ENVS*1020 Climate Change Blog

Politicians Need to Be Bold

2009-11-26T21:20:00.000-08:00

Article Link

Joan Russow argues that the time for inaction and indecisiveness is over. If we want to save our planet, then we must start taking bold measures. Even if she does not use the words precautionary principle in her article, it is very obvious that she uses it to back up her argument. The precautionary principle is stated to be “When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions will be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.” (Beder, 2006)

Russow says that “member states of the United Nations must acknowledge the science of dwindling glaciers, increasing atmospheric turbulence, ocean warming and acidification and rising sea levels” (Russow, 2009) showing that it is scientifically plausible that carbon emissions are effecting the climate and that the situation is getting closer and closer to a critical point.

Russow also points out that unacceptable harm will be inevitable since we are almost at the target of 1°C. Russow states that if we go beyond this limit “global systems on land, water and air will be so affected as to create vicious feedback cycles and destabilise many ecosystems and human societies.” (Russow, 2009) This is morally unacceptable harm because it indicates harm that is “threatening to human life or health... seriously and effectively irreversible [and] inequitable to present or future generations.” (Beder 2006)

Climate change over 1°C will threaten human life and health because we will be thrust into a world of destabilised ecosystems, in which it will be hard to produce enough food for the world. How much of our food comes from agriculture? Farming is hard enough as it is due to droughts, diseases, pests, etc without further destabilizing the environment. In unpredictable conditions crop yield will at best drop, at worst, it may be close to impossible to even get a yield. Russow is especially worried about those in third world nations who already have a hard time feeding themselves, as they will probably be the ones to suffer the most.

Climate change will also do irreversible harm, since feedback cycles are hard to break out of, especially one on a global scale. If we get caught in a feedback cycle of destabilising ecosystems, we will not only have to stabilize the ecosystems, but get them to the same condition they were in before the drastic change. This would be near impossible as there is no telling how many species may go extinct before we stabilize the ecosystems and there is no telling if we would even be able to get the ecosystems back into their original state. That, to Russow constitutes irreversible damage, and I have to say I agree.

Lastly, going past the 1°C marker is inequitable for future generations specifically. This may not happen in my lifetime, but the signs are growing steadily more urgent that we are going to destroy our planet. Would you want your children to grow up in a world where food may be scarce and extreme weather is prevalent? Where hurricanes like Katrina are a common occurrence? If we continue on the path we are treading Russow argues that all of those things may very well happen.

Russow may not mention the precautionary principle by name, but she wields it with great effectiveness to produce a thought provoking article.

Resources:

Beder, Sharon “Environmental Principle and Policies an Interdisciplinary Introduction” Virginia: Earthscan, 2006.

Russow, Joan “Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change: Time to be Bold” Pacific Free Press 4 Nov 2009. http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/4990-copenhagen-conference-on-climate-change-time-to-be-bold-.html

Rising Plane Costs a Burden ?

2009-11-26T20:07:00.000-08:00

Obviously we need to make changes as a human race if we intend to survive. Some still deny the fact the climate change exists and is becoming worse every day. The threat of runaway climate change continues to be an issue that more people should be informed of. We can all make changes on our own, and do little thing in our houses to reduce our own CO2 emissions, but in the end I believe it has to be the government that regulates emissions. In a recent blog entitled "Airline ticket prices rising, placing burden on students" by Chelsea Prestia she argues that airline tickets are too expensive. She believes that the airlines should stop raising their ticket prices, and charging fees on things like luggage because it is becoming too expensive for students to fly home (Prestia 2009).

I believe that if students think airline tickets costs are too expensive, then they should go to school closer to home. You have to weigh transportation costs before you go to a school far away. Furthermore, I totally agree with the airlines that ticket prices should continue to rise. Air pollution is a major source of CO2 emissions and it should be cut back. The amount of flying that some people do is completely ridiculous including business trips, vacations, and even school trips. We need to assess the needs of this flying and more importantly, assess the results of the emissions produced.

The most direct effect of these emissions would be to the environment. As caretakers for this earth it is our responsibility to make sure that the earth is kept healthy and sustainable. If we continue to pollute the earth as much as we currently are, the effect on biodiversity could be even more hazardous than it already are. With global temperatures rising it puts the fauna and flora of the tundra under the immediate risk of habitat loss. If we want to keep ecosystems sustainable and safe from unforeseen consequences we must make immediate changes in CO2 emissions. Cutting the amount of air pollution would make a big difference in total emissions.

Not only must we look out for the environment, but also for human kind. Humans have the right to a clean environment and the right to clean air. Therefore, it could be considered morally wrong that we are polluting at the cost of human health. It is not only about the current generation either. We must ensure that we leave a healthy environment for future
generations. I do not want to leave my kids to solve the problems that we made. It is our duty to solve these problems now and cutting airline emissions seems like a great way to do so.

In conclusion I believe that increasing airline costs would be a good step towards reducing emissions. That said, I do not think we should only make those who ride the plane pay for their pollution, but also the airlines themselves. Airlines are experiencing some economic problems, but it would not be right to correct their problems while making problems for the general public. There are more efficient alternatives to travelling by planes and I believe that we, in North America, should take advantage of them.

References

Prestia, Chelsea. "Airline ticket prices rising, placing burden on students." The Globe . 12 November, 2009. The Globe , Web. 26 Nov 2009. .

Not So Sustainable

2009-11-26T19:42:00.000-08:00

Lately it seems that there is a growing importance to sustainability. We are in an era of environmental concern as well as economic hardship. Amidst our capitalist, industrialized society it is strange to imagine a world without economic growth. Profit is important and money is important. A popular Cree proverb states, “Only when the last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize that we cannot eat money,” (natural collection, 2008). From this we can begin to consider the confines of growth, what does sustainability mean and what are it’s limits. It is reasonable that our planet can only tolerate so much abuse, the question is whether or not we are pushing it too far. In a recent blog posting on treehugger.com, the issue of disappearing carbon sinks is brought to the table. The world’s carbon sinks, be they oceans, forests, etc., are capable of mitigating 60% of our carbon dioxide emissions (Timmer, 2009). But a recent study in Europe shows that the continent’s carbon sinks are not able to store the quantity of carbon dioxide that they should technically be capable of, and land management is playing a key role in this troubling find.

The sustainability principle focuses on the idea that there is a limit to what we can take from the earth. Many resources are not renewable, such as fossil fuels, many are not renewable at the rate at which we are using them, such as water and timber (Environmental Principles and Policies, 2006). In order to maintain our natural resources, to avoid entire depletion and therefore ecological disaster, we have to set some level of sustainability. Trees need to be planted at the rate that they are being cut for example. The carbon sinks of Europe, namely the vegetation are seeing their effects mostly entirely negated due to the use of which the land is being put, emissions from farming, raising livestock, and spreading fertilizer are rendering the effects of the carbon sinks inadequate (DeFranza, 2009). If we consider the results of the study in Europe we see that this land resource is being taken advantage of, it no longer contains enough vegetation to absorb the emissions produced directly on it. We are not promoting sustainability while cutting down trees and clearing land for agriculture. According to the study Europe’s carbon sinks are reducing a mere 2% of annual emissions. So nearly 100% of greenhouse gases being sent into the air in Europe are not being absorbed by carbon sinks, there are not enough of them left. No part of that represents sustainability.

The sustainability principle was twisted in the beginning of it’s implementation, and a new term was coined, sustainable development. Basically our society’s need for continual economic growth is justified with this new idea. Sustainable development makes it acceptable to continue with expansion and profit-making so long as we think a bit about the environment. The goal is to be able to continue the use of the biosphere indefinitely. (Beder, 2006) But if we are supposedly practicing this sustainable development now, our greenhouse gas emissions and aptitude for clearing forests surely aren’t much proof. Our ability to use land in a way that exceeds the capabilities of carbon sinks to take in carbon dioxide is development, but it surely is not sustainable.

In the end, it is ourselves that we are hurting the most. I’m surprised that in this day and age, while so many people are aware of what we are doing to the environment with progress and development that more people don’t appreciate the fact that the we are hurting the foundation of our existence. Carbon sinks are a great natural aid in reducing the effects of our emissions, but if we are doing a poor job of managing land, of keep emissions down to begin with, then there is little that can be done. The sustainability principle is an important one because it tells the truth about our reliance on this planet, this truth being that we can not take more than what is there.

References

http://naturalcollection.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/only-when-the-l.html May 5 2008

DeFranza, D. New Study Sends European Carbon Sinks Down The Drain, November 24 2009

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/new-study-sends-european-carbon-sinks-down-the-drain.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29

Timmer, J. Have we started to fill our carbon sinks? November 18th 2009

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/have-we-started-to-fill-our-carbon-sinks.ars

Beder, S. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction University of New South Wales Press LTD, 2006. 12-21

The Long and Winding Carbon Trail

2009-11-26T18:34:00.000-08:00

http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/tarsands_report

Some vacation on black sandy beaches, however, the only black ‘sands’ in Alberta are it’s oil sands. The extraction of bitumen in the oil sands yields a viscous substance that “is refined for use in gasoline, jet fuel, and home heating oil” (Colenso, 2008). Due to our dependance on fossil fuels, tar sand development will increase three to five times the current amount (Greenpeace, 2009). According to the Greenpeace article, Dirty Oil: How the tar sands are fueling the global climate crisis (14 September 2009), “the Canadian government has actively obstructed energy conservation at home and has blocked the development of effective action on climate change abroad” (Greenpeace, 2009). The Canadian government benefits from oil trading; they do not consider the environmental impact that tar sands have on the climate. Serious action needs to be taken against the expansion of the oil sands before climate change is irreversible.

It is essential for the Canadian government to implement measures to reduce tar sand development to decease carbon emissions. This issue can be reviewed by applying the precautionary and the equity principles.

The precautionary principle is applied when preventive measures are required to evaluate the need for a policy, specifically pertaining to climate change. As stated previously, our dependance on fossil fuels leads to the expansion of oil sands. It is more detrimental to the environment to remain idle than instituting an effective policy to reduce green house gases (GHG). Examples of preventive policies are the cap and trade and carbon tax legislations. As expressed in my last blog, titled Regulatory Control vs. Economic Incentives: Which is the best to consider?, carbon taxes would be most effective because companies are taxed for the amount of carbon emissions outputted. This is a ‘pollution charge’. The cap and trade policy allows companies to buy and trade carbon shares, much like a stock market. However, this method can prolong our dependance on fossil fuels and oil sand expansion. The precautionary principle is an effective approach in reducing carbon emissions. The more our climate is changing, the more difficult it will be to mitigate the change.

The equity principle demonstrates the necessity for a reduction in carbon emissions. The two types of equity are intragenerational and intergenerational. “Intragenerational equity is concerned with equity between the same generation. It covers justice and the distribution of resources between nations...and what is fair for people within any one nation” (Beder, 2006). For example, developing countries are subject to flooding from ice in the poles as the climate warms. These countries, such as the Maldives and Indonesia, do not have the resources, money or technology to prevent such occurrences. It is unjust for these countries to be harmed when they did not contribute to GHG, or climate change.

Intregenerational equity is concerned with a “just distribution of rewards and burdens between generations, and fair and impartial treatment of future generations” (Beder, 2006). If we delay in taking preventive measures toward climate change, there will be a greater burden for future generations to help the climate. During this delay, fossil fuels will eventually diminish, and a new global alternative for energy will be necessary. This is a huge burden on prospective generations because the dependance on fossil fuels will be immense; a new energy source would have to be developed immediately to sustain the global population. If we procrastinate in mitigating GHG, there is more stress on future generations to correct the ruined climate. Why wait for the future when we can act now?

The expansion of Alberta’s oil sands reflects the reliance that we have on fossil fuels. Increased dependance is proportional to carbon emissions. The Canadian government and other governments can evaluate this situation by applying the precautionary and equity principles. These, among many other principles, work in tandem to prove that preventive measures need to be taken to combat climate change. If our generation cannot take preventive measures to protect our home, will future generations follow in our carbon footsteps?

References:

Beder, S. (2006). Environmental Principles and Policies (pp. 74-81). Australia, AL: Earthscan.

Colenso, M. (2008, October 18). What are Oil Sands?. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/oil-sands1.htm#

Greenpeace (2009, September 14). Alberta tar sands a major climate and economic threat: Greenpeace report. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/tarsands_report

Global warming caused by overpopulation

2009-11-26T18:28:00.000-08:00

The impact of the world’s ever growing population is beginning to have detrimental affects on our environment. Due to the fact that we as a population abuse resources and other natural aspects of the world, it is becoming more and more clear that a global crisis is forming. In a recent article, research demonstrating these massive population increases show just how quickly the world’s total population is actually growing. Such figures include the fact that “…It took until 1804 for our numbers to reach 1 billion… [and] there are now 6.6 times more of us now than 200 hundred years ago” (Scientific blogging, 2009).

It is obvious there is no known value which is to large for the world’s population, however due to the many signs of global warming and other massive changes in the environment, the numbers are far too large even now. Overpopulation is now being declared by some to be the cause of global warming, due to the fact that as the years passed and the populations continued to grow, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere also started to rise. The Industrial Revolution allowed for advances in technology but also began the time when fossil fuels were introduced. This meant things could be done more efficiently and at faster rates, and during the 200 years when our population increased by 6.6 times.

It has been socially accepted by many over the years to have large families. In the past, large families have been needed to “till the farm and work the family business” (Scientific blogging, 2009) and also offset infant mortality. In many industrializing nations, such as Tibet, child morality rates are very low due to poor living conditions and disease, so often mothers will attempt to have many kids in order for enough to survive. The perception was once that the world had infinite resources and it did not matter and that there was“…no need to consider the fact that constant growth and expansion might one day come up against finite resources and threaten our very existence” (Scientific blogging, 2009).

In order to attempt to curb this population growth some countries have attempted to implement the precautionary principle. An example would be China’s birth limit, where basically only one child may be born to a family, and if more children are conceived then the parents would be taxed for set child. This plan has failed in many ways however due to bribery in order to have more children, and also due to increase child kidnapping rates in order to have a larger family. If another attempt to reduce overpopulation, such as monetary incentives, populations may decrease, however this plan would be extremely costly to implement for an entire nation and it borders on being unethical to pay someone not to give birth.

It is my opinion therefore that in order to prevent global warming we need to be decreasing the world population, however a new type of solution must be created. This may be able to be done by combining several methods such as the precautionary principle and incentives, however it is certain that if nothing is done, the world population will continue to grow at alarming rates, and our resources will eventually be completely used.

References:
Over Population of the Planet and Global Warming. David Houle, 17 Nov. 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2009.

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

The Polluter Always Pays

2009-11-26T16:55:00.000-08:00

Climate change has become one of the most controversial problems researched by scientists in the past decade. This research has lead to the discovery of many harmful contributors to climate change, one of the main contributors has been found to be the carbon emissions from car exhaust. As the population grows there are more cars on the road, emitting more carbon into the air and therefore making a greater impact on the climate. Some governments, for example the Dutch Government have implemented a carbon tax on each kilometre driven, with a bill being sent every month in the mail. The number of kilometres driven is tracked by a GPS system installed on each car. At the end of each month individuals will be sent a bill taxing them to pay 7 cents per kilometre driven. Each year the government plans to increase the tax in order to push the public to make significant reductions in carbon emissions (Breitbart 2009).

Carbon taxes on vehicles would be classified as a pollution charge, one that could greatly impact the public depending how often an individual uses their vehicle. A tax put on each kilometre driven would be an example of the ‘polluter pays principle’; the polluter would pay depending on how much carbon they emit from their vehicle. In this case those who do not use a motor vehicle are rewarded by not being required to pay the extra tax. The ‘polluter pays principle’ states that money paid into carbon taxes is used to cover the cost of preserving the environment from climate change, making polluters take responsibility for the damage they are causing. Once polluters realize the damage they are causing and the consequences of having to pay for the pollution, they will be more inclined to refrain from emitting carbon in the first place (Beder 2006).

The polluter pays principle allows people to take responsibility for their actions and strives to influence people to reduce their emissions in order to avoid paying. By implementing a carbon road tax on each vehicle, governments are taking control of how much carbon is emitted into the air. Individuals know how harmful car exhaust is to the environment and how greatly it impacts climate change, and yet some people would still refuse to make reductions. This is when individuals need to start paying the price for the pollution they are causing.

The main goal for the ‘polluter pays principle’ is to discourage drivers from using a motor vehicle and trading their car for an alternative such as public transit. Not only will this reduce carbon emissions but there are many other positive effects to reducing the number of cars on the road. “With less traffic and perhaps fewer stressed drivers, fatal accidents should fall 7 percent, and carbon emissions from road travel would be cut by 10 percent, the ministry said” (Max 2009). Some may think the government is only trying to increase taxes to maximize input but they state that “nearly six out of 10 drivers would benefit while tax revenue would remain the same” (Max 2009). The tax money is said to be put towards cleaning the environment and protecting it from further damage.

The polluter pays principle is an excellent way to reward those who refrain from polluting and to forcing polluters to take responsibility for the amount that they are polluting. It is fair that those who pollute most in this case emit the most carbon from their vehicle, should be the ones to pay the most. The carbon road tax ensures each individual pays for the emissions they are responsible, in hopes they will be strongly encouraged to reduce emissions.

References

Breitbart News. 13 November 2009. Netherlands to levy 'green' road tax by the kilometre. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.244057bd1b30448115575c2187e68681.141&show_article=1. Accessed 24 November 2009.

Max, Arthur. 14 Novemeber 2009. My way. Dutch drivers to pay tax on road time, not on car. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091114/D9BVD87G5.html. Accessed 24 November 2009.

Beder, Sharon. Polluter Pays Principle. Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. University of New South Wales Press Ltd, 2006.

Inequity in the Arctic

2009-11-26T07:24:00.000-08:00

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/11/16/inuit-climate-change.html.

Canada's Inuit people have long thrived in arctic conditions. Their lifestyle and culture revolve around ice, snow and the animals which inhabit such regions. However, with global warming progressing so quickly and glacial melting rates on the rise, the question of how the Inuit will cope in future years is becoming increasingly pressing. This issue was brought up recently in the CBC News article “Inuit leaders demand action at climate-change conference.” The article discusses Canada's northern provinces and territories and their need to speak up at the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen.

The way the north is being affected by climate change comes down to an issue of equity and human rights. Equity refers to fairness in the allocation of gains and losses(Beder 2006). It is an unfair truth that each nation's contributions to global are not equal to the amount by which it affects them. Unfortunately, the Inuit are greatly disadvantaged by this inequity. In general, they are known for their sustainable lifestyles; fishing and hunting to feed and clothe themselves and consuming very little when compared to the rest of North America. However, they are facing the harshest consequences of climate change as they depend on the arctic ice which is quickly melting.

As the ice thins, polar bears suffer, as they no longer have a surface on which to hunt seals and the Inuit are suffering for the same reason. Also, inland lakes have begun to drain into the ocean without adequate glacial barriers, killing vast amounts of freshwater fish, another food source(Inuit Observations 2000). In addition to the lack of food, the thin ice becomes a safety hazard when people can no longer cross lakes and other frozen bodies of water without risking their lives. As you can see, this is becoming an issue of, not just equity, but fundamental human rights. The Inuit people face extinction because their rights to a safe and life-sustaining environment have been infringed upon. Not only that, but their cultural heritage is being compromised as it becomes more difficult to carry on their native traditions. In fact, a human rights case was launched against the Bush administration in 2003 by Inuit peoples living in Alaska and northern Canada. They claimed that their human rights were being violated by the US government because they refused to cut greenhouse gas emissions (Brown 2003).

Referring to the original article, it is important for the Inuit to take an active role in the Copenhagen conference, as they are so directly threatened by the negative effects of climate change. The chairwoman of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, Sheila Watt-Cloutier has said that “[o]f all the peoples in the world, knowing just how negatively impacted [they] have been by globalization, [they] should be in the lead as to how [they] are going to create balanced sustainability in [their] own Arctic"(Inuit leaders 2009). With this, I agree wholeheartedly. While it seems unjust that the Inuit are subjected to the most drastic affects of climate change, they still need to take initiative in order to preserve the lifestyle and cultural traditions for which they have fought for so many years.

References:

Beder, Sharon. “The Equity Principle.” Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction. University of New South Wales Press Ltd, 2006. 70-90.

Brown, Paul. “Global Warming is killing us too, say Inuit.” The Guardian. Dec. 11, 2003. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/dec/11/weather.climatechange>. Nov. 22, 2009.

“Inuit leaders demand action at climate-change conference.” CBC News. Nov. 16, 2009. <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/11/16/inuit-climate-change.html>. Nov. 22, 2009.

“Inuit Observations on Climate Change.” Community Adaption and Sustainable Livelihoods. 2000. International Institute for Sustainable Development. <http://www.iisd.org/casl/PROJECTS/inuitobs.htm>. Nov. 22, 2009.

California's Power Hungry TVs

2009-11-19T20:55:00.000-08:00

Article Link

In California regulations have been put in place that will ensure less carbon emissions due to high power-consuming TVs. These regulations state that TVs sold in California will have to reduce how much power they consume by 33% by 2012 and 50% by 2013. Manufacturers argue that “people might just buy TVs online or out of the state and that could hurt stores in California.” (Kaur, 2009) On the other hand ClimateWorks, a climate change policy foundation group states, “It’s going to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions from appliances that popel use every day and they still get to watch TV.” (Kaur, 2009) The regulations have gathered a lot of support from environmentalists as well as Gov. Schwarzenegger.

However regulations are not the only way to go here, the government could also consider using economic incentives to obtain the same results.

In this case, using economic incentives would be easy. Instead of telling the companies that their TVs have to use less power, encourage consumers to want to buy lower powered TVs. The government could offer a tax break on electricity bills so that those people with lower power TVs would pay significantly less compared to people who own high power TVs. Instead of saying that the manufactures have to reduce how much power their TV consumes by 33%, say anyone who’s TV uses that target amount of electricity or less gets a tax break. This could be more effective as it regulates all TVs in California, not just the ones bought there. In addition the government could give out grants to help research how to lower the energy consumption of the TVs while maintaining the quality; this would ensure that companies would find developing the lower power TVs finically viable.

I would have to say that in this case the economic incentives would probably work better despite where groups such as ClimateWorks stand. The Manufacturers bring up a good point when they argue that these regulations would only be enforced in California, making it easy for consumers to buy their high-power TVs on-line or out of state. After all if you have enough money to pay for a high power TV you are not going to worry about shipping costs or the gas money. By using the economic incentives I suggested, it would be the consumers who would benefit from owning a lower-power TV so they would be more likely to purchase one. Also by giving grants to the Californian manufacturers you would be stimulating people to buy local as there would be a high chance that California’s low power TVs would have the latest technology. This solution would be acceptable to both sides, as the environmentalists would be satisfied that carbon emissions are being lowered and the manufacturers instead of being hurt by this move would probably get a boost in business. In the middle of an economic recession it is a win-win scenario since it helps the environment and helps kick start the economy.

Resources:

Kaur, Jaspreet. “California imposes regulations on high power-consuming TV sets” The Money Tree, 19 Nov 2009. http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20091119/california-imposes-regulations-high-power-consuming-tv-sets-id-1091451.html

Regulation vs. Economic Incentives And Alberta’s Oil Sands

2009-11-19T20:53:00.000-08:00

The Tar sands in northern Alberta are the site of the second fastest rate of deforestation on the planet, second only to the amazon rainforest (Oilsandstruth, 2007).

In a recent posting on informedvote.ca, the ugly truth about the oil sands is discussed. The sheer destruction is enormous, and the process of drawing oil from the land and refining creates a huge stress on the environment. This includes, of course, the carbon dioxide emissions. A suggestion is posed, where are the emission caps and what are they going to be? It is clear that something needs to be done.

Imposing limits on the amount of pollution that companies working in Alberta’s north are permitted to produce, is an example of regulatory control of the problem. It forces limits upon the profit-seeking enterprises, unless they are able to clean up their acts, literally. Consider that there is another way to look at this issue, one where the government does not have to force new rules upon major revenue sources which I might add, it seems reluctant to do anyway. Ever since 1966, the tar sands have been free to expand and production has increased as head executives see fit (informedvote, 2009). The other option when it comes to solving the problem of environmental degradation brought about by the tar sands is to implement economic incentives. A way in which this problem could be handled by means of economic incentives is a form of rebate system. The government could refund citizens on a certain percentage of their bills should they choose to use public transit frequently, or reduce oil consumption by driving less, for example. The idea being to decrease the demand for oil, and the program would continue and it’s incentives would be elevated until awareness is raised to a level where it truly makes an impact on the quantity of oil that is being drawn from the environment, the number of barrels rolling out everyday.

In this situation I have to say I would prefer that the government step up to the plate and tell the huge oil companies to cut production, put some emission caps out there. It is understandable that such a suggestion in Alberta would seem like shooting yourself in the foot. The industry is important to the economy, and there’s no denying it. Limiting production would immediately have effects on carbon dioxide out put. It would reduce the problem; however it would not solve it. As long as cities continue to expand, and cars continue to be purchased, there will be a need for oil, it is set into our culture and would be a mountainous task to embark upon changing. That being said it makes more sense in this situation than the proposed economic incentives. It would probably take the entire population of America making small cutbacks to effect the demand for oil, and such a large scale organization is unlikely. And if we don’t use the oil, someone else would gladly take it. Individuals will not feel obligated to make this change because consumption is the norm. Most own cars, most drive to and from work in developed nations like ours, the efficiency of it outweighs the minimal benefits that economic incentives may offer to the population.

To summarize, in this particular case the government should take control and regulate the oil industry in northern Alberta. The situation is getting out of hand and the problem is not likely to be resolved by turning to individuals and expecting them to do the work, and to understand the impacts of the oil sands on the environment.

http://informedvote.ca/2009/11/19/the-alberta-tar-sands-and-the-environment-does-canada-set-the-agenda-or-will-the-u-s-determine-our-fate/

Ramphal, J. November 19th 2009. The Alberta Tar Sands And The Environment: Does Canada Set the Agenda or will the U.S. Determine our Fate? Accessed November 19th 2009

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/17/climate-change-weak-words-strong-pictures/

Geddes, J. November 17th 2009. Climate Change: Weak Words, Strong Pictures. Accessed November 19th 2009

http://oilsandstruth.org/

Tar Sands 101. Accessed November 19 2009

California's Cool Cars

2009-11-19T20:17:00.000-08:00

There are many ways to address the growing issue of climate change. Some would say government regulations on emissions is the sure choice to quickly cut back on emissions. Others would say encouraging the public to go green by offering them economic incentives is the right way to go. In a recent publication "Cool Car Standards and Test Procedures" (12, March 2009) by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) they proposed a list of design standards by which a car could reduce the amount of GHG it produces.

The first proposal CARB made was to restrict the use of dark colours (black in particular) and use cool colours to paint cars. In effect, the car's internal temperature would be reduced which in turn would decrease the need for a/c and in doing so decrease the use of fossil fuels and emission of CO2. Along with the idea of primarily using cool paint colours, the CARB also suggested research into making dark colours more light reflective. The projected rate of sun reflectivity from dark coloured cars was estimated to be around 20-25%. The second proposal the CARB made was that all windows should have a reflectivity rate of at least 30% (Bekken 2009). If the regulation were to be put into full effect, it is estimated that 1 million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions could be prevented in the state of California (Bekken 2009)

An alternative method to regulating emissions would be to provide economic incentives and kinds of fiscal policy. In this case the government of California has a few options. They could offer slightly subsidize the cost of the cars that meet the CARB standards or could give slight tax breaks to those who choose to buy them. Likewise they could also go to the car manufacturers and subsidize the cost cars that meet CARB standards opposed to those that do not. On the other hand they could also tax the buyers who buy dark coloured cars or non-efficient cars. The best choice to promote the selection of efficient sun reflective cars would be to tax those who are buying cars that do not meet the standards. However this would also be a controversial issue as they would be directly interfering with consumer choice of colour. The wisest choice would be to subsidize the cost of the cars that meet the standards or to give tax breaks to those who buy them.

Although both regulations and economic incentives have their benefits, one is typically superior to the other in a given situation. If the area of interest was with corporations or factory emissions I would generally chose a government regulation. If the area of interest was with the general public then I would tend to favour economic incentives. In this instance I would agree that regulating window reflectivity would be a good thing, but I would offer economic incentives when dealing with car colour. Restricting the use of colours on cars seems to somewhat impinge on the rights of buyers who prefer dark colours. In subsidizing, or giving tax breaks, to those who choose to buy cool coloured cars the government of California would not only be cutting back on emissions but also keeping the general public happy.

References

Bekken, Marijke. "Cool Cars and Reflective Glazing." California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board. 19 November 2009. Air Resources Board, Web. 19 Nov 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-cars/cool-cars.htm.

Bekken, Marijke. Cool Car Standards and Test Procedures. California Air Resources Board, 2009. Print.

The Incentive to Cutting Down Carbon

2009-11-19T14:05:00.000-08:00

Climate change is a growing problem in our environment which needs to be addressed before becoming drastically worse. Governments are making an effort to determine the causes of climate change and introducing restrictions in order to reduce these causes. There is much argument when it comes to putting these restrictions into place due to the ways in which it will impact the economy. One main contributor to climate change is the emissions of carbon into the atmosphere originating from vehicle exhaust.

The article “Netherlands to levy 'green' road tax by the kilometre” printed in the National Post, explains how the Dutch government has announced a plan they will put in order to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles. In 2012 they plan to introduce a “green” carbon road tax, paid for by the kilometre in hopes to reduce carbon emissions by ten percent. In order for each vehicle’s emissions to be monitored each will be geared with a GPS system to track the amount of kilometres driven. The information will be collected and a bill will be sent in the mail, charging approximately 7 cents per kilometre. Each year the percentage of tax paid per kilometre will increase in order to discourage individuals from using motor vehicles. The road tax is an attempt to reduce and control the amount of carbon from vehicle exhaust that is being released into the air (Breitbart News 2009).

Exhaust from motor vehicles is a major contributor to climate change and air pollution in general, a problem that requires much attention. One way to reduce emissions would be to charge individuals a tax on emissions, a tax the Dutch government is choosing to put into effect. Instead of using regulation to control emissions the issue could be controlled using an economic incentive. One incentive that could be used in order to reduce exhaust emissions would be reimbursement for utilizing public transit or using a non-motor vehicle such as a bike. Individuals could be reimbursed for the cost of a bus or train pass or public transit could be made free in order to encourage its use. A limit could also be set as to how much exhaust emission is allowed per month, the lower under the limit an individual is, the higher the percentage of money they are reimbursed. This would encourage individuals to reduce emissions as much as possible as well consider ideas such as car pooling or using a bicycle. Economic incentives are much more attractive to the public, to make it seem like they will be gaining something if they reduce exhaust emissions. As for regulatory control, like the road tax it can be seen more as a punishment and does not feel like anything can be gained from reducing emissions.

In general I feel that an economic incentive would be much more effective from the view of the public. This is because an economic incentive gives the illusion of the individual gaining something in return for reducing exhaust emissions. I feel that regulatory control is a punishment method and tracking each person would be costly. Economic incentive would be most beneficial for the public because individuals would be more likely to reduce emissions if they were gaining something from the situation. It is human nature to choose an option in which you will receive the most reward and in this case, economic incentive would provide that reward.
Exhaust emissions from motor vehicles is a major problem which needs to be addressed before major damage is done to the environment. People need to be willing to make a change and reduce their emissions. By using an economic incentive people will be encouraged to make a change and in turn the changes will benefit the environment.

Reference

Breitbart News. 13 November 2009. Netherlands to levy 'green' road tax by the kilometre. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.244057bd1b30448115575c2187e68681.141&show_article=1. Accessed 15 November 2009.

Get ready to cut down on carbon

2009-11-19T11:58:00.000-08:00

In the month of December, 2009, distinguished representatives of major world governments will assemble at the Climate Control Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in order to discuss the Kyoto Protocol. The goal of this protocol, created in 2005, is to curb emissions of green house gases. As of November 2009, 180 countries have signed the treaty; however the United States, one of the countries producing the highest CO₂ levels per capita, has not signed on. In these environmental hard times, negotiation of a global policy concerning climate change is necessary in order to protect the future of our planet.

Despite the results from the Copenhagen Conference, it is highly likely U.S companies will soon by required to adhere to certain legislature or industry mandates in reducing CO₂emissions. Currently distribution operations of companies cause approximately 30 percent of all emissions in the United States. In June of 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This piece of legislation stated that a cap-and-trade program would be established as well as mandate that by 2020, the United States must reduce the amount of CO₂ in the nation's atmosphere by 17 percent from 2005 levels.

There is a very good chance that this new legislature will be similar to the European model of a "cap and trade" system, which was put in affect in many areas of Europe after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. This system is run on the basis of a quota and benefits for staying under a certain quota. A company or industry is given allowance to give off a certain amount of carbon dioxide. If the emission is below the quota, a company can sell its unused allowances to a company that's exceeding its quota, enabling it to avoid fines. The system is an example of using regulatory control in order to create a solution to a problem.

Another solution to the problem of CO₂ emissions in the United States may be to issue legislation that would allow for economic incentives. Such incentives could include a law where a set CO₂ emissions is set at a fixed rate for these companies and factories, and if these companies are bellow the set emission receive a tax reduction by the government. The only downside of this solution would be the monetary problems that would face the U.S government, a government already in a state of economic peril. If all of the companies and factories in the United States were ordered to adhere by this new legislation, the U.S government would be down millions of dollars. The problem raised with this sort of solution also involves morality; would it be worth it to spend millions of dollars to potentially protect the lives of millions in the future?

In the end any amount of money is worth saving the lives of millions, eventually possibly our entire species. It is excruciatingly important to begin the use of regulations so that people are forced to minimize CO₂emissions. I do not believe that economic incentives would be able to replace the use of regulations because generally the economy is looking to improve the economy, by expanding and gaining money, however regulations look at the environment as a priority. So the question is; does the economy or the environment come first? To answer this question, without a healthy environment for the human race to survive in there would be no existing economy. Therefore rules and regulations are the way to handle environmental problems.

Reference:

Get ready to cut down on carbon. James A Cooke, 16 Nov. 2009. Web. 16 Nov. 2009. .

Regulatory Control vs. Economic Incentives: Which is the best to consider?

2009-11-19T07:01:00.000-08:00

http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com/2009/09/regulatory-control-power-companies.html

Climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions is a major source of concern around over the couple decades. There are many options available that may be used to solve this problem; however it is unclear which is the most effective. In the article, Regulatory Control Power Companies (22, September 2009), the author, Arthur Sucsy, states that “Municipalities, state, and federal regulatory agencies must have legal control and policing power over private industry and commerce.” This method may be suitable to solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, but economic incentives may provide a better solution.

According to Sucsy, regulatory control is needed to get companies to reduce their emissions. He states that governmental agencies should have the power to sue companies for causing damage to the environment. Under this system, companies will be forced to pay if the government agencies say that their carbon emissions are harmful to the environment. However, there are no set guidelines to the amount of emissions power companies are permitted to release; therefore environmental damage is determined at the discretion of the agencies. Also, this system allows governments to gain money from lawsuits against the companies. This may upset taxpayers if they are not compensated. Therefore, economic incentives may be better suited to solve the problem.

Many incentive methods could be used such as: paying power companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, imposing a cap and trade policy, or instituting a carbon tax. Giving companies money to reduce their carbon emissions may be effective because it provides motivation as it would increase the companies’ profit. However, according to the polluter pays principle, the companies should have to reduce their emissions with their own money (Beder, 2006). It may anger the public if polluters profit from reducing their emissions, especially if this profit comes from taxpayer money.

A cap and trade policy would allow for power companies to buy credits from the government, which would allow them to release a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions. This would be effective in reducing emissions because only a number of credits will be sold, so companies will have to either buy credits or reduce emissions. There will be a noticeable reduction of emissions across the industry; however some companies may be forced to reduce their emissions drastically, depending on the amount of credits they buy. This could cause serious damage to the economy and power supply in certain areas if power generation plants are forced to drastically reduce their production. Another issue with cap and trade is it might cause a prolonged dependance on fossil fuels, therefore more green house gas emissions will be emitted. The aim for many environmentalists is to find an alternative energy source instead of relying on fossil fuels (Newman, 2009).

Imposing carbon taxes will likely be the most effective and beneficial method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Companies would be taxed according to their carbon output, so they would be motivated to reduce their emissions in order to increase their profit. This system would likely be the most popular with the public because it requires that polluters, not taxpayers, to use their money to reduce pollution. Carbon taxes could also be revenue neutral, meaning that the government could retain the tax profits and use the money to reduce taxes elsewhere (Carbon Tax Center, 2009). The only downfall in imposing carbon taxes is the monitoring of emissions that each companies produce. A meter would have to be installed in each company to measure the amount of carbon output. This method would also require an inspector that monitors the meters. This method would be the most difficult to implement, but would yield the most positive results.

There are many alternative methods to combat the problem of greenhouse gas emissions that power companies emit. Alternatives include: the suing of companies by governmental agencies, paying companies to reduce their emissions, or using a cap and trade system. However, all of these systems have flaws that may make them ineffective or difficult to implement. If a carbon tax is enacted, companies will have to pay for releasing more greenhouse gases, and will therefore be motivated to reduce their emissions. This method would prove most effective in reducing carbon emissions and would be popular with most taxpayers.

References:

Beder, S. (2006). Environmental Principles and Policies (pp. 32-34). Austrailia, AL: Earthscan .

Carbon Tax Center (2009, October 2). Introduction: What's a carbon tax?. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#no-tax-increase

Newman, J, (2009, November 17). November 17 Lecture. Retrieved November 19, 2009.

Sucsy, A. (2009, September 22). Regulatory Control Power Companies . Retrieved November 17, 2009, from http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com/2009/09/regulatory-control-power-companies.html

Regulation vs. Economic Incentives

2009-11-11T17:35:00.001-08:00

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/05/carbon-emissions-trading-copenhagen

The world is facing major issues when it comes to climate change. We need to start drastically cutting back greenhouse gas emissions very soon or we could be facing devastating consequences in the near future such as erratic weather patterns, famine and the loss of our glaciers. There are a few ways of cutting global emissions and each have their pros and cons. Environmentalists especially tend to disagree with economists when it comes to finding the best solution to climate change.

In the article “Don't Let The Reckless City Trade Carbon,” the author, Andy Atkins, argues against carbon trading. He believes it is merely a way for the government to benefit from climate change and even refers to it as “the next big money spinner” (Atkins 2009). Atkins argues in favour of regulation , taxation and government investment to solve our current emissions problems. While these are all viable and environmentally responsible options, he fails to recognize that sometimes carbon trading is a realistic tool for tackling environmental issues. Atkins tends not to favour economic incentives, although he argues in favour of taxation which can be very effective. I feel that he should be more open to other incentives, especially offsetting.

When a carbon trading market is utilized, governments can still decrease the total emissions by simply granting fewer credits. The difference between this system and government regulation is that carbon trading lets industries decide for themselves how they will make their reductions. This creates a decrease in total emissions without market failures and other economic disasters. The system has been put into practice by the European Economic Community and other areas of the world with very positive results (Mac 2007). When companies are under strict regulations, they may be unable to make the necessary cuts without going bankrupt. If they can buy credits from companies with more advantages, then all industries can stay afloat and make an overall reduction in greenhouse gases.

This system can also create a more stable economy over time. If governments make small annual decreases in the number of total credits allotted, companies can make long-term, environmentally sound changes without suffering (Carbon 2009). However, in the case of regulation, a company that begins to go downhill after one reduction will only become worse-off every year.

While it is true that carbon offsetting is an effective method for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is also possible to see Atkins' point of view. Due to the flexibility that offsetting gives to industries, it is often possible for companies to maneuver in such a way that they can avoid cutting emissions altogether (Atkins 2009). These are situations where regulation would be advantageous. However, it is much more complicated to implement regulations that have such loopholes and only apply in specific situations. It is also difficult to discriminate against companies based on what they may or may not do with their permits. So, although regulation may seem more equitable, it is not always realistic.

Based on the above arguments, it is clear that there is more than one way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale. While I am not arguing solely for the implementation of carbon trading, I don't think the author of the article should oppose it so strongly without considering all angles of the issue. Atkins has some good ideas regarding emission cuts that include a combination of regulation and taxation, but it would be practical to consider offsetting, especially when it has proven successful in the past.

References:

Atkins, Andy. 2009. Don't Let The Reckless City Trade Carbon. Guardian.co.uk. . 7 November, 2009.

Carbon Trading. 2009. Wikinvest. . 9 November, 2009.

Mac, Peter. 2007. Carbon Trading: Benefits, Windfalls and Pitfalls. Politicalaffairs.net. . 10 November, 2009.

Ethics and India

2009-11-05T21:01:00.000-08:00

Article Link

Many organizations in India are trying to persuade Prime Minister Singh to change India’s stance on climate change. Some argue that their stance should remain unchanged, with India opposing mandatory cuts without commitments from industrialised countries. Others argue that India is forgetting about the global ramifications of their decision. The question is who is right?

It is hard to say who India’s government has moral responsibility for. Do they only have to be responsible for their own citizens? Or are they responsible for every sentient creature that would be affected by their decision? It is a fine line to walk, as too big a commitment will slow down India’s economy and hurt everyone in India, while too small a commitment will not do anything to prevent climate change. The government is supposed to primarily represent their country’s citizens in these matters, so Indian citizens are probably going to hold more sway in the government’s final decision than sentient animals or other human beings.

From the utilitarian point of view India should remember the global ramifications because even though huge cuts would hurt India’s economy now and by extension decrease the happiness of Indian citizens, it would make India’s citizens happier in the long run. By opposing the cuts, sure the economy is stable now, but how long will it be before inflation sets in as other countries charge more for shipping in a bid to reduce carbon emissions? It would still end up with India’s economy going down the drain and carbon emissions would still be a problem. In that time, who is to say that we have not reached the point of no return? India might be affected by climate change severely in that time. Their rainy season could get shorter or longer, allowing no food to grow because the plants do not get enough water or because they drown. From this point of view long-term happiness wins out over short-term happiness especially since there is no guarantee that opposing mandatory cuts will increase short-term happiness. The government has to also take into account the citizen’s happiness with their decision, no matter which decision would generate more happiness in the long run, if enough people are discontent with the decision, that happiness may be negated.

From a non-consequentialist’s point of view India should look more to its own people. The government has a responsibility to enforce the rights of every one of its citizens to the best of its ability. Indian citizens have the right to a government that represents them, dignity and fulfill their needs. If the economy goes downhill then the people will not be able to fulfill their basic needs as jobs would become scarce and pay would be decreased. In turn, if the situation becomes severe, then the people would be stripped of their dignity as they are forced to beg for food and money to meet their basic needs. However, the government has to also listen to and represent its people. If enough people push for the mandatory cuts, then the government has a responsibility to represent those people.

All in this entire problem could be considered from many ways, the only question remains what way will the Indian government consider it from?

Refernces

http://www.livemint.com/2009/10/28235650/NGOs-differ-over-India8217s.html?h=B

The Ethics Behind Meat

2009-11-05T20:55:00.000-08:00

In a recently published posting on “energybulletin.net”, Tom Philpott implies that the action of having the world switch to a vegetarian diet would be beneficial in the current climate change struggle to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Yes, we’ve heard this before, a plant centered diet is seemingly less detrimental to the environment. Raising livestock produces an exuberant amount of unnecessary carbon dioxide emissions (You call yourself an Environmentalist 2002).

But what are the ethical implications of this argument. What good or bad are we doing with this action, assuming of course that it is possible to convince the world to stop eating meat, a monumental task. What “say” do the animals we are, or aren’t eating have, and what about the planet that we are slowly killing.

The Demarcation Problem identifies that we must distinguish things that matter from those that don’t. It is apparent that our planet matters to us, as seen daily in the media. We have been presented with sensible solution to climate change. Not an easy solution for some, but sensible nonetheless. What we consume is of varying importance to people. The mere suggestion of not having meat could get you some “crazy” looks these days. But in the end, what we would have left over is more than enough to sustain us. Food is food to a general extent. I would say that the magnitude of earth’s value to humans as a species far outweighs the value of a thick steak. What this says is that keeping our planet intact is of greater importance than selfishly sticking to one’s guns when it comes to eating meat.

There is an interesting fact presented in “Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp,” relative to newly estimated greenhouse gas emissions due to meat production. This new number is 50%. Our consumption of meat is now approximated to contribute to 50% of the GHG emissions. New factors were taken into account, such as the respiration of livestock accounting for 13% of emissions alone. If said numbers fold true then from a Consequentialist’s point of view, the badness of this situation would determine that the act itself is indeed also negative. Half is ridiculous to comprehend but if it’s true than it means that all the processes that entail getting a cow from the farm to your dinner simply are not worth the garbage we’re putting into the atmosphere.

On another note, we have to consider that the idea of removing meat from our diets has other implications beyond the immediate consequences. My first reaction is simply that as a whole we are stubborn, I’m not trying to insult, just to point out that to induce a major lifestyle change on such a huge population seems like a long shot. So why bother, are there no better uses of our time, other options that would be more easily accepted by more people? By telling people that they should eat meat we are imposing some kind of ethical and moral standard, “you aren’t doing your part if you are eating meat.” A Non-Consequentialist would see this, and they might think that asking the world to behave in a particular way, to follow a particular lifestyle could be damaging in a whole other way. In spite of the positive possible consequences of the action, there could indeed be very negative reactions to such an idea, an idea that many still see as radical and improbable.

Overall, the topic of dropping meat to reduce GHG emissions is a ways off. The ideal results are incredibly optimistic, and the current estimations of the emissions from producing meat are astounding, but who’s to say that is enough to force change. I do strongly believe that any suggestion to switch to a vegetarian diet is responsible but at the same time I would never wish to force these particular values on anyone else. As the non-consequentialist opinion presented, the rightness or wrongness of the action can also be related to things other then the final consequences of the action. In the end the thing I hope we are all still fighting for is a healthier planet, and vegetarianism is one controversial solution.

References:

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-23-corn-meat-ethanol-global-warming/ October 23 2009

http://www.cowboysofjustice.com/editorials/vegetarianenviro.shtml January 2002

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50601

Ethics Behind Chinese Climate Change Policy

2009-11-05T20:26:00.000-08:00

In the article "China's Climate Change Policy: The Dragon's Green Streak", author Prashanthst Parameswaran argues that China's most recent climate change policy is driven primarily by their own goals and economic self-interest. The new policy, as announced by China's president Hu Jintao, aims to cut China's carbon intensity by a notable margin and increase the use of renewable energy in its total consumption to 15% by 2020. In every action there is ethical reasoning, and there is a lot of reasoning to take into account when evaluating this argument.

First off we have to tackle the demarcation problem. The demarcation problem is used to distinguish who or what deserves moral consideration when choosing a course of action. In this argument it is implied that China is taking an anthropocentric view, that is to say humans must be considered above all, when addressing climate change. The new environmental policy is not motivated by global welfare, but rather by China's own self-interest, and that interest lies with the economy (Parameswaran 2009). Not once are the threats to the environment discussed besides the statement that flooding would be bad for the economy. In this case I would further Parameswaran's argument to say that China seems to only take its own people into consideration when making a decision.

Another ethical argument to be taken into account is the consequentialist's or the utilitarian's view. Utilitarianism states that an action is determined by its consequences, and its greater contribution to the public. China's new policy is driven mainly by the outcome that will benefit their economy. As was stated, the policy is strictly out of national self-interest. The hope is that in reducing emissions, climate change-induced flooding and food/water shortages will be kept in check for they pose a huge threat to economic stability (Parameswaran 2009). Although interests lie mainly in the government's economic stability, this policy would also benefit the greater Chinese public that would suffer from these problems. In addition, alternative energy sources would help enhance energy security by reducing reliance on foreign oil. This could in turn generate a significant economic payoff (Parameswaran 2009).

Opposite to the consequentialist, is the non-consequentialist or deontologist. The deontologist's view is that an action is judged purely on rights, and the consequences take no part in the decision. It is not only stated in this argument that China has self-interests in lowering emissions, but also that their development is a key issue. In a deontologist view, the right to become a developed nation, using carbon intensive processes, trumps carbon emissions because no one can tell China that they cannot develop. In turn China would place the blame on developed nations, and say it is their duty as such to bear the burden of carbon emissions and the cost of clean technologies.

In conclusion, the ethical reasoning behind this argument seems pretty one way. China is implementing a climate change policy for the primary reason of benefiting their own economy. Depending on how you look at the problem, some could argue that China is implementing a climate change policy for the right reasons or the wrong reasons. You have to look at an argument from different ways before you come to a conclusion.

References

Parameswaran, Prashanthst. "China's Climate Change Policy: The Dragon's Green Streak." World Politics Review. 28 Oct 2009. World Politcs Review, Web. 5 Nov 2009. .

The Ethical Dimensions of the Maldives

2009-11-05T20:22:00.000-08:00

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=881

The Maldives are a group of tropical islands off the southern tip of India, that are cherished for their picturesque atolls and white sandy beaches. They have a rich ethnicity, as most of their culture is composed of Indians, Saudi Arabians and Africans, a population that has inhabited the islands for thousands of years. Their home, a group of 1190 coral islands (Vonon Bülow, 2009), are in danger from climate change and have witnessed effects such as, “increased outbreaks of mosquito-born tropical diseases” and “coastal erosion” (Waheed, 2009). However, they have much more to worry about. Projections indicate that the world sea levels will rise one meter by 2100 (University of Copenhangen, 2009), which would flood the island and cause inhabitants to relocate. In the article, Paradise Lost (20 March, 2009), the author Michael Von Bülow educates the public on the Maldives, a country that needs help in saving their paradise from the impacts of climate change.

There are many perspectives in which to view this problem. In this article I will evaluate the solution to this problem by applying three different ethical dimensions to Von Bülow’s argument.

The first, uses the demarcation principle to access the ‘boundaries’ around the morality of science; Or in simpler terms, “who or what counts morally.” In this case, the people of the Maldives should be taken into consideration. According to Jonas Kjær, who was the aid coordinator for the Maldivian Government, suggests that we must “gather the population of the Maldives, which at the moment are scattered over 200 islands, on just 10 to 15 islands” and “elevate the islands artificially by two to three meters, and to build solid walls along the coast [to] safeguard the islands against the tide and storms” (Von Bülow, 2009). Why should we uproot the native Maldivians from their homes, that are rich in history, and evacuate them to foreign homes if they are content? Should science interfere with their way of living? From this perspective, it would not be 'right' for the Maldivians to be moved form their homes.

The second ethical dimension, the consequentialist’s view, evaluates the ‘rightness or wrongness’ of an act by their consequence. A ‘good’ action is one where the most pleasure is shared among a population. In this case, if we relocated the 300 000 Maldivian population (Von Bülow, 2009), and built coastal safeguard walls, most would be unhappy from the relocation and the esthetics of the walls. However, to the 700 000 annual tourists (Von Bülow, 2009) who visit the Maldives, an increased amount of islands would we exclusive for tourism. This increases the volume of tourists into the country, resulting in the most amount of happiness from a larger population. Therefore, from the consequentialist view, the most pleasure will surely result from the re-location of the Maldivians, due to the improvement of the tourism economy.

The last ethical dimension is the non-consequentialist’s view, which observes the “rightness” of an action or duty (Alexander, 2008), rather than the consequences. As human beings, our natural instinct is to help others. Therefore, we have a duty to help out the Maldivians by contributing to their tourism economy. We can also assist by reducing carbon emissions; this would slow the rising world sea levels and prevent flooding in the Maldives. In the case that Kjær offers, in the non-consequentialists eyes, the act of attempting to help the Maldivians by providing an effective plan, is a good act.

To help save the Maldivian paradise, it is crucial that we do our best to mitigate climate change. This will aid in the slowing of coral reef destruction around the Maldives. Moreover it will prolong the rising world ocean levels from flooding the Maldives and other coastal countries. By evaluating this situation using the three different ethical dimensions, one is able to observe the Maldivian problem from varying perspectives. From this assessment, I personally believe that the Maldivians should re-locate for their safety, and to help their economy. When using the ethical dimensions to evaluate an argument, it creates a more rounded opinion on the subject. Therefore, this method is the most appropriate way to analyze this situation.

References:

Alexander, M. (2008). Deontological Ethics. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/ethics-deontological/

Von Bülow, M. (2009, March 20). Paradise Lost?. Retrieved November 3, 2009, from http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=881

University of Copenhagen (2009, March 11). Rising Sea Levels Set To Have Major Impacts Around The World. Retrieved November 4, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/ 2009/03/090310104742.htm

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions may Reduce Job Opportunities

2009-11-05T20:14:00.000-08:00

Ever since climate change became a widely popular topic, greenhouse gas emissions have become known as the main contributor to climate change. Scientists have discovered that greenhouse gas emissions were the main cause of ozone depletion and the warming of our planet. Since then, many suggestions have been put in place as to how greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced in order to protect our planet. Recently, governments have been trying to create bills and regulations against greenhouse gas emissions, in an attempt to reduce the amount of emissions in our environment. This raises much controversy among citizens due to the fact that there is potential for job loss and for the economy to suffer. In the article“True or False? Carbon Cap and Trade Will Create Jobs” by D'Angelo Gore the effects of a greenhouse gas emissions bill and its effects on job opportunities is discussed from two perspectives, that of the government as well as that of the citizens.

Every issue can be approached from a different angle depending on whom or what counts morally. For example, in the situation with the bill to place a limit on greenhouse gas emissions it can be viewed from an anthropocentrist’s point of view or from an eco-holist point of view. Anthropocentrist’s “place humans at the center of something, giving preference to humans above all other considerations” (Allwords). From their point of view, maximizing human happiness would be the clear choice in any situation. President Obama claims that the bill would “stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs in the clean energy sector” (Gore 2009). From an eco-holist point of view everyone and everything has value and counts morally, “analysis needs to be social, political, economic, and environmental” (Kütting 2009). In this situation an eco-holist would argue that while jobs are being lost, the planet is being saved. Every human, animal, plant and organism will suffer from climate change when the changes are irreversible. Ecosystems will be destroyed, killing animals and their habitats, humans will be greatly impacted by reductions in crops and economical issues. Also, the bill may reduce the number of jobs available “NAM and the American Council for Capital Formation estimatedthat the bill could cause between 1.8 million and 2.4 million job losses by 2030” (Gore 2009). The question becomes which are more important, allowing people to keep their jobs to feed and care for their families, or reduce job opportunities to slow down climate change and protect our environment?

One way of looking at the scenario is from a non-consequentialist’s point of view, or deontologist’s view who “recognize a number of distinct duties, such as those proscribing the killing of innocent people (murder) and prohibitions on lying and promise breaking,” they do not recognize future consequences or the impacts a situation may have in the future (New World Encyclopedia). In this scenario, a deontologist would not recognize the impacts the bill would have on future jobs, and the futures of the people it will affect. “The claims that hundreds of thousands of "green jobs" lie at the end of the cap-and-trade rainbow were a staple of President Obama’s 2008 presidential campains” (Gore 2009). Green jobs may be created now, but will they be jobs that last, and will there be enough jobs to compensate for all that have been lost? A non-consequentialist would look for a quick fix for the situation and would not take into account the long term effects.

The opposite argument would be consequentialist's point of view or utilitarian view, which looks into the future to see the pros and cons of the action. This point of view evaluates the positive and negative aspects of each impact or consequence the situation will bring upon people, animals and the environment. Gore describes in his article the positive effects the bill will have on maintaining animal populations and maintaining a clean environment in general. On the other hand he also takes into account the negative effects it will have, with a focus on job opportunities being lost and the economy suffering. A utilitarian would look at both the positive and negative effects of the action such as when Gore says it is “likely to cost jobs of coal miners and refinery workers, but that’s just a start. Any increase in energy costs acts as a drag on the overall economy, indirectly costing jobs in all sorts of other industries” (Gore 2009).

Every action in regards to climate change can be controversial and may be seen from many different points of view. In cases where there are multiple points of view it is challenging to decide which points are correct because views are based on who or what counts morally, which is different for each person. The positive and negative effects of an action need to be taken into consideration as well as which decision will maximize positive results. When coming to a decision like the one to put a bill in place to put a limit on greenhouse gas emissions, each view point needs to be taken into consideration to make an informed decision.

References
Gore, D'Angelo. The Daily Green. October 28th 2009.Accessed 3 November 2009. http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/green-jobs-47102803

Kütting, Gabriela. Globalization and the Environment : greening global political economy. Accessed 3 November 2009. http://books.google.ca/books?id=4Ih8r4zdPKsC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=eco-holistic+meaning&source=bl&ots=jABui6nYz0&sig=Yg0E9cyh0oywMtVj8ve_-EHXzuA&hl=en&ei=GHrzSvPhO9PalAfimJCtAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=eco-holistic&f=false

All Words. Accessed 3 Novemeber 2009. http://www.allwords.com/word-anthropocentric.html

New World Encyclopaedia. Accessed 3 November 2009. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Deontological_ethics

Ethics are the missing dimension in climate change debate

2009-11-05T18:07:00.001-08:00

In the recent article ‘Ethics are ‘missing dimension’ in climate debate’, many excellent points were brought up and well argued, that climate change is in fact without very much consideration concerning ethical implications. The appeal stated “the quest for climate justice is not a competition for limited resources but part of an unfolding process towards greater degrees of unity among nations as they endeavor to build a sustainable, just and peaceful civilization.” (http://news.bahai.org/story/729)

Therefore world leaders need to carefully consider people’s ethics and morals so that injustices and inequities can be avoided before making important decisions.

Climate change will have an affect on every person in the world, therefore when decisions are being made people being affected in other countries need to be considered equally. To be globally peaceful on the subject everyone being affected in every single decision needs to be thought of and people are not to be ‘sacrificed’ for the benefit of others in the world.

Unfortunately the effects of climate change and its source of impact has already proven to be distributed unevenly throughout the world. The richer countries around the world are to blame for most of the carbon emissions, which is the greatest impact to global warming. Whereas a lot of the poorer countries are being more effected because of their geography and the little money they have to come up with scientific solutions or barriers.

Actions need to be taken early because we need to keep in mind the long-term climate change effects on future generations. It is selfish and unethical to depend on future generations to clean up the mess, which the past generations have created.

When debating whether or not to make a decision, there are two possible outcomes, using the consequential view or the non-consequential view. The consequential view is when the value of the action comes solely from the value of its consequences, where as the non-consequential is taking action to conclude an issue, without considering the ethics and consequences. The ‘Ethics are ‘missing dimension’ in climate debate’ is making a point of how important it is to use the consequential view as oppose to the non-consequential view. Even though immediate and severe action on global warming is necessary, it is worth the extra time and effort to think about the consequences before decision making so that things are just and can be peaceful.

I think that this debate brings up extremely important issues, which need an additional amount of attention. The important part of this argument is that we need to consider everyone’s ethics and morals so that it is possible to live peacefully. Without much consideration too many strong disagreements will be made resulting in feud instead of what was primarily the issue; climate change, because we have to remember, we are all in this together.

Reference:

Unknown author, “Ethics are ‘missing dimension’ in climate debate”, September 23, 2009, Baha’i World News Service, http://news.bahai.org/story/729, accessed on November 3, 2009

The Great Wind Debate

2009-11-03T16:06:00.000-08:00

http://www.kpvi.com/Global/story.asp?S=11317541

For many years, climate change has been progressing and humans have been searching for clean ways to produce energy which won't result in the increased production of greenhouse gases. One good source of clean energy comes from wind turbines, but these have been the subject of major controversy recently. Who would have thought that something with so many positive effects on the environment could be the source of so much heated discussion? One particular article (“Wind Farm Energy in Bingham County Stirs up More Controversy”) revolves around a county in Idaho, where local residents are opposing the development of a new wind farm for aesthetic purposes. One official, Randy Gardner, is in favour of its development. However, Frank VanderSloot is representing the local people and arguing against it.

There are a number of ways of looking at this issue, but first it is necessary to evaluate who or what counts morally. Looking at the issue from an anthropocentrist's point of view, human's are the only beings with intrinsic value. At the other extreme, an eco-holist believes that all sentient beings, – including animals and humans – plants, species and ecosystems all have intrinsic value (Newman Oct 15, 2009). In this situation, an eco-holist would have to look at how everything will be affected. This would include the people who are having the landscape of their hometowns altered, the species who may be threatened by such a development and the potential damage to the environment and several ecosystems that could be prevented by the increased production of clean energy.

One popular side in such environmental discussions is the utilitarian's or consequentialist's view, which looks at the potential outcomes of a decision and evaluates the best option (Newman Oct 27, 2009). In Bingham county, Gardner has the most utilitarian standpoint. He is looking at the future benefits of building the wind farm, rather than the current inconvenience to the local residents. Some people are upset, because the energy produced by this farm would not even be powering their area, but Gardner explains the way he regards wind energy using a metaphor. He has said, “Potatoes are a local commodity that is shipped out to whomever wants to buy them. Wind is no different, it is also viewed as a commodity” (Wind 2009). However, it is unclear whether Gardener believes the environment has intrinsic value and is hoping to reduce the impact of energy production, or if he is coming from a purely economic standpoint.

The other way of looking at the issue, is by using a deontologist's or non-consequentialist's viewpoint. This argument is based on rights and neglects the future consequences of a decision (Newman Oct 27, 2009). VanderSloot displays this view by siding with the Bingham County residents in the discussion. He is concerned with the picturesque forests that will be obstructed by such a development. He feels that people have the right to enjoy the landscape without it being littered with giant windmills. However, a true deontologist would have to look at the rights of the developers as well. VanderSloot is neglecting the economic benefit that this wind farm will bring to some, and the energy company's right to build in a convenient location.

In this kind of controversial issue, there are many different principles on which people can base their decisions. The important thing to remember is there is no right or wrong answer. When the time comes, decision-makers have to look at every side of the problem and choose the solution that is best-suited to the situation, trusting that it will have the most positive impact.

References:

Newman, Jonathan. “Environmental Ethics.” Class Lecture. ENVS*1020. University of Guelph. 15 October, 2009.

Newman, Jonathan. “Understanding the Animal Rights Debate.” Class Lecture. ENVS*1020. University of Guelph. 27 October, 2009.

“Wind Farm Energy In Bingham County Stirs Up More Controversy.” KPVI News 6. 22 October, 2009. <http://www.kpvi.com/Global/story.asp?S=11317541>. 1 November, 2009.

The Small Things Add Up

2009-10-29T20:35:00.000-07:00

http://www.theage.com.au/national/against-the-tide-20091027-hj28.html?autostart=1

''The substantial risk of flooding and the excessive scale of engineering works required for a residential development in this sensitive location outweigh the potential benefits of the proposal.'' (Dowling) A vague statement by anyone’s standards, what did Minister Madden mean when he said this? He talks about substantial risk, excessive scale and sensitive location, but we have no idea what he consider substantial, or excessive.

This statement is up for interpretation as there are no statistics mentioned anywhere in it. Substantial risks of flooding could mean to Madden a risk higher than 40% or it could mean a risk higher than 70% of floods. Madden also talks about the excessive scale of engineering required, but what is excessive? Is it having to work with precision to avoid upsetting the ecosystem? Or could it be that the few precautions cost too much? Lastly the Minister claims that the location is sensitive. Many locations can be classified as sensitive, it just depends on who you talk to. Is the ecosystem sensitive like the mud flats on the Bay of Fundy, or is
sensitive because an endangered species is living there?

It would be nice if the Minister provided some details in all of these points. For instance, he could have provided a statistic instead of the blanket term of substantial. Even a ballpark figure would clear up any misunderstanding. He could have said there is a 50% chance of excessive flooding, or that there was a 60% chance of flash floods. The sensitive location could also be talked about in more detail, or at the very least briefly described. For example he could have said that ‘...residential development by the sand dune...’ or something similar to give people an idea of how sensitive the location actually is.

Lastly there is the excessive scale of engineering, which is perhaps the vaguest of all the statements. It could be excessively expensive, or the measures taken to ensure the preservation of the ecosystem itself could be excessive. You get the feeling that it is the latter, but there is really no indication. Then again, it could be the economic costs are to high to make the project worthwhile.

Madden skirts around the reasons why this proposal was denied with the skill of a veteran politician. He gives us many valid reasons why the proposal should be denied, but upon closer inspection, he has not really given us anything at all. This statement is obviously designed to get the public, in particular the residents of that area, off the Minister’s back. It has many small statements up for interpretation, but together they make a big difference in how people read this quote.

References

Against the Tide

New Committee Website

A Difference in Migration

2009-10-29T20:17:00.000-07:00

A recent article from world-countries.net brings to the stage a concept that requires some clarification. When a person hears the term “migration”, he is likely to think of people moving to and from countries, immigrating, and emigrating. Perhaps he may think of animals moving from one locale to another for the season. In neither case would he be likely to consider what this article, entitled “AFRICA: AU pushes the envelope on “climate migrants”” has to offer. The term in question here is “climate migrants.” What is a climate migrant? Does this have anything to do with migration or climate change? There are multiple answers to these questions which provide some understanding of the term.

This article tells of a treaty that has been adopted by the African Union to aid it’s citizens when they are harassed by natural disasters, namely floods and droughts. This provides some link to the “climate” aspect of climate migrant. It is believable to say that recent weather anomalies have been brought about by climate change however; the proof for that is a whole other debate. Still there is room to misunderstand what “climate entails”. I think the article needs to state that their use of the word does not imply that people are simply deterred by the temperature, or have varying preferences for the types of conditions that they live in. As naive as it sounds to assume that those might even be possible situations in Africa of all places, they must still be taken into account when coining a phrase, it is within the realm of possibilities for a conceivable definition. Albeit the article at least further clarifies that these climate migrants are being, “uprooted from their homes”, and, “the changing climate threatened their survival.”

Now, looking at the term migrant and knowing that it means simply, an individual moving from one region and or country to another, we must consider what that means for the displaced people. Are they leaving their respective countries, or are they going to the nearest inhabitable region. This much is not clear and not mentioned. All that is considered in regards to the term migrant and where these people end up is that, “they enjoyed protection under the existing human rights law and the guiding principles on internal displacement.” The key word being “internal” leads to the assumption that they remain within their own countries, and more likely within Africa.

So what I understand a “climate migrant” to be, is a person who has been negatively impacted by climate change and forced to migrate, in the sense of the word that they move to another region. I’m under the impression that they do not get the opportunity to return, either because doing so is not physically possible, or simply not intelligent. My reasoning for that stems from the use of the term “uprooted”. A tree that has been uprooted is not likely to be replanted.

References:

http://world-countries.net/archives/3021 Thursday October 29th 2009

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Amigrants&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= Thursday October 29th 2009

Clean Energy

2009-10-29T19:55:00.001-07:00

In the article “Climate Change: It’s Just Easy Being Green” by Paul Krugman, he argues that while most of the population thinks “going green” is costly, it doesn’t have to be. Krugman provides numerous arguments as to how we can decrease our greenhouse gas emissions without spending large sums of money. Krugman feels that if each person was to do their part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that we could have an impact on climate change, without the government spending millions of dollars. Krugman provides much insight into actions we can take to improve our environment, he talks about using energy efficient cars and appliances, reducing amounts of waste, and mainly striving toward the use of clean energy.

At first, when reading Krugman’s article, the term clean energy comes off as a phrase that is in need of conceptual analysis. Krugman could have meant any number of things when loosely using the phrase in his article. The said phrase could be interpreted differently by each person reading it. The phrase could have a different meaning, depending on an individual’s knowledge or vocabulary. The context in which Krugman uses the phrase is to say energy that is clean; energy that is free of carbon and/or other pollutants that are harmful to the atmosphere. Krugman discusses how the government “keep raising their estimated cost of the clean energy and global warming pollution reduction programmes like some out of control auctioneer” (Krugman 2009). Energy that does not pollute the environment when it is used is considered to be clean energy.

Krugman may have also meant to use the phrase clean energy as a way to promote using less energy. Using less energy would make for a cleaner atmosphere because there would be fewer emissions of carbon and greenhouse gases in the air. Clean energy would make for a cleaner environment and in turn would reduce the rate at which temperatures are rising. Clean energy could have meant renewable energy, since both terms are closely related. Krugman may have meant clean energy to be used in terms of energy that is renewable. Since renewable energy is powered by sources such as wind, water and rain, these sources are much cleaner for our environment.

The government of Canada provides a clear definition of what is meant by clean energy, “clean energy is any energy that causes little or no harm to the environment. Wind energy, solar energy, hydrogen and fuel cells, wave and tidal energy, and biomass” (Government of Canada).
Overall Krugman’s use of the phrase clean energy could have been implied a multitude of ways. Depending on who read the article, their knowledge of energy, carbon emissions, and renewable energy would given the phrase clean energy a different meaning. A definition of as to how clean energy was implied in the article would have made Krugman’s article much more clear and concise and would eliminate any confusion among readers.

References
Krugman, P. “Climate Change: It’s just easy being green.” Deccan Chronicle Online. 26 Sept 2009. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/dc-comment/climate-change-it%E2%80%99s-just-easy-being-green-972. Viewed 27 October 2009.
Government of Canada. “Clean Energy.” 14 August 2009. http://www.cleanenergy.gc.ca/faq/index_e.asp. Viewed 27 October 2009.

Small changes in temp. equal enormous changes in environment

2009-10-29T16:56:00.000-07:00

The fact is that “the global average temperature is quite stable over long periods of time.” It is extremely important that the public does not get the wrong impression from this statement. People need to understand that a long period of time to a human life is extraordinarily different then a long period of time to the Earth. A small alteration in temperature will change the environment drastically. The globe may be warming at a slow pace and with small increases, but it is these ‘quite stable’ changes that are putting our existence in threat.

A human life expectancy is 64.3 years (fluctuating drastically between countries and even sex). However the Earth is estimated to have been around for 4.55 billion years, with humans only occupying it for the last 100 000 to 200 000 years. These facts illustrate that it is difficult for humans to observe climate changes and indicate whether the small changes are drastic or normal. The other question is; is our species able to survive conditions that could be considered ‘normal’ to Earth?

The Earth has in fact gone through past Ice ages and global warming periods that humans were not even around to tamper with. Which creates an excellent argument; that the small annual increase in temperature is natural. However research is indicating that we as a species are mostly to blame for the even small temperature changes. Therefore people need to treat even the small average temperature change very seriously or else we will be watching the environment go through enormous changes, most of which we are not prepared for. Also the increasing of temperature is not happening at the same pace that the past temperatures have been fluctuating, but much faster, due to our concentrated influence. It is possible for species, including humans, to adapt to changes such as minor climate alterations, but at the rate the globe is warming we will most likely not have the time to adapt and survive as a species.

Considering that ice can melt with one degree Celsius in temperature difference, displays that glaciers are actually quite fragile. Melting glaciers create water shortages due to runoff as well as increase sea level, taking inhabited pieces of land with it. Another dangerous example is the increase in the number and intensity of natural disasters occurring, primarily due to climate change. These are only a couple of examples of the many delicate changes that can happen with a small global increase in temperature

It is extremely important that the audience reading does not confuse the statement provided and generate thoughts that global warming is not the issue that it truly is. People need a full understanding of what this statement is indicating and the truth behind it. The author is correct in this statement, however small changes in temperature correspond to enormous changes in the environment.

References:

Reinbeek, Holli, Earth Observatory, “Global Warming” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/, updated October 29, 2009

Unknown author, National Geographic, “Global Warming Fast Facts” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html, updated October 29, 2009

Rosenburg, Matt, “Life Expectancy” http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/lifeexpectancy.htm, updated August 19, 2007

Stassen, Chris, “The Age of Earth” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html Updated September 10, 2005

The Risk about Risk

2009-10-29T16:54:00.000-07:00

http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2438

In the COP15 United Nations Copenhagen article, “Italian Climate Investments - Only for the Brave” (27 October 2009), the author of the article, Morten Andersen, reports on the carbon trade debate. Andersen offers that carbon trading has “big distortions” in it’s legislation, encouraging investors to “sit on the sidelines” (Andersen, 2009). He warns investors of the “risk” involved by investing in climate policies with countries like Italy, the United States and the United Kingdom.

Ambiguity is created in the article when Andersen mentions the word risk. He states, “Deutsche Bank has digested climate policies of 109 countries to assess the risk for investors. While Italy is labeled most risky, climate related investments in both USA and UK would be of "moderate" risk” while, “China and Germany are countries where investors face a low risk” (Andersen, 2009).

Conceptual analysis is needed for this phrase to define the denotation of ‘risk’ and to specify the value that Andersen associates ‘risk’ to be.

To me, ‘risk’ means the chance of some event occurring, the probability of a certain outcome. Because of that definition, I was confused of the points that Andersen was trying to make. Although that is the wrong definition of ‘risk’ in this case, Andersen should have defined what he meant as risk to avoid future problems.

I think Andersen meant to convey that ‘risk’ is the measure of the shareholders’ loss from investing in these climate policies. Andersen, however, does not define the amount of loss that is associated with ‘risk’. This creates a misinterpretation of the term, because it is not defined. The loss of assets to one investor differs from another, and so does their definition of ‘risk’. For example, loss of estate to Bill Gates is vastly different from loss of estate to a middle class homeowner. Both investors differ in financial stability, therefore, the loss of assets of one does not constitute as loss to another.

The amount of ‘risk’ is open for interpretation. If Andersen had provided numerical figures to explain the amount of loss, less confusion would have been generated around that term. Secondly, the use of evidence in this article would have made Andersen’s warnings of investment more plausible.

It is imperative to be concise when writing. When using generalized terms such as, ‘risk’, ambiguity is created because the term is not defined. It would have been more effective if Andersen had provided a context for the word ‘risk’. The real risk, or danger, in this situation is not employing the carbon trade policy. While remaining idle, the cry for help against climate change is increasing. Will you take the risk?

References:

Andersen, M. (2009, October 27). Italian climate investments – only for the brave. Retrieved October 27, 2009, from http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2438

Vegetarian Will Save The World?

2009-10-28T20:53:00.000-07:00

In the article "Climate Change Expert: Go Vegetarian to Save Planet" the author Chris Dade very clearly states his argument for climate change. As presented in the title, Dade believes that people turning vegetarian would help the fight against climate change. The article explores the reasons as to why people should abandon their meat eating ways and turn to a vegetarian diet, or better yet, a vegan one (Dade 2009). Although Dade presents a strong argument, I believe that his title for the article is somewhat misleading. In my opinion "Go Vegetarian to Save Planet" seems like a very strong, and in some cases, misleading statement.

Dade's argument begins by presenting data about the meat industry, including the fact that 18% of the global carbon emissions are attributed to the meat industry (Dade 2009). That said, there would be a great reduction in carbon emissions if everyone were to be vegetarian. However, I believe there is a difference between saving the planet and helping to save the planet. Those who are educated on the climate change argument would most likely understand the message that Dade was trying to convey. I believe Dade's use of the term "Go Vegetarian to Save Planet" simply means that if the greater population were to become vegetarian, then there would be a decrease in the impact of climate change on the earth.

This article title could, however, be interpreted differently. Those who do not know much about climate change might jump to the conclusion, after reading this title, that by becoming vegetarian, the planet will be saved. This is a misunderstanding of the title for it is obviously not true. An 18% reduction in carbon emissions would definitely help the fight against climate change but would not be able to meet the 50% goal in emission reduction.

If we did manage to cut emissions by 50% it is predicted that temperatures still have a 50% chance to increase above the 2°C target by 2100. To be almost certain that there is no chance of exceeding a 2°C increase in global temperatures, we would have to cut emissions by 80%. However even with an 80% emissions cut, damages would still be large and any impact that occurs below a 1°C increase would likely be unavoidable (Parry 2008). Therefore I believe that there is a common misunderstanding in the statement "Go Vegetarian to Save Planet". The 18% reduction in emissions that would result if everyone became vegetarian would be below 1/4 of the targeted emission reductions. It would help fight climate change, but not end it.

In conclusion I believe there is much room for interpretation in the article title "Climate Change Expert: Go Vegetarian to Save Planet". It does provide evidence to support the fact that vegetarianism would lower carbon emissions, but to avoid different interpretations and misunderstandings, I believe that it would be better if it were phrased differently as to avoid any confusion.

References

Dade, Chris . "Climate Change Expert: Go Vegetarian to Save Planet." Digital Journal . 27 Oct 2009. Digital Journal , Web. 28 Oct 2009. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/281130.

Parry , Martin, Jean Palutifkof, Clair Hanson, and Jason Lowe. "Squaring up to Reality." Nature Reports Climate Change. 29 May 2008. Nature Publishing Group, Web. 28 Oct 2009. http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0806/full/climate.2008.50.html.

Energy Independence

2009-10-25T09:05:00.000-07:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/chamber-of-commerce-a-lon_b_327447.html

In the article “Chamber of Commerce: A Long History of Killing Clean Energy Policy,” James Hoggan discusses the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and some of their decisions regarding environmental issues. Hoggan feels that the Chamber routinely gives into industry pressure and abolishes policies which could lead to huge advances in clean energy production in America. He states that certain legislative solutions could lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, an increase in green jobs and what he calls energy independence (Hoggan 2009).

Upon reading the article, I feel that the term energy independence is in need of conceptual analysis. Hoggan could have meant a number of different things by its use, so it is up to interpretation for anyone who reads it. In its present context, it could mean a lack of dependence on any non-renewable energy source and finding a way to live sustainably should they be depleted. This could include an increased number of people growing their own food, consuming less and eradicating their reliance on motor vehicles. However, Hoggan's phrase still leaves room for ambiguity, as he does not specify as to the type of energy we could potentially gain independence from.

On www.americanenergyindependence.com, the expression is assigned to a more specific meaning. The website discusses the term as it is defined in Jay Hakes' book, A Declaration of Energy Independence. In simplified terms, it talks about utilizing renewable energy sources in order to gain independence from the use of oil (Journey 2009). While this is similar to the definition I used above, it neglects to include other non-renewable resources, such as coal and natural gas.

Hoggan's use of the term also raises questions about how wide-spread this energy independence would be. If he is taking his definition directly from the earlier mentioned website or book, he may just be referring to the state of energy usage in the United States. However, most environmentalists would argue that one country's decisions (particularly a large country such as the U.S.), affect the whole world. Negating the reliance on oil in the U. S. would certainly have a large impact on the reduction of greenhouse gases worldwide, but even they can't be truly oil-independent if the rest of the world is still using oil to support their living standards or their economies. This is particularly true for large polluters like India or China.

James Hoggan's use of the phrase energy independence leaves much room for discussion. Although the context in which he uses it is quite potent, if it is to be used by the general public, it should be properly defined as to the location and the type of energy specified. Hopefully we can achieve energy independence one day, but first we must know how to get there.

References:

Hoggan, James. “Chamber of Commerce: A Long History of Killing Clean Energy Policy.” The Huffington Post. 23 October, 2009. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/chamber-of- commerce-a-lon_b_327447.html>. 23, October, 2009.

“Journey to Energy Independence.” Energy Independence. 2009. <http://www.americanenergyindependence.com >. 23, October 2009.

Precautionary Thinking: Cap and Trade Legislation

2009-10-22T20:57:00.000-07:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate30-2009sep30,0,128921.story

In 2007, the United States released 7,150.1 Tg of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) (United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2009); this amount is substantial compared to other countries. To mitigate climate change, the United States senate recently proposed bill claiming that green house gas emissions would be reduced 20% by 2020. In the article, “Senate climate-change bill would cut greenhouse emissions 20% by 2020”, the author, Jim Tankersley reports that the U.S would use a “cap and trade” legislation to achieve this goal. The reasoning behind this bill relies on the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle provides reasoning that present action must be taken to avert future problems.

It is uncertain if climate change is permanent, however it would be more damaging to the Earth’s environment and inhabitants to remain idle. According to the EPA, the affects of increased global temperatures may result in “longer and more intense heat waves...flooding and waterborne diseases...[and] rising ocean water temperatures that will threaten coral reefs” (Mooney, 2009).

Although the cap and trade agreement would greatly reduce GHGE, economists and republicans are hesitant about this legislation. Conservative Senator Lisa Murkowski is concerned that consumers would be unprotected from rising energy prices and that the bill “would kill U.S. jobs” during the unstable economy (Cowan, 2009). However, the cap and trade legislation is imperative in order to combat climate change.

The precautionary principle is the best approach in reducing GHGE to help reduce the extent of climate change. The risk of further damaging our environment cannot be taken, as “postponing action will make effective action more difficult later on” (Beder, 2006).

References:

Beder, S. (2006). Environmental Principles and Policies (p. 53). , Austrailia: Earthscan.

Cowan, R. (2009, October 17). Republican senator says open to U.S. climate bill. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59G1B120091017

Mooney, A. (2009, June 16). White House report warns of climate change effects. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/06/16/climate.change.report/index.html

Tankersley, J. (2009, September 30). Senate climate-change bill would cut greenhouse emissions 20% by 2020. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate30-2009sep30,0,128921.story

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009, April 15). INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS: 1990 – 2007. Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/InventoryUSGhG1990-2007.pdf.

The Politicians Know What they’re doing... Right?

2009-10-22T19:13:00.000-07:00

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-13-a-scary-new-climate-study-will-have-you-saying-oh-shit/

The precautionary principle, when it comes to climate change it is stated as: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing costeffective measures to prevent environmental degradation."(Jones Day, Oct 13th, 2009). Reports from the WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) say that we have abandoned the precautionary principle.

This report found that we are in dire straits, as instead of the 25% – 40% reduction in emissions by 2020 that the IPCC reported, we need to stop carbon emissions within 10 years. That figure is way more demanding then what the world governments are contemplating for the Copenhagen Conference. Hans Joachim Schnellnhuber, the chair of the board, is preaching change needs to happen now. The odds for staying within the agreed 2°C limit ranges from 50% to 66% at best. That’s “worse odds than Russian roulette.” (Hertsgaard, Oct 13th, 2009)

In this case using the precautionary principle would be a good idea. If we go beyond the 2°C limit, it is agreed that even more ecosystems will start to suffer. I think that fulfills the threat of irreversible damage don’t you? Time is not something we have to waste, even using the IPCC numbers, there are serious doubts that we would make the target. The precautionary principle only guards against scientific uncertainty, but in my mind at least, it is better than guarding against nothing. Most of the excuses politicians make are economical in nature, but hopefully the threats of irreversible damage to our planet will make them see reason.

Change needs to occur, I think we can all agree on that, and if precautionary thinking is what prompts that change, I for one will support it.

References

Hertsgaard, Mark. “A scary new climate study will have you saying ‘Oh, shit!’” Grist Beta, 13 Oct 2009. http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-13-a-scary-new-climate-study-will-have-you-saying-oh-shit/. Accessed 22 Oct 2009

Jones Day. “United States: Glaossary of Key Climate Change Terms” Mondaq, 13 Oct 2009 http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=87596. Accessed 22 Oct 2009

Schnellnhuber, Hans Joachim et all. “Solving the climate dilemma: The budget approach” WBGU, 7 Sept 2009 http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_sn2009_en.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2009

Facing What’s Coming - Precautionary Principle

2009-10-22T18:14:00.000-07:00

In a blog from Mike Thomas, simply titled, “Climate Change - Blog Action Day 2009”, a fundamental question is asked; why are we not doing anything in the face of climate change? Overall I agree with the thinking in this blog post because Thomas admits that nobody really knows what’s going on. There is speculation, there are hypotheses, and it’s not difficult to tell the believers from the non-believers. The world is more or less torn, but the suggested use of the precautionary principle here is that we don’t have to be reacting to climate change, we just have to be reacting.

Fossil fuels are a nonrenewable resource, taking millions of years to form (Key Characteristics of NonRenewable Resources August 2008). Thomas makes a good point when he says that due to this looming problem, the problem being our eventual need for a different major energy source, we should act in finding and implementing alternative sources to prevent future strife. He uses the Precautionary Principle as a reason for action, if we do not do something about this now, at some point, maybe not in the near future, but at some point we will pay the price. Reducing our reliance on oil immediately targets greenhouse gas emissions and pollution without even admitting that climate change is the issue on our minds.

At the same time, the other side of the principle could say, perhaps we will stumble upon another alternative fuel source that is inexpensive and easily accessible. We won’t waste our money on new technologies and our time on research. Furthermore, what if there are no alternatives for our world? What if oil is all that works?I think we have the obligation to future generations to care about the environment, and our existence within it.

References

http://www.api.org/classroom/curricula/nonrenew-resources.cfm

http://urbanworkbench.com/climate-change-blog-action-day-2009

Precautionary Principle- Increasing Gas Taxes

2009-10-22T16:02:00.001-07:00

Carbon emissions are continually increasing the rate at which global temperatures are rising. Because the main factor of climate change is the CO2 emissions created primarily due to gasoline, diesel and jet fuel exhausts, it needs quick and drastic attention. A new, massive national gas tax has been presented to American citizens and they are now paying for the continual increasing price put on gas. Americans will be charged an enormous net sum of 3.6 trillion dollars. Therefore the government is benefiting from both the money as well as forcing their citizens to be cautious on the amount of gas they use, which cuts down air pollution.

The problem with raising prices of anything is that only low- and middle -income people are truly affected. These people are then forced to cut back which could negatively affect their career and family. As oppose to people who have little financial trouble and are able to continue on to ignoring the amount of gas they use. People with careers involving gasoline and diesel are hugely penalized, which results in an unwanted effect. Even when the reason to raise taxes is for a good cause, the public does not normally respond well.

Global warming needs immediate attention and actions, which the precaution on raising gas prices is doing. The overall effect will indeed lower the amount of gas emissions because more people will be more cautious when using gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. By beginning new policies such as this one people will desperately look for better precautions that could be taken instead. Action is being taken and the issue is brought to everyone’s attention, which further spreads education.

In conclusion it is good to see that we are taking actions to slow climate change, but it’s discouraging to know that these positive alterations will have an even more negative impact. However actions do need to be taken, but hopefully a better precautionary principle will replace this current one soon enough, benefiting additional aspects for people.

Reference:

U.S. Senators; Hutchison, Kay Bailey and Bond, Christopher S. “Climate Change Legislation: A $3.6 Trillion Gas Tax” Fall 2009 http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/hutchisonbondgastaxreport.pdf accessed on October 21, 2009

Precautionary Principle: Ice Cap Melting

2009-10-22T12:45:00.000-07:00

The fact that the ice caps are melting is commonly known. Some people may argue with or deny this reality, but the fact remains that they are melting rapidly. Compared with an estimated loss of 2.5% per decade, the actual rate of 7.8% is growing at an alarmingly fast (CNN 2007). With the rate of melt growing each year, surely there are going to be great consequences.

In a 2007 article, from The Washington Post, the topic of ice cap melting was discussed. Concerns were raised as to why this situation should be avoided. Scientists say the changes within the next 30-40 years are inevitable but in order to avert drastic changes we must strive to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions (Struck 2007).

The use of precautionary thinking is definitely required in this situation. Some effects of global warming on the ice caps are already known, but the potential consequences that those effects will have globally are unforeseen. For example, the risk of thawing the Arctic permafrost and releasing the gases it contains would accelerate global warming to no known end. Already methane is being released in Siberia.

Some would say that the melting ice caps are a good thing. The opening of the Northwest Passage during summers to increase trade and oil drilling is one known benefit (Struck 2007). However, despite the beneficial outcomes, the uncertain risks of the ice caps melting to the environment are too great.

We must reduce our gas emissions in order to prevent the consequences of melting ice caps.

Resources

CNN, . "Arctic melt worse than predictions." CNN. 02 May 2007. CNN , Web. 22 Oct 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/02/arctic.ice/.

Struck, Doug. "At the Poles, Melting Occuring at Alarming Rate." Washington Post 22 October 2007, Print.

Melting Permafrost and Climate Change

2009-10-22T11:12:00.000-07:00

Melting permafrost could potentially increase the rate at which our climate is changing and causes hazardous effects to our planet. As permafrost melts, human waste within the environment is released as carbon dioxide or methane gas. These greenhouse gases contribute to increased atmospheric temperatures.

Christian Hunt uses the precautionary principles throughout his blog “Melting Compost Heaps and Permafrost” to support his ideas on prevention before detrimental problems occur. Hunt states that “we should do more rather than less to tackle climate change, just in case- without good reason” (Hunt 2009). It is reasonable to take precautions because it is known, through scientific study, that permafrost releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Hunt makes valid points, stating that taking precaution to protect our environment from greenhouse gas emissions is important. Precaution should be taken to avoid the damaging effects and ensure the safety of our environment.

Although Hunt continues to reinforce his argument with evidence which shows that melting permafrost does release carbon dioxide into the air which in turn increases atmospheric temperatures, he fails to consider that it may be wasteful to take precautions since little is known about how melting permafrost will affect the environment. If very little carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere then it may not be a concern, hence a wasteful precaution. Overall Hunt does make strong arguments that precautions should be taken to avoid problems in the future. Climate change is a growing problem that is hypothesized to severely damage our environment. Precautions should always be taken, although sometimes found to be unnecessary, to save our environment and avoid damages that cannot be reversed.

References

Hunt, Christian. “Melting Compost Heaps and Permafrost.” Climate Safety Blog. 11 October 2009 http://climatesafety.org/melting-compost-heaps-and-the-permafrost-precautionary-principle/. Accessed 20 October 2009.

No Reason to Wait

2009-10-19T18:53:00.000-07:00

http://www.pej.org/html/index.php/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7097&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

In the 2007 article “In Bali, the Current Regimes in Canada and the United States Have No Right to Speak for Canada and the US,” the author, Joan Russow, discusses both Canada and the United States' obligations in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. She argues that these two countries are not living up to their responsibilities as powerful, developed nations.

In her article, Russow refers to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its use of the precautionary principle. The treaty states that the included political 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” (Russow 2007) This statement is a version of the wingspread precautionary principle, because it is in favour of taking action where human health and well-being is concerned, even though our involvement in the progression of climate change isn't scientifically proven (Newman 2009). Unfortunately, Russow feels that the people who require scientific proof, and therefore deny the existence of climate change, have been pressuring the Canadian and US governments to postpone making these changes.

I believe that the UNFCCC's application of the precautionary principle is appropriate for our current situation. There is no reason to postpone political action when the potential effects of climate change could be far more costly to our well-being in the long run, than the sacrifices we may have to make at this point. If we were to ignore climate change until we were sure it was going to have detrimental effects, there would be no way to stop them and governments would be wishing for a way to turn back time and take action.

References:

Newman, Jonathan. “Risk Assessment and the Precautionary Principle.” Class Lecture. ENVS*1020. University of Guelph. 6 Oct. 2009.

Russow, Joan. “In Bali, the Current Regimes in Canada and the United States Have No Right to Speak for Canada and the US.” Peace, Earth and Justice News. 15 Dec. 2007. <http://www.pej.org/html/index.php/modules.php? op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7097&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0>. 18 Oct. 2009.

Climate Change causes Disasters?

2009-10-15T20:55:00.000-07:00

Richard Fisher wrote Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes, a paper that shows just how drastically climate change affects us. Climate change has been told to cause many changes in our environment, but usually one does not link climate change to natural disasters such as volcanoes and earthquakes. Mother Nature might not be the benevolent entity that she is always portrayed as. In fact the tiniest changes to climate can cause her to reveal just how short tempered she really is. Researchers have recently discovered how a tiny change in sea level can increase the number of natural disasters we endure each year.

Researchers have come together and in a conference, Climate Forcing of Geological and Geomorphological Hazards, in this conference many observations were presented. Simon Day, who attended the conference, showed how the smallest changes in sea level can increase the number and magnitude of earthquakes. The rising water level also was reported by David Pyle to cause more volcanoes to erupt. David’s “team found that there are around 20 per cent more eruptions worldwide during the northern hemisphere's winter than the summer” (Fisher).

Volcanoes are erupting more often and earthquakes are becoming more frequent and the ice caps have not even melted yet. According to these scientists if the ice caps are allowed to melt tsunamis would start battering the shores and because of the weight of the extra water from the melted ice cap, even more volcanoes would start erupting. These scientists have painted quite a doomsday picture if we do not clean up our act.

It seems mind-boggling that such a small change can affect so much. Mother Nature obviously likes stability, and right now, we are not providing that. However, since nature’s sensitivity has only recently been discovered no accurate models have been made yet. Soon though those models will be made and I shudder to think of what those models will reveal to us.

I think everyone wants to avoid huge disasters, after all everyone still remembers Pompeii and more recently Katrina. We are not prepared for disasters of such magnitude and need to think about cleaning up our act. If the number of natural disasters continues to rise I fear we will not be able to ride it out. We are resilient species, true, but we should not trust our resilience to get us out of every situation.

References:

Fisher, Richard “Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes” New Scientist September 23, 2009 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html?full=true Accessed October 13, 2009

Will We Be Free of DDT?

2009-10-15T20:45:00.000-07:00

Has our past finally caught up with us? A recent study conducted by Christian Bogdol and his team of researchers in Bern, Switzerland, found that pollutants from earlier decades have embedded themselves in sediments in Lake Oberaar. An increased amount of pollutants is a result from climate change that causes glacial melting of the Oberaar glacier.

These pollutants have been banned for decades, but when they were in high use during the 1960’s and 1970’s, some of the Oberaar glacier “formed in a period when environmental pollution was high” and is a “reservoir of contaminants and result in an important release when this ice melts” (Bogdol, 2009). Melted glacial water runs off into the lake where the pollutants settle.

The pollutants found in the lake are organic chemicals that were used as fertilizers; these include, dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT), and its metabolites, dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethene (DDE) and dichlorodiphenyl dichloroethane (DDD). Also, “synthetic nitro and polycyclic musk fragrances” (Bogdol, 2009) were found in the sediment.

Though the main goal of the research was to quantify specific amounts of pollutants, one application from his findings was to see if the contaminants had an affect on surrounding ecosystems. Bogdol’s team took samples from each of the sediment and dated the material. They were working with sediment from 1953 to 2006. From there, they analyzed what type and how much of the pollutant was in each sediment. They found that from the late 1990’s to present, there was an increased amount of DDT and metabolites, and a decreased amount of musk fragrence. The fish who live in the Oberaar lake are exposed to levels of DDT, and subsequently, those who consume fish are also exposed. However, Bogdol did not specify to what extent the fish are affected.

The Oberaar glacier is part of the Alpine region. Areas like these are popular for tourists who fish and ski. Glacial water is also consumed. Therefore, humans are in direct contact with contaminants in the water, from drinking, fish and from the snow (Bogdol, 2009). To humans, DDT is carcinogenic, and can cause pancreatic cancer, breast cancer and non- hodgkin’s lymphoma (Longnecker, 1997). DDT and metabolites also interrupt the endocrine system. These effects are a result from prolonged exposure to DDT (Longnecker, 1997).

The more mild our global temperatures become, glaciers will continue to melt, releasing more pollutants in to lakes. Both humans and animals come into direct contact with the pollutants. The only way to slow glacial melting, is to prevent the increase in global temperatures. We can do our part in reducing green house emissions!

References:

Bogdol, C. (2009). Blast From the Past: Melting Glaciers as a Relevant Source for Persistent Organic Pollutants . Environmental Science & Technology, A-E. Retrieved October 11, 2009, from Web of Science ( DOI: 10.1021/es901628x).

Longnecker, M. (1997). THE HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF DDT (DICHLORODIPHENYLTRICHLOROETHANE) AND PCBS (POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS) AND AN OVERVIEW OF ORGANOCHLORINES IN PUBLIC HEALTH. Annual Review of Public Health, 18, 211-244. doi:doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.18.1.21

Can Climate Change Alter Landscapes?

2009-10-15T19:16:00.000-07:00

Landscapes have changed naturally under slow processes for thousands of years. More recently they are being affected by human induced climate change. Climate change may be increasing the rate at which landscapes are being altered. The effects of climate on landscapes tend to mainly include soil erosion and weathering.

In a study by A.J.A.M. Temme , J.E.M. Baartman and J.M. Schoorl they tested how landscapes might be affected by climate change in the future. They tested this by using LEM's (Landscape Evolution Methods) which can test the potential change in a landscape depending on the surrounding environment. In their simulation they compared stable landscapes to those that might be effected by climate change. They used the Okhombe Valley in South Africa as a case study area. The model of their LEM simulation took into account 5 natural processes including biological weathering, frost weathering, creep, solifluction and water erosion. The scenario was based on the information of current annual rainfall, vegetation, and estimated temperatures up until the year 3000 in the Okhombe Valley. The experiment was run under different uncertainty scenarios as to yield a range of accurate results (Temme 2009).

The study results of the simulation show that an increase in erosion is predicted under a changing climate which would also result in increased deposition of soil downstream. The results are only an estimate. The authors concluded by saying, "actual landscape evolution predictions are speculative [...] more research on long-term climate predictions could similarly reduce uncertainties" (Temme 2009).

Landscapes are constantly altered, but from the results of the simulation it is evident that climate change has the potential to alter landscapes more drastically depending on the conditions. However, more research needs to be done before an accurate understanding of these landscape altering processes can be made.

References

Temme, A.J.A.M., J.E.M. Baartman, and J.M. Schoorl. "Can uncertain landscape evolution models discriminate between landscape responses to stable and changing future climate? A millennial-scale test ." Global and Planetary Change 69.1-2 (2009): 48-58. Web. 15 Oct 2009. 0&_userid=1067211&md5=d243af427582db0319c019cc55ba149a#secx6>.

Where Have All the Glaciers Gone?

2009-10-15T18:55:00.000-07:00

http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/tmp/12929032201223674901.pdf

Climate change is affecting the world on many levels. Some side-effects are more feared than others, and some disastrous events are predicted to be quite imminent. The reduction in glacial volume is one issue which has a number of different consequences. The melting of glaciers is the cause of rising sea levels, disruptions in the water cycle, loss of animal habitat and even has a detrimental effect on tourism in some areas. Unfortunately, this melting is impossible to control, especially with climate change progressing at such a rapid rate.

In a recent study by Daniel Farinotti, Matthias Huss, Andreas Bauder and Martin Funk the ice volume of the glaciers in the Swiss Alps was studied in depth over 10 years. They have stated that it is very difficult to obtain these measurements, because “direct measurement techniques [...] are laborious, necessarily restricted to a limited area, and the spatial inter- and extrapolation of the field data may lead to large uncertainties” (Farinotti 2009). However, using a very comprehensive new method known as ITEM(Ice Thickness Estimation Method), they were able to closely estimate the ice volume of 62 Swiss glaciers. Using the ITEM technology, they could take into account principles of ice flow dynamics, surface and bedrock topography and ice thickness distribution. By applying this method they found they could get very accurate volume predictions, give or take a few km³(Farinotti 2009).

They found that between 1999 and 2008, the total ice volume of the studied glaciers was reduced by about 12%. Also, in the particularly warm year of 2003 alone, there was a volume loss of 3.5% (Farinotti 2009). If this rate of loss continues, glacial volume could be reduced by an additional half in 50 years. In the Swiss Alps, an increase of 1.8ºC in Summer temperatures, and 2.7ºC in Winter temperatures is predicted by the year 2050. Thus, they are predicting that the rate at which glacial volume is being reduced will continue to increase (Farinotti 2009). This creates much uncertainty in the future of the Swiss tourism industry, the effects of rising sea levels and the ability to manage water as a resource.

Glaciers are retreating all over the world, and have been for hundreds of years. However, now we are starting to see the potential effects this phenomenon could have on the planet and our lives. Thanks to dedicated researchers, we can obtain concrete figures of the rate at which they are melting. This gives us a more realistic timeline, in order to address future problems before they occur. Unfortunately, it may never be possible to stop glacial retreat, but with the proper information, it is possible to prepare for its consequences before they lead to disaster.

Resources:

Farinotti, Daniel, Matthias Huss, Andreas Bauder and Martin Funk. “An estimate of the glacier ice volume in the Swiss Alps.” Global and Planetary Change. Vol. 68, 2009; 225-231. May 2009. Elsevier. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09218181>. 13 October, 2009.

Climate Change having a negative impact upon plants and animals

2009-10-15T11:24:00.000-07:00

When it comes to the topic of climate change and global warming, human beings are often concerned for the well being of themselves. They pose concerns about issues such as water level increase, natural disasters, and loss of potential medicines. Although all of these issues are rather prominent and effect the earth rather drastically, what about the effect that global warming has on plants and animals?

According to many recent studies, such as meta-analysis, which is a research methodology that “provides a systematic overview of quantitative research” (Neill), due to the surrounding temperature increase, species in all habitats are undergoing quite drastic shifts. Studies have shown that the globe is increasing at an average of 0.6 degrees Celsius annually and with this accumulating number, it is making it extremely difficult for many species around the world to have time to naturally adapt.

Quite recently, scientists have found that there are four different types of change that species traits are undergoing. Included in these changes are; changes in genetic frequencies, changes in morphology (size and behaviour), population density in certain places, as well as change in the timing of a species natural events (i.e., laying eggs or migrating). More often than not, these changes will have a negative effect on the overall species, challenging their will to survive as a population.

Although human beings are generally concerned with themselves, most major and minor impacts that occur in wildlife have an effect on the human race as well. Biodiversity is so important to humans because it provides us with ecosystem services, biological resources and social benefits. Therefore we cannot ignore the effect that global warming has upon plants and animals for our own selfish needs and benefits.

Overall, the issue in the end is that fact that global warming is still a rather prominent issue around the world and we all need to continue to develop a stronger strategy on how to slow and possibly reverse climate change. All human beings need to take the time to make a difference on their own and not only rely on the scientists. Raise awareness and education, donate to the cause, recycle, greatly reduce carbon emissions, and continue to further research and experiment. There is a significant amount of evidence to prove that global warming is in fact happening and without the help of all human beings, the negative impact that climate change has on wildlife will continue to increase. Take care of our wildlife because after all, human beings would not be where they are today without biodiversity.

References:

Neill, James. “Meta-Analysis” http://wilderdom.com/research/meta-analysis.html

Last updated October 15, 2009

Shah, Anup “Why is Biodiversity so important? Who cares?” http://www.globalissues.org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity-important-who-cares

Last updated April 26, 2009

Minimizing Carbon Emissions is Possible

2009-10-15T08:46:00.000-07:00

Cutting down on carbon emissions does not need to be impossible. For some companies it may be a great price to pay to slightly cut down their carbon emissions, but the greater price will come when the damages we’ve done to our planet are irreversible. According to the journal article “Reduce Greenhouse Gases Profitably” it was found that “nearly 70% of U.S. greenhouse emissions come from generating electricity and heat, whereas only 19% comes from automobiles.” If the goal is to reduce greenhouse gases then we must reduce the carbon emissions from large power plants. The article “Reduce Greenhouse Gases Profitably” suggests that greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced by 19% by 2020 in order to make a significant change (Munson 2009). The problem today is that companies are free to release as much carbon and greenhouse gases into the air as there are no controls. As more greenhouse gases are released into the air, the temperature continues to rise and climate change is becoming more noticeable.

According to the article “Reduce Greenhouse Gases Profitably” there are three important steps for large companies to take to reduce their carbon emissions. Step 1: Companies that produce thermal energy will have an allowance of carbon that they are allowed to release; Step 2: Companies that generate power will also be given an allowance and Step 3: These allowances will be reduced each year to ensure that companies are reducing their carbon emissions. (Munson 2009). The problem today is that the majority of the population in North America either does not believe in global warming and climate change, or they are just unaware or uneducated about climate change. Changes in carbon emissions need to be made now in order to have an impact in saving our world from further damage.

Of course if reducing carbon emissions was an easy task there would have been more of an effort to do so. The article “Reduce Greenhouse Gases Profitably” concludes that “reducing greenhouse pollution is a political impossibility — the costs too high, the benefits too uncertain, the opposition too entrenched” (Munson 2009). Although it is costly to reduce carbon emissions for large companies, the benefits will be worth the reduction in the future. Each year the amount of carbon and greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere increases creating more and more damage. If every year the amount of emissions were reduced instead of increased, a significant change could be made to our climate and the changes that it faces.

References
Munson, R. “Reduce Greenhouse Gases Profitably.”
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/search?vid=1&hid=103&sid=ff15bb7f-6ffd-406e-b0cb-99c984224c43%40sessionmgr104. Accessed October 13th 2009

A Chain Of Suffering

2009-10-11T14:14:00.000-07:00

A recent paper from Climate Change Biology, “Climate change and cyclic predator-prey population dynamics in the high Arctic,” finds that some species, species whose populations are not particularly directly affected by climate change, will see the effects via a chain of cyclic nature. Such cycles are studied under the area of phenology. This research follows an arctic predator-prey relationship in Greenland at two locations, the Karupelv valley, and the Zackenberg valley. Of the 5 species, the only prey is the collared lemming, the 4 predators being the long-tailed skua, the Arctic fox, the snowy owl, and the stoat. The issue brought about is if the effects of climate change on the collared lemming will consequently disturb the natural cycle between these animals, altering their populations and breeding. The issue is of utmost importance because if it is true that varying populations are suffering due to the inability of another to withstand the effects of climate change, then the effects of said change may be much broader than once thought.

Firstly the paper brings forth the importance of the yearly snow melt, and the effects of events like rain-on-snow and melt-frost (phenomena which are being increased by climate change) which have the potential to affect the quality of the snow in the arctic biome. The researchers found that this factor plays a role in lemming populations because lemmings reproduce under snow cover, a period with a duration that is usually from September through July. The onset of warming trends is the key aspect in the alteration of the snow melt, and lemming populations are dependent mainly on the offspring produced during the winter months. They determined that the only predator which seems to rely upon the collared lemming as its primary food source is the stoat, and the other predators are nomadic and will feed off of other rodents when needed. Yet the populations of all the species are changing. The cyclic nature of the lemming’s population is being increased, they are taking longer to approach similar population densities every year, and the lack of lemmings is resulting in less food for the predators. The article states, “the snowy owl has been absent for the past eights years,”

This means that the most simple predator-prey interactions are at risk, and that seemingly minor events like an earlier snow melt have the ability to alter the habitat range and existence of multiple species in even a small community. Small meaning this 5 species relationship as opposed to a more complicated and varied one. This is a study on a limited number of species in a limited region of the Arctic, the results obtained by this study shows that climate change has the possibility of affecting on a much larger scale. The results of which could be devastating as is already being observed in Greenland.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122283014/HTMLSTART

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122283014/abstract

Canadian Companies Throwing In The Towel

2009-10-08T20:41:00.000-07:00

The effects of climate change are apparent everywhere, besides melting ice caps and rising temperatures, local business’ are not seeming to be as involved in the process of keeping the world alert and on their toes as they could be. A small article from Canwest News Service, Thursday, October 8, 2009, discusses the views arising from top Canadian companies about the current environmental situation. The article cites a larger recently published report, the Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 whose primary focus is determining a set of solutions with which to tackle climate change.

Initially the Canwest News Service article, “Canadian companies fall short on climate action.,” states that Canadian companies are indeed doing something to reduce the severity of carbon emissions, but continues by addressing the fact that a decreasing number of companies are willing to provide information when asked. They are showing resistance. Limitations of the articles include it’s short length, little is discussed and therefore little is learned. There are no points made that have decent support behind them, for example no examples are provided of what in particular Canadian companies are supposedly doing in the face of climate change.

The Carbon Disclosure Project 2009, the primary source, presented contradictory statements to those offered by the secondary source. The claim was that the current CDP had received the highest response rate to date. This clash in information leads me to doubt the credibility of the short secondary source. The CDP did however provide a quote from Comerica, a Canadian Bank detailing their views on the opportunities presented by climate change regulation; Comerica essentially wants to give their customers the chance to reduce their carbon outputs by offering particular services. This does relate to the secondary source because Canwest quoted that companies in Canada are looking more so towards economic benefits of climate change, and not being particularly directly involved themselves. The Canwest articles announces that Canadian companies are less likely to take action than companies elsewhere but fails to mention which companies and which countries are doing more than our companies here. In contrast the CDP presents multiple examples from specific companies, Canadian ones. One such example comes from the Bank of Montreal, their involvement in renewable energy sources is evident thanks to three billion dollars of “financing transactions” for projects involving hydroelectricity, wind power and biomass. The CDP definitely goes into depth, looking for what companies are doing, or what they aren’t doing. And the report from Canwest merely mentions that something is or is not being done.

Naturally this report does offer studies beyond the financial sector, but the secondary source’s focus was based upon a more economical inquiry. To conclude, the brief article, “Canadian companies fall short on climate change,” is weak and not entirely well-related to the primary source upon which the foundation of the article is formed. Certain pieces of information do not match up with points drawn from the primary source. Meanwhile the Carbon Disclosure Project 2009 is thorough in it’s assessment of the opinions of companies and what these companies are doing about the current task of dealing with climate change.

http://news.globaltv.com/Canadian+companies+fall+short+climate+action/2081228/story.html Montreal Gazette Thursday October 8th 2009

https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP%202009%20Global%20500%20with%20Industry%20Snapshots.pdf Release: 2009

Rising Food Prices due to Climate Change

2009-10-08T19:43:00.000-07:00

Food prices will undoubtedly rise with growing climate change. Agriculture is very vulnerable to higher temperatures and the change they might cause on different crop yields such as rice and maize. In an article "Food Prices may rise 121% by 2050 due to Climate Change" published by Business Standard Ltd., a claim is made, as in the title, that food prices are estimated to rise 121% by 2050 due to climate change. This article talks about how food prices will be affected by climate change and focuses in particular on South Asia. The research for this article was based on a study by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) that was released September in the International Food Policy Research Institute Report. The article released "Climate change - impacts on agriculture and the costs of adaptation" claims that agriculture and crop yields are extremely vulnerable but that there are policy recommendations that could prevent food prices rising at the rate that is estimated.

The articles both focus on South Asia and rising food prices as well as how climate change might affect agriculture there. The arguments in both articles are quite similar as they focus on the same topics and are backed by almost the exactly same points. In both articles they recognize that irrigated crop yields in South Asia will decline severely. As a result of declining crop yields, the average caloric intake is bound to fall in the developing world. In conclusion to both articles, the main recommendations given to help falling crop yields are as follows.

1. Open agricultural trade to ensure that food reaches the poorest
2. Funding in agricultural research, irrigation and rural development (Food Prices may rise 121% by 2050 due to Climate Change, 2009)

The argument that climate change will affect food prices is stronger in the article "Food Prices may rise 121% by 2050 due to Climate Change" because they tend to use more concrete evidence such as stats and estimated costs. In this article they expand on the statisics from the primary article. Some of the numbers used must be from another source for they are not even mentioned in the primary research. They focus much more how much prices will rise and how much crop yields will fall. In the primary research article they do not give any price rise estimations beyond the fact that they will rise. The article released by the IFPRI is different from the secondary source in that it offers many more policy recommendations as to how to attack this problem. That is the main difference between the two articles.

It is obvious that they are both geared towards a different demographic. The secondary source is directed towards the public. It has the main intention of making the greater public aware of the issues by showing them statistics and estimated cost rises. The primary source does not need as many statistics for it is targeted towards higher ranked officials in government. The policy recommendations it provides include investing in agricultural productivity/research, and funding for adaptation programs (IFPRI, 2009). Each article is limited to it provides depending on the demographic it aims to reach.

In conclusion, both articles explore the same issues but take different approaches at it. The primary source has hopes of reaching goverment officials and offers policy recommendations while the secondary source is aimed at the general public with statistics that will educate them. In both cases, the arguments made are all credible and neither article is written in a more controversial way than the other.

References

Primary:

International Food Policy Research Institute. "Climate change - impacts on agriculture and the costs of adaptation." Science Alert . September 2009 . October 8, 2009. .

Secondary:

"Food Prices may rise 121% by 2050 due to Climate Change." Business Standard. October 3, 2009. Business Standard Ltd., October 8, 2009. .

Helping Out with the Changing Climate: Green Roofs Provide Carbon Absorption

2009-10-08T17:18:00.000-07:00

Going green is the proactive response to the changing climate and environment. Now, your house can participate too! The term, “green roof” means to grow vegetation on the roof of buildings to: “improve storm water management, conserve energy, mitigate urban heat island effects, increase longevity of roofing membranes...reduce noise and air pollution [and] increase urban biodiversity...”(Getter, 2009).

In the New Scientist article, “Green Roofs Save on Carbon Overheads” (04 October 2009) the author, Jacob Aron summarizes the research that Kristen Getter and her team gathered from their experiment. She tested the “Carbon Sequestration Potential of Extensive Green Roots” (17 August 2009). In simpler terms, Getter wanted to quantify the effectiveness that green roofs have in the absorption of Carbon Dioxide, to combat against climate change.

The Claims of the Two Sources

Getter argues that green roofs are beneficial because the unused roof space can be used for “mitigating climate change” (Getter, 2009). Similarly, Aron claims that “green roofs are not a load of greenwash” (Aron, 2009). His article supports the use of green roofs and the positive results they have on cutting down on carbon emissions. Aron, expresses his opinion on green roofs on the basis of Getter’s findings.

Strength of Arguments

Getter’s argument in favour of green roofs is extremely strong, because she conducted the experiment. She has strong points to support her claims from the research that she collected. Getter, therefore knows all aspects of green roofs. Her report also references a number of different scholarly articles to back up her argument.

Aron’s argument is not as strong as Getter’s argument. Although he does reference Getter’s work, he does not compare her results to other’s who have conducted the same experiment. He only summarizes her article, he does not provide enough evidence to back up his claims. If Aron had referenced other scientific studies, used graphs, or statistics of how effective green roofs are, his claim would have been much stronger.

Similarities

The conclusions from both articles are similar. They both report that an effective way to reduce carbon emissions is to plant a green roof. Since plants intake carbon dioxide in photosynthesis, having more plants reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is also mentioned in both articles that would take “seven years for the roof to offset the carbon used for its building materials [to] become truly carbon negative” (Aron, 2009).

Differences

The differences between the two articles is the target audience that each author writes for. Getter writes for a target audience of people who have a science background. She assumes that the people who are reading her report are well versed in scientific jargon. Aron, however, writes to tell the general public about Getter’s findings. He uses words and phrases that would be understandable those who are not versed in scientific terms.

Another difference is the amount of information provided in both articles. In Getter’s report, there is a thorough explanation of the procedures her team did and why. She includes background information and her results of how the study has applications on climate change. Aron summarizes the research conducted by Getter in his article therefore he lacks the detail of information that Getter included in her article.

Limitations

Both primary and secondary sources have limitations where there is a restraint on research. In Getter’s study, it is stated in her report that one limitation she had was “building weight restrictions and cost” (Getter, 2009). Because of the weight restriction, her and her team had to use an “extensive” green roof versus an intensive green roof. This meant that the substrate in the extensive roof was shallower than the intensive. Getter concluded that the extensive green roofs would “not likely sequester large amounts of carbon due to the types of species used and shallow substrate” (Getter, 2009). Also, because the extensive roof was used, they only “use CAM plants, that will sequester 1/2 or 1/3 of daily carbon assimilation compared to non CAM species” (Getter, 2009). Therefore, because of these limitations, Getter could not yield as much carbon dioxide in her green roof because of the shallower substrate and CAM plants used, due to the lack of funds and weight restrictions from the roof.

Limitations of the secondary source is the lack of detail in the article, due to the target audience. Because most secondary research is read by the general public, (most of which do not have a science background) the author has to use simplified terms to explain certain concepts. Therefore, a lot of the scientific data and detail is omitted.

In sum, both articles convey the same claims; green roofs will reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The primary article, however, provides clear and concise evidence as to: why the author is making that specific claim, how this will help us in the future. It also provides steps for other scientists who wish to replicate this experiment. Aron’s article provides a good summary of the most important points in Getter’s research in an easy-to-understand manner. Primary sources are good to use to for support in academic reports because it is certain that the information is reliable. Secondary sources are useful in finding quick information. Both articles do and excellent job in defending green roofs and the benefits that they provide to aid in reducing carbon emissions.

References:

Aron, J. (2009, October 4). Carbon Sequestration Potential of Extensive Green Roofs . Retrieved October 5, 2009, from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17906- green- roofs-save-on-carbon-overheads.html

Getter, K. L. (2009). Carbon Sequestration Potential Of Extensive Green Roofs . Environmental Science and Technology, 19(40), 7564-7570. doi:Environmental Science & Technology, DOI: 10.1021/es901539x

Climate Change Threatens Agriculture

2009-10-08T08:23:00.000-07:00

Could climate change negatively impact agriculture and threaten our main food sources? It is estimated that by the year 2050 over 50 million people around the world will experience starvation for the first time due to lack of food. This is due to the rapid increase in climate temperatures as a result of global warming, crops will be unable to survive and adapt to the change in climate. Millions of farms will shut down because of crops dying off and food sources will be limited (Arella 2009). The target article “New Study on Climate Change Predicts 25 Million Children will be Malnourished by 2050” written in the Palestine Telegraph, presents some strong points based on the primary source, and a study from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) “Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation.” Both articles present strong facts on how climate change will affect agriculture in the years to come as well as ways to prevent a rise in the cost of food. The primary article presents facts based on the study done by the IFPRI, it clearly states facts about climate change and how it will affect agriculture without bias or opinion. The target article presents more of an opinion about what will happen with an emphasis on how food prices will rise and push many people to starvation. It uses facts from the primary source to support their allegations as well as to emphasize the point of their article.

Green house gas emissions are becoming uncontrollable around the world and as a result the earth’s temperature is rising at a rapid rate. This change in climate is causing many other changes as well, including extreme weather conditions, an increase in precipitation and unseasonable weather. This puts a great strain on crops and agriculture in general. Our crops are not used to sudden changes and in most cases they cannot survive the changes. The IFPRI’s study shows that this may cause detrimental effects such as reducing crop yields such as wheat and rice by up to 30%. This large decrease in crop yields will push prices of food higher year after year. The IFPRI estimates prices will be pushed up to almost 200% higher in the year 2050 (IFRPI 2009). The target article emphasizes the same points about decreasing crop yields and a rise in costs and states that there will be a world-wide struggle just to have enough food to survive. It is also predicted that developing countries will suffer the most, since they mainly survive from growing their own crops and selling them to other countries to make money. Since the increase in climate temperatures will make it impossible for crop growth they will be left with little crops, and no way to earn an income. Some food sources will become extremely scarce, this will raise their price the most and it is predicted that the average middle class family will barely be able to afford food once crops become scarce (Arella 2009).

As temperature changes accelerate in the years to come, food sources will diminish and this will greatly impact the world’s population. Both the target article and the primary research article place a large emphasis on the danger and severity of the situation we will be faced with if the earth’s temperature consistently rises. Each article emphasizes that food sources should be our main concern considering all humans need food in order to survive. It is also stated that this food crisis could be bypassed if funding was used to help farmers prepare their crops for the climate change in order to help them survive. “The food crisis could be averted with 7 billion U.S dollars in investments in agriculture to help farmers adapt to climate change (IFPRI 2009). Since food sources are a great concern when it comes to the effects of climate change, the IFPRI feels that investments need to be made in order to further our knowledge about climate change and also to develop ways to reduce the effects climate change will have on agriculture. “Investments need to be made in agricultural research, without new technology and adjustments by farmers climate change will reduce crop yields by up to 50%” (IFPRI 2009). The target article agrees with the fact that more funding should go to farmers to help salvage their crops and maintain growth during climate change. Farmers will suffer greatly due to the rapid increase in temperatures as well as the increase in precipitation. This is due to the fact that farming depends greatly on weather conditions. If there is an abundance of precipitation and large fluctuations in weather, it makes it very difficult for crops to grow (Allera 2009).

The primary research article and the target article both present the same basic facts but with accentuation on different aspects. The primary research article focuses mainly on the straight facts of what will happen in terms of crop growth in the years to come. It exhibits clear and concise facts that can be drawn from their research and experiments. The study gives little to no opinion or bias on the facts it merely states conclusions drawn from the experiments. There is also a focus put on how our world can change the unfortunate effects that may occur if we do not make a change in our environment. The articles give ideas as to where we can make changes and ways to improve crop growth in order to strengthen our food sources now, so they will still be present in the future. The target article written in the Palestine Telegraph has a different focal point. It’s focus is mainly on how humans will be affected in the scenario where our food sources are limited. This article puts a large emphasis on how farmer’s themselves will be affected as well as people around the world. It fixates on how food prices will rise and the scarcity of certain foods, as well as how most families will be unable to afford enough food to survive. The target article focuses mainly on how humans will be affected by crop reductions while the primary research article focuses on how the crops and agriculture will be affected by climate change. In the end, both articles present strong points and strongly emphasize that climate change will greatly impact crops and agriculture in general. It is a damage that cannot be undone once it is reached. In order to prepare ourselves and prevent some of the outcomes, we need to start preparation for the changes that are to come in our climate today.

References
Allera, P. “New Study on Climate Change Predicts 25 Million Children will be Malnourished by 2050.” Palestine Telegraph. 6 October 2009. http://www.paltelegraph.com/economics/world-economics/2516-new-study-on-climate-change-predicts-25-million-children-will-be-malnourished-by-2050. Accessed 6 October 2009.
IFPRI “Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation.” International Food Policy Research Institute. July 2009. http://www.ifpri.org/publication/climate-change-impact-agriculture-and-costs-adaptation. Accessed 6 October 2009.

Climate Change will Destroy the economy of most of the countries in the World

2009-10-07T18:18:00.000-07:00

In the Green Peace blog “Climate Change will Destroy the economy of most of the countries in the World” (2 October 2009) the author Christian has brought up many significant claims concerning climate change that people do not normally seem primarily worried about. His thoughts appear relevant and worthwhile to acknowledge, mostly because he has based his hard facts on a solid primary source. He has obviously developed his ideas from a number of different places, however many of them originate from the interesting link; “80% of the economic costs of a changing climate will hit the poorer parts of the world”. The link is a “World Development Report 2010”, which illustrates a more detailed way to approach the crisis’s discussed in the blog, while providing more factual evidence.

Originally, I was drawn to read the secondary source because of its interesting title and graphical diagram. I quickly learned that the points were extremely interesting, yet fatal, some of which I didn’t even want to believe because they seemed so unfair and disastrous. However, the primary source supported Christians’ points but also showed criteria regarding how to save the world from the disaster of global warming and how it is destroying economies worldwide. Christian discussed far-fetched ways that the world could cope with climate change economical problems, such as; the rich countries donating upwards of 140 billion a year to the rest of the world in order to help them protect the societies against global warming impacts and allow them to develop in an environmentally-friendly way. Yet the primary source made everything sound very possible and strategic. I think the reason for the difference in plans is that the secondary source was made for the public view, its suppose to raise awareness in a slightly frightening way so that people eventually will be willing to except the primary source as a plan of action. The first step in solving any worldwide problems is through education, which would be why the secondary source is in blog form; the purpose of it is so that the public will read and hopefully comment with a further understanding and develop opinions.

Overall, the secondary source is much more opinionated as opposed to the primary source. It is one author who has developed his ideas and generated a blog as a way to rant to the public about what he believes to be important issues in the world. In comparison, the primary source was a developed plan lacking opinions but instead contains facts and possibilities. The primary source presents problems but lacks spirit, whereas the secondary source makes these world issues seem more problematic by emphasizing personal beliefs and values. The blog presents a voice giving off much more character than the primary source, which is a sensible, well thought out, realistic plan of action.

Overall both articles on climate change present strong reasoning and stand for an important topic. I think that it is extremely important to read the primary source as well because it creates a better understanding and provides evidence. Even though the two articles are presented very differently, they compliment and back each other up.

References:

Secondary Source:

Christian (2009) “Climate Change will Destroy the economy of most of the countries in the World”, 2 October 2009 http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/climate-change-will-destroy-economy-most-countries-world-20091002 Green Peace UK

Primary Source: Ngan,Nguyen Hong (2009) “Main Messages: World Development Report 2010” 11 September 2009

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTVIETNAM/Resources/MainMessages.pdf

NM:\EXTAFFAIR\Publications\WDR Series\WDR10\Main Messages.docx

The Two Views on Avian Mortality

2009-10-07T16:43:00.000-07:00

As the issue of climate change becomes increasingly pressing, scientists have been studying every facet of the system and determining its effects on different areas of life. Especially in recent years, they have had to examine various species in great detail, in order to predict their chances of survival as the environment changes.

The effects of climate change on avian mortality is a subject that has been studied in depth by scientists Andrew E. McKechnie and Blair O. Wolf. It appears that by the year 2080, global temperature increases will make it very difficult for avian species to meet their heightened water needs. This will, in turn, greatly decrease their chances of survival, particularly in small birds (McKechnie 2009). These findings were published in a primary source academic journal by the two scientists mentioned above, and were reported on in a secondary source article in UNM (University of New Mexico) Today, an online University journal.

It is important to look at the subtle differences between the two sources. Naturally, the original study is presented in much more detail. McKechnie and Wolf included all the most finite aspects of their experiment and presented them in a very matter-of-fact way. They prioritized the hard facts with numbers, dates and diagrams. This attention to detail helps to strengthens their claims, but limits them in their ability to use creative embellishments, as these might be seen as irrelevant. UNM's Senior Communications Representative, Steve Carr, takes a different approach in his secondary source article. He uses summary to cover many of the research paper's important aspects in a shorter piece of writing. Carr states that,

[t]hey also took into account important characteristics of birds such as body size, their use of thermally buffered microsites, like shade trees, limited drinking and foraging activity. Under these circumstances, they found, that small birds will be particularly vulnerable to such heat waves because their evaporative water loss rates and water requirements will be much higher in the 2080s than under current conditions. (Carr 2009)

The statistics in the primary source article that he is referring to are presented in a much different way. McKechnie and Wolf have used specific calculations and longer passages to prove their claims, while Carr is able to summarize their findings into clear and concise paragraphs. These differences probably have a lot to do with each article's target audience. The primary source will more likely be read by scientists and scholars who would appreciate the more complex writing style and would most likely be sceptical without the inclusion of specific numbers and diagrams. The secondary source article is more likely to be read out of interest, by the general public, some of whom might lose focus if forced to read through pages of statistics. This need to suit his writing style to his audience may have limited Carr in the amount of scientific data he was able to use.

Based on these ideas, both articles are credible and have their own merits. When crafting any piece of writing, it is important to keep your audience in mind. All of these authors have done this successfully through their writing styles, and have left fine examples for anyone writing either a primary source academic journal or a secondary source article.

References:

Carr, Steve. “Scientists Study Climate Change and its Role in Avian Mortality Events During Heat Waves.” UNM Today. 1 October, 2009. <http://www.unm.edu/~market/cgi-bin/archives/004342.html>. 4 October, 2009.

McKechnie, Andrew E., and Blair O. Wolf. “Climate change increases the likelihood of catastrophic avian mortality events during extreme heat waves.” Biology Letters. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0702. 30 September, 2009. Royal Society Publishing. <http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/09/25/rsbl.2009.0702.full.pdf>. 4 October, 2009.

Climate Change Conundrum

2009-10-01T20:21:00.001-07:00

The news article, “New study: Catastrophic climate change could happen within 50 years” (28 September 2009) was posted by the COP15 website, run by the United Nations. The author, Rie Jerichow reports that the average global temperature will increase 5-10 degrees as a direct result from greenhouse gas emissions. This is said to occur by 2060, which is earlier than researchers had anticipated. This information comes from a report that the British Meteorologist Office recently released.

When presenting the results that the British Met Office found, Jerichow excluded three important things: a) his acknowledgment to the population rejecting global warming; b) evidence from the report or other sources to support these claims; and c) a sufficient way to solve the problem of the rising average global temperatures. From the omission of these three points, his article and argument lacks total credibility and validity; his argument is inductive.

Jerichow states that the increase in temperature is a result from global warming. He does not, however, acknowledge the population that does not agree with global warming. There are many academics, politicians and people of the general public who refute global warming. By only acknowledging a small portion of the public, the author is limiting his target audience. It would have been more effective and credible in the academic world to address the views that refute global warming. According to the Craft of Research (Booth et al, 2005), “no research is complete without...acknowledgment/responses...to show that they relate to all the other parts of an argument” (113). The authors of this novel are cognizant of the importance to respond to other arguments. If Jerichow had done this, his article would have been stronger and more credible.

The author provides no evidence to justify his thoughts. Instead, he offers many scenarios that could potentially occur when 2060 rolls around, such as: increased drought, collapse of many ecosystems and the melting of the arctic. However, it is hard to evaluate the validity of these statements without proper evidence. Alternatively, Jerichow could have provided the audience with statistics, and reports from other recent findings that to show how the British Met Office came up with their results. From the lack of evidence to support the views of the British Met Office, Jerichow does not provide any plausible findings.

Lastly, Jerichow does not provide ways of reducing human green house gas emissions. Throughout the article, he mentions consequences that we will endure, such as increased drought, from a temperature increase. However, he fails to mention ways that the government and the public are trying to remedy the problem. For instance, the province of British Colombia has instituted a ‘Carbon Tax’ which helps reduce the amount green house gas emissions by taxing businesses and individuals (Dowdey, 2007). Due to the lack of solutions to help the changing climate, the information that the author provides the audience with is incomplete. He presents a problem and does not attempt to provide examples to solve such problems. It is important to educate the public of ways to reduce our ‘carbon footprint’ so we can create a proactive way to fix this problem. Therefore, the research that Jerichow has provided is incomplete.

Though the basis of Jerchow’s article is sound, it lacks credibility. It is undeniable that our climate is undergoing a change for the worse. However, when reporting a topic where the audience needs to be inspired to change, it is important to do three things: a) acknowledge the individuals who oppose your ideas, b) provide evidence to back up your claims and c) provide a conclusion where the audience knows how they can help or understand what the government is doing to help solve this issue. There are small contributions that we can make to help save our changing climate such as car pooling, taking public transit and reducing the amount of energy that we use. Those are extremely simple ways to reduce Green House Gas emissions. The time for stopping climate change is happening now and people need to hop on board!

References

Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The Craft of Research (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Dowdey, S. (2007, August 30). How Carbon Tax Works. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-tax.htm

Jerichow, R. (2009, September 28). New study: Catastrophic climate change could happen within 50 years. Retrieved September 28, 2009, from http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2216

Copenhagen: A Lost Cause?

2009-10-01T19:19:00.000-07:00

The world is watching, and waiting. With the 2009 Climate Conference looming this December in Copenhagen, Denmark, it is understandable that people are questioning if anything will get done, if there will be changes. In an article from The Australian, “Climate folly before failure” (October 1st 2009), writer Alan Wood states that there is no chance for Copenhagen to succeed. Wood addresses many relevant topics concerning the lack of support for anything resembling a renewed Kyoto Protocol, yet his arguments lack detail and decisiveness. He comes off as a pessimist with nothing better to do than scoff at the attempts being made to tackle climate change.

Initially Wood mentions the opinion of one unnamed European official who believes it naive to consider that target negotiations between countries are possible. This is a very weak point because we know such talks have already occurred in the Kyoto Protocol, and nations have already made commitments to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. It is in turn foolish of Wood to write that in today’s world, politicians and those with influence on our environmental future and the state of the earth do not care to continue such initiatives.

Continuing with the idea that a lack of action is imminent for the coming conference, Wood remarks that Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd is wrong in his desire to take initiative on climate change. How ironic it is that Alan Wood was stating that Copenhagen is doomed to fail, meanwhile he downplays the attempts of people that are are trying to make progress in the vast realm of environmental issues. In my opinion ,Wood’s entire case falls through due to this point.
Kevin Rudd voiced concerns about a European tax on Carbon should certain countries fail to do their part about climate change. Wood’s argument that such a carbon tax would only induce some kind of trade war is thin and not supported. The whole idea would have been much stronger if Wood had tied his opinion to a similar event in human history or statistics that proved the threat of a carbon tax would be harmful to the economy of any given country.

Something else that I find to be of little merit is a vague statement about water “problems” at the Murray-Darling Basin. No examples of current issues regarding the two rivers are given, and the few short sentences seem to briefly attack politicians, none of whom are mentioned which is a serious flaw. Furthermore Wood’s argument randomly proceeds to weak anecdotal evidence when he states, “So much for global warming.” The article did not begin on the premise that climate change, the correct term, is not happening, but on the idea that no one is interested in doing anything about it. Wood should not have made such a claim, it is distracting and takes away form the article.

In sum, Alan Wood’s arguments need more depth and sustenance to prove his point, he is never specific to the connection between his findings and a lack of support for Copenhagen. Well it may not have been disproved that Copenhagen will fail, the article did not go very far for convincing otherwise.

References

Alan Wood, “Climate folly before failure.” The Australian. October 1st 2009
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26147804-7583,00.html

Kyoto Protocol
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php - Latest Updates October 2009

Climate Change Effecting Potential Weed Growth

2009-10-01T19:17:00.000-07:00

The Science Daily makes a claim in its article "Climate Change May Wake up 'Sleeper' Weeds " (April 16, 2009) that there is a big potential for many Australian weed species lying low to spread rapidly with the growing effects of climate change. The argument states that new weeds could have drastic effects on the environment and crop production, however there is no direct evidence to support this claim. The inductive argument starts by stating that Australia pays large sums of money as it is in weed control, but those costs are only estimates to what they could be for they are based on active weeds only. It implies that if the 'sleeper' weeds were to sprout up and spread rapidly they could add to the problems Australia has and is experiencing in weed control.

The points used to back the claim are made by a CSIRO researcher Dr John Scott. In a conference, Dr Scott said that there are many weed species lying low but with the potential to take off and add to the economic and social burden of weed control (CSIRO 2009). There is no solid evidence that these new weeds introduced into the new Australian environment will have a drastic effect. Without solid evidence this argument is weak because their reasons are not backed with hard facts (Wayne 2008). Of course the weeds have potential to spread and I recognize the concern, but making an assumption that they will take off because other weeds have is a weak argument. One plant specifically under observation is the Karoo thorn, a small tree which is still in its early stages of growth in Australia. In Southern Africa, where it is native, the Karoo thorn is an especially hazardous weed which can drop up to 19,000 seeds a year (Faithfull 2004). There is no evidence provided as to the Karoo thorn's growth patterns or why it would be suited to Australia. There is little reason to believe therefore that this newly introduced weed will have the same effect in Australia. Dr John Scott speculates:

"One critical unknown is what these lurking weeds will do under climate change. Will their distributions change? Will they spread north or south, east or west, and will these movements change them into fullblown pest species." (CSIRO).

I think that there are more than one unknowns in this statement. The first, obviously, would be what will the weeds do under climate change. Will they even have an effect at all? Everything else in this article depends on that question. Another unknown would be how they will spread, in what direction, and what effect that might have on the environment. There is a great deal of uncertainty in that statement, yet later in the article a study on climate change's effects in the 2070's predicts that climate change will cause many of the sleeper weeds to shift south over 1000km. It continues to add that south east and south west regions of Australia are the most likely to be threatened by climate change. The study also showed that although current areas of weed infestation would decrease under climate change, the area with a high risk of spread would stay high (CSIRO). The study results would have been credible had Dr Scott, the researcher, not said that the critical unknown is what the weeds will do under climate change, which is precisely what the simulation was testing. Therefore, although the simulation explained some of the problem, it could not have been too accurate if they didn't know initially what weed growth might look like. Furthermore, the study suggested that there is a chance for weed spread to decrease.

The argument made is based too much on speculation and inductive knowledge. The points raised are worth concerning about, but the study is not concise enough to hold evidence to base an argument for the potential weed spread in Australia. The questions raised by Dr Scott could not be answered by the simulation of climate change in the future and I believe that these predictions cannot make a strong argument without further research and studies.

References

CSIRO Australia. "Climate Change May Wake Up 'Sleeper' Weeds." ScienceDaily 16 April 2009. . Accessed 1 October 2009.

Faithfull, Ian. "Karoo Thorn and Giraffe Thorn." Department of Primary Industries. February 2004. Web. 1 Oct 2009. http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nreninf.nsf/childdocs/-9B2A7AB4FD562D03CA256BC800058E91-FAE39D5678422E99CA256BC800062A59-663C5274163D2336CA256E8D001EFC6C-DBD0E30C66D8183FCA256E910000AB68?open.

Wayne, Booth, Colomb Gregory, and Williams Joseph (2008). The Craft of Research. Third. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Why Should India Take the Blame?

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/27/india-climate-change-emissions

In the article “India can't play the victim on climate change” (27 September 2009), author Kapil Komireddi makes a bold claim regarding India's role in the 2009 Copenhagen conference. Komireddi states:“The Copenhagen conference on climate change will most likely fail. And two parties will bear the principal responsibility for it's failure: the United States and India.” I don't believe he should be making such a blunt statement, particularly because the rest of his article gives somewhat shaky reasons and one-sided arguements to back up his claim.

One of Komireddi's problems is that he is comparing the developing nation of India to western countries like the United States. While it is true that India produces a high volume of carbon dioxide, much of its emissions are a result of development, while the U.S. creates a large portion of their greenhouse gases due to its citizens' lifestyle choices (Bajoria). Based on 2006 figures, India produces 1293.17 (1.19 per capita) million metric tonnes of CO₂, compared to the United States' figures of 5902.75 (19.78 per capita) million metric tonnes, and China's figures of 6017.69 (4.58 per capita) metric tonnes (Each). Although India cannot be compared accurately to developed countries like the United States, it still ranks far below China, another developing country. In general, the poorer countries create many of their environmental issues as a result of trying to strengthen their economies and improve the living conditions of their people.

Komireddi also suggests that India's rich should be taking responsibility for reducing the country's emissions. However, their monetary distribution is such that the top 10% of the population possesses more than half of India's wealth (Key). The other 90% is not in an optimal position to reduce their individual carbon footprints when they are living so far below the poverty line. With so many Indians living in such conditions, it is not reasonable for other countries to expect India to compromise on development in order to make bigger reductions. Only when the developed world can cut their emissions in a significant way, will Jairam Ramesh (Minister of State for Environment and Forests in India) convert his “domestic responsibility into international commitment” (Bajoria), meaning that he is giving priority to the welfare of India's citizens.

I believe that Kapil Komireddi is simplifying the issue at hand. There are many more factors involved in India's carbon emissions than he is accounting for, like the sources of their greenhouse gases and their current state of development. To say that they are “playing the victim” is neither fair nor accurate, and they cannot be blamed if the Copenhagen conference renders unsuccessful. Instead, they should be encouraged to make calculated strides towards a cleaner environment, while continuing to strengthen their economy is a more sustainable way.

References:

Bajoria, Jayshree. “India's Climate Change Forecast.” Council on Foreign Relations. 22 September, 2009. <http://www.cfr.org/publication/20248/>. 30 September, 2009.

“Each Country's Share of CO₂ Emissions.” Union of Concerned Scientists: Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions. 13 May, 2009. <http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html>. 28 September, 2009.

“Key facts: India rising.” BBC News. 22 January, 2007. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6257057.stm>. 30 September, 2009.

Komireddi, Kapil. “India can't play the victim on climate change.” 27 September, 2009. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/27/india-climate-change-emissions>. 28 September, 2009.

What is the Cost of Going Green?

2009-10-01T15:56:00.000-07:00

What is the cost of going green? In the blog posted by Paul Krugman on the Deccan Chronicle, (26 September 2009) Krugman denies the statement that going green will kill the economy and debates that “saving the planet won’t come free (although early stages of conservation actually might). But it won’t cost much either”. Krugman makes a number of allegations regarding the cost of conserving energy and searching for methods to slow down the rate at which our climate is changing. He opposes an argument made by Climate Progress stating that the estimated costs of “going green” keep increasing as the years go on. Krugman debates the statement and says it will not impact our economy very much, that we can afford to make our world a less wasteful place. He claims it is easy to help control climate change, and implies that if we all do our part we can slow down the changes that our climate faces. Krugman petitions:

“The claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax. The truth about the economics of climate change is that it’s relatively easy being green.” (Krugman 2009)

Krugman struggles throughout his blog to support his claims with any evidence at all, while trying to debate a controversial topic. The questions carried throughout the blog seem to be; is it really easy to slow down climate change? And will it impact our economy in such a way that threatens our lifestyle? Krugman does a good job of answering these questions with his personal opinion but lacks evidence to support his claims while still being convinced that his allegations are true. He claims that it will cost relatively nothing to go green and to stop our climate from changing at such a rapid rate; he also states that there will be no impact on our economy and taxes will not have to increase in order to make a difference. Lastly he claims that governments and people around the world in general are not taking climate change seriously and some believe it does not exist at all.

There are many discrepancies within Krugman’s arguments, taking the first one as an example that it will cost relatively nothing to go green and slow down climate change. The argument Krugman makes is a valid argument if backed up with evidence. There are many ways in which we can help the environment at no cost, things like recycling and composting in our homes, being less wasteful with food wrappers, using a reusable water bottle instead of individually wrapped water bottles and just reducing our carbon footprint in general. According to the BBC news article “the real cost of going green” Dr Boardman states that an average family of four have a carbon footprint of about 13.5 tonnes a year (Petrie 2007). If every family cut their carbon footprint for the year in half it would make an impact on the rate at which our climate is changing. For some families however, lowering their energy usage may be a high price to pay and an increase in taxes even by a small amount could greatly affect the economy (Petrie 2007). The question then becomes which is the higher price to pay, increase in taxes to create methods to slow climate change or continue the way we are living now and pay the price later on, when the damage is beyond repair.

Krugman presents a strong argument when stating that “going green” doesn’t have to be costly, however he should have used examples to back up his statement. As Stephanie Foster writes in her article “Is the Cost of Going Green Worth it?” there are many small things we can do to help change the environment, reduce our carbon footprints and in turn slow down climate change. She states that there are some ways to be more environmentally friendly that may be costly such as purchasing a hybrid car instead of a regular gas car, using solar panels and using natural cleaning products for cleaning instead of harsh chemicals. Other ways in which we can help are reducing our usage of aerosol sprays and cleaners, riding a bike and car pooling instead of driving a car. It may take longer to get to your destination but in the end it will greatly contribute to slowing down climate change. It would cost a great deal of money in order to make a greater impact such as switching to solar powered energy or reducing carbon emissions from businesses and factories . If our government did decide to make changes this could increase our taxes by up to 3%, which could be a detrimental change for people (Foster 2009). Krugman lacks evidence and does not debate both sides of his argument; he gives his opinion but does not support it. Had he backed up his argument with key facts and evidence it would have made for a much stronger argument.

The arguments Krugman presents in his blog would be justified if he presented strong evidence to back up his opinions. He lacks explanation of why he’s making these arguments and fails to debate the opposing side of his argument. When Krugman says that climate change will not kill our economy he makes a good point, it will not kill our economy. I do feel however, it will greatly impact our economy and the way we live our lives. Some of us live without truly realizing what is going on in the world around us, and the impact we make on our world. If we all just took the time to make a few simple changes in the way we live our lives it could greatly benefit our environment. We need to realize the dangers that will result if we do not make a change, this would encourage people to be more inclined to change their lifestyle. It will, without a doubt, be a challenge for everyone to change in a way that will benefit our environment but I feel that if everyone was to put forth an effort that we would be able to make a substantial change. Again the question becomes: “are we willing to pay now and slow down climate change or will we wait until the change in our climate is irreversible”.

References

Krugman, P. “Climate Change: It’s just easy being green.” Deccan Chronicle Online. 26 Sept 2009. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/dc-comment/climate-change-it%E2%80%99s-just-easy-being-green-972. Viewed 27 Sept 2009.

Foster, Stephanie "Is the Cost of Going Green Worth It?." 20 Aug. 2008. EzineArticles.com. 27 Sept 2009 <http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-the-Cost-of-Going-Green-Worth-It?&id=1427632>.

Petrie, E. “The Real Cost of Going Green.” BBC News Online. 27 Sept 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5017196.stm.

Climate Change and Finger Pointing

2009-10-01T07:54:00.000-07:00

Jeffery Simpson’s article, “Canada and Climate Change: Nothing gets done, fingers get pointed” (September 25, 2009), claims that Canada is not doing enough to prevent climate change and states that Stephen Harper is not stepping up to the plate. Through Harper’s inaction, “Canada is one of the worst emitters on the planet.” (Simpson, 2009).

Simpson offers many reasons why Harper is falling down, but does not really explore what Harper should be doing. Simpson lists these reasons as to why:

• He is skeptic about the science behind climate change
• Harper is afraid of the economic fall-out
• There is no political upside for his party

While some of Simpson’s arguments hold merit, problems can be found in some of his arguments. I can accept that Harper is skeptic about climate change, many people still are, but Harper has still made a commitment to lower Canada’s carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 and with his current policies that will not happen. In fact at the first 10 year review of the Kyoto accord, Canada’s emissions were up by 11.5%. Simpson then claims Harper is afraid of the economic fall-out. In these times of recession an economic fall-out is what Canada wants to avoid, and Harper does need to look out for all Canadian citizens. Lastly, Simpson claims there’s no political upside for the party. Sadly, this argument is true, with most of Harper’s support coming from provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan; Harper could be risking his office if he was too proactive in reducing carbon emissions.

I will be the first to admit that all the blame does not lie on the shoulders of our government and prime minister. We all know of things we could be doing to help reduce carbon emissions. This climate crisis we find ourselves in the middle of can be slowed without the interference of politicians at all. It is all our responsibility to prevent global warming and we all need to stop pointing fingers. With all the finger pointing that is going on, it is hard to get anything done.

Simpson has done his research in writing this article and while I may not agree with all his claims, he does bring up many valid points. However, I am disappointed that he accuses Canada of pointing fingers at other countries and not doing anything ourselves, but does not make any suggestions as to what we can do to help prevent climate change. He is pointing fingers, which leads me to think he is a bit of a hypocrite and makes me rethink why he is writing this article. At the end of the day Harper is a politician, not an environmental activist, and he will do what is best for his career. We should all know this, including Simpson, so the more time I spend analyzing this article, the more I have to wonder if it is just a smear campaign. Simpson seems preoccupied with why nothing is getting done instead of the more
important question of what we should be doing.

References

Simpson, Jeffery. “Canada and climate change: Nothing gets done, fingers get pointed.” Globe and Mail, 25 Sept 2009. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/canada-and-climate-change-nothing-gets-done-fingers-get-pointed/article1300481/. Accessed 27 Sept 2009

Worldwatch Institute. “GLOBAL WAR ON GLOBAL WARMING HEATS UP.” Worldwatch Institute, 1 Aug 2002. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1733. Accessed 27 Sept 2009