It should be common knowledge that Earth is warming, and fast. Although 1.2-2 degree C does not sound like the beginning of the end, the environment, and by association, humans, will see monumental impacts (IPCC Headline, 2). Both of the articles that we read by the IPCC denote that we need to get the CO2 out of our atmosphere using Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) which would “achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak” (IPCC Headline, 3). This techno-fix still faces major difficulties though because it is neither feasible nor sustainable; moreover we may become dependent on this new idea if it were to work. Even if this fix were to work, we would need to begin reducing emissions by 2030. Some other things that we can do that were not mentioned in the article are to turn to clean energy like wind and solar. These set us on the correct path for the future and the CBR approach has the potential to aid in past mistakes. It is going to be extremely hard to accomplish what the IPCC wants to in just about 80 years, especially if some countries are not apart of the Paris Climate Agreement. I think it is possible but we would need to see a surge in support.
In Professor Reidy’s work, it is evident that he believes climate science is not too young to be reliable. Tyndall’s experiment in 1861 was the first piece of the puzzle regarding the greenhouse effect (Reidy, 13). To think that people had begun to question what the atmosphere consists of and how that can affect everything that we do is truly amazing. The IPCC articles definitely portray a healthy amount of criticism Personally, I am not educated enough on this topic to know whether climate contrarians are justified or not. I do think that we need to be skeptical about answers that we find everywhere and consider every possibility before claiming a causal link. However, I do think that climate science is a valid field and can have huge impacts on how we approach certain obstacles.