A History of Climate Change

Written by: Wil Norton

It was front page news. A river in Cleveland caught on fire. So was the state of the environment in 1969. Without environmental safeguards this was the world we lived in. A world of smog, acid rain and tainted water. Hence the start of the contemporary environmental movement. A movement to correct the harm we caused to the nature around us and the stewarts of nature we are now gleaned to be.

The true origin of this movement came from a 1962 book warning against pesticide use. This book was “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson. She warned of the use of pesticide in agriculture. To many, this book was a landmark in the beginning of the movement. The idea that human progress can be detrimental to the nature and environment we all enjoy was sent to the political debate stage at this point in history. DDT use was proven to be dangerous to human and wildlife health. Ever since the time of these two incidents among others, the environment is now something openly discussed even globally at the UN. 

The world itself now faces its largest environmental challenge. Climate change became an issue by a hearing Senator Tim Wirth chaired about the issue on Capital Hill. On June 22, 1988 climate scientists convened in a Senate panel to discuss the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This compound known as CO2 in chemical nomenclature is a common gas, but is also a danger in too large quantities according to scientists.

This gas causes something called the greenhouse effect. At high levels, CO2 will prevent sun’s warming UV rays from escaping the atmosphere causing a warming effect according to scientists. We have seen this trend in practice since then. The Earth is warming. The effect is real. The rise in temperature is measurable.

So where does the added CO2 come from? There are two main sources of extra CO2. The one we probably all know about is the use of oil and gas. These fuel sources are also known as hydrocarbons by scientists. Hydrocarbons are chains of carbon and hydrogen. When burnt is oxygen, the carbon binds to the oxygen to form carbon dioxide. This is why the level of carbon dioxide is increasing and the greenhouse effect is coming into being. As the world burns more hydrocarbons like crude oil and coal, the combustion with oxygen will release more CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is also another trend that is worrying about CO2 levels that usually isn’t discussed. That is the trend of deforestation. Vegetation almost always takes in carbon dioxide and releases oxygen through a process known as photosynthesis. Therefore, forests are known as carbon sinks that remove carbon dioxide from the air naturally when they produce the sugar molecules they need to survive. Therefore, climate change has two culprits, hydrocarbon use and deforestation.

This is the science. However, \with politics the issue is more difficult to manage. Efforts to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are fraught with challenges. First is the expense. Coal and gas are cheap forms of energy. Trying to cut energy use in many parts of the world are political non-starters for many nations. Some governments also fear massive unrest if they try to curb gas use by raising prices. There have been governments that have almost been toppled because of an ending of a fuel subsidy. Even in a rich country like the US, the price at the pump is always front and center when it comes to economic sentiment and presidential approval rates.

The second of course is the fact that oil and gas are big businesses. You may even say they are the biggest business on Earth. There’s a reason the Saudi royal family has enough money to buy the PGA. Oil and gas companies are enormous companies with millions of employees and large amounts of shareholders. Efforts to put these companies out of business is not feasible for these reasons. Oil companies have political attributes to protect their profits and positions in the global economy.

There are also further economic reasons why ending oil would cause geoglobal instability if it were actually put into practice. Nations that are rich in crude oil resources are not going to give up their economic good fortune easily. There are also developing nations that depend on their petroleum reserves almost exclusively to fund their budgets. Petrostates like Nigeria would lose a substantial amount of their income if they had no oil imports to fund the government.

The science and politics therefore collide on a pathway that neither side can win the argument completely. We know that we are facing environmental catastrophe if we keep increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. We also know that the effort to completely remove oil and gas from the energy mix along with coal is not politically doable. So how do we solve the problem? This is where we stand right now with the issue.

This issue therefore shows the vital place that the UN plays in the global challenges that face our world. Climate change is not just an issue that affects the US or another singular nation. Climate change is a global issue. It is one of the moving parts that require a set of cooperation between nations to find the solutions to prevent a warming trend that could desecrate the global climate. 

We have already seen the effects of climate change. There has been a migration away from the equator for wildlife due to warming trends. Hurricanes and monsoons are becoming more frequent. “Hundred year” floods are occurring in some places much more frequently. The solutions are not easy. It requires work and deal making. 

Even the UN mission itself has issues with its agenda when it comes to global warming. Freedom from want is a founding value of the United Nations. This includes access to electricity that can be vital in many parts of the world that depend on things like wooden charcoal to cook meals. Power sources could end this unsustainable practice but that would require electricity access. Hence the solutions to the global warming debate are more nuanced.

Fortunately, many developing nations have the option to “leapfrog” the development that the industrialized world used to form their current electrical grid. Wind and solar power can now be used as the first source of energy instead of relying on fossil fuels as a starting point. Still, this is also a process that takes time but also must be considered when discussing the issue of climate change.

The United Nations is in  a position to handle these issues globally so that the efforts don’t just pit one nation against another. Climate change is a global issue, not a national issue where oil rich states are pitted against other nations that are feeling the largest effects caused by climate change. 

We have the problems and fortunately we have the solutions. There are green sources of energy that can be used to replace fossil fuels. The difficulties of economics are still the problem we must consider along with the rights of the less fortunate. Electric cars and even methods of carbon capture are possible with the burning of fossil fuels. Ending rapid deforestation in places like the Amazon rainforest is also possible. 

Everything must be on the table when it comes to this issue. Economics and science are the two main forces at work here. Going away with a solution on both sides of this table is vital for organizations like the United Nations to prevent an irreversible warming trend. 

Awareness is a positive tool when it comes to this issue. Pressure must be applied wisely to push the science to the forefront to force the issue among the political and economic realities that often govern the way that global politics works. This is even true at the United Nations. Stay informed and educate yourself on this reality. Global warming is real science and it is also not a problem that is easily solved.

The True Test of the Second Amendment

by Wil Norton

Written by: Wil Norton

“A well-regulated militia” is the exact wording of the second amendment. What does this mean? Does it mean that we have unencumbered rights to bear firearms? It has been debated for longer than the current gun debate. The Supreme Court has been asked again and again to interpret this amendment of the Bill of Rights. Still, the answers are inconclusive.

The thing to remember is that this provision is old. Older than even a properly trained police force in many parts of the United States. However, the United States is a very old democracy. 246 years old with a Bill of Rights that is paramount in understanding why the nation functions as a government for and by the people. This is a consideration when talking about the second amendment. 

The Bill of Rights is two things at once. It is both dated and sustainable. It is dated in the fact that the purpose of the militia that was spelled out in the original wording is outside the true way we live in contemporary American life. It is also a living document in the fact that its principles remain vital at the very heart of who we are as a country. The right to bear firearms should not be infringed.

We now have the latest debate when it comes to this right. The debate over the use of firearms in tragic incidents of carnage. We saw this here locally in Nashville recently in the Covenant School bloodshed. So, what can we do? Should we put all the guns “six feet in a hole” as Lynnard Skynyrd once sang? That would be an answer in a vacuum. Unfortunately, politics isn’t a vacuum. It is a code of law to alleviate a problem in society in this incidence. It is also a place where the rule of law governs society.

The government of any state or the national government can’t just issue an order for the police to confiscate every firearm. This would be the rule of a monarchy that we broke away from when America announced its independence from England. This is the fear that is placated among some in a false danger. The document that allows firearms also doesn’t allow this sort of action by the government. Hence the nature of the Bill of Rights.

Still, this doesn’t answer the critical question. That question is how we handle the violence caused by firearms to the point that even elementary schools aren’t safe from the carnage? The most obvious answer is two things. The first is to discover the reasons that these types of minds can be prevented from unleashing evil upon society. The second is the defense of our children and communities from such perpetrators on the side of law enforcement. I will discuss both solutions in turn.

As far as prevention is concerned, it is important to note that trying to prevent a criminal before he becomes a criminal is problematic. There are sure fire ways of discovering whether a person is dangerous or not. This case is obvious in the profile and criminal history of some individuals. The problem comes from the fact that there is always a gray area. An area where you can’t truly be certain either way. Perhaps a person who might be unusual but perhaps doesn’t have violent tendencies. 

The Steven Spielberg film Minority Report describes the problem of this concept. The plot centers around a law enforcement unit called “PreCrime” that labels criminals by profiling before they have committed a crime. Therefore, we must consider where we are going when trying to label possible criminals before they actually commit a crime. This is the classic slippery slope conundrum. Perhaps we pull an obviously dangerous individual off the streets. Does this lead to a new type of criminal justice where we just label people criminal because they suffer from a mental illness like depression or bipolar disorder? This must be a top consideration when dealing with mental health and criminality. 

Still, the solution of preventing the attainment of a firearm by someone who has been deemed unfit to carry one is not as dramatic as the labelling of criminals before they become criminals. It is an obvious safety measure that has massive public support. Guns are not toys. They are not to be considered easy to obtain playthings that are owned for reasons such as these.

Guns are designed to kill. They are a responsibility. Keeping them out of the hands of irresponsible children by adults is probably a healthy measure for those who own them. Recreation use like hunting is even legal in nations that otherwise ban firearms. This is the responsibility of the owners of firearms. Measures like keeping them out of the hands of children and learning their proper use should be considered in all circumstances. This was probably the practice and intent of the founding fathers with the wording of the Bill of Rights and should be maintained.

This leads to the second solution, the increase of law enforcement in and around schools to prevent the sort of carnage that was seen at Covenant School. This is an important step but seems to be more of a band aid that is still never enough to truly fully protect our children. Perhaps with more measures the massacre at Covenant might have been prevented. Still, the increase of law enforcement and safety measures can always be improved.

This leads to my final thought when it comes to the issue of gun violence. That is the problem of contemporary American culture. This is the role of something that can’t be legislated easily. The decline of personal worth is a large reason that many of our vulnerable citizens are committing violent acts. The decline of religion and civil society as a whole is a large reason for this in my opinion. Without a sense of belonging and community, the problem of mental illness itself has become paramount in American society.

We live in a cruel world where personal worth is largely decided by placement in the larger world of careers and personal achievement. For those left behind in this cruel system, the use of drugs and mental illness like depression become problems that many try to treat with simple solutions like medication. Medication has a role but so does the feeling of personal worth. There is something more out there that we fail to maintain, and this is a problem that has been getting worse generation after generation in current trends in American society.

This is where faith and community come in. The idea that some are alone in their problems and lack of worth is a true problem not specifically in gun violence but in the larger issue of mental illness. Faith based initiatives and the return of theology might be able to mediate this sort of problem instead of simply putting ourselves as a measure of personal worth from achievement. 

Spirituality is a global phenomenon that clearly spells out good and evil in human action. The belief in something called “agency” is the belief that we all have the personhood to choose good and evil. Evil is a very real thing and the massacre at Covenant School is an obvious sign of true evil. Anything we can do as a society to bring more people to understand this truth as a society would benefit the country socially from my standpoint and prevent this sort of evil from happening.

Therefore, the solutions to the problem of gun violence require not just law enforcement and medical measures to prevent. These are top-down solutions. The solutions must be bottom up. There must be a force in society that builds up the individual so that the machine that processes becomes the enlightenment of personal worth. This would be the other side of a solution that prevents such tragedies.