We humans have been gifted with two of the most powerful traits out as a species which is the ability to create and the ability to destroy. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which one were better at but it doesn’t mean were doomed because of that. We can change but again we have to see a good enough reason to do it, so it begs the question? What has too happen in order for us to do it ? In my global climate change class we have been discussing about really every aspect of what people think about the climate, hell we even watched Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth Speech. I liked it, but what I really like about it was what the title implies ” The Inconvenient Truth “. It implies that the truth is not something that is good nor is something we want to hear yet it is still there. Al Gore main thing was that he wasn’t trying to take a political side on the matter. He believed it was a “human matter” an issue for everyone not just a group people in a far away place. Not for the rich or not for poor but for everyone. Everyone is connected in this world someway or another. And if one thing falls we all feel the effects of it. It may not be immediate but eventually it will affect us and it will probably hurt us a lot in different ways such as economically, morally, physically, ecologically and psychologically.
So how do we change us ? Well I think it’s the 5 things I mentioned above that we need to start with. Economically the inevitable is going to happen as we are going to run out of fossils fuels but it’s hard to change the large corporations perspective on things as they pretty much are making the most money so what they would probable say is why fix something that isn’t broken. Well how do you change that ? Well implementing carbon taxes might help but nobody know for sure, but I think having a company present them something of “Green energy” that can produce as much as fossil fuels and have consumers take in as much the natural gas or oil companies do then maybe they’ll make the switch. It could create more competition between them and if the natural gas and oil companies see that’s where the money’s going the there going to want to jump in on it too. Morally may sound like the easiest, but I think it is the hardest honestly. Sure it’s easy to say that you may know right from wrong or what’s good or bad but that’s in situations that are in the norm for you. If a flooding in a another country happens and refugees are seeking asylum then what do you do. If a flooding happens in your country at the same time and you have the resources to help both yourself and the other country at need do you send resources to help both and your own people. Most people would say both I would think considering that most people care for one another, but you also have to realize that you may need help in the future and the nation that you helped will remember that and a your moment of need one day will be there for you to back you up. As for now a “I’ll scratch your back if you Scratch your back” mentality is really what will have to stride for as of now as nobody agrees on everything . Physically we would be talking about the landscapes of the world and not only that but the side effects of what might be happening to people when the climate really starts changing. However we can solve this with engineering Sea Walls to which nations would need it and again they would explain how big and how long it would need to be. As for the effects of physically climate change such as the more frequency of droughts or hurricanes, nations should be ready with plenty of water shipments, also creating bio organic foods on top of the food we already have and also having the plans to rebuilding the new homes for the refugees.
Every year, 33 million acres of forests are cut down. Timber harvesting in the tropics alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere. That represents 20 percent of human-made greenhouse gas emissions and a source that could be avoided relatively easily. Improved agricultural practices along with paper recycling and forest management—balancing the amount of wood taken out with the amount of new trees growing—could quickly eliminate this significant chunk of emissions. And when purchasing wood products, such as furniture or flooring, buy used goods or, failing that, wood certified to have been sustainably harvested. The Amazon and other forests are not just the lungs of the earth, they may also be humanity’s best short-term hope for limiting climate change. Unplug—Believe it or not, U.S. citizens spend more money on electricity to power devices when off than when on. Televisions, stereo equipment, computers, battery chargers and a host of other gadgets and appliances consume more energy when seemingly switched off, so unplug them instead.
A bigger reason why we’re not dealing with this problem may be that climate change is not just a technological problem or a political one, but a psychological challenge. A threat this great can generate a great deal of anxiety if we let it. So we don’t.
When facing a threat like this, we can do one of three things. We can (1) take immediate action to fix the problem, (2) get anxious and stay anxious until the problem goes away on its own, or (3) harness the power of denial to turn off the anxiety and feel better. The answers to solve climate change are not quick and easy, and a state of constant anxiety is almost unbearable. Given the options, denial is an easy and immediately gratifying course, relieving the anxiety that threatens to overwhelm us. “Climate change is disturbing,” says Kari Norgaard, author of Living in Denial. “It’s something we don’t want to think about. So what we do in our everyday lives is create a world where it’s not there, and keep it distant.” Our failure to fight climate change is often blamed on climate change deniers, who have done their best to build doubt about whether climate change is a real problem. The Koch Brothers and others have been well documented to have carried out a campaign to create doubt about climate change in order to benefit those like themselves with financial interests in coal and oil. Really it’s not this simple, though. The success of the climate deniers stems from our own innate programming that makes us receptive to their message. If we don’t see an immediate threat and can’t easily fix it right here and right now, it’s in our nature to push the threat out our mind, to deny that it’s a problem. Climate deniers don’t invent how we think; they merely exploit our own desire to create a safe bubble of denial, to build a levee holding back the rising tide of uncertainty and allow ourselves to preserve a vision of a safe, happy, and stable world. It’s a nice vision, and helps us feel better, even it’s at odds sometimes with the world we live in. It seems that there is a little denier in all of us, and our inner denier comes out not just to deny climate change but also to deny many other risks as well, like heart disease, where a long hard effort is needed for a payoff (reduced risk of heart disease) in the future. If the biggest barriers to fighting climate change are psychological rather than technological, then the solutions might be psychological too. A change in strategy might be in order for those seeking to cultivate greater support for efforts to fight climate change. A further deluge of facts seeking to stir up fear and a greater response may only create a further retreat into denial. Strategies that reduce fear and create a sense that we can make a difference today with simple positive action might prove more successful. Maybe this is why the European Union is rebranding efforts to fight climate change
(link is external) with renewable energy, emphasizing the positive impacts for daily life rather than the doom and gloom of uncontrolled climate change. Moral arguments that emphasize shared values may also prove more effective, since decisions are often based on social interactions and values rather than scientific data. Unfortunately, denial might feel good, quickly relieving our anxiety, but is unlikely to provide a lasting solution for important long term problems we face like climate change. Better ways of dealing with climate change will alleviate the source of our anxiety, rather than simply removing the anxiety itself, and help build a better world for the future along the way. I believe with this can still do this and it’s not too late so I hope we can change.