As we all know, Global Warming (G.W) has become a major scientific and social issue during the past decade. Global Warming-the increase in greenhouse gasses- has captured broad public attention because it would easily damage the nature and many souci-cultural aspects of life. That’s why it should be investigated thoroughly. In the following paragraphs, I will introduce you different approaches of some writers and state their possible answers to this global problem.
First of all, although these commentators differentiate in their approaches, they all agree that the greenhouse effect would have catastrophic consequences that can be easily observed on earth. They all chose to begin their articles by identifying what global warming is and the reasons for it. Most of them point out that the greenhouse gasses and particles trap infrared radiation. As a result, the average surface temperatures increase (Schneider, 1989). The reasons that they all figured out are mostly based on too much combustion of fossil fuels and depletion of vegetation cover (Smil, 1990). Then they all indicate possible solutions such as, reducing CO2 combustion and the rate of population growth, in order to solve the problem or at least minimize the effects. Moreover, they emphasize on the governmental and international actions such as ‘Kyoto Agreement’ which have been taken to cope with this long crisis. All of them interpret G.W. through a cross international framework. That’s because this warming has become a world problem.
However, the articles differ in many ways. The ways they explain the issues are not the same. Vaclav Smil discusses about the issue more generally, by giving some historical data and responses from people. For example, he includes the changing rates of secular rise of fossil fuel combustion and conversion of forests and grasslands to crop fields in his article. On the other hand, McCullough only talks about one of the governmental actions: ‘Kyoto Agreement’ and the responsibilities of an individual for decreasing the CO2 emissions per year. According to this agreement she says; countries should decrease their CO2 emissions by seven percent. She also notes that according to well-known scientists, we need reduction more than seven percent (Mccullough, 2000). So, Vaclav Smil follows a historical approach in expressing his ideas. On the other side, Stephen H. Schneider, in his article named ‘Greenhouse Effect’, emphasizes more on scientific and political studies on Global Warming. He points out the scientific issues surrounding the greenhouse effect such as projecting emissions and regional climate responses (Schneider, 1989). Then, he gives information about the policy responses just as Mccullough did, as mentioned above. So, we can say that he generally looks into this issue in a political and scientific way. John Bongaarts however, mainly focuses on population growth and say that it’s expected to be one of the principal factors determining annual CO2 emission rates. Furthermore, just as Smil does, he includes different graphs in his article to point out the positive correlation between population growth and Global Warming. Although all of the writers except Mccullough, mentions about the consequences of G.W., Ross focuses mainly on large-size climate changes. However, Vaclav for example, states that carbon dioxide emission can also be beneficial on productivity depending on the emitted amount.
growth and Global Warming. Although all of the writers except Mccullough, mentions about the consequences of G.W., Ross focuses mainly on large-size climate changes. However, Vaclav for example, states that carbon dioxide emission can also be beneficial on productivity depending on the emitted amount. In the end of their articles, both Vaclav, Stephen, Bongaarts and Ross indicate that governmental actions should be taken because waiting would be insufficient and if we wait, we would have to adapt to a larger amount of changes. Whereas Mccullough only focuses on individual actions in order to cope with this problem.
In general, their perspectives are much of a same, although they deal with the problem with different approaches. They are all in the recognition this reality and want some kinds of actions to take place instead of waiting and observing how it will go.
If we compare the articles, in my point of view, Smil’s article called: ‘Planetary Warming: Realities and Responses’ is constructed better than others in the following reasons. First of all, the article has validity, a truth-value, because he focuses on the catastrophic frissons of G.W. and its effects to humanity. As an example, he says that extra tropical radiation of some tropical diseases may occur if the world continues to warm up. Besides, malaria, amoebiasis and filarrasis could spread abnormally by insect vectors (Smil, 1990). The article includes accurate information about historical events and their significance in determining the effects of G.W. So, author draws accurate data. Secondly, the article is both useful and relevant for the readers. It directly speaks to the issue. Moreover, he draws a clear perspective in his article by shaping the evidences. For these reasons, Vaclav is the one who evaluates the issue better among the others.