Response to Robert Henson and Elizabeth Kolbert Readings
When I first delved into the readings for this week, the topic revolving around climate change, I was immediately struck by the poignant title of Kolbert’s book – Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change. Climate change is just that; a catastrophe. Societies and scientists alike have known about it for decades and have been attempting to implement changes for decades, yet the trend hasn’t caught on. People are apathetic. I firmly believe that years down the road, when retrospectively analyzing the problem, the question imposed will not be “Why did they let that happen?”, but rather “Why did they continue to let that happen?”
In Henson’s excerpt, the main discussion relates back to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Despite a slipping in temperature during the 1970s which led to hype about a global cool-down (and also again surfaced during the Cold War in the early 1980s), the fact of the matter is that the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere continue to lead to warmer temperatures. As Henson states, the “turning point” for the recognition of global warming was the surprising discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985 followed by the sizzling summer of 1988 which was laden with droughts, fires, and record high temperatures. Just one year later, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change was established – a stepping stone on the path to the Kyoto Protocol which was “the world’s first attempt to come to grips with greenhouse-gas emissions”. Yet, despite the evidence, a prevalent theme in relation to climate change is uncertainty and skepticism. Many scientists accuse such skeptics of “cherry-picking,” or essentially conducting selection bias in the case studies they use to support their claims. These skeptics gain high-profile attention mainly due to public-relations “facilitated by conservative think tanks” and wield a large influence over the public who, in the eyes of many scientists, should be allowed to form their own opinions based on the objective facts.
Kolbert presents a more hands-on perspective regarding climate change, notably due to her extensive research and traveling related to the field. In reflecting on noteworthy scientists (such as John Tyndall who discovered the greenhouse effect), Charles David Keeling had possibly the greatest influence. Taking Svante Arrhenius’ work with calculating the effects on earth’s temperature due to changes in carbon dioxide emissions one step further, Keeling discovered a more precise method of measuring CO2. The result was “The Keeling Curve” which illustrated how levels of carbon dioxide had been rising since the 1950s. Kolbert later remarks that the largest single source of carbon emissions in the United states is electricity production (39%) followed by transportation (34%) and that a staggering 70% of our electricity is generated by fossil fuels. While there are several technological innovations available that could be implemented such as wind mills or photovoltaic (solar powered) energy, these efforts would not generate sufficient energy on their own and would face several social and technological obstacles. Presently, U.S. emissions are 20% higher than they were in 1990, despite the Bush administration’s goals of decreasing carbon emissions by 2000.
After reading these passages, I immediately felt the urge to go around and turn off any extra lights that weren’t needed and unplug devices that weren’t currently in use. Climate change is a real issue. While people may be skeptical to its imminence, it is nevertheless prevalent in society. Between the two articles, I felt that Henson’s passage was more informative whereas Kolbert’s work was perhaps more investigative. Yet what truly struck me from Kolbert’s writing and put climate change into a frightening perspective was the fact that carbon dioxide emissions remain in the atmosphere for 100 years before they deteriorate. When put into context, this value blatantly screams that your emissions today, yesterday, and tomorrow will have a longer lasting impact on earth than the length of one’s own life. I believe that this “shock value” could have a much stronger impact on people than news stories and scientific data alone. It is also interesting to come to terms with the fact that mankind’s own technological progress is negatively impacting our natural home – our only home, the earth. Without a healthy earth, there is no hope for anything else. That being said, is man humble enough to take a step back into the past, or will we be able to safely step forward into a greener future?
FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
- Why are people so apathetic to climate change?
- What level of severity must this issue reach before it becomes a worldwide, accepted concern?
- What additional steps can be taken now in order to secure a more sustainable future?