Rtna's Support Of False Solutions To Climate Change

Jose Lopez
Professor Ybarra
Philosophy 2
1 October, 2014
Paper #2 In this essay, I will argue in support of the RTNA’s position that we have to find new “real” solutions to reduce greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions with “real” solutions and organize against faulty climate solutions that harm the communities or environment. Companies are now desperate to find ways to avoid any regulation or adjustments that may harm their profits or economical stand point, so they present “false” solutions or solutions that they know aren’t going to work as a way to stall and confuse our society (“False Solutions to Climate Change” 471). One of the “false solutions”, Carbon capture and storage (CCS), has been presented to assert that instead of
cutting emissions or replacing fossil fuels with other means of energy, that we capture carbon emissions and bury them in underground pipelines (472). Another “false” solution is the one of having LNG, or imported liquified natural gas, be extracted from other countries and into North America ( Cox, 473).
The opposing side might state that these solutions that are being presented are a way of these corporate organizations trying to apply themselves and actually look for new and convenient ways to cut down on emissions and greenhouse gases in attempt to alleviate the whole issue of climate change. Which is fine, although being that it is not that case that we control time in our own hands, these corporate companies should make it a priority to find more possible and potent solutions to this climate change and emissions issue. Carbon capture and storage, otherwise known as CCS, is a solution brought up that takes an alternative route rather than stopping pollution and emissions or replacing a fossil fuel with means of finding new energy (472). It allows for no further adjustments in regards to industries and other activities, it buries the carbon emissions
under the ground into pipelines (472). The problem with this is that the infrastructure needed to execute this solution would be so highly controversial that it would never work. There are so many complications that would come with this solution; for example, the demanding thousands of miles of pipelines and the untested underground storage sites everywhere (472). A huge factor into why this would be a hazardous and simply “false” solution would be because all of the contaminants that come from one of the cleaning stages of coal are stored behind over 600 dams across the nation (472). This is where the citizens are heavily and rapidly affected because then there would be residents exposed to heavy metals or contaminants because these water sources sometimes leak into the drinking water of these residents in nearby cities (472). Also stated in the “False Solutions to Climate Change” article was the need to know the capacity of how much carbon emissions and gases that these pipes would be able to contain and for how long (472). These are the complications that these corporates are not seeing right away or are blind to see them because their profits are more important to them. It can be understood that economic values and profits are of big value here but the ultimate goal is to attack on this climate change issue as quickly and efficiently as we can. A more efficient manner would be to think of solutions that would impact the climate change for the better and its peoples to achieve a zero carbon emissions society more than worrying about profits and other matters (472). More traditionally trying to find the key to replacing fossil fuels with new and eco-friendly energy. LNG, or imported Liquified Natural Gas, is being presented to us by oil and gas multinationals as another form of a solution or aid to the issue of climate change and emissions control. First, natural gas from North America has been stated to be a “bridge fuel” to a renewable future for decades now and we are still no closer to that other side of the bridge ( Cox, 473). LNG is just natural gas cooled down to about -260 degrees Fahrenheit liquid. Natural gas being this cold allows the gas to be in a liquid form which is more convenient for transportation. It allows for the gas to be transported over seas on tankers ( Cox, 473). The process of actually transporting the natural gases from country to country adds 15 to 25% to its Carbon Dioxide emissions ( Cox, 473). Are we not supposed to be cutting down emissions and pollution? Instead we are adding to our enormous debt to our planet Earth, adding more to our already dangerous number percentages of emissions. Sometimes it can be the situation that LNG can cause just as much harm as emissions coming from the use of coal and carbon ( Cox, 473). The LNG technology allows for this natural gas to be extracted from sources in the Middle East, Russia, and Nigeria to be imported into North America ( Cox, 473). It is seen why this would be a more convenient route for oil and gas multinationals; because talking about profits, this would be a cheaper cost for them save them money and be “solving” the climate change and emissions issues. Although the opposing side might argue that declaration, my point is firm that these companies should find their profits behind them with solutions to finding a better emission policy or solution ahead of them as quickly and efficiently as possible. The opposing side of this matter might argue or assert that these solutions that are being presented are a manner in that these corporate organizations are trying to apply themselves and actually look for new and convenient ways to cut down on emissions and greenhouse gases in attempt to alleviate the whole issue of climate change.
One can understand the view point of this opposition’s concern because it is a valid argument. Organizations are finding ways to cut down on emissions by giving suggestive idea “solutions” . Suggesting solutions help the cause. Therefore it is the case that organizations are helping the cause of climate change and reducing emissions by suggesting their ideas on solutions for the cause. It is a valid argument. Although it is a valid argument, in the article of “False Solutions to Climate Change”, the author argues that effective and just solutions to climate change require decisions to be made that involve everyone affected by the results of the decisions; which is everybody on Earth, not just deals between those who are just worried by their profits (480). Organizations need to be able to find new and potent solutions that are very possible of happening in a quick and efficient manner. Only after corporate interests and centuries-old colonial mindsets have been broken, then we can begin creating a new, more just society
(480). I am an athlete here at Fresno City College, I play soccer and am possibly doing track in the spring. This issue of climate change, pollution, emissions, carbon dioxide, and all of the above relate issues affect me and my personal life on many levels. Which is why I am in support of the author of the “False Solutions to Climate Change” article on his argument that we have to find new “real” solutions to reduce greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions with real solutions and organize against faulty climate solutions that harm the communities or environment. We as a society all need to make changes and realize that this issue really affects all of us personally. I took a trip to Mexico this summer to play soccer in Mexico City and the pollution there is so bad that it looks cloudy almost foggy everyday. Running and breathing there was way harder than running and breathing here in Fresno. Not only because of elevation difference but mostly because all of the gases and emissions in the air contaminating my lungs. So I do agree and support the authors valid argument about climate change solutions and that we need to make change. As stated in the article, “it’s imperative to recognize that great problems have always been met by great social changes…” (479). The author is trying to reach out to everyone as an audience not just the big corporate organizations. We all can make a change for the better of our planet. After acknowledging both side of the argument, I am still in support of the RTNA’s position that we have to find new “real” solutions to reduce greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions with “real” solutions and organize against faulty climate solutions that harm the communities or environment. Corporate are now desperate to find ways to avoid any regulation or adjustments that may harm their profits so they present “false” solutions or quick solutions as a way to stall and/or confuse our society (“False Solutions to Climate Change” 471). CCS and LNG are two methods and solutions presented that were speculated to be “false solutions”. So in conclusion, we have to find new “real” solutions to reduce greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions with “real” solutions and organize against faulty climate change solutions that harm or just confuse the communities or environment.

Works Cited
Armstrong, Sinnott, Robert Fogelin, Louis Pojman, and Paul Pojman. "Hoodwinked in the Hothouse: False Solutions to Climate Change." Critical Reasoning About Environmental Issues (2014): 471-80. Print.

“Clean Coal and Carbon Capture and Storage." Hoodwinked in the Hothouse: False Solutions to Climate Change (2014): 472-73. Print.

Cox, Rory. "Natural Gas and Liquified Natural Gas." Hoodwinked in the Hothouse: False Solutions to Climate Change (2014): 472. Print.

"Real Solutions." Hoodwinked in the Hothouse: False Solutions to Climate Change (2014): 479-80. Print.