Response to Post 3: Global Warming
Read through your classmates' responses on the how the US and international community should address global warming.
Respond to one person you agree with and one person you disagree with. You do not need to post twice. Include both responses in one post. Address who you are responding to clearly at the beginning of the paragraph. You do not need to write more than one paragraph to respond to each person (ie. you are required to write 2 paragraphs total). Explain why you agree or disagree with their view on global warming public policy. Please use at least 1 source per paragraph to back up your opinion and cite your sources.
Please post your response here so we can keep the original posts and the response posts separate and more manageable.
Due by January 4th (my birthday) by 8am!
Enjoy your vacation! M. Aby
posted by M. Aby @ 8:38 AM
33 Comments:
I found this response post fairly difficult to complete; many of the ideas that my classmates have, I agree with. Many found that the biggest international barrier to the climate crisis is a lack of cooperation, leadership and action. I especially liked reading Joe Plutt’s post – it was really funny as well as informative. I couldn’t agree more about the importance of figuring out the global warming issue. Politicians do need to give global warming a top-priority spot. This is a problem that is real: it has “…been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academics of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries” [1]. This should easily be enough proof to verify the severity and necessary action against the climate crisis.
As to whom I disagree with? That was much harder to choose. Eventually I had to become persnickety and look at the details. Therefore, I have to disagree with Solveig and “McYacub’s” arguments that the greatest barrier to solving the global warming and carbon emissions crisis is the (global) economy. I see the economy crisis almost as an aid to solving this climate crisis - and also, the climate crisis as an aid to solving the economy crisis. It seems to me that climate control can act as a stimulus package for the economy and therefore solve both problems. A stimulus is “…something that incites to action or exertion or quickens action, feeling, thought, etc.” [2]. Isn’t that exactly what both the economy and environment need? I think that this situation presents itself with its own solution by using the opposite issue to its advantage. Now politicians just need to agree to solve both problems rather than solve just maybe one at a time.
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
2) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stimulus
Before reading about the debates in Copenhagen, I knew next to nothing about the issue of global warming. I found it very interesting reading what everyone had to say about what they thought were the greatest obstacles to be overcome. I found Peter’s post particularly intriguing. I agree with the argument Peter made when he talked about how the US and other “significant” countries can set an example, but that nothing will actually be accomplished unless there is a group effort. I also agree with what Peter goes on to say; that economics plays a role in this barrier, because the leading countries are the ones with all the money. While this is a valid point, it’s no excuse for lack of global cooperation. The Plans being made in Copenhagen are allocating funds that will deliver 30 billion in aid to poor nations hurt by climate change as well as to monitor, report, and verify emission reductions (1).While these funds will not completely level the playing field for all countries, it will enable all countries to at least make an effort.
While I agree in one way or another with the fundamentals of what everyone had to say, I found that I disagreed with Derek when he said that “A 4% emissions cut seems way too easy for a whole nation to achieve.” In principle, 4% in fact, does not seem like that big of a deal, but when you realistically think about it, a 4% reduction will not easily be achieved when dealing with a nation such as the US. No offense, but Americans are greedy, lazy, and for the most part only care about themselves. Call me a pessimist, but I don’t believe that enough Americans realize (like myself) or care enough about the climate issue to do anything THAT significant to help in lowering the emissions. A 4% reduction seems to be ambitious when taken into account the fact that during the 1990s, carbon dioxide emissions increased approximately 1.3% each year. But since 2000, the rate has increased to 3.3% per year, with an estimated CO2 emissions increase of 35% from 1990 to 2006 (2). With that, I unfortunatley diagree with your optimistic outlook on our domestic capabilities, Derek.
(1) http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/80027532.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ
(2) http://www.cleanairsys.com/airzone-blog/2007/11/10-pollution-fast-facts-statistics-to.html
Peter-
I agree with the points you made in your post. First, it is true that a major barrier in promoting lower emissions is simply making people get off their butts and do something about it, rather than waiting for environmental disasters to hit them. If every country around the globe waits for some huge disaster to strike them until they take action, the world will be waiting forever to get everyone on the same page. We certainly do not have forever to wait for change. Second, an important factor in this issue is economics. Many of the clean-energy technologies that have been developed to improve the environment cost more than what most Americans pay now. However, in most areas, funds, grants or incentives are available for homeowners and industries who wish to transfer to more efficient products and technologies (1). Not to mention, many people do not realize, or simply do not trust, that paying the money now will be beneficial and cheaper in the future. Lastly, I agree that in order for America to make a change and bring other nations with it, Obama must take dramatic steps toward lowering emissions. This does not mean just creating promotional programs or warning citizens of the dangers; it means making requirements, if not proposing laws, to insure that people are taking serious action towards changing their current habits that are destructive to the environment. Even though a lot of people are passionate about lowering emissions, I think that more people do not care and will only change if they are required by law to do so.
1. http://www.energy.gov/energyefficiency/financing.htm
Kelsey-
I do agree that lowering greenhouse gas emission should be a top priority of the world and that the largest barrier is the lack of participation and collaboration within the international community. However, lowering emissions is not enough to protect the future from devastating climate change. In addition, it is not realistic to believe that this is something that will be accomplished in our lifetime to any dramatic effect. It is presumed that with the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth’s temperature will rise between one and five degrees Celsius in the next 100 years (2). Industrialized nations must develop and implement technologies that will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and trap it in a permanent storage area, where it will no longer be detrimental to the earth. Power plants are one example of the pollutant sources that will require CO2 sequestration (3).
2. http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2004/update32
3. http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf
Jacob-
I find myself to agree very heartily with Jacob Sandry’s argument about major barriers on reducing climate change. Similar to my own argument, Jacob argues that economics is the greatest opponent of global efforts on reducing climate change. He states that the issue with countries such as the United States is that they often wait for other nations to take action before joining in. I agree with this, since it has been the case for decades. The United States must take more action in creating climate change as an example for other nations to view. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists many “regulatory initiatives” for greenhouse gasses. However, they are quite vague, as depicted from the EPA’s website. With general statements such as “The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations” (1), anyone can see that vague blanket statements chock full of ecological jargon will not get people to take action. Jacob also addresses items on the domestic front that I agree with, such as how smaller states may need assistance from larger states in order to implement significant (and long-lasting) change.
Hillary-
This section of the blog post was especially difficult, since many contributors had interesting and logical ideas to share. However, with Hillary’s post I found that I didn’t necessarily agree with her main idea. Yes, in order to reduce global warming in the world, reducing carbon emissions and finding alternate sources of energy is important, but these are way too general for actual change to occur. The United States has been thinking about these topics for decades (2) to little avail. Although some progress has been made on renewable and cleaner energy, the flaw in the argument lies in the fact that not enough details are given. It’s easy to claim something and hope that the government or people in power will act on it, but it’s difficult to actually implement that change. That is where the argument is flawed. People must wake up and realize that action must be taken, not simply theorized. This is not a direct attack on Hillary, but rather an attack on people who think that someone else will always clean up their messes.
1) http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
2) http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html
I agree with Jacob Sandry (didn’t see this one coming huh?).
I agree mainly with Jacob’s chicken and egg argument. It is really frustrating watching all of these leaders with the power to actually accomplish something significant just dance around the issue trying not to commit to anything while still be able to hold their heads high at a press conference. I have my fingers crossed, along with a lot of people, that Obama will step up and actually take initiative without looking to China or the EU to see what they are going to do. However, the first year of the Obama administration hasn’t been the best indicator that the president will take action (1). The next year doesn’t look promising because healthcare is out of the way (1). What the world needs is someone to step up and do something concrete about global warming, hopefully Obama will be that guy.
Also, props to Jacob for using an English vocab word.
(1) http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&article_id=110204&categ_id=17
I disagree with John T.
While John brings up a very pertinent issue, oxygen depletion is not the same thing as global warming. The line of thinking that building algae farms which would add more oxygen to the atmosphere and counteract the carbon dioxide is flawed (3). The addition of oxygen would counteract oxygen depletion that is caused by global warming. By creating more algae farms we wouldn’t really be countering the cause of global warming but rather one of the negative effects while leaving the other effects such as the rise of sea levels completely ignored (3). I don’t believe that algae is the best solution to our fossil fuel crisis either. Although using algae to create biofuels does solve some of the biggest problems with corn based ethanol, namely that corn based fuels cut into our food supplies, it is still too expensive for practical use. Optimistically, algae fuels will cost $50 a barrel in about 10 years (crude oil is about $75 a barrel) (2). Realistically, it will still be really expensive for a long time after that (the article didn’t put an exact dollar amount).
(2) http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/the-lost-decade-of-algal-biofuel/
(3) http://blog.hasslberger.com/2008/10/is_oxygen_depletion_more_worry.html
Allie:
I would have to say that I don’t agree with what you are trying to say about the largest barrier for preventing global climate change being lack of leadership. In fact, I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make in your blog post. You originally state that there is a lack of leadership and initiative, but then later mention that if Obama had asserted more power that other countries would’ve felt pushed around and left the conference. Perhaps you are saying that the situation is some sort of double-edged sword being that strong leaderships turns smaller countries off from dealing with the situation, and lack of leadership leads to nothing being accomplished. If this is the case, I would have to disagree with you as well. I think strong leadership is exactly what this issue needs. I also think that countries have been trying to take control, but for the wrong reasons. “Tensions between the First World and Third World nations — typified by the clashes between the American and Chinese delegations — have highlighted the central point: The conference is about power and money, not saving the environment.” (1). I think that if global politicians want to make a difference, someone needs to step forward without outside motivation. Someone needs to say that they are willing to lead the world in order to save the environment, and not for the countries own personal gain. I also think that if Obama were to take a strong lead, that countries wouldn’t necessarily back out as you say they would. Obviously not all countries would bow down in gratefulness, but I think that as the leader of the United States, Obama is in a position where he already has a lot of respect, and he could really make a difference. I think this would be more effective than the state right now in which everything seems to be up in the air.
Ali G.-
I agreed with what you had to say about global climate change. I also wanted a binding agreement to come out of the Copenhagen Accords. After reading up on what actually happened at the conference, it seemed to me that they basically all agreed that change needs to be made, but they didn’t decide when or how or by what means. (2) Overall, I found the situation to be quite frustrating. I also agree when you say that international participation is one of our biggest obstacles. I think that if the Copenhagen conference had established more, that the United States would be able to more quickly be up to the challenge. I don’t think we aren’t capable, I just think we need a little bit of outside pressure, and that an international agreement could’ve done that for us. I think that there is still a lot more to be done in the vein of global climate change, and that if something isn’t accomplished soon, that we could be putting ourselves and future generations in danger. Like you said, it is a global problem that requires a global solution.
1. http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5771-the-copenhagen-conference-and-leadership
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/audio/2009/dec/19/copenhagen-special-podcast
I agree with Chris Shirriff -
The problem with attempting to make an international consensus is that it is nearly impossible to do so. Countries all have different priorities and economic situations, therefore it is impractical to settle on a deal that will attempt to please everyone because that will most likely make it an ineffective agreement. I agree with Chris in that the biggest rift affecting the climate change debate is the difference between the industrialized countries and the developing ones. There is a notion of “climate justice”, an argument that industrialized nations have emitted the most greenhouse gases, therefore they face the biggest responsibility and burden for action and should support developing nations through financing and other methods (1). This is typically ignored by richer nations, making it easy to blame China, India, etc, for not doing their part to combat emissions (1). This leads to a continuous circle of fingerpointing, a general feeling of apathy, and failing to pass anything that will help solve the crisis.
I disagree with John T -
While algae farms would counteract oxygen depletion, it would not solve it. Oxygen depletion is a result of global warming, a negative impact but only part of the entire problem. By addressing that issue we would be addressing only part of the problem, but not fully resolving it. It would be like filling up a tire with a leak in it --- it would temporarily alleviate the possibility of getting a flat tire, but wouldn’t completely solve it like purchasing a new tire would. It wouldn’t help to completely solve the fossil fuel crisis either, mainly because it would be impossible to produce enough algae to satisfy all of the consumer demand (2). We are still a long way from commercializing it. "All we've really seen are tests involving one engine of a jet running on a blend using a small percentage of algal fuel — and there were no passengers, of course," said Al Darzins, a group manager and principal researcher in NREL's National Bioenergy Center, "In my book, that's a long way from commercialization." (2).
(1) http://www.globalissues.org/article/231/climate-justice-and-equity
(2)http://www.nrel.gov/features/20090403_algae.html
I agree with what Courtney said in her post "the most influential barrier limiting greenhouse emissions internationally is commitment, and the follow-through of nations. The Copenhagen accord did not make any legal treaty, therefore there is nothing holding these countries to what was agreed upon." I also agree with her when she said actions speak louder than words. There was nothing really binding about this agreement the countries made. I feel like it was more of something to make people feel like something was being done about global warming. Just to make people feel better about the whole situation without getting anything actually accomplished. "The anti-climatic ending to an intense final round of negotiations underscored the incomplete nature of the accord, which provided for monitoring emission cuts in individual countries but set no overall global target for cutting greenhouse gases and no deadline for reaching a formal international treaty" (1). I feel as though it's going to be a big struggle for countries to actually come together and agree on anything. It will probably start with a few countries agreeing and then others slowly jumping on the bandwagon. Nobody will all agree at first. I also liked what Courtney said when she said that we need to be doing our part domestically. The United States can't be a leader if we aren't following up with what we want to see globally, if we aren't doing it domestically. "Citizens and groups like his have to ensure leaders don't delay action and opportunities to continue negotiating until the next round of talks next year in Mexico City. Already, he said, too much time has been lost" (2). As citizens we need to make sure we are doing our part back home before we start pressuring the rest of the world to make changes, or a negative view may be set towards the United States as being a hypocrite.
I disagree with the statement Alyssa Brown made she said "The most significant barrier domestically, in my opinion, is getting people to care enough about global warming to actually make a change in their lifestyle. Many people either don’t have the money to transfer to more efficient technology or automobiles, or simply don’t place is as a priority in their lives." I do think people care about global warming, possibly not enough. But I do not believe that is the biggest barrier domestically. The biggest barrier domestically is getting a bill passed to actually start changing things with how much greenhouse gases we are emitting. Mainly, how are we going to fund this, can we make it affordable with the money we have? "In June, President Barack Obama lumped natural gas with oil and coal as energy sources the nation must move away from. He touts alternative sources — solar, wind and biofuels derived from corn and other plants. In Congress, the energy debate has focused on finding cleaner coal and saving thousands of mining jobs from West Virginia to Wyoming" (3). Congress needs to start making decisions. The time for just debating about what to do and how people feel about the situation is over. A bill needs to be passed to show the United States is taking action here domestically.
1-The Washington Post "Climate Talks End Without Real Agreement"
2-http://www.startribune.com/business/80057997.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
3-http://www.startribune.com/business/79763597.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
I disagree with Hillary’s post, in particular her statement, “Since the United States did not participate in the Kyoto Agreement I feel it is our duty to lead the Copenhagen climate talks and help other countries to join in.” I do not feel that the United States should lead global warming discussions. I believe that climate change needs to be considered in a global context. Yes, the United States can set an example, but we cannot just expect other countries to follow suit. Many countries will need the technological guidance and financial aid of wealthier nations or, else given their present states, they will be unable to accomplish anything. In order for attempts, such as the Copenhagen Accord, to be successful all nations must capably and eagerly participate. In response to the Copenhagen Accord, both advanced European economies, such as that of Great Britain, and smaller undeveloped countries, such as Bolivia, were unhappy with the agreement. Britain wanted the agreement to promise more striking goals for the future and Bolivia’s leader, Evo Morales, felt that wealthier nations owe owe poor nations more in “climate reparations” (1 & 2). Thus, ALL nations must work together equally to find the middle ground and a climate change solution for the future or else countries who were not given a voice will be unhappy and unwilling to participate in the proposed resolutions. Perhaps this could be accomplished within the UN, but, even here, nations are not given equal power.
I found Claire’s logic to be especially insightful. Plans for global warming are failing to gain unanimous strength and support because different countries simply have different priorities. This explains the many different facets of other arguments (economy, lack of universal agreement, power). Every country has a different vision for its future and some see global warming reforms as an important part of this future while others do not. I believe that this partially explains why major, global climate reform acts, such as the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accords are non-binding (3); countries cannot predict the future, and they want an “out” if something more pressing than global warming comes along. For example, as Claire stated, third world countries that are struggling with their own industrialization or more pressing social concerns (famine, epidemics) cannot be expected to pour large amounts of money into new technology to reduce the global effects of global warming. This also explains why all nations must work together and set global priorities for change.
(1) http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/climatesos/2009/12/2009122064859919604.html
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/world/europe/23iht-climate.html?_r=1
(3) http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/283654
First, I want to agree with Peter. I think you are absolutely right that it is the responsibility for larger countries to support the smaller countries in their charge to help reduce their emissions. People often point to the fact that China is NOW having more emissions than the united states and that India is not far behind. But they ignore the fact that if you calculated all of the emissions emitted EVER the early industrializing countries like the United States and Western European states would be way ahead. Unofrtunately, smaller and poorer countries get hit the hardest by the impact that these emissions cause. It is stupid to refute this, it is just logical. Many countries are smaller and poorer because they don’t have less natural resources than larger more resource rich countries. So when resources decline, those countries that barely have enough get pushed over the edge to the point where people start to DIE and the countries that are abundant in resources, like US, have to pay a bit more for gas and everyone complains about it. I think you are very right in bringing up this idea of “climate justice,” which is often ignored by rich countries and our media. The rich countries owe the smaller countries a “carbon debt” to account for our historical emissions. This is something that hasn’t been done, and hopefully we can start down that direction. (1). I also agree with Peter that people don’t like to do anything until it is a big problem.
Now I would like to respond to Sara O. I think it is really good that you used Al Jazeera as a source because as our media and politics activity showed, it often gives a more comprehensive account of events than many American media sources do. I actually agree with most of your interpretation of the conference. I especially liked your second impediment. I think that the desire to maintain power is absolutely a large reason that Copenhagen isn’t happening like it should. It is the exact same reason that we never signed Kyoto. The U.S. doesn’t want to admit how bad they have screwed up in the past. I think most people in congress would love to see climate change averted and emissions reduced they just don’t want to take the necessary PERSONAL responsibility to have it done. Your (2) source does a good job describing how the United States wanted to be the personal power broker, but important and OIL PRODUCING countries like Sudan and Venezuela were completely left out when they are obviously going to be extremely important to what happens. I also like your Fry quote. The only thing that I would disagree with is your first reason that isn’t happening. While money is very important I think it is just a part of power. It’s not that there isn’t enough money, it’s that people’s priorities with their money is off. I think you contradict yourself by saying that the problem is our labor source and then saying that you think it would help our economy. I absolutely agree with you that it would help our economy, exactly the way that his stimulus package did (4) which was largely based on “green” jobs. Your (3) source really doesn’t say anything about their being enough money or that our economy is not based on the right thing. It does support the idea that it is possible to do way more than our government is currently pledging itself to doing when it says “The European Union has pledged 20 percent, and possibly 30 percent. The U.S. has offered only a 3 percent to 4 percent cut.”
(1) http://www.globalissues.org/issue/178/climate-change-and-global-warming
(2) http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/climatesos/2009/12/2009122064859919604.html
(3) http://www.startribune.com/science/79420477.html?page=1&c=y
(4) http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/30/obama-president-polls-first-year-opinions-columnists-john-zogby.html
I agree with Ben that there needs to be more effective efforts in order to make an actual change in the world. Like with his discussion on the electric cars, we need to start using different methods of transportation and different methods in industrial work. In order to do that, we need to separate our ties from gas companies because they control the car companies; I agree that the electric car usage is extremely hindered by gas companies and gas-operated car companies dominating transportation. Right now the United States is way over our limit for carbon emissions and we make up 20% of the World’s emissions.(1) That alone should be motivation that the companies within America need to foster change within the country, not internationally. The problem must be fixed within the country before international changes can be made because we have to be willing to make that change before the whole world can. I agree with Ben’s argument that incentives should be use. No company can turn down incentives, because typically they involve money or some beneficial gift.
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
The climate debate is difficult to find an argument I disagree with, but I think that the argument I do disagree with is Kelsey’s. I do understand that countries are not contributing much to the efforts in fixing global warming, but they still are contributing. There needs to be some first step that gets the whole world going and this summit may be just that. Although the representatives are arguing and it seems to be very negative, there is still debate over the matter instead of countries not participating at all. Some countries do not have the opportunity to reduce their emissions because they cannot afford a drop in their production. The large countries like U.S and China are leading the way, but 17% for the United States does not even seem like that is enough when China is dropping their emissions by 20%. Also, I do not think Obama needs to take time to spread awareness because most citizens know of the seriousness of the matter. I think the real action needs to be taken in collaboration with other countries.
2) “Key global climate talks begin in Copenhagen” CNN.com
I extremely disagree with Joe's point about making companies stop emitting pollutants. Although in a perfect world we wouldn't allow companies to pollute, it is completely unrealistic. To make companies cut how much they pollute without the company having a more efficient capital ready would force them to cut production. While this is great for our Earth, it would cut the amount of products we as consumers could buy. By cutting production you effect jobs. With less to produce, employers are not going to keep unnecessary employees. I also disagree with anyone who says the environment and the economy are not connected.As of now green energies are just too much to invest in for companies. Fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy and allow us to produce at the level that meets our needs. In our recession companies can't afford to invest for the future yet. Even though green energy pays for itself years later, the amount of capital that a business would have to invest is just too high. The President could try to help companies invest in green energy, but mandates and forces cut will only hinder business. But what makes investing questionable for businesses is everything that surrounds this debate. The Climate Conference was going on while Copenhagen while half the United States was hit with snow. The average person does not completely understand global warming, and two feet of snow does not exactly show them that it is a major problem. Professor Qing Bin-Lu believes CFC'c (energy particles from space) are to blame for climate change, not CO2. He noted that from 1850 to 1950, CO2 levels increased significantly, but the global temperature stayed constant or rose only 0.1 degree Celsius [1]. Scientists have also concluding that the Earth is actually cooling [1]. Now with just as much proof against it as there is for it, I believe it will be difficult to make people believe it is the most important issue. There are more immediate problems facing the average person than climate change (housing crisis, ongoing terror threats, rising unemployment, and health care costs).
I do agree with Kayla that the United States and China should be coming together in an agreement. These are the two most powerful countries in the world, and I believe that if we were able to come together with them to find a more economically sound way to introduce green technologies we could start lowering emissions. If we take on this without trying to bring down the costs or innovate our current green technology to make it cost-friendly, the United States stands to lose 6% of manufacturing output by 2030 and a high increase in energy prices (gas 26%, electricity 50%, and natural gas 73%) [2]. No country should or would make an agreement that would damage their economies. I believe coming together with China would allow both of our countries to develop cheaper green energy. WIth costs down both of our countries would be able to lower our emissions without several damaging the economy.
[1] http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516286&Ntt=five+decades+of+cooling+ahead
[2] http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=515916&Ntt=climate+change
In Response to Julia G.:
I completely agree that one of the biggest obstacles to reducing greenhouse gas emissions internationally is cooperation among the different countries. Your comment that its hard for a country within itself to agree, let alone get everyone to agree was very true. I feel that the United States itself has an attitude that exemplifies the world mood. We know there is a problem but were divided about what to do about it. It’s not a problem right now, but it will be in the future so it’s hard to put future needs above the immediate ones like feeding your family. Going along with what you said many of the developing/recently-developed nations feel that this is a problem the West has created [1]. India specifically doesn’t want to scrap the outdated Kyoto protocol and refuses to have any interference or oversight in its domestic plans [1]. With attitudes like this, it’s hard for me to believe that peaceful compromise will come soon.
[1]. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/08/08climatewire-the-major-players-in-the-copenhagen-talks-an-45792.html?scp=5&sq=copenhagen%20talks&st=cse
In Response to Kelsey D:
I think that your ideas of mobilized awareness on the climate issue are good, but I think that even in this economic crisis we still need to spend money on the effort to reduce our own emissions and emission practices. Although a public movement would spur awareness, I think that the government needs to be one step ahead of that on this issue. By the time the public cares enough to create a huge movement, it will have been too late. What’s worse is that people doubt that global warming is happening despite of evidence and backing by scientists. Measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century [2]. In my opinion the united states has acted as a regulator for other countries long enough, and on this issue its time for us to set a good example before we tell other people what to do. By putting our money toward a global goal, I feel we are taking the second step first. We need to reduce our own emissions, and fix how dependant our country is on oil before we look to giving other countries financial help.
[2]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120903860.html
First I want to agree with Chris. I think what he had to say on domestic issues really hit the mark. He said that the biggest thing this country can do is setting an example for other nations and become more self reliant on energy. The government has put an emphasis on the economy and health care over the past year, and many voters don’t want the Congress to spend an overhaul of money on the environment (1). Therefore it must be up to the people to start to take initiative on this issue. If the people take initiative, they will force the government to make the environment a priority. When environmental legislation is presented, it is important for the people and government to get behind it. Large countries like America need to make this their priority if they want any chance of the world making it theirs.
Next I want to disagree (slightly) with Ben. He said that the biggest barrier to moving forward on this issue from the international stance is the fact that global warming is a slow process and hard for us to see. I’ll agree that global warming is slow, but I don’t think that is the reason why a solution isn’t eminent. I think the leaders at Copenhagen see global warming as at least some kind of threat to global stability, otherwise they wouldn’t have an interest in going. Most leaders also see how the problem is already affecting people in the world. Speakers from all over the world appeared at the conference talking about the devastation global warming had. The prime minister of Tuvalu spoke on how his island state could disappear if water levels continue rising at the rates they are (2). I think the real barrier to stopping this problem is that leaders of large nations don’t see any economic benefits from reducing emissions.
1. New York Times- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/us/21caucus.htm
2. New York Times- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/world/europe/21scene.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=earth
I have to admit, I do not fully comprehend what is going on with climate change. The “facts” seem all over the board and I don’t know what to buy into. However, I know enough to agree with some things that were said. I agree with Jacob when he said that economics plays a huge role in changing the way we treat our environment. Although in the long run it may be beneficial, it is so costly up front that many countries don’t give the solutions the light of day.(1) Domestically, many of the options for renewable energy will also be more cost efficient in the future but in a current recession people need to be conservative with their money. It’s a tough time to tell a person to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars.(2) The economy is definitely a current barrier for alternative energy and the climate change. Now, one point I found interesting is what Jacob said about spending money on energy like we did on the military to pull out of the Great Depression. To me it makes sense but I’m not an economist so I don’t know for sure. Another person I agree with is Grant, although not on everything he does make some very good points. Global warming is not a tangible enemy or something easily seen. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. So, as he pointed out, it is hard to generate feelings towards fixing the problem. Many of the times that the subject gets brought up is when oil prices shoot up, and then do we talk about alternative energy to save the planet or to save our wallets? I’ll be the first to admit, I will get more worked up about the price of oil than the damage it has on our environment. I really liked those points by Grant.
I had a hard time finding things I disagreed with people on. Even what I’m about to write about, I still agreed with mostly but I had to find something to write about. Smarti made a point about how a huge barrier domestically is party alliance and how the Republicans don’t believe in fixing the damaged environment and Democrats do. Looking at the way these two parties voted on the issue, whoever Smarti is, is right. Only 8 Republicans in the House crossed the aisle and voted for the climate-change bill (however, 44 Dems voted against it).(3) I’m not arguing that there isn’t a party division over the issue, cause it’s quite obvious there is, but maybe there is a reason for it besides the Republicans being insensitive tree killers. Maybe the cost scares them away, the recession we are in, and the fact that we are so dependent on oil that taking a leap of faith (especially in this economy) is a little frightening. It may not be because they hate Earth that they don’t want to pass this bill but instead it may be because they are frugal – financially conservative. Admittedly, this isn’t the best argument but once again I had to write something.
1- http://news.cnet.com/2100-11395_3-6152851.html
2- http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/energy-efficiency/question418.htm
3- http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html
Dan(Man) L:
I liked the positivity and optimism of your post. Using research as a fulcrum to lever the economy back into the black certainly sounds plausible. In addition, I agree that the U.S. taking a responsible first step would have the potential to start a clean-energy domino effect of some sort. It’s clear that something must be done, the only questions are what and how.
http://www.startribune.com/science/79420477.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
John T:
I was disappointed by the highly critical tone of your post. Al Gore may not be a saint, but I don’t think he’s in it for the money. It’s silly to say that Al Gore is making money off of the environment when he’s not one of those that are cutting down rainforests and pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Even if he is making a little money, he’s making it by trying to help the environment, instead of by consuming it. I did like the piece about algae, and I think you may have something there.
Just a note for next time: beyond your points about algae, I couldn’t find many researched facts in your post, so I looked to your sources to see what I could find. Unfortunately, they were just YouTube and the Washington Post, without links to actual videos or articles. Please include them in the future. And be sure to proofread, because grammar and spelling errors can sharply take away from your point, even if it’s a good one.
http://ecology.com/features/mostimportantorganism/
In response to Jacob Sandry:
I completely agree that economics is major issue preventing climate change. Countries are not going to put their necks on the line economically, for a plan that depends so much on other countries that have previously been unreliable. I agree that larger states need to help smaller ones, if order for any plan to work, but I don’t know how likely this is to actually becoming successful. I also agree that no country has stepped up to lead, because they have been waiting for someone else to first. Hopefully, Obama will take action that supports his words and will help get the ball rolling to reduce climate change.
In response to Derek:
I mostly agree with you on the issues domestically, that we simply need to be more efficient, but I also think there is a lack of interest in the issue. Too many people are selfish and only concerned about themselves and their economic state, than the issues of the environment. I think gaining more support by the public would then result in a more efficient country, and I think this support could be gain by educating the general public of the environmental issues at hand.
I disagree with Jacob (McYakub)’s post. Although cost is a significant factor in effecting substantial climate improvements, it is not the main problem. His statement that “The White House Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality said that the most aggressive plans ‘would of course cause a global recession’” is inaccurate (1). Although some industries, like oil, would be hurt if they can’t adopt new and efficient technology, many other ‘green’ industries would receive a huge increase in demand, thereby boosting production (increasing jobs) and profits (1). Jacob also contradicts himself by stating both that “the scientific debate over global warming suggests a certain amount of uncertainty around any estimate of its effects” and “at least at face value, the costs of combating global warming are outweighed by the costs of leaving global warming unchecked.” If we are not certain what the negative consequences of inaction will be, we cannot know that fighting global warming is not the most cost-effective option.
I agree with the points that Matt made in his post. He mentions Keynesian philosophy: spending boosts the economy, no matter where it occurs. A comprehensive and binding treaty at Copenhagen could have both helped the economy and made progress towards a healthier environment (2)- but this did not occur. Matt makes a great point when he says “The irony is this collective indifference towards environmental actions occurs because everyone is thinking the same thing: why bother? A simple change in mindset could radically alter how we approach the environment”. This is very true, because just one person going green cannot stop global warming, but the actions of many individuals can slow the process. By promoting the trend of living environmentally-friendly lifestyles, we can change the negative connotations surrounding the consumption-focused lives of Americans. The United States has to overcome this obstacle in order to convince developing nations, and most importantly, China, that we are committed to preventing climate change- and that it is a worthwhile goal (2). China’s reluctance to act and to commit was a major roadblock at Copenhagen, and countries like the United States should work to spur China to action by the next summit in Mexico (2). I also agree with Matt in that setting a timetable for emissions would be a strong improvement, as it would more firmly hold countries accountable.
1. AP Economics Textbook
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/business/energy-environment/04green.html?pagewanted=2
In response to Jackie...
I agree with Jackie that a major barrier to limiting these harmful greenhouse emissions is the difficulty in giving money to developing countries from developed countries. The accord calls for $10 billion in annual funding for the next three years and set a goal of raising $100 billion a year by the year 2020 without an actual plan of how that is going to happen (1). One thing this article didn't mention was what kind of role the US plays in this. Are we considered to be a developed nation and therefore needs to give money to less fortunate nations? And if so, how much money are we supposed to be giving? Is it really the best idea to be shelling out huge sums of money at the moment in the state our economy is in? Also, what kind of a burden will this put on American taxpayers? It also seems odd that the accord doesn't really set clear goals. It talks about the 2C temperature cap but the global long-term goal to have 50% reduction on greenhouse emissions by 2050 was dropped at the last minute (2). In my opinion, the most significant thing the accord lacks is any sort of timetable for when the accord turns into something that can be legally binding and hold countries to their promises (2). Right now, there is nothing saying these countries that are making some pretty hefty promises actually have to follow through. As previously mentioned, I agree with Jackie's apprehension about a possible increase in taxes to fund this project. This is another thing that is not really mentioned in the accord. Nowhere does it spell out certain nations financial obligations (3). Overall I think this accord is basically worthless as it leaves many more questions unanswered as it does answered.
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121800637.html
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/19/copenhagen-key-questions-climate-deal
3.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/10/copenhagen-climate-change-summit
I agree with Julia G-
I also think the most important barrier to significantly limiting greenhouse emissions internationally is having all the countries coming together and agreeing on a proposal. “If the whole world comes Copenhagen and leaves without making the needed political agreement, then I think it’s a failure that is not just about climate. Then it’s the whole global democratic system not being able to deliver results in one of the defining challenges of our century” (1). This quote shows that without some kind of agreement, we might not be able to get all the countries together and work on a plan. At least some kind of plan needs to start now to show that this is an issue and the only way to fight it is with the support of all the countries. When it comes to the division between what the rich countries want and what the poor countries want, I think we should still be able to come to a pact in order to start dealing with global warming.
I disagree with Hillary-
I do think it is important to find alternative energy sources, but I think Obama should be pushing more for the world to lower their emissions before finding an alternative energy source. President Obama helped broker a climate deal with a group of leading nations that provides for monitoring emission cuts by each country but sets no global target for cutting greenhouse gases, and no deadline for reaching a formal international climate treaty (2). We barely got the deal for monitoring emission cuts, and with so many countries worried more about their economy, I don’t think there is anyway a country in an economic downturn or developing countries would be willing to start working to find an alternative source right now. I think for now it is best that Obama pushes for worldwide participation to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
1. http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2257
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121800637.html
I agree with lauren that the inability to unify is the main reason that the global community has been unable to settle on a course of action to stop climate change. Much like lauren I think that one of the largest obstacles the global community will have to overcome is China (1). China is of the opinion that putting caps on carbon emissions will hurt their ability to expand (1). Other countries such as Brazil, India, and South America, share similar opinions to China because they are all up and coming economies (1). I also agree with lauren that the President should push for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and include ways that poorer and underdeveloped countries could receive technological and financial aid. I think that this is an important add in (financial aid) because if a majority of the world can't afford to become greener then any attempt by the rest of the world will be for not, and with already $30 billion dollars pledged (2)(and most likely more to come) it sounds like we might really be able to make it work. If we could get the whole world to enter into a binding agreement to cap carbon emissions (2), then we could each work more independently to make the world a greener place and with carbon emissions down then any national programs we created would have greater effect! I also agree with lauren that Obama should appeal to the media, perhaps he could take a page out of Martin Luther King Jr.'s book..."I have a dream that our great grandchildren could still stand atop ice bergs...."
Finding someone to disagree with was pretty hard, most my classmates' arguments are pretty logical and easy to explain why they think a certain issue is more important. So I had to become a little more picky to find a blog to disagree with. That's when I found Chris Shirriff's blog. I agree with the idea behind his blog, but there were certain facts that I disagreed with. To begin with it's not necessarily that the reason there's a rift between industrialized nations and developing nations is because the developing nations have suddenly found valuable materials and their emissions are expected to grow. The countries that oppose the compromises such as Brazil, India, China, and South America (1), oppose them because they believe that the caps would hurt their ability to expand (1). These countries are most certainly not small countries, but are in just up and coming (soon to be) LARGE economies. And the smaller countries that do oppose the compromises do so because they lack money. Their countries are all ready suffering from droughts, famine, and disease and need to spend the little money they have to end the crisis they would have regardless of whether or not global warming existed. And lastly, I don't think that the United States should just blinding accept whatever the next treaty is, just because we didn't sign the Kyoto Agreement. Sure we need to save face in all but if we sign an agreement that completely tanks and is more hurtful to the global climate then any country that signed because they thought we knew what we were doing is going to hate us. I think that the best solution we can hope for is that we all find a way to unify together and sign a treaty that we can all agree on so there are no hurt feelings.
(1)http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/20/copenhagen-climate-summit-china-reaction
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/19/copenhagen.climate.summit.deal/index.html?iref=allsearch
In response to Georgia’s post.
Georgia,
I agree with your statement that a barrier domestically is that of the economy. The United States is currently $ 12,160,790,248,377.28 in debt (1), and with the costs of refining renewable resources, as well as the president’s promise to “mobilize $100 billion by 2020” to help finance developing countries (2), finances are going to be under major scrutiny when considering possible solutions. However, like you said, alternative sources of energy are now becoming more abundant as well as less expensive to refine and utilize. With more effort, not only domestically but also internationally, to use renewable resources, it is possible to reduce our effects on global warming.
In response to John T’s post.
John,
I have to disagree with your algae-only solution to global warming. Although global warming causes oxygen depletion, and creating algae farms would help to produce oxygen to replenish what is lost, algae farms are only a temporary solution. We need to invest in all possible forms of renewable resources that can help us reduce our energy consumption, and help increase our efficiency. Even on a large scale, algae farms can only do so much. “To capture the CO2 from a single power plant, algae would have to fill a building the size of Wal-Mart” (3) Also, in terms of a possible replacement for jet fuel, algae fuel is “a long way from commercialization” (4) and will need to go through more testing. Along with all types of possible renewable energy resources, algae farms need to undergo more research and testing so that the U.S. can eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce our over all energy consumption.
Work Cited
1. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
2. http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091218/obamas-copenhagen-speech-video-transcript.htm
3. http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0407-possible_fix_for_global_warming.htm
4. http://www.nrel.gov/features/20090403_algae.html?print
I agree with jacob in that the main barrier to helping climate change lies in the current state of our economy. It is very hard for people to focus on helping the climate and reducing carbon emissions when the economy is in a wreck. People have their minds' in other places right now and not in the future. I also agreed with Jacob about people not willing to make the first move in helping the environment. Usually, America would jump at the chance to be a leader in anything that puts us in a good image, but like said before, our minds are on other things(1).
I mostly agreed with everyone's posts. I guess I would have to say that if I disagreed it would only be with a tiny part of Julia's opinion of the biggest barrier to reducing carbon emissions. I do not think that the biggest barrier is countries not being able to agree, I think it is mostly a financial aspect. Their are other things that people find more important. Most countries want to fix the problem of global warming and I am sure they can agree upon ways to do so but the problem is coming up with the financial means to back up their actions(2).
1. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/climate-talks-out-in-with-the-home-show/
2. http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/should-europe-intervene-to-support-the-price-of-carbon/
In response to Derek’s post,
I agree with his opinion that the most significant barrier to combating climate issues is each country’s own self-interest. It is a fact of nature that every man looks out for himself, and therefore countries should not be expected to act any different. If one of their assets or futures is at stake, they will disagree with whatever it is that will cause them problems. This is true especially in the economic aspect of the country’s interests. I also agree with Derek that the greatest domestic challenge is becoming more efficient in our country. People are set in their ways and do not want to change to something completely new they wont see the benefits for in their lifetime. It is much easier to keep doing things the way we have always done them, although we sink farther and farther into dependence on foreign oil and resources. Its time the US stood on its own feet and initiated a plan of action to allow us to be self and energy efficient. Internationally, once cooperation is achieved a logical solution can be developed and implanted. Then the changes can begin, and the world can work together to solve this issue (1).
In response to Leah’s post,
I disagree that the rate of consumption in developed and developing nations is the most significant barrier to improving the climate. Although I do think this is an issue in the world, I don’t think it is one of the most significant barring progress in the climate. Once worldy cooperation is achieved (the most significant barrier) then the problem of the rate of consumption can be addressed and fixed. Without the cooperation of every nation, one country cutting down their emissions is not going to have a huge effect on the climate. As for developing countries, it would be easier to be proactive and implement energy-friendly industries than to try and change them farther down the road once the country is developed (2). As for the California model, I’m not sure if what they have implemented will create a huge change, but we will have to watch the events unfold to determine the effect of their cap and trade system.
1.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-treaty-gordon-brown
2.
http://www.climatesolutions.org/solutions/federal
I agree with Jackie in that developing countries present a serious issue to reducing greenhouse emissions. Developing nations are currently going through, as their name suggests, development, and as such their current economic improvement is correlating with a dramatic increase in quality of life. These countries have a strong incentive to focus on their own economic development. If political leaders want to decrease greenhouse gases, those from developed nations must be willing to pick up the slack of developing nations, either be cutting more emissions themselves or providing aid to developing countries.
I disagree with Smarba’s assertion that the main barrier to reducing greenhouse emissions is psychological. Although it is true that is harder to develop public concern for environmental issues than it is for most issues, the political leaders at Copenhagen are almost all fully aware the significance global warming has, making psychological concerns minimal. Grant’s additional claim that “the economy and environment can never be reconciled,” has some truth in it, but it is ultimately overdramatic and unnecessarily pessimistic. If environmental well-being is valuable to people, they will make economic sacrifices--AKA spend—to fight global warming. Political leaders have determined to what extent they want to fight global warming at Copenhagen. If we personally believe more should be done, we should conserve energy and whatnot at our own homes.
1. “Climate Pact Falls Short” by Jeffrey Ball, Stephen Power, and Elizabeth Williamson
2. “Most people in Denial Over Climate Change, According to Psychologists” by Louise Gray
While there are some things I wrote in my previous post, I have seen new light to the situation over the last two weeks and through reading other people’s ideas, I have changed my viewpoints in some aspects of this situation. I agree with Solveig on point of the economy being one of the greatest barriers to accomplishing what needs to be done with the environment. As The Telegraph shows in the UK alone the expense of this plan is extreme and not every country feels that they can spend that much money nor do they want to contribute that much money that is not already in their budget. With this plan costing £1,000, it is expecting a lot from many countries that may not be able to contribute. (1) It is probably hard for countries to gather such a staggering amount of money to contribute to something even though it will greatly change the world in a very positive way and will hopefully increase the value and extent of life on earth for many more years.
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6722055/Copenhagen-climate-summit-How-much-will-it-cost.html
I only slightly disagree with Leah in her point that a barrier to fixing climate change is the rate in which we are consuming these products. Rather I think the rate is the thing we are trying to fix and not just a barrier. It is the talks from countries, money and stubbornness that are the more underlying barriers that prevent us from fixing the problem. I feel as though until you fix those three things, you will not be able to change the rate of consumption because people will not be educated and have other resources to continue with a similar lifestyle and still change the energy sources we can maintain for years to come. Another article states that the major barrier is the agreement of the countries involved which in a way sums up the three previously listed. (2)
2. http://www.biggreensmile.com/green-news/climate-change/Copenhagen-Agreement$10010.aspx
I fully agree with Peter's statements about the barriers to climate change prevention and solutions. I believe the statement that "it is a responsibility of larger, wealthier countries to give aid to other economies in order to help reduce emissions and develop more earth-friendly methods of energy" is accurate and shows an enormous problem that the U.S. is having. Right now, the concern should be about the lack of action on a climate bill by the U.S. Senate. Once this is done, then the U.S. can and should focus on taking this a step further. As stated in the Los Angeles Times, "the U.S. bears an overwhelming burden of responsibility for the problem, and the world will follow only if it first sets a good example" (1). As a wealthy, leading country, the U.S. needs to step up and provide the leadership and capital to the less developed and needy countries, so that the climate change talks can become something more than just talk, they can turn into action.
I disagree with Claire's statement that the only thing limiting us domestically is initiative. While I think her statements about treating global warming as a cancer are a great idea, I just don't think they're realistic. Rising together and confronting the government about solving the issue is a step in the right direction, but there is even more limiting us domestically. Business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming, and any new regulations are likely to produce lawsuits and lengthy legal fights (2). There is strong Republican opposition to any new climate change regulation in the Senate and also some reluctance by centrist Democrats. I believe it isn't quite as simple as stating that the only thing we lack is initiative. For any new regulation to work, both Democrats and Republicans will have to come together and decide for the greater good of the country. Not to be a pessimist, but so far the U.S. has been unable to compromise. The situation will keep getting worse if more action isn't taken.
(1) http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-copenhagen23-2009dec23,0,2588247.story
(2) http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/12/07/epa-greenhouse-gases-endanger-human-health.html
I'd like to agree with Jacob Sandry. Economics is the biggest barrier to successful "green" policies. While writing a paper for Econ, I researched India, one of the up-and-coming nations that will overcome Germany, the UK, and France in 2020 in terms of their economy (1). India has stated that they cannot afford to curb greenhouse gasses emissions (2). It makes sense, considering the need to pollute during industrialization. Other developing nations, like China, will find it difficult to put millions of dollars into "green" technology.
I'd like to disagree with Julia. I think the United Nations and the European union is a perfect example of countries working together. Countries may have differences from time to time, but they are definately capable of implementing changes and coordinated policies. With the right incentives or the right rules, countries can certainly work together. The problem is there was no order or organization to the Copenhagen talks. No country was necessarily forced to bend to the will of the group.
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2009/dec/07/copenhagen-climate-change-carbon-emissions
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/copenhagen-climate-talks_n_390750.html
One person that I strongly agreed with was Jacob. I really liked how he talked about how those in power do not have the economic incentive to join a new treaty reducing emissions and helping the climate. I definitely agree with the idea that we should be the first large country to really scale down how much we are emitting into the climate. We can say all these things about how bad our climate is going to become, but we would be hypocritical to not sign on and practice what we preach.
Someone who I didn’t necessarily agree with was Katie. She was saying that if we come together to form a treaty, there needs to be different sanctions for bigger countries than the smaller ones. I disagree with this, because we all need to be on the same page on this issue. We should hold every country to the same standards, but provide aid to those smaller countries who aren’t necessarily able to meet them. America really needs to use all of our wealth and power and extend it to those in need.
In response to Tnarg Smarba. I completely agree with you that there’s definitely a psychological barrier in reducing global warming. Some people most likely feel as though global warming is just scientific ‘mumbo-jumbo’ just to get funding for irrelevant research for something that ‘doesn’t exist’. The government needs to show the nation that it’s happening and if we don’t do anything to fix it, there could be devastating end results. Now for the people who think it’s not their fault, it’s the rest of the world, you really can’t point a finger at any one person; we all did this and together we need to fix it. We need to cut out the psychological barrier by showing people with science that global warming is happening and together we can fix it, it all simply comes down to showing the truth. People feel they’re more informed and end up being less concerned [1]. This is most likely due to prejudice based on judgment from their friends or simply ignorance. They need the correct information so this can stop being a psychological issue and become a moral issue so people will feel the need to help.
[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080327172038.htm
In response to John Tingley. I disagree with you John. I don’t think you have the correct idea behind Al Gore. He’s very concerned for the environment, not for his own profit but to save the Earth. As for the algae farms, I don’t think that’ll solve our problems. It’s cheap and simply, but this isn’t about oxygen ‘counter-attacking’ the carbon in the air. CO2 is carbon AND oxygen. Adding more oxygen to the air would simply be like hosing down a pool to clean the water. It’s just a waste because you’d be adding something that’s already there. We definitely need to focus on cutting some on carbon emissions that are out there right now including coal factories and car manufacturing companies. I’m not saying we need to cut them out, but to make them more efficient would definitely be not only beneficial to the environment as well as us in the long run, but also profitable. The more efficient we can produce could possibly increase profits in the long run [1].
[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090619082259.htm
From Joe P.
Julia-
I agree with your initial blog. I also think that countries need to put their differences aside. They need to come together to solve the climate issue. Like I stated in my previous blog, nations need to solve this issue before it is too late. Our environment is in dire need. I feel like some countries are too stubborn and are being hard to work with. The United States? Is it best for the US to take the lead and hope the rest of the world follows us? No. Although we have a huge role in the issue, we are still obligated to help the poorer nations. I mean, why should they pay for our mess? We are the ones polluting. Most of the environmental damage that could potentially happen will affect those countries. “According to the Nature report, regions at highest risk for enduring the health effects of climate change include coastlines along the Pacific and Indian oceans and sub-Saharan Africa.” (1) Moreover, “Africa has some of the lowest per-capita emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet, regions of the continent are gravely at risk for diseases related to global warming.” (1)
Julia also states, “There needs to be an established mechanism that makes sure every country is following through with the agreement to lower greenhouse gas emissions.” Although I completely agree, what if poorer countries are unable to meet the standards because they cannot afford the resources? This reflects how complex and difficult it is to address the issue internationally.
In addition, I like how Julia says, “The most important barrier to limiting greenhouse emissions domestically would be getting the legislative branch to pass bills that are actually going to do something significant about global warming in the United States.” This would enforce our country to act. Rules could be made on how much factories could pollute. Americans do not usually do something unless they are compelled to do it. This would be a great step in the right direction. The last time legislative set a Clean Air Act was in 1990. (2)
Sara O.-
Although I agreed with most of your blog post, I was a little confused when you said, “Simply, this is due to the fact that powerful nations and their leaders, such as the United States and President Obama, want to be the “superstars” of the conference and receive all of the desired media attention.” I feel that nobody has had the attention because nothing has significantly happened. According to the Guardian, “There was much Barack Obama could have told the climate summit delegates, but he left them disappointed.” (3) I do not see how he is trying to be the superstar when hasn’t done anything. (Obama not stepping forward is another issue) Also, I wanted to state that is it impossible to reverse global warming. Once the damage is done, it is done completely. According to a NOAA scientist, “changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped.” (4) Besides that, I enjoyed reading your blog. I liked how you included, “developing countries do not have the pecuniary or technological resources to create a massive climate reduction program.”
Citations:
1. [ http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarmingandhealth/a/gw_deaths.htm ]http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarmingandhealth/a/gw_deaths.htm
2. [ http://www.ametsoc.org/sloan/cleanair/cleanairlegisl.html ]http://www.ametsoc.org/sloan/cleanair/cleanairlegisl.html
3. [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/18/barack-obama-speech-copenhagen-climate ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/18/barack-obama-speech-copenhagen-climate
4. [ http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2009/01/noaa-scientist-cant-reverse-global-warming-for-1000-years.html ]http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2009/01/noaa-scientist-cant-reverse-global-warming-for-1000-years.html
While I was reading through the posts on the climate change summit, I found myself agreeing with most people's opinions. I agreed with what Laura said about the disagreements with the smaller countries at the summit being the biggest obstacle to completing a treaty on climate change (1).
I disagreed with what Mcyacub said about the biggest obstacle being economics. Money has already begun flowing between the countries involved in the summit for climate change. Deals have been made, and money has not been the biggest issue (2).
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/21/21climatewire-obama-negotiates-copenhagen-accord-with-senat-6121.html?scp=5&sq=copenhagen&st=cse
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html?_r=1&scp=16&sq=copenhagen&st=cse
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home