While people have heard of the term ‘global warming’, many fail to look at the causes of climate change. But thanks to Professors Greg Poe, David Wolfe, and Shanjun Li, they shed some light onto the problems that plague the world physically as well as politically.

For instance, education progresses along with technology and teams of engineers and scientists have constantly been searching for alternatives for fossil fuel. One method known as fracking, which involves pumping fluid into the ground after drilling wells, allows users to harvest natural gas. However, there are environmental trade offs. By drilling into the ground and forcing liquid through the said holes, fracking creates cracking in shale. But what damage does breaking the shale cause in addition to destroying the underground environment? Nearby water transport systems that carry water to and from residencies could potentially be contaminated by chemicals and methane.

Another contributing factor to climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. Japan and Germany have reverted going back to burning coal in lieu of using nuclear sources due to the recent power plant meltdowns. And while nuclear power plants provide enough energy, they produce nuclear waste, which is potentially more dangerous than the byproducts of burning coal. However, Professor Shanjun Li and Professor David Wolfe told us to take note of recent development of fourth generation nuclear technology in China. Instead of creating more wastes, these new power plants are able to recycle old wastes to generate power.

While these alternatives are still in process of being adopted by other countries, Professor Shanjun Li shifted the focus of the talk onto international policy by extending the points he presented with Japan and Germany. Since most countries burn coal (not limited to just Japan and Germany), the toxic byproducts affect the Earth as a whole. But how can this be justified? If one country burns more coal than another, shouldn’t there be regulation rules to account for these differences? Unfortunately, the current policies, as Professor Greg Poe mentioned, are not enough to motivate companies or countries to stop burning coal.

The question therefore poses a dilemma. If a heavy tax is put on the burning of fossil fuels in the United States, this would most likely reduce the production of pollutants in the air. However, if another country refuses to apply this tax, profits from the United States could be given to the other country. A possible solution would be to create a system of caps and limits, which each country allotted a certain amount relative to firms and population. This way, there would be a system where there is active trading and reduction of overproduction of toxic byproducts.

While the issue of environmental policies are still being debated, there are ways that we can contribute to the environment as individuals! Cornell has a plethora of initiatives at the ‘Sustainable Campus’ webpage, but if you are not up to joining a club, turning off your lights when you leave the house or turning off the faucet when you’re brushing your teeth are ways to contribute as well!