Global Warming A Persuasive Speech
Glaciers are melting. The sea is rising. The highest CO2 levels in 650,000 years. The outlook is bleak. Climate Change, the most worrying environmental threat of our time is starting to unfold. Predictions of fiercer droughts, more severe cyclones, and more frequent floods invade our media and perhaps our consciousness. The future will see polar icecaps melt due to the increasing temperatures. The warmer waters may cause the death of the Great Barrier Reef, placing thousands of species of plants and animals in danger, and many may become extinct.
Then there's the economic costs of climate change - loss of tourism, loss of jobs, loss of fish, farmers battling, food prices through the roof, astronomical costs from more frequent natural disasters, the list goes on.
It almost sounds like a mad max scenario, but the sad fact is, it's far from fiction. I'm Matt Hindmarsh from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and I believe that as the caretakers of this planet we must strive together to reduce our carbon emissions and… save the planetBACKGROUND:We've all heard about Climate Change and you've now heard me list some of its disastrous effects, but what exactly causes it? And what can we do about it?In a nutshell, global warming, known as climate change, is the heating up of our world. It is the result of huge amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, via the burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil to produce power and electricity and thousands and thousands of products, from plastic to makeup to the clothes that we wear.
Ever since the industrial revolution in the early 19th century, man has been progressively burning more and more fossil fuels. In fact, in recent times the burning of fossil fuels has been releasing more than a shocking 3 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year, which has been effectively increasing the global temperature of the world and disrupting vital climate systems.
We are all global citizens. We all have access to information, facts, figures and statistics that undeniably prove climate change exists. We all depend on our earth - for clean air, for food and water, for resources, for our livelihoods. We are all consumers. We are all contributing to climate change. We are all responsible for our actions. We are all obligated to do something about it.
If not to save our own skins, think about our children, and our children's children. Do you want them to inherit a devastated world, knowing full well that we contributed to its destruction? Do we want to be the generation that could have done something real, but instead chose to continue down this selfish road of pollution, alarming consumption and total disregard for the world we live in. Lets be the people that change the course of history.
The three biggest contributors to climate change are man-made, but all three of them can, and will be solved with your...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%
Global Warming: A Fashion Trend? Essay1306 words - 5 pages Throughout the years, Diesel has promoted their brand through their innovative and typically outlandish advertising. Their unique and successful marketing techniques have helped them gain popularity. They have a reputation for the “ability to create fresh, radically rebellious, inspiring and sometimes nauseating ad campaigns that really set the brand apart from the pack” (Sauer). Their absurd ads have gone as far as encouraging smoking an obscene...
Global Warming is a Disgrace Essay1404 words - 6 pages Research shows that global warming has affected our environment for the worst. Global warming occurs when the temperature rises in the atmosphere. Researchers show the many causes and effects this issue brings to our environment. They take place due to natural and human occurrences. Has the environment been horribly affected by global warming? Studies show this question to be true, while providing statistics and evidence. More people should be...
Global Warming: A Dangerous Reality1453 words - 6 pages Global Warming has been a nuisance to environmentalists in recent years. It has been affecting Earth’s oceans, habitats, and biodiversity. Over the years, scientists have conducted experiments to understand the causes and effects of global warming and they have searched for solutions. They have warned others about the dangers of pollution and human activities and have urged others to do something about it. Films, such as Al Gore’s documentary...
Global Warming - We CAN Make a Difference1283 words - 5 pages Global Warming - We CAN Make a Difference What is global warming, and how is it affecting the Earth and its inhabitants? The greenhouse effect and global warming both correspond with each other. The green house effect is incoming solar radiation that passes through the Earth's atmosphere and heats the earths surface. It absorbed much of the outgoing infrared radiation re-radiated by the Earths surface. As they absorb the infrared the...
A Proposal to Prevent Global Warming907 words - 4 pages We humans cannot help but feel a twinge of regret when we contemplate how we brought forth the plague of global warming by our own hands in the passing years. Aside from rising sea levels as deluging coastal cities and depleting ozone layers as increasing cancer rates, we inevitably come face to face with one simple realization: it’s getting too hot in here. Moreover, we have been devastated by various extremes of nature, with spring frost...
Global Warming is a Theory, Not a Fact2452 words - 10 pages On April 25, 1975 a Newsweek headline blamed a deadly outbreak of southern tornadoes on a disastrous average climate temperature decline that had been persisting for over thirty years. This report stated that the temperature drop increased pressure points in the upper atmosphere amidst the circumvential flow of the westerly winds that in turn affected temperate regions to increase numbers of deathly droughts, floods, freezes, and late-coming...
Global Warming is a Fact, Not a Theory3392 words - 14 pages When many people think about their future, usually they are only considering things that will effect or benefit their personal lives. Things such as the city that they will live or if they will have the same job five years down the road. Few people think about what may be going on in the environment around them. Global warming, also known as the greenhouse effect, is a rise in the entire temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. It has been...
Global Warming is a Reality That Must be Taken Seriously506 words - 2 pages Global Warming is a rising epidemic that is one of high controversy. The growing concern that Global Warming is going to thermally destroy the earth is causing concentrated precautions to take place. With worry mounting in the lives of the human race, it is intensifying the idea that things must be done to stop the depletion of the ozone layer. There are several problems around the earth that prove the occurrence of Global Warming. It is very...
This a cause and effect essay on Global Warming.1334 words - 5 pages Cause and Effect of Global WarmingOne of the hottest topics in the United States is the issue of global warming. This issue, once discounted and ridiculed as the wild imaginings of over enthusiastic environmentalists and "tree lovers," is now being taken seriously by scientists, politicians, business leaders, and the American...
Global Warming: A Deadly Threat for Human Life894 words - 4 pages Untitled Global Warming: A Deadly Threat for Human Life The recent activity in...
Discuss what is global warming. And the effects that global warming gives and how to prevent it. And a little history on global warming1109 words - 4 pages What is global warming, and how is it affecting the Earth and its inhabitants? Global Warming is sometimes referred to as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is the absorption of energy radiated from the Earth's surface by carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to become warmer. The greenhouse effect is what is causing the temperature on the Earth to rise, and creating many problems that will begin to...
If an essay is something essayed – something hazarded, not definitive, not authoritative; something ventured on the basis of the author’s personal experience and subjectivity – we might seem to be living in an essayistic golden age. Which party you went to on Friday night, how you were treated by a flight attendant, what your take on the political outrage of the day is: the presumption of social media is that even the tiniest subjective micronarrative is worthy not only of private notation, as in a diary, but of sharing with other people. The US president now operates on this presumption. Traditionally hard news reporting, in places like the New York Times, has softened up to allow the I, with its voice and opinions and impressions, to take the front-page spotlight, and book reviewers feel less and less constrained to discuss books with any kind of objectivity. It didn’t use to matter if Raskolnikov and Lily Bart were likable, but the question of “likability,” with its implicit privileging of the reviewer’s personal feelings, is now a key element of critical judgment. Literary fiction itself is looking more and more like essay.
Some of the most influential novels of recent years, by Rachel Cusk and Karl Ove Knausgaard, take the method of self-conscious first-person testimony to a new level. Their more extreme admirers will tell you that imagination and invention are outmoded contrivances; that to inhabit the subjectivity of a character unlike the author is an act of appropriation, even colonialism; that the only authentic and politically defensible mode of narrative is autobiography.
Meanwhile the personal essay itself – the formal apparatus of honest self-examination and sustained engagement with ideas, as developed by Montaigne and advanced by Emerson and Woolf and Baldwin – is in eclipse. Most large-circulation American magazines have all but ceased to publish pure essays. The form persists mainly in smaller publications that collectively have fewer readers than Margaret Atwood has Twitter followers. Should we be mourning the essay’s extinction? Or should we be celebrating its conquest of the larger culture?
A personal and subjective micronarrative: the few lessons I’ve learned about writing essays all came from my editor at the New Yorker, Henry Finder. I first went to Henry, in 1994, as a would-be journalist in pressing need of money. Largely through dumb luck, I produced a publishable article about the US Postal Service, and then, through native incompetence, I wrote an unpublishable piece about the Sierra Club. This was the point at which Henry suggested that I might have some aptitude as an essayist. I heard him to be saying, “since you’re obviously a crap journalist”, and denied that I had any such aptitude. I’d been raised with a midwestern horror of yakking too much about myself, and I had an additional prejudice, derived from certain wrongheaded ideas about novel-writing, against the stating of things that could more rewardingly be depicted. But I still needed money, so I kept calling Henry for book-review assignments. On one of our calls, he asked me if I had any interest in the tobacco industry – the subject of a major new history by Richard Kluger. I quickly said: “Cigarettes are the last thing in the world I want to think about.” To this, Henry even more quickly replied: “Therefore you must write about them.”
This was my first lesson from Henry, and it remains the most important one. After smoking throughout my 20s, I’d succeeded in quitting for two years in my early 30s. But when I was assigned the post-office piece, and became terrified of picking up the phone and introducing myself as a New Yorker journalist, I’d taken up the habit again. In the years since then, I’d managed to think of myself as a nonsmoker, or at least as a person so firmly resolved to quit again that I might as well already have been a nonsmoker, even as I continued to smoke. My state of mind was like a quantum wave function in which I could be totally a smoker but also totally not a smoker, so long as I never took measure of myself. And it was instantly clear to me that writing about cigarettes would force me to take my measure. This is what essays do.
There was also the problem of my mother, whose father had died of lung cancer, and who was militantly anti-tobacco. I’d concealed my habit from her for more than 15 years. One reason I needed to preserve my indeterminacy as a smoker/nonsmoker was that I didn’t enjoy lying to her. As soon as I could succeed in quitting again, permanently, the wave function would collapse and I would be, one hundred per cent, the nonsmoker I’d always represented myself to be – but only if I didn’t first come out, in print, as a smoker.
Henry had been a twentysomething wunderkind when Tina Brown hired him at the New Yorker. He had a distinctive tight-chested manner of speaking, a kind of hyper-articulate mumble, like prose acutely well edited but barely legible. I was awed by his intelligence and his erudition and had quickly come to live in fear of disappointing him. Henry’s passionate emphasis in “Therefore you must write about them” – he was the only speaker I knew who could get away with the stressed initial “Therefore” and the imperative “must” – allowed me to hope that I’d registered in his consciousness in some small way.
And so I went to work on the essay, every day combusting half a dozen low-tar cigarettes in front of a box fan in my living-room window, and handed in the only thing I ever wrote for Henry that didn’t need his editing. I don’t remember how my mother got her hands on the essay or how she conveyed to me her deep sense of betrayal, whether by letter or in a phone call, but I do remember that she then didn’t communicate with me for six weeks – by a wide margin, the longest she ever went silent on me. It was exactly as I’d feared. But when she got over it and began sending me letters again, I felt seen by her, seen for what I was, in a way I’d never felt before. It wasn’t just that my “real” self had been concealed from her; it was as if there hadn’t really been a self to see.
Should we be mourning the essay’s extinction? Or should we be celebrating its conquest of the larger culture?
Kierkegaard, in Either/Or, makes fun of the “busy man” for whom busyness is a way of avoiding an honest self-reckoning. You might wake up in the night and realise that you’re lonely in your marriage, or that you need to think about what your level of consumption is doing to the planet, but the next day you have a million little things to do, and the day after that you have another million things. As long as there’s no end of little things, you never have to stop and confront the bigger questions. Writing or reading an essay isn’t the only way to stop and ask yourself who you really are and what your life might mean, but it is one good way. And if you consider how laughably unbusy Kierkegaard’s Copenhagen was, compared with our own age, those subjective tweets and hasty blog posts don’t seem so essayistic. They seem more like a means of avoiding what a real essay might force on us. We spend our days reading, on screens, stuff we’d never bother reading in a printed book, and bitch about how busy we are.
I quit cigarettes for the second time in 1997. And then, in 2002, for the final time. And then, in 2003, for the last and final time – unless you count the smokeless nicotine that’s coursing through my bloodstream as I write this. Attempting to write an honest essay doesn’t alter the multiplicity of my selves; I’m still simultaneously a reptile-brained addict, a worrier about my health, an eternal teenager, a self-medicating depressive. What changes, if I take the time to stop and measure, is that my multi-selved identity acquires substance.
One of the mysteries of literature is that personal substance, as perceived by both the writer and the reader, is situated outside the body of either of them, on some kind of page. How can I feel realer to myself in a thing I’m writing than I do inside my body? How can I feel closer to another person when I’m reading her words than I do when I’m sitting next to her? The answer, in part, is that both writing and reading demand full attentiveness. But it surely also has to do with the kind of ordering that is possible only on the page.
Here I might mention two other lessons I learned from Henry Finder. One was Every essay, even a think piece, tells a story. The other was There are only two ways to organise material: “Like goes with like” and “This followed that.” These precepts may seem self-evident, but any grader of high-school or college essays can tell you that they aren’t. To me it was especially not evident that a think piece should follow the rules of drama. And yet: doesn’t a good argument begin by positing some difficult problem? And doesn’t it then propose an escape from the problem through some bold proposition, and set up obstacles in the form of objections and counterarguments, and finally, through a series of reversals, take us to an unforeseen but satisfying conclusion?
If you accept Henry’s premise that a successful prose piece consists of material arranged in the form of a story, and if you share my own conviction that our identities consist of the stories we tell about ourselves, it makes sense that we should get a strong hit of personal substance from the labour of writing and the pleasure of reading. When I’m alone in the woods or having dinner with a friend, I’m overwhelmed by the quantity of random sensory data coming at me. The act of writing subtracts almost everything, leaving only the alphabet and punctuation marks, and progresses toward non-randomness. Sometimes, in ordering the elements of a familiar story, you discover that it doesn’t mean what you thought it did. Sometimes, especially with an argument (“This follows from that”), a completely new narrative is called for. The discipline of fashioning a compelling story can crystallise thoughts and feelings you only dimly knew you had in you.
If you’re looking at a mass of material that doesn’t seem to lend itself to storytelling, Henry would say your only other option is to sort it into categories, grouping similar elements together: Like goes with like. This is, at a minimum, a tidy way to write. But patterns also have a way of turning into stories. To make sense of Donald Trump’s victory in an election he was widely expected to lose, it’s tempting to construct a this-followed-that story: Hillary Clinton was careless with her emails, the Justice department chose not to prosecute her, then Anthony Weiner’s emails came to light, then James Comey reported to Congress that Clinton might still be in trouble, and then Trump won the election. But it may actually be more fruitful to group like with like: Trump’s victory was like the Brexit vote and like the resurgent anti-immigrant nationalism in Europe. Clinton’s imperiously sloppy handling of her emails was like her poorly messaged campaign and like her decision not to campaign harder in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
I was in Ghana on election day, birdwatching with my brother and two friends. James Comey’s report to Congress had unsettled the campaign before I left for Africa, but Nate Silver’s authoritative polling website, Fivethirtyeight, was still giving Trump just a 30% chance of winning. Having cast an early ballot for Clinton, I’d arrived in Accra feeling only moderately anxious about the election and congratulating myself on my decision to spend the final week of the campaign not checking Fivethirtyeight 10 times a day.
I turned on my phone to confirm that Clinton was winning the election. What I found instead were stricken texts
I was indulging a different sort of compulsion in Ghana. To my shame, I am what people in the world of birding call a lister. It’s not that I don’t love birds for their own sake. I go birding to experience their beauty and diversity, learn more about their behaviour and the ecosystems they belong to, and take long, attentive walks in new places. But I also keep way too many lists. I count not only the bird species I’ve seen worldwide but the ones I’ve seen in every country and every US state I’ve birded in, also at various smaller sites, including my back yard, and in every calendar year since 2003. I can rationalise my compulsive counting as an extra little game I play within the context of my passion. But I really am compulsive. This makes me morally inferior to birders who bird exclusively for the joy of it.
It happened that by going to Ghana I’d given myself a chance to break my previous year-list record of 1,286 species. I was already over 800 for 2016, and I knew, from my online research, that trips similar to ours had produced nearly 500 species, only a handful of which are also common in America. If I could see 460 unique year species in Africa, and then use my seven-hour layover in London to pick up 20 easy European birds at a park near Heathrow, 2016 would be my best year ever.
We were seeing great stuff in Ghana, spectacular turacos and bee-eaters found only in west Africa. But the country’s few remaining forests are under intense hunting and logging pressure, and our walks in them were more sweltering than productive. By the evening of election day, we’d already missed our only shot at several of my target species. Very early the next morning, when polls were still open on the west coast of the States, I turned on my phone for the pleasure of confirming that Clinton was winning the election. What I found instead were stricken texts from my friends in California, with pictures of them staring at a TV and looking morose, my girlfriend curled up on a sofa in a fetal position. The Times headline of the moment was “Trump Takes North Carolina, Building Momentum; Clinton’s Path to Victory Narrow.”
There was nothing to be done but go birding. On a road in the Nsuta forest, dodging timber trucks whose momentum I associated with Trump’s, and yet clinging to the idea that Clinton still had a path to victory, I saw Black Dwarf Hornbills, an African Cuckoo-Hawk and a Melancholy Woodpecker. It was a sweaty but satisfactory morning that ended, when we re-emerged into network coverage, with the news that the “short-fingered vulgarian” (Spy magazine’s memorable epithet) was my country’s new president. This was the moment when I saw what my mind had been doing with Nate Silver’s figure of 30% for Trump’s odds. Somehow I’d taken the figure to mean that the world might be, worst case, 30% shittier after election day.
What the number actually represented, of course, was a 30% chance of the world’s being 100% shittier.
Intolerance particularly flourishes online, where measured speech is punished by not getting clicked on
As we travelled up into drier, emptier northern Ghana, we intersected with some birds I’d long dreamed of seeing: Egyptian Plovers, Carmine Bee-eaters and a male Standard-winged Nightjar, whose outrageous wing streamers gave it the look of a nighthawk being closely pursued by two bats. But we were falling ever further behind the year-bird pace I needed to maintain. It occurred to me, belatedly, that the trip lists I’d seen online had included species that were only heard, not seen, while I needed to see a bird to count it. Those lists had raised my hopes the way Nate Silver had. Now every target species I missed increased the pressure to see all of the remaining targets, even the wildly unlikely ones, if I wanted to break my record. It was only a stupid year list, ultimately meaningless even to me, but I was haunted by the headline from the morning after election day. Instead of 275 electoral votes, I needed 460 species, and my path to victory was becoming very narrow. Finally, four days before the end of the trip, in the spillway of a dam near the Burkina Faso border, where I’d hoped to get half a dozen new grassland birds and saw zero, I had to accept the reality of loss. I was suddenly aware that I should have been at home, trying to console my girlfriend about the election, exercising the one benefit of being a depressive pessimist, which is the propensity to laugh in dark times.
How had the short-fingered vulgarian reached the White House? When Hillary Clinton started speaking in public again, she lent credence to a like-goes-with-like account of her character by advancing a this-followed-that narrative. Never mind that she’d mishandled her emails and uttered the phrase “basket of deplorables”. Never mind that voters might have had legitimate grievances with the liberal elite she represented; might have failed to appreciate the rationality of free trade, open borders, and factory automation when the overall gains in global wealth came at middle-class expense; might have resented the federal imposition of liberal urban values on conservative rural communities. According to Clinton, her loss was the fault of James Comey – maybe also of the Russians.
Admittedly, I had my own neat narrative account. When I came home from Africa to Santa Cruz, my progressive friends were still struggling to understand how Trump could have won. I remembered a public event I’d once done with the optimistic social-media specialist Clay Shirky, who’d recounted to the audience how “shocked” professional New York restaurant critics had been when Zagat, a crowd-sourced reviewing service, had named Union Square Café the best restaurant in town. Shirky’s point was that professional critics aren’t as smart as they think they are; that, in fact, in the age of Big Data, critics are no longer even necessary. At the event, ignoring the fact that Union Square Café was my favourite New York restaurant (the crowd was right!), I’d sourly wondered if Shirky believed that critics were also stupid to consider Alice Munro a better writer than James Patterson. But now Trump’s victory, too, had vindicated Shirky’s mockery of pundits. Social media had allowed Trump to bypass the critical establishment, and just enough members of the crowd, in key swing states, had found his low comedy and his incendiary speech “better” than Clinton’s nuanced arguments and her mastery of policy. This follows from that: without Twitter and Facebook, no Trump.
After the election, Mark Zuckerberg did briefly seem to take responsibility, sort of, for having created the platform of choice for fake news about Clinton, and to suggest that Facebook could become more active in filtering the news. (Good luck with that.) Twitter, for its part, kept its head down. As Trump’s tweeting continued unabated, what could Twitter possibly say? That it was making the world a better place?