fredag 19. august 2016

Climate issues and how we are able to solve them (or at least try to)

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.


7 kommentarer:

  1. Good article! I like the paragraph about Norwegian electricity usage, and how you use real facts about the situation is there.
    Remember have/has, other than that your text is great, and your ending sums up the article nicely.

  2. Hello, Leon. I am Jessie Zheng from Australia and my home town is China. It is interesting to read your blog. We have to protect out environment from now on. Actually, I had been to Norway before, the beautiful landscapes attracted me. But I know that Norway still has some trouble, such as water energy, electricity, and some power energy. Because China is a developed country, it has lots of environmental problems. For example, pollution and smog. To reduce pollution, the government has regulations for factories.
    I hope in the future; we can talk more. And also, please read my blog and leave your comment.

    1. Hello, Jessie! I l really appreciate that you took time to read my post and leave a comment. Seeing your point of view really makes me think and is very helpful. Hopefully we will talk more :)

  3. Well written article with many facts. I like how you mention how Norway can do better too. It is interesting to read the comment from Jessie who lives in Australia, but who is Chinese. We read a lot about the problems with smog and pollution in China here in Norway.

  4. This is a topic you clearly know a lot about and that is shown very well in your article. I liked your vocabulary as well. it fits the context

  5. Hello from the University of Oslo (where your teacher does a lecture right now and she asked us to take a look at her blog). It makes me happy to see that this important issue is treated in Norwegian schools today. Keep up the good work!