Rachel NHS Global Warming Documentary

The most interesting things I’ve learned don’t really pertain to my topic. My topic is “What is it?” However the thing that I think is most interesting is about morality. 

The morality issue come up like this. Countries that will be most affected by global warming are mostly those countries on the equator. A lot of these countries are under-developed nations who are least responsible for the effects of global warming. I had never thought about this until I read this article. I mentioned this article in my second summary and response but I think it’s important enough to be reiterated. How unmorale is it that they are taking the heat for the rest of the world’s overdevelopment?

My topic for our documentary is “what is it?”.

Global Warming The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ideas. 2004.

This article mentions that global warming could be human fault or it could be a natural occurrence. Believers in global warming this backing them up:

•     The most recent warming has been since the Industrial Revolution which would put humans at fault. “Longer records of carbon dioxide levels, obtained from bubbles of air trapped in Antarctic ice, extend back hundreds of thousands of years and show that carbon dioxide levels are about 31% higher than before the Industrial Revolution-higher than they have been for the past 420,000 years “(The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ideas)

Non believer have this backing them up:

• “The present episode of global warming has thus far still left England approximately 1°C/1.8°F cooler than during the peak of the so-called Medieval Warm Period from 1000 to 1400. The latter was part of a purely natural climatic fluctuation on a global scale” (The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ideas). Perhaps we are just worrying for nothing.

This was a good article because it wasn’t biased. A lot of articles written about global warming have really extreme views. Many articles are written by full-out blind believers or cynical non-believers. Sometimes its good to read something that doesn’t play favoritism. This article is fair because it shows both sides of the story. It shows the “humans are to blame” side, and the “natural warming periods” side.

My Second Article EARTH ‘88: CHANGING GEOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVES 1988, pp. 272-274

This article talks about the causes of global warming. Burning fossil fuels is most prominent when people think of greenhouse gases. These green house gases traps the heat in the Earth’s atmosphere and causing warming. Carbon dioxide (C02), the most well known greenhouse gas, has already seen inclines up to 348 parts per million. Changes from global warming could be dramatic, ranging from record heat waves to high sea levels.

I think scientists are on the right track with their beliefs about global warming and greenhouse gases. While it’s possible for global warming to be a myth, I think it’s important to look into it and take it as a serious threat. This might not be a immediate threat but it’s something we’re going to have to address.

The Effects of Climate Change Climate Change, Coming Home. WORLD WATCH
May/June 2007, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 8-13.

This article talks about how climate change might be beneficial to North Americans and Europeans but really harmful to be people in other parts of the world.  For us, climate change could mean warmer winters. A definite plus for people who resent the cold. But for other parts of the world this could mean a spread of disease, heat waves, and floods. Most people affected by this change are some of the world’s poorest nations. So as the article says, “The people most vulnerable to the effects of climate change are precisely those who are least responsible for causing it–and those who have the least resources with which to adapt to it.”

This article brought an important idea to mind. I’ve never thought about how people who are suffering most from climate change had little to do with it. I think we should first help the people being most affected by climate change and then take care of the preventative aspect of climate change. I think the earth is important, but people should come first.

Polar Bears Move Towards The Endangered Species List Global Warming, Hunters Make Polar Bears a Must Addition to Endangered Species List. MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
Feb. 14, 2008, n.p.

As climate change takes it’s toll, summer ice from the Artic is melting. This leaves polar bears stranded. A proposal for making polar bears an endangered species is under way. People against the proposition say that putting the animals on the list will not change how they got there. Climate change will still take it’s toll whether or not the polar bears make the list. Having polar bears on the Endangered Species List also concerns people in the shipping and mining industries. Should they make the list, more restrictions would be placed on these industries.

I agree that putting polar bears on the Endangered List is not going to help them get any more land. Besides putting the polar bears in zoos, I can’t think of anything else we can do for them.

1. Taking a Practical Approach to ‘Green’ Living, Morning Edition, May 4 2007.

This first piece is an interview with Steven Howard, a consultant for Climate Group, a British company that teaches how to reduce carbon emissions. In Britain, many retailers have started making their products more environmentally friendly. One example is stamps on some products that say, “Carbon neutral.” This means that to offset the carbon emissions put out by making and transporting a product, the company invests in a something that reduces carbon emissions. This article highlights that ‘green’ lifestyles are in the hands of retailers. The more retailers get involved, the more convenient it will be for consumers to live a ‘greener.’

I liked this piece a lot because it brought up a variety of ways that retailers can make a ‘green’ lifestyle more convenient. A new concept called, ‘food miles’ talks about how an average plate of food travels almost 1200 miles to get to you. This is something I’ve never even thought about. If retailers choose more locally grown products carbon emissions would be greatly reduced. More environmentally conscious retailers will make consumers more apt to buy ‘greener’ products.

2. North Carolina Family Takes Carbon Challenge, All Things Considered, May 4 2007

The Sheppards, a North Carolina family, took the challenge to reduce their carbon footprint. They did a variety of small things to help reduce their carbon output, such as hanging laundry out to dry and using a low-flow shower head. They had Doug Crawford-Brown from The Institute for the Environment at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill evaluate their carbon footprint. One of the most beneficial things that the Sheppards had were trees. The shade provided by the trees helps reduce the house’s cooling cost. After all the totals were completed the Shannons are said to put out 14 tons of c02 per year. That may seem like a lot but that’s 40% less then average North Carolinians.  This shows that every little action helps.

The best part about this article is that it’s all easy things anyone could do. Everyone could switch to low-flow shower heads, it’s an easy change. I was really surprised that by making simple change the Sheppards had 40% smaller carbon footprint. If everyone would make small changes to their daily lives we could greatly reduce our impact on global warming.

1. I’m glad we picked global warming as a topic.  It’s fits the criteria really well and it’s something everyone could take interest in.

2. Yesterday I learned that Galileo invented the thermometer in 1602 and that there are always gonna be skeptics.  

3. The only problem I can think we would have would be conflicting ideas about the documentary. Some people might be dieing to include something while others might want to leave it out.

For my two articles I decided to pick people with contrasting viewpoints.

1. Doesn’t believe in global warming

This article shows some disbelief on a popular excepted belief about the Earth’s rising temperatures. Many scientists believe that the Earth’s temperature increase is human’s fault and support their ideas with temperatures from far back in history. However, this article bring up an important point. First, most temperatures from way back in the day are predictions. Galileo didn’t invent the thermometer until1602. While it is possible to get a ballpark temperature from plants or glaciers, these are estimations, not definite numbers.

I thought that this article was imporatnt because it brought some interesting facts to the table. For example, I had no idea that the thermometer wasn’t invented till 1602. That’s an indisputable fact. However, I don’t think this article gives enough credit to scientists who examine nature to determine past temperatures.

2. Believes in Global Warming

This article supports ideas about global warming. Th two accredited researchers believe that global warming is a product of humans and that temperatures will increase within the next 100 years. They site that a temperature increase could melt the glaciers causing higher sea levels and a higher temperature could result in more extreme weather changes ( more flooding and drought).

I thought this article was important because it sounded very reliable. It’s not from an extremist point of view and it backs up it’s ideas with scientific fact that leaves room for error. This article also compares temperatures from the past 100 years. This means that these temperatures are documented and reliable sources. The only disputable figures are those that are predictions from computer models.