Is It Too Late To Go To Mars?

The IPCC argument is that catastrophic environmental conditions will result from globally  warming temperatures. I think that technological fixes have the potential to effect and address the Earth’s rising temperatures. As the IPCC Headline Statements document suggests, the risks from warming of 1.5º C could be limited by increasing the rate of technological innovation (IPCC Statements, pg. 3). One of the technological fixes discussed is balancing emissions by removing CO2 (Facsimile, pg. 2). The articles discuss the dramatically increased use of renewable energy sources as a way to prevent 2.7 degrees of warming, as well as using carbon capture technology (The New York Times, pg. 4). The IPCC Press Release stated that while limiting warming to 1.5º C is possible, it would require unprecedented changes by the countries of the world (IPCC Press Release, pg. 2). While there may be technological fixes that can delay the onset of the global rise of temperatures, socio-technological fixes may be politically unlikely. As The New York Times article says, it may be technologically possible to enact the rapid changes necessary to combat warming, but it may be “politically unlikely” that the changes needed will actually occur (The New York Times, pg. 1). An effective socio-technological fix isn’t likely to be enacted in time to mitigate climate change.

I do not think the statement that climate change is too young to be reliable is accurate. As the articles show, climate change is both scientifically proven and very real. Projections tell us that by 2040, the world we live in will be a dramatically different place. There will be food shortages, massive coral die-offs, and an immense rise in sea levels (The New York Times, pg. 1 and IPCC Headline Statements, pg. 1). I think there is plenty of reputable evidence that proves that climate change is real, and that it is shown in these articles. 

2 thoughts on “Is It Too Late To Go To Mars?”

  1. It’s a shame that political change is unlikely to happen. I don’t think this is completely the fault of lawmakers, I think if more people were passionate about climate change and were active about making political change happen it could happen. But there are so many people that think climate change won’t be as bad as scientists have predicted and some that don’t even believe that climate change is happening. This is probably because people don’t always trust science. This may be because they don’t see the effects of global warming and they trust what they see more than they trust the predictions of scientists.

    I agree that climate science is not too young to provide useful information. I think that the majority of people that don’t believe in the damage climate change will cause probably don’t think about this though, as most of us are too lazy too fact check what we read online and we just believe what makes sense to us.

  2. I really like the title of your post. It reminds me of all the science fiction movies where people had to leave earth for a new colony on another planet. It is always because humans have destroyed the earth by war or environmental destruction. Maybe this concept is more scientific than fiction. I agree with your statement that technological fixes can likely be applied to help stop emissions form polluting the atmosphere, but socio-technological fixes will be hard to do. Socio-technological fixes are hard to orchestrate because both U.S. and global leaders have such varied opinions on how to fix global climate change. Some leaders even think climate change is hoax. I think it is important to educate the public as Dr. Reidy did for us today that climate change has been studied and observed for hundreds of years. If the masses had this knowledge we may help sway the publics opinion to lobby leaders to adopt polices that will help alleviate these harmful effects on our atmosphere and environment. Great job on your post!

Comments are closed.