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/.

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

Find the article Here

Summary: 

There is a secret report, which was suppressed by US defense chiefs, that warns that major European cities will be flooded due to rising seas by 2020, due to climate change. This report also states that this climate change could very well lead to "Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting [...] across the world." It states that climate change could "bring the planet to the edge of anarchy" as countries will use nuclear weapons to "secure [their] dwindling food, water and energy supplies" The report goes as far as to say "once again, warfare would define human life".

Clearly, what this report states is a problem, but not only for us, but the bush administration as well. For the Bush administration has a clear "climate change is fake" stance.  However, the administration is also focused on national defense. Given that the report states that climate change is happening, and that it is a huge "imminent" threat to national security, it would make sense for Bush to focus on it.
This is not the first time the Bush administration has been scrutinized for its climate-change policies. It has also come under heavy fire with the allegation that it "cherry picked" science so that it could help its policy agenda.
Many people and scientists are hoping that this report forces bush to change his mind.
'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.'
Climate change is an interesting threat to national security because there is no one to point your guns at.
 The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

Analysis:

This article is quite informational. It raises a good point about climate change, which is that not only do not many people believe in it, but that there are many people in power who do not believe in it. This article does a good job explaining just how bad the crisis is by showing that the main problem that comes from climate change is not climate change it self, but the conflicts over resources that it will cause. However this article may not very as applicable today as it was nine years ago. Bush is no longer president, and  a record number of people believe that the climate is in fact changing. However it could actually be just as applicable but in a different way, as while climate change acceptance is quite high, people do not consider it to be very important, a point that Al Gore raised in his TED talk on climate change. Overall this article does a good job showing the urgency of climate change, however I believe that only half of the article is applicable today, as Bush is no longer in power, and climate change acceptance is no longer really a problem.

Townsend, Mark, and Paul Harris. "Now the Pentagon Tells Bush: Climate Change Will Destroy Us." The Guardian. February 21, 2004. Accessed January 21, 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver.