Climate Change: A Threat to our Social Environment

“I have had a terrible, horrible day converting oxygen into carbon dioxide, now I need a moment to just breathe” (Pinterest). People have been dealing with the argument on climate change for approximately 200 years. Scientists have studied the facts, recognized the evidence, and determined that global warming is the most important problem the world is facing today. American sociologist Eric Klinenberg wrote, “In recent years the cumulative toll of the greenhouse gasses that they have emitted has profoundly destabilized the climate, and with it, the social environment” (Klinenberg, xx). The idea of climate change hurting the social environment connects James F. Klumpp’s idea of social argument, since both refer to the setting where people live.

Likewise, the argument on global warming involves characteristics of the public sphere and private sphere because it affects every human being socially and individually. The idea that nature is the combination of the environment and human life determines why it is a social argument that must be discussed in both the public and private spheres.
People continue to argue about climate change and whether it is a big deal or something they should ignore. In general, everyone knows that temperatures are rising causing the environments way of living to change completely. It is apparent that human wastes of carbon dioxide is the cause of this monstrosity. There has been extreme talks on fixing this situation for approximately the past 10 years, yet nothing has been put into effect to officially curve the carbon emissions put in the atmosphere each year. Humans are selfish and tend to have an anthropocentric viewpoint- that they are the center of everything and outside of the environment. However, logically the environment provides the materials needed to survive on a daily basis. People use many of earth’s resources in their daily lives such as water and food of the land. Besides this humans use earthly supplies to build their homes and as energy resources. If the environment did not exist, then how would human beings still be surviving today? Therefore, society should not look at themselves being a part from the environment, but instead one with it. Humans and the environment is what makes up nature, and the warming of our climate effects the earth’s atmosphere effecting the environment which directly effects our lives.
Many people believe that global warming is far off in the distance but in reality it is knocking on earth’s door.

The high temperatures warm ocean waters, melt ice caps, and causes sea levels to rise. All of which sustain both human and nonhuman lives, therefore causing problems socially if what is needed to survive is being effected. This is why global warming is solely a social argument because it “shapes our lives; respect for critique defines quality in our life-world” (Klumpp, 120). People need to be aware of the climate change and its effect on their social context and community. People debate so they can create plans of action to fix situations that they are dealing with. Thus, when people use their social experiences to respond to the crisis of climate change they focus on their community and how it can develop ways to transform its community experience into the context of the problem. Since human behavior is causing this change in climate due to the reliance on carbon-based energy sources, it is only fitting matters must be taken in their own

hands.
Society relies heavily on opinion leaders- politicians and scientists- to tell them what is going on in the world. Except one can look outside and feel the air on their skin, and the difference is easy to tell. Social argument is something that does not take place in only one moment of time, but instead focus on the historical context as well. Looking at the facts, the temperatures have been rising over the years, making climate change not just an argument and problem of today. It is something society has been dealing with for a long time, communities have been dealing with the climate change for a long time. It is something that needs to be reinterpreted year after year because of how much it changes and it is this “constant reinterpretation that results marks the dynamism of social argument” (Klumpp, 119). It is also something that should not be talked about not only in the public sphere dealing with a huge amount of people, but debated by individuals with themselves on a day to day basis when they choose to emit carbon and other pollutants into the atmosphere.
The public sphere has been formed to become “a discursive realm in which individuals and groups may transcend their private concerns to interact freely in ways conducive to forming a common sense of reality” (Hauser, 438). For the basic characteristics of the public sphere are that argument is accessible to every citizen, everyone is able to share and access information, and it must be institutionally guaranteed. Argument in the public sphere allows it to become a discursive space where social reality can be evaluated in many ways. This public communication helps the crisis of climate change to be discussed with multiple scientists, politicians, and citizens all with different viewpoints. Having multiple viewpoints and opinions is healthy in argument and daily life because this allows society to accost problems that affect them. The only way to create policies is to argue and talk about the issue at hand and choose what should be done, the public sphere allows people to do this. Before society works together to decide what they care about and what is important they must form their own viewpoints individually.
The argument on climate change is definitely needed in the public sphere, but the issue is almost too personal to be ignored individualistically.

Fossil fuel emissions are the major cause in climate change and human beings are the ones using theses as their energy sources. The carbon dioxide that is emitted into the atmosphere cause changes in nature and the, “Violations of the natural conditions of life turn into global social, economic, and medical threats to people-with completely new sorts of challenges to the social and political institutions of highly industrialized global society” (Beck, 80). People need to throw away their anthropocentric views and realize that the issue is not only the environment being affected by global warming, but that their lives are being disturbed by this phenomenon also. Many people tend to try and not harm themselves, instead they aim to stay healthy so they can live long prosperous lives. German sociologist Urlich Beck’s idea that “nature is society and society is also ‘nature’” (Beck, 81) suggests that the argument on climate change is more personal than anything. It is something that should be discussed in the private sphere by individuals reflecting on their own lives and choices. Humans should not look at recycling, as an example, a way to reuse the resources the earth gives them to help it sustain, but instead as a way to ensure that there will always be resources for themselves and their descendants to survive. The carbon emissions

are not only polluting the atmosphere, but also polluting our bodies and ways of life. Until people view their own actions privately on climate change, can they bring the argument forward again into the public sphere and fully decide the measures that need to be taken to turn around this crisis.
Climate change has become a continuous argument both discussed by scientists and the general society because of its impact on the environment in which people live. Its effect on the environment has influenced how communities come together to share their opinions and experiences in hope to discover ways to fix the crisis. Since everyone has the ability to access all the information on global warming and are allowed to voice their opinions it is an argument seen in the public sphere. However, those participating in this argument must realize that it is not only a social argument, but an individual argument with themselves. People must analyze their lifestyles in a private setting before they can really announce their dedication to fixing the problem publically. The truth, so cleverly worded by Beck, is “society with all its subsystems of the economy, politics, culture and the family can no longer be understood as autonomous of nature” (Beck, 81). Climate change is not just any argument, it is one that involves all of society working together to develop public action and change their personal lifestyle to better benefit nature, their home.