global warming

this pandemic has been talked about so often. it takes up a substantiable amount of our newspapers, with depressing titles depicting nasty increases in global temperatures leading to devastating consequences.

not surprisingly, there's a lot of debates, in the news, media and online about who is really to blame about this issue.

the debates now are split into the three different opinionated groups.

but before i delve into the three proper, let's just take a look at global warming a little more closely. global warming is a process of the earth heating up, hence the term 'global warming'. it is mainly due to the rising emissions of gases that deteriorate and deplete the ozone layer, hence leading to more sun rays entering the earth's atmosphere and are not able to exit into space, leading to the heating and warming effect.

the gases are mainly, methane, carbon monoxide, chlorine and many other gases that i'll learn under organic chemistry next year. laughs.

the first group of self-acclaimed environmentalists claim that the blame should go to industries which produce such great amount of emissions of greenhouse gases. they claim that with the advanced technologies now present, there should be some device used, similar to catalytic converters in cars, to convert those dangerous gases into some compounds which are environmentally friendly.

the second group of mother earth advocates feel that the blame goes to the creator of industrial revolution who revolutionised how we implement technologies into the world around us. they believe that it's with this creation which led to the existence of global warming.

the final group has a more interesting view, both industrial revolution and industries are to blame.

i agree with the final group's point of view. first of all, i don't think that everything has to do with just industries or the creator of industrial revolution independently. that's pretty far-fetched and is not a supported claim.

we have to understand that industrial revolution, it was the use of steam engines to power machinery. the last time i checked, steam, the gaseous form of water was never a villain to the ozone layer.

consequently, i think what opinion was that, with the growing world population and demands for production from every aspect increasing, there was a need to tap on other sources of energy. hence, technology was improved and now, we see the usage of oil, coal and other natural resources. we now even see nuclear energy as the future propellant for energy demands.

it is clear that there is a possibility that the industrial revolution is, or rather was, the main trigger that set off ambitious aims at attaining greater energy production, without taking into consideration the possible effects of what their actions might do to the environment and the earth.

another cause of global warming: inconscientious industries that seek profit but fail to note the long-term effects of their actions.

industries now have become multi-faceted. with the growing affluence of countries, and the booming economy, some have moulded service industries, as opposed to primary and secondary industries.

hence, with the booming economy and an increasing demand for goods and services, industries have to reach out and attain these wants. this, i feel, is good for the growth and development of our countries. but sometimes, i think that we failed to implement measures that ensure that the industries not only contribute positively for now, but for the long-term.

this means that, they should be contributing to the economy actively, yet being stewards to the environment. i have seen reports of how much emissions of gases industries can generate and wonder why technology so advanced cannot do anything to address this issue.

surely there must be some viable inventions that scientists can come up to perhaps destroy chlorine atoms in the atmosphere, to prevent them from destroying ozone layer?

or a wonderful catalytic converter that can convert the major dangerous compounds into something more eco-friendly, or even beneficial to the environment?

i think that while we have successfully tapped on advanced technology to suit our daily life, and make me more comfortable, through use of air conditioners when days get hot, to mobile phones for communication and computers for data proccessing, i'm sure that we can use such technology for our long-term benefit.

furthermore, if we fail to address this issue, our so-called successes in technological advancements might lead to our very downfall if the global warming situation doesnt improve.

we have to do something. everyone, from every walks of life have to come together to generate ideas to create a possible solution to this problem.

it is already too late to continue being ignorant to this issue.