According to the IPCC, “limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” (IPCC Press Release 2018). A technological fix, like the ones we’ve discussed in class, would produce a rapid, far-reaching solution needed to address the problem of climate change. Though technological fixes permeate all levels of society, it may not produce the behavioral changes required to really have a positive effect on climate change. A technological fix would address the surface issue of the problem and delay the immediate effects of it, but in the end would not wholly address this issue as seen in the superfund readings. In the time frame we have, it is doubtful we could generate a socio-technological fix that would address rising temperatures in the long run. Theoretically, it could be achieved, but if and only if we had mass cooperation and collaboration between countries and people. That is a dream at best. Though the UN aims to work towards reducing increasing temperatures and represents this kind of collaboration, this collaboration only works if all the countries are on board and actively implement these fixes, which is unlikely to happen.
In regards to the stance of climate contrarians, their statements denying climate change is both false and dangerous. The IPCC provides ample evidence that we are no longer in the early stages of climate change. According to Reidy’s article, Tyndall “deftly defended science from its religious critics” (Reidy, Pg. 13). This is the kind of defense necessary to continue studying rising temperatures and develop solutions to climate change as much of the push back for climate protections comes from those skeptical of science.