Class Questions for Readings, September 23rd

1.The author of this article questions whether a world that is straining to support its current 6 billion inhabitants will be able to support the 10 to 11 billion people that the United Nations projects the population will grow to in the next hundred years.  What kinds of changes would we need to make now to help the Earth accommodate 5 billion more people?

2.  The author references Charles C. Mann, who quoted experts who believe that in the future a “gigantic, multi-year, multi-billion dollar scientific effort, a kind of agricultural ‘person-on-the-moon project,’” may help agricultural production return to the rapid rates of growth of the 1980s. Do you think this kind of project is possible, or have we exhausted all possible technological solutions to the issue?  Is the slowing of agricultural production an irreversible trend?

3. In his article, McKibben says that we are a quarter of the way into the greenhouse era, and the effects are already being felt.  His ominous warnings of the immediate dangers of global warming, such as “Global warming will be like a much  more powerful version of El Nino that covers the entire globe and lasts forever” should strike fear in the public.  Why is it, then, that global warming and its effects seem distant to most people.  How long do you think it will take for people to feel the urgency and proximity of the problem?  When (if at all) will people be willing to change their lifestyles in hopes of slowing/stopping global warming?

4. McKibben says that changes need to be made in the next two or three decades to save the planet.  He also says that the problems of a growing population, depletion of natural resources, and increasing output of fossil fuels and other pollutants all need to be addressed (and in dramatic ways).  McKibben doubts that we will be able to live simply or efficiently enough soon enough to solve the problem.  He doubts the dramatic changes that are needed will come about soon enough.  Do you agree or disagree?

1. Sachs seems to suggest that humans, when faced with a shortage of a fossil fuel, find a solution to the problem. Do you think that what is being done now, such as new automobile technology, is enough to solve our current problems?
2. Paul Crutzen proposed the idea of the modern era as the Anthropocene. (Human- dominated earth) Do you think this applies to all societies? How is this becoming the case in Africa?
3. Do you think educating the public on fossil fuels and the chemical issues they can cause will help raise awareness and help further the environmental movement?
4.  Is chapter three more pessimistic than the previous chapters? If so, does it make you think about what you do in your life that may be detrimental to the environment?
5.  Would placing sanctions on countries for over use of fossil fuels, etc. (including the United States) be out of the question? (Re: section on China)

1. On page 93 Sachs points out that if the world were to continue at its current rate of carbon emissions, within 90 years carbon concentration would double to 560 ppm, generally accepted as the outer limit of risk for society.  He then notes that this is if we continue what we are doing, however that developing nations will have a larger effect that will raise this number significantly if their carbon emissions aren't checked.  Do you think the carbon emissions of these nations can be controlled?

2. Sachs talks of seven areas that will be impacted greatly by climate change (rising ocean levels, habitat destruction, increased disease transmission, changes in agricultural productivity, changes in water availability, increased natural hazards, and changes in ocean chemistry).  Which do you think will impact human kind the most? 

3. Sachs mentions that global warming caused by greenhouse gases will, in the end, have disastrous results, yet he mentions that there will be short-term positive feedback (such as leading to possible agricultural growth in places that it was previously too cold... etc.).  How will these positive feedbacks affect public policy?

4. "... the disparity of treatment between Annex I parties (developed countries) and Developing Countries and the level of required emission reductions, could result in serious harm to the United States economy."- the US Senate's refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol because of a disparity of expectations between developed and developing nations to lower carbon emissions by merely 5 percent.  What will have to happen in order to make a country like the United States start to think globally?   What is your reaction to this governmental decision (the only UN member not to sign the Kyoto Protocol)?