Not as simple as 1, 2, 3

Damian Carrington identifies three factors that stand in the way: Politics and Economics, Low-Carbon Energy, and Fossil Fuels. Before diving in and noting everything that he left out, I decided to do a little background investigation of him. Carrington is the head of the environment at The Guardian and has a blog about various environmental issues, this article being one of them. I will cut him a little slack because this was a blog post and not exactly meant to be an in-depth investigation of the challengers faced by those wanting to stop climate change. However, he should have at least noted that these factors are not all encompassing. Other factors include skepticism and those that refuse to believe the science of climate change. Another one of the most important factors that he neglects to discuss under the heading of “Politics and Economics” (which I think should be separate factors to begin with) is the role of developing nations. He does say “Renewables, especially solar power, are also the best and cheapest way to bring electricity to the 1.3 billion people who are without power,“ but he doesn’t discuss how developing nations play into the mix. For example, China is growing at an unprecedented rate of and average of 10% per year. As the West tells the world that they need to develop green and factor in the environment to their decisions, countries such as china are not convinced because to get where we are today the environment suffered greatly at the hands of the west. Combating climate change today will have a lot to do with promoting and facilitating green technologies in the developing world through incentives such as green subsidies. Also, he does not mention cultural norms as a factor. It would be unwise to not acknowledge our consumer culture and the challenge changing it would be. Ultimately, this article aims to simplify a much too complex issue. The debate over climate change cannot be summed up into 3 factors and except to be comprehensive and address all obstacles.

It all comes back to culture

I thought The Guardian did a good outline of the basics behind climate change. But it really only touched on a few issues and most of them are already well known by the mass public. He isn't addressing major concerns like our food or our consumer habits. As we saw in class last week agriculture is a huge contributor to global warming. I also thought the article could talk about transportation costs. How many times does a bushel or corn or a pair of jeans travels around the world before they arrive at their final destination? What is the carbon footprint there? And how do we go about changing that process? I woke up this morning feeling incredibly environmentally pessimistic. I just thought about Americans and thought to myself "they are never going to change. No one cares enough to change." I think the biggest reason why it is so hard to stop climate change is because of culture. Politics, industry, economic- those things are all controlled by culture and we live in a world where the environment has never going to be a priority and people can never seem to think in the long term. But if we don't think about the future now and start preventing natural destruction it will be too late. 

It is hard to stop climate change

The article seems to concentrate deeply on energy issues rather he could also point out other factors that could help to stop climate change, because it’s not only energy that do impact the climate change. And his brief example of energy uses by humans are too broad, instead I think he must pick specific reasons of which energy do impact the climate change, and how this could really impact like daily life and our future, instead of just putting information that using fuel, coal or oil is bad. Moreover, his explanation was written such a short paragraph; it is hard to persuade other people who could have different point of view. Climate issues gives such a broad controversial, I think the author must pay attention on how to attract others to believe this point is right. Also when the author pointed out on how U.S and China must put into action, but in my belief, U.S words has so much of “let’s change the world” but they never put this into action. What change have U.S made to impact other country? I think it’s not U.S and China must act first, rather every nation must make a way to work cooperatively on this climate change issue. Plus, action plays louder than words, U.S should not just wait other to work cooperatively, if U.S may act first this could lead other nations to follow this actions.

What about interest groups?

The main piece of the argument that is lacking in Carrington's article is the focus on anything but energy. Although the direct use of fossil fuels is that main cause of climate change, it can not be the only focus for the solution. We must look at restructuring the agriculture and transportation systems, which in turn will reduce the use of fossil fuels but also improve the environment in other ways. If the agriculture system is changed in a progressive way then other greenhouse gases like methane will be reduced as well. Along with the agricultural system comes another thing that stands in the way of stopping climate change, subsidies and interest groups. The U.S. is currently the nation that must take the lead in combating climate change but it has yet to do so. The reasons for this include interests groups that persuade government officials to create subsidies and other beneficial policies in exchange for political support or donations. These are not just agricultural interest groups but ones that also are funded by energy companies or other industries that harm the environment. The interest groups hold much higher priority than climate change because climate change will not help them win elections. The world can't move forward on stopping climate change until the U.S. does.

Friends of Science and How to talk to a climate skeptic

The purpose of both these sites is to argue one side of the climate change debate. Friends of Science is a site that aims to blame the Sun for any climate change occurring while How to talk to a climate skeptic supports the more mainstream, environmentalist argument for a human cause for climate change. The Friends of Science have used more links to outside sources and focus on scientific evidence more then other's opinions of the evidence. The other site uses more inside sources and supplies articles for arguments of the scientific facts provided. It also provides more defensive information for every possible argument that the opposition raises. If I did not have any knowledge of the climate change issue, I would find the Friends of Science site more persuasive. It appears to have more science related information. Although I understand their information serves to support the view that its contributors hold, the site also appears to have less of an agenda when a viewer takes their first glance. I think the only way to evaluate the scientific evidence of the information on both sites is to consider their source. If the source is known to provide skewed information or the website choose only select information from the source then I would be more skeptical of their claims. The only way to really make sense of the claims is to use your experiences with the environmental changes and knowledge of climate information to evaluate the site.

What's your agenda?

At first glance the two sites seemed like your run of the mill raise awareness about global warming sites. However, after a closer look at their purposes and a little background research on the organizations behind them, it became very clear that that was not the case. “Friends of Science” and “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” both support the idea that the sun is behind climate change, but their overall purposes are different. The site “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic” does exactly that. It post responses to the major arguments against global warming. However, looking at the sources and commentary on the site, it is obvious that this site is not very reputable and I will not be citing it in a paper anytime soon. It even cites Fox News. Unbiased and professional? I don’t think so. The “Friends of Science” site is not quite so bad as it actually contains research and figures from reputable sources. However, they contain a ton of bias and even take research out of context to support their claim that “the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.” I did a little research on the organization and found out that their funding sources have come into question in the past. Including that some of their major funding has been given by oil companies. It is hard to believe that no agenda is being pushed with that kind of funding. I think that it is important to take the information provided by these sites with a grain of salt and not to accept it at face value. Ultimately though, if I had to pick which one is more convincing it would be the “Friends of Science” site because even though some of the info is taken out of context, at least they have real research.

Friends of Science vs. How to talk to a climate skeptic

After viewing both website, I found out clear difference from each web site.“Friends of Science” was more science focused website, where all the statements were supported by long link from Scientific Advisory Board of Climate, however this website is running by non-profit which is supported and running by donors from their interest, this shows there must be some parts that these group is ignoring some facts but only publishing their own interest subject. Also the purpose is to promote the idea that the earth is truly not undergoing any sort of climate changes, especially non that is man made. (Gives an idea that what is actual donors trying to approach) On the other website. “How to talk to a climate skeptic” approach and information is less proven from scientist nor professionally proven, where most of them are new website of articles that were linked to each other, so lists practically every argument made by the other side and picks it apart piece by piece, but this website was concentrate on climate change toward how human will get impact and how we should organize and work. Also it was more graphic and easy to follow and catch the eyes. Both website were interesting to view, but I think both sites are made only for those who already have their interest and strong side. Each website’s information seemed overly forceful and do not seriously take other’s side thoughts or taking it serious to think. So as a result, I did not like both of website. In my view, starting from design and the way of approaching their point was not yet strong enough to persuade someone who do not have interest on climate change.