Brooke Lockett

Professor Shannon Giambanco

Writing and Rhetoric Eng 170

12 October 2023

How do major corporations influence dangerous carbon emissions, and how do they affect aspects of our ecosystems?

With our ever-increasing reliance on technology, the symbiotic relationship humans share with nature has been facing a steep decline. This balance has been disrupted by technological advances that are beneficial to humans in the short term, taken at the expense of nature. Modern society manufacturing technology is releasing carbon dioxide emissions through the burning of fossil fuels, resulting in devastating long-term effects. Global crises such as ocean acidity, global warming, and human health are focused examples of the environmental and health dangers carbon emissions have and will continue to cause. Humans’ careless abuse of nature will cause an irreparable instability within nature, and furthermore the way it affects us personally. However, technologically reliant solutions have the potential to reverse, halt, or at least slow down the rising levels of carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Direct Air Capture (DAC) are both examples of negative emission technologies which remove carbon dioxide that will be analyzed in this paper on their effectiveness and inner workings. The research conducted will portray the direct cause and effect chain between production during the digital age and our declining ecosystems, specifically for higher-level educated readers interested in understanding different perspectives surrounding mass production leading to carbon dioxide emissions. On the contrary, this piece is also targeted towards those who may argue that nature is fully capable of adapting to sustainably live in these harmful conditions.

Since the late 1760s, the Industrial Revolution shifted the manufacturing industry and life as we once knew it. The focus became efficiency, and once companies realized how technology could replace overworked employees, slow production, and the amount of work that went into supplying, it was a brand-new era. However, technology was not advanced enough to show how the use of fossil fuel burning (Gases, coals, oils) would later impact nature, and the health of all living things globally. Additionally, companies would most likely have disregarded the impact even if they were aware – supply and demand was at a faster rate of output than seen before in economic theory. The indifference and lack of awareness towards the destruction of Earth is nothing new. Currently, it’s more severe than ever. Mass production is the greatest factor in carbon dioxide emissions. To deflect the near future of an atmosphere so damaged it is irreparable, we must find who the major contributors to the burning of fossil fuels are, and why they have not taken a greener approach to production. Since the 1760s, it has been found that around two-thirds of carbon emissions have come from 90 well-known investor and state-owned fossil fuel companies. Chevron, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Peabody Energy, ConocoPhillips, Saudi Aramco, and Gazprom are some of the highest and well-known contributors (Licker et al. 3). From 1880 to 2015, producers made a sixty percent contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, the effects of fossil fuels were not as well known, and it provided an excuse or reason for the lack of awareness, leading to increases in production emissions. This excuse would soon be futile, as from 1965 to 2015 the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere only decreased by around 5 percent (Licker et al. 3). At that point, the effects of fossil fuels on the environment were well known, and of great importance. Actions could have been made to change the methods of production – an ecofriendly process of manufacturing could have been put into place using renewable resources. Conversely, they could have found solutions such as carbon capture and storage to hold the emissions. However, these manufacturing companies have denied scientific evidence of their impact, investing time and money towards deceiving the public rather than assisting solutions counteracting their impact.

Anthropogenic factors since the industrial revolution have significantly shaped the way the atmosphere is able to absorb and regulate how much carbon dioxide it has been exposed to. The limit has been abused, pushed well over by careless burning of fossil fuels, and the lack of regulations on this. Long-term effects will last for centuries. Just one of the indelible effects is the rising temperature of the Earth’s climate. As the sun’s energy reaches the Earth, it is absorbed and transferred into heat. However, greenhouse gas emissions create a block in our atmosphere, prohibiting this heat energy from escaping, trapping it within the gases and reflecting onto us. “The atmosphere behaves like a spherical lens and mirror, refracting and reflecting the inbound rays.” (Wong, 33) Since the late 1700s, global temperatures have been in a slowly increasing warming period, with a change in mean temperature rising between 0.56 and 0.92 degrees Celsius (Wong, 63). Along with our climate, global warming affects multiple ecosystems to such a point of unsustainability that it is impossible for these areas to adapt. The majority of heat not able to be absorbed by land is stored within our oceans, which holds the extra solar radiation for long periods. Due to the warming, arctic polar ice caps are melting, marine and terrestrial animal species are unable to adapt to the environmental changes, traits of natural schedules within species lifespans are disrupted, communities must redevelop to fight the arising threat of extinction, and extreme weather patterns are occurring (Wong, Ch. 6). Global warming of the Earth impacts every living thing and should not be a controversial topic. The consequences of using fossil fuels will hit, especially during already scorching summers.

As the industrial revolution grew and evolved over time, so has the amount of carbon dioxide emissions absorbed by our oceans. The capacity for sustainable life within the inner ecosystem is growing small, and causing harm to marine life, life patterns, carbonate chemistry, and human health. Ocean acidification is when carbon dioxide emissions or other human activity causes a decrease in the natural pH, increasing its acidity. Over one-third of CO2 trapped in the atmosphere is absorbed by the large bodies of water as either bicarbonate, carbonate, or free aqueous carbon dioxide ions. Furthermore, for the past 800,000 years the parts per million of carbon found in oceans were at a stable range of 172 to 300ppmv. As of 2009, the amount has risen to 387ppmv. In the next 77 years, researchers have predicted that these numbers may rise to 1071ppmv (Gattuso et al. 1). These numbers show just how distressing current manufacturing processes are due to the future impact they will have. Marine life is already struggling to live sustainably with current conditions, and the threat of extinction will be guaranteed at this rate. Animals are not naturally able to self-regulate pH levels within their biological processes if levels exceed capacity, and as a result many key needs are affected. A 2011 book titled “Ocean Acidification” by Jean-Pierre Gattuso supports in describing these impacted processes. “The extra cellular pH of body fluids in animals and the intracellular pH of various organs or unicellular organisms are usually tightly regulated, but the capacity of regulatory mechanisms can be overwhelmed. pH plays a key role in many physiological processes such as ion transport, enzyme activity, and protein function” (Gattuso et al. 5). We can assume that since the effects of acidification are rising each year, that if this book was updated since 2011 it would only further showcase the severe impact on marine life. One major influence on organisms is the inability to properly form calcium carbonate shells, and carbonate skeletal structures. The calcium carbonate creates the building block of the organism, necessary for protection and survival. Changes will modify relationships within the marine food chain, increasing the chance of predation not seen before. The risks relating to calcification issues differ among species, however it must be noted that any form of calcification defects within marine life as a whole poses a threat to biodiversity. For example, Pteropods are planktonic calcifiers, very important to food webs as they serve as prey for large oceanic communities. Their shells risk weakening from rising CO2 levels, shifting stable relationships within the food chain. “Immersion of shelled pteropods in high-CO2 lowCO2 waters is known to weaken their aragonitic shells and is expected to reduce their survival and productivity.” (atd. Gattuso et al. 199.) In relation to the human species, ocean acidification will disrupt our economies and food sources. Fisheries and seafood focused companies will evidently suffer, the quality of seafood will decrease, and jobs will be lost. In a higher global sense, as population growth increases, marine food sources will decrease, but the demand may rise. This only further adds to the threat of extinction within marine ecosystems.

Surprisingly, many skeptics debate over whether the effects of carbon dioxide emissions, particularly climate change, is an anthropogenic based cause. Evidence-based research is labeled as a fear tactic, and liability is shifted to natural factors, such as the sun. A 2019 debate-based report by Clifford Oliver states, “They do not consider that other factors, even the sun, have any contribution at all. Yet in daily life, it is clear that warming of the Earth is caused by the sun” (Oliver, 1). However, we know that the sun plays only a small role within the complex issue preceding carbon dioxide becoming trapped within our atmosphere. The role of anthropogenic causes leading to emissions is ignored in this argument, and rather focuses on how ocean acidification, another effect of greenhouse gas emissions, is a phenomenon or more so beneficial to aquatic ecosystems. Carbon dioxide is claimed to form shells and skeletons when reacting with calcium oxide (Ollier, 60). Yet we know that shells are weakened, putting species at risk of attack. Why fight the push to limit greenhouse gas emissions either way? Large-Scale manufacturing processes benefit no animal, ecosystem, or human health. Solutions must be acted upon to halt further harm upon nature.

Addressing climate change must be done through advancements in technology capable of challenging fossil fuels prominence on a direct level. Two examples of negative emission technology with the potential for powerful efficiency are Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Negative emission technologies are methods of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Carbon Capture and Storage allows carbon to be stored straight from large-scale power plants, or any main source of CO2 emissions particularly in the industrial sector. The emissions captured may then either be held deep underground or in a confined area, however they also have useful benefits. The Congressional Research Service lists Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) as the most current use of captured carbon. “In EOR, compressed CO2 is injected into aging oil wells. This process increases oil production while also permanently sequestering some CO2” (Lawson, 1). Carbon capture is a technological advancement helping to mitigate the inflow of emissions within the atmosphere. Another solution, Direct Air Capture, rather aids in completely removing carbon emissions. During a DAC process, carbon is chemically extracted from air as it passes over a certain chemical. The collected carbon may then be compressed. Despite the advancements these technologies could bring to the worldwide issue of carbon emissions, they both also have their limitations. DAC and CCS are very highly capital intensive, and energy intensive (Lawson, 1). Therefore, until it is a priority for government funding, we must work towards reducing carbon emissions on a personal plane. Shifting to a clean, green lifestyle is valuable to nature’s ability to sustainably thrive. This may include recycling, reducing waste, switching to renewable energy, or limiting fuel-driven transportation. Overall, we must be environmentally conscious, and aware of the consequences our actions have towards the global future.

Major industrial corporations’ processes of production are leaving an irreparable carbon footprint. Since the industrial revolution, rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have evidently had harmful effects within our ecosystems and areas of nature. Analyzing the current state of Earth gives us a glimpse into the future, where unsustainable living conditions will deconstruct the composition of healthy living. Cases in point discussed within this research paper are climate change, ocean acidification, and the impact on humans. Global warming disrupts a species or communities’ ability to adapt to new conditions, putting the threat of extinction into the picture. The ocean’s capacity to hold carbon is coming to an end, and as a result, ocean acidification is disrupting the marine food chain, biodiversity, pH regulation, and shell formation. It is enthralling how anthropogenic factors have caused the spike of greenhouse gases, and now we are both living through the repercussions of our own actions and in need of solutions. Carbon Capture Utilization and Store as well as Direct Air Capture are promising technological solutions that have the potential to vastly reduce CO2 levels. Humans use of technology during the digital age has continuously proven to be detrimental to nature, however it also could be the answer to healing from our mistakes.

Works Cited

Gattuso, Jean-Pierre, Hansson, Lisa, “Ocean Acidification.” Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 10 November 2011, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/newpaltzebooks/reader.action?docID=1114960. Accessed 29 September 2023.

Lawson, Ashley J. “Carbon Capture versus Direct Air Capture.” Congressional Research Center, 2020, https://sunynew.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01SUNY_NEW/18p88r/alma996923600404844. Accessed 10 November 2023.

Licker, Rachel, et al. “Tracing Fossil Fuels Companies’ Contribution to Climate Change and Ocean Acidification.” Union of Concerned Scientists, 1 December 2019, http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24076. Accessed 29 September 2023.

Ollier, Clifford. “The Hoax of Ocean Acidification.” Quaestiones Geographicae 38.3, 9 October 2010, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2290040672?pq-origsite=primo. Accessed 29 September 2023.

Wong, Kaufui Vincent. “Climate change.’’ Momentum Press, 23 December 2015, ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/newpaltzebooks/detail.action?docID=4307182. Accessed 29 September 2023.