We Can Change

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.

 

Advertisements

Climate Change Approaches and Responses for Society

Climate change presents perhaps the most profound challenge ever to have confronted human, social, political, and economic systems. The stakes are massive, the risks and uncertainties severe, the economics controversial, the science besieged, the politics bitter and complicated, the psychology puzzling, the impacts devastating, the interactions with other environmental and non-environmental issues running in many directions. Society today was not designed to solve theses problems for climate change, and to add on to that were not evolving to adapt to it either. We have failed to address theses problems, and more problems will arise. We have been trying to solve and adapt to these problems of climate change at the same time, but human systems will have to be better for us to respond to them in the future. It will lead to the biggest question we have been asking ourselves. Which is how do we act ?

While the effects of climate change -floods, drought, heat stress, species loss, and ecological change can be experienced very directly. Climate sciences does provide certain futures projections of risks or damages. The projections are entangled by assumptions about how humans systems respond over time as well as natural ones. Another thing is that scientific findings and their implications must seek validation for everything simply because you have prove not only the scientific community, but also have to a larger society, and different political systems. This leads to another big question which is What do scientific findings mean inhuman terms ? The answer is given by economics, which can attach cost estimates to the current impacts and projections of future impacts of climate change. Depending on the discount rate chosen, we can end up with massive differences in the size of the present value of future costs, and so radically different implications for climate policy. This becomes a major ethical issue simply because contestation arises by us as humans moving out of our standard economic analysis to contemplate other ethical issues. Economic thinking should not be the core value for future generations, as the benefits and burdens or the gap between the rich and poor will widen which cause more issues than solving them. In a world where the legitimacy of public policies and other collective actions rests in large measure on the democratic credentials of the processes of their production, it matters a great deal to the public. Most people get their information on climate change from the mainstream media which isn’t good thing. Most of the information isn’t entirely from scientists who have studied climate change but scientist who are biased toward the information they got and they don’t see the other side of things. Also other people just aren’t educated enough to know what climate change really is and they still put stuff on social media which leads to people just skimming over their articles and people just believing them on the spot. Sure face to face dialogue would be effective as it would prompt people to take the issue more seriously but in the end it is extremely hard to organize the scale needed to get people on board to make a difference on climate change.  Mostly because the public support on it doesn’t seem to have any urgency on the matter, although they do care. The biggest reason for that seems to be that people don’t want any disruption to their current lives. Religious beliefs have firm grip on society as well as many see climate change as nothing more than god’s work, so as such how can we change something that is the work of the most powerful being the universe. US evangelicals are a big and important part of this, hell just look at the last election.

Environmental ethicists and climate justice theorists have examined the moral challenges that attend climate change, and what ought to be done in response. The discourse of climate justice increasingly pervades questions of global governance of climate change. Effective global action on mitigation could benefit from taking a more  cosmopolitan approach to justice, one to which people rather than the nation are the subjects of moral considerability and responsibility. Of course environmental policy has been a staple in governments since the 1960s. But it remains that  this is not the core business in the same way that the economy is. The government acted swiftly when the 2008-2009 financial crisis hit and until then they have never shown the urgency to spend money on this or anything on the environment for that matter. This can be explained for two reasons. 1. The first concern of any government in a market economy is always to maintain the conditions for economic growth, which normally also means maintaining the confidence of markets in the government’s own operations (LindBolm). 2. Most governments in developed countries has been to operate and finance a welfare state, which itself is predicated upon continued economic growth. So if this isn’t the core business value then where has the money been going too? The answer is the military.  Most nations have been preparing to hoard there nations resources instead of finding diplomatic answer, which has been calling for militaries to prepare for border disputes, refugees coming into there country, and funding for more bigger and badder weapons just so they  can prove that they have the biggest stick in the world. If even 5% more funding was put into the top 5 countries who have the most consumers the ” Eco -industry ” would making 2X more money than what they are making now.

Whether it’s us taking action or not our response as a society has to be thorough if we want to get through this. The main thing is we are going to have to adapt to climate change anyways the only question is do we want to make it hard for ourselves or easy.  It has to be a joint effort from the scientific community, the public, and the government. We also have to make we are spending money that matters as of now rather than what it could mean in the future. Like I said even if 5% of the funding we are doing to now goes to the “green industries” they will be making twice the amount of money which will give us more of an opportunity for jobs and efforts on reducing the CO2 emissions. Spending money on renewable energy sources now will be vital for us a species, and having government policies that everyone can agree on is really what we need to see this through.

 

 

Morality

The definition of Morality is that it is a principle concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad. I bring this definition up because this is a concept that we do everyday throughout our lives. All the little things, all the big things, and all the things in the middle we have morality at the base of it. The previous blogs I have been posting have been about global climate change, mostly about the statistics or scenarios on what might happen to the human race in the future. But I haven’t talk about what is right or wrong , or good and bad. That is truly the solution to our problem to a lot of climate topics. We spend so much time on the politics and the economics that we really don’t realize that people around the world are suffering, and not just people but many of the ecosystems that benefit us are slowly starting to disappear. Yet we just keep taking more and more away without thinking about. I’m saying not everyone is bad, hell most people aren’t but people not being educated enough to know what’s hurting the planet is killing us.  I mean is it wrong to use up all of our natural resources, after all they are non-renewable so weren’t we going to run out of them eventually. What’s wrong with doing it now? The same could be said about is it right for us to use up all of our natural resources, they were given to us to  by natural processes and so were just using what is given to us, so what’s the big deal ? The deal is very similar to how the climate is changing now, which is that it’s not the climate changing but it’s the rate of that change.  We are consuming more than we are producing that is a big issue. The reason I bring morality in this is because of the example we play on this with. A few recent examples are the situation in Puerto Rico, and the Hurricane Harvey event in which Houston was flooded.  The debate was to we send aid to help the people in Puerto Rico ,and not only that but restoring there power problem which by the way is still a problem for them also leads to a morality issue for us. Considering that Houston is in a state of our country and Puerto Rico is a US territory do there needs outweigh the needs of  that the people of Houston need. I would say since I like to think of myself as a decent human being that both are equally important, but others have different opinions and that’s okay.  Some people think Houston is more important, some think Puerto Rico is more important, especially the people that live in those areas but if both areas are restored to working capacity isn’t it a win for everybody. Yes, I understand that the rate of recovery might be different, and yes I understand that you may need help now rather than later but if helps comes do you blame the people trying to help you for being too late because they were helping others or do you blame them because they weren’t helping you fast enough when they were there to make your life better?

Fast forward a few decades and the situation even becomes more dire. I’m thinking  that most governments would start becoming desperate at this time as their economies would be shifting( not in a good way), population displacement would be increasing more, and also feeding a growing population that with less fertile land to grow crops would also be a burden. The real climate challenge is ethical, and ethical considerations of justice, rights, welfare, virtue, political legitimacy, community and humanity’s relationship to nature are at the heart of the policy decisions to be made. We do not “solve” the climate problem if we inflict catastrophe on future generations, or facilitate genocide against poor nations, or rapidly accelerate the pace of mass extinction. If public policy neglects such concerns, its account of the challenge we face is impoverished, and the associated solutions quickly become grossly inadequate. Ongoing political inertia surrounding climate action suggests that so far, we are failing the ethical test. So morality would start to kick in again wouldn’t it ? You ever heard of kill 1 save 1000 or kill a 1000 to save 1. I believe that would be a serious thing that most governments would talk about when it comes to refugees they let in to their countries. Is 1 Geophysicist worth more than 1000 plumbers?  Or is 1000 engineers worth more a 1 senator? I know there are probably better examples than this but I hope where I’m coming from. I mean I’m not trying to take on Sci-Fi apocalyptic type of scale but I think that the idea would not be far fetched, as too some people being sacrificed. I’m no trying to be cold-blooded person so forgive again it’s just the lack of humanity in me again.

But lets look at the alternative here as if the morality was good and righteous. If our engineering was put to the test and we built seawalls to help the islands or lowland countries that would need it. It could be done, us building massive skyscrapers, tools that shape the earth to our bidding, and building smartphones with the power capacity that we only dreamt of. Not only building sea walls but hopefully reducing CO2 emissions, and finding ways to use non renewable resources efficiently. Politicians need to be the spark that leads us to that future. Something of a “Manifest Destiny ”  in climate change would be adequate in a lot of peoples eyes. The right event can change it too. Out of the greatest calamities we have come out of stronger than ever. It brings out the best in people they usually have a good moral sense of things and I hope that is something that will be built upon for the now and the future for us.

Price of Change

In order for us to improve Global climate change things are to have to change for us, that will be difficult for most of society. We will have to worry about population displacement, Economics shifts, concentration of  natural resources, and what the cost will be for renewable resources. We will have to make these changes eventually as we all know nothing stays the same for forever. That’s especially true for Global climate change as modern civilization (which is roughly 5,000 years)  has never had to deal with something like this before so again I ask the question what will this cost us ? Well we can’t know for sure but we can guess on what future events might occur.

The first thing is population displacement, especially on coastal cities, and islands. When the flooding does happen to these cities and countries, where will the people go? Who will take them ? If the waters recede to a point where they can go back to those cities or countries who will help rebuild them after all the destruction that will happen? Or who’s to say that they want to go back after the destruction to their former homes? Will we force them out or find way to give them permanent in our own lands ?Global warming will force up to 150 million “climate refugees” to move to other countries in the next 40 years, a new report from the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) warns.
In 2008 alone, more than 20 million people were displaced by climate-related natural disasters, including 800,000 people by cyclone Nargis in Asia, and almost 80,000 by heavy floods and rains in Brazil, the NGO said (Guardian.com).  All these questions will be need to be answered in some way or form and that will put a lot stress on society. Another big thing will be the aftermath and all the new policies that will have to be put in place for these events.

The second thing is the economic shifts that will be involved. Some of the countries that are here now might not exist in fifty years. For example the country of Bangladesh has an average elevation of about of 2ft above sea level and has 5 rivers running through it. It is also known that Bangladesh is a important trade partner of the Indo-Pacific Strategy for the US, China, and India. Well if that country doesn’t exist where does that lead those 3 countries finically for that area in the future. Not only does it hurt India, United States, and China but it also trickles down to the other countries in the region as well such as the Philippines, Indonesia, and Myanmar. This process has a big effect on the wealth of nations for the future and again it is going to hurt them.

The next thing is the concentration of resources. When more natural disasters start to happening hoarding natural resources are going to occur and they are going to have a lot sway in the economy of the future. I’m not saying that we would need to use a lot more natural resources but it’s the fact that in order to rebuild some of the nations that will be effected by this they will need power in some form of capacity and that will acquire more burning of coal and natural gases. This will cost us more money and that’s money we could be spending on for funding renewable resources but because we haven’t been focusing on renewable resources it’s also going to be a problem for us. Natural resources provide clean water, food, habitat, protection from extreme events, and opportunities for recreation and tourism. Climate change affects many of the services that natural resources provide. For example, changes in ocean temperature and chemistry are affecting shellfish aquaculture. Climate-related disruptions to agriculture have increased and are projected to become more severe. Fire, drought, and other factors are making many forests more vulnerable. Water quality and supply are stressed in some regions.

The last thing is our ability to change from non-renewable resources to renewable resources in a way that doesn’t change the way of life for that person. Also finding a way to mass produce renewable energy at a rate that will be just as a efficient as non-renewable energy has to be possible.   The fact that oil is a “finite” material is not a problem…Every material is finite. Life is all about taking the theoretically finite but practically limitless materials in nature and creatively turning them into useful resources. The fossil fuel industry does it, the “renewable”—actually, the “unreliable”—energy industry doesn’t. End of story.” Alex Epstein. Currently, we are (over)dependent on fossil fuels to heat our homes, run our cars, power our offices, industry and manufacturing, and respond to our insatiable desire to power all of our electrical goods. Nearly all of the energy needed to meet our demands – 80 percent of global energy – comes from burning fossil fuels. At the current rate of global energy demands, fossil fuels cannot replenish fast enough to meet these growing needs. The (over)consumption of these non-renewable fuels has been linked to the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants into the atmosphere – the leading cause of global warming and climate change.
In Ireland, for example, our energy consumption from fossil fuels was 89% in 2013. Our highest demand for fossil fuel energy over the last 51 years was experienced during the period of high growth under the ‘Celtic Tiger’ (2004), where we required 93.39%. The lowest energy consumption value (67.24%) was in 1960, more than half a century ago! Ireland is ranked 46th out of 136 countries in its fossil fuel energy consumption. That’s higher than the UK (52nd) and the US (56th)! ( EnergyDebate by Toni Pyke).Renewable energy is energy that is derived from natural processes (e.g. sunlight and wind). Solar, wind, geothermal, hydropower, bioenergy and ocean power are sources of renewable energy. Currently, renewables are utilized in the electricity, heating and cooling and transport sectors. Renewable energy, collectively provides only about 7 percent of the world’s energy needs. This means that fossil fuels, along with nuclear energy — a non-renewable energy source — are supplying 93% of the world’s energy resources. Nuclear energy (a controversial energy source among public opinion) currently provides 6% of the world’s energy supplies (EnergyDebate by Toni Pyke). Burning fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitter that contributes to global warming, which hit its peak in 2012. In the last 30 years, temperatures have risen to the warmest since records began. If we continue to pump greenhouse gases into our environment the average global temperature could increase by 1°C to 4°C by 2100.  Even if we changed today to using more renewable resources instead of fossil fuels for example, increases could be between 1 to 2.5°C (EnergyDebate by Toni Pyke).The 20th century saw the most prolific population growth and industrial development, which was and remains totally dependent on the use of fossil fuel for energy.
Estimates for fossil fuel reserves depletion range from between 50-120 years. None of these projections are very appealing for a global community that is so heavily dependent on energy to meet even our basic human needs – needs that keep growing.
Predictions estimate that global energy demand will grow by a third by 2035. Also critical to consider is the more than 1.2 billion people around the world who still do not have access – yet – to electricity. As the global population continues to grow – predicted to be nine billion people over the next 50 years – the world’s energy demands will increase proportionately.( EnergyDebate by Toni Pyke). So with all this being said  we have to find a way to change this so that some of these projections are appealing to the global community and that they will act to save the planet.

The Root of our Problem

Global climate change is a little misleading sometimes as it always seems like it’s kind of a conspiracy rather than a real thing. We as human beings always make it out this way and that alludes to the biggest problem of climate change is that we haven’t taken it seriously enough to want to change it. So what will it take for us to change it ? Well in this generation  we always have this mentality to let somebody else  do it and keep the same process up over and over again and till finally it gets to the tipping point to where we absolutely have to change and it becomes unbearable, and not fixable. Earth transforms sunlight’s visible light energy into infrared light energy, which leaves Earth slowly because it is absorbed by greenhouse gases. When people produce greenhouse gases, energy leaves Earth even more slowly—raising Earth’s temperature.  Meanwhile,  we say that it’s not a wisdom gap that’s preventing acceptance of human’s role in climate change, but the cultural politicization of the topic. People don’t need a sophisticated understanding of climate change. They only need to be able to recognize what the best available scientific evidence signifies as a practical matter: that human-caused global warming is initiating a series of very significant dynamics—melting ice, rising sea levels, flooding, heightened risk of serious diseases, more intense hurricanes and other extreme weather events—that put us in danger. Still, despite many people’s strong reluctance to accept anthropogenic global warming, cities and counties in places like southeast Florida have gone ahead and supported practices to deal with global warming anyway. It relates to one anecdote in which state and local officials in Florida have argued for building a nuclear power generator higher than planned because of sea-level rise and storm surge projections. But if you ask these same people if they believe in climate change, they’ll say, “no, that’s something entirely different. Nobody’s exactly sure why some people act in ways that directly contradict their own beliefs. The leading one is the notion of dualism, when someone mentally separates two apparently conflicting ideas and yet feels no need to reconcile them. This happens on occasion with religious medical doctors, who say that the people who reject evolution openly admit to using the principles of evolution in their work life.
Whatever the cause, experts think that some specific cases of southeast Florida is worth studying. There, the community has been able to examine the scientific evidence for climate change and take action despite widespread disagreement on whether humans are actually driving climate change. The key, according to experts say that it has kept politics out of the room. Politics do have a great effect on the global climate change as well and it is another part of our problem. Politicians have their own agenda’s which mean they spend money on what they think is the most important to them, not the people of the world. That’s big problem considering that they are our leaders and they are not taking charge on this. So as a society we follow their lead and in turn it has led us to follow their same mistakes. That really has been the biggest culprit of this is that we are trying to follow a path that isn’t helping the planet but helping us human beings. As much as we hate to admit it but we need a stable climate to survive on this planet. After all if human actions had no effect on the climate then why is the rate of global climate happening the way it is. After all we are the only species on the history of this planet to actual produce CO2 in this mass of a scale so it can’t be a natural effect.

So the next thing seems to be will we ever change to become the solution to this problem ? We have two of the most powerful gifts as a species that has been given to us by evolution. The ability to create and the ability to destroy and it doesn’t take a genius figure out which one we are better at. As I referred too to one of my commenters in my other blog, it is practically to late to stop the process from taking it’s course as of now, but for our future generations we can slow down or reverse this process possibly. Which is where we need to  take action as of now, because if we don’t things are only going to get worse and it’s only going to cost  more money and lives. I guess another thing I would say  is understanding what areas of the world are going to be most affected by these new climate events, such as severe flooding or severe droughts. For example, the country of Bangladesh has a population of a 161 million people and their entire country is roughly about 1ft below sea level, so preparing for the mass flooding and mass displacement of refugees that are most likely going to becoming toward their neighboring countries is vital. Another thing is understanding that the future generation will need to learn from our mistakes  and need to learn  different ways of solutions not being bogged down by politics, and other crappy things.  That realization prompted us to reconsider the economics of energy. What’s needed, we concluded, are reliable zero-carbon energy sources so cheap that the operators of power plants and industrial facilities alike have an economic rationale for switching over soon—say, within the next 40 years. Let’s face it, businesses won’t make sacrifices and pay more for clean energy based on altruism alone. Instead, we need solutions that appeal to their profit motives. Which again allude to us negotiating with the big Whigs of corporate leaders to understand that this is what we need to survive. That’s what I hope our future generation can do and I hope they successful.

Climate of the Future

A lot of people have strong feelings about Global climate change, some people think it’s real and some people think it’s not but in reality I  think we all know the truth it’s just we don’t want to admit it. Most of us have seen the pictures of the Ozone Holes and most of us have seen or heard scientists stating that the CO2 levels are the biggest cause of global warming, and yet some people aren’t really thinking that it’s serious problem. But the future could much worse rather than the problems we are having now.

I don’t know if you have noticed the years scientists have been stating when the earth poles will be completely free of ice but it’s been shrinking. I’m 21 and I remember a time when they said that it wouldn’t happen until the year 2100, then a few years later I read a couple books on the environment and stuff it said that it would happen in the year 2075, another couple years it’s down to 2050, and finally on a PowerPoint presentation for notes in my class a few days ago I saw the year 2037. So are we in the future now ? It’s 20 years away from us so it’s going to most likely happen in our lifetime. So is it too late for us?  Who knows for sure but again it’s very likely that it is. So what is going to happen? Well it’s not going to be like in the movies like The Day after Tomorrow but more of a gradual change in the landscape near the ocean. For example, people might notice that the beaches are getting closer to there hotels or the boardwalks than it was in previous years. Another thing is we will see areas get rain more consistently which will cause flooding and take over areas that were once on land. This cycle will continue until finally this will become the “new” climate system. By then we will see cities such as New York City, Washington D.C, Philadelphia, Seattle, Miami, LA, San Diego ,New Orleans and Boston possibly disappearing from our maps, And that’s just in the United States, In the Global perspective we could see cities such as London, Paris, Hong Kong, Venice, Tokyo, and many more be threatened by this. A lot of the cities I have mentioned are major economic hubs so not only are we talking about population displacement but also many financial troubles that can ruin a lot of the countries we are talking about today. Many poor developing countries are among the most affected. People living there often depend heavily on their natural environment and they have the least resources to cope with the changing climate.  Also there has been an increase in the number of heat-related deaths in some regions and a decrease in cold-related deaths in others. We are already seeing changes in the distribution of some water-borne illnesses and disease vectors. Climate change is happening so fast that many plants and animal species are  struggling to cope. Many terrestrial, freshwater and marine species have already moved to new locations. Some plant and animal species will be at increased risk of extinction if global average temperatures continue to rise unchecked. And as much as we say that flooding will become an issue we also have to take in the fact that droughts and heat waves will become just as big of a problem and some cases is worse than flooding.

But there is optimism for the future if we stay the course we are on. Maybe not for us in our lifetime but our future children and grandchildren will  have a shot to make the earth a lot more of a friendlier place so they won’t have the same problems as we did.  The Paris Agreement has seen much quicker progress. 55 countries, representing at least 55 percent of global emissions, needed to ratify the Paris climate deal for it to take effect. That’s been achieved, and more—as of November 2016, 111 parties have ratified the agreement. Five signatory countries alone — China, the United States, India, Brazil, and Indonesia —  represent about 46 percent of global emissions. That’s significant. COP22 in Marrakech, Morocco, marks the starting point for countries to fulfill their national determined contributions (NDCs) to reduce emissions. Even if all nations meet their current pledges, it still won’t be enough to get us to limit temperature increases to 1.5C, where we need to be. But all world leaders have moved to get on the same page, and that’s movement in the right direction. Global cooperation at this speed is rare indeed. Clean energy is gaining ground, showing potential to compete with fossil fuel use. Last year, 500,000 solar panels were installed every day around the world. The cost of solar and wind power is dropping incredibly fast, often without subsidies, making clean energy accessible and cheap. Meanwhile, coal use continues to decrease across the world, notably in China, the world’s largest carbon emitter, against a backdrop of global economic growth. The world now has a larger capacity to generate energy from renewable sources than from fossil fuels. In the United States alone, the solar industry added 35,000 jobs in 2015 (70% more than the coal industry), and is expected to add 44,000 in 2016. Another thing is better practices lead to more food produced on the same amount of land. This can reduce the need to convert natural forests to cropland, avoiding carbon emissions and conserving wildlife habitat. Second, this greater productivity helps farmers generate more income establishing better livelihoods. Third, the farmers’ technical know-how improves, so farms are better poised to respond to and withstand the hazards of drought, increased temperatures, and erratic rainfall. This is climate resilience— while difficult to quantify, it is a significant outcome of widespread investment into climate-smart agricultural practices. So for future climate you have seen the consequences and you have seen some optimism that can help us for future generations, so I hope that this was informative and I hope for better things to come for the earth.