Throwing Shade: Heat Islands, Public Health, and Clean Water:
Youtube on March 5, 2020:
The title of my first excursion is Throwing Shade: Heat Islands, Public Health, and Clean Water presented by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation(Link Here).The speaker is Jeremy S. Hoffman. The video was published on March 5, 2020 and I watched it on May 7, 2024. The main point of the talk is to highlight some research that was done about heat islands and their effects on urban communities, and how tree cover, or “throwing shade”, The first point mentioned is that the severity of heat waves is increasing in Richmond, Virginia, as well as everywhere in the U.S., and that these heat waves are a serious danger to people. The point is further made that urban environments trap more heat than natural environments and thus make them warmer, causing “heat islands” or urban places with higher temperatures than the places around them. Using collected heat, income, tree cover, and asphalt data they were able to create a map of areas within the city of Richmond where the people were the most vulnerable to the heat. Further research concluded that lower income areas had less access to tree coverage and impervious surfaces which disproportionately affects minorities. Other places of interest are mentioned such as Baltimore where research indicates some city blocks may be 16 degrees hotter than other ones. The use of tree cover could lessen the disparity in the heat of these blocks. Boston copied the research methods used in Richmond and used them to do their own evaluation of heat indexes in different parts of the city and why they are there.
I find the main points convincing as the evidence provided is easy to follow. The metrics behind the reasoning made sense and were thoroughly explained. The use of graphs and graphics really helped showcase what was being said and you could visually see the correlations being discussed which really gave credibility to the argument. One thing I think that could’ve been done that wasn’t was a breakdown of race in the areas affected. It is mentioned that minorities are affected disproportionately however no evidence was provided to show this. Additionally, I believe this would have been a good point to include and further discuss. For example, at 17:46 an additional metric of the breakdown of race could have been added and then a correlation could have been shown. One thing I did like was that he showed his methods being used in other cities than Richmond for example Boston. This proves that this isn’t just a one off case but a trend in urban environments. Another point that could have been expanded on was the health effects due to increased heat in heat islands. Evidence of larger amounts of ambulance calls in the most vulnerable areas was noted however I feel that a deeper dive into the other effects in these areas like other quality of life issues to the heat would provide more of a reason to convince people there is a problem.
Making Sense Of Climate Change 6: Confronting Denial:
Youtube on April 14, 2017:
The title of my second excursion is Making Sense Of Climate Change 6: Confronting Denial presented by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (Link Here). The speaker is Bert Drake. The video was published on April 14th, 2017 and I watched it on May 7th, 2024. One of the first points the speaker brings up is that increased CO2 levels in the air is directly linked to decreased cognitive function. The speaker then shifts into the origins of climate change and how the attitude behind it shifted from skepticism to denial. Global warming was first hypothesized in 1896 however people believed Earth would balance out and ignored it. Confirmed in the late 1950s when research showed more CO2 was being put in than out of nature. In the late 80s global warming began catching people’s attention. People began to recognize the effects of climate change but believed it would affect future generations and not themselves. Climate Change deniers started to begin to send ad hominem attacks towards climate scientists. Part of human psychology is group identification and confirmation bias which is one of the reasons many people refuse to acknowledge climate change. One of the ways to combat this is to make clean forms of energy cheaper so there are monetary incentives versus moral incentives.
The speaker's point is somewhat convincing. The speaker did provide reasoning/sources to back up most of their claims however ample evidence was not always used. An example of this is around 19:15 where the speaker discusses some aspects of denial but doesn’t deeply dive into them or provide any quoted evidence etc. which surprised me since “confronting denial” is in the title. One convincing point is the graph at 27:00 which shows the makeup of the different views that Americans have on what the future holds in regards to global warming. Something that could have been expanded upon was after 17:24, the presentation could have talked about what the government thought. Did they believe in global warming? Did they pass a policy about it? I think insight into the government, not just the people, would have been an interesting and important part to include in the presentation. One thing I did enjoy was the delivery of the speaker, a few good jokes such as the CO2 level in the room had a good response from the audience and kept the presentation a little more engaging. The speaker also did a good job of explaining some of the more complicated graphs and data that were presented. I also liked how the presentation ended with the use of graphics and a more positive tone because it left me in a more optimistic mood than the beginning. Lastly, I think the presentation should have had a segment about the future. Some questions I was left with at the end were How are scientists/governments planning to combat deniers? What kinds of policies can be implemented to gain more public support to fight climate change? What are some other ways for there to be monetary incentives for people to fight climate change?