Global ignorance

IF we were taking global climate change seriously, we would’ve already implemented serious systemic changes to our societies in order to  lower our emissions to a rate that wouldn’t disturb the biomes of the planet so negatively. However, we have not taken a step towards true institutionalized change yet, so we might have to rely on technological fixes in order to help us overcome this horrible issue of global warming. As discussed in the IPCC press release, the only realistic (not idealistic) fix is to put immense funding into carbon capture technology so that it could rapidly become accessible to most industries across the globe, that way we could use coal in a more sustainable way. But, we might have already surpassed a proper timeline for this type of solution. In the IPCC summary for policy makers it was stated that, “ The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.”(IPCC, P.2). If we have indeed surpassed that technological fixes primetime we will have to rely on carbon capture after we already have done monumental damage to the globe and the natural ecosystems the inhabit our earth. These technological fixes offer no promise of a happy ending, just a somewhat better outcome than if we were to continue at the level we are currently on. These fixes are not all that reliable, and I don’t have the faith to believe that they will provide us with a good outcome or an outcome we will be proud of. In my opinion, we should be using tech-fixes to find ways to systemically change our societies and change our day to day lives drastically in order to protect the plants and animals that don’t have the privilege to have a voice in this discussion.


After reading Reidy’s report on John Tyndall I was shocked, I had no idea that the theory of a natural greenhouse effect was in circulation that early. Clearly, climate science is not truly in it’s infancy, it simply has been neglected for years. If the greenhouse effect was theorized in the late 1800’s, we have had insight for a very long amount of time about how our emissions would effect the globe. We may not have known the exact severity of the effects or how long they would potentially last… but we had the knowledge to prevent this type of panic and catastrophe for over a century. I feel like there’s almost no excuse at this point, people are turning a blind eye and avoiding the truth about the scary and daunting effects of global warming and global climate change just because it is difficult to face. As most of us know we have to enlighten the ignorant on the true magnitude of our actions on this planet.