We see technology as the tool to solve all our problems. Just as we use technology to improve our lifestyles with new products which allow us to different things we never thought possible, we see technology as this ultimate tool for we see it as a instrument bridges to what we want. This belief in technology transfers to the environment in how we see its limitless abilities to gap those ecological and environmental goals with what we are limited in doing now.
There is no doubt that technology will allow us to solve many of the environmental questions that are facing us now but no all. Any of these problems are beyond quick fixes but lie with systematic societal change such as consummation habits. Technology will allow us to drive more fuel efficient cars but it wont stop the damages of a society where everyone drives cars and of an infrastructure to support it.
The fact that many people see technology as a solution is also a sign that people are not willing to immediately do anything to change the downward path of the environment but put hope into some belief that somewhere down the line there will be a technology or advancement that will easily solve what many seem hard right now. This reliance in the future may be too much pipe dream and not enough pragmatism.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Technology can save us... maybe
The reading I read for my International Economic Policy class says that technology can save us from the environmental crisis. The text was, I think, well supported. What the text exactly shows is that many developing countries are much polluted than developed countries as developing countries use older technology which is often harmful to the environment. Those who use new technology is developed countries. Further, I just read an article from Forbes.com yesterday. The article shows the world's dirtiest cities (http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/26/pollution-baku-oil-biz-logistics-cx_tl_0226dirtycities.html), and I found that most of them are developing countries. Most of the pollution are water and air pollution caused by poor technology. Back into the text from my economic policy class, it also supports its argument by saying that China's pollution has been decreasing from 1990's. This means, as developing countries become more advanced, they will be less polluted. I think that is true. I believe that techonology can save the earth, but it does not mean that domination of technology is good for the environment. Overusing technology can certainly harm the environment. Thus, what I suggest is that we, as consumers of technology, should understand which technology is good for the environment.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Technology: An answer or a path to more of the same?
Too many people rely on technology to answer all of our environmental problems, and from my perspective, this is an incredibly dangerous mentality. Yes, technology does and will likely continue to do wonderful things for people, ranging from advances in health care to sustainable development. However, technology also seems to pull people farther and farther away from nature and this is where I start to get concerned. Rather than playing outside, people play on their computers, rather than talking in person, people chat on the computer as well. Technology can certainly be an asset to environmental innovation and I see great things for the future, but I am also concerned that the more we rely on technology, the farther from nature we will we be pulled. And for our personal, environmental connections, this is not such a great thing.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Small changes small effects
I feel this article summarizes a lot of the problems with todays pop culture environmentalism. Too many people believe saving the environment is simply to turn lights off and taking shorter shower. Although these small measures do help, they are doing nothing to step the environmental damages that are being done to the earth. Although we all claim to want to do good for the environment but are we willing to do the major and systematic changes that on a societal level that is needed to lower our impact?
Although the author wants a new public campaign to solve world environmental problems, the problem is that it will be hard to motivate people because unlike fascism and human rights, theses damages are much harder to see such as global warming which it will go up only a few degrees.
I do not know what the answer is to get people involved in wanting to make large fundamental changes needed to stop the environmental damages we are doing. I guess these small changes are a step in the right direction so ideally we should build upon them and make even bigger steps. If we build upon these baby steps and make the changes less extreme and more tolerable.
Although the author wants a new public campaign to solve world environmental problems, the problem is that it will be hard to motivate people because unlike fascism and human rights, theses damages are much harder to see such as global warming which it will go up only a few degrees.
I do not know what the answer is to get people involved in wanting to make large fundamental changes needed to stop the environmental damages we are doing. I guess these small changes are a step in the right direction so ideally we should build upon them and make even bigger steps. If we build upon these baby steps and make the changes less extreme and more tolerable.
Blind Faith?
While I agree with Michael Maniates that the "easy" ways to go green and try and help the environment won't cut it in the fight against environmental degradation, I think that he may overestimate the American public. Many people would view more difficult and extreme measures to reduce consumption as infringements upon their inherent rights as Americans. Quite simply, people believe they have a right to drive those gas guzzling SUV.
I think that telling people easy and simple ways to help make their lives greener is a good way to try and encourage change. If people realize how easy it is to make these small changes perhaps they will make larger, and more difficult changes in their lives, but we must start small. Especially for the SUV drivers of our country. And believe me, there's still quite a few of them.
I also think that just because our government isn't explicitly telling or ordering us to make big changes in our lives we won't make them. People who are excited and energized by the opportunity to work together as a community to overcome challenges are the same people who would seek out ways to make a bigger difference, even if it requires bigger sacrifice.
I do agree with Maniates's argument that people should be informed of the bigger and more difficult ways that they can make a change. Environmental education is lacking in today's schools, and in the media. I think that educating people about the consequences of their actions, and telling them ways they could decrease their negative increase on the environment could help to motivate more people to become environmentalists who do more than just the easy things.
Still, I believe that too many environmentalists peach against these easy fixes. But the fact of the matter is a little is better than nothing at all, and by making these small changes people really can make a difference. For me, the biggest reason why I might not adopt a greener lifestyle would be because I feel like one person can not make a difference. Instead of telling us that small changes don't matter environmentalists should be telling us yes they do help, and bigger changes help even more. Maniates touches on this view but I would have liked him to really endorse this idea. It's important to get everyone involved and engaged.
(Tess Nowadly)
I think that telling people easy and simple ways to help make their lives greener is a good way to try and encourage change. If people realize how easy it is to make these small changes perhaps they will make larger, and more difficult changes in their lives, but we must start small. Especially for the SUV drivers of our country. And believe me, there's still quite a few of them.
I also think that just because our government isn't explicitly telling or ordering us to make big changes in our lives we won't make them. People who are excited and energized by the opportunity to work together as a community to overcome challenges are the same people who would seek out ways to make a bigger difference, even if it requires bigger sacrifice.
I do agree with Maniates's argument that people should be informed of the bigger and more difficult ways that they can make a change. Environmental education is lacking in today's schools, and in the media. I think that educating people about the consequences of their actions, and telling them ways they could decrease their negative increase on the environment could help to motivate more people to become environmentalists who do more than just the easy things.
Still, I believe that too many environmentalists peach against these easy fixes. But the fact of the matter is a little is better than nothing at all, and by making these small changes people really can make a difference. For me, the biggest reason why I might not adopt a greener lifestyle would be because I feel like one person can not make a difference. Instead of telling us that small changes don't matter environmentalists should be telling us yes they do help, and bigger changes help even more. Maniates touches on this view but I would have liked him to really endorse this idea. It's important to get everyone involved and engaged.
(Tess Nowadly)
Do the Elitists have it right?
This article reminded me a lot of what we discussed in our small discussion group and I think it makes an incredibly valid and interesting point. While individual action is vital, necessary and should continue, there is no question that in order to effectively combat climate change large-scale action needs to take place. Governments and large global institutions need to lead this effort, but in order to do so, the political will has to be there, and that is where individuals can come in and make the largest difference. People have to get active in ways that include more than simply turning off the lights when they leave the house (although that must continue and be encouraged). One aspect of the article that stuck out in particular was that it appeared to blame environmental elitists for having such low expectations of the American public. While I agree with the author that individuals can do more and need to do more, I also think that Americans are so stuck in there ways that the only way to slowly change people's lifestyles, without them having the attitude that says "screw it, we've already destroyed everything anyway", is to integrate changes slowly. Unfortunately I think that environmentalists have a pretty accurate perception of the majority of the American public, which is why although it may seem as though they are underestimating us, encouraging small changes slowly , although not enough, is the only way.
Easy, Lazy, No Green
I totally agree with the author of the article, Michael Maniates. Most of the books and booklets promoting the improvement of global environment usually suggest very easy things, unplugging electronical devices when they are not needed and taking a bath rather than taking a shower and so on. Certainly, if everyone of us could do these things, that would help the global environment a bit, but not everyone does that. I usually unplug everything in my room when I go to bed, but my family members do not do that at home. It is just because unplugging everything in my house is not easy at all while unplugging everything just in my room is quite easy. Throwing a bottle or can in a recycle box is easy, but taking bottles and cans from trash can is timeconsuming. People are seeking the easiest way and becoming more lazy. Also, I often think that the government are just telling people to do something good for the global environment and do not have strong solutions to improve the global environment. I was really moved when I saw the speech made by Severn Suzuki in Brazil in 1992. She pointed out that many adults, especially world leaders, should act for the improvement of the global environment without thinking about their own profit. Hopefully, someone who can really take the global environmental issues seriously will stand up and lead the world to better environment.
Nothing Worth Fighting for is Ever Easy
The environment is in trouble. We all know this and it's about time we do something to safe our planet not just for ourselves but for future generations to come. And we can not save the planet by doing a quick 10 easy step program to changing your daily lifestyle to incorporate being "green". It's not that simple. There are no quick fixes that can happen if we all recycle or take short showers. They will help slow down the damage but they won't fix them because the problem is not necessarily us, its the system organized by our institution and economy. We consume because we're told that what we're told to do, but have we ever stopped to think that our pressure to over-consume and produce waste is causing all the environmental harm...nope, we haven't and we have to.
In Michael Maniates's article, he mentions that in order to avoid the worst affects of Global Warming the United States will have to reduce it's carbon emissions by 80% in 30 years. That's a drastic change that we can all help make happen by changing our consumption of fossil fuels and cars. We need to put pressure on our current economic system and government to change its tactics and to take the environment seriously. I think its terrible that according to those easy fix books they believe that "we, by nature, aren't terribly interested in doing anything that isn't private, individualistic, cost-effective and above all easy." I don't want to be portrayed as lazy and self centered by nature. And Michael Maniates shows that in history, the American people have rallied behind strong leaders requiring drastic change. We need more demanded of us, and then maybe more people will start stepping up to the plate to create and inspire a drastic social green revolution, that will be remembered along side the greatest revolutions including the Industrial and Medical. We need a drastic change and we need someone to stand up and demand it from us....now the only question remains, who is it going to be?
In Michael Maniates's article, he mentions that in order to avoid the worst affects of Global Warming the United States will have to reduce it's carbon emissions by 80% in 30 years. That's a drastic change that we can all help make happen by changing our consumption of fossil fuels and cars. We need to put pressure on our current economic system and government to change its tactics and to take the environment seriously. I think its terrible that according to those easy fix books they believe that "we, by nature, aren't terribly interested in doing anything that isn't private, individualistic, cost-effective and above all easy." I don't want to be portrayed as lazy and self centered by nature. And Michael Maniates shows that in history, the American people have rallied behind strong leaders requiring drastic change. We need more demanded of us, and then maybe more people will start stepping up to the plate to create and inspire a drastic social green revolution, that will be remembered along side the greatest revolutions including the Industrial and Medical. We need a drastic change and we need someone to stand up and demand it from us....now the only question remains, who is it going to be?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Barack And McCain: No Surprises
Really I found no surprises when I looked over McCain and Obama's arguments. Both the candidates seemed to take a rather middle of the road approach. Obama as a more liberal candidate was slightly more progressive than McCain when it came to carbon emissions, and he focused more on turning the new Green wave into a market for more jobs and more American-made products that McCain did, which, I would have expected because he is a democrat.
In terms of Clapp and Dauvergne’s categories I think that neither candidate would fall perfectly into a particular category. However, because both candidates support a cap-and-trade policy when it comes to carbon emissions, a policy reminiscent of the Kyoto protocol, I would say that both candidates recognize the ability of economic incentives to control environmental problems. So, I would characterize both candidates as market liberals.
I think that many people would be surprised by how similar the two candidates platforms are when it comes to issues of climate change and energy conservation. I, however, was not surprised at all to see the similarities. Both candidates are mainstream party politicians, who are not running on a platform heavy with environmental concerns. I think if anything, the Clapp and Dauvergne categories helped me to see the similarities between the two candidates, not the differences. I was sort of surprised to see just how focused Obama was on the economic implications of environmental policy, as his positions focused slightly more on these factors than McCain's seemed to.
I would say that Obama's policies make more sense, not because they are extremely different than McCain's but because they focus on seeing environmental change as a possible positive for our economy. Obama's position shows that he sees the emerging energy crisis as a possibility for a new market, and a possibility to make the United States a powerful contender on environmental issues. By making environmental policy seem like it will have a positive effect on our environment Obama's policies stand to see implication and support.
(Tess Nowadly)
In terms of Clapp and Dauvergne’s categories I think that neither candidate would fall perfectly into a particular category. However, because both candidates support a cap-and-trade policy when it comes to carbon emissions, a policy reminiscent of the Kyoto protocol, I would say that both candidates recognize the ability of economic incentives to control environmental problems. So, I would characterize both candidates as market liberals.
I think that many people would be surprised by how similar the two candidates platforms are when it comes to issues of climate change and energy conservation. I, however, was not surprised at all to see the similarities. Both candidates are mainstream party politicians, who are not running on a platform heavy with environmental concerns. I think if anything, the Clapp and Dauvergne categories helped me to see the similarities between the two candidates, not the differences. I was sort of surprised to see just how focused Obama was on the economic implications of environmental policy, as his positions focused slightly more on these factors than McCain's seemed to.
I would say that Obama's policies make more sense, not because they are extremely different than McCain's but because they focus on seeing environmental change as a possible positive for our economy. Obama's position shows that he sees the emerging energy crisis as a possibility for a new market, and a possibility to make the United States a powerful contender on environmental issues. By making environmental policy seem like it will have a positive effect on our environment Obama's policies stand to see implication and support.
(Tess Nowadly)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
US Environment in the Future
Basically, John McCain and Barack Obama are stating the same thing in terms of environmental policies. However, McCain's policies seemed more persuasive and specific. Although one of Obama's policies says "Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050," he does not clearly state exact numbers or how they are going to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions like McCain does in his website. McCain's plans sound more realistic and persuasive from an objective point of view. Both candidates certainly take environmental problems seriously, but they do not seem to take them as crisis. McCain relies on new technology and economic growth to improve the global environment. For instance, one of his policies says "John McCain Will Foster Rapid and Clean Economic Growth" to help the global environment. That is exactly how market liberals think, because market liberals regard poverty and weak economic growth as causes of the environmental problems. On the other hand, Obama puts an emphasis on human welfare by mentioning tax and price cuts. Also, he tries to creat new jobs for those who are unemployed. This Obama's way of approaching the environmental problems is like institutionalists.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Barack to the Future
While on paper, it looks like Barack Obama and John McCain have similar energy and environment policies, however I feel like Obama will have luck at implementing them. Jowhn McCain is too tied to the oil industry and Bush administration to change the energy direction of this country. Since President George Bush has taken office, John McCain went from being a moderate to voting 95% of the time in favor of Bush. He already showed us that he is willing to compromise his ideologies to gain support from the Republican Party, who is to say he won't do it again while he is in office.
Both Barack Obama and John McCain want to reshape our industry bringing green collar jobs in the United States, however only Obama has pledged to create five million green jobs within the next ten years. Also instead of investing money into technology development to produce plug-in hybrid cars, he wasnt to pay who ever develops the technology $300 million. It seems like that money could accomplish more if it was was used to develop the technology. And I completely disagree with building 45 new nuclear power plants. They're dangerous to the environment and they become and ethical and equity problem. Where are they going to be built? I can guarantee they will be built in poor or minority neighborhoods, that lack the power to fight nuclear waste being stored in their backyards.
I think Obama is going to bring out country in a new direction with his green development plans. I believe his trade and cap plan to reduce emissions will be very effective and will also show the rest of the world that we are serious about fighting global warming. Instead of reallying on the markets to fix our problems (like McCain probably would) Obama wants to fix the way our economy runs and wants to work with unstitutions to move our country in a new direction. John McCain might have made a good president eight years ago when he competed against Bush for the Republican nomination. Now I feel like he's to involoved with lobbyist and oil companies; he owes them too many favors especailly for all the funding they've given him for his campaign. Obama is going to be the one to lead our country into the future, with new alternative energy development and jobs.
Both Barack Obama and John McCain want to reshape our industry bringing green collar jobs in the United States, however only Obama has pledged to create five million green jobs within the next ten years. Also instead of investing money into technology development to produce plug-in hybrid cars, he wasnt to pay who ever develops the technology $300 million. It seems like that money could accomplish more if it was was used to develop the technology. And I completely disagree with building 45 new nuclear power plants. They're dangerous to the environment and they become and ethical and equity problem. Where are they going to be built? I can guarantee they will be built in poor or minority neighborhoods, that lack the power to fight nuclear waste being stored in their backyards.
I think Obama is going to bring out country in a new direction with his green development plans. I believe his trade and cap plan to reduce emissions will be very effective and will also show the rest of the world that we are serious about fighting global warming. Instead of reallying on the markets to fix our problems (like McCain probably would) Obama wants to fix the way our economy runs and wants to work with unstitutions to move our country in a new direction. John McCain might have made a good president eight years ago when he competed against Bush for the Republican nomination. Now I feel like he's to involoved with lobbyist and oil companies; he owes them too many favors especailly for all the funding they've given him for his campaign. Obama is going to be the one to lead our country into the future, with new alternative energy development and jobs.
BaRockin' the White House!
Ok, I have to admit that at first I was surprised by some of the similarities between the two visions of the candidates, but I think there are pretty definitive differences between their perspectives of the environmental crisis and actions they plan on taking.
In regards to McCain, it is pretty clear that he is a market liberal. While he claims to focus on scientifically-sound, mandatory emission reduction timetables, he believes that climate policy should focus on a market-based cap and trade system (although so does Obama). (If that doesn't scream market liberal then I'm not sure what does!) McCain also says that international efforts must be made to solve the climate problem, but my main concern with that is that I can see him using the need for the international community to take more action as a way of taking the heat off the United States.
McCain also focuses a lot of his attention on reducing dependence on foreign oil, which is incredibly important, but at the same point the focus is not on reducing the need for oil in general. He supports offshore drilling in Alaska, which may serve as a temporary fix, but it is not the direction that we should be taking. Again, is market liberal perspectives are evidenced when his websites says, "there is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities". I think his word choice says it all: prove to the world, subject to the whims of others, expand our production capabilities. First things first, Mr. McCain please recognize that policies should not be adapted as a means of "proving" ourselves to anyone else.
Some positive aspects of McCain's policies include his clean car challenge, the fact that he wants the U.S. to be a leader in a new international green economy, greening the federal government a priority. FOr these three things I give Mr. McCain a thumbs up!
In regards to Obama he also supports a cap and trade system which is set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, which I believe is more than McCain. He supports short term fixes for gas costs, which I think is necessary because thousands of livelihoods are virtually destroyed because of unaffordable prices (although the phrase short term continues to scare me since we live in a country that always seems to focus short term).
One aspect that I really like about Obama' policy is that he wants to save the amount of oil we export from the Middle East and Venezuela over the course of 10 years, which I think is great considering we never seem to hear the word "save" anymore.
All in all I was surprised both for the good and bad from both candidates, but encourage everyone to vote for Obama if they don't want to see their rights taken away by the next administration.
McCain Vs. Obama..
Although there are many similarities between the two candidates, there are however fundamental principles that make it possible to separate the two candidates with help of using Clapps and Dauvergnes environmental perspectives. When analyzing the overall theme of McCain’s proposals, we see that he believes in the power of the market to create the solutions that are needed to change our impact on the environment much like that of a market liberal. From his proposal of a trade and cap system for emotions as well as government funding for commercialized green technologies with his Green Innovation Financing and Transfer.
Although Mccain and Obama share many similarities in goals, there are however a few differences that show a different environmental perspective. Although much like Mccain he agrees with a cap and trade system for emissions as well as tax credits to promote such new technologies such as hybrid cars and new clean energy sources. The difference can be found in their views on the economy. While McCain is a Market Liberal, Obama has definetly more of an Industrialist perspective to his views of including government in his goals of promoting change. Among these insitutionalist views, he seeks massive inject of money from the federal government into technology and business to help spur those changes that he seeks.
Its really hard to find much difference between the candidates on the environment, they both want to push stronger standards and goals for fighting emissions. One exception however is the question of energy independence, while Obama wants more efficiency and conservation, McCain plans for expanding nuclear, coal and natural gas to provide alternatives for foreign oil. Another exception is the one of international commitments on the environment. McCain has seemingly more information on how to reassert the United States as leaders in environmental causes as well as engage up and coming economies of India and China.
Its hard to choose one which is talking the most since on the environment. I think McCain might have the upper hand in this issue because no matter how much money we spend on technology, they are years away while oil prices are hurting us now. McCains idea of increasing some new coal and nuclear plants are an unnecessary evil for bridging this gap till these technologies get online.
Although Mccain and Obama share many similarities in goals, there are however a few differences that show a different environmental perspective. Although much like Mccain he agrees with a cap and trade system for emissions as well as tax credits to promote such new technologies such as hybrid cars and new clean energy sources. The difference can be found in their views on the economy. While McCain is a Market Liberal, Obama has definetly more of an Industrialist perspective to his views of including government in his goals of promoting change. Among these insitutionalist views, he seeks massive inject of money from the federal government into technology and business to help spur those changes that he seeks.
Its really hard to find much difference between the candidates on the environment, they both want to push stronger standards and goals for fighting emissions. One exception however is the question of energy independence, while Obama wants more efficiency and conservation, McCain plans for expanding nuclear, coal and natural gas to provide alternatives for foreign oil. Another exception is the one of international commitments on the environment. McCain has seemingly more information on how to reassert the United States as leaders in environmental causes as well as engage up and coming economies of India and China.
Its hard to choose one which is talking the most since on the environment. I think McCain might have the upper hand in this issue because no matter how much money we spend on technology, they are years away while oil prices are hurting us now. McCains idea of increasing some new coal and nuclear plants are an unnecessary evil for bridging this gap till these technologies get online.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
In a World of Mr. Fishes...
(sorry for the obnoxious underlining-I'm having trouble getting rid of it)
In Stanley Fish's article, "I am, Therefore I Pollute", Fish asks if it is possible to "believe something and still resist taking the actions your beliefs seem to require". I think this question holds weight for many people in the United States. On a microscopic level, most individuals in the U.S. are at least aware that several of their routine habits are extremely harmful to the environment. I do not believe that there are many peple who intentionally use paper cups or extra hairspray to contribute to climate change. I come across individuals like Stanley Fish everyday, people who know that they probably should turn off the light before leaving the house, but don't have the energy to walk across the room to flip the switch. This is a common problem that can be seen with nearly any cause-- once one is able to convince others that a problem exists, getting people to take ownership of it and actively combat it opens a whole new can of worms.
In Stanley Fish's article, "I am, Therefore I Pollute", Fish asks if it is possible to "believe something and still resist taking the actions your beliefs seem to require". I think this question holds weight for many people in the United States. On a microscopic level, most individuals in the U.S. are at least aware that several of their routine habits are extremely harmful to the environment. I do not believe that there are many peple who intentionally use paper cups or extra hairspray to contribute to climate change. I come across individuals like Stanley Fish everyday, people who know that they probably should turn off the light before leaving the house, but don't have the energy to walk across the room to flip the switch. This is a common problem that can be seen with nearly any cause-- once one is able to convince others that a problem exists, getting people to take ownership of it and actively combat it opens a whole new can of worms.
I do not know if I agree with Oskar that pop-culture is taking environmentalism too far (not to say that it is not misguided in some cases) because it is difficult for me to imagine pop-culture ever taking it far enough. I recognize that a backlash is certainly possible, as seen in Stanley Fish's case, but I can only hope that while small environmental changes seem drastic and inconvenient right now (and people's annoyance makes them almost want to resist actions that they know are necessary), in 3 years they will be norms and people won't even think twice about having to walk an extra block so they can take public transportation.
While I agree with Akari that the most pressing environmental concern is climate change, when I asked my friend Noach what he thought, his first response was President Bush. Although this was not at all what I was expecting to hear, it made me think about the role of politics in general as the most pressing challenge facing the global environment. By nature the state system creates significant challenges for dealing with environmental concerns. In a globalizing consumer-based world, it is extremely unlikely for countries to put the good of the world before the good of their country. The problem is that while it is a government's responsibility to protect its citizens, this protection is almost always viewed in terms of economics. The challenge of not abusing common goods has not been effectively dealt with in regard to the environment. This is why I believe that while global warming is the biggest tangible environmental concern, the most pressing challenge today is working within the political system to build a foundation for countries to work on long term solutions to environmental issues. Governments need to take more initiative in protecting the environment because unlike Stanley Fish, if governments continue to neglect stronger environmental policies, the result will be drastically more tragic than that of a few more individuals not flicking off the light switch before they leave the house.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Where'd The Oil Go?
I think one of the most pressing problems is the oil shortage that is currently affecting the American Economy. While I understand that the oil crisis is probably just one small aspect of the detriment to the earth's ecology, I think that the implications connected to the oil crisis could be very destructive in the future.
While problems with the sea level, global warming, and animal extinction probably will cause just as many problems in the end, I think the oil crisis gets more attention, and more stress is put on oil than on other commodities. Unlike the issue of carbon gas emissions and polar bear endangerment, the oil crisis is currently wrecking havoc on our way of life, not only by affecting the world's economy but also by affecting the balance of power. I believe that, attempting to procure more oil will only lead the United States, and other wealthier nations, into unjust wars with countries that have high oil stuffs, like Iran.
The entire idea of the haves and the have-nots will change as oil gets harder and harder to come by, and with the change I fear that war will be inevitable. The stress which our nation and others puts on oil leads me to believe that nations will do anything to procure the resource, as it seems to be vital to survival.
While I do believe that there are many pressing problems, and that each of these issues has far-reaching implications for the earth, I believe the oil crisis could be one of the most dangerous, because its an issue with the most potential to entice short-term violence between nations.
(Tess Nowadly)
While problems with the sea level, global warming, and animal extinction probably will cause just as many problems in the end, I think the oil crisis gets more attention, and more stress is put on oil than on other commodities. Unlike the issue of carbon gas emissions and polar bear endangerment, the oil crisis is currently wrecking havoc on our way of life, not only by affecting the world's economy but also by affecting the balance of power. I believe that, attempting to procure more oil will only lead the United States, and other wealthier nations, into unjust wars with countries that have high oil stuffs, like Iran.
The entire idea of the haves and the have-nots will change as oil gets harder and harder to come by, and with the change I fear that war will be inevitable. The stress which our nation and others puts on oil leads me to believe that nations will do anything to procure the resource, as it seems to be vital to survival.
While I do believe that there are many pressing problems, and that each of these issues has far-reaching implications for the earth, I believe the oil crisis could be one of the most dangerous, because its an issue with the most potential to entice short-term violence between nations.
(Tess Nowadly)
Monday, September 8, 2008
Global Energy Crisis
I believe one of the most pressing challenges facing the global environment is the energy crisis. We are reaching the end of our fossil fuel resources, and no matter how many commercials Exxon Mobil plays, oil is not going to be the future energy supplier. There's just not enough left to sustain our growing population. Scientists do not know for sure how many years left we have of our oil, coal and natural gas reserves, especially since the growing world population and developing countries will continue to require more of these resources. We need to develop sustainable alternative resources and the key word in that sentence is sustainable.
Not all sources of alternative energy will work in all areas. Wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal and even bio energy sources can only be implemented in certain areas to be sustainable. Our worlds economy depends mainly on one source, oil. I have learned my economic classes that its never good to put "all your eggs in one basket". If we do not have an alternative for oil when that resource runs out, the world economy will collapse. We should learn from this mistake to not invest all our efforts into one alternative source of energy. We need to develop and improve the technologies for all the alternative sources of energy, so they are sustainable to the environment of which they are located.
One thing that also horrifies me, is nuclear energy. Its not stable or safe and is environmentally harmful. We should learn from the Love Canal, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island that the devastation of a nuclear reactor malfunction or nuclear waste leak is not worth the energy produced . Nuclear reactor malfunctions can kill thousands of people and destroy acres of land. Not to mention nuclear waste dump sites are not safe. The waste leaks into ground water and the earth, which we witnessed with the Love Canal tragedy. Leaks happen daily around all nuclear waste sites everywhere in the world, including the U.S. and France. France is praised for its nuclear energy plants, but there are numerous cases of nuclear waste leaks into rivers and ground water, which is why they are looking into alternative resources of energy too. The U.S. needs to move away from the idea that nuclear energy is a sustainable source for alternative energy; its not.
Sustainable alternative energy is a pressing matter because not only will it save our global economy but it will help us fight global warming which is another crucial problem that needs to be addressed. Moving away from the use of fossil fuels will limit the amount of green house gases that are admitted into the atmosphere. When we create the technology to implement these new resources, we will take a huge step forward in fighting global warming. This needs to be done immediately and needs to be implemented in all states, developed and especially developing states that will require more energy in the future.
Not all sources of alternative energy will work in all areas. Wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal and even bio energy sources can only be implemented in certain areas to be sustainable. Our worlds economy depends mainly on one source, oil. I have learned my economic classes that its never good to put "all your eggs in one basket". If we do not have an alternative for oil when that resource runs out, the world economy will collapse. We should learn from this mistake to not invest all our efforts into one alternative source of energy. We need to develop and improve the technologies for all the alternative sources of energy, so they are sustainable to the environment of which they are located.
One thing that also horrifies me, is nuclear energy. Its not stable or safe and is environmentally harmful. We should learn from the Love Canal, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island that the devastation of a nuclear reactor malfunction or nuclear waste leak is not worth the energy produced . Nuclear reactor malfunctions can kill thousands of people and destroy acres of land. Not to mention nuclear waste dump sites are not safe. The waste leaks into ground water and the earth, which we witnessed with the Love Canal tragedy. Leaks happen daily around all nuclear waste sites everywhere in the world, including the U.S. and France. France is praised for its nuclear energy plants, but there are numerous cases of nuclear waste leaks into rivers and ground water, which is why they are looking into alternative resources of energy too. The U.S. needs to move away from the idea that nuclear energy is a sustainable source for alternative energy; its not.
Sustainable alternative energy is a pressing matter because not only will it save our global economy but it will help us fight global warming which is another crucial problem that needs to be addressed. Moving away from the use of fossil fuels will limit the amount of green house gases that are admitted into the atmosphere. When we create the technology to implement these new resources, we will take a huge step forward in fighting global warming. This needs to be done immediately and needs to be implemented in all states, developed and especially developing states that will require more energy in the future.
The Most Terrifying Thing for Me
What I am concerned about the most is the global warming, because it seems, for me, an endless spiral.
When I think back how much I used air conditioner last month, I feel that I had done something horrible to the global environment. However, as it is too hot to live without air conditioner, I could not stop using it. Overuse of air conditioner is one of the cuases of the global warming. Thus, global warming and the frequency of using air conditioner are mutually propotional; if the temperature of the earth goes up, people want to use air conditioner more frequently. When that happens, the temperature of the earth goes up again. It is endless. Further, the global warming melts glaciers in the North and South Pole causing sea-level rise. As the sea-level rises over years, some islands and coast areas will sink under the ocean. My home country, Japan, is island. A tiny part of Japan is now in danger, and the government is desperate to save the small island, because it is the south most par of Japan and expands the fishing zone of the country. Although now it is just a tiny part of Japan, once sea-level starts rising quickly, I am sure my home country will be the one of the earliest sank countries in the world. If the land areas starts sinking, many creatures (not only human being) will be living in some concentrated areas of the world. That will cause food, resource, and land shortage. So, for me, the most terrifying environmental issue is the global warming, and it can be the most pressing challenge facing the global environment.
Akari Mizuta
When I think back how much I used air conditioner last month, I feel that I had done something horrible to the global environment. However, as it is too hot to live without air conditioner, I could not stop using it. Overuse of air conditioner is one of the cuases of the global warming. Thus, global warming and the frequency of using air conditioner are mutually propotional; if the temperature of the earth goes up, people want to use air conditioner more frequently. When that happens, the temperature of the earth goes up again. It is endless. Further, the global warming melts glaciers in the North and South Pole causing sea-level rise. As the sea-level rises over years, some islands and coast areas will sink under the ocean. My home country, Japan, is island. A tiny part of Japan is now in danger, and the government is desperate to save the small island, because it is the south most par of Japan and expands the fishing zone of the country. Although now it is just a tiny part of Japan, once sea-level starts rising quickly, I am sure my home country will be the one of the earliest sank countries in the world. If the land areas starts sinking, many creatures (not only human being) will be living in some concentrated areas of the world. That will cause food, resource, and land shortage. So, for me, the most terrifying environmental issue is the global warming, and it can be the most pressing challenge facing the global environment.
Akari Mizuta
Stanley Fish, a grumpy old man with a reasonable point.
There is no doubt that our consumer driven society has put us down a destructive path which has lead to poisoned water supplies, deforestation and other substantial damage to our environment. These damages have not gone unnoticed in recent years however. For a few years now, environmentalism has become the new catch phrase which has become all the fashionable rage among Americas middle and upper classes. Although their are many people in the US that are truly concerned about the environmental damages our consumer lifestyles have caused, the Stanley Fish post makes very valid points about how much we want to disrupt our everyday life for the environmental good.
Although many of his points are those of a grumpy old man who dislikes the new ideas to what is socially acceptable, his example of the progressing level of detail to the sorting of paper trash shows that we might have reached a level of absurdity.
The question of living an environmentally friendly lifestyle in the US is an extremely loaded and controversial question because to primarily raises the question of to what degree are we willing to forfeit our comforts for the greater environmental good.
There is no doubt that we can all do small changes that collectively would have a huge impact but at the same time I do agree with Mr. Fish that the pop culture appeal of environmentalism is in some instances going to far. I feel that should we continue to push for more and more radical environmental changes, we risk a backlash against it all. Just as the 1980s was a backlash against the hippy environmentalism of the 1970s, we could risk the same outcome unless we slow down this green drive. I am all favor for more recycling, less dependence on oil and energy but for a sustained drive towards conservationism, we need to move slower and make people feel that changes have an effect rather then for some abstract cause.
Although many of his points are those of a grumpy old man who dislikes the new ideas to what is socially acceptable, his example of the progressing level of detail to the sorting of paper trash shows that we might have reached a level of absurdity.
The question of living an environmentally friendly lifestyle in the US is an extremely loaded and controversial question because to primarily raises the question of to what degree are we willing to forfeit our comforts for the greater environmental good.
There is no doubt that we can all do small changes that collectively would have a huge impact but at the same time I do agree with Mr. Fish that the pop culture appeal of environmentalism is in some instances going to far. I feel that should we continue to push for more and more radical environmental changes, we risk a backlash against it all. Just as the 1980s was a backlash against the hippy environmentalism of the 1970s, we could risk the same outcome unless we slow down this green drive. I am all favor for more recycling, less dependence on oil and energy but for a sustained drive towards conservationism, we need to move slower and make people feel that changes have an effect rather then for some abstract cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)