All through the 20th century, America was fueled by burning of coal and oil to move planes, trains, and automobiles emitting more CO2 and contributing to global warming.  This wasn’t the only thing getting higher, so was the economic growth.  A study by the International Energy Agency last year found that as global G.D.P. grew, global carbon emissions leveled off.  This was exciting to economists but it could be false.  A new study released more recently found that the trend continued.  21 countries have doubled their economic growth from carbon emissions.  In these countries, G.D.P. went up over the last 15 years, carbon pollution went down.  That may seem like a lot but 170 countries still have not reached this achievement.

Among the 170 countries are some of the worlds biggest polluters.  21 countries is not enough to save the world.  Everyone needs to help.  These countries lowered emissions by over a billion tons but overall emissions grew about 10 billion tons.  The article studies the different types of emissions and how each plays a part in overall emissions to the world.  Coal has shown to produce much more emissions than natural gas.  In general, people need to be more efficient with how they go about their day, not just everyday people but factories and manufactures as well. The only way to truly lower emissions will be to bite the bullet and accept a hit to the economy.  A big question remains, not to change with wishful thinking and changing to sustainable ways but can we manage without growth?  We’ll see how everything plays out over the next decade.  The choices we make will affect us later on.

References:

Davenport, Coral. “Can Economies Rise as Emissions Fall? The Evidence Says Yes.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Apr. 2016. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.

Following statements from his campaign that Sanders would not run attack ads, Sanders has begun to attack Clinton. A lot of these attacks have to do with Clinton’s taking of money from the fossil fuel industry. The implications behind taking money from the fossil fuel industry are long reaching and are a major issue in this election. In fact, in only half of the first six democratic debates has climate change even been brought up for debate, despite 11% of would-be democratic voters ranking it the most important issue, third only behind the economy and healthcare. It ranked higher than terrorism, gun policy, and immigration combined, according to this MotherJones article. The lack of debate about climate change might stem from the common belief that Clinton and Sanders agree on climate change policy. While they agree that climate change exists, their plans are extremely dissimilar. Clinton’s plan increases renewable energy by increasing solar installations by 700% and offers tax breaks to companies using renewable energy but does little more than that. On the other hand, Sanders’ plan combats serious issues such as offshore drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline, a pipeline running through the heart of the country known for its serious opposition due to leaks and running through protected grounds. There are also serious differences in their stances on fracking and the impact of climate change on national security. Sanders’, for instance, believes that climate change is the single biggest threat to U.S. National Security, while Clinton’s views are far more reserved.

The entire debate boils down to Clinton’s softer stance on climate change and large acceptance of money from the fossil fuel industry. If elected, will that money impact her decisions when it comes time to crack down on climate change?

As reported by the New York Times, China’s Carbon Emission May Have Peaked, but It’s Hazy. It’s been a year since the U.S. negotiated a commitment with the Chinese government to comprise themselves to a deadline for reversing the rapid growth of greenhouse gas emission from the country,

China is known to be most contaminating country to global warming, a quarter of the total, and the negotiation set a deadline for 2030. Although it may seem far away, most environmentalists say the agreement will have a big impact in the environment. Surprinsingly, researchers have found that due to the slowing Chinese economy and energy data, it is likely that the emissions of carbon dioxide have fallen. These results will contribute to the worldwide effort to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. It also pressures other countries to meet their goals.

Nevertheless, the results are not certain and researchers admit that calculations that are definitive are only in hindsight. There are many problems regarding the accuracy of the results therefore making the situation more complicated. A paper published by the journal Nature Climate Change explains that the predictions through the energy statistics are unreliable.

Other scientists believe that carbon emission may be falling, after climbing rapidly since 2001. Another paper published by researchers, Fergus Green and Nicholas Stern, believe this is the case. The paper explains that 2014 may have been the peak of the country’s emissions and it may be declining today.

The article “How is Climate Change Affecting the Philippines?” talks about the effects of recent climate change in Philippines. The article first starts by showing data on an increase of typhoons in the country. Five of the ten worst typhoons in Philippines’ history happened after 2006. The worst one, Typhoon Yolanda, occurred in 2013 and killed more than 6,000, causing severe damages to the country. So the question that should be asked is: Why are the numbers of typhoons in Philippines increasing so much in the past few years? The answer to that question is climate change. One of the effects of climate change that is happening in our planet is an increase of tropical storms. Scientists also say that two other factors, geography and development in Philippines, are other reasons for such devastating consequences in the country.

The increase of ocean’s surface temperature leads to more heat released in the atmosphere. Due to this, more frequent and stronger storms are expected to happen. This is even more intense in the western Pacific Ocean, where Philippines is located at. This is why its geography is considered one of the factors for the occurrence of this natural disaster. Regarding development, Philippines is still lacking preparation to deal with these types of situation. Factors such as evacuation plan, early warning systems, and shelters would be critical in assisting the population when a typhoon is approaching.

Due to these factors, Philippines was ranked in 2013 as the number one country most affected by climate change by the “Global Climate Risk Index”. The expectations for the upcoming years are even worst, so the country needs to prepare itself by creating assisting action plans to the population in order to try to decrease the devastating effects these typhoons have on the country.

Reference: http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/22/climate-change-affecting-the-philippines/

Sea level rise is perhaps the most tangible and ubiquitous consequence of global warming, with major cities all over the world being threatened by its encroachment. A new model, co-designed by Penn State’s Dr. David Pollard and informed by Dr. Richard Alley, suggests that the IPCC’s most recent end-of-century sea level-rise projections may underestimate what is possible under the loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet by several feet. [1] Dr. Alley suggested the mechanism for faster disintegration which entails the loss of the buffering sea ice that borders the ice sheet due to warming waters around the continent. This could then destabilize the ice sheet to such a degree that it’s loss could become rapid, and the ice sheet holds enough water to raise sea level by 12 feet. When this method was incorporated into the model, Dr. Pollard and his colleagues were for the first time replicate a rise in sea level of 20-30 feet which is known to have occurred in a warming event 125,000 years ago. The test of a good climate model is its ability to recreate climate history, so this success lead further credibility to the model as it was used to predict the effects of human-induced warming on the ice sheets and sea level rise. Under the new model conditions, researches found it would be possible to achieve 5-6 feet of total sea level rise by the end of the century, which could be catastrophic to major low-lying cities and countries. This result is in no way definitive, but it does have the effect of making our future outlook even more bleak if we do not take serious steps to abate our carbon emissions and global warming at large.

Source:

In what ways will climate change impact the amount of food we produce, the types of food we produce, and the places where we produce our food?

Had to get a new computer because my old one died. But in terms of how we’re going to eat in the future. Again I’m reminded of my ethics professor Ron Johnson and his conversations on sustainability. http://www.sustainabletable.org/246/sustainable-agriculture-the-basics

And then I remind myself that my friend Jesse told me we’d probably start eating bugs for protein at some point in the future. I’ve read too many dystopian novels and watched too many movies where that’s the shorthand for everything being awful to adapt to that future. So hopefully we don’t wind up in a Mad Max or The Road Scenario.

One of the most common misconceptions about climate change is that it does not exist because there are still substantial snow storms, cold fronts, blizzards, and extreme winters in general. The problem with this type of rationalization to disprove global warming is that it is terribly short sighted. The advocates of these types of ideas are guilty of confusing weather with climate. As we learned in class, weather is the short term and more variable description, while climate is an overall trend that encompasses a much more comprehensive amount of time. Therefore climate change will be much more gradual than weather change. Many times our climate threats have been compared to the threat associated with smoking as there are variations that both carry inherently. Some smokers live short, unhealthy lives and some live inexplicably longer than they should given their lifestyle. “We’re kind of like the smoker who hasn’t smoked too many cigarettes a day for too many years yet,” Dr. Sobel says in the article. I think the biggest emphasis in this quote should be on the final word: yet. That’s the most critical word because it implies (correctly) that if we continue on the same path, that, like the smoker, we will certainly die from the effects at some point. The odds increase directly as time goes on without cleaning up our emissions. The main takeaway from this article is that just because there are cold days (even if they are colder than normal) there are much more implicit threats when one analyzes the climate changes over a longer period of time as opposed to day by day comparison; long term thinking and consideration of future generations is the only approach that will solve the entire problem.

The world is less 40 years away from a food shortage that will have severe consequences for people and governments. That could become as politically threatening by 2050 as energy problems are today. According to Dr. Davies, population will increase to 9 billion people in thirty years, having to increase the food supply a 70% to meet demand. Despite he thinks that biotechnology and genetics will play a key factor to determine our ability to produce that amount of food, more efficient technologies and crops will need to be developed to address this challenge. Increase food demand comes at a time when the world is investing less in agricultural research, increasing the risk of social and political disorder that could lead to civil wars and terrorism.

Climate change could cause a two percent drop each decade of this century. Big countries like Australia, Russia, Canada, China and the United States have suffered big floods and droughts that lead to huge losses. The environment could also get damaged since reducing water levels will become scarcer from overpopulation and its augmented use in agriculture. The only region in the world that will be able to feed itself and others in South America, while countries like India will only meet the 59 percent of its demand by 2030.

More effective agricultural production, better ways to store food and biologically diverse can lead to less vulnerable global changes. Strategies for the future must be discussed and new systems of land, water, energy and biological resources must be applied.

References:

• (2014, April 17). Retrieved April 02, 2016, from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140417124704.htm
• Koba, M. (2014, October 15). World may not have enough food by 2050: Report. Retrieved April 02, 2016, from http://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/15/world-may-not-have-enough-food-to-eat-by-2050-report.html
• Pimentel, D. (2015, February 9). IMPACT OF POPULATION GROWTH ON FOOD SUPPLIES AND ENVIRONMENTby David Pimentel, Xuewen Huang, Ana Cordova, and Marcia Pimentel. Retrieved April 02, 2016, from http://www.dieoff.com/page57.htm

Leaders of nations met in Paris and reached a landmark agreement to lower gas emissions.  Scientists reported that 2015 was by far the hottest year on record, this is scary.  In February, a Princeton-based research organization said the tidal flooding that has already made life miserable for people in coastal cities like Miami and Charleston is getting steadily worse.  Also not a good thing to think about.  A group of experts including the one guy who initially brought the results of climate change to congress back in 1988 warned that climate shifts could become sudden and abrupt.  This in turn wouldn’t give humanity enough time to prepare for flooding, severe droughts and disasters.

Another startling finding is that if carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels continue unabated, the vast West Antarctica ice sheet could begin to disintegrate.  This could cause sea leveling rising by five to six feet by the end of the century.   With sea levels rising this much, it would destroy coastal cities and low-lying island nations and create environmental devastation within the lifetimes of children born today.  Robert DeConto of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and David Pollard of Pennsylvania State University were the two to publish this new article.

The report also contains what we would consider good news today.  “The collapse of Antarctica is not inevitable,” it says, and could be prevented with an aggressive global effort to keep greenhouse gases at or below the levels called for in Paris, where leaders embraced a goal of holding warming “well below” an increase of two degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels.”  This issue requires every county to do their part and put in effort.  We all need to work together to try to minimize these emissions quickly.  President Obama is moving aggressively to increase automobile efficiency and develop cleaner sources of energy.  The United States will have to continue to exercise leadership throughout era and we all need to do our best to be more clean and conservative with energy, only then, will we see a difference.

References:

“The Danger of a Runaway Antarctica.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 Mar. 2016. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.

Water shortages have become a primary vehicle of climate change, and an extremely visible effect of human influence on the environment.  Pollution has rendered some supplies useless, while other sources have simply been depleted.  Not only are water shortages detrimental to human health, they also pose a threat to energy production.

In China, the northern region is very dry, and experiences frequent droughts despite the construction of man-mad canals.  Coal-fired power plants in the north have exacerbated the issue of water supply, and further polluted available supplies.  Chinese coal-fired power plants consume 7.4 billion cubic meters of water each year, enough to meet the needs of 406 million people (nytimes.com).

The United Nations predicts a 40 percent global shortfall of water availability by 2030. Not only is will this cause people to go without water, but it will damage food production and energy production, as 98% of energy sources today require water (scientificamerican.com).  The clearest way to confront water shortages is to decrease consumption, and the best way to accomplish this is to decrease the amount of water that is used in energy production and more efficiently use water in agricultural production.

There are numerous ways to achieve this multi-faceted reduction of water consumption.  For the individual, one can take shorter showers, be conscious of a running tap, and eat less meat.  According to the National Geographic Society, a vegan, a person who doesn’t eat meat or dairy, indirectly consumes nearly 600 gallons of water per day less than a person who eats the average American diet. Intelligent travel plans can also help lessen the impact people have on the world’s water supply.  A single gallon of gasoline tanks about 13 gallons of water to produce, Even a short 700 mile flight costs over 6,000 gallons of water (environment.nationalgeographic.com).

Finally, in addition to reduction of consumption, individuals and industries can focus upon recycling.  Recycling a pound of paper, less than the weight of your average newspaper, saves about 3.5 gallons of water (environment.nationalgeographic.com).

Sources:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/water-shortage-may-cripple-global-power-supply/
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/water-conservation-tips/

The article from Climate Central, “ With Climate Change, Brazil Faces Drop in Crops”, talks about one of the main effects that climate change will have in Brazil. This effect is on the growing of crops, such as soya beans and corn, that will automatically make farmers take an attitude in order to adapt to climate change. There are several consequences to Brazil regarding climate change, such as drastic changes in rainfall, higher temperatures, lower productivity, and more disease. It is expected that by the end of 2100, the temperature in Brazil would be 3-6 degrees Celsius higher than nowadays. The change in rainfall is one of the main reasons for which crops would be affected by climate change. It is said that the north and northeast areas of Brazil would suffer a decrease of 40% of rainfall, while the southern part would increase something around 30%. These changes will consequently have a dramatic effect on harvests in one of the world’s major food producing countries, since Brazil is the world biggest exporter of coffee and meat, for example.

A possible way to fix this scenario for the future is to invest intensively in mixed agricultural systems, and avoid any type of monoculture practice that might have been done before. Farmers should try to increase the fixation of nitrogen as well as reduce continuous use of pesticides. Another action that farmers will need to eventually take is to increase the rotation of crops in order to balance the situation. It is already possible to see a little decrease in the production of crops in Brazil taking in consideration the past years. Since 2000, some regions have suffered a small decrease in productivity. But now that scientists have found some solutions that farmers can take in consideration for the future, Brazil will have a way of coming back to its old days of intense production.

Reference: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/with-climate-change-brazil-faces-drop-in-crops-16439

Recently published findings in the European journal, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, have proven quite controversial in the scientific community. While the generally accepted timeline for global warming is over centuries and millennium, James Hansen warns that the timeline could be leaning more towards decades and centuries, reports the New York Times. Hansen warns of increasingly strong storms, such as the ones occurring towards the end of the last warm period the earth experienced, approximately 120,000 years ago. The authors cite the rates at which we burn fossil fuels as a major reason for this, as well as mentioning the fact that the warm fresh water melting into the oceans from the ice caps will lead to a feedback loop that will only increase the rate at which the ice caps melt. A Penn State climate scientist, Michael Mann, notes that the claims are rather contradictory to mainstream climate predictions and that because of this, the standard of proof for these claims must be significantly higher than the standard of proof for claims that are more in line with mainstream climatology.

While most of the paper is refuted or questioned by mainstream scientists, the one part that almost everyone in the scientific community agrees upon is that the rate of global warming is still entirely too quick. If the rate of global warming is not decreased, the next generation will be handed a situation they will not be able to handle.