Write at least 100 words that discusses how two readings that you have read so far relate to or conflict with each other. In the first sentence or two, be sure to have identified the two readings by name.

When responding to your classmates’ posts, please write at least 1-2 sentences that raise points that the original poster may not have considered, or deepen the analysis in some other way.

Student 1: The two articles we have read in this class that I find are conflicting with each other is Nigel P. Melville’s, “Information Systems Innovation for Environmental Sustainability” and Ben Tarnoff’s, “To Decarbonize we must Decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution.” These two conflict with each other because Melville’s article talks about improving IS for environmental sustainability which will require computer hardware and software to collect data and communicate with other researchers in order to do so. However, Tarnoff’s article says that carbon emissions are destroying the planet and that computer technology requires too much energy to manufacture and maintain, which is why he argues that we should just get rid of computers once and for all. Although both have similar goals, to improve the environment, each have different approaches as to how they want to achieve their goal.

Student 2: The two readings that we have read so far that relate to each other has to be National Security Implications of “Climate-Related Risks and a Changing Climate “and “Sustainable Development Goals” both provided to us on week 1. As I read these I saw many things in common the reason might also be because they are about the same topic. The way they relate is by talking about issues that we are facing such as climate change. Both of them also address the issue of poverty and how it is an aggravating existing problem. The readings also mention about economic issues, the way both show economics is as something we need to see more. These readings don’t actually have a specific writer since they are for organizations so that might be a reason of why they relate to each other, by content-wise and display-wise.

Student 3: I think the Rebound Effect and the Tragedy of the Commons are somehow related to each other. It is simply just the fact that when your favorite stuff gets discounted, you will buy more of it. People don’t care and probably in most of the time don’t know about the consequence of seemingly “beneficial” or “profitable” decisions they have taken. If the price per kWh goes down, people know that they don’t need to save electricity like they used to do and can stretch a little bit. The same logic applies to the companies that if the price per kWh goes down, they might be able to expand their production to match the new equilibrium.

The resource is limited but humans’ mind is not.

Student 4: Two readings that we have read that conflict with each other are Jeff McMahon’s article, “No One Seemed To Notice Greta Thunberg’s Critique of the New Deal”, and Saul Griffith’s article, “The Green New Deal: The Enormous Opportunity In Shooting For The Moon.” Both articles discuss the Green New Deal, but their views seem to diverge significantly.

Jeff McMahon writes in his article about Greta Thunberg’s critiques of many officials as “surrounded by fairytales”. She argues that people talk the talk and say nice-sounding things about the need to confront climate change to satisfy the people’s demands, but they tend to ignore or minimize actual scientific data that shows that climate change is happening right now. McMahon implies that the Green New Deal may be what precisely what Greta is referring to – a fanciful pipe dream suggested by legislators for the purpose of solidifying their political position. While McMahon critiques the Green New Deal as a political ploy, he also lays out how climate change is greater than a partisan issue – he argues that like Greta, we should ultimately recognize that climate change is bigger than a party issue – it’s an issue of humanity’s survival.

Saul Griffith takes a much more optimistic view towards the Green New Deal. He argues that the Green New Deal is feasible, and shows us data projections that explain exactly how decarbonization (the main point of the Green New Deal) can occur in the modern world. In doing so, he is setting out to refute critique of the New Deal from people like McMahon who believe that the plan is not realistic and cannot be carried out. He also mentions that the Green New Deal will improve the quality of life for many. Finally, Griffith states that while the up-front costs may be high (another critique of the New Deal), it is an investment that will have huge returns for society and humanity – indeed, he concludes that it is the “only viable pathway to American abundance and excellence.”

Both articles bring up interesting points about the Green New Deal, and it is helpful to note that both authors are in favor of addressing climate change. They simply disagree on whether the Green New Deal is the “correct” way to move forward, and this reflects many current discussions in America regarding environmental issues (and more broadly, societal issues).