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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Straightening Biological Terms
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
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
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
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.
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/
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.
Thursday, October 22, 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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)