, Specter argues that personal choices may be virtuous, but cannot do enough to avert the effects of climate change. He adds that laws and money cannot do it either. Reason? Because the crisis on climate change is fully established and is a crisis of character and lifestyle. That, the real problem lies in the sum total of our numerous everyday choices, desires and preferences. At this point, we can note that Specter is posing ironical arguments. First, he claims that virtuous acts by individuals, imposing laws or using money can do nothing towards saving the environment from threats of climate change. He later admits that the problem lies with our everyday. This should mean that changing the decisions we make in life can, to some extent, impact on the environment.
The manner in which the message is communicated to the audience is efficient. We are all residents on this earth that is faced with a life-threatening challenge - the climate change. Posing the rhetoric question, ‘why bother’ serves well in compelling the audience to read and find out why they should bother. For instance, to depend on experts and leaders, money and laws and grand schemes, to rescue us from our agony is a dependent, delegated and passive thinking. This thinking will render one a passive participant in formulating the solution to the problem. Hence, this though by the author leaves the audience thinking that at least, they can do something to save the deteriorating climate on the earth. So, they should bother.
Works Cited
Michael, Pollan. “Why Bother.” The New York Times Magazine, April 20, 2008. Online.
