Reidy or not, its time for change

This question should be looked at in the context of the information we have accumulated over this semester.  The impression I am left with is technological fixes are generally not really fixes, but more band-aids.  Given the exteme nature of this report, and if we are going to take it seriously, the time for fixes may well be in the past.  One of the things I have heard said is there will come a time when we have to make the decision to either change or adapt.  We need to quit trying to fix what is hopelessly broken and completely rethink our approach. Fixing the leaks in fracking infrastructure is not really addressing the bigger problem of fracking itself.  We have to quit focusing on the minutia.

“A price on carbon is central to prompt mitigation,” the report concludes. It estimates that to be effective, such a price would have to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton of carbon dioxide pollution in 2030, and from $690 to $27,000 per ton by 2100. By comparison, under the Obama administration, government economists estimated that an appropriate price on carbon would be in the range of $50 per ton. Under the Trump administration the figure was lowered to about 7$ per ton” (New York Times).


The above statement pretty much sums it up; two administrations on opposite ends of the spectrum making statements about carbon tax but neither coming close to what really needs to be done, eliminate carbon dioxide.


As Reidy points out in his article, the ‘greenhouse effect’ was identified in 1861 by Tyndall (Reidy 13), so this is not new science.  It’s easy to point at finger a today’s society for the climate change, but it’s safe to say these issues have been building up over a very long history of ineffective technological fixes.  Those who think we are in the infancy of this issue are  ignoring the historical evidence and real world proof of one of today’s most pressing issues.

4 thoughts on “Reidy or not, its time for change”

  1. Hi there,
    I really enjoyed your blog post. I found it interesting the point you made that shows the two very opposing administrations still have come no where near the numbers needed when it comes to a tax on carbon. It just shows the huge changes that would need to be made in order to even take a chunk out of out carbon footprint. This footprint has been something that has been observed as early as the 1800’s and has not slowed down since. What do you think would have happened if we had listened to Tyndall’s greenhouse gas observations and warnings? It is an interesting question to think about but nonetheless pointless. We must look to the future and not the past.

  2. I agree that it seems as though techno-fixes aren’t necessarily what we need right now; they are a type of “cheat,” a way that we can feel productive without actually taking responsibility for the Earth’s changing climate. The only was we can really fix this problem is to completely transform our societal and political views and enact rapid change, but this seems even more unlikely than effective techno-fixes. And as you point out, even “progressive” administrations are not doing nearly enough, which makes me question whether we will ever actually “wake up” and make the necessary changes.

  3. Your take on the readings was insightful and thought provoking. I very much agree with your response and ideas that what we do needs to focus on the now and about surviving in the future, not just about fixing the momentary problem with technofixes. One thing your blog brought up well was the differing aspects of politics in relation to climate change and how each side differs in their approach when in reality, we should just be focused on how to fix it, not what it costs or why. Overall, I liked your blog alot and it raised some really good points that we should all think about and change in our daily lives.

  4. After reading your blog post I liked that you were specific and used very detailed answers to the questions posed. It was an insightful post and the fact that it touched on the now and near future was an important part of the current climate change issues. It is something that needs to be focused on as soon as possible with the help of individuals but also on a larger scale.

Comments are closed.