Maddie H. Blog Post #1

In chapter one of Jennifer Clapp and Peter Dauvergne’s book, they explain one of the many purposes their book has. They explain that through writing about the various world views they hope to help students “navigate a seemingly unmanageable avalanche of conflicting information and analysis.” While it is important to write about environmental issues that are purely scientific or educational, I appreciate that their writing incorporated not only this, but the debates and drastically differing views as well. While I agree with various aspects of the four ways they categorize beliefs about climate change, I think I agree most with the Social Greens. To me, they seem the most realistic about the state of the earth and how it relates to social justice issues. Last class, we completed an activity where we organized ourselves around the room based on how pessimistic or optimistic we are about the state of the planet. Originally, I thought I was very pessimistic but after everyone explained why the chose their spots I realized I was more in the middle. Clapp and Dauvergne make it clear that they are not telling anyone to be more pessimistic or optimistic, but they are providing necessary tools for individuals to form their own opinions and find their own course of action, which I believe is a very effective writing style. One thing I had never heard before that was mentioned in McKibben’s article is the idea that some scientists think that two degrees is too lenient. Since I have heard the notion that all we need to do is stay under two degrees repeated over and over again I guess it never occurred to me that it might not be enough. While this article provides information about why these scientists think that and what evidence they have, I would like to explore this more and possibly discuss it in class!