This deep thinking task takes as its source National Geographic's incredible April 2020 Issue. ***NOTE: To read the (fantastic and important) articles, you'll need to have a (well-worth-it) subscription to National Geographic (also accessible through Apple News+)!
The issue is conceived as a "flip" edition that positions the year 2020 as a midpoint: 50 years since 1970, the year of the first-ever Earth Day; and 50 years before 2070. when the holiday will (hopefully) celebrate its centennial. One "side" of the issue looks toward 2070 with optimism, presenting a vision for how humanity might successfully achieve climate justice in the coming decades. The other "side" takes a pessimistic stance, lamenting irreparable damage to our planet that cannot be corrected - and can at best, be mitigated - in the next fifty years.
Two essays anchor both sides of the debate: Headlining the optimists is Emma Maris' "Why we will Succeed in Saving the Planet from Climate Change." For the pessimists, Elizabeth Kolbert explains "Why we won't Avoid a Climate Catastrophe."
Our task calls on us to think deeply in anticipation and response to these articles - as readers, as scientists, and most critically, as members of the human community.
Part A: Anticipate
The very concept of this issue is enough to spark some tremendous deep thinking. Before reading the two articles, spend some time brainstorming what YOU anticipate the key arguments (and supporting evidence) for each side of the debate will be. What do you think are the top 3-5 reasons to be optimistic about 2070? What are the top 3-5 reasons to be pessimistic? How would you personally frame and explain these arguments? NOTE: The goal here is not to take a side, even if your initial perspective is strongly held. Instead, really try to consider the arguments and evidence for both sides. Consider using a graphic organizer like this:
Part B: Read
Now, go ahead and read both articles! As you read, guide your noticing and meaning-making with these two lenses:
*Content: You've anticipated your own likely arguments and evidence for both sides. How does the actual content and evidence of each article compare? Which content did you expect, and what content surprises you?
*Rhetoric: Keep in mind that both authors are writing specifically to convince the National Geographic readership that they should proceed with optimism or pessimism. In your reading, pay attention to their rhetorical strategies. How does each author construct her argument? What strategies does she use to make her point? Which strategies do you find most effective, and why? Consider images as well as words!
For Part B, consider taking notes in an organizer like this:
Part C: Respond
Now that you have thought deeply about the two pieces, it's your turn to respond! Depending on your experience of this exercise, you may want to respond by articulating ideas, expressing feelings, or doing a mix of both. Give yourself free reign, and select a genre/medium that works best for you. Consider a journal entry, an op-ed, a political cartoon, an info-graphic, a poem....
Resource: Response Template
Feel free to make a copy of this response template as you work through the above task! Two Sides of 2070: Reading National Geographic, April 2020
Thanks for thinking deeply about a topic of unparalleled importance - now, share broadly!