Climate Change Policy - Skipping Periods of Development

The human activity responsible for an increase in greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere is due mostly by CO2 emissions from humans. There is effort to create treaties and policy to restrict the amount of C02 emissions for each nation. These efforts are crucial to reduce our affect on our climate and mitigate changes caused by global warming. 

Many concerns are raised by Nations to enforce these emissions. One of these is the resistance of implementing emission control from developing nations. They often feel they have a right to pollute to increase human living standards, because developed countries had the opportunity to do this. An example of this comes from the documentary Island President, where India takes this stance. Mohammed Nasheed, the president of the Maldives and an advocate for reducing our effect on the climate, suggests that developing nations adopt green energy to accomplish their goals. A social scientist by the name of Anthony Giddens suggests that developing countries use this as an opportunity to change established structures. He gives the example of smart phones in Africa:

"It was the first time in human history that the most advanced technologies have gone directly to the poorer countries. Many African countries have been able to skip a whole period in the development of fixed telephone lines and go straight to mobile phone systems. Perhaps the same could be possible for renewable technologies.”

This same idea of skipping a period of development could be possible and arguably necessary in renewable technologies. If developing countries such as India were to go this route, they might be able to offer the standards of living similar to that in developed nations through green energy, rather than fossil fuels. Once a system is established I do not believe it would be far-fetched in thinking that they might even have a step up having already implimented a nationwide renewable energy structure.

The Language of Climate Change

Earlier this week I was listening to RadioLab, a public radio program from NPR. They were talking about climate change, and they comment on how currently society is in a transitional phase on how we talk about climate change. In the past, the IPCC's goals were on the prevention of climate change. In the past few years, they have shifted to the language of adaptation of climate change. Put simply, they are no longer trying to prevent it from happening as it is already here. Now we must adapt to the reality of it.


The radio program suggests we are all in this strange middle ground where we are trying to find the language to say why it is important that we keep working at this, while at the same time admitting some level of failure. They continue on bringing this back to the idea of nihilism, I think it is worth while thinking about the importance of language in climate change. For those who are uneducated on Climate Change, poor language used by climate change activists could end up sounding like a pessimistic view of the world, maybe even an apocalypse to be laughed at, pushed aside and ultimately ignored. The way we speak about climate change is important in order for change to take place, in lifestyles, politics, and public perception.

This is only one aspect of the complexity of creating a structure to mitigate the effects of climate change, but I think it emphasizes the complexity of the situation. It also stresses that we cannot continue to push the problem of climate change aside for other things, such as economic benefit. It is one more reason action needs to be taken in Paris at the COP21.

Merchants of Doubt

In the documentary Merchants of Doubt takes a look at the Tobacco industry in the last sixty years. It talks about the long period of denial of tobacco being unhealthy even after the industry had know the effects. It is a case of very rich and powerful people denying the truth in order to make more money, for as long as they could stall the public and government from taking action. This is contrasted with the "debate" between climate change scientists and deniers. In the same way tobacco had lied about the truth, climate deniers seem to be doing the same. But who are the big businesses worried about losing money? The fossil fuel industry is the main one. They are in the same predicament that the tobacco industry was in. Business is huge, and even growing and if climate change policy will affect that, then there is only one logical solution for them, saying climate change isn't real.

Naomi Oreskes looks at this further and actually pinpoints perhaps the main reason why this happens among big businesses. She claims that it isn't actually about the money, at least not entirely. She says that in these instances one thing stays consistent, and that is the companies don't want government to be more involved in fear that we could be heading to a socialist or communist state. She reflects on the cold war, and recognizes many of these CEO's and rich men are from that era.

Climate Deniers that I have met are not these rich and powerful men, but average citizens with certain political beliefs. They often mimic what is said on the news, or what their favorite politician believes forgetting to realize that they are an individual all the same as their coveted politician. Because of this, they can make their own decisions. They can do their own research. Most importantly, they don't have to agree with whatever their party believes in, but can come to their own conclusions and challenge the party that they prefer to actually make that party more in line with what is right. I am talking about the republican party of course. I find it sad that many people think that if you want to be republican, democratic, libertarian, or the likes, that you have to agree with everything they believe. What's wrong with being a democrat and being anti-abortion, or being a republican and being anti-guns. Or maybe, just maybe, one could be a republican and believe in climate change and recognize the problem that we all face, regardless of what party you affiliate yourself with.

Pope Francis' Plea for Caring For Our Common Home

Pope Francis recently wrote an encyclical titled On Care For Our Common Home which serves to reach out to people around the world to change the way we treat the planet. He talks about the importance of biodiversity on the planet, how carbon dioxide emissions are changing our planet, and other environmental degrading activities humans participate in their day to day lives, especially those with more power.

One of the topics he speaks on is our view of technology. He says we have began to view technology as not only a fall back plan to problems, but even something that is so powerful we can ignore realities of how our planet works. He believes we need to slow down, and to do that we need to change our definition of progress. He supports innovation, but only if it is directly serving to in rich peoples life who need enriching, while being able to sustain a long term use without inflicting damage on our environment. For example, providing more food and water for the poor. In my opinion, this is perhaps the most important part of his message. The reason I say this is because with the growing millennial generation, where everyone seems to be glued to their phones and any other new technology that comes out. The younger generations of today need to set the standard for future ones to come. The youth need to step up and begin to change the way we view technology in relation to how it affects our environment.

With social media as a staple of todays' communication, I see people posting environmental issues on a daily basis. Just the other day I saw a post about the diminishing population of Rhinos and another about the effects of climate change on Antarctica. These are good things. I read these, and begin to become very optimistic, but then just a day later I see about twice the amount of posts about the New Iphone 6s. People are waiting in line, pre-ordering, and thousands of blog posts are be written about how amazing this new phone will be. Many of these people, some of whom I know personally, already have the Iphone 6. Many purchased it just a few months ago, but already are throwing that "old" junk away to by the new one. The irony is, when the next Iphone comes out I reckon they will repeat this process. It seems that my peers and even those older than me praise Apple as if they are changing the world for the better, when in the grand scheme of things they are making the same phone that only lasts a year or two that has a better camera, or a cool new way of arranging apps. There is nothing wrong with being enthralled with technology, as long as we are aware of the effects it has on our environment. We should also choose more carefully who we hail as great. I believe Steve Jobs was a good and impressive man, don't get me wrong. But, with people starving and other people

hoarding wealth, why not hail those who are making the world more just, those who are looking for a better change. Why not Pope Francis?