Assignment #4, the state of our planet.
I must say that this assignment was the most difficult one so far. The specified words were all pointing in the same direction; we are in a way told from the start what we should think of the “problem” at hand. That we are heading towards a catastrophe that will completely wreck our home and if we are not intimidated, we are anticipating hazardous earthquakes that will wipe out all life as we know it! The specified word usage is thereby complete!
It’s therefore hard to approach the task from the angle I want. Don’t get me wrong, the environmental issue is a real problem that we must be aware of. However, almost all media, including newspapers and television show the same side of the problem, that we are going to ruin our planet. My idea is that we should be more open minded, that we have to think and don’t let us be lead into the prophesy about a catastrophic future.
Most people seem to agree that our current climate should be considered normal. That’s strange, because the fact is that we have had ice ages; we have had a tropical environment and we have the climate of today. We clearly see that the climate have changed many times in the past. We don’t know what the change of temperature would be today if we had let the hydrocarbons stay buried below ground. Maybe we still would be heading towards a warmer climate. By using just a bit of logic, it seems plausible.
The only downside with this approach is that the climate changes way to fast. Many species won’t have the time they need to adapt to the changes. When species give up the ghost, there is noting there to replace them. But again, this could be the natural selection of Darwinism. If we look back in history, this might have happened before. 65 million years ago, almost every land living creature died. We don’t know why, but something radically changed, maybe it was the climate, maybe it was something else. The point is that some animals survived and developed into the species we have today. Mammals, birds and other animals became the rulers of earth, as the reptiles once were. We shouldn’t have existed today if it wasn’t for the catastrophe 65 million years ago. It’s all a part of natural selection and we can’t change that.
Another positive view of the CO2 problem is that if earth is considered to be a closed system when it comes to carbon. All carbon stored as coal and oil below the surface of our planet was once a part of the atmosphere. When we drive cars and release CO2, we’re only trying to repair the damage earth have done to itself during billions of years. The “damage” we do is only restoration.
Disregarding which positive view you choose, we should not anticipate the worst, we are not sure that we are going towards a terrible future. We should think of it as different.
All of the above could be true, but should we take that chance? What if we’re wrong, is it worth it?
I think we should take action, not because what we do is wrong, but because we don’t know. We don’t know if our behaviour is dreadful, but it’s not worth the risk, therefore we have to act. Only one problem though, I don’t know how. It’s easy for us to dismiss the damage we as single human beings are doing. China is racing towards the high living standard that the western countries have enjoyed for fifty years. In Beijing the air is so hazardous to breathe, that it’s comparable to smoking a pack of fags every day. As long as they pollute the air, I can do it as well, it won’t make a difference. Many people like to think that their part in the environmental damage is insignificant and I don’t see how we could change it.
I don’t believe that people could be intimidated to stop using their cars even if mother earth tremble and wreck buildings or drown entire cities in anger. Most people won’t even notice. The only way to change people is by their hunger for money. As it is now, it’s actually more expensive to take the bus, subway etc. then using a gas powered vehicle. And as long as it stays that way, only the hardcore environmental freaks will make an effort to save our planet. Construction of a cheap alternative to gas powered cars is essential if people are going to care. It doesn’t matter if it’s powered by alcohol, hydrogen, electricity or something more futuristic. People will use it if it’s cheaper and/or more convenient. Sadly, there is still no alternative to gasoline that complies with both of the points today. Something for the chemical engineers of the future to solve, a heavy burden has now been placed on my shoulders.
I must say that this assignment was the most difficult one so far. The specified words were all pointing in the same direction; we are in a way told from the start what we should think of the “problem” at hand. That we are heading towards a catastrophe that will completely wreck our home and if we are not intimidated, we are anticipating hazardous earthquakes that will wipe out all life as we know it! The specified word usage is thereby complete!
It’s therefore hard to approach the task from the angle I want. Don’t get me wrong, the environmental issue is a real problem that we must be aware of. However, almost all media, including newspapers and television show the same side of the problem, that we are going to ruin our planet. My idea is that we should be more open minded, that we have to think and don’t let us be lead into the prophesy about a catastrophic future.
Most people seem to agree that our current climate should be considered normal. That’s strange, because the fact is that we have had ice ages; we have had a tropical environment and we have the climate of today. We clearly see that the climate have changed many times in the past. We don’t know what the change of temperature would be today if we had let the hydrocarbons stay buried below ground. Maybe we still would be heading towards a warmer climate. By using just a bit of logic, it seems plausible.
The only downside with this approach is that the climate changes way to fast. Many species won’t have the time they need to adapt to the changes. When species give up the ghost, there is noting there to replace them. But again, this could be the natural selection of Darwinism. If we look back in history, this might have happened before. 65 million years ago, almost every land living creature died. We don’t know why, but something radically changed, maybe it was the climate, maybe it was something else. The point is that some animals survived and developed into the species we have today. Mammals, birds and other animals became the rulers of earth, as the reptiles once were. We shouldn’t have existed today if it wasn’t for the catastrophe 65 million years ago. It’s all a part of natural selection and we can’t change that.
Another positive view of the CO2 problem is that if earth is considered to be a closed system when it comes to carbon. All carbon stored as coal and oil below the surface of our planet was once a part of the atmosphere. When we drive cars and release CO2, we’re only trying to repair the damage earth have done to itself during billions of years. The “damage” we do is only restoration.
Disregarding which positive view you choose, we should not anticipate the worst, we are not sure that we are going towards a terrible future. We should think of it as different.
All of the above could be true, but should we take that chance? What if we’re wrong, is it worth it?
I think we should take action, not because what we do is wrong, but because we don’t know. We don’t know if our behaviour is dreadful, but it’s not worth the risk, therefore we have to act. Only one problem though, I don’t know how. It’s easy for us to dismiss the damage we as single human beings are doing. China is racing towards the high living standard that the western countries have enjoyed for fifty years. In Beijing the air is so hazardous to breathe, that it’s comparable to smoking a pack of fags every day. As long as they pollute the air, I can do it as well, it won’t make a difference. Many people like to think that their part in the environmental damage is insignificant and I don’t see how we could change it.
I don’t believe that people could be intimidated to stop using their cars even if mother earth tremble and wreck buildings or drown entire cities in anger. Most people won’t even notice. The only way to change people is by their hunger for money. As it is now, it’s actually more expensive to take the bus, subway etc. then using a gas powered vehicle. And as long as it stays that way, only the hardcore environmental freaks will make an effort to save our planet. Construction of a cheap alternative to gas powered cars is essential if people are going to care. It doesn’t matter if it’s powered by alcohol, hydrogen, electricity or something more futuristic. People will use it if it’s cheaper and/or more convenient. Sadly, there is still no alternative to gasoline that complies with both of the points today. Something for the chemical engineers of the future to solve, a heavy burden has now been placed on my shoulders.
posted by Marcus blog at 2:11 PM
1 Comments:
Marcus,
Point taken. I didn't realize that the words I chose for the assignment all point in one direction; they all express the opinion that the world is actually going down the drain. Thanks for pointing it out. But, personally, I do believe we are heading for darker times. Much darker.
We need to do something about our way of living. Not necessarily because of global warming. Like you say, there have been natural fluctuations in the past. But instead because we are rapidly changing and erasing very important ecosystems, thus giving an impoverished Earth to our children. Tropical rainforests are devestated, rivers are so heavily used for irrigation that they no longer reach the ocean, the fish in the ocean is closing in on extinction. etc. These problems have nothing to do with global warming as such!
Regarding your text: I was somewhat confused regarding the focus of the text. On the one hand you express the many positive things connected to CO2 emissions, but on the other hand you do thinkg we should take some sort of action to change our way of living.
Anyway, thanks for a provocative and interesting text!
Regards,
Andreas
Post a Comment
<< Home