Introduction: -
It is obvious that humans are extracting more natural resources then needed. The main debate here is that some believe that nature is able to renew itself and therefore we are not harming it. This is the optimistic view. On the other hand side, there are the pessimists who believe that we are witnessing “the death of birth”. Every natural resource has a limited time span, including water. Maybe not in the near future but eventually, we will have no water left. It is fundamental to understand, what some (capitalists and businesses) are doing wrong, and how they are putting their mistakes under the rug so that it does not get portrayed the way it should be to us citizens. The media also plays a huge role in covering what is going on currently. I am on the ‘Pessimist’ side and believe that corporations are raping nature and the environment. While they are committing this crime, they are also causing disturbing and destructive harm to indigenous people and wild animals. I will elaborate on the pessimist view alongside the optimist view and analyze which one weighs more. I will also, specifically talk about the ‘Alberta Tar Sands’ in the frame of the optimistic and pessimistic views. Throughout the essay I will give a critical analysis and my overall idea on what needs to be done in the future to prevent further damage. …show more content…
No matter your viewpoint on the issue, you must recognize that humans have had a major impact on our surroundings since our time on earth. Climate Change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, in particular carbon. 40% of Canada’s emissions already come from Alberta alone, not counting the entire tar sands infrastructure across North America nor counting the projected increase in tar sands production or the infrastructure built across the continent to accommodate such increases in production. Factor it all in and you get the picture. You haven’t even burned the petrol yet (Timoney,
It is obvious that humans are extracting more natural resources then needed. The main debate here is that some believe that nature is able to renew itself and therefore we are not harming it. This is the optimistic view. On the other hand side, there are the pessimists who believe that we are witnessing “the death of birth”. Every natural resource has a limited time span, including water. Maybe not in the near future but eventually, we will have no water left. It is fundamental to understand, what some (capitalists and businesses) are doing wrong, and how they are putting their mistakes under the rug so that it does not get portrayed the way it should be to us citizens. The media also plays a huge role in covering what is going on currently. I am on the ‘Pessimist’ side and believe that corporations are raping nature and the environment. While they are committing this crime, they are also causing disturbing and destructive harm to indigenous people and wild animals. I will elaborate on the pessimist view alongside the optimist view and analyze which one weighs more. I will also, specifically talk about the ‘Alberta Tar Sands’ in the frame of the optimistic and pessimistic views. Throughout the essay I will give a critical analysis and my overall idea on what needs to be done in the future to prevent further damage. …show more content…
No matter your viewpoint on the issue, you must recognize that humans have had a major impact on our surroundings since our time on earth. Climate Change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, in particular carbon. 40% of Canada’s emissions already come from Alberta alone, not counting the entire tar sands infrastructure across North America nor counting the projected increase in tar sands production or the infrastructure built across the continent to accommodate such increases in production. Factor it all in and you get the picture. You haven’t even burned the petrol yet (Timoney,