Did any of the Options appeal to you more than the others?

Option 3 appealed the most to me since it seemed the most realistic; however, this option still is not ideal. In option 1, forcing individuals to only drive electric cars would cost a lot of money and create waste since all the cars being replaced would need to be discarded. In option 2, relocating people would cause problems by invading property rights and forcing people to move and adapt to areas they did not want to live. Option 3 suggests giving incentives to companies to encourage research for more innovative products and methods which is a very positive step. I disagree with the easing regulatory processes example since this could potentially expose the market to products that have not been proven safe over time.

Did you hear or think of any new way of addressing the issues associated with the warming of the climate?

When reading through option 1 which addressed reducing carbon emission and option 2 which addressed protecting communities, I was surprised that there was no point made about cows. Raising cows requires many acres of grass, and the animals can be cited as major contributors to methane gas emissions. Ranchers also have difficulty discarding the manure in an environmental-friendly way. However, cows are excellent sources of protein and dairy. As the human population continues to increase and as more communities can afford to purchase meat, the need for more sources for protein has increased. In a Ted Talk, entrepreneur and conservationist Mike Velings gives the frightening statistic that the human population will be approximately “9.7 billion by 2050” and that “70 percent more protein” will be required (1). One alternative, suggested by the Ted Talk, addressed these problems by suggesting aquaculture. In aquaculture, fish are grown for food. This would significantly reduce both cow methane and mature problems while also providing a source of protein. It would also allow previous dairy farms and ranchland to be use for homes or for growing other crops for human consummation. However, two problems come with this solution. First, by raising fish in small spaces, they become more prone to spread disease, and studies have shown the farmed fish are not as healthy as the wild fish (2). If the farmed fish manage to escape the chamber and mate with wild fish, they can spread contamination and disease. The second problem would be convincing individuals to change their diet.

1. https://www.ted.com/talks/mike_velings_the_case_for_fish_farming?language=en#t-57905
2. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/303/5655/226

What are your thoughts on the use of Public Deliberation in the classroom or the community? Is this something you would like to facilitate?

I think the best way to inform individuals about these issues would be through social media. If a public deliberation is held, it should be livestream. As an individual, I sometimes feel like lifestyle does not have a significance impact on climate change. If a public deliberation could focus more on things individuals can do, show how the little things do matter, and convince others to motivate their friends and family to make these subtle changes, then the public it could create an impact on the community. I might be interested in facilitating a public deliberation, but I have a heavy course load next semester so I am not sure.