Paper 4 Rough

Peter Eramo

Professor Deese

WR 100

Rough Draft 2 Paper 4

A Fork Between Three Researchers

In every aspect of life, society is provided with many options. Culturally, we relate this common situation to a metaphor best known as “the fork in the road.” This provides society with multiple choices that can either lead to a clearer path, or cause an individual to stumble. In his poem “The Road Not Taken,” Robert Frost elaborates that sometimes taking the road less traveled will result in a positive change, thus the best possible outcome. Researchers David E. Nye, Murray, and Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger all believe that a change is needed within society in order to preserve the world we live in. Though each researcher believes learning from our history is essential in reversing the current environmental issues we face, they use different methods to convince the public. Murray uses a scare tactic in order to gain the attention of his audience, while Nordhaus and Shellenberger promote awareness of environmental issues by positively relating to society.

Murray provides his audience with a pessimistic view of the world’s future. He uses the metaphor of a “tipping point” in reference to when society will be unable to reverse Earth’s environmental issues, “the tipping point is the point at which we cross the peak of the hill, and we no longer need to keep pushing to keep the planet moving towards a much hotter place; it will just keep rolling onwards all on its own” (Murray). Murray lists multiple reasons on why we are reaching this “tipping point.” The albedo effect, white surfaces reflecting more solar radiation than dark surfaces, is one of the major factors that has furthered the global warming process, “[as] greenhouse gasses melts ice and snow, it leaves behind dark ocean or land; those surfaces now absorb more solar radiation than before” (Murray). Furthermore, Murray expresses great apprehension in regards to the hotter temperatures being experienced throughout the world. The lack of rich soil has lead to higher amounts of carbon-dioxide releasing sources, which has lead to many forests drying out, which has lead to more forest fires, which in turn leads to even more carbon dioxide being released in our atmosphere (Murray). Many other issues, such as melting permafrost and over-consumption, has helped further the process of global warming to get to a dangerous level in which we may not be able to overturn. Murray’s solution: reduce consumption. When Murray refers to over-consumption, he is referring to natural resources and other environmental harming substances, such as carbon creating substances. By striking fear into his audience, Murray insists that we must take the path less traveled in order to secure the world we live in.

Researchers Ted Norhaus and Michael Shellenberger support there possible solutions to our environmental situations by relating the current issues to past problems we have faced in our history. For example, Norhaus and Shellenberger refer to Martin Luther King Jr’s famous “I Had a Dream” speech and recalls his “I Had a Nightmare” speech as well (Norhaus and Shellenberger 2). With these two speeches, Norhaus and Shellenberger relate the success King’s speeches had in regards to the issues of racism and equality to the possible success of methods to reduce global warming and other environmental issues. Because King had taken an alternate approach to make a difference in society, the knowledge had spread like wildfire, and society began to make a change overall in regards to equality. Both Norhaus and Shellenberger believe that if exposure can spread and knowledge can be instilled in the minds of society that a change will come. If we can realize how much of a difference King’s speech has made already in less than half a decade, society should trust the researchers’ opinions and heed there advice in order to make a change, “the truth is that King’s dramatic leap from the nightmare to the dream can be a parable for the future only if we first understand how much the world has changed since 1963” (Nordhaus and Shellenberger 4). With a less threatening and more knowledgeable approach, Nordhaus and Shellenberger assure society that a positive change will occur just as change has happened in our past.

David E. Nye brings up many environmental issues and discusses them in a scientific manner. Nye relates current issues to previous historical events such as the European expansion throughout America. He discusses how the explorers destroyed much of the natural resources that were previously here because of over cultivation. The issues Nye mention are the same mentioned by Murray and Norhaus and Shellenberger, however, the approach Nye takes in order to deliver his message is a mid-point between that of Murray and Norhaus and Shellenberger. Instead of striking fear into his audience or being over-optimistic, Nye delivers a realistic and safe message to his audience, “another 100 years of intense use of fossil fuels will accelerate global warming, increase desertification, and cause many coastal areas to be flooded by rising seas (Nye 96). Nye realizes that a lack of change in order to improve the environmental issues at hand will result in negative consequences, however, he is unsure of what the results will be and he decides to not disclose on a definite opinion.

The road less taken seems to be the only option society has left in order to reverse the current environmental issues we face. Though his approach may seem a bit too forward and pessimistic, Murray has the best method in getting his point across to the audience and successfully allows us to know the only way to fix the global warming problem is to end over-consumption. Society fears the road less taken because it is not the safe option that we naturally want to take. If instead society takes action and chooses to take the alternate route, we may begin to see positives changes with the environmental issues that are posed to us today.