April 8 - Environmental Devastation - Questions #7
Comments
|
After publishing Superfreakonomics in 2009, Stephen Dubner and UChicago’s own Steven Levitt came under fire for their discussion of alternative approaches to addressing global warming. Most notably, they highlighted the concept of a “stratoshield,” in which sulfur dioxide sprayed into the stratosphere would deflect sunlight and combat warming caused by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. While still controversial, geoengineering appears to have gained substantial traction (e.g. The National Academies report last month). Given this, what is your opinion on the role of geoengineering (if any) in combating climate change? Global warming and economists - SuperFreakonomics is SuperFreakingWrong - The Guardian, 2013 Global Warming in SuperFreakonomics: The Anatomy of a Smear - Freakonomics Blog, 2009 Should We Block the Sun? Scientists Say the Time Has Come to Study It. - NYT, 03/25/21 |
|
Climate change is often termed as this generation's greatest collective action problem - and that isn't helped by the vulnerability of both domestic and international climate policy to political shifts, such as administration changes (e.g. the US withdrawing from and then re-entering the Paris Agreement). How can we design policies and institutions around global catastrophic risks to be more resilient to political mutability? |
|
BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture storage, is a climate change solution presented by Kenneth Möllersten which proposes the idea that we capture carbon instead of emitting it into the atmosphere. By using farming techniques, BECCS works by growing crops and trees, taking in CO2 and releasing O2 into the atmosphere. Then, these plants are burnt, and their CO2 is trapped and stored. Do you think that this is an efficient solution to global warming? Is there a problem we would have to eventually address with storing CO2, whether it be in facilities or underground? |
|
Climate change disproportionately affects less-developed countries, and less-advantaged populations within countries of all levels of development. Climate change is also driven most intensely by countries and populations who are least negatively affected by it. Given that ethics doesn’t seem to be a prevailing factor for these countries in their policy choices, how do we even out the distribution of negative effects and incentivize them to mitigate their emissions? |
|
In 2006, the state of California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act (or AB 32), which aimed for a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The CARB (California Air Resources Board) set the limit at 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2020; and the people of California were just barely short of this number. While I agree that setting a limit is necessary, sometimes it can be misleading since people are incentivized to try not to hit the limit, but there is no incentive to reduce the emissions further than the limit. Do you think that setting a lower limit may be helpful? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Solutions_Act_of_2006 |
|
Obviously all sorts of activist movements have billionaires supporting the challenged status quo, but climate change activists might have it the worst. There are real, trillion-dollar incentives for oil barons and the like to pretend like nothing's wrong... and at least in the United States, where money is constitutionally a form of protected speech, that's a substantial roadblock. How does grassroots activism overcome being outspent? Given the number of Senators with financial/electoral incentives to vote no on climate change legislation, what alternatives to vote-blue activism should we pursue? |
|
The number of 1.5-2ºC as an impassable temperature rise has been quoted in the academic and public sphere alike. In the articles for this week, in fact, this number has remained a means of quantizing the "point of no return." What does this number really mean and how quickly are we set to approach it? In addition, what do you judge as our chances to prevent the 1.5-2ºC rise before 2100? |
|
This question came after I watched one of the films on this topic, the day after tomorrow. Evidence suggests that the first human being exists about 300,000 years ago, while the last glacial period happened around 110,000 years ago. This means human beings had experienced a glacial period before they learned how to get energy out from fossil fuels and release CO2 into the atmosphere. My question was that ain't major environmental devastations, such as global warming or glaciations caused by nature itself? |
|
The second scenario outlined by the New Yorker article suggests that there will be inequity in the consequences of global warming between developing and developed countries. This in combination with the fact that developing countries are more reliant on fossil fuels and other non-green sources of energy to grow than developed countries create a looping effect that appears to lead to disaster. Thus, an important question that we must ask is how we can globally incentivize developing countries to make the capital investment into green energy even at the early stages in their development. Moreover, how can developed countries help with this endeavor, and is making a similar transition within the country enough? Lastly, how can we incentivize private businesses/corporations to play a role in this? Is subsidizing investment in developing countries (like China did to create a green energy industry) a feasible method to help bring pressure off of the local governments? |
|
Carbon emissions from the United States have steadily decreased over the past few years, with national greenhouse gas emissions having fallen 10% since peak levels in 2007 (1). Total US energy-related CO2 emissions fell by 12% during this period, while in contrast, global energy-related emissions increased nearly 24%. In terms of raw carbon emissions reduction, the United States outpaces every other country in the world (2). Many countries in the Paris Agreement, including developed countries like Canada and China, have seen smaller emission reductions or not seen their emissions decrease at all (3, 4). While it is true that the US is behind other countries when it comes to reduction as percentage, we have been the global leader in raw emissions reductions since 2007. What is the US doing right and is it enough? Furthermore, are international agreements like the Paris Accords a legitimate means of curbing climate change or just political theater? (1) https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/latest-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-shows-long-term-reductions-0#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20(April%2013%2C%202020),by%2027%25%20%2D%2D%20even%20as |
|
Whenever I think about climate change I am often reminded of the Carl Sagan quote: "There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand." This gets contrasted, however, with comments from prominent people like Elon Musk who has talked about "Terraforming Mars", so how do you think emerging technologies in space exploration, travel, or potential space-based technologies to counteract climate change is affecting the ability of both regular citizens and policymakers to conceptualize and respond to climate change. |
|
According to Saul Griffith, virtually all the technology we need to solve climate change is already here, we just need to start actually using it and letting economies of scale kick in. This is in large contrast to arguments that pose climate change as a technology problem to be solved in the future by genius engineers (such as Tillerson's argument). If the technology we need is already here, why don't we see anyone proposing any legislature for stimulating the adoption of solar, batteries, distributed grids and the like? https://medium.com/otherlab-news/how-do-we-decarbonize-7fc2fa84e887 |
|
One of the most concerning parts of climate change for me is the socioeconomic ramifications of such largescale global upheaval. I think the Kimpert article does a good job of pointing out that increasing economic pressure for countries to be green would disproportionately affect developing countries, and climate change itself would also disproportionately affect developing countries. On a smaller scale, the effect of mass human population movements would likely involve very difficult lives for fugitives new to home countries. What are some policy recommendations you have to get the world to move towards a greener planet without bringing undue economic harm to developing countries? What can leaders do now/in the future to minimize socioeconomic inequalities that come along with climate change? |
|
Climate change disproportionally impacts less developed countries. It is common for poorer nations to rely on energy sources that are not renewable or green as they begin to rapidly develop. My question is what would be the incentive for developing countries to enact renewable energy sources if it is financially not beneficial for their development? In addition, what reason would more developed countries have for helping poorer nations develop the infrastructure or sources of energy that can lead to less emissions and pollution, if at all? |
|
The vast majority of models predict that wind and solar energy shares above 80% of gross power production would require extreme increases in renewables capacity, massively increased costs, and the maintenance of high levels of backstop capacity. What is the best way to take care of the remaining 20%? Are carbon-emitting backstops ultimately feasible on a fixed carbon budget (per IPCC), or will we have to look to nuclear?
|
|
The issue of climate change has been framed in several different ways, from the detriment it would have on plants and animals, such as the increased risk of extinction for a large fraction of species, to the harmful effects it would have for people, such as risks of food insecurity and negative impacts on human health. And yet, it seems we are still largely not at the level of urgency we need to be at to actually begin to come to a solution and avoid these consequences. Is there any other way we could be framing or discussing the issue that may get more people involved and listening? |
|
Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math by Bill McKibben presents 3 key numbers of great significance to warming, the global carbon budget, and the global carbon reserves. One key point is the overabundance of global coal, oil, and natural gas reserves far exceeds the carbon budget; the amount that can be burned to keep us below the 2degC mark. In 2012, climatologists predicted that 565 gigatons of carbon could be burned before we surpass the 2degC limit, but this number shrinks annually as we increase fossil fuel consumption. A global C reserve of over 2,500 gigatons appears to be a great threat to staying below 2degC, but with the inevitable shift towards green alternatives throughout the 21st century, do you think this reserve is truly a threat to the climate if we begin to decrease reliance on fossil fuels? What should be done with the excess? McKibben, Bill. “Global Warming's Terrifying New Math.” Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone, June 25, 2018. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-188550/. |
|
With such a rapid change in ecosystems around the world? Will the change be slow enough to allow for the survival of most species? It seems inevitable that some will completely go extinct due to climate change, but what will the rapid change of the environment do to the ecology of the planet? Is it ethical for us to keep endangered species in captivity in artificial habitats? Would it be unethical not to, since this is our fault? As a side question I would like to gather a list of places I should visit before they are destroyed (such as the grand coral reef due to the increased acidity of the oceans from CO2)? Any suggestions? |
|
What is an acceptable level of risk for geo-engineering strategies to resolve climate change? In particular, do we accept any strategy that has a lower probability of existential disaster than the status quo? To me, this is interesting because it highlights a bias towards a risky status quo, against risky (but less risky) solutions. This may be fair, but it requires justification, and presumably a formal approach to balancing these risks. |
|
It is often discussed that we need to hold fossil fuel companies feet to the fire in order to effect change. That is, we have to force them, through the political system, to change their ways by preventing them from digging into their fossil fuel reserves, and putting them out of business. But, as so many different interests – not just top CEOs – are vested in the enormous amount of capital in dirty energy, I wonder if there's another way forward. As such, instead of being combative against these companies and their shareholders, what if we brought them to the table? What if we allowed the Shells of the world to be at the table as to how (not when) we shift to clean energy? What if, after setting the deadline, as soon as possible I hope, we invite those leaders to be part of the enormous shift to green energy that we needed tomorrow? We need as much help as possible making it so wind, solar, and other forms of renewable energy are the only forms of energy we produce and consume — why not ensure they'll get some money by bringing them on board to help us with this transition? This is being suggested because the other approach hasn't worked. |
|
How can we present the issues of climate change so people can understand the current crisis and the future devastation that it will present in the future? Many people are predicting the 1.5 C change to happen by 2030. Some are predicting a slower change by 2100. What are the consequences of a faster climate change versus a slower climate change? Obviously, a slower climate change is better but is it just putting off the problem for the future. Do we need complete climate change elimination or does maintaining say 0.2 C change every 5-10 years for near future acceptable? |
|
One of the aspects of climate change and global warming that is not brought up as much is the environmental justice part of the equation. The focus (rightly so) at the moment is to convince the legislators to do something, anything even, that will help slow the threat we are facing. However, I wonder what the effect of some of the proposed actions might have on inequality between developed and developing countries. Do the solutions being proposed take this problem into account and how are they being addressed? |
|
How should we think about carbon consumption quotas when some countries have consumed significantly more carbon over time to get themselves to a point of development where they can comfortably think about solving climate risks without hindering public life? This historical consumption has come at the cost of other uncompensated countries and people. I want to better understand how historical consumption comes into play when considering the energy consumption limitations discussed in international climate treaties. |
|
The University of Chicago has $33 million invested in three exchange-traded funds that are significantly invested in fossil fuel and deforesting companies. The University does not plan to divest from these industries on the grounds of the Kalven Report, in which it refuses to take social and/or political stances on issues outside of its core mission, "the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge." Of course there is no doubt that the fossil fuel industry has actively combatted "the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge" of climate change, so the Kalven Report does not support these investments. What is the role of academic institutions in combatting climate change? Should we prioritize supporting public outreach/education efforts and research on clean energy and improved energy shortage; if so, does the need to secure this funding justify economic entanglement with the fossil fuel industry today? Kalven, Harry, Jr. Kalven Committee: Report On the University's Role in Political and Social Action. 1967. |
|
How can we equitably engage in a global response to climate change? Who should be held economically, politically, and ethically responsible for environmental devastation? Does responsibility fall on countries, corporations, or the richest 10% of individuals who generate 52% of carbon emissions? Additionally, how can we ensure that policies designed to tackle climate change do not exacerbate existing inequalities. The carbon tax, for instance, has gained popularity in recent years and is included as a potential mitigation tool in both the Synthesis report from IPCC5 and Bill McKibben’s “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”. However, some politicians warn that because the tax is regressive, the poorest families will be disproportionately affected. What do you think about this critique? |
|
After reading "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math", Do you think there is ENOUGH of an economic incentive to combatting Climate Change? The article for example, talked about how there is $20 Trillion worth of Fossil Fuels waiting to be consumed. How would corportations/governments push for this change without highlighting the loss of of this market? Thank You. |
|
As mentioned in the reading “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”, there is already 2,795 gigatons of carbon already contained in coal, oil, and gas reserves of both fossil-fuel companies and countries that act like fossil-fuel companies. This number is the amount of fossil fuel that already is intended to be used. |
|
During our lecture last week, we discussed ways in which we would be able to address the issue of annihilation, one of these methods of annihilation being climate change. The discussion included several possible avenues of resolution in order to prevent such annihilation. Some of these avenues included political change, social change, cultural change, and others. What method of change do you think would be the most impactful in addressing the issue of climate change both within the United States and the world? |
|
this is inspired by @a-bosko 's question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxxxqwBQw There's this kurzgesagt video tries to answer the question: who is responsible for climate change and who's responsibility is it to fix? From China and India's (leaders in global emissions) POV: Countries like the US are hypocrites for polluting for centuries without restraint and now expect others not to industrialize. The competition of 21st-century industrialization and post-colonial grudges will make it difficult for the entire world to unite around the collective goal to reduce emissions ASAP. My question is: Within a capitalist system, where money is what drives the choices companies and nations to make, will it be possible to defeat climate change, or will there be some radical restructuring of the global economic system in order to meet the needs of impending irreversible damage? The science is undeniable at this point but implementing adequate solutions is expensive and will require collaboration, not competition. Another question: Will climate change be a centripetal or centrifugal force for world peace ? like, will it cause wars and territorial disputes as more and more land becomes uninhabitable due to global sea levels rising or will we come together and collectively innovate humanity's way out of this problem? probably a mix of both. |
|
Anecdotally, when I have tried to talk to people in the age group of my parents or older about climate change, I usually get very ambivalent responses that surround the idea of why would they care, it won't happen in their lifetime. How would you suggest convincing individuals to care about this existential threat, when it most likely won't effect them directly? |
|
Elon Musk, the visionary businessman and engineer who founded Tesla, is oftentimes known for upsetting the status quo in a variety of sectors. Recently, he announced a social impact challenge in which any individual or firm--regardless of age, background, size, etc--to develop the most innovative and plausible idea to combat global warming would be awarded $100M to see the idea through. How do you feel about such incentive schemes; how do you feel about the efficacy of the private market in prompting and implementing such innovations at massive scales instead of the public government? Do you see this as the future? |
|
In his book "Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime," Bruno Latour aruges, "What counts above all for the elites... is no longer having to share with others a world that they know will never again be a common world.” I also remember reading that during Hurricane Katrina, Blackwater security guards defended the houses of the wealthy from being looted. Clearly, there is a class divide between the nations/individuals who are suffering/will suffer the most from environmental devastations. Although there have been movements to inform the general public of global warming, how can we better inform politicians or individuals who may never see the first hand effects of global warming, especially considering these are the very individuals who can control policy measured to reduce risks? |
|
In the article titled “Three Scenarios for the Future of Climate Change”, the issue regarding how “leaders of many developing nations point out the injustice in asking their countries to forgo carbon-based fuels just because richer nations have already blown through the world’s carbon budget” was brought up. Could you elaborate further on the relationship between global emissions and global inequality, and the challenges brought forth by this relationship? Do you think that the correlation between emissions and inequality could allow for a mutual solution to be found that could resolve the two issues (both in relation to climate change and international relations)? What would such a solution look like, and is it feasible or realistic? What could make developing countries willing to "forgo carbon-based fuels" regardless of the aforementioned "injustice"? |
|
After reading the "Three Scenarios for the Future of Climate Change" article by Elizabeth Kolbert, it became clear to me that it is of the utmost importance to take action immediately to prevent climate change from destroying our planet. Ideally, we live to see the first scenario listed to be the scenario that occurs. However, in order for that to happen, would it be appropriate to sort of force large corporations or even households to abide by certain policies such as the installation of different technologies that eliminate the usage of fossil fuels? If the time to take action is now to avoid climate change, why not save the world by setting strict rules and strict punishments for people that break them? |
|
There are a lot of ways to address the impending doom of Climate Change, and there has been some discourse about whether or not the answer lies in restructuring our society. What do you think about the argument that we should make the environment the central organizing principle of our society? Knowing the tendencies and pressures of large corporations and governments, is this a plausible future or just naive? |
|
Given the time-sensitivity of this climate crisis, what is the best and most effective course of action you think the United States and other leading nations can take over the next decade to ensure we combat climate change as best we can? |
|
I often read articles that suggest most of the emissions in the world (I think more than 50%) come from the top 25 polluting companies/factories in the world. It makes it incredibly difficult for individuals who are not affiliated with these companies to make choices that feel like they actually might make an impact. Obviously individually we can't make much of an impact at all, but it feels like for specifically climate change, even if all 7 billion of us (almost 8, really) started recycling and doing the right things, we'd still be so far away from ideal. I don't have a specific question really, but I wanted to bring up this tension and just ask your thoughts on it. How do we take personal responsibility for climate change when the vast majority of the responsibility may not actually lie with us individually? And should we? |
|
After reading the articles, the climate crisis seems far more present and rapidly growing than is disseminated through media, education, etc. Is there a future with stricter rules, as well as a better system of educating people if we cannot get on the same page about climate change in the first place? More fundamentally speaking, do we need to drop the politics (especially in America) surrounding the issue? What parties are to be held accountable for making change happen first, and who will dictate the rules and punishments? |
|
Ready Player One is a sci-fi book that takes place in a world that has been devastated by global warming and environmental destruction to the point where the only escape most people have is a virtual online universe. One of the lines from the movie adaptation is "people stopped trying to fix problems and just tried to outlive them". I think there's a lot of people that have that perspective on climate change now (and unfortunately many of them are in positions of power) -- how do we impact people who have already thrown in the towel on the issue altogether? The scientists have been repeating the urgency of the problem for a long time, so how do we influence people who have already exhibited they don't care about the environment? What do you think are the best strategies for environmentalists and regular people to pressure people in power to enact changes? |
|
According to the readings, even if we stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow, the climate’s temperature would continue to rise for some time, due to the incorporation of past emissions into the atmosphere. If we do manage to stop the global temperature from rising above 1.5 degrees, it appears that many people in wealthy countries will be spared the worst effects of climate change. In this case, it might be seen as a problem for only low-income countries, as opposed to the global crisis it is currently perceived as. In this situation, do you think it would be possible to mobilize the resources of wealthy countries to help those worst affected by climate change? If so, how? |
|
A lot of the math and statistics mentioned in the articles was very frightening. Particularly in the "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math" article, there was an overall feeling that we had already passed the point of saving the environment. It mentioned that with even just a 0.8˚C increase the impacts of that had been greater than scientists predicted. However, this article was written in 2012, long before the pandemic we are currently in. At the beginning of the pandemic, there were many stories of environments changing due to lack of pollution. This has now very much reversed and is approaching emissions levels of before the pandemic. I am curious if long term, the temporary pause of society will have any impact on aiding this impending crisis? |
|
Given that the Global North is the biggest benefactor of fossil fuel extraction and the main contributor in climate change, is there any meaningful way that the citizens of the Global North can be made to accept a lower standard of living for the sake of the rest of the world? Or, are the only options we have are to try and develop alternative forms of energy without addressing the massive gap in energy use between the Global North and Global South? Similarly, how will a reduction in carbon emissions and a "sharing" of alternative energy technology be done in such a way that the Global South is not further indebted to the more developed countries? |
|
One of our readings stated that the Clean energy movement has yet to see enemies. And that has me contemplating what kind of enemies it would take for this movement to gain momentum? More specifically has public interest in the movement increased or decreased since President Trump came into office with his obvious disregard for the opinion and findings of scientists on the issue? I think these questions prompt the theme of this class where we must approach these issues from the point of views from various disciplines including the social sciences. |
|
Research shows the negative impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately on those least able to bear the costs, including individuals in developing countries who did little to contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions, while developed countries like the United States will largely be able to avoid the worst effects of climate change (in the short-medium term) given the resources they are able to access. What responsibility do these developed states have in making the largest sacrifices to avert disaster, and more specifically, what role do personal choices made by individual citizens in these developed countries play in changing the course of climate change? Do people need to take more individually responsible actions to avoid the so-called “climate crisis”, or does the burden primarily fall on policymakers able to make the big decisions about taxing corporations, decarbonizing the economy, etc? |
|
Radical shifts in society, economics, and politics often take centuries (or more recently decades) to propagate: think the Enlightenment, Industrialization, nationalism, the internet, international justice, and---more recently---large, globalized economic blocs (EU, AU, ASEAN, TPP, etc.). One report from the APA suggested climate change is "a reminder of one’s mortality," and that denialism (or acquiescence) "enhances efforts to validate one’s beliefs and efforts to bolster self-esteem." With something as systemic, uncomfortable, deadly, and well-understood (i.e. inevitable) as climate science, is the way we conduct "climate change messaging" wholly disproportionate to what's needed? Should the climate movement play "hardball" with attack ads, super PACs, political campaigning, and demonstrations (à la BLM)? Maybe setup a climate change apocalypse cult to reach more religiously-minded Americans? Are these things being done already? Or, is it advantageous to preserve political neutrality in science at the risk of falling on deaf ears? |
|
Capitalism's role in the climate crisis cannot be emphasized enough, so money needs to be considered in the solutions. While examining potential solutions like the carbon tax (which would in theory make oil and gas companies raise their prices to dissuade consumption), it appears that such mitigations could have classed consequences. Because the rich can afford to pay a few extra dollars per gallon of gas, isn't it true that this kind of deterrence seems to primarily affect the poorest? Is this line of policy-making inherently flawed, and are there more equitable alternatives? |
|
I feel that there has been a narrative pushed in my lifetime that the individual should make changes in their own life to "reduce their carbon footprint" or to "reduce, reuse, recycle" in order to save the planet so-to-speak. In particular I feel this narrative has been pushed by corporations in order to deflect the public's gaze away from them when it comes to carbon emissions and pollution more generally. For example, take this tweet from BP in 2019. |
|
Climatechange is an issue that requires the kind of global initiative and cooperation that hasn't been seen in our history since the times of global war and conflict. Even the most recent pandemic, which has required a global response, has been mismanaged as countries have isolated from one another and gone about quarantining in their own ways. If we're to ever conceptualize the reality of climate change's severity on a global scale, how are we to coordinate policy in such a way as to recognize countries that are disproportionately affected and isolated from the global stage? How can international policy make space for eminent climate threats around the world? |
|
This is similar to my question from last week on leadership of large / economically powerful nations in leading the charge on nuclear disarmament; In Mckibben's Rolling Stone article, he mentions that even the U.A.E. has ratified the Copenhagen Accord. This made me wonder if you foresee a phenomenon whereby early-acting, smaller, climate-progressive (relative to the U.S. / China) nations pulling back on their promises if the U.S. and China eventually do come around? To clarify, I'm wondering if treaty/accord-ratifying countries that are dependent on fossil fuels have only done as such because they do not foresee any meaningful future action from larger nations or collectives. Are they participating in spite of these other entities? |
|
I was surprised that the readings for today only briefly touched on the politics of climate change. Perhaps this is somewhat unique to America, but I often perceive this political resistance to change as the reason why new policy is slow to be enacted. How can the United States lead the charge in combating climate change when so many Americans reject the validity of climate change? Is investment in combating climate change more important than a shift in sentiment? If so, is there research on the most effective ways to convince people of the dangers of climate change? Is this "America-centric" take less relevant when looking globally? |
|
@memerz touched on this, and I wanted to expand on it - From being told that throwing plastic 6-pack wrappers into the ocean kills turtles or seal babies or plastic straws being evil - all of the marketed responses feel super reductionary and missing the forest for the trees. Everyone using paper straws is not going to save us at all, so why are these the strategies that we are being told to do it? |
|
The reports and media coverage about climate change are very convincing to us who have already accepted this very knowledge and constantly strengthened the belief with new facts and arguments that it is a forthcoming existential threat. The problem is how to break through the echo chambers – which have been unprecedentedly reinforced by the social media – and to change the minds of people determined to rally around climate-change-denying agenda. Under current US democratic ordering, I think that climate-change deniers, mouthpieces, stakeholders and their followers, have disproportionate impact on political processes. Thus there are two issues here: one is how to cope with the entrenched echo-chamber effect that makes it extremely difficult to further change the landscape of attitudes towards climate change; the other is how to alter the undemocratic part of the democratic procedure which tends to yield to the few (relatively speaking) i.e. the climate-change deniers. The two problems are tangled with each other. |
|
One of the readings you suggested for our class strongly advocated for the implementation of carbon taxes as a tool to help reduce carbon emissions. Here at the University of Chicago, students are taught in introductory Economics courses that a carbon tax is the classic example of a tax that- while intended to deter people from consuming more fossil fuels- actually has the opposite effect, putting a price tag on pollution which allows companies to simply pay more to pollute more. Countries that have implemented carbon taxes have seen less than fabulous results, especially compared to nations that have opted to adopt things like improved regulatory frameworks instead. In your view, what short-term tools- if any- are appropriate solutions to this long term problem? |
|
Most media coverage around the topic of climate change tends to focus on how to combat it rather than the question of will we. There seems to be an expectation that when it gets bad enough there will be some radical political reordering that will allow the whole world to work together to combat this issue. However, I am curious about what the real chances are that the current global political system will react in time to this crisis, if it’s even possible. Given all the competing agents and interests involved in this issue, is it realistically possible for enough of the governments, businesses, and citizens of the world to actually work together in a way that could combat climate change, and if so, how likely is it. |
|
My question largely centers around policy actions to address the issue given the current political climate (pun intended). The biden administration proposed an infrastructure bill that would be the most ambitious attempt at addressing climate change that the united states has ever passed. It offers $50 billion to clean energy research, $30 billion to climate research, nearly $200 billion to electric vehicles, and more money to public transit, refabbing buildings to be energy efficient, and clean power infrastructure. But does it go far enough? Obviously not, but why not? And what can we do given the global distaste with change and the near 50% of the country that either does not believe in climate change or does not want to address it? |
|
Simply put, are we taking the wrong approach by teaching the consequences of climate change before having instilled an appreciation/respect for nature to begin with? It seems that the past 30 years of warnings has fallen on deaf ears, so is something wrong with our approach? Similarly to how the issue of nuclear warfare was beyond some people's comprehension, have we overlooked the need for an intermediary step along the lines of a land ethic (otherwise a respect/love for the earth) as put forth by Aldo Leopold? *Note: I wrote this question before submitting my memo last night, but somehow either didn't hit comment or logged off before it finished posting. When I came back to this page to upvote questions I noticed my name was not popping up and re-posted. |
|
In the McKibben's article, he notes how leaders in Copenhagen noted that it was in the world's best interest to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. However, in the IPCC Special Report, the authors note that many pieces of evidence hint that this figure should actually be 1.5 degrees, not 2 degrees. Which figure would you agree with? If you agree with the 1.5 degree figure, do you believe world leaders have, and continue to be, misinformed about the facts of climate change and its true threat to our society? *Note: I ran into a similar issue as Luc described above, where I posted my memo and question last night but, for some reason, neither posted as I may have logged off or closed the window before either could submit. I, too, noticed the absence of my memo and question when I came back to Github to upvote memos/questions. |
|
Do you think the unpredictability of global events would have a major effect on climate change? For example, with global quarantining, there were many reports of a temporary decrease in global CO2 emissions. Is there anything that should be learned form this, or potentially used to benefit actions against climate change? If something like this could happen that reduces emissions, could there be examples of other worldly events that ultimately worsen climate change? |
|
As per my conversation with the professors and TA at the end of class on Wednesday, my original question, posted around 6:15 pm CT on Wednesday was deleted / did not upload properly. As such, I have reattached it below for grading purposes. The Rolling Stone article introduces the concept of a "fee-and-dividend" scheme that would tax coal, gas and oil consumption. The proceeds of this theoretical tax would be redistributed to those who had less carbon emissions. Would this policy be effective in lessening GHG emission? What other policy measures should be taken in order to tackle climate change - in spite of its already frightening "inertia"? |
|
Given the success of Thorium reactor technology, and their potential for peaceful, sustainable, and waste free production of nuclear energy, why do you think this technology hasn't received wide spread adoption? Do you think it could be because unlike a traditional uranium reactor, Thorium reactors don't produce plutonium, the active ingredient in nuclear weapons? |
and others
Questions for Sivan Kartha, inspired by the week's readings (Synthesis report from IPCC5, IPCC Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C, Bill McKibben's “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”, Elizabeth Kolbert's “Three scenarios for the future of climate change”; see the syllabus for links).
Questions: Every week students will post one question here of less than 150 words, addressed to our speaker by Wednesday @ midnight, the day immediately prior to our class session. These questions may take up the same angle as developed further in your weekly memo. By 2pm Thursday, each student will up-vote (“thumbs up”) what they think are the five most interesting questions for that session. Some of the top voted questions will be asked by students to the speakers during class.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: