The article makes a lot of sense. How did we land a man on the moon? We competed against the Soviet Union. We thought the future of democracy depended upon it and we fought for it. I think in many ways the economy is the central focus for many Americans now, like the Cold War was in the 60s. Framing it as a competition where the US will be left behind is brilliant. I believe this will inspire people to act more so than the current nonsensical sound bytes about global warming being a real issue or not.
With so much focus placed on the economy, why not frame our argument that way? The effects of global warming are too gradual to prompt action, so why not use the every day effects of the economy? This furthers an idea that we have talked about many times in class. There's this notion of choosing the environment or the economy, but really you can choose both with the promotion of "green industry." I don't think that the only way to address climate change is through an economic discussion, but since our other methods of discussing it have led to inaction thus far, something about our approach has to change.
There are two points where the article falls a bit flat. The first is the line "And because runaway pollution in China means wasted lives, air, water, ecosystems and money." I did not feel that the wasted money link was explained in any real sort of way. Furthermore the article completely ignored that this Chinese drive for green jobs is often being pushed upon the Chinese government by outside sources. International environmental summits have often led to more restrictions on the developing world than those countries already "developed."
don't understand this link
No comments:
Post a Comment