Critical Thinking Paper by Sadie Kiefer
Regarding climate change, the internet offers a wide variety of articles and topics. Within this topic, I chose the subtopic or question, “Who is most impacted by climate change, or (to be more specific) by pollution?” I found an article that states how much waste we humans make and how it affects our planet. Throughout this discussion, there will be many questions to answer throughout this paper, such as the following:
Is the question at hand well-stated, clear, and unbiased? Does the expression of the question do justice to the complexity of the matter at hand?
Does the writer cite relevant evidence, experiences, and/or information essential to the issue?
Does the writer clarify key concepts when necessary?
Does the writer show a sensitivity to what they are assuming or taking for granted?
Does the writer develop a definite line of reasoning, explaining well how they’re arriving at their conclusions?
Is the writers’ reasoning well-supported?
Does the writer show sensitivity to alternative points of view or lines of reasoning? Do they consider and respond to objections framed from other points of view?
Does the writer show sensitivity to the implications and consequences of the position they have taken?
First, I believe that the question at hand, being how well-managed our waste is and who it impacts, is well stated, however, the article doesn’t completely delve into the question of how. Meaning, how do we stop pollution and how can we improve the quality of managing waste? Thus, improving overall environmental and biological or human health. Furthermore, I believe that the answer to the question (“Who is affected by climate change or by pollution”- answered by the EPA), does justice to the issue at hand. The issue at hand was explained very thoroughly by the EPA, in the way they stated that waste management in the US, is sometimes put (even) underground and this shows how our drinking water is impacted by said waste. Just as another example, the EPA does a great job of improving awareness and giving the issue at hand a chance to reach as many people as possible, by stating that outside urban areas, there is a lack of better practices when it comes to waste management. Sometimes, the waste is dumped into landfills, causing issues like “disease vector hazards.” I had to investigate this type of hazard, which brought me to a page on the internet that lists types of said diseases. These diseases are unfortunately transmitted by insects, such as mosquitoes and other bugs that are host to these diseases, such as West Nile Virus.
Second, I would have to say the organization does a great job of citing relevant information essential to the issue by the links they provide within the article. They do this by, for example, showing how the trends of contaminated land have affected humans.
A third answer to the question posed above- I do believe that the organization did clarify key concepts, such as the different types of landfills and their separate negative attributes, as well as how climate change has impacted humans. Especially affecting populations that are undergoing stress within their environment, due to a lack of proper waste management within these communities. In the past, I have been informed that less industrialized countries have suffered due to pollution from other countries, even the US, where our waste is not as thoroughly taken advantage of. For example, we could be a community, in order to benefit other communities and even countries, that reuses more. Reusing plastic bags, until they are no longer reusable, and even reusing plastic straws for arts and crafts projects with the little ones. I find that we, in the US (myself included) have not been as educated on the impact our non-reusing tendencies have on the environment, which leads me to my next posed question...
Does the organization show a sensitivity to what they are assuming or taking for granted? I believe this organization demands that we educate ourselves for the betterment of our environment as we know it. I watched a movie called, How to Kill a Cloud presented by Vice, on how to essentially control rain (Alvi, Suroosh). Throughout this movie, scientists get funding from the UAE and thus, their project began. From struggles of trying to contain the scientist's excitement on the approval of said research, to the containment of excitement when it came to the funding group demanding certain aspects of the project be addressed. Nevertheless, this movie correlates to the topic at hand, because within the movie they discuss how organizations would want to weaponize the ability to control the production of rain. On the other hand, the article I have discussed prior to the mention of this movie discusses the certain educational benefits of climate change. More importantly, we have been a nation based on the progress of our education, compared to other countries. I mean “bending air” essentially to control the weather? It does seem far-fetched, and not possible, and yet something about awareness of this topic makes me want to see how much empathy we have for the controversy at hand (I.e., weaponizing the weather), but importantly how far we as a people will go to trust and empathize that we need this controversy to aid in the resolution to climate change.
The fifth answer I have for the question posed above would be the organization does develop a definite line of reasoning to thoroughly explain how they are arriving at their conclusion. An example of this would be the supporting links that they show within the article.
The sixth answer to the question that has been posed is that the organization does a thorough job of reasoning within the article. However, I did think there wasn’t as much reasoning in this article, but more so an educational approach to the topic at hand, which would be climate change.
The second to last question provokes the answer that the organization leaves a blanket statement that we don’t reuse as much as we should, therefore this line of reasoning doesn’t allow much debate to occur. However, given the nature of the educational article, it is given that this research could be conducive to an overall argument for climate change resolutions. The organization doesn’t include many other perspectives- most of their links (within the article) are EPA-supported research articles, but they do take a scientific and informative/unbiased approach to the issue at hand.
Lastly, the final answer I have for the question posed above, begs whether the organization shows sensitivity to the conclusions and consequences of the position they have taken by showing the raw data, as well as the unbiased approach to informing the public of how much our waste management has been lacking in various types of ways.
Work Cited
1. Alvi, Suroosh, director. How to Kill a Cloud. YouTube, YouTube, 7 Apr. 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CRx8uG9YPo&t=1335s. Accessed 10 Apr. 2022.
2. “What Are the Trends in Wastes and Their Effects on Human Health and the Environment?” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/wastes.
Comments
Post a Comment