By Cathy Doodnauth
Climate Change is real.
Climate change is a huge issue caused by the anthropocentric attitude humans have had for centuries. Yet with all of the scientific proof, there are still those who refute the issue even exists. The increase of the Earth’s temperature is a cause for worry; the change acts as a gradual sign that is not being taken seriously in present society. Climate change is a pressing issue that the world leaders need to realize is a big threat- a threat that once ignored, could cause the end of society as we know it. As humans, the species with beliefs of superiority to others, it is our duty to undo the wrongdoings we have done to the planet. In order for this to happen, leaders need to come together to decide on a global action. If they don’t, it is clear that we will be heading down a path we cannot fathom escaping alive; a worst case scenario that is becoming more possible each day.
Many writers, journalists, and scientists alike have written reports and articles discussing climate change. Despite all the warnings about irreversible global warming, there have been no successful attempts of uniting the world to fight the problems. While there have been talks, meetings between countries, and protocols drawn up, nothing solid has been created. All of this waiting, all of the time being wasted right now is what will surely ruin our own future.
Julia Corbett, the author of Communicating Nature, discusses current environmental issues in her first few chapters. Although she does not go into detail, she touches on the basics of environmental beliefs, which in turn lead to theories. These theories are what lead to scientific data being found to support the beliefs that things are taking a turn for the worse. Although there were some terms mentioned that I knew, there were more definitions and descriptions of ideas I never put terms to. Deep ecology, a term summarized as a philosophy where the inherent worth of living beings, is one of these main ideals. Those who have this philosophy believe that other beings are just as important even if they are not instrumental to human needs. They are known for advocating radical behavior in order to get their points across. Throughout history, successful ways to initiate change have been tied to violence. Deep ecology, while believed radical, is the environmental equivalent. Although interesting, a radical approach to changing climate change may not be what the world needs with the other issues today. There is violence within many of the rising issues of modern society- people will kill for the necessary items to survive, or turn to violence to protest racism and sexism. With all the fighting, wars, and murders of today, I do not think that deep ecology should be the answer to environmental issues. While it may be able to bring about solutions, adding onto the already violent nature of humans is not the right way to get results.
Another author that discusses the pressing issue of climate change is Bill McKibben, in his article “Global Warming’s Terrible New Math”. He discusses the big three numbers that are associated with global warming. The first number, 2°Celsius, is the limit the world has put on rising temperatures of the earth. According to McKibben, the earth has already warmed just under 0.8° Celsius, a rise that has caused more problems than scientists originally hypothesized. Limiting the total rise to 2°Celsius would hopefully limit the dangers that the world will face, although some say two degrees is pushing it. I believe that scientists are being overly hopeful- if 0.8° has caused more problems than believed, two degrees will be catastrophic. Hopefully humans can find a way to stay under just 1°Celsius. The second number McKibben discusses is 565 gigatons, which is the amount of carbon dioxide scientists believe humans can put into the atmosphere while staying under an increase of two degrees. Like the two degree limit, I believe that scientists are being very optimistic with this number. In the article, he says that the International Energy Agency published figures that said “CO2 emissions last year rose to 31.6 gigatons, up 3.2 percent from the year before”. He goes on to say that “study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we’ll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years….”
McKibben makes it clear that he too believes these numbers are very optimistic, and might not be as realistic as most hoped. The third number, 2,795 gigatons, is the number that scientists believe is the amount of carbon dioxide humans are planning on burning, despite reports of what we can sustain. This number is the “scariest” of all three. McKibben reports that the earth has “five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We’d have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate”. He goes on to say that before we knew those numbers, it may have been possible to keep a limit of 565 gigatons. But now that it is predicted that 2,795 gigatons is what we have, there would be some sort of huge intervention to keep humans from burning it up and ruining the earth completely.
The way that McKibben explains this number especially frightens me (and hopefully, frightens others) simply because I never knew the number of fuels remaining. I was unaware of the number of natural resources remaining that humans will most likely burn despite warnings of irreversible climate changes. With this new knowledge in mind, I agree that this last number is by far, the scariest of the three. McKibben’s tone of the article is definitely to inform in a way that holds the attention of readers. I believe this article is meant to captivate those that are not environmentalists. He writes in a way that is definitely successful in holding attention by highlighting the three most important environmental numbers of modern societies. By doing so, he is able to teach those who will hopefully be able to make a difference in climate change. Targeting those who are not environmentalists ensure that a greater number of people will know our planet’s limits, so that we may make changes for the future.
McKibben makes it clear that he too believes these numbers are very optimistic, and might not be as realistic as most hoped. The third number, 2,795 gigatons, is the number that scientists believe is the amount of carbon dioxide humans are planning on burning, despite reports of what we can sustain. This number is the “scariest” of all three. McKibben reports that the earth has “five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We’d have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate”. He goes on to say that before we knew those numbers, it may have been possible to keep a limit of 565 gigatons. But now that it is predicted that 2,795 gigatons is what we have, there would be some sort of huge intervention to keep humans from burning it up and ruining the earth completely.
The way that McKibben explains this number especially frightens me (and hopefully, frightens others) simply because I never knew the number of fuels remaining. I was unaware of the number of natural resources remaining that humans will most likely burn despite warnings of irreversible climate changes. With this new knowledge in mind, I agree that this last number is by far, the scariest of the three. McKibben’s tone of the article is definitely to inform in a way that holds the attention of readers. I believe this article is meant to captivate those that are not environmentalists. He writes in a way that is definitely successful in holding attention by highlighting the three most important environmental numbers of modern societies. By doing so, he is able to teach those who will hopefully be able to make a difference in climate change. Targeting those who are not environmentalists ensure that a greater number of people will know our planet’s limits, so that we may make changes for the future.
I also had the chance to read a few chapters from Mark Schapiro’s new book, Carbon Shock: A Tale of Risk and Calculus on the Front Lines of the Disrupted Global Economy. An environmental journalist, Schapiro has had many knowledgeable articles about environmental issues, which now includes the new book about climate change and the economy. The Stony Brook University Sustainability Studies Program invited Schapiro to discuss the new book on February 5th, 2015, and I was able to hear him speak live- an opportunity I thoroughly enjoyed. In his first chapter, Schapiro discusses the carbon footprint of traveling by plane. Although I have traveled by plane many times throughout my life, I have shockingly never thought about how much carbon dioxide the large planes emit. To know that three to four percent of all greenhouse gas emissions come from air travel was new, scary information. He goes on to discuss how Delta, an airline he favors (and I do too, having flown with them many times) said that they were “the emitter of 4,668,157 metric tons of greenhouse gasses”. That number is astounding.
Like I mentioned, I never gave much thought to the footprint from airplanes. When you think about it, you realize that there are hundreds, even thousands of flights, every day, all around the world. Most people worry about the costs of flying- something that plagues me whenever I want to escape New York. After hearing Schapiro speak, I worry even more about prices. Airlines are discussing adding on fees for the carbon footprint a passenger leaves behind on a flight. While some say the increase may be “four to six dollars”, others say prices can rise by at least 40 dollars US. Personally, my carbon footprint is a bit smaller than an average American’s. If you want to average how much your footprint is, the site here can calculate it for you. But even this calculation is made without including the carbon from airplanes. Adding it on would increase my footprint by hundreds of pounds, making me feel guilty. This is why I would not oppose to an eventual increase in ticket prices to combat the carbon emitted from a plane I was on.
Flying, while necessary sometimes, hurts the environment. It is the duty of humans to rectify this. While speaking at Stony Brook, Schapiro continued to discuss the implications of climate change in connection to economics. He touched on the fact that allowing climate change to continue could make economies of the world decline even more than they were. Examples include the possibility of failing crops- this would raise the prices of food, hurting the economy. This one fact was one of the reasons why Schapiro’s talk persuaded me into agreeing with his main idea. To save the environment would also save the economy. If this belief doesn’t get the attention of world leaders, what will?
Like I mentioned, I never gave much thought to the footprint from airplanes. When you think about it, you realize that there are hundreds, even thousands of flights, every day, all around the world. Most people worry about the costs of flying- something that plagues me whenever I want to escape New York. After hearing Schapiro speak, I worry even more about prices. Airlines are discussing adding on fees for the carbon footprint a passenger leaves behind on a flight. While some say the increase may be “four to six dollars”, others say prices can rise by at least 40 dollars US. Personally, my carbon footprint is a bit smaller than an average American’s. If you want to average how much your footprint is, the site here can calculate it for you. But even this calculation is made without including the carbon from airplanes. Adding it on would increase my footprint by hundreds of pounds, making me feel guilty. This is why I would not oppose to an eventual increase in ticket prices to combat the carbon emitted from a plane I was on.
Flying, while necessary sometimes, hurts the environment. It is the duty of humans to rectify this. While speaking at Stony Brook, Schapiro continued to discuss the implications of climate change in connection to economics. He touched on the fact that allowing climate change to continue could make economies of the world decline even more than they were. Examples include the possibility of failing crops- this would raise the prices of food, hurting the economy. This one fact was one of the reasons why Schapiro’s talk persuaded me into agreeing with his main idea. To save the environment would also save the economy. If this belief doesn’t get the attention of world leaders, what will?
Although my semester has only just started, I have already had my mind opened by documentaries I learned about through this class. Just two weeks in one class has broadened my knowledge on the subject of the environment. One of the documentaries I have recently seen for the first time is called Earth 2100. A two part series on ABC from 2009, this documentary uses both graphic novel drawings and supporting facts from renowned scientists to make its point: the Earth could potentially be going down a path we may be able to change but only if we act immediately. The style allows the audience to understand what might happen to the earth if humans refuse to act on climate change immediately. The documentary was able to successfully teach about global warming while warning the world of what could happen within the next century. It goes through what scientists believe to be the worst case scenario for our planet. Following the path of fictional Lucy, we see how our refusal to come together means certain destruction of the earth we have come to love. It highlights how our lack of solutions now can cause the sixth mass extinction of the planet’s history- this time, of the humans. By the end of the film, the audience is fearful of the future, wanting to help make the necessary changes right now.
Another documentary I recently watched is called Everything’s Cool. While it is also about the huge environmental issue of climate change, the creators took a different route than the creators of Earth 2100 did. Instead of choosing a fictional character to walk the audience through the terrible future coming, this documentary used sarcasm to highlight the beliefs and disbeliefs about climate change. Using interviews with different people with odd views on global warming, we are able to see that it is ridiculous that so many would disagree with the scientific fact of climate change.
Out of the two documentaries, I liked Earth 2100 more. The way it was made was very different from other documentaries about environmental problems. I enjoyed the graphic novel drawings that told the story, although the main idea scared me. I was frightened partly because it occurred mainly in New York, and partly because I put myself in Lucy’s shoes - it was hard to gauge how I would react in similar, life-threatening scenarios.
After reading articles, books, and watching documentaries, I decided to research Climate Change around the world; I came across the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a press conference held in Berlin, Germany, in April 2014. The IPCC website with their news and events articles can be found here. Although it took place almost a year ago, the speakers discuss the dangerous issue still present today- the lack of unity between governments needed to fight climate change. There are people attempting to work together to stop this problem; but the ones that need to come together refuse to for selfish goals. Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, touches on this in his opening remarks. “Effective mitigation will not be achieved if individual agents advance their own interests independently…this report brings out the need for an unprecedented level of international cooperation”. The fact that he has to mention this in 2014 proves that despite all the meetings, the conferences, the summits in the past, the leaders have yet to come together in a way that would actually help stop climate change.
But why is it taking so long for leaders to agree upon a stance against climate change if the world is in dire danger? In the previously mentioned article “Global Warming’s Terrible New Math, McKibben says that “the world’s nations, meeting in Rio for the 20th anniversary reprise of a massive 1992 environmental summit, accomplished nothing.” He goes on to say that not even President Obama of the United States government showed up at the summit. With the lack of attendances, it is apparent that many leaders do not take this issue as seriously as they should. I think that if the leader of one of the world’s most powerful countries chooses not to attend a summit as important as this, it is clear global warming is not important to them. It is this blatant disregard that will push our climate into further turmoil. The United States, while controversial in many ways, is influential to other countries. Seeing this world power not take an interest in climate change can send a message to smaller countries that it is not an important issue. This is the wrong message- this is what can hurt the environment even more.
But why is it taking so long for leaders to agree upon a stance against climate change if the world is in dire danger? In the previously mentioned article “Global Warming’s Terrible New Math, McKibben says that “the world’s nations, meeting in Rio for the 20th anniversary reprise of a massive 1992 environmental summit, accomplished nothing.” He goes on to say that not even President Obama of the United States government showed up at the summit. With the lack of attendances, it is apparent that many leaders do not take this issue as seriously as they should. I think that if the leader of one of the world’s most powerful countries chooses not to attend a summit as important as this, it is clear global warming is not important to them. It is this blatant disregard that will push our climate into further turmoil. The United States, while controversial in many ways, is influential to other countries. Seeing this world power not take an interest in climate change can send a message to smaller countries that it is not an important issue. This is the wrong message- this is what can hurt the environment even more.
After seeing how an IPCC conference in Berlin could help others understand how dangerous climate change is, I researched how other countries saw the issue. My parents emigrated from the country of Guyana, South America. Considering the amount of family I still have there and the lack of knowledge on how they view all of the current environmental crises, I decided to look into specifically the Guyanese view on Climate Change. In order to help reduce their emissions, in November 2009, the President of Guyana and the former Minister of the Environment of Norway signed a “historic Memorandum of Understanding.” This agreement allows Norway to provide funds to Guyana while they commit to avoiding deforestation.
Guyana holds a small percentage of the Amazon rainforest, a rainforest that has been referred to as the “Lungs of the Planet” as it produces more than 20 percent of Earth’s oxygen. By reducing deforestation, Guyana is helping the world reduce carbon dioxide emissions. If Guyana keeps up their results, Norway provides up to $250,000,000 US. When I first saw that Norway, a developed country in Europe, was helping out a small, underdeveloped country such as Guyana, I was incredibly happy. My spirits were high, knowing that countries will help out smaller ones in order to essentially help the earth maintain itself for a longer time. My faith in humanity, while only slightly, was restored. Knowing that the place where my family is from is trying to help the environment was definitely a heartening, and is something I am proud of. More information about their partnership can be found here. On this website, you can find more information about the progress of the project, along with interim reports from 2012 to 2014.
Overall, I had some prior knowledge on climate change. But having researched it more, read articles and even heard a talk from well-known environmental journalist, my knowledge has broadened. While there are some non-believers still out there, it is clear in so many different ways that climate change IS a real issue. Without limiting our carbon emissions today, it is obvious that human society will not last much longer. To limit the emissions, the world leaders must put aside their differences and come together. From my research on Guyana, it’s clear some countries are doing just that; a valiant effort. But the leaders of the world, the United States, China, India, are the countries that need to set the example and agree on a common reduction of carbon. If not, then the world as we know it will continue to worsen until one day we find it completely gone.
As of right now, according to Bill McKibben and the IPCC, not many top countries are showing signs of fighting global warming. Without their support, the world won’t fight climate change as they should. However, there is still some hope. Media pieces like Earth 2100, Everything’s Cool, and books like Carbon Shock can help convince the non-environmentalists that climate change is real. Documentaries and articles can help educate the world on the real facts behind global warming. The media can showcase the turmoil that the world will fall into, opening the eyes of those who can make a difference. Hopefully through these means, humans can finally put an end to hurting the planet, and instead, begin to save it from the inevitable.
As of right now, according to Bill McKibben and the IPCC, not many top countries are showing signs of fighting global warming. Without their support, the world won’t fight climate change as they should. However, there is still some hope. Media pieces like Earth 2100, Everything’s Cool, and books like Carbon Shock can help convince the non-environmentalists that climate change is real. Documentaries and articles can help educate the world on the real facts behind global warming. The media can showcase the turmoil that the world will fall into, opening the eyes of those who can make a difference. Hopefully through these means, humans can finally put an end to hurting the planet, and instead, begin to save it from the inevitable.
Cathy,
ReplyDeleteLoved your take on Communicating Nature. To quote Martin Luther King Jr, "nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time: the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence." I think violence can only get us so far. It would bring me great pleasure to see an animal abuser treated the way he treats his animals, but will that really bring justice? Probably not. Justice can only come with enlightenment through educating.
The most enjoyable part of your blog was reading how these works affected you personally, for example with the IPCC conference. You also seemed to have been just as blown away as I was about Schapiro's facts about airplanes. I'm not sure if I agree when it comes to the increase in airfare. Airlines want to up the prices due to carbon footprint, but is the extra money REALLY going to go towards repairing the damage left behind? Or is it just another way for big corporations to punish our wallets? Though if the costs were to actually increase it wouldn't personally matter much to me since I very rarely fly. Good idea to include the footprint calculator, by the way. My carbon footprint was estimated to be a lot smaller than the average, maybe because I don't consume meat, dairy, and eggs. It's a great thing to see how even small decisions we make in our everyday lives can actually matter. Perhaps if more people calculated their footprint compared to the average rates and saw how they measured up, it would encourage them to do what they can to lessen their impact.
Overall I really liked your blog. I do think there was a lot of summarization that could've been cut out - I had the same challenge trying not to summarize everything so much. It's much more of an interesting read to see how these things affected you and how you personally interpreted and related to each of them. Since we're all writing mostly about the same things it'll be great to learn more about everyone through how we're all translating everything.
- Isabelle