11/12/13
With the large and constant increase in CO2 emissions, one of the biggest consequences has been observed in our oceans. As CO2 is released, instead of it getting into the atmosphere, a lot of it gets absorbed by the oceans. This has begun to cause a slew of problems in marine ecosystems around the world.
Ocean acidification has been largely increasing around the world over the past half century. As more and more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, the more acidic the ocean gets. The CO2 reacts with H2O to produce H2CO3 which then further dissolves to H+ and CO3,2-, causing the acidification to take place. From this, many marine organisms are struggling to survive in various parts of the oceans due to unfavorable environmental conditions. The ecology of the world is being shifted on a massive scale, leaning towards the point of no return. As more and more marine organisms die, areas of oceans become anoxic, leading to large dead zones in important fishing areas including the Gulf of Mexico (Bruckner).
Not only is ocean acidification bad for the marine organisms, it also affects the global climate. As the oceans continue to suck up carbon dioxide, the amount of CO2 that can be continually absorbed each year diminishes, causing more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. This puts a huge burden on the already overwhelmed atmosphere, furthering the effects of climate change. With an already shaky situation in regards to climate change, this extra burden poses an enormous threat to our already threatened way of life.
The oceans are just one aspect of water currently under attack in our current state of burning fossil fuels. Agricultural and Industrial economies throughout the world have been putting a huge strain on our drinking water supplies. Groundwater mining, the process of pumping out more freshwater than can be refilled has become prevalent in various areas around the world including Texas. As the practice of fracking becomes more widely used in Texas, the groundwater aquifers become more and more strained due to the absurd amounts of water needed to power these massive operations.
As with an ever increasing global population, agriculture has become a larger practice in order to feed the world. Agricultural runoff leads to nutrient pollution in many freshwater reservoirs leading to all sorts of problems. Eutrophicaiton from the increased phosphorous leads to algal blooms, or large scale algal increases in affected areas. As all of the nutrients are used up, massive dyings occur leading to anoxic conditions once again. As local and global ecologies become threatened, global environmental infrastructure begins to come crashing down leading to unknown effects on our climate.
In a world where uncertainty looms behind every action, one thing is for sure: If marine ecosystems around the world begin to fail, serious consequences will be imminent. With that being said, there are two main ways of dealing with this knowledge. The first is to change the way the world is worked and run, specifically in regards to our increasing reliance on fossil fuels for energy. By reducing CO2 emissions we can greatly reduce the potential impact of rapidly accelerating climate change. The second could be through admitting defeat, accepting that climate change cannot be stopped and instead adopting adaptive lifestyles. By changing our lifestyles after climate change is in full affect, we can hope to endure the many environmental disasters predicted to come.
"It is well established among researchers that the uptake of increased amounts of carbon dioxide will make ocean water more acidic as the gas dissolves to create carbonic acid. Ocean chemistry is changing 100 times more rapidly than in the 650,000 years that preceded the modern industrial era and since the late 1980s, researchers at Scripps Oceanography and others have recorded an overall drop in the pH of the oceans from 8.16 to 8.05" (Climate Scientists)
Bruckner, Monica. "The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone." The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Dec. 2013. <http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/index.html>.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
A Call for Action
11/08/13
Around the world climate scientists and environmentally conscious people alike are calling for action. While every reputable scientist agrees that climate change is real, happening right now, and is anthropogenic, what to do about it has been heavily debated. Because of this, there has been no definite and effective action taken place in order to stop it. This has caused a sense of urgency amongst the community leading to many scientists and activists urging people to take action on climate change. The nineteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) currently taking place in Warsaw is at the forefront of this push. Others in support include James Hansen, Bill McKibben and even Michael Klare who have all openly voiced their concerns for the future.
Representatives from countries around the world are meeting in an effort to further progress towards a more sustainable future. Following an already delicate topic of global climate change, the super-typhoon Haiyan has sparked further concerns around the world specifically about the adverse effects on weather patterns and storms. The UNFCCC speaker for the Philippines (Jeb Sano) made a moving and emotional speech on acting now to fight climate change, pleading with the president and the rest of the committee. Sano is just one of many people urging the world to take action and promote climate awareness and sustainability.
Others are also speaking out on dealing with climate change. Many climate scientists and activists are going to work, urging fellow citizens to promote awareness and action about dealing with climate change. Michael Klare argues that we need uprisings around the world in order to give climate change mitigation a real chance of going into affect. The idea that action must be taken in order for real progress to be made has been gaining steam over the past couple of months and maybe even years. Looking to the past, there have been many movements that were successful through direct action between groups of supporters. The same must be done in order to see any tangible progress on stopping or diminishing climate change.
In the past, groups have also taken action against a variety of movements for anything from injustices to differing opinions. In recent years specifically, many groups of people have taken to the streets to protest something. Take for example Japan's fight against nuclear energy after the Fukushima disaster. Many people argue that nuclear energy is one of the best alternative energies of the future, but because of the massive anti-nuclear movement (Sometimes justifiably so, like in the case of a nuclear reactor meltdown from Fukushima), nuclear energy has not been able to make any tangible progress. Other recent examples are seen with the Keystone XL Pipeline being fought as well as opposition of a chemical plant in Ningbo, China.
As seen from past experiences, anti-movements can be effective and powerful ways for the general public to show their support or opposition of a controversial topic. The same must be done in order to apply pressure on governments to pass legislation that will help mitigate climate change. If climate change mitigation does not gain enough steam, more Superstorms like the Supertyphoon Haiyan, or Superstorm Sandy will become more prevalent. While more of these Superstorms could be the catalyst needed to push real climate change legislation, it might be too little too late. In the end, the consensus of climate scientists and activists is clear: Action must be taken in order to make a change.
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle." (Frederick Douglass)
Around the world climate scientists and environmentally conscious people alike are calling for action. While every reputable scientist agrees that climate change is real, happening right now, and is anthropogenic, what to do about it has been heavily debated. Because of this, there has been no definite and effective action taken place in order to stop it. This has caused a sense of urgency amongst the community leading to many scientists and activists urging people to take action on climate change. The nineteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) currently taking place in Warsaw is at the forefront of this push. Others in support include James Hansen, Bill McKibben and even Michael Klare who have all openly voiced their concerns for the future.
Representatives from countries around the world are meeting in an effort to further progress towards a more sustainable future. Following an already delicate topic of global climate change, the super-typhoon Haiyan has sparked further concerns around the world specifically about the adverse effects on weather patterns and storms. The UNFCCC speaker for the Philippines (Jeb Sano) made a moving and emotional speech on acting now to fight climate change, pleading with the president and the rest of the committee. Sano is just one of many people urging the world to take action and promote climate awareness and sustainability.
Others are also speaking out on dealing with climate change. Many climate scientists and activists are going to work, urging fellow citizens to promote awareness and action about dealing with climate change. Michael Klare argues that we need uprisings around the world in order to give climate change mitigation a real chance of going into affect. The idea that action must be taken in order for real progress to be made has been gaining steam over the past couple of months and maybe even years. Looking to the past, there have been many movements that were successful through direct action between groups of supporters. The same must be done in order to see any tangible progress on stopping or diminishing climate change.
In the past, groups have also taken action against a variety of movements for anything from injustices to differing opinions. In recent years specifically, many groups of people have taken to the streets to protest something. Take for example Japan's fight against nuclear energy after the Fukushima disaster. Many people argue that nuclear energy is one of the best alternative energies of the future, but because of the massive anti-nuclear movement (Sometimes justifiably so, like in the case of a nuclear reactor meltdown from Fukushima), nuclear energy has not been able to make any tangible progress. Other recent examples are seen with the Keystone XL Pipeline being fought as well as opposition of a chemical plant in Ningbo, China.
As seen from past experiences, anti-movements can be effective and powerful ways for the general public to show their support or opposition of a controversial topic. The same must be done in order to apply pressure on governments to pass legislation that will help mitigate climate change. If climate change mitigation does not gain enough steam, more Superstorms like the Supertyphoon Haiyan, or Superstorm Sandy will become more prevalent. While more of these Superstorms could be the catalyst needed to push real climate change legislation, it might be too little too late. In the end, the consensus of climate scientists and activists is clear: Action must be taken in order to make a change.
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle." (Frederick Douglass)
Biofuels
11/05/13
Are biofuels the fuel of the future? There have been debates back and forth for and against them, but why is is so polarizing? Biofuels sound great because they are an alternative to gasoline, the big thing to hate on nowadays. However, using biofuels over gasoline is not as clear cut as one initially imagines. There are many new issues brought up when using biofuels to supply our transportation fuel. Food prices are raised, massive amounts of land, water and fertilizer are used, and it destroys forests.
Land use is probably the biggest problem with biofuels. In order to effectively grow enough bio matter to create a substantial amount of ethanol requires many hectares of land. According to biofuelswatch.net speaker, Rachel Smolker, the amount of land needed to supply solely the U.S military on biofuels is a "couple of planets" worth, indicating the impossibility of the task.
Normally, this land comes from deforestation leading to forests becoming more scarce as biofuels pick up popularity. Even if we had enough land to supply the world with biofuels instead of gasoline, we would be sacrificing our forests and destroy many habitats. Hearing this, one might think "But isn't it worth it for the reduction in green house gas emissions?" and while that could very well be the case, results showing either side (Whether biofuels emit less GHG's or not) have yet to be conclusive. Some sources say that biofuels are more efficient, while others sources like Rachel Smolker say they are actually ineffective compared to gasoline.
Not only does this take up a lot of land, but it also uses up potential space for the growing of food to supply people instead of cars. By using more food products for fuel instead of food, the prices of these foods will rise causing many families who are already struggling to have an even harder time paying for food. Other issues with biofuels include genetically modified organisms that are claimed to grow faster. These GMO's can cross pollinate and spread, potentially creating an invasive species that will have its own slew of negative affects on both the local and global ecology.
Instead of switching to biofuels or using some form of renewable energy like wind and solar, Ms. Smolker suggests that we need a full system change. We need to move off of our focus to continue our lifestyles while changing the fuel sources, to changing our lifestyles in order to reduce the amount of energy we need to use. In order to effectively mitigate climate change we would need to have a complete overhaul and change of energy sources within the next ten years. However, if instead we change our lifestyles to accompany a more environmentally friendly way (using our cars to travel less, using less electricity, buying local foods instead of international, etc.) then maybe we can reduce our emissions enough to keep our climate in check.
As it stands, the effectiveness of biofuels is completely up in the air. Many sources have touted biofuels as a potential way to mitigate oil dependency, while others vehemently oppose it. Whether or not a massive global lifestyle change is the right answer is just as hazy. Either way, one thing is clear: something needs to be done before climate change spirals out of control.
"I'm here to tell you that I want to tell you the things that you don't want to hear as well as the things you want to hear. And one of those is ethanol. Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumer. (John McCain)
Are biofuels the fuel of the future? There have been debates back and forth for and against them, but why is is so polarizing? Biofuels sound great because they are an alternative to gasoline, the big thing to hate on nowadays. However, using biofuels over gasoline is not as clear cut as one initially imagines. There are many new issues brought up when using biofuels to supply our transportation fuel. Food prices are raised, massive amounts of land, water and fertilizer are used, and it destroys forests.
Land use is probably the biggest problem with biofuels. In order to effectively grow enough bio matter to create a substantial amount of ethanol requires many hectares of land. According to biofuelswatch.net speaker, Rachel Smolker, the amount of land needed to supply solely the U.S military on biofuels is a "couple of planets" worth, indicating the impossibility of the task.
Normally, this land comes from deforestation leading to forests becoming more scarce as biofuels pick up popularity. Even if we had enough land to supply the world with biofuels instead of gasoline, we would be sacrificing our forests and destroy many habitats. Hearing this, one might think "But isn't it worth it for the reduction in green house gas emissions?" and while that could very well be the case, results showing either side (Whether biofuels emit less GHG's or not) have yet to be conclusive. Some sources say that biofuels are more efficient, while others sources like Rachel Smolker say they are actually ineffective compared to gasoline.
Not only does this take up a lot of land, but it also uses up potential space for the growing of food to supply people instead of cars. By using more food products for fuel instead of food, the prices of these foods will rise causing many families who are already struggling to have an even harder time paying for food. Other issues with biofuels include genetically modified organisms that are claimed to grow faster. These GMO's can cross pollinate and spread, potentially creating an invasive species that will have its own slew of negative affects on both the local and global ecology.
Instead of switching to biofuels or using some form of renewable energy like wind and solar, Ms. Smolker suggests that we need a full system change. We need to move off of our focus to continue our lifestyles while changing the fuel sources, to changing our lifestyles in order to reduce the amount of energy we need to use. In order to effectively mitigate climate change we would need to have a complete overhaul and change of energy sources within the next ten years. However, if instead we change our lifestyles to accompany a more environmentally friendly way (using our cars to travel less, using less electricity, buying local foods instead of international, etc.) then maybe we can reduce our emissions enough to keep our climate in check.
As it stands, the effectiveness of biofuels is completely up in the air. Many sources have touted biofuels as a potential way to mitigate oil dependency, while others vehemently oppose it. Whether or not a massive global lifestyle change is the right answer is just as hazy. Either way, one thing is clear: something needs to be done before climate change spirals out of control.
"I'm here to tell you that I want to tell you the things that you don't want to hear as well as the things you want to hear. And one of those is ethanol. Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumer. (John McCain)
Drone Strikes
11/01/13
Recently, drone strikes have been getting out of hand around the world. There are different types of drones that are used for a variety of reasons. There are drones for radar, targeted attacks, signature attacks and others. Radar drones are prevalent in recent fighting in order to help troops on the ground. By scouting ahead with an unmanned radar drone, the ground troops will be more informed about what is up ahead. Many casualties can be avoided because of valuable intelligence on what lies ahead. Radar can help show troops if they are outnumbered, or if there is an unforeseen enemy counter-attack, reducing the element of surprise.
The other drones used by the U.S military are much more ruthless. Targeted attack drones are unmanned drones used to kill "high value" targets on a kill list the government makes. Since these drones are unmanned, not only is the U.S targeting and killing high priority targets, but they are able to do so without any sort of repercussion. There are a number of issues with these drones that are controversial. First off, the U.S claims their targeted attacks are only aimed towards threats to the U.S, however, there are many claims saying these drones are hitting innocent civilians.
This brings up the question: How does the U.S know that their targeted attacks are really hitting their targets? And if they are hitting their targets, how does the U.S know that their targets are the correct people, and not just a random civilian? Can we reliably target and kill people using unmanned drones, if not, is the risk of hitting civilians worth it? Unmanned: America's Drone Wars discusses the consequences of these drone attacks. Whether or not drone strikes are killing civilians, countries where these drone strikes are occurring are becoming more and more resentful of the U.S. If civilians are being killed then not only are these countries beginning to hate the U.S, but innocent people are being killed - Which is an intolerable act. These drone strikes are also targeting "high value" targets - How is this decided and enforced? Before drone strikes are supported by American citizens, people must know who and why these people are that we are targeting as well as as have absolute certainty that the people we target, are the people on the list, instead of innocent people.
Signature drone strikes are even more controversial because there is almost no rhyme or reason to them. Instead of targeting those high value targets, signature strikes target anyone that is engaging in "suspicious" behavior, which doesn't have any real meaning and is used at the U.S's discretion. In Unmanned: America's Drone Wars, a story is relived about a child (16) who was targeted by these drones. Whether or not he was enabling terrorist groups or doing something that threatened U.S security will most likely never be done. Both sides of the argument have their claims, and the truth may never be known.
Understandably, war and fighting terrorism is not easy. However, fighting terrorism by terrorizing is not a strategy that sits well with American citizens or helps the U.S's reputation with other countries. As these counties look on at our constant drone strikes, it strikes fear because they could be the next target. In order to gain respect and trust, the U.S should rethink how it fights the current wars of the Middle East. Maybe drone strikes are the way to go, but until we have clear parameters on a kill list, absolute certainty of the target and other safety precautions to reduce civilian killings drastically, fighting terrorism this way will only make matters worse.
"How can we say we're winning when every time we kill one, we create ten?" (Unmanned: America's Drone Wars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNGz3ht0oyA)
Recently, drone strikes have been getting out of hand around the world. There are different types of drones that are used for a variety of reasons. There are drones for radar, targeted attacks, signature attacks and others. Radar drones are prevalent in recent fighting in order to help troops on the ground. By scouting ahead with an unmanned radar drone, the ground troops will be more informed about what is up ahead. Many casualties can be avoided because of valuable intelligence on what lies ahead. Radar can help show troops if they are outnumbered, or if there is an unforeseen enemy counter-attack, reducing the element of surprise.
The other drones used by the U.S military are much more ruthless. Targeted attack drones are unmanned drones used to kill "high value" targets on a kill list the government makes. Since these drones are unmanned, not only is the U.S targeting and killing high priority targets, but they are able to do so without any sort of repercussion. There are a number of issues with these drones that are controversial. First off, the U.S claims their targeted attacks are only aimed towards threats to the U.S, however, there are many claims saying these drones are hitting innocent civilians.
This brings up the question: How does the U.S know that their targeted attacks are really hitting their targets? And if they are hitting their targets, how does the U.S know that their targets are the correct people, and not just a random civilian? Can we reliably target and kill people using unmanned drones, if not, is the risk of hitting civilians worth it? Unmanned: America's Drone Wars discusses the consequences of these drone attacks. Whether or not drone strikes are killing civilians, countries where these drone strikes are occurring are becoming more and more resentful of the U.S. If civilians are being killed then not only are these countries beginning to hate the U.S, but innocent people are being killed - Which is an intolerable act. These drone strikes are also targeting "high value" targets - How is this decided and enforced? Before drone strikes are supported by American citizens, people must know who and why these people are that we are targeting as well as as have absolute certainty that the people we target, are the people on the list, instead of innocent people.
Signature drone strikes are even more controversial because there is almost no rhyme or reason to them. Instead of targeting those high value targets, signature strikes target anyone that is engaging in "suspicious" behavior, which doesn't have any real meaning and is used at the U.S's discretion. In Unmanned: America's Drone Wars, a story is relived about a child (16) who was targeted by these drones. Whether or not he was enabling terrorist groups or doing something that threatened U.S security will most likely never be done. Both sides of the argument have their claims, and the truth may never be known.
Understandably, war and fighting terrorism is not easy. However, fighting terrorism by terrorizing is not a strategy that sits well with American citizens or helps the U.S's reputation with other countries. As these counties look on at our constant drone strikes, it strikes fear because they could be the next target. In order to gain respect and trust, the U.S should rethink how it fights the current wars of the Middle East. Maybe drone strikes are the way to go, but until we have clear parameters on a kill list, absolute certainty of the target and other safety precautions to reduce civilian killings drastically, fighting terrorism this way will only make matters worse.
"How can we say we're winning when every time we kill one, we create ten?" (Unmanned: America's Drone Wars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNGz3ht0oyA)
Strategic Resources
10/29/13
As previous blog posts have discusses as well as Klare throughout Blood and Oil, oil and natural gas are essentially finite energy sources. Meaning on a human timescale they are not able to be produced. However, there are other natural resources that fall under this category as well that don't have as big a focus. Another one of Klare's books, The Race for What's Left: The Global Scramble for the World's Last Resources does a great job bringing up these different resources.
Rare earth metals, minerals, food and even water are all strategic resources. The former have seen a steadily increased usage since the Industrial Age. Some of the most widespread uses for some of these rare earth metals or elements is in lasers, batteries, magnets and other widely used items. Computer companies like Apple as well are using rare earth metals in their laptops, phones and other products. As we continue to progress technologically speaking, we will continue to exacerbate the finite amount of these materials in order to manufacture our precious new toys. What will happen when these resources start to diminish to the point where only 20% or less is left of what was once there? Potential wars may be fought over these resources, and once collected, these resources will be at extraordinarily high prices due to supply and demand.
This large increase in prices brings us to the next, not so obvious strategic resource: food. Normally, food seems like a human right, but in reality it is becoming more and more of a commodity. As Monsanto and other companies focused on genetically modified organisms have been taking the food industry, specifically agriculture, by storm. Through combining both genetically modified organisms (GMO) with a special herbicide that the GMO seeds are resistant to, Monsanto has created a monopoly of sorts on certain crop growing, mainly corn. As a company, Monsanto's target audience is people who can pay them for their products. This is a serious problem for people with low incomes because food is becoming more of a commodity than a right.
This same problem is occurring within the pharmaceutical field, where medicines are being targeted for middle class peoples who can pay, instead of the lower class that arguably needs the medicine more (For a variety of reasons including the inability to buy healthier foods because they are more expensive, worse living conditions, etc.).
One of the most important resources that recently has become a strategic resource is drinking water. Similar to food, water seems like a human right, and yet in some places it is becoming more scarce and more expensive than ever. This is happening for the same reasons as food and medicine: companies are targeting people who can pay, instead of the people who can't. Why would a company give away water, when it can instead sell it to people who will pay? Water in particular is also becoming a more scarce resource due to it being over used around the world, including in Texas and California where fracking has taken the majority of drinking water in the area.
Strategic resources are becoming even more scarce every day, causing prices to rise, poorer people to be unable to buy food or medicines, and causing turmoil in countries with unstable governments. This will continue until we can find more sustainable materials to use for our products, or if companies stop focusing on making money and instead and providing a quality product. As technology continues to advance, different resources will start to become strategic ones, providing different countries with the unpleasantness that follow, like local militant groups fighting over land. One thing is for sure; Strategic resources like oil, natural gas, water and food will all play important roles in the future to come.
"With so much evidence of depleting natural resources, toxic waste, climate change, irreparable harm to our food chain and rapidly increasing instances of natural disasters, why do we keep perpetuating the problem? Why do we continue marching to the same alarming beat." (Yehuda Berg)
As previous blog posts have discusses as well as Klare throughout Blood and Oil, oil and natural gas are essentially finite energy sources. Meaning on a human timescale they are not able to be produced. However, there are other natural resources that fall under this category as well that don't have as big a focus. Another one of Klare's books, The Race for What's Left: The Global Scramble for the World's Last Resources does a great job bringing up these different resources.
Rare earth metals, minerals, food and even water are all strategic resources. The former have seen a steadily increased usage since the Industrial Age. Some of the most widespread uses for some of these rare earth metals or elements is in lasers, batteries, magnets and other widely used items. Computer companies like Apple as well are using rare earth metals in their laptops, phones and other products. As we continue to progress technologically speaking, we will continue to exacerbate the finite amount of these materials in order to manufacture our precious new toys. What will happen when these resources start to diminish to the point where only 20% or less is left of what was once there? Potential wars may be fought over these resources, and once collected, these resources will be at extraordinarily high prices due to supply and demand.
This large increase in prices brings us to the next, not so obvious strategic resource: food. Normally, food seems like a human right, but in reality it is becoming more and more of a commodity. As Monsanto and other companies focused on genetically modified organisms have been taking the food industry, specifically agriculture, by storm. Through combining both genetically modified organisms (GMO) with a special herbicide that the GMO seeds are resistant to, Monsanto has created a monopoly of sorts on certain crop growing, mainly corn. As a company, Monsanto's target audience is people who can pay them for their products. This is a serious problem for people with low incomes because food is becoming more of a commodity than a right.
This same problem is occurring within the pharmaceutical field, where medicines are being targeted for middle class peoples who can pay, instead of the lower class that arguably needs the medicine more (For a variety of reasons including the inability to buy healthier foods because they are more expensive, worse living conditions, etc.).
One of the most important resources that recently has become a strategic resource is drinking water. Similar to food, water seems like a human right, and yet in some places it is becoming more scarce and more expensive than ever. This is happening for the same reasons as food and medicine: companies are targeting people who can pay, instead of the people who can't. Why would a company give away water, when it can instead sell it to people who will pay? Water in particular is also becoming a more scarce resource due to it being over used around the world, including in Texas and California where fracking has taken the majority of drinking water in the area.
Strategic resources are becoming even more scarce every day, causing prices to rise, poorer people to be unable to buy food or medicines, and causing turmoil in countries with unstable governments. This will continue until we can find more sustainable materials to use for our products, or if companies stop focusing on making money and instead and providing a quality product. As technology continues to advance, different resources will start to become strategic ones, providing different countries with the unpleasantness that follow, like local militant groups fighting over land. One thing is for sure; Strategic resources like oil, natural gas, water and food will all play important roles in the future to come.
"With so much evidence of depleting natural resources, toxic waste, climate change, irreparable harm to our food chain and rapidly increasing instances of natural disasters, why do we keep perpetuating the problem? Why do we continue marching to the same alarming beat." (Yehuda Berg)
Friday, November 8, 2013
Effects of Climate Change
10/25/11
Fifty foot waves, more prevalent heat waves, dwindling drinking water availability, natural disaster increase, etc. All of these could become a reality if we don't drastically change our current lifestyles. Calamity Calling asked people they were most afraid about in regards to climate change. With no surprise, many of the fears expressed regarded natural disasters and other negative affects on humans.
One of the many concerning results from climate change include the increase in natural disasters, fresh drinking water sources drying up and others. The former has already been seen in events like "Superstorm" Sandy that hit the East Coast, especially New York City and Long Island. These freak disasters will become more and more frequent as the climate becomes hotter and hotter allowing for such devastating events to take place.
The idea that natural disasters are going to be more common, and that climate change is both real and terrifying have seemingly gained some public traction over the past couple of years, notably with the movie 2012. Maybe not a completely accurate representation of the possible affects of global climate change, it was still a good way of showing the public a hopefully exaggerated depiction of how the world will be as climate change surges forward. This movie had it all in terms of global natural disasters - Everything from "megatsunamis" (As depicted by the IMDB Storyline page), to volcanic eruptions and earthquakes of unprecedented strength. Everything that could go wrong, did. Some people are scared that the same can happen in real life, and if we continue to ignore climate change, it very well may.
These natural disasters are then exacerbated by our already dwindling amount of drinking water around the world, including much of Texas and Southern California as well as globally. Once these natural disasters hit, as both a nation (The U.S.) and as a global society, governments try to send aid or support in times of need to the unfortunate people affected. One of, if not the most important resources is drinking water. If natural disasters become more prevalent, more drinking water will have to be sent from other parts of the world as aid. This can greatly affect areas around that world that already have drinking water problems.
Drinking water availability is a real problem happening right now in some Texas towns. In areas with an already stressed fresh water capacity, fracking has made sure that these towns have no water at all. Due to the already very strained aquifers in Texas, many fracking operations have taken the last drops of water without any care for the local residents who need the water. As global climate change takes place, these already problematic instances will become even more so.
In order to better prepare ourselves for these seemingly apparent disasters and problems, we need to first do our best to reduce the overall influence we have on the environment. The less we affect the climate, the less adverse affects will be seen. Following that, resource management and public knowledge of natural disasters and natural disaster procedures should be more readily taught and practiced.
"Rising sea levels, sever droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief." (Leon Panetta)
Fifty foot waves, more prevalent heat waves, dwindling drinking water availability, natural disaster increase, etc. All of these could become a reality if we don't drastically change our current lifestyles. Calamity Calling asked people they were most afraid about in regards to climate change. With no surprise, many of the fears expressed regarded natural disasters and other negative affects on humans.
One of the many concerning results from climate change include the increase in natural disasters, fresh drinking water sources drying up and others. The former has already been seen in events like "Superstorm" Sandy that hit the East Coast, especially New York City and Long Island. These freak disasters will become more and more frequent as the climate becomes hotter and hotter allowing for such devastating events to take place.
The idea that natural disasters are going to be more common, and that climate change is both real and terrifying have seemingly gained some public traction over the past couple of years, notably with the movie 2012. Maybe not a completely accurate representation of the possible affects of global climate change, it was still a good way of showing the public a hopefully exaggerated depiction of how the world will be as climate change surges forward. This movie had it all in terms of global natural disasters - Everything from "megatsunamis" (As depicted by the IMDB Storyline page), to volcanic eruptions and earthquakes of unprecedented strength. Everything that could go wrong, did. Some people are scared that the same can happen in real life, and if we continue to ignore climate change, it very well may.
These natural disasters are then exacerbated by our already dwindling amount of drinking water around the world, including much of Texas and Southern California as well as globally. Once these natural disasters hit, as both a nation (The U.S.) and as a global society, governments try to send aid or support in times of need to the unfortunate people affected. One of, if not the most important resources is drinking water. If natural disasters become more prevalent, more drinking water will have to be sent from other parts of the world as aid. This can greatly affect areas around that world that already have drinking water problems.
Drinking water availability is a real problem happening right now in some Texas towns. In areas with an already stressed fresh water capacity, fracking has made sure that these towns have no water at all. Due to the already very strained aquifers in Texas, many fracking operations have taken the last drops of water without any care for the local residents who need the water. As global climate change takes place, these already problematic instances will become even more so.
In order to better prepare ourselves for these seemingly apparent disasters and problems, we need to first do our best to reduce the overall influence we have on the environment. The less we affect the climate, the less adverse affects will be seen. Following that, resource management and public knowledge of natural disasters and natural disaster procedures should be more readily taught and practiced.
"Rising sea levels, sever droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief." (Leon Panetta)
Thursday, October 31, 2013
What's the rush?
10/22/13
Why are we as a global society pushing for advances in fracking at such a high pace? Why aren't we being more cautious with fracking technologies? Oil companies are trying to push fracking into real world use as quickly as they can for a number of reasons.
The main influence in most technological advances: Greed. The big oil companies all want to make as much money as they can, and then some. They realize the "next best thing" for energy use could be fracking due to it being inherently cleaner than coal. These oil and gas companies are expediting the widespread use of fracking so that it will catch on around the world allowing for increased fracking. Without worrying about the unknown consequences of fracking, oil companies are causing a revolution of sorts with energy.
Another potential reason for this immense focus switch from oil to fracking could be due to the dwindling amount of oil left in already discovered reserves. As Klare discusses in his book, The Race for What's Left: The Global Scramble for the World's Last Resources, many, if not all of our current oil wells around the world have been either stagnated or have begun to decline in productivity. This is largely due to our large extraction and consumption of oil to fulfill the current global need for oil as energy. New wells are becoming harder and harder to find in safe environments and so energy companies must either resort to drilling in very dangerous environments (like off the coast of Greenland or Norway), or focus their efforts on a new energy source - Fracking for natural gas.
Energy companies have been influencing the way the world and the U.S. specifically react to new technologies. Instead of being a precautionary approach to technology, we have a head first approach where we only worry fixing consequences of our actions instead of preventing them in the first place. In an ideal situation in terms of environmental friendliness, we would focus more on "doing the science" behind new technologies and making sure we understand and perfect them before implementing them in our daily lives. Energy companies nowadays do not want this to be the case and so by pushing fracking as hard as they can, they are effectively stopping a precautionary approach from being feasible. Unfortunately, this is causing the world to be in a more now-centered approach to living as opposed to one that worries about the long term. The long term has been put on the back-burner and is not even thought about from most of these large energy companies. All they are focusing on is making as much money as they can, as quickly as they can. The precautionary approach to technology would also change how regulation is dealt with. In society today, uncertainty becomes a barrier for regulating new technologies and techniques. However, if we had a different approach, we would be able to pass regulations in order to make new technologies safe and effective before they are used, as opposed to being unable to implement any form of regulation on these technologies.
As we continue to make the transition between coal and natural gas, regulation and technological understanding should play key roles in how energy continues to be handled. Fast-pushing any new technology can have clear downsides that may not be foreseen without proper understanding first. Whether or not energy companies research and follow safety precautions is wholly up to them. But from an outsider's perspective, the correct procedure seems glaringly obvious: Do the science before implementing any new piece of technology.
"Our technological powers increase, but the side effects and potential hazards also escalate." (Alvin Toffler)
Why are we as a global society pushing for advances in fracking at such a high pace? Why aren't we being more cautious with fracking technologies? Oil companies are trying to push fracking into real world use as quickly as they can for a number of reasons.
The main influence in most technological advances: Greed. The big oil companies all want to make as much money as they can, and then some. They realize the "next best thing" for energy use could be fracking due to it being inherently cleaner than coal. These oil and gas companies are expediting the widespread use of fracking so that it will catch on around the world allowing for increased fracking. Without worrying about the unknown consequences of fracking, oil companies are causing a revolution of sorts with energy.
Another potential reason for this immense focus switch from oil to fracking could be due to the dwindling amount of oil left in already discovered reserves. As Klare discusses in his book, The Race for What's Left: The Global Scramble for the World's Last Resources, many, if not all of our current oil wells around the world have been either stagnated or have begun to decline in productivity. This is largely due to our large extraction and consumption of oil to fulfill the current global need for oil as energy. New wells are becoming harder and harder to find in safe environments and so energy companies must either resort to drilling in very dangerous environments (like off the coast of Greenland or Norway), or focus their efforts on a new energy source - Fracking for natural gas.
Energy companies have been influencing the way the world and the U.S. specifically react to new technologies. Instead of being a precautionary approach to technology, we have a head first approach where we only worry fixing consequences of our actions instead of preventing them in the first place. In an ideal situation in terms of environmental friendliness, we would focus more on "doing the science" behind new technologies and making sure we understand and perfect them before implementing them in our daily lives. Energy companies nowadays do not want this to be the case and so by pushing fracking as hard as they can, they are effectively stopping a precautionary approach from being feasible. Unfortunately, this is causing the world to be in a more now-centered approach to living as opposed to one that worries about the long term. The long term has been put on the back-burner and is not even thought about from most of these large energy companies. All they are focusing on is making as much money as they can, as quickly as they can. The precautionary approach to technology would also change how regulation is dealt with. In society today, uncertainty becomes a barrier for regulating new technologies and techniques. However, if we had a different approach, we would be able to pass regulations in order to make new technologies safe and effective before they are used, as opposed to being unable to implement any form of regulation on these technologies.
As we continue to make the transition between coal and natural gas, regulation and technological understanding should play key roles in how energy continues to be handled. Fast-pushing any new technology can have clear downsides that may not be foreseen without proper understanding first. Whether or not energy companies research and follow safety precautions is wholly up to them. But from an outsider's perspective, the correct procedure seems glaringly obvious: Do the science before implementing any new piece of technology.
"Our technological powers increase, but the side effects and potential hazards also escalate." (Alvin Toffler)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)