What you should do with Climate Change

What you should do with Climate Change

Now, a lot is said and written about global warming. Nearly every day you will find new hypotheses that refute the old ones. We have been constantly afraid of that which we can expect as time goes by. Many statements and articles openly contradict each other, misleading us. For all, global warming is actually a ‘global confusion’ and some have completely lost interest in the problem of climate change.
Global warming may be the gradual rise in the typical annual surface temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans because of various reasons (boost in the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere, changes in solar or volcanic activity, etc.). Very often, people make use of 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 associated with Earth’s atmosphere and oceans due to the rise in our planet’s atmosphere concentrations of greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc.). These gasses perform the role associated with film or even the glass of greenhouses, they freely let the sun rays to the Earth’s surface and retain heat which is leaving the earth’s atmosphere. The increase in temperature creates favorable conditions for disease development, supported not just by high temperature and humidity but additionally by the expansion associated with habitat of several animals – vectors of diseases. By the middle associated with 21st century, it is expected that the incidence of malaria will increase by 60% (Nabi and Qader, 2009). Increased development of the microflora while the lack of clean normal water will promote the development of infectious intestinal diseases. The proliferation of microorganisms in the air can boost the incidence of asthma, allergies as well as other respiratory diseases.

Still haven’t found the subject you need?
Get a custom academic paper on
“What to Do with Climate Change”
only from $17.55/page
Order Now

Because of global climate changes, the following half century may be the last in the life of many species of living organisms. Polar bears, walruses, and seals are generally deprived of an important part of their habitat – Arctic sea ice (Urban, 2015). The increase in average annual temperature associated with surface layer associated with atmosphere would be felt stronger over the continents than over the oceans. This may cause a radical restructuring associated with natural zones associated with 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 associated with level of World ocean, in recent years, the Arctic ocean occurs on land with a typical speed of 3-6 meters over the summer. When it comes to Arctic Islands and capes, high icy rocks collapse and are also 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 would be less severe. It is expected that by 2060, the average temperature in can change for 5 degrees.

Techniques to Prevent Global Warming
It is believed that individuals as time goes by will try to use the Earth’s climate in check. Only time will tell how successful could it be. If mankind does not succeed, therefore we usually do not change his life style, the Homo sapiens species will follow the fate associated with dinosaurs.

Advanced minds already think on how to reverse the process of global warming. They provide original techniques to prevent global warming such given that breeding of the latest types of plants and trees, the leaves of that have a higher albedo, painting roofs white, installing mirrors in earth orbit, glaciers shelter from the sunlight, etc. Lots of effort is allocated to replacing conventional types of energy in line with 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 provide original, non-traditional ways of obtaining energy such as the utilization of heat of human bodies for space heating, the usage sunlight to stop ice on roads, along with several others. Energy hunger and fear of the global warming does amazing items to the human brain. New and original ideas are born nearly every day.

Not enough attention is paid to the rational utilization of energy.
To reduce CO2 emissions, engineers have introduced the engines with improved efficiency, hybrid, and electro cars.

In future, it is planned to pay for great focus on the capture of greenhouse gases in the production of electricity, along with directly from the atmosphere through the disposal of plant organisms, using ingenious artificial trees, injection of carbon dioxide on the multi-kilometer depth associated with ocean where it’s going to dissolve in the water column. Most of these how to ‘neutralize’ CO2 are extremely expensive. Currently, the price of capturing one ton of CO2 is approximately 100-300 dollars that exceed the market cost of a lot of oil, but when you consider that burning of 1 ton of oil forms approximately three a lot of CO2, means of binding carbon dioxide are not yet relevant. Previously proposed methods of carbon sequestration through tree planting invalidate the fact that many associated with carbon in forest fires and decomposition of organic matter are released back to 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) while https://shmoop.pro/as-you-like-it-by-william-shakespeare-summary/ the Kyoto Protocol (1999). The latter was not ratified by several countries, which take into account the majority of CO2 emissions. So, the united states accounts for about 40% of most emissions (in recent time, China has overtaken the united states in terms of CO2 emissions). Unfortunately, people will put their particular well-being during the forefront, so we should not be expectant of 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 lots of writing on climate change these days: It is right concerning the risk, but wrong on how 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 spring to mind — Wallace-Wells’ offers an easy message: I’m scared. People must certanly be scared. Here are the facts. You ought to be scared too.

To make sure, Wallace-Wells and these other writers are thoughtful, intelligent, and well-informed people. Which is exactly how they try to raise concern: with thought, intelligence, and information, couched in the most dramatic terms during the grandest possible scale. Wallace-Wells invokes sweeping concepts like ‘planet-warming,’ ‘human history,’ and global emissions; remote places just like the Arctic; broad geographical and geopolitical terms like ‘coral reefs,’ ‘ice sheet,’ and ‘climate refugees’; and distant timeframes like 2030, 2050, and 2100.

It is a typical approach to communicating risk issues, known as the deficit model: Proceeding from the assumption that the audience lacks facts — that is, they have a deficit — all you have to do is provide them with the reality, in clear and eloquent and dramatic enough terms, and you will cause them to become feel like you want them to feel, how they ought to feel, how you feel. But research on the practice of risk communication has discovered that this method usually fails, and frequently backfires. The deficit model may work fine in physics class, but it’s an ineffective way to try to change people’s attitudes. That is because it appeals to reason, and reason just isn’t what drives human behavior.

For longer than 50 years, the cognitive sciences have amassed a mountainous body of insight into why we think and choose and behave 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 123helpme.me set of affective filters that determine how those facts feel — and exactly how they feel is exactly what determines what those facts mean and exactly how we behave. As 17th century French mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascal observed, ‘We know truth, not just by the reason, but additionally by the heart.’

Yet a big segment associated with climate change commentariat dismisses these social science findings. In the piece for The New York Times, Wallace-Wells mentions a few cognitive biases that come under the rubric of behavioral economics, including optimism bias (things will go better for me personally than the next guy) and status quo bias (it is easier just to keep things because they are). But he describes them in language that drips with condescension and frustration:

Just how can we be this deluded? One answer originates 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 element of what shapes how we feel about risk. Another part of our cognition that features gotten far too little attention, but plays a far more important part in how we feel about climate change, may be the psychology of risk perception. Pioneering research by Paul Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff, Sarah Lichtenstein, and many more has identified a lot more than a dozen discrete psychological characteristics that cause us to worry a lot more than we need to about some threats and less than we have to about others, like climate change.

For instance, we don’t worry just as much about risks that don’t feel personally threatening. Surveys suggest that even people who are alarmed about climate change aren’t particularly alarmed concerning the threat to themselves. The most recent poll by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication discovered that while 70 percent of Americans believe climate change is going on, 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 obtain us to tomorrow first — and only then, maybe, do we worry about what comes later. So even people who think climate change is already happening believe, accurately, that the worst is yet to come. Risk communication that talks concerning the havoc that climate change will wreak in 2030, in 2050, or ‘during this century’ contributes to that particular ‘we don’t really have to bother about it now’ feeling.

Risk perception research also shows that we worry less about risky behaviors if those behaviors also carry tangible benefits. Thus far, that has been the outcome for climate change: for most people staying in the developed world, the harms of climate change tend to be more than offset by the modern comforts of a carbon-intensive lifestyle. Even people who put solar panels on their roofs or make lifestyle changes into 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 certainly 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, would be terrifying. And yet, once I imagine my life three decades from now, or even the life of my daughter five decades from now, i must admit that I am not imagining a global on fire but one similar to the one we have now.

Yet he writes that ‘the age of climate panic is here,’ in which he expects that delivering all the reality and evidence in alarmist language will somehow move others to see things differently. This is certainly perhaps Wallace-Wells’ biggest failure: By dramatizing the reality and suggesting that individuals who don’t share his level of concern are irrational and delusional, he is much more prone to offend readers than to convince them. Adopting the attitude that ‘my feelings are right and yours are wrong’ — that ‘I’m able to see the problem and 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 think.

Contrast all this deficit-model climate punditry utilizing the effective messaging associated with 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 half a year since, there were nationwide #FridaysforFuture school walkouts in at the 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 that is about not only facts but her very real and personal fear:

Adults keep 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 do something.

By talking with our hearts and not soleley our heads — and by framing the problem when it comes 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 can get plenty of attention among the intelligentsia, but he is not likely to arouse serious new support for action against climate change. Risk communication that acknowledges and respects the emotions and psychology associated with people it tries to reach will probably have much better impact — and that’s just what your time and effort to combat climate change needs right now.