Attitudes About Climate Change Are Shifting

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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.