David Keith : A surprising idea for "solving" climate change
Last winter vacation, I researched about climate change and environmental engineering by collecting information from diverse articles, books, and journals. Once, I was researching about global warming and found an article introducing a novel idea of emitting sulfate molecules above the ozone layer to lower the temperature. The idea was inspired by the cooling effect after a volcano eruption, according to the article. The method was not so demanding or costing, but many people worried about its environmental impact. Actually, most ordinary people feel uncomfortable with artificial control of environment, such as geo-engineering, due to unknown risks; even I was opposed to the geo-engineering for the same reason. However, as David Keith claimed in the lecture, geo-engineering is not only expected to be an ultimate choice for environment, but a serious issue demanding profound discussion by entire population.
Before we conclude whether geo-engineering is good or bad, we have to understand the characteristics of the environmental issue. Environmental problem has two ambivalent factors; one is about time, and the other is durability. First, environmental problem has a tight time limit. Although scientists can invent better ways to save the environment in the future, the nature never waits for humans: We cannot freeze the melted icebergs at the poles after they melt away. The more important thing than investigating to reach an absolute solution is acting the ideas into practice to alleviate the matter. On the other hand, we have to judge whether one possible solution is innocuous or not. Historically, the catastrophic destruction of ecosystem due to DDT shows that prudency in releasing new invention cannot be overemphasized. Every technology in engineering has possibility of unknown danger. To preclude any possible disaster, the geo-engineers should always be careful with new findings. To summarize, geo-engineers should be not only logical but also be pragmatic, balancing the two factors.
Unfortunately, this “balance” is too hard to define objectively. As David Keith mentioned in the lecture, the environmental issue had been discussed for a long time, but the problem has not been ameliorated, but had only got worsened. It was very shocking that the environmental problems had been discussed for about 50 years, yet the contents of the discussion are almost the same with contemporary articles and papers. It seems that politicians and scientists have cared too much of "expected" side effects that they have overlooked the first factor, the time management.
The lecturer suggested us a very tempting and expedient solution to ameliorate the global warming in a short period. He did not thoroughly explain how his idea works, but he assaulted that his idea will surely work out very effectively. Still, many apprehensive people did not accept this solution saying that sulfate molecules will give a negative impact on the atmosphere in some way. Yet, I think judging whether this solution is harmless or risky is only a peripheral approach that does not make any progress. It is true that this tangible solution seems risky, but we should do something before it is too late. It is true that David Keith's idea is not the best idea, but putting the ideas into practice will engender the time to develop incomplete ideas into more exhaustive and concrete. If we have a time to study more about climate change, we have chance to find better solutions, at least; if we do not have time, all the creatures will be threatened.
Before we put the geo-engineering into practice, we have another obstacle to overcome: It is moral hazard. People tend to have blind faith in the technologies to become more careless about environment. In order not to cancel out the effect of geo-engineering, I believe that policies and treaties should go along with the geo-engineering, scrupulously controlling the moral hazard. Even after the effect of geo-engineering becomes apparent, the effort to save the earth, such as recycling and developing alternative energy, should not be stopped.
This TED video confirmed my idea of environmental science: Environmental science is complex not only because the mechanism of the nature is esoteric but also because it is more universal field than a branch of science. Since, environment is relevant to all the creatures on earth, environment issue is a jumble thousands of small interlocked wheels. It seems that explaining all the phenomena in a lucid way is impossible, but at least, one thing is very clear; before put something in action, we cannot preclude environmental disasters in the future.
Wow! This might be the best one I've read. The SAT words make you sound like a professor. That's not the point of this exercise, but you acutally used these words effectively and it doesn't feel forced or weird. I like the argumentative tone you have here, and the overall structure and layout of the post is really well done.
답글삭제One thing I like to remind students of when they talk about "what I want to be when I grow up." We have to consider the big question: where are the jobs going to be? Environmental issues are only going to get bigger, as is our need for alternative sources of energy. That's where the jobs are going to be.
Excellent post.