After watching Heat, it is easy to realize the effects of global warming caused largely by what humanity labels progress and on the “acceleration of human consumption” (Smith). More than ever, individuals are taking a proactive, almost cult-like approach to save planet Earth. But, who is behind this “save the planet” crusade)? Who determines what needs to change to protect the earth and its natural resources, and in fact, sustain life itself? Concerned individuals and those dubbed “environmentalists” are behind this effort.
According to dictionary.com, an environmentalist is 1) an expert on environmental problems, and 2) any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects (dictionary.com). In Heat, these experts and advocates are speaking out, especially about global warming and its effects on earth and the future of humanity.
There is no denying that everything nowadays, either manipulated by Man, as in fuels and waste products, or by nature, as in cow methane emissions, has profoundly accelerated global warming. Others, such as Joseph Romm, author of Hell and High Water, take a more cautious approach,” ...What it [global warming] does is it just makes certain things more likely. So you cross a threshold and you get a collapse” (Smith). We have crossed the threshold, and going back is an impossibility.
It is difficult to imagine that the snowcaps of Mt. Everest and the Himalayas are gradually disappearing. From 1921 to the present, 40% of the snow that covered these majestic mountains has melted. (Smith). At this rate, it would seem that in 100 years, 80% of the snow will be gone. Many, experts or not, are quick to tell society what to do to stop global warming. For instance, Rick Boucher, a democrat from Virginia, states, “By the year 2050, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions between 60 and 80 percent” (Smith).
However, this is an unattainable goal that is realistically not in the hands of the people accustomed to modern comforts. Indeed, very few would turn their backs on anything considered a basic need, such as electricity and fuel. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to regress into a pre-industrialized era owing to population size alone. Governments, for instance in the United States, could regulate the number of vehicles per household to reduce pollution, but such a move, would exacerbate the chaos in countries struggling to survive homelessness by supplementing with second jobs, double incomes, and forced commutes, in addition to family responsibilities such as child and elderly care. Government could also limit cattle raising to curb methane gas emissions. Humans would have to depend on other game or agriculture for sustenance. Would agriculture be enough to feed humanity? To do so, populations would require tremendous amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, water, and the right climate, and our climate is already at...