Taking a closer look at the full costs of energy acquisition and dissipation
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Melting Glaciers and Freshwater Supply
Yesterday, David asked an excellent question about melting glaciers and ice caps and the loss of freshwater. I didn't answer the question very well, but here is a more sufficient reply.
2 comments:
Alex Caritis
said...
This article speaks to the idea of the "poorest of the poor." For many people living in the United States, the idea that a melting glacier would endanger someone's life would seem nonsensical. In the US, many are very hesitant to act. It is not affecting them, so why change behavior? Why bear any of the costs? Climate change may not be directly affecting EVERY individual in the world now, but it is dramatically changing some people's, usually the poorest people in the world, lives. Climate change is becoming an issue of social justice. We need to appreciate that climate change IS changing people's lives and we need to act for the individuals that need our help the most.
It is mindboggling that some people still question the validity of climate change. It is very apparent from this article that global temperatures have increased as Indian Kashmir’s glaciers are rapidly melting. There is no doubt that with increased temperatures poor countries will be left in shambles to deal with the problem. Poorer countries do not have the capability to deal with environmental problems like the United States, thus the United States should take it upon them to help the disadvantaged. Why you make ask? Because whether we want to believe it or not global warming is going to affect Americans eventually. It may not be threatening our lives directly right now, but one day it might. Also the United States is not an innocent player and has done a significant amount to advance global warming with their carbon footprint. I think as a matter or morals, the United States and other developed countries should help the poorer countries. The poorer countries do not deserve to bear all the repercussions of environmental change, especially if they are insignificant players in causing this change.
2 comments:
This article speaks to the idea of the "poorest of the poor." For many people living in the United States, the idea that a melting glacier would endanger someone's life would seem nonsensical. In the US, many are very hesitant to act. It is not affecting them, so why change behavior? Why bear any of the costs? Climate change may not be directly affecting EVERY individual in the world now, but it is dramatically changing some people's, usually the poorest people in the world, lives. Climate change is becoming an issue of social justice. We need to appreciate that climate change IS changing people's lives and we need to act for the individuals that need our help the most.
It is mindboggling that some people still question the validity of climate change. It is very apparent from this article that global temperatures have increased as Indian Kashmir’s glaciers are rapidly melting. There is no doubt that with increased temperatures poor countries will be left in shambles to deal with the problem. Poorer countries do not have the capability to deal with environmental problems like the United States, thus the United States should take it upon them to help the disadvantaged. Why you make ask? Because whether we want to believe it or not global warming is going to affect Americans eventually. It may not be threatening our lives directly right now, but one day it might. Also the United States is not an innocent player and has done a significant amount to advance global warming with their carbon footprint. I think as a matter or morals, the United States and other developed countries should help the poorer countries. The poorer countries do not deserve to bear all the repercussions of environmental change, especially if they are insignificant players in causing this change.
Post a Comment