Maeve Hogel – Page 2 – COP 20: Lima, Peru

October 2, 2014

Protecting Against Climate Change: Priceless

The cover of Frank Ackerman's book — The cover of Frank Ackerman’s book

By Maeve Hogel

Economics is certainly not for everyone. It has a lot of numbers and graphs, it can seem incredibly boring and it often relies on a lot of assumptions. Even as an economics major, I sometimes found myself zoning out while learning micro and macro. However, this semester in Environmental Economics, the topics are not so abstract. I am getting the opportunity to take everything I have learned in the past three years of economics courses and apply it to one specific topic: climate change.

If you haven’t studied economics extensively in the past, that doesn’t mean you can’t gain a rich understanding of climate economics. Frank Ackerman, a well known climate economist, wrote a paper called Climate Economics in Four Easy Pieces. I’m not going to say that climate economics is an easy topic to study. It takes the basic micro and macro economics and adds complications and sticky situations that make it more difficult to find a solution. For example, obviously you want benefits to outweigh costs, but when it comes to climate change, how does one even begin to measure those costs? However, Ackerman’s paper breaks it down to the four most important things to remember: “your grandchildren’s lives are important, we need to buy insurance for the planet, climate damages are too valuable to have prices, and some costs are better than others” (Ackerman, 326).

Although I encourage everyone to read the paper themselves (its not very long and its a quick read), the main points can be inferred from those four main points. Ackerman’s point is that it’s important to pay the cost now or else our grandchildren’s lives in the future will be paying for it even more. However, most people aren’t willing to foot a cost now when they don’t know how grave the situation will be. We are always in search of answers and are unwilling to do A without knowing for sure that it will result in B. However, Ackerman demonstrates that we willing buy insurance without being sure that B will happen because even the slightest chance that it will is not worth it. Climate change is worth paying the price to protect ourselves. It is a large external cost that Ackerman argues is too important to even have a price and the costs it does have are beneficial economically in the long run. It is an easy out to claim that climate change policies will be too costly and will hurt economic growth, but in reality protecting our ecosystems, our future generations, our planet and ourselves is priceless.

September 30, 2014

The Climate Group: Helping to Make the World Act Faster

When dealing with a global issue such as climate change, it is difficult to determine responsibility and even more difficult to uphold accountability. A problem of this kind of scale requires both small local and large global efforts. However, it is hard to connect those efforts together in a way that is most productive for everyone. The Climate Group, an international non-profit, believes that a “clean revolution: the rapid scale up of low carbon energy and technology” will allow for a low-carbon future (The Climate Group). As a transnational organization, the Climate Group works across several nations, holding offices in China, North America, India and Europe, and completing projects of many different scales (The Climate Group). The Climate Group’s role as a transnational organization is vital to achieve its goal of information sharing because it successfully works as a connection between groups who would otherwise not have access to the ideas or resources to make the improvements the world needs.

The Climate Group works under four core principles that sum up what I believe to be some of the most important parts of climate change governance. The four principles are: climate change is an economic issue not just an environmental concern, a small community has a big influence, partnerships are more effective than organizations acting alone and clear communication of practical success stories drives action (Climate Group Annual Report 2012). These are also four of the reasons that the Climate Group, and other transnational organizations, can achieve goals faster or easier than global or local groups. Its largest initiative currently, called the Clean Revolution, encompasses these principles by bringing together local groups and large companies to install technology for a low carbon future. The Climate Group worked with LED light manufactures to make LED lights available in parts of the world that would have possibly not had this technology until much further into the future. They also work to publish reports on research such as electric cars to provide information and evidence to a wide variety of countries and organizations showing not only the environmental impact but also the economic gain of using such products (The Climate Group).

In the past 10 years of existence, the Climate Group has been a successful part of climate change governance. Since it works as more of a mediator, connecting people with resources, ideas and information, it has flexibility that many other organizations do not. However, it does rely on the finical support of individual donor, NGOs and companies in order to keep doing the work it is doing. The fact that the Climate Change Group has been successfully receiving funding for the past 10 years does show that there are people who understand the importance of transnational organizations and how they can help make the world act faster.

Learn more about the Climate Group by watching this video:

September 29, 2014

Balog’s Pictures: Worth Far More Than 1000 Words

By Maeve Hogel

How can we see climate change? How can we take something that is often discussed in the abstract and show it in the here and now? As a visual learner, these are questions I have wondered for a while now and they were finally answered after watching James Balog’s Chasing Ice. Through Chasing Ice, Balog creates an amazing visual of climate change by capturing photos of glaciers over many years and using time lapse photography to showcase the change.

At Dickinson, we had the pleasure of spending time with James Balog last week. During his presentation, he said that by taking pictures of these glaciers, he is giving a voice to something that otherwise would not be able to speak. When you watch Chasing Ice, you can see how the glaciers move in this very life-like quality, but it is obviously true that they can’t speak. They can’t tell us that they are getting smaller. They can’t warn us of the dangers that might cause. But James Balog can, and does.

In this ABC News clip below, the newscaster starts off by saying, “only in America is it controversial for me to begin tonight’s program by declaring that global warming is really happening.” While I think naysayers exist in far more places than just the United States, the newscaster has a point. Despite the facts, despite the evidence, climate change still is extremely controversial. However, as this news clip shows, James Balog is helping to convince the naysayers, by showing the problem in a completely different light.

September 29, 2014

“We won’t let you down. You’ll see”

By Maeve Hogel

“We won’t let you down. You’ll see.” are the bold words that 26 year old Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner uses to end her spoken word poem about climate change that she preformed at the Unite Nations Summit on climate change on September 23. Written to her son, she talks about the effects of climate change on the lives of all of those living in many different island areas around the world. She calls everyone to action to join the battle against climate to change and to start fighting. Her words and her message are incredibly powerful and her poem is a great reminder of the importance of spreading the word about climate change in different ways. The graphs, the data and the scientific statistics are incredibly important, but for many people they are difficult to understand and impossible to see their importance. The use of art, of poetry, of music, or of pictures is a way to spread the message in a entirely different way to touch an entirely different audience. It allows us to see the effects and to feel the emotion of those most affected. Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner is an impressive example of how powerful the climate change message can be.

September 12, 2014September 21, 2014

The Glass is Half Full

By Maeve Hogel

When examining different situations, people are often described to have a glass half full or half empty point of view. The glass half full people are the optimists, who always see a positive in any situation, whereas the glass half empty people tend to dwell on the negatives. In international relations, there are contrasting theories that in many ways reflect the glass scenario. Looking at the situation of climate change, realists believe that nations states’ personal interest for power will always come first, while liberalist think the self-interest can be overcome to obtain cooperation (Bova, 9-21). The voluntary efforts of many developing countries such as Costa Rica and Brazil demonstrates that liberalist theorists might just be correct that countries can reach cooperation when there is a mutual gain for everyone, not just for themselves.

It is important first to understand liberalist theory better to see how climate change fits well under its beliefs. Liberalists are not naïve to human nature’s draw to make decisions based on self-interest. However, “liberal internationalists see many issue areas in which states have a strong mutual self-interest in working together to achieve absolute gains for the common good” (Habib, 14. Found Here). Although places may be affected to different extents, no country is safe from climate change. All peoples and countries share the environment therefore cooperation is completely necessary to combat the issue. However, being such a global issue gives countries an even stronger “mutual self-interest” in the matter. Liberalists believe, not that countries would act without receiving any personal gains, but rather that every country will receive a mutual gain which is what will lead to cooperation among all.

David Held, Charles Roger and Eva-Maria Nag in their book, Climate Governance in the Developing World, provide several examples of countries whose individual efforts support the liberalist view that cooperation is possible. Developing countries, referred to as non-Annex 1 countries in climate policy speak, are responsible for about half of GHG emissions (Held, 7). Although historically now developed countries, such as the United States and Europe, caused the rise in temperature, developing countries will be continuing to grow in the future and therefore are crucial to climate change negotiations. If realists were correct, the self-interested, power seeking countries would gain most from continuing to grow and industrialize, telling the developed countries to essentially clean up the messed they caused. However, after the Copenhagen Accord in 2009, developing countries were able to make commitments called Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). These were not required but 44 developing countries decided to make a commitment to reductions of emissions by their own choice (Held, 3).

Brazil and Costa Rica are among several developing countries that have gone above just a NAMA commitment and have really been leaders in climate change initiatives. Brazil, a country that has seen rapid economic growth and is a larger emitter due to deforestation, has made large efforts to cut back on deforestation and to decrease their emissions in that past several years (Held, 13). Costa Rica is a tiny country in comparison to Brazil and has not seen anywhere near the same rapid expansion and growth . Costa Rica though, like Brazil, has made big voluntary efforts to reduce their emissions. With a history rich in deforestation as well, Costa Rica has vowed to go many steps farther then Brazil in hoping to be the first carbon neutral country (Held, 14).

Brazil and Costa Rica are not by any means the only countries to be voluntarily attempting to reduce their emissions. However, these two countries exemplify the liberalist’s belief that cooperation will be possible since all countries will gain, in the long run, from stopping the planet from continuing to warm. Of course there is still a long way to go when it comes to cooperation on climate change policies and initiatives and there are still plenty of countries that are not making large voluntary efforts. However, no one is saying the glass is completely full just yet, but it’s certainly not half empty.

Held, David, Charles Roger, and Eva-Maria Nag. Climate Governance in the Developing World. Cambridge, 2013. Print

Bova, R. How to think about world politics, realism and its critics. 2011.

Habib, Benjamin. Climate Change and International Relations Theory. 2011.

August 27, 2014September 21, 2014

The Short Past and Long Future of Global Warming

By Maeve Hogel

In 2005, when I was only 12 years old, I asked my parents for something extremely unusual; a trip to Antarctica. To be honest, I have no idea what sparked my interest in Antarctica, but my parents, being avid travellers, looked into taking the trip. After much research, they told me no because trips were only available in January and February, the heart of Antarctica’s summer and the middle of my school year. I vowed that day that I would make it to Antarctica someday. Little did I know that someday would be only a few years later in 2008. The retreating ice was allowing boats to arrive at Antarctica as early as December 25 at that time. For my 15-year-old self, this was the greatest news I had ever heard. However, once we got there, I started to understand that although this loss of ice and increased temperatures allowed me to take the trip of my dreams, it also meant decreased penguin populations and possible rises in sea levels all over the world. All of a sudden the concept of global warming, which was a hot topic of conversation at that time, seemed much more real to me. I was amazed that in just three years, there could be enough of a change to allow tourists to get to Antarctica several weeks earlier. It has now been six years since I was in Antarctica and the IPCC in its most recent report, last year, stated, “there is high confidence that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is in a state of net loss”. Today I looked at the National Geographic website, at the exact trip that we took, and saw that their tour dates now start as early as November 28^th, almost a full month earlier then what was available six years ago.

I am amazed now, that in 2008, when I was just beginning to understand global warming, so was the rest of the world. The history of the discovery of global warming, although very complex, is relatively short. Spencer Weart in his book The Discovery of Global Warming” does a fantastic job showing the progress and evolution of global warming. Although he cites discoveries as early as the 1920s, the majority of discussion about global warming doesn’t begin until the 1970s and it wasn’t until the late 90s into the 2000s that these discoveries start to become accepted. Weart writes that “Business week called 2006 ‘the year global warming went from controversial to conventional for much of the corporate world”’ (Weart, 188). In every year since 2006, I think we have seen global warming becoming more and more conventional, but that isn’t to say that there aren’t still people who doubt its existence completely. The acceptance of global warming and the policies to prevent it have come along way in the very short period of time since its discovery, and hopefully will continue to evolve at such a rapid pace. However, it takes the efforts of every person and every country to combat such a global issue. As we look to what the future of climate change looks like, its important to begin to recognize the effects its already had in our very recent past and present, and you certainly don’t have to go half way around the world, like I did, to understand that.

August 20, 2014September 21, 2014

Climate Change: What’s the beef?

1497529_10152423437873804_2367167716968621669_n — Cows grazing in South America. Photo by Sabiha Madraswalla, Dickinson ’15.

By Maeve Hogel

Argentina is world renowned for being one of the largest producers and consumers of beef. I just returned from a year studying there and having been served beef at practically every meal, I can attest that it lives up to its reputation. As someone who is always looking for grass-fed meats and prefers to buy local, I was pleased both by the delectable taste and the environmental friendliness of Argentine beef. The cattle are free to roam farms freely with their diets being mainly grass, unlike the diets of corn that are common in the United States. In the rural areas, many farms are still small and feed only the local people, such as the one pictured above. However, what I failed to think about until reading Anna Lappe’s Diet for a Hot Planet was the effect that all of these cows in Argentina, and all over the world, have on climate change simply by existing.

Many are familiar with the connection between greenhouse gases and global warming. Particularly, we understand how humans can cause increases in carbon dioxide emissions. However, aside from carbon dioxide there are other greenhouse gases that are also important players in climate change that many, including myself, often forget to consider. As Lappe points out in her book, “though the livestock sector contributes only 9 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, its responsible for 37% of methane and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions” (Lappe, 26).

As I was sitting down to enjoy a delicious argentine steak, I certainly was not considering how that cow had affected climate change. Climate change is far from most people’s minds while they are enjoying their lunch or dinner, but maybe it shouldn’t be. Lappe’s book is filled with fascinating personal stores and interesting facts about farming not only in the United States, but in many parts of the world. Yet, for me, the fourth section of her book in which she titled “Action” is a must read for everyone (Lappe, 218). I’m absolutely a meat lover, so I will never suggest that we should all become vegetarians in order to prevent more greenhouse gas emissions. However, Lappe’s 7 principals of a climate-friendly diet are important ideas to keep in mind both for personal health and for the health of our planet. We all can eat more real foods, look for organic, lean towards local, and send packaging packing as Lappe suggests (Lappe, 218). Often we let ourselves believe that we personally can not make a difference, but when it comes to food we make a conscious choice about what we eat and where it comes from and hopefully we all start fitting climate change into the equation when making those choices.

August 18, 2014September 21, 2014

The News of Climate Change: Is it Fair and Balanced?

By: Maeve Hogel

Upon googling “Is climate change real?”, I was presented with a whole slew of articles and websites that give a wide range of responses to what seems to be a yes or no question. The first two links, a government website and Wikipedia, agree that climate change is in fact real. However, the third article, from Fox Business, argues that there really is no significant consensus on climate change. So how can we, as readers and Google searchers, distinguish what is true from what is not? Living in an era with a high reliance on the Internet and powerful search engines, such as Google, we have access to massive amounts of information at the touch of a button. But should we believe that all of this information is correct?

In Merchants of Doubt, authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway argue that a handful of scientists, with the assistance of the media, have created doubt about many significant scientific findings. Currently, we can all agree that tobacco is linked to cancer and that smoking is bad for your health (after all, it says so right on the cigarette box). However, Oreskes and Conway show that it took years after scientists first discovered tobacco’s harmful effects on health to convince the world of this fact. After the media began reporting these significant findings with catchy slogans like “Cancer by the carton”, the tobacco industry decided to refute these discoveries by hiring their own public relations firm (Oreskes, 22).

The decision to hire a PR firm, in a business sense, was genius. We heavily rely on the media, through the Internet, the TV, the newspaper, to learn about new information. By presenting different facts or showcasing data in a different way, the tobacco industry could easily show the American public a different story about the harms of smoking, just as Steven Tobak does with the data on climate change in Fox Business’ Article mentioned before.

Oreskes and Conway in their book often discuss how science is never exact. It is impossible to ever say for sure, 100% of the time, that a finding or discovery is correct. It is only true until the next discovery proves that it isn’t. This doesn’t mean we should never believe a new scientific discovery. It does however mean, that in a country with freedom of the press, there will always be someone looking to capitalize on that little sliver of doubt that exists in the field of science. Much responsibility falls on us, as we read an article or Google a question, to recognize what is reliable information and to filter out those who just trying to create doubt. It is in no way an easy task, but as climate change becomes an even more pressing matter and there continues to be many powerful naysayers, it’s a very important one.