The readings posted this week gave a bleak future if society doesn’t change some of their habits relatively fast. In the New York Times article, the author notes that the “… most serious damage requires transforming the world economy within just a few years, said the authors, who estimate that the damage would come at a cost of $54 trillion” (Davenport). The changes that need to happen to help mitigate the problem would transform the entire population, that relies heavily on coal and natural gas as main source of power. The changes seems unlikely due to many political issues that are all over the world. The author later in the article states that the World Coal Association asserted that the “… organization intends to campaign for governments to invest in carbon capture technology” (Davenport). These types of technological fix is very expensive, that commercially they are not viable option. Also, this would only fix the problem right now, there are many questions about what could be down the road if the world does end up using these devices. With the price being so high and the fact that the world would have to change the entire culture around energy sources the future doesn’t look bright.
The statement that climate science is a “young” or newer science and that we don’t need to rely on the data is in fact quite false. In the reading from Reidy about John Tyndall sheds some light on the origins of climate science. He states that Tyndall was the first person to study natural greenhouse effect. He notes that “such changes may have in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal” (Reidy, 13). Climate science has existed since the late 19th century. Meaning that the science isn’t young at all.