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)
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Organic Food
10/18/13
What is in our food? Most of the time, ingredient lists are not enough. Is the food we eat grown using chemicals that are harmful? Is the farming done sustainably? How many miles did the food travel from where it was grown to my plate? Recently, these questions have been asked by many consumers around the world. This has lead to local and organic foods popping up in grocery stores in large quantities. The "buy local and organic" fad is beginning to set into today's society, and with that comes an easily accessible wide array of local organic foods to buy.
Organic foods are becoming more prevalent through a variety of avenues. The first being through C.S.A.'s, or Community Supported Agriculture. There has been a large influx of these popping up in the greater Albany area as well as other locations. There are many benefits to this type of farming, both for farmers as well as consumers. The farmers are able to gain a fan base of sorts where they get mostly locals visiting their farms and buying their produce. This helps the farmer greatly because it helps them sell their produce while showing them that their is a market for what they are growing. It reassures the farmer that their farm will be supported by the local community.
The consumer also greatly benefits for a number of reasons. Consumers have a fantastic opportunity to eat healthy, extra fresh produce from a local farm. This way, the consumer can be conscious in who they are buying from, and be supporting their local economy, at the same time greatly reducing "food miles". By reducing the distance the food travels between where it is grown to your dinner plate is a great way to help the environment. Another great advantage of these farms is through the farmer-consumer relationship that grows and builds throughout the season. The consumers can interact with the farmers, giving them feedback which help the experience for both parties in the long run. In the same vein, farmers can take that feedback and improve on their services which leads to their business also growing.
Co-ops are another way that many consumers are taking charge in knowing where their food is produced and making sure it is grown responsibly. These are community run grocery stores where the community works for, and controls the products that are sold. This is a great way to sell only local foods, supporting the local economy greatly and, once again, reducing food miles. These co-ops are also great for consumers because they supply discounts for community members that work at the co-op for designated amounts of time. Not only does this support local economies and farmers, but it also helps reduce the prices of many products.
Many consumers are also supporting the organic trend by only buying from certified organic foods as well as GMO-free foods in their local super markets. The local organic fad has not stopped with just supporting local and organic businesses, but has also moved outwards to supporting companies that do not use GMOs in their products. Whether for health reasons, or personal reasons against a company, many people have been hesitant to try GMO foods. This, in conjunction with the widespread movement towards local economies has largely helped many local farms and hindered some of the food giants.
Overall, more and more communities are supporting their local farmers and economies. Not only is this benefiting the farmers and consumers through cheaper, healthier food, but it also an environmentally friendly way to buy produce. By reducing how far foods travels before we eat it, we are saving tons of gasoline that would otherwise be used for travel, sometimes upwards of fifteen-hundred (1500) miles. Buying local foods through C.S.A.'s, Co-ops, and other suppliers is one of the easiest and most effective ways we as consumers can influence our local economies, markets and produce selections.
"Going green doesn't start with doing green acts - it starts with a shift in consciousness. This shift allows you to recognize that with every choice you make, you are voting either for or against the kind of world you wish to see. When you assume this as a way of being, your choices become easier..." (Ian Somerhalder)
What is in our food? Most of the time, ingredient lists are not enough. Is the food we eat grown using chemicals that are harmful? Is the farming done sustainably? How many miles did the food travel from where it was grown to my plate? Recently, these questions have been asked by many consumers around the world. This has lead to local and organic foods popping up in grocery stores in large quantities. The "buy local and organic" fad is beginning to set into today's society, and with that comes an easily accessible wide array of local organic foods to buy.
Organic foods are becoming more prevalent through a variety of avenues. The first being through C.S.A.'s, or Community Supported Agriculture. There has been a large influx of these popping up in the greater Albany area as well as other locations. There are many benefits to this type of farming, both for farmers as well as consumers. The farmers are able to gain a fan base of sorts where they get mostly locals visiting their farms and buying their produce. This helps the farmer greatly because it helps them sell their produce while showing them that their is a market for what they are growing. It reassures the farmer that their farm will be supported by the local community.
The consumer also greatly benefits for a number of reasons. Consumers have a fantastic opportunity to eat healthy, extra fresh produce from a local farm. This way, the consumer can be conscious in who they are buying from, and be supporting their local economy, at the same time greatly reducing "food miles". By reducing the distance the food travels between where it is grown to your dinner plate is a great way to help the environment. Another great advantage of these farms is through the farmer-consumer relationship that grows and builds throughout the season. The consumers can interact with the farmers, giving them feedback which help the experience for both parties in the long run. In the same vein, farmers can take that feedback and improve on their services which leads to their business also growing.
Co-ops are another way that many consumers are taking charge in knowing where their food is produced and making sure it is grown responsibly. These are community run grocery stores where the community works for, and controls the products that are sold. This is a great way to sell only local foods, supporting the local economy greatly and, once again, reducing food miles. These co-ops are also great for consumers because they supply discounts for community members that work at the co-op for designated amounts of time. Not only does this support local economies and farmers, but it also helps reduce the prices of many products.
Many consumers are also supporting the organic trend by only buying from certified organic foods as well as GMO-free foods in their local super markets. The local organic fad has not stopped with just supporting local and organic businesses, but has also moved outwards to supporting companies that do not use GMOs in their products. Whether for health reasons, or personal reasons against a company, many people have been hesitant to try GMO foods. This, in conjunction with the widespread movement towards local economies has largely helped many local farms and hindered some of the food giants.
Overall, more and more communities are supporting their local farmers and economies. Not only is this benefiting the farmers and consumers through cheaper, healthier food, but it also an environmentally friendly way to buy produce. By reducing how far foods travels before we eat it, we are saving tons of gasoline that would otherwise be used for travel, sometimes upwards of fifteen-hundred (1500) miles. Buying local foods through C.S.A.'s, Co-ops, and other suppliers is one of the easiest and most effective ways we as consumers can influence our local economies, markets and produce selections.
"Going green doesn't start with doing green acts - it starts with a shift in consciousness. This shift allows you to recognize that with every choice you make, you are voting either for or against the kind of world you wish to see. When you assume this as a way of being, your choices become easier..." (Ian Somerhalder)
Carbon Tax and Budget
10/15/13
Carbon Dioxide emissions have been a large problem in today's oil dominated state. As we continue to spew out carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses at such an alarming rate, we risk changing the climate so drastically that everything about our lifestyles will have to change. In order to combat what has already been done to the environment, there are measures that we can try to enforce on companies to reduce their carbon emissions and impact on the environment.
The IPCC, or The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested implementing something called a "Carbon Tax" or "Carbon Budget", which basically states a set amount of carbon emissions that companies can emit before facing some sort of consequence (IPCC). There are many intricacies that go into this reduction strategy including how to set a limit on the emissions as well as being able to accurately measure and record the amount of emissions each company is emitting.
One incentive for companies to support this idea is through a credit system where they get a set amount of emissions they can produce. This set amount is seen in the form of credits, where companies that are successful in lowering their carbon budget can sell their "credits" to other companies for real money. In turn the other company can emit more CO2 using the credits. This is a great way to promote emission reductions because it can create another avenue for revenue for the companies who are really interested in reducing their emissions. However, many companies are completely against having to reduce their carbon emissions for a variety of reasons. The first, and most obvious reason comes from the nature of their work. For example, coal power plants inherently will produce obscene amounts of carbon emissions. Any sort of reduction in carbon emissions is almost impossible for these plants due to their work.
Other ways to help reduce carbon emissions could be through implementing a law that requires companies to sell products that can be recyclable or reusable instead of products that we throw out after one use. Unfortunately, many of these companies will fight this law because their sales will be reduced. Most products nowadays are "made for the dump", a term used by Annie Leonard from The Story of Stuff. If products are no longer designed to fail, consumers will not have to buy products every six months due to faulty quality. The Story of Stuff is a great resource for learning more about the life cycle of products we use on a daily basis. Annie Leonard discusses the story of stuff, cosmetics, change, bottled water and even electronics, laying out the many problems with our current system of production. By reducing the amount of stuff we produce, reducing the amount of chemicals that go into the stuff we produce, and reducing the overall waste (Through making products recyclable and/or reusable), we can help reduce the carbon emissions produced on a global scale greatly.
Cracking down on carbon emissions is an obvious way to help slow down climate change. Sadly, many companies oppose reductions because they are not concerned about the environment, but instead are concerned about making as much money as possible. Not only will companies steadfastly oppose carbon emission reductions, but the enforcement of reusable or recyclable products will also be fought. As consumers we must use our buying power to support the companies that are more environmentally friendly and willing to help change as opposed to the any companies that refuse to act.
"Now, we put out a lot of carbon dioxide every year, over 26 billions tons. For each American, it's about 20 tons. For people in poor countries, it's less than one ton. It's an average of about five tons for everyone on the planet. And, somehow, we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero." (Bill Gates)
"IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=251>.
Leonard, Annie. "Story Of Stuff." Story Of Stuff. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. <http://storyofstuff.org/>.
Carbon Dioxide emissions have been a large problem in today's oil dominated state. As we continue to spew out carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses at such an alarming rate, we risk changing the climate so drastically that everything about our lifestyles will have to change. In order to combat what has already been done to the environment, there are measures that we can try to enforce on companies to reduce their carbon emissions and impact on the environment.
The IPCC, or The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested implementing something called a "Carbon Tax" or "Carbon Budget", which basically states a set amount of carbon emissions that companies can emit before facing some sort of consequence (IPCC). There are many intricacies that go into this reduction strategy including how to set a limit on the emissions as well as being able to accurately measure and record the amount of emissions each company is emitting.
One incentive for companies to support this idea is through a credit system where they get a set amount of emissions they can produce. This set amount is seen in the form of credits, where companies that are successful in lowering their carbon budget can sell their "credits" to other companies for real money. In turn the other company can emit more CO2 using the credits. This is a great way to promote emission reductions because it can create another avenue for revenue for the companies who are really interested in reducing their emissions. However, many companies are completely against having to reduce their carbon emissions for a variety of reasons. The first, and most obvious reason comes from the nature of their work. For example, coal power plants inherently will produce obscene amounts of carbon emissions. Any sort of reduction in carbon emissions is almost impossible for these plants due to their work.
Other ways to help reduce carbon emissions could be through implementing a law that requires companies to sell products that can be recyclable or reusable instead of products that we throw out after one use. Unfortunately, many of these companies will fight this law because their sales will be reduced. Most products nowadays are "made for the dump", a term used by Annie Leonard from The Story of Stuff. If products are no longer designed to fail, consumers will not have to buy products every six months due to faulty quality. The Story of Stuff is a great resource for learning more about the life cycle of products we use on a daily basis. Annie Leonard discusses the story of stuff, cosmetics, change, bottled water and even electronics, laying out the many problems with our current system of production. By reducing the amount of stuff we produce, reducing the amount of chemicals that go into the stuff we produce, and reducing the overall waste (Through making products recyclable and/or reusable), we can help reduce the carbon emissions produced on a global scale greatly.
Cracking down on carbon emissions is an obvious way to help slow down climate change. Sadly, many companies oppose reductions because they are not concerned about the environment, but instead are concerned about making as much money as possible. Not only will companies steadfastly oppose carbon emission reductions, but the enforcement of reusable or recyclable products will also be fought. As consumers we must use our buying power to support the companies that are more environmentally friendly and willing to help change as opposed to the any companies that refuse to act.
"Now, we put out a lot of carbon dioxide every year, over 26 billions tons. For each American, it's about 20 tons. For people in poor countries, it's less than one ton. It's an average of about five tons for everyone on the planet. And, somehow, we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero." (Bill Gates)
"IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=251>.
Leonard, Annie. "Story Of Stuff." Story Of Stuff. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. <http://storyofstuff.org/>.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Anti-Fracking
10/11/13
Previously we discussed the Pro-Fracking views from Michael, a representative from Breakthrough Institute, now I'd like to focus on the Anti-Fracking side with Kate, from the National Resource Defence Council which was briefly mentioned last time. NRDC's representative (Kate from now on), is in congruence with Michael's assertion about natural gas being better than coal. Both sides agree that coal is extremely dirty, and that natural gas is the clear better energy source between the two.
However, their views differ from this starting point in a number of ways. The first is related to the energy transition that Michael was so supportive of. Kate agrees that there is a need for an energy transition, but Kate sees an issue in going from coal, a very polluting energy source, to natural gas, an energy source that is still bad for the environment. Instead, she feels it is important to skip the increase in natural gas and go straight for the renewable sources like wind and solar. By skipping natural gas, she believes we can minimize the environmental affect of the world's increasing energy usage through focusing on supporting and bettering clean, renewable energy instead.
Regulations is another extremely important topic in regards to fracking from Kate's point of view. While she doesn't necessarily want fracking to become prevalent because she believes renewables are a better path, she is realistic in her views. By regulating fracking to a greater extent than it currently is, as well as these regulations actually being enforced, she sees fracking as a somewhat acceptable future energy source. The idea that "Better is not good enough" is something that resonates with Kate in regards to the fracking debate. Even though natural gas is clearly better than coal, and both sides agree on this, that doesn't mean that natural gas is still good enough for the future. In regards to regulations, Kate did not address the issue of methane being released from the wellheads where fracking occurs. One of the big regulations that can be implemented would be from monitoring this escape of methane and regulate it to make sure it is below a certain acceptable level. "Pound for pound, the comparative impact of methane on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period," (EPA, 2013). If this methane release is not regulated, then fracking can have a much larger environmental impact than already anticipated by the industry. These wellheads are not regulated or monitored right now, so the extent of methane release is unknown, but could be detrimental to the climate. These regulations that Kate is pushing for, could help stop this unnecessary amount of emissions.
"NRDC's top priority is to address climate change," (Kate) Through regulating fracking and natural gas extraction to reduce the amount of CO2 and methane produced and emitted, innovation in the industry will come about. With increased ordinances focusing on emissions, the fracking industry will be forced to focus on more environmentally friendly technology, until we have a way of extracting natural gas at a much more safe way than currently employed. Not only is this a positive for the environment, but it also coincides with Michael's viewpoint, the pro-fracker side.
Innovation can lead to using the best available technology which will not only help fracking in America, but also fracking around the world including Africa. As discussed in Pro-Fracking, Africa is believed to be able to completely skip coal energy and move straight to natural gas. If natural gas extraction technology continues to improve, it will greatly reduce the emissions throughout the world, including Africa where this technology has not yet been implemented on a super meaningful level.
"I believe... that it's not safe to compress explosive gases and store them underneath and beside a lake that serves as the drinking water for a hundred thousand people. We can talk about the economic benefits of fracking, but if we're making people sick and we're giving people cancer, if we're giving people asthma, if we're contributing to pre-term birth and so forth, then are we not creating medical costs in addition?" (Dr. Steinberg)
"Methane Emissions." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. <http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html>.
Previously we discussed the Pro-Fracking views from Michael, a representative from Breakthrough Institute, now I'd like to focus on the Anti-Fracking side with Kate, from the National Resource Defence Council which was briefly mentioned last time. NRDC's representative (Kate from now on), is in congruence with Michael's assertion about natural gas being better than coal. Both sides agree that coal is extremely dirty, and that natural gas is the clear better energy source between the two.
However, their views differ from this starting point in a number of ways. The first is related to the energy transition that Michael was so supportive of. Kate agrees that there is a need for an energy transition, but Kate sees an issue in going from coal, a very polluting energy source, to natural gas, an energy source that is still bad for the environment. Instead, she feels it is important to skip the increase in natural gas and go straight for the renewable sources like wind and solar. By skipping natural gas, she believes we can minimize the environmental affect of the world's increasing energy usage through focusing on supporting and bettering clean, renewable energy instead.
Regulations is another extremely important topic in regards to fracking from Kate's point of view. While she doesn't necessarily want fracking to become prevalent because she believes renewables are a better path, she is realistic in her views. By regulating fracking to a greater extent than it currently is, as well as these regulations actually being enforced, she sees fracking as a somewhat acceptable future energy source. The idea that "Better is not good enough" is something that resonates with Kate in regards to the fracking debate. Even though natural gas is clearly better than coal, and both sides agree on this, that doesn't mean that natural gas is still good enough for the future. In regards to regulations, Kate did not address the issue of methane being released from the wellheads where fracking occurs. One of the big regulations that can be implemented would be from monitoring this escape of methane and regulate it to make sure it is below a certain acceptable level. "Pound for pound, the comparative impact of methane on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period," (EPA, 2013). If this methane release is not regulated, then fracking can have a much larger environmental impact than already anticipated by the industry. These wellheads are not regulated or monitored right now, so the extent of methane release is unknown, but could be detrimental to the climate. These regulations that Kate is pushing for, could help stop this unnecessary amount of emissions.
"NRDC's top priority is to address climate change," (Kate) Through regulating fracking and natural gas extraction to reduce the amount of CO2 and methane produced and emitted, innovation in the industry will come about. With increased ordinances focusing on emissions, the fracking industry will be forced to focus on more environmentally friendly technology, until we have a way of extracting natural gas at a much more safe way than currently employed. Not only is this a positive for the environment, but it also coincides with Michael's viewpoint, the pro-fracker side.
Innovation can lead to using the best available technology which will not only help fracking in America, but also fracking around the world including Africa. As discussed in Pro-Fracking, Africa is believed to be able to completely skip coal energy and move straight to natural gas. If natural gas extraction technology continues to improve, it will greatly reduce the emissions throughout the world, including Africa where this technology has not yet been implemented on a super meaningful level.
Overall, it seems as though both sides of the fracking debacle have some focus on being environmentally friendly. Whether that is just a facade so their reputation isn't tarnished, or if it is a true belief and focus is hard to tell, either way, the earth wins. Whatever the reasons, if both sides push for less emissions and greener regulations, the REASONS behind it are just a passing thought for climate change. As seen from Summits on Tenth, the fracking debate is not a simple black and white argument, but instead is a much more complicated slew of opinions with similarities and differences that cause both sides to butt heads with each other.
"Methane Emissions." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. <http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html>.
Pro-Fracking
10/08/13
Fracking is one of the most controversial and talked about topics related to energy. There are people who both oppose and support the methods fervently. With this intense rift of believe between the two sides, comes a dilemma for bystanders - Who or what can people on the outside of fracking believe when both sides state "facts" that contradict one another? By sitting down a person supports fracking and a person who opposes it, we can begin to better understand the views of either side.
Representatives from both Breakthrough Institute and the National Resource Defence Council (NRDC from now on) sat down to discuss their fracking views for Summits on Tenth. Some important and interesting points were brought up by both sides. Starting with the pro fracking side of the debate, one of the most emphasized points that the representative from Breakthrough Institute (Michael from now on) discussed was fracking in relation to coal. From the pro-fracking side, they see natural gas as substantially better than coal to the point where it validates the use of fracking to obtain natural gas. Michael uses the example from past energy transitions where we went from wood to coal burning energy. He feels the same is necessary for the future - Moving from coal to natural gas as our major energy supply source.
The other very important point that Michael made was the idea of both Regulation and Innovation in the natural gas field. Through bettering regulations to become safer and more environmentally friendly, as well as innovating the technologies to do the same thing, Michael sees natural gas as a fantastic opportunity at progressing energy availability around the world. Not only will fracking supply America with energy, but it will greatly increase energy availability around the world, specifically in Africa where they can skip using coal altogether. Obviously, if Africa could skip using coal as an energy source and move straight towards natural gas, that would be a huge environmentally friendly advancement. While natural gas isn't the perfect or cleanest energy source, both sides of the fracking argument agree that it is substantially better than coal.
When prompted about renewable energies like using solar panels, Michael sees solar energy as an energy of the future, but not before it becomes cleaner. The combination of an abundance of current effective natural gas extraction techniques and the toxic chemicals currently in solar panels, he feels that natural gas is the safer and smarter approach to the world's energy supply. The energy transition from coal to natural gas and then natural gas to renewables will take time, according to pro-fracking views. As someone who isn't too well informed about either side of the fracking debate, this was a slight shock. The idea that pro-fracking viewpoints still see renewable energies as better than natural gas, but still push for natural gas instead, is confusing. Pushing for natural gas instead of going directly for renewable energy sources seems to be counterproductive in the long run, and even the people promoting natural gas see that, but for whatever reason, still push for the lesser energy source.
An interesting argument Michael makes is in reference to increased efficiency in regards to energy. the idea of the Rebound Effect is brought up to discuss the negative impacts associated with increased efficiency according to him. His claim was that with increased efficiency, the amount of energy used will not only not decrease, but will probably increase. Instead of a manufacturing plant, or a train only running for twelve or fourteen hours a day, the plant or train will run twenty-four hours a day because of the increase in efficiency, producing a net increase in emissions. This logic can be seen in regards to flood insurance in major cities that are susceptible to floods, like New York City. By increasing flood insurance coverage in the area, instead of dissuading people from moving to flood susceptible areas, it actually increases the amount of people to move there because they now have a safety if there is a flood. Whether or not this is true is yet to be seen, but is an interesting point nonetheless.
In the next blog, Anti-Fracking will be discussed from the NRDC's representative, Kate.
"Comprehensive and robust regulations already exist for nearly every aspect of natural exploration and production, including hydraulic fracturing." (American Petroleum Institute)
Fracking is one of the most controversial and talked about topics related to energy. There are people who both oppose and support the methods fervently. With this intense rift of believe between the two sides, comes a dilemma for bystanders - Who or what can people on the outside of fracking believe when both sides state "facts" that contradict one another? By sitting down a person supports fracking and a person who opposes it, we can begin to better understand the views of either side.
Representatives from both Breakthrough Institute and the National Resource Defence Council (NRDC from now on) sat down to discuss their fracking views for Summits on Tenth. Some important and interesting points were brought up by both sides. Starting with the pro fracking side of the debate, one of the most emphasized points that the representative from Breakthrough Institute (Michael from now on) discussed was fracking in relation to coal. From the pro-fracking side, they see natural gas as substantially better than coal to the point where it validates the use of fracking to obtain natural gas. Michael uses the example from past energy transitions where we went from wood to coal burning energy. He feels the same is necessary for the future - Moving from coal to natural gas as our major energy supply source.
The other very important point that Michael made was the idea of both Regulation and Innovation in the natural gas field. Through bettering regulations to become safer and more environmentally friendly, as well as innovating the technologies to do the same thing, Michael sees natural gas as a fantastic opportunity at progressing energy availability around the world. Not only will fracking supply America with energy, but it will greatly increase energy availability around the world, specifically in Africa where they can skip using coal altogether. Obviously, if Africa could skip using coal as an energy source and move straight towards natural gas, that would be a huge environmentally friendly advancement. While natural gas isn't the perfect or cleanest energy source, both sides of the fracking argument agree that it is substantially better than coal.
When prompted about renewable energies like using solar panels, Michael sees solar energy as an energy of the future, but not before it becomes cleaner. The combination of an abundance of current effective natural gas extraction techniques and the toxic chemicals currently in solar panels, he feels that natural gas is the safer and smarter approach to the world's energy supply. The energy transition from coal to natural gas and then natural gas to renewables will take time, according to pro-fracking views. As someone who isn't too well informed about either side of the fracking debate, this was a slight shock. The idea that pro-fracking viewpoints still see renewable energies as better than natural gas, but still push for natural gas instead, is confusing. Pushing for natural gas instead of going directly for renewable energy sources seems to be counterproductive in the long run, and even the people promoting natural gas see that, but for whatever reason, still push for the lesser energy source.
An interesting argument Michael makes is in reference to increased efficiency in regards to energy. the idea of the Rebound Effect is brought up to discuss the negative impacts associated with increased efficiency according to him. His claim was that with increased efficiency, the amount of energy used will not only not decrease, but will probably increase. Instead of a manufacturing plant, or a train only running for twelve or fourteen hours a day, the plant or train will run twenty-four hours a day because of the increase in efficiency, producing a net increase in emissions. This logic can be seen in regards to flood insurance in major cities that are susceptible to floods, like New York City. By increasing flood insurance coverage in the area, instead of dissuading people from moving to flood susceptible areas, it actually increases the amount of people to move there because they now have a safety if there is a flood. Whether or not this is true is yet to be seen, but is an interesting point nonetheless.
In the next blog, Anti-Fracking will be discussed from the NRDC's representative, Kate.
"Comprehensive and robust regulations already exist for nearly every aspect of natural exploration and production, including hydraulic fracturing." (American Petroleum Institute)
"Crutches"
10/01/13
An interesting idea that came up in class was the idea that everyone needs a "crutch" to get through the day. Whether it be television, drinking, smoking, playing your favorite video game or reading your favorite book, the idea that everyone needs some form of escape is an interesting realization. Why do we watch movies or television shows? To escape from our daily lives for a variety of reasons. These reasons range from being unhappy about our current lives, to just wanting to "veg out", or even just to kill some time. The first being something that I feel a lot of people struggle with on a daily basis.
Sometimes the weekend isn't enough of a break for many people, so they need to find something that will help them relax during the work week. By watching T.V shows or sitting down and enjoying a move, we can completely forget about our current situation and just enjoy whatever is going on on the screen. If we have a bad day, did poorly on a test, or just need to de-stress from a hard day's work, a movie or T.V show is a perfect way of recharging. Sometimes these made up situations like in movies or T.V shows either don't work or are not enough to help someone relax. Instead they need to make something up themselves. Some people would rather indulge in their favorite author or genre and just escape into a made up world using their imaginations. They could become a secret agent or a sports star, a world renowned singer or even president. No matter what, the only important thing is that it helps people relax.
Many people will play video games as well as indulge in other crutches in order to help de-stress and escape their lives. A prime example of this is from the variety of video game clubs on campus that people belong to and indulge in once a week. This is a great way to escape because in many games you take the form of a character whose life is now in your hands entirely. We can completely forget about our own real lives when we control these characters
While these crutches seem to be generally harmless, there are other crutches that people find themselves indulging in just to get through the long days. As with most things, there are positives and negatives that go along with the territory. Many people find themselves using hard core drugs in order to help the day go by. This leads to unhealthy and negative addictions which many people are unable to handle.
This phenomenon can be seen fairly easily at a place like RPI, where students and teachers alike are challenged on a daily basis both with classes and managing school work and fun. There are many ways that people relax, or recharge throughout the week. As the week goes by, just walking on campus it is noticeable that there are more and more people outside just relaxing in the grass or out and about doing something other than work. This is to help them stay focused for the whole week and not get burnt out from working so hard. Many students and teachers have rigorous classes to teach and learn as well as a rigorous schedule. Without a crutch, performance throughout the week would greatly decrease due to stress and an overload of work. By indulging in one form of crutch or another, we can get a much needed break from the stresses of everyday allowing us to be more productive in the long run.
"When we get too caught up in the busyness of the world, we lose connection with one another - and ourselves." (Jack Kornfield)
An interesting idea that came up in class was the idea that everyone needs a "crutch" to get through the day. Whether it be television, drinking, smoking, playing your favorite video game or reading your favorite book, the idea that everyone needs some form of escape is an interesting realization. Why do we watch movies or television shows? To escape from our daily lives for a variety of reasons. These reasons range from being unhappy about our current lives, to just wanting to "veg out", or even just to kill some time. The first being something that I feel a lot of people struggle with on a daily basis.
Sometimes the weekend isn't enough of a break for many people, so they need to find something that will help them relax during the work week. By watching T.V shows or sitting down and enjoying a move, we can completely forget about our current situation and just enjoy whatever is going on on the screen. If we have a bad day, did poorly on a test, or just need to de-stress from a hard day's work, a movie or T.V show is a perfect way of recharging. Sometimes these made up situations like in movies or T.V shows either don't work or are not enough to help someone relax. Instead they need to make something up themselves. Some people would rather indulge in their favorite author or genre and just escape into a made up world using their imaginations. They could become a secret agent or a sports star, a world renowned singer or even president. No matter what, the only important thing is that it helps people relax.
Many people will play video games as well as indulge in other crutches in order to help de-stress and escape their lives. A prime example of this is from the variety of video game clubs on campus that people belong to and indulge in once a week. This is a great way to escape because in many games you take the form of a character whose life is now in your hands entirely. We can completely forget about our own real lives when we control these characters
While these crutches seem to be generally harmless, there are other crutches that people find themselves indulging in just to get through the long days. As with most things, there are positives and negatives that go along with the territory. Many people find themselves using hard core drugs in order to help the day go by. This leads to unhealthy and negative addictions which many people are unable to handle.
This phenomenon can be seen fairly easily at a place like RPI, where students and teachers alike are challenged on a daily basis both with classes and managing school work and fun. There are many ways that people relax, or recharge throughout the week. As the week goes by, just walking on campus it is noticeable that there are more and more people outside just relaxing in the grass or out and about doing something other than work. This is to help them stay focused for the whole week and not get burnt out from working so hard. Many students and teachers have rigorous classes to teach and learn as well as a rigorous schedule. Without a crutch, performance throughout the week would greatly decrease due to stress and an overload of work. By indulging in one form of crutch or another, we can get a much needed break from the stresses of everyday allowing us to be more productive in the long run.
"When we get too caught up in the busyness of the world, we lose connection with one another - and ourselves." (Jack Kornfield)
Friday, September 27, 2013
Coal
9/27/13
While oil is our main energy source, coal is still a very important and relevant energy source in today's economy and industry. Most, if not all of our electricity comes from coal powered power plants instead of being powered by oil. Just like most things in life, there are both positives and negatives when it comes to coal powered power plants. The benefits for these coal power plants are most related to oil and the U.S. economy. By using coal for electricity, this helps the U.S. by not contributing to our ever increasing dependence on oil, but instead provides us with energy form another source.
Unfortunately, they have immense environmental implications from these coal power plants. First off, just the top fifty (50) dirtiest coal power plants are responsible for 30% of the energy industry's carbon emissions. Not only is that contribution staggering by itself, but if we think about it a different way, we see that these fifty (50) power plants actually contribute to climate change more than just six (6) countries in the world, (Light, John; 2013). Further focusing on coal power plants, ninety-eight (98) of the top one hundred (100) dirtiest power plants are from coal.
Hopefully this enormous amount of pollution will soon be at least tapered down. With regulations in the works to control the amount of emissions new power plants are allowed to emit, the future looks at least a little less dim than it did last year, (Banerjee, Neela; 2013). Alas, with seemingly any environmental pollution regulation, there is always a twist. The new regulations don't target the older power plants which are the real culprits for carbon emissions. This is a constant problem with passing any sort of environmentally friendly legislature - They are fought throughout the entire process, eventually the opposition gets a minor victory, causing various loopholes like this one. So while the new regulations will help with new plants that are being built, the plants that are producing 30% of the carbon emissions are completely ignored and allowed to keep spewing out pollution.
Other regulations have also been put in place to potentially help reduce the carbon emissions from these coal plants. The EPA has announced that coal powered plants will have to "capture and store a portion of the carbon dioxide they produce," (Drajem, Mark; 2013). This sounds great, right? Wrong. This new rule only applies to new coal powered plants just like the other ones. While this is a step in the right direction for new power plants, this does diddly-squat in terms of our already constructed CO2 spewing power plants. It is not easy to successfully get any regulations on energy company emissions, but if the EPA or another organization can push one regulation through successfully, then we will be heading in the right direction. It's not always about just reducing how newer power plants or cars, or what ever it is, produce CO2, but it's about fixing the already constructed pollution machines.
Overall, it seems that there isn't a real solution yet available that is environmentally friendly and still effective. There are nonstop obstacles that we must overcome to regulate CO2 emissions from our current power plants, as well as a whole other set of obstacles to overcome in order to being and improve "green" energy. The potential for clean energy is there, there is just a lot of opposition to it - Like the oil and coal companies, as well as politicians and other government officials who are making loads of money from these industries. Even though coal energy isn't good for the environment, the silver lining of it all is that it does allow the U.S. to have one source of energy that they rely on that is not oil.
"Diversity is important not only for energy security, but also for national security. Over-dependence on any one source of energy, especially a foreign source, leaves us vulnerable to price shocks, supply interruptions, and, in the worst case, blackmail," (George W. Bush)
While oil is our main energy source, coal is still a very important and relevant energy source in today's economy and industry. Most, if not all of our electricity comes from coal powered power plants instead of being powered by oil. Just like most things in life, there are both positives and negatives when it comes to coal powered power plants. The benefits for these coal power plants are most related to oil and the U.S. economy. By using coal for electricity, this helps the U.S. by not contributing to our ever increasing dependence on oil, but instead provides us with energy form another source.
Unfortunately, they have immense environmental implications from these coal power plants. First off, just the top fifty (50) dirtiest coal power plants are responsible for 30% of the energy industry's carbon emissions. Not only is that contribution staggering by itself, but if we think about it a different way, we see that these fifty (50) power plants actually contribute to climate change more than just six (6) countries in the world, (Light, John; 2013). Further focusing on coal power plants, ninety-eight (98) of the top one hundred (100) dirtiest power plants are from coal.
Hopefully this enormous amount of pollution will soon be at least tapered down. With regulations in the works to control the amount of emissions new power plants are allowed to emit, the future looks at least a little less dim than it did last year, (Banerjee, Neela; 2013). Alas, with seemingly any environmental pollution regulation, there is always a twist. The new regulations don't target the older power plants which are the real culprits for carbon emissions. This is a constant problem with passing any sort of environmentally friendly legislature - They are fought throughout the entire process, eventually the opposition gets a minor victory, causing various loopholes like this one. So while the new regulations will help with new plants that are being built, the plants that are producing 30% of the carbon emissions are completely ignored and allowed to keep spewing out pollution.
Other regulations have also been put in place to potentially help reduce the carbon emissions from these coal plants. The EPA has announced that coal powered plants will have to "capture and store a portion of the carbon dioxide they produce," (Drajem, Mark; 2013). This sounds great, right? Wrong. This new rule only applies to new coal powered plants just like the other ones. While this is a step in the right direction for new power plants, this does diddly-squat in terms of our already constructed CO2 spewing power plants. It is not easy to successfully get any regulations on energy company emissions, but if the EPA or another organization can push one regulation through successfully, then we will be heading in the right direction. It's not always about just reducing how newer power plants or cars, or what ever it is, produce CO2, but it's about fixing the already constructed pollution machines.
Overall, it seems that there isn't a real solution yet available that is environmentally friendly and still effective. There are nonstop obstacles that we must overcome to regulate CO2 emissions from our current power plants, as well as a whole other set of obstacles to overcome in order to being and improve "green" energy. The potential for clean energy is there, there is just a lot of opposition to it - Like the oil and coal companies, as well as politicians and other government officials who are making loads of money from these industries. Even though coal energy isn't good for the environment, the silver lining of it all is that it does allow the U.S. to have one source of energy that they rely on that is not oil.
"Diversity is important not only for energy security, but also for national security. Over-dependence on any one source of energy, especially a foreign source, leaves us vulnerable to price shocks, supply interruptions, and, in the worst case, blackmail," (George W. Bush)
Banerjee, Neela September. "Proposed Power Plant Restrictions Raise Questions on More Limits." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 27 Sept. 2013. <http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-epa-coal-20130921,0,2976466.story>.
Drajem, Mark. "New Coal Plants Must Capture Carbon Dioxide Output: EPA." Bloomberg Business Week. Bloomberg News, 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 2013. <http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-20/new-coal-plants-must-limit-carbon-pollution-under-epa-regulation>.
Light, John. "How Close Do You Live to America’s Dirtiest Power Plants?" Bill Moyers. N.p., 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 27 Sept. 2013. <http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/18/are-the-dirtiest-polluters-near-you/?utm_source=EANY+Media+Digest&utm_campaign=73d8f6700d-Media_Digest3_1_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2b837a6864-73d8f6700d-52072261>.
The News Media
9/24/13
As it stands, most if not all people get their news from some sort of newspaper or news source online. Whether it be the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or some other newspaper or news company, we all get our information from these organizations. Most of them are privately owned for profit enterprises which have a variety of writers to continuously churn out the news. As consumers, we are at the mercy of these news companies in order to stay informed with everything going on around the world.
One big deal with news companies is that they essentially construct our reality by reporting on the news of every day. The problem with this relies on the human aspect of news writing and sourcing. Most, if not all humans have some sort of bias one way or another on most topics. In the case of news companies, many writers have their own biases about the news they are reporting on. This can cause some half-truths or mislead readers into not knowing the complete truth. These biased news reports are clearly seen in mainstream versus alternative news sources (Like NYTimes versus Truth-out.org).
With news organizations, there are three (3) main criticisms that these companies must deal with. First off, there is the lack of balance or a phony balance between sources and coverage. For example, with climate change, many news companies have tried to show both sides of climate change (People who agree that it is happening, and people who don't) to provide a balance between two sides, when in reality there is no real dispute whether or not it is happening. This is necessary and provides the public with faulty knowledge of a topic. The second criticism comes from a news company either having a liberal or conservative bias. This can alienate a specific viewing audience, because people have different opinions. The final major criticism is from holes in coverage where some news companies will not discuss a certain topic either because it is controversial, or because of the bias from the second criticism.
Another problem from the consumer side of the news comes from if news companies don't report on something, then the public will probably be ignorant of it ever happening. This is important to note because it brings up the clear idea or notion that these news companies need to be held to high standards and are constantly demanding scrutiny in order to continue to provide the news.
Recently, the newspaper industry has been suffering greatly in terms of sales. Not only are less people buying newspapers, but more and more news websites are sprouting up allowing free access to the same news that they would otherwise have to pay for. This has caused many people to stop paying for the newspaper, and has also reduced the amount of advertisers who are buying ads in the newspapers. This is a huge problem because newspapers get roughly seventy-five (75) percent of their revenue from ads.
While there are downsides to having news companies constructing the reality around us, they are also an integral part of our society. Without them, we would not have any constant and mostly reliable news sources to learn about and discuss. If news traveled slower (We didn't have newspapers, or television stations or websites) and instead it was more like Game of Thrones, with carrier crows sending messages back and forth, we would not be nearly as educated as we are today about what is going on in the world. Most people have access to some form of news or another which helps keep everyone in the know about a wide variety of topics and countries. Being in a country obsessed with news about anything and everything, we have the luxury of choosing our favorite news provider or having a wide range of providers in order to keep ourselves in the know at all times. With this being the case, we must still be weary of human bias because it is still in most articles, even if it isn't apparent.
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." (Edward R. Murrow)
As it stands, most if not all people get their news from some sort of newspaper or news source online. Whether it be the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, or some other newspaper or news company, we all get our information from these organizations. Most of them are privately owned for profit enterprises which have a variety of writers to continuously churn out the news. As consumers, we are at the mercy of these news companies in order to stay informed with everything going on around the world.
One big deal with news companies is that they essentially construct our reality by reporting on the news of every day. The problem with this relies on the human aspect of news writing and sourcing. Most, if not all humans have some sort of bias one way or another on most topics. In the case of news companies, many writers have their own biases about the news they are reporting on. This can cause some half-truths or mislead readers into not knowing the complete truth. These biased news reports are clearly seen in mainstream versus alternative news sources (Like NYTimes versus Truth-out.org).
With news organizations, there are three (3) main criticisms that these companies must deal with. First off, there is the lack of balance or a phony balance between sources and coverage. For example, with climate change, many news companies have tried to show both sides of climate change (People who agree that it is happening, and people who don't) to provide a balance between two sides, when in reality there is no real dispute whether or not it is happening. This is necessary and provides the public with faulty knowledge of a topic. The second criticism comes from a news company either having a liberal or conservative bias. This can alienate a specific viewing audience, because people have different opinions. The final major criticism is from holes in coverage where some news companies will not discuss a certain topic either because it is controversial, or because of the bias from the second criticism.
Another problem from the consumer side of the news comes from if news companies don't report on something, then the public will probably be ignorant of it ever happening. This is important to note because it brings up the clear idea or notion that these news companies need to be held to high standards and are constantly demanding scrutiny in order to continue to provide the news.
Recently, the newspaper industry has been suffering greatly in terms of sales. Not only are less people buying newspapers, but more and more news websites are sprouting up allowing free access to the same news that they would otherwise have to pay for. This has caused many people to stop paying for the newspaper, and has also reduced the amount of advertisers who are buying ads in the newspapers. This is a huge problem because newspapers get roughly seventy-five (75) percent of their revenue from ads.
While there are downsides to having news companies constructing the reality around us, they are also an integral part of our society. Without them, we would not have any constant and mostly reliable news sources to learn about and discuss. If news traveled slower (We didn't have newspapers, or television stations or websites) and instead it was more like Game of Thrones, with carrier crows sending messages back and forth, we would not be nearly as educated as we are today about what is going on in the world. Most people have access to some form of news or another which helps keep everyone in the know about a wide variety of topics and countries. Being in a country obsessed with news about anything and everything, we have the luxury of choosing our favorite news provider or having a wide range of providers in order to keep ourselves in the know at all times. With this being the case, we must still be weary of human bias because it is still in most articles, even if it isn't apparent.
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." (Edward R. Murrow)
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Climate Change
9/20/13
Climate Change has been a polarizing topic around the world for some time now. The first biggest advocate that I can remember who openly believed climate change and the negatives that follow it was Al Gore. An Inconvenient Truth was ripped apart by climate change denialists who have no evidence to back up their egregious claims, and yet people still believed these denialists. Luckily, today it seems as though ninety-nine (99) percent or so of people realize that climate change is both real, and happening right now. This however was not always the case.
The eventual acceptance of climate change globally has sparked a large movement in "green" living. From eating organic or local, to only buying certain brands because they supposedly have more sustainable techniques in their work, sustainable living has become a big deal. While this seems to be having a positive effect on local populations, the population as a whole doesn't seem to be moving in the right direction for a greener world. A big reason for this is, you guessed it, oil companies. Obviously they are a huge advocate for the continued use of petroleum as our main source of fuel and industry, and who's to blame them? They are constantly making tons of money, with no real sign of profits dropping in the near future. Oil companies are one of the main hindrances for effective environmental advancements to cleaner, more environmentally friendly fuel and energy sources.
As we can see from this graph from the EPA (Carbon Pollution Standards, EPA 2013), eighty-four (84) percent of the U.S. greenhouse gas pollution comes from Carbon Dioxide (CO2), and roughly sixty-six (66) percent of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from a petroleum based economic sector - Transportation, industry and agriculture. Three of the most important economic sectors are dominated mainly by oil as an energy source. This has caused a large increase in oil production and infrastructure, which in turn leads to a variety of hazards that can come from drilling for oil. Some of the obvious include the BP oil spill as well as a variety in the Middle East. Not only are these spills negative for the the oil company profit margins, but it also extremely negative on the environment. The Denver Post recently posted an article about Colorado tracking ten (10) oil spills in the flood zones due to damaged oil and gas pipes and tanks, (Jaffe, M., 2013). This can not only kill many of the wildlife in the area, but can also pollute drinking water causing it to be undrinkable.
There are other negative affects from the abundance of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses being emitted on a daily basis. Another major impact from climate change is ocean acidification. This is a two-pronged problem starting with the acidity in oceans increased causing a large amount of dead zones around the world. This is causing fish to die out around the world, reducing the amount for human consumption as well as greatly impacting the rest of the marine food chain. The second prong of ocean acidification comes from the eventual inability by the ocean to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. This will increase the atmospheric CO2 because the ocean will be unable to help mitigate some of the extreme production of CO2. The obvious negatives from this would be global warming from the extra greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, exacerbating the already warming climate. There are a slew of other climate change problems that can't be covered in one blog post, but do still exist.
Overall, it seems like the obvious way to go in terms of the future of energy is to more environmentally friendly ones. Unfortunately, there is great opposition from many companies who are making billions a year on oil. Whether you're just an average citizen of the world or a sustainability studies major or minor, it is our duty, or mission to advocate as much as possible for the advancement of environmentally friendly energy sources. As we head into the future of uncertainty, we must take whatever precautions we can to ensure that Earth will be a habitable place for a long time to come.
"Climate change is happening, humans are causing it, and I think this is perhaps the most serious environmental issue facing us." (Bill Nye)
"Carbon Pollution Standards." EPA.gov. EPA, July-Aug. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards>.
Jaffe, Mark, and Bruce Finley. "State Now Tracking 10 Oil and Gas Spills in Colorado Flood Zones." The Denver Post. N.p., 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://www.denverpost.com/environment/ci_24132296/oil-spill-along-st-vrain-river-near-platteville>.
Climate Change has been a polarizing topic around the world for some time now. The first biggest advocate that I can remember who openly believed climate change and the negatives that follow it was Al Gore. An Inconvenient Truth was ripped apart by climate change denialists who have no evidence to back up their egregious claims, and yet people still believed these denialists. Luckily, today it seems as though ninety-nine (99) percent or so of people realize that climate change is both real, and happening right now. This however was not always the case.
The eventual acceptance of climate change globally has sparked a large movement in "green" living. From eating organic or local, to only buying certain brands because they supposedly have more sustainable techniques in their work, sustainable living has become a big deal. While this seems to be having a positive effect on local populations, the population as a whole doesn't seem to be moving in the right direction for a greener world. A big reason for this is, you guessed it, oil companies. Obviously they are a huge advocate for the continued use of petroleum as our main source of fuel and industry, and who's to blame them? They are constantly making tons of money, with no real sign of profits dropping in the near future. Oil companies are one of the main hindrances for effective environmental advancements to cleaner, more environmentally friendly fuel and energy sources.
As we can see from this graph from the EPA (Carbon Pollution Standards, EPA 2013), eighty-four (84) percent of the U.S. greenhouse gas pollution comes from Carbon Dioxide (CO2), and roughly sixty-six (66) percent of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from a petroleum based economic sector - Transportation, industry and agriculture. Three of the most important economic sectors are dominated mainly by oil as an energy source. This has caused a large increase in oil production and infrastructure, which in turn leads to a variety of hazards that can come from drilling for oil. Some of the obvious include the BP oil spill as well as a variety in the Middle East. Not only are these spills negative for the the oil company profit margins, but it also extremely negative on the environment. The Denver Post recently posted an article about Colorado tracking ten (10) oil spills in the flood zones due to damaged oil and gas pipes and tanks, (Jaffe, M., 2013). This can not only kill many of the wildlife in the area, but can also pollute drinking water causing it to be undrinkable.
There are other negative affects from the abundance of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses being emitted on a daily basis. Another major impact from climate change is ocean acidification. This is a two-pronged problem starting with the acidity in oceans increased causing a large amount of dead zones around the world. This is causing fish to die out around the world, reducing the amount for human consumption as well as greatly impacting the rest of the marine food chain. The second prong of ocean acidification comes from the eventual inability by the ocean to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. This will increase the atmospheric CO2 because the ocean will be unable to help mitigate some of the extreme production of CO2. The obvious negatives from this would be global warming from the extra greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, exacerbating the already warming climate. There are a slew of other climate change problems that can't be covered in one blog post, but do still exist.
Overall, it seems like the obvious way to go in terms of the future of energy is to more environmentally friendly ones. Unfortunately, there is great opposition from many companies who are making billions a year on oil. Whether you're just an average citizen of the world or a sustainability studies major or minor, it is our duty, or mission to advocate as much as possible for the advancement of environmentally friendly energy sources. As we head into the future of uncertainty, we must take whatever precautions we can to ensure that Earth will be a habitable place for a long time to come.
"Climate change is happening, humans are causing it, and I think this is perhaps the most serious environmental issue facing us." (Bill Nye)
"Carbon Pollution Standards." EPA.gov. EPA, July-Aug. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards>.
Jaffe, Mark, and Bruce Finley. "State Now Tracking 10 Oil and Gas Spills in Colorado Flood Zones." The Denver Post. N.p., 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://www.denverpost.com/environment/ci_24132296/oil-spill-along-st-vrain-river-near-platteville>.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Chemical Weapons
9/17/13
Why are chemical weapons looked down upon around the world, while other forms of weapons are accepted? In the end, the final objective when using these weapons, chemical or not, is killing people. When it comes to war; is one way of killing someone somehow more humane than another? There seem to be a couple of factors that go into determining how people perceive fighting as humane versus inhumane. There is a clear disconnect between killing people using conventional accepted methods, like guns and bombs, as opposed to chemical weapons. Either way, people are being killed, but somehow, one way is frowned upon more so than the other. But because we have become for the most part, extremely accurate at using guns and bombs to kill people, it is accepted in society. On the other hand, chemical weapons are a lot harder to aim due to the wind carrying the chemicals wherever it is blowing. This can cause serious civilization casualties which is greatly looked down upon.
First off, the people being killed normally have to be some sort of soldier themselves. Soldiers fighting soldiers seems to be fair game in terms of what is viewed as humane killing. The unspoken notion that if you're willing to fight for your country, you must be willing to die for your country. While I understand where that thought comes from, to me, there is a lapse of judgement of sorts. Instead of looking down on people being killed no matter what, as a society we allow the killing of our own people as well as of other nations if they are willing to fight for our country or theirs. What about in draft situations where the soldiers don't necessarily choose to be in the army, are they still "fair game" to being killed by war?
In the same vain, soldiers killing civilians is never humane, and is always looked down upon. Obviously, if someone is just a regular everyday citizen of the world and their country, killing them is immoral. Not only because they aren't fighting in the war, but also because they can't defend themselves. This is a major factor as to why chemical weapons are so looked down upon around the world. Chemical weapons are indiscriminate - They don't care who they hit, the chemicals just flow with the wind, harming anything and everything they come in contact with.
Overall, I think that the main factor for how society views killing and wars has to do with the ability to defend oneself. If a soldier kills a civilian, there is an outrage because the civilian probably doesn't have the means to defend against the attack. Another reason could also be because the civilian isn't even fighting in the war at all, they are normally just an innocent bystander of that country. Obviously they probably support their country winning the war, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be killed while they are still defenseless. This brings us to World War II, a perfect example of civilians being killed. One of the biggest reasons Hitler was looked down upon so much was because he was targeting, for the most part, a group of civilians who could not defend themselves. Most of the people Hitler targeted (gays, Jews, etc.) were just regular citizens of a variety of countries with no means to fight or defend themselves, while Germany had a very strong, capable army. This is viewed as inhumane, or immoral and will cause an uproar in society if it were to happen today, just like it eventually did during World War II. Due to this idea that defenseless people are not fair game for killing in war, chemical weapons are viewed in the same way because they are not reliably able to target only a specific area, and hit only their target, they are "banned' from combat.
"War... War never changes." (Fallout 3)
Why are chemical weapons looked down upon around the world, while other forms of weapons are accepted? In the end, the final objective when using these weapons, chemical or not, is killing people. When it comes to war; is one way of killing someone somehow more humane than another? There seem to be a couple of factors that go into determining how people perceive fighting as humane versus inhumane. There is a clear disconnect between killing people using conventional accepted methods, like guns and bombs, as opposed to chemical weapons. Either way, people are being killed, but somehow, one way is frowned upon more so than the other. But because we have become for the most part, extremely accurate at using guns and bombs to kill people, it is accepted in society. On the other hand, chemical weapons are a lot harder to aim due to the wind carrying the chemicals wherever it is blowing. This can cause serious civilization casualties which is greatly looked down upon.
First off, the people being killed normally have to be some sort of soldier themselves. Soldiers fighting soldiers seems to be fair game in terms of what is viewed as humane killing. The unspoken notion that if you're willing to fight for your country, you must be willing to die for your country. While I understand where that thought comes from, to me, there is a lapse of judgement of sorts. Instead of looking down on people being killed no matter what, as a society we allow the killing of our own people as well as of other nations if they are willing to fight for our country or theirs. What about in draft situations where the soldiers don't necessarily choose to be in the army, are they still "fair game" to being killed by war?
In the same vain, soldiers killing civilians is never humane, and is always looked down upon. Obviously, if someone is just a regular everyday citizen of the world and their country, killing them is immoral. Not only because they aren't fighting in the war, but also because they can't defend themselves. This is a major factor as to why chemical weapons are so looked down upon around the world. Chemical weapons are indiscriminate - They don't care who they hit, the chemicals just flow with the wind, harming anything and everything they come in contact with.
Overall, I think that the main factor for how society views killing and wars has to do with the ability to defend oneself. If a soldier kills a civilian, there is an outrage because the civilian probably doesn't have the means to defend against the attack. Another reason could also be because the civilian isn't even fighting in the war at all, they are normally just an innocent bystander of that country. Obviously they probably support their country winning the war, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be killed while they are still defenseless. This brings us to World War II, a perfect example of civilians being killed. One of the biggest reasons Hitler was looked down upon so much was because he was targeting, for the most part, a group of civilians who could not defend themselves. Most of the people Hitler targeted (gays, Jews, etc.) were just regular citizens of a variety of countries with no means to fight or defend themselves, while Germany had a very strong, capable army. This is viewed as inhumane, or immoral and will cause an uproar in society if it were to happen today, just like it eventually did during World War II. Due to this idea that defenseless people are not fair game for killing in war, chemical weapons are viewed in the same way because they are not reliably able to target only a specific area, and hit only their target, they are "banned' from combat.
"War... War never changes." (Fallout 3)
Friday, September 20, 2013
Iraq
9/13/13
While Saudi Arabia is an important asset to the United States, Iraq could have been in Saudi Arabia's shoes if the U.S. reacted differently to the 9/11 attacks. Even though the U.S. focuses so heavily on having a friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia, Iraq is just as useful when it comes to the U.S.'s energy needs. First off, Iraq has roughly 140 billion barrels of proven reserves, or in other words has one of the top 5 largest amounts in the world.
When the attacks of 9/11 happened, the U.S. made the choice to attack Afghanistan and eventually Iraq. If instead, we attacked Saudi Arabia (the majority of the people responsible for the hijacking were from Saudi Arabia), then the U.S. could have had a friendlier relationship with Iraq, getting their oil from them as well. To me there seems to be a disconnect in the American government related to Saudi Arabia and our relations with them. Somehow, they can do no wrong and we will just continue paying them for their oil.When in reality, we are supplying the terrorist we say we are fighting against in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obviously it's not as simple as imagining the U.S. attacking Saudi Arabia and nurturing friendly relations with Iraq, but I still feel that it should be discussed. From a perspective 12 years in the future, it seems obvious to me that the U.S. needed to get away from their mindset that relations with Saudi Arabia were of vital importance, and instead focus on their own nation security unrelated to energy suppliers. Iraq is just as capable as Saudi Arabia for supplying oil with some initial start up help to increase the amount of oil wells. But because the U.S. was so focused on Saudi oil, they were unable to see that by supporting Saudi oil, they were supplying the terrorists they were trying to fight.
In this scenario, not only is the U.S. supplying the terrorists they are trying to fight, but they also created a rift in relations between themselves and both Iraq and Afghanistan - two countries with high potential to supply oil. The decision to stay friendly with Saudi Arabia and attack Iraq and Afghanistan have dug a hole for the U.S. in regards to energy suppliers. The American government is too stubborn to admit they made a mistake, meaning they must now continue to lean on Saudi Arabia for oil instead of a country that might not be supplying terrorists.
Iraq is also an important player in the Middle East due to an infamous dictator, Saddam Hussein. This greatly complicates the previously discussed potential partnership between Iraq and the U.S.. If the U.S. were to have attacked Saudi Arabia, and tried improve their relationship with Iraq after 9/11, instead of supporting the terrorists in Saudi Arabia, America would be supporting Saddam Hussein. It seems the U.S. government weighed both options and decided that the lesser of two evils was sticking with Saudi Arabia.
With this dictator in power in Iraq, who can the U.S. safely rely on for their oil needs? Overall, it seems like there is no perfect candidate for who the U.S. should rely on for oil. While some countries are capable of doing so due to their oil reserves (Iraq and Saudi Arabia), they don't have America's best interests in mind. This real life relationship between oil-dependent America and Saudi Arabia is a dangerous and slippery slope with mainly negative consequences in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, as discussed, the entire situation in the Middle East is as complicated as can be. There doesn't seem to be a "perfect" or "correct" way of dealing with both the U.S.'s oil dependency as well as the conflicting leading parties in the Middle East. Some strategies just have less negative consequences than other strategies. Hopefully in the near future, the countries of the Middle East will repair relations with both the U.S. and the world, however, this does seem extremely unlikely.
"Think of what happened after 9/11, the minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat." (Ron Paul)
While Saudi Arabia is an important asset to the United States, Iraq could have been in Saudi Arabia's shoes if the U.S. reacted differently to the 9/11 attacks. Even though the U.S. focuses so heavily on having a friendly relationship with Saudi Arabia, Iraq is just as useful when it comes to the U.S.'s energy needs. First off, Iraq has roughly 140 billion barrels of proven reserves, or in other words has one of the top 5 largest amounts in the world.
When the attacks of 9/11 happened, the U.S. made the choice to attack Afghanistan and eventually Iraq. If instead, we attacked Saudi Arabia (the majority of the people responsible for the hijacking were from Saudi Arabia), then the U.S. could have had a friendlier relationship with Iraq, getting their oil from them as well. To me there seems to be a disconnect in the American government related to Saudi Arabia and our relations with them. Somehow, they can do no wrong and we will just continue paying them for their oil.When in reality, we are supplying the terrorist we say we are fighting against in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obviously it's not as simple as imagining the U.S. attacking Saudi Arabia and nurturing friendly relations with Iraq, but I still feel that it should be discussed. From a perspective 12 years in the future, it seems obvious to me that the U.S. needed to get away from their mindset that relations with Saudi Arabia were of vital importance, and instead focus on their own nation security unrelated to energy suppliers. Iraq is just as capable as Saudi Arabia for supplying oil with some initial start up help to increase the amount of oil wells. But because the U.S. was so focused on Saudi oil, they were unable to see that by supporting Saudi oil, they were supplying the terrorists they were trying to fight.
In this scenario, not only is the U.S. supplying the terrorists they are trying to fight, but they also created a rift in relations between themselves and both Iraq and Afghanistan - two countries with high potential to supply oil. The decision to stay friendly with Saudi Arabia and attack Iraq and Afghanistan have dug a hole for the U.S. in regards to energy suppliers. The American government is too stubborn to admit they made a mistake, meaning they must now continue to lean on Saudi Arabia for oil instead of a country that might not be supplying terrorists.
Iraq is also an important player in the Middle East due to an infamous dictator, Saddam Hussein. This greatly complicates the previously discussed potential partnership between Iraq and the U.S.. If the U.S. were to have attacked Saudi Arabia, and tried improve their relationship with Iraq after 9/11, instead of supporting the terrorists in Saudi Arabia, America would be supporting Saddam Hussein. It seems the U.S. government weighed both options and decided that the lesser of two evils was sticking with Saudi Arabia.
With this dictator in power in Iraq, who can the U.S. safely rely on for their oil needs? Overall, it seems like there is no perfect candidate for who the U.S. should rely on for oil. While some countries are capable of doing so due to their oil reserves (Iraq and Saudi Arabia), they don't have America's best interests in mind. This real life relationship between oil-dependent America and Saudi Arabia is a dangerous and slippery slope with mainly negative consequences in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, as discussed, the entire situation in the Middle East is as complicated as can be. There doesn't seem to be a "perfect" or "correct" way of dealing with both the U.S.'s oil dependency as well as the conflicting leading parties in the Middle East. Some strategies just have less negative consequences than other strategies. Hopefully in the near future, the countries of the Middle East will repair relations with both the U.S. and the world, however, this does seem extremely unlikely.
"Think of what happened after 9/11, the minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat." (Ron Paul)
Friday, September 13, 2013
Peak Oil
9/10/13
While the U.S.'s increase in dependency on petroleum for energy is troubling and harmful by itself, it is exacerbated even further by an idea termed Peak Oil. Peak oil is the name used to describe the notion that there is a limited amount of oil on Earth. Because oil is a limited resource, at some point, we will have used up more total oil than will be left in the Earth's reserves. This point is the literal peak of our oil supply. As we continue to rely on oil as our major fuel source, peak oil will become extremely important, not only for the U.S, but for the entire world. Due to America's intense dependence on oil, future negotiations and sales of oil will be heavily in the seller's favor. Whether it be Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or another, America will be at the mercy of their selling price or fear economic collapse. This will have many ramifications for both the U.S. and the global economy.
As peak oil starts to become an issue around the world, oil prices will start to rise even more so than they have been due to the realization that we have a finite amount of oil. From this, many oil dependent countries like the U.S. will have two main options; Either be forced to pay more for oil or find another energy source. Both of which seem to be completely against what American politicians and government officials have on their minds. These officials have two main objectives or goals in relation to how they deal with oil. 1. They want oil to be cheap and plentiful. And 2. They want oil to be the main energy source for many years to come. The former because it will allow the American public to buy oil for relatively cheap, which in turn helps their second goal. Since oil will be cheap, Americans will support it as their main energy source, so long as it stays a cheap price. The latter comes into play for a couple of reasons. These politicians and oil companies are making tons of money off of how prevalent oil is as a fuel source in the U.S. and around the world. If America started to shift towards greener, more environmentally friendly energy sources these politicians and oil companies would see large declines in profits, which they can't let happen. In my opinion, greed is a major component to what is stopping the world from advancing environmentally friendly and cleaner energy sources.
American foreign policy focuses largely on making sure oil is easily accessible and readily available from other countries. This can become endangered through a variety of reasons normally occurring in the Middle East. Most oil that comes from the Middle East goes through the Strait of Hormuz, which is surrounded by Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman and Iran. It is also in close proximity to Iraq, which is a center focal point for violence in the area. Saudi Arabia is America's biggest oil supplier in the Middle East as well as the focal point for American relations in the area. Other countries in the area like Iraq and Iran pose potential threats to the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz which the U.S. must deal with. It is this that poses a large threat to American economic prosperity and well being. If a war breaks out in the area, and the Strait of Hormuz becomes blockaded, military action will have to be taken in order to remedy the situation. However, this will come at a cost to both American lives as well as any other country involved. In the end, no matter what happens in the area, the U.S. will continue to focus its efforts on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open as well as the constant supply of oil flowing.
"The American military can help deter attacks on vital oil facilities and ensure the continuing flow of petroleum, but it can never guarantee that our rising demand for imported oil will be satisfied. all that is certain is that we will pay for it with an increasing sacrifice of blood." (73)
While the U.S.'s increase in dependency on petroleum for energy is troubling and harmful by itself, it is exacerbated even further by an idea termed Peak Oil. Peak oil is the name used to describe the notion that there is a limited amount of oil on Earth. Because oil is a limited resource, at some point, we will have used up more total oil than will be left in the Earth's reserves. This point is the literal peak of our oil supply. As we continue to rely on oil as our major fuel source, peak oil will become extremely important, not only for the U.S, but for the entire world. Due to America's intense dependence on oil, future negotiations and sales of oil will be heavily in the seller's favor. Whether it be Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or another, America will be at the mercy of their selling price or fear economic collapse. This will have many ramifications for both the U.S. and the global economy.
As peak oil starts to become an issue around the world, oil prices will start to rise even more so than they have been due to the realization that we have a finite amount of oil. From this, many oil dependent countries like the U.S. will have two main options; Either be forced to pay more for oil or find another energy source. Both of which seem to be completely against what American politicians and government officials have on their minds. These officials have two main objectives or goals in relation to how they deal with oil. 1. They want oil to be cheap and plentiful. And 2. They want oil to be the main energy source for many years to come. The former because it will allow the American public to buy oil for relatively cheap, which in turn helps their second goal. Since oil will be cheap, Americans will support it as their main energy source, so long as it stays a cheap price. The latter comes into play for a couple of reasons. These politicians and oil companies are making tons of money off of how prevalent oil is as a fuel source in the U.S. and around the world. If America started to shift towards greener, more environmentally friendly energy sources these politicians and oil companies would see large declines in profits, which they can't let happen. In my opinion, greed is a major component to what is stopping the world from advancing environmentally friendly and cleaner energy sources.
American foreign policy focuses largely on making sure oil is easily accessible and readily available from other countries. This can become endangered through a variety of reasons normally occurring in the Middle East. Most oil that comes from the Middle East goes through the Strait of Hormuz, which is surrounded by Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman and Iran. It is also in close proximity to Iraq, which is a center focal point for violence in the area. Saudi Arabia is America's biggest oil supplier in the Middle East as well as the focal point for American relations in the area. Other countries in the area like Iraq and Iran pose potential threats to the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz which the U.S. must deal with. It is this that poses a large threat to American economic prosperity and well being. If a war breaks out in the area, and the Strait of Hormuz becomes blockaded, military action will have to be taken in order to remedy the situation. However, this will come at a cost to both American lives as well as any other country involved. In the end, no matter what happens in the area, the U.S. will continue to focus its efforts on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open as well as the constant supply of oil flowing.
"The American military can help deter attacks on vital oil facilities and ensure the continuing flow of petroleum, but it can never guarantee that our rising demand for imported oil will be satisfied. all that is certain is that we will pay for it with an increasing sacrifice of blood." (73)
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Terrorism
9/06/13
An ever increasing trend among extremists in the Middle East has been the desire and eventual action of committing some form of terrorism. Whether it be the attacks on the World Trade Centers or Pentagon, or the many attacks in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, there has been an increase in hostile and deadly attacks around the world stemming from these extremists. This increase in hostility stems from a variety of reasons form both the people committing these egregious acts, as well as from the people that are targeting.
One major reason for this increase in terrorist attacks is from these extremists' willingness to die. Not only do they have strong enough beliefs to warrant (in their mind), the killing of anyone who does not believe what they do, but they are also willing to kill themselves in order to carry out the act. This by itself is rather terrifying, but becomes even more so when we understand that not only are they willing to die, but they are hopeless, lost or crazed human beings, and almost unfix-able. That is to say, these suicide bombers can't and won't be stopped unless they either blow themselves up or die from some other way. They are sort of dehumanized in that sense, to the point where they have no regard for other people's lives and well being if they don't share the same beliefs.
Their willingness to die is then exacerbated by a variety of complaints that Middle Eastern countries have on U.S. Foreign Policy and U.S. actions. There are two major complaints at work in this regard; Americans being a holy place, specifically Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.'s support for Israel. The former is a strong motivator for violence due to Americans being infidels, and Saudi Arabia being the home to holy places. An already tense relationship between the U.S. and these extremists is tested and intensified by this disregard for these holy sanctuaries. Due to their beliefs of killing people who don't share the same belief as them, coupled with the fact that Americans are infidels, a word used with disdain, creates a highly pressurized situation. The latter further increases this intense hatred of Americans due to the extremely volatile relationship and situation between Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Israel has been a major target for terrorist attacks since its inception in 1948.
Unfortunately, I don't see the U.S. leaving Saudi Arabia or stop meddling in the Middle East in the near future due to the natural resource that is been discussed throughout these blogs - Petroleum. The main reason the U.S. has any stake in the Middle East is due to the major dependency on petroleum and the Middle East's supply of this resource. Most recent conflicts can be attributed to natural resources in general and petroleum in particular. This need for oil goes back my other posts about the U.S.'s ever increasing need and dependency on oil for industry, travel, agriculture and more. One way of potentially defusing the situation in the Middle east is for the U.S. to drastically change what kind of energy it uses to supply it's infrastructure. If we can become more reliant on solar, wind and other energies, we can wean off of oil and our presence in the Middle East. While not in any way a fool proof plan, it is one to at least discuss and think about.
As oil continues to be a major resource in energy use around the world, peak oil will start to become an issue. This will be discussed in my next blog.
An ever increasing trend among extremists in the Middle East has been the desire and eventual action of committing some form of terrorism. Whether it be the attacks on the World Trade Centers or Pentagon, or the many attacks in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, there has been an increase in hostile and deadly attacks around the world stemming from these extremists. This increase in hostility stems from a variety of reasons form both the people committing these egregious acts, as well as from the people that are targeting.
One major reason for this increase in terrorist attacks is from these extremists' willingness to die. Not only do they have strong enough beliefs to warrant (in their mind), the killing of anyone who does not believe what they do, but they are also willing to kill themselves in order to carry out the act. This by itself is rather terrifying, but becomes even more so when we understand that not only are they willing to die, but they are hopeless, lost or crazed human beings, and almost unfix-able. That is to say, these suicide bombers can't and won't be stopped unless they either blow themselves up or die from some other way. They are sort of dehumanized in that sense, to the point where they have no regard for other people's lives and well being if they don't share the same beliefs.
Their willingness to die is then exacerbated by a variety of complaints that Middle Eastern countries have on U.S. Foreign Policy and U.S. actions. There are two major complaints at work in this regard; Americans being a holy place, specifically Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.'s support for Israel. The former is a strong motivator for violence due to Americans being infidels, and Saudi Arabia being the home to holy places. An already tense relationship between the U.S. and these extremists is tested and intensified by this disregard for these holy sanctuaries. Due to their beliefs of killing people who don't share the same belief as them, coupled with the fact that Americans are infidels, a word used with disdain, creates a highly pressurized situation. The latter further increases this intense hatred of Americans due to the extremely volatile relationship and situation between Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Israel has been a major target for terrorist attacks since its inception in 1948.
Unfortunately, I don't see the U.S. leaving Saudi Arabia or stop meddling in the Middle East in the near future due to the natural resource that is been discussed throughout these blogs - Petroleum. The main reason the U.S. has any stake in the Middle East is due to the major dependency on petroleum and the Middle East's supply of this resource. Most recent conflicts can be attributed to natural resources in general and petroleum in particular. This need for oil goes back my other posts about the U.S.'s ever increasing need and dependency on oil for industry, travel, agriculture and more. One way of potentially defusing the situation in the Middle east is for the U.S. to drastically change what kind of energy it uses to supply it's infrastructure. If we can become more reliant on solar, wind and other energies, we can wean off of oil and our presence in the Middle East. While not in any way a fool proof plan, it is one to at least discuss and think about.
As oil continues to be a major resource in energy use around the world, peak oil will start to become an issue. This will be discussed in my next blog.
A quick aside: In my opinion, there is something inherently wrong with any belief that supports the killing of non-believers because they are non-believers. Not only is this a flawed approach to religion and belief, but it is also one that is extremely dangerous for everyone involved. These acts of hatred and violence will lead to more hatred and violence spiraling down into a never ending circle of hostility and violence.
"We will not wave; we will not tire; we will not falter, and we will not fault. Peace and Freedom will prevail." (George W. Bush)
Identity
9/03/13
A big topic discussed both in class, and in Michael Klare's Blood and Oil, is the idea of identity. This can be broken down into many parts: Nationality, religion, sect, tribe, class, race, gender, sexuality, etc. All of these help influence global affairs and relations. Religion is one of the more potent motivators for wars around the world. One prime example of this is Osama Bin laden becoming infuriated with the U.S.'s presence in Saudi Arabia. Because Saudi Arabia is a holy place, and Americans are infidels, he began to despise the U.S. and its allies and has caused massive bloodshed in the 2000's. Religious intolerance has been the root of many wars both in the recent history as well as throughout history.
The bloodshed can stop if people around the world learn tolerance. Unfortunately, people around the world feel a strong need to kill people with different views instead of just tolerate, or ignore them. One of the biggest cases of tolerance comes from accepting people who are gay. This ties back to religious influences as well - Many religions don't tolerate gays. If people around the world could learn to follow their own set of rules without interfering with other people's lives (Like being gay, or not following Islam, etc.) then there would be a lot less conflicts. In the gay example, there are many people who oppose gay marriage. To me this is absurd because legalizing gay marriage would in no way force people who are against gay marriage to partake in it themselves. Te legalization would in no way affect these people who are against it, but they are still adamantly against it because they would not do it themselves.
Before there were social movements pushing for gay marriage there were movements for women's rights and black rights. Once fighting for gay rights are a thing of the past, a new rights movement will rise up to take a stand for their own rights. There is a never ending cycle between people wanting rights, and people opposing them for as long as human society has been around.
Another big factor in international relations is petroleum. The U.S.-Saudi Arabia relationship specifically. The U.S has been becoming increasingly more reliant on Saudi oil. This has caused the U.S. to do whatever it can to stay friendly with Saudi Arabia. This has put the U.S. in a strange position where the government almost has no choice but to accept any offer Saudi Arabia makes in order to maintain the constant influx of Saudi oil. Without this oil, the U.S. economy could collapse which is something the government does not want to risk. In order to keep their relations strong, the U.S. must continue to adhere to most, if not all Saudi deal offers as well as provide military support in case of an attack. This is harmful towards the U.S. because they are becoming more and more dependent on this oil, and in turn, becoming easier to manipulate. There is a clear disadvantage to being dependent on another country's exports.
As Michael Klare talks about in Oil and Blood, "[The U.S.'s] biggest problem, of course, is our growing reliance on the oil kingdoms of the Persian Gulf. No matter how hard the United States tries to diversify its energy imports by turning to producers in other regions, it will still need to acquire more and more oil from the Gulf, the only region whose reserves are large enough to satisfy the rising U.S. and international demand," (20). This increasing demand for oil combined with our limited amount of oil in the U.S. is contributing greatly to the increase in foreign oil being used to supply American industry, specifically from places like Saudi Arabia and others in the Middle East. Our reliance on the Middle East for oil is a treacherous one that the government must walk very gingerly. There is constant fighting in the Middle East between countries over resources, religious differences and other reasons. Adding the U.S. into the mix can cause the area to become more volatile. This combination of an already volatile area, mixed with an increasing American presence can, and probably will cause the Middle East to erupt into an even more dangerous area than it has been in the past.
"What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature." (Voltaire)
A big topic discussed both in class, and in Michael Klare's Blood and Oil, is the idea of identity. This can be broken down into many parts: Nationality, religion, sect, tribe, class, race, gender, sexuality, etc. All of these help influence global affairs and relations. Religion is one of the more potent motivators for wars around the world. One prime example of this is Osama Bin laden becoming infuriated with the U.S.'s presence in Saudi Arabia. Because Saudi Arabia is a holy place, and Americans are infidels, he began to despise the U.S. and its allies and has caused massive bloodshed in the 2000's. Religious intolerance has been the root of many wars both in the recent history as well as throughout history.
The bloodshed can stop if people around the world learn tolerance. Unfortunately, people around the world feel a strong need to kill people with different views instead of just tolerate, or ignore them. One of the biggest cases of tolerance comes from accepting people who are gay. This ties back to religious influences as well - Many religions don't tolerate gays. If people around the world could learn to follow their own set of rules without interfering with other people's lives (Like being gay, or not following Islam, etc.) then there would be a lot less conflicts. In the gay example, there are many people who oppose gay marriage. To me this is absurd because legalizing gay marriage would in no way force people who are against gay marriage to partake in it themselves. Te legalization would in no way affect these people who are against it, but they are still adamantly against it because they would not do it themselves.
Before there were social movements pushing for gay marriage there were movements for women's rights and black rights. Once fighting for gay rights are a thing of the past, a new rights movement will rise up to take a stand for their own rights. There is a never ending cycle between people wanting rights, and people opposing them for as long as human society has been around.
Another big factor in international relations is petroleum. The U.S.-Saudi Arabia relationship specifically. The U.S has been becoming increasingly more reliant on Saudi oil. This has caused the U.S. to do whatever it can to stay friendly with Saudi Arabia. This has put the U.S. in a strange position where the government almost has no choice but to accept any offer Saudi Arabia makes in order to maintain the constant influx of Saudi oil. Without this oil, the U.S. economy could collapse which is something the government does not want to risk. In order to keep their relations strong, the U.S. must continue to adhere to most, if not all Saudi deal offers as well as provide military support in case of an attack. This is harmful towards the U.S. because they are becoming more and more dependent on this oil, and in turn, becoming easier to manipulate. There is a clear disadvantage to being dependent on another country's exports.
As Michael Klare talks about in Oil and Blood, "[The U.S.'s] biggest problem, of course, is our growing reliance on the oil kingdoms of the Persian Gulf. No matter how hard the United States tries to diversify its energy imports by turning to producers in other regions, it will still need to acquire more and more oil from the Gulf, the only region whose reserves are large enough to satisfy the rising U.S. and international demand," (20). This increasing demand for oil combined with our limited amount of oil in the U.S. is contributing greatly to the increase in foreign oil being used to supply American industry, specifically from places like Saudi Arabia and others in the Middle East. Our reliance on the Middle East for oil is a treacherous one that the government must walk very gingerly. There is constant fighting in the Middle East between countries over resources, religious differences and other reasons. Adding the U.S. into the mix can cause the area to become more volatile. This combination of an already volatile area, mixed with an increasing American presence can, and probably will cause the Middle East to erupt into an even more dangerous area than it has been in the past.
"What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature." (Voltaire)
Cold War
8/30/13
Throughout the last seventy years or so (1940's-present), there has been a multitude of themes surrounding the U.S and world politics. As World War II was coming to a close, a new "war" (The Cold War) arose between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. This divided the world once again between supporters of the Soviet Union, and supporters of the U.S. The Cold War was influenced by many factors including an indirect superpower competition between the U.S and the Soviet Union and conflict in regards to atomic bombs, as well as the division of support for both sides from a number of places including Germany and Korea. These divisions created hostile environments which helped fuel this feud between the superpowers. Mutually assured destruction was put into action where both factions gathered enough firepower to guarantee the destruction of the other. This was able to ensure that if neither party would attack due to the enormous consequences.
Conflicts nowadays seem to be almost exclusively over limited resources. During the Cold War era, one of these natural resources, arguably the most important one still today, was petroleum. Petroleum reserves in the Middle East have been coveted by U.S foreign policy. Both parties have been transparent with their desire for Middle eastern oil which has caused a rift in relations between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. The U.S. desires Middle Eastern oil so much that the government has made it a national security issue. As we continue to rely on oil for energy, the U.S. will continue to have a "More and more aggressive foreign oil policy aimed at assuring access to petroleum overseas," (30). This was apparent during the Truman presidency when the Soviets were attempting to get an in with Turkey and Greece. Truman stated in a speech, which later becomes referred to as the Truman Doctrine, that the U.S. would support Turkey and Greece financially and militarily in an effort to keep them out of the Soviet sphere of influence. This was a smart move because not only did it protect against Soviet advances, but it also portrayed America as the "good guy" in the eye of the rest of the world.
The Truman Doctrine was followed by the Eisenhower Doctrine where Eisenhower felt the need to bolster the armed forces of friendly regimes in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia. This came from Egypt buying arms from the USSR following their diminishing view on Western powers. Again, this seems to put America in a positive light because it looks like they are just protecting any nation that needs help. When in reality, America is only doing this with their own benefits in mind - The continued availability of Saudi oil.
The final doctrine comes from the Nixon administration, where Nixon wanted to alleviate the American burden of defending its allies. Instead of being the dominant protector of its allies, America would "furnish military and economic assistance when requested," (43) in order to reduce the amount that America would have to intervene in international affairs. This was a smart move for Nixon because it helped to relieve some pressure that the U.S. was facing trying to be the main defender of its allies, becomes a lot more bearable.
Overall, petroleum has been a constant source for aggression in my lifetime, and I imagine will continue to be one for some time. As countries like the U.S. continue to rely so heavily on oil for everything from travel, industry, and agriculture, the larger the consequences will be when the oil runs out, is refused to them or becomes too expensive. Massive economic and industrial collapses can occur if the U.S. - Saudi Arabia relationship becomes toxic. This dependence on oil is continuing to become more and more intense which is putting the U.S. in a vulnerable position. As we get further into our class, this dependency on oil will become more and more important and frightening.
"Oil makes this country strong; dependency makes us weak." (11)
Throughout the last seventy years or so (1940's-present), there has been a multitude of themes surrounding the U.S and world politics. As World War II was coming to a close, a new "war" (The Cold War) arose between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. This divided the world once again between supporters of the Soviet Union, and supporters of the U.S. The Cold War was influenced by many factors including an indirect superpower competition between the U.S and the Soviet Union and conflict in regards to atomic bombs, as well as the division of support for both sides from a number of places including Germany and Korea. These divisions created hostile environments which helped fuel this feud between the superpowers. Mutually assured destruction was put into action where both factions gathered enough firepower to guarantee the destruction of the other. This was able to ensure that if neither party would attack due to the enormous consequences.
Conflicts nowadays seem to be almost exclusively over limited resources. During the Cold War era, one of these natural resources, arguably the most important one still today, was petroleum. Petroleum reserves in the Middle East have been coveted by U.S foreign policy. Both parties have been transparent with their desire for Middle eastern oil which has caused a rift in relations between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. The U.S. desires Middle Eastern oil so much that the government has made it a national security issue. As we continue to rely on oil for energy, the U.S. will continue to have a "More and more aggressive foreign oil policy aimed at assuring access to petroleum overseas," (30). This was apparent during the Truman presidency when the Soviets were attempting to get an in with Turkey and Greece. Truman stated in a speech, which later becomes referred to as the Truman Doctrine, that the U.S. would support Turkey and Greece financially and militarily in an effort to keep them out of the Soviet sphere of influence. This was a smart move because not only did it protect against Soviet advances, but it also portrayed America as the "good guy" in the eye of the rest of the world.
The Truman Doctrine was followed by the Eisenhower Doctrine where Eisenhower felt the need to bolster the armed forces of friendly regimes in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia. This came from Egypt buying arms from the USSR following their diminishing view on Western powers. Again, this seems to put America in a positive light because it looks like they are just protecting any nation that needs help. When in reality, America is only doing this with their own benefits in mind - The continued availability of Saudi oil.
The final doctrine comes from the Nixon administration, where Nixon wanted to alleviate the American burden of defending its allies. Instead of being the dominant protector of its allies, America would "furnish military and economic assistance when requested," (43) in order to reduce the amount that America would have to intervene in international affairs. This was a smart move for Nixon because it helped to relieve some pressure that the U.S. was facing trying to be the main defender of its allies, becomes a lot more bearable.
Overall, petroleum has been a constant source for aggression in my lifetime, and I imagine will continue to be one for some time. As countries like the U.S. continue to rely so heavily on oil for everything from travel, industry, and agriculture, the larger the consequences will be when the oil runs out, is refused to them or becomes too expensive. Massive economic and industrial collapses can occur if the U.S. - Saudi Arabia relationship becomes toxic. This dependence on oil is continuing to become more and more intense which is putting the U.S. in a vulnerable position. As we get further into our class, this dependency on oil will become more and more important and frightening.
"Oil makes this country strong; dependency makes us weak." (11)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)