- /Carbon Dioxide Is A Colorless
Carbon Dioxide Is A Colorless
Carbon Dioxide, is a colorless gas that is produced by burning carbon and organic compounds, it is important because it’s essential to the survival of plants and animals. However, too much carbon dioxide could be detrimental to all life on Earth. The largest source of carbon dioxide is from fossil fuels which is coal, oil, and vehicles.
“During the ice ages, the CO2 levels around 200 parts per million, and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm. In 2013 the CO2 level has surpassed 400 ppm.” (TheRelentlessRiseofCarbonDioxide, 2016) Currently, there has been a lot of climate change, which the increase of carbon dioxide has been playing a big part of it.
In the two articles given it talks about whether it is okay for “mankind” to remove carbon dioxide. For me personally, without knowing the logistics of how it would be done, it sounds like a “dream” that could save humans drastic environmental meltdowns. However, the question also is if it is ethically okay? Should we be messing around with Earth, but also, we have been “messing” with the environment with all our fossil fuels. I believe that we should try to salvage our environment by removing carbon dioxide,
In the first article called, “Can Carbon-dioxide removal save the world?” it first talks about the company Bill Gates owns called Carbon Engineering. Carbon Engineering, is basically a company that created a process that would allow them to suck the carbon dioxide out from the air, which if successful could be a trillion-dollar enterprise. Surprisingly, though Carbon Engineering is not the only company that is trying to successfully prove that carbon removal is feasible. Another company is Global Thermostat, which many of their origins come from a physicist named Klaus Lackner. Lackner, and his friend Wendt, who was also a physicist, were able to figure out an equation that could hypothetically solve the world’s energy problem, and also clean up the mess we made by burning fossil fuels.
Lackner also founded the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions, at ASU. During one of his talks he said that carbon dioxide is something that we cannot stop humans from exerting, however we can change it to something like how we use the restroom. We do not use the restroom anywhere there is a certain place to go too. He believes that we should change the views on carbon dioxide. I agree with Lackner’s view on this, I believe no matter what carbon dioxide is something that will always pertain to our lives. However, if we just shift our views on it, we could greatly help our environment.
Then in the article it talks about the effects carbon dioxide. A man named Joseph Black, discovered carbon dioxide in 1754. Then a decade later, a man named James Watt, invented a more efficient steam engine, which was believed to help the age of industrialization. Since, the creation of the steam engine the average temperature of earth rose, the heat waves became more intense, rainstorms were more intense, and the droughts became drier. There is no real concrete data as to how warm the world can get before there is disaster. When I read that I was surprised. I knew that we were “destroying” the environment with our fossil fuels however, I didn’t realize it was this bad.
After that it talks about the viability of carbon removal, and the success that could come with it if it were to be successful. In my opinion, I believe that while it may be a solution, it will only be a brief solution. I really thought that the last sentence was powerful, “It may be impossible to manage, and it may also be impossible to manage without.”
In the second article, “Is It O.K. to Timer with the Environment to Fight Climate Change?” In this article it talks about how scientists are studying ways to remove carbon dioxide however not everyone agrees that it is a good idea. In the beginning of the article it talks about a Harvard professor named David Keith who has been thinking about the future if scientist try to slow down the effects of climate change. The payoff is that it would be slowing down global warming, however global warming would still be occurring. He then talks about the ethics about messing with nature.
Climate change like the other article has stated has already put its mark on Earth. While, it would be nice to try to alleviate the stress climate change has put on the Earth, it does not erase global warming. When I read that I agree with that point also, and it made a lot of sense. Then it talks about solar geoengineering, which is a type of climate engineering which would reflect eh sunlight, which would cause the reduction of global warming. It then talks about how all these are hypotheticals, still needs a lot of research.
After reading these articles I believe that the second article helped me realize these are all just wishes and aren’t even realistic as of right now. I believe that my stance has changed after reading these two articles. I think we should first be successful in finding a solution to carbon removal, then we should see where we are with the environment. For all we know it might be too late when a solution is found.
I’m a freelance writer with a bachelor’s degree in Journalism from Boston University. My work has been featured in publications like the L.A. Times, U.S. News and World Report, Farther Finance, Teen Vogue, Grammarly, The Startup, Mashable, Insider, Forbes, Writer (formerly Qordoba), MarketWatch, CNBC, and USA Today, among others.