The IPCC has had various meetings and written quite a substantial number of articles regarding the future of Earth’s atmosphere, and the effect of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere on climate. Overall, it was agreed that an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius in global temperatures is less catastrophic than an increase of 2 degrees Celsius on global temperatures (IPCC “Headline Statements” p. 1-2). This implies the idea that something needs to change with how we live our lives. As suggested in the New York Times article, humans need to reduce our carbon footprints, through legislation that increases taxes or prices on carbon emissions. However, such legislation is unlikely to occur because countries like the United States, which is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter, are planning to drop out of the Paris Agreement (NY Times Article, p. 2). This lack of support from our government to propose legislation that limits our greenhouse gas emissions means we need another solution. I think that technological fixes, like the ones mentioned in the New York Times article of using renewable energy or potentially finding ways to convert CO2 into something less harmful is what needs to happen, however, timing is a huge issue. In all of the articles, a lack of time was stressed, with dates of catastrophic climate change starting as early as 2040 (NY Times p. 1). This lack of time is what I think makes the problem impossible to resolve completely; instead at this point I think it’s more of damage control.
I think that the evidence compiled by scientists is enough to refute the claim that this theory is “too young to be reliable”. The heliocentric model was adopted in the matter of a century, and evidence of anthropogenic effects on climate were proven as early as the 1800’s, so I don’t see the reason people are still doubting this theory (Reidy, p. 1-3). Therefore, this climate science isn’t too young to be reliable and this attitude is what got the world into this mess in the first place.
I think a good expansion of the “running out of time” and “damage control” narrative is the fact that many don’t consider the fact that we may be able to get the temperature back in an okay range in the next 20-30 odd years, but that could be after we’ve overshot the threshold at which things such as coral reefs are able to survive.
I’m also curious as to what ideas you have regarding converting CO2 into something less harmful. What would that be and how would it be used? Going back to last weeks readings and discussions- that sound like a transformative and transported techno-fix, both of which could lead into the problem just being delayed or moved. We really NEED to make it economically infeasible for these giant CO2 producers to keep doing what they do if we want to see change. I’m not saying that some kind of technofix couldn’t help buy us a little time, which is something we sorely need, just it can’t be considered a replacement for actually changing how we approach CO2 production.