We chose to focus on Global Warming as our disaster, and while Global Warming is not a disaster in and of itself, it has vast potential to become one. The blog we chose can be found here, http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/. Throughout the course of the blog, the author evokes the idea that global warming is getting progressively worse, and brings up numerous points to try to show that the odds of global warming being human caused are getting higher and higher. He goes further and brings up what is currently being done to combat the problem, and what needs to be done in the future.
Featured Articles
"How climate denial really works," "How climate denial really works part 2," "Our problem is climate change is not our problem."
http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/our-problem-is-climate-change-is-not.html http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-climate-denial-really-works-2-50-of.html
http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-climate-denial-really-works.html
How we create global warming is one problem, but whether we believe we humans are the cause or not is the bigger disaster. Before we can figure out a way together to put a stop to the gradual heating of the planet, we must all agree on what the causes actually are, natural or man-made ones. The blog author believes global warming is man-made, and in these posts he explains how denialists (those who believe global warming is a natural occurrence) come to be denialists because of the news media. Another problem the author states is our lack of proactiveness. Global warming will not be a major disaster until much later, but because the “urgent always trumps the long term,” it will be too late if no effective actions are taken now.
"The 90% chance we cause observed global warming now sits at 95%"
http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/90-chance-we-cause-observed-global.html
This featured article discusses the recent changes in observed global warming that have led the percent likelihood that it's been caused by humans to increase from 90 to 95%. Edinburgh University determined that the initial study underestimated man's effect, for now our reach has spread even to Antarctica. Based on this evidence, it would be very hard for anyone to say that global warming was natural, and if the information we have is correct, Global warming is on pace to become a great disaster.
Based on the paragraph, it's said that there is increasing evidence in reports pointing that global warming is very likely man-made, and some of the scientists from different institutions suggest the percentage taken in natural variation in climate change has lessened and is not the major influence of global wariming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states there is an increasing body of observations which give a collective notion of a warming world and other changes in the climate system and the new and stronger evidence is that most of the observed warming is attributable to human activities based on the scientific papers the panel had access to.
In order to obtain this information, more than 100 scientific papers were accessed, of which a vast majority cited evidence which pointed to human involvemnet in the recent climate changes. Such human influence has led to changes in the Arctic which has led to a shrinking of the Arctic Sea ice at a rate of 600,000 sq. km per decade. The only dissent in this belief is that disasters such as Hurricane Katrina have been falsely blamed on man's involvement.
"Emissions down, interest up: Banking on a carbon neutral future"
http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2010/09/emissions-down-my-interest-up-carbon.html
This post is an overview of the actions one bank (NAB) has taken to reduce their carbon footprints in an effort to cut emissions, and save energy. With the ever prevailing threat of global warming top 200 CEOs are making carbon neutral pledges such as switiching printers and photo copiers to print doublesided, cardboard boxes replacing paper waste baskets and installing communal recycle bins. All of these steps have resulted in a savings/reduction of 60K tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year. That fact in itself the author seemed impressed with concluding "They are a bank of the future." Overall, Australia is taking a step in the right direction to prevent the ever present doom and gloom of global warming.
Conclusion
The articles we selected above illustrate what we feel to be the best summary of the author's perspective on global warming. As the blog progressed, the author shifted from the realization of the current issue, to what the public is doing in an attempt to halt the spread of global warming. Despite global warming's lack of urgency, this blog reiterates the vast potential which global warming possesses to become a full blown disaster.
Writting by Ryan Yusuf, Ryan Welty, Adrienne Bradley, Hsin Ying Wu
I was very surprised when I first heard that there are people who believe that global warming is a natural occurrence instead of a man-made phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in my opinion, I don’t think that those denialists really believe that human actions are not the cause of global warming. I believe that most denialists are people whose financial benefits would be damaged if they take actions to reduce green house gas emission, such as the share holders of certain industries. They propose this idea in order to justify their current action by saying it does not cause any harm to the environment so they don’t need to do anything to adjust it.
Therefore, I don’t think the actions of trying to persuade those denialists that global warming is caused by human would contribute much in reducing global warming. I think the most useful method people can take right now to deal with global warming is to figure out ways that can maintain the benefits of industries if their emission of green house gas is reduced, just like what NAB did as mentioned in your third featured post.
Although denialists of global warming might be denying global warming exists for financial gains, you can make the same argument for those who are environmentalists. Two of my neighbors own environmental companies and they are quite wealthy. Alternative energy and reducing emissions is all about saving money for other companies and financially stabilizing the companies making new methods for energy. If companies were not making any financial gains from these methods, there would be no reason for developing new methods. While it may be a tiny incentive for companies to reduce emissions and use alternative energy, the goal for any company is making money.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Nate said in the sense that you can make the same argument for environmentalists trying to make alternative energy for financial gains. I feel like large companies usually have to take a financial hit in order to make such drastic changes as the one the Bank in the article has, therefore there is a lack of incentive to make said changes. Until it is proven 100% that humans are not only facilitating global warming, but doing it on a large enough scale to make an impact large companies will not take every step needed to "go green". I feel the only way to make every company assist in creating a cleaner environment would be to outlaw things that create the most waste, which unfortunately I don't see happening any time soon.
ReplyDeleteThough I know of no one who views global warming in this way, what's wrong with taking greener actions "just to make sure" we have a future earth that's safe enough for humans to live in? And even if we have to make sacrifices, most of those sacrifices are not so difficult to make. For example, tens of thousands of trees which help us reduce global warming are cut down to make paper cups, paper plates, paper boxes, convenience products whose production causes pollution. Do we even need any of those things to make our lives happier?
ReplyDeleteIn short, all I'm trying to say is that it takes less effort than we realize to prevent global warming. If we ever discover whether global warming is man-made in the future, at least we can feel safe in Earth because of the greener changes we've made.
If we spent less time and money on trying to figure out the cause of global warming we could put more effort into preventing it or at least slowing it down. The sacrifices would be minimal but I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is that we focus on why it's happening more than how to fix it.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the blog was correct when it said that we focus more on the urgent than the important. Procrastination seems to be innate in our society but if we had a more forceful push in a productive direction I believe that we could make a significant difference.
In regards to the post about including Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth as part of the Australian education system I can see why there were many opposed to such an idea. I feel like if something like this was even attempted to be introduced in an American schooling curriculum there would be an ever bigger backlash, and unfortunately such an idea would be immediately shot down in fear of upsetting too many opponents. I think that it is important that we, as citizens (regardless of country), become educated about the environmental issues presented in An Inconvenient Truth. I think it is important that the young of our world especially be educated on the environment because unfortunately much of the errors we have made today are going to be what effect the next generation. With that being said, I also think that showing an Al Gore movie isn't necessarily the best way to present such an issue for two reasons: there have been several issues with this movie and of the political affiliation with Al Gore. I feel like I am flip-flopping on my viewpoint, because although I may not agree with the showing of An Inconvenient Truth, I do however agree that education on the environment is a must. Therefore, I guess I can side with those "denialists" to the extent in their opposition of showing the movie. However, my affiliation ends with their total denial of the issues pertaining to the environment.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the blog, we human bing pose a threat to the environment by causing global warming. The blog says that "The 90% chance we cause observed global warming now sits at 95%". It possibly supposes that we did not pay enough attention to the negative result of the greenhouse gases emission in economic development. It may lead to a slow disaster beyond our expectation. The blog draws a picture of the future about terrifying results of global warming. It enable the reader to imagine how serious can global warming affects the daily life and change the world to be much worse. A lot of details are shown in the blog to support the view that we did not make effort to prevent the global warming. For example, the study results of IPCC are used to point out that at the beginning of global warming, the evidence may not be very obvious. But later, it may beyond our expectation. In a conclusion, the blog warns people to pay attention to the global warming to stop further negative effect of it.
ReplyDeleteHere's a thought: We know that there is a correlation between the increased concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the last c. 150 years and rise in annual mean temperature of the earth in the last c. 60 years. We can conclude that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide began as industrialization and fossil fuel consumption began in the mid-19th century. We can not conclude for certain, however, if the increased concentration of atmospheric (and anthropogenic) carbon dioxide and the subsequent rise in the annual mean temperature of Earth are completely and unequivocally linked. Is it reasonable to conclude that humans are the only cause of global warming? On the other hand, I believe some skepticism is healthy, but I believe that the problem with too much skepticism is that it inhibits judgement and objectivity. Is it reasonable to deny a naturally-occurring process? Laying blame on one certain source, in this case denying global warming exists or calling global warming itself "man-made," would be considered ignorant and against the very methods of scientific research. The aim of the scientific method is not to prove that an existing theory is correct, but rather to revise existing theories through solid, objective research. This definition implies that scientific research and our understanding of the universe around us is self-limiting: We humans are limited by our own methods and processes.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, I feel that it is imprudent for us to rationalize the reasoning for our global climate change. We as humans can see that it is happening in front of our very eyes and we have rationalized it in order to attempt to understand its causes and consequences. Yet in rationalizing these causes and consequences, we have limited ourselves and created a belief that we humans can fully understand and predict the unpredictable nature of our planet Earth.
Dallas: I agree that too much focus is being placed on finding the root cause of global warming. We live in a time of convenience and the majority of people simply are not willing to take the effort to switch to a "greener" lifestyle and/or are unaware of the issue. It is much easier to deny the existence of extreme climate change than it is to begin recycling. This is why it is important for us to continue efforts to raise awareness of our effects on our environment and try to find ways to decrease the rate of climate change.
ReplyDeleteI really agree with a lot of your points Corey. It is almost pretentious of us to think that we can predict what is to come. Despite the fact science is advancing every day, the Earth remains exactly as you stated, unpredictable. There are numerous possible causes for many of the things that are often attributed to Global Warming, yet it remains the sole "villain" in our society. Why? I feel it is easy to place blame there, and there are very few Global Warming supporters who are going to call you out on it. Great post
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that nate's got a very interesting point about those firms' primarily being interested in making profit out of programs for environment protection. I also think that companies won't care so much about decreasing the amount of carbon emission unless they get some sort of advantage from it , but there's actually nothing surprising about that since they are companies, not charity organizations or environmentalists. and i think programs like carbon offset or cap and trade system are using that nature very well to bring out win win results for both the economy and environment. I think that companies buying permissions for carbon emission of limited amount from offset generator and trading those permissions from each other with extra interest is great way to give companies the motivation to be a part of mitigating global warming and making interest profit from new trading market at the same time. It's almost like using environment as a mean of generating the economy of scope.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteand Ryan, exactly, what's wrong with taking greener actions!
ReplyDeletei had the same question when last quarter one of my classes was discussing over the environmentalist overstating the real situation of climate change. and i remember that we were learning about possibility of environmentalists like Al Gore using the power of "fear" of "environmental disaster" for their professional success..and we actually read from some reliable sources that might prove that environmentalists are overstating their cases.. but still, since we all know that the nature won't last forever,
i think there's nothing wrong with trying to protect it at a reasonable level..
I agree and think it's positive that people are moving in the right directions to prevent global warming and are adopting "greener" habits, but I do not believe in the two sides which oppose each other. I think it's pointless to have to different sides: the denialists and those who think that humans cause global warming, because that energy could just as easily be put towards trying to find a solution in the future. Another point in which I have a problem with was brought up by Corey. It seems stupid to try to put forth so much energy now to try to prevent something that we as humans think will inevitably happen. Corey was right, we can't predict what the Earth does, so why continue to inconvenience ourselves when firstly, we don't know for sure if we're the cause, and secondly, we don't even know if our work is beneficial.
ReplyDelete-Duane' Josey