Some Time to Absorb it All

Before the beginning of the semester, not only did I feel comfortable with my understanding of environmental issues but also I felt optimistic about the future, the prospect of a world embracing nature in an effort to both sustain and nurture it. Sure I knew about climate skeptics, and was disheartened by the mercenaries like media personnel and politicians who continued to deny global warming and discredit environmentalists, despite clear evidence on the contrary. But as the course progressed my naivety vanished and I began to understand the seriousness of the situation at hand. I thought we had some time, I selfishly believed it wouldn’t happen during my lifetime, not that it was reason to be indolent but that my generation could finally get the ball rolling, and make up for the negligence of the one that came before. Now I realize there is no ball, nor is there time for it to roll, it is purely what needs to be done….and now.

Initially I felt shocked, sometime physically sick, over how deep we have dug ourselves as a species. I was so angry I almost wanted the world to end and climate change to wreak havoc so earth could rebuild itself without our selfish being, morbid I know. But as the course continued I realized there is still hope of salvaging the beauty and diversity we have graciously been given. The planet will certainly not remain as it is but there is potential to create something just as wonderful, through innovative design, technology, utilizing resources that don’t pollute, creating more wildlife habitats, and by more I mean a lot more, and most of all, reinventing what it means to be human. The latter is what I took most from the course but also what appears to be the largest task at hand. As many authors throughout the semester pointed out, the biggest obstacle to solving our environmental dilemma is completely revamping our way of life. It thrills me to think about a new “us.” Ahhh the idea of ALL human beings embracing nature, working together in communities to educate, empower, feed one another, and most of all take the time to enjoy the sun rays and the light sprinkles of rain. I dream of this happening in the United States most, as it is the country that is largely responsible for the environmental degradation that exists, be it through CO2 emissions and other harmful gases, its support of a lethal agriculture system, its failure to act as a role model for other countries, and its consumer run culture, to name a few.

Now more than ever I am thinking about myself as an individual and the role I play. It is clear that individual action will not solve the current crisis but the class has made me eager to be involved in a movement to end our current trajectory. To help influence the notion of what it means to be an American. To continue spreading the idea that exponential growth is meaningless, that being too big is something to avoid not desperately seek to achieve. I am scared, I’ll admit. I hate the thought of chaos on the horizon - flooding, droughts, hunger, thirst, death, poverty, disease – I really wish it did not have to be this way and I condemn those who sustain it. But, I will continue to be optimistic, to have conversations, to lead by example, to promote, and to never stop learning about this subject that effects each and every one of us. My apologies if this post has no direction, or lacks coherency, but that is precisely how I am feeling, it is too soon for me to fully digest what I have learned because it is so multifaceted. One thing I am certain of though is that climate change is real, the world is drastically changing as a result of human interference, and in order for it to not result in our demise, we need to change, and soon.

There are no limits to the environment

When I decided to take this course I thought that there was one basic set of principles for solving the planet. Those principles were focused on using less of pretty much everything. However, throughout the course of this class I have learned that there are a variety of different ways that environmentalists propose for answering environmental issues. I knew beforehand that issues of climate change and biodiversity would require different answers but I felt like they would follow the same trend of shrinking human impact. While naturalism is a major trend in environmentalism it is not the only trend. Some people, like Thomas Friedman suggest that the solutions to our problems lie in technology and the flattening of the planet. Leopold suggests that we need to change the way we think about the environment in order to create a difference, he suggests using ethics. McDonough talks about the importance of design and the need to redesign the way that humanity interacts with the environment through products and life activities.

The environment is everywhere and impacts everything that we humans do. Therefore, whatever sector you work in there is a chance to help improve the environmental situation. Whether you work for the government or a small textile mill in Switzerland or are a small farmer in Africa there is an opportunity for you to make decisions that will impact the planet in the future. In order for there to be a global change in the situation a big change needs to be made by a large number of people. However, this does not mean that a large change in the way of think cannot come from the ideas of one farmer in Africa. No idea should be counted out simply because it does not come from a governmental official or an environmental scientist.

As a peace and conflict resolution student I have learned that every sector provides an opportunity for peace-building. This course has made me think that same way about environmental progress. You don’t have to dedicate your life to environmental causes; as long as you take environmental principles into consideration your job can make this world a greener planet.

And it's all our fault

Scientists have known for over 150 years that CO2 degrades the environment. Since the 1970s, scientific research has been inundated with a variety of studies from a variety of sources that climate change is real, that we caused it, and that we are already suffering the consequences. Yet, somehow, very little has changed. In his article for The Guardian, Damian Carrington lays out a few reasons why this is the case. The following serves as my modest amendment to his analysis.

The intersection of science and politics is – at best – a muddled affair, and at worst an absolute disaster. As Professor showed us last week, the Republican Party has found a way to take a scientific reality and politically mythologize it. 2002’s “Winning the Global Warming Debate” laid out a way for Republican politicians to present climate change as something debatable. It also laid out a way to block any meaningful environmental legislation by pulling the jobs card and the “it’s just a theory” card. In a political debate, politicians will always win over scientists. Brainiacs rarely make convincing, effective victories over this well devised rhetoric (see also our current president).

The American media is also playing its role in preventing a green revolution by doing what they do best – perpetuating a non-issue. Scientifically, climate change isn’t truly up for debate. But watching America’s relatively fair and balanced news sources, it is something that is hotly contested among scientists. Giving equal weight to both sides of climate change science removes the urgency of the issue. Drastic changes are necessary to our infrastructure and our economy. But we are still debating the question of whether we even need to take such measures. Talking heads

Individual complacency, too, hinders the capacity for real environmental protection. As Thomas Friedman describes in his book Hot, Flat, and Crowded, “green living” has become a trend, not a radical movement. Corporations take advantage of the green trend and the disunity of environmentalism. There is no single standard on what makes a product “green.” What companies have done is cover their packaging with pictures of leaves and the earth and call it environmentally responsible. Many consumers will give into the marketing strategy, buy the leafy water bottle, and call it a day. In this way, the American idea of green living isn’t a revolution. It isn’t retreat into an island civilization. The American idea of green living is buying 1-use bottled water that was made with 25% less plastic than the other guy’s 1-use water bottle.

A Good Start

In his article, "Why is it so hard to stop climate change?" Damian Carrington outlines what I believe to be three (actually 4) of the biggest obstacles to an effective fight against climate change. He says that a lack of low-carbon energy sources, too much reliance on fossil fuels, and not enough political leadership and too much focus on the current economic crisis are standing in the way of effective action. He lumps politics and economics together into the same category and although they are related, are two separate things.

He stresses that leadership is focusing too much on how to recover from the global economic crisis, but does not talk about how general consumer culture and "bigger is better" economic creeds drive the continued use of inefficient and dirty energy and the propping up of those industries by political leaders. He fails to discuss two of the biggest variables, businesses and corporations producing products and the human consumers who purchase them.

One other aspect that I believe Carrington fails to discuss is human population. He does not examine humans as consumers who drive a produce and purchase cycle and he also does not examine humans in terms of their sheer numbers. Global human population just recently passed 7 billion, which means more human environmental impact than ever before. Increased population is partially fueled by increased food supply, which also means that we should take into account the industrial food system when talking about climate change. Clearly, the colossal problem that is climate change cannot be blamed on just 3 or 4 contributing factors. The whole global system has become so complex that to cherry pick just a few and examine them in six short paragraphs fails to explain the whole picture. Carrington starts the discussion on a good note, but it is just a start and most certainly begs for further analysis.

Even MORE Barriers to Stopping Climate Change

In his piece "Why is it so hard to stop climate change?" for the Guardian, Damian Carrington sees a lack of unified global leadership, the refusal to subsidize more efficient, renewable sources of energy and our reliance on fossil fuels for energy as the three big things standing in the way of stopping climate change. To echo many of my classmates, Carrington fails to recognize that people also factor into the equation. And with people come the cultural norms driving our decision-making that Carrington also fails to mention.

While climate change skeptics may not exist in such great numbers in the UK, in the United States the issue of climate change, as we've discussed in class many a time, is a highly politicized and partisan issue. And when the very issue of whether climate change exists is contested, I would argue that is a pretty big barrier to overcome in stopping it. And even among people who believe that climate change exists, motivating those people to actually do something about it and moreover create the pressure on our political systems necessary to create more large-scale changes does not look promising.  According to a 2011 Gallup poll using data from 2010, only 42% of people polled worldwide view climate change as a significant threat to their well-being and that of their families. In the United States, while in 2008 63% of people viewed climate change as a threat this number dwindled to 53% in 2010. In Western Europe, the percentage is around 56% down 10% from the 2008 numbers.

Not only are people not threatened by climate change and indifferent to the effect it will have on future generations (not to mention the arguably irreversible damage we have already done), our cultural norms (as Assadourian and Wapner would argue) do not favor the actions necessary to stop climate change. The globalization of American and European culture to every corner of the globe means that fewer and fewer people on our planet will want to live the kind of lifestyle that is favorable to ending climate change. Our materialistic consumer culture is arguably the biggest hindrance to solving climate change and continually exporting said culture, which is the primary driver of the use of the fossil fuels and inefficient energies that Carrington mentions, will only drive up the demand for those energy sources.

What about the Americans?

This article misses the biggest problem to combating climate change, humans, specifically, Americans. He does address the aspects of motivation and people’s need economic incentives to change. However, he never addressed the issue of people not believing in climate change. Since the Guardian is a British newspaper I’m going to say that he forgot that people don’t believe in climate change, because Europeans are less skeptical of climate change than Americans. That being said, American climate skepticism needs to be considered. America is a huge contributor of Green House Gas and if Americans do not get on board with climate change policies little change will be possible. However, as long as climate skeptics are prevalent in the US, not much change will occur in the country. If more people that accept climate change and its implications then greater the pressure on the government to create more environmentally friendly policies.

The article also leaves out wind energy as a potential source for renewable energy. While listing all the potential renewable energy sources would be overwhelming, wind is a big industry that deserves to be mentioned. Considering the amount of wind that the British coast gets, I was shocked he did not think of it. Focusing on only one renewable energy source is not practical since one such source cannot satisfy the energy demands of the world. Instead an approach that integrates multiple renewable energy sources would be more stable and able to meet the world’s energy needs.

The third problem that I had with the article was the discussion of coal as an energy source. The article focused on carbon capturing techniques. Instead of focusing on slightly improving coal, I think we should focus on replacing coal with cleaner energy sources. Continuing to use coal, and oil, as a primary energy source will not change the situation we are facing with climate change. However, different cleaner energy sources can have a great impact on changing the path of climate change.

Without the Public, Progress is Impossible

The article “Why is it so hard to stop climate change?” is a disappointing summary of the issues preventing environmental progress. Not only is the information limited but also the support for each of the author’s points leaves the reader wanting more. Carrington claims that it is “politics and economics,” “low-carbon energy,” and “fossil fuels” that are the reasons behind climate change, as well as its persistence. I certainly do not disagree with his argument. It is difficult for 194 countries to agree on greenhouse gas emissions when they all lie at different points on the development spectrum. Yes, renewable energy has been all but scoffed at and its potential has not even come close to being reached. Sure, oil is practically in our blood and will be difficult to wean ourselves off of. But one thing Carrington fails to address is the people.

He writes this article as if climate change weren’t a contentious issue, as though hundreds of thousands, particularly U.S. citizens, did not dispel this phenomenon, labeling it as a “hoax.” The mere fact that in order to be a true Republican nowadays you have to dispel climate change and mark it as liberal jargon is illustrative of what this issue is up against. Not to mention environmental responsibility on all realms is thought to be below the Right. In order to actually stop climate change, the vast majority of people, no not everyone, needs to actually believe in it. Their belief can then spur the actions of policymakers, as their only aims are reelection, and this is done by appeasing the people. The science is there, climate change is happening and complacency will lead to disaster. The only thing that is not there are the people, so long as those in politics and the media continue to badger this issue as if it were still debatable, America may miss out on its opportunity to be a leading figure in the effort to end climate change and becoming a key player in a new energy era. Even if one was vehemently against this issue because they considered it too liberal, they should instead focus on the market opportunities that come with it, the foreign policy advancements, and the respect.

Assessing "Scientific" Claims

In my exploration of “Friends of Science,” a website that asserts that the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change is flawed and that climate change is driven instead by the sun, I had a hard time taking any of their research or claims seriously simply because I already know where I stand on the “issue” of climate change. Naturally, I automatically found “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” more convincing by default. While, as other classmates have already stated, neither site does a particularly stand-up job of presenting the science behind their claims (mostly because neither seem to embrace a sense of scientific “objectivity” that seems key to any scientific argument), I think that my immediate tendency to find “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” slightly more convincing speaks volumes to the way that the internet has changed the way that the public forms an opinion.

In an ideal world, the internet would function as a democratic forum for the exchange of ideas in which the truth could ultimately be deciphered through intelligent debate, the internet is instead a place where people go not to challenge their own ideas, but to reinforce them. The “facts” and diagrams and “academic support” that both of these websites provide for their respective audiences are not scientific because they do not make any attempt to look at the data that they provide objectively. Rather, both sites cherry-pick articles to fit their particular arguments and interpret the data according to their views. When there is no effort made at debate, no attempt to reach a conclusion from the data instead of using data to prove a preconceived conclusion, how can this be called “science?”

Climate Change Confusion

Both the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" and the "Friends of Science" websites are definitely overwhelming to say the least. It seems the purpose of the climate skeptic site is to provide a multitude of possible skeptical arguments with a lot of possible answers. The articles are divided up into so many sections and sub-sections that it is almost impossible to really know where to start or how to navigate through all of them. The "Friends of Science" site however, seems as though it is attempting spread views about climate change in a "scientific" context that is very different from typical scientific views regarding climate change. For example, on the very front page of their website they state that the earth is actually cooling and that violent weather is not increasing, two views that most climate scientists would disagree with.

Neither site does a very good job of citing and backing up their claims with solid academic or scientific literature. It seems climate skeptic author Coby Beck, while still providing us with very detailed and somewhat useful information, is just a blogger with little scientific background and qualification to be making these claims. Friends of Science attributes their claims and findings to the work of a "scientific review board" made up of only 3 people. I think it is important to remain open minded when reading and entertaining the information provided on both of these sites and remember that we can't believe every statement that is made.

T.M.I.

The omnivore diet, as Michael Pollan suggests, presents the omnivore with a burden of choice. Everyday, we are faced with decision after decision of "is this good for me?" Similarly, the information age has brought upon a burden of too many choices. Before, student research was bound to the books in the library. Now, we must trudge through the endless streams of information on the internet to find useful, credible sources. Websites like Friends of Science and Grist demonstrate the difficulties of all this information; both websites present divergent information that they both claim is indisputable. How are we to make sense of it all?

In reading the Friends of Science page, I was immediately skeptical. I read an article about the follies of wind power and how the government needs to focus its subsidies on "efficient" fossil fuels instead. It became clear to me that this website has an agenda. Like Adrienne, I looked up Friends of Science on Sourcewatch and saw the allegations of a connection with oil companies. I wasn't surprised.

Grist was painful to read in a different way. I think this website encompasses a lot of what conservatives mean when they mock the demeanor of environmentalists. Grist articles are -- to be blunt -- absolutely obnoxious. One, about industrialized animal farming, points to Mcdonalds pork products. "What does the McRib taste like? Gym mats? Or PIG TEARS?" I had to laugh. The message, then, does not get across. I had no greater sympathy for crying pigs, no greater investment in the issue of sustainable, humane animal farming, and no interest in reading other articles on this website. I was hungry for some ribs though. On top of this, there are few citations and the bloggers possess little credibility (like myself). This website does not expand the conversation. Rather, it stifles it.

The Downside to the World Wide Web

Just reading the websites "Friends of Science" and "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic," particularly the responses in the latter, give me a headache. They exemplify just how controversial the issue of climate change really is and I hate to criticize the World Wide Web but having access to hundreds of different non-scientific perspectives really only makes progress harder and the truth more difficult to decipher. Friends of Science appears to be a Canadian organization that believes the sun is the source responsible for climate change. Therefore it is essentially impossible to stop. Though they claim to have no affiliation with any outside organization or company I find this impossible to believe. Especially given they discredit alternative forms of energy, such as wind power. After a little snooping, according to Sourcewatch, it appears they receive substantial funding from “anonymous” that just so happens to be the oil industry. Even though they have a “Scientific Advisory Board” it is crucial to discover their ties and the influence that has over their message. As well as who makes up this "Scientific Advisory Board" and whether they are credible or not.

On the other hand, “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is a listing of various responses to the people that challenge climate change. All the responses are by Coby Beck, who appears to be an independent blogger and has no scientific background. With that being said he does link to scientific sources when making his claims. One of the most interested parts of this blog were peoples responses to it. Some were extremely critical of the claims, thereby being climate skeptics and others reinforced his beliefs. Because I believe in climate change and know the affiliation with oil the first website has I am more inclined to believe the second. But it still seems a bit too unprofessional to take too seriously. Neither of the websites are very striking or convincing because of their message, format, and in the case of the first, affiliation.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science

User Friendly Climate Change

To be completely honest I so not like either of the websites. They both have big flaws. The Friends of Science website has gaps in the science that they present. However, “How to talk to a climate skeptic” has its own problems. While I believe that the science behind this site is more credible and holistic, I have no way of knowing. This is partly because I am not a scientist, but even if I were a scientist I would have problems. The website is not set up in a user friendly way. The page is a long list of links to various statements and counter arguments. While it is good that they address a variety of issues, seeing such a list of links is daunting and discouraging. I am not a climate skeptic but when I saw that page I did not want to read what the links had to say. I looked at one or two of the facts to see what they were saying but I was not going to look at more than that because it was too overwhelming. If I could not bring myself to go through the website why would someone that is not particularly interested in the environment take the time to read all those facts?

This is where the Friends of Science website has the advantage, it is user friendly. You can easily look at the graphs and navigate from one topic to the next. However, if someone were to analysis the graphs for themselves instead of simply believing the analysis that was written, major gaps between the analysis and graphs would occur. For example, the website says that the planet is not warming because there is no real change between temperatures between 2001 and 2011, even though CO2 rose during that time. However, if you look at the in its entirety you can see that the high temperatures of the 1980s are the new average temperatures. That means that there has been a change that the website is ignoring. The problem is that climate skeptics or people that not already versed in the subject are not likely to engage in such analysis of the graphs in front of them. If that is true the website is only going to be effective in making them climate skeptics. In order to combat this trend climate change advocates need to make simpler, user friendly website to counter ones like Friends of Science.