Governments across the globe, are shifting towards making policies to curb climate change. Certain individuals disagree with this school of thought, citing individual lifestyle changes as a better way to combat these environmental issues. In this passage i will discuss reasons for this dichotomy and provide my opinion.
Starting with the first the school of thought, people see the government in any society as the driving force for change, and as such when policies such as the one in question are made and implemented appropriately by the authorities, the general populace falls in line. Now the laws being proposed to curtail this menace to societies at large are quite radical; though needed. The policy is one that is all encompassing; it is proposed that frivolous plastic disposal would now be a crime, punishable by the law. Secondly, a shift from the traditional sources of energy i.e. burning of fossil fuel and flaring of gas is to be instituted, this means turning to renewable energy; solar energy for household use,use of electric cars etc.
On the other hand, the earlier vie is opposed by certain people who think that a change in the way we live individually is the way to go. They have cited governments implementation of drastic policies,as the bane of their argument. In their opinion, sudden forced changes might lead to a massive outcry by the public and possibly violent protest. To add to this, they argue that policies such as these ,are infringement on the civil rights of the common man. Hence, changes to our traditional way of life should be advocated for.
All in all, while there are 2 varying views regarding climate change, i most certainly subscribe to the first view; as time is the essence in the fight against the menacing effect of global warming.