can you please check my grammar in this short analysis? thank you very very much
In the article, "Only science can save us from
climate catastrophe", political philosopher John Gray advocates the role
of technology in environmental debate on how to tackle environmental problems. While
the ecological footprint metric indicates, that "things are bad and
getting worse" (Carter 2007, pp. 1), the author presents us with neo-liberal
opinion that the best way how to solve the disruption of environment is
science.
Gray's technocentric thoughts oppose conservative New
Right philosophy of G.W. Bush and ecological theory proposed by environmentalists.
In article, he focuses selectively on particular areas of these philosophies
and pragmatically justifies negative stance towards them.
He doubts the
rightness of Green's ecocentric action to environmental problems and their belief in
sustainability arguing that these solutions are just temporary, leading to discomfort
and they will not reduce "our impact on the Earth" (Gray, 2008). In
similar vein, the author doesn't see any future in novelty of society and
rejects opinion that "the world" can reconsider and change its values
toward nature "There is not the remotest prospect that the world will
renounce the use of fossil fuels"(Gray, 2008).
This perspective is very close to G.W. Bush
conservative politics. However, as Gray emphasises, Conservatives support
organic gradual adaptation (Carter, 2007), prefer so called "appropriate
technology" (bio fuels) and are sceptical about "radical technical
experimentation" (Carter 2007, pp.67) - high technology.
Gray builds optimistic claim that nothing more than
expanding existing system e.g. nuclear energy, GM food, etc., with assistance
from technologies, is the only way forward (Gray, 2008). He incorporates an
ideology of development and shows that human ingenuity and technology are able
to fix the environmental problems. According
to Gray "any feasible remedy for the environmental crisis involves
high-tech solutions" (Gray, 2008). Thus the author directly
supports typical stance of neo-liberalism and call for "large capital
investment and the proliferation of experts" (Radcliffe 2000, pp.6).
Grays environmental policies represents
anthropocentric world view and priority is given to economic goals. In article,
the only intrinsic value (Carter, 2007) is accorded to humans, while nature has
just instrumental value. However, the suggestion that "a world of fewer
people would be far better place to deal with climate change than the heavily
overpopulated one " (Gray, 2008) indicates, that he attributes intrinsic
value just limited number of humans and thus indirectly employs theory of
winners and losers.
When building his arguments, he incorporates the fact
about climate change and focuses on selective environmental problems such as
global demand for energy and the overpopulation. The article follows logical flow;
however author's arguments lack scientific evidence from other studies and
direct quotation, what undermines their degree of certainty. Whole picture of
environmental debate is quite simplified and article appears to be just
statement against statement not very convincing for professionals. There is
employed the notion of neo-liberal ideology referring to economic liberalism. In
conclusion, his claims draw attention rather to sustained comfort raised from
capitalism than "sustained capacity of realistic thinking" (Grey,
2008).