Reading through this article, the first thought that came to mind was the geo-engineering and how the United States has been trying to figure out a way to control the greenhouse gasses as well as global warming. Geo-engineering or climate engineering can be understood as purposely influencing the Earth’s climate to offset the effects from greenhouse gas emissions by focusing on carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. The environment can be changed by add or removing of a particular energy supply in a large scale. “The Earth could be a terminally-ill patient for which we would prescribe a high-risk, poorly understood therapy, considering that the fate of the patient appears sealed anyway.” (Lovelock in Goodell 2010:106). The U.S. Global change research program has been studying the short and long-term change in the climate, ozone layer, and land cover. There are many arguments supporting climate engineering and opposing it. These climate changes are happening faster than previously
…show more content…
The EPA’s estimation is that by 2030 there will be a 32% reduction compared to the level in 2005, which in return will prevent numerous asthma attacks in the American children yearly. Even though this would be a great decline, it also brings up the question of how much more carbon will we be producing in that time frame and will it average out the levels by 2030, or will the levels increase, or decrease. The chosen standard limit of 70 ppb is very restricted and will not help as much as if 60ppb was selected. If 60bbp is the safest standard then why have we not chosen that as the standard to maximize the amount of lives to save? Is this too big of a goal for the U.S.? Shouldn’t we aim high first? The Clean Air Act has definitely kick started the enhancement of the quality of the air that we breathe and in return improve
The EPA’s estimation is that by 2030 there will be a 32% reduction compared to the level in 2005, which in return will prevent numerous asthma attacks in the American children yearly. Even though this would be a great decline, it also brings up the question of how much more carbon will we be producing in that time frame and will it average out the levels by 2030, or will the levels increase, or decrease. The chosen standard limit of 70 ppb is very restricted and will not help as much as if 60ppb was selected. If 60bbp is the safest standard then why have we not chosen that as the standard to maximize the amount of lives to save? Is this too big of a goal for the U.S.? Shouldn’t we aim high first? The Clean Air Act has definitely kick started the enhancement of the quality of the air that we breathe and in return improve