April 8 - Environmental Devastation - Questions

[deholz]

Questions for Sivan Kartha, inspired by the week's readings (Synthesis report from IPCC5, IPCC Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C, Bill McKibben's “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”, Elizabeth Kolbert's “Three scenarios for the future of climate change”; see the syllabus for links).

Questions: Every week students will post one question here of less than 150 words, addressed to our speaker by Wednesday @ midnight, the day immediately prior to our class session. These questions may take up the same angle as developed further in your weekly memo. By 2pm Thursday, each student will up-vote (“thumbs up”) what they think are the five most interesting questions for that session. Some of the top voted questions will be asked by students to the speakers during class.

[nicholas-rose]

After publishing Superfreakonomics in 2009, Stephen Dubner and UChicago’s own Steven Levitt came under fire for their discussion of alternative approaches to addressing global warming. Most notably, they highlighted the concept of a “stratoshield,” in which sulfur dioxide sprayed into the stratosphere would deflect sunlight and combat warming caused by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

While still controversial, geoengineering appears to have gained substantial traction (e.g. The National Academies report last month). Given this, what is your opinion on the role of geoengineering (if any) in combating climate change?

Global warming and economists - SuperFreakonomics is SuperFreakingWrong - The Guardian, 2013

Global Warming in SuperFreakonomics: The Anatomy of a Smear - Freakonomics Blog, 2009

Should We Block the Sun? Scientists Say the Time Has Come to Study It. - NYT, 03/25/21

Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geo-engineering Research and Research Governance-Report Release - The National Academies, 03/25/21

[starmz123]

Climate change is often termed as this generation's greatest collective action problem - and that isn't helped by the vulnerability of both domestic and international climate policy to political shifts, such as administration changes (e.g. the US withdrawing from and then re-entering the Paris Agreement). How can we design policies and institutions around global catastrophic risks to be more resilient to political mutability?

[seankoons]

BECCS, or bioenergy with carbon capture storage, is a climate change solution presented by Kenneth Möllersten which proposes the idea that we capture carbon instead of emitting it into the atmosphere. By using farming techniques, BECCS works by growing crops and trees, taking in CO2 and releasing O2 into the atmosphere. Then, these plants are burnt, and their CO2 is trapped and stored. Do you think that this is an efficient solution to global warming? Is there a problem we would have to eventually address with storing CO2, whether it be in facilities or underground?

[blakemoss]

Climate change disproportionately affects less-developed countries, and less-advantaged populations within countries of all levels of development. Climate change is also driven most intensely by countries and populations who are least negatively affected by it. Given that ethics doesn’t seem to be a prevailing factor for these countries in their policy choices, how do we even out the distribution of negative effects and incentivize them to mitigate their emissions?

[shanekim23]

In 2006, the state of California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act (or AB 32), which aimed for a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The CARB (California Air Resources Board) set the limit at 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2020; and the people of California were just barely short of this number. While I agree that setting a limit is necessary, sometimes it can be misleading since people are incentivized to try not to hit the limit, but there is no incentive to reduce the emissions further than the limit. Do you think that setting a lower limit may be helpful?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Solutions_Act_of_2006

[elijahrain28]

Obviously all sorts of activist movements have billionaires supporting the challenged status quo, but climate change activists might have it the worst. There are real, trillion-dollar incentives for oil barons and the like to pretend like nothing's wrong... and at least in the United States, where money is constitutionally a form of protected speech, that's a substantial roadblock. How does grassroots activism overcome being outspent? Given the number of Senators with financial/electoral incentives to vote no on climate change legislation, what alternatives to vote-blue activism should we pursue?

[jasonshepp6]

The number of 1.5-2ºC as an impassable temperature rise has been quoted in the academic and public sphere alike. In the articles for this week, in fact, this number has remained a means of quantizing the "point of no return." What does this number really mean and how quickly are we set to approach it? In addition, what do you judge as our chances to prevent the 1.5-2ºC rise before 2100?

[ZeyangPan]

This question came after I watched one of the films on this topic, the day after tomorrow. Evidence suggests that the first human being exists about 300,000 years ago, while the last glacial period happened around 110,000 years ago. This means human beings had experienced a glacial period before they learned how to get energy out from fossil fuels and release CO2 into the atmosphere. My question was that ain't major environmental devastations, such as global warming or glaciations caused by nature itself?

[dramlochun]

The second scenario outlined by the New Yorker article suggests that there will be inequity in the consequences of global warming between developing and developed countries. This in combination with the fact that developing countries are more reliant on fossil fuels and other non-green sources of energy to grow than developed countries create a looping effect that appears to lead to disaster. Thus, an important question that we must ask is how we can globally incentivize developing countries to make the capital investment into green energy even at the early stages in their development. Moreover, how can developed countries help with this endeavor, and is making a similar transition within the country enough? Lastly, how can we incentivize private businesses/corporations to play a role in this? Is subsidizing investment in developing countries (like China did to create a green energy industry) a feasible method to help bring pressure off of the local governments?

[madelman99]

Carbon emissions from the United States have steadily decreased over the past few years, with national greenhouse gas emissions having fallen 10% since peak levels in 2007 (1). Total US energy-related CO2 emissions fell by 12% during this period, while in contrast, global energy-related emissions increased nearly 24%. In terms of raw carbon emissions reduction, the United States outpaces every other country in the world (2). Many countries in the Paris Agreement, including developed countries like Canada and China, have seen smaller emission reductions or not seen their emissions decrease at all (3, 4). While it is true that the US is behind other countries when it comes to reduction as percentage, we have been the global leader in raw emissions reductions since 2007. What is the US doing right and is it enough? Furthermore, are international agreements like the Paris Accords a legitimate means of curbing climate change or just political theater?

(1) https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/latest-inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-shows-long-term-reductions-0#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20(April%2013%2C%202020),by%2027%25%20%2D%2D%20even%20as (2) https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-leads-world-reducing-co2/ (3) https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/canada/ (4) https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/

[blakekushner]

Whenever I think about climate change I am often reminded of the Carl Sagan quote: "There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand." This gets contrasted, however, with comments from prominent people like Elon Musk who has talked about "Terraforming Mars", so how do you think emerging technologies in space exploration, travel, or potential space-based technologies to counteract climate change is affecting the ability of both regular citizens and policymakers to conceptualize and respond to climate change.

[apolissky]

According to Saul Griffith, virtually all the technology we need to solve climate change is already here, we just need to start actually using it and letting economies of scale kick in. This is in large contrast to arguments that pose climate change as a technology problem to be solved in the future by genius engineers (such as Tillerson's argument). If the technology we need is already here, why don't we see anyone proposing any legislature for stimulating the adoption of solar, batteries, distributed grids and the like?

https://medium.com/otherlab-news/how-do-we-decarbonize-7fc2fa84e887

[nobro011235]

One of the most concerning parts of climate change for me is the socioeconomic ramifications of such largescale global upheaval. I think the Kimpert article does a good job of pointing out that increasing economic pressure for countries to be green would disproportionately affect developing countries, and climate change itself would also disproportionately affect developing countries. On a smaller scale, the effect of mass human population movements would likely involve very difficult lives for fugitives new to home countries. What are some policy recommendations you have to get the world to move towards a greener planet without bringing undue economic harm to developing countries? What can leaders do now/in the future to minimize socioeconomic inequalities that come along with climate change?

[madisonchoi]

Climate change disproportionally impacts less developed countries. It is common for poorer nations to rely on energy sources that are not renewable or green as they begin to rapidly develop. My question is what would be the incentive for developing countries to enact renewable energy sources if it is financially not beneficial for their development? In addition, what reason would more developed countries have for helping poorer nations develop the infrastructure or sources of energy that can lead to less emissions and pollution, if at all?

[abertodano]

The vast majority of models predict that wind and solar energy shares above 80% of gross power production would require extreme increases in renewables capacity, massively increased costs, and the maintenance of high levels of backstop capacity. What is the best way to take care of the remaining 20%? Are carbon-emitting backstops ultimately feasible on a fixed carbon budget (per IPCC), or will we have to look to nuclear?

(From Report No. 277 of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, March 2015)

[cdrovetsky]

The issue of climate change has been framed in several different ways, from the detriment it would have on plants and animals, such as the increased risk of extinction for a large fraction of species, to the harmful effects it would have for people, such as risks of food insecurity and negative impacts on human health. And yet, it seems we are still largely not at the level of urgency we need to be at to actually begin to come to a solution and avoid these consequences. Is there any other way we could be framing or discussing the issue that may get more people involved and listening?

[TimGranzow7]

Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math by Bill McKibben presents 3 key numbers of great significance to warming, the global carbon budget, and the global carbon reserves. One key point is the overabundance of global coal, oil, and natural gas reserves far exceeds the carbon budget; the amount that can be burned to keep us below the 2degC mark. In 2012, climatologists predicted that 565 gigatons of carbon could be burned before we surpass the 2degC limit, but this number shrinks annually as we increase fossil fuel consumption. A global C reserve of over 2,500 gigatons appears to be a great threat to staying below 2degC, but with the inevitable shift towards green alternatives throughout the 21st century, do you think this reserve is truly a threat to the climate if we begin to decrease reliance on fossil fuels? What should be done with the excess?

McKibben, Bill. “Global Warming's Terrifying New Math.” Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone, June 25, 2018. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-188550/.

[JAZ42]

With such a rapid change in ecosystems around the world? Will the change be slow enough to allow for the survival of most species? It seems inevitable that some will completely go extinct due to climate change, but what will the rapid change of the environment do to the ecology of the planet? Is it ethical for us to keep endangered species in captivity in artificial habitats? Would it be unethical not to, since this is our fault?

As a side question I would like to gather a list of places I should visit before they are destroyed (such as the grand coral reef due to the increased acidity of the oceans from CO2)? Any suggestions?

[AlexandraN1]

What is an acceptable level of risk for geo-engineering strategies to resolve climate change? In particular, do we accept any strategy that has a lower probability of existential disaster than the status quo? For example, if the risk of climate catastrophe is 1 in 1000 over the next 100 years, is it acceptable to build a solar shield with a 1 in 2000 chance of catastrophe over 100 years?

To me, this is interesting because it highlights a bias towards a risky status quo, against risky (but less risky) solutions. This may be fair, but it requires justification, and presumably a formal approach to balancing these risks.

[Samcorey1234]

It is often discussed that we need to hold fossil fuel companies feet to the fire in order to effect change. That is, we have to force them, through the political system, to change their ways by preventing them from digging into their fossil fuel reserves, and putting them out of business.

But, as so many different interests – not just top CEOs – are vested in the enormous amount of capital in dirty energy, I wonder if there's another way forward. As such, instead of being combative against these companies and their shareholders, what if we brought them to the table? What if we allowed the Shells of the world to be at the table as to how (not when) we shift to clean energy? What if, after setting the deadline, as soon as possible I hope, we invite those leaders to be part of the enormous shift to green energy that we needed tomorrow? We need as much help as possible making it so wind, solar, and other forms of renewable energy are the only forms of energy we produce and consume — why not ensure they'll get some money by bringing them on board to help us with this transition?

This is being suggested because the other approach hasn't worked.

[brettriegler]

How can we present the issues of climate change so people can understand the current crisis and the future devastation that it will present in the future? Many people are predicting the 1.5 C change to happen by 2030. Some are predicting a slower change by 2100. What are the consequences of a faster climate change versus a slower climate change? Obviously, a slower climate change is better but is it just putting off the problem for the future. Do we need complete climate change elimination or does maintaining say 0.2 C change every 5-10 years for near future acceptable?

[ktavangar]

One of the aspects of climate change and global warming that is not brought up as much is the environmental justice part of the equation. The focus (rightly so) at the moment is to convince the legislators to do something, anything even, that will help slow the threat we are facing. However, I wonder what the effect of some of the proposed actions might have on inequality between developed and developing countries. Do the solutions being proposed take this problem into account and how are they being addressed?

[chakrabortya]

How should we think about carbon consumption quotas when some countries have consumed significantly more carbon over time to get themselves to a point of development where they can comfortably think about solving climate risks without hindering public life? This historical consumption has come at the cost of other uncompensated countries and people. I want to better understand how historical consumption comes into play when considering the energy consumption limitations discussed in international climate treaties.

[jane-uc21]

The University of Chicago has $33 million invested in three exchange-traded funds that are significantly invested in fossil fuel and deforesting companies. The University does not plan to divest from these industries on the grounds of the Kalven Report, in which it refuses to take social and/or political stances on issues outside of its core mission, "the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge." Of course there is no doubt that the fossil fuel industry has actively combatted "the discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge" of climate change, so the Kalven Report does not support these investments. What is the role of academic institutions in combatting climate change? Should we prioritize supporting public outreach/education efforts and research on clean energy and improved energy shortage; if so, does the need to secure this funding justify economic entanglement with the fossil fuel industry today?

Kalven, Harry, Jr. Kalven Committee: Report On the University's Role in Political and Social Action. 1967. “UChicago’s Investments Are Tied to Fossil Fuels, Deforestation, and Weapons Manufacturers.” n.d. Chicagomaroon.Com. Accessed April 7, 2021. https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2020/5/11/uchicago-investments-tied-fossil-fuels-deforestati/.

[bdelnegro]

How can we equitably engage in a global response to climate change? Who should be held economically, politically, and ethically responsible for environmental devastation? Does responsibility fall on countries, corporations, or the richest 10% of individuals who generate 52% of carbon emissions?

Additionally, how can we ensure that policies designed to tackle climate change do not exacerbate existing inequalities. The carbon tax, for instance, has gained popularity in recent years and is included as a potential mitigation tool in both the Synthesis report from IPCC5 and Bill McKibben’s “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”. However, some politicians warn that because the tax is regressive, the poorest families will be disproportionately affected. What do you think about this critique?

[Junker24]

After reading "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math", Do you think there is ENOUGH of an economic incentive to combatting Climate Change? The article for example, talked about how there is $20 Trillion worth of Fossil Fuels waiting to be consumed. How would corportations/governments push for this change without highlighting the loss of of this market? Thank You.

[a-bosko]

As mentioned in the reading “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”, there is already 2,795 gigatons of carbon already contained in coal, oil, and gas reserves of both fossil-fuel companies and countries that act like fossil-fuel companies. This number is the amount of fossil fuel that already is intended to be used. Scientists have estimated that we can only pour 565 gigatons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and stay under the two-degree Celsius limit. This is almost five times less than the amount of carbon dioxide that is planned to be released. Many scientists and researchers have claimed that in order to prevent temperature increase, we must not use 80% of this reserve at all. My question is, how do we stop these big companies from using over $20 trillion worth of fossil fuels? How can we convince these corporations that the world is worth more than this money?

[jcrary711]

During our lecture last week, we discussed ways in which we would be able to address the issue of annihilation, one of these methods of annihilation being climate change. The discussion included several possible avenues of resolution in order to prevent such annihilation. Some of these avenues included political change, social change, cultural change, and others. What method of change do you think would be the most impactful in addressing the issue of climate change both within the United States and the world?

[k80ambrose]

this is inspired by @a-bosko 's question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxxxqwBQw

There's this kurzgesagt video tries to answer the question: who is responsible for climate change and who's responsibility is it to fix? From China and India's (leaders in global emissions) POV: Countries like the US are hypocrites for polluting for centuries without restraint and now expect others not to industrialize. The competition of 21st-century industrialization and post-colonial grudges will make it difficult for the entire world to unite around the collective goal to reduce emissions ASAP.

My question is: Within a capitalist system, where money is what drives the choices companies and nations to make, will it be possible to defeat climate change, or will there be some radical restructuring of the global economic system in order to meet the needs of impending irreversible damage?

The science is undeniable at this point but implementing adequate solutions is expensive and will require collaboration, not competition.

Another question: Will climate change be a centripetal or centrifugal force for world peace ? like, will it cause wars and territorial disputes as more and more land becomes uninhabitable due to global sea levels rising or will we come together and collectively innovate humanity's way out of this problem? probably a mix of both.

[benindeglia]

Anecdotally, when I have tried to talk to people in the age group of my parents or older about climate change, I usually get very ambivalent responses that surround the idea of why would they care, it won't happen in their lifetime. How would you suggest convincing individuals to care about this existential threat, when it most likely won't effect them directly?

[louisjlevin]

What are your thoughts on recent proposals for a frequent flyer tax? A recent study showed that in the UK 70% of flights are made by the wealthiest 15% of the population, whilst 57% do not fly abroad at all. And across the pond in the US, 12% of people take two thirds of flights. Proposals have looks like everything from a full on tax for frequent flyers to the altogether abolishment of airmiles. Is this kind of action both necessary and effective?

[smshiffrin]

Based on the readings this week, it seems we only have around ten years to make changes in our behavior to avoid the 1.5˚C increase in temperature that would cause major environmental problems on Earth. How likely is it that we as a society will be able to make the necessary changes in order to do this? Do you think world governments will be able to work together to improve our behavior before it's too late?

[scicerom]

As climate change becomes more and more definite in the public eye- though not at a pace matching that in the academic sphere- counterarguments to large-scale responses appear to have in fact become less doubtful of the science behind the claims. However, with this shift has come an increased reliance on what can be labeled “selfish but honest” worries. Many individuals are afraid to lose their carbon-based jobs, countries are fearful of losing their carbon-based dominance or wealth, and many politicians are willing to thrive on these fears. What, if any, political or economic steps are being taken to calm and bring into the fold these populations who are disproportionately set to lose if stronger regulation becomes standard?

[LucLampietti]

Simply put, is it more effective to teach people to fear the consequences of climate change (droughts, flooding, fires) or to instill a land ethic as in Aldo Leopold's A Sand Almanac? Last week we discussed the possibility that nuclear devastation was too large of an issue to motivate individual action on account of its scale. Similarly, has the past half-century shown us that motivating individual action by fear-mongering climate change with 2 degree Celsius deadlines is futile? Should we pivot to teaching an appreciation and love for the Earth first before teaching the consequences of not loving it? Or perhaps is a behavior economics approach of subliminal nudges the only practical solution going forward?

[LanceJohnson1]

In the Rolling Stone Article, Bill Mckibben stated that the world's 5 biggest oil companies cumulatively generated more than a trillion dollars of profit this past millennium. Mckibben suggests that one solution to the profit vs. environmental conscious incentive problem is the implementation of a "fee and dividend" scheme, which would serve to tax those who generate electricity from coal, oil and/or gas and reward those who do not. Is this a viable solution for policymakers? What other policies should be considered to lessen our GHG emissions?

[chasedenholm]

With the increased adoption of renewable energy resources due to falling costs, how much of the global power grid do you expect to be powered by renewables instead of fossil fuels and nuclear energy in the next 10 years? Additionally, what do you think about the current federal spending on renewables and sustainable energy projects?

[janet-clare]

Knowing that we could always do better, could you site any specific examples of efforts at climate control, either adaptation or mitigation, currently in progress that may be on the right track? How could these be accelerated or modified to greater effect?

[stellaslorer]

As Bill McKibben states in his Rolling Stone’s article, the fossil fuel industry is, “Public Enemy Number One to the survival of our planetary civilization.” How can we, as consumers, engage with these colossal companies whose entire business depends on polluting the planet? With regards to the fight against climate change, can we implore individuals to change their habits in a meaningful way?

[ydeng117]

After reading this week's readings, we can certainly know that global warming is true and we desperately need to act immediately to stop climate change. However, like tobacco companies hiring scholars to deny the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, oil companies, such as Shell, also employ climate scholars to question the scientific evidence of global warming, fostering climate denial. How should we deal with these "scientific" climate denials? We definitely should approach every theory with caution, questions, and critical thinking. However, when some scholars deliberately critiquing a scientific fact that can lead to human existential risk, creating uncertainty and inactions, what method should we apply to contain these claims?

[bbroner]

Would attempting to cut emissions to zero negatively effect developing countries? How could the world handle transferring groundbreaking green technologies from countries like the US and China to developing economies? Would that ever work in a fair and equitable way? Also, do you see a scenario where China and the US actually work together in meaningful ways to fight climate change or is that a pipe dream?

[omarh4]

Movies such as Wall-E depict humanity traveling to live in space after the Earth became unable to sustain life. How much of this movie does humanity actually have to look ahead to in the future? How likely is it that we will ever need to abandon Earth? If we are unable to reverse the trends of climate change and Earth becomes uninhabitable, what other alternatives does humanity have for survival?

[fdioum]

I recently read a paper, Hope and Inaction in Light of Climate Change by Sweden-Lengyel, in regards to the relationship between hope and climate change. In your opinion, is there a relationship between the two, if so how are they related. Also, do you think that hope can effectively get people to take action against climate change on a global level?

[ishaanpatel22]

In the McKibben article, the author mentions how world leaders in Copenhagen agreed that warming of the Earth should be limited to 2 degrees Celsius. However, in the IPCC Special Report, the authors provided numerous pieces of evidence to show that this number should, in fact, be 1.5 degrees Celsius. Which of the two figures do you agree with? If it is the latter, do you think world leaders are misinformed about climate change and/or underestimate its true threat?

[aj-wu]

I find that the role of capitalism in climate change often goes under-appreciated. How can we, as a society/culture/democracy better understand and address the systemic nature of climate change, the key players, and its uneven effects on environmental justice?

[c-krantz]

In the Kolbert article, the author encourages the reader to create their own plan (regarding climate change) with the stipulation that it “must involve drastic change”. As we have seen through the political conversation regarding climate change, it is often that plans involving “drastic change”, such as the Green New Deal, are easily dismissed by opposition for being too aggressive. With that said, is there any reason to believe that attempts at drastic change are impossible to achieve because of the strong political divide regarding climate change? Could it be that too drastic of proposed measures in fact make substantial change regarding climate change harder to achieve?

[ghost]

We've read about the potential consequences of unmitigated climate change - potentials that seem closer to becoming reality as our leaders continue to make minimal strides to address the problem. With the latest piece of climate "policy" (The Paris Agreement) being completely non-binding, I find myself wondering: are we really better off with leaders signing non-binding agreements that they have no intention of following through on? What is the difference between this and simply doing nothing?

[BuffDawg]

To what extent are we limited by renewable resources? Given the state of our current battery technology, it seems unlikely that wind, solar, and hydro energy will be enough to sustain us into the future. Even throwing in geothermal energy, we just don't have access to it. Is the only way to save our climate, then, to pursue safe nuclear energy for nations across the world?

[ChivLiu]

The effects of global warming not only contain climate changes but an increasing amount of extreme weather. This year, many areas in China hit 25-degree centigrade in March and swiftly decreased to 15-degree centigrade in a week. The changes in temperature caused many agricultural industries to lose a huge amount of production. I wonder how could we form policies to solve the damages inflicted by climate changes and help the agricultural industries? Thank you!

[jrgill-coder]

What types of messaging techniques have proven themselves to be the most effective at persuading citizens/politicians to care more about climate change?

[laszler]

The Rolling Stone article mentions that convincing people to adopt lifestyle changes has been difficult in part because people are ambivalent about going green — we’re unlikely to change if the people around us are not. While climate change has certainly come to the front in regard to social/cultural awareness in the United States since this article came out in 2012, we have not yet made great progress. Considering the increase in political conflict we’ve seen in the past few years, do you think that socially, it will be possible for us to achieve a level of collective action that would have a tangible effect on battling climate change?