Benjamin Delshad -- Blog 1: Climate Change

By Benjamin Delshad

When going into depth on topics as complex as climate change, the most important thing becomes scientific facts to back up opinion and prediction. In the material covered this week in class we took a look at two documentaries that showed two very different aspects of similar problems. In Earth 2100 we as the viewer are taken along on an emotional rollercoaster as we follow a girl growing up in the mid 2000’s, where she faces extreme environmental dismay, which leads to social breakdowns. In the documentary Everything’s Cool we see a tragic case of scenarios with a sarcastic view of “everything’s cool” which reflects how we as a current society face environmental issues.

Both films attempt to evoke different emotion from the viewer, Earth 2100 attempts to scare the viewer with a sad story that shows a worst case scenario of a environmental breakdown where cities are flooded, water is scarce, and life as we know it changes completely. The way in which the story is told with the sketch like figures as you follow a girl’s life through the years and watch the world break down around her and the effects it has on society and man kind as a hole was effective in scaring the viewer. The story eventually leads to New York City where we have developed a utopic society that s extremely environmentally conscious and sustainable. But eventually it is all ruined with a great flood and the failure of a manmade wall designed to stop that very problem. It may not be completely realistic but it is not all science fiction it really hits home when you realize that there is actual science that things like this could happen.

Everything’s cool almost makes the viewer realize how serious of an issue global warming is by showing how little the public actually knows about it. But uses the tool of sarcasm to make a point that we view it as something that will never happen. Everyone thinks they are invincible until they get hurt, kind of a mentality.

In Bill McKibben’s Rolling Stone article, “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math,” we read that at a conference about climate change president Barrack Obama along with the administration develop the “Copenhagen accord” in a attempt to save face for the neglect they have shown toward the situation. Click here to view article . A passage from the article sates, “The accord did contain one important number, however. In Paragraph 1, it formally recognized "the scientific” view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius." And in the very next paragraph, it declared that "we agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required... so as to hold the increase in global temperature below two degrees Celsius.” 

This direct quote from the article shows that there are steps to make a positive effect on the currently bad situation but if you look at this at a pragmatic standpoint making a statement such as this is meaningless unless you make serious changes to ensure you stay under the threshold of 2 degrees Celsius. In that same article it states “So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected.” So is the staying under 2 degrees Celsius really going to help?

I find it fascinating that you global warming/ climate change has believers and deniers. I feel as though it should be a proven fact or proven myth. I did some research to find that not only is it an argued fact but that large government agencies disagree on the ideologies of global warming.  It seems like a common knowledge by now that the ice caps are melting. We are constantly seeing in the media that iconic picture of a polar bear on a tiny floating piece of ice. How is it then that in a NASA’s recent data that they claim that the ice caps have actually increased substantially in size?  A direct quote from an article called “Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size.” Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.” Click here to view link 

I have a hard time viewing all these different views on these problems and deciding which ones are true, usually the articles are written or reviewed by Ph.D’s and academics so who do you believe? In some findings they explain that the other side has been bough ten by the politics and is making these statements for monetary gain. Politics does play a huge role in these issues in actuality we do spend billions of dollars every year that go to global warming research, but on the other hand it if we can stop or make positive changes then that money will have been well spent. Politics and economics aside when it comes right down to the core of all of these issues they will effect everyone we all breathe the same air, drink the same water, so when the air is polluted and the water is running scarce politics and economics will not matter as much. We need to start taking steps now to prevent the things to come and if we keep the “everything’s cool” attitude we will be the ones who suffer.