Recently, researchers have shown an increased interest in environmental issues. Global warming, which is increase in the temperature of earth’s atmosphere and leads to climate change, is one of them. The controversy about scientific evidence for climate change facts has raged unabated. There are many factors affect global warming such as overuse of technology and lack of social awareness. However, it can be seen that the significance of the issue is deemed by humanity. The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the statement that technological solutions alone cannot solve the problems of climate change. There are other alternative solutions such as business people responsibility, individual responsibility and wilderness conservation. This essay will limited itself to focus on practical solutions for global warming as an environmental issue.
First of all, in the area of business people responsibility, it can be argued that business leaders should be aware that their roles are extremely vital with related to global warming issue. Therefore, it is becoming difficult to ignore the importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) concept, where it demands companies to consider individual and society benefits, so shareholders have to be compelled to apply it. The reason for that, there are a strong correlation between firms’ performances and climate change. In other words, business is one of the most main causes of global warming. Fortunately, many business people, nowadays, consider (CSR) concept positively. According to Wilkinson (2007), in 2000, 54% of executives believed that corporate responsibility was significant when they made their decisions, while there was a dramatic increase to 88% in 2005. Moreover, David Trewin, manager of business partnerships at the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), says that many more business people conceive that social responsibility should be embraced. However, some people see the situation differently, it can be rejected the idea that the (CSR) program has many disadvantages. One drawback of (CSR) concept is that utilizing (CSR) initiatives seem to be exceedingly costly. Furthermore, there are various provenances, for instance, lack of time and individuals, increasing of training and reporting requirements and risen stakeholder discussions will similarly be expensive (Superti, 2005). In addition, Heimann (2008) asserts that governments and individuals have obligations to be responsible for social responsibility, whereas business leaders have a right to focus on efficiency of the companies and shareholders’ profits. He also argues that (CSR) concept causes reducing of economic output. What is more, he contends that customers will be affected financially because they must bear every extra cost. Nevertheless, businesses do not have undoubted right to act in community, and also their income depends on general public. More than that, both business and society have an obligations and rights towards another (Heimann, 2008).
Furthermore, it may be claimed that individual responsibility toward the environment is an important alternative for technological solutions in order to solve the global warming problem. Indeed, public people are the main cause of the climate change phenomenon because they consume products that may result in greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide. Consequently, the risks of the climate change will certainly escalate. Thus, they, like business people, are responsible to protect the globe. At first sight, it seems to be difficult for people to take the lead on that complex environmental issue. However, it could be extremely effortless if they alter their behavior and consumption patterns. Whitty (2006) emphasizes that humankind have adequate potentials so as to cope with this predicament. Moreover, humans have an ability to modify their thinking fleetly. For instance, in 1970s, human race required distinction between black and white...
References: Ball, T 2007, ‘Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?’, Canada Free Press, 5 February, viewed 18 January 2010, http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
1. Heimann, G 2008, ‘Corporate social responsibility’, Heliberian international ship & corporate registry, viewed 20 January 2010, http://www.navigateconferences.com/downloads/Heiman.pdf
2. Hill, B 1994, ‘Wilderness valuation’, Parks & Recreation, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 28, viewed 2 January 2010, Academic Research Library
3. Lenzen, M 1997, ‘Individual responsibility and climate change’, Environmental Justice Conference, 1-3 October 1997, viewed 15 January 2010, http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/Greenhouse_Responsibility.pdf
Locke, H, Mackey, B 2009, ‘Wilderness and Climate Change’, International Journal of Wilderness, viewed 21 January 2010, http://www.wild.org/main/policy-research/wilderness-and-climate-change/
4. Superti, C 2005, ‘Corporate Responsibility – driven towards standardisation?’, Cranfield University, 2005, viewed 15 January 2010,
Trewavas, A 2001, ‘The Population/Biodiversity Paradox. Agricultural Efficiency to Save Wilderness’, Plant Physiology, vol. 125, pp. 174-179.
5. Wilkinson, M 2007, ‘The business of acting responsibility’, Charter, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 38, viewed 29 December 2009, Accounting & Tax Periodicals
6. Whitty, J 2006, ‘Global Warming: It 's Personal’, Los Angeles Times, 22 November viewed 19 January 2010, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1122-26.htm
Please join StudyMode to read the full document