Individual –> Global

1) Technological fixes can be used to address rising temperatures. For example, carbon capture (capturing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in the bedrock below earth’s surface), ocean fertilization (scattering iron powder throughout the oceans, providing nutrients to boost the phytoplankton), and alternative energy sources (such as wind, water, and solar) are all technological fixes designed to address climate change. Socio-technological fixes, such as decreasing meat consumption, building eco-friendly buildings, and limiting excess waste, are much more limited to the individual, and it could be argued that these changes cannot stack up against the contributions of farming, industry, and energy production. These changes depend on global empathy, cooperation, and sustained effort.

2) No, climate science is not in its infancy. In fact, climate science has been studied since the 18th century and gained momentum in the 19th century. Michael Reid tells the story of John Tyndall, a climate scientist who worked in the late 1800s, studying glaciers, radiation and absorption of sunlight, and which molecules absorb heat the most effectively. So the argument that climate science is unreliable due to its “age” is not viable.

4 thoughts on “Individual –> Global”

  1. I really like your post. I agree with you in the sense that we as a society are so scared of a new idea that we become ignorant to it. I personally think that we have made one of the biggest mistakes in modern day which is try to deny that the climate is changing. Because we did this, we have dug ourselves a bigger hole that we can no longer climb out of. Essentially we put ourselves in quick sand and the only way to go is down. I don’t really agree with you on some of the fixes you claimed such as limiting “meat consumption” because the consumption is not really the problem. The problem is the methane that the cows and live stock produce. But live stock is the only contributes to that. Whenever we mine, we release methane gas from the ground. But over all with your article I think you did a good job.

  2. Nice post, I really like all of your examples of different environmental technical fixes. I also like that you mentioned talking about various actions we as humans can take in order to mitigate environmental issues, human techno-fixes if you will. I also like the reasons you gave for change to come about. The only thing I think you could have done in the first paragraph is to cite the IPCC articles. You’re second paragraph is straight and to the point. I can really tell that you put your own thoughts into this paragraph, as well as information from Reidy’s article.

  3. I really like your examples. All of your technological fixes and socio-technological fixes are really effective solutions to rising temperatures. I agree that any socio-technological fix would require a tremendous amount of effort and may not be easily employed. Though these fixes would ultimately be the most beneficial, they would be the most difficult to implement. I also agree that one cannot dismiss climate change as the conclusion of an un-established science is ridiculous. As our readings have shown, this is a very old, seasoned science that, if anything, has grown more precise over the decades and presents more than enough expertise to be trusted.

  4. I agree with Hannah, the science that we need to fix these problems is difficult. And these will require a ton of effort form people. This seems to be the point though. Humanity needs to come together on this, it is no longer a problem that can or should be fixed by a few people or scientists. The solution will be something that everyone needs to work on, and it is an achievable goal, but one that everyone needs to work on.

Comments are closed.