Joji Sherman- 12 years until Doomsday?


In class, we have been learning about the topic of climate change. I can safely guess that at least ninety percent of you have not been sleeping under a rock the past few months, so you probably have heard the environmental debates intensifying in the political landscape. Notably, there have been talks of a “Green New Deal,” a massive plan to implement numerous massive changes in the US, from making energy completely renewable to investing in a national high-speed rail system, all within the next 10 years. Of course, it failed in the end, but that is a topic for somewhere else.

Given the magnitude of such changes, why only 10 years? Many of you likely already know the answer. The
United Nations IPCC- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change- released a report last year that
humanity can regulate the extent of global warmth to 1.5°C if we cut global carbon dioxide emissions by 45%
before 2030- that is, within the next 12 years. Some believe that if we fail to meet this target, as US politician
AOC put it, “the world is going to end.” Given how much the US releases, cutting our emissions is imperative
in reaching this goal.


The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius seems minimal, but analyses show that that half degree
distance could be a do-or-die situation. It is the difference between the desolation of 70-90% of our coral reefs
versus over 99% of those that exist now. It divides a sea-ice-free summer in the Arctic only happening once
every 100 years from a sea-ice-free summer once per decade. It is what could stop an area of permafrost the
size of Mexico from melting. In the end, some of the damage has already been done. Severe tropical storms are
bound to increase, ecological decline is bound to happen, economies and industries will suffer, and human
health will be adversely affected. However, preventing this extra half-degree of warmth could help mitigate
the effects in a major way.


This “12-year model” has sparked boundless amounts controversy, and is interpreted by many to be wildly
inaccurate. Some models indicate that the critical tipping point for reversing our impacts is a threat that lies in
a different time, with dates such as 2060 marking the crucial point. Others believe that viewing the 12-year
frame as a hard line rather than a suggestion is blatantly wrong, instead taking the approach of “every decision
matters, and the impacts will gradually get worse overtime the less we act.” In the end, the thought of a
“doomsday” or an “apocalypse” has constantly been changing since the idea first was thought of, and will
change until the day it happens. However, the concept lingering in the back of our minds does go a mile or two
in encouraging us to act and make a change for the better.

Some questions for the end:
How realistic do you think the UN’s hard deadlines on carbon emission reductions in relation to environmental impacts are?
Do you believe that the spread of the “doomsday” idea does more harm than good?
What can humanity as a whole or you as an individual do to help curb global climate change?

Sources:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Wow, I didn’t realize that the US had even proposed a program to slow down global warming! It it’s interesting to learn that this Green New Deal not only had the resolutions to save the environment, but it also had resolutions that made sure these sustainable actions weren’t detrimental to the lives of the average American family. In fact, this appears to be consistent with the original New Deal that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had put in place during the Great Depression; his New Deal actively created jobs and welfare programs, and some aspects of it even helped the environment (like creating National Parks). Realistically, however, it seems improbable that a program that calls for such drastic actions will actually be implemented anytime soon. After all, global warming and climate change continues to be a contested topic among politicans and across party lines. While the Green New Deal failed, at least it layed the precedent for future action to be taken.
April 9, 2019 at 4:13 PM
Anonymous said…
We have heard this “12 year” number many times, and while I’m not saying it isn’t real, it does get blown out of proportion. Yes, this topic is greatly important and not something we should ever ignore, but forcing these alarmist ideals on to the world only numbs us to it. A new green deal would work wonders for the Earth, but there are those who are bound to claim it is false and others who are sick of anyone even bringing it up. The “12 year” plan is something I believe, but I am worried that pushing these ideas will be too much for people to handle and therefore care about.
April 10, 2019 at 6:48 AM
Anonymous said…
Noteworthy organizations that watch over worldwide problems, such as visible impacts due to increased amount of carbon emission or various types of pollution. Personally, I view that the IPCC has definitely not underestimated the existing problem of excessive carbon emissions and how such problem has affected the world we live in. The IPCC has accurately pointed out what is the current problem that we have to resolve with collective effort. Despite its seemingly pointlessness, “12 year” plan will surely impact our environment in a positive manner, bettering air conditions and preventing further loss due to air pollution. Apart from those who actually devise the plan and take action to reduce carbon emission, the most we can do as students is to be aware and educate ourselves of such significant matter.
April 10, 2019 at 9:51 AM
Anonymous said…
While this number may not be entirely accurate, I do believe that climate change is an imminent threat to our planet, and that it must be addressed by all nations. Even if 2060 is the “correct” year, that is still approaching us fast, and future generations will also have to deal with the consequences of inaction. I myself for one, was surprised that AOC’s Green New Deal was not passed (even Democrats did not vote in favor of it), but I think the reason why is because to some it may have been seen as too far fetched. How realistic the numbers are is based on opinion and up for debate, but it doesn’t change the fact that climate change should be addressed as a pertinent issue in American politics.
April 10, 2019 at 5:43 PM
Anonymous said…
There is no question that the situation has gotten dire and that the issue of climate change can no longer be ignored. Even in political debates, the party less inclined to agree has been forced to look at the issue. Even if the 12 years is not a firm time limit, if it isn’t then, then it will be soon. I’m current consumption levels, the earth cannot sustain the human race for any longer and will eventually collapse. The debate should not be when but what can we do.
April 10, 2019 at 8:01 PM
Anonymous said…
The issue of climate change is the prime example of the multidisciplinary aspect of environmental science. At this point, all the evidence points to humans as the main perpetrators of global warming, and to rectify the damage, laws must be passed to regulate emmissions. However, American politicians have too much personal (monetary) investment in non-renewable energy sources to make a change in policy. Unfortunately, by the time we get new leadership or the parties recognize that climate change is an extremely pressing issue, it may be too late.
April 11, 2019 at 8:20 PM
Anonymous said…
Obviously, climate change is a major issue, and the United States, with the highest carbon emission per capita, is a large contributer to that fact. However, as you brought up in the last paragraph, the 12 year deadline may possibly be overexaggerated. I’m not saying that it’s not going to happen, but countries and politicians all around the globe have been lobbying for ways to decrease their emission rates, and many new technologies that minimize climate change effects have been created in the past decade. As a result, the human race is taking steps to increase the Earth’s sustainability, and every step we take extends our “doomsday”.
April 12, 2019 at 8:28 AM
Anonymous said…
When you think about it a 1.5 degree difference doesn’t seems like a lot. Especially here in Texas where the weather is so drastic and changes every hour. But when you said how analyses prove this degree difference has catastrophic implications, it reminded me of the comparison to a boiled pot. Water begins to boil at 212 degrees F. At 211 degrees F, it isn’t boiling, but with that one degree difference water begins to vaporize. This one degree difference will bring about drastic environmental problems, if we don’t continue to try to decrease the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
April 12, 2019 at 9:21 AM
Anonymous said…
I think you have to realize the importance of these "deadlines" that are created by scientists about the "coming doomsday". While I think it is very likely that alot of these claims are made to spark interest and support for the cause, it is important to realize that the ultimate goal is to reduce the emmission of greenhouse gases and slow down or stop climate change. Instead of thinking of these deadlines as the day of our impending doom, I like to think of them as the day when we will not be able to turn back and fix our mistakes. Also, even though a lot of these deadlines end up not being true, I think we still need to realize why they were created in the first place and focus on that: climate change. These deadlines call for action, not panic.
April 12, 2019 at 9:05 PM
Anonymous said…
I like this post a lot because it goes into the direct reach of environmental science, especially on American politics. Undeniably, global warming is becoming more and more of an issue with each passing day: the introduction of the Green New Deal, while not entirely successful, marks the fact that politicians are beginning to address this issue head-on. As many of my fellow peers have mentioned, I think that the declaration of “doomsday” is not so much of an actual doomsday than it is a cry to get the public’s attention so we can start making some (much-needed) progress on the passage of legislation about global warming. Even though a doomsday is not upon us, it is past the time that we need to stop looking at what could potentially happen and start looking at what we can do to prevent the situation from worsening.
April 13, 2019 at 6:56 PM
Anonymous said…
I think the reason that the UN predicted such a short time period before doomsday is to bring attention to the environmental problem that we are facing today. It’s a good way to get politicians to address the issue. It might be inaccurate, but it essentially did what I assume the UN wanted, which was bringing the problems to light to get the everyday people involved. We can’t get involved in something we don’t know about. The Green New Deal was probably more for a call for action rather than an actual prediction. Environmental Science is more than just science. It’s also politics.
April 13, 2019 at 11:04 PM
Anonymous said…
Wow, this is a really interesting post! I think that it is time that the human population realizes these "deadlines" that the scientists have predicted are very important. When first looking at a 1.5-degree increase it doesn't seem that big of a deal. But after contemplating these effects it is evident that these small changes can have big impacts. This further shows that climate change is a growing issue that needs more attention.
April 14, 2019 at 7:47 PM
Anonymous said…
This post was very enlightening, and it really shows the drastic changes that need to take place in order to stop the climate change that is occurring. With all the changes that are occurring such as the melting of the permafrost, the severe storms increasing in severity, ecological decline, human health would deteriorate, and the economy would decrease. These changes all come with the temperature decreasing even by 1.5 degrees; therefore, helping decrease the temperature by a little can help with such significant changes.
April 14, 2019 at 8:44 PM
Anonymous said…
This post was very informative. It highlights the imminent crisis that is about to occur if no proper action or initiative is taken. I have heard about the Green Deal and the 12 years controversy in the news. I don't necessarily believe the fact that there is an actual doomsday. However I feel that drastic things such as the predicted doomsday are necessary to cause the public to finally voice their opinion and call for action to be taken to prevent such a disaster.
April 14, 2019 at 9:34 PM
Anonymous said…
I think the UN did an excellent job with its deadline, since after talking about the 12 year deadline, it brought up a lot of discussion and increased awareness around the world. For example, even though the Green Deal was not able to be passed, just the fact that the mainstream media started talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green Deal was a major accomplishment. Moreover, one of the 2020 Democratic candidates, Jay Inslee, is running for President with climate change as his primary focus and main campaign platform. The UN publishing their report inspired worldwide discussion, and hopefully, this will soon lead to worldwide change.
April 14, 2019 at 10:42 PM
Anonymous said…
While the 12-year deadline for global doomsday may be over exaggerated, I feel that at least attempting to get close to the desires significant environmental protection policies and practices within the time frame is a good way to inspire effective change in the very, very near future. While most of the doomsday deadlines should not be taken as hard dates for the downfall of humanity, they provide a good reminder to take action now to avoid the certainly massive ramifications later, both on a political and individual scale. While it may seem that the waste we generate as individuals and communities is insignificant in comparison to that produced by large corporations, making an effort to live more sustainably (ex. recycling, getting individual solar panels, using reusable items) will start a positive trend towards a greener America that large corporations will have to follow if they wish to satisfy potential consumers.
April 15, 2019 at 7:04 AM
Meredith Miller said…
Without a doubt, something along the lines of the “Green New Deal” must be implemented quickly. Although I don’t buy in to major threats such as the doomsday clock, it’s a fact that If we don't reverse the current trends in a huge way, then extreme drought, floods, wildfires, food shortages for millions of people across the globe will be the norm for everybody. This 12 year deadline has increased the attention to a conversation that must not only be had, but be acted on.
April 15, 2019 at 1:49 PM
Anonymous said…
The spreading of this idea of "doomsday" should not be taken 100% seriously and could unnecessarily freak people out. However, the idea of doomsday brings more attention to the undeniable fact that our Earth is changing and something needs to be done about it. The more incentive the people take, the faster legislation can be passed to limit harmful emissions and regulate the pollutants that are killing our planet. If doomsday is what is needed to make people care, then by all means it is doing more good than harm. Hopefully, people can look at this 12 year prediction and realize change is needed if we want our planet to survive.
April 15, 2019 at 5:48 PM
Anonymous said…
As you mentioned, the "Green New Deal" was a proposal to push America and its economy towards clean energy. One of its central goals is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a net zero in 10 years. The resolution also calls for an eco-friendly overhaul of America’s infrastructure, transportation system, and housing, including “upgrading all existing buildings” for maximum energy efficiency. And there also are non-energy-related goals, including guaranteed jobs with livable wages and adequate family and medical leave, and full access to higher education for everyone. However, this deal would require a large number of finances to pull off, and no source to pull it from. Nevertheless, the idea behind projects like these is important: people must take steps to reform the climate and reduce the current climate emergency.
April 15, 2019 at 6:20 PM
Anonymous said…
Although I have my personal doubts about the coming of a "doomsday" in 12 years, I can see how the 12 year model could bring more urgency and awareness to the issue of global climate change. Even with ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, especially carbon dioxide emissions, a nearing threat that could potentially result from the failure to meet certain emission targets may be the extra push that we need to make a more positive and significant impact on our environment.
April 15, 2019 at 10:24 PM
Anonymous said…
I agree with my classmates on the matter that a proposed “doomsday” could raise awareness of global warming around the world. However, I do believe that spread of a “doomsday” may do more harm than good. Calling the occurrence of a “doomsday” would unnecessarily spread fear and concern across billions of people without encouraging a change of the positive. Otherwise, it could be considered as fiction, like the claims of an “apocalypse” or the end of the world. People could disregard the gravity of the situation that the program is attempting to promote. Although a dramatic program can increase a sense of urgency or necessity associated with global warming, it could be more successful in spreading fear and upsetting the public rather than encouraging people to conserve the environment.
April 16, 2019 at 7:01 AM
Anonymous said…
This figure seems exaggerated. Climate change is, of course, a pressing issue, but this “12 year” deadline is very inaccurate. We will likely see some more effects of climate change within the next 12 years, but a doomsday seems highly unlikely. The real problem is whether technology can be innovated--and produced cost-efficiently--quickly enough to slow down the effects of climate change. And progress is already being made. Solar panels, wind turbines and hydroelectric power all across the planet experience economies of scale, and they are gradually becoming more accessible, particularly in middle-income and developed countries.
April 16, 2019 at 5:13 PM
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
April 16, 2019 at 7:21 PM
Anonymous said…
It's interesting how drastically such a small change in temperature can have on the environment. Although regulating environmental impacts can help the problem, I'm not sure spreading rumors of a doomsday will help. I feel like with current advancing technology, such as increasing efficiency with renewable energy, we can help to push this doomsday farther away. Spreading rumors of a doomsday will cause increasing panic as we inch closer to this deadline. We should try to just convince people that they have to do everything they can to avoid destroying the environment.
April 16, 2019 at 7:22 PM
Anonymous said…
It is interesting to learn that the Green Deal has plans to safe the environment, and works the needs to practice sustainability for all the practices. The effects of climate change need to be treated in upmost condition. These effects are bordering on detrimental, and a means for change cannot take 10-12 years. These political debates should talk about the actions we should take today to prevent us from killing the earth.
April 16, 2019 at 7:27 PM
Anonymous said…
The Green New Deal didn’t work because it required dramatic government control in every industry from the top down and was stupidly expensive. The claim that world will end in 12 years is radical, and there is no science to back that up. However, I do believe as inhabitants of Earth, we have the responsibility to take care of our planet. These crazy doomsday clocks and impossible bills do a disservice to their cause.
April 16, 2019 at 8:21 PM
Anonymous said…
It is extremely important that the works works together to battle the problem of climate change. I believe that if all nations abide by certain regulations, we will be able to slow global warming and lesson the impacts climate change will have on our planet. However, it is necessary that all, or at least most, nations agree to regulate. Only a few nations regulating will not be enough to radically change the direction our world is going in. I understand both sides on the topic of the “12 year” doomsday. On one hand, it makes people aware of the problem and may be likely to get more people on board for change. However, at the same time, some people may believe this claim to be too radical and possibly not take it serious, or they may call the project a hoax if 12 years is proven to be overdramatized.
April 16, 2019 at 8:45 PM
Anonymous said…
This post was very intriguing! The potential benefits of the Green Deal, such as increasing acts of sustainability, appear to be promising. If these ideals and stricter regulations combine, the impacts of global warming can be lessened and delayed. If action is not taken quick, the effects will become truly detrimental and the associated risks are numerous.


April 16, 2019 at 10:41 PM
Anonymous said…
I think that the doomsday predictions do more harm than good. Yes, there might be things that need to be addressed, but based on the track record of the previous predictions (ice caps melted by 2000, anything Al Gore predicted, etc) 12 years is bunk.
April 17, 2019 at 6:05 AM
Anonymous said…
Everyone loves to throw the number “12 years” around, and although I agree that we need to be more cautious, that number is too dramatic to accurately describe what’s coming. However, without collaboration on feasible solutions to reduce our emissions, we could be looking at a shorter future. It is essential that we come to an agreement that we can implement worldwide.
April 17, 2019 at 11:40 AM
Anonymous said…
The prediction of doomsday is something worth to consider. Even if there is no official proof, we still should be very cautious of the harms we are doing to our enviroment as the more we live without care, the more our future generation would have to fix it for us. With the rate at which we are going at, doomsday is not so far from a possibility.
April 23, 2019 at 6:23 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Neel Sheth- Genetic Engineering on Food

Image
Genetic engineering, a practice commonly utilized on food, is the manipulation of an organism's gene makeup through the use of biotechnology. In 1994, the first genetically modified food, the Flavr Savr Tomato, was approved for release. In the 25 years since then, the prevalence of GMO's has increased each year. GMO's are useful from an economic standpoint, as crop yields are greatly increased from the new genetics. However, genetic engineering can have negative effects, such as, a lack of biodiversity, ecological risks, and human health risks. One example of a negative consequence of GMO production is the lack of biodiversity. Genetically modified different species of plants can cause some of these species to become invasive. Because much of the genetic engineering field is an unknown quantity, many of the results can't be predicted with 100% accuracy. For example, a plant may pass a lab inspection and be deemed safe to be planted or grown in an actual environment (
Read more

Air Pollution Blog by Harrison Cui

Image
Air Pollution Harrison Cui Air pollution is, as we all know, the contamination of air by chemicals or compounds that pose a level of health risk. The World Health Organization estimates there are 4.2 million deaths every year due to ambient air pollution, and they report over 91% of the world’s population live in places where air quality exceeds WHO guidelines. In addition, the Earth’s ozone layer in the stratosphere is being depleted by chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons. The ozone layer is what protects us from harmful UV rays from the sun. We were taught from a very young age what air pollution is, how it’s caused, and what can be done to slow its progression. I remember walk-or-ride-your-bike-to-school day was a huge deal at Old Settlers Elementary, but nowadays I don’t see the same enthusiasm or effort to be a greener people. Granted less than half of an elementary school student body riding bikes to school 1 day out of 365 is microscopic, it was someth
Read more

Nikhil Guddati - Ice Cream and the Environment

Image
Nikhil Guddati - Ice Cream and the Environment Ice cream. Pure joy. Utter bliss. Unparalleled happiness. Environmental destruction. Humanity’s one sweet, sticky, gooey pleasure might not be as sweet as it seems, and it might not even remain our one true pleasure for long. The production of ice cream continues to corrupt the environment, and at the same time, the environment may mark an end to ice cream. Ice cream, no matter how pleasurable it is, harms the environment through an excess amount of emissions, furthering climate change. However, at the same time, an increase in climate change may mark an end to ice cream. Ice cream is creating its own kryptonite. One way in which ice cream destroys the environment is from the extraction of palm oil, an essential ingredient in ice cream. In fact, the World Wildlife Magazine writes that palm oil is essential in giving ice cream its smooth and creamy texture, yet its extraction threatens rainforests and bio
Read more