Henson and Kolbert
Henson’s reading focused on the history of climate change in the media, the—almost always muddled—political involvement, and how that relates to the public opinion. He pays special attention to the objections that skeptic raise. I found that the many small articles about specific areas related to climate change were very helpful in getting a larger picture. He includes such things as the representation of climate change personnel in weather shows, the soon-to-be battle over the arctic, and the connection between the green movement and the church. While reading Henson’s article, the whole time I was thinking about how I was supposed to know whether the information that he was presenting was true. I am sure that if I looked I could find a similar article that just as passionately disputed climate change—or at very least the reasons behind it. And while this is still a point of contention for me, I was extremely relieved to see that Henson supplied a wealth of sources so readers could check for themselves. His point about the overrepresentation of skeptical viewpoints was very interesting to me. I have been taught to always investigate each side of an argument with equal fervor, but I can see how equal time given to a widely held belief and a tiny minority can cause a problem. While it seems to be fair it really skewers the information.
Chapter two from Kolbert focuses on the history of climate detection, recording, and science. I am a bit ashamed that climate change is such a hot topic now (and in the past), but I had never heard of Tyndall, Arrhenius, or Keeling before this reading. The thing that most surprised me was the history of this science. If I had been asked when I though climate change science started, I probably would have said the early seventies. The closing statement in chapter two really interests me. It says that at current trends we will reach a CO2 parts-per-million value of 500 almost 2800 years before Arrhenius predicted. The first thing that came to my mind was how wrong we could potentially be about the predictions made today, and it could possible be even closer than 2050.
Chapter three is largely about the field experience of the reporter in Iceland and Greenland. I think the main point of this chapter is to give the reader some real life evidence of dramatic change in the world. What really got me was the reporter’s double take at the glacier in Iceland, solely because she realized that she might not get a chance to see it again at this size ever again.
Chapter seven is largely about solutions. Most of these solutions come from Robert Socolow. He has devised a series of actions (or wedges) that, if implemented, would prevent a billion metric tons of CO2 from being emitted by 2054 for each wedge that was successful. One of the most interesting thing for me was what Socolow said when asked of his plans were practical, and that was that nothing is ever “practical” until the public views it as important enough to be practical. His brilliant analogy was slavery and child labor. Looking from an economic standpoint, it was very foolish to give up slavery—you save a lot of money when you have an entire workforce that you don’t have to pay. Of course, saying that makes me feel adequately icky, because slavery is a matter of human rights. But climate change is, although maybe not as directly as slavery, also a matter of human rights. The Inuit have a specific way of life that they have had for generations and my (and my country’s) decision to continue my destructive tendencies will force them to change the way they live. Do I have the right to assert my way of life on every one else in the world? Until we have a total paradigm shift it seems the answer to that is yes.
Chapter eight was about Kyoto Protocol and the United States refusal to accept the limitations imposed by it. After all of the other chapters this one felt a little like old news. “Yup—the US is hindering the widespread acceptance of climate change as a legitimate concern—what’s new.”
Three Questions:
- What could be considered fair for Americans to give up in order to reach a level equal to other countries?
- What is it going to take to enforce laws like those of the Kyoto Protocol in the US? Grassroots groups? Proletarian revolt? (That one was a joke——kind of.)
- Are the people who are skewering the view in favor of skepticism breaking a moral code? Or, Are these people “bad” because of what they are doing?