ISSUE II: Climate Change by Humanité Magazine

Climate change is not inherently a bad thing; in fact, it happens naturally all the time. The sun, oceans, and natural disasters all impact the climate in a way that we can’t control. However, since the industrial age, humans have played a larger role in climate change than ever before. Scientists estimate that human activity has raised the global temperature by one degree Celsius, which is enough to cause catastrophic damage to the environment. Even a small difference in temperature can melt ice, cause water shortages, and increase the number of extreme weather events. Here at Humanité, we’ve expressed our concerns for the environment in unique articles, stories, and poems. Faltering any longer may result in irreparable damage to our planet, and we seek to inform and inspire others into action through our writing.

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

Rachel Yoon, Mother Nature This piece reflected mother nature’s emotions during this turbulent time. Although she should be spiteful of global warming and climate change, she can’t help but try to heal the Earth. I used acrylic to make this piece, choosing to have a border around it to make it seem like snapshot in time. Layouts for this section are made by Henry Hatridge.

The Timeline of I 1750

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

1800

1850

Industrialization 1900

1950

2000

As global warming continues to worsen at a concerning pace, many sectors of human activities and industries are gaining negative attention for their greenhouse gas emissions, such as the transportation and energy industries. However, a sector that deserves increased scrutiny is the agricultural sector, and particularly the meat industry. According to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), approximately 31% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions originate from the agricultural industry, either directly or through related processes. Within the agricultural industry, the meat sector is of note, with almost all developed or developing nations consuming 50 to 150 kilograms of meat per capita. Thus, the industry as a whole is very lucrative, and due to the rising demand, consumption of meat in countries such as America has risen up to 40% compared to just eight years ago. Within the meat industry, beef has an especially negative impact on the environment. Considered the most inefficient transfer of energy and nutrients into food, beef causes over 20 times the harm and requires 20 times more effort to extract the same amount of nutrients produced by other food sources such as beans. Additionally, the digestive system of cattle produces large amounts of methane gas, which is considered to be worse than carbon dioxide in terms of atmospheric damage. In fact, BBC states that the cumulative amount of cow burps produces as much methane as all the world's cars and airplanes. In a larger context, cattle and the beef industry contribute to almost 41% of the greenhouse gas emissions of the total agricultural impact. This is an issue that requires greater attention because as of 2020, there are almost a billion head of agricultural cattle in the world with numbers expected to rise as the demand for meat continues to increase.

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

In addition to the meat industry’s rampant levels of greenhouse gas emissions, cattle herding causes even more severe issues on the environment. Due to the high profitability of cattle herding, cattle farmers in underdeveloped countries such as Brazil often disregard deforestation laws, cutting down entire sections of the Amazon rainforest to create grazing areas for the cows. Not only does this action destroy entire ecosystems within the amazon, but it also reduces the oxygen production of the Amazon and destroys one of Earth’s major carbon sinks. Thus, the cattle industry is a twopronged negative that both directly and indirectly harms the environment by quickening the pace of climate change. Meat is something that many people believe they cannot live without, and even while realizing the consequences of their diet, will not be willing to give up. However, with the ongoing ambitious push into the market for plant-based meat substitutes by companies like the Impossible Foods and Beyond Meats, who are attempting to completely emulate all aspects of the “meat eating experience,” including the taste, smell, nutrients, and even the sound of the grill, the market is seeing a slow yet positive transition into meat alternatives. With constant research and improvements being made to their products, those previously unconvinced to change their meat consumption are likely to get their notions challenged as progress continues to evolve into near perfect meat simulations.

The Hidden Impacts that Agriculture has on Climate Change

Paul Moon Humanite

The years 1850 to 1900 are commonly referred to as the “PreIndustrial Period”, which is, just like its namesake, before the wake of industrialization, when factories and mass production sites were not as widespread, and when fossil fuels did not impact the climate. Over the last century, we have witnessed the fast-paced technological development of the industry, which has greatly improved the average quality of life for people. Poverty rates have decreased, the overall GDP of nations have increased, and mortality rates are ameliorating. However, with this advancement comes a huge cost. Climate change is an integral issue that seems to exponentially worsen as society progresses and perpetuates its industrialization. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s average temperature is said to have increased by an entire degree Celsius over the past century. This might seem laughable to some, but the long term impacts it engenders are truly ominous and tangible; the rise of two or three degrees in the average temperature, which is just one more degree from now, would lead to the destruction of more than 40% of the Amazon rainforest, meaning greatly increased carbon emissions and futile vegetation. Continuing to pollute and mistreat the climate this way would indicate that by 2100, sea levels would rise by an entire meter, which would mean one out of every ten people in the world would be displaced, if not dead, due to the severe rising of the sea levels. Plant growth will be stunted as well, leading to the destruction of the Earth’s ecosystem and extinction of one third of the planet.

As illustrated above, although the idea of the climate’s average temperature augmenting by one degree may seem like nothing to the vast majority of people who continue to pollute Earth recklessly, when enlightened of the aforementioned grave impacts of climate change, they are naturally more incentivized to listen. Likewise, one of the best ways to mitigate the effects of climate change is promoting education on the issue. Education can encompass a great deal of topics, ranging from climate change’s causes and ramifications to ways they can help prevent it. People are directly responsible for the climate’s abject conditions, which is why imposing this sense of accountability can invoke a sense of guilt and fear about what is going to happen to the Earth, their friends, their family, and themselves, if they persist in wasting and polluting with such a careless demeanor.

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

To preclude such dire consequences of humans, can and should do, is frankly individual scale, we can participate in that range from planting trees, , cuttin modes of transportation, namely cars, into using public transportation l

On a more macro level, the government of the matter itself and its grave imp encourage citizens to act with more ec means of campaigns, public service an and more. Citizens would be encoura products, such as plastic straws, reus even curtailing the amount of meat the more vegetables. Corporations too, the many industrialized countries, would b government, but in a different sense. carbon cap and trade, where corporatio carbon they can use when contriving carbon usage, they can engage in trade a they surpass the limit set by the govern what awaits them. They can be fur government offers rewards for creat products that aim to decrease gree Corporations are unlikely to act unles generate more profit than loss, so a sev efficient way to set them in th

On a more macro level, the government of the matter itself should actively enc more eco-friendly mannerisms by m service announcements, pamphlets, an encouraged to utilize eco-friendly prod reusable cups, and even curtailing t consume in exchange for more vegeta main source of pollution in many indus the target audience of the governmen Because these entities benefit off of soc impose stricter and more stringent instance, carbon cap and trade is becom the current status quo, where corpora much carbon they can use when contriv carbon usage, they can engage in trade a they surpass the limit set by the govern what awaits them. They can be fur government offers rewards for creat products that aim to decrease gree Corporations are unlikely to act unles generate more profit than loss, so a sev efficient way to set them in th

climate change, what we, as very straightforward. On an daily eco-friendly activities ng back on riding privatized and instead, actively opting like buses or subways.

t, understanding the severity plications, should actively co-friendly mannerisms by nnouncements, pamphlets, aged to utilize eco-friendly sable cups, and bottles, and ey consume in exchange for e main source of pollution in be the target audience of the . One possible solution is a ons have a limit for how much g products. With a limit in and other activities, yet when nment, grave penalization is rther incentivized if the ting electric cars or other enhouse gas emissions. ss they believe their actions vere punishment is the most the right direction.

t, understanding the severity courage citizens to act with means of campaigns, public nd more. Citizens would be ducts, such as plastic straws, the amount of meat they ables. Corporations too, the strialized countries, would be nt, but in a different sense. ciety, the government should regulations on them. For ming increasingly popular in ations have a limit for how ving products. With a limit in and other activities, yet when nment, grave penalization is rther incentivized if the ting electric cars or other enhouse gas emissions. ss they believe their actions vere punishment is the most the right direction.

How Can We Stop Climate Change? Humanite Kelly Sung

Accountability and Climate Change: Should Blame Be Placed on Corrupt Governments or Apathetic Governments? Kelly Sung, Layout: Henry Hatridge By: Kelly Sung Layout:Author: Henry Hatridge

No Title Given

The problem of poverty is a structural one that requires systematic change in how society functions, specifically how the government implements different policies such as taxation and redistribution of income. Similarly, the climate refugee crisis is also something that the global society is accountable for. This encompasses both governments who pollute recklessly and governments plagued by corruption. In other words, the liability should not be placed on one individual actor because it takes an entire world for such problems to transpire in the first place. In order to properly address this question, a degree of characterization for the two different types of governments is necessary. Firstly, as for corrupt governments that do not care about their citizenry, they usually rule over developed nations and have a tendency to entrench dictatorial power. Because of this, they are able to have undisputed power and not be subject to public backlash and scrutiny even after they irresponsibly neglect to provide substantial relief. If the society were a democratic one that properly reflected the different views of their citizenry, then they would put more attention to this critical social issue. On the other hand, countries with governments that are large contributors of pollution can be of any economic status ranging from being severely poverty stricken to being as affluent as the United States. The problem of climate refugees has unequivocally exacerbated over the years. In fact, the issue has worsened to the extent that in 2018, the World Bank estimated that Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia would, in total, generate 143 million more climate migrants by 2050. Moreover, in the year of 2017, 68.5 million people were ripped apart from their homes despite their will, which was the most climate refugees ever produced in a year. What is integral to note is that there is minimal light shed on this massive issue of people becoming displaced from their homes due to the detrimental impacts of the climate, despite the fact that it urgently needs so much more recognition and tangible solutions. Though the quality of an average income citizen might ameliorate by the day, the fact that this issue of climate refugees is only getting more severe clearly shows the lack of attention to this problem. The reason being for this is quite straightforward. As governments and corporations progress in burgeoning technology, they recklessly pollute, exacerbating the grave implications of climate change, one of which being that it produces more poor and marginalized citizens suffering in squalor. Despite the fact that governments realize such ramifications, they are blinded by the immense profit and power this would give them, which hinders them from doing anything to alleviate the conditions of climate change refugees. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Governments that neglect to provide substantial relief to their respective suffering citizens are blameworthy, but so are power hungry governments who are blind to everything but wealth and political influence. Rather, there should be increased international cooperation and scrutiny to prevent this issue from getting any worse. This can look like, for instance, stringently enforcing measures like carbon cap and trade, pooling money to fund the building of solar panels, electric cars, and other eco-friendly machines, technologies, or innovations. Instead of deciding which actor we should be placing blame on, we should focus on striving for a greater solution that alleviates the problems and leads to the betterment of conditions for the climate refugees.

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

Layouts for this section are made by Jihoon Kim.

US Politics in the Paris Agreement Bryan Kim

With the rising need for society to find a solution to Climate Change, many heads have turned to the Paris Agreement to address the issue. According to the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement is a legally binding treaty on climate change that was adopted in December 2015. It entered into force on November 4, 2016, aiming to limit global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius and achieve a climate-neutral world by the mid-century. The Paris Agreement’s profound impact on combating climate change globally lies in the consensus of 3 points that exist among countries: climate change is driven by human action, is a threat to the environment, and calls for global action. Moreover, the agreement provides the necessary financial and technical framework for developing countries to receive support from developed countries. The Paris Agreement was welcomed with open hands under the notion that global efforts have become necessary to prevent further exacerbation of the issue. It was commonly accepted that developing countries were the most vulnerable to climate change with their lack of financial capacity; this flaw limited countries not only from surviving the effects of climate change, but also from actually dealing with the issue. Yet, people believed that the Paris Agreement would pressurize developed countries into financing environmental improvements within vulnerable countries and into improving their own efforts toward climate change mitigation. While many view the Paris Agreement as an opportunity for global improvement, others question the feasibility of its objectives and its effects on developed countries. This disagreement is exemplified by the clashes between former US President Donald Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden. Trump’s main argument against the Paris Agreement is that rather than benefiting the US, it only benefits vulnerable countries that will receive support from the US. As he said during a speech on June 1st, 2017, the US has the “most abundant energy reserves on the planet, sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty.” Yet, by submitting to the Paris Agreement, he claims America is “effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of [the] nation and leaving millions … of families trapped in poverty and joblessness.” Trump takes a more nationalistic stance, deeming the agreement as merely a massive redistribution of US wealth to other countries that would “only make America weaker,” halt businesses, and make American families suffer from a “diminished quality of life.” More importantly, Trump believes that the Paris Agreement will not have any impact on global temperatures. He claims that even if the Paris Agreement were to be fully

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

implemented throughout the entire century, it would only produce a two-tenths degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by 2100. Trump also contends that America’s projected progress surrounding climate change by 2030 would be wiped out in 14 days by carbon emissions from China. He says, “after [America has] had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lose jobs, close factories, and suffer much higher energy costs for [the country’s] businesses [and homes],” its progress in climate change would be wiped out. Meanwhile, Biden thinks otherwise. Driven by his high-regard for the environment, Biden constantly emphasized, throughout his campaign, the need for the US to direct environmental change through his investment plans: a $2 trillion investment towards reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 and a $1.7 trillion plan to invest in clean energy and green jobs to end fossil fuel subsidies and ban new oil and gas permits on public lands. Biden also presented his goals by 2030, to reach net-zero emissions standards for new buildings and US made buses, and by 2035, to have an electricity sector free of carbon pollution as well as a “second railroad revolution” that could expand high-speed rails throughout the country. With his emphasis on carbon emissions, Biden strongly advocates for the re-entrance of the US in the Paris Agreement, which he plans on rejoining on his first day as president, behind his belief that the agreement “[leads] an effort to get every major country to ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets.” Biden’s election was pleasant news to many advocates of the Paris Agreement, due to significant contributions that would be made simply by the admission of the US and Biden’s investment plans. The simple addition of the US’s economic stature in the agreement boosted the confidence of many in reaching Earth’s 1.5°C target. The main concern that surrounded opponents of the agreement lied in the lacking practicality of having to give everything up just to stay below 2°C, with the 1.5°C target being “aspirational.” An IPCC report from 2018 even claimed that 101 of 116 potential scenarios for staying below 2°C included negative emissions through carbon capture and storage. Such doubtful projections were dwarfed by Biden’s trillion dollar investment plans, which created speculations that if Biden’s projected commitments were to be maintained throughout the 21st Century, “China, the US, EU, Japan, [and] South Korea -- over 50% of global greenhouse gas emissions -- would have net-zero emissions by mid-century,” according to Bill Hare, CEO of Climate Analytics. At the current moment, many climate change activists are optimistic about what Biden’s commitment towards climate change means for the world’s progression in the Paris Agreement. With the United States’ economic prestige in the world, it may be safe to say that climate change and carbon emissions have the opportunity to change for the better.

How we can combat Climate Change Nate Wilson

Climate change will not begin to be fixed anytime soon. Throughout history, the human race has been almost always unable to look past their current situation and try to resolve problems that the next generation would face—excluding very few outliers like the Native Americans. For almost every crisis throughout human history, we have waited until the eleventh hour to try and stop it. Unfortunately, until climate change is close to eliminating humanity, substantial action will likely not be taken, and unless there is a way to make climate change a concern above all else, the crisis will not be solved.

if that means only a slight inconvenience. This has been proven perfectly by their inability to combat the current pandemic by doing something as simple as wearing a mask. If millions of people are unable to do this, what is the hope that they will comply with measures to combat a crisis that will not show its true effects for decades? Although people are finally acknowledging the danger of climate change, and agreements by the UN and individual efforts by people, NGOs, or companies will help in slowing down the rate of climate change, the crisis will not be stopped until a global effort is made.

Climate change is a global issue and as such will take the cooperation of all nations and all people to solve, which is nearly impossible with the current socio-economic state of the world. The economic backbone of many nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, is based solely on fossil fuels, and the removal of that sector would cause a complete economic collapse for similar nations. The social climate and culture in certain countries like the United States have been shown to be unable to cooperate with necessary measures even

While all of this seems very dire, there are some solutions that have been proposed that, if put into play, may help solve the problem. The first and most popular solution is “green cards” and low carbon rewards. Many credit card companies, private organizations, and small government projects have been aimed at starting a program that helps encourage lower emissions. One of these rewards is where you get money or slight tax exemptions from owning an electric car. The problem with this is that it is not a homogenous effort

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

and is, therefore, more random and doesn’t apply to everyone. The way to get around this is by having all UN governments to sign an agreement to have one standardized system to help encourage being carbon neutral. Yet this solution isn’t perfect either, since it is very difficult for developing countries to offer similar rewards and tax exemptions as more economically developed countries. Another very popular solution is to impose a carbon tax. The reason behind a carbon tax is to help reduce the feasibility of using fossil fuels by making them more expensive while also giving the government enough money to help combat climate change. Carbon taxes are very divisive because while many believe that carbon taxes will effectively reduce emissions and that it is both quick and effective without being too drastic of a measure. There is a large group of people who believe that it is an unreasonable solution that will limit job opportunities and stagnate the economy without actually doing much to save the economy. The reasoning behind their critique is that energy is often thought of as the “lifeblood of an economy” and with a tax on it, it would likely lead to an economic downturn. Furthermore, a tax on fossil fuels leads to fewer jobs and more poverty in the country imposing the tax. So the question is, will either of these methods work?

Both of these methods–especially if combined with each other–would lead to a large decrease in carbon emissions, possibly even stopping global warming but neither one will likely ever come to fruition. The lobbying power of corporations that either have large carbon emissions or sell fossil fuels paired with the nature of climate change being a future threat and not an immediate one is too much for any real change to come. If a tax is imposed it will likely be too small to make a difference and a credit reward system will likely not have enough sway to change people or corporations away from fossil fuels. While personal efforts to stop climate change may seem pointless, every little bit matters. As just one person the best you can do is to try and follow future government restrictions to make the transition into a carbonneutral future smoother.

Climate Refugees Sam Hong, Daniel Kim

Climate change, as we all know, is slowly eating away at the beloved planet that we all live on today. If you are reading this right now, you most likely are fortunate enough to not be affected by the issues of climate change. However, there are many more people within the world that have to deal with the current prevalent issue of climate change. This is where the term ‘climate refugee’ is derived from. ‘Climate refugee’ refers to someone who is forcibly displaced from their homes due to natural disasters caused by climate change. Countries throughout the world should be doing more to help these people in need. Think of the current climate refugees whose homes are being affected by natural disasters here and there. Imagine how unfair it would be for the families whose

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

homes were destroyed and how they have to build up their homes from scratch, using most of their own money. Imagine the people, the children who are suffering from these disasters. Can we allow this injustice to continue? The rapid increase in climate refugees in the past years is in direct correlation with the worsening of climate change; however, one must first understand how carbon affects global warming. According to the US Global Change Research Program, the concentration of carbon dioxide has skyrocketed from around 1950, and it has shown no signs of slowing down ever since. In correlation, the global temperature has also significantly increased from 14.03°C to14.72°C by 2000. This increase in global temperatures has in turn caused an escalation of natural disasters. Research

done by the United Nations states, “[T]he number of natural disasters has doubled in the past 20 year period, where there were 7348 natural disasters, than the previous 20 year period, where there were 4212 total natural disasters.” Of these 7348 natural disasters, floods have accounted for approximately 40% which were caused by the rising sea levels and melting ice caps. As such natural disasters continue to occur due to the increased global temperatures and climate change, Professor Norman Meyers of Oxford University estimates that the number of climate refugees will increase to a staggering 200 million by 2050. Furthermore, the World Bank has stated,“[I]n 2017, 68.5 million people were forcibly displaced, more than at any point in human history.” Such displacements are sure to have taken a huge toll on the wellbeing of the refugees who are unable to rebuild their lives due to a shortage of money. Hence, it will fall into the hands of countries to take on the oncoming influx of climate refugees. After all, if countries refuse to take responsibility, then who will?

If countries do start to support more climate refugees as time goes on, the largest beneficiaries of this action will be the climate refugees themselves. However, looking at the larger picture, the entire world will also benefit to some extent. For instance, one way the countries of the world could help these refugees right now is to implement a form of carbon tax, which taxes companies by each metric ton of carbon they emit into the atmosphere. Currently, there is a form of carbon tax implemented in only a select number of states within the US, such as California, Connecticut, Delaware, and a few others. Assuming that this tax was to be implemented nationwide within the United States, the companies that want fewer expenses would have no choice but to cut down on the amount of carbon that they release. The tax revenue would, in turn, not only give the government some breathing room in the form of money to support the climate refugees, but also help everyone living on Earth by somewhat decreasing the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere. Obviously, there are many more countries that emit carbon other than the US. It is well known that the amount of carbon emitted

will not decrease, as the Global Carbon Project states how “In 2018, global CO2 emissions were dominated by emissions from China (28%), the USA (15%), the EU (9%) and India (7%). Growth rates of these countries from 2017 to 2018 were +2.3% for China, +2.8% for the USA, -2.1% for the EU28, and +8.0% for India.” No matter how light the tax rate, if these countries were to implement some form of carbon tax, it can most definitely help the climate refugees, let alone the world itself. In conclusion, countries must strive to support climate refugees by creating a habitable environment unscathed by the devastating effects of carbon. This issue may not be of great concern to those unaffected by climate change; however, one cannot simply choose to ignore and neglect the refugees who are still very much human in their own right.

Vivienne Chung, The Lost Polar Bear I created this artwork using acrylics, based off of Brian Cho’s short story, Climate changes from the perspective of a glacier. I drew a glacier melting due to climate changes, and since Brian Cho’s story was based off a lost polar bear, I also drew a polar bear who seems lost in the middle of the melting ice. Layouts for this section are made by Julia Cheon.

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

Rosa

SPIRITUAL A

ne can say that the world’s spirit—its beliefs, ideologies, and norms—has undergone constant change over the eras. Once, it was acceptable to view human beings as property. Once, ‘bad blood’ was blamed for disease. Once, the only humanoids that flew were angels. Once, Mother Nature was hailed and feared as a living deity. Once, the only lights in the night were campfires and stars, twinkling in the pristine air. Once, fish of an uncountable number of species teemed the seas with flashing abundance. Once, forests swathed the land well past the horizon. Then came industrialization. Coal smoke choked the stars from view. Forests cut down, alder and beechwood and pine—living, breathing creatures—transformed into ‘fuel.’ Fish disappeared, gone before anyone could record them, before anyone even thought of

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

life vanishing from the face of the Earth. Nature sputtered and gasped for breath, pleading through volcanoes, forest fires, hurricanes, anything; messages foreboding the beginning of an agonizing death, messages that went ignored. But industrialization isn’t the cause. It’s a manifestation of a deeper rot within humanity. Humans have long believed that nature is an exploitable resource, and at first, it was necessary to think this way. Armed with only flint arrows and unnatural intelligence, humans were forced to use nature, the one resource at their disposal, to survive. But that has changed now. We have moved from caves to skyscrapers, dropped arrows for supercomputers, traveled by foot then by flight, soaring past the speed of sound. We are now more than capable of surviving on our own

a Suh

ADAPTATION without exploiting nature, and yet we still do out of greed and unwillingness to change. Like a virus, that primitive rot has taken over all our systems, the seemingly logical reasoning that nature should be exploited for the good of humanity, not realizing that the good of humanity depends on the good of nature. Now, we, like many times before, is at a crossroads. Will we do nothing and march knowingly toward our own demise? Or will we adapt and do what we need to do for the survival of the planet, for the survival of humanity? The latter option will take painstaking eﬀort and copious amounts of money to heal nature from the damage we have inflicted, and even then, there will still be wounds

that it will never fully recover from. However, these mild contentions are superseded by the ultimate truth: there is no future for humanity in the former option. There is no future for a human race that digs straight down into the Earth’s core without expecting the biting flare of lava. No future for a race that continues to pump coal dust into the sky and then complains about the lack of stars in the sky. Once again, we must adopt a new spirit, a spirit of conservation, one of respect for the natural world not out of moral duty, but out of survival. We did it many times before, and if there’s one thing to be certain about humanity, it’s that we can do it again.

Woojune Kim

CORONA’S UNIQUE EFFECT ON CLIMATE CHANGE Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

During the months following the COVID-19 outbreak across the globe, many people noted a peculiar phenomenon: the world’s carbon emissions had gone down significantly. In fact, other harmful gases, such as nitrous oxide, also saw a decrease in output in 2020. As economic activity stalled around the world, pollution also reduced accordingly. Though there have been similar, international crises that have caused large annual falls in CO2 emissions, none have been as impactful as the coronavirus. Still, the question remains whether reducing carbon emissions will positively affect the climate in the long term. What’s going to stop countries from restarting their factories and pumping out carbon dioxide after the pandemic? Historically, after world-altering events such as the Great Depression or the financial crash of 2008, the world generally returns to its normal rate of pollution within a decade, so it would be unreasonable to expect the global community to decrease carbon emissions by the same rate as 2020 for several more years. In fact,

some studies even contend that the drop in SO2 emissions counters the decline of CO2 emissions, therefore barely impacting global warming in the long run. Though researchers predict that the world may see an increase in infectious diseases over the following decades, those events will be far from enough to cancel out all man made polluting activities. What the pandemic has taught us about climate change is that

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

By: Katie Kim

Layouts for this section are made by Eunice Rhee

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

Antarctica Presidential Candidate Brian Cho & Daniel Kim

Hill. I am Grizzly Mandela, running for the Republican Party, Ice Cap if you would. This is my speech for why you should elect me as the president of Antarctica. 35 years ago, I first set foot on this mystical wonderland known as Antarctica. As a never-ending blanket of snow lay before my very eyes, I was immediately captivated and enthralled by its delicate yet majestic beauty. Especially for a young man fresh out of college, it was unlike anything I have seen in my two decades of existence. It was then that I saw him. A regal beast coated in fur as white as a blizzard in a mid-winter’s afternoon. A polar bear. But not just a regular one. A one that was drowning. I rushed to its aid as it hesitantly disappeared into the depths of the water below, the glacier cracking under my feet as if it were made of fine origami paper. I slid, Tom Cruise, Mission Impossible style, as I reached my hand out in hopes of saving the polar bear. But it wasn’t enough. The bear slid into the water below, consumed by the chill enough to get a stage four frostbite. I got up to my feet and stared down at the hole that swallowed this majestic animal for a full seven minutes. And then, right at the seven minute mark, an epiphany seized me. I thought to myself, “What we need now is a policy. A policy to save all bears. A bearlicy if you would.” I stopped and thought to myself for a full three minutes, just so I would be sitting in silence for

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

exactly ten minutes. I then screamed to the towering winds of the Arctic landscape, “I need to make an amendment to the Constitution!” It was as if the spirit of my favorite U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln, had grabbed me by the forehead and told me to make some changes to the desolate world that I lived in. I screamed out loud once again, “I hear you Abe!” Then, I began to get to work on the bearlicy. I was devoted to this cause and soon gave myself the name of “The Great Libearator.” While many believed this to be a typo, it wasn’t. I got to work and began to write a defining clause to save the bears of Antarctica. Then I came across a topic that briefly held my attention during my youth: climate change. It was climate change that caused this bear’s death. So I decided to expand this amendment and designed it to deal with all things climate change. Now let’s talk about climate change. Needless to say, it has had a profound effect on this very

region. An effect so disastrous, so catastrophic, so devastating that the planet we once loved is just a shadow of its past. Now some may say, “Why try to prevent climate change now if it’s too late?” To that, I cite my late father who would frequently remind me that “it always seems impossible until it’s done.” Yes, my father is the great Nelson Mandela whom I often call Bearson Mandela. Therefore, we must persist, for when doom appears near, we must strive for the light, even if it is a mere spark in an ebony night sky. I am thrilled to announce that if I am named president of Antarctica, I will officially label May 2nd as national bear day. The reasoning behind this stems from my experience in Antarctica after

the death of the bear and my research on climate change. It’s more of a ritual actually. Every year on May 2nd, I return to Antarctica dressed as a polar bear and live with the other polar bears for a full day. I engage in the various activities they do and make the other bears call me the Great Libearator. Again, not a typo. I’d like to share this experience with others and ask growing children to experience this kind of group activity. This will stimulate their team working skills and benefit the future of our country. This will also result in them eating less cow meat because of the readily available raw fish and seals that they will consume with the other polar bears. A decrease in the consumption of beef and cows will result in less methane gas released into the atmosphere and helping with climate change. I would like to finish off with a quote from my great grandfather, Bearack Obama: “Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica”.

The Timer on Coastal Cities It is not uncommon to hear about the seemingly exaggerated impact of climate change. The idea of “conscious living” seems to come into popularity every once in a while, ineffective if not implemented long term. Scientists constantly produce new evidence that informs us of the disastrous doomsday scenario that will happen in the years to come. Yet, most people don’t seem to care. With every passing year, the dangers of climate change get worse, yet no action is taken. It can only be assumed that life everywhere will soon be endangered, including even the species at the very top: humans. In fact, we can see immediate changes today. One effect of climate change that can be traced today is global warming. The constant emission of carbon dioxide and other air pollution has resulted in a heat-trapping layer in the Earth’s atmosphere, increasing the overall surface temperature of the Earth. Global warming has caused a significant sea-level rise over the years, making flooding quite common. Coastal flooding is a type of temporary flooding that takes place on dry land surrounded by or close to large bodies of land. Although coastal flooding has been sporadic during certain seasons across the US, it has been substantially increasing recently. In the past 60 years, coastal cities have been experiencing flooding much more frequently, certain cities going from only 5 days of flooding in one year to 20 days. Some of the cities pertaining to coastal areas are flooding on an extreme scale, leading to a new type of flooding called chronic flooding. It is said to be a type of flooding that can not be dealt with, resulting in relocation. There are 670 communities thought to undergo chronic flooding by the end of the century, ac-

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

Rachel Yoon

cording to National Geographic. The West, East, and Gulf coasts of America will definitely have to endure this problem. Parts of New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, and more are estimated to be underwater by 2100. Even South Korea is a country surrounded by water. If sea levels continue to rise, we will have to face the consequences with our home being slowly submerged. The toll our actions are taking on the Earth is no simple threat. With this being said, it is necessary to note climate change has no simple solution. There are many factors that contribute to climate change and rising sea levels. A collective effort must be made to truly combat climate change. Many industries and countries must take their own efforts to decrease their contributions to global warming. The entire planet must do better or we will all be regretting our choices by the time it is too late.

Corporation Obligation:

Why Companies Need To Be Responsible For Their Environmental Footprint

Rosa Suh

Everyone has an environmental footprint, but some entities have particularly big ones. As globalization and capitalism have bloomed across economies around the world, a few corporations have grown to acquire immense power and wealth. Most often, this wealth comes from a strictly commercial approach to business with little to no interest in other things, including the environment. Due to this, many corporations have produced concerning amounts of waste—often made of indisposable plastic—in order to maximize profit. Many of the biggest instigators are household names like Coca-Cola, Nestle, Mars, and Danone, companies that collectively expel six million tons of plastic yearly. Through the astronomical amounts of waste they produce, these corporate giants are contributing far more to climate change and pollution than the average individual. A particularly large problem is plastic microparticles, commonly created from plastic bottles like those produced by Coca-Cola and Néstle, that end up in drinking water and the internal systems of marine animals. To their credit, these corporations have tried in the past to reduce their impact on the environment. Coca-Cola’s World Without Waste initiative promises to make all their packaging 100% recyclable by 2025 and 50% of all products by 2030. Likewise, Starbucks in recent years has replaced their plastic straws with a new lid made of recycled plastic. While these endeavors are promising, the fact that they are being done for public image rather than genuine concern for the environment has prevented them from making a sizable change. The Starbucks plastic straw ban, for instance, has minimal impact because most of their plastic comes from their cups, not straws. Additionally, the unfortunate reality that less than 10% of plastic gets recycled significantly undermines the effectiveness of Coca-Cola’s initiative. These flaws suggest that most companies are not willing to sacrifice too much of their commercial gains for the environment, with most just sticking to approaches that are minimal but still garner praise from consumers. The only way for corporations to truly turn the tide of environmental decay is to commit to working for the interest of the environment rather than profit. It is a fundamental principle that everyone should own up to their actions; it is unfair for it not to apply to corporations regarding their impact on the environment. Therefore, out of basic courtesy, corporations have the responsibility to alleviate any environmental pains they cause.

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

Governments and legislative bodies like the Un Nations would likely need to enforce this if it ever com to practice, but the goal is for corporations themselve take responsibility for their footprint. As helping the vironment would have a positive impact on their pu image, as it did for Starbucks, they would have some centive to do so. Additionally, they would be ensuring longevity of their company by adapting early to the in itable: the replacement of plastic with more sustaina alternatives. Some examples of taking corporate respo bility are donating money to research for sustainable ergy and products, redesigning their products to be m eco-friendly, or funding clean-ups in landfills and garb patches. These endeavors would likely result in the m rapid development of sustainable technologies and a minished environmental footprint overall. Some may argue that since corporations act in orde satisfy the desires and needs of people, the people w buy their products are to blame, not the corporation other words, corporations only have an obligation tow their consumers, not the environment. While individ consumers do have the responsibility to curb their vironmental footprints as well, it is a fact that corp tions cause disproportionately larger harm. Also, due the prevalence and cheapness of many of their produ many are forced to buy from these corporations beca they cannot afford anything else; others simply don’t kn what products are sustainably produced due to corpor non-transparency. But the truth is that preserving the vironment is, in fact, satisfying the needs of the peo After all, people cannot live healthy and normal lives w out a healthy environment. It’s important to note that even if corporations be to see the environment as a top priority, it would lik take years before significant changes are seen. The fo dation many of these companies are built on is inhere for-profit. It will take a while for them to completely root this foundation and replace it with one that is m sustainable and eco-friendly. While it may be difficul transition from profit to eco-friendliness, there is no o er alternative. Corporations, arguably the biggest inst tors of climate change, must take it upon themselves reverse the destruction they caused to the environm They must remember that while monetary wealth is tr sient, their environmental footprint will last forever.

nited mes es to enublic e inthe nevable onsienmore bage more a di-

er to who n. In ward dual enporae to ucts, ause now rate e enople. with-

egin kely ounently upmore lt to othtigas to ment. ran-

Vivienne Chung, Climate Refugees in Need I created this artwork using acrylics, based off of Sam Hong and Daniel Kim’s article, Climate refugees and how countries are dealing with them. I specifically painted this artwork based off an island republic in the Central Pacific, where villages have flooded from the sea. Layouts for this section are made by Andrew Hahm.

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

Is Climate Change Inevitable? Irreversible? Woojune Kim and Alice Lee

Climate change is far from a recent issue—and most certainly not an issue that should be left for posterity. Since the first factories billowed smoke into the sky, we have sought to quench our avarice by creating better, larger, more efficient methods of production. Today, large consequences from those actions loom in front of us, finally forcing us to acknowledge the enormous burden we have put the environment under. So is there no way to avoid those effects? Is it hopeless to fantasize about reversing what we’ve done? Or is there still a path to redemption? Ever since the question of climate change has risen onto the surface, the debate on whether climate change is inevitable or not has converged a misunderstanding of the hal consequences of climate change. While

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

tweets about how climate change will expire humanity and our environment and speeches about how people will ultimately settle the rising problem of climate change continue on, one vision is clear as we simply face away from the severe situation by incessant diatribes: climate change is inevitable. Inevitable in the consequence of the fact that it is impossible for human activity to stop as factories continue functioning; technology developing; infrastructures building our societies; and most importantly, natural resources burning to succor our needs. As of today, our future is to be unfolded into four main scenarios, but even the most optimistic synopsis identifies for global temperatures to rise. As temperatures are predicted to rise up 4.3 degrees Celsius due to heavy carbon emissions and

burning of natural gases, Earth’s atmosphere will be covered in a thick blanket of heat, exhausting the planet with the gases’ intense calefaction. So what’s so wrong and dreadful about rising temperatures? It doesn’t stop here: sea levels will rise as well. Experts claim how sea levels will be rising up to 0.74 meters, indicating deadlier and destructive storms hitting humans. Then are rising temperatures and sea levels the ultimate consequences? Unfortunately, no. Climate change will further destroy the ecosystem as human activities lead to deforestation, ultimately leading to extinction of our world’s precious animals. Not only will natural resources be deprived, but vulnerable cities will also suffer from chaotic economic structure due to growing environmental issues. For countries that lack access to clean water, climate-related incidents like droughts will only make water more expensive and less accessible than it already is, which will likely affect the cost of raw materials and production. Although these situations are hypothetical, people should not be unbound to the reality of climate change and its danger. Responding to these statistics, various countries have attempted to draw the issue of climate change in political agreements and global summits to address potential efforts that can be made. Yet, even if nations comply with diplomatic accords such as the Paris Agreement, it will never completely eliminate carbon emmissions, thus concluding that climate change will, unfortunately, be inevitable. Perhaps it is apt to compare climatechange to an exothermic reaction—something that was easy to do, 41

but much harder to reverse. Even if human activity stops at this moment, Earth’s temperatures would continue to rise for a period of time. For a few decades, we would observe further rise in temperatures because much of our energy remains stored in the ocean. That is to say, we have not even encountered the full consequences of our greenhouse gases yet. But this is all fantasy anyway, since it’s impossible to immediately restrict emissions. In 2019, the United Nations warned that we have around a decade to stop “irreparable damage” to Earth. This doesn’t mean that our efforts will be fruitless after a decade, but rather that we need to take serious action right now. Whether it’s a grassroot movement or a top-down approach, this isn’t an issue limited to governments or individual people. Sustainable city plans and increased use of renewable energy is just as important as coordination between international agencies. In other words, your own actions matter just as much as anyone else’s. It’s too easy to offload our responsibilities, especially when they seem too large for us to address. Of course the president should be doing more than us to stop climate change—it is their job, after all. But that doesn’t excuse us of our moral obligation to commit ourselves to the wellbeing of our planet. From recycling to driving an electric car, everyone has a role to play in cleaning up the mess. It’s possible that it is too late to revert Earth to the state it was a thousand years ago, but that was never the goal. As Eboshi, the manifestation of industrialization and greed in Miyazaki’s Princess Mononoke, states at the end of the movie, “we’ll build a better town.” That kind of resolve is what we, and the world, needs now.

Climate Change From The Perspective Of A Glacier Brian Cho

Ice melts. Regardless of whether that fact is to my advantage or to my demise, it is one that is constant. That horrible truth renders my story true. True and applicable to many others of my kind. I am an ice cap. This is how I met my end. I was born on January 7th, 1972. I was a relatively small ice cap compared to the others. Still, from my birth, I strived to become more. Ice caps have a unique partnership with another species that predominantly occupies the North Pole: Polar bears. Although our relationship follows commensalism, and we don’t benefit from their choice to live on us, we take pride in it and attempt to provide a nurturing environment for them. The Jeffersons were my first and unfortunately last family that would live on me. A family that consisted of a father, a mother, and three children, they looked at life from a very positive perspective, something that I also endeavored to do. I did everything I could to make their stay on my surface as pleasant as it could be. I almost felt sorry that my end meant theirs It was September 13th, 2009, ten years after the Jeffersons’ arrival, that I was aware of the growing compilation, or rather, the growing calamity that threatened the existence of thousands, potentially millions. The papa bear initiated a conversation with the mama bear in a husky yet worried voice. “I heard that they were building more factories in America. I don’t like the sound of that.” “Not just America. The world. Humans, they’re so invested in building these giant towers of iron with no concern of—” “Of course they don’t give a damn about us. We live thousands of miles away from them. They’re probably more concerned about whether their favorite sports team is going to make the finals or not.”

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

“Sorry. I just… I knew the Davidsons,” responded Frank. “They had a three year old.” “We have kids too. What are we going to do about them?” “I want to say that they’re older than thirteen. And that they all had a pretty fruitful life.” “Frank!” exclaimed the mama bear. “We’re not going to embrace the fact that this is the end for them.” “Let’s be realistic. I calculated the total square feet of this ice cap. I say we have about a year or so until everything goes to hell. There’s no way we can come up with a viable escape plan by then or even know that there is one.” “Stop talking. The kids are coming.” I was melting. The sunlight felt like beams of intensified heat prepared to decimate me. Large beads of perspiration dripped from me into the ocean. It was as if a doctor had reminded me I was diagnosed with cancer and the tumor was going to eat away at me for a year until my demise. Then I realized another fact. This meant it was the end for my polar bear family. I viewed the situation from their perspective. Three children younger than twenty. And they were handed a death sentence just now. I had to do everything in my power to save this family. I was going to die and I accepted that destiny. I wasn’t ready to accept theirs. Over the course of the next three months, I made it my mission to stop myself from thawing. Surprisingly, it took a lot of energy out of me. You wouldn’t believe the intensity of the sun’s rays these days. I continued to listen in on the Jefferson family’s worries. Their escape plans continued to fall apart, one after another, and potential for their survival outside of my surface seemed less and less plausible over time. A year had finally passed and it happened. My surface area had grown so small that it was only a matter of time until all of the Jeffersons would sub My surface area had grown so small that it was only a matter of time until all of the Jeffersons would submerge to their deaths as well. merge to their deaths as well. First it was Maria, the mama bear. Then it was Donnie and Sean, two of the children. Then it was Lily, the final child alive. With Frank the last survivor on my icy surface, he cursed at me for taking away everything he ever loved. Then it was Frank. Frank blamed me. I blame the humans. Their neglect caused this. Ice does melt. But it could have been avoided. With that, I conclude my short-lived journey, disappearing back into the depth of what I came from.

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

Environmental Justice Aimee Choi

Humans hurt when nature hurts, but some people hurt more than others. Among the many overlooked inequalities in our society is an environmental one, where some communities are more vulnerable to humancaused environmental hazards or pollution. The lower-income class and people of color, in particular, experience environmental discrimination that is recently being exacerbated by the threatening effects of climate change. Efforts to fight this inequality has been termed “environmental justice.” Race has served as a pivotal constituent in environmental discrimination to the point where the problem is often called “environmental racism.” The deepest roots of this problem date back to the colonial era when European colonists exploited natural resources in the New World, as well as countless other African and Asian regions. In the U.S. today, remnants of this trend are seen as many African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are dangerously exposed to toxic waste from industries or corporations, forced to face disproportionate amounts of health hazards. In fact, Dr. Robert Bullard, known as the “father of environmental justice,” stated, “race [is] more important than socioeconomic status in predicting the location of the nation’s commercial hazardous waste facilities.” Though prevalent for many decades, the consequences of environmental racism have been blatantly evident in recent years; the 2014 water crisis in Flint, Michigan, where a predominantly black community was exposed to a poisoned water source; the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in 2016, where an oil pipeline threatened Indian Reservations; the “Cancer Alley” region of Louisiana, where African Americans are disproportionately affected by hazardous chemicals; and countless more. The numbers also confirm the degree of such systemic environmental racism. From 2003 to 2015, white Americans were harmed by -17% of the pollution than they had caused, as opposed to African Americans’ 56% and Latino Americans’ staggering 63%. Today, the effects of environmental racism are especially highlighted by the visible dangers of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. The already existing health hazards that people of color experience, for instance, increase the risk of their exposure to harmful effects of climate change—anything as simple as excessive heat. When disadvantaged communities live in areas with less developed facilities or subpar infrastructure, they are also more imperiled by damage from potential climate-related extreme weather events. In terms of the pandemic, the numbers have already proven the disparity: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that black, Latino, and indigenous Americans are nearly three times as likely to die of COVID-19 than white Americans are, their risks being amplified by their proximity to environmental hazards. This fundamentally racist problem with the environment has consistently been met with resistance since the late 20th century by the victims themselves. The official environmental justice movement was sparked in 1982 in Warren County, North Carolina, a rural and predominantly black neighborhood. As the state government tried to move 6,000 truckloads of toxic soil compounds to this county, completely neglecting the risks of contaminating the neighborhood’s drinking water source, angry residents led marches and peaceful protests to oppose this decision, garnering national attention. Spearheaded by civil rights leaders from the South, where environmental discrimination was more prevalent, the movement has since then actively sought to combat the unequal impacts of environmental hazards among the poor and racial minorities. The mainstream environmental movement, often considered elitist and surrounding concerns generally on the white, middle and upper class, initially failed to take into account the struggles of people of color when devising policies. Though focusing more on issues like wildlife preservation, the mainstream movement has gradually and steadily expanded to more marginalized groups, environmental racism becoming a more substantial issue to tackle in mainstream organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council. The movement has seen definite progress in influencing governmental policies, leading media campaigns, and spreading initiatives through environmental justice organizations around the world. The environment is certainly not an exception when it comes to the contributors of systemic racism. With an exacerbating climate crisis, the environmental justice movement is becoming increasingly necessary in fighting for a more equal atmosphere where all citizens are granted fair and safe access to the environment.

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

Layouts for this secuion are made by Yuzine Yi.

What’s behind the Green New Deal? Perhaps one of the most controversial political agendas on the issue of climate change has been the Green New Deal (GND), progressives’ ambitious proposal to decarbonize the economy before the effects of climate change reach a critical point. The GND aims to completely shift the U.S. economy to renewable energy by 2030 and invest in capturing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, aligning with the main goals of the Paris Agreement. At the same time, the GND aims to aid with socio-economic issues like housing, health care, income inequality, and disadvantages people of color face. While this comprehensive plan has been widely applauded by environmentalists for holding necessary goals, it has also been condemned and downplayed for imposing a dangerously radical agenda on the nation. All of this leaves many wondering, is the GND realistic, financially feasible, and necessary to achieve? In general, the GND’s extensive objectives are imperative to adopt, or at least to set as the nation’s ultimate goals; in reality, the U.S. should have implemented them long ago. But the plan also lacks specificity or a stepby-step process on how to attain them. Its yet unclear approach may be contributing to the great political controversy surrounding its practicality. It is especially important for far-reaching plans like the GND to have discrete, established details in order to reduce the risk of fallacies or loopholes being exploited. Aside from the GND’s lack of specificity, its technological solutions have been commended by experts for being realistic. Although 2030 may be a strenuous deadline to keep, shifting the economy’s foundations to technologies, like green energy and batteries, is more than possible in the near future. Because renewable energy is even cheaper than fossil fuel in many parts of the world, and it is now merely a matter of investing enough in these already existing technologies. Yet that is exactly what stirs the most disagreement: the GND’s economic investment and upheaval. Many critics have expressed concern about the financial cost and risk of this plan, for the GND is expected to cost trillions of dollars and damage the fossil fuel industry. However, while the transition from fossil fuels to renewables must indeed be managed carefully to minimize economic risks, experts say this expensive plan can be recompensed by the economic growth fostered by the GND in the long-term. Not only will the renewable technologies grow cheaper as they get produced

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

By Aimee Choi

more, but the high upfront cost of the plan is also stretched out over a decade, allowing financial pressure to be loosened by the profits of electricity sales. In times of an economic recession due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a rising renewable industry may also serve as a promising job opportunity for millions of workers. Besides, since the GND does not outright ban fossil fuels, the transitioning process will be unlikely to drastically hurt the industry. So before immediately pointing at the plan for being costly, we must understand how financially beneficial the GND can be in the long-term. The GND also faces great political difficulties because it is often deemed too politically extreme to implement. It does seem unlikely for this plan to appeal to the majority of politicians any time soon when climate change deniers still exist in the government. Nevertheless, the GND serves as an important building block in the government because it takes the lead in expanding the scope of political goals to combat climate change. Taking all technological, economic, and political factors into consideration, the GND seems realistic to achieve if it gains more concrete details and a greater appeal to all political parties. That being said, the U.S. must strive to implement it sooner or later, for it is perhaps the only proposed plan that can bring the country a hopeful future. Even if it ends up not being enacted, other political plans to mitigate the effects of climate change should turn to the GND’s objectives and adopt similarly ambitious measures, for extreme and unavoidable issues like climate change require large-scale measures to solve. Minor changes in the fossil fuel industry would barely even touch on our already suffocating layer of greenhouse gases; for instance, while some propose natural gas as a more favorable alternative to fossil fuels than renewables, natural gas is simply not enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a desirable degree. The government must realize that the fossil fuel industry may keep the economy stable as of now but will become increasingly unsustainable and costly in the near future. Renewables supported by the GND, on the other hand, is capable of shaping a stable economy while also being environmentally sustainable. After all, the environment is the basis of all human activities; sustaining the environment must be our utmost priority if we wish to maintain a functional economy.

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

THE PROBLEMS OF FINDING AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE By Alice Lee Earth, our home planet, is a world unlike any other. Our Earth provides us with life and protects us from space. The beautiful oceans, breathtaking landscapes, fascinating animals, and abundance of natural resources the Earth provides for humanity should not be taken for granted. Specifically, the natural resources humans have exploited throughout history have been exhausted to a point where the exhaustion of minerals and raw materials is deteriorating our home planet. Humans have always envisioned a brighter and innovative future, a world where daily life becomes exceedingly convenient. Inventions, infrastructure, and technological advancements throughout history have presented future generations with a beneficial and conductive life. Yet the natural resources used to achieve these developments have resulted in a major consequential crisis: climate change. The main natural materials humans have made use of are nonrenewable resources: coal, petroleum, natural gas, and other mined fuels. These resources, however, have been identified as major causes of climate change, causing surface temperatures to rise, extreme weather to occur, and wildlife to go extinct. In response to these problems, researchers had introduced alternative energy sources that would mitigate the detrimental effects of climate change in the late 1900s: hydroelectric systems, biomass, wind power, solar thermal systems, photovoltaic systems, passive energy systems, geothermal systems, and many more. As of today, renewable energy sources have been introduced to many companies and houses, spreading to become one of the most prevalent energy sources in the world. Now the following question arises: will renewable energy be the solution to climate change? While renewable energy has been renowned as the future for energy sources and effective over the past decades, marking 24% of electricity generation in 2016, recent studies have shown that alternative energy sources have imposed additional problems: the availability and quality of power and resource locations. One of the greatest concerns in the field of renewable energy is that power generation depends on natural resources, which are uncontrollable by humans. Take, for example, solar and wind power. Solar-powered electricity can only be generated when sunlight is present during the day and will turn off during the night. Wind power is also heavily dependent on the availability of wind and its strength; if the wind is too weak, the turbine that generates electricity will not function properly; if too strong, the turbine can be damaged. Consistent high power quality is necessary to ensure stability, reliability, and high-efficiency; poor power quality will only lead to high costs and equipment failures. As the fluctuating power generation continuously increase concerns, resource locations are becoming an additional concern. To generate electricity using renewable energy, an immense amount of land and equipment is essential. Hydroelectric systems, which contribute significantly to world energy, providing 18% of the world’s total installed power generation capacity and more than 54% of the global renewable power generation capacity, require substantial land for their water storage reservoirs. An average of 75,000 hectares (ha) of reservoir land area and 14 trillion liters of water are required per 1 billion kWh per year generated. To develop the remaining ablest candidate reservoirs, considering land conditions similar to those in past advancements, an additional 17 million ha of land would be needed for water storage and future generation of hydroelectric energy. The development of renewable energy sources has gained widespread popularity, renowned as the fastest-growing energy source in the United States, increasing by 100% from 2000 to 2018. However, the problems associated with the growing use of renewable energy have yet been solved and while many chances succeed in generating usable energy, failures can be devastating due to the high initial cost of installation of generators and equipment. The issue of solving climate change is not as simple as replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.

Vast and hostile ice. Will soon blossom with flowers. With me as leader.

By Sam Hong and Nate Wilson

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

We Love Ice 53

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

Layouts for this sections are made by Alexis Choi.

Humanite Humanite Magazine: Magazine: Issue Issue 22

56 56

57 57

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2

Through this issue, we’ve explored a number of environment-related topics that plague Earth today. Though climate change is one of the most commonly discussed issues, advancements in the field have been concerningly slow compared to expectations, such as the goals outlined in the Paris Agreement. There are many possible explanations for this: perhaps short presidential terms in some countries disincentivize leaders from announcing ambitious plans that won’t come to fruition soon enough, or perhaps the public doesn’t perceive this issue with enough urgency. However, the former is proving untrue as Biden announced his climate plan and many European nations have implemented some form of a carbon tax. So, the next logical step would be for the public—people like us writers at Humanité—to actively recognize and champion efforts to curb climate change. We hope our collection of articles and stories have given you insight and convinced you to take action in some way, regardless of magnitude. Please let us know if you have any further inquiries, and we hope to hear from you.

Humanite Magazine: Issue 2