Combating Climate Change: To Preserve the World’s Life Support
Tags: Climate Change, Science, Climate Change Solutions, Environment, Environmental Issues

To harbor life is to provide a safe, adequate living environment and the required materials to not only survive during one’s lifetime, but to flourish. The most valuable, meaningful occurrence for humans in particular as the most advanced species on the planet is to experience the Earth unique to them. The conditions of this colossal planet are unique to each of the coordinates they may dwell in. Yet, it proves to be the one thing humans in their entirety disrespect the most: besides one another, of course. As a result of a plethora of factors such as carbon emissions, overfishing and exhausting other means of produce, as well as emitting massive amounts of waste the Earth has become so damaged that many of its characteristics began to shift. NASA has found that global temperatures have risen, oceans have warmed and acidified, natural disasters have worsened, and snow covers and ice sheets have shrunk. Based on the quantities of waste humans released in the past few decades, NASA’s highly esteemed scientists and professionals have concluded in their extensive studies that these actions directly impacted and caused what is now known as a famous umbrella term: climate change (NASA).

Of course, not everyone should feel guilty. Even the most environmentally conscious individuals hardly have a dent on this predicament. Their electric cars are still manufactured in enormous factories that emit a repulsive amount of emissions. A majority if not all of the materials they recycle are discarded as trash if other recyclable materials at the plant are not completely and utterly clean. Although they commit to a plant based diet, as a result of so little willing to make the change the production of the meat industry hasn’t decreased. Cleaning beaches and other natural settings is only a temporary solution for discarding waste into the Earth is irresistible to the human race. The end result of climate change comes from the actions of hundreds of elite entrepreneurs and decisions that will earn them the most profit possible. For example, keeping nonrenewable energy sources is certainly cheaper than replacing with renewable energy. By overfishing and exhausting marine ecosystems, companies have more product to sell and prevent competitor companies from profiting off of.

Major corporations are the culprits for these devastating consequences that are projected to only worsen if there is not an immediate change. So much so, The Guardian listed one-hundred corporations that a study reports to be responsible for a staggering seventy-one percent of emissions. While all of the corporations listed are not uniquely American, the most notable industries in the American economy listed include ExxonMobil Corp, Chesapeake Energy, Chevron Corp, and Peabody Energy Corp, among others. American companies still have a massive contribution. The leaders of these organizations must be regulated and have pressure applied to them to decrease production while transitioning to renewable means of energy. This includes biomass energy, geothermal energy, hydro energy, solar energy, and wind energy. It will almost definitely be expensive, yes, however a monetary loss that will rapidly be reimbursed is far better than being dead which is a likely outcome if the current conditions exacerbate climate change to worsen.

As a result of climate change being driven by production and financial gain, a unique environmental issue pertaining to the damage of the Earth that each and every single life form depends on has become a political issue. Those that rally for a shift that slows before completely stopping climate change have been labeled as, ‘radical leftists,’ for the actions necessary would mean that the major corporations profiting for their damaging means of production. In some scenarios, the political beliefs/allegiance of self-identified Republicans is even questioned if they acknowledge the science that proves the existence of climate change and that the ways to fix the situation are necessary. Political affiliation of an issue such as this one is dangerous, and it has proven to be. The Earth doesn’t have a political affiliation. Neither does science. Facts stand alone in their truth, they are not opinions. This issue should have never been politicized. Fighting to save the Earth is not a ‘radical left agenda.’ Fighting to save the Earth is a series of actions made after becoming educated on the data collected by countless highly esteemed scientists that shows a shift in a variety of elements as well as disasters that their studies lead them to believe are caused by these environmental changes (Spence, Chris).

In an article published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the extent of the impacts of climate change were described and how these conditions are on track to only worsen. Aside from the plentiful quantity of species that have gone extinct as a result of habitat loss or alteration directly linked to climate change, as explained, many of these consequences will continue to directly impact humans. In terms of the carbon dioxide emissions in particular that prevent heat from escaping the atmosphere, the author(s) state,

“Higher temperatures are linked to almost all of climate change’s most severe impacts, including more frequent and intense heat waves, widespread crop failures, and dramatic shifts in animal and plant ranges. The world’s most vulnerable people — those with fewest resources and options — will suffer the most. If carbon emissions continue to increase unchecked, by end-of-century the hottest daily temperatures that occur in a given year in the United States are likely to increase by at least 10°F as compared with the end of the 20th century. Other parts of the world may experience even worse increases,” (Union of Concerned Scientists).

In other areas of the world with more intense temperatures such as African and South American countries, this has the potential to impose severe harm on populations in poverty. The heat proves to already be harmful and uncomfortable to these individuals. A shift in temperature as dramatic as 10°F during seasons that are already torridly hot to begin with is something their bodies are simply not accustomed to. Illnesses related to the body suffering under the intense heat include heat stroke, heat exhaustion, Rhabdomyolysis, heat syncope, and heat rash. While many are already susceptible to these conditions as a result of their environment, an increase in temperature increases the likelihood that they will experience these conditions if not something similar.

Increased temperatures isn’t the only threat for financially vulnerable populations. On a global scale, the sea level has risen as a result of the melting of ice sheets and glaciers, as mentioned. As a result of this, floods have increased and will continue to worsen if nothing is done in coastal communities when there is rainfall or a natural disaster. Some studies led scientists to estimate that if emissions continue to increase, by the end of the century the sea level will have risen by an alarming eight feet. While the United State’s East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico are noted to be taking the hardest hits, it’s believed that entire island nations could go underwater. Poorer individuals living in coastal communities will continue to struggle with homelessness, severe property, and even death by drowning like many have in the past during hurricanes. In future years, more individuals and families will struggle with this predicament. For entire island nations, many of these people live in extreme poverty and/or tribes without even possessing electricity. Unless salvaged by some type of humanitarian aid, these people will helplessly perish without the opportunity to save themselves. It’s estimated that by the end of the century as a result of sea level rise in itself, one-hundred-million people will be displaced.

As described, it’s the vulnerable populations who are the ones to suffer and pay the price the most for the very top of the upperclass’ harm on the Earth. The impacts described make a solution urgent. Because the harm is out of the hands of the average person and directly caused by the leaders of elite corporations, adamant pressure must be applied to these individuals as well as policy makers to regulate the American-based corporations, to commence with. While there are immensely harmful corporations contributing to climate change scattered across the globe, it is too broad of an issue with far too many individuals in power to tackle as an activist commencing without even an organization backing them up. It is wisest to first focus attention on America’s contribution. As one of the world’s strongest nations, if America makes the switch it could encourage others to do the same. Furthermore, having immensely powerful nations like the United States switching to being environmentally friendly makes it easier to pressure other countries to do the same for it shows that a country can remain powerful and successful even after ‘going green.’ As well as this, with global pressure for environmentally friendly policies and production, for a stubborn country wishing to not make a switch, it is harder to resist when they are facing scrutiny and surrounding leading countries, such as America, are making the switch. This switch to limit America’s contribution to the climate change crisis is to educate American citizens through public service announcements, sponsorships, and a campaign before pressuring both policy makers and leaders of major corporations to begin a gradual switch to renewable energy and limitation of fishing and farming of animals.

The feasible solution in this urgent matter is to pressure American politicians and policy makers to adapt legislation that follows the guidelines of a unique plan that targets the elimination of waste and emissions emitted by major corporations. Pressure shouldn’t be applied to the leaders of these corporations directly, for as the dominant businessmen and women of the world it is highly unlikely that they will independently decrease the colossal profits they earn periodically, even if it would help the environment and the various life forms on our planet.

This plan would propose that over a span of forty to fifty years, companies completely reduce the amount of nonrenewable energy they consume to fifteen percent. The selection of companies that have to follow this plan would be determined by NASA’s elite group of environmental scientists based on their contribution of pollution. Over this fifty to sixty year time period, companies will build renewable energy sources based on their location. Renewable energy sources include biomass, solar, hydro, tidal, and geothermal. Upon the completion of constructing a renewable energy source, one of the nonrenewable energy sources that processes the same quantity of energy will be deconstructed. This will occur until fifteen percent of the company’s energy source is nonrenewable. The reason it would be decreased to fifteen percent and not completely eliminated at zero percent is because politicians on both sides have shown to be reluctant to enact bold change to tackle the climate change crisis. Some may consider fifteen percent to be unrealistic, and since this matter is so urgent and some change is better than none, depending on how reluctant policy makers and the public would be that number would be negotiable. Thirty five percent would be the highest number. Rather than simply tear down all nonrenewable energy sources as others have proposed, this proposal is the most feasible. It doesn’t leave people without work: in contrast, it creates hundreds of jobs since energy sources will constantly be constructed and torn down.

As well as this, the plan would propose more regulations regarding other forms of waste, such as solid waste that has notoriously rotted acres of lands in landfills and intoxicated areas of our oceans. This is because as waste begins to break down, it emits methane gas and carbon dioxide, both of which are greenhouse gases that contribute to the global rise in temperatures. Similar to recent successes by Subaru, companies would be required to recycle their resources in order to eliminate waste. As well as this, based on the materials being produced, similar to Subaru once again companies would have to develop ‘End of Life’ programs. In these programs, companies offer to take materials that the consumer is no longer interested in using or simply can’t use. That material will then be dismantled and different parts will be utilized in the construction of new products.

Punishments for not following these protocols will begin with a fine of thirty percent of the company’s total earnings for one month, the second offense will be fifty-five percent, and the third and final offense will result in a ban of operation for one month.

The biggest predicament with this proposal is the funding. America is a wealthy, capitalist country with a budget of trillions of dollars. Of course, even then every single corporation won’t receive the millions of dollars necessary to follow this plan. However, pressure would be applied for each corporation to receive some extent of funding while they are required to pay for the rest. It is certainly an investment, but these corporations are among the wealthiest in the entire world and can certainly afford it. Furthermore, it is certainly a price to pay for the billions of lives that are estimated to be saved if there is a decrease in the presence of greenhouse gases.

Policy makers are unlikely to put this proposal into action unless they receive intense public pressure to do so. In order to accomplish this, a campaign will be formulated that will first seek to educate and inform the public as much as possible. Means of outreach include public service announcements, advertisements, collaborations with entertainment and clothing companies, celebrity endorsements (specifically from individuals who have no political affiliation so there is no argument of a ‘left’ agenda: as previously mentioned, the environment and its circumstances have no political affiliation. This will help the public keep an open mind to the proposal), speaking on platforms such as Ted Talk and news outlets, workshops, seminars, and assemblies at middle schools, high schools, and colleges and universities.

The campaign will encourage listeners to pressure policy makers to enact the proposal by writing letters and commencing in peaceful marches through Washington D.C. twice a year. As well as this, the campaign would encourage individuals to adopt environmentally friendly lifestyles to the best of their ability by utilizing products made from biodegradable or recycled materials (clothes, backpacks, phone cases, cars, television sets, and more), decreasing meat consumption (not completely going vegan: even taking one day out of the week to not eat meat helps), encouraging the use of reusable materials such as water bottles and food containers, and if one can afford it, the installment of solar panels and solar farms for homes and businesses.

Of course, the limitation with campaign and ultimately the proposal in its entirety is that if there is failure of marketing and public outreach, the entire proposal doesn’t work. Applying public pressure to policy makers and politicians makes them more likely work on legislation that follows the guidelines of the proposal if not enact regulations that are similar. This is why if the campaign doesn’t collect ample donations, volunteer marketers, ambassadors, and representatives, it simply won’t work.

The Earth’s vital signs are collapsing. Our beautiful planet is buckling under the pressures and destruction of human greed. Mother Earth has displayed her sustained injuries through an increase in temperatures, decrease in ice sheets, and an increasing rise in natural disasters and sea levels on a global scale. Despite this data collected by esteemed scientists and their manifesting estimates that these conditions will only worsen, many are still reluctant to commence effective change. Compliance with this proposal creates a necessary step forward in fixing this predicament. This is our only home, it must be taken care of. Ultimately, under the worst of human pressures, the Earth will still be stable in its existence. The created circumstances for our existence on the other hand may not be so stable.

Sources:

-Spence, Chris, et al. “Great Expectations: Understanding Bali and the Climate Change Negotiations Process.” EBSCOhost, 2008, web.b.ebscohost.com.library.georgian.edu:2048/ehost/detail/detail?vid=10&sid=c5474922–521e-4833-ba2a-5ca1915cd220%40pdc-v-sessmgr06&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=33533454&db=8gh. Accessed 7 Nov. 2020.

-Strandman, H., et al. “Regional effects of alternative climate change and management scenarios on timber production, economic profitability, and carbon stocks in Norway spruce forests in Finland.” EBSCOhost, 2016, web.b.ebscohost.com.library.georgian.edu:2048/ehost/detail/detail?vid=8&sid=c5474922–521e-4833-ba2a-5ca1915cd220%40pdc-v-sessmgr06&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=112650915&db=8gh. Accessed 7 Nov. 2020.

-Troell, Max, et al. “Quick Fixes for the Environment.” EBSCOhost, 2006. Accessed 7 Nov. 2020. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.library.georgian.edu:2048/ehost/resultsadvanced?vid=6&sid=c5474922–521e-4833-ba2a-5ca1915cd220%40pdc-vsessmgr06&bquery=AB+climate+change+AND+fix&bdata=JmRiPThnaCZjbGkwPUZUJmNsdjA9WSZjbGkxPVJWJmNsdjE9WSZ0eXBlPTEmc2VhcmNoTW9kZT1TdGFuZGFyZCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmU%3d

-Zhang, Xiongqing, et al. “Modeling tree mortality in relation to climate, initial planting density, and competition in Chinese fir plantations using a Bayesian logistic multilevel method.”EBSCOhost,2017,web.b.ebscohost.com.library.georgian.edu:2048/ehost/detail/detail?vid=7&sid=c5474922–521e4833ba2a5ca1915cd220%40pdc-vsessmgr06&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=124763787&db=8gh. Accessed 7 Nov. 2020.

-Hawken, Paul, editor. “Top 10 Solutions to Reverse Climate Change.” Green America, 2017, www.greenamerica.org/climate-change-100-reasons-hope/top-10-solutions-reverse-climate-change.

-“Climate Impacts.” Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org/climate/impacts.

-“NASA.” Climate Change: How Do We Know?, climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.

-Riley, Tess. “Just 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of Global Emissions, Study Says.” The Guardian, 10 July 2017, www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.

-Hawken, Paul, editor. “Top 10 Solutions to Reverse Climate Change.” Green America, 2017, www.greenamerica.org/climate-change-100-reasons-hope/top-10-solutions-reverse-climate-change.

Picture:

-Yun, Yeji. Love Your Home. Treehugger, 7 Feb. 2019, www.treehugger.com/

book-makes-it-easier-talk-kids-about-climate-change-4856536.