Climate Change, from Consequence to Action

By Robert Hong

In less than a hundred years, the Earth will undergo accelerated climate change. Sea levels rise rapidly, weather patterns fluctuate wildly, insect migration destroy crops, and humans will swarm in the millions to move out of these large bands of desolate territories in seek of a safe haven. Eventually, even the most prepared cities will fall victim to plagues, floods, and disease. In the wreckage of our once great society, the few survivors will be spread thin upon the land which nature repossessed. At least, that’s what “Earth 2100” will have you believing.

As a science fiction documentary, “Earth 2100” does an excellent job in bringing out our inner dismay about our world and makes us think. In this day and age, it should come as no surprise to a majority of us that the Earth is undergoing climate changes. A big part of this is global warming caused by our considerable carbon emissions. Of course, most people have read the occasional news article or watched other documentaries of how this happens, but “Earth 2100” seizes the opportunity to add shock value into the experience. Coupled with expert opinions and factual information, the program adds an intricate fictional storyline illustrated with fantastic comic-style art. The original and captivating plotline only serves to pull at our emotions, and bring this story to a more personal level - one that many of us can relate to, and that we do not want to see happening in our lifetimes.

Unfortunately, what the program does not touch on is the technological aspects as well as any current information on how we are tackling global climate change. It does mention green technologies in the form of cities, but it lacks a more hopeful view. All in all, the program serves as a reminder of the impending apocalypse we can face, letting us know that we’re still in a time where change will make a difference. What the program does do perfectly though, is create a sense of urgency. By giving us a timeline, we can feel these deadlines approaching and establishes a compelling case of why we must act against climate change, and soon.

So what exactly does it take for us to go over the hurdle? What will tilt the balance of this delicate beam that our climate is currently resting upon? According to the RollingStone article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math” by Bill McKibben, 2 degrees celsius is all it will take to irreversibly tip the scales. And in order to increase the global temperatures by these 2 degrees, it will take 565 gigatons of additional carbon dioxide to be released. These numbers hold such irony in that 2 is such a miniscule number - and this small number is the difference between a stable environment or catastrophe. On the other hand, 565 gigatons seems like an enormous amount, but according to the article, our current reserves has the capacity to release 2795 gigatons of carbon dioxide - roughly 5 times over the amount to propel us to doomsday.

In his novel “Carbon Shock”, Mark Schapiro reiterated his experiences on flights, warning us against the immense amounts of carbon dioxide that planes spew out per flight. Since planes carry far less individuals statistically, we tend to overlook this important factor. According to Schapiro, every ton of fuel we burn releases 3 tons of carbon dioxide. The only way that we can possibly stop that from happening is to work together internationally and create plans to reduce emissions via agreements between countries. Unfortunately, since air travel is linked to the economy, we can wave goodbye to something like that even remotely happening. When has our government ever taken the side of our climate over the wealth of society?

What does the future have in store for us? Well, according to McKibben, it may be already too late as we attempt to analyze these numbers without taking action. With the data that is coming in, we are forecasted to have many more summer droughts and destructive forest fires. With little evidence that we will slow down emissions - especially as our economies are so dependent on our carbon fuel sources - even if one country scales down their usage, other countries may not be inclined to agree with the plan. Back at home, a large part of politics is the fossil fuel industry, which unsurprisingly is heavily relied upon by everyday consumers. Somehow, after reading this article, I am inclined to believe that we as a general population, are not ready to make this transition yet. At the end, all we really have are numbers.

There is hope, and that exists in the technologies that we can one day turn to when the climate does fail us. But will the human nature impede taking the necessary actions when the time comes? In “How to Talk About Climate Change So People Will Listen”, an article in The Atlantic Magazine, Charles C. Mann describes the effect of climate data on people. He accurately describes how most people would turn the other way, as we individuals rarely think we can affect the collective. “How can we worry about such distant, hypothetical beings?” When we look at our lives right now, nothing seems out of the ordinary.

When scientists provide us with estimates, they range from centuries to millennia. Who could possibly tell when this devastation will occur? Who would find the time out of our fast paced society, which demands our utmost attention, to care about something that may or may not happen? When the majority begins to think this way, nothing gets done. All we get are still yet more numbers, and because of “important” factors such as economics, politics, and status, the government will never cease its internal struggle amongst its various agencies.

One thing that sticks out to me in this article is the mention of geo-engineering. That is, engineering our climate after the damage is done. The author seems to disagree with this way of going about global climate change, and I must wholeheartedly agree. In what way does anyone think is it plausible to spray toxic mists of chemicals into the atmosphere in order to cool down the Earth? If someone lets us know that the actions we are taking now is going to cause damage to the climate system, do we let it happen, and then devise plans which will further damage our health and livelihood? That is absurd, not to mention completely dense for anyone who imagines that is actually a logical solution.

To understand why we are stuck in this loop of inaction, one program that reasonably interprets this is the documentary “Everything’s Cool”. It is a sarcastic, somewhat humorous collection of interviews of various people. These people range from government officials to snow-makers. We listen to their stories, supplemented by recorded news broadcasts, and articles, and we are able to generate a picture as to why it is so difficult in our society to plan an action against climate change. Immediately, they let us know about the gap in which government agencies which supply climate change data become censored by ones that control budgets. Because of this doubt, there is a split in views and the general public become embroiled in a debate which results in stagnation and inaction. Can you believe that we are allowing the future of our Earth, of our generations, to lie in the hands of politics? How many more superstorms will we have to weather in order for the majority of agencies to realise that their current “budgets” will be tiny compared to the amount that will be needed to rebuild if our major cities become destroyed?

Currently, our in-air carbon dioxide is at 399.60 parts per million. According to nasa.gov, the temperature has risen 1.4 degrees since 1880. That is almost 75% to the 2 degree estimate, and we show no signs of slowing down our emissions. We lose 258 billion tons of land ice per year due to the higher temperatures. Of course, with more carbon dioxide in the air, it should be healthy for all the trees, no? Even though that may be true, we are cutting down 1.5 million square kilometers of forest a year. Without the tree coverage, we lose valuable carbon converters in the process.


People tend to view climate change as a bad thing. They talk about it as if lives depended on it. We say that if we don’t do something about it now, (and not just individual, but large sanctioned events) then we will ultimately destroy our current society. Some go as far as to say we would destroy our civilization itself. But even with these terrifying projections, we are largely unmoved. The world continues to emit pollution, and we continue to live luxuriously under the control of carbon power. In all of honesty, I believe that it will take some degree of devastation that we’ve never seen before to wake up the people who have the influence and power to do something. We may have to wait for consequences to cause actions after all.