The Disproportionate Effects of Climate Change

The Disproportionate Effects of Climate Change

By Saumya Vishnoi

               Climate Change undoubtedly affects the entire world, furthering the necessity for global legislative action such as the Paris Climate Agreement rather than only national action. However, there are some countries that are disproportionately affected by climate change: the developing ones. In fact, according to the United Nations Development Program, a developing country is 79 times more likely to suffer from a climate-related disaster than a developed country. This reveals an extreme unfairness; developed countries are the main reason for the rapid acceleration of climate change but poorer countries suffer the most from it.

           In the past decade, 8 out of the 10 countries that were most affected by extreme weather events were developing nations.  Specifically, a 2015 study projects that by 2100, incomes in poorer countries will decline by 75% compared to a world with no warming. In contrast, developed countries are projected to see their incomes increase. Another study reveals that Bangladesh's GDP per capita is 12% lower due to global warming than what it could have been - Brazil's is 25% and India's is 30%.

            Statistics evidently show that these poorer nations will suffer the blunt of climate change. But why? There are several explanations but the primary factor is simply that these countries lack the resources to currently combat climate change. For example, Miami beach is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prepare for climate change by installing pumps and raising the elevation of their streets. However, poorer countries don't have resources to prepare for any climate-related disasters. This, however, is an example of a positive feedback loop. The developing nations are hurt the most by climate change which hurts their economy by reducing the amount of food crops and destroying homes, which then leads the country to go further into poverty. 

    

           It is not fair to hold developing nations accountable for climate change when developed nations account for a vast majority of the amount of fossil fuels in the air. Therefore, developed nations must actually help their poorer counterparts to solve both problems: poverty and climate change. One important way this can happen is with richer countries building sustainable power grids in there poorer countries. This way, these countries can gain access to energy and alleviate themselves out of poverty in a clean way. Developed nations need to help solve the problem that they have exacerbated.

Sources:

https://time.com/5575523/climate-change-inequality/

https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-reinforces-inequalities-even-in-developed-countries/a-50596957

https://www.intechopen.com/books/greenhouse-gases/energy-for-sustainable-development-the-energy-poverty-climate-nexus

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-climate-change-global-warming-part-2-story.html

Questions:

What do you think developed nations can do to help developing countries combat climate change?

What other factors contribute to this climate change inequality?

What surprised you the most about this climate change inequality?

Actic v.s Antarctic

By Sophia Villavicencio  

Melting polar ice caps has become a contentious issue impacting all nations. While NASA studies have shown that the amount of ice in Antarctica is actually increasing, these rises only amount to a third of what is being lost in the Arctic. As a result of global warming, the ice caps in the Arctic do not regenerate during winter months and the water remains in the ocean. 

 

Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles. On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center

 

With the melting of Arctic ice caps being a major contributor, sea levels can be seen rising globally. Over time, this could lead to extensive flooding, contamination of drinking water and major changes in ecosystems. 

 

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of seawater as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites.

In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and 

hazards from storms. Globally, 8 of the world’s 10 largest cities are near the coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans. With increased sea levels, these cities may find themselves in need to relocate and in turn will cause massive displacement, property value loss, and loss of jobs. 

If the melting of Arctic ice caps continues to increase, not only will we lose our primary cooling system for the northern hemisphere, and see major habitat lost. But the lives of people will be directly impacted with elevated sea levels and economies around the globe will deteriorate. 

How would the melting of ice caps affect your life and those around you ?

What are some ways people are discrediting this issue?

What other environmental impacts could be a result of the melting ice caps?

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

The Overpopulation Myth (and how it has impacted Environmentalism) - Faith Tshiyoyo

Environmental Science is a topic that breaches varying subjects together. Chemistry, Economics, Law and other topics come together to bring a sense of immediacy to out rapidly depleting Earth. While many people on this blog have tackled true topics that environmentally affect our planet - I will talk about  something that does not. Because this false claim is something that is being given serious consideration in academic fields with money being donated to prevent it from happening, when we could be investing our time and energy into something into problems that are exacerbating climate change.



The idea of overpopulation was first developed by political economist Thomas Malthus. In his 1798 treatise “An Essay on the Principle of Population” Malthus predicted that population grows at a geometric rate while food production increases at an arithmetic rate, so unless birth rates decreased and dealt with the world would face mass famine and substandard quality of life. However, as you can see, Malthus' predictions have yet to come true. As the population has increased from around 800 million in 1798 to approximately 7.7 billion in 2019.

However Malthus’ philosophy hasn’t been banished from intellectual sphere, The man who was responsible for bringing Malthus’ theory into environmentalism was Paul Ehrlich when he released the “Population Bomb”.  In his book Ehrlich predicts mass environmental degradation and worldwide famine due to overpopulation. While environmental degradation is occurring overpopulation is nowhere near a main factor.

Malthus’ argument that there is not enough agriculture to sustain our population is untrue. Due to modern agriculture techniques and high yield crops the earth can produce enough food for at least 11 billion people (without even increasing the amount of agricultural land we use). Considering the UN is predicting a decline of the global population growth rate, the world population is approximated to reach a peak of about 8.1 billion people, followed by a decline. Ehrlich’s overall connection between the environment is also untrue. While people who live in developed nations — and are wealthy — have lower fertility rates, they emit more carbon dioxide than the poorest 50% due to their lifestyle. We should also bring up that while developed countries are some of the main propagators of overpopulation, they should remember that the United States is one of the highest-emitting countries in the world as they consume more resources.

Overpopulation in the way it has been framed is simply a harmful myth.  To save the environment we have to look at factors such as class, economics systems, gender, race, and nationality to save humanity from ourselves. 

Why do you think Overpopulation is seen as an environmental problem?

Why do you think fertility rates and consumption are often correlated with each other?

What are some ways that we can combat things such as famine nowadays?

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/what-goes-up-population-crisis-wrong-fertility-rates-decline

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/

https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html

https://grist.org/article/humans-cause-climate-change-do-we-just-need-fewer-humans/

Earth's Resource Depletion

Earth's Resource Depletion

By: Smaran Thota

Our environment plays an important role in our world by providing air, food, water, etc. This helps us and all animals maintain our whole life-support system. However, there has been a major issue that has been drastically increasing which is resource depletion. This problem occurs when renewable and non-renewable resources become a short supply because it has been consumed way faster than being created. An example that has been an aspect of this problem is deforestation which cut down trees for construction and results in harming the environment. Humans have been depleting resources because of the increasing population which has destroyed animal habitats, released emissions in our atmosphere, polluted the oceans, and has overall affected our environment in many ways.

The human population has been drastically increasing which was a big resource depletion. About 200 years ago, each human had the equivalent 2400 of land and freshwater resources; however, today, each human now has the equivalent 300 of land and freshwater resources. This is a huge reduction in resources because of our population which is 7.7 billion people and is way more than the 1 billion people 200 years ago.

Natural resources are not the only thing that has been depleting, it is also economic resources that have been reducing. The economic development of a nation contributes major to natural resources. The depletion of resources can cause major economic issues for the nation. These resources are very vital to human and the environment if we keep reducing our sources, then there won't be anything left and our Earth will have to suffer.

Resource Depletion has been an issue for many years which started when the Industrial Revolution began. It is a shortage of our resources which has been decreasing faster than being created which is happening by our human population. Our environment helps maintain our vital lives, as well as animal ecosystems and these resources have helped us create nations all over the world. If we can learn how to maintain our resources, then we would have a mass amount for many years to survive just like having 2400 of land and freshwater resources, two-hundred years ago. Being sufficient with these resources will help our environment and our Earth overall be healthy and a safe atmosphere to live in.

Sources:
https://econation.co.nz/resource-depletion/

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-16391040

https://www.buschsystems.com/resource-center/knowledgeBase/glossary/what-is-resource-depletion

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth


Questions:
- Have you ever seen those heavy-duty construction machines on the road?
- What are some solutions to fix this issue?
- What can you do to help our environment?

Destructive Deforestation

By: Arun Pillarisetty

Deforestation has become a major problem in today’s society. People are cutting down trees left and right and burning down vegetation almost every day—or it seems like it. As you all know, deforestation is bad, and bad things always lead to more bad things, which is bad. That’s why we have to take action to stop unnecessary deforestation before it is too late. Notice how I said “unnecessary deforestation”. This is because there is no way we can completely stop it; the world’s population is growing at an exponential rate, and more people means they need more land to live on.

(No offense intended)

There are a whole lot of negative effects of deforestation—a lot more than people realize. Some effects of deforestation include: habitat loss, soil erosion, and global warming. Habitat loss is the most obvious effect and pretty self-explanatory, so I guess I’ll just move on to the next one. Soil erosion happens with loss of vegetation, a result of deforestation. Also, when the deforested lands are turned into farms, the new crops don’t anchor to the soil properly, which further helps the soil erode. In the past 150 years, nearly half of our planet’s fertile top soil has been lost. Wow. What a very sad thing to hear.

Moving on, another result of deforestation is global warming. Global warming happens when trees are burned because trees are 50% carbon. Additionally, with less trees, the carbon cycle will slow down, which in turn leads to more heat being trapped in our atmosphere. This leads to many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many other problems, some of which you may find by scrolling down and reading the other blogs. So in general, deforestation is very harmful to both the earth, and to the species living on the earth in the future, such as that unfortunate man below.

In conclusion, something has to be done to slow down the rate of deforestation. Obviously, we can’t completely stop it, but every country’s government has to step in and enforce stricter laws on deforestation—especially Brazil. Someone has to go down there and knock some sense into those soybean farmers before they burn down the whole Amazon Rainforest and pollute the river. Well, this brings us to the end of this blog. Here’s a juicy question to ponder: How would you feel about living in a world with no trees, plants, or vegetation?

Additional Questions:

What else can we do to discourage deforestation?

Have you ever seen people cutting down trees?

How many years do we have left before there are no trees on earth?

Sources:

https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation-and-forest-degradation

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/why-is-deforestation-such-a-serious-problem.html

https://www.theonion.com/deforestation-complete-1819563887

Big Oil and Bigger Money- Simran Puri

     The Fossil Fuel Industry has known about man-made emissions and climate change since the late 1970s. Exxon Mobil, for example, has involved itself in a highly controversial campaign, coined #ExxonKnew, because the company found evidence of anthropogenic climate change but hid it from the public eye. Even worse, many pursued efforts of deception by largely contributing to the widespread doubts of climate change. These corporations have known about global warming caused by the unsustainable extraction of their products— oil, coal, and natural gas— but have done worse than nothing.

     The common denominator to the motives behind such deceitfulness is money. This corruption has fueled efforts of suppressing evidence of climate change for decades. The problem lies in the choice to value the economy over the environment— similar to the Tragedy of Commons in terms of selfish gain, but privatized. While humans tend to regard themselves as separate or above nature, the economy and environment are interconnected. In fact, scientists predict that in the next decades to come with climate change, we will experience a global recession. It is essentially illogical to argue that saving the planet will hurt their economy.

One of the worst effects of the Fossil Fuel Industry's corruption is lobbying that occurs in politics/ government affairs. Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence the actions, decisions, or policies of officials or legislators, and in this context monetarily. Companies such as Shell and Chevron spend up to $53,000,000 annually on climate lobbying. The consequences of this are obvious. Many modern day politicians are in essence paid to disregard climate change as a "Chinese hoax" or simply not allow legislation to pass. This money in politics halts any actual actual large scale action to be done. Policies that are tied to the Paris Agreement are not supported because of such companies, and as a result legislation and change is obstructed.

As far as solutions go, economic incentives seem to be the only means to resolve underlying greed and corruption. For example, the 1990 Clean Air Act prompted pollution trading. This meant that companies with higher levels of emissions than were allowed could purchace "passes" from companies that released emissions lower than the cap. This not only balanced the pollution levels but also incentivized companies to lower emissions by being energy efficient so they could save the costs of the "passes." Similarly, a recent trend of Carbon pricing has entered the economic realm. If people are simply going to care about economic gains and profits over the environment, then the only way to combat it is through economic means itself.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/holding-major-fossil-fuel-companies-accountable

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/#42384b087c4f

Questions:

What are solutions to lobbying and money in politics?

What are some modern day examples of environmental policy that should get passed?

How should we hold these oil companies accountable?

How Sustainable is your Electric Car, really?

How Sustainable is your Electric Car, really?

Ishika Pothini

          Believed to be the answer to harmful vehicle emissions, electric cars, or EVs, have grown in popularity. They are believed to hold many benefits compared to conventional internal combust engine automobiles. For instance, they have lower operating and maintenance costs, produce little or no local air pollution, reduce dependence on petroleum, and they use less energy than standard gas or diesel cars. 

       So what's the catch? Since EVs rose to prominence in the 2000s, critics have been skeptical. There are factors when considering the economic sustainability of them. One factor is the "wheel-to-wheel" emission. This takes into consideration the amount of greenhouse gases and air pollutants emitted to produce the energy powering the car. When taking wheel-to-wheel emissions into account, electric vehicles produce 4,450 pounds of CO2 equivalent which is fairly similar to emissions of a conventional car, if not more. 

       Another issue surrounding the increase in demand of EVs is the pollution behind the manufacturing process of their batteries. The battery is composed of a rare earth metals. However, when these metals are extracted and manipulated, more CO2 is emitted than standard vehicles. According to the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICTT) reports that Chinese and American battery manufacturers can produce anywhere from 60-66% more CO2 during manufacturing which is more than the average emission from gas cars. How is an electric car saving the earth if its causing the same negative effects as a conventional vehicle?

        Although electrically powered cars, like Tesla, do not directly emit any carbon especially in high volume areas, their production and use does indirectly have the same, if not more, detrimental contribution to our earth's supply of greenhouse gases. In reality, we believe electric cars will solve our vehicle emission problem when the practical solution lies in the use of public transportation, bikes, walking, trains, etc. We cannot solve the growing greenhouse gas issue if we do not enforce these practices. 

Questions:

- How did your previous conceptions around electric cars change?

- Do you own an electric car? If so, how will what you know now affect your opinion of it?

- What alternate practices could we begin in order to actually make a change in the world's growing production of greenhouse gases?

Sources:

https://www.energysage.com/electric-vehicles/advantages-of-evs/evs-environmental-impact/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/05/20/are-electric-vehicles-really-better-for-the-environment/#3e8d0b0476d2

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/06/why-electric-vehicles-make-drivers-anxious/592585/

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

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/electric-cars-are-clean-but-their-batteries-can-be-dirty/