Argumentative Essay: The tragedy of Greta Thunberg

đź“ŚCategory: Climate Change, Environment
đź“ŚWords: 799
đź“ŚPages: 3
đź“ŚPublished: 18 June 2021

David Harsanyi, a leading syndicated columnist with the National Review seems to unswervingly advocate for the opinion of the “tragedy of Greta Thunberg.” Climate change is one of the most consequential challenges the world faces today, complexity inherent in every potential catastrophe. Yet Harsanyi, who has written about politics for years as a celebrated senior writer considers the prominent teen--the source of inspiration for thousands--as a product of “concerted information.” It is deeply disturbing to find one whose noteworthy academic background of Harvard degrades her actions, as well as excused climate march absences compared to “religious holidays” and educational systems “panic-stricken talks'' held “over and over.” However, why should we not be encouraging youth’s comprehensive ability to take action? Why not allow the people who UNICEF guarantees “will face the worst effects'' and will inherit the future irrevocably marked perceive what has been bequeathed to them, to fight against it? The piecemeals eradicated by international responses have quite proven to not qualify as effective, the problem cuts to the core of our essence to understand climate change--starting with the generation facing it all. /Facts have proved that the fragmentation that the international response has eliminated has no effect. This issue cuts into the core of our understanding of the nature of climate change-starting from a generation that has faced it all.

One of the most contentious statements Harsanyi claims in his article is how “by every quantifiable measure, we are better off because of fossil fuels.” Needless to say, I am forced to question whether oil spills creating havoc on waters, the fact that as climate change accelerates we could be pushing more than 120 million people into poverty by 2030, and the misleading procedures that protect the companies yet endanger our health are considered in his statement. Additionally, no matter how much Harsanyi wills to deny my belief, he is revealing the problematic gaps of our understanding because fossil fuel systems truly are invisible. They are in our home heating, in the lights we switch on, in the cars we drive...it is easy to see how vacantly we consider it although it isn’t even covering the consequences. Therefore, while Harsanyi may assert how it doesn’t affect our “human flourishing” it is misleading when at present this wobbles on the “10-12 years, as cultists claim” of irreversible climate change effects. Indeed, Harsanyi greatly disregards factual data, contradicting statistics with uncorroborated judgments from cynical views.

Repeatedly blaming people by saying “it’s the fault of…” is a key argumentative tactic Harsanyi undoubtedly masters. This distorted way of thinking does not only make his verdict unreliable, illustrating the blames is pointless as well. His repetitive listing of blames such as the“ ideologues who obsess over every weather event” describes it as though it is shameful when in fact, they confront the existential threat and link the apparently abstract concept of climate change into tangible and proven effects. What use is it to blame them, the media who “ignores” or  politicians who are “too cowardly” to tell hopelessness for sustainability, if we know the consequences? Who exactly is responsible - the people he has blamed, or all of us, who have absent-mindedly been the consumers for the harmful products? Now isn’t the time to point fingers, the problem eventually boils down to the very nature of people’s mindsets―including yours.

Towards the end of the article, Harsanyi greatly criticizes the “tradeoff progressives pretend doesn't exist” and the economic devastation cutting off emissions would do. But I wonder how, exactly, does traditional economic growth play a genuine factor in human happiness, in our success in life? His persistent emphasis on the horrible effects that cutting emissions would have on us decidedly ignores arguments against this --arguments giving humanity hope. In reality, low-carbon substitutes may be difficult, but reducing consumptions of meat and traveling by air transport should not be a huge economic loss and would be a viable target. Equally, while consumers are limited to choose between available products, just by reducing our material waste footprints, we make a difference. Why waste time discussing negative issues when it is something we must do? Hence, Harsanyi must understand that rather than emphasizing the perspective of competitive concerns, he should be discussing the implementability of policy as well as how political will would tie into climate protection. 

To conclude his unsubstantiated report on the “tragedy” of Greta Thunberg, Harsanyi states that the “regressive ideas” suggested by Greta Thunberg should be rejected, so that the “generation won’t have to suffer so needlessly.” This is simply a baseless assumption: Our generation is already suffering; exceptional heat waves throughout Northern Europe and countless effects of the changing climate on susceptible people. Adriana Opromolla, International Advocacy Officer has even claimed that “transformation is possible, but political will is needed to make it happen,” at the NGO Caritas Internationalis. Nonetheless, Harsanyi, numerous other world leaders, fossil fuel companies, and in the individual sense, perhaps you as well, have been reluctant to change. But this movement, this will and energy set off by Greta Thunberg cannot be stopped with these fallacious words―our generation is ready to change. Above all, they understand that change is not economic devastation, it is the very way in which we are going to evolve...

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.