The US-China Climate Pledge – Blog Post 24 - Make-Up 3

This week I read two articles and watched a video on the US-China climate pledge that occurred about a month ago.  The first article, titled “Climate Action Pledged by US and China, but What About India?” discussed some of the details of the pledge.  It basically stated that the two biggest carbon polluters in the world, China and the United States, plan on cutting their carbon dioxide emissions in the next few decades.  The United States said that by 2025, they will reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under 2005 levels by 26% or more, while China said it will peak its carbon dioxide emissions by 2029.  This is a huge pledge, especially because China and the United States currently produce about a third of the carbon dioxide emitted per year globally.  India, unfortunately, did not say that they could make similar pledges because they are focusing right now on providing electricity and better homes to their rapidly growing population, although they would try to use renewable energy as much as possible.

            The second article I read was titled “US-China Climate Deal: Can Obama Make Good on His Promise? (+video).”  This article in my opinion was much more important than the first.  Lots of politicians promise things.  Does President Obama have the power to get it done, and does he truly want to get it done?  This article said that President Obama could reach this target using executive actions only, especially if he used these executive actions to create new laws and regulations.  These executive actions can be reversed with lawsuits, but it would be legally and politically difficult.  The Union of Concerned Scientists recommended putting regulations on how much carbon dioxide coal power plants can emit and increasing the standards on motor transport efficiency. 

            Overall, this is great progress!  Other countries may follow suit and begin to battle climate change as well now that the United States and China have decided to move forward.  The real question is, will the United States actually do anything to follow up on this pledge?  President Obama sounded like he was planning on it in his speech on the executive action, stating that climate change cannot wait for the partisan politics to sort things out.  It sounds like he may be ready to make some more executive actions, even if they are battled in court, in order to do something about the problem.  The second question would be, what exactly will he do?  Although I like the recommendations from the Union of Concerned Scientists, I hope that any executive action made helps to build a green economy.  The increased regulation on coal power plant emissions will help the environment, but may raise the cost of fuel.  A tax on carbon emissions that gives money back to the people will help the people pay for these raising coal prices.  Does an executive power allow President Obama to create a tax, or just regulations?  This is something that I will have to look into.  Regardless, my last question is possibly the most important.  Will President Obama’s climate-related executive actions actually stand up and work?  Only time will tell.

           

Works Cited

Douglass, Elizabeth. "Climate Action Pledged by U.S and China, but What About India?" Inside Climate News.org. N.p., 13 Nov. 2014. Web. 20 Dec. 2014. <http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/20141113/climate-action-pledged-us-and-china-what-about-india>.

Gass, Henry. "US-China Climate Deal: Can Obama Make Good on His Promise? (+video)." The Christian Science Monitor.com. N.p., 12 Nov. 2014. Web. 20 Dec. 2014. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2014/1112/US-China-climate-deal-Can-Obama-make-good-on-his-promise-video>.

Investing in Climate Change Solutions – Blog Post 23 - Make-Up 2

A lot of my blogs discuss two possible solutions to mitigating climate change.  One is trying to convince the government to do something serious about the problem.  The other is trying to create an environmental movement, starting from a local movement that focuses on helping both the environment and local communities.  There is a third option though, and this option is sort-of in between the other two options.  This option is to make climate change mitigation look like an investment and to prod current companies to invest in helping to make these changes.  This option works with already established, bigger companies who can make a large impact if they decide to invest. 

            This week I read an article titled “Only $1 Trillion: An Annual Investment Goal Puts Climate Solutions Within Reach.”  It was about how the International Energy Agency (IEA) set a number of about $1 trillion that needs to be spent each year for the next thirty-six years to avoid warming the planet over two degrees Celsius.  Ceres, a nonprofit group, is running a campaign titled the “Clean Trillion” campaign, which is trying to work with companies and the government to fund this project.  Companies such as Toyota, General Motors, General Mills, and Nike have all begun to show interest in alternative energies and energy efficiency, realizing that fossil fuel prices could rise and climate change could damage their businesses.  Additionally, the article argues that there is plenty of capital for this $1 trillion mark.  The global bond market has $100 trillion, which can supply some of this money.  Green bonds are especially good because they can be payed off over time, which is what many energy investments do.  Corporations and insurance companies are other potential targets.

            The thing that makes this difficult is that climate change has always been viewed as a cost, so viewing it as an investment may take some convincing for many people, businesses, and governments.  Lack of government commitment in the United States also is making it less likely that businesses will invest because they want assurance that our country is moving towards an alternative energy future before they invest. 

            Overall, targeting large businesses with proposals of energy efficiency and renewable energies seems worthwhile because it helps the businesses to make more money, which is their main objective.  Countless energy efficiency projects are safe investments with high returns, as shown by the popularity of the Green Revolving Funds that are evolving on college campuses across the country.  Renewable energy sources many times have a lower payback period, but are also stable investments that can get better rates than other economic investments.  This option can change the world a great deal because these big companies can make big changes.  Once other companies realize the economic benefits of these actions, other companies are likely to follow suit.  When companies follow this, there is more of a chance that the United States government will follow through as well because it will have more support to do so.  That would make the first option on my list a lot more viable. 

            The option of making climate change an investment possibly does have some weaknesses though.  First of all, this plan does not get the rest of the United States’ population involved very much.  The idea of community and strengthening the environmental movement is lacking here, so people across the country may still continue to live their lives in the same ways as before.  In addition, trying to fix climate change is not always an investment.  Sure, energy efficiency and renewable energy are investments that pay themselves back over time.  Many changes that are needed for climate change to be prevented, such as carbon capture and sequestration technologies, are money intensive and probably do not pay much money back to the investing company.  Do they help fight climate change?  I would say yeah.  Does this help the globe economically?   I would say yeah.  But does this help the investing company?  I would say no.  This third option is great and could yield some really positive impacts, but it can’t do everything.  All three options need to be done to some degree in order to fully prevent drastic climate change.

Works Cited

Douglass, Elizabeth. "Only $1 Trillion: Annual Investment Goal Puts Climate Solutions Within Reach." Inside Climate News.org. N.p., 15 Sept. 2014. Web. 19 Dec. 2014. <http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140915/only-1-trillion-annual-investment-goal-puts-climate-solutions-within-reach>.

Environmental Innovation: Getting the People Involved – Blog Post 22 - Make-Up 1

This week I discovered two articles that I found interesting, both about environmental innovations.  Each article takes a different approach to greening the world.  The first article, titled “Totally Transparent Solar Cells Could Turn Our Windows Into Solar Panels,” is about a new technology that is being developed at Michigan State University.  This technology is a film that goes over windows or other surfaces and absorbs infrared radiation and then refracts it to the sides of the glass, where solar cells can convert it into electricity.  It is an improvement on a film that absorbs and reflects infrared radiation in order to save money on cooling and heating buildings.  Richard Lunt, one of the professors working on the project, said, “Ultimately, we want to make solar harvesting surfaces that you do not even know are there.”  Lunt is looking at society today and trying to figure out where he can make the most improvements.  He is now starting a company to help sell his products to help better the world.  As great as this idea is, the only way people can respond to it is really with green consumerism.  Can the process of creating new green technologies be done better?

The second article I read, titled “NASA Wants You to Come Up with the Best Wave Energy Technology,” takes a pretty good shot at answering this question.  This article was basically about how NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE) have made a computational tool for modeling wave energy technology available online to the public.  The wave energy computational technology, called the Wave Energy Converter Simulator or WEC-Sim, can let a person design a new wave energy technology from scratch or improve an already made model.  WEC-Sim then allows a person to see how much energy a certain design can capture.  The idea of making WEC-Sim available to everyone, from garage inventors to universities, is a big deal in my eyes.

             I absolutely love this idea.  This idea provides the tools necessary to design a WEC to the general population.  It provides a space for people to work off of each other’s idea, collaborate, and come up with the best possible innovation.  Additionally, it can get people interested and excited about sustainability and alternative energy technology.  I would love to see more innovations made in a similar way.  There are two major questions that I have in regards to this computational tool.  If a design is chosen to be made, what will the designer get?  Will the designer get recognition or compensation?  Second, how will NASA and the DOE search through all of the innovations and find the best ones?  There will most likely be tons of bad ones, so this is probably one of the biggest problems with the process.  It may be less efficient when the group gets too big. 

Regardless, this idea is a great one and a revolutionary one.  A place or forum where inventors can work on each other’s ideas to make the best product for the good of society not only increases the worth of the final product but makes people feel involved in the process and in the environmental movement.  The first article describes a great environmental innovation that was designed in a university setting, where people outside of the university can only really interact with it through green consumerism.  The second article describes an environmental innovation that uses the minds of as many Americans and universities that feel like participating.  Although results do come from the first idea and it may be more efficient, a better product may come out of doing work in the way that the second idea was done.  In addition, the second way strengthens people’s activity in the environmental movement.  Which way is better? 

           

           

Works Cited

Schiller, Ben. "Totally Transparent Solar Cells Could Turn Our Windows Into Solar Panels." Fastcoexist.com. N.p., 12 Sept. 2014. Web. 19 Dec. 2014. <http://www.fastcoexist.com/3034696/totally-transparent-solar-cells-could-turn-our-windows-into-solar-panels>.

Treacy, Megan. "NASA Wants You to Come Up With the Best Wave Energy Technology." Care2.com. N.p., 8 Sept. 2014. Web. 19 Dec. 2014. <http://www.care2.com/causes/nasa-wants-you-to-come-up-with-the-best-wave-energy-technology.html>.

  

Adapting to Climate Change – Blog Post 21 - Nov 14

Most of the blog posts that I have written have described how to mitigate climate change, with the most important points revolving around environmental education, creating a sustainable culture throughout society, and pushing for greenhouse gas reductions in an environmental movement.  Mitigating climate change is only half of the problem.  Climate change is already occurring and is going to continue to worsen, even if we stop polluting today.  The other half of the climate change problem is how we are going to adapt.

            This problem is first brought up in the article “The Darkening Sea: What Carbon Emissions Are Doing to the Ocean.”  In this article, it was mentioned that climate change will continue and the ocean will continue to acidify even if the production of greenhouse gases stopped today because the ocean is not in equilibrium with the air in regards to carbon dioxide.  As a result, a percentage of the carbon dioxide that we have emitted will end up diffusing into the ocean until that equilibrium is reached.  The other upsetting point in this article was made by Ken Caldeira, who stated that under his climate models, whether we cut emissions or don’t, the ocean is predicted to decrease in pH another 0.2 units and aragonite will end up being unsaturated at the poles by the end of the century.  Although some models predict less ocean acidification than others, depending on how many fossil fuels we burn, there will still be some negative outcomes that we will have to adapt to.

            So how do we adapt?  Sea level rise will displace millions of people, ocean acidification may decrease the amount of life in the oceans, changing water patterns will make water a less common resource, and stronger storms will hurt our communities and farmlands.  The first question is, who is the “we”?  Americans are privileged, and many of them have the financial ability to avoid or deal with climate change.  No more water in your area?  Pay to have your water imported.  Sea level rise?  Maybe sell your home.  It is not this easy for everyone in America, but Americans will be able to adapt much easier than those in developing countries.  In addition, the government can provide aid to people who need it due to a catastrophe.  

            What about the developing countries in the world?  In the last article of the book, a story about the devastating floods that have been hitting the countryside in Nepal was discussed.  These Nepalese villages used to only have a small flood every decade, but they have had two major floods in the last few years.  Human ingenuity can help the people here have shelter, as well as water and food.  Drip irrigation can help these people to save water.  Growing new flood-resistant crops can help them to feed themselves.  Minimizing deforestation can help to prevent floods and landslides, or to at least minimize their effects so that they can protect their homes.  Moving uphill or building a dam could help, but those things cost money and may require fundraising of some sort, which probably will not come.  The lack of money makes these adaptations harder, but they must be made in order for populations affected by climate change to survive. 

            In conclusion, as is made clear in the first article, climate change is and will continue to occur, so climate change adaptation is becoming increasingly important.  Developed countries have money and a more stable government who can provide aid to those who are hurt by climate change.  Developing countries need to think ahead more, because if a disaster strikes, no one may be there to bail them out.  

Farming and Its Impact on Climate and Society – Blog Post 20 - Nov 11

Farming is obviously incredibly important.  How people get their food, what they are eating, and where it comes from impacts people’s health and the climate for many reasons.  There are two main types of farming, and it is highly debated which one is the best.  Organic and local farming focuses on biodiversity, using little to no chemicals, and using as little water as possible.  Conventional or industrial farming focuses more on monocultures, high technology like genetically modified organisms, and producing as much of a certain crop as possible.  Both types of farming have some positives, with the organic and local farming having most of them.

            This week I read Dr. Vandana Shiva’s article “Climate Change and Agriculture” and reflected on how she thought that agriculture should be done.  Shiva was a proponent of local farming and self-sufficiency.  She really made a powerful case for organic and local farming.  First of all, it does not use many fossil fuels so it will not increase global warming.  Second, it leads to local jobs with decent wages.  Third, it uses plants that have been cross bred for thousands of years and already have desirable traits for the specific climate that a person is growing in.  If the climate changes, they can just grow a different crop that adapted to the new climate already.  Fourth, local farming increases food security because the food does not need to travel from far away to get to a destination.  Finally, the biodiversity of these small farms can hold more water and can adapt to climate change better than a monoculture.  All of these points are pretty valid.  Additionally, local farming uses a lot less chemicals than industrial farming, which means that people are consuming less carcinogens and neurotoxins.  This helps people live better lives, be more productive in work, and spend less money on medical expenses.

            Shiva does a great job selling the local farming, but I think that she discourages genetically-modified products too much.  She really attacks genetic engineers, for their claims to be able to find a single gene for drought-resistance to their incredibly expensive seeds.  Although the seeds may be too expensive and although there is a lot of educated guesses involved in finding a particular gene of interest, genetic engineering should not be out of the question for these reasons.  Genetic engineering has the possibility to do great things.  It has the ability to make fish and other animals grow faster, which is very useful to helping to feed the human population.  Maybe genetic engineering could be coupled with local farming if the seed prices decreased or if the product provided a much better yield.  A better yield does not mean much to me though if the means to getting there includes creating pesticide-resistant genetically-modified organisms and dousing our food with chemicals.  Just as any technology, genetic engineering needs to be more socially responsible in its innovations.  A drought-resistant plant sounds very useful, or a plant that grows twice as fast.  I agree that how genetic engineering has been used in farming today is not good by any means, but it should not be shunned as an industry as a result.  

            Overall, it is very important to do farming correctly.  Conventional farming can lead to water pollution and eutrophication downstream, poisoning our food and water, using excessive fossil fuels for the farming and the transport of goods, and taking advantage of the farmer.  Organic and local farming can solve a lot of those problems, but may not provide enough food to feed the human population.  I think that the best goal would be to try to integrate farming into local communities again to help make them self-sufficient and food secure.  Technological advancements like genetically-modified foods should be encouraged if they are safe because increasing food productivity is always a goal, unless it endangers people’s health and livelihood.  Conventional farming should be phased out over time as much as possible, for its health impacts and lack of food security. 

Christianity and Climate Change: An Unlikely Combination – Blog Post 19 - Nov 7

This week I read two more sections of The Global Warming Reader.  Both sections were about the links between Christianity and climate change.  In many of the part articles I have read, the claim had been made that Christians do not care about climate change or other environmental problems and their values may have led to much of the environmental degradation of the past.  The paragraph written before the article “Climate Change: An Evangelist Call to Action” mentioned this, saying that ecology was considered similar to paganism by the evangelicals for a period of time.  Yet, the two articles I read this week stated almost the opposite of that point.

            The first article was a speech given by Sally Bingham.  This speech focused on the point that the world is God’s creation, so destroying it is an insult to him.  Additionally, it discusses the idea that climate change is a justice problem because the richer countries are creating the problem and the poorer countries are and will continue to have the biggest challenges as a result of it.  The second article, which was mentioned earlier, discusses similar feelings towards climate change and emphasizes the moral responsibility that Christians have to loving their neighbors and to being good stewards of the Earth.

            Religion is all about interpretation.  As the second article stated, Evangelical leaders believe that it is their responsibility to morally lead the nation, using the bible to guide them.  Many evangelicals have realized the importance of solving environmental problems, including climate change.  Environmental problems have not changed, but the interpretation of environmentalists from paganists to humanitarians has changed.  Sally Bingham brings up the clarification of the word dominion in her speech.  She makes it clear that dominion does not mean domination.  Instead, dominion is like how a mother treats her kids, who she has dominion over.  She treats them with love and compassion, which is how the Earth should be treated.  This comparison or re-clarification is a re-interpretation of the bible, which supports an environmental cause.

            Again, this switch from Christians not supporting environmental causes to supporting environmental causes relies on the connection being made between environmental science and human interests.  I think that the evangelicals began caring about climate change when they began to understand how climate change would affect people negatively, especially the poor.  Helping the poor and loving your neighbors are two huge parts of Christianity, which Christians already take a part in.  Since climate change has now fallen under the list of things that Christians care about, it has changed their opinions on climate change. 

            I think that evangelical Christians caring about the environment is an absolutely huge step forward for the climate change movement.  First of all, there are millions of Christians around the world, which makes it huge if this becomes a major issue for them.  Second, the Christian community is strong already so it does not need to be built in a lot of the world.  There is already a place where people meet and community service is common in many churches.  Discussions and helping the community are a big part of getting people involved and leading a successful movement, as shown in SCOPE.  Third, Christians now have a moral obligation to actually do something about the problem, giving them the emotions to push forward and actually work for a solution to the problem. 

Climate Debt: A Highly Debated Idea – Blog Post 18 - Nov 4

This week I read Naomi Klein’s article “Climate Rage” and found it incredibly interesting.  This article mainly discusses climate debt.  Climate debt is the idea that developed countries should pay the developing countries money for the damage that has been done to them due to climate change.  Justin Lin of the World Bank estimated that even though developing nations only contribute about a third of the total greenhouse gas emissions leading to climate change, about eighty percent of climate change-related damage will fall on their shoulders.  In addition, climate debt is the money that developing countries would like from the developed countries so that they can develop sustainably.  Not using fossil fuels to save the environment would impede developing nations’ economic growth, which is unfair because the developed nations got to use them during their development. 

            The climate debt idea is obviously an area of debate.  People used to think that everyone should work together on fixing climate change, but the climate debt idea puts most of the blame and responsibility on the developed nations.  Obviously, many developed nations do not want to just give money to another country, especially in the range of billions of dollars.  America, which has not really stepped up to help internationally or domestically and does not appreciate the scientific consensus of climate change in Congress, will probably be completely against it.  The European Union, as discussed in the article, probably will be a little more compromising. 

            I think that the idea of climate debt has two parts, one of which should be compensated for.  The first part of climate debt is the developed nations paying for the climate change damage done to the developing countries.  Sharon Looremeta, a spokesperson of some Kenyan tribes, claims that the drought in Africa is killing off the cattle and that these tribes should get reparations.  Since the world knows who pollutes what amount, the highest polluters should help to pay the most.  I disagree with this argument.  As discussed in the science section of the book, no specific event can be linked to climate change.  As a result of this, no specific event should really have to be payed for by the developed nations.  Every environmental event could be pushed on the developed countries if this were to happen, so this is not a fair way of handling the situation.

            On the other hand, developed nations paying to help developing nations grow in a sustainable fashion does seem to make sense.  Developed nations used the cheap, high energy density fossil fuels to become developed.  It is only fair that the currently developing nations get to use that same advantage in their own development, especially if we are still using those fuel sources!  As a result, the developed nations paying to help places develop sustainably make sense, both internationally with the developing nations and domestically in our own country.  The question is, will anybody do it?

            The European Union surprised me and said that they would consider giving $22 billion a year to pay their climate debt.  This isn’t even close to the estimated hundreds of billions that would be needed to help the developing nations develop sustainably and deal with climate change, but it is a start.  Regardless, climate debt is a highly debated idea that the developed nations will not necessarily like.  The developing countries pushing for this aid could lead to the countries getting some aid, which would help the climate change fight.  On the contrary, it could lead to developed countries getting frustrated and not helping fight climate change globally at all, which could happen with the United States.