The “climate” around the climate change debate has, for a long time, been touted as polarized among party lines. While the debate has both supporters and those who deny the existence of climate change, scientists have had to invest a lot of time and energy in order to prove that it is a topic that needs to be taken seriously.
For instance, just recently The Lancet produced a climate change report led by Dr. Marco Springmann, who provides a country-by-country breakdown of its impact on food sources, where stresses in agriculture will force drastic changes in diet, leaving people with fewer options for healthy foods, which leads to severe health issues and a potentially higher death rate by 2050.
“We looked at the health effects of changes in agricultural production that are likely to result from climate change and found that even modest reductions in the availability of food per person could lead to changes in the energy content and composition of diets, and these changes will have major consequences for health.”
This climate change report used the International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) initiative because it assembles regular updates on food commodities, based on fluctuations in diet, agriculture and distribution in both developed and developing nations; which is the context in which environmentalists argue their case.
The Christian Science Monitor also covered the report, and refers to a few solutions, one of which is a change in not only crop cultivation but also, suggests “climate stabilization pathways” to reduce those deaths by 20 to 71 percent.
For a more thorough analysis on the study, Mashable reports on the increase in temperatures from satellite evidence for each country.
What this evidence does is address the issue of presenting such evidence against the opposition, though it still faces opposition. But, does little to point out that developing nations feel they are at the mercy of those developed ones who contribute to climate change because of their continuous investment of fossil fuels.
For instance, The Blaze received a letter from Mitch McConnell in 2014, before he became house majority leader, saying that the president’s climate change plan was unrealistic.
“Our economy can’t take the president’s ideological war on coal that will increase the squeeze on middle-class families and struggling miners. This unrealistic plan, that the president would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs. The president said his policies were on the ballot, and the American people spoke up against them.”
The Inquisitr also reported that President Obama – expecting to face opposition – worked to change some of the language in the Paris agreement that made it non-binding, so that he would be able to get around congress ahead of time.
But the executive director for Energy Makes America Great, Inc. and Citizen’s Alliance For Responsible Energy published an article with the Carlsbad Current-Argus, telling the story on the reasons why president Obama now, will not be able to see his Clean Power Plan (CPP) even take before the end of his term; in short it’s a linear build up to the latest plot twist with the Supreme Court.
Congress has members joining to oppose the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) saying that CPP will destroy the economy and jobs.
Even with the Paris agreement, there was a view among skeptics that the deal was already not good enough to reduce the threat in time – such as presented in the latest report – but because of the Supreme Court battle against the EPA’s action on fossil fuel industries, the United States’ leadership on the agreement would be questioned by the rest of the world.
But with the latest reports mentioned here, do you feel that views on climate change are less opposed and/or likely to gain more supporters and weaken the opposition?
[Featured image by European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark – EEA (14 December 2010): Projected impact of climate change on agricultural yields | Public Domain]