What you should do with Climate Change
Now, a lot is said and written about global warming. Virtually every day you can find new hypotheses that refute the old ones. Our company is constantly afraid of everything we can expect as time goes by. Many statements and articles openly contradict each other, misleading us. For all, global warming is becoming a ‘global confusion’ and some have completely lost interest in the matter of climate change.
Global warming could be the gradual rise in the common annual surface temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans as a result of various reasons (rise in the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere, changes in solar or volcanic activity, etc.). Very often, people utilize the phrase ‘greenhouse effect’ as a synonym of global warming, however, there is a slight difference between these concepts. The greenhouse effect is an increase in average annual surface temperature of this Earth’s atmosphere and oceans due to the rise in the planet earth’s atmosphere concentrations of greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc.). These gasses perform the role of this film or perhaps the glass of greenhouses, they freely let the sun rays to the Earth’s surface and retain heat which is leaving our planet’s atmosphere. The increase in temperature creates favorable conditions for disease development, supported not merely by high temperature and humidity but in addition by the expansion of this habitat of several animals – vectors of diseases. By the middle of this 21st century, it is expected that the incidence of malaria will increase by 60% (Nabi and Qader, 2009). Increased development of the microflora in addition to lack of clean drinking tap water will promote the rise of infectious intestinal diseases. The proliferation of microorganisms in the air can raise the incidence of asthma, allergies and differing respiratory diseases.
Still haven’t found this issue you need?
Get a custom academic paper on
“What to Do with Climate Change”
only from $17.55/page
As a result of global climate changes, the second half century will be the last in the life of many species of living organisms. Polar bears, walruses, and seals are generally deprived of an important element of their habitat – Arctic sea ice (Urban, 2015). The increase in average annual temperature of this surface layer of this atmosphere is likely to be felt stronger over the continents than over the oceans. This can cause a radical restructuring of this natural zones of this continents. The displacement of a number of areas in the Arctic and Antarctic latitudes is already visible now.
The permafrost zone has shifted northward for hundreds of kilometers. Some scholars argue that due to the rapid melting of permafrost and increase of this level of World ocean, in recent years, the Arctic ocean occurs on land with the average speed of 3-6 meters over the summer. Are you aware that Arctic Islands and capes, high icy rocks collapse and are absorbed by the sea in the warm period of the year at a rate of 20-30 meters. The whole Arctic Islands have completely disappeared.
As a result, the winters is likely to be less severe. It is expected that by 2060, the average temperature in will alter for 5 degrees.
Techniques to Prevent Global Warming
It is believed that folks as time goes by will try to make the Earth’s climate in order. Only time will tell how successful might it be. If mankind does not succeed, so we try not to change his way of living, the Homo sapiens species will follow the fate of this dinosaurs.
Advanced minds already think on how to reverse the process of global warming. They feature original techniques to prevent global warming such given that breeding of brand new kinds of plants and trees, the leaves of which may have a higher albedo, painting roofs white, installing mirrors in earth orbit, glaciers shelter from the sunlight, etc. Plenty of effort is used on replacing conventional kinds of energy on the basis of the combustion of carbon materials on nontraditional, such as the production of solar panels, wind turbines, construction of TPP (tidal power plants), hydropower, nuclear power plants. They feature original, non-traditional types of obtaining energy such as the usage of heat of human bodies for space heating, the usage sunlight to avoid ice on roads, in addition to several others. Energy hunger and fear of the global warming does amazing what to the human brain. New and original ideas are born virtually every day.
Not enough attention is paid to the rational usage of energy.
To reduce CO2 emissions, engineers have introduced the engines with improved efficiency, hybrid, and electro cars.
In future, it is planned to cover great awareness of the capture of greenhouse gases in the production of electricity, in addition to directly from the atmosphere through the disposal of plant organisms, using ingenious artificial trees, injection of carbon dioxide on the multi-kilometer depth of this ocean where it will probably dissolve in the water column. Most of these techniques to ‘neutralize’ CO2 have become expensive. Currently, the expense of capturing one ton of CO2 is approximately 100-300 dollars that exceed the market cost of a huge amount of oil, but when you consider that burning of just one ton of oil forms approximately three a great deal of CO2, means of binding carbon dioxide are not yet relevant. Previously proposed methods of carbon sequestration through tree planting invalidate the fact that a lot of of this carbon in forest fires and decomposition of organic matter are released back in the atmosphere.
Special attention is paid to the development of legislative regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, many countries had adopted the framework Convention of UN on climate change (1992) in addition to Kyoto Protocol (1999). The latter was not ratified by several countries, which account fully for the majority of CO2 emissions. So, the usa accounts for about 40% of all of the emissions (in recent time, China has overtaken the usa in terms of CO2 emissions). Unfortunately, people will put their very own well-being in the forefront, so we should not really expect significant progress in addressing issues of global warming.
DAVID WALLACE-WELLS’ recent climate change essay in The New York Times, published as part of the publicity for his new book ‘The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming,’ is, sadly, like plenty of writing on climate change these days: It really is right in regards to the risk, but wrong about how precisely it tries to accomplish the critical goal of raising public concern. Like other essays that have sounded the alarms on global warming — pieces by Bill McKibben, James Hansen, and George Monbiot one thinks of — Wallace-Wells’ offers a straightforward message: I’m scared. People must be scared. Here are the facts. You need to be scared too.
To be certain, Wallace-Wells and these other writers are thoughtful, intelligent, and well-informed people. And that’s the way in which they try to raise concern: with thought, intelligence, and information, couched in the most dramatic terms in the grandest possible scale. Wallace-Wells invokes sweeping concepts like ‘planet-warming,’ ‘human history,’ and global emissions; remote places such as the Arctic; broad geographical and geopolitical terms like ‘coral reefs,’ ‘ice sheet,’ and ‘climate refugees’; and distant timeframes like 2030, 2050, and 2100.
It really is a standard approach to communicating risk issues, known as the deficit model: Proceeding from the assumption that your particular audience lacks facts — that is, they own a deficit — everything you need to do is let them have the important points, in clear and eloquent and dramatic enough terms, and you may cause them to feel like you want them to feel, how they as you like it act 5 scene 4 summary ought to feel, how you feel. But research on the practice of risk communication has unearthed that this process usually fails, and sometimes backfires. The deficit model may work fine in physics class, but it’s an ineffective way to try to change people’s attitudes. Which is because it appeals to reason, and reason is certainly not what drives human behavior.
For over 50 years, the cognitive sciences have amassed a mountainous body of insight into why we think and choose and work as we do. And what they have found is that facts alone are literally meaningless. We interpret every bit of cold objective information through a thick set of affective filters that determine how those facts feel — and just how they feel is really what determines what those facts mean and just how we behave. As 17th century French mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascal observed, ‘We know truth, not merely by the reason, but in addition by the heart.’
Yet a sizable segment of this climate change commentariat dismisses these social science findings. Inside the piece for The New York Times, Wallace-Wells mentions a few cognitive biases that are categorized as the rubric of behavioral economics, including optimism bias (things will go better in my situation than the next guy) and status quo bias (it really is easier just to keep things since they are). But he describes them in language that drips with condescension and frustration:
How do we be this deluded? One answer arises from behavioral economics. The scroll of cognitive biases identified by psychologists and fellow travelers over the past half-century can seem, like a social media feed, bottomless. In addition they distort and distend our perception of a changing climate. These optimistic prejudices, prophylactic biases, and emotional reflexes form an entire library of climate delusion.
Moreover, behavioral economics is only one section of what shapes how we feel about risk. Another element of our cognition that has gotten far too little attention, but plays an even more important part in how we feel about climate change, could be the psychology of risk perception. Pioneering research by Paul Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff, Sarah Lichtenstein, and others has identified significantly more than a dozen discrete psychological characteristics that cause us to worry significantly more than we need to about some threats and less than we must about others, like climate change.
As an example, we don’t worry the maximum amount of about risks that don’t feel personally threatening. Surveys suggest that even people who are alarmed about climate change aren’t particularly alarmed in regards to the threat to themselves. The most recent poll by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication unearthed that while 70 percent of Americans believe climate change is occurring, only around 40 percent think ‘it will harm me personally.’
We also worry more about risks that threaten us soon than risks that threaten us later. Evolution has endowed us with a risk-alert system designed to have us to tomorrow first — and only then, maybe, do we worry about what comes later. So even those that think climate change is already happening believe, accurately, that the worst is yet to come. Risk communication that talks in regards to the havoc that climate change will wreak in 2030, in 2050, or ‘during this century’ contributes to this ‘we don’t really have to bother about it now’ feeling.
Risk perception research also implies that we worry less about risky behaviors if those behaviors also carry tangible benefits. Up to now, which has been the outcome for climate change: for many individuals staying in the developed world, the harms of climate change are far more than offset by the modern comforts of a carbon-intensive lifestyle. Even those that put solar panels on their roofs or make lifestyle changes when you look at the name of reducing their carbon footprint often continue with other bad behaviors: shopping and buying unsustainably, flying, having their regular hamburger.
Interestingly Wallace-Wells admits this is even true for him:
I know the science is true, I know the threat is all-encompassing, and I know its effects, should emissions continue unabated, is likely to be terrifying. And yet, whenever I imagine my life three decades from now, or perhaps the life of my daughter five decades from now, i need to admit that I am not imagining some sort of on fire but one similar to the one we have now.
Yet he writes that ‘the age of climate panic is here,’ and then he expects that delivering all the important points and evidence in alarmist language will somehow move others to see things differently. This is perhaps Wallace-Wells’ biggest failure: By dramatizing the important points and suggesting that folks who don’t share his level of concern are irrational and delusional, he is a lot more very likely to offend readers than to convince them. Adopting the attitude that ‘my feelings are right and yours are wrong’ — that ‘I am able to see the problem plus one’s wrong with you if you can’t’ — is a surefire way to turn a reader off, not on, to what you want them to trust.
Contrast all this deficit-model climate punditry aided by the effective messaging of this rising youth revolt against climate change. Last August, 16-year-old Swedish student Greta Thunberg skipped school and held a one-person protest outside her country’s parliament to demand action on climate change. In the 6 months since, there has been nationwide #FridaysforFuture school walkouts in at the very least nine countries, and more are planned.
Thunberg has spoken to the United Nations in addition to World Economic Forum in Davos, with an in-your-face and from-the-heart message which is about not merely facts but her very real and personal fear:
Adults carry on saying: ‘We owe it to the young people to give them hope.’ But I don’t want your hope… I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to behave.
By talking to our hearts and not soleley our heads — and by framing the matter with regards to personal and immediate fear of a future that promises more harm than benefit — Thunberg has started an international protest movement.
The lesson is clear. Wallace-Wells’ New York Times essay are certain to get a lot of attention among the intelligentsia, but he is climate change informative speech outline not likely to arouse serious new support for action against climate change. Risk communication that acknowledges and respects the emotions and psychology of this people it tries to reach probably will have much larger impact — and that’s precisely what the time and effort to combat climate change needs right now.