California Drought, Essay Example

Although many critics would suggest that the droughts occurring in California are to be blamed on the farmers and their desire for profits, it can be effectively counter argued that such droughts are not the cause of man at all but rather be due to climate change in a natural process of global warming. To put it simply, natural patters in the weather such as lack of rain and increased heat are the primary cause of the ongoing drought having its major impact on the state of California. Richard Seager, a professor for the Lamont Doherty Earth Observation at Columbia University, stated that even though the drought effecting California may appear to be extreme, it is actually very common for such a climatic event to occur in this state. If you take a look back in the historical weather records of California, you will find that droughts such as this one actually occur on a regular basis and are a unique part of California’s climate. The continuous weather patterns in California throughout the previous years have presented the warm and dry yearlong climate which the state is known for. Such a weather pattern is due to the folds in high pressure the commonly occur throughout the Northern East Pacific Ocean region as well as the western parts of North America where California is located. These atmospheric ridges of such high pressure inhibit the formation of clouds. Of course when clouds are inhibited from forming, this renders no chance of rain fall through precipitation. It should be noted that these dry weather patterns appear to be the opposite of what was previously predicted by computer models that calculated initial weather predictions based on human causes. (Rice)

Because of such common patterns in California’s historical weather records, it is much likely that this climatic event will strike California again, regardless of any changes that the state imposes on the living habits of residents, factories, and agriculture. This means that even if California continues to mandate state restrictions on use of water by its residents and businesses, this will not change the fact that the natural dry climate is what is actually causing the drought. This includes any mandates, restrictions, or even eliminations of farm in in California.

It is true that the process of farming requires great amounts of water usage as well as consumption. However, even with this given fact in the process of farming, nothing about this issue carries any effect on how the rises in California’s temperature have contributed to this severe drought. The argument that farm supporters in California are keeping all of the water for themselves through the desire for mass profits and political influence is an entirely different issue. This issue does not at all correlate with analyzing causes of the drought through a perspective of meteorology. There is a fine line between a drought and an economical shortage of water. A drought is the absence of natural forms of water such as precipitation and loss of water from natural bodies through an increase in evaporation. Now although a drought may contribute to an economic shortage of water, the drought itself cannot be the blame for the shortage. Farmers, agriculture, residential usage of water, among other human factors may be blamed for shortages of water in the economy, but this has no bearing on the naturally occurring climate in the Pacific region. This means that even if the farms in California are relocated to other states as critics would suggests, the climatic drought will continue to persist. (Samenow)

Should the residents of California switch around their life styles to conform to a vegetarian diet, then this would undoubtedly conserve water for the state. However, just like the arguments against farming, this would not change the naturally dry climate that California has historically experienced on a regular basis. Such an action by the state residents would help fight against the effects caused by a drought, but this would not fix the drought itself. Considering this scenario, the living habits of California residents such as prolonged showers, water hose usage, and a meat based diet cannot be the blame for the drought. (Sobel)

The idea that Nestlé proposed in driving an increase in bottled water for the state would is actually an adequate counter measure to fight against the effects of the drought. Bottled water has been selling at stores in the state of California, as well as every other state and just about every other country, for decades. Producing plastic would not contribute to the natural factors causing the drought if done correctly through recycling and safeguards against air pollution. (Stephens)

While the drought in California can be dreadful for everyone, the blame should not be pointed at the actions of humans as they are not the cause of it. Farming, diet plans, and factory produced bottles of water do not have any bearing on what has already been proven to be a naturally occurring event. While these measures can contribute to the prospect of conserving water for the state, they are not to blame for the drought.

Reflection

The aspects of the rhetorical situation that I felt I needed to change were the arguing elements that suggested should be blamed for the drought in the state of California. The reason I felt that I needed to change these factors in the rhetorical situations is because I viewed them from another perspective from the original. Where there were economic factors being used to fuel the argument, I saw the opportunity to use natural climatic factors to counter argue what the original claims were suggesting. After some research and use of economic logic, it became clear to me that the claims in the original argument were inaccurate and needed revision based on the extended research compelled by the counter claims. Where there was one perspective, I saw another to use as the basis of my new arguments concerning the drought in California.

They way that my changes affected each of the other aspects of the original argument were actually quite logical and compelling. The first factor I had to consider was what was actually causing the drought in California. I first needed to consider what constitutes a drought. After I concluded that the drought in California was a naturally occurring event based on my research, I then needed to counter argue each of the claims in the original argument piece by piece. First there was the issue of the process of farming and how it had an impact on the drought occurring in California. I knew that farming was an action executed by the works of humans. This was the basis of my argument and I used this to argue that farming would not change the climate in California. Next I had to analyze another human action in dieting. It was initially claimed that if all California residents were to switch to a vegetarian based diet, then this would contribute to eliminating the drought. My argument motioned that although a vegetarian based diet among residents would surely conserve water, it would not contribute to eliminating the climatic drought itself. Then there was the argument against the proposal of an increased supply of bottled water. I needed a way to argue that bottled water would actually be beneficial in fighting against the effects of the drought. I pointed out that bottled water had been a major part of the market for decades, and an increased supply would outweigh the minimal, if any, effects from the production of plastic.

Changing the rhetorical situation gave me a different perspective on the topic of the drought in California because I realized that there were many opportunities for counter arguments. Once I started to conduct research on my new arguments, I started to see a relation between both arguments. Although both arguments were driven by suggesting who or what to blame for the drought in California, they were based on different perspectives. The initial argument was based on an economic perspective, while the revised argument was based on a climatic perspective.

I learned from this writing process that in any argument, whatever claims are made, and whatever may be suggested, there is always an opposite perspective that can make counter claims against the initial argument. It is all a matter of which side has the most facts. Even in a case there one side of the argument has more facts, that argument may still be subjected to interpretation based on the perspective.

Works cited

Rice, Doyle. Causes of Calif. drought natural, not man-made: NOAA. 8 December 2014. 18 May 2015 <http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/>.

Samenow, Jason. Hot hands: Fingerprints of climate change all over California drought. 2 April 2015. 18 May 2015 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/04/02/hot-hands-fingerprints-of-climate-change-all-over-california-drought/>.

Sobel, Adam. Did climate change cause California drought? 2015. 18 May 2015 <http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/08/opinions/sobel-california-drought/>.

Stephens, Rachel. Plastics, human health and environmental impacts: The road ahead – See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/pollution-environment/plastics-environmental-health-literature-review#sthash.3XhAQeBU.dpuf. 9 October 2014. 18 May 2015 <http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/pollution-environment/plastics-environmental-health-literature-review>.