In recent decades, global warming has been receiving a great deal of media attention around the world due to its substantial impacts on human life. Although the idea of coexistence between climate change and humans appears reasonable, this cannot be viewed as the ultimate approach for humankind to combat climate change.
There are a number of reasons why the coexistence can do more harm than good. First, climate change is largely shaped by human-caused geoengineering rather than nature itself. For example, in order to produce the energy that drives the world’s economy, most nations rely on carbon- rich fuels like coal, oil and gas, which directly correlates with the intensification of global warming. Second, even if citizens agree to keep the environment the way it is, corporations, especially in the manufacturing and mining industries, would not as that would affect their profits. Therefore, it can be implied that if corporations were not held accountable for their contribution to global warming as in the case of coexistence, the issue of climate change would inevitably be exacerbated.
It is more economically sound to actively prevent climate change than to ignore it. In fact, the costs, either financial or non-financial, of dealing with future consequences of climate change can be overwhelming. For instance, the increase in intensity and frequency of storms can cause massive destructions and deaths in many coastal areas, which would take decades to recover. In addition, rising temperatures have also contributed to the extinction of species worldwide. It should be noted that the extinction is irreversible and comes at great cost to the ecosystem and apparently humans living within it.
In conclusion, actively combating global warming must be regarded as top priority given the high urgency. Governments and corporations worldwide should take steps to ensure that climate change remains at bay.
In recent decades,
global
warming
has been receiving a great deal of media attention around the world due to its substantial impacts on human life. Although the
idea
of coexistence between
climate
change
and humans appears reasonable, this cannot
be viewed
as the ultimate approach for humankind to combat
climate
change
.
There are a number of reasons why the coexistence can do more harm than
good
.
First
,
climate
change
is
largely
shaped by human-caused geoengineering
rather
than nature itself.
For example
, in order to produce the energy that drives the world’s economy, most nations rely on carbon- rich fuels like coal, oil and gas, which
directly
correlates with the intensification of
global
warming
. Second, even if citizens
agree
to
keep
the environment the way it is, corporations,
especially
in the manufacturing and mining industries, would not as that would affect their profits.
Therefore
, it can
be implied
that if corporations were not held accountable for their contribution to
global
warming
as in the case of coexistence, the issue of
climate
change
would
inevitably
be exacerbated
.
It is more
economically
sound to
actively
prevent
climate
change
than to
ignore
it. In fact, the costs, either financial or non-financial, of dealing with future consequences of
climate
change
can be overwhelming.
For instance
, the increase in intensity and frequency of storms can cause massive
destructions
and deaths in
many
coastal areas, which would take decades to recover.
In addition
, rising temperatures have
also
contributed to the extinction of species worldwide. It should
be noted
that the extinction is irreversible and
comes
at great cost to the ecosystem and
apparently
humans living within it.
In conclusion
,
actively
combating
global
warming
must
be regarded
as top priority
given
the high urgency.
Governments
and corporations worldwide should take steps to ensure that
climate
change
remains at bay.