Who is to Blame?

Who is to Blame?

      What is to blame for the collapse of Western Civilization? Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway wrote the Collapse of Western Civilization to show the fictional future of what Western Civilization will be like if we do not put emphasis on climate change. It raised the question of who is to blame for why the environment is deteriorating? Is it because we need better leaders, greed for money, or there is no trust in the scientists? I know that there are many factors that play into effect on the climate, but I think there is one that has the greatest effect.

     There is now scientific evidence to defend that the environment is deteriorating, and there needs to be more focus on climate change. More specifically, “scientists had recognized that concentrations of Co2 and other greenhouse gases were having discerning effects on planetary climate, ocean chemistry and biological systems, threatening grave consequences if not rapidly controlled” (4). Now we know what is direct cause of the climate change, which should cause people to change and fix this problem. This is not what is occurring “in the United States, political leaders-including the president, members of Congress, and members of state legislatures-took denialist positions” (5).  The leader of the nation should be the ones who advise their citizens of policies that need to be enacted in order to protect the well-being of the nation and earth as whole. If they have a president who does not care about the climate change, why would the citizens want to care about it. Not only can the leaders inform the people of conflicts that need to be addressed, they can pass laws that force their people to make change. Instead we have “those in what we might call active denial insisted that the extreme weather events reflected natural variability” (6). The reason we have these deniers despite having the scientific proof, is because it does not confirm their pre-existing beliefs. Additionally, they are surrounded by other people who are narrow-minded so that also makes them to remain static and keep harming the environment. There needs to be more people willing to be open minded to allowing for a contact zone to form, in order to grow and learn from each other to unite and create change.

   This does not necessarily mean that it is just the leaders fault, but also the way that the Western economy is built.   Money is so important that “critics claimed that scientific uncertainties were too great to justify the expense … and any attempt to solve this problem would cost more than it’s worth” (5). Western culture and economy bases success based on how much money, that it drives some to greed. Having an environment that is so focused on money makes it difficult to focus on climate change issues. Moreover, it is hard to want to create change if everyone around you does not want the same. It is this greed mentality where I think why should I give up eating meat or driving if another person is able to do that. Instead there needs to be a collective desire to change, because it is impossible for just one person to save the world. I do understand why it is difficult because I tend to focus on the short term conflicts, instead of how this will affect me in the long term. Whereas in China Oreskes and Conway predict that China will have “the ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralized government” (52). Since in China they have a more centralized that government where everyone is equal, people won’t be motivated by their personal greed to not focus on climate. The only problem this is that is just a predication of what will happen, and no will know for sure that their type of government is actually useful.

   Lastly maybe the main cause of people’s denial is not because they do not have good leader or economy, but their lack of trust in scientists. Sadly, when “physical scientists who spoke out about potentially catastrophic effects of climate changed were accused of being alarmist and of acting of self-interest to increase financial support for their enterprise, gain attention, or improve their social standing” (11).” As person who does believe in climate change it is disheartening to hear scientist degraded this way, because many of them have devoted their time into researching this. People might not want to accept that they have bad habits, so they go against the scientist who actually prove it to make themselves feel better. Since the issue isn’t too severe yet they don’t not worry about it, but once it’s gets to that point they are going to wish they had done something.

  To conclude, I see this trend with all the issues which is that western civilization is more about themselves and not about helping each other.  Western Civilization cannot improve or move forward, unless they come together as a nation and address it. We need to create an environment that is more empowering and optimistic about creating change, but how that will happen I do not know. I also do not think there is one reason to blame for climate change, because they are all connected in some way or another.