It's Not Entirely Our Fault

Climate change is our fault, there is no doubt about that. But we 

cannot be blamed entirely for doing so little about it. In the book Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains are Wired to Ignore Climate Change, Author George Marshall analyzes why people fail to talk about or even recognize climate change as a problem.

In previous blog posts, I've mentioned that I was one of the many people who were/are ignorant to the true problems that climate presents us with. As I became more educated as to the true nature of climate change, I became increasingly annoyed and angry. Why did it seem like nobody cared?  Why did it seem like nothing was getting done? Why are people ignoring evidence?

Marshall looks to answer why people seem to be so unwilling to accept climate change based on both internal and external forces. He also focuses on the different categories of people as those who accept climate change, those who actively deny it, those who are skeptical, and those who are unconvinced of climate change and what aspects allow them to accept climate change or not. For the purpose of this blog post I am going to focus on the psychological aspects of us as humans that make it difficult for us to accept and deal with climate change.

This graph from the Washington Post shows the fluctuations of those
 who believe in climate change and those who do not.

According to Marshall, the beginning of problems in dealing with and believing in climate change lies in our experiences as individuals and the tendencies we have as humans beings. As odd as it seems with relation to all of the negativity that is focused on today, humans tend to be positive creatures. Once something bad happens, we believe that it wont happen to us again. Marshall uses victims of natural disasters to solidify this model, citing their increased invulnerability. Climate change is not a positive problem and thus we have the tendency to tune out when it is mentioned. We also tend to believe that climate change is not our problem, that it is one that is not our problem to deal with. Marshall connects this to social cues like the bystander effect, pluralistic ignorance, and conditional cooperation, where we don't talk about climate change because no one else is and we don't do anything about climate change because we believe others are.

According to George Marshall, victims of natural disasters have
the tendency to ignore climate change as a possible factor that
may have caused the natural disaster that they experienced.

In relation to accepting and dealing with climate change, Marshall cites the tendency to ignore it is because it is not salient. There is still uncertainty about it, it is not a concrete problem. While it is an immediate problem, it does not feel immediate. As humans, we recognize threats based on the immediacy of the problem and because climate change seems like such a far off threat not based in the "here and now", rather in the "then and there", it is ranked very low in our categories of fear that allow us to process and deal with problems. According to Marshall, it ranks somewhere near extraterrestrial threats like asteroid strikes.

While climate change is our fault, the fact that we aren't talking about it or doing much about it isn't entirely our fault. Marshall cites many psychological regions as to why many people are unable to accept the climate change and the threats that accompany it, and therefore do little about it. I believe that a lot of the problem also lies in the purposeful choice to ignore climate change accompanied by the ignorance surrounding it. I hope that Marshall provides ways to deal with these psychological hurdles and ignorance in relation to climate change, as in order for people to mobilize and take action against climate change, they need to realize the true problem of it.

United Nations Climate Change Conference 2015--COP21/CMP11

The UN Climate Change Conference 2015 marked a step forward in the global fight against climate change, however some believe that step wasn’t big enough and was taken too late. In this blog post I’ll outline the main aspects of the conference including the precursors leading up to it, the conference itself, and the successes and limitations of the conference.

The Basics: In order to understand the what occurred at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference and what has been done in the past regarding global action against climate change, there are a few relevant terms.

-UNFCCC-United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992): This is an international environmental treaty that set the background for dealing with climate change by outlining the framework for action aimed at stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

-COP(21)-Conference of Parties: Annual meeting of the Parties that signed the UNFCCC to assess their global progress in dealing with climate change.

-CMP(11)-Parties to the Kyoto Protocol: Formal meeting of the Parties that signed the Kyoto Protocol— which extended the UNFCCC— to negotiate legally binding obligations of developed countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Leading Up to 2015: There were a few major events that held an importance at the UN Climate Change Conference 2015 in the way that they provided insight as to what needed to be done and what ways were going to be most beneficial.

-Kyoto Protocol (1997): This treaty committed Parties of UNFCCC by setting internationally binding emission targets based on the premise that global warming exists and man made CO2 caused it. The main problem with this treaty was that in 1997 the United States Senate voted to adopt a measure rejecting any international agreement that “would result in harm to the economy of the U.S, and thus the largest greenhouse gas emitted at the time withdrew from the treaty.

-Copenhagen Conference (2009): This conference was supposed to mark a turning point in the climate change debate, and it did, but it was a turn in the wrong directing.This Conference ended without an form of legally binding treaty to reduce emissions as originally intended, instead it ended with a half-assed last minute deal that produced a weak outline of emission reductions with no specific targets or timetables.

-U.S.- China Emission Agreement (2014): Really this wasn't an agreement, rather a joint a joint action announcement where the U.S. & China took responsibility for being the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world (in 2011 they emitted roughly 1/2 of global greenhouse gas emissions annually) and a pledge from the United States to reduce it’s emissions 26-28% by 2025 and China to stop increasing emissions by 2030. The expected results of these pledges are shown on the graphs below with comparison to if the U.S. and China were to carry on business as usual.

Pictured to the right are graphs based on an interactive graphic compiled by the New York Times representing what the annual emissions of greenhouse gases would be in relation to if the U.S. and China were to carry on with business as usual, or if they were to carry out their promises to reduce and stop reducing their emissions.

The Conference:

The United Nations Climate Change Conference was held from November 30th to December 12th 2015 in Paris, France. Overall 196 Parties attended and it included speakers, events, and a global agreement aimed at reducing emissions (and protests). Ultimately it resulted in the Paris agreement which was a step forward in addressing and dealing with the future of the Earth in relation to climate change. 

Why it was Different From Kyoto and Copenhagen: This Conference did not end in the same way that the Conference preceding it did for three main reasons. The first of the reasons being that the top down approach (taken at Copenhagen 2009) where the main focus was to break down climate change with a blanket amount that all countries would have to reduce their emissions by which was not plausible or possible was scrapped. Instead the bottom up approach was chosen which focuses on essentially piecing together what needs to be done in any way possible. Each country was able to determine what they could contribute to the fight in dealing with climate change with their indicated nationally determined contributions. The next reason the the outcome of Paris 2015 was different than the other Conferences is that more so now than ever before global leaders are seeing the very real impacts that climate change is having on their countries and people and they are realizing that for the sake of their country it is in their best interest to act now. Additionally, China and the United States really set the path and led by example through their goals to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.-China Agreement.

Paris Agreement:
SUCCESSES

The Paris Agreement was the first Universal agreement in the history of climate negotiation that is linked with goals & mechanisms to achieve them including mitigation, a transparency system and global stock-take, adaptation, loss and damage, and support. It declares an ambition to hold global average temperature rise to 1.5ºCelsius or 2.7º Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels while working to increase the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development. Additionally it directs finances towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development focuses on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) which are what each country believe that they stand to cut their emissions by.

“COP21 was a success, but that was the easy part”-Christina Figueres, Executive Secretary United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

DOWNFALLS

Many environmentalist and climate change advocates were unhappy with the agreement that was made. The Paris agreement was not a treaty, rather it is just an agreement. Only some aspects are legally binding including estimated reduction totals & review, the financial aid and actual reduction of emissions are not. Based on current projections the goals that were made do not come close to cutting emission levels enough to the “safe level”. The general complaint of the environmental activists is the pledges made by the parties taking part in this agreement is are considered weak and on the medium to low side of taking action. The goal countries agreed to in 2010 at the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico was to limit the temperature increase to 3.6ºF. The goals made at the 2015 Conference will cause the temperature to increase by 6ºF, which is off even from their goal to limit the temperature rise to 1.5ºC or 3.6ºF.

To the right is a graph provided by Climate Action Tracker that show what the outcomes of the goals in the Paris Agreement will look like in relation to if countries choose not to act at all and to what the goal reached at the 2010 Climate Change Conference were.

Implications of Paris Agreement: I did some math based on these projected outcomes, as we are used to hearing that safe 350ppm level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the yearly emission totals that I found were measured in gigatons. Based on information I obtained from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center I converted gigatons to a rough parts per million estimate. 

1 part/million= 7.81 gigaton

BUSINESS AS USUAL

140gig x 1ppm= +17.9ppm (per year)

 7.81gig

PLEDGES

 

85gig x 1ppm = +2.86ppm (per year)

      7.81gig

Using these conversions I took the relatively "safe" level of CO2 at 350 ppm, and found that the rough current concentration is 400 ppm. From there I figured out what the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will be in 2100 if we were to take no action, and if we were to follow through with the goals made at the UN Climate Change Conference by multiplying the estimated part per million emissions with 85 (the number of years until 2100) and added that to the estimated CO2 parts per million concentration of 2015. The results were scary.... Based on the effects of climate change that we are feeling at just 50 ppm over what is considered safe, I cannot begin to imagine the world we will live on (if we are able to) with 13-15x this amount.

-Safe level: 350 ppm

-2009 level: 390 ppm

-2016 level: 400 ppm
-2100 level: Without action: +750 ppm With action: +640 ppm

Conclusion: Just with these rough estimates of CO2 concentration, I personally don't feel as though the United Nations Climate Change Conference can be considered a success in addressing climate change. I do not feel as though enough was done to address the true reality of the problem that we are facing currently. I agree with many critics that while we did act, the act was weak and small in comparison of what is necessary, especially because it ended in an agreement rather than a legally binding treaty. While this Conference was more successful than those in the past (Copenhagen) I feel as though there is a lot more work to be done in regards to dealing with climate change. I do however feel as though it was a step in the right direction.

"The irony is, an agreement like [The Paris Agreement] adopted at the first climate conference in 1995 might have worked. Even then it wouldn’t have completely stopped global warming, but it would have given us a chance of meeting the 1.5 degree Celsius target that the world notionally agreed on.”

-Bill Mckibben, Author of Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough New Planet

If you want more information regarding the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, and thinks related, be sure to check out  these links. 

COP21 Paris--http://www.cop21paris.org

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change--http://unfccc.int/2860.php

UN and Climate Change--http://www.un.org/climatechange/

Climate Action Tracker--http://climateactiontracker.org

Sources:

Chappell, B. (2015, December 12). Nearly 200 Nations Adopt Climate Agreement At COP21 Talks In Paris. Retrieved January 24, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/12/459464621/final-draft-of-world-climate-agreement-goes-to-a-vote-in-paris-saturday

Climate Action. (2015). Find out more about COP21. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from http://www.cop21paris.org/about/cop21/

Edberg, S. (2015, December 09). COP21: Inaction or momentum for change? Retrieved January 22, 2016, from https://www.climateinteractive.org/blog/cop21-inaction-or-momentum-for-change/

McKibben, B. (2015, November 29). What the Paris conference on climate change can do for planet Earth. Retrieved January 24, 2015, from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-paris-un-climate-conference-20151129-story.html

Office of the Press Secretary. (2014, November 11). FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation. Retrieved January 22, 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/fact-sheet-us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c

U.S. Department of Energy. (2012, September 26). Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center - Conversion Tables. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2014). Introduction to the Convention. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/6036.php

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2014). Kyoto Protocol. Retrieved January 22, 2016, from http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2014). Essential Background. Retrieved January 24, 2016, from http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Newsroom. (2015, October 30). Global Response to Climate Change Keeps Door Open to 2 Degree C Temperature Limit [Press Release]. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/indc-synthesis-report-press-release/

United State Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. Retrieved January 24, 2016, from http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

Growth Isn't so Greaat: Eaarth Chapter 2

Change is a good thing, at least that is what we've been told.  What we've been told has made it easier to accept the uncertainty and question that accompany it. Change brings about new ways, and most importantly, change brings about growth. Because of this you'd probably agree that change is a good thing, right? I'd agree too, except when it's not it's not so much of a good thing anymore, when it's no longer accompanied by some fluff reminding you of the good that is to come because of it. And that uncomfortable, big scary change is the type that we are facing as we become more and more aware of the changes associated with our changing climate.

Change is what has brought growth. It is what has progressed us as a society, and for this reason we have welcomed change. Naturally we want to be bigger, we want to be better, we want more, and we've got it, quickly too. Take the Industrial Revolution. We grew and it was great. We've progressed despite natural disasters and economic downfalls. Despite facing some crappy situations, we've found a way to grow. This type of growth is great. It keeps on coming and there doesn't seem to be an end to it. It's exponential and explosive, or so we think. In chapter 2 of Bill Mckibben's Eaarth.

We've said that we can change our ways when the time comes that we need to. We will learn to adapt and just as necessary. We will figure things out. The scary thing is that time isn't tomorrow and it wasn't yesterday either, it was 50 years ago. As Mckibben says "The waves are already breaking over the levee; the methane is already seeping out of the permafrost; the oil wells are already coming up dry. It's going to be a little late." And he's right. Many people of the world aren't able to deal with the changes that global warming is bringing about now, they aren't ready to stop growing, to stop expanding.

The Eaarth is ready for us to stop growing. Now is it's turn for change. The future of it is that we are no longer going to be fighting to grow, rather we are going to be fighting to survive. Third and even first world countries are already experiencing this first hand. Climate change is causing droughts at this very moment. These droughts are causing food shortages and famine, and in turn political unrest and war (what else will they bring?). According to recent studies, the political conflict in Syria is due to this changing climate. 

The worrisome truth is that Syria is a single place. There are more places experiencing events relating to climate change, and as Mckibben points out, we not going to be able to continue to adapt. The troubles that we face as a result of climate change are only going to become more severe as time goes on. There will become a point when we will be unable to grow, there will become a point that we start to decline. My question is when will that decline be and what will it look like?

The Future of Eaarth as we know it: Eaarth Chapter 1

Climate change. It's daunting in a way. Most of us know that it is a problem, just not the scale of it. Most of us know that it's affecting us in one way or another,  just not exactly how it is. We learn that the polar  ice caps are melting and endangering the polar bears and that there is a hole in the ozone but that is mainly the extent of it. We remain aware but ignorant, with climate change tucked away in the back of our brains situated between long division and juggling. That's the problem. We are aware, but not aware enough.

I fall into the category of most. I knew that climate change was an issue,  just not how pertinent it is. I
knew that it was going to have an impact on the Earth, just not how immediate and grim it is. We are finding out more and more about how severe of a problem climate change brings us. We are also finding the error was believed to be true about climate change. We have been certain that climate change is a problem for a while. We are certain that it is affecting the planet that we live on. Following this certainty is uncertainty. For example, what we previously thought to be safe levels of carbon
dioxide in the air, are not in fact safe. And they're on the rise.
What is safe then? Have we already passed these limits? What is going to happen now as a result of this?

We have remained uncertain and unaware for far too long. As it turns out, climate change is something that not just our current generation should be worried about, it's something that both our parents and grandparents should have been worried about as well. It has been an ongoing problem and it is only going to continue to worsen.

In the first chapter of Eaarth, Bill Mckibben brings to light both the scale and severity of climate change on the Earth as we know it. Or according to Mckibben, the Earth as we used to know it. Mckibben claims that we have already altered Earth beyond repair and that there is no going back, only adapting and adjusting to this new planet that we live on. Mckibben paints an unsettling, unnerving future for not only Earth, but most of it's inhabitants as well--animals, plants, and humans alike. Life as we know it on this planet is changing and will continue to whether we are ready for it to or not.

And we are most certainly not. Most of us are okay remaining ignorant and in the happy routine of our lives. We need to wake up. We need to become completely aware of what is going on around us, and the effect that we have on it. Earth has already changed, and it is going to continue to. That is exactly what Bill Mckibben is doing through the first chapter of Eaarth. Through all of the crazy statistics and future scenario's he's preparing us for what has already been happening. He's making us aware.

An Introduction

Hi eyeryone, I'm Lauren Koch. I'm from a small town 30 minutes North of Kalamazoo called Plainwell. It's surrounded by cornfields and a whole lot of boring. I am currently a freshman at Western Michigan University majoring in Pre-Occupational Therapy with a minor in Psychology. I'm hoping to be admitted into WMU's 4+1 comprehensive Master's program for Occupational Therapy. 

I chose a path in Occupational Therapy because I want to help the people, especially those who are unable to help themselves or may not have the means to do so. OT allows me to do this while also allowing me to be creative and solve problems. So far, I have loved the experiences that I've had in OT and I am so excited to start diving deeper into my program and to see all that I can do with it and where it will take me.

Sentinal Dome--Yosemite National Park 8/25/15

My favorite types of music include  indie and folk music. My favorite T.V. shows are Parks and Recreation and Saturday Night Live. I have a weird liking of both cats and small goats despite the fact that I am allergic to both. I love spending time in the outdoors enjoying nature, especially up in Northern Michigan and visiting the National Parks. This past summer I spent time at Yosemite National Park, and it is by far my favorite park that I've had the chance to visit. It was so relaxing, refreshing, and breathtaking. Pictures don't do it justice.

I also love hiking, kayaking, hammocking, napping,  and rock climbing, although not necessarily in that order. When I get the chance, I also like to re-live my glory days doing gymnastics and pole vaulting. During the summer, I spend my time working at The Kalamazoo Nature Center Camp as a Senior Educator (basically a glorified camp counselor who is payed in glitter and pinecones). I get to spend the majority of my time outside connecting with my inner first grader. It is great, except when you're dodging hornet swarms or trying to hike more than a mile with 6 year olds.

I'm looking to forward to learning about the impacts and effects that we as humans have had on nature and possible what steps we can take in order to help preserve what is left of this Earth.