Critical Essay Global Warming

Critical Essay

GPH 210, Dr. Larson

Taking Sides Issue #7: “Is global Warming a Catastrophe That Warrants Immediate Action?”

Word count: 650

It seems like the question I’m about to address (from Taking Sides, 2011) has been debated more than any other global issue over the last decade: “Is global Warming a Catastrophe That Warrants Immediate Action?” In this essay I’m going to review both sides of the argument, and it will be concluded with my thoughts on the issue. But first, let’s summarize the supporting and opposing arguments.

In Taking Sides (2011), The Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) argues that human activities, without a doubt, are to blame for global warming. They use current emissions of greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide in particular), and its effect on the climate, to support their argument. GHF explains how the world’s most vulnerable populations are suffering as a direct consequence, and that instant action is required in order to deal with the climate change. Increased funding to tackle the effects of global warming is critical according to the forum. (Easton, 2011).

The opposing argument found in Taking Sides (2011), is presented by economist Bjorn Lomborg. He acknowledges the negative impacts of global warming on our population, but argues that they are clearly outweighed by the advantages of continuous and extensive fossil fuel use. Lomborg is confident that the costs of carbon emissions restrictions are too great and will have a devastating effect on the global economy. Significant investment in research, especially in “non-carbon-emitting energy technologies”, would be the ideal approach according to the economist. This would secure a stimulated economy and a future of low carbon emissions. (Easton, 2011).

From my perspective one side of the argument is significantly flawed. The GHF supporting views merely lists negative impacts of climate change without offering, in my opinion, viable solutions or...