Hi, can you read my essay and offer feedback in terms of gramatical structure and factual basis. I hope it all makes sense

There was once a wise man who used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had the habit of walking along the beach before he began his work. One day he was walking along the shore; as he looked down the beach, he saw a human figure moving like a dancer. He smiled to himself to think of someone who would dance to the day, so he began to walk faster to catch up. As he got closer, he saw that it was a young man and the young man wasn't dancing, but instead, he was reaching down to the shore, picking up something and very gently throwing it into the ocean.

As he got closer he called out, "Good morning! What are you doing?" The young man paused, looked up and replied, "Throwing Starfish into the ocean."

"I guess I should have asked; why are you throwing Starfish into the ocean?"

"The sun is up and the tide is going out and if I don't throw them in they'll die."

"But young man, don't you realise that there are miles and miles of beach and Starfish all along it, you can't possibly make a difference!"

The young man listened politely, then bent down, picked up another Starfish and threw it into the sea, past the breaking waves. "It made a difference for that one."1

This excerpt from Loren Eiseley’s essay entitled, “The Star Thrower”, offers an interesting insight into the predicament of man. General humanity (embodied by the ‘wise man’), though wise in his accomplishments and achievements, is a relative failure in the face of adversity. The essay points to adversity faced in the form of the supposedly aborted lives’ of the many Starfish; while millions are inherently facing death, if all cannot be saved, the wise man feels that there is no need to save a slim percentage of that total. This attitude is often expressed by people: given the notion that one individual comprises only 1 of the approximate 6,9 billion people on the face of the earth, it is easy to assume that one’s actions, if not assisting in excess of a few thousand people, are futile, irrespective of the benefits to individual people that may have been assisted. In regard to contemporary problems, such as climate change, people need to open up and realise that small differences made by individuals are important in their own right and must not be abased in the face of a colossal global population that is not synchronised in its actions. In fact, if more and more ‘individuals‘ develop a similar mindset, what was once an individual ‘nothing’ could manifest into a global movement with significant impact.

Today, humanity faces the legitimate problem of climate change. But, before delving into the nitty-gritty elements of cause and effect, said ‘climate change’ needs to be acknowledged as a reality, not just a cynical opinion. To begin, the word ‘climate’ is defined as the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation 2. The combined phrase ‘climate change’ is then defined as any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of direct or indirect human activities that alter the composition of the global atmosphere.3 Taking this a step further, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) currently views climate change in the explicit context of change in rainfall and in temperatures. In the context of where climate change effects the globe, a worldwide impact is anticipated, but can be categorised into various, smaller climate regions. To begin, changing climate can have acute regional effects such as near the equator or North Pole, the "hot" and "cold" zones, respectively. Changes in these areas demonstrate how rising and falling temperatures have had different impacts on human survival and prosperity.4

Now, climate change needs to be clearly discerned from two favourite terms of enlightened ignorance: namely, global warming and the greenhouse effect. Although both terms point to very real occurrences, it is easy to lose sight of factual basis when pondering such issues effecting our earth.

When the thought of climate change is broached, it is automatically associated with global warming and the greenhouse effect. This has both positive and negative consequences. Thanks in part to Albert “Al” Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, humans are the direct subject of blame for the greenhouse effect. Ironically, it is never mentioned that the greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon that aids in maintaining warmer and more stable temperatures on Earth’s surface than would otherwise be the case. As solar energy is absorbed by these greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, water vapour and methane), the earth’s atmosphere is insulated and maintains a temperature most suitable for life. As a result of the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature is a balmy 15?C, whereas that temperature would drop to an average of -18?C lacking any greenhouse effect.5 With the identification of what climate change and the greenhouse effect, subsequent issues regarding the causes of climate change are pushed to the forefront. Life necessitates the presence of the greenhouse effect, but a complication has been introduced where humans are in fact altering the traditional processes and effecting the vital natural balance needed for an optimal condition of life.

Centred around the climate change debate is the carbon cycle. Life as we know it would not exist without the simple element, carbon. It can be traced to all living creatures (both plants and animals) and is generally accepted to comprise about 18% of all living things on earth.6 Looking to the causes of climate change, carbon, the primary foundation the gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) is tolerable in the atmosphere up to 350-400 parts per million (ppm). That said, when levels of CO2 exceed the 400 ppm mark, relative warming patterns result in severe weather patterns like droughts and floods.7 In the more primitive stages of life, without human impact, carbon was maintained at safe levels through the use of areas called sources and sinks. A carbon ‘source’ would be an area that has a net emittance of carbon that is higher than what it absorbs, and a carbon ‘sink’ would have a higher net absorption than emittance. This said, forests used to be excellent zones that helped in the control of carbon because photosynthesising plant life controlled carbon levels by converting CO2 to O2 and the carbon based sugar, glucose (C6H12O6). Although still vitally important in maintaining a balance of carbon in the atmosphere and biosphere, the role of forests is now being hindered by climate change; instead of its sole previous role of mitigating climate change - responses that reduce the sources of greenhouse gases or enhance the sinks, thereby slowing climate change 8 - about one third of worldwide forests have been adversely affected by climate change itself.

Climate change, now regarded as an imminent threat to world weather patterns, has met a great a response from the eminent governments of various countries. International agreements on climate change, namely, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established 1992 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, established by the World Meteorological Society play, provide the framework to maintaining Earth’s climate for future generations. Although, everything apparently has long term goals to ‘brighten the future’, the present is clearly at the forefront. For example, the Conference of the Parties (COP) which is the supreme governing body of the UNFCCC, plays a key role in quelling the problem of climate change. For example, the Kyoto Protocol - signed in the third session of the COP - aims to reduce global emissions to pre-1990 levels by 2012.9 Through the use of flexible mechanisms to give incentive to participating states, this initiative assists developing countries as well as the fully industrialised. By opening up the ‘carbon markets’ with emission trading schemes, developed countries are implored to trade emission credits, generated through proven emission reductions from CDM projects.10 Although these agreements and conventions serve eco-friendly ideologies well, the more pragmatically minded people seek more action at a faster pace.

Action in what the globe needs, but action coming in the form of well formed and well thought out platforms; now this is a slightly ironic idea because quick action has been proven mutually exclusive of being the resultant of well thought out arguments. But, with all the supposed action that desperately needs to occur, we cannot overlook what is currently occurring as a result of inherent climate change. Conflict as an offshoot of climate change is often overlooked in the face of other forms of conflict. Commonly, conflict (on a relatively large scale) is associated with competition over natural resources (i.e. water, arable land, oil, and minerals), competing ethnic identities or competing religious views. These typical sources of conflict are too often considered the omnipresent causes of conflict, and climate change is never considered to have an impact of equal magnitude.

Conflict and climate have been linked to each other since the beginning of time. But, the link between climate change is slightly more indirect that that between conflict due to religious differences. That said, by analysing historical case studies of climate and societal collapse the link between climate change and conflict can be proven. For purposes of practical explanation, a relatively minor fluctuation in the consistency of climatic events may have major repercussions to be experienced later on. The direct ‘cause and effect’ of climate change conflict may be slightly opaque, but climate change does have irreparable consequences in the long term. When associated with demographic, cultural and economic factors, the relation between conflict and climate change is more clearly defined. Conflict has the potential to emerge after a sustained period of divergent climate patterns. While people can survive aberrant, short-term climate change by exploiting existing or stored resources, this strategy has temporal limits. On this particular path the issue isn't one of surviving an especially fierce rain or harsh winter, but the cumulative effects of many fierce rains and many harsh winters. Next, climate change alone won't cause conflict but, along with other factors, will contribute to and shape it.

Reaching back to Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution and natural selection, the common thread of adaptation emerges. In the face of adversity, anyone who cares for his well being, will instinctively act toward the goal of self preservation. This seems a positive approach, but when competition arises in the face of self preservation, conflict must be the outcome. On the grand scale of self preservation, history has demonstrated how nations, small or large and united groups can work with this intent. Set against the backdrop of climate change, conflict has the potential to emerge after a sustained period of divergent climate patterns. While people do have the means to weather a couple of harsh winters of dry summers, this tactic has temporal limits. On this particular path the issue isn't one of surviving an especially fierce rain or harsh winter, but the cumulative effects of many fierce rains and many harsh winters. 11As a race, we like to consider ourselves adept to change, but change is not something suited to our sedentary lifestyles which rely on the consistency of our environment to provide a foundation for everything else.

Considering the historical perspective: “If we don’t learn from our mistakes, change will never occur”. Thousands of years ago, the Mayan Empire, a thriving civilisation in South America experienced one of the great collapses in world history. Although many details have been lost, by 500 C.E., the Mayan population was believed to be roughly 14 million. But, periodic droughts that set in throughout the mid-8th century to early 10th century took a toll on the once thriving society. The boom-and-bust cycles of rainy and dry periods contributed to eras of both growth and decline. Overall, population sizes and agricultural intensity seemingly overwhelmed the land which led to societal structural weaknesses. These weaknesses in turn led to ongoing wars between Mayan city-states and eventually led to the demise of an empire.

On the brighter end of the horizon, certain aspects of climate change were sought to be played as beneficial for civilisations. Looking to the northern hemisphere, the same warming patterns that proved disastrous for the Mayans allowed more available arable land for Native American and Viking populations. The Vikings, ever and opportunists, professed the desire to increase their territory from Scandinavia to Iceland, Greenland and later Newfoundland. In Newfoundland, the Native Americans became a problem and conflict ensued over each group’s desire to control the increasingly abundant land. Through this example, climate change is not portrayed in the negative light that it is today, but rather as an opportunity for civilisation to thrive. Sadly, these opportunities yet again are compromised by the tragedy of conflict between competing groups.

The above mentioned conflicts can be categorised into ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ wars. In ‘cold’ regions, conflicts arise as temperatures rise in a favourable manner so as to make available new resources which people seek to exploit. In ‘hot’ regions (equatorial regions), as the climate warms, conflict manifests over the competition for a declining number of available resources. The prevalent statistic is that conflict seemingly arises so long as their is a relative climactic change; irrespective of whether or not this may be an advantageous change.

Conflict can exist between societies or within them. Reaching to our contemporary times, civil wars are much more likely to occur in warmer than average years. “One degree Celsius warmer temperatures in a given year equates to a 50% higher likelihood of conflict in that year,” says Agricultural economist Marshall Burke of the University of California, Berkeley. “With global average temperatures rising by at least one degree Celsius by 2030, the incidences of African civil war are likely to increase by 55%; this could result in approximately 390,000 additional battle deaths if future wars are as deadly as recent wars”, says Burke.

The Stern Review - prepared for the British government by economist Sir Nicholas Stern - states that developing countries are particularly vulnerable because of their topical geography, high population growth, heavy dependence on agriculture and rapid urbanisation. The vulnerability to climate change can be categorised into three main points: the extent to which the societies are dependent on natural resources, the extent to which the resources that societies rely on are sensitive to climactic change and the capacity of societies to adapt to changes in these resources and services. Using South Africa as the subject of this three point ‘vulnerability test’, there is a great risk because primary agriculture contributes to about 2.5% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and about 8% to formal employment. According to point two (resources): mining is not dependent on climate change, but in terms of agriculture, a drought could cause a complete collapse in the sector and a 12% decrease in GDP and 8% decrease in formal employment will further increase the unemployment problem and the negatives associated with it.12 Increased conflict can be expected in South Africa if the agricultural sector were to collapse and possibly widespread starvation with a decrease in food produce. Finally, in regard to point three (capacity to adapt to change): the South African economy is increasingly moving towards a service economy, with less reliance on the primary sectors that are more easily effected by climate change. As the economy matures to a more service orientated foundation, there is the express desire for a quick transition before the agricultural sector becomes less reliable in growth and unemployment.

Looking out of South Africa, many case studies have been obtained on more correlations between conflict and climate change. The Inventory of Conflict and Environment (ICE) has compiled many case studies that further our knowledge of climate change related to conflict. To mention a few, a major civil war has been raging on the island of Mindanao in the predominantly Roman Catholic Philippines. Factions of rebel Islamic groups have sought out a change in the distribution control of the island’s many natural resources. Yet again, this is a country dependent on agrarian facets of livelihood.13 Looking to the island of Mindanao’s reliance on logging, numerous other industries are in turn affected. The chain-linking from logging pursuits to the health of fisheries demonstrates the interconnected web of vocations and the delicate foundation upon which they rest. As the climate becomes more fragile as a result of competition and exploitation of resources, future lack of resources may even increase conflict and exacerbate the current predicament; the 120,000 lives already claimed may pale in comparison to what possibly lies ahead.

Darfur is experiencing a similar conflict regarding impending drought and civil war. Although the common perception is that the conflict is fueled by ethnic tensions and racism, climate change in the form of drought and desertification is an overlooked source of the conflict.14 The reduced area of arable land and water has facilitated tribal conflict and social unrest in Darfur. This ensuing humanitarian conflict has sadly been the result of an inability to cope with change, and the perception that a neglected environment can still support a current population similar to that of previous generations.

Climate change cannot be denied on both a local and global level. The effects of this change, either need to be accommodated for, or prevented entirely. For practical purposes, it easier to adapt than to alter a predicament. Although the environment needs to be adapted to, our man-made practices need legitimate alteration. In the South African society, the economy is a dire situation. Currently, unemployment levels are high to enable future growth in non-resource related sectors. The economy needs to shift to a service orientated basis, which is a leap ahead from previous agricultural and mining reliance. This transition functions to directly hinder the presence of conflict because a more stable political and economic environment will satisfy the people. Therefore, climate change will no longer incur conflict because conflict has been proven to almost always be the result of the discontent of the people. The goal of the economy should be to eliminate the link between climate change and conflict. Once, people are no longer threatened by the most basic elements to sustain life (i.e. water and food security), social advancement can take place and chance of conflict will decrease. The following elements will be pivotal in ending conflict due to climate change: On an individual level, people need to be educated on what climate change is and what its effects may be and they need to be assured of their food security; on a national level for our country, a focus on transition to a service orientated economy is important and new climate related legislation is needed; on a global level, a unified drive toward an eco-friendly global village needs to be achieved.

Food security is an issue that has has plagued mankind since the dawn of nomadic peoples. Although progress has been made toward satiating the appetite of the human population, the situation is far from perfect. Food is the primary concern of all impoverished peoples below the breadline. Many South Africans currently are below this breadline (approximately 50-60%), with the worst effects of climate change yet to be experienced. Abundant farmlands, such as those in Kwazulu-Natal, which are majority subsistence farming, need to be converted into commercial farming enterprises. Collective farming practices need to be implemented to feed our most basic needs, and the production of specialised foodstuffs needs to be lessened because in the face of climate change, surviving is paramount to enjoying a wide array of exotic produce. This collectivisation will increase food supply, lower prices (laws of supply/demand: higher supply than demand will lower prices) and overall lead to general food security. Also, the ability of South Africa to be completely self-sufficient in its provision of food is of the utmost importance because this will keep prices and availability consistent. Once people can surpass the primitive reliance on food (through more reliable availability), the effects of climate change will not have as great an impact on the general way of life.

For years, school children have been educated on the negative effects of drug use and abuse. Global climate change needs to fit into this category as it is fast becoming imperative to educate children about. If ideals are instilled at a young age, they will remain through adolescence and into adulthood. Once people become educated on how the climate is changing, they will be able to make more informed decisions on the matter and general global consciousness will increase. In schools countrywide, climate education should be introduced in all Life Orientation. It would be best to include a climate change awareness into Life Orientation classes because for every student in the entire country, Life Orientation is a compulsory subject. Once the general society becomes aware of the problems caused by climate change, responses to such effects would be more logical and conflict would in turn be less likely to occur.

In order to best combat climate change and the negative effects it will have on the economic and political stability of South Africa, we as a nation must move into a more service orientated economy. This new form of economy will be far less reliant on the primary sector because the effect climate change has on natural resources, especially agriculture, is catastrophic. We can expect an almost complete collapse of agricultural industry, job losses in hundreds of thousands in formal employment and the decrease of the GDP. The agri-food complex (inputs, primary production, processing) contributes approximately R124 billion to South Africa's GDP. Furthermore, the effect of the collapse of agriculture on the subsistence farmers would be disastrous, widespread starvation can be expected and would inevitably lead to social unrest and possibly conflict for scarce resources. It is therefore paramount that our economy moves towards a service orientated foundation. We can achieve this goal by encouraging urbanisation. However, for this to take place we need an attractive “urban” environment; one in which the economy has many opportunities for employment and the guarantee that housing will be provided. Unfortunately, there is currently a huge backlog for housing promises and unemployment is plaguing millions of citizens.

We can solve the unemployment problem by creating jobs through entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is the driving component of an economy and essential for economic growth. A variety of plans exist in the South African economy to create entrepreneurship - such as the SMME (Small Medium and Micro Enterprises) policy whose basic framework is to encourage entrepreneurship - but implementation of these plans needs to be expanded. South Africa on a national level however needs to do more than just create entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship needs to function as both an economic boost and a combatant of climate change. Also, new government legislation needs to focus on creating opportunities and gaps in the market that indorse the production and creation of ‘climate -friendly’ products and means of production. Legislation in this regard must provide an incentive for the purchase of such products by imposing harsh taxes on industries which do not use carbon friendly products and emit excess emissions. This is most applicable to the secondary sector (sectors that create a finished, usable product),where large amounts of emissions are emitted. Furthermore, subsidies and government contracts must be given to companies that are carbon-friendly. The concept of carbon credits should be ideally implemented within the country. If done correctly, an economic climate which promotes sustainability of resources would be installed South Africa and economic prosperity would ensue.

The regulation and endorsement of the business’ carbon footprint will however prove ineffective in terms of South African exporting capacity; as harsh taxes may lead to uncompetitive South African goods in the global market. Exports account for R1.4 billion in the clothing sector and R2.5 billion for textiles (mostly to the US and Europe). A push towards a worldwide carbon consciousness must occur, otherwise South Africa will suffer economically. In this 21st century “global village” that we live in, the worldwide population is inevitably interconnected. The actions of only one country will not make a substantial difference in revolutionising the production process and goods market to an eco-friendly status. A global push towards this ideal must occur. In simple terms no single country can truly revolutionise it, only the global village can.
As climate change is an ongoing problem, the future desperately needs to be accommodated for. South Africa as a nation will remain the most prosperous in Africa, however, increased conflict that is already rife in many African states needs to be prepared for. Paralleling the increase conflict, massive increase in immigration into South Africa and conflict along our borders can be expected. Therefore, anti-immigrant legislation is necessary to protect the economy from the dangers of the influx of immigrants - who would worsen the economic stability and possibly the political stability. The proposition of anti-immigrant legislation is not due to any xenophobic ideals, but rather it is an effort to protect the interests of South Africa and more importantly, all the individual citizens. There may be a high price to pay for future security, but there is nothing wrong with hoping for the best, whilst planning for the worst.

It has been said that the current generation of adults is not living in ‘their’ own world, but rather, they are merely borrowing it from their children. Once time progresses through the divide of generations, the cycle of adults borrowing the world from their children thus continues. With that said: if the world’s children represent the future of mankind (embodied by high hopes for prosperity and advancement), what sort of environment are they being given to work with? How can one justify leaving the Earth in a worse state than one found it in? Frankly, this idea appears to be the most supreme evil imaginable, and yet it is still occurring up to this very day. Climate change irrefutably has many negative impacts on the earth. But, as conscious inhabitants of the same planet, we all need to work toward a positive and universal goal of self-preservation as a race. With the many examples of conflict throughout the world, adaption to climate change is imperative for both the present and future generations to inhabit this planet. Some people may chose to act as the man throwing starfish back into the sea; with a positive outlook for the future, because small though is the effort made, but better than no effort made at all.



ENDNOTES