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. 

The Most Effective Environmental Movement – Blog Post 17 - Oct 31

Through the evolution of my blogs and studies, it has become increasingly clear that in order for America to become more sustainable and environmentally-friendly, America needs a movement.  America needs a big change to happen to help save the environment that we have been rapidly degrading, and a large environmental movement is the only way that it is going to happen on a big enough scale to make an impact.  But what makes a movement successful?  How would members of this movement organize in the most effective way?
            This week I read three different articles in The Global Warming Reader, each with a different perspective on this question.  One of the articles, which was mentioned in a past blog post, is written by Bill McKibben and is titled “This is Fucked Up.”  In this article, McKibben insists that three steps need to be taken to help prevent climate change.  The first is that people need to begin talking about climate change itself, not the other more immediate issues around it like oil security.  McKibben argues that people need to realize that the planet is warming and that we need to stop it.  His second step is for people to fight for what we need and compromise later if need be.  The final step is to actually get in the streets and start a movement.  McKibben has many good steps here, especially with the second one.  In social movements in American history, people fought for their rights.  They did not compromise, except when they had to, and continued to fight until they got what they wanted.  Today’s environmentalists in Congress compromise relentlessly until the bill is only marginally helpful environmentally.  The third step is equally as strong because it emphasizes the fact that people need to get out into the streets and show their support.  This is needed to fight lobbyism; it is the only way that Congress will do something about this problem.

            McKibben’s first point is debatable.  Although it is imperative to educate people on the facts of climate change, not linking it to immediate interests of people will weaken the movement.  People need that emotional appeal to care enough to support a movement; otherwise, they will invest their limited free time elsewhere.  A purely environmentalist cause will not attract many dedicated supporters.  People need to understand that everything is connected to the environment and that we rely on it.  The immediate interests of people, such as employment and community involvement, are the things that will bring people together under one cause.  It is what will make a movement strong, and it will make people passionate. 

            The link between green jobs, community, and climate change has been made in some areas, such as in Los Angeles.  As discussed in “The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems,” the Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education (SCOPE) works in Los Angeles to increase the energy efficiency of buildings.  These projects do not only help the environment but also provide clean, well-paying maintenance and construction jobs while improving the community.  The group integrates all of these components into one group, which is making such an impact on Los Angeles that the city has decided to retrofit about one-hundred buildings owned by the city.  This type of movement obviously is impacting Los Angeles greatly, in a very positive way, but as McKibben as mentioned in his second two steps, the movement now needs to be increased and continue to push for and demand what it needs to help save the environment.  In other words, this trend needs to get bigger.

            The final author, Mike Tidwell, describes the need for an environmental movement today, but does not do a very good job in doing so.  Although he calls for people to start a big movement, he strongly discourages the green consumerism that many Americans have adopted.  Tidwell says that green consumerism is really a waste of time and that it is counterproductive to the goal of saving the environment.  Although it is true that a bigger movement is needed and that people could be spending their time better, I think green consumerism is a good start.  Green consumerism is a cultural change where people may actually begin caring about the impacts that they have on the environment.  The more they care and the more this culture spreads, the easier it may be to upscale this movement and push for what we need.  In addition, a green culture could lead to more of a community feel around environmental science.  Finally, the green consumerism that Tidwell says can wait could teach a person the skills needed to start doing helpful jobs in a neighboring community, such as retrofitting a building.  He is right in the fact that people need to get out and begin a movement, and he is right to point out that green consumerism will not solve the problem.  On the other hand, I think that it is a good start to lead to a group like SCOPE forming in a community, which is why I think green consumerism should not be denounced. 

Acquiring The Most Reliable Information – Blog Post 16 - Oct 28

This week I read two parts of The Global Warming Reader.  Both of these readings were pulled from climate change deniers, and more importantly, from people who tried to spread the denial to other people.  The first article was a speech written by James M. Inhofe to the United States Senate.  This speech used science and scientists to show that there is no scientific consensus on climate change and that if the climate did warm up, it would be good for humans.  The second article was from the book State of Fear, in which Michael Crichton tells a story of environmentalists lying about climate change for publicity and money.  Both of these excerpts are very convincing.  Inhofe uses scientific “facts” to support his claims, which sound convincing even to me at first because experiments were done to support the other side of the debate.  Crichton uses a more emotional, story-like approach, which may not convince people that environmentalists are distrustful to start but may get them thinking that way subconsciously. 

            Acquiring good information is an incredibly important life skill.  How a person acquires their information and what they choose to believe dictates how they live their lives.  People say that college is all about learning how to learn.  Learning some things can be very straightforward because there is no controversy or debate on what it is or how it may be done.  But when a person is confronted with two sources with completely different claims, how does one determine which is correct and form an opinion on the subject? 

            This is an incredibly important question for environmentalists in general to answer because many environmental topics are controversial, deal with society and their views, and are made more confusing by industrial campaigns.  This confusion can lead to people not supporting an environmental cause, or even being avidly against it. 

            I think overall, people do not have time in America to read into depth on different subjects.  Most Americans probably believe some form of the media, and are especially influenced the first time that they hear about a topic.  The media is rich with industrial propaganda and research.  As this book has discussed, climate change skeptics many times get as much news time as the people claiming that it is real.  This results in confusion.  Ross Gelbspan’s article “The Battle for Control of Reality” brings up a few great points on this subject.  The first is that industry-funded research does not need to be peer-reviewed the same way federal government research needs to be, which makes it less reliable.  Only peer-reviewed research should be considered seriously, for obvious reasons.  Additionally, people should look at who funds the research to get an idea of if it could be swayed as a result of the funder.  These two things can help people to get through a large amount of information and find out what is the closest thing to the facts.

            As I brought up before, even if people knew that these checks should be done before believing a study, people do not have time for all of that.  It takes good research to find out who funded a certain paper or if a journal is peer-reviewed or not.  So what can an environmentalist do to help make this job easier for the average citizen?  Again, the options are top-down or bottom-up.  Top-down regulation could involve only allowing journals to call themselves scientific journals if they are peer-reviewed or to not let non-peer-reviewed scientific journals advertise their results in the media.  The other, more realistic option would be to spread knowledge to the general population on how to choose reliable sources.  More than anything, explaining what peer-reviewed science means and making sure that the words “peer-reviewed” shows up in the media during debates on subjects like climate change may help the most.  This would take all of the guessing out of it and make it easy for people to believe in environmental causes like climate change. 

China: Economy on the Incline, Environment on the Decline – Blog Post 15 - Oct 24

I read the article “Is Your Stomach Too Full?” by Mark Hertsgaard this week and found it eye-opening.  It began by discussing the incredibly poor economic state of China qualitatively, which made the poverty seem more real.  Hertsgaard discussed the lack of shoes in the winter, the ice on the inside walls of homes, the lack of sanitation, and the respiratory problems of the Chinese that have led to a culture of excessive spitting.  All of these descriptions really made it clear that the Chinese do not care much about climate change or the environment.  They care about getting out of poverty, being warm, having some comfort, and having a job.  This makes logical sense.  As shown in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, basic survival is the most basic need so this needs to be filled before other things are considered important. 

            The article continues on to discuss the electricity and power generation of the Chinese.  In China, electricity is predicted to increase at least seven percent per year, which would require a double in electrical generating capacity every decade.  That would require thirty to sixty new power plants every year, about seventy-five percent of them burning coal.  In addition, the Chinese are not putting many environmental features on their new power plants because of the additional costs.  It is very simple.  A company can build more plants if each plant costs less money to build.  As a result, with the exception of electrostatic precipitators, most plants built do not have scrubbers on them and do not wash the coal. 

            On the bright side, in the 1980s China reduced their energy intensity by focusing on increasing energy efficiency.  They realized that the energy production may not be able to keep up with the rapidly growing economy.  Although China is not likely to cut consumption just for the environment, they may be tempted to increase energy efficiency to save money.  This may be a way to help green the Chinese economy, especially because some studies have shown that replacing the old, inefficient Chinese technologies with new efficient ones could cut China’s energy consumption by forty to fifty percent.  That is a huge decrease, which could help to offset the increase in electricity and other forms of energy usage as the population rises and becomes more modernized.

            Although energy efficiency seems like the easy solution here, it is not.  As the article points out, the Chinese would prefer a power plant that costs $1000 per kilowatt that has 30-45% efficiency compared to a $1400 per kilowatt power plant that has 45% efficiency and removes 90% of the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.  Energy efficient technologies cost more, and China does not have the time or money to waste when it is trying to expand the number of power plants so that people can be warm. 

            So what could be a possible solution to fixing China’s environmental problems?  China’s environmental problems are not only theirs; they are also the rest of the world’s problems.  China’s development could put the world over the tipping point in regards to climate change.  Is it ethically sound to tell them to stop burning so much coal?  Can the world force them to put scrubbers on their coal power plants or buy more energy efficient technologies?

            I would say that we cannot force these changes on China.  Forcing China to stop burning so much coal or forcing them to put scrubbers or other environmentally-friendly technologies on plants may be taking heat away from the poorest Chinese during the winter, which I do not think is ethically right.  It is not another country’s place to make that decision.  We cannot force China to change its ways. 

            America can do two things in this situation.  The first is that America can try to fix itself before trying to put the blame on developing countries and before trying to restrict what they can do.  The developed countries used fossil fuels to become developed, so they should be trying to clean up themselves before scolding others.  Second, America can give information, advice, and support to developing countries to help them develop sustainably.  We cannot force China to stop using coal or to start using energy efficient products.  We probably cannot even convince them that energy efficient technologies are worth it in the long-term because they care about the short-term right now (much like companies in the United States).  Any technological solution that the United States gives to China probably needs to be at the same price or cheaper than Chinese technologies.  If the technology is efficient enough to payback its extra cost fast enough, the Chinese may consider it. 

For the good of the environment, the United States should consider transferring some environmentally-friendly technologies over to China, just as Japan is with scrubbing technology.  They can do this by providing information about environmentally-friendly technologies or by selling them the environmentally-friendly technologies.  If the developed countries really want to tackle climate change, then they could provide the Chinese with some subsidies to help lower the cost of energy efficient technologies down to the cost of the older technologies, which would make the decision easy for the Chinese.  This subsidy would probably never pass the American legislature, but maybe a non-profit or another country will step up to help bring clean technologies to China and other developing countries in the future by helping to pay for the extra cost.  

Climate Change Mobilization: From the Bottom or the Top? – Blog Post 14 - Oct 21

In this section of readings in The Global Warming Reader, there were two sections that came from Al Gore.  The first section came from his book Earth in the Balance, while the other came from a speech he gave during the formation of the Kyoto Protocol.  Both discussed climate change, but each of them gave different approaches towards attacking the problem.  In the excerpt from his book, Al Gore focuses more on people rising up and pushing companies and the government for action.  He discusses the successes of Pat Bryant in pushing for air quality laws in Louisiana and Lynda Draper for pushing General Electric to stop releasing CFCs into the atmosphere.  In this article, Gore also stated that a political movement will form if people begin to expand the definition of NIMBY from people’s own backyards to the commons, such as the atmosphere.  In this article, it really seems like he is pushing for people to take action in their own communities, which is more of a bottom-up approach for fixing climate change.  On the other hand, Gore pushed for emission limits in Kyoto, followed by the opening of new markets for technologies to replace fossil fuels.  This approach is more of a top-down approach because the Kyoto Protocol would influence governments to instill new rules on people below it. 

            So which method is better?  In other words, which methodology of attack would provide the most results?  The bottom-up approach may be easier to make some progress in, but would be harder to make a large scale impact in.  The top-down approach in America is very difficult to make any progress in, but if someone could implement changes in the government, it could be huge. 

            Although huge changes are needed in order to solve the climate crisis, I think that the problem should be solved with the bottom-up approach.  The top-down approach has not yielded many results in America.  Lobbyists from industry constantly push for fewer regulations, and even if a new regulation is made, lobbyists from industry will push for exemptions, loopholes, and the reversal of the new laws made.  The science is there in plain sight, and has been for a while, and the United States government still has not acted on it.  At this point, in order to avoid a climate crisis, I think that the bottom-up approach is really the only reasonable option.  This approach has been used by people for almost all social movements in America.  Putting pressure on the government by showing that people care about an issue seems to yield long-term results, although it is a lot more work.

            Reflecting back on my last blog post and the excerpt from Al Gore’s book, I think that the biggest thing that people need to learn in order for a movement to be successful is the interrelatedness of the world.  Learning about the interrelatedness of wind patterns, water patterns, and temperature could help people to understand climate change better.  It also will show people how everything is connected, which will force people to expand the NIMBY principle.  Right now, most people would be willing to fight a new chemical plant or garbage dump nearby their house, but would not be willing to fight if the plant or dump was located farther away.  If people could just realize how everything is interconnected and how everything affects them, they would expand their definition of their backyard and may begin to step up and be more environmentally friendly outside of their own neighborhoods.  When a chemical plant spills chemicals into a river, even if that river is not in that person’s backyard, it could flow downstream to that person’s backyard.  Or, that same water could be drunk by a cow downstream, which means that the chemicals could be incorporated in your meat.  Or maybe in your fruits and vegetables.  Everything is connected, and the interconnectedness of the environment may be the most important part of environmental science that people need to learn.  

A Need for a More Educated Public – Blog Post 13 - Oct 17

In my last blog post, I discussed why people may think that climate change is a hoax.  In addition to educating people that it is in fact not a hoax, American citizens also need to be educated about the science of climate change because it is clear that many people do not even know the basics.  I have heard people say before that they are wearing a sweatshirt or that it is cold outside, so global warming must not be true.  These people think that global warming is simply the warming of the planet a few degrees, which does not sound like a big deal.  In reality, the problem is climate change, or the changing of climate patterns that make life for humans more difficult to bear.  We, as a civilization, have already settled in the best places to support human life so if the climate changes, we will have to adapt to a place less suited for human life.  People do not realize that the change in climate patterns, from rainfall to temperature, will affect every area of life.  These changes will impact not only ecosystems, but agriculture, the economy, and the viability to live in certain areas.  People need to understand these connections to appreciate the severity of climate change.  As I read Dr. Jeff Master’s WonderBlog titled “Causes of the Russian Heat Wave and Pakistani Floods,” I realized how confused most people would be that events like floods are related to climate change.  Although almost everybody relates climate change to heat, it is very much related to water as well, since water and regional temperature are closely related. 

The article “Causes of the Russian Heat Wave and Pakistani Floods” discussed two of the most intense weather events that have occurred in the past century.  The Great Russian Heat Wave of 2010 was only comparable to the North American heat wave of July 1936 and the European heat wave of 2003, showing how significant it was.  The author discussed the research of Feudale and Shukla, which hypothesized that increased sea surface temperatures (SSTs) caused the polar jet stream to move in a certain way that caused a drought in Russia and massive flooding in Pakistan.  This polar jet stream brings “extratropical cyclones” to areas, which essentially bring precipitation and more moderate temperatures when it collides with the subtropical jetstream.  The higher SSTs may have caused the polar jetstream to move north over Russia and south into Pakistan, leaving Russia hot and dry and dumping the rain that usually falls over Russia into Pakistan.  Although no single event can be described as a result of climate change, climate change may have been the cause of the higher SSTs, which may have caused the heat wave and floods. 

            After reading this article, two things became apparent to me.  The first was reinforcement on my original idea that most people would not even think about a correlation between floods and climate change.  The other was that although I understand that floods are related to a rising global temperature by changing water patterns, I barely understand climatology either!  The discussion on jetstreams and how they create “lows” and bring “extratropical cyclones” to areas went right over my head.  I’ve taken some environmental science classes, and I have just realized that wind and water patterns really are not even discussed!

            In conclusion, this article did not only remind me that most people do not understand climate change, but it also showed me that I do not understand the environment as well as I would like to.  Even though I have shown the initiative to take environmental science classes, I have still not learned the basics of wind and water patterns.  Environmental education does not only need to reach more people.  It also needs to be improved as a whole.

Climate Change: Why It’s Not a Hoak – Blog Post 12 - October 10

            This week I read the first few sections in The Global Warming Reader, which discussed the science and history behind the realization that climate change was occurring as a result of human activity.  In earlier human history, people viewed the world as limitless.  They figured that the world, including the atmosphere, was so big that humans could not have any significant impact on them.  Yet, as the Industrial Revolution moved along, led by fossil fuels, this changed drastically.  As society unlocked the energy behind fossil fuels, their populations were able to grow as more food was able to be harvested.  Additionally, more resources per person began to be used as people’s standard of living increased. 

            In 1896, Svante Arrhenius was the first man to propose that fossil fuels could rise the world’s temperature, based on the fact that the carbon dioxide released with the burning of fossil fuels traps heat in the atmosphere.  About forty years later, G.S. Callendar started measuring carbon dioxide and temperature around the world and correlated the two, stating that an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels may increase the temperature of the world globally.  Following this, Revelle and Suess concluded in their work that the ocean would not take up the excess carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels. 

            The real concern over climate change did not occur until Keeling began modifying infrared gas analyzers and began taking samples from Mauna Loa and other areas around the world.  He could see the seasonal variations in carbon dioxide across the globe, as well as a general rise in carbon dioxide and temperature over time.  James Hansen, the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, brought this to the attention of the public and increased funding for the study of climate change.  Finally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the United Nations in 1988, which was set up specifically to study the global climate and to determine if humans were generating any significant impacts on it.  The IPCC began to do attribution studies, trying to establish a cause and effect between human actions and the climate.  They analyzed the usual background noise of climate variability over time, which included fluctuations that were internal and external to the system, and then added the human-induced effect on top of them.  Inevitably, the IPCC found that humans were almost certainly causing a large effect on the climate, increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous dioxide, and other chemicals.  Finally, Naomi Oreskes conducted a study in 2004 of 928 scientific papers and found that essentially none of them denied that climate change was real.

            The reason that I bring all of this up is simple.  Climate change itself is generally accepted by the scientific community by countless research papers.  The climate is changing, whether it is natural or not, is the first point that needs to be made.  Second of all, the IPCC, along with the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meterological Society, and the American Geophysical Union all agree that it is human-induced.  So why is the topic of human-induced climate change still debated today?  Why do people not believe it?
            I think that there are two main reasons why people do not believe in human-induced climate change.  The first is the fact that on news coverage, journalists many times present both sides of the story, no matter how skewed the two sides are.  This can easily lead to confusion among people watching the news because they do not know what to believe.  Additionally, the big fossil fuel industry does not want people to believe in climate change because if they did, more regulations would be put on them and that would hurt business, so they lobby and push their agendas in certain ways to make the facts look unclear.  Human-induced climate change cannot be proven a fact, just like anything in science, but it is agreed upon by almost all scientists today.  People need to know this and understand the implications that human-induced climate change can cause.

            The other main reason that people do not believe is because of their own beliefs in science.  Many people say the world is too big for people to have that much of an impact on it.  Other people strongly claim that it is just a natural cycle that the Earth is going through.  When debated on sea level rise, some people state that the sea level can’t rise because ice melting in water doesn’t raise the sea level, not realizing that there is ice that can melt on land.  These people need to realize that they are not specialists in the field.  People do not debate other fields of scientific research nearly as much as they do climate change.  For some reason, maybe because of the fossil fuel industry and media, many people dismiss climate change because of their own belief on how the global climate works.  These people need to trust the science, and realize that the IPCC and other organizations take into account natural variations and other pieces of research while making multiple models, which many times are more conservative than what actually happens.  In conclusion, the thought that human-induced climate change is a hoax is essentially wrong.  People need to be educated on the science behind climate change, and the research methods that show that the research is sound and has already considered many of the variables that people use to dismiss it in the first place.  From here, people need to understand its implications and begin to fight against the change.  

Obama’s “Historic” Rule: Good or Bad for the Environment Overall? – Blog Post 11 - October 7

    In June of 2014, President Barack Obama used his executive power to pass a new rule with the Environmental Protection Agency to lower carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by thirty percent of its 2005 levels by 2030.  He could do this because he has the ability to make executive decisions and rules based on the Clean Air Act.  President Obama decided to act in this way because he thought that something needed to be done about climate change and knew that Congress would not allow anything to get passed.  Although coal lobbyists are screaming out energy crisis claims and a rising cost of electricity for the general American, Gina McCarthy, the EPA administrator, points out that this rule will lower medical costs, protect our jobs, and fight the environmental injustice that surrounds power plants (Obama Unveils). 

            This is a groundbreaking rule for many reasons.  First of all, this is the first time that any president has tried to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants emit (Obama Unveils).  Second of all, it shows that environmental groups are finally having their voices be heard.  Finally, it shows that things can still be done in the government, even with lobbyists and a stalemated Congress.  This event is definitely a huge moral victory for the environmental movement as a whole.

            The question I pose is, will this rule necessarily help the environment overall?  Generally speaking, carbon emissions from coal power plants was decreasing overall because of the drop in the economy and because natural gas is on the rise in the United States (Obama Unveils).  Additionally, not all of the strategies to reduce carbon emissions from coal power plants are that environmentally friendly.  For example, natural gas could just take over for coal in energy generation.  Natural gas burns cleaner and releases less carbon into the atmosphere than coal.  But natural gas is still a fossil fuel that needs to be harvested, processed, and delivered, which creates many environmental problems of its own. 

            Another option may be to begin using carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at coal power plants.  Canada recently started up their first carbon capture power plant, which is estimated to reduce carbon emissions from coal ninety percent.  That is equivalent to about one million tons a year, or about 250,000 cars.  This is a great technology because it enables society to keep using a similar infrastructure while reducing carbon emissions, until other alternative energies can be fully phased in.  The only problem is, the process is so expensive that it is argued that the only way that a carbon capture power plant can be economical is if the coal is nearby and if they sell the carbon dioxide to help in priming oil fields in the surrounding area (Canada Switches).  This limits how much the technology may be able to be used, and encourages the production of oil. 

            Other ways to lower coal power plant emissions would be to reduce energy usage overall or to begin phasing in alternative energy sources such as wind energy or solar photovoltaics.  Unfortunately, these alternative energy industries may not capitalize on the opportunity as well as the natural gas industry does because natural gas companies are already very powerful and can implement their technologies faster than most alternative energy companies can.

            Overall, I think that President Obama’s rule with the Environmental Protection Agency is a good thing, at least for the momentum for the environmental movement.  Environmental rules like this need to keep being associated with protecting jobs, public health, and increasing environmental justice to gain momentum, because the coal industry will lobby hard to say that it will lose jobs and cost the economy dearly.  People need to realize that acting in environmentally-friendly ways has many positive benefits to many other areas of life that may affect them more directly.  Unfortunately, I think that this rule may just increase the amount of natural gas that is used, which I do not like because I feel like their impacts on the environment are many times even greater than coal’s!  Hopefully, coal tries to clean up its practices to lower its environmental impact, and alternative energy companies take advantage of the more expensive energy prices to start implementing themselves further into society.  Different states have different rules that they need to comply with under this law, so alternative energy companies targeting states with higher amounts of regulation may make their products more competitive.  Carbon capture and sequestration seems too expensive to be practically implemented on a large scale at this time, so I doubt it will be. 

Works Cited

Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Obama Unveils Historic Rules to Reduce Coal Pollution by 30%." The Guadian. N.p., 2 June 2014. Web. 16 Oct. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/02/obama-rules-coal-climate-change>.

Goldenbern, Suzanne. "Canada Switches on World's First Carbon Capture Power Plant." The Guardian. N.p., 1 Oct. 2014. Web. 16 Oct. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/01/canada-switches-on-worlds-first-carbon-capture-power-plant>.

The Next Step Towards a More Sustainable Future – Blog Post 10 - September 30

            This week I read a variety of short essays in The Energy Reader about how humans can live more sustainably.  Each essay argued what the most important thing to do is in order to help make the world or the United States more sustainable.  With all of these options, which is the most important?  Where do we start?

Robert E. King essentially argued that capping the grid is the most important thing that can be done to help the energy crisis because it will stop the ever-growing American need for energy.  He points out that technology will not get us out of the energy crisis because of Jevon’s paradox.  This paradox basically states that as things become more energy efficient, they are cheaper to use and people will use them more.  As a result of this, people will continue to use the same amount of energy, or even more, because of the perceived or actual efficiency increases.  The laws of diminishing returns again applies here, where it becomes harder and harder to make technologies more efficient after the “low-hanging fruit” are picked.  Efficiency will eventually plateau as times go on.  The argument that conservation is the most important thing is strong, but his method of obtaining conservation is debatable.  King recommends a cap on energy, where the United States would stop growing its energy economy.  If new alternative energies were added, old power plants would be decommissioned.  This not only seems like a near-impossible goal to lobby for, but it also may not be considered fair by many Americans.  Americans today would have to be very very convinced of the negative effects of climate change before they would even consider limiting their energy usage in a mandatory fashion. 

Shiela Bowers and Bill Powers argue for more local energy generation as the centerpiece of America’s energy policy.  They argue that it increases property values, leads to less environmental impacts because there are less power lines, more secure energy system, and because it benefits local jobs.  Although alternative energy in general is good, Bowers and Powers argue that there are many negative impacts to centralized power in general and that localized is the best way for America to become more energy sustainable.

Other authors focused on lowering our energy economy through more indirect ways.  Harvey Locke made the argument that half of the land and water on Earth should be protected, which would not only be ecologically and aesthetically pleasing, but it would also limit how many resources our energy economy and regular economy could use.  Although the thought is great, this argument seems ideal at best.  First of all, it would take international efforts and regulation across the globe to get this done.  Second of all, it would probably lead to weaker, developing countries being exploited and the most civilized ones being saved.  Most of all, businesses would pick the most exploitable areas, and would push the government for new laws to allow them wherever they please if they run out, just as they do today.  Although Locke makes a good argument, I do not think fighting for conservation of land and water is the best solution to our problem. 

Bill McKibben wrote more of a step-by-step approach to ending global warming.  He argued that people need to spread the word about climate change, create strict goals on what the people want to change, and create a movement to fight for those goals and to show the government that changes need to be made.  It needs to show the spirit of the American people.  Of all of the arguments to help make the world a more sustainable place, McKibben’s basic argument has to be the strongest.  Business is probably not going to change on its own; it will continue to operate in the cheapest and easiest ways possible, by almost only using fossil fuels.  The American government will continue to support business over the environment as long as lobbyism from business remains the source of government official campaign funding.  Therefore, the force that needs to fight for the environment is the people.  For all of the other authors’ sustainability goals to happen, a movement from the masses must occur.  It must be from the masses because victories by minority environmentalist groups are usually overturned.  It must be a movement like the civil rights movement, where people show consistently that they want something and will be active enough to get it.  A movement, started by education, is the best way to lead to a more sustainable future.  There are many things that can be done for the sake of sustainability, but the change will only be drastic enough to matter if enough people are behind it.  The more people who know and care about today’s environmental problems, the more people will push for better laws and the more people who will attempt to incorporate sustainability into their jobs and everyday life. 

This movement will lead to people who care about the environment.  Conservation will be emphasized because people can easily control that in their daily lives.  Capping the grid then may seem like a more reasonable argument that may be supported.  Localized alternative energy will seem to make more sense.  Conserving more land and water will seem to make more sense.  With more people speaking up and acting, more will be able to get done and it will get done easier and more permanently.  The root of the problem is that American citizens do not care, or do not care enough to act.  The first step needs to be environmental education and the start of a movement.  American citizens must be the force of change, because no one else will be.  Then it may be possible to reverse many of the negative environmental effects we have been causing, before it is too late.  

A Cleaner Energy Future: Realism vs. Idealism – Blog Post 9 - September 26

            This week for Energy Politics I read two short essays, one by Richard Heinberg and another by Amory B. Lovins, on how the world should confront the energy crisis.  Both of these authors have a good vision for an ideal future, but do not recommend any steps to get there.  

Heinberg argues that people could either continue on the maximum carbon plan, burning all fossil fuels until it is not profitable to burn anymore, or the minimum carbon plan, where people use subsidies and incentives to increase the renewable energy sector, use biofuels instead of oil for transportation, and try to sequester carbon dioxide and store it out of the atmosphere.  Either way, Heinberg argues that people will need to decrease their energy consumption per capita in the future, so he recommends doing it now to make the transition easier.  Heinberg addresses most sectors, from agriculture to buildings.  He argues that with a shortage of fossil fuels, more people will have to be hired to maintain the fields in agriculture, and it will be less economical for farmers to use pesticides and herbicides.  Additionally, transportation will be more costly so communities should be reorganized so that public transportation can be utilized or so that walking or biking is more preferable.  A lot of these points are valid and are ideal in my opinion, but the question I ask is, how do we get there?  How do we get to this point and conserve more energy before we need to, as Heinberg suggests?

Amory B. Lovins has a similar piece.  He suggests that energy efficiency will lead to more profits for business and more economic growth.  Lovins makes many claims that technology is improving and that technology is here today that can help us live more efficiently.  He cites his own home as having countless improvements that make it very energy efficient.  On the other hand, many of his facts and statistics seem far too extrapolated to really make sense.  His technocratic belief that technology will save us seems far too strong to really trust a lot of what he says.  For example, Lovins argues that electric cars could have 125-250 miles per gallon by 2050.  He also talks about trucks and cars having “triple-efficiency trucks and planes” that require no oil because biofuels, hydrogen, and electricity will take over.  These kinds of assumptions on what technology will be able to do in the future are not well routed and seem too far extrapolated to really make much sense.  Increasing the miles per gallon of electric cars does not follow a linear path; additionally, efficiency generally decreases as more energy-efficient technologies are added due to the law of diminishing returns.  Furthermore, a hydrogen economy is very far away and would need a large policy, law, or subsidy to really get going and replace our current infrastructure.  Although Lovins brings up many economical ways to be more efficient, such as to integrative design in how we build and construct things, a lot of his claims seem too technocratic to believe the facts behind what he is saying.  
In conclusion, although it is great to have an ideal view of how society should function in the future, Heinberg and Lovins both do not put full plans together on how to get there.  One focuses on conservation of energy that is currently non-profitable in many ways; the other focuses on technological advancements that are unlikely to occur or function on their own. 
 

Gathering Support for an Environmental Movement – Blog Post 8 - September 23

            The world today is plagued with environment injustices, from the destruction of ecosystems across the globe to the poisoning of the very water and air we depend on for survival.  Yet, most Americans live their lives without ever doing anything to help the environment.  They move on and focus on their own lives in their own little bubbles, allowing environmental problems to worsen as the economy grows and businesses take advantage of the relaxed regulation that governs them.  Some people are unaware of the environmental problems.  Others do not care, do not have time to help, or do not know how to help.  The fact of the matter is, more people need to care and need to help if we are going to save the planet before it is radically destroyed, even more so than it is today.

            This week in class we watched the move Climate Change Disruption, which mainly focused on the events leading up to the People’s Climate March in New York City.  The march was meant to show support and show that climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed.  One of the strongest things that I took from the video is the need for emotional appeal to get people to become active.  The video explained that people have a rational, analytical side of the brain that helps to understand the problem, as well as an emotional, intuitive side that is very reactive.  In order to get people to become active, you must make them care and make them emotionally charged up. 

            Environmentalists have been using emotions in their campaigns for a while, but their scope is usually too thin.  Environmental activists usually focus on the environmental effects of climate change, which many times seem too gradual to really convince anyone to do anything.  As the movie Climate Change Disruption states, people have a finite pool of worry that usually prioritizes more immediate worries first.  People are so overwhelmed with their everyday struggles that they usually cannot be bothered by apocalyptic views of climate change twenty years down the road. 

            So how do you make people care?  You must explain how the environmental degradation impacts them directly.  You must make them care and make them see it on an everyday level.  You must make them feel like they are part of the environment and that it impacts them directly.  The organizers of the People’s Climate March did this well and really proved this point.  They discussed that the poor get hit first with environmental problems, and rallied them around this point.  The organizers talked about public health and protecting jobs.  These are things that directly affect people and that people worry about on a daily basis.  These are the things that will bring the average person to care about climate change.  The community of people fighting climate change needs to be expanded from solely environmentalists to all groups affected by climate change. 

            One of the most interesting groups I heard about in the video was called the Labor Network for Sustainability (LNS).  This is a group that wants to work with unions to fight climate change and lead to a more sustainable future.  They recognize that people are dependent on the environment and that if the climate worsens a lot, jobs will be lost.  Additionally, the LNS sees the green and sustainable jobs as a market that they would like to enter into.  Sustainability’s roots are in social and economic equities, so they have similarities to labor unions as well.  The LNS believes the best way to do this is to come up with a shared future plan with environmentalists and union workers so that both groups can fully work together towards a common goal (About 1-3).  The LNS is just one great example of the different groups that can be rallied behind an environmental issue.  Environmental issues impact most people in some way; it is up to the organizer to figure out which impacts will motivate people to take action the most.  People need to take action, in order to have a better future for all of humanity. 

Works Cited

"About." Labor Network for Sustainability. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2014. <http://www.labor4sustainability.org/about/>.