'Green, easy and wrong'; Article Summary

The article ‘Green, easy and wrong’ was published in The Economist on the 6th of November 2008. The link to the article is: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12562343

The article ‘Green, easy and wrong’ deals with two of the critical issues of today, the economic crisis and global warming, and the solution that has been proposed to eliminate the both of them. To solve these two problems governments have to invest in green technology which will, in turn, boost the demand for it while easing the world’s dependence on fossil fuels. Though this theory has become popular worldwide, it has gained most attention and momentum in America, where billion dollar proposals for ‘green investment’ are being pushed, in the hopes of creating millions of new workplaces. From the historical viewpoint, the solution should work since past synergy between two goals had been successful. However, one consequence of similar plans including subsidies was increasing food prices affecting the developing countries, due to overinvestment in the ethanol business. It seems that, though commitment to climate change and giving the economy a boost as separate entities are good proposals, combining the two by funding renewable energy will not succeed. Instead, a system similar to the European model, which makes polluters pay for their CO2 emissions and by reduces the cost of clean energy, should be developed.
Personally, I don’t think two problems that span the entire globe can a) be solved by one countries initiative alone and b) be solved by such a seemingly simple solution. Granted, the above stated solution does not consider all possible deciding factors that would be involved in the elimination of these problems, though I am sure they are where the decisions for ‘Green New Deal’ are being made. However, chances are that the environment alone needs a lot more than just change in energy sources in order to slow or even halt the effects of global warming. Then again, the easiest solutions are known to be the right ones.

'Fewer creatures great and small' Article Summmary

The article ’Fewer creatures great and small' was printed in 'The Economist' on October 16th 2008. Here is the link to the article: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12432305

This article is about how, due to mankind, the rate of extinction is at an all-time high and though steps such as the Convention of Biological Diversity have been taken, no real effort is being made to preserve the world’s biodiversity. The formerly mentioned treaty was signed by nearly all governments in 2002 and vowed to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010. However, this goal seems impossible to reach now, as the newest version of the red list of threatened species published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) shows that, for example, 223 species whose condition had changed from the previous year are now closer to extinction. A major factor affecting this rate is global warming, which according to predictions, could kill 20 -30% of species if global average temperatures increased by more than 2°C. What people don’t realize is that many benefits come from natural processes, for example, the pollination of crops, whose losses cost the world inordinate amounts of money each year. A solution, though it is not flawless, was proposed by Johan Eliasch. He stated that if forests were included in the carbon market, therefore forcing the reduction of deforestation (which accounts for very high carbon emissions), then global warming could be slowed and biodiversity could be saved, in addition to poverty being lessened. The problem with this plan is that it would cost the world huge, according to predictions, $4 billion a year for 5 years and a further $ 11-19 billion until 2020. However, deforestation rates would decrease by 75% by 2030 and carbon emissions would sink by 50%. At the moment, the world will have to make do with the small steps made by a small percentage of the world’s countries. Yet at present moment, the economic crisis is probably the primary problem on these governments’ minds.
.

'Adapt or Die' - Article Summary

This article, with the title 'Adapt or Die', was published on the 11th of September 2008 in The Economist. The link to this article is : http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12208005

The article is about how adaption to global warming is now seen as the better direction to be taking than trying to prevent it, according to environmentalists. The reasons for this are the realization of the speed of global warming and the fact that it affects the poor and those living on island states. Now, ways of aiding (not only financially) those affected by it are being developed by governments and organizations. The UN, for example, is laying down the details for how to control the spending of the first carbon tax that are focused on international adaptation. This means that countries that can't afford to adapt might possibly receive financial aid, to enable them to protect themselves from starvation, rising water levels, etc.
However, certain problems are arising with this new approach to global warming. Problems such as the huge amount of money needed, the fight over what projects deserve priority and how to use the money, etc, can't be pushed into hindsight. Overall, a need to make steps forwards is rising, as is the temperature.