“The Uninhabitable Earth” by Wallace-Wells’ made me think about the current and past state of our climate. The reading shows the effects that climate change has on our generations and the different subheadings talk about all the problems that have been occurring throughout the world. “Many people perceive climate change as a sort of moral and economic debt, accumulated since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and now come due after several centuries – a helpful perspective, in a way, since it is the carbon-burning processes that began in 18th-century England that lit the fuse of everything that followed.” This quotation shows that the occurrence of past events such as the Industrial Revolution have changed our view on the world’s carbon usage activity. 

I think this article also just informs the general population that we need to do something to fix problems around the world such as: heat waves, the end of food, poisoned oceans, etc. If more people are well-known to these negatives, they would try to make a change that will help the world have a more essential environment.

“It is, I promise, worse than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today.”

The first two sentences of David Wallace-Wells’ “The Uninhabitable Earth” is clearly terrifying and abrupt, yet it is true. We need to face the facts of where we currently stand on the topic of climate change and the actions that should have already been taken. This reading illustrates the unimaginable and numerous effects of climate change that are bound to happen, if they haven’t already done so. Wallace-Wells interestingly points out that one of our failures is having too much of an imagination filled with ideal beliefs about the future. We should start thinking realistically about how to counter the effects of climate change and recognize the time limit that exists.

Wallace-Wells continues to describe the impact of climate change on the warming of the earth: “In a six-degree-warmer world, the Earth’s ecosystem will boil with so many natural disasters that we will just start calling them “weather”.” This quote shockingly puts into words the severity of the situation. It made me reflect about the simulation we did in class that allowed us to think about potential solutions for decreasing the temperature of the planet. Similarly, the IPCC summary report allowed me to think about it also because of how much more beneficial it would be for us to stop at 1.5°C, instead of 2°C. This definitely seems very difficult given the circumstances that we are under right now. As the report and Hayhoe describe, we would need to greatly increase our efforts of changes in lifestyle choices and reduction efforts. We need to remind ourselves of the impacts that are highly likely.

The reading from Something New Under the Sun by J.R. McNeill talks about the priority of the situation with today’s environmental issues. Throughout the chapters, it talked about how today’s reality will affect our next generations and the way they view the environment. Due to the past, there has been a lot of different events that have shifted the view on the environmental status which is a huge deal today. 

Honestly, I thought this was really interesting to read about because hearing about events like the industrial revolution impacting the environmental situation is not something I would have ever really thought of. “Over the course of the twentieth century, more and more people acquired greater and greater leverage over the environment, through new energy sources, new tools, and new market connections” (McNeill 296.) This quotation shows how through the recent advancements through today’s society, it has impacted not only our lives but the environmental status. One question I would want to ask is: since there were different events that occurred in the past that affected today’s environmental standing, what recent events will affect our future environment position? 

“Something New Under the Sun” describes the urgency of the environmental situation in the present day. J.R. McNeill clearly states how this is the first time that humanity has affected ecosystems with so much intensity and at such a rapid pace: “the scale and intensity of changes were so great that matters that for millenia were local concerns became global” (4). Although the environment has experienced changes to the ecosystem, all of the previous impacts were natural. Humans have greatly impacted the environment so much that we are experiencing dire consequences, such as air pollution. The “Annual Energy Outlook 2019” report illustrates what our future will look like and what we can imagine will occur. Since there will still be a high production of crude oil and natural gas plant liquids (NGPLs), we can assume that an increase of air pollution is likely to occur.

One of the main concerns regarding the environment is the debate about reaching zero carbon or 100% renewable energy. Although there is a general consensus that deep decarbonization will occur through electrification, activists and people in positions of power can’t come to an agreement about how to get to this point. I am confused as to how models show that reaching 100% renewable energy is unrealistic, while other models and charts show that most people agree that it is realistic. David Roberts makes a good point that we should question “how much our current decision-making should be constrained by what today’s models tell us is possible in the distant future.” There are numerous outside factors that models don’t always take into account or consider, which affects how we view and evaluate the information provided. It is necessary and beneficial to complete a full analysis before coming to a conclusion.

Charles Mann’s article, “State of the Species,” explicitly illustrates the path that we are taking, as the Earth continues to become in worse shape. His comparison of humans to invasive species is clear: “Humans, too, specialize in disturbed habits – but we do the disturbing.” Mann’s reference to the way that humans invade multiple habitats, while destroying anything that comes in its way, clearly emphasizes the horrific nature that we have come to possess. His description that humans are the exception to natural selection is justified by the unfortunate reactions the Earth has had due to human actions. We are involved in a vicious cycle of ruining what is left in front of us and then eventually, sooner rather than later, being attacked and destroyed because of our actions.

It is upsetting that the “beginning of the end…is already upon us” and that small changes that are being executed are not nearly close to enough (Clapp & Dauvergne). As McKibben describes, “we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in.” While there are small changes being made on an individual and political level, such as recycling or increasing the requirement of cars’ fuel efficiency, evidence has shown that this is not enough. We do not have enough time to only focus on small changes, while the main issue is still in effect: the continual burning of fossil fuels. As McKibben points out, a change that would make a significant impact on our future is if we stop burning fossil fuels, in order for carbon emissions to decreases.

Although there is scientific evidence of the damage we are doing to the planet, there is not enough action being done in a quick enough time to counteract the effects that we are creating.

The reading from chapter one of Paths to a Green World by Jennifer Clapp and Peter Dauvergne gives an explanation that throughout history, there has been several different views on climate in hope for a change to make it better. Humans have become so modern with their confidence of survival and also their elimination. There are four main viewpoints “presented on the global political economy: market liberals, institutionalists, bioenvironmentalists, and social greens.” Each of these aspects will play as big factors for how climate change works now and in the future. There are many different examples that were used throughout the article such as: environmental taxes, the UN Environment Programme, different published journal entries, and environmental activists. While going through the reading, I agreed with all the points made since they cater to different views of the whole situation and can help change the problem as a whole. They are also topics I want to have a better understanding of because it will help create awareness of the situation. Something else that made me understand the whole article was the environmental perspectives because it shows different questions that are like a cause and effect for each of the topics (market liberals, institutionalists, bioenvironmentalists, and social greens.)

Also, as an international studies major, it is interesting to see how globalization is also a part of environmental science because it just shows that there are many correlations throughout the world no matter what the subject is. If everyone gets involved with making and creating different changes to help benefit the issue of climate change, once we know it, there will be a better future for the upcoming generations.

In chapter one of Jennifer Clapp and Peter Dauvergne’s book, they explain one of the many purposes their book has. They explain that through writing about the various world views they hope to help students “navigate a seemingly unmanageable avalanche of conflicting information and analysis.” While it is important to write about environmental issues that are purely scientific or educational, I appreciate that their writing incorporated not only this, but the debates and drastically differing views as well. While I agree with various aspects of the four ways they categorize beliefs about climate change, I think I agree most with the Social Greens. To me, they seem the most realistic about the state of the earth and how it relates to social justice issues. Last class, we completed an activity where we organized ourselves around the room based on how pessimistic or optimistic we are about the state of the planet. Originally, I thought I was very pessimistic but after everyone explained why the chose their spots I realized I was more in the middle. Clapp and Dauvergne make it clear that they are not telling anyone to be more pessimistic or optimistic, but they are providing necessary tools for individuals to form their own opinions and find their own course of action, which I believe is a very effective writing style. One thing I had never heard before that was mentioned in McKibben’s article is the idea that some scientists think that two degrees is too lenient. Since I have heard the notion that all we need to do is stay under two degrees repeated over and over again I guess it never occurred to me that it might not be enough. While this article provides information about why these scientists think that and what evidence they have, I would like to explore this more and possibly discuss it in class!