Reading to Be Done Before This Discussion:

Esterbrook, Gregg. 2007. Global warming: who loses--and who wins? The Atlantic 299:52-64.

Rubenstein.  2009. 14.4 Air Pollution pp. 322-323 

Ebert, Roger. 2009. Review of District 9. rogerebert.suntimes.com. (See below if you are confused about why you are being asked to read a movie review!)

Things to Bring to Class: Your own notes on the articles and/or a printout, your textbook.

Due in Discussion This Week: Answers to questions below.  

Due in Discussion Next Week: Nothing. 

Concepts/Ideas/Places: scale, place, nature , "natural" disaster, site, situation/environmental justice, social justice, spatiality, environmental determinism, scenarios, the future, global warming, climate change, greenhouse effect, greenhouse emissions / Russia, Greenland, Denmark, Antarctica, Newfoundland, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Singapore, Shanghai, Florida

How This Discussion Connects with Lecture:  Geography is the study of the relationship between humans and their natural environment. In lecture we discuss various ways of thinking about nature and how these ways of thinking influence the way that people treat nature.  We will explore the consequences of labeling both people and places as being natural or as being somehow remote. One of the most important insights you should gain from lecture is that the consequences of environmental destruction are uneven. While some people are unaffected by a particular environmental problem, or may even benefit, others pay the costs. Often those people who are most affected by environmental problems are the poor or minority populations. As your textbook explains, this is the central problem that the environmental justice movement addresses. Today in discussion we will ask questions about environmental justice in the context of global climate change.

To Prepare for Discussion: While global warming is a indeed a global phenomenon, it would be a mistake to think of it as affecting everyone and everywhere equally. This is the central theme of the article by Greg Esterbrook (2007) that you will read for discussion this week. That the global climate is warming has been confirmed by empirical evidence (Rubenstein 2010: 322). Instead the most contentious debate concerns whether human activities are the cause of this warming. While a few politicians and scientists continue to be skeptics, the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) made up of climate scientists from around the world, concludes with a very high degree of confidence that humans are responsible for global warming. Most news coverage of global warming continues to focus upon the questions about whether the climate is warming and whether humans are responsible. Our purpose in discussion today is not to rehearse these familiar debates, but to consider the human geography of possible social, political, and economic consequences of climate change. The potential effects of global warming on regional climates and weather are highly uncertain as are the social, political, and economic impacts. The article does not claim to provide accurate predictions, but rather uses what we think we know about climate change and society to offer logical scenarios for the future.

Critical Thinking

Your task for today is to engage in some critical thinking about the arguments in the article based upon what you have learned about the interaction between physical and social systems. You have been asked to read a movie review by Roger Ebert (2009) as an example of good critical thinking. Though a movie is much different than a magazine article, similar principles of criticism can be applied to both. To formulate our critique we might start with the article's assumptions. Ebert addresses the central assumptions of District 9. He makes it clear that he has some questions about the premise of the story. "Who are these aliens? Where did they come from?" The fact that the movie does not answer these questions is clearly something that Ebert is disappointed about, yet the lack of answers does not necessarily cause him to dismiss the movie entirely. Similarly, the central assumption that the article makes is that climate change is happening. A critique of this article that only challenged this central assumption would be rather shallow and would avoid dealing with more central arguments and unacknowledged assumptions. Why? Both the author and the readers know that the arguments in the article depend upon the assumption of climate change (just as we know that the movie depends upon the presence of a spaceship and aliens). A deeper critique might mention the controversy, provisionally accept the acknowledged assumption, and move on to consider the central arguments about the differential geographical impacts of climate change. It would look not just for arguments that we think are wrong, but also for arguments that appear to be reasonable. Ebert does something very similar in his review of District 9. He finds elements of the movie fascinating, but ultimately concludes that its third act was "disappointing" and did not fully resolve the situation. Note also that Ebert in addition to providing critique also gives his reader greater insight into elements of the movie that one might not get simply from watching it by explaining some background history as well as the meaning of the central character's name . He helps us appreciate it more. Another review, (see for example his review of Transformers 2) might give us greater insight into why a movie should not be appreciated as much as we might initially think it should be. Good critical writing goes beyond simply rejection or acceptance. It adds something to our understanding of the world.

How can we judge the the plausibility of the scenarios included in the article? Scenarios for the future may be considered reasonable to the extent that the knowledge and assumptions upon which they are a based are sound. "[W]e must first glance back at the past. Then, looking at present trends and using what we know about processes of geographic change and principles of spatial organization, we can begin to map out the kinds of geographies that the future most probably holds" (Knox and Marston 2007:468). Creating scenarios about the social, political, and economic effects of global warming requires knowledge of both the physical science behind global warming as well as knowledge from social science. In our discussion today we will assess the plausibility of the scenarios presented in the article in light of what we have learned from this course. As you read, ask yourself whether the predictions in the article are logical in light of what you have learned so far. If so, what makes them logical? If not, what mistake has the author made in his assumptions about human geography? Has the author provided convincing evidence to back up his argument? What evidence would convince you he is correct? What evidence would convince you he has made an error?

Works Cited

Ebert, Roger. 2009. Review of District 9. rogerebert.suntimes.com. (See below if you are confused about why you are being asked to read a movie review!)

Esterbrook, Gregg. 2007. Global warming: who loses--and who wins? The Atlantic 299:52-64.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html. Accessed September 13, 1007.

Knox, Paul and Sallie Marston. 2007. Human Geography: Places and Regions in Global Context. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Prentice Hall. 

Rubenstein, James M. 2010.  Contemporary Human Geography.  New York: Prentice Hall

Additional Questions to be addressed in discussion:

• What regions of the globe stand to benefit and what regions of the globe stand to lose due to global warming?
• Is it likely that Russia and Canada are "pro-Global Warming" as the author suggests?
• Should emphasis be placed upon preventing global warming by reducing greenhouse gasses, or should it be placed upon adapting to climate change?
• Should the government reduce spending on greenhouse-gas-reduciton research in favor of subsidies for solutions from private industry as the author suggests?

Questions To Be Answered And Turned In At The Beginning Of Discussion

Name:
Honor Code:

1. What is scenario from do you find the most plausible? Why?

 

 

 

2. What scenario from the article do you find least plausible? Why?

 

 

 

3. What are some of the effects that global warming might have on the world geopolitical situation according to the author?

 

 

 

4. Most of the greenhouse gas emissions to date have been produced by developed countries. If the author is correct that developing countries will be harmed the most by global warming, what does this suggest for efforts to limit greenhouse gasses? Should the same limits on greenhouse gas emissions be placed on developing countries as on developed countries? What would be the consequences of doing so?

 

 

5.  What is one question about the issues covered in the reading that you would like to see discussed during class?