Throughout the world, we are currently going through climate changes that dramatically change the world. We have reports that the polar circles have been affected like no time before. While they are melting countries in the Middle East have experienced extremely high temperatures. So high that people in countries like Kuwait will soon have to move. Finding a solution to this problem is difficult, however, there are several options.
We often speak of cutting CO2 emissions which is a very long process and might lead to these high temperatures in countries like Kuwait. David Keith, an environmental scientist, has suggested that we use Geoengineering. A quick fix that could simply extend our time for a short period or so. Questions of whether there are major side effects or not are often asked, but we have no sure answer to what the side effects really are yet. The solution seems like a good bet, but many think the result will be ignorance towards the real and long-time issues that we are facing, reducing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. On the other hand, Geoengineering is a cheap solution, costing only a few percent of GDP, which seems appealing.
To use Geoengineering correctly, we should consider adding laws that stop other countries from abusing this environmental force that could be very helpful, yet dangerous. The option should be spoken about publicly, but as stated previously the option might lead to a new look on the issues and might distract people from believing that it's a real threat.
Depending on which candidate (Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton) gets elected, we will see outcomes that might prevent or ensure an environmentally healthy future for the world. Their looks on the general part of politics are not that different, however, their view upon the environmental issues. Trump believes that the climate changes are inexistent and that they mean no real threat to society or this world. Meaning that if Trump is elected Geoengineering and other solutions to this very real issue might not ever be set in motion. Clinton, on the other hand, is seemingly interested in the issues and believes a solution is needed, immediately. Therefore, electing Hillary would be the option that is the most sensible option for the environment.
Norway uses 26 494 kWh per citizen, which is extreme. Although we use an incredible amount of electricity, but 99% of all energy in Norway comes from water energy. The high waterfalls in Norway give excellent opportunities for producing energy and it is very environmentally friendly. Our largest export is oil, in the northern seas, there has been many oil findings, which has brought Norway out of poverty and making it one of the richest countries in the world. The repercussions of this is increasing oil to the word trade, and having a huge impact on CO2 releases around the entire globe.
Taking a step back and looking at the big picture most people would say that trying our best to sustain against the environmental troubles that are to come and we are facing. With political help, the case would be much easier to solve, but a lot is depending on which candidate is elected. Solutions are able to be made. A quick fix like Geoengineering could be set in motion while we slowly, but surely cut our emissions of CO2 it's likely we might survive. While that might be a solution we might end up going for a whole other route. Trump gets elected and decides for the world that we are supposed to sit back and hope for the best and it could work, but all research points towards choosing that solution we will simply end up in a horrific way. Norway is a great example for a country that is getting better with their main electricity coming from water energy, but with their largest export being oil for world trade. Simple adjustments could be made (contracts that ensure that the oil isn't used for something is harmful to the environment or the sale of oil is limited to specific amounts per month, week or year) that could make Norway's energy fully renewable.