Research Paper about Global Warming

When discussing global warming, it is a controversial topic for some to discuss since a few people either believe it does not exist or does not believe that man causes it. The real question is, what is global warming, and why is it controversial? Global warming is when the heat gets trapped in the earth’s atmosphere, mainly using the invention of fossil fuels (Nasa Website). When discussing global warming (with those who do not believe it exists),  most people state that it started before the invention of fossil fuels since events like the ice age happened without humans. While those events have happened, it has gotten progressively worse over time because of man’s influence. What can people do to stop it? Can it be stopped? If so, how? The article “It’s Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations” by Walter Sinnot-Armstrong, discusses his views on the topic and if it is solvable. His claim: one person is not the cause of global warming. We can do the steps to prevent it if we want, but it is not our job. It is the government who are the ones that need first to take action. 

According to Sinnot-Armstrong, going back to what people can do to stop it, the real answer is that it can be prevented but not stopped entirely. The first section of his essay, called “Assumptions,” describes different statements about global warming. One of them is “Because there is so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere already because carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for so long, and because we will remain dependent on fossil fuels in the near future, governments can slow down global warming or reduce its severity, but they cannot prevent it. Hence, governments need to adapt (Sinnot-Armstrong page 294).” Then, he elaborates more on the idea that previous generations constantly affect others. However, the first few generations at the beginning of global warming were not as involved since the greenhouse gasses were barely developing from burning fossil fuels. 

While he states that global warming cannot be stopped, throughout the rest of the article, he writes down many principles written about people’s behaviors and attitudes towards global warming and what can prevent it as if they were laws. When he writes them down, his primary example is driving a gas-produced car on a weekend afternoon for one day, and how that is not the cause, nor does it affect the rise in global warming. For one of the principles, “The ideal law principle: we have a moral obligation not to perform an action if it ought to be illegal (Sinnot-Armstrong page 305),” he explains that it is not wrong to drive a gas produced car since the government has not yet made it illegal, and if they did, it would cause prices to rise. Another principle he uses is “The group principle: We have a moral obligation not to perform an action if this action makes us a member of a group whose actions together cause harm (Sinnot-Armstrong page 307).” Here, he does not elaborate that much but based on the paragraph he wrote. He explains that if everyone bought a gas-produced car, it would be bad for the environment. He then shifts from talking about the gas car to people having children. But in translation, he says that even if it would be disastrous for everyone to buy a gas produced car, it is still up to the person if they want to buy an electric car (which is an option today), and only a handful of people want to buy an electric car. Based on observation, the reason is that it is rare to find a car charging station, and it is very pricey. 

One thing that brought attention while reading the material was when the author used different examples instead of his own to explain most of the principles, even though his focus example was driving a gas-produced car. He should have focused more on the car example. If he wanted to elaborate more, he should have transitioned into that topic, rather than jumping straight in, having the second example be brief instead of the main focus on the car. 

Regardless of that minor confusion, the author is correct about how it should be the government’s job to do things to prevent global warming. The thing is, people should help on their own, but only if they can. Of course, if they have to drive their car, then they shouldn’t be forced to give that up. If people are able to give up their cars (for random drives), then some alternatives could be walking, biking, trains, buses, carpooling, etc (Kiwi Energy Website). While some of those options are still using up fossil fuels, it is not as much compared to everyone on the train or bus in a car. Those people are all using one vehicle instead of hundreds of different ones. With biking or walking, Sinnot-Armstrong could still enjoy a weekend afternoon, by experiencing things better than just from the view of his car window. 

To conclude this essay, Sinnot-Armstrong’s claims regarding global warming were that individuals should be able to decide whether they want to help prevent global warming. Still, it is not required unless the government gets involved. My thesis is that people should get involved, but only with what they can give up without any conflict. So, between both myself and Sinnot-Armstrong’s arguments, both of our arguments do not matter in the long run. Instead, what matters most is how the person who reads either his or many articles about global warming reacts, and that should be solely up to them, which is the main focus of my and Sinnot-Armstrong’s essays.