The Washington Post recently published an article about climate change that may have a big effect on the world's response to global warming. In this article, the journalist discusses a new research study from 10 prominent researchers who recalculated the carbon budget required to limit Earth's warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (the change in temperature below which the Earth must stay to limit the irreversible damages from global warming). The study finds that the previous carbon budget (the amount of carbon dioxide humanity can emit to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius) of 200 billion to 400 billion tons of carbon dioxide remaining, as calculated by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is lower than the new carbon budget estimation. The researchers' calculations show the carbon budget as a lot higher, with 880 billion tons of carbon dioxide being able to still be released without exceeding the 1.5-degree warming threshold. If correct, this greatly increases the likelihood of global warming being limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius (based on current average global temperatures and trends) from 1 percent to 67 percent.

In other words, these researchers believe there is a larger amount of carbon dioxide we can still release into the atmosphere before we reach a tipping point in the Earth's temperature. These new numbers give us a much better chance to avoid irreversible, catastrophic global warming than previously thought.

While this news has many people optimistic about the possibility of lessening the permanent effects of global warming, my initial excitement quickly faded as I couldn't help but feel a creeping negativity come upon me as I read the article. As a mechanical engineering student studying renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainability topics, I am extremely passionate about working to stop global warming and save the environment. However, lately, I have been pretty cynical about the whole state of the environment. Between a seeming lack of interest or concern for the environment from a lot of my peers and those around me, the continuous number crunching of just how much we need to change our current behaviors (and how hard it is going to be to accomplish that in enough time), and the mind-boggling fact that people still don't understand that man-made global warming is real and is happening with the possibility of drastic consequences, I haven't been the most optimistic, to say the least.

It feels like every week brings some new information about the most recent natural disaster (or string of them), news of another species hovering on the brink of extinction, or the increasing efforts of certain governments to completely deny climate science.

I want to be hopeful about this new carbon budget, but, while I certainly do not claim to be an expert climate scientist (I did try to read the paper and it was a lot to tackle on a casual Wednesday afternoon), I have some reservations about the possible reactions of the public to this information.

First, it seems that the calculations made in the study don't take into account other greenhouse gases such as methane. One molecule of methane can retain the same amount of heat as 23 carbon dioxide molecules, making it an extremely potent greenhouse gas that has the potential to take up a large portion of this new carbon budget.

This paper also has not yet been verified and confirmed by other academics and researchers, making it only an interesting result to consider and not yet a definitive result. The article mentions that some researchers are already voicing objections to the study, with concern that certain elements (like the effect of aerosols and the warming of the Arctic) have not yet properly been taken into consideration in these models. Until more researchers chime in with either a verification or invalidation of the study, I will remain cautious in my optimism.

Please do not be mistaken — I am by no means a climate change skeptic or a science denier. However, I'm afraid the critiques I have made about this new study could be made by others to open the door for those who really do doubt climate science and refuse to believe that climate change is happening. Considering only 40 percent of Americans say they have a great trust in scientists (a number that has been relatively unchanged since 1973), my concern is that there could be an increase in those who renounce global warming and the science behind it.

"Because clearly scientists can't agree on how much carbon we can still burn, and now they are saying it's not as bad as they first thought? They obviously don't know what they're talking about."

Unfortunately, I've seen this way of thinking too much in regards to global warming, so I have a feeling it will only grow.

Giving a larger window of allowable carbon emissions may also roll back a lot of the progress that has been made. When talking to a classmate about the new study earlier today, he immediately joked, "So we can all go by Cadillac Escalades now, right?" While clearly a joke and an amusing comment nonetheless, that is something I'm really concerned will become the actual mindset of many people.

"If we aren't that close to the carbon budget anymore, and we can emit more carbon dioxide without it being an issue, we can relax on some of these plans to cut emissions."

That is not the point of this recalculation. Reducing our current efforts to curb carbon dioxide emissions will just further draw out the climb we are making towards a 1.5 degree Celsius warmer planet. It would push off the problems we have now, onto future generations to figure out. Didn't our parents teach us to not procrastinate? Whether or not we listened when it came to schoolwork, now would be a good time to heed their advice. When it comes to climate change, I think by now we've learned that waiting around is not really the best policy.

All in all, I hope my streak of cynicism is misplaced in this and I hope I'm wrong (and coming from me, that's saying a lot). But I hope this study turns into the most accurate carbon budget to date, with complete confidence and verification from the scientific community as a whole. I hope the population reads it, becomes optimistic about the opportunity to lessen the effects of global warming, and springs into action like never before, because that's really what we need if we have any hope in saving the Earth. And I hope you think so too. Because it's going to take each and every one of us to truly make an impact, no matter what the carbon budget is. So let's keep hope together, and try to change the world - if only the little piece right around us.