The science is in the ground

Many of the techno-fixes would involve swapping a bad environmental impact for another. For example, electric cars put out zero emissions, but the batteries they run on are very toxic for the environment and still cause damage after the cars lifespan. There are plenty of ideas about how to lower emissions to help prevent future warming, but many governments cannot reach the desired degree threshold. On the contrary, there is concern the world could overshoot the target degree and heat up more than 3.6 degrees. There are some fixes that could be applied like carbon capturing, or other fuel sources. But like many technology fixes, they’re just band aids to a much larger problem that we must face. Through a combination of lowering emissions and deploying carbon-capture technology would possibly be the only way to avert catastrophic damage. I don’t believe a technology fix would be possible without drastically effecting sociology of people and the technology they use. It’s such a small time-frame and such a drastic requirement that everyone would feel the difference somehow.

The climate is something that could be studied for centuries through ice in the arctic circle. I argue that climate science is not too young and unreliable. Climate, like I said, has been around for centuries for us to see. There have been some smaller ice ages that have happened in human history, but none of these had a direct correlation like the industrial era did. Almost immediately after the industrial era, the climate began to show change in temperature.

Leave a Reply