There are many aspects of life that can seem gender discriminatory, but could climate change be one of them? According to a CBS News article on Friday, a recent study in Japan found a connection between the increase in the number of deaths of males fetuses in comparison to the deaths of female fetuses and the increases in temperature.
The cause of why males may be affected more than females is still unknown and the study only found a connection and doesn’t prove causation, as there are many other environmental factors, such as pollution, that could be a fault. The data certainly isn’t all in yet about this subject matter, but its a interesting concept to think about. Maybe it will be true that females have it easier when it comes to climate change. I guess we will have to wait and see what future research shows.
Victor and Kennel argue that the 2 °C limit suffers from two political problems. First, they assert, keeping below 2 °C is unachievable without “heroic assumptions” about immediate global cooperation and widespread availability of technologies that have not been demonstrated at scale. Second, the 2 °C threshold does not translate into a specific and certain quantity of emissions, and therefore “does not tell particular governments and people what to do.”
Scientifically, the basis for the 2 °C limit, according to Victor and Kennel, is tenuous, in part because changes in average global surface temperature does not track in lock step with climate forcing and climate risks on short time scales. They take the position that a single index of climate change risk is not possible given the complexities of how changes in carbon dioxide concentrations alter climate and other earth systems, and the consequent risks to ecological systems and humans. They advocate for development of a set of indicators, or “planetary vital signs,” to be used by policy makers and the UNFCCC to gauge climate stresses and possible impacts that are “better rooted in the scientific understanding of climate drivers and risks.”
Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote an excellent rejoinder in Realclimate. He also posted a comment to an article in The Guardian about the Victor-Kennel commentary that nicely matches my take: “If you are driving in completely the wrong direction, arguing about where you’ll park if you arrive isn’t your highest priority.” I have significant doubts about the viability of reaching a comprehensive, top-down, legally binding agreement at COP21 in Paris. But urging parties to the UNFCCC to revisit the hard-won agreement to try to limit warming to < 2 °C, and consider replacing it with targets for an array of planetary vital signs, is an invitation to inaction that would have dangerous repercussions.
Do read Gavin Schmidt’s more detailed assessment of why the 2 °C limit should not be ditched. He makes a good case for the scientific validity for using average global temperature as a reasonable indicator of climate risk, and counters the assertion that the 2 °C limit is technically or economically unachievable.
A basic principle of the UNFCCC agreement is CBDR, or Common but Differentiated Responsibilities. This stems from the idea that based on historical emissions, developing countries should not have their development taxed because of harm to the environment caused by already developed countries’ development 100 years ago. Because of this, developed countries are held responsible for funding any climate change efforts developing countries decide to embark on. Furthermore, developed countries are to share information and technology to help developing countries develop in a “greener” way than developed countries had in the past.
My question is, how can we do this if we still haven’t gotten the hang of smart development in our own country? I’m not suggesting the U.S. should help itself before it helps others, but instead should be taking a bilateral approach to both change domestic ways and provide support internationally for cleaner development.
Yesterday, the story “With Dry Taps and Toilets, California Drought Turns Desperate” made the front page of the NYTimes. Households in California, and especially those in Tulare County, a rural county with especially impoverished residents and barely any water. With three years of drought and still going strong, the California drought, although as a single event it cannot be attributed to climate change, calls for more caution when dealing with the climate. Even in one of the richest country in the world, the U.S. still doesn’t seem to be able to come up with even effective adaptation plans, never mind mitigation. One family the article focuses on hasn’t had running water for more than five months. How is the U.S. caring for these Californians? They aren’t. When families call the state and local governments for advice, they are told there are no public agencies set up to help them. Water is provided through bottled water from residents’ pockets and local charities. Even the counting of households without water is spotty, with an estimate of 700 households, overlooking households in rural areas with dried-up wells. One volunteer is quoted describing the drought as “it’s a slow-moving disaster that nobody knows how to handle” (Medina 18).
The U.S. is obviously having trouble preparing for and dealing with the “slow-moving” crises brought on by climate change, so how can it be expected to help others? The solution is not, as I said before, to focus on itself first before it helps others. There is no time to wait; climate change does not wait for domestic pilots, it comes when it wants, where it wants, and countries must be as ready as best they can. This means focusing on security threats from more than just other states but from the earth itself. The U.S. needs to take the terrible lessons it’s learning in California to realize that a much more though-out, cross-sector, and multi-level approach must be employed in adapting to climate change domestically and globally.
Medina, Jennifer. 2014. “With Dry Taps and Toilets, California Drought Turns Desperate.” The New York Times, October 3, p. 1, A18.
Some time ago I posted about the carbon emissions that would be resulting from the mosaic’s travels to Peru. I was recently contacted by a professor at Dickinson, who informed me that my calculations were drastically off. I promptly investigated the claim and found that he was right. So, after several checks and some reworking of my excel document I present the new information. It is a stunning shift (and not in a good way).
CO2 emitted per gallon of kerosene consumed by plane.Values used and source.The sobering numbers.Eight pounds of coal heaped onto a dinner plate.
So, here is the sad part of the mosaic. Our trip involves six flights. Two flights to get to Lima, two to get back to the states, and two flights while in Peru (to Cusco and back). During this, we will be emitting about 7000 pounds of one of our favorite greenhouse gasses. That is equivalent to burning 3410 pounds of coal (EPA). If any of my past readers will recall I posted a photo of 8 pounds of coal on a plate. It would take just over 426 of those plates to account for that much coal, or the biggest dinner party you have ever been to. In my mind, things have changed as I have corrected the numbers. Instead of 3 of those plates of coal, it is 426. This is a big investment. We need to make it worth it.
On September 23, our SUST 500 class at Dickinson College had the pleasure of meeting James Balog, a world-renowned photographer best known for taking pictures of climate change’s effects on glaciers and ice sheets around the world. Students got to sit down and have a discussion with him about his work and his perspectives on climate change.
He said many interesting things, but the thing that stood out for me was his response when asked what individuals could do about climate change, “I don’t know,” he said. Balog went on to explain he responded in that way because he didn’t know anything about the person asking the question. Different people have different lives, and while some people are in a position act on climate change at a national or international level, some people can do important things at a more community or personal level.
I thought this was a really important point to make, and one that I had not heard before. Generally, when people talk about action on climate change, they discuss doing the littlethings such as riding a bike to work or recycling or purchasing fuel-efficient cars. While these things are all very important, I feel these kinds of actions sort of lump us all into one generic response. In fact, there are extreme differences among people across the United States and in the world in terms of age, wealth, access to resources, and other things. All of these factors play a part in what actions it is possible to take regarding climate change. More important than doing the generic “ride a bike, recycle, drive fuel-efficient cars” is to take a look at your circumstances and situation in life and make progress where you are able to make the most change.
In the civil rights era, Malcolm X, after taking a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1964, changed his views almost completely on white allies. Whereas before, he was staunchly against joining with white people, he now had this to say: “Where the really sincere white people have got to do their ‘proving’ of themselves is not among the black victims, but out on the battle lines of where America’s racism really is—and that’s in their own home communities…That’s where sincere whites who really mean to accomplish something have got to work” (Autobiography of Malcolm X). Malcolm X was still against having white people join the Black Panthers, but now it was because he believed it was not their place to make change. White people had influence in places where most black people at the time did not, and X believed it was in these places that white people could really do the most work.
This relates to climate change in that people should work to mitigate climate change in the realms they have the most influence. Some can influence high government functions, while others can do more work at a community level. Others might only be able to do small things at the community level. People should work to make changes in line with the circumstances surrounding their lives.
James Balog, recipient of the 2014 Sam Rose ’58 and Julie Walters Prize at Dickinson College for Global Environmental Activism is an American nature photographer and scientist who has been following rapid glacier melt due to climate change. Founded in 2007, his project, the Extreme Ice Survey, was as a method of educating those on the immediate impact of climate change and showing them how humans play a role in climate change. He enjoys nature and he had a hard time figuring out what is an effective way to make the public understand that climate change is occurring on a day-to day basis. He wanted to make skeptics of climate change question their views and that is just what he did.
He was sent to take a picture of ice for the National Geographic magazine that he thought he couldn’t complete. That mission soon led him to think about how ice is melting at a rapid pace due to climate change, which in turn made him pursue his project, the Extreme Ice Survey. By traveling to multiple locations where there are glaciers, he monitored the rate at which they were melting. The footage he captured was just amazing.
His pictures speak more than a thousand words. There was a free showing of his documentary, “Chasing Ice” at the Carlisle Theater and hundreds of people showed up to the screening. As the documentary was playing, you can hear the sounds of concern the audience was making. Having had the privilege of being able to speak to him multiple times one-to-one (and getting a picture with him!), I can say that he is truly invested in his work and his passion burns inside in out. Despite injuring his knee quite too many times, he still perseveres and completes his ongoing, never-ending mission. Balog’s next project deals with forrest fires…let’s hope he makes another documentary leaving people awe-struck and that too without melting his equipment!
This past summer, I had the opportunity to attend the NYC 4th Annual Climate Justice Youth Summit. Young people of historically marginalized backgrounds participated in learning circles that focused on climate justice issues like waterfront justice, frontline resiliency, zero waste, policing/militarism and the Dig, Burn, Dump Economy. In conjunction with those learning circles, we also learned about Direct Action and how one could use non-violent action tactics to demand climate justice solutions. The main purpose of the Summit was to create a safe environment for young people of color to plan their own direct action for climate justice and prepare to implement their direct action at the annual People’s Climate March on September 21st.
Many of those whom I met there were unaware of climate change. They have heard of it but did not learn much about it. It is not in the curriculum unless you build it in, which many educators fail to do. The youth present at the summit were just in shock when presented with the facts. What I found very unique and new was the way the facts were presented. UPROSE, a partner of the summit had performers come in and explain what they’re doing about climate change in a way that can relate to the youth present at the summit. They had an graffiti artist that did work on climate change as well as spoken word poets share some of their work. The youth seemed to respond to it very well. Below are some images of that same group of young coming together and marching at the People’s Climate March.
“Frontlines of crisis, forefront of change”“The roots that will weather the storm”
UPROSE’S Executive Director, Elizabeth Yeampierre at The People’s Climate March Global Press ConferenceMarching TogetherPainted Flowers
Chapter 3 of “Governing Climate Change” starts out with the statement “…climate change is an issue of concern not only on international and national agenda, but also for an array of transnational networks.”[1] So many transnational networks are being created with the purpose of addressing climate change. One of these many transnational networks is the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI). Former President Bill Clinton launched this initiative in 2006 with the expectation of fighting climate change in realistic and effective ways. CCI works with major large cities on a global scale to find potential solutions that will reduce carbon emissions and increase energy efficiency.[2]
GHG Emissions for C40 Cities
The four basic programs that the CCI is currently involved in are the Climate Leadership Group (C40), Forestry Program, Islands Energy Program, and the Energy Efficiency Program. C40 was first taken up by the CCI in 2007. “Activities which this network is undertaking include collaboration with Microsoft to produce software for greenhouse gas emissions accounting at the city scale, and the Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program, which “brings together cities, building owners, banks, and energy-service companies to make changes to existing buildings to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”[3] It has the goal of committing sustainable activities that are intended to reduce climate change on a global scale. Every area of the world is equally represented in C40’s goals by being based in almost all of the continents.
Oddar Forest Meanchey Community
The Forestry Program works with governments and communities in developing countries to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by creating sustainable resolutions for managing forests and lands. The goal of this program is to provide developing countries with the information and resources to improve land use. They do this by reducing carbon emissions by planting trees, improving farming practices, and building carbon measurement systems.[4] The Islands Energy Program is partnered with governments of twenty-five island nations. Its purpose is to develop renewable energy projects, and design and implement waste/water solutions that will cut fossil fuel usage.
Empire State Building
The Energy Efficiency Program works to discover the obstacles to achieving a huge reduction in the amount of energy used by buildings. “In fact in the United States commercial and residential buildings accounted for over 40 percent of primary energy consumption.”[5] That is a huge amount of energy consumption. The program works with public and private organizations, not limited to corporations, governments, and fellow non-profits.
According to Bulkeley and Newell, the boundaries between private and public actors in transnational climate governance are increasingly indistinct. Transnational networks such as the CCI actually helped increase the outline of municipal responses to climate change internationally.[6] In order to prevent climate change, the Clinton Climate Initiative operates in cooperation with companies, political groups and nonprofit organizations that aim to protect the environment. The first step begins with local communities, proceeds to spread to countries and then makes its way to have an effect on a global scale. You have to start small then go big.
[1] Bulkeley, Harriet, and Peter Newell. Governing Climate Change. London: Routledge, 2010. 54, Print
[2] LearnStuff. Clinton Climate Initiative – LearnStuff. Web accessed September 2014.
[3] Ibid, 60.
[4] Clinton Foundation. Clinton Climate Initiative. Web accessed September 2014.
[5] Clinton Foundation. Clinton Climate Initiative. Web accessed September 2014.
Economics is certainly not for everyone. It has a lot of numbers and graphs, it can seem incredibly boring and it often relies on a lot of assumptions. Even as an economics major, I sometimes found myself zoning out while learning micro and macro. However, this semester in Environmental Economics, the topics are not so abstract. I am getting the opportunity to take everything I have learned in the past three years of economics courses and apply it to one specific topic: climate change.
If you haven’t studied economics extensively in the past, that doesn’t mean you can’t gain a rich understanding of climate economics. Frank Ackerman, a well known climate economist, wrote a paper called Climate Economics in Four Easy Pieces. I’m not going to say that climate economics is an easy topic to study. It takes the basic micro and macro economics and adds complications and sticky situations that make it more difficult to find a solution. For example, obviously you want benefits to outweigh costs, but when it comes to climate change, how does one even begin to measure those costs? However, Ackerman’s paper breaks it down to the four most important things to remember: “your grandchildren’s lives are important, we need to buy insurance for the planet, climate damages are too valuable to have prices, and some costs are better than others” (Ackerman, 326).
Although I encourage everyone to read the paper themselves (its not very long and its a quick read), the main points can be inferred from those four main points. Ackerman’s point is that it’s important to pay the cost now or else our grandchildren’s lives in the future will be paying for it even more. However, most people aren’t willing to foot a cost now when they don’t know how grave the situation will be. We are always in search of answers and are unwilling to do A without knowing for sure that it will result in B. However, Ackerman demonstrates that we willing buy insurance without being sure that B will happen because even the slightest chance that it will is not worth it. Climate change is worth paying the price to protect ourselves. It is a large external cost that Ackerman argues is too important to even have a price and the costs it does have are beneficial economically in the long run. It is an easy out to claim that climate change policies will be too costly and will hurt economic growth, but in reality protecting our ecosystems, our future generations, our planet and ourselves is priceless.
Having already taken global climate change, this semester I am taking chemistry of earth systems and Introduction to Soils with the mosaic. While these courses are not directly related to climate change, they are providing a great balance with the mosaic.
In chemistry of earth systems we are learning about chemical reactions and different techniques to get at compositions of rocks including XRD and XRF analysis (pictures of our machines at right). Geo chem, as we like to call it, is giving me a great background in the chemistry of how the earth works. We are learning about reactions that are fundamental to keeping the planet’s systems in check (i.e. weathering reactions).
Justin and Ben in soils class
Soils class is a very nice complement to geo chem as it is providing a great understanding of clays, soil structure and soil composition. We frequently get to go on field trips (picture left) to see different parts of the valley and learn about how soils are important to our lives. The most relevant part of the course for climate change is my independent research project. I will be studying how soil development begins with deglaciation. You may be wondering how I am going to do this in Carlisle, but the answer is simple, tombstones. I will be dating lichen and developing a growth curve to see how quickly lichen are growing in this environment. The tombstones represent my recently glaciated rock and will allow the analogous study. Picture below shows an environmental that was recently glaciated (Greenland) and is now becoming populated with lichens, which will build to develop soil.
I am looking forward to further engaging in this course work and developing a great understanding of earth systems. Soil development in Greenland
