Enviro Sci Group 1

The Equivalence Between Environmentalism and Human Rights

2009-11-25T20:30:00.000-08:00

There has been a great deal of press lately surrounding the UN’s Copenhagen conference. This conference is to hold a large role in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. Mittelstaedt’s article explains that even with the conference so soon, Canada is yet to step up and take a leadership role in compliance with the agenda expressed by this conference in cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. The article goes on to explain the general dissatisfaction among Canadians towards this unsettling lack of environmental concern displayed by Canada.

Canada is a country known for its leadership when it comes to making sure the rights of all humans are being respected, but if Canada is not to take part in reducing their greenhouse-gas emissions, then what does that show about the amount of care Canada shows towards the rights of all of its citizens?

According to Beder (2006,) there is a principal in environmental sciences which addresses the relationship between human rights and concern for the environment. This human rights principle essentially describes the allowance of pollution as a chain reaction. First, pollution is allowed to occur, creating a negative impact on the environment. This environmental impact leads to other adverse affects on the earth, and in turn, us. So, by this logic, allowance of pollution in any way means allowance of (or at least risk of) harm to all humans residing on the planet, thus violating human rights.

This principle is easily applied to the issue concerning Canada’s lack of concern regarding greenhouse-gas emissions. Greenhouse-gasses released into the atmosphere contribute to a process known as “global warming” which consequently brings about climate change. Change in the earth’s climate inevitably changes the earth itself, and by changing the conditions of the earth, our health (as well as the health of all living things on the planet) is bound to be affected. Therefore, ignoring the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions means consequently ignoring every living thing on earth’s right to good health.

With all of this considered, it is no surprise that Canadians disapprove of the lack of leadership their country shows towards the reduction of harmful greenhouse-gas emissions. But the government’s decisions must be based on some reflection on the general population. According to Mittelstaedt (2009,) statistics show that the well being of the environment is ranked only as the third most important issue in Canada (below health care and the economy.) while the state of the economy and health care are very valid concerns, the more concerning part of all of this is that the study shows that only 12% of Canadians find the environment to be an important issue needing to be addressed (Mittelstaedt, 2009). If Canadians are expecting their government to take the state of the environment more seriously, maybe it is up to them to express concern first.

On the bright side, the first step in the solution to climate change is often said to be the realization of its existence, and according to Mittelstaedt (2009,) 72% of Canadians now see climate change as an issue which will become quite serious. If so many Canadians realize that this is an issue, this begs the question as to why so little find it worthwhile to address.

References

Mittelstaedt, Martin. "Canadians chagrined over status as climate-change dawdlers" News from Canada and the world - The Globe and Mail. 20 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .

T, M. C. "US hangs back on climate change." Smh.com.au. 23 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. .

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2006. Print.

Taxing energy-intensive products

2009-11-25T20:03:00.000-08:00

Henry Chu of the LA times interviewed Dieter Helm, an economist and professor of energy policy at Oxford University. Helm is a strong supporter of a carbon tax to reduce global green house gasses, but wants the tax to be applied to not only fossil fuels but also to all major energy-intensive products that are both manufactured within the country and imported.

The professor proposes to tax major energy- intensive products like steel, the use of aviation, and ships first, starting with low prices but increasing the tax overtime. This would allow for future businesses to begin making investments in manufacturing products with lower-carbon emissions. Helm is more concerned about carbon consumption as opposed to carbon emissions and brings into example countries like Britain, which are reducing their carbon production but are increasing their carbon consumption. This occurs because they import many goods from other countries like China, thus making Britain essentially responsible for their emissions. Professor Helms proposes what he calls a border tax where imports are also taxed in order to pay for the pollution being done in other countries. He claims that this is a neutral tax since it does not discriminate against where the product was made. Helm likes this approach since it can be implemented slowly. He understands that the west has a carbon economy which needs to become zero or low-carbon. With the carbon tax it can be implemented at first with a low price, and then over time be used on other energy-intensive products therefore increasing the tax. Helm calls it learning by taxing, you start of on the right track and simply adjust the tax until it is ideal.

The carbon tax is already implemented all around Europe like in Finland, France and Sweden. Other countries like Ireland and Britain might also follow suit. Helm estimates that within five or so years most countries in Europe will have a carbon tax. He admits that the tax is not brilliant at the moment but believes that countries will eventually do some fine-tuning to perfect it. Helm also believes that this sort of tax is very possible in the U.S. He also thinks that it will deal with the China question; where industries from other countries wont lose to competition in countries like China since the border tax will allow a neutral price. Furthermore politicians cannot use the excuse “no one else is doing it”, since other places are implementing the tax.

I agree with Helms and believe that this is an excellent way of promoting low carbon and energy products, especially since it would be implemented slowly, it would give time for businesses to come up with ways to provide their products or services so as to limit their emissions. Also, this tax would not allow industries to loose their business to outside production since the border tax will neutralize competition. Unfortunately the tax would directly affect the consumers who are not directly causing the emissions. I still believe that this is a step in the right direction but should not be a major component in cutting a country’s green house gas emissions. I believe a tax that would significantly reduce emissions should be put on the polluters rather then on the consumers. The polluters are the direct source of the problem and it is their actions that will determine how much pollution they will emit. An economic incentive policy similar to the one implemented in the United States to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions would yield the quickest and most effective results.

Professor Helm’s proposition for a carbon and border tax would promote businesses to invest and use efficient technologies to emit less and would eliminate competition from other countries, thus preventing negative effects on the economy. However this type of tax will be directly punishing the consumer as opposed to the manufacturer. Helm’s tax should be used to promote efficiency but an economic incentive should be used to significantly reduce a country’s green house gas emissions; this way, it will yield more substantial results.

Helm, Dieter. "'Carbon tax' is sensible, and perhaps inevitable, advocate says -- latimes.com." Los Angeles Times - California, L.A., Entertainment and World news - latimes.com. LA Times, 12 Nov. 2009. Web. 26 Nov. 2009. .

Climate Change and the Future of the Human Race

2009-11-25T19:53:00.000-08:00

Climate change is one of the largest and most complex issues humanity has ever considered. In an article published by the BBC called “Climate change: What price will future generations pay?”, UNICEF ambassador Lord David Putnam argues that “climate change is not just an environmental problem, it is a human rights issue. In fact it’s the biggest child rights issue of our time”. Furthermore, he calls for “the rights of the child along with those of future generations to be acknowledged in the UN climate change negotiations” (Putnam, 2009). I agree wholeheartedly with Putnam’s position. Climate change is as much a moral issue as it is a scientific and economic one. Of particular concern is the plight of those who will inherit the earth from the current generation; what kind of world will they be left? Putnam’s comments relate directly to two closely related environmental principles studied during this course: the equity principle and the sustainability principle.

Equity implies fairness; thus, the equity principle holds that all people should be treated justly and fairly. This applies not only to those currently living, but also to those not yet born. There are, however, several objections to this sense of fairness, and it is the rebuttals to these objections that will solidify the concept of intergenerational equity. How can future generations have rights in the first place? At birth, people inherit the human rights we assign them. If rights are acquired at birth, how then can rights be granted to those not yet born? The answer is that they cannot, at least not individually. But if future generations are treated as a collective group (those people not yet born), then they are subject to collective rights – the very same rights which the living generations currently enjoy (Beder, 2006, p. 81). The cynic may still wonder, “Why should we care about our posterity? They are of no benefit to us.” The fact is that we are morally responsible for our actions, and for the well-being of our planet’s future inhabitants. Our society is producing greenhouse gases, and we know that they will cause harm in the future. Our knowledge gives us a moral responsibility to reduce our emissions in order to lessen the harmful effects of climate change, however far into the future they may be (Ibid, p. 82).

A final concern with the principle of equity towards future generations is that we have no way of predicting their wants, needs, and desires. This objection is no more than a cop-out, for while we do not know what future generations want, we can very well determine what they do not want: “We don’t know what the precise taste of our remote descendants will be, but they are unlikely to include a desire for...the inundation of low-lying areas as a result of the melting of the ice-caps” (Barry, 1999, quoted in Ibid, p. 83). It can now be seen that, as rights-bearing entities, we have a moral responsibility to ensure that future generations receive the fair treatment we extend to those currently living. Putnam is worried that we have neglected our responsibilities. “What price”, he asks, “[will] children have to pay for three or four carbon-happy generations?” (Putnam, 2009).

The only way to ensure equity for our children and for future generations is to abide by the sustainability principle and strive for sustainable development. In the past half-century, it has become increasingly apparent that the Earth’s resources are limited. Initially, the source of these “limits to growth” was seen as resource depletion due to rising human population. This view was since been replaced by resource depletion due to environmental degradation. Indeed, world population is predicted to stabilize within the next several decades, while pollution levels – despite international pledges to reduce emissions – continue to rise (Ibid, p. 16). The solution devised to preserve resources and protect environmental quality has been dubbed sustainable development. This practice is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Beder, 2006, p. 18). Unfortunately, most current economic practices fall short of this goal, using up too many resources and not leaving enough for future generations. Specifically, unless we curb our carbon emissions immediately, we risk dramatic and irreversible climate change, which Putnam describes as “a huge barrier to a fulfilling future” (Putnam, 2009). Unless we reign in our emissions, he claims, we will leave “an indelible mark upon the rights of the child” and all future generations (Ibid).

So, is anything being done to ensure that children and future generations receive equity and that economic development occurs sustainably for their benefit? Thankfully, yes. Many national and international treaties and laws now recognize environmental resources as a “common heritage of mankind”, and have taken measures to utilize them in a sustainable manner (Beder, 2006, p. 81). International climate agreements are making slow but steady progress towards reduced emissions and less drastic climate change, with the upcoming conference in Copenhagen being the most crucial so far. Putnam notes that youth delegates have been accepted to participate in the conference, which he believes to be a crucial first step in the current ruling generation’s realization of the opinions of the younger (Putnam, 2009). However, Putnam argues that more must be done. Specifically, climate change negotiations must focus on solutions for the long term, so that the needs of future generations will be met. While they may not be with us, they still matter greatly, and we should be mindful that they deserve to inherit just as beautiful a world as we did.

REFERENCES

Beder, Sharon. (2006). Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. London: Earthscan Publishing.

Putnam, David. (2009). “Climate change: What price will future generations pay?”. British Broadcasting Corporation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8374965.stm. Accessed 21 November 2009.

Important Factors Of Imperial Oil Policy Statement

2009-11-25T14:18:00.000-08:00

The ESSO Imperial Oil Corporation has released a Product Safety Policy and provides detailed information on the environmental considerations being made by the company. The ESSO policy touches upon the six main points of responsible environmental consideration and provides examples to support each of their arguments. The policy has a strong environmental conservational message and seems to use the correct methods in creating a more sustainable environment.

The first factor of a strong environmental policy is usually that it shows concern for ecological sustainability. The company addresses this issue by providing the example of fresh water use. The company has implemented new efficient ways of recycling and reusing which has cut down the fresh water use by 88% since the 1970`s. This shows that the company is truly trying to make a difference in the local ecosystem by conserving valuable resources which are more vital to the ecosystem then the company. The policy also (while perhaps merely trying to sharpen the image of ESSO) mentions that it has taken an active partnership with Ducks Limited Canada to try and reclaim wetlands. This point shows that the company, while recognizing damage it has already created, is trying to make reparations to the ecosystem.

While ecological sustainability is important, another important factor of a responsible environmental decision is the "polluter pays principle". This means that it is irresponsible for the company to expect the land or the public to pay to try and make the company environmentally friendly. In the policy it is clear that ESSO is taking a strong stance on this and takes full responsibility for their actions and for making changes which benefit the environment. This is shown in the policy by the statement that most of the factories, over 100, have had automated building systems installed to try and reduce energy waste and over consumption.

One of the more arguable factors for a responsible policy is use of the precautionary principle. ESSO, while not directly stating the use of the precautionary principle shows it's use in many of the plans and regulations stated in the policy. A perfect example is where it is stated that "[the company will] include identification and control of potentially adverse health, safety and environmental effects as priority considerations in the planning and development of products". This statement shows that the company has decided to put public welfare first and make it a priority by using the precautionary principle. This shows a large amount of responsibility on the company's part since they are willing to give up or change product development and planning (a venture which could cost a company many dollars) in order to protect public welfare.

One of the most important factors of a good environmental policy is that it has public participation and keeps the public involved in progress and changes to the company's policy or actions. The ESSO policy clearly states an open relationship with the public by stating that "[the company will] communicate with the public on environmental matters". This shows that ESSO is committed to keeping the public aware of it's intentions and any changes to the public's community and environment. The company also states in the policy that the company will partake in active research to try and find new, more environmentally sound, ways to develop their products and will keep governments, the scientific community and the public aware.

The equity principle entails the consideration of future generations, and when applied to the enevironmental policy of ESSO it is clear to see that they have effectively used the equity principle. The policy shows clear and correct use of the equity principle in most of it's policies. Specifically where it states "[the company will] conduct and support research to improve understanding of the impact of their business on the environment, to improve methods of environmental protection, and to enhance their capability to make operations and products compatible with the environment". This policy shows that the company is taking active steps in trying to prevent any destruction of the environment presently and for future generations as they state they are trying to develop and understanding of how their business effects the environment.

The human rights principle is directly stated in the policy. One example is when the policy states "[the company will] respond quickly and effectively to incidents resulting from their operations, in cooperation with industry organizations and authorized government agencies". This shows that the company is taking the security and well being of the public and it's employee's (aka. humans) very seriously and that the well being is something which the company will respond to very rapidly.

The ESSO policy seems to follow all of the guidelines for a responsible policy. The policy incorporates actions geared towards reparation, preservation and a sustainable future for a global environment. The use of each of the factors makes this a prime example of a responsible policy.

References

ESSO, Imperial Oil. (Copyright 2006) "Imperial oil environmental policy" Accessed from http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/Thisis/SHE/Policies/TI_SHE_P_EnvironmentalPolicy.asp Novemeber 24th 2009.

ESSO, Imperial Oil. (Copyright 2006) "Imperial oil product safety policy" Accessed from http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/Thisis/SHE/Policies/TI_SHE_P_ProductSafetyPolicy.asp November 14th 2009.

The Benefits of Cap and Trade

2009-11-25T13:15:00.000-08:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54Q4AU20090527

In a recent article from Reuters, authors Frank Pingue and Allan Dowd explain that the province of Ontario has adopted the cap and trade legislation for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in industries (2009). The cap and trade system, or emissions trading, is a form of economic incentive in which there is a limit or cap on the amount of emissions that a group or company can produce. They are then given credits for that limit. When it comes to carbon credits, one credit is equivalent to one metric tonne of carbon. If a company stays under the limit, they will have leftover credits which can be traded off to others for money. Companies that go over the limit will be required to purchase credits from those who have leftovers from staying under the limit. By looking at several environmental principles and laws, it can be seen that by initiating the cap and trade system, Ontario is making the right decision.

First of all, there is the Polluter Pays Principle. This principle states that the party that pollutes must pay. All industries create some form of pollution; however, some produce fewer emissions than others. The Polluter Pays Principle states that they should all pay. With the cap and trade method, it is accepted that all industries will pollute and a limit on emissions is set. Companies that pollute less are rewarded and companies that pollute more than the set limit must pay. This still coincides with the fact that polluter must pay because any company that goes over the limit must pay.

There is also the idea of Ecological Sustainability. There is a definite link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. With a change in the climate, ecosystems are under increased pressure and species will either have to adapt or will become extinct.

Next, there is the Human Rights Principle. This principle states that humans have the right to a healthy environment. Since the cap and trade system is an economic incentive, companies are more likely to reduce their emissions. Pingue and Dowd state that in Ontario, the cap and trade system will reduce emissions by 6% below 1990 levels by 2014 and 15% by 2020 (2009). This is mainly due to the fact that companies will be forced to reduce emissions in an effort to save money from the cap and trade system. An environment with fewer emissions would be a healthier environment and according to the Human Right Principle, we all have the right to that.

The Equity Principle must also be considered. This principle states that future generations deserve fairness and justice. In the context of the cap and trade system, this principle is very similar to the Human Rights Principle. It would not be fair to future generations if they are forced to live in a world of low air quality and climate change due to what we failed to do. Reducing emissions would prevent this and can be achieved by the cap and trade system.

This system also falls under the Precautionary Principle which states that we must take action against irreversible damage even if there is no concrete evidence. There is no concrete evidence on the effect that greenhouse gases and climate change will have on the world because it’s difficult to test. However, by reducing emissions through the cap and trade system, we can prevent any irreversible damage that could occur due to emissions and climate change.

The cap and trade system is a good example of an economic incentive. Sometimes, economics and the environment can be seen as two polar ends of a spectrum. However, by applying several key environmental principles, it can be seen that implementing a cap and trade program in Ontario could be very beneficial to the environment.

References

Pingue, F. and Dowd, A. 2009. Ontario introduces cap and trade legislation. Reuters, [Online], <http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54Q4AU20090527>, Accessed November 2009.

Reducing green house gas emissions using regulatory control

2009-11-18T20:38:00.000-08:00

Environmental News Network summarizes the findings of a United Nation Environment Program (UNEP) study that analyzed the efficiency of using different policy tools to reduce green house gas emissions caused by buildings. It concluded that a regulatory control policy would be most effective.

The UNEP states that a regulatory control policy can effectively target energy efficiency in buildings. The study compared twenty different types of policy tools, including economic incentive, and concluded that regulatory and control instruments such as building codes and appliance standards are the best way to reduce energy use in buildings. The UNEP admits that for this policy to be effective sufficient resources and effort need to be in invested in order to implement and enforce these policies resourcefully.

If economic incentive were to be used to cut green house gas emissions by reducing energy consumption, an optimal energy use level would have to be determined. Then a permit system would have to be devised and implemented in order to reach the optimal level. A tax or fee could also be used to control the amount of energy being used. Using economic incentive could be more problematic since determining an optimal energy consumption level would be difficult. Different buildings, whether they are residential or commercial, will use different amounts of energy. Two factories that have production on the same scale could use very different amounts of energy to produce the same revenue. If a tax or fee system would be implemented it could possibly be more profitable for a firm to simply pay the fee and continue consuming energy. Also, it would be very costly to have to monitor such a vast amount of buildings of all different types.

It seems that the most effective way to decrease energy consumption is to require an increase in efficiency. This can be simply done by using better insulation or windows in buildings and using more energy-efficient appliances. This could also encourage the use of renewable energy such as solar panels or solar water heating to reduce a building’s energy consumption. A regulatory policy would give quicker results without having to monitor individual energy use and it would promote sustainable housing, research in improving energy efficiency, or at least the use of energy-efficient technologies. An economic incentive policy would require either a tax or permit system, would result in high costs to monitor energy use, and would be difficult to establish an appropriate energy level. As concluded by the UNEP regulation control would be a better approach to reducing green house gas emissions through improving energy efficiency in buildings.

"Sustainable Housing and Green Building News:." Environmental News Network -- Know Your Environment. Environmental News Network, 24 Sept. 2007. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. .

Keeping One Hand on the Gas Valve

2009-11-18T18:30:00.000-08:00

Alister Doyle’s article, “Binding climate treaty may slip far into 2010”, Doyle explains a recent international treaty which is currently going through the decision process at the United Nations which aims to limit global greenhouse gas emissions by creating rules and regulations which all countries must follow. As outlined in the article, there are a number of conflicts slowing the conclusion of this binding treaty. These conflicts include the bill to pass carbon-capping laws which is also currently under review in the United States, and the conflict surrounding how the wealthier countries and poorer countries share the costs associated with the treaty.
An international treaty such as this is a perfect example of regulatory control with respect to climate change, as it regulates the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted globally by requiring the countries of the world to comply with a certain set of restrictions. The obvious major positive side to this method is that it would result in a severe reduction of the harmful greenhouse gasses emitted by our world. A negative aspect to this approach is that many countries will be forced to change the way they do such things as manufacturing for example. This could be especially hard on developing countries, because with the limited means which they are already given, changing the way such things are done could be impossible.
An alternative method which could be implemented in order to control greenhouse gas emissions is the use of economic incentives. In this method, a system could be established where a country would suffer an economic penalty per increment of emissions produced above a designated amount. Again, this has the obvious positive result of having a great chance of severely cutting global emissions. Another benefit that could be offered by this method is that it could be more efficient for poorer countries. The economic penalty could be country specific, meaning each country would have different penalty which would be suitable for them specifically (for example, Canada would have a much larger economic penalty compared to a developing country because Canada can afford it much easier.) A downside to this method is that, particularly in the current trying economic times, is that while losing money would provide incentive to reduce the countries emissions, it would also result in a lot of money being siphoned out of countries all over the world, which has the potential to create a poverty crisis.
Of the two methods discussed above, I would have to say I prefer the regulatory policy. While the strategy based around providing economic incentives would likely inspire a great deal of improvement, it is likely that it could have a harmful or even crippling effect on a country’s economy. While the problem of forcing countries to change things such as their manufacturing methods exists with regulatory control, and while this problem does have many implications for poorer countries, the treaty used in this method can take that into consideration in order to ensure that the poorer countries are treated justly.

References:

Doyle, Alister. "Binding climate treaty may slip far into 2010." Canada.com (2009). 17 Nov. 2009. Wed. 18 Nov. 2009.

Dealing with developed countries: control or incentive?

2009-11-18T12:59:00.000-08:00

On October 9 2009, the Group of 77 (or the G-77, a coalition of developing nations) and China issued a press statement on the last day of the Bangkok Climate Talks concerning developed countries’ continued commitment to the Kyoto Protocol (KP), insisting it is a critical component to the success of the upcoming Copenhagen climate change summit.

According to the statement, throughout the talks in Bangkok, developed countries had averted their interests away from the KP and instead shed favourable light on forming a new agreement which would set new national targets, rather than the international legally-binding targets of the KP. This new attitude is dangerous, especially at this crucial time where the growing threat of a devastating global crisis urges the need for intensified action against climate change; this concern, the following statement addresses:

" The replacement of the KP with such a loose internation arrangement will result in the drastic downgrading of international disciplines over developed countries in their emission reduction targets and efforts." (G-77, 2009).

To avoid such leniency in developed countries, the G-77 and China demand that the developed countries in the KP enter the 2nd commitment period in 2013 (the 1st commitment of the KP ends in 2012) as legally obliged to, and pledge to deepen emission cuts, collectively and individually, while the US (not part of the KP) should also make such commitments. This would ensure the necessary action against climate change from the developed countries, and the G-77 and China voice that it is also expected and demanded by the world public.

The solution the G-77 and China presented in their statement is one of regulatory control, as it demands the developed countries of the KP to specific figures of emission cuts. An alternative would be an economic incentive, a process of control which would motivate the developed countries towards a course of action. An economic incentive suitable for this case would be the application of marketable pollution permits. Instead of the developed countries establishing solid figures of emission cuts, the total emissions goal of all the countries together would be the only figure in consideration. Permits would be distributed to the developed countries in the KP, and the countries would freely trade permits amongst themselves. As long as the total emissions goal is sufficient, and the each country obtains the appropriate number of permits in accordance to their individual emissions by the specified goal time, this process would be effective in preventing the consequences of climate change we would otherwise face.

However, such an ideal outcome is not realistic. As this is a critical case on an international level, we cannot risk the uncertainty of marketable pollution permits, especially since it would be ineffective in comparison to the stricter policies of the 2nd commitment of the KP as proposed. The economic incentive allows for complications and leniency. There would be conflict in the establishment of a single emissions goal, as some countries are greater emitters than others. The trading of permits would cause problems, since it could be done irrationally, or based on economic or political - not environmental - agendas. In comparison, the regulatory control as proposed by the G-77 and China includes a collective goal for all the countries as well as the individual goals for each country. It is legally-binding internationally, and therefore leaves less room for lax commitment from all the countries.

The G-77 began as a coalition of 77 countries, but expanded to include 130 developing nations. It was established for the very purpose of giving leverage to those nations in the United Nations. As developing nations, they must support their own developing economy; they do not have the wealth and the means to take significant action against climate change, yet they are the ones who suffer from the consequences of climate change brought on mostly by the developed world. In the press statement, they ask the developed countries to not abandon the KP, enter the 2nd commitment of the KP as legally obliged to, and possibly prevent the world from suffering a global crisis; it’s their plea to the developed countries to take responsibility.

References

G-77. “Group of 77 and China press statement on the imperative of the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol as a key component of the Copenhagen outcome.” Third World Network. 9 October 2009. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/info.service/2009/20091003/G77_press_statement_9.pdf. Retrieved 15 November 2009.

“About the Group of 77.” The Group of 77. 2008. http://www.g77.org/doc/. Retrieved 15 November 2009.

You Won! Averting Climate Change with Monetary Incentives

2009-11-18T06:33:00.000-08:00

The unfortunate truth about climate change is that it is our fault. Human activities are responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse gases currently polluting the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most common form of greenhouse gas, and unless levels of carbon emissions decrease soon, the planet will undoubtedly experience dramatic and permanent climate change. In an article published in the London Guardian on 2 December 2008 entitled “Whistling in the Wind”, author George Monbiot argues that in order to avert the catastrophic global warming predicted by even the most optimistic models, immediate emergency measures must be taken. His suggestions take the form of regulatory controls meant to quickly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere. One particular suggestion made by Monbiot pertains to the aviation industry. He argues that the level of air traffic must be severely reduced by “setting a cap on the number of [airport] landing slots, which will fall every year until it reaches 5% of current capacity” (Monbiot, 2008). While forcibly limiting the number of aircraft permitted to fly will certainly lead to a notable reduction of carbon emissions, I believe there is a more effective, albeit slightly unconventional, method by which the emissions produced by the aviation industry can be lessened. It calls for the development of new, more environmentally-friendly types of aircraft, through implementation of an economic incentive in the form of a monetary prize.

Flying in an airplane may be one of the greatest negative environmental impacts an individual can make; this is made painfully clear in a previous article submitted to the Guardian by Monbiot (Monbiot, 2006). Although the carbon emissions per person and per unit distance of a jet aircraft are about half that of a conventional automobile, the vast distances travelled by airplanes and the large number of passengers they carry mean that the overall amount of carbon dioxide produced per flight is about 1.2 tonnes per person. Another issue with high-flying jets is the contrail they produce. These small, high altitude clouds can trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to a warming effect 2.7 times that of carbon dioxide. To make matters worse, there is no known “technofix” to these problems: according to the UK’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, “[The basic gas turbine engine] has been the dominant form of aircraft engine for 50 years and there is no serious suggestion that this will change in the foreseeable future” (Monbiot, 2006). There is no easy and economically desirable way to lower the amount of emissions produced by the aviation industry, argues Monbiot. Therefore, regulatory controls must be enforced.

One potential form of control is to tax aviation fuel. However, this proves to be impossible, because the taxation of aviation fuel is prohibited under international law (Monbiot, 2006). Therefore, the only feasible form of control is to limit the number of aircraft allowed to fly. Monbiot’s argument makes sense, but I believe it would prove extremely difficult to implement. According to the US Bureau of Transport Statistics, American airports alone receive nearly 9.5 million individual flights annually, and that number is increasing every year (BTS, 2009). The modern global economy relies on aircraft for the fast transport of people and goods across the world. Even those flights which serve only to convenience wealthy vacationers cannot be eliminated, for it would wreak havoc in regions heavily dependent upon tourism as a source of income. To do away with the vast majority of international air travel would have serious negative effects upon the world’s social and economic systems, and is therefore unacceptable. While the aviation industry’s emissions must be drastically reduced, Monbiot’s regulatory control over air traffic levels may not be the most effective method.

With neither taxation nor flight capping feasible options, perhaps attention should be again turned to the notion of a “technofix”. Although there is little innovation left in the gas turbine engine, other propulsion systems and types of aircraft may let prove effective at meeting the aviation industry’s needs, while keeping carbon emissions to a minimum. It is therefore my suggestion that, instead of placing restrictions on airlines, an economic incentive should be provided to aircraft manufacturers to promote the development of alternative styles of air travel. This could be in the form of a monetary prize similar to the X Prize. Many different X Prizes are currently available in a wide array of fields, including environmental research. The most successful X Prize to date has been the Ansari X Prize, which, through the promise of $10 million for the first privately-funded team to build and launch a spacecraft into orbit, literally created the commercial space industry. Surely, a prize for the first non-fossil fuel powered aircraft to carry a certain payload from London to New York could accomplish a similar feat. Such a prize could prove far more effective at reducing the aviation industry’s carbon footprint than any regulatory control. Rather than cause social and economic instability, a prize could foster economic growth and further scientific and technical understanding as new companies are founded and new technologies are developed. If the new aviation technologies prove affordable enough, then the prize could result in eventual replacement of the global air fleet. Thus, regulatory control and economic incentive may bring about similar results: a dramatic reduction in the number of operating jet-powered aircraft. The key difference is that one is brought about by forceful restriction, while the other comes through encouragement of creativity and experimentation.

When it comes to carbon emissions, the aviation industry is one of the world’s most guilty parties. In the absence of taxations or effective technological fixes, the only possible options are to limit the number of aircraft allowed to fly, or develop an entirely new form of environmentally friendly aircraft. George Monbiot’s flight-capping plan would certainly work, but it may come at a very high social and economic cost. Thus, given the options, the establishment of a prize as an economic incentive is far more appealing. The world faces a very real threat of catastrophic climate change. The worst-case scenarios predicted by many scientists will almost certainly come to pass unless a focused and concerted effort is made to reduce our carbon emissions. Action must be taken; will history view our era as a time of oppressive regulations, or of remarkable innovation?

REFERENCES

Bureau of Transport Statistics. (2009). "Flights - All Carriers, All Airports". Table. United States Bureau of Transport Statistics. http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=2. Accessed 11 November 2009.

Monbiot,George (2008). "Whistling in the Wind". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
2008/dec/02/climate-change-lord-turner. Accessed 11 November 2009.

Monbiot, George. (2006). "On the Flight Path to Global Meltdown". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/21/travelsenvironmentalimpact.ethicalliving. Accessed 11 November 2009.

The Ethics of Eating Less Meat to Stop Climate Change

2009-11-06T14:05:00.001-08:00

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/save-the-planet-eat-less-meat/1562439.aspx?storypage=1

In a recent article published in the Canberra Times, the author, Roland Miller McCall, argues that people should reduce meat consumption in their diets in an effort to reduce emissions and stop climate change. The Australian author states that meat is a very large part of a typical diet in his country and that there is now a large campaign being fronted by Sir Paul McCartney that encourages people to have Meat Free Mondays (2009). McCall proceeds in presenting several facts and statistics throughout his article. For instance, McCall (2009) states that 18% of global emissions are due to livestock production and “the greenhouse effect from methane is 23 times greater than carbon”.

With all of these facts and statistics, however, the ethical issues surrounding this action are not discussed in the article.

First of all, the demarcation problem must be addressed. The demarcation problem is establishing who or what matters morally to the author in the situation. There are several views that could be taken (anthropocentric, sentient, biocentric, holistic) and the author seems to take a sentient view with this argument. With this view, humans and sentient animals count morally.

A consequentialist’s, or utilitarian’s, view states that the rightness or wrongness of actions is based on the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of the actions. In other words, the consequentialist is concerned about the consequences of the actions they make. In regards to the change suggested in McCall’s argument, there are several consequences. One of the main consequences of people reducing the amount of meat they consume is a decrease in emissions caused by livestock because less livestock would not be required as much. In turn, this would slow down climate change. McCall states that the consumption of red-meat is strongly linked to cancer, heart disease and other diseases so a decrease in meat consumption could reduce the likelihood of being d with one of these often fatal illnesses (2009). Another consequence of consuming less meat would be a decrease in livestock population and this is not a good for these animals. High populations result in a more successful species. As well, a lack of meat in a person’s diet could result in iron deficiencies if not obtained from other sources. Iron is an essential nutrient so deficiencies can be quite harmful to a human and can lead to anaemia, fatigue, hair loss, and other health problems (Iron deficiency anemia, 2009). There are other dietary options in which a person who doesn’t eat meat, such as vegetarians, can obtain iron. These food sources include oatmeal and cereals, chickpeas, figs, bagels, beans, and many more (Sources of iron). In the end, the good consequences outweigh the bad so a consquentialist would see this as a good change.

A non-consequentialist’s, or deontolost’s, view states that the rightness or wrongness of actions depends on what is intrinsic to the action. The outcome of the situation or change is not important ethically to a non-consquentialist. In this case, a non-consequentialist would see humans and the livestock as morally important. Non-consequentialists also find rights of the intrinsic beings to be very important. In this case, they would see that the livestock have a right to live and not be slaughtered and eaten. At the same time, though, there are those who believe that humans have a right to eat whatever they want, namely meat. On top of this, future generations have a right to live in a world that was not destroyed by the current generation and climate change. As well, it is sometimes seen that non-consequentialists abide by the notion that all intrinsic beings should be treated in an equal manner. In this case, it is morally correct to reduce meat consumption.

All major changes in policy and the way we live carry ethical implications that can be assessed using many different points of view. Often, the views oppose one another. When it comes to eating less meat to reduce emissions, it seems as though there would be a consensus between consequentialists and non-consequentialists even though they view the situation with different priorities in mind. Overall, there may be a possible agreement in which both sides find it morally correct for humans to decrease meat consumption in an effort to reduce emissions.

References

2009. Iron deficiency anaemia. canada.com, [Online], <http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/condition_info_details.asp?channel_id=0&relation_id=0&disease_id=274&page_no=1>, Accessed November 2009.

McCall, R.M. 2009. Save the planet – eat less meat. The Canberra Times, [Online], <http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/save-the-planet-eat-less-meat/1562439.aspx?storypage=1>, Accessed November 2009.

Sources of iron. Capital Health, [Online], <http://www.capitalhealth.ca/NR/rdonlyres/eq3uez72ubprrsnmc354jslhl2witvfzygjaenfwveec3mdvsthukxuxbab2bflpiu6fmr6uumgni7nmeml3qfjwhth/SourcesofIron.pdf>, Accessed November 2009.

Climate Change: Address the Rich and the Poor Differently?

2009-11-04T20:41:00.000-08:00

When it comes down to addressing climate change and reducing emissions, it is a universal issue: the consequences will affect everyone, and everyone is responsible to doing their own part. The question is, what part does one play and how does it differ? This question is clearly one with no easy answer, especially when applied to countries, the rich and the poor, the developed and the underdeveloped. Duncan Green is the author of the blog posts for Oxfam International, and touches on the issue in the blog titled “Trade v climate change: what should developing countries be asked to do?”, and supportively presents Oxfam’s point-of-view.

The problem is how climate change should be addressed differently by rich and poor countries, and to what extent. Green presents Oxfam’s informal solution, which roughly suggests that rich countries carry a heavier burden of responsibility than poor ones, as they are responsible for the majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide build-up in the past century (Green 2009) and have the means to significantly reduce their emissions. It is also suggested that the best current solution is for developed countries to reward and fund underdeveloped countries in their efforts to reduce emissions, since they do no have the means to support an underdeveloped economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

By supporting this solution, Green indirectly addresses the demarcation problem. According to Oxfam and supported by Green, it is morally correct for developed countries to take on the greatest responsibility, as they have the wealth, and therefore, the ability to take meaningful action in reducing emissions, as well as the ability in aiding underdeveloped countries to do so as well. Protecting the environment is what is morally correct, and by taking action in dramatically reducing emissions and funding underdeveloped countries, high financial priority is morally incorrect.

Green establishes what is morally correct (protecting the environment) and morally incorrect (financial priority), which is the basis for his point-of-view. From there, one can apply the consequentialist’s and nonconsequentialist’s views to the proposed solution. In this case, the solution supports both the consequentialist and nonconsequentialist viewpoints. According to Green, highest priority lies in the issue of climate change and the consequences everyone will face if there is a late and insufficient amount of action in preventing them; this coincides with the consequentialist’s viewpoint, since it addresses the needs of the majority. The proposed solution also addresses individual needs, being those of the individuals in underdeveloped countries. Again, underdeveloped countries do no have the means to support both a weak and developing economy and the climate change cause, and it would be unfair to ask as much action from them as from the rich, developed countries; this concern for individual needs concurs with the nonconsequentialist’s viewpoint.

Though the solution proposed by Oxfam seems extreme, it does not seem to be enough, as the situation appears to be ominous no matter the solution, as outlined by the following:

‘A pathway to keep warming well within 2°C demands both that emissions in industrialised countries are reduced, well below the 1990 baseline adopted by the UN Climate Convention… Yet even if industrialised countries were to cease all emissions from today, developing-country emissions alone would overshoot the 2°C pathway by 2020 on current trends…’ (Green 2009).

However, no matter how dire the situation seems to be, actions must be taken immediately, and applying the proper ethical implications, the right solution can be drawn and the outcome beneficial to all of humankind.

References

Green, Duncan. “Trade v climate change: what should developing countries be asked to do?” From Poverty to Power. 19 June 2009. Retrieved 3 November 2009. http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?tag=ngo-policy

The Philosophy of Climate Change

2009-11-04T19:46:00.000-08:00

Ellen Roseman summarized a speech held at the University of Toronto by John Broome, a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford University in England. The topic of the speech was on the ethics and philosophy of climate change. Broome believes that people’s existence and well being is what counts morally and looks at the solutions to climate change from a consequentialist’s point of view.

The professor talked about the potential casualties from an increase of floods, droughts, and famine due to climate change. He estimated the casualties to be about a million each year if the climate becomes significantly hotter. He even mentions the possibility, although very unlikely, that human species may become extinct due to climate change. Broome sees human life as having significant moral value, which he believes should be an important factor in deciding what must be done when dealing with climate change.

The issue of climate change was approached from a consequentialists point of view by professor Broome. He compared economists with philosophers on how they make decisions. Economists use a cost benefit analysis while philosophers similarly make decision based on which would result in more good than bad. He believes that whatever decisions we make on climate change, they need to provide more positive effects on humans than negative. Broome makes the statements that “We can't judge properly what to do about climate change until we have found an answer to the question of how these future lives can be valued.” He recognizes that people’ s existence has moral value and whether their existence will yield more good or bad should govern what decisions we make about climate change.

If you were to look at this issue from a non-consequentialist’s point of view, you could argue that it is not a factor of how much good would result, but what the costs of acting on climate change would be. If cutting green house gas emissions means reducing the use of coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, then that would lead to weakening many large industries, causing many job losses. This could also weaken many economies, since these industries may be heavily depended upon. Acting on climate change could have negative and immediate impact on people’s lives and well-being. From a non-consequentialist’s point of view you might choose not to fight climate change, even if in the future it will have positive effects, since the appropriate actions that need to be taken will cause immediate suffering.

Broome counts human life and future human existence as having moral value. He believes that whatever decision is made on climate change, it needs to yield a positive outcome for humans well beings. While if you were to look at it from a non-consequentialist’s point of view the actions needed to fight climate change would also cause suffering to humans which gives reason not to combat climate change.

Roseman, Ellen. "Author frames climate change as ethical dilemma - thestar.com." News, Toronto, GTA, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Canada, World, Breaking - thestar.com. 28 Oct. 2009. Web. 04 Nov. 2009. .

Climate Change and the Family Pet: An Ethical Examination

2009-11-04T19:20:00.000-08:00

Many people wonder about how they many reduce their carbon footprint and help lessen the effects of climate change. A particularly controversial suggestion is reported by Kate Ravilious in her recent New Scientist article “How green is your pet?” (23 October 2009). Ravilious references a new book by the environmentalists Robert and Brenda Vance entitled Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living”. The couple’s calculations show that the carbon footprint of the family dog or cat exceeds that of many vehicles. If we wish to reduce our household’s impact on the environment, the most effective way to do so is to stop raising pets. Naturally, this argument offends many people, and to better understand why, we should explore the ethics of pets and climate change.

The initial issue is whether or not pets count morally or not. Those with an anthropocentric viewpoint argue that humans are the only beings with intrinsic value, and that ethical choices are those that benefit the most humans. On the other hand, there are many that believe animals such as pets to possess intrinsic value. Therefore, when discussing issues such as climate change, animals and humans should be given the same moral weight. It is under this viewpoint that the controversy arises: if animals and humans matter equally, then the Vance’s book may as well be titled Eat the Child. Determining one’s position on who or what matters morally – referred to as the demarcation problem – is the crucial first step for assessing ethical issues.

For simplicity’s sake, the rest of this analysis will focus on the animal rights view. Within this viewpoint two general forms of ethical reasoning exist: consequentialist and non-consequentialist. Non-consequentialists, or deontologists, take a “rights” approach to ethical issues. They hold that the most ethical choice is that which respects the rights of the most individuals. A deontologist would feel that the elimination of pets is a violation of the animals’ right to life and happiness, and is not an ethically sound option. Rather, pets and humans should be given equal consideration when discussing solutions to the problem of environmental impact. Since the eradication of either species is unacceptable, a more humane solution to the problem of reducing our environmental impact must be found.

The counterpoint to the non-consequentialist deontological view is the consequentialist, or utilitarian, view. Utilitarians believe that the ethically correct choice is that which results in the greatest aggregate happiness. Under this definition, it is apparent that utilitarians would generally support the Vance’s argument. Although the rights of pets will be violated by their elimination, a world without pets will be a world less affected by climate change, and thus a happier world overall. In this way, the end justifies the means, and so, for the good of the entire biosphere, the elimination of pets should be sought after.

The study of ethics is a difficult and often confusing endeavour, and environmental ethics especially so. The suggestions put forward by Robert and Brenda Vance and reported by Kate Ravilious remain very controversial among environmentalists, pet owners, and animal activists. The purpose of this brief analysis has been to help explain why there is such disagreement over ethical issues, and demonstrate that there are often a multitude of solutions to each philosophical and environmental problem, none more legitimate than any other. This variety of opinion can be overwhelming, but there is one crucial concept that must be remembered: for a philosophy to be valid, it must be consistent.

REFERENCES

Ravilious, Kate. "How green is your pet?" New Scientist. 23 October 2009.>www.newscientist.com/.../mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html<. Accessed 1 November 2009.

Ethical Review of NGO Policy Statement

2009-11-04T19:07:00.000-08:00

In a recent policy statement by NGO many aspects of climate change were reviewed. The statement suggests ways of helping to curb carbon emissions and lead a more sustainable life. Among these many suggestions it was recommended to governments and industries "(halt) the development of nuclear facilities as they are neither safe nor environmentally sound [nor] sustainable]." From examining the context of the policy and the nature of the suggestions, it is clear to see what the suggested moral agents are, however, the ethical right or wrongness, depends on the nature of the two very different philosophies.

The nature of the policy statement was of salvation and sustainability of the earth's atmosphere and climate. The suggestions which were listed were categorized into such subheadings as "climate change" and "sustainable development" which shows an obvious emphasis on the environment and sustainability as each subheading offered ways countries could improve upon their current policies. The demarcation problem in this sense has a clear answer. The NGO policy is directed towards improving our future development and sustaining an atmosphere and climate which is healthy. Since the policy is acting to try and help the earth as a whole, it can be seen that the policy is treating the inhabitants of earth as moral agents worthy of help and support, which is a view shared by most humans residing on earth. However, the policy has to sides to it. The changes the policy suggests, depending on either a consequentialist's point of view or a non-consequentialist's point of view.

In the eyes of a nonconsequentialist, or a deontologist, the change suggested, to not build nuclear power plants, would be seen as morally incorrect. Since the outcome of an action does not matter to a deontologist, the negative effects towards an industry or company would outweigh any bad that may or may not occur later. Since the company is, as seen in the eyes of a deontologist, a moral agent, it carries rights and needs and has wants. Since deontologists follow the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you", it cannot be morally correct to stop a company from profiting since a lack of profit would go directly against that companies wants and, technically, needs. The company has rights wants and needs which, being a moral agent, means that we as a society need to fulfill them when looking at the issue through the eyes of a deontologist, and therefore the changes can only be seen as bad.

The other point of view that needs to be considered is one which takes into account the long term effects of the changes suggested. This point of view is the utilitarianism philosophy, or a consequentialist view point. In the eyes of a utilitarianist, the change would be a good thing, assuming that the change would later affect the health of the planet or could help create a sustainable life style. A utillitarianist must think only of the aggregate happiness. While, in the present day, not building a nuclear power plant affects the power plant and perhaps industry, the effects of building would create a lot more unhappiness. The salvation of the planet, from a utilitarian standpoint, is a more ethically right decision than embarking on a quest for individual growth and profit.

It is clear that while the policy shares a common moral agent, the change can be viewed in two highly contrasted ways. One which states that we have a moral obligation to a company and one which states we have a moral obligation to ourselves and our future. Perhaps there is no clear cut correct moral stance and we all just need a philosophical hug.

References

NGO. October 21, 2009. "Cures: NGO policy statement for CSD 15: a new paradigm" Retrieved November 2nd, 2009 from http://www.cures-network.org/docs/csd_statement.html .

Paper and Forest Industry's "Green-Offsets" Need Clarification

2009-10-28T22:03:00.000-07:00

Paper and other tree-oriented companies are usually seen as culprits in greenhouse gas emissions. So it comes as no surprise that these companies make it a top priority to change this image of themselves, and be considered instead as an environmentally-friendly industry. The industry’s attempts at “greening” their image is covered in the article “A Role for Trees in Climate Change Legislation?” by Anne Mulkern.

The paper and forest industries present several points in their argument. For example, one of their claims is that the products made from trees - for example, paper, lumber, and furniture - store carbon (Mulkern, 2009). Of course, such claims are made for self-beneficiary purposes, in their attempts to avoid the policy that would cap their greenhouse gas emissions, which leads to the following statement by Mulkern:

“The forest industry wants to be included on the list of what Congress considers as ‘green offsets’ the credits that companies can buy to counteract their carbon emissions…” (Mulkern, 2009).

Mulkern defines green offsets as “credits that companies can buy to counteract their carbon emissions”, but does not clarify as to what exactly those green offset credits achieve. Green offsets can be loosely defined as a way of having both economic development and environmental protection. Therefore by buying credits, the companies would be paying others to take actions in offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions, so that the net impact on the environment in terms of emissions is zero.

If the paper and forest companies did succeed in buying green offset credits, it would appear that the total carbon emissions is zero and would change the industry image to an environmentally friendly one. But green offsets have not been applied to forest industries before because lawmakers offer credits in favour of more permanent trees. Commercial forests, which are routinely cut down and replanted, in turn, cyclically capturing and releasing carbon. Permanent forests have more to offer: not only do they capture carbon, but are also important for air, water, and habitat reasons. Until there is a better understanding of how much carbon the forest industry is producing - which includes the energy used for transporting and processing - compared to how much carbon commercial forests absorb, the concept of green offsets cannot properly be applied to the industry.

It is important not to misinterpret terms such as ‘green offsets’. It can effectively give the illusion of an environmentally-friendly company. If the paper and forest industry were to receive green offset credits, it would go toward their commercial forests, which are routinely cut down and replanted; therefore, carbon emissions still remain in the atmosphere. The credits are better off given to permanent forests, which are more beneficial to the environment. Of course the paper and forest industry would rather resort to green offsets than a carbon cap - a limit on the amount of carbon dioxide released - but the environment would benefit more from the latter.

References

Mulkern, A. “A Role for Trees in Climate Change Legislation?”. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=trees-in-climate-change-laws. 11 May 2009. Retrieved 27 October 2009.

Straightening Biological Terms

2009-10-28T20:52:00.000-07:00

Diana Six’s article explains one of the major potential effects on the world which would result from climate change. This effect, is the delicate balance of mutualism. Throughout this article Six makes many strong, valid points regarding the importance of mutualism to various organisms and ecosystems, however, the article does not seem to contain a clear or outright explanation of the author’s meaning of the concept.

Mutualism is, as the author means it, any kind of interaction (ie. biological) between two or more organisms in nature which is resultantly beneficial for all parties. Examples of this process are noticeable everywhere in nature, even in such primary processes as a bee pollinating a flower. The bee collects pollen from a flower to make honey (beneficial for the bee,) and consequently carries pollen from one flower to the next resulting in cross pollination (beneficial for the flowers.)

This definition would make sense, as it fits with what the Six says in her article, like when she makes the statement: “In particular, mutualisms are important drivers of ecosystem structure and function.” (Jrank 2009.) Applying the above definition of mutualism to Six’s statement, the statement seems valid.

Without the proper background information on the concept of mutualism, the term could be easily misconstrued by the reader, and the article would become much more complex and difficult to read. The reader could easily misinterpret the term mutualism to mean any number of things, likely thinking that it would mean something along the lines of a single external process which effects a number of organisms equally, the article’s point could become warped and difficult to read.

Errors like this are all too easy to make as a reader, sometimes a term will seem familiar or self-explainitory, but it may mean something different than it appears. For this reason it is the obligation or the reader to always make sure all terms in the article are fully understood before reading, just as it is the responsibility of the author to make sure all terms are clearly outlined and understandable to the reader.

References:

Six, Diana. Climate Change and Mutualism. www.nature.com October, 2009. http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v7/n10/full/nrmicro2232.html

Jrank. Mutualism. www.jrank.org 2009, http://science.jrank.org/pages/4535/Mutualism.html

The Tipping Point

2009-10-28T19:20:00.000-07:00

In the article titled “Real action on climate change is needed now in B.C. and at Copenhagen” the author, Bill Henderson, uses the term “tipping point” when speaking about climate change. Henderson uses the term in a misrepresentative manner, which can lead to confusion and leave room for ambiguity.

The author uses “tipping point” in his article when he says “what action do we have to take globally at Copenhagen so as to not go over the tipping point of a melting Arctic ice cap or methane-producing melting permafrost or a drying Amazon?” It is evident that he is confused over the definition of the tipping point. Henderson lists positive feedback loops when using the term, which are a result of rising global temperatures and may cause the effect of a tipping point but that is not the meaning of the term.

Cambridge Dictionaries online defines tipping point as the time at which a change or an effect cannot be stopped. When using this term regarding climate change it can refer to a point in time where climate change will be irreversible. It becomes irreversible due to the fact that so many positive feedback loops will have taken effect that theoretically, it would be impossible to reduce carbon emissions efficiently enough to lessen climate change. The author uses the term to describe the triggering of positive feedback loops, which are reversible. If global temperatures decline the ice will form again, the permafrost will stay frozen, and the Amazon will continue to thrive, while if we cross this tipping point global temperatures will rise continually and at a greater rate due to these positive feedback loops. Henderson had the right idea when describing the tipping point as an irreversible event however his interpretation of tipping points was as the effects of feedback loops when in reality they are the causes.

I believe that the point the author is trying to make when using the term tipping point is that strong action against climate change is imperative. If we allow global temperatures to rise then the tipping point will be triggered causing an irreversible effect. We have a small window of opportunity and once that window is shut there is no going back.

The term tipping point used by Henderson could have caused some misunderstanding although his point that action on climate change should be immediate was still clear. The author’s use of the term implied that the tipping point causes positive feedback loops when in reality the positive feedback loops are the causes of the tipping point and not the effects.

References:

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Web. 28 Oct. 2009. .

Henderson, Bill. "Real action on climate change is needed now in B.C. and at

Copenhagen | Vancouver, Canada | Straight.com." Homepage | Straight.com. 23 Oct.

2009. Web. 28 Oct. 2009.

change-needed-now-bc-and-copenhagen>.

Attitudes About Climate Change Are Shifting

2009-10-28T18:01:00.000-07:00

A new national poll by Pew Research Center for People and the Press showed that the percentage of people who believed the planet to be warming, dropped from 71% to 57% since last year. Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research team, said "the economy most likely plays a large role in the drop." This explanation of the drop in support of global warming, while perhaps valid, carries the potential for confusion and misinformation as it does not provide any specifics. Kohut's statement requires conceptual analysis for clarification.

Kohut's statement has one thing which really requires conceptual analysis to even begin to understand. Kohut claims that the "economy" plays a large role in peoples perception of climate change, as he says is shown by the study. However, in Kohut's statement, the "economy" is not defined. This means that the reader cannot truly get a proper sense of what Kohut might be referring to. The word economy by definition means a multitude of vastly different things. While the reader might be able to assume what definition Kohut refers to, it clearly still needs analysis to understand how the economy could affect people's perception of global warming. Kohut does not specify why nor does he give any examples of how the "economy" could alter public perception and the term economy could refer to many different things and aspects of the economy. Kohut does not explain whether the economy refers to how much money the general public spent or whether it refers to the country's economic wealth and prosperity. This means the reader is allowed to and must make their own deductions about what "the economy" means. This lack of clarity may lead to a false and varied perception for each reader, which may not reflect Kohut's intentions.

The statement Kohut makes, aside from being rather vague and hard to define, requires the reader to use some sort of deduction of how much the economy might really affect the perception of the public. Kohut uses the words, "most likely". This means that even Kohut himself cannot make a clear cut statement that the economy will have an effect on the public perception. This suggests the reader has to try and determine how much the economy might actually affect perceptions.

The use of the word economy in Kohut's statement, while perhaps reflecting his true opinion, does not provide the reader with enough background knowledge to truly get a sense of what is implied by economy. Conceptual analysis is needed to try and shed some light on Kohut's true meaning and even still cannot clearly decipher Kohut's meaning.

References
"Attitudes About Climate Change Are Shifting. Is Yours?". blogs.kqed.org October 28, 2009. Accessed October 28, 2009. http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2009/10/28/attitudes-about-climate-change-are-shifting-is-yours/

Can engineers 'build' glaciers and stop global warming?

2009-10-28T13:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6449982/Indian-engineer-builds-new-glaciers-to-stop-global-warming.html

A recent article on Telegrpah.co.uk by Dean Nelson describes that an engineer has found a way to build glaciers in spite of global warming. The headline states ‘Indian engineer 'builds' new glaciers to stop global warming’. This headline, however, can easily be misunderstood by the reader due to ambiguity. Using conceptual analysis, these possible misunderstandings can be clarified.

First of all, there is a possible misunderstanding of what it is meant by ‘building a glacier’. In the article, the author means that building a glacier is done by building a dam and then letting the water freeze, in turn creating a glacier of sorts (Nelson, 2009). Taken literally, however, one might think that the engineer is building a glacier like they would with a building. Although it is explained later on in the article what glacier building is, the headline still offers the room for the possibility that a reader could misunderstand the meaning.

Next, there is the ambiguity associated with the phrase ‘stop global warming’. There is more than one possible meaning to this phrase. I believe that when saying this, the author implies that by ‘building’ the new glaciers, this is reversing the melting process on the pre-existing glaciers. While global warming is melting the glaciers, the engineer is adding glaciers so the process cancels itself out and, in a sense, the engineer is stopping global warming. The ambiguity and possible misunderstanding of this statement is that some readers may believe that the creation of these new glaciers will completely stop global warming and all of its current and future effects. This is, however, a highly unlikely result of the new glaciers, but there is the possibility that some readers may understand it this way.

Finally, there is the issue of misunderstanding the difference between global warming and climate change because there is, in fact, a difference between these two terms. Global warming means that the entire planet is being influenced by a heating trend and all areas are, in turn, increasing in temperature. On the other hand, climate change means that the climates of the earth are under a change. This change could be: heating, cooling, increasing rainfall, decreasing rainfall, change in wind patterns, etc. The article states that the new glaciers will ‘halt’ global warming, but it is likely meant that the glaciers will ‘halt’ climate change. The result of climate change in the area could be a heating trend, which, in turn, melts the glaciers. The terms global warming and climate change are not the same although many people think that they are, so there is plenty of misunderstanding possibilities when it comes to this part of the headline.

Although headlines are used to grab the attention of a prospective reader, the authors must be cautious when it comes to ambiguity and possible misunderstanding of what is being said. By clarifying ambiguous statements, an author can avoid being quoted out of context and having words put into their mouths, so to speak.

Reference

Nelson, D. (2009, October 28). Indian engineer 'builds' new glaciers to stop global warming. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6449982/Indian-engineer-builds-new-glaciers-to-stop-global-warming.html

An Underwhelming Announcement: China at the New York Climate Summit

2009-10-28T13:33:00.000-07:00

This September, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon convened a special conference in New York City. Its purpose was to strengthen international agreement over climate change in light of the climate summit to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark this coming December. One of the conference’s highlights was China’s announcement of a new national campaign of action on climate change. According to a report from the British Broadcasting Corporation (22 September 2009), Chinese president Hu Jintao pledged that the People’s Republic of China would “curb its...carbon intensity by a notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level” (BBC News, 22 September 2009). It comes as joyful news that China, the world’s top producer of greenhouse gases, has finally begun to consider climate change a serious issue. However, President Hu’s statement was vague and unclear in its meaning, and it requires conceptual analysis for a fuller understanding, lest his words be misinterpreted.

The phrase of greatest concern in Hu’s announcement is his commitment to reduce China’s carbon intensity by a “notable margin” by 2020 from 2005 levels. In this instance, a proper conceptual analysis would require specific figures to give the audience an indication of what Hu means when he says “notable margin”. Without figures, the idea of a notable margin is left open to interpretation. What the Chinese government considers a notable decrease in carbon intensity may be very different from what the United Nations or the European Union considers a notable decrease. Without a specific goal, China’s efforts to combat climate change will be less concentrated, and it will be less able to work together with other countries and their clear-cut emissions targets.

Another source of confusion in Hu’s pledge is the very concept of carbon intensity. Carbon intensity, as defined by BBC News, is a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide produced within a country per unit of that country’s gross domestic product (GDP). The fact that carbon intensity is measured as a quotient means that as a nation’s GDP increases, overall carbon intensity will decrease. Thus, while reducing carbon emissions will of course reduce carbon intensity, carbon intensity may also be reduced by simply allowing the economy to grow. To give his statement more weight, Hu should have made it clear how carbon intensity would be decreased, to avoid misunderstanding and, perhaps, accusations of simply appeasing the UN while allowing the Chinese economy to grow unrestricted.

As the Copenhagen summit approaches, it is inspiring to see nations like China – those not under the governance of the Kyoto protocol – taking the initiative against climate change. However, if progress is to be made, vague statements like that recently given by Hu Jintao will not suffice. The key to international cooperation and success lies in clear and effective communication.

REFERENCES

"China vows action on climate change". BBC News Online: Science and Environment. 22 September 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8268077.stm. Accessed 26 October 2009.

Precautionary Carbon Back Catcher

2009-10-22T17:51:00.000-07:00

In Gorrie’s article “Climate change ‘solution’ a fossil-fuel enabler”, Gorrie critiques the groundbreaking “carbon capture” technology. This technology, which was first used recently in a Mountaineer generating station in West Virginia, essentially captures and liquefies around 91,000 tonnes of emitted carbon dioxide gas and berries it underground in a layer of limestone.

Gorrie expresses that he does not endorse this technology, explaining that it greatly reduces the power plant’s efficiency and increases its cost. In addition to this, as written in Gorrie’s article, the amount of emissions captured by this technology is only 1.5 per cent of the greenhouse gasses emitted by the station on an annual basis. While this is true there are still some environment groups which believe this technology is to be followed through with and developed as a sort of reserve for if climate change were to pick up in pace.

While this technology may be deemed as inefficient, it is also a good example of our world’s effort to comply with the precautionary principle with reference to climate change. The precautionary principle essentially dictates that it is our responsibility to take action in the way of diminishing morally unacceptable harm which may be associated with human activity. Climate change is certainly one of the most predominant examples of morally unacceptable harm associated with human activity which we see today. Although the carbon capture system may be proven to not be the most efficient or effective means of reducing our carbon footprint, it represents desire to move forward and implement precautions for cleaner future. This goes to show that with a problem as large as climate change, the solution comes in steps, and the first one is to follow the precautionary principle and take action against the negative impacts of our actions.

References:
Gorrie, Peter. Climate change ‘solution’ a fossil-fuel enabler. www.thestar.com 17 October, 2009. http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/704036

Climate, Politicians, and the Precautionary Principle

2009-10-21T19:20:00.001-07:00

In the blog post “B.C.’s zombie politicians must wake up to climate change danger”, the author Bill Henderson addresses the issue of politicians and their lack of action concerning climate change. He quotes Premier Gordon Campbell and forest minister Pat Bell, showing that they argue climate change requires immediate action, yet has done little about it in favour of the forestry and oil industries.

Using the precautionary principle in his defence, Henderson presents his solution: to cancel the Olympics to draw necessary attention to climate change as the highest of priorities. Throughout the article, Henderson presents evidence to back his concern, but both his reason and solutions to the problem are hasty and unsupported. Henderson’s reason behind his precautionary thinking is the “rising probability of human extinction”, saying how we would be “guilty of murder/manslaughter by clear-cutting forests” (Henderson 2009) due to the emission of greenhouse gases. Making a large claim like the extinction of humankind is not effective in making an argument without more evidence. His solutions are also rash. He states that Premier Campbell must cancel Olympics, but does not make it clear as to how cancelling the Olympics would achieve the result he anticipates. Henderson also suggests that “Minister Bell should declare an immediate moratorium on all logging in the province” (Henderson 2009). Of course the forestry industry contributes heavily to greenhouse gas emissions. However, Henderson should present more evidence to support his solution, considering it is an extreme action for Minister Bell to take.

Henderson proves in his blog that there is cause for concern, presenting the future consequences of climate change, and how evidently little the politicians are doing about it. However, for the significant actions he asks from the politicians, Henderson must present more evidence and sounder reason in his argument.

References

Henderson, B. (2009). B.C.’s zombie politicians must wake up to climate change danger. Straight.com, 15 October 2009. http://www.straight.com/article-264676/bcs-zombie-politicians-must-wake-climate-change-danger. Retrieved 20 October 2009.

The Cost of Climate Change

2009-10-21T18:38:00.000-07:00

In a blog post on Grist.org titled “What do we mean when we talk about the cost of climate legislation?” the author, David Roberts, talks about the cost-benefit analysis of acting on climate change loosely using the Precautionary principle approach. Roberts puts society’s well being as the most imperative factor, he looks at who the costs will fall onto, and what sorts of alternatives there are to fighting global warming.

Roberts states that the total social cost ought to be the most important factor even considering that, in his own opinion, it is seemingly impossible to have a precise cost-benefit analysis to society. This closely follows the precautionary principle except Roberts does not conclude that the costs are insignificant knowing that there will be detrimental effects to human health thus going against the principle.

The author also examines the distribution of cost and benefits on certain parties and not just the sum total. He realizes that even when the overall costs will be low different regions, countries, and groups of people could potentially have higher costs and receive fewer benefits. Examining the effects on all parties is a key part of the principle but what Roberts fails to do is to clearly examine the alternatives. He briefly mentions that different alternatives should be considered but does not go into any further detail.

The precautionary principle is somewhat evident in Robert’s blog. He recognizes the effects on society are of most importance, even when the magnitude of the effects on society is not fully clear, and that individual parties will be affected differently. Although Roberts fails to conclude that if human harm is plausible then action should be immediate, and he does not examine specific alternatives to the problem, which are essential components of the Precautionary principle.

Referances:

Roberts, David. "What do we mean when we talk about the cost of climate legislation? | Grist." Grist | Environmental News, Commentary, Advice. 05 Oct. 2009. Web. 21 Oct. 2009. .

The Precautionary Principle: Successful Use By the UN

2009-10-21T18:18:00.001-07:00

The most important document in the ongoing international action on climate change is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Introduced in 1992, the UNFCCC serves as the basis for many subsequent environmental treaties, including the Kyoto protocol. It is an excellent example of a successful implementation of the precautionary principle.

Article 3, section 3 of the convention states:

”The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective. ... ” (UNFCCC, 1992)

When the UNFCCC was introduced nearly twenty years ago, the scientific evidence supporting human-induced climate change was much weaker than it is currently. How fortunate it is that the United Nations chose not to wait for more evidence before making decisions about climate change. It is now understood that global warming is occurring, and though the current situation appears bleak, it could have been far worse had the world waited until now to begin acting on climate change.

The UNFCCC also acknowledges a common objection to fighting climate change: the economic cost. Some parties feel that the price associated with efforts to reduce the effects of climate change are not worth the perceived benefits, especially as there is still a small chance that disastrous global warming may be averted. By limiting solutions to only those considered cost-effective, the UNFCCC refutes the financial argument by ensuring that any measures taken will be done so as cheaply as possible.

Although the global political will to act on climate change is still underwhelming, notable advances continue to be made. Due to the UNFCCC and the precautionary principle, the state of the world is far more positive than it might have been.

References

United Nations. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Rio de Janeiro: 1992.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf. Accessed 21 October 2009.

Reducing CO2 Emissions; Wind Power or Nuclear Power?

2009-10-21T18:17:00.001-07:00

http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=63668

In the article “Nuclear power: low-carbon, secure and proven” from the Cambridge Network, the author believes that in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we should turn to nuclear power rather than wind power. I believe that this is proper use of precautionary thinking.

The article states that using wind power as a precautionary measure is unreliable because wind power is erratic and unpredictable because it can change between days, hours, and minutes. As well, during high wind events, the turbines sometimes need to be closed to prevent damage ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009).

The article continues to explain why wind power, in Denmark, for instance, is not an appropriate alternative when it comes to creating energy with low carbon dioxide emissions. The author explains that since wind is so unpredictable, it cannot be relied on to provide energy for a large amount of a country’s population ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009).

Instead, the author suggests that an appropriate precautionary measure to the need of creating energy without emissions is nuclear power, using Sweden as an example. The author states that even though there is an issue of nuclear waste, current nuclear power plants generate low amounts of waste ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009). This is important because nuclear power gives off no emissions and is more reliable than wind power.

In comparing the two options, the author also makes a valid point when saying that in the lifetime of one nuclear reactor, a wind turbine might need to be replaced three times and this maintenance is not only expensive, but dangerous when it comes to offshore turbines. As well, David McKay, the UK government’s chief climate change and energy advisor is quoted saying the wind power only makes a small contribution to a country’s energy production ("Nuclear power: low-carbon," 2009).

Overall, the author of the article provides with suitable precautionary thinking for a very important issue.

Reference

(2009, October 08). Nuclear power: low-carbon, secure and proven. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=63668

Melting Composts Heaps And The Permafrost Precautionary Principle

2009-10-21T18:10:00.000-07:00

In a recent blog post by Christian Hunt, on climatesafety.org, the effects of the melting of permafrost were discussed and the precautionary principle was suggested as being a critical part of the solution.
The permafrost located in the Arctic is under increasing threat of melting due to global warming. Huge amounts of dead organisms and waste such as dead vegetation are contained in the permafrost. The permafrost therefore plays the role of a huge composting bin, a compost which covers almost one fifth of the earth’s surface. Since the permafrost is threatened by global warming, there is a chance huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane gas could be released into the atmosphere. The blog suggests that information on large scale emissions, is hard to obtain but that unless steps are taken to ebb the warming of permafrost, there will be large amounts of harmful emissions created from the melting of permafrost.
In his blog Hunt uses facts on a small scale to provide reasons for considering permafrost as a potential component for global warming. Hunt states that while it is unknown how much carbon dioxide and methane gas will be released or how fast the emissions will increase, the affect of permafrost melting will be added to the IPCC’s scenarios and has, undoubtedly, a huge potential for harm. Hunt says that using the precautionary principle means we cannot ignore the permafrost any longer since ignorance could have catastrophic results.
Hunt’s use of the precautionary principle seems to me to be extremely valid. While there is no large scale testing done on the permafrost, the results from point by point measurements seem to suggest an overall increase in the amount of permafrost melting. If this is the case then certainly the precautionary principle demands that we take action to try and prevent anymore melting. While we don’t have huge amounts of information, the information provided “suggests a bit of a doomsday scenario” which demands, using the precautionary principle, that we act immediately.

References

Hunt, C. (October, 11th, 2009) "Melting compost heaps and the permafrost precautionary principle." climatesafety.org. Retrieved from http://climatesafety.org/melting-compost-heaps-and-the-permafrost-precautionary-principle/ (19 October 2009).

Are we making a less meat-friendly environment?

2009-10-14T20:26:00.000-07:00

In our society today, the repercussions of climate change are becoming more and more apparent, however, until its too late, we will never really know just how many aspects of our lives will be affected. Studies are helping scientists get a better picture of some of the effects we could be facing if this global threat is not stopped.

A recent study conducted by Neville Gregory, an animal physiologist of London’s Royal Veterinary College, proved that climate change is something that affects us in so many ways that we wouldn’t even think of.

In Gregory’s article, published in science direct, Gregory explains how climate change could affect our diet, specifically the meat we eat. Gregory explains that as the climate changes such that animals are being exposed to greater amounts of heat, the quality of the meat being produced by these animals will lessen.

This decline in quality is due to implications brought on by increased temperatures such as an increase in mortality rate and other organ and tissue related complications due to heat stress. These complications carry on after slaughter, leading to compromise of the meat produced by these animals, not only in its quality, but in its risk of contamination by E. coli and salmonella.

While this isn’t the most hard-hitting affect climate change would have on our world, small things like this tend to build up. There are greater and more pressing risks associated with climate change, but this shows how it could change our way of life in more ways than we would think.

References
Gregory, N. G. How climatic changes could affect meat quality. Food Research International (2009), Food Res. Int. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2009.05.018 (2009)

Armstrong, Anna. (2009) Meat-eater’s Malady. Nature Reports. www.nature.com 12 october 2009. http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0910/full/climate.2009.101.html

Climate change affecting the Arabain Sea's natural cycles

2009-10-14T19:39:00.000-07:00

There has been a disturbance in the Arabian Sea’s surface temperatures natural decadal cycle since 1995 and climate change may be to blame. A paper titled “Response of the Arabian Sea to global warming and associated regional climate shift” published in the journal ScienceDirect explores the effects of climate change on sea surface temperatures (SST), as well as other climate shifts.

The SST has been rising since 1904 to 1994 (approximately 0.5 °C) with a natural decadal cycle, but since 1995, it has increased steadily with no cycle. The natural decadal cycle is related to the solar irradiance cycle but since 2000 solar activity has declined yet SST continued to rise. This led the authors to suspect that the rise in SST is due to global warming. When examining the correlation between rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations and SST, there was an evident relationship between 1960 and 2006.

Other changes around the Arabian Sea are believed to be a result of rising temperatures. The intensity and number of cyclones has risen in the past twelve years (from 1995 to 2007). Also, air temperatures over India, during February, have rapidly increased an additional 1.5 °C since 1995. This is resulting in a decrease in wheat yield, since it is a winter crop. There has been a 4.5% decline in kernel weight for every 1 °C increase in temperature.

An obvious question remains; why is the Arabian Sea just showing the effects of climate change since 1995? This is due to the fact that a strong wind-driven upwelling brings cooler water to the surface, for example, the temperatures of the upwelling water near Somalia ranges from 17 to 22 °C. This upwelling has maintained the natural decade cycle, but since 1995 and 2006, carbon dioxide drive radiative forcing has increased 20% causing temperature’s to rise. Upwelling-driven cooling can no longer compensate this increase in temperature. This resulted in a steady increase in SST.

Rising temperatures due to climate change evidently caused the disruption of the natural decadal cycle in the Arabian Sea. The reason for the cycle not being affected until 1995 is due to the wind-driven upwelling masking the effects. The affecting SST rising temperatures have caused other changes as well, such as an increase in cyclone intensity and occurrences along with affecting crop yield. Many of the effects of rising SST are new and other further effects are unknown. Further study should be done on the food security within the region, since temperatures are expected to rise.

References:

Kumar, Prasanna, Raj Roshin, Jayu Narvekar, Dinesh Kumar, and E. Vivekanandan. "ScienceDirect - Marine Environmental Research : Response of the Arabian Sea to global warming and associated regional climate shift." ScienceDirect - Home. 5 Dec. 2009. Web. 14 Oct. 2009. .

Increase in Hurricane Activity Linked to Rising Ocean Temperatures

2009-10-14T19:08:00.000-07:00

It has been acknowledged that Atlantic hurricane activity has increased a significant amount since 1995, but the question of course is: why? Thanks to Mark Saunders and Adam Lea of the Department of Space and Climate physics at the University College London, the answer is closer than before.

It is absolutely certain that Atlantic hurricane activity has increased since the 1980s. Based on the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index (ACE), the proportion of years with activity above the 1950-2000 mean has increased from 16% for the period of 1970-1994 to 82% for the period 1995-2005 (Saunders et al, 2008). This sudden rise in hurricane activity has two possible factors: sea surface temperature and an atmospheric wind field.

The purpose of Saunders and Lea’s study was to determine the contribution of sea surface temperatures alone. They collected several data: wind speed data, sea surface temperature (SST) data, monthly wind records, hurricane and tropical cyclone records, hurricane frequency models, and statistical models of sea warming. Through vigorous analysis, calculations, and interpretation, they removed the influence of atmospheric wind field and determined the following:

“Our results indicate that the sensitivity of tropical Atlantic hurricane activity to August–September sea surface temperature over the period we consider is such that a 0.5 °C increase in sea surface temperature is associated with a 40% increase in hurricane frequency and activity. The results also indicate that local sea surface warming was responsible for 40% of the increase in hurricane activity relative to the 1950–2000 average between 1996 and 2005.” (Saunders et al, 2008)

According to Saunders and Lea’s results, indeed warming sea surface temperatures are a significant contributing factor in increased hurricane activity; the results go further to prove that, in fact, even a 0.5°C increase in sea surface temperature can result in an alarming increase of 40% in hurricane activity.

However, the Atlantic hurricane activity has been interpreted as the result of two possible factors, one being rising sea surface temperatures linked to global warming trends, and the other, the return to the positive phase conditions of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (a naturally occurring oscillation of the North Atlantic Ocean). If indeed it is caused by only a natural occurrence, it is expected that hurricane activity levels will drop back down to normal within approximately 20 years. However, if linked to rising ocean temperatures caused by global warming, hurricane activity is expected to continue increasing through the twenty-first century (Saunders et al, 2008). Saunders addressing this, stating the following:

“Our analysis does not identify whether warming induced by greenhouse gases contributed to the increase in hurricane activity, but the ability of climate models to reproduce the observed relationship between hurricanes and sea surface temperature will serve as a useful means of assessing whether they are likely to provide reliable projections of future changes in Atlantic hurricane activity.” (Saunders et al, 2008)

Clearly, it is important to recognize that Atlantic hurricane activity levels are increasing significantly, and whether or not one wishes to address the issues of global warming, rising ocean temperatures should be a cause for alarm.

References

Saunders, M, et al. “Large contribution of sea surface warming to recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity.” Nature. January 2008, 451, 557-560. doi:10.1038/nature06422.

Climate Change Destroying Eastern Eurasian Forests And Ecosystems

2009-10-14T17:30:00.000-07:00

Changes in the climate could cause massive changes in the population and dynamic of eastern eurasian forests. The results climate change simulation were published in the August edition of the journal Climate Change and the results predict a grim future for Eurasian forests.

The study was performed by Ningning Zhang, H.H. Shugart and Xiaodong Yan to determine the effects of climate change on a forest system covering 6 million km squared bordering on the south side of Russia and the north end of China and Mongolia. Since many of the trees in the forest system exist only within a very sensitive climate range a change of one degree can be fatal and catastrophic, as the study shows.

The study used something called the "FAREAST Model" to accurately simulate the effect of two climate change scenarios on the vast tree system, using values from the IPCC. The model simulated the dynamic of the forest and also incorporated, using trends based on IPCC information, variations such as temperature change and its side effects on soil composition and natural fertilizers. Since the trees in the forest system seem to be highly sensitive towards climate change both a "cold" and "hot" model of climate change were used.

The results of the study showed that the forest system is in extreme danger. The study says that many of the trees, living within such tentative temperature limits, would perish almost instantly after a few degrees change in temperature. This carries more weight than just the obvious extinction of a species of tree. The study says that the conifers in the forest system such as Larix and Picea would have a drastic decrease in population due to the small range of temperature change they are able to live in. The loss of one type of tree in a forest also implies complications such as a loss of biodiversity, a loss of a valuable ecosystem and it also changes the forest dynamic. While the study does suggest that some trees may adapt to the change in temperature, such as the broad leaved deciduous trees: Fraxinus, Quercus and Tili, the distribution of the trees would have to change wildly, whether moving to a warmer or cooler part of the system or growing only in very sparse clusters. The change in the forest system, while not only affecting the population of trees and the amount of biodiversity also destroys many valuable habitats for many animals. The study predicts almost a complete destruction of an ecosystem.

Climate change, even a change of only one degree has a huge effect on the earth. The study, while not only showing an imminent loss of Eurasian forests, also perhaps paints a picture for a worldwide future of loss and destruction.

References

Zhang, N. et al. "Simulating the effects of climate changes on Eastern Eurasia forests". Climate Change. August 2009, vol. 95, pp. 341-361, doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9568-4.

As World Warms, Europe May Cool - Ecosystems at Risk

2009-10-14T16:46:00.000-07:00

Despite global warming, the future may see a cooler Europe, and that could wreak havoc upon the continent’s biological and social stability. So says a new study into the ecological and social effects of an ancient climatic event published in this month’s issue of the journal Geology (doi: 10.1130/G25739A.1).

It has been well-established that there was an abrupt period of cooling in the northern hemisphere at the end of the last ice age about 8200 years ago. Previous studies have linked this cooling with the sudden drainage of glacial lakes in northern Canada (Barber et al, 1999). When the surge of fresh water entered the Atlantic, it disrupted ocean currents, leading to relatively rapid cooling in Europe and eastern North America.

J. Pross of Frankfurt University and colleagues set out to learn about the effects of this so-called “8.2 kyr B.P. climatic event” around the eastern Mediterranean. They collected samples of ancient pollen from a site in northern Greece. By determining the plant species to which each sample belonged, the team was able to reconstruct the ancient ecosystem of the area, and thereby infer local temperature and precipitation trends.

The results were startling. Of the pollen examined from before the climatic event, 87% belonged to broad-leaf species, implying that the area was heavily forested. After the climatic event had occurred, the proportion of broad-leaf species fell to only 53% of the total. Many species disappeared completely. This disturbance in the local ecosystem took centuries to recover, and was almost certainly due to the climatic changes calculated by Pross’s team: average temperatures fell by 4°C, and annual precipitation was about 200 mm less than usual.

The researchers also turned to archaeological evidence to determine the effects of the climatic event on people living in the area at the time. They found indicators of massive social upheaval, as villages were abandoned and populations began migrating across southern Europe. The paper also acknowledges other studies which cite the 8.2 kyr B.P. climatic event as a major contributing factor in the collapse of the Akkad and Uruk cultures in the Middle East (Weiss et al, 2001).

Of course, Pross and his team admit that their conclusion may not apply across the whole region. The site of their pollen studies sits in a valley, and so is subject to a different climate than other nearby sites. However, the team’s data fit well with existing models, so there is good reason to believe that the effects described by the paper occurred over a wide area.

At any rate, the implications of the study are clear. The 8.2 kyr B.P. climatic event was a brief period of cooling during an era of overall warming. If the Greenland ice cap continues to melt, the northern hemisphere may soon experience a similar period of cooling. By determining the ecological and social effects of the 8.2 kyr B.P. climatic event, Pross and his team have delivered an important warning to the residents of Europe: take action against global warming, or face a chilly – and less biodiverse – future.

REFERENCES

Barber, D.C. et al. “Forcing of the cold event of 8,200 years ago by catastrophic drainage of Laurentide lakes”. Nature. 1999, vol. 400, pp. 344-348. doi: 10.1038/22504.

Pross, J. et al. “Massive perturbation in terrestrial ecosystems of the Eastern Mediterranean region associated with the 8.2 kyr B.P. climatic event”. Geology. October 2009, vol. 37, no. 10. pp. 887-890. doi: 10.1130/G25739A.1

Weiss, H., and Bradley, R.S. “What drives societal collapse?”. Science. 2001, vol. 291, pp. 609-610, doi:10.1126/science.1058775.

Global Warming Will Change Wind: Study

2009-10-14T13:37:00.000-07:00

http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0910/2009GL037500/2009GL037500.pdf

A recent American study now suggests that climate change will affect circumstances of extreme wind across the globe.

Researchers from the Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Science in Miami, Florida conducted a study that shows extreme wind events will increase in some areas and decrease in others due to global warming. Europe is hit hard every year with windstorms and the recent sandstorms in Austrailia were caused by high winds. The study is called “Model projected changes of extreme wind events in response to global warming”.

“Extreme weather events impact a wide range of social, economic and environmental systems. This study examines the changes in the frequency of extreme wind storm events in response to [global warming].” (Gastineau & Soden, 2009)

Issues involved with extreme winds include: structural damage, broken telephone and light poles, and downed trees. Airlines also are heavily affected by strong winds because it easily disrupts take-off and landing of aircrafts.

“The frequency of extreme near-surface wind speed decreases in the tropics but increases in the extratropics in response to global warming” (Gastineau & et al., 2009), says the study conducted by G. Gastineau and B. J. Soden.

The study goes on to say,

“The frequency of the strongest wind events decreases between 40°N and 40°S, with the exception of the central Pacific Ocean. However, the strongest wind events are more frequent in the storm-track regions, around the 60° latitudes of both hemispheres” (Gastineau et al., 2009).

The full study appears in the Geophysical Research Letters.

References

Gastineau, G., & Soden, B. J. (2009). Model projected changes of extreme wind events in response to global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 36. Retrieved from http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0910/2009GL037500/2009GL037500.pdf doi: 10.1029/2009GL037500

Animal induced ocean mixing: primary vs. secondary

2009-10-07T20:36:00.001-07:00

In “Sea Animals Change Climate Via Flutters and Flaps?”, National Geographic’s Brian Handwerk debates the impact of animal induced ocean circulation based on Kakani Katija and John O. Dabiri’s research paper “A viscosity-enhanced mechanism for biogenic ocean mixing”, published in the July 30 2009 issue of Nature. Though Handwerk wrote his review article as a presentation of Katija’s research, differences between the two papers are immediately distinguishable. There are three main reasons for these differences: (1) Katija was directly involved in the research and based her article on the results of her research, whereas Handwerk based his article on the results of Katija’s research. (2) Handwerk and Katija wrote their papers according to different target audiences, which is (3) the reason behind the differing claims or objectives in their articles.

Katija herself, along with colleagues, is responsible for the research behind her peer reviewed article. As the one who designed the experiment, did the calculations, and derived conclusions based on the empirical and numerical results, Katija wrote her research paper in great detail, including: the basis of the research; the exact procedures of the experiment; the materials and equipment used; a complete method summary; and complex calculations, graphs, and charts. When presenting Katija’s research in his article, Handwerk excludes the details of the research and covers only the simplified basics of Katija’s research, answering in simple explanations the ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ of Katija’s research.

The difference in the format and presentation of Katija and Handwerk’s articles is directly related to their different target audiences. Katija had to write her article in great detail of the research, since her target audience is the scientific community, with the knowledge that the scientific community would understand the complexity of the concepts and calculations. For example, in the article she refers to the limit of Stokes flow, the flux Richardson number, and the calculation of the Reynolds number without explanation. This is because it is fully expected that her audience understands these concepts already. Handwerk, on the other hand, had to simplify Katija’s research results. Handwerk’s audience is the public who are interested in nature and science, as the article is published in National Geographic. But they do not understand the complexities behind scientific research, and Handwerk adjusts accordingly.

Beyond the components and the format, the claims of the articles are also considerably different. Again, this is due to the difference in target audiences. In the original peer reviewed primary source article, Katija presents her research, data, and findings to support this presented claim:

“On the basis of calculations of a broad range of aquatic animal species,… biogenic mixing via Darwin’s mechanism can be a significant contributor to ocean mixing and nutrient transport…Therefore, neglect of the contribution of induced drift in theoretical models of the mixing efficiency…would result in an order-of-magnitude underestimate.” (Katija 2009).

Biologically generated turbulence has been largely ignored as a contributor to global ocean circulation due to the Ozmidov buoyancy length scale, which, simplified, concludes that the turbulence caused by animals is too small, and lost as heat before it can affect ocean mixing. But Katija, through her research results, claims that the other mechanism of fluid mixing - first presented by Charles Darwin and neglected by the scientific community - overcomes the Ozmidov scale due to induced fluid drift, the turbulent wake caused by the vertical motion of a solid body through high and low density fluids of the ocean, and is effective enough to rival the effects of winds and tides. She argues, therefore, that biogenic ocean mixing must be considered in theoretical models and in ocean circulations. While Katija focuses on the mechanism of fluid mixing, Handwerk writes to appeal to the audience and focuses on the significance of animal induced ocean mixing as a whole. He includes quotes from both supporters and critics, and stresses the importance of how this could affect global warming models, since ocean circulation is important in its contribution to climate. In this way, Handwerk’s claim becomes focused on the popular and widely debated issue of global warming, which he uses to attract a larger public audience.

By comparing Handwerk and Katija’s articles, it is evident that there is a significant difference between the secondary source and the primary. Unfortunately, this illustrates how distorted information can become, even unintentionally. By not focusing on the mechanism as Katija did, Handwerk appears to be stating that according to research, any movement in the ocean will affect ocean circulation. From the example of Handwerk and Katija’s articles, it is clear that when wanting to gain reliable information or form a solid opinion, one must make it one’s responsibility to search beyond the secondary source for the truthful facts, untouched by the media.

References

Handwerk, B. (2009). Sea animals change climate via flutters and flaps?. National Geographic, 30 July 2009. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090729-jellyfish-ocean-global-warming_2.html. Retrieved 6 October 2009.

Katija K, Dabiri JO (2009). "A viscosity-enhanced mechanism for biogenic ocean mixing." Nature, vol. 460, pp. 624-626.
(http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kakani/Katija_Dabiri_Nature_2009.pdf)

The Economy's Effect on the Atmosphere

2009-10-07T20:08:00.000-07:00

In Marlowe Hood’s article, “Global economic crisis to slash carbon emissions: IEA”, Hood addresses a positive aspect which has arisen from the economic crisis which the world has faced over the past year. Hood explains that in a press conference by Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Birol announced that until recently the annual global carbon dioxide emissions rates have been rising by three percent each year, until the hit of the economic crisis which effected a five percent decrease by 2020.

While these statistics are definitely uplifting, they do not appear to be backed up by any clear evidence of correlation between the economical crisis and the drop in carbon dioxide emissions, as far as we are able to tell from Hood’s article, the relationship between the two could be completely coincidental.

Hood’s article goes on to explain the IEA’s statements about how much the countries of the world would have to cut their carbon dioxide emissions in order to keep from crossing the climate changing threshold that would be breached if the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide exceeded 450 parts per million

The data Hood used in this article comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization is an extension of the United Nations (UN) which gains the statistics upon which Hood’s article is based a great deal of credibility. However, upon further investigation, it is revealed that the data used in this article is based on a study which the IPCC performed in 2007. While the information is still reliable based on the source, the fact that it is based on statistics gathered two years ago means that it is based on not current data, but a projection based on trends from two years ago, causes the data to lose some credibility, and since this data ultimately forms a large foundation upon which this article sits, this must be taken into account when reading.

Finally, in this article Hood addresses the issue that the poorer countries feel that “Rich nations created the problem and should bear the brunt of the responsibility to fix it” (Hood, 2009.)

The argument presented by the poorer countries seems valid but this is a very controversial topic because, since we are in a state of economic crisis, even the richer countries have to make budgeting cuts and unfortunately that includes the budgets set aside for such things as funding operations which cut carbon dioxide emissions. This is an aspect which might have been overlooked by Hood, as it contradicts what was said earlier in the article about an economic crisis helping slash carbon emissions.

References:

Hood, Marlowe (2009). Global economic crisis to slash carbon emissions: IEA. www.earth-stream.com, 06 October 2009. http://www.earth-stream.com/outpage.php?s=18&id=208429. Accessed 06 October 2009.

International Energy Agency (IEA)
http://www.iea.org/ Accessed 06 October 2009.

Höhne, Niklas and den Elzin, Michel (2007). Emission Reduction Trade-offs for Meeting Concentration Targets. www.ipcc.ch, 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/briefing-bonn-2008-06/emission-reduction-trade-offs.pdf . Accessed 06 October 2009.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.ipcc.ch/ Accessed 06 October 2009.

Negative Feedback loop in Antarctica

2009-10-07T19:02:00.000-07:00

In a article by Roberta Kwok in Conservation Magazine Kwok reviews a article titled Negative feedback in the cold: ice retreat produces new carbon sinks in Antarctica published in the Journal Global Change Biology. The secondary article states the articles findings, certain statistics that where calculated, and the articles conclusion while within the article itself the authors go into great detail as to how they gathered their data and which certain data was included in calculating their statistics. As well as any errors they may have had and how they where dealt with.

One example of how the secondary article simplifies the peer reviewed article is with the statistic that was concluded in the primary article which states that 910,000 tons of carbon that is contained within the new formations of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and seabed animals in the arctic. In the primary article the authors spoke about each ice shelf, bay, and area of ice that had melted and which is now home to new life. Then it was shown for each area of ice that had melted the calculated amount of carbon stored within that particular area. As well as the calculations for how much carbon was stored in each of the phytoplankton and seabed animals was included individually. It was not until the end in their conclusion when they had that particular statistic calculated. Kwok does not provide an explanation or proof of the statistic just states it in her article while in the peer reviewed article it shows step by step how they concluded that statistic and what data was used.

At the beginning of the secondary article Kwok gives two example of positive feedback loops which where the melting of polar ice caps and the loss of forest area due to climate change. There is no explanation in her article as to why melting sea ice will increase the effects of climate change and why warming temperatures will effect forestry leading to another positive feedback loop. In the primary article the authors provide thorough explanations. Ice reflects approximately 70% of the light that strikes it and therefore reduces heat by approximately 90 watts per meter squared compared to water. As with the case of reducing forest area this is due to spreading desert zones and a decrease in moisture. In the secondary article this is not explained at all and Kwok only gives the results of climate change and positive feedback loops and not the causes.

Kwok speaks about the total area of ice that has been lost this century within the arctic, a total of 23,900 square kilometers. In the peer reviewed article each region of ice that has melted was calculated then added up as well it breaks down the area of ice melted within certain time period of that century. The authors also explain how they dealt with errors such as when there was missing data for a coastline within a specific date then the data of the next closest date was used. Kwok does not speak about these certain details and possible errors within the data, just states the final conclusion itself in the article. The primary article provides detailed explanations of what areas and during what time periods they included within their data.

The secondary article summarized the peer-reviewed article’s points and conclusions in order to give a general idea of what the article was investigating. In the actual primary article it gave very detailed explanations of how they carried out their experiments or calculations and included how they collected data and if there where any errors how they dealt with them. The statistic and claims made in a primary article seem much stronger and reliable since they give a thorough explanation as to how they came to that conclusion while in a secondary article it simply references the information to the primary article with no other explanations. This undermines the evidence since you are not able to see how the evidence was constructed making it difficult to judge whether the evidence is reliable until you read the primary article from which it came from.

References:

Kwok, Roberta. "Southern Exposure : Retreat of Antarctic ice opens new waters for carbon sinks." Journal Watch Online. 29 Sept. 2009. Web. 06 Oct. 2009. .

Pecz, L. S., D. K. Barnes, A. J. Cook, A. H. Fleming, and A. Clarke. "Negative feedback in the cold: ice retreat produces new carbon sinks in Antarctica." Global CHange Biolagy (2009). Wiley InterScience. 15 Sept. 2009. Web. 6 Oct. 2009. .

How and why do primary and secondary sources differ?

2009-10-07T18:29:00.000-07:00

In the September 2009 issue of the journal Geology, a team of British scientists led by one Timothy Daley published an article describing their analysis of oxygen isotopes in fossilised Newfoundland mosses (Daley et al, 2009). Their research indicated that at the end of the last ice age, there was a period of severe cooling in eastern North America likely caused by an influx of glacier melt water into the Atlantic Ocean. The study came to the attention of the National Geographic Society, and it became the topic of a news article written by Kate Ravilious for the National Geographic News website (Ravilious, 2009). A comparison of the original scientific study and its subsequent report clearly demonstrates that primary and secondary sources vary greatly in their presentation of the same information.

The most obvious difference between the original study and the article summarizing it is the difference in format and style. See their respective titles: Daley’s study is called “Terrestrial climate signal of the ‘8200 yr B. P. cold event’ in the Labrador Sea region”, which appears dull and uninspired compared to Ravilious’s attention-grabbing headline “Global Warming Could Cool N. America in a Few Decades?”. Ravilious is a journalist, and so the intention of her title, like any news title, is to attract an audience for her story. Daley’s title is not meant to serve the same purpose; rather, it is straight-forward so that other researchers will understand exactly what his paper is about, and be able to judge its relevance to their own research (Booth et. al, 2008, p. 248). As a scientific paper, Daley’s article adheres to a strict format: there is an abstract followed by an introduction, a description of the methods used in the study, a presentation of the data, interpretation of the data, and finally a conclusion, all of it separated and well-formatted. This is the standard form of a scientific research paper, and by following the proper form, one can more easily earn the respect of the scientific community (Booth et. al, 2008, p. 14). Ravilious, on the other hand, is more concerned with conveying the story to the general public. She can therefore follow a less strict format. A final stylistic comparison pertains to the word choice of each article. Like most scientific papers, Daley’s report is filled with technical terms and symbols unfamiliar to the layman. It should be remembered, however, that the layman is not Daley’s target audience; rather, he is writing to his fellow scientists, who already understand the terminology being used. On the other hand, Ravilious’s news report is directed at a general audience, and so more familiar words and phrases are used. Although both papers are reporting the same information, the manners in which they present it are very different in approach.

Another major difference between the two articles is the amount of detail that each provides with regards to the research that was conducted. Daley’s journal article is about four pages in length, while Ravilious condenses the same material into about five hundred words. The reason for this is clear: primary sources must go into far more depth than secondary sources. In his article, Daley gives thorough explanation of the methods used during his research and the reasons for using his methods. This is so that other researchers can trust that Daley’s findings are accurate. The general public is not as concerned about the precise methodology of scientific research, but more as to what the results were and why they are significant. Ravilious can therefore afford to give a much briefer description of the study and concentrate more upon applications of the new information. This focus on the implications of the research leads into the last major example of how primary and secondary sources differ.

A final, crucially important consideration is how each article interprets and presents the results of the research. Recognition should be given to Ravilious for avoiding a common problem found in secondary sources: the exaggeration of claims. In science, hypotheses can never be proven, and results are never certain. The popular press, however, often interprets scientific research as having made fully established findings. It is reassuring, therefore, to find Ravilious’s article devoid of any “certains”. Rather, use is made of words like “could”, “might”, and “possible”. This mirrors the language used in Daley’s report, which avoids absolute certainty. Daley also acknowledges that many aspects of the topic “remain to be explained” and this is made clear by Ravilious. Such inclusions are noteworthy, for limitations of the research are often not emphasized in secondary sources. Many authors, including Ravilious, also make inferences that were not expressed in the primary sources. The main focus of Ravilious’s article, as stated in the title, is that Daley’s work suggests that the melting Greenland ice caps could trigger a period of cooling in North America similar to that which occurred 8200 years ago. This view is not explicitly endorsed by Daley’s article, which makes only one reference to the parallel between the Greenland ice cap and that which existed previously in North America. In some instances, secondary reports may entirely misinterpret the findings of the original article, or else apply the findings to ways they were not intended, either of which can have damaging effects. It is for this reason that interpretation and understanding of scientific findings is often the most important difference between primary and secondary sources.

This comparison of Foley’s scientific study and Ravilious’s popular account has demonstrated that primary and secondary sources often differ substantially in their presentation of information. The style and format are often very different, as is the amount of detail presented in each article. Perhaps most importantly, secondary sources often make stronger claims than the original research, and often the limitations discussed in the primary literature are downplayed in popular accounts. Secondary sources may often add their own inferences and conclusions to those made in primary sources. When all of these issues are considered, the underlying message becomes clear: an understanding of the differences between primary and secondary sources is an essential requirement for research of any kind.

REFERENCES

Booth, Wayne C. et al. The Craft of Research. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Daley, Timothy J. et al, “Terrestrial climate signal of the ‘8200 yr B.P. cold event’ in the Labrador Sea region”. Geology. September 2009, v. 37, no. 9. pp. 831-834. doi: 10.1130/G30043A.

Ravilious, Kate. “Global Warming Could Cool N. America in a Few Decades?”. National Geographic News. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090914-north-america-cooling-warming.html. September 14 2009. Accessed October 5 2009.

Dryer Winters Result In Fewer Tornadoes

2009-10-07T17:53:00.000-07:00

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/2/024012/erl9_2_024012.pdf?request-id=f4e95a60-45f4-494e-86e2-577efddeca3b

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/07/01/Climate-change-affects-tornado-activity/UPI-29391246480329/

The news article “Climate change affects tornado activity” touches upon the research done by Marshall Shepherd, Dev Niyogi, and Thomas Mote. The evidence in this article is based on the article written by Shepherd, Niyogi, and Mote in the Environmental Research letters called “A seasonal-scale climatological analysis correlating spring tornadic activity with antecedent fall-winter drought in the southeastern United States”. In comparing and contrasting these two articles, the difference between primary literature and secondary literature can be seen.

First of all, the two articles differ in their titles. The news article has a very simple headline while the journal article is more complex and descriptive. The title of the journal article gives the reader more of an understanding of the contents of the article than the new article’s title does.

Another stark difference between the two articles is the length of each article. The news article is approximately half of a page. The journal article, on the other hand, is 7 pages long. This indicates that there is much more information included in the journal article. The news article gives the reader a brief summary of the evidence found in the study, while the journal article has approximately a page of results.

There are, however, instances when the two articles make the same statement, just slightly differently

"A U.S. study suggests that climate change effect of dry autumns and winters may lead to fewer tornadoes developing during the spring season.” ("Climate change affects," 2009)

“Our results suggest that there is a statistically significant reduction in tornado activity during the tornado season following meteorological drought in the preceding fall or winter. (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009)

The two articles even make identical statements, especially when the news article is directly quoting one of the scientists or the journal article itself.

The news article, as a secondary literature resource, provides the reader with a fine summary of the article. However, if the intention of the reader is to learn more about the study that was done, the primary literature (journal article) would be a more appropriate resource to consult.

The journal article contains the motivation for the experiment and the objective of the research being conducted. This information gives the reader a background before discussing the actually experiment that was preformed. The journal article also explains that they will be using tornado data from March to June and the antecedent time period is the previous 6 months. As well, the article mentions the study area of the experiment, in this case, the state of Georgia and what is considered a drought period for the experiment. The news article fails to address these aspects of the experiment.

“We primarily focused on tornado activity in the Mar-Jun time frame because it is the most active period for tornadoes in north Georgia, and it minimizes likely influences from tropical cyclone-spawned tornadoes.” (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009)

The journal article also lists a detailed methodology to the experiment and how they collected their data. As well, they present very comprehensive results to the experiment and several diagrams and graphs to convey these findings. For instance, I found the following important to the results of the experiment:

“On average, antecedent non-drought years had nearly twice as many tornado days in the study area as antecedent drought years. Antecedent non-drought years were also five to six time more likely to have multiple tornado days than in antecedent drought years.” (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009)

On the contrary, the news article makes very few comments on the findings of the research.

The news article makes a very broad claim that fewer tornadoes are the result of dry previous months without providing the evidence needed to back up such a claim. The journal, on the other hand, makes the same claim, but runs through the experiment and gives the evidence to support the claim.

As well, the news article is limited due to the fact that it is likely not written by a scientist who would understand and be able to interpret all of the findings of the study. The news article is solely meant to report the findings so that others who are interested can look further into the subject. This particular journal article also has limitations, as it states:

“There is a paucity of literature documenting how drought conditions feedback to the frequency or intensity of tornadic activity.” (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009)

This demonstrates that this research is one of the first of this kind and it is limited by this fact. It is also limited in the way that the study was only conducted for tornadoes in Georgia so other areas do not apply for this study. However, other studies are currently underway for other areas of the United States (Shepherd, Niyogi, & Mote; 2009).

Overall, it can be seen that the primary literature is far more in-depth than the secondary literature. The news article acts a sufficient study, but if more information is needed, the primary literature should definitely be consulted.

References

(2009, July 01). Climate change affects tornado activity. Retrieved from http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/07/01/Climate-change-affects-tornado-activity/UPI-29391246480329/

Shepherd, M., Niyogi, D., & Mote, T. L. (2009). A seasonal-scale climatological analysis correlating spring tornadic activity with antecedent fall-winter drought in the southeastern United States. Environmental Research Letters, 4(2), Retrieved from http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/4/2/024012/erl9_2_024012.pdf?request-id=136360dc-d462-4b39-b4fc-1a6c34f45fd1 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024012

Climate Change Speeding Toward Irreversible Tipping Points

2009-10-07T15:36:00.000-07:00

In a recent posting on sundancechannel.com a review was made of the United Nations Environment Programme latest report on climate change called “Science Report: Climate Change Speeding Towards Irreversible Tipping Points”. In reading both the primary and secondary sources of information many differences and similarities are apparent.
The primary article reports only the facts and is completely unbiased as it provides only the results of many tests done on various aspects of climate change. While each test has a conclusion and perhaps rather inductive conclusions are made, there is no sense of personal opinion in the primary article. One example of this is when the primary article explicitly rejects one of their hypotheses as the data proves it wrong. This means that the primary source did not necessarily reflect the title of the secondary article nor the claims it seems to make.
The secondary article, written by someone in the eco-friendly world of science who potentially brings bias to the table, does show bias in certain aspects. The data the secondary source uses is very accurate in the sense that they don’t try and extrapolate on what the primary source says and they directly quote the primary source in their data. However, the information the secondary source chooses to use is the information supporting climate change and not the negative results which are presented in the primary article. This shows bias in a sense and a sort of misinformation of the primary article since the reader gets a false sense of what the results of the study actually were. For example the secondary article says, “The report underlines concern by scientists that the planet is now committed to damaging and irreversible impacts as a result of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.” And while this may be true what the secondary article doesn’t tell us is that this was actually a quote placed in the foreword to the article. This leads to a false sense of the article because the reader would be lead to assume that studies and test had lead scientists to believe that the planet was committed to irreversible damage. The statement is not credible as it is a quote by someone based purely on opinion not the evidence.
One of the biggest differences between the primary and secondary source is that the secondary source reports not only the facts but also they assume what the results lead the scientists to conclude and believe. The secondary article uses such statements as “It shows that researchers have become increasingly concerned about ocean acidification due to the absorption of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in seawater and its impact on shellfish and coral reefs.” to try and prove that there is merit to their argument when really they are making assumptions based on conclusions the primary article makes which use phrases such as “could be a factor” and “might be a cause of global warming”. The conclusions from the primary article do not reflect the opinions of the scientists conducting the research.
The primary article, while reflecting accurate data, does not provide the reader with a complete overview of the results of the studies nor the processes which were used to obtain the results. The primary article is a brief overview of the journal article which offers only a biased view of many conflicting results.

References

Sundance Channel. "science report: climate change speeding toward irreversible tipping points" http://www.sundancechannel.com/sunfiltered/2009/09/science-report-climate-change-speeding-toward-irreversible-tipping-points/. September 27th, 2009. Accessed October 5th, 2009.

Various Authors. "climate change science compendium 2009". http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/PDF/Compendium2009_fullreport.pdf . September 2009. Accessed October 5th, 2009.

Is climate cooperating with global warming?

2009-09-30T20:31:00.000-07:00

In the form of a self-opinionated blog post, author P.J. Gladnick gives a one-sided account of the news event that has stirred controversy concerning the global warming debate. In Geneva at the UN’s World Climate Conference, Professor Mojib Latif, from Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, stated that the Earth will soon be entering a period of cooling, one to two decades long. The recipient of international climate-study prizes and one of the lead authors of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Prof. Latif’s credibility is reliable. However, the issue arises when skeptics, such as Gladnick, use the claim of a single climate scientist to conclude that the threat of global warming - as a real issue that must be dealt with immediately - can be completely disregarded. In this way, skeptics become ignorant of the facts behind and beyond the single fact that satisfies their own opinions, and become an obstacle in the way of progress towards taking action against global warming.

Obviously targeting an audience whom he believes will wholeheartedly agree with him, Gladnick writes the blog post freely, unabashedly attacking global warming and environmental alarmists. He cites quotations from a blog by a New York Times writer Andrew Revkin and, using an openly sarcastic tone, he counters Revkin’s claims that global warming remains an issue with broad facts and selective quotes from Latif’s address. The sarcasm and spite used may please readers who are also skeptics on the issue, but it comes off as arrogant to others and, his claims, uncertain.

In the New York Times blog site, Revkin makes the following statement:

“Scientists say the last decade of climate stability — which follows a precipitous rise in average global temperatures in the 1990s — is a result of cyclical variations in ocean conditions and has no bearing on the long-term warming effects of greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere…Dr. Mojib Latif…wrote a paper last year positing that cyclical shifts in the oceans were aligning in a way that could keep the next decade or so relatively cool, even as the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming continue to increase.” (Revkin 2009).

Gladnik rebukes by making the following statements:

“Left unsaid is that maybe, just maybe, the rise in global temperatures in the 1990s were also the temporary result of cyclical variations in oceanic or other conditions.” (Gladnik 2009) and “And yet those "heat-trapping gases" seem to not be causing global warming.” (Gladnik 2009).

He chooses to ignore facts he quoted from Revkin himself. Scientists agree that the cyclical shifts in the oceans will create climate stability, but without effecting the long-term effects of global warming. The new information provided by Latif is that the shifts will in fact cause temporary global cooling - not climate stability. However, Latif does not disagree with the statement of the temporary nature of the climate caused by oceanic shifts, and it being unrelated to long-term global warming effects. As a matter of fact, there is an example that indicates cooling is a repercussion of global warming. Through the analysis of ancient moss samples in Newfoundland, researchers found that 8300 years ago, a 150 year long period of cooling in North America was the result of glacial ice melting, and the ocean’s sensitivity to the newly released freshwater (Ravilious 2009). Clearly, Gladnik did not look beyond Latif’s simple statement, or even into the quotations he chose to use in his blog.

When Revkin states: “Still, those projections are based on models, interpretations of tree ring variations and other indirect assessments of past temperatures that, while persuasive to most climate scientists, are not infallible.” (Revkin 2009); Gladnik replies: “Thank you for allowing the possibility that global warming proponents might not be infallible. It might be nice if you pass that word along to the governments of the U.S.A. and the rest of the world before they toss hundreds of billions of dollars at a problem which might not even exist.” (Gladnik 2009). This is yet another weak angle Gladnik uses in an attempt to strengthen his argument. It is a widely known fact that global warming is a scientific theory. But just like the Theory of Relativity in physics or the Atomic Theory in chemistry, it is based on empirical observations; it cannot be disregarded as fictitious just because it cannot be proven true.

What critics such as Gladnick fail to realize is that the threat of global warming is not solely an issue of increase of global temperatures, but of the change in climate itself and the impact it will have on the Earth. If it is true that the Earth will undergo a decade or two of global cooling, there is the possibility that the cooling is occurring as a result of global warming, and it can be said with near certainty that global warming has been intensified by human activity. Even skeptics should consider the undeniable impact of human activity on the future of the planet - whether it warms or cools.

References

Gladnik, P. (2009). NY times writer worries that mother nature not cooperating with global warming agenda. Newsbusters, 22 September 2009. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/09/22/ny-times-writer-worries-mother-nature-not-cooperating-global-warming-a. Retrieved 29 September 2009.

Ravilious, K. (2009). Global warming could cool N. America in a few decades?. National Geographic, 14 September 2009. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/09/090914-north-america-cooling-warming.html. Retrieved 29 September 2009.

Revkin, A. (2009). Momentum on climate pact is elusive. The New York Times, 21 September 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html. Retrieved 29 September 2009.

More Rainy Days In Sight?

2009-09-30T18:27:00.000-07:00

http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+should+more+prepare+rainy+days+Study/1977318/story.html

In the Canada.com article “Canada should do more to prepare for rainy days: Study” (09 September 2009) the author, Darah Hansen, is reiterating a study done by Simon Fraser University. The main claim of this study is that Canadian should be ready for more rain and extreme weather in the coming years.

This issue with the claim is that there is very little evidence to support it. The only evidence in the article is given in a single statement, in particular:

“In the past year, Canada has seen its share of extreme weather: from heat waves and resultant forest fires in B.C., to tornadoes and hurricanes in southern Ontario and on the east coast, respectively; and heavy rainfall and cooler-than-normal temperature throughout much of the country.” (Hansen 2009)

The argument of the article seems to be that the future of Canada holds more severe weather and that all levels of Canadian government should take action and prepare the country for these events. The article also argues that not enough is being done and the country is unfortunately doing a poor job in dealing with the issue of climate change.

The evidence presented does not thoroughly support the claim being made. Although it may be true that these events have occurred, they are not isolated events. For instance, this past year did not have the first tornado touchdown in Canada. Environment Canada (2009) states that one of the most tornadic areas of Canada is southern Ontario. In the 1970s, a total of 12 hurricanes hit land in eastern Canada. There is a possibility of yearly fluctuation of weather patterns; therefore, the occurrences from one year will not necessarily establish themselves in following years. Furthermore, there is no actual evidence implying any increase of precipitation, instead the article touches on what the Canadian government ‘should’ do about the impending crisis.

Another factor that works against this article are the multiple sources of opposing ideas that go unaddressed in the article. Natural Resources Canada (2004) has published a map of Canada that demonstrates the percentage of change in precipitation from the period of 1961 to 1990 to the period of 2040 to 2060. This map shows that on average, precipitation rates will remain the same or decrease. As well Experience Canada: A Geography (2003) published:

“Overall, precipitation is down across the country, especially in winter. Lower snowfalls are causing water levels to drop in many of Canada’s freshwater lakes. In 2002, for example, the Great Lakes were more than one metre below normal levels.” (DesRivieres, Bain & Harshman 2003)

This article makes it very clear that the authors of the report wish to see the government’s involvement in the issue increase and this can be seen through the multiple quotes in the article. There are several sufficient ideas and recommendations listed throughout the article. For instance:

“The report argues it’s time policy-makers expand climate change action beyond efforts to decrease greenhouse gases, and look to reduce our collective vulnerability to weather changes.... Researches also suggest the country develop an integrated national public alerting system and a climate information service to better ensure emergency crews and individuals receive timely warnings of extreme weather hazards.” (Hansen 2009)

In conclusion, the headline of the article states that Canada should be prepared for an increase of precipitation, but there is no strong argument or evidence to convince the reader of need for this action. However, the article offers many valid suggestions and initiatives that can be put into place to prepare for the future. I think that these are very good suggestions and should be considered by those to which they are addressed to.

References

(2004, January 20). The Atlas of Canada. Retrieved from http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/climatechange/scenarios/nationalsummerprecip2050?scale=42051275.911682&mapsize=750%20666&urlappend=

DesRivieres, D, Bain, C. M., & Harshman, R. (2003). Experience Canada: A geography. Canada: Oxford University Press.

Hansen, D. (2009, September 09). Canada should do more to prepare for rainy days: Study. canada.com, Retrieved from http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+should+more+prepare+rainy+days+Study/1977318/story.html

Vegans For The Win?

2009-09-30T18:23:00.000-07:00

In her article "Adopt A Lower Carbon Diet And Help Curb Further Global Climate Change" Heather Havey states that one of the key factors of global warming is our diet. She suggests that the corporations that run the food industry are neglectful of the environment, that agriculture and farming use too many resources and that we are living an unsustainable life filled with waste. Many of Havey's suggestions on improving this seem to be based towards a more sustainable lifestyle.
Havey first mentions the agricultural industry and corporations when she states "Our diet is one of the largest causes of green house gas emissions... estimates predict that one third of our green house gas emissions come from our food and agriculture industries." (Havey, 2009) Havey believes that the companies that run the food industry care more about growth and profit than the well being of the earth and its inhabitants. Havey says "...care for human and earth wellness falls second to the corporations own need for continual profit and growth.... the result of this competitive behavior and also, quite often, harmful choices that do not consider long-term health costs for people, animals, or the planet." (Havey, 2009) Havey suggests many very plausible solutions to the problem of corporate greed. Havey urges people to buy locally and not buy food that has been "imported from 1000's of miles away". She also suggests buying natural foods such as fruits and vegetables rather than packaged products to try and avoid the packaging factories and shipping implications.
Havey places a lot of the blame of climate change on the agricultural systems when she says things such as "...erosion or destruction of the soil... is the result of both the current methods of production but also often the inherent nature of required resources used to complete production process" (Havey, 2009) I don't believe this is entirely fair however, I believe it is unfair to assume that the agricultural system is insignificant. Havey suggests alternatives such as growing your own food or shopping locally at a farmers market. These seem like good suggestions in principle but prove quite impractical when you think on a larger scale. Not many people have access to gardens where they can grow their own food. The agricultural system is needed to assure that people who cant grow their own crops still have access to food and the demand is high. It is naive of Havey to prosecute the food industry for using large amounts of land and resources; after all, this industry is needed to feed large amounts of people. Perhaps a better alternative to the wastes of agriculture would be to try and develop new, more earth friendly methods of harvesting and farming rather than to remove many peoples access to vegetables and fruit completely.
Along with the inherent waste of land and resources that comes with farming and production, Havey also claims that the agricultural industry is intoxicating us all with pesticides and poison. Havey says "Conventional farming practices fill our landscape, our food and our bodies with toxic chemical residues." (Havey, 2009) Havey provides the example of studies that were done regarding breast milk. The article (NYT Magazine, January 9, 2005, "Toxic Breast Milk?" by Florence Williams) claims that some womens breast milk contained DDT (a banned pesticide which nearly wiped out the bald eagle, PCB's, dioxin, trichloroethylene, perchlorate, mercury, lead, benzene and arsenic. Havey claims that the practices which use pesticides are "transforming our bodies into toxic waste dumps" (Havey, 2009) This paints a grim picture of humanity's future.
The sustainable life is one which many people in todays society seem to have trouble obtaining. Havey touches on this aspect of life when she talks about the large amount of waste that people create every day. Havey says "Commercial restaurants throw away at least 54 billion pounds of food each year." (Havey, 2009) While the act of throwing food out does not, technically lead to global warming, it's consequences certainly do. The more waste there is means that more companies produce more products, only to be wasted again. This turns into a vicious cycle which many people find hard to resist. Havey suggests that the solution to waste is to simply compost our food and to not litter. This once again seems very naive to me. While it is depressing to think that recycling and composting are pointless, on the large scale, they both (composting especially) become very difficult. For example someone living in a city might not have access to a recycling facility or composting facility. Havey does make a good suggestion when she says to buy bulk foods and things such as fruits and vegetables to avoid the unnatural wastes such as plastic and metal.
Havey does provide solutions to the problems she brings forth, but I found her approach naive and I believe that many of her suggestions were not directly related to our diets but rather our life style. The problem of climate change, being a global one, cannot be fixed merely with a change in one person's life, nor a city's, nor a country's. We will only see change when the changes made are global. Havey provides solutions to the problems in a manner which I feel is naive and much too simple to be effective.

References
Havey, Heather (2009). Adopt a low carbon diet and help curb further global climate change. www.naturalnews.com, 31 July 2009. http://www.naturalnews.com/026737_food_carbon_heal th.html. Accessed 30 September 2009.

Why won't people act on climate change?

2009-09-30T09:45:00.000-07:00

In his essay “Why people don’t act on climate change” recently published in New Scientist (23 July 2009), George Marshall makes the observation that despite the vast amount of scientific evidence pointing towards human-induced climate change, a majority of people in the developed world refuse to believe that the world is in fact warming, or else are apathetic to the entire issue. “Opinion polls”, he writes, “have shown that 40 per cent of people in the UK and 50 per cent in the US resolutely refuse to accept that our emissions are changing the climate. Scarcely 10 per cent of Britons regard climate change as a major problem.” Marshall, a climate scientist, notes that even many of his colleagues, those that make a career of studying climate change and its effects, appear unwilling to alter their lifestyles. States Marshall of the matter:

“I do not accept that this continuing rejection of the science is a reflection of media distortion or scientific illiteracy. Rather, I see it as proof of our society’s failure to construct a shared belief in climate change.” (Marshall, 2009)

Marshall is claiming that people reject climate change not due to a misunderstanding of the science behind it, but because there is no solid collective agreement about the issue. He then suggests two ways to help develop a shared belief in climate change: by selecting more trustworthy science communicators and developing a “collective imagination” about global warming.

I find at least three problems with Marshall’s claim, his suggestions to bring about change, and the overall implications of his solutions. First, I find Marshall’s dismissal of misinformation and scientific illiteracy as factors affecting people’s attitudes towards climate change to be contrary to the evidence. Second, his suggestions to bring about a shared belief in climate change are vague and provide little evidence to support their effectiveness. Finally, I consider Marshall’s overall solution to the problem of climate apathy – the generation of a shared belief – to be unrealistic and inappropriate for an issue such as climate change.

Like most of the challenges currently facing humanity, climate change has become a political issue as well as a social and scientific one. Environmentalism and concern about global warming are often considered “liberal” traits, and thus the opinions of many regarding climate change – especially in the United States – are found to be oriented with political affiliation. A quick scan of the main page of Conservapedia , an online conservative encyclopedia , reveals the headline: “While liberals use deceit to promote global warming, hedge fund managers are betting on the coldest winter in a decade.” In statements such as this, scientific accuracy (the difference between weather and climate) is disregarded so that the political message can be made clear. Those who adhere to such political views then readily accept the misinformation. Another source of distortion is industry. Journalist Bill McKibben writes:

“The energy sector needed to stall for time, so its investments in oil fields and the like could keep on earning for their theoretical lifetimes. The strategy turned out to be simple: Cloud the issue as much as possible so that voters...would have no...reason to move climate change to the top of their agendas.” (McKibben, 2005)

The media itself, in the interest of gaining an audience, has also contributed to the problem by exaggerating disagreements among climate scientists and devoting a disproportionate amount of time to the views of climate change denialists. It by now be clear that, contrary to Marshall’s claim, the deliberate distortion of the scientific truth has contributed greatly to the public’s understanding of climate change.

George Marshall argues that the development of a shared belief is the best way to incite action on climate change, and suggests two ways to it: make communicators between the scientists and the public more trustworthy, and establish a “collective imagination” about climate change. Given Marshall’s claim, these are worthwhile suggestions, but unfortunately he does little to flesh them out. Trustworthiness is an obvious requirement for convincing others, and Marshall does of an admirable job of listing the qualities that make an individual trustworthy. He recommends that climate scientists be more willing to pass on their information to more talented promoters, and singles out the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an organization in need of charismatic representatives. However, no more specific ideas are put forth, leaving one wondering who exactly could fill the position (Al Gore comes to mind). Marshall’s second suggestion is that the public build a “collective imagination” and consider the future of a warmer world. This rather vague concept is not elaborated upon, and to describe how it may be brought about, Marshall only mentions collaboration between scientists and artists to appeal to peoples’ emotions. Neither preposition is supported by any examples of the methods succeeding in the past, nor do they contain any evidence suggesting whether or not they could be effective. After reading, one is left with the feeling that, while he has practical suggestions, Marshall has little idea as to how to carry them out, and as a result, his whole argument appears weak.

My final comment concerning Marshall’s essay is his overall assertion that a shared belief in climate change is necessary in order to bring about action. I consider this strategy to be unsuitable for the matter at hand. Marshall acknowledges that the term “belief” will not be liked by many scientists, but maintains that, despite scientific evidence, a person’s views will always be determined by their personal world view. Marshall’s world view, which he attempting to convert the general public to, is one that “respects scientists and empirical evidence”. It seems inappropriate then, that a thought structure based upon objectivity and rational inquiry should have to win converts through an appeal to emotions, as implied by Marshall. Science should not have to appeal to the emotions to make a convincing case, or it may run the risk of becoming less objective and more subject to personal opinions. In other words, science should exist independent of belief, and so a campaign of the kind proposed by Marshall, the development of a shared belief system, is inappropriate. The establishment of a shared belief system should also be considered an unrealistic expectation, for it contradicts natural human tendencies. Marshall’s vision is essentially a society dedicated to the common good, which is realistically unlikely. Climate change is a gradual process, and the full effects of global warming may take a lifetime to become fully pronounced. Why should people be expected to sacrifice their comfortable lifestyles, if there is any immediate danger to their well-being, or any immediate rewards for doing so? “If climate change does not affect me personally, materially, or directly, why should I care?” reads a letter published in a subsequent issue of New Scientist in response to Marshall’s essay, “For the record, I don’t.” With attitudes like this, often bolstered by a misunderstanding of climate change propagated by the media, it seems inconceivable that Marshall’s shared belief could actually be achieved.

George Marshall has accomplished a courageous task in explicitly addressing the prevailing attitudes of apathy and denial with regards to climate change, even amongst his own peers. However, Marshall’s solution to the problem lacks specificity, and it does not cite successful previous applications of the methods, nor does it address misinformation as a major contributor to public opinion. Were I a perplexed layperson reading this essay hoping to gain insight into the complex matter of climate change, I would likely be dismayed. I would note that even the experts seem unwilling to act on climate change and, although there is the framework of a solution, it has not been fully fleshed out. Upon further reflection, I may realize that Marshall’s proposal of a shared belief is both unscientific and not a realistically attainable goal. Marshall’s essay “Why people don’t act on climate change” has made a first step towards a solution for climate apathy and denialism, but until that solution is more fully developed, the current sad state will remain: that when it comes to climate change, people just don’t care.

References

Conservapedia: The Trustworthy Encyclopedia. http://www.conservapedia.com. Accessed 29 September 2009.

Dixon, Tom (2009). Climate of apathy. New Scientist, 13 August 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327210.100-climate-of-apathy.html. Accessed 23 July 2009.

Marshall, George (2009). Why people don’t act on climate change. New Scientist, 23 July 2009. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.900-comment-why-dont-people-believe-in-climate-change.html. Accessed 29 September 2009.

MicKibben, Bill (2005). Climate of denial. Mother Jones, May/June 2005. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/climate-denial. Accessed 29 September 2009.

Chill out on Climate Change?

2009-09-30T08:41:00.000-07:00

In a Huffington Post article titled Chill Out: An Economic Triage for Global Climate Change (27 September 2009) Michael Shermer argues that Climate Change should not be at the top of the worlds priority list as greater focus is required for other global issues such as world hunger, disease, malaria, and water pollution. Furthermore, fighting climate change is not imperative and will simply cost too much.

Shermer seems to be under the assumption that climate change works like an on and off switch and that it can be dealt with at a later date and time. Unfortunately that is not the case. Even if all greenhouse gas emissions where to stop today global temperature will continue to rise and the effects of climate change will persist. There is a tipping point and it is approaching fast. Some scientists estimate that the tipping point is as early as 2025 and others say that we have already passed it. Nonetheless immediate action is necessary considering how much work is required in cutting green house gas emissions to appropriate levels. We have a small window of opportunity to deal with this unprecedented problem and as time goes on this window is gradually decreasing.

Another point Shermer makes is that fighting climate change will cost too much and is not worth the benefits. As Shermer referenced in his article the IPCC (United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) states that if the all countries that signed to the Kyoto Protocol met their standards it would cost $180 million annually. Another estimate done by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) states that rising global temperatures will have an impact of 3.8 trillion dollars by 2100 on the united states economy alone. It is obvious that the price of doing nothing is so much greater then taking immediate action. Alex Bowen, an economist at the Grantham Research Institute On Climate Change at the London School of Economics stated in an interview “if well designed policies are put in place, we can still do it [tackle climate change] remarkably cheaply. And there is still no doubt that strong action now is much cheaper than no action.” Thus, the costs of cutting green house emissions will be very high however in comparison to the costs of doing nothing, it is relatively cheaper.

Shermer believes that there are other more pressing issues that need funding other then climate change. He speaks of the Copenhagen Consensus and other UN lists of world issues ranked in priority. Some that are ranking higher in priority than climate change are hunger, disease, HIV/AIDS, malaria, and water pollution. The complication is that the Copenhagen Consensus listed these issues considering that they had a hypothetical annual budget of $50 billion dollars a year to fight them. Many of these global problems listed can be simply dealt with by buying mosquito nets, micronutrients, condoms, and common medication. An issue that cannot be dealt with by simply throwing money at it is climate change, which is the reason it was ranked so low. Fighting climate change needs new advances in technology, riding the world of their addiction to fossil fuels, changing the way people consume, live, and think. Also many of the issues listed above will get worse with climate change especially water pollution and malaria due to rising sea levels and warmer temperatures. Shermer is undermining the importance of climate change with the fact that it cannot be easily fixed with simple funding and that is exactly why it is such a pressing issue.

Climate change needs to be dealt with now considering that temperatures will continue to rise even if the appropriate cuts to green house gases are made on a global scale. The effects of climate change will have huge cost implication on the world’s economy however acting now will be financially cheaper then when it is too late. There are many important global issues that do need attention but unlike climate change they may be dealt with by funding. Shermer recognizes and agrees that climate change is a problem but what he does not understand is the severity and the implications of climate change and how it will continue to get worse if nothing is done.

References

Carrington, Damian. "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chief says benefits of tackling climate change will balance cost of action | Environment | guardian.co.uk." Latest news, comment and reviews from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk. 20 July 2009. 30 Sept. 2009 .

Johnston, Ian. "Global warming: Is it too late to save our planet? - Scotsman.com News." Scotsman.com News - Scottish news direct from Scotland. 17 Jan. 2006. 30 Sept. 2009 .

"NRDC: Press Release - New Report Finds Doing Nothing on Global Warming Comes with a Huge Price Tag." NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council - The Earth's Best Defense. 22 May 2008. 30 Sept. 2009 .

Patz, Jonathan A., and Sarah H. Oslon. "Malaria risk and temperature: Influences from global climate change and local land use practices." PubMed Central Homepage. 11 Apr. 2006. 30 Sept. 2009 .

Pearce, Fred. "Climate myths: We can't do anything about climate change - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist." Science news and science jobs from New Scientist - New Scientist. 16 May 2007. 30 Sept. 2009 .

Shermer, Michael. "Michael Shermer: Chill Out: An Economic Triage for Global Climate Change." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. 27 Sept. 2009. 30 Sept. 2009 .