Q3. Give an example of where there on-going substantial debate or contest about a risk event or issue. Briefly explain what the contest or debate is about. (About 3 or 4 paragraphs).
Q3: On-going substantial debate around whether or not humans are the source of recent climactic changes (read: global warming) still dominates much environmental discussion. Whilst the general consensus is that humans have at least made a large contribution to the development (or speed of development) of global warming, there are still large numbers of visible skeptics.
Those who believe that humans are the cause of global warming generally believe that we should act reflexively and preventatively, slowing production or changing production and consumption practices, reducing the output of pollution and so on, thereby, they suggest, minimising or slowing environmental harm so as to prevent some of the negative effects and so as to provide ample time to assess the environmental situation.
The most common reasoning amongst the various groups of sceptics, however, is that environmental changes are entirely external, and the result of being on a continuum that has been going on for billions of years and relates to astrological and physical phenomena, not human damage. Furthermore, some go even further, and redefine the risk, stating that to act too reactively can only result in greater costs to individuals, nations, other organisations or to humanity as a whole than would otherwise result from simply accepting the natural changes in the planet’s climate.
Q3: On-going substantial debate around whether or not humans are the source of recent climactic changes (read: global warming) still dominates much environmental discussion. Whilst the general consensus is that humans have at least made a large contribution to the development (or speed of development) of global warming, there are still large numbers of visible skeptics.
Those who believe that humans are the cause of global warming generally believe that we should act reflexively and preventatively, slowing production or changing production and consumption practices, reducing the output of pollution and so on, thereby, they suggest, minimising or slowing environmental harm so as to prevent some of the negative effects and so as to provide ample time to assess the environmental situation.
The most common reasoning amongst the various groups of sceptics, however, is that environmental changes are entirely external, and the result of being on a continuum that has been going on for billions of years and relates to astrological and physical phenomena, not human damage. Furthermore, some go even further, and redefine the risk, stating that to act too reactively can only result in greater costs to individuals, nations, other organisations or to humanity as a whole than would otherwise result from simply accepting the natural changes in the planet’s climate.