This article focuses on the impact of the emergence of coronaviruses on global climate change. The article lists the reduction of emissions by 1.4% after the 2008 economic crisis. Therefore, the author believes that this global isolation measures will allow the planet to reduce emissions. And the reduction in transportation can also reduce global emissions.
I think this article is an op-ed. First of all, the author ’s point of view in the article is clear is that coronavirus has an impact on global climate change. And the author lists some previous examples, such as the financial crisis to prove that global isolation will also reduce emissions. And because of coronaviruses, transportation emissions are significantly reduced, so the author believes that such a phenomenon can give people time to solve environmental pollution problems. Secondly, the title of this article including ” opinion” this word, which clearly indicates that the author’s article is an op-ed. From these two points, it can be seen that this is an op-ed.
The debate I am writing is whether the global warming problem will be solved?
Although people have made many decisions to change the global warming problem, the fact is that the global warming problem will not be completely solved.
We’re on Mission Impossible to Solve Global Warming.
How Coronavirus Could Hurt Fight Against Climate Change?
The Climate-Change Solution No One Will Talk About.
Effects of Global Warming.
In this debate, I think that the problem of global warming will not be solved. Due to the problems of population control, emission control, and other problems, people can only appropriately alleviate the problem of global warming.
I choose to publish in a climate magazine so that more people who are concerned about global warming can understand which factors have caused global warming to be unresolved, then the reader could express their opinions on measures for global warming.
When I was young, like five or six years before, I heard that the sea level become higher and higher because of the climate change. At that time, I don’t understand that how could the sea level in such a huge ocean could become higher and higher.
But now, there are dozens of islands will disappear in the future. For example, the country with the lowest sea level—Tuvalu. From the research from 1993, this country will disappear in 2043. This will be the first country disappeared in the world because of the sea level. Also, the most beautiful country Maldives will be disappeared too in hundred years as this speed of the increasing of the sea level.
There are more and more countries are treated by the climate change and most of them are very beautiful. Here is a photo of Ghoramara island. The mud houses are vulnerable to cyclonic storms and floods. Families along the coastline has been forced to shift several times, as the coastline keeps receding.
If we don’t want these beautiful islands to disappear under water, people need to protect environment from now. Driving less, using fewer plastic bags, factories need to emission reduction, etc.
However, it is hard for people to change the climate in modern world. If we can’t stop the temperature rising, it is necessary to travel to these countries before they submerge by the ocean.
A topic in environmentalism that I find very fascinating and which I believe does not receive enough attention is climate injustice. At first I simply thought of climate change as something that affects us all, which it clearly does, but I never thought about how it affects some of us more than others. I began to see this in a district in my hometown called Bayview, which is also known as “one of the worst environmental injustice in California history”.
The area originally became populated during racial segregation where African-Americans were evicted from other parts of the city. Today Bayview still has the highest population of African-Americans and the most people living below the poverty line in the city.
Considering all these factors, it is unfortunately expected that the neighborhood would face several environmental injustices. It houses a sewage facility and is surrounded by several highways which carry toxic fumes. Perhaps the most notable is that the neighborhood was formerly a site to decontaminate military equipment that had been exposed to radiation. The byproducts of this went into the soil in the neighborhood. Due to this, parts of Bayview have officially been considered toxic to human health by the EPA, but there have been no successful efforts to clean up the neighborhood despite loud calls to action by the residents.
Living in a different part of the city, I had always been aware that Bayview existed but was always told to stay away from there for my own health. It seems as though everyone in the city is ignoring the neighborhood and its needs. In order to change situations like this which are all too common there must be less silencing of effected citizens and more government accountability.
I decided to choose the topic that Should SeaWorld release their sea creatures back into the ocean?
There are two sides to the argument. One side is it is very unethical to keep sea animals captive in a ridiculously small tank and perform tricks for food and money is the only reason for it to be that way. The other side is sea animals help educate people about marine life, it helps save a lot of animal lives by providing research, and SeaWorld helps more animals with its revenue.
The sources I’m using to help me out are: http://www.blackfishmovie.com/
I side with we should keep SeaWorld because the marine oceans are still not clean and since the orcas are raised in tanks, they would not be comfortable or adapt with the new environment.
I believe that this would raise awareness on why climate change and rising sea levels can massively affect decisions on marine life organisms and could negatively affect many islands and animals.
The site I choose to post on is the USA Today as the audience is mostly in the middle center where they have a balance of opinions. It also reaches out to many people who are interested in the current events and many other topics.
By Nabil, Connor, Peyman, and Zoe
The audience for National Geographic seems to be educated adults. There is both a print and online publication of the magazine. The online version of any news source does make it more accessible to younger people. But for both the print and online, the audience seems to be educated adults who like science and its related topics. The purpose is to learn more about the world and all the different types of science within it.
Entirely online since 1999, Grist Magazine has been writing stories about climate sustainability and social justice issues to create a “future that doesn’t suck”. The informal language and catchy tag line (A Beacon in the Smog) paired with their social justice focus makes the audience of this magazine young people that are educated/want to be and have liberal political views. The purpose, as they say is to “work toward a future that doesn’t burn and a planet that doesn’t suck”. Their goal is to educate young people and adults with internet access to learn and care about social justice issues.
Slate Magazine is an American online publication that launched in 1996 and covers politics, arts and culture, sports, and news. There are two versions of the website, it is free to read for Americans and there is a paywall for non-Americans. It is not a breaking news source. This seems to yield a young, educated audience that cares about current American issues. The writing on the website is witty and creative and covers many different topics. This all taken into account makes me believe the purpose is to have readers interpret the world around them and learn to understand it.
After reading Nina’s blog from last week about the environment rebounding during the corona virus quarantines, I questioned the nature of this rebound. With only essential businesses open and people no longer having a reason to drive for work or otherwise, it would make sense to think that species are rebounding because the effects of pollution seem to be diminishing. However, I began to question if this could really be the sole cause of our environment’s rebound. With people no longer being able to leave their houses, the draw on electricity and other resources must be much higher than usual. And although combustion used in electricity generation is far more efficient than car engines, the idea that pollution is increasing in other sources allows the possibility that there are other causes of the healing ecosystem. I believe one of the larger causes for environmental revival to be a decreased human presence.
Noise pollution has been shown to have large effects on wildlife, it causes stress to many creatures which interferes with sleeping, feeding, and mating. With less cars and human presence in areas otherwise greatly affected by noise pollution, the environment is no longer struggling against unnatural conditions: it is being given the freedom to grow and flourish. Species activity is no longer being attacked by an invisible enemy. Though with this information comes an upsetting thought. If so much interference is caused by human presence, what are the next steps to aiding the environment?
While many people believe that self-isolation will cause less pollution due to the fact that people will not be driving, out of the house, and at work. Somehow the government figured out a way to even reverse that. The Environmental Protection Agency recently announced that major companies and organizations will not receive sanctions for polluting either the water or air. They added a loop-whole in which these companies are allowed to ignore environmental regulations as long as they say it is because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The thinking behind this is that it makes it hard for companies to keep running and not letting go of employees. In my opinion, this is ridiculous. I believe that this is nonsense and the backlash they are getting is justified. Somehow we cannot let the environment be in peace… even if it is only for a few months. The government should be smarter than this and create better stimulus packages for workers. This would allow workers to not have to work and still get paid, who would be taking the hit would be the big companies and big business. Why does the government see it fit to be able to harm the environment further when we already have done so much harm. One example that demonstrates what is going on is that oil rigs do not have to report and disclose their carcinogenic benzene emissions. And according to various articles 10 rigs have already surpassed this limit. Do you think this is a good idea from the government or no?
The debate that I am writing about is does COVID-19 has a positive or negative impact on climate change?
The Debate in this Topic is on While COVID-19 appears to be good for climate change in the short term, the reality is that if we leave it alone, the environment will be polluted more by COVID-19 in the future.
- What the Coronavirus Means for Climate Change https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/opinion/sunday/coronavirus-climate-change.html
- The Nature of Crisis
- There’s an unlikely beneficiary of coronavirus: The planet
- Coronavirus Won’t Change Minds On Climate Change
In this debate, I argue COVID-19 is inherently unhelpful to the climate problem and even exacerbates the planet’s climate change. What we need to do at this particular time is to push for certain policies.
My position is important because it helps us know that now is an important time for people to reflect on their actions and then help the future of society.
From the Gulf of Mexico to the Mediterranean to the Bay of Bengal. It seems every corner of the globe is contaminated with plastic. Plastic pollution has already reached five oceans. The ocean is “digesting” unbearable plastic pollution. The United Nations estimates there are about 51 trillion plastic particles in the world’s oceans, 500 times the number of stars in the Milky Way. The worst part is that even if we stop producing plastic now, the problem of plastic will continue for a long time. On account of human behavior, rivers and oceans are already flooded with plastic waste.
The topic of plastic pollution has been taken seriously in the past few years. Many people and scientists have been trying to solve the problem of plastic pollution in the ocean. But over time, people’s attention to the sea has gradually decreased. Because most of us live so far from the sea, it’s hard to imagine how much damage plastic could eventually do to the sea, even if we use plastic bags or disposable products. The plastic waste that exists in our oceans has become a big problem. There has lots of research on how to solve the existing marine plastic debris. But what we need most is to stop dumping waste into the ocean and, more importantly, to reduce the use of plastics.
（Blue planet society）
There have been many cases of marine animals being suffocated by plastic bags. Plastic products have led to stunted animal growth that could last a lifetime. Also, plastics are difficult to degrade naturally, even after decades of immersion in the ocean. A lot of the plastic in the sea has become micro-plastic. Micro-plastics are too small to be detected, and many animals die from ingesting large amounts of them. Plastic pollution may also prevent fish from absorbing enough nutrients, causing damage to their digestive systems. Eating micro-plastics and garbage also puts these Marine creatures at risk of chronic poisoning.
It’s not just marine animals and plants that are contaminated by plastic. Although human beings are at the top of the biological chain, if the natural chain at the bottom is affected, then the final result is self-evident. Let more people know the importance of protecting the marine environment, reminding them to reduce the use of plastic products can truly protect our environment.