Persuasive Essay On Climate Change

Throughout history, human beings have always used the resources around them to survive and even thrive in the world. For instance, ancient marvels such as the pyramids of Gaza, the Great Wall of China, and the moai of Easter Island have been created without the use of modern technology leaving beautiful lasting effects without a substantial carbon footprint. However, in today’s first world, humans are using too much of the Earth’s resources and it is becoming detrimental to the sustainability of the planet to the point where the climates are radically changing. The result of these radical changes can be seen in the increase of natural catastrophes such as tsunamis, hurricanes, and monsoons. The debate on climate change and who is responsible

Generally speaking, in order to remain sustainable a society must use create enough energy to meet its needs or have a surplus of energy as long as that surplus is not detrimental to the society as a whole (Powers 514). The first world should not be able to take away the opportunity for future generations of the world to live on a clean, and sustainable Earth. Part of the problem with the first world, and its over consumption of non-renewable resources is its inept social awareness of permaculture. As stated by David Holmgrem, “Permaculture is the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystems which have the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of landscape and people providing their food, energy, shelter, and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable way.” (Powers 514). The culture of the first world is the farthest thing from permaculture, for decades the first world has been irresponsibly overconsuming finite resources at a drastic pace without considering the consequences or without giving the Earth time to heal and replenish itself. It is irresponsible for citizens of the first world to do this, because in a sense, the world does as the first world

Pundits of green energy argue that natural gas and other forms of non-renewable answers may still be the answer to meeting our energy needs for decades to come. Opponents of green energy argue that we may still continue to use natural gas, and other forms of non-renewable resources as long as we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions they produce through different methods of harvesting the resources such as fracking for example (Bryce 510). However, this belief held by opponents of renewable energy logically cannot be valid as growth of population is exponential while the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in linear, it is mathematically impossible for exponential damage to corrected by a linear solution. Another opposing view is that the consumption of non-renewable energy and the methods of harvesting it have not technically been proven to cause damage to the Earth (Bryce 510). While opposing view is technically true. This view is not ethical, because a proactive stance on protecting the world’s resources is more ethical than a reactive position that allows damage to the Earth. One final opposing view is that the use of renewable resources solely as a source for energy needs will harm the economies of the countries that rely heavily on non-renewables for economic stability (Bryce 511). This view can be conceded in the