At the grand opening of the American
Museum of Natural History’s “Aquapolis 2060” exhibit, children and adults alike
lined the well-known exterior staircase eagerly trying to peek through the
doors to catch a glimpse of the display. The time was 7:45 AM and the museum
was not supposed to open for another 15 minutes. Meanwhile, jolly coffee and
pretzel vendors tried to appeal to rowdy parents and children who had rushed
from their homes without breakfast to ensure earliest access to the exhibit.
Chaperones attempted to herd excited schoolchildren that wore bright green
t-shirts into buddy groups. Through the morning breeze drifted stray balloons
and plastic bags adorned with the fuzzy face that symbolized the event.
The time was 8:00 AM and the doors of the
museum burst with visitors. Frantic employees hurried to scan everyone’s
e-tickets. Aquapolis 2060 was underway. The ceiling and walls had been
re-engineered to exude the effect of being underwater, yet children and parents
could stroll the tiled floors while observing the models and machinations of
familiar organisms. Goldfish and sea bass swam through the air in an
intertwined fashion while octopi and manta rays danced on the ledges of the
corridor. But all of this animation was merely background noise to the main
attraction. In the center of the room lay a single, icy platform, and on it, a
sleeping, white bear. Curious toddlers loudly inquired what alien creature they
were looking at. To parents, the animal before them was representative of their
childhood, a thing of the past. They solemnly explained to their children that
what lay on that single icy platform was a polar bear.
The North Pole is predicted to be the
frigid home to as many as 20 mammal species, 100 bird species, and 400 fish
species. Among these species are the beluga and killer whales, the puffin, the
albatross, artic cod, and of course, the polar bear. While humans would find it
difficult surviving in Arctic temperatures, these creatures have no problem
toughing the -40 degree weather. As in all ecological systems, the creatures
that live in this environment are inherently interdependent on one another. A
break in the web of life that defines the existence of these animals could
result in the collapse of the entire community. So, a polar bear preys on seals
for food, and a seal preys on fish for food. But recently, the biggest predator
that these arctic animals face is the changing global climate.
It is traditionally believed that
increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have coincided with global warming.
These gases predominantly include carbon dioxide, methane, and various nitrous
oxides. When these gases float into the atmosphere, they capture heat energy
produced by the sun, resulting in a steady increase in the Earth’s temperature.
While these gases possess different heat trapping abilities, no gas is nearly
as concentrated in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, which is generally why the
cause of global warming is considered in terms of increasing carbon dioxide
emissions.
The effect of global warming on ice caps in
the North Pole is drastic. Due to global warming, temperatures in the Arctic
Circle are increasing twice as fast as they are anywhere else in the world.
Consequently, ice coverage in the Arctic has decreased at a rate of 9% per
decade. Because of this, scientists predict that the North Pole could be
ice-free by the year 2100. For instance, the 3000 year-old Ward Hunt Ice Shelf,
the largest block of ice in the Arctic, split all the way through from 2000 to
2002 and is now breaking into smaller pieces (“Global Warming Puts…”).
As the Arctic environment
continues to shift, the local ecology is severely affected. Not without
struggle, walruses, whales, and polar bears must adapt their migration habits
and their diets. I refer to polar bears again because they are among the most
at-risk species in the Arctic. As icecaps continue to subdivide, the living space
of polar bears becomes restricted, which in turn increases the scarcity of
food. They are then forced to travel longer distances to find sustenance. Many
cubs can’t survive these journeys, so they die along that way. Due to these harsh
living conditions, scientists expect a vast majority of polar bears to
disappear by the year 2050 (“Global Warming and…”).
 |
| "Guys?" |
So what can we do to reduce
global warming, slow the melting of the ice caps, and prevent the extinction of
polar bears? Most of these changes can be effected through the individual’s
consciousness of their carbon footprint, or in other words, one’s awareness of
how much carbon dioxide they are emitting into the atmosphere. To avoid large
carbon footprints, we can avoid using gas-powered vehicles when possible, use
less hot water, and buy energy efficient products. While we can greatly delay
the length it takes for global warming to deteriorate the Earth, global warming
is still inevitable. We are committed to the climate change caused by the
greenhouse gases we have already put in the atmosphere. What we can impact is
future climate change by reducing the greenhouse gases we put into the
atmosphere today. As a result, the question concerning the survival of the
polar bear species becomes not whether we can keep them alive, but how long we
can keep them alive for.
Works Cited
"Global Warming and Polar Bears." National Wildlife Federation. National Wildlife Federation, n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2013.
"Global Warming Puts the Arctic on Thin Ice." National Resources Defense Council. National Resources Defense Council, 22 Nov. 2005. Web. 22 Sept. 2013.
Marcus, your opening is very effective and draws the reader in very carefully, guiding them with an ambiguous setting, and then in the last sentence, delivering the main cause of your article: the fate of the polar bear. I wasn't sure when the article first started if you were talking about rising sea levels when you mentioned the idea of an Aquapolis 2060, so I naturally had to read on to find the true meaning of your article. I don't know if you planned it that way, but it definitely works on "hooking" the reader in and creating an effective opening.
ReplyDeleteUnlike "Goodbye, Miami", your article does not doom the polar bear as a byproduct of global warming, much like the author doomed the city to rising sea levels. I thoroughly enjoyed how you stated the rather depressing facts of the fate of the polar bear, but then ended your article on a high note by stating that there can be change, and that with enough environmental efforts, we can possibly slow down the effects of global warming, prolonging the life of the polar bear.
Overall, great article.
Marcus, I also enjoyed your opening, but I thought that the strongest characteristic of your post is specifically the way you present your arguments. First, the presentation of your evidence and the reasoning that you use to prove your argument is very effective in that it gives a very direct address to global warming, a topic normally approached without seriousness in many circles, without creating an aura of disdain for a particular audience. The way that you present facts and evidence as the center of the discussion on this issue frames the topic strictly within the domain of facts and reason, a strategy that typically excludes expansive, unscientific arguments that surround the denial of global warming. By making opposing arguments less effective, your article possesses a unique advantage in that it becomes harder for opponents to attack the ideas of your argument. Second, your argument has a very solid structure to it. You are very successful in identifying and describing the problem, then explaining the importance and impact of this problem, and finally identifying a solution. Furthermore, it is the solution that I think is particularly effective in communicating to audiences since it recognizes the inevitability of the extinction of these species, but continues to advocate that humans should still strive to solve the problem using your solution in order to prolong the lives of these species. Although I like the presentation of the solution, I think that you can do a much better job of establishing immediacy to the conflict and a motivation to act with the alternative. Since the topic you are covering is so specific and focused on Arctic species, people are much less likely to confront the problem or endorse the solution whenever the conflict has no immediate impact to their lives or advantage to solving. Therefore, establishing an advantage and an impact is crucial to connecting and proving the legitimacy of your struggle to the audience. Although you do a decent job of explaining the impact of global warming on people’s lives, you can do a much better job by simply offering an advantage for individuals to solve the problem. This advantage can be presented a number of ways, but the one that I thought about was the failure of the Northern seafood industry after ecological collapse. The key to an advantage is to make the effect probable and helpful enough to inspire individuals to save themselves after the presentation of the problem and the impact of failure breaks down an individual’s feelings of security. Furthermore, I think that the approach you had to promote evidence and reason compliments this strategy because it motivates people without resorting to emotional appeals, which would distract the reader from the article and succeed in alienating those individuals that the implicit reasoning of an emotion does not appeal to. In conclusion, you wrote an amazing post. Moreover, I actually enjoyed reading your response since your solid argumentation prevented me from attempting to think up counter-arguments or responses.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your article. The beginning was very interesting and even though I did not know what the topic was at the beginning, you made it clear by the end of the second paragraph. The descriptive phrases of opening day of Aquapolis made the paragraph even more intriguing. I also liked the picture you included. Very good article.
ReplyDeleteMarcus, great hook to open your article! Your image of the lone polar bear was very effective.
ReplyDelete