The Debate over the Definition of Danger, and How It Effects Global Warming

The Debate Over the Definition of Danger, and How it Effects Global Warming”

In the February 1st edition of the New York Times, journalist Andrew C. Revkin discusses rising threat of global warming, and more importantly, the disagreement between various nations and institutions upon the definition of “dangerously high global warming.” Revkin’s article, titled “Deciding How Much Global Warming Is Too Much,” brings to light the various failed attempts at creating a barrier at which industrialized countries (the main producers of the greenhouse gasses which result in global warming) will cut the release of harmful gasses into the atmosphere. Revkin also discusses how upcoming events, conferences; reports will hopefully solve this problem.

The initial proposal for controlling global warming was signed over 11 years ago, in these proposal 193 countries agreed to cut human interference with the environment, if the environment were to reach a level of certain danger. However, within this treaty there is no specific definition of danger. This lack of a clear description of danger has led to one failed conference, Kyoto, and hundreds of countries, scientists, and policymakers to attempt an agreement on the level of damage caused by global warming.

Recently, many countries have requested a definition of unacceptable risk by measuring and comparing the change in average temperature. The European Union has responded to these requests by agreeing upon the raise in temperature of 2.5 degrees or beyond as being far too dangerous. This increase in temperature has been accepted by an international panel of scientists, policymakers, business leaders, and elected officials. On the other hand, there are many researchers who claim that the affects of global warming are still far too premature, and therefore, there cannot be a fair temperature target. Instead of instituting temperature targets, supporters of the later theory have suggested adapting