Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems

2. Believer part of the Climate Change Paradox

There are two paradoxes that seem to consistently arrive and thereby helps in believing the core factors associated to climate change. The first paradox includes simultaneously simplicity and complexity. ‘Climate Change’ is generally considered as a complex problem which id diversely understood. It is a post normal science issue, and not at all a regular one. Climate Change seems to the individuals that believe in models squaring off against those for whom actual data is the only truth (Kirtman et al., 2013). Assuming the one that believes in basic science, one can still question about the factor of risks that assigns to possible scenarios of climate change while considering on how much risky they are comfortably taken. Even the groups that are demographically uniform universities tend to disagree on these questions. As a social issue, climate change is considered as an epistemic mess, rife with subjective issues such as climate justice and the various discourses of fear, risk, opportunity, security, equity and sovereignty which compete for dominance in the sense making issues.

Several scientists argued that climate change is mainly a cause of cognitive dissonance, which can be crippling. Confronting the evidences that most well meaning Westerner’s consumption habits contribute as much as to the problem as the most easily vilified of the oil companies (Seinfeld & Pandis, 2013). As per the viewpoint of Tim Jackson, it can be discussed that ‘The Myth of Decoupling’ drives power, fly and consumption rate already outstripped the factors that can be sustained by the planet, even as innovative technology rapidly increases efficiency. Moreover, Jackson further painted a picture regarding the efficient improvement of strategies that need to be avoided for the worst climate changing scenarios.

Moreover, it has been observed that the common opinion associated to climate industry highlights towards the crowds of climate NGOs, consultants, developers, departments and the campaigners in order to ride the wave of climate madness and thereby sell the wind turbines, carbon accounting services and social licenses (Fankhauser, 2013). These movements are found to make easy assessment of the attacks and thereby form inaccurate claims related to the known impact of climate change and claiming fully that ‘science is settled’ even though, in some crucial ways, it’s not.

Based on a strategic viewpoint, it can be analyzed that addressing towards the conflicting worldviews, misappropriations, and debates of nationalism, localism or internationalism, along with political appropriations provides systematic design scales for various responses. Although most of the scientists agreed on the concept, however one can easily highlight towards its huge limitations and negativities.

Thus, this first paradox associated to climate change legitimately means different from one individual to another. This is a complex term, but it is highly practical for most of the individuals (Qin et al., 2013). There is a cumulative, global, time bound, greenhouse gas budget and ongoing break on this associated paradox.

3. Non- Believer Part of the Climate Change Paradox

The second paradox, which can be considered, is Scale, which is associated to the non-believer’s perspective. After the disappointment with the pace of change possible through the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) protocol, there led an evolvement of the debate about scale into a debate about goal setting. This was based on the concept of GHG-emissions reduction goals are politically engaging enough to be achieved. According to the concept of Mike Hulme, climate is considered as a change, which is related to the efforts and thereby should not be focused on the GHG reduction goals that put politically attractive objectives, such as the air quality or public health at the forefront (Hansen & Sato, 2012). However, Michael Oppenheimer stated that people could get being efforts in order to transform energy system in their communities or the sectors they work in where they can visualize social and economic co-benefits of taking actions.

4. Adaptation and Migration Actions to Avoid the Ultimate Impacts of Climate Change

The Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation tend to consist of various actions that limit the magnitude of long-term climate change. This generally involves the reduction in human (anthropogenic) emissions of Greenhouse gases (GHGs). Adaptation to the adverse change of the climate is observed as an important element. Adapting towards an abrupt climate change often tend to minimize the effects associated to the consequence. However, when the adaptation capability decreases, then the consequences of climate changes prevails largely. Often this terms to have an immense effect on the environment. Thus, effective migration is considered as an important policy to avoid adaptation. Migrating to a more significant area, which has a moderate climate for life sustenance, is observed as an important factor.

Mitigation involves in achieving the capacity of Carbon Sinks. This includes Reforestation policies to a huge extent. Moreover, the mitigation policies focus towards the substantial policies, which reduce the risk of human induced global warming (Bellard et al., 2012). Effective climate change mitigation would not be achieved if an agent acts independently in its own selfish interest. Most of the adaption actions tend to provide benefits of actions, which may accrue more directly to a region, individual or the associated countries that tend to undertake them for a short duration of period (Pachauri et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the financing of such adaptive activities remain an issue for the poor countries or its associated individuals.

The common example of mitigation involved in the context of Climate Changes includes the switching to Low Carbon Energy sources such as the nuclear energy and renewable energy and thereby expanding forests and thereby sinks to remove the greater amount of Carbon Dioxide from atmosphere. One of the classical examples involves improvisation through insulation of the buildings. The other relevant approach associated to Climate Change is the Climate Engineering, which can protect the consequence to a huge scale.

Most of the countries are associated to the parties of UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). The objective of this organization is to stabilize the atmospheric considerations, which are associated to GHGs at the level that would prevent dangerous human interface associated to the Climate System. The Scientific analysis can efficiently provide information on the impacts of climate change, but deciding which impacts are dangerous requires valuable judgments.

In the year of 2010, the parties associated to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) agreed tat the future of the global warming should be limited to below 2.0 degree Celsius, which is relative to the pre industrial level. This might be revised to the target of limiting global warming to below 1.5 degree Celsius, which is relative to pre industrial levels. The current trajectory of the greenhouse gas emissions does not appear to be consistent with the limiting global warming to below 1.5 or 2 degree Celsius to the pre industrial levels. Based on these parameters, it can be completely analyzed that the other mitigation policies are also proposed, and are considered more stringent or modest. These newly created mitigation policies, which are proposed by the Western countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom tend to consider the limiting zone less than 2 degree Celsius. Thus, all these adaptations and mitigations taken by the council of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change can efficiently avoid the ultimate impact of climate changes to a huge scale.

References

Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., & Courchamp, F. (2012). Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology letters, 15(4), 365-377.

Doney, S. C., Ruckelshaus, M., Duffy, J. E., Barry, J. P., Chan, F., English, C. A., ... & Polovina, J. (2012). Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Marine Science, 4.

Fankhauser, S. (2013). Valuing climate change: the economics of the greenhouse. Routledge.

Hansen, J. E., & Sato, M. (2012). Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change (pp. 21-47). Springer Vienna.

Hansen, J., Sato, M., & Ruedy, R. (2012). Perception of climate change.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(37), E2415-E2423.

Kirtman, B., Power, S. B., Adedoyin, J. A., Boer, G. J., Bojariu, R., Camilloni, I., ... & Prather, M. (2013). Near-term climate change: projections and predictability. Climate change, 953-1028.

Masson-Delmotte, V., Schulz, M., Abe-Ouchi, A., Beer, J., Ganopolski, A., González Rouco, J. F., ... & Osborn, T. (2013). Information from paleoclimate archives. Climate change, 383-464.

Pachauri, R. K., Allen, M. R., Barros, V. R., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., ... & Dubash, N. K. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Qin, D., Plattner, G. K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., ... & Midgley, P. M. (2014). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis (p. 1535). T. Stocker (Ed.). Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Seinfeld, J. H., & Pandis, S. N. (2012). Atmospheric chemistry and physics: from air pollution to climate change. John Wiley & Sons.