Op-Ed Critique

What’s the right temperature for the Earth? And what happens when countries disagree about what it should be? By Andy Parker and David Keith

In the Andy Parker’s and David Keith’s op-ed in The Washington Post, “What’s the right temperature for the Earth?” the authors clearly point out the flaws of an international system and the serious effect it would have on the governing of geo-engineering. The major question facing the international community should geo-engineering be put into service is: who will be in charge of the controls for the earth’s temperature system? As Parker and Keith argue, the fights over the climate change controls will most likely mimic climate change negotiations in that countries will not see eye to eye on the best set temperature for the Earth.  Just like in the climate change debates, countries constantly argue about who should cut their greenhouse gas emissions, by how much, and by when.

Using hypothetical examples based on facts, the authors create scenarios that are filled with just as much conflict as the current climate change negotiations. In their example, Russia wants to keep the temperature of the Earth a bit higher than say a country like Tuvalu. This is due to Russia benefiting from climate change in that much of Siberia is likely to melt. This will open vast amounts of land for Russia to then use for agricultural production.  However, the cooler the temperature remains the less likely it is that Tuvalu will be under water. As a result of the conflicting views on what the Earth’s temperature should be, the authors predict the potential for some serious international conflicts. Say, for example, rules are set up to govern the controls of the Earth’s temperature, but one country decides to take matters into their own hands. How will other countries react? In the authors’ point of view, the situation could become quite ugly, particularly if the conflict is between two nuclear powers. These hypothetical examples create a very persuasive argument as to why geo-engineering is not the temporary fix that some proclaim it to be. Instead, it will open up another can of worms in the realm of international relations.  

To peak the readers interest, the authors link their argument to the recent release of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ report on geo-engineering.  The authors further hook the reader by arguing that this reality is not off in the distant future, but more rapidly approaching us.  It very well could become a reality within our lifetime. It also engages the reader by showing that the issue of geo-engineering is no longer just a conversation happening on the fringe of climate change circles, but is rapidly coming to the forefront of discussions in relation to climate change. In addition, this op-ed by Parker and Keith teaches a potential op-ed writer that it is good to make a topic relatable to the reader. Not everyone may understand the workings & sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature, however, everyone knows the difference between setting their home thermostat at 64 degrees and 72 degrees. In addition, everyone understands the fights that can ensue should two people in the household disagree over what temperature to set the thermostat at. Overall, Parker and Keith wrote a strong op-ed piece.