Many are of the opinion that individuals should accept the reality of climate change rather than try to combat it. In my opinion, certain levels of acceptance are pragmatic but it is still important to take meaningful steps.
Those who argue a passive approach point to the ineffectual impact of individuals. The vast majority of problems related to climate change cannot be countered by individual action because they primarily involve corporations and governments. For example, companies that produce packaged foods, such as potato chips and instant noodles, create far more plastic waste and industrial pollution in one day than a single person will in their entire life. Governments can make a greater different by enacting regulations to ensure that the methods of production and materials employed are more environmentally friendly. It thus follows that the average person is justified resigning themselves to the facts of climate change and living in an area that is not especially affected.
However, the combined impact of individuals highlighting climate change will influence key policy decisions. The best examples of this are in European countries such as France and Denmark where green parties hold tremendous sway in government. Individuals empower these political parties not only by voting but also through protests and consumer decisions. Even governmental bodies that are not as eco-friendly must take the environment into account when passing laws. Furthermore, corporations are now cognizant of changes in consumer behavior. Massive conglomerates such as Starbucks frequently advertise their environmental policies. This has only happened because individuals have demanded these reforms.
In conclusion, the seemingly marginal impact of individuals belies their true influence over more powerful authorities. Concerned citizens should therefore continue to vocally curb the hastening of climate change.
Many
are of the opinion that
individuals
should accept the reality of
climate
change
rather
than try to combat it. In my opinion, certain levels of acceptance are pragmatic
but
it is
still
important
to take meaningful steps.
Those who argue a passive approach point to the ineffectual impact of
individuals
. The vast majority of problems related to
climate
change
cannot
be countered
by
individual
action
because
they
primarily
involve corporations and
governments
.
For example
,
companies
that produce packaged foods, such as potato chips and instant noodles, create far more plastic waste and industrial pollution in one day than a single person will in their entire life.
Governments
can
make
a greater
different
by enacting regulations to ensure that the methods of production and materials employed are more
environmentally
friendly. It
thus
follows that the average person
is justified
resigning themselves to the facts of
climate
change
and living in an area
that is
not
especially
affected
.
However
, the combined impact of
individuals
highlighting
climate
change
will influence key policy decisions. The best examples of this are in European countries such as France and Denmark where green parties hold tremendous sway in
government
.
Individuals
empower these political parties not
only
by voting
but
also
through protests and consumer decisions. Even governmental bodies that are not as eco-friendly
must
take the environment into account when passing laws.
Furthermore
, corporations are
now
cognizant of
changes
in consumer behavior. Massive conglomerates such as Starbucks
frequently
advertise their environmental policies. This has
only
happened
because
individuals
have demanded these reforms.
In conclusion
, the
seemingly
marginal impact of
individuals
belies their true influence over more powerful authorities. Concerned citizens should
therefore
continue to
vocally
curb the hastening of
climate
change
.