When it comes to a strictly technological fix, these articles mainly discuss carbon capturing technology and an increase in the current technology of renewable energy such as solar and wind power. However, the carbon technology will ideally be used in harmony with reducing carbon emissions to prevent the global temperature from rising rather than attempting to lower the temperature after it’s already significantly risen. The social aspects will be arguably the most difficult and the most important within the socio-technological fix. Hypothetically, such a fix can happen but it will take a drastic social and political movement. A carbon tax “[ranging] from $135 to $5,500 per ton… in 2030” would be one major step to reduce carbon emissions and the predicted tax is far greater by 2100. (Davenport, p. 3) Such a tax would take a great political shift, especially in America, to become implemented and would hopefully create a great shift afterward. Additionally, the money behind the creation of effective carbon capturing technology would need to be specifically socially and politically supported by those wanting to prevent increased temperature, not those using it as an excuse to change nothing in the present.
Climate science is not a 1,050-year-old infant. Michael Reidy writes that Tyndall brought about climate science in 1861, I think it’s safe to say that it’s not new. Additionally, “91 scientists from 40 countries who analyzed more than 6,000 scientific studies” contributed to the data put out by the IPCC and it is undeniably thorough. (Davenport, p. 2) Although, admittedly, climate science hasn’t been as widespread and thoroughly researched for all 1,050 years, it has still had a presence and a lot of scientific research has been done. Now, the issue and the science is bigger than ever because the magnitude of the risks have become so apparent.