Please peer-review and edit the following comparitive analysis:

Half Draft Writing Project 2

I selected Nathan Fiala's, "The Green House Hamburger" and Alice Chen and Vivek Murthy's, "Should We Be More Optimistic about Fighting Climate Change?" In the first reading, Fiala presents a conversation on the contribution to greenhouse gases of processed beef. He asserts that the higher consumption rates of beef worldwide leads to an increase in the level of Carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere. He proposes alternative food choices to lower the greenhouse emissions from beef. In the second article, Chen and Murthy's present an interesting conversation on climate change and the measures being taken by various institutions on curbing the impact of climate change in the environment. Chen and Murthy present a rarely viewed aspect of the conversation that despite the prevailing climate change impacts in the environment, there are tangible milestones meant at curbing the impacts of climate change. This paper will review the similarities and differences in the two closed theme research readings.

The two articles are similar in highlighting the impact of climate change on the environment through various practices. In the, "Green House Hamburger", Fiala presents the negative impact of the beef production in the environment through the generation of greenhouse gases. He states, "It turns out that producing half a pound of hamburger for someone's lunch--a patty of meat the size of two decks of cards-releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles (Fiala)." The production process of beef is costly from rearing of cattle, production of meat, processing of meat into various products, transport of meat to various places, and eventually refrigeration of the meat products. Despite the environmental impact of various food products, beef remains at an all-time high in the contribution on the buildup of the greenhouse gases within the atmosphere. The data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research indicate that beef production process emits about 6.5 trillion greenhouse gases in an year (Fiala).

In Chen and Murthy's, "Should We Be More Optimistic about Fighting Climate Change ?", the authors present a conversation on climate change and milestones achieved in mitigating the impact of the climate change in the environment. The authors' describe how climate change has impacted the lives of people in various sectors. ".... extreme weather increases the risks and costs of employees who work outdoors, in construction, delivering mail and packages, utility maintenance, farming or policing...(Chen and Murthy)." Everyone is impacted in various ways by the change of weather due to climate change. Chen and Murthy describe the climate change to be the greatest health risk globally.

The main difference between the two articles is the main focal point. While Fiala emphasis is on the contribution of the beef production to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Chen and Murthy focus is presenting the two sides of the conversation; the effects of the greenhouse gases, and the measures taken to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Fiala starts his discussion through stating that production of beef for our tables has a dire environmental cost. The cost ranges from rearing of cattle to the presentation of the beef products at the dinner table. Chen and Murthy choose to show us the least viewed side in climate change debate; measures taken to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Through the article, the authors present various mechanisms taken to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the hope in the fight for climate change.

Works cited

Fiala, Nathan. The Green House Hamburger. Scientific American. Feb 2009, Vol. 300 Issue 2, p72-75. 4p.

Chen Alice & Murthy Vivek. Should We Be More Optimistic about Fighting Climate Change?. Harvard Business Review. September 16, 2019.