In Rolling Stone’s 2012 article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”, Bill McKibben provides a call to action to the developing climate crisis we have been and will continue to be facing. McKibben emphasized climate change as a fight we need to take action on, stating “ we’re losing the fight, badly and quickly- losing it because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in.” (McKibben, 103) For much of the article, McKibben develops the claim that climate change is the result of many companies greed problems, and argues that we must sever ties with those who profit from climate change now. McKibben builds his argument around three numbers, 2 (degrees celsius), 565 (gigatons of CO2), 2795 (gigatons of
…show more content…
McKibben refers to John Fullerton, who calculates that those 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions are worth about $27 trillion. So if the scientists had it their way and we kept our climate from warming rapidly keeping 80% of the emissions undergrounds, these companies would be writing off $20 trillion they have already accounted for. 2,795 gigatons is not the end of the greed either, McKibben comments that “Exxon plans to spend $37 billion this year (2012) on increasing oil production.” (McKibben, 112) McKibben emphasizes how billionaires such as The Koch Brothers have made their money in hydrocarbons, and endorse political representatives that support the burning of fossil fuels, so they can continue making their money. McKibben states the importance of having in enemy, and that’s when people will act. He illustrates the carbon fuel industry and those who profit from it as the enemy. He provides the idea that once moral outrage has occurred, then that will give rise to a real …show more content…
He does a very effective job warning us of the devastating impacts that the continuous burning of fossil fuels could lead to, however I feel as though his argument falls short of what a movement would entail. Being educated the results of burning fossil fuels are and which companies do this, is something McKibben thrives in. McKibben ultimately creates an enemy throughout his article- the fossil-fuel companies. However, I believe that this is where his argument goes wrong. Instead of creating an enemy, why not act in a collective effort together to stop the burning of fossil-fuels and move towards other energy efficient ways the companies can still make profits and our climate can be protected? If citizens and companies in a collective effort were to transform the system that is giving the fossil fuel industry power, into a clean energy system, then industries could still flourish while prohibiting the warming of our climate. Our country is a capitalistic society with multiple values and most are based on making money. The fossil-fuel companies are today are ruining our planet with the goal of making as much money as possible, which is wrong but I do not believe that making them our “enemy” should be the goal. Instead, working to transform the system into a clean energy and non pollutive system could be a collective effort from both ordinary citizens and
McKibben refers to John Fullerton, who calculates that those 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions are worth about $27 trillion. So if the scientists had it their way and we kept our climate from warming rapidly keeping 80% of the emissions undergrounds, these companies would be writing off $20 trillion they have already accounted for. 2,795 gigatons is not the end of the greed either, McKibben comments that “Exxon plans to spend $37 billion this year (2012) on increasing oil production.” (McKibben, 112) McKibben emphasizes how billionaires such as The Koch Brothers have made their money in hydrocarbons, and endorse political representatives that support the burning of fossil fuels, so they can continue making their money. McKibben states the importance of having in enemy, and that’s when people will act. He illustrates the carbon fuel industry and those who profit from it as the enemy. He provides the idea that once moral outrage has occurred, then that will give rise to a real …show more content…
He does a very effective job warning us of the devastating impacts that the continuous burning of fossil fuels could lead to, however I feel as though his argument falls short of what a movement would entail. Being educated the results of burning fossil fuels are and which companies do this, is something McKibben thrives in. McKibben ultimately creates an enemy throughout his article- the fossil-fuel companies. However, I believe that this is where his argument goes wrong. Instead of creating an enemy, why not act in a collective effort together to stop the burning of fossil-fuels and move towards other energy efficient ways the companies can still make profits and our climate can be protected? If citizens and companies in a collective effort were to transform the system that is giving the fossil fuel industry power, into a clean energy system, then industries could still flourish while prohibiting the warming of our climate. Our country is a capitalistic society with multiple values and most are based on making money. The fossil-fuel companies are today are ruining our planet with the goal of making as much money as possible, which is wrong but I do not believe that making them our “enemy” should be the goal. Instead, working to transform the system into a clean energy and non pollutive system could be a collective effort from both ordinary citizens and