When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established in the 1990s, negotiators focused on greenhouse gas emissions, or GHGs. They discussed mitigation actions; ways to reduce GHGs. The landmark Kyoto Protocol of 1997 (at COP 3) emphasized mitigation, with commitments from developed countries to reduce their production of and reliance on fossil fuels. The 2015 Paris Agreement set the goal of a global temperature rise of no more than 1.5 degrees centigrade by 2050. This goal would be achieved only if developed countries - the major GHG emitters - transitioned significantly to renewable energy sources. This has not happened. Countries are expanding their use of renewables but not fast enough th meet the 1.5 degree goal. Consequently, negotiators now devote considerable time to discussing adaptation - how to deal with a warming world and its consequencxes, such as wildfires, drought, intense hurricanes and typhoons... These articles relate to the imp...
The Climate Impact Lab: https://impactlab.org/
ReplyDeleteThe Climate Impact Lab is a collaboration between groups from UC Berkeley, Rutgers University, Chicago University, and the Rhodium Group. This organization aims to highlight and research the global and national, in the United States, impact of the Climate Crisis, focusing on unique sector and community impacts. Its most notable reports are on the Social Cost of Carbon which aims to measure the social and economic impact of each ton of carbon released into the atmosphere, as a way to improve discussions in cost benefit analysis. I would reason that the Climate Impact Lab is relatively credible as its many members are professors in relevant fields; energy and environment policy, data visualization, etc; from accredited universities, while also publishing in respected peer-reviewed journals. I would say that this source is valuable in how it argues climate change policies as its data visualization in compelling, specifically in its Impact Map, in how it demonstrates the current and future impacts of the climate crisis. I would definitely recommend this as a good starting point for a more analytical and data focused arguments for climate policies.
The main point of credibility for me is the amount and quality of the Climate Analytics publications. I read through the carbon capture paper by Claire Fyson, Dr Neil Grant, and others and the machine learning publication by Anne Sietsma, Emily Theokritoff, and others. These papers were both well written and drove their points across with credible sources and an appropriate air of authority. The organization themselves shares the same air of credibility and authority with its well made website and constant actions made toward a "climate-safe, sustainable and just future for all." Both the mentioned papers were good reads and I learned a bit from both papers especially the carbon capture paper as it talks about topics I would not normally read about but was pretty interesting.
ReplyDeleteI also do appreciate the fact that Climate Analytics present solutions to climate change and don't just tell of the effects. I would share this site to those I know are, at the very least, interested in the proposed means to combat climate change and how many different angles/fields are involved.
The site has 130 experts and produces research and news which is pretty valuable. I looked at the paper on how fossil fuels can be replaced by renewable energy in the Philippines as it is a rapidly expanding country. The paper goes in depth how the Philippines has enough renewable resources to replace all fossil fuels completely and it will benefit the economy as well. The site looks fairly credible based on the people part of the team as well as their accomplishments. The have also produced several peer reviewed papers which shows that their research and subsequent findings is credible as well. The site uses research and data to back up its climate arguments which is very helpful. I would highly recommend this site to people I know because it covers current news as well as important decisions about the climate.
ReplyDeleteAfter exploring the climate analytics website, I appreciated the variety it covered. It didn't just cover the damage climate change has caused but also possible solutions and what is currently being done to change the current timeline the world is seeing due to the climate crisis. Before reading and exploring this website, I was not informed on the financial aspect of the climate crisis; after reading the summary of the climate analytics, I found it very intriguing that teams such as this one make it so that developing countries can take into account the evident state of climate change. After reading this, I thought I would do some research of my own, specifically into the financial aspect of climate change, which caused me to fall upon the article "Climate Adaptation, Resilience, and Financial Inclusion: A New Agenda" by Peter Zetterli. Through this article, I learned just how essential financial accessibility is to climate change to prepare for the devastating effects it can have, as Zetterli describes it, the "cornerstone of climate action." I also learned through financial inclusion that low-income communities often experience the most severe effects and are also the ones contributing to it the least. This article is reliable and of great value as the organization revolves around advancing people living in poverty through financial inclusion. I recommend this to anyone interested in reading the importance of financial inclusion within the climate crisis. https://www.cgap.org/research/publication/climate-adaptation-resilience-and-financial-inclusion-new-agenda
ReplyDeleteI liked reading your post, we went over a lot of the same points. I liked how you pointed out about the financial aspect of climate change. I think it is an important part of what comes with the issue that doesn't get brought up. The issue should be addressed when talking about climate change. Certain nations will be affected significantly more than others and have altercating factors that will create snowballs affects.
DeleteI believe it is valuable to have a central resource that covers the global scope of the work done to protect our climate. Having resources from around the world can help demonstrate what is effective versus ineffective in different locations globally. Further, the publications highlighting issues and how they are or may be address look to be credible, such as the Extreme Atlantic hurricane seasons made twice as likely by ocean warming publication.
ReplyDeleteTThe climate analytics page is helpful and informative. Their goal of keeping the 1.5c climate change is very clear and straightforward which makes it very digestible for readers. They are a very to-the-point organization it seems mostly just talking about main points with little word fluff, I enjoy this about them. This organization seems to have credibility as it is a major climate change organization with ties to many countries and other organizations and that employs many climate scientists and experts. They have lots of innovative projects to combat climate change like their work in the Caribbean. This seems like a good and credible resource that can be used for climate research.
ReplyDeleteUsing the Climate Analytics site, the first thing I read up on was the 1.5 degree celsius limit. Essentially, this is the magic number for the future of society. If we go passed this figure, it's clear that every year we push passed this, more permanent damage will be caused to the environment and the planet. The data from this site shows that in 2020, the average temperature on earth went up 1.2 degrees celsius, keeping us within this limit. But it also shows how close we are to causing irreversible damage due to climate change. The scary part of this article was the math predicting that by 2035, we are slated to push past this 1.5 degree celsius limit. We need to severely reduce carbon emmisions and eventually get them to zero if we want to see any progress by 2050. I think there is a lot of value in this article. I think too many people don't consider climate change to be a big enough issue. I think there is a common misconception that climate change wont cause any detrimental damage within our lifetime. In other words, any climate change is too far in the future for people to care. However, seeing a date as early as 2035 is very moving. We have 11 years to truly make a difference before these negative changes may become permanent. Hopefully enough people understand this and vow to become part of the cause to eliminate global warming.
ReplyDelete