Environmental Science/Career planning regarding climate change
Hi, I'm a 22-year old undergraduate law student from Europe and will graduate next year. I'm passionate about the environment, have work experience in an International Organisation concerned with Loss and Damage and want to contribute in a meaningful way to stop climate change. I'm planning my career for the time after my graduation and feel like I need to decide between two paths:
A) I could pursue an LLM in Climate change law or a Master's in a climate change policy related subject.
B) I could pursue another undergraduate degree in an engineering/chemistry related subject like Energy Engineering/Mechanics.
I consider B because I've been told by several people that work in international organisations, that people who understand both policy/legal matters and engineering/natural sciences are needed. Additionally, I couldn't find a Master's that combines both policy and environmental technology in a satisfying way. Further, this also opens the door to green tech companies which is great. Contra: I was good in sciences in high school, but I'm not a genious. Therefore another 4 years of very tough studying. Additionally, I feel like it's a risky decision because it sounds a little crazy and I will end up having two undergraduate degrees and no graduate degree.
A is the more obvious path, however, I feel none of these Master's degrees really give me the tools to change something. Policy knowledge and ethics (and international law is mostly on that) is important, however I feel the wheels are turning too slowly for me. I eagerly followed the Climate Conference, and the outcome is great. But I don't want to end up as a researcher writing papers over papers on something that is obvious: that we need to change. I want to do real work with real outcomes. Of course, working for the UN would be great, however that's not a career I can really plan and I'm not sure if I would want to adapt to the etiquette and networking in diplomacy and the UN.
I know this is not a science related question. However, you are an expert on climate change which is why I hope you are also familiar with its politics and understand my situation. I'm willing to work hard and am luckily privileged to have parents that (also financially) support any decision I take if I'm sure that this is the right thing to do. I hope you can help, any advice is highly appreciated. If you feel you cannot help, whoelse could I ask?
Thank you very much,
There is nothing as dangerous to our human civilization, at this time than the overheating and destabilization of the Earth's biosphere. Humanity could get over a nuclear war in 50 years or so. But global warming has a much longer time-frame. The cost in human life and combined human wealth from destabilising the ocean and atmospheric flow systems will continue for centuries. A 1,000 years is not an unreasonable estimation.
A window of opportunity still exists to prevent this escalating weather and climate catastrophe. Google "Allan Yeomans" with "Global Warming" and you will see what we have to do.
In a nutshell we switch predominantly to nuclear energy for industrial power and ethanol and biodiesel for transport. That change stops more carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere.
Let's be clear on the issue. Climate change is caused by the excess carbon dioxide we have already added to the atmosphere. Not what we are putting in today. Catastrophic climate change is unavoidable if we leave the stuff there. It's not at all about emission reductions. At best they are just a token. The excess is now a trillion tons of carbon dioxide . the only practical, sane, sensible and economical way of removing that excess is to have the world's farmers sequester it into soil by enhancing the fertility of their soils by systematically generating humus .
Go to my original paper "An Agricultural Solution to the Greenhouse Effect Allan Yeomans 1989".
My concept of combating global warming by soil fertility enhancement spread from that original paper to all around the world.
To stop global warming, in effect it means that we have to put the fossil fuel and agrichemical industries, and countries out of business . But like the tobacco industry, they don't intend for that to happen. With just a tiny allocation of their sales revenue to spend, they have available a few billion dollars a week to convincing the general public that nuclear energy is dangerous, that saving trees and growing more trees is useful, and that global warming , if it even exists, cannot be prevented so why bother, or they suggest that global warming something that we can easily get used to.
The prevention of global warming with its catastrophic climate and weather changes is neither a financial nor a technical problem. Just like the tobacco industry it's a marketing problem. And it's extremely urgent.
The people that run the academic courses you mentioned are not game to teach what obviously should happen. They are just too vulnerable to funding manipulation.
So you have a hard choice.
Joan of Arc had a noble cause but she didn't live to a ripe old age . So you may have to be careful.
Best of Luck,
As a start you might scrub the (private) classification of your question. That would be nice. Allan