An Inconvenient Conversation

An Inconvenient Conversation

Lynn Le

4/5/11

First off, we talked about how appropriately named this project was. Inconvenient is right, and because of inconvenience, I talked to a separate person for this assignment, and not my parents. Not only that, because I don’t care enough to do more than necessary for lack of my own time, I will honestly say here that I simply got the questions answered in interview format. There was no requirement that said this had to be in sentence format, so I am presenting this raw.

What forms of energy are available?

Wind, Tidal, Solar, Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas…

What are the benefits and drawbacks of current energy sources?

Turbines of all sorts are expensive to build, Nuclear can have environmental drawbacks and can be dangerous, Solar panels take up a lot of space, Coal is bad for the environment, and Natural gas is limited.

Nuclear doesn’t have any immediate effect to the environment and is efficient, Wind takes up little space and has no effect on the environment, same with tidal. Solar is cheap, doesn’t hurt the environment and can be efficient. Coal is cheap and convenient, and natural gas is environmentally safe.

How can we provide the energy we need while maintaining ecological balance?

We can do away with harmful sources of energy and instead put in environmentally friendly means of energy.

How does climate change?

The change in climate is mostly natural. It’s natural for climates to change every once and a while on earth, as seen with the changes that the earth has already gone through. That is not to say that pollution is not a factor as well, it’s just that climate changes because it simply does.

How do we study global climate?

We take data about rainfall, temperature, snowfall, and etcetera.

Why is there a disconnect between what science is telling us and what the public and politicians are doing about climate change?

This is because the politicians are using climate change to further their careers. They don’t care for the facts, so they don’t pay attention to them. The public is similar. They listen to the politicians and the media and not what scientific journals are saying. Both are under a sort of state of hysteria where they only believe one thing and won’t look at the facts, even if they are presented to them.

What role, if any, do morality, ethics, and spirituality play in addressing climate change?

There is only a role when it comes to solving climate change. There are the issues of deforestation to create places for cleaner energy, there’s cost issues… and of course, there’s always the one crazy person who thinks global warming is a sign from God.

What leads some people to commit themselves deeply to addressing climate change -- and not others?

Some people commit themselves to the problem—creating less greenhouse gasses, dealing with cleaner energy, etcetera. Others are looking to repair the damage done to the earth. This is probably because some think prevention is more important than dealing with the damage already done, while others want to focus on repairing what we have then preventing it from happening again.

What is the hardest thing about addressing climate change?

The fact that the effects of anything we do can barely be seen. Every change we make, every tree we plant, there is no tangible evidence of the good we have done, so it can be difficult to motivate change.