As we all know, Global Warming has become a major scientific and social issue during the past decade. Global Warming - the increase in greenhouse gasses- has captured broad public attention because it would easily damage the nature and many souci-cultural aspects of life. That's why it should be investigated thoroughly. In the following essay, I will introduce you to the different approaches of some writers and state their possible answers to this global problem.
First of all, although these commentators differentiate in their approaches, they all agree that the greenhouse effect would have catastrophic consequences that can be easily observed on earth. They all chose to begin their articles by identifying what global warming is and the reasons for it. Most of them point out that the greenhouse gasses and particles trap infrared radiation. As a result, the average surface temperatures increase (Schneider, 1989). The reasons that they all figured out are mostly based on too much combustion of fossil fuels and depletion of vegetation cover (Smil, 1990). Then they all indicate possible solutions such as, reducing CO2 combustion and the rate of population growth, in order to solve the problem or at least minimize the effects. Moreover, they emphasize on the governmental and international actions such as 'Kyoto Agreement' which have been taken to cope with this long crisis. All of them interpret G.W. through a cross international framework. That's because this warming has become a world problem.
However, the articles differ in many ways. The ways they explain the issues are not the same. Vaclav Smil discusses about the issue more generally, by giving some historical data and responses from people. For example, he includes the changing rates of secular rise of fossil fuel combustion and conversion of forests and grasslands to crop fields in his article. On the other hand, McCullough only talks about one of the governmental actions: 'Kyoto Agreement' and the responsibilities of an individual for decreasing the CO2 emissions per year. According to this agreement she says; countries should decrease their CO2 emissions by seven percent. She also notes that according to well-known scientists, we need reduction more than seven percent (Mccullough, 2000). So, Vaclav Smil follows a historical approach in expressing his ideas. On the other side, Stephen H. Schneider, in his article named 'Greenhouse Effect', emphasizes more on scientific and political studies on Global Warming. He points out the scientific issues surrounding the greenhouse effect such as projecting emissions and regional climate responses (Schneider, 1989). Then, he gives information about the policy responses just as Mccullough did, as mentioned above. So, we can say that he generally looks into this issue in a political and scientific way. John Bongaarts however, mainly focuses on population growth and say that it's expected to be one of...