The Snowball Effect Of Pollution What Our Consumption Means For Future Generations Understanding Of This Term William

Cannon

2 Climate change, not only is it occurring but its all your fault. Okay, perhaps just not yours but also mine and every other citizen in a developed or developing nation. Climate change is a reality that we as a planet must now face before it is too late. The first step is getting the public to agree with the ninety-seven percent of scientist who have not only come to the conclusion that global climate change is happening at an accelerated rate, but that human activity is accountable for a large portion of that acceleration. It is no longer useful to deny that global climate change is occurring nor is it useful to argue that there is nothing we can do. We must pay the price for our consumption and make a change in our lifestyle if we want to preserve our environment. If we refuse we risk much larger future expenses, these expenses most certainly include our health and general wellbeing. Some will argue that there isnt enough evidence to support the existence of climate change, I will state that these people must have ulterior motives to the well being of the worlds population. There is a resounding agreement amongst scientists and world leaders that Global Climate change is occurring and that human activity plays a major role in it. Over ninetyseven percent of scientists have come to the consensus that global climate change is in fact occurring and at an accelerated rate. The sole discretion that should be a talking point at this stage is how we should proceed in order to preserve our environment. The resources we are using, the way we are using them, and how quickly we do so is unsustainable. We are consuming and burning through non-renewable fuels that when consumed cause serious harm to our environment. This consumption affects all other recourses available in the natural world. An example would be mercury poisoning in our water supply and fish that we eat. This mercury gets into the water through the air. Coal

3 plants are the main polluters that put this mercury in the air, which then makes its way to our water supply. Other issues include but most certainly are not limited to stunted plant growth, increased risk of cancers heart disease etc., and loss of food resources. Every action we take industrially has a profound impact on our environment in one way or another. Quite possibly the problem of most concern would be the fact that our consumption of fossil fuels is causing an alarming increase in our overall temperature each year. This rate of increase in temperature was observed to have spiked around 1950. As Quirin Schiermeier states in Scientific American Since 1950, the average global surface air temperature has increased by more than 0.5 degree Celsius. This means that for sixty-four years our temperature increase rate has spiked up from its average and stayed there, constantly increasing our temperature. The question that we must ask next is what are we doing to contribute to this drastic temperature spike. Many scientist have come to the conclusion that this spike was noticed in 1950 as a result of the industrial revolution as this increase happens over time and it snowballs. The problem with that is that we wont even know the entire result of our actions until much farther in the future. This fact terrifies me because of how grim the outlook already is and how much worse it will quite possibly become. Now dont get me wrong my fear is out of selfishness, for if we exhaust our resources and our race dies off the earth will recover. I fear losing the world, as we know it or even a better form of it if we can make the right decisions. If we die off from our choices or a lack thereof then that is a consequence of our actions. A primary issue concerning global climate change is flooding. No, not the kind of flooding that ruins your basements carpet but the kind of flooding that takes the majority of islands and costal regions off the map. Signs of this being a very serious possibility are

4 already being observed, such as the ice caps shrinking at an alarming rate as observed by satellites in just the past twenty years. In fact the first evidence of this flooding has already happened. The Carteret Islanders of Papua New Guinea have become the worlds first entire community to be displaced by climate change. Theyre the first official refugees of global warming and theyre packing up their lives to move out of the way of ever-rising waters that threaten to overtake their homes and crops. The island they call home will be completely underwater by 2015. (Merchant par. 1). This is the first event that really makes this melting issue a reality. The fact that an entire island that was home to around two thousand people will be underwater by next year is astonishing to me. My question is not whether or not this is occurring but if we can do enough to correct it at this point. The rise in sea level was around eight and a half millimeters annually. This is just the beginning of what will become a bigger problem not just for the unfortunate but everyone, even so called super powers. Perhaps most upsetting is that these people being displaced from their island village probably did not contribute much of anything in the way of global climate change. At least not on the scale the U.S. does or any other developed or developing nations. These smaller unfortunate populations are the victims of our excess. Because we are so enamored with our big machines and factories that burn fossil fuels smaller populations have to leave their homes permanently. Another form of inequity arises with the problem of global climate change. This problem results from the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the courses of action available to us at this point in time. The problem being that developing nations require a much more intensive consumption of products that produce greenhouse gases as opposed to a developed nations consumption. Dont get me wrong; developed nations do

5 well beyond their fair share to add to this problem. The issue here is that one of the proposed solutions to this portion of greenhouse gas emissions is to have developing countries effectively cease their development. My problem with the proposal is that it is asking countries worse off than ourselves to essentially make themselves stagnant while we continue to do nothing on our end. Not only is such a solution impractical but it is also simply unfair. It is unfair to ask a country still rising to strength in order to effectively provide for its citizens to cease so that you can continue to live an extravagant lifestyle. I would call the mere idea of this proposal entitlement. What should be demanded at this stage is the developed nations to lead by example and change their lifestyle in order to accommodate the world populations needs for less greenhouse emissions. While I do believe that everyone needs to play a part in reducing these emissions I am tired of hearing world leaders trying to pass this issue off on to someone else. The next issue of inequity is best demonstrated in this New York Times article. The poorest people in the world, who have had virtually nothing to do with causing global warming, will be high on the list of victims as climatic disruptions intensify, the report said. It cited a World Bank estimate that poor countries need as much as $100 billion a year to try to offset the effects of climate change; they are now getting, at best, a few billion dollars a year in such aid from rich countries. (Gillis par. 24). This article is referring to a report by a panel from the UN that has been doing research on climate change. The reason this is an important fact and why it is such an issue is just as Gillis states, these are poor countries that contributed little to none to this change. Yet they will be the one to pay the price as many nations have less than half of that budget set aside for

6 foreign aid. The things found to contribute most to climate change are thing you and I are guilty of, not the people in these poorer countries. We are the ones with factories, consumption and large carbon footprints and yet here we are stating that we cant afford to help those affected by our excess. Some even believe that we cant afford to act in the way of fixing our environment or what we are doing to cause its destruction. That is the attitude that is just as dangerous as disbelieving in climate change because it gets us nowhere closer to a realistic solution. Yes it is entirely unrealistic to have these facts set in front of you, realize the gravity of this issue, and come to the conclusion that we dont have enough money to do anything helpful in this situation. We found a way to finance the demise of our environment, how could we not find a way to act in the way of saving the world, as we know it. I believe it is not a lack of funds but truly a lack of motivation to act on profound evidence. Such action or in this case inaction can no longer be tolerated. Some scientists believe it may already be too late to act which is all the more reason to make significant steps in the right direction now, not in a few years when it is convenient due to funding or who needs a platform to campaign on or even when legislature decides to make laws come into effect. I am tired of matters of scientific fact being debated as if it were a political issue. With that said, there are a very few scientist who believe that the very science behind climate change is corrupted. Dr. Tim Ball, a climatologist, is one of those few. The first issue Dr. Ball has with the IPCCs recent report on climate change is with the IPCC itself. He states that the UN formed the IPCC in order to prove rather than disprove climate changes existence. He believes that this goes against the scientific method. Stating that Science works by creating theories based on assumptions, then other

7 scientistsperforming their skeptical roletest them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it. (Ball par. 4). The problem with this is that the IPCC was formed in order to find the effects climate change will have on nations around the world not whether or not it is occurring. This is because there has been a consensus among a vast majority of scientists that climate change is occurring and it is in part due human activity. Already he takes a convenient albeit misinformed angle in order to suit his own opinion on the facts about climate change. The next part of his argument includes him stating that we cannot know with complete certainty that climate change is occurring or at least that humans play any role in it. We do in fact have a plethora or even a cornucopia of facts that support just the opposite of these statements. Such as the aforementioned 0.5 degree Celsius increase seen annually since 1950. Next he states The IPCC depended upon the publics lack of knowledge regarding the science involved and the global warming hoax was greatly aided because the mainstream media bought into and promoted the unproven theory. Scientists who challenged were denied funding and marginalized. (Ball par. 8). I will argue that just the inverse is true, that Dr. Ball himself is relying on a misinformed public to buy into his unproven claims based on an unfounded and complete mistrust of an entire organization for his own personal reasons. As Neil deGrasse Tyson once said, The good thing about science is that its true whether or not you believe in it. I cannot think of a more relevant quote in response to Dr. Balls unfounded disregard of scientific evidence supporting the opposite of his statements. Climate change is an unfortunate reality indeed but it is time we own up to our actions so we can start taking positive steps before it is too late. I advise anyone who

8 argues that we cannot afford to act against climate change to read the IPCC report. Because I believe they will find that inaction is far more costly of a decision. It is our responsibility as an entitled nation to take accountability for our excess consumption. No longer can we hide under the false argument that we lack enough facts or evidence for climate change. The question we need to ask now is what can we do to fix this.

Annotated Bibliography
Global climate change is one of the most severe issues we face as a human race. It is undeniable that global climate change is occurring but there is a debate of whether or not this climate change is naturally occurring. The reality of this issue is that around ninetyseven percent of scientists agree that global climate change is occurring and that human activity is one of the largest contributing factors. Another big issue that comes with this discovery is that while a majority of citizens of wealthy countries accept the data supporting the probability of climate change they do very little in the way of reducing emissions. We are reaching a point where it could be too late to reverse the damage we have done to the climate system and many people are simply hedging their bets that technology comes up with a solution. This has been the finding of the UN environmental division, the IPCC, which just released their findings from a study that depicts serious climate threat from the impact of human activity.

Caruba, Alan. "A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax." Somewhat Reasonable. N.p., 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-the-disastrous-global-warminghoax/ Summary: Alan Caruba states in his article that global climate change is a deliberate deception to pursue a political objective. Caruba states that John Holdren is an advocate for introducing infertility drugs into the water system as a form of population management. The foundation of Carubas argument is based on his assertion that we do not have the scientific knowledge to know if global warming is occurring. Caruba goes on to say that even if global warming was occurring it is

10 unlikely that man is a large factor in that. Caruba argues that the IPCC set out to prove climate change instead of disprove it, which is against the scientific method. Rhetorical Analysis: When Caruba argues that we lack the scientific power or knowledge, I become a little skeptical of his credibility. I become skeptical because there have been countless independent studies done around the world with ninetyseven percent of scientists agreeing on the reality of global warming. Caruba then expresses his belief that man has no effect on climate change if it were to be occurring. There is a large consensus that this statement is unfounded due to our burning of fossil fuels alone. Reflection: I will use Carubas work as a naysayer source. His statements contradict my other research and my personal conclusions. His statements also have some fallacies that are at least arguable if not completely untrue. He seems to have a collection of misinformation or at least opinions alone that he presents as fact. Gillis, Justin. "Log In - The New York Times." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. New York Times. 30 Mar. 2014. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/science/earth/panels-warning-on-climaterisk-worst-is-yet-to-come.html?_r=0>. Summary: In this New York Times article Justin Gillis summarizes and offers a report on the IPCCs recent findings regarding global warming. The findings include grim outlooks on how much aid wealthy countries will need to pay to poorer countries to compensate for their damage to the food supply through greenhouse emissions. The figure given is one hundred billion dollars, which is estimated to be more than double most countries budget for international aid. The

11 findings also conclude that global climate change is indeed a very real threat to the continuation of our existence. Rhetorical Analysis: Gillis reports on the IPCCs findings in a very fair and logical manner. While Gillis paints a bleak picture with these facts of human action being so detrimental to our environment he does so honestly and with the factual backing of the IPCC. Gillis also states that these findings are likely to have a large impact on the upcoming international meeting on climate change. Reflection: I will use Justin Gillis article from The New York Times as factual backing for my research paper. Gillis reporting is based on facts and presented in a reasonable manner. People may misinterpret this article as such because they fundamentally disagree with the facts being presented. I will argue that the information provided is factual and nonbiased. It states that the poorest nations in the world are going to need as much as one hundred billion dollars in a year to offset the damage global climate change will do to their food supply alone. This article isnt arguing about whether humans are causing global climate change or if its happening. This article is saying that these things are happening regardless of our opinion and gives examples of what this will all mean. This is a very informative article that states many issues resulting from global climate change. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Rosenthal, S. (2014) Americans actions to limit global warming. November 2013. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

12 Summary: In this article, Leiserowitz presents statistical evidence of global warming. As well as this evidence, statistics Leiserowitz provided depict scientific and public belief in global climate change and a desire to do something about it. This article also discuses how many people want to, or in fact, do take action to slow the progression of climate change. Rhetorical Analysis: This article presents various informative statistics. These statistics cover a wide base of topics such as how people feel about climate change and what they are doing about how they feel. I will be using this source as a backing for my research paper because it is a very factual and well-researched source. The article states that nearly half of Americans have often set their thermostat no higher than sixty-eight degrees in the winter. When you take into account that forty percent of alarmed citizens have contacted the government about global warming in the last year you realize that we do accept it as a legitimate threat. This article asks if we are doing enough though. It is not biased as it simply presents statistical facts, making it a good source that is hard to argue with. Reflection: I found the statistics very intriguing and well researched. One statistic states that three in ten Americans are willing to join a campaign to convince officials to take action about climate change. A problem with this is that they say they are concerned and that they would be willing to do these things to contribute to the fight against climate change but they dont. Its all talk thats getting us nowhere but into more trouble environmentally. While I am guilty of the same thing I think its important we all realize that we need to take legitimate action

13 instead of being all talk. They give me an idea about part of the problem regarding our inability to make big changes in order to slow or stop climate change. This source gives good backing for the need to take more initiative both personally, nationally, and certainly globally. Merchant, Brian. "First Official Climate Change Refugees Evacuate Their Island Homes for Good : TreeHugger." TreeHugger. Tree Hugger, 8 May 2009. Web. 22 Apr. 2014. <http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/first-officialclimate-change-refugees-evacuate-their-island-homes-for-good.html>. Schiermeier, Quirin. "Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made - Scientific American." Science News, Articles, and Information - Scientific American. Nature Magazine, 5 Dec. 2011. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/>. Summary: In this article Schiermeier opens by stating climate change is certainly occurring. Schiermeier then asserts that human activity is also accountable for at least seventy-four percent. Schiermeier continues to deny the theory that climate change is naturally occurring by explaining the temperature increase in recent years. He states that even if the climate variable was three times greater than what is currently predicted it would be unlikely to be a logical explanation for this dramatic shift in temperature. Rhetorical Analysis: Schiermeier does an excellent job of presenting and successfully arguing against skeptics in this article. He does this by presenting a common skeptic idea that climate change is natural and provides a logical argument against that concept backed up by facts. When Schiermeier explains

14 how far out of a natural range our current climate is many counter arguments start to appear to have large flaws. The main counter argument Schiermeier presents is that greenhouse gases are responsible for a 1.1 degrees Celsius warming since the middle of the twentieth century. Reaction: I will be using this article to support my argument of climate change being man made. Schiermeier provides excellent facts to argue against those of skeptics, which will make my paper much stronger. He also approaches these arguments with fairness as a goal and respectfully provides his argument based off facts. Spencer, Roy. "Global Warming Roy Spencer, PhD." Roy Spencer, PhD. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-ormanmade/>. Summary: In his blog Spencer starts by stating that the climate system is not affected by our emission of greenhouse gasses or other forms of pollution. Spencer also argues that any indication of global warming could easily be explained by a big fluctuation in climate sensitivity that is part of the natural climate system. Rhetorical Analysis: I believe that Spencer brings up a valid question of how much of global warming can be explained as part of the natural cycle. I do believe that he too firmly upholds that it is just natural, as we have evidence depicting otherwise. I believe that while his statements raise valid questions they are too one sided and choose to selectively ignore pertinent facts such as our average

15 temperatures surpassing the extremes which correlate with our consumption of fossil fuels. Reaction: I will be using this source as a naysayer for my research paper. While Spencer has some valid questions I can address in my paper, his arguments also have some flaws that will show some problems with many of the counter arguments of climate change. With the issue of climate change becoming even harder to ignore or to pass off as natural the conversation is evolving into a discussion of possible solutions for this threat. While skeptics will exist in any scenario and they bring needed questions to the conversation there comes a point when they must accept certain evidence as fact. It is unimaginable how one can look at the recent UN study alone and not understand that all of our activity is effecting our environment and climate. It is important to have people come to this realization so we can start working on realistic solutions to repair the environment we have so gravely damaged.