It was great
to have Troy back in class again. I really appreciate his background knowledge
and how he can help add the science piece to the overall climate change
picture. A few things struck me as we were having the discussion, especially
towards the end of class. It was interesting to watch non-science major
students (a broad generalization) work to understand the science he was
explaining. From their comments and the somewhat exasperated look on their
faces, it made me remember what I felt like when we have been exploring areas
in class that I’m either not naturally drawn to or have any background
knowledge in (such as economic policy or theology). Everyone in class seemed
willing and open to try and understand what he was saying, but I think it was a
great example of what can happen in climate change negotiations if we try to
smother policy and economic leaders with the science of climate. It would be
very easy for someone to say ‘I don’t understand’ and turn away from the discussions.
That is why it is important to have scientists with the gift of clear
communication (like Troy) to be the ones to try and communicate the scientific
message. And have them all in the same room at the same time!
After
reading the article and hearing the discussion, I really wonder what would
happen if we took all the time, energy, talent, and money spent on geoengineering
solutions and put them towards mitigation efforts instead. Perhaps we wouldn’t
ever get to the point where we would need these last ditch solutions if we
actually focused on the problem and a cure instead of just the symptoms.
I like your analysis of the class--very anthropological!
ReplyDelete