Dylan MillerSociology 100BCritical AnnotationIn the article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”, Bill McKibben speaks on the attempts to curb the damage done by global warming, both current and in thepast. It seemed as though in the past convention, there was a good amount of positive feelings in the direction of combatting global warming. However, it showed how in the present, two of the most important countries to have curb their emissions, America and China, both showed very little incentive and caring for their portion of the damages they emit. The numbers and statistics we are given are very frightening as they imply a very gloomy and troublesome future. We seem to be ignoring statistical evidence produced by some of the most accurate and newest weather predicting computers, which doesn’t seem very intelligent.It seems as if the trade off in the case of environmentally safe technology is the cost that it would entail. People don’t want to give up their cheap flights, gasoline, and products in exchange for a safe environment. There is also so much money to be made in the crude oil and petroleum fields that the political attempts made by governments have little to no effect on the economic fields. Without government backing and the loom of a consequence for not conforming to greener standards, people are very unlikely to give up their cheap conveniences. In the long run, companies will not bow down to simple political constraints. Fiscal incentive is the number one way to get people to change their behavior, and it seems as if that is what must happen in order to stop the hemorrhaging that is occurring within our environment. Then, we may, if we are lucky, be able to reverse a minuscule portion of the massive damage we have done to our environment.Analytical Questions1) How do humans and our actions affect and shape our environment?2) What types of incentives do humans seem to respond to the best? Why?3) What is the best approach to changing negative human actions? Government,fiscally, morally?