This question should be looked at in the context of the information we have accumulated over this semester. The impression I am left with is technological fixes are generally not really fixes, but more band-aids. Given the exteme nature of this report, and if we are going to take it seriously, the time for fixes may well be in the past. One of the things I have heard said is there will come a time when we have to make the decision to either change or adapt. We need to quit trying to fix what is hopelessly broken and completely rethink our approach. Fixing the leaks in fracking infrastructure is not really addressing the bigger problem of fracking itself. We have to quit focusing on the minutia.
“A price on carbon is central to prompt mitigation,” the report concludes. It estimates that to be effective, such a price would have to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton of carbon dioxide pollution in 2030, and from $690 to $27,000 per ton by 2100. By comparison, under the Obama administration, government economists estimated that an appropriate price on carbon would be in the range of $50 per ton. Under the Trump administration the figure was lowered to about 7$ per ton” (New York Times).
The above statement pretty much sums it up; two administrations on opposite ends of the spectrum making statements about carbon tax but neither coming close to what really needs to be done, eliminate carbon dioxide.
As Reidy points out in his article, the ‘greenhouse effect’ was identified in 1861 by Tyndall (Reidy 13), so this is not new science. It’s easy to point at finger a today’s society for the climate change, but it’s safe to say these issues have been building up over a very long history of ineffective technological fixes. Those who think we are in the infancy of this issue are ignoring the historical evidence and real world proof of one of today’s most pressing issues.