The climate is always changing, whether human activities exhibit an influence or not. As science and technology led to new means of energy in the 18th century, humans began to use the energy produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil to manufacture goods and carry out every-day tasks. Human influence on the climate increased to levels never before possible. These natural resources took millions of years to form from carbon stored under earth’s surface. As humans extract millions of years worth of carbon stored as fossil fuels in the earth and burn them, heat-trapping gasses are transferred from the earth’s crust into our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major contributor to warming the climate and suitably receives the most attention on the subject.
Fossil-fuels, mainly petroleum and coal are the most important energy source used today. According to the World Book, “petroleum furnishes about 40 percent of the commercial energy used in the world and about 40 percent of that used in the United States” (277). This addiction to fossil-fuels has dramatically harmed humanity during its efforts to build and progress. Bill Grant claims that, “global average temperatures have been rising more than 1 degree per decade since 1980, and 11 out of 12 years from 1995 to 2006 ranked among the warmest years since 1850” (19). This warming not only affects conditions for humans, but also wildlife (Grant 19). Many fish and wildlife habitats have been threatened by global warming. Many organisms have very specific niches that their habitat depends on, and once their habitat is altered they suffer (Grant 21). If the global water and climate temperatures rise, then the animals will be forced to hastily adapt, or else biodiversity will diminish. No matter how fossil-fuels are used, they will always emit harmful pollutants that affect every aspect of life.
From the time humans evolved on earth until around 200 years ago, the atmosphere contained levels of carbon dioxide around 275 parts per million. As a result of burning fossil fuels and transferring massive amounts carbon stored in the earth into the atmosphere in such a relatively short amount of time, the atmosphere now contains 385-390 parts per million (increase of 42%). If humans desire to preserve conditions of the planet to which life has adapted, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere must decrease. Current scientific data suggests that the optimal amount of carbon that would remove us from the danger zone is 350 parts per million. The faster we take action to lower this dangerous concentration of carbon dioxide the easier it will be to reach the goal of 350 parts per million (CO2).
If global warming is not stopped now, then the weather patterns will also be drastically altered. There may be many more severe hurricanes. A small increase in global temperature will increase the amount of heat and humidity in the air which in turn creates thunder storms. Hurricanes will increase in severity and frequency because of warming ocean temperatures. “For example, a 1 degree temperature increase could shut down the rain forests that then releases lots of carbon that causes another temperature increase that melts the permafrost that releases lots more greenhouse gas causing another temperature spike which warms the oceans enough to release their enormous deposits of methane that warm the ocean further to turn it acidic and release sulfuric acid that kills all aerobic life on earth” (Dr. Bruce Hull). Sounds pretty scary huh? This is why we must take action now and prevent climate change if we wish to preserve a climate to which we have evolved.
Our Position/Solution:
Our team argues that action must be taken to prevent climate chaos. To make this happen a major shift in our energy sources must occur. Adaptation alone is like treating the symptoms (eventually more systems will fail); however, prevention eliminates the problem at the source. If we decide to continually adjust or fix problems with limited energy resources, then more systems will eventually fail. A way to help force a change to renewable energy that doesn’t release heat-trapping gases would be to implement a carbon cap system. This would put a limit on the amount of carbon that is allowed to be released into the atmosphere based on scientifically calculated safe-limits.
There is always a tremendous solution to a horrible problem, and with this disastrous world changing event there is a solution. This solution consists of an abundant amount of alternative renewable energy sources. The more diverse our energy sources, the more resilient and flexible we will become. Some sources are more well-known such as: solar power, water power, and wind power. However, there are many other renewable energy sources that can be attributes to a cleaner atmosphere on earth, such as: geothermal energy, biomass, fuel cells, nuclear energy, ocean tides, and many more (Renewable Energy Sources: A Consumer’s Guide and Renewable Energy Sources in the United States). Whether the source is well-known or not, renewable energy is the obvious solution.
All of the solutions suggested thus far have addressed preventing the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Since the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is already above the ideal safe-limit, another means of decreasing the concentration must occur utilizing biomass. Via the process of photosynthesis through biomass the earth sequesters carbon from the atmosphere and eventually transports it back into the earth. Carbon is an ingredient in the photosynthesis reaction: plants take in CO2 and H2O along with light energy to produce CH2O and O2. To prevent present CO2 levels from staying too high since they already over the limit, forest biomass should be conserved and possibly increased to utilize the excess CO2. The potential is exists for a significant increase in biomass growth due to the high concentrations of CO2. Green spaces in urban areas and in close proximity to CO2 releasing industrial plants would be a good way to convert CO2 into biomass before it ever travels far from the source.
The technology and means exists that are capable to prevent climate change due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases and their negative effects on the earth’s climate. By utilizing renewable energy such as solar, wind, water, geothermal, fuel cells, ocean currents, humanity can wean itself off of its addiction to fossil fuels. A system of carbon caps is necessary to set enforceable penalties for releasing excess CO2 into the environment. Social and economic resources should be invested in preventing climate chaos to ensure a stable future for generations to come. “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” –Aldo Leopold
Works Cited:
“5 Deadliest Effects of Global Warming”. September 2007 . http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/5-deadliest-effects-of-global-warming/276
Cothran, Helen. Energy Alternatives. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
“Energy Supply.” World Book. 2004 ed. Chicago: World Book, 2004.
Grant, Bill. “Powerful Solutions.” Outdoor America Fall 2008: 19-23.
“Invasive species may increase with global warming”. October 13, 2005
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1013-invasive.html#research
Knight, Helen. “Electric Dreams.” New Scientist 10 Nov. 2008. 5 Dec. 2008
Leahy, Stephen. “Global warming may spawn more super Storms.” September 21, 2004 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0921-01.htm
“Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Energy.” Clean Energy. 28 Dec. 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 5 Dec. 2008
Parker, Steve. Fuels For The Future. Austin: Steck-Vaughn, 1998.
“Renewable Energy Sources: A Consumer’s Guide.” Energy Information Administration. 12 Jan. 2005. 5 Dec. 2008
Purdue University. "Global Warming Likely To Increase Stormy Weather, Especially In Certain US Locations." ScienceDaily 5 December 2007. 30 November 2009
“Renewable Energy Sources in the United States.” Nationalatlas.gov. 29 April, 2008. National Atlas of the United Sates. 5 Dec. 2008
Roach John. “Global Warming is rapidly rising sea levels, studies warn” March 23, 2006 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0323_060323_global_warming.html
Roman","serif";">“5 Deadliest Effects of Global Warming”. September 2007 . http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/5-deadliest-effects-of-global-warming/276
3. Group A defends reducing the negative impacts of global warming. They use many valid resources to justify their point. From the time humans evolved, the carbon dioxide content in the air has been approximately 275 ppm. Now the carbon dioxide is about 385-395 ppm. According to group A we must lower these levels to 350 ppm to remove ourselves from danger. By utilizing other means of energy sources, the world can reduce its consumption from fossil fuels and thus reduce the emissions which pollute the planet. The only issue I have against their argument is that it will take a very long time before the world will realize that it cannot depend on foreign oil. Therefore, it will be awhile before we can implement new alternative forms of energy.
ReplyDeleteThis paper is interesting it definitely makes you think about the other ways to help out the changing climate. If we prevent what is happening with our climate then we can hopefully also begin to take care of we have already done to our earth. The only issue I have with the paper itself is that there were minor errors in the writing which made some sentences difficult to read other than that if you agree to this side of the argument then it was a well written paper.
ReplyDeleteGroup A argues that we need to start preventing the release of Carbon Dioxide and other heat trapping gasses into the atmosphere. The major cause of this increase in gases is caused by the use of fossil fuels to generate energy. Since the time humans evolved, the carbon dioxide content in the air was approximately 275 ppm. Now however, current levels are around 385 ppm. According to group A, we must lower the level to approximately 350 ppm to remove ourselves from the danger of increase temperatures and global warming. Group A proposes to do this by using alternative energy sources such as solar power, wind power, geothermal power, biomass and many other alternative renewable resources. They believe that by completely switching over, the carbon dioxide levels will drop, and still give our economy the ability to thrive. I agree with Group A that actions need to be taken to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used, however I don’t believe that we will be able to convert to alternative sources easily, nor quickly. Our economy is too dependent on fossil fuels, and its depletion will be the only push to turn to alternative sources.
ReplyDeleteGroup A states that our impacts on the temperature of the world has increased greatly in the last hundred years, and we must take big steps in order to prevent further warming. I think that many of the numbers presented suffer from the same problems that many reports have, in that they are too short sighted. If you are to look at the relationship between CO2 and temperature over the geologic time scale you will see little to no correlation. Also, the statement that the last 11 of 12 years were the warmest since 1850 isn't significant because that is a very short time frame. If we were going through a little ice age, we would be going crazy trying to warm the planet up if we had such a narrow mindset.
ReplyDeleteGroup A has given a fairly strong argument, but a lot of the information didn't appear to have specific back-ups (i.e. a lot you mentioned seemed generalized). For example, are hurricanes more severe than when the planet was slightly cooler? Category 4 and 5 storms have occurred on occasion over the last century (and probably earlier than that) when the Earth was claimed to be "cooler" in temperature (the amount of damage just seems worse because the most recent severe hurricanes struck major cities, such as New Orleans and Galveston). Also, CO2 is only a small factor affecting global climate change, so focusing solely on lowering CO2 emissions is not going to do much in "fixing" global warming. It seems that people cannot accept that our planet's rising temperature is just part of its cycle, just like the past ice ages the planet has had. I am sure that this is not the first time the Earth has had "global warming."
ReplyDeleteThis group presented their argument of prevention of global climate change well. It's good to see that you realize that the earth's climate will change regardless of us but that we can have an effect on it. Personally I agree that prevention is the answer and that we the US should start to seriously look into and fund development of sustainable energies. Since we are very high, if not at the top of the global polluting offenders list, as well as our responsibility as a developed nation , we need to be at the forefront of sustainable power to find technologies and systems that work well that others can utilize as well as set an example to the rest of the world. Since we may not be able to stop global climate change immediately we will prob need to look into adaption as well but this is not the sole answer.
ReplyDelete3. Group A argues that instead of giving up and only hoping for marginal success against climate problems we should change current practices to the point where we can halt climate change where it is. They argue for a carbon cap system to control our emissions through a combination of alternative energies, increases in green spaces, and cultural movements towards a more renewable lifestyle. Their argument is very well worded, especially in comparing climate change to a disease, where treating the source must be implemented instead of simply trying to relieve the symptoms. Unfortunately their argument lacks how these coordinated efforts will be put in place. Simply saying that we need to make steps towards renewable energies is not enough without any plan of action.
ReplyDeleteGroup A brings forth interesting points especially when they relate adaptation to treating a sickness. It makes me realize how a cure would be the only solution for a high survival rate. Group A did have a few grammatical errors, but all in all was well off. I do believe it would have been more imperative to discuss further the atrocities of global warming as well as provide hard facts that global warming is existent on behalf of human interference. I feel that is one of the major debates in addition to the issue if one should help what in fact could be just the inevitable. Group A’s main concern is the reduction of the use of fossil fuels onto alternative energy sources, but what I do not think Group A realizes is how dependent our world has become on them. Also a large percent of the world population is not convinced that global warming is directly a result from their way of life, therefore are content and not in any hurry or desire to find alternate resources.
ReplyDeleteGroup’s A position is that we must prevent global warming to increase anymore, so we won’t have to do any (or as many) of the adaptation that would be required. For the carbon cap system, who is going to set the limits? Does this favor large corporations that have more equity to purchase carbon credits? I believe entrepreneurs will avoid this by creating very low carbon impact processes and industries. I agree with the statement that “The more diverse our energy sources, the more resilient and flexible we will become. This could go on to include micropower generation and storage.
ReplyDelete3. Group A, which is focusing on the fact that the carbon dioxide from the burning of coal gas and oil from everyday activities is the main contributor to the issue of global warming. They are suggesting major energy source change. I really like, and agree, with their statement about how adaption is more than less the same as causing more systems to eventually fail, simply because we aren’t fixing the problem. Suggestions of carbon cap systems are great, but how many people can realistically afford that?
ReplyDeleteTheir position is that if we do not do something now, climate change will escalade to levels where we can no longer do anything to fix the problem. We need to prevent global warming by using alternative renewable energy sources and decreasing our carbon emissions. Good ideas and I agree. But how are we going to make all of this happen? Make people listen and care? People do not want to change their lives, give up what they love to do, even if it is more sustainable.
ReplyDeleteGroup A frames the problem very well. They support their arguments adequately, but I feel they ultimately fail to convince the reader. They only offer two ways of fighting CO2 emissions. Certainly, there are an entire slew of things that would achieve the same results as planting trees and installing solar panels. Their argument lacks range.
ReplyDeleteI think it is too late to rely completely on prevention. Adaption will also be neccesary to cope with the changes. In this context prevention and adaption are very similar and not polarizing terms.
ReplyDeleteGroup A believes that we need to change our activities now and switch our source of energy to prevent climate change from reaching levels that cannot be fixed later. While I agree that a change is needed I do not believe that a major switch in energy sources is feasible at this time.
ReplyDeleteThis group argues that we should halt or diminish our output of CO2 into the atmosphere. Prevention, they say, is the key to solving the problem of climate change. They make the powerful argument that the technology exists for making the transition from fossil fuels to more renewable resources. If we were to do this, it would have an immediate impact on the climate of the world. Promoting green construction, the implementation of green spaces, and the use of non-fossil fuels in our everyday lives would lead to a positive impact on the environment.
ReplyDeleteGroup A began with a very long history which was an interesting and creative approach, however it was quite lengthy and did not even reveal their position on the debate until several paragraphs into the paper. In the following paragraphs, it again seems like there is too much background information. Although informative, it becomes repetitive. Overall, they did a good job of going over the information and our options for prevention and reversal of global warming. I would have liked to see more information about new technologies or possibilities for the future rather than simply the few sources for alternative energy that are already being implemented.
ReplyDeleteGroup A only focuses on CO2 emissions as the main factor causing global climate change. There are many other factors in global climate change like other pollutants, land use and conversion just to name a few. Group A says that we must stop CO2 emissions and even reduce the ppm in the atmosphere. This is impossible. Even with a complete halt in CO2 emissions, the ppm would still continue to rise. I was not impressed with this group’s argument. Just to further disagree, the technology or the money does not exist to completely halt using all fossil fuels in the world either.
ReplyDeleteGroup A believes climate change prevention is the best way to go about our global warming problems. Our use of fossil fuels has greatly put our planet at risk for later climate change consequences, such as losses of fish and wildlife habitats that certain species live in, losing that area’s biodiversity. They report that the CO2 levels are currently about 385 parts per million (ppm), and climbing. Our optimal CO2 level that would get us out of danger is 350 ppm, which would preserve conditions of the planet to which life has adapted. In order to do this, they believe we need to take action now in preventing the CO2 levels from rising and adding more to the climate change problem. The main way to do this is to break our dependency on the fossil fuels of petroleum and coal. Burning those two fuels has been the main source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. To prevent adding more CO2 to the air, we need to switch to renewable energy resources such as wind power, solar power, geothermal, fuel cells, nuclear energy, and ocean tides. In order to get rid of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, one solution is to add biomass to areas of high CO2 concentrations. Biomass uses the CO2 in photosynthesis to produce clean Oxygen for us. By using combinations of the given solutions, we can cut our dependency on the fossil fuels for cleaner energy.
ReplyDeleteGroup A is arguing in favor of prevention when it comes to climate change. It is their opinion that we can and must stop global warming. Using statistics of carbon dioxide levels they show how there is a possible correlation between the levels and the industrialization of society. They offer two solutions, one is to use alternative and renewable energy resources to help cap CO emissions, and to increase plant biomass, especially in urban areas, to help reduce the levels to healthier standards. Group A provides a detailed argument, but one has to wonder how much of an impact we are really having on rising temperatures. Temperatures have risen before humans existed, and what is to stop them from doing so while we are here?
ReplyDeleteGroup A argues that we need to stop global climate chaos by using renewable energy technology that is both well-known and not well-known today. They believe we should be using wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, etc. energy resources to start to limit the burning of fossil fuels and releasing of harmful gases into the atmosphere. They also argue we should be conserving forest lands and growing even more so they may use up more of the CO2 in the atmosphere. I agree with all of these ideas but how is thi all supposed to happen? Who is going to pay for it and who is going to force it? The biggest problem with striving for sustainability is being able to afford it and implement it.
ReplyDeleteClimate change has shown the beginning warning signs of more to come and the responsibility on stopping it falls on humans as a whole because we caused and we need to fix it, otherwise we will be unable to reverse the trend. With the many things going wrong in the situation, there are multiple solutions that, once implemented, will have a tremendous effect on reducing the amount of CO2 that is in the atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteGroup A presents a strong argument with good support proving that we need to find and begin using more renewable sources of energy immediately. They present all the types of renewable energy that can be used and can replace fossil fuels. My question to this paper is similar to what someone asked in a comment above: with the price of using these new sources of renewable energy, who is going to enforce them if they are at such higher costs? I agree that fossil fuels are continuing to take an increasing toll on our Earth, but as long as these nonrenewable sources of energy are cheap, especially with the way the economy is currently, I believe that our nation will continue to stick with the cheap prices.
ReplyDelete-Jacob Evans
Wow, you guys have some great evidence and an awesome, long-term solution. However, how do you propose to implement alternative energy solutions in poorer nations without the ability or wish to do so?
ReplyDeleteGroup A argues that change is necessary to stop human actions influencing global climate change because otherwise the world will become inhospitable for only our lives, but the lives and existences of other organisms.
ReplyDeleteOne thing we must be careful of is pollutant-based Global Dimming - a force that has thus protected us from the full effects of CO2-based Global Warming.
Group A argues that we really do have a problem which every rational person knows anyway, and that we really need to do something about it or else we are really going to wish we hadn't have done what we did. I agree with that. I'd rather suffer a little now than really suffer later.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Group A; Prevention - Stop Climate Chaos. Group A argues that if global warming is not stopped now, then the weather patterns will also be drastically altered. They provide examples such as an increase in number and severity of hurricanes, as well as an increase in global heat and humidity, which could lead to more severe thunderstorms. Both of these are large problems, however I believe using certain prevention techniques like Group A listed (implementing a carbon cap system and diversifying our energy sources), would be much more effective than prevention techniques that Group B listed.
ReplyDelete