Grief sucks.
I sit here attempting to tackle work for the first time in over a month since my brother, my best friend, passed away. As I tip-toe back into the daunting outside world, I find myself questioning my choice in studying an MSc in Climate Change - would I not make a better use of my brief time on Earth by following a medical career path, dedicating my life to saving the lives of others instead of helplessly attempting to tackle a problem which is far beyond my control?
Initiated by a paper published by Crutzen in 2002, there is a growing belief among the research community
that the global-scale impacts of human activities now rival the greatest forces of Nature, and has led to
the proposition that Earth has left its current geological epoch, the Holocene,
and has entered a new human-dominated epoch referred to as the Anthropocene. Our global enivornmental effects have escalated as we alter, domesticate and mechanise the world's ecosystems, profoundly engraving our existence onto the skin of the Earth. Consequently, anthropogenic forcing now rival
natural climatic forcing as we pass the 1°C milestone by the end of 2015.
Evidence of globa climatic and environmental change dominates the media, and on a daily basis we see societies
battling at the frontline against climate change, struggling for water, food
and basic human needs, clinging onto existence.
 |
| A bacteria colony in a petri-dish - an analogue for human population. |
The last century has seen a dramatic increase in human population and pressure on the world’s resources. To simply and effectively illustrate
the dangers of this, an analogue can be made with the growth of bacteria in a
petri-dish (as discussed here).
If the bacteria population doubles every generation, as the population
exponentially increases and the petri-dish reaches maximum carrying capacity, a
mismatch between resource consumption and resource availability will result in
a collapse of the bacteria population. There are many examples of societies throughout
history which have dramatically collapsed soon after the societies reaches its
peak, a classic example includes the Maya civilisation. As the human
population continues to exponentially increase, predicted to reach 9 billion by 2050,
do we face a similar fate?
But one can argue that humanity has never had it so good and that we are far from being despair. The UN Millenium Development Goals show how child mortality rates declined by more than a half between 1990 and 2015 from 90 to 43 deaths per 1000 live births, how 1 billion people have been lifted out of poverty since 1990, and how 7.6 million deaths from AIDS were averted from receiving antiretroviral therapy since 1995. And yet, global carbon dioxide emissions rose by over 50 per cent between 1990 and 2012. This increase will continue and predictions have been made that global average levels will reach 400 ppm next calender year; level not exceeded for at least 800,000 years. Solomon et al., show that climate change following an increase in carbon dioxide emission will be largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. The IPCC 5th Assessment Report show how this could result in global average sea level rise of 0.52,-0.92m under extreme emission scenarios and at least a 1.5°C rise in global surface temperatures predicted from all scenarios by the end of the century. These prediction reinforce the need to tackle climate change. To go back to my original question and to attempt to understand the drive behind my personal quest to tackle the issue of climate change - finding cures for human illnesses is a battle on an individual level and is personally important; but in the long-term, and from a broader perspective, the whole human race is in greater battle.
Grief sucks - and as the effects of climate change and the
consequence of our illness continues to contaminate societies, pushing humans
to the brink of existence, we will face grief on a tremendous scale. If humans are to survive, we must work towards
reaching a sustainable relationship with the Earth.