Dangers. Obstacles. Solutions.

Dangers. Obstacles. Solutions.

This blog has looked at 10 different articles. All of them on climate change. But all spread out over different topics. These articles have introduced new dangers that can come of climate change, new solutions to climate change and new obstacles to those solutions. So, here are the top three new dangers proposed, new solutions given and new obstacles explained.

Dangers.

1.  Nuclear War Due to Climate Change

 The number one danger that can come from the climate crisis is not climate change itself, but the conflicts that could arise from it. Climate change will most assuredly lead to recourse shortages, and recourse shortages will lead to countries defending and finding more resources at all costs necessary. If we allow the climate to continue on its current course, hotter weather will be the least of our problems.

2.  Natural Disasters/Famine Due to Climate Change

The second largest danger that can come from the climate crisis is shortages in food and natural disasters. Basically, the second largest danger that can from the climate crisis is a changing climate. Natural disasters can kill millions of people, and famine can kill millions of people. The reason that this is not the largest danger is that nuclear war would leave almost no one standing.

3.  Economy Failing Due to Climate Change

The third largest danger that can arise due to climate change is a failed economy. Climate change will cost the Canadian federal government, and other governments as well, lots of money. Having to deal with new infrastructure and having to deal with more sick people among other things will cost money, and the world is already in enough of a deficit to have to pay even more money. However, the economy failing will cause no where near as many deaths as natural disasters or nuclear war, so it is third.

Obstacles.

1.  Geoengineering

Geoengineering is a weird one. It is the number one obstacle to climate change as it is somewhat of a false solution. Yes, it can fix our temperature problems and yes it can lower CO2 amounts, but we would just be remedying the problem, rather than finding a permanent fix. We cannot keep on switching to newer and different non-renewable sources. Geoengineering at some point will most likely stop working. We will run out of the lime needed to remove CO2 from the environment. And then the crisis will just start again, but at a much more rapid pace.

2. Lack of Urgency

The second largest obstacle to solving the climate crisis is a lack of urgency. Skeptics are not as large a problem as they used to be. But just because so many people believe that the climate is changing does not mean that many people believe that it is an urgent problem. You can believe that the Saskwatch exists but that doesn't really mean anything if you don't go out and find it. So we can keep on raising awareness about climate change and achieving nothing, as we need to create a sense of urgency. Urgency doesn't matter if we think there is not crisis, so that is why this is number two.

3.  Skeptics

Skeptics are an infections problem. They do not only not believe in the climate crisis, but try to spread this belief to others as well. How are we going to deal with a problem if we no one believe in it in the first place? The government will never do anything about the climate crisis if people do not care about it, as a large part of what any government/person in power does is please the people he rules. But why is skeptics not the largest or second largest problem? Well it does not matter if someone believes in something if they do not care about it, and it doesn't matter if someone cares about something if they think it is already fixed

Solutions.

1.  Geoengineering

Woah, a solution and an obstacle? Yep. Any solution that we find to solve climate change is going to take time. We will not just be able to find an alternative to CO2 and fix everything. Geoengineering allows us to delay the climate crisis from coming to a peak until we have a permanent solution. Because even if we find a way to make CO2 100% obsolete it wont matter if it's too late.

2.  Carbon Taxes

People like money. Corporations like money. Money makes the world go round. And carbon-based assets have a history of making a lot of money. The reason that companies do not want to fix the climate crisis is because they don't want to make less money, so if we start taxing companies heavily for carbon, they will be forced to switch to more renewable resources, as they will make more money through them. But, this won't matter if the climate crisis comes to a peak, so Geoengineering is still the most needed solution.

3.  Research

The third best solution to the climate crisis is just researching solutions at a faster pace. Yes, there are already semi-viable options which could change things, but by researching we might find an even better one. However Carbon Taxes will spur research, and geoengineering will allow research to take the time needed to find a solution, so it is the least important solution.

Climate science is Nate Silver and U.S. politics is Karl Rove

Climate science is Nate Silver and U.S. politics is Karl Rove 

 Find article here

Overview

Similar to the 2012 presidential election, the climate crisis is another issue in which empiricists' predictions are being ignored. When it comes to climate change, the numbers are clear. If we continue on our current path, the earth's core temperature will increase by a likely eight degrees F by 2100. This would lead to destruction out of our imagination, with plagues, droughts, food shortages and more. Science is telling us that unless we start dealing with climate change we are doomed. However, just like the 2012 presidential election, people are choosing to ignore science. People just thought that Romney would win then, and people think that climate change is not happening. The science is too scary, and the possible fixes are alarmist. But unlike the 2012 election if people do not realize that empiricism is right, then the effects will be permanent, as just because people thought Romney would win, Obama did.

Analysis

 Climate change is a scary thing. But this article has a point. Science points to our world needing a change in direction. The climate points to this. Nearly every piece of evidence that we have points to this. But people simply choose to ignore this, and instead choose to assume that the easier, not-scary option is the right one. People are really just denying that climate change is happening. However I feel that this article doesn't make it clear whether this is a conscious or a subconscious decision. It just says that people are denying that this is happening, and that they are denying it because it is easier to deny than not to deny. But I do not think that they are doing this consciously. I believe that our minds are doing this on their own, which is a scary thought indeed.

Roberts, David. "Climate Science Is Nate Silver and U.S. Politics Is Karl Rove." Grist. Accessed February 04, 2013. http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-science-is-nate-silver-and-u-s-politics-is-karl-rove/.

Green Growth or No Growth

Green Growth or No Growth

Find the debate here

Overview:

All four speakers believe that the climate is more imporant than the economy, however the question of weather we need to halt economic growth in order to save the climate is a heavily debated topic. Etkins and Lipsey believe that we can continue economic growth as technology will increase to a point in which we can deal with all of our emissions. They also believe that we will find new sources of energy that are both renewable and good for the economy. Jackson and Victor believe that economic growth cannot coexist with the climate, as one of the main externalities of economic growth is waste/GHGs. They believe that our technology cannot catch up to our growth.

Analysis:

The concept of creating a better climate while growing economically is an interesting one. This debate has proven, to me at least, that  not only can green growth and economic growth coexist, but that our economy can actually grow stronger through green growth than through carbon-baseed growth.   One of the most important points raised in this debate is the point that by having green growth, we can find new energy sources, which can in turn produce huge economic growth, as we will be using previously untapped energy sources. And this is already happening. There is technology which generates electricity from foot steps. If a company like Exxon used this technology, they could literally make money through doing nothing. It seems as if green growth is not only something that can lead to economic growth, but it could very well be one of the best ways to spur our broken economy.

"Green Growth or No Growth | Ideas with Paul Kennedy | CBC Radio." CBCnews. Accessed February 04, 2013. http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2011/02/02/green-growth-or-no-growth/.

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

Find the article talk Here

Summary:

Two degrees Celsius is the maximum global temperature rise that we could handle, and that would be pushing it. Earth can handle 565 more gigatons of CO2, but after that, we will have surpassed the two-degree goal. However companies such as Exxon have 2795 gigatons of fossil fuels in the ready, an amount that could destroy earth. For Earth to survive, we need to not use 80% of those 2795 gigatons. In order to solve this crisis, trying to change people's personal habits will not work. To solve this crisis, we need to start a climate movement where the enemy is the oil and coal industry. We need to create awareness of the industry's effect on the climate, and if we do not stop using oil and coal altogether, we need to create a heavy carbon tax, so it is expensive for both companies like Exxon to sell fossil fuels, and for people to buy them.

Analysis:

What a great article. It touches on everything. It gives a strong sense of urgency to our crisis, creates a powerful image of just how bad things can get, and explains what we need to do to even stand a chance of fixing things. I feel as if this article took a very smart approach to explaining climate change: numbers. It seems, to me at least, that having scientific statistics and numbers create a sense of legitimacy. I also feel that this article made a wise choice in openly saying that it is not our fault, but rather the government and the fossil-fuel's industries fault, as people in general would be much more willing to not only accept but want to help with a problem when there is a common enemy. It is actually quite similar to Al Gore's TED talk on climate change. Both propose switching from a carbon-based economy to a non-carbon based economy, and both propose doing this through heavily taxing carbon. There is one flaw with this article however, as it does not do a great job explaining that individuals need to step up. It says how it is not individuals fault, and it says that we need to pressure the government and do things such as boycott carbon-based products, but unlike Al Gore's talk, it does not stress that people need to be heroes. The talk explained that we need to change things our selves, where as this article focused on making other people fix this situation.

Kraft, Amy. "Floor Tiles Harness Power from Pedestrians." SmartPlanet. May 20, 2012. Accessed February 02, 2013. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/floor-tiles-harness-power-from-pedestrians/26572.

Floor tiles harness power from pedestrians

Floor tiles harness power from pedestrians

Find the article talk Here

Summary:

Scientists have a floor tile that is made of renewable materials that converts the kinetic energy from footsteps into renewable energy. One footstep generates around 7 watts of electricity, which can be stored for future use or can immediately be used to power something such as a light.

Analysis:

This is exciting technology, and it is exactly what we need. By harnessing the kinetic energy from footsteps, we are tapping into a nearly-infinite yet untapped energy source. And this is just the beginning, imagine if all the street lights in the world were powered by cars driving on the road and people walking on side walks. If we can start harnessing all of the untapped energy out there, then can really change the world. However this article is severely lacking on detail and explanation, and while what it talks about shows potential, it really does not do a great job at explaining the details. For example, it says that one footstep generates 7 watts of electricity, but it does not mention that 7 watts of electricity is enough energy to power a standard lightbulb for around eight minutes. So, the article introduces an interesting and exciting new technology, but could do a better job at doing it.

McKibben, Bill. "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math." Rollingstone.com. Accessed February 03, 2013. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719.

The Psychology of Climate Change Denial

The Psychology of Climate Change Denial

Find the article talk Here

Summary:

Even with a growing base of knowledge around climate change, more and more people are denying it, as we do not want to believe in climate change. People do not want to believe that their life-styles are causing devastation, as they do not want to confront their own roles. It is a scary thing, climate change, and we do not want to think about it. So, we create a bubble around our world and pretend that it is only affecting places like Bangladesh or Maldives.

Analysis:

It is a scary thought that climate change is happening. However, at least to me, it is an even scarier thought that humans can just deny things that are worrisome. People who deny climate change are no different than people who deny the holocaust. Both have indisputable proof, and both have people who were directly affected by it. Climate change denial is definitely one of the biggest hurdles in dealing with climate change, as it is hard to try to fix a problem that is so often thought to not exists. I think that politicians are not dealing with the issue of skepticism or climate change correctly. Currently it seems that politicians are dealing with climate change in a very small way, with not much attention put onto it. Instead, they should deal with skepticism. A large goal of the Obama Administration should be to educate people on climate change, as once people believe in climate change, we can start solving this.

"The Psychology of Climate Change Denial." Wired.com. December 09, 2009. Accessed February 02, 2013. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/climate-psychology/.

Al Gore: New thinking on the climate crisis

Al Gore: New thinking on the climate crisis

Find the TED talk Here

Summary:

Just like military conflicts are put into three separate categories, climate change is as well. First there are local problems, such as air and water pollution. Then there are regional problems, such as acid rain over a large territory. Lastly, there are world problems, which is where the climate crisis mainly lies, for the local and regional problems are just problems, while issues such as global warming are just that, global. Everything and one is affected. And due to this, we need to respond with a worldwide response. Everyone needs to switch to a more ‘green’ way of living, and most importantly there needs to be a global transition to a low-carbon economy. And this needs to happen now. The ice caps are melting at an astonishing rate. Earth is warming at a terrifying rate. Skeptics say that all of all of our extreme weather can easily be caused by variations in sun, but due to atmospheric temperatures this cannot be right. And there are less and less skeptics. 69% of Americans believe that global warming is real, and 68% believe that this is due to humans. But even with this new sense of belief, Americans do not think that Global Warming is very important. It is not a top priority of the president, and in the 2008 presidential debates, only eight out of the 3201 questions posed during the 2008 presidential elections by major TV networks were about climate change. So, how do we fix climate change? We create a CO2 tax. This tax would not only lead to a much better situation in regards to climate change, but would lead to solving problems such as poverty as well, as the best way to solve the poverty crisis is to solve the climate crisis. Our current system is flawed. Non-renewable energy is flawed. It’s bad for the economy and it’s bad for earth. We need to switch to a renewable non-carbon based economy. Just like how in the 1800s Lincoln was a hero by abolishing slavery, we need heroes to fix this disaster. The climate crisis is not a burden, it is an opportunity to rise to a challenge that is worthy of our best efforts.  We should be happy that we are the generation that a thousand years from now will be celebrated. And quite honestly, if the climate problem was given a week of what the Iraq War budget was, it would likely no longer be a crisis.

Analysis:

Al Gore’s TED talk on a new way of thinking towards climate change is an interesting one. First off, Gore is a highly captivating speaker, which really elevated his talk, which really was not in need of any elevation in the first place. His choice of examples was quite wise, as he managed to both demonstrate how bad the problem already is, and just how bad it could get. Gores message is an interesting one. He believes, and wants us to believe, that the climate crisis happening now is not a curse, but rather a blessing in disguise, as it allows us to be heroes. And independent of whether this is true or not, it is a wise point to make. Comparing solving climate change to something like ridding the world of slavery or giving blacks equal rights as whites is a powerful message, and one that will make people want to help. But this message has a possible flaw. Yes, we need heroes, but by stating that we need them many people will try to solve the problem for the wrong reasons. Yes, this may not necessarily be a bad thing, but by appealing to people via a hero-complex people will be attracted to solving the problem, but these people will very likely not be the hero that we need.

Gore, Al. "Al Gore: New Thinking on the Climate Crisis." TED: Ideas worth Spreading. Accessed February 01, 2013. http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_s_new_thinking_on_the_climate_crisis.html.

Geoengineering

Geoengineering

Find the articles Here and Here

Summary:

Geoengineering tackles climate change in two different ways. First, by restricting the amount of solar radiation that reaches earth, and second by lowering the amount of CO2 on earth. The former is done by doing things such as creating artificial clouds, putting water into the atmosphere and making clouds "shinier". The latter is done by creating artificial trees, or by putting elements such as lime in oceans which would naturally take in more CO2 in turn. But there is a problem with the method of restricting the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth. It is a remedy for the most common symptom of climate change, but not a cure for climate change. It makes it so that temperatures no longer rise, CO2 has other effects as well. However, even with all the skepticism of geoengineering, it is quite likely our future. If we continue on our current path of creating CO2, we will likely need it. But once we inevitably start using Geoengineering, we need to do it responsibly. We need to organize it, we need to regulate it. We cannot allow companies to deploy it in unregulated and reckless ways.

Analysis:

I don't really think that geoengineering is a solution to climate change, but is rather just a way of delaying the inevitable change from a carbon-based economy. Really it's the exact opposite of what we need, as we would just be fixing a problem caused by non-renewable energy by using a non-renewable material(such as the aerosols that we would spray in clouds or the lime we would put into an ocean.) Geoengineering could definitely be helpful in the future, but as something to delay climate change while we find a more permanent solution, rather than as a permanent solution. However it is very likely that, just as James Wilsdon said, it is quite possible that we will end up using geoengineering as a permanent solution to climate change, and this is a problem.

Wilsdon, James. "Don't Dismiss Geoengineering – We May Need It One Day." The Guardian. May 17, 2012. Accessed January 30, 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/17/geoengineering-spice-project-research.

"What Is Geoengineering?" The Guardian. February 18, 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/18/geo-engineering.

Climate change could cost billions a year by 2020

Climate change could cost billions a year by 2020

Find the article Here

Summary:

It turns out that Climate Change poses a economic risk to Canada as well, for a report created by "government-funded think-tanks" estimates that the cost of climate change could be $5 billion /year by 2020, and up to $43 billion /year by 2050, which is up to 1% of our GDP. This report also found that climate change could lead to additional deaths due to heat and air pollution  up to six deaths/100,000/year in the 2020s, and much worse in the future.The report says that the best way to limit increasing costs is by adapting."Global mitigation leading to a low climate change future reduces costs to Canada in the long term. [...] Canada would benefit environmentally and economically from a post-2012 international climate arrangement that systematically reduced emissions from all emitters " In order to solve this problem, the government must invest in research into the economics of climate change, and "work with universities and the private sector to get help with adapting to climate change". The article continues to state that this report is helpful, as it will help make Canadian more aware." this report is really clear about the fact that if we don’t act now and if we don’t […] lay out that initial investment now, we’re going to pay dearly – dearly – in the future, with our coastlines, with floods and fires, but also with health."The government's attempts to cut GHG emissions for for each sector is not working, yet it is shutting down plans that do work.

Analysis:

Unlike the article on climate changing affecting food, this article is nearly spot-on. It does a great job explaining the economic effects of climate change, but does not fail to mention that there are health effects as well. It also does a great job of explaining that climate change will have both immediate and immediate effects. I also agree with the fact that the release of this report is actually quite good. However I feel that the article could be somewhat clearer, as it could mean either that the public acknowledgement of economic effects will lead to more climate change research, or simply that these economic effects with lead to more climate change research.

 Payton, Laura. "Climate Change Could Cost Billions a Year by 2020." CBC, September 29, 2011. Accessed January 28, 2013. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/29/pol-ntree-report-climate-change-costs.html.

Climate Change’s Costs Hit the Plate

Analysis of : Climate Change’s Costs Hit the Plate

Find the article Here

Summary:

In the 1980s, climate change was thought to be a miracle, rather than a disaster. Experts thought that plants would grow faster if there was more carbon dioxide in the air, as carbon dioxide is a catalyst for certain types of plants. Experts thought that, overall, "food output should rise in a warmer and CO2-rich world."(Dixon) However these experts were wrong. We now clearly know that climate change clearly is a disaster. For it turns out that the externalities of climate change, such as drier soil and worse pest infestation, vastly outweigh the positive outcomes of higher CO2 levels.  Another problem that has arrived due to higher CO2 levels is heat shock. It turns out "that crops critical to humankind’s caloric supply [...] are extremely sensitive to even short periods of high temperature."(Dixon) More and more the temperature for a day is 40 degrees Celsius  and when just one day of 40-degree plus weather produces a 7% drop in annual yield of corn, it is clearly a problem. Skeptics choose to ignore that the current low crop-yield is due to climate change. They say that this type of weather has happened before. However, the frequency of extreme weather is increasing drastically. In the 50s extreme weather affected less than 1% of earth's land area. Today, extreme weather affects around 10% of earth's land. If humankind does not change it ways, and if we do not invest more in research that would develop crop resistance to drought and high heat, "climate change will depress global food production in the coming decades" Most do not care about climate change, but they do care about the cost of food. Hopefully the fear of costlier food will vanquish climate-change denial once and for all, and will generate political pressure to fix our climate.

Analysis:

This is a hit-and-miss article. It does a great job at explaining the possible future food crisis. Dixon chooses very powerful examples. I was impressed by his ability to explain very complex ideas in layman's terms. He also managed to demonstrate a sense of urgency, something that Al Gore explains is quite a problem. I believe that he is correct in thinking that the thought of having less food will make more people feel worried about climate change. However Dixon seems to have a very cynical view of humankind. For his reasoning behind the thought of having less food making more people worried about climate change is not that mankind is worried about starvation, or that we are worried about conflict over food, but that we simply do not want to pay more. So, while Dixon may have done a good job predicting that food-shortages will lead to a more wide-spread belief in climate change as well as a larger sense of urgency, his reasons are wrong.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas. "Climate Change’s Costs Hit the Plate." Editorial. The Globe and Mail, July 24, 2012. Accessed January 28, 2013. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/climate-changes-costs-hit-the-plate/article4436775/.