Start your year off with a new post! :)
Read through your classmates' posts. Pick someone to respond to that you have not responded to either term 1 or 2. Try not respond to someone's post if they already have more than 1 response. Please attack the ideas/argument of the person & not the person her/himself. Also, please respond in a manner which fosters rather than shuts down dialogue. Lastly, it is important to respond to people's posts in a way that fosters dialogue & is respectful. Good luck. And happy new year!
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby's 12th grade AP US Government class at Jefferson High School in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on the 2008 presidential campaign. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Presidential Campaign Blog
Objectives:
*To become proficient in the candidates & campaign methods in the 2008 presidential election
*To have an intelligent dialogue regarding the election with your peers
*To become more comfortable with an emerging technology in the field of political science (blogging)
Student Tasks:
*To have an email account to do this assignment. If you do not have one please see the instructor for help.
*Student will need to do their own independent research using online sources.
*To post a minimum of 4 times your own independent comment on the 4 questions/topics the teacher posts throughout the quarter. Your post should offer a unique contribution to the discussion. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*To post a minimum of 4 times in response to other students. Your post should either be a concurring opinion (add to the argument by offering relevant points & new sources to develop that argument) or you can dissent with a peer. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*A post should be a full paragraph and use correct grammar and spelling. Your posts should comment on or attack the argument of a peer – not the peer her or himself. There is an expectation by the instructor & the administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at school apply to the blog.
*To post online in a timely manner. The posts will be due on a series of due dates. Students need to post by the due date in order for the conversation to be able to continue on track. Late posts will not receive half credit.
*Students are not required to represent their own personal opinions. You can play “devil’s advocate” in order to challenge each other & move the conversation forward. It is the instructor’s belief that all sides of the argument be understood in order to appreciate the complexity of the issue.
* Students should not use text message language in their posts. This is an academic blog and should use formal language.
Site Recommendations (please pass on other sites you’d recommend!):
Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
LA Times (latimes.com)
New York Times (nytimes.com)
BBC (bbc.co.uk)
The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
Aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net/English)
Newspapers internationally & domestically (refdesk.com/paper.html)
The teacher will grade the student’s blog posts holistically. In addition, the individual student will choose which posts (1 original post & 1 response post) to submit for grading.
The criteria for evaluating includes: the organization of information, consideration of alternatives, disciplinary content, elaborated written communication, research, amount of contributions, & the quality of writing.
*To become proficient in the candidates & campaign methods in the 2008 presidential election
*To have an intelligent dialogue regarding the election with your peers
*To become more comfortable with an emerging technology in the field of political science (blogging)
Student Tasks:
*To have an email account to do this assignment. If you do not have one please see the instructor for help.
*Student will need to do their own independent research using online sources.
*To post a minimum of 4 times your own independent comment on the 4 questions/topics the teacher posts throughout the quarter. Your post should offer a unique contribution to the discussion. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*To post a minimum of 4 times in response to other students. Your post should either be a concurring opinion (add to the argument by offering relevant points & new sources to develop that argument) or you can dissent with a peer. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*A post should be a full paragraph and use correct grammar and spelling. Your posts should comment on or attack the argument of a peer – not the peer her or himself. There is an expectation by the instructor & the administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at school apply to the blog.
*To post online in a timely manner. The posts will be due on a series of due dates. Students need to post by the due date in order for the conversation to be able to continue on track. Late posts will not receive half credit.
*Students are not required to represent their own personal opinions. You can play “devil’s advocate” in order to challenge each other & move the conversation forward. It is the instructor’s belief that all sides of the argument be understood in order to appreciate the complexity of the issue.
* Students should not use text message language in their posts. This is an academic blog and should use formal language.
Site Recommendations (please pass on other sites you’d recommend!):
Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
LA Times (latimes.com)
New York Times (nytimes.com)
BBC (bbc.co.uk)
The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
Aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net/English)
Newspapers internationally & domestically (refdesk.com/paper.html)
The teacher will grade the student’s blog posts holistically. In addition, the individual student will choose which posts (1 original post & 1 response post) to submit for grading.
The criteria for evaluating includes: the organization of information, consideration of alternatives, disciplinary content, elaborated written communication, research, amount of contributions, & the quality of writing.
46 comments:
To: Molly Conrad
I agree that global warming will be an important issue in the 2008 presidential election, but I think that the issue of developing clean and affordable energy is a more pressing one.
Lets face it; our country is addicted to oil. Our economy basically runs on it, and fossil fuels are our main source of energy. 86 % of the energy in this country is produced from some form of fossil fuel, whether it is oil, coal, or natural gas (1). Unfortunately, fossil fuels are quickly running out, and our country is becoming more and more reliant on foreign oil to feed our addiction. In 2001 the U.S. imported 4,333,038 barrels of oil and in 2006 the U.S. imported 5,003,082 barrels of oil (2). The price of oil is skyrocketing because of this. The average price of a gallon of gas five years ago was about $1.40, and now the average price of a gallon of gas is about $2.99 (3). There are many people already who can’t afford the high price of oil and it will not be long before our economy really starts to suffer. Also, we are making ourselves vulnerable with our reliance on foreign oil. This has happened to us before when in 1973 OPEC decided to stop sending oil to the U.S. This caused long lines at gas stations and sometimes even no gas at gas stations (4). Lastly, our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels has greatly harmed the Earth’s atmosphere. Since 1751, 315 billion tons of carbon has been released into the atmosphere. What is truly amazing is that half of this carbon has been released since the mid 1970s (5). This increase in emissions can be traced to our accelerated use of fossil fuels.
We need to develop affordable sources of energy as soon as possible to ensure the prosperity of our economy for many more years to come. Also we need to protect ourselves from other nations that provide us with oil by creating new sources of energy so that something similar to the oil shortages in 1973 never happens again. Finally the development of clean sources of energy can only benefit not only the citizen of the United State but also the people of the rest of the world.
(1) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0920633.html
(2) http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_
impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm
(3) http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_
chart.aspx?time=24
(4) http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/anniversary.html
(5) http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
To Judy
You did a good job in your post of listing reasons why global warming is such a big problem. It is really scary to think that all of these things could happen in the future, and I think it was a very effective way to get your point across that this is the most important issue.
Since you already listed most of the possible effects, I found a list of some of the causes. The number one cause is energy production, followed by CFCs, and then deforestation and agriculture (1). CFCs are Chlorofluorocarbons, which damage the ozone layer (2). Energy production is at the top of the list because of all of the fossil fuels that are burned in the process, releasing greenhouse gases into the air (4). A lot of people in our two classes wrote about either energy or global warming as their topic, and it is interesting how the two are related.
I do not know a lot about Bill Richardson, but from your post I have now learned that he is very passionate about stopping global warming. His plan is so ambitious that I am not sure that it is a possibility. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90% in less than fifty years (3) seems like a very lofty goal, though I do agree that it should be done.
1.http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1848/global.html
2.http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/TG/OZ/cfcozn.html
3.http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/energy
4.http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Statistics/causes_of_global_warming.html
To: Kendra
I really liked that you didn't rely on one solution for ending global warming. I think a combination of all the things you listed would be a lot more effective than putting all our eggs in one basket.
However, the one goal I think we will have the hardest time achieving that you listed was convincing China and India to lower emissions. The Chinese government has made it clear that economic growth and reducing poverty are higher on its list of objectives (1). China has also indicated that even though it will be willing to enter into a emission reduction agreement, it thinks developed nations should take the lead (1). India has been more proactive, but has refused to enter binding agreements and claims that developed nations are more at fault that it is (2). On December 17th, a major meeting on the issue occurred in Singapore where China and India stuck together on refusing emission limits (3).
Because of these developments, I think convincing China and India would be the least attainable goal, especially considering the lowered status of America as a world power. Focusing on this goal could waste valuable money that could be used for other things. Overall, the solutions we can apply on American soil will make the greatest difference in reducing this threat.
Sources:
1.http://mnweekly.ru/world/20071220/55298147.html
2.http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/News_By_Industry/Help_us_reduce_emissions_says_India/articleshow/2626979.cms
3.http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/18/stories/2007121860701100.htm
To everyone
When going over everyone’s post (well, slightly skimming) it seems that all our concerns lead to on overall general statement: We need to decrease our carbon emissions and focus on using cleaner, environmentally friendly, and affordable energy. The consequences of failing to do so will increase the damages brought on by global warming.
As all of these issues are associated with one another, one can assume if the United States asserts its influence as a world power and takes the initiative to a concentrated use of efficient energy, all will fall into place.
The U.S. Department of Energy states its mission as one that will “strengthen American’s energy security, environmental quality, and economic vitality…enhance energy efficiency and productivity; bring clean, reliable and affordable energy technologies to the marketplace.” (3) If the United States commits to this mission, promotes awareness of the importance of energy efficiency, and encourages other nations to take the steps to combat global warming, all issues revolving around the environment will be taking a step towards improvement. (1)
As I stated in my original post, neglecting to combat global warming by switching to efficient, environmentally friendly energy not only results in repercussions on our environment, but will also affect our health, economy, and ecosystem. (2) Failing to switch to healthier energy will in return harm winter economic profits, increase the spread of diseases, and harm the beauty that lies beneath the oceans. (2)
Failure to recognize the inefficiency of our current use of energy will result in more consequences than many realizes. It will harm our economy, health, and precious beauties in the world. By taking the step towards efficient and environmentally friendly energy, we will, as the saying goes, “kill two birds with one stone.” In this case, hopefully we will be “killing” more “birds” than just two. (Of course, these are metaphorical birds; I do not advocate the killing of birds.)
(1) http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.org/
(2) http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/dangers.cfm
(3) http://www.energy.gov/energyefficiency/index.htm
To: Shannon
Although I disagree with you that water supply is one of the most important environmental issues of the election, I think you bring in many good points about it being a significant problem. Before reading your post , I did not think much of the water supply problem since we do not usually experience shortages in the Midwest. However, now that there is talk of taking water from the Great lakes, I realize that the issue would affect our region more than I initially thought.
I believe that this issue is not only tied to population growth in dry regions, as you mentioned, but also the global warming issue as a whole. Although it may initially seem like melting glaciers and rising ocean levels could only increase water supply, this is not the case since salt water is not potable. In fact, rising levels of salt ocean water can soak into the earth and decrease freshwater supplies even more (1).
Moreover, global warming will likely also decrease the flow of rivers. Experts are predicting that the Colorado River’s flow will decrease in the near future, causing problems for the seven states that rely on it for fresh water. California also relies on the snow from Sierra Nevada as a major water source, but rising temperature will likely decrease this supply as well (1).
As you mentioned, the 2008 presidential candidates have not clearly addressed this problem. As a Minnesotan, I would not like other states dipping into the Great Lakes’ already decreasing supply (2). This would likely have a detrimental affect on the ecosystems in that area. It is hard to tell what to do, though, if people in our country are suffering from inadequate water supplies, In my opinion, the Great Lakes’ supply should only be used as a last resort. I think that the nation should start investing in more desalination and reverse-osmosis plants and perform more research to increase the plants’ efficiency (1). I think that better technology could greatly alleviate the water shortage problem.
(1)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071026/vanishing-water/
(2)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21768239/
In response to Georgia:
I agree with you that it’s important for the candidates to take stances on global warming, since it’s clearly one of the largest public concerns for the decade. However, I disagree with your assessment of the Republican candidates. I think most (if not all) of the candidates have taken a stance on the issue (8). I think you misinterpret former Senator Thompson’s statement that he wouldn’t answer the question. It doesn’t mean he hasn’t taken a stance on the issue (1). In fact, Thompson has taken the stance that we need to address climate change with energy reform and reduce CO2 emissions. He also supports technology reform to better improve the environment (2). Mr. Thompson’s refusal to answer a question was in response to the moderator’s refusal to “give [him] a minute to answer”, not ignorance or lack of a political view (1).
I also think you make too broad of a statement when you say that none of the candidates have actual solutions. In fact, in the same article you cited as your 1, many of the candidates continue to make suggestions as to resolve the crisis of global warming. While granted, Senator Huckabee seems lacking any real kind of argument for change (other than noting that “climate change and who's causing it is of less importance”, which I agree is unacceptable (1). However, more to the core of your argument, yes, most of the Republican candidates support energy independence as the first major step in changing the climate crisis, but many also noted the importance of capping CO2 emissions and reforming technology (1).
Also, energy independence is not synonymous with opening up drilling in ANWR. John McCain voted against drilling in ANWR (3), Giuliani called for cleaner and environmentally safe ways to get resources (4).
Yes, several of the Republican candidates support drilling in ANWR, like Mike Huckabee and Mit Romney (5), which is, I agree, terrible for the environment. However, your plea for the baby polar bears probably doesn’t matter. I’m sorry. Statistically, the only animals that frequent the area that ANWR drilling would be located (mostly the coastal region of North-East Alaska) are the caribou (6). That’s not to say that the caribou don’t matter! The thing is, a survey of caribou populations in the region close to current development initiatives in Alaska shows that the population actually hasn’t suffered as greatly as people originally feared (7). Well, regardless, I agree with you that we need to have a president who isn’t going to sanction drilling in ANWR as a means for energy independence.
I strongly support Obama and Kucinich for their support of the Kyoto protocol and capping CO2 emissions, and I agree that they both have the capacity necessary to truly address the needs of the nation on the issue of global warming. However, I don’t think it’s fair to rule out all other political contenders just yet on an issue so broad and so demanding of public attention (8). I am very confident, in fact, that by the time the party nominations are made, global warming will be one of the most contended issues in the political race.
1. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1232620071212
2. http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues
3. http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270&type=category&category=30&go.x=16&go.y=13
4. http://www.2008electionprocon.org/candidates/rudygiuliani.htm#parkoil
5. http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
6. http://www.anwr.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=58
7. http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/faces-caribou.pdf
8. http://wpherald.com/articles/3107/1/Global-warming-expected-to-be-2008-election-issue/Presidential-hopefuls-take-climate-change-seriously.html
Congratulations to those of you who have already posted! Good job getting us off to a good start. I like how many of you have taken the global warming discussion to the next level. I also like how you have really looked at and are commenting on the specific ideas/arguments that your classmate made. I hope others will follow in your same direction! Happy holidays and see you in 2008! M. Aby
Dear Kendra,
I'm answering to your rather short post.
I would like to start this by saying Happy Holidays! :P
I totally agree with you that the US should join the Kyoto Protocol and increase mass transit funding. Mass transit funding is a touchy issue because people love their cars and many times riding the bus gives you a low-class image. Some people are even afraid to take the bus because they believe that their life will be in danger. They are sorely mistaken and that is because public transportation is one of the best things that could happen to a city. The city of Denver is building a state of the art public transportation system that would cut down on pollution, help people that cannot afford cars and would make traffic easier to deal with (1). I was on Lake Street a few days ago doing my holiday shopping, and I saw a bus that said green energy on it. I was very pleased to see that some of the buses in the Twin Cities run on clean energy. The Metro Transit website says that they are trying to add 170 hybrid buses in order to remove the 2.6 tons of greenhouse gas emissions one commuter produces. tey are trying to add these buses by 2012 (3). They're pretty cute too. They're green and have a flower on them so m question is why don't people ride the bus? The website explains that one day a week can make a difference (4).
Therefore, I totally agree with Kendra when she says that the govt. should try to increase the funding for mass transit.
Love,
Georgia
Katie Whelan,
There are far more important issues at hand than simple light bulb efficiency. While increasing their watt-hours is an admirable goal, our world is teetering on the brink of disaster. Pardon me for using such alarmist language, but I really do believe drastic steps need to be taken now to curb this growing problem. According to addiction medicine specialist Dr. Pinsky, an addiction exists when the same behavior is displayed again and again regardless of negative consequences that the behavior brings. America is addicted: we use more and more oil, regardless of the horrific consequences we are inflicting upon the earth’s fragile ecosystem. Our increased drilling is harming the environment. There is no question as to this point. If anyone is interested, the articles I cited for my last blog post reflected the extent of the damage we have inflicted upon the environment. One of the articles I read showed scientific evidence that the damage is cumulative and irreparable, which was greatly disheartening. However, it is greater incentive to curb our excessive oil use NOW. Simply increasing light bulb efficiency, to take effect in 2012, is too little far too late. We don’t have time to coax along the idiot masses into switching light bulbs. Extreme policy action must be taken at a federal level to shift our energy use towards more renewable sources, or, better yet, to curb our energy use.
-Silas Berkowitz.
To: Liana Bratton
I agree that global warming is the most important environmental issue facing society today. It is true that the United States leads the world in carbon emissions with carbon emissions totaling 1.565 billion metric tons, nearly double China’s emissions, the other world leader (1).
Your example of the Bering Strait is an excellent illustration of animal endangerment from global warming. The Bering Strait has been witness to several animal deaths. Global warming has drastically reduced the amount of ice, and animals are finding their habitats destroyed. Recently, thousands of Pacific walruses above the Arctic Circle died from overcrowded stampedes on reduced sea ice (2). In addition, it is correct to assume that “global warming does not just affect the arctic regions either.” (3) Death and extinction threaten species around the world as climate change alters the Earth’s temperature. United Nations scientists speculate that “Globally, 30 percent of the Earth's species could disappear if temperatures rise 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit— and up to 70 percent, if they rise 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit.” Extinctions have already begun to emerge throughout the nations. Four major extinctions in the last 520 million years are the result of warmer tropical seas. Butterflies, for example, have gone extinct in the Alps and southern France (4).
The Green Party has an exemplary policy platform on environmental reform. Like you, I support it. The benefits of the renewable energy mentioned in your post, mainly “solar power, wind turbines, hydrogen, and fuel cell[s],” are tremendous. According to the Earth Policy Institute, solar energy: (1) produces high-quality light, (2) increases educational opportunities, access to information, and productive actions after sunset, and (3) improves public health through better refrigeration of vaccines and better air quality (5). Wind turbines “provide income to farmers and ranchers, skilled jobs, cheap electricity, and additional tax revenue to upgrade schools and maintain roads (6). Hydrogen has the capability to limit pollution and be produced in a variety of locations (7). Fuel cells are efficient by elimination greenhouses gases and air pollution, decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, and giving automobiles more flexibility and silence (8).
I agree that Nuclear Energy is a poor alternative to fossil fuels. Uranium and plutonium are extremely dangerous materials that threaten the health of all Earth’s inhabitants. The Health Physics Society released that “Uranium and DU [depleted uranium] are considered internal hazards...[causing] skin or lung irritation...transitory kidney effects...[and an] elevated risk of developing lung cancer.” (9) Similarly, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research identifies Plutonium-239 as “a very hazardous carcinogen...[causing] an especially harmful effect on the blood formation... [and] would greatly increase the risk of lung cancer.” (10) The Public Citizen, a national non-profit public interest organization, found nuclear energy in general to be detrimental. According to the Public Citizen, nuclear energy is cost-inefficient, threatens security and safety within the United States, produces unnecessary waste, and encourages increased nuclear bomb production (11). Additionally, you found that “34,000...Nagasaki-type bomb[s]” can be made in one year (3). Those bombs, which killed 70,000 people in Nagasaki, have the capability of killing 2,300,000,000 people in one year alone (12).
Global warming, the most pressing environmental concern of the twenty-first century, must be addressed. Renewable energy is a superb solution to fossil fuels, while nuclear energy presents an unappealing and dangerous future.
Sources
(1)http://www.nextstep.state.mn.us/res_detail.cfm?id=1147
(2)http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5icdyIPlHCTFmPuUHotRczUzXBpNQD8THDQUG1
(3)Liana’s Post
(4)http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5izVejA7rtYEvHVdBYpd4LZeCCVfQD8TBFDN00
(5)http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator12.htm
(6)http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update52.htm
(7)http://www.hydrogenenergycenter.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=108367&module_id=8616
(8)http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_benefits.shtml
(9)http://hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf
(10)http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-3/puhealth.html
(11)http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/articles.cfm?ID=13447
(12)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4110598.stm
T o Josh
I agree with your assessment of this grave current and future issue. The only problem with the current pans regarding global warming in my views is the timeline. You pointed out that senator Clinton proposed that automobiles have 55 mpg efficiency which is an awesome goal in my opinion however the goal is set for 2030 and by some of the most progressive predictions 2030 say that as time goes on the effects on our environment grow exponentially and become more and more irreversible. I believe that a progressive timeline putting as much pressure as possible is absolutely necessary with a problem of this magnitude with the implications it carries I believe that speed in containing our emissions is one of the most key elements in this debate.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
To Michelle
I agree with your post about the importance of stopping global warming to the people of America. The evidence you presented about the public wanting something to be done about pollution is very telling. I agree that the United States needs to take more of a leadership role in stopping carbon dioxide emissions since we are one of the major sources of it in the world.
The most practical thing we can do is to join the Kyoto Protocol and begin decreasing the amounts of carbon dioxide our country produces. Otherwise, we are leaving it down to the states to have the courage to cut back on emissions. Governor Pawlenty has just recently joined a global warming pact to create a cap-and-trade system for Minnesota, which means that industries must pay a fee for a permit to produce a certain amount of carbon dioxide (1). This pact consists of other Midwestern states such as Iowa and Wisconsin.
Unfortunately, cutting emissions in the Midwest is not enough. We need to cut emissions in the entire country including heavily industrialized states on the coasts.
(1)http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/15/govsgreenhouse/
To: Eric M.
I agree with your position on global climate change and the impact it may have in the future. I am not sure how likely a second ice age would be but even if there is a remote possibility of something like that occurring, we need to do all we can to prevent it given the magnitude such an event would have. While I also agree with you in your statement that fuel efficiency standards must be improved, I disagree with your support of Clinton’s proposal. If all we do is force automakers to meet a certain MPG threshold, that is all automakers will try to do. For example, if a 55 MPG minimum was made, automakers would simply just meet that guideline. They would have no incentive to create a 60 MPG car unless they could make more profit off such a car. Basically, setting minimum standards reduces a company’s incentive to improve their production. I think if we created a carbon tax or some sort of tax based on the MPG of a car, manufacturers would have much more incentive to create much more efficient vehicles. As part of the research and development process, manufacturers may even be able to find a revolutionary discovery that could drastically improve carbon emissions and fuel efficiency. In conclusion, I agree with your policy suggestions but disagree with how you suggest we achieve those policy suggestions.
Response to Jazmyn:
Like the majority of the kids, we all agree that the state our atmosphere in is most frightening. I completely agree that the green house gases are increasing by big numbers each year. Higher temperatures endanger life. However, I do not agree with Biden’s plan.
Decreasing emissions by 80% in a matter of 40+ years is unreliable. I believe emissions can be reduced by more than 1% a year, but alternative energy must be found first. The US is highly dependent upon oil and that is not going to change until something cheaper and/or more environmentally friendly comes along. Our economy is dominated by oil and you cannot just limit emissions without causing serious problems to not only companies and the economy, but to individuals. If business is not good, then the everyday life of an American is not going to be good. Another issue is the whole decreasing emissions over 4 decades. 40 years from now our world will be much different. We are blind as to what the world is going to be like 40 years from now, we do not know if global warming will even be an issue or more severe of an issue then.
A reasonable plan would be to reduce emissions by like 8% over the next 6 years and maintain it there. Then, once alternative energy is found, we can talk about drastic measures to end carbon emissions. To me it seems long term agreements typically fail in our country. After a couple years the US will think the plan is outdated, no longer is reasonable, or it limits our country and so on. I do like Romney’s idea on having fellow countries join in with us before we make huge change. But reality is we are the largest contributor to global warming and therefore we should be the first to save our world. Developing successful alternative energy will create an incentive for other countries to follow. It seems that Romney is under the belief that something like the Kyoto Agreement is the right approach. But recall the Kyoto Agreement has good intentions, but not so reasonable. It excused developing nations from the pact, the US did not join, and now countries are pulling out of this system that is not reasonable for their economy.
Overall, the issue of the environment is incredibly tricky. The environment is a huge issue, but so are issues such as national security and healthcare. The United States does not have enough money and power to do it all. We must take baby steps and realize what issues are of the upper most importance. Also the approach the government chooses to take toward the environment is not easy. It must be fair. We need to be strict in policies and further protect our environment. But then we need to be reasonable with our money and not put a strain on our economy. Whatever the solution is, I hope it is found soon.
http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.org/cool-news/
http://www.globalwarming.org/solutions/kyoto
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/business/30green.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/neartermghgreduction.html
I am responding to Libby’s post. I thought you did a really good job of stating the main reasons finding a environmentally-friendly renewable source of energy is important, such as reducing our dependence on foreign nations, protecting ecosystems, and reducing the emission of greenhouse gases by energy sources. You also explained Senator Obama’s plan to help the environment well, and I learned a lot more about his plan. I also liked that you listed some sources of environmentally friendly power.
You brought up the point that there is a lot of potential for oil spills when oil is being transported all over our country. This is very true, and the effects of an oil spill are very severe. Most oil spills happen in the water, and these spills can impact not only the animals that come in contact with the oil but also the actual area of the spill and the animals that go to that area later. When oil and water mix, they make a sticky substance called mousse, and animals can have a hard time avoiding it (1). Oil spills can make birds drown because oil harms and makes their feathers heavier, which makes it hard for birds to fly. Animals that swallow the oil can die or become sick, and the breeding areas of animals can be disrupted due to oil spills. Oil spills also contribute to thinner eggs for turtles and birds and hurt fish eggs, all of which can cause deformities (1). After oil spills are cleaned, oil can still be under beaches and hurt burrowing marine animals like crabs, and because other animals eat burrowing marine animals, these animals can be hurt also (1). Oil spills do not happen frequently, but when they do they can cause a lot of long-term damage. They are a serious problem, as we can see from the oil spill that happened in the San Francisco Bay in 2007, which involved 58,000 gallons of oil (2). A CNN articles noted that there was also a lot of worry that this spill could have hurt the herring in the San Francisco Bay because they were spawning at the time of the spill (2).
Another problem you mentioned with our use of oil is our dependence on foreign oil sources. You wrote about the important environmental advantages of finding alternative energy sources, and I just wanted to add some more information about the financial advantages. Our dependence on foreign oil is proving to be very costly, and these prices will probably keep increasing. An article from the Associated Press states that the price for a barrel of oil at the end of 2007 was $95.98. This price was 57 percent higher than the price per barrel at the beginning of 2007 (3). The same article notes that the EIA (Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration) estimates that the average price for a barrel of oil in 2008 will be around $85. Analysts think these prices will stay high in 2008 (3). No one likes high gas prices, and that is one of the reasons funding for research on alternative energy sources would save us money in the future. Right now, we pay whatever price foreign nations want for their oil, and it is very costly. After the initial cost increase, alternative energy sources of our own would let us have more control over energy costs.
(1) http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs/164/Effects-of-oil-spills.html
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/09/bay.spill.ap/index.html
(3) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
To Kelsey:
Although the expansion of the Clean air and water acts are an important issue in the environmental debate, I do not agree that they rank among the most important ones in the upcoming election. I do agree that cleaner air and water is the means to solving the global warming issue, but in order for the US and better yet the world to be effective in curbing the problem of the depleting o-zone, these acts need to be completely re-worked and actually implemented. Just focusing on those acts will not get the US anywhere in the stopping of global warming. I also agree in the expansion and amending of the Clean air and Water acts due to the fact that it hasn't been majorly revised since Bush's reign in 1990 (1). In this amendment the government addressed the issues of acid rain, urban air emissions, and toxic air emissions as well as o-zone depleting chemicals. It also highlights the use of "clean coal and natural gas energy". The use of clean energy does not specifically help the problem especially when those are not renewable energy sources, which is another issue the world faces. Instead the US should focus on implementing renewable energy sources into the country and world in place of these environmentally harmful limited resources (2).
In conclusion I feel like the clean air and water acts are pieces of legislation that are good theories and ideas but not ones where real action actually helps the problem. Instead the US government should try some new legislation that will be more effective over the next decade and help curb global warming.
(1)http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/overview.txt
(2)www.globalissues.org/Envissues/
Michelle Howard
To msmith
I agree with you that global warming is the most important environmental issue. You did a nice job of explaining the benefits of a cap and trade system that uses incentives to help bring down the levels of pollution. I agree that a cap and trade system is useful in preventing global warming. Obama outlines an excellent plan that relies on the cap and trade system that you outlined. Obama would reduce carbon emissions, the main source of global warming, by 80 percent of 1990 levels by the year 2050. This would be an outstanding change. Because the pollution permits would be auctioned, the polluters would have to pay for the pollution that they emit (1). This goes along with your thought that “polluters should be liable for the harm they cause to others and their surroundings.”
To add to your argument, the cap and trade system has worked before when dealing with sulfur dioxide (SO2), a cause of acid rain. It was implemented in the mid 1990s and as of 2002 SO2 emissions were 41 percent below that of 1980. The cap and trade system was a huge success when it dealt with SO2 (2). I also want to add that a cap and trade is very cost efficient to deal with pollution because it allows firms to chose the path that is least costly for them. The firms’ flexibility in choosing how to best deal with pollution is a real asset to the cap and trade system. The cap and trade system causes incentives to decrease pollution by firms realizing that it is less costly to reduce levels of pollution than to buy an additional permit (3).
I disagree that a cap and trade system will directly reduce our energy dependence on foreign countries. To do this, American would have to develop another energy source, and though a cap and trade system provides incentives, I do not foresee that in the near future large industries will switch to an alternative source of energy. However, because of the cap and trade system, industries might be able to get more energy for every barrel of oil.
Sources: 1. www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
2. http://www.grinningplanet.com/2004/02-12/cap-and-trade-pollution-credits-eco.htm
3. http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/page.jsp?itemID=27226959
To: Georgia
I agree with you, Georgia. The biggest mistake the Republican candidates are making is not addressing the issue of global warming. The only solutions I’ve heard involve nuclear power and oil independence. Nuclear power would reduce emissions, but it’s kind of dangerous, what with the whole possibility of a huge nuclear disaster thing.
Oil independence really doesn’t solve the global warming issue. Sure, it might make us feel a little better, but it does increase the possibility of killing cute polar bears. What we need to worry about is our dependence on oil in general. The Democratic candidates have been pretty good about pushing this. Reducing oil dependence and capping greenhouse gas emissions should be our main focus. It’s up to candidates on both sides to figure this out.
To: Liana
I like the way you proposed your solution and formed your argument. The fact that you addressed the opposition and explained why you opposed their solution clearly was refreshing. The topic I really wanted to address in responding to your post is the mandatory emissions quotas. I’d like to argue that market mechanisms may be a better option than regulatory approaches. I think, and many experts would agree, the best way to lower carbon emissions would be to do a combination of cap-and-trade and direct taxing policies(3).
One of the major reasons that the Bush administration so adamantly opposes many restrictive options is because there might be negative economic repercussions (1). I believe the U.S had to reduce carbon emissions as a nation by itself. I don’t think the world is ready for an international treaty. In 2006 U.S negotiator Harlan Watson claimed that the United States is doing better than many of the countries signed to the Kyoto treaty and that many of those countries were beginning to exhibit increased carbon emissions(1).
A cap-and-trade policy would be a very useful tool for the U.S to utilize, however it would be more effective if the government sold emissions allowances (2). Because the cap-and-trade system is a market mechanism, it means that it would actually create revenue by putting a price on carbon emissions and creating an entirely new market. Likewise, a tax on carbon emissions would also set up revenue but it would be a much more definite price for the emissions which means it would be less ‘disruptive’ to companies(2).
Working together, the cap-and-trade policy would provide a certain limit to emissions and taxes would create a certain price. More than the obvious incentive to reduce use, it would still allow dependant companies to survive.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227862,00.html
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8769/11-01-CO2Emissions.htm
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/05/market_failure__1.html
To Katie Plasynski:
I agree with you that energy independence will be a very important issue in the upcoming election. However, I think that alternative energy is more important than energy independence. Your post was somewhat divided between the two similar issues, but it seems like you agree with me.
Energy independence is important from a national security standpoint. Our country will be in a safer position if we are not reliant on potential enemies for our energy. However, ending our consumption of Middle Eastern oil may have negative consequences. One possible outcome may be that oil-producing countries in the Middle East that haven’t invested their oil revenues may crumble. Some countries, like Saudi Arabia, are using oil revenues to stimulate the private sector and increase foreign investments (1). Also, Dubai is using its limited oil revenues extremely well and has established itself as a worldly city that will endure (2). However, these places are anomalies. Most of the Middle East is squandering their oil revenues in expectance of future sales (3). We do not need to feed their economies but a crumbled Middle Eastern economy may well lead to a new hostile, extremist state. Stability in the region is aided by our continued trade. Furthermore, I do not think it is our dependence on foreign oil that causes our problems with terrorism. It is our foreign policy. We have exploited that region for many years to ensure our continuous energy flow. We used Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and put dictators into power in Iran (4). Improved foreign policy may well improve national security more than energy independence alone could. In the end, however, I do think energy independence should be given importance, because it will probably have a net benefit on our security and certainly have a net benefit on our economy.
Alternative energy is the most important issue in the upcoming election. Our use of non-renewable fossil fuels is hurting the world’s environment, as well as reinforcing our wasteful habits. Changing to alternative energy will be much better in the long run, because it will be sustainable, cleaner, and much more productive. I mostly agree with your incentive plan. This could take the form of a carbon tax or more tax refunds (3). These methods do not force companies to do anything, which avoids government entanglement in the economy. At the same time, it also encourages companies and individual to do what is best for their pocketbook which is incidentally best for the environment. A straight reduction of carbon in the form of command and control policy would be inefficient, because it would be impossible for many firms to follow without going bankrupt (3). The only problem with incentives is that there is no guaranteed amount of reduced emissions. Also, it may take people and firms a long time to react to the incentives and reduce their emissions. I prefer a cap and trade program (3), but I believe this is the second best option, and, whichever one passes, it will have a net benefit to the environment.
(1) http://www.ameinfo.com/73541.html
(2) http://www.dubai.com/
(3) AP Micro/Macro Economics – Sullivan
(4) AP US History
To All:
While I was scanning through everyone's posts to what they thought would be the most important enviornmental issue in the 2008 presidential race, I found that I didn't really disagree at all with anyone. Though I put that I thought global warming would be the most influential issue, I think all of the issues that were presented are worth being attended to. Some issues I saw included global warming (by far the most popular), oil independence, energy reform, harmful gas emmission and increasing fuel efficiency in cars, and the clean air and water acts.
Global warming was the most popular issue because it is so well known and has been proven to be already in effect. Global warming occurs when greenhouse gases are trapped beneath the ozone layer, resulting in a hotter climate in areas not used to such a climate (1). Increasing temperatures will be devastating to the earth because it will cause more powerful natural disasters (like hurricanes and tornadoes), an increased sea level due to melting glaciers in the Arctic, countless species of animals to become extinct, and other disasterous consequences (1).
Oil independence, though I feel that this is more of a political issue than an enviornmental one, is also important because if we stop depending on the foreign market for oil, we will have far less conflicts with these oil-rich countries, like the Middle East (2). However, if we use oil found within our own lands, we may find we have less to use and this problem may spark oil conservation and reduction strategies. This can lead to the issue of energy reform, another extremely relevant issue relating to the health of our environment. We need to reduce our dependence on oil. Oil is destructive to the enviornment because of its pollution. Other energy sources, such as solar or hydropower, are much cleaner and efficient. However, on the subject of nuclear energy, I think that this form is a potentially hazardous source because of its toxic waste, radiation, and mass destructive power (2). Energy sources that are not fossil fuels will help the world decrease pollution, which will lead to less greenhouse gases burned into the air, which will decrease global warming's progress (2).
Another important issue I saw was increasing fuel efficiency in cars and other polluting devices to reduce the amount of carbon and other toxins in the air. Efficiency standards must be increased so less greenhouse gases will be let into the atmosphere (2). In addition, less oil will be used to fill up cars because less fuel will be needed to drive to everday destinations.
Lastly, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts will be additionally important because these standards set the bar for pollutants in the air and water to correlate with health standards (2). If these acts are further paid attention to, the standards will increase, leading to more ideas to cut back on air and water pollution (2).
In conclusion, all environmental issues should be important in the next presidential election. The entire planet and atmosphere could be, and is, in jeapordy because of our oil-relient lifestyles. By tightening standards, reducing oil dependence, and by finding alternative and cleaner energy sources, the next president will ensure that the country and the rest of the world can fight back against the harm we have forced on the earth.
Sources
1. http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarmi
ng/fcons.asp
2. http://www.ontheissues.org
Georgia:
You made some very good points in you post. First of all, I appreciated how you explained that lessening independence on foreign is not the only problem. Indeed, that is a foreign policy issue, not really environmental. I was shocked to learn how unprepared Thompson during that debate. It seems to me that because the republican party has never really focused on preserving the environment, they are trying to make the problem of our use of fossil fuels not related to the environment. I do appreciate that they are trying to lessen our country’s emissions but it seem pathetic that they cannot simply take the risk and say that global warming is a problem. Truly, using oil from Alaska is not a solution, it will simply hurt our environment further. There is no doubt that we as a country must use less energy. While we can hope that eventually we will have the technology to use much less energy without changing our lifestyles, the truth is that much technology is not yet available to all. Therefore, it is important that people do in fact change their lives in little ways, like driving less or not always having the lights on. Also, I feel it is very important that the government helps to make this more possible. Making public transportation more available and increasing gasoline taxes to discourage use and make money available for public transport would help our country greatly. I could not agree with your statement that the candidates must have a plan more, whether a part of the republican or democratic party.
http://magazine.audubon.org/features0109/arctic.html
http://www.rff.org/
http://www.perc.org/about.php?id=700
Reply to Annie McNeill
I agree, federal and state governments should be working together to solve healthcare problems. However, I have changed my opinion that the federal government should run one universal health care. It would be impossible to completely change our system to one universal health care service. There is, and would continue to be, too much competition and lobbying on behalf of many health insurance and health care providers. This hyper pluralist theory suggests that in a perfect world, universal health care could be made available to all American citizens, but because of our country’s strong capitalist nature, I don’t believe that a single form of universal health care is attainable. A more realistic suggestion in the name of healthcare might be a combination of private health insurance with a backing by the government to provide the hilarious oxymoron of ‘semi-universal’ health care under certain circumstances. Meaning, with expenses continuing to rise, the federal or state government would be so kind as to help pay for or provide assistance to families and citizens who are in need of medical attention. This is probably still a pretty naïve concept, but I do agree, Annie, that the federal and state governments need to cooperate to provide needed care to it’s citizens and they are not currently doing their part.
To Mia Howard
It is obviously unreasonable to expect our country to become energy efficient overnight; I agree with you on that. However, buying LCD light bulbs and recycling can only take us so far. Not making rash moves in the area of environment is only going to encourage the molasses approach we’ve adopted thus far. Becoming an energy efficient and independent country is not going to be an easy task, financial aspects being the most mundane argument against any further innovation. Delaying any changes is not going to make the task any less colossal, though. I believe that when the urgency increases, our country and administration will step behind environmental changes one hundred percent. I’d hate to wait around for a few decades, though, as our air grows toxic and our gas prices reach unaffordable levels. Our next president needs to have a strong inclination to do something about environmental policy now, not just at the most crucial moment.
On December 19th, 2007, President George W. Bush signed an energy bill to increase fuel efficiency for automotives to a minimum of 35mpg by 2020, as well as committing to financing battery research for hybrids (1). Now, I’m happy our administration is showing a little interest in the subject, but the bill seems almost worthless. It’s promising us a minimal increase in energy efficiency over a decade from now. Who knows how many more problems are going to be introduced to us by that time. We can’t solve today’s problems in twelve years; it doesn’t work like that. We need to have a better reaction time.
Incentives to “go green” are also introducing themselves in household named companies like Apple, who are committing to phasing out hazardous materials in their products (2). The reality now is that people, “consumers”, want to do their part to save the planet, so these “going green” movements by huge corporations are more of a publicity stunt than anything. The changes Apple makes in their products, although still positive, do very little to further the environmental movement at all. No company has any real incentive to truly “go green”, so they make these petty efforts in order to save face, making a mockery of the environmental movement and doing little to help it.
The most memorable changes in our country’s history have been sparked by rash moves. Most of the best examples are social movements, like abolishing slavery or ending segregation. The lessons we learned from those events, though, can be applied to our environmental crisis. The presidents in office at those historic times were not timid in making changes; they knew what needed to be done and implemented without mercy. That’s the kind of attitude that delivers results. Our next president needs to be fearless in the area of environmental policy, or we’re going to be sitting on this issue for decades to come.
(1)http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/UPDATE/712190461/1148/rss25
(2)http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/
To: Andy Ohrt
From: Michelle Ludwig
I completely agree with your post, especially the part about finding alternative fuels. I feel that the United States needs to move researching alternative fuels higher up on their list. People need to wake up and realize that these things aren’t going to last forever, and that by putting it off we are only going to make things more difficult later on. I also am fond of Barack Obama’s plan for this issue. He wants to spend $150 billion to help advance biofuels and fuel infrastructure as well as for helping promote hybrids, invest in low emission coal plants and many other things. He also plans to double the science research for alternative fuels, which is something that is desperately needed. And finally, he plans on creating a 25% Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard which will require 25% of electricity consumed in the United States to come from clean, reusable sources, a drastic measure, but something that could have an extremely beneficial outcome (1). I completely agree with you that by cutting our energy emissions and by becoming less independent on our fossil fuels, we will dramatically decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in our air.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#invest-in-a-clean
I am responding to Sophie’s post 5 on Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy.
Sophie focused on three areas: the War in Iraq, veterans, and human rights. I thought her post was interesting and insightful, but I have a few things to add.
As far as the War in Iraq part I agreed with Sophie when she said that it is easy for Hillary to criticize current policies, but not as easy once in office. The thing that bothers me is that in her foreign policy, Hillary basically has criticized everything to do with the war, but she voted for it. She has also been a senator during other issues, and speaks with disconnect as if she had nothing to do with any policy that has not been popular over the last couple of years. At least she was very clear on her strategy to get out of Iraq. She stated that she would gather the National Security Council, the Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense to create a plan to withdraw within 60 days. Although I don’t know if this is a good idea, at least she has a clear plan for voters to decide on. Another part that Hillary focused on was putting money directly into the Iraqi people instead of the government. I agree with Sophie that this would have a very good effect. I reminds me of the post-WWII Marshall Plan. I would also like to add though that we cannot leave the Iraqi government without funds either because that would create many other problems.
Sophie also discussed veterans. There have been many problems with Walter Reed Medical Center and our veterans are in need of better care. I agreed with Hillary in a plan for a modern GI Bill of Rights. The original GI Bill of Rights was pretty successful in providing services and getting education for veterans. This would help moral and give back to those who have given so much to our country.
The last idea was that of human rights. Sophie and Hillary both felt that human rights should exist no matter what the circumstances. Personally I support this, but I do feel that in some instance our rights in this country to freedom of speech and privacy can be narrowed to protect our country’s safety. I believe that the human rights we really need to focus on are those outside of our country. Many all over the world don’t have any basic rights and the United States is in a position to help these people. One that comes to mind is the oppressed people of North Korea or those in Africa who aren’t getting treatment for AIDS. This is where Hillary says she plans on putting some of her efforts as president.
I thought it was interesting the areas that Sophie chose to highlight. These were small parts of the document that I might not have noticed had she not pointed them out.
Source: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p60/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
In response to Liz’s post, I agree that global warming is becoming an unavoidable and severely detrimental issue. Furthermore, I agree that combating the issue needs to begin with a sizeable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Liz illustrates the frustrations experienced in acting on this matter as opposing parties wrestle with it in Congress. Appropriately, as she notes, Republican skeptics have somewhat come to terms with the severity of the situation and have began support for action on the global warming effort. As the candidates become more involved, solutions like the cap and trade system have been introduced. Supported by Obama, this system strictly limits emissions and allows for amounts to be a marketable good amongst companies. As Liz mentioned, the eventual goal is to eliminate emissions entirely. How long this process will take is simply a mystery of time.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/
Responding to Heather
I also believe that it is great that the state of the environment has made its way into policy agenda. I do not agree with the way you have stated that time is running out; it sounds as if we will die if global warming is not stopped by tomorrow. Yes I agree that something needs to be done; we as a country have made some efforts to move in that direction. Cars that get better gas mileage more efficient light bulbs, and rycycling increases. More must be done, such as air pollution control, advances in technology that can limit our use of natural resources. It has taken our country years to create this environmental mess and it will take our country years to clean up this environmental mess.
To Asia
I agree with everything you said about global warming. Despite the severity of the projected effects of global warming, the decisions we make now can have an enormous influence on the how bad those effects actually are, in the long run.
However, I think that rejoining the Kyoto Protocol right now would be more important as a goodwill gesture to the international community than as an effective method of curbing CO2 emissions in the US; by the time that the next president would gain office, in 2009, the Kyoto Protocol would be set to expire in less than four years, in 2012. Senator Clinton, in a forum on global warming back in Nov, stated that she would support the creation of a new treaty to replace Kyoto, which I think is more practical as far as long-term effects on the environment (1).
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/politics/18forum.html
To Sophie:
It's sort of hard to come up with a response on this issue, as everyone seems to agree that environmental issues are the most important. However, I'm not sure that campaign promises will translate into actual policy.
I believe that it's extremely important that we tackle environmental issues such as global warming. This might not be possible, though, because most campaign donations for Congressional and presidential candidates come from big corporations who have an interest in keeping the status quo. In order for any reform to be made, Americans must demand it. This hasn't happened on a large scale, mostly because people have allowed themselves to be distracted with exaggerations like, "It will destroy the economy!" We need to hold politicians accountable for their promises.
Response to Elise:
The cap and trade system you addressed seems like a sound, structured method in which to reduce the United States’ carbon emissions. I applaud you that yourplan will in fact put a numerical limit on emissions. It seems that many enviornmental solutions say broad, general goals. For instance, that the United States should use renewable fuels, electric energy, wind turbines...etc.
One comment I have about your plan is regarding Senator Obama’s predictions about effectiveness of the system. For such a seeminglyeffectvie system, I feel this overall predicted outcome is rather minute. The system, however, maybe more effective thanyou think. This is a mojor positive when considering that experits in the environemtnal field say a 50-70A% reduction needs to occur in order to contain the climate (1). Unfortunately Senator Obama’s predictions would fall short in its impact for the global enviornment. Other politicians plans using the cap and t rade method have higher predicitons for its success. For example, John Edwards is proposing a more strenuous cap and trade system that would create an 80% reduction by 2050. Obviously the cap and trade system has great potential to be effective, thankfully maybe even more than Senator Obama predicted if implicated with the motive to really affect a positive global change.
(1) www.gp.org/platform/2004/ecology.html#753914
I agree with Michelle Radle that reducing carbon emissions should be priority in the 2008 election. Many people said global warming, which I agree with, but there are so many aspects of global warming that need to be remedied. We need to focus on one thing at a time to slowly chip away at the problem. Carbon emission reduction is a great way to start. Hillary Clinton, along with a few other candidates, has come up with a specific plan for trying to reduce emissions in a timely, and hopefully not too costly, manner. Her solution includes a cap and trade plan for carbon emissions. This is a plan in which a certain amount of carbon emissions will be allowed, and companies can buy and trade their allowances according to their needs. In addition to the cap and trade system, she would also increase the fuel efficiency standards of cars and other vehicles. This is only a start, but it's a good start to solving the U.S. and world environmental problems.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
In response to Georgia
You and I share the belief that all candidates (especially those running for the Republican nomination) should pursue environmentalist platforms more aggressively than in the status quo.
However, I thought I’d address your statements concerning drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I’m against drilling in ANWR for the destructive effects of potential oil spills. However, I’m interested in looking at the other side of the debate, because, quite frankly the other side is legit and some of its arguments have merit.
You mentioned that ANWR was unexplored, but this is simply not true. ANWR has been explored by man, which is how they discovered oil in the first place. There has been drilling in Northern parts of the refuge since the 1970’s, and scientists frequent the area, observing the wildlife. The refuge is composed of 16.9 million acres of land, and only 8 million acres are designated as ‘Widerness’. Only 2,000 of these acres would be used for oil development, which is a tiny, incremental fraction of the land. (1). There is even a town located within the refuge, as well as military “installations” (1), lending weight against arguments stating that the area is pristine and innocent.
You seemed concerned for the safety of “cute polar bears”, but I think that you will find yourself in good spirits soon enough. Firstly, there are hardly any polar bears in ANWR, as polar bears spend the majority of their lifetime on sea ice, except for females, who return to give birth to their cubs (2). Drilling on 2,000 acres of ANWR would not kill the polar bear population (2). They would still be cute, and would not be directly harmed by drilling.
Lastly, there are benefits that would be associated with drilling in ANWR. Drilling for oil could create as many as 763,000 jobs for Americans (1), which would then lend a hand to our slowing economy.
Like you, I hope that ANWR drilling will never occur. However, I think that the potential effects of drilling are dramatized to such an extent that people believe horrendous atrocities will occur if we lay another pipeline down, which is not true.
1.http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/employment-facts.pdf
2. http://www.anwr.org/archives/other_wildlife.php
To Amy:
I agree that establishing energy independence and reforming our usage will be the main issue during the election. The nation’s growing dependence on foreign countries for energy, especially oil, is leading to many problems. As we grow used to other nations supplying our energy needs we begin to use them to fulfill other needs as well. The country’s GDP is growing rather slowly because we our net exports are very low. If our dependence on foreign countries continues, our unemployment rate will continue to rise as we find cheaper ways of getting energy and products from other suppliers. It is necessary that we develop cheap, clean, domestic sources of energy so that we may begin to invest our money in the United States once again.
I believe that Barrack Obama does have a very good plan on energy reform. I believe that Senator Clinton also has a viable plan. Both of these candidates believe that energy reform is necessary and both of them have possible ways to begin the reforms. They both suggest incentives for energy sufficiency and requirements for clean automobiles. These are good ways to begin cleaning our environment. Dennis Kucinich has supported reforms also, and I support his energy plans as well.
(1)http://www.cfr.org/publication/14755/
(2)http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
(3)http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
To: Katie Whelan
From: Lauren Vann
Katie, although I also believe that global warming is a very important environmental issue for the upcoming election, I do not think that banning regular lightbulbs is the main component to this issue. There are many bigger factors that contribute to global warming. (1) Carbon dioxide from power plants is a huge contributor to global warming. Approximately 40% of all carbon dioxide emissions come from power plants. (2) Pollution from cars is yet another big contributor. There are about three billion vehicles that are used today. These vehicles emit millions upon millions of pollutants into the air. (3) Pollution of trucks is a main contributor because most large trucks use diesel fuel which does not burn as clean as regular fuel. This means that more pollutants are released into the air. (4) Pollution from planes produce 10% of green house gas emissions. (5) Buildings may sound like an unlikely culprit as a contributor to global warming but all all houses are mainly built to burn oil or coal. Coal is cheaper so many houses use the coal method for heat. However, this is very bad for the environment because coal realeases many pollutants. (6) Finally, methane stored in water and ice are large contributors to global warming. Methane is approximately 60 times stronger than carbon dioxide as a greenouse gas.
sources: www.bestglobalwarmingarticles.com
www.stopglobalwarming.org
To Alyssa Vongries
I agree that biofuels are important, but I believe that other alternative energy sources may have greater potential. As you pointed out, using U.S. soy and corn crops exclusively for biofuel would still not solve the problem (1). Also, much as agriculture interests like to claim the rural, family farm image as their own, most products these days come from giant agribusiness farms, which overshadow and often take over family farms. So ethanol really does nothing for small farms, though rising prices no doubt make the corporations happy.
As for regulating prices, in the short term, biofuels are not helping. Due mainly to droughts, crops of corn and soybeans are down from last year, while demand is going up (2). There is a planned increase in ethanol production, to about 2 billion barrels (2). Decreased supply and increased demand has raised prices—which is great if you are selling corn or investing in agriculture, but not so great if you have to buy corn or the products it is used in. Some suggest using waste from crop production instead, but even that may have a harmful impact on future crops, as such extras are often recycled as fertilizer (3). Since some speculate that increased temperatures are the reason for the droughts already harming production, it might be that the window for effective production of biofuels has closed.
Like you said, the U.S. uses way too much energy to switch to biofuels completely, like Brazil has; Brazil only uses 1/17 the fuel that the U.S. does (3). This is why, in the short term, cutting U.S. emissions is going to be the fastest way to help the environment. Though it is as yet hard to mass produce efficient, clean energy, the percentage to which it can be relied upon will rise if overall consumption decreases. Overall, I like what you had to say in your post about biofuels, but I feel that your arguments against making a complete switch were more compelling than the arguments in favor. While I too believe that alternate fuel sources must be found, I don’t agree that biofuels will ever be a one-size-fits-all solution.
(1) Alyssa's post
(2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12754620/
(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480.html
To Michelle Radle:
I thought your post was very interesting because you didn't jump to saying that global warming is the most important environmental issue. I also thought that you explained Obama's plan for reducing carbon emissions very well and layed it out simply.
I think people talk about the "greenhouse effect" and "greenhouse gases" alot when the topic os global warming comes up, but i don't think many people really know what those terms mean. According to the Department of Energy, "Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases.” These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s surface should be about the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly constant."
I just thought people might like to know!
Sources:
(1) http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
(2) www.barackobama.com/issues/environment
To: Meghan!
Although I agree that achieving energy independence will be an important issue in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, I believe the main environmental focus should be global warming; and more specifically, in regards to the fuel and oil industry, the development of renewable forms of energy. Instead of simply breaking our ties with the foreign oil industry, the United States should attempt to break our ties with the oil industry altogether.
Funds should be redirected to the research and advancement of natural resources such as wind, nuclear, and solar power. The implementation of these renewable ways to power our nation should be a top priority and be addressed by the government right away.
Dearest Brother Eric Mortensen,
I agree with a lot of what you said for once. I feel that we have the same thoughts towards global warming. You mentioned the effects of what is going on with global warming, and what will continue to happen. The glaciers melting (and eventually ocean levels rising), the animals migrating (and eventually being forced to either adapt to climate change or go extinct), the amount of extreme hurricanes going up… all of these are effects of global warming. The only part of your first paragraph I disagree with is about the 2nd ice age. I think it is completely realistic that it could happen, but I disagree with your (and scientists’) assessment that there would be a very small chance of survival. I would survive said ice age. However I agree with everything else you said in the first paragraph, and all of those are reasons why I think the next president needs to do something to help stop global warming.
I disagree with Hilary Clinton on life in general. I have not found much I agree with her about. However, maybe some of that is because I am ignorant. As unrealistic as that may sound, I honestly never really paid attention to Senator Clinton’s stances on the environment or global warming. I’m not going to say I agree with Clinton more than I agree with Obama (I have too much pride), but Senator Clinton definitely makes a few points and I like how soon her plan’s end dates are. Thank you for your post.
my sources are
http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
In response to Tony-
I agree that America is the biggest energy consumer, and we need to turn around this awful, wasteful path. We need to take action now, and environmental policy should be at the top of the list of candidates’ priorities. While I agree that Obama has a solid foundation for his environment beliefs, hillary Clinton also endorses the cap-and-trade program. She plans to cut emissions by 80% by 2050 and cut foreign oil imports by 2/3. Through the Strategic Energy Fund, Clinton would jumpstart the economy and give incentives for better research on global warming. Obama is not the only one with an extensive plan.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
My response is to Patrick Good (for obvious reasons).
Now I am in agreement with you that energy is a big problem. But what about energy do the presidential candidates need to focus about. You need to give us something more than just a word, although you made my response a lot easier.
To: Mr. Good
Yes,I agree with you that energy is
a big issue concerning the environmental debate. However, I do not believe a one-word analysis is enough to express all these problems and present a clear solution. What do you think is the problem with energy? This covers issues ranging from dependence on the Middle East, technological advancements to reduce green house gases, carbon taxes etc. What presidential candidate supports your 'view' on energy and how to go about solving it? I also agree with prisbaby's last sentence.
To: prisbaby
First and foremost, please allow me to comment on your wonderful post, I was rather elated to see that we are in accordance with this issue. Having said that I completely agree that the environmental issue for the 2008 election will be energy, due to both carbon emissions and the price our nation incurs as a result of oil. Although I don’t see how nuclear power contributes to our oil energy crisis, but I do see that it is not the solution to our problems. The most reasonable approach as you stated would be clean and renewable sources of energy to help operate our nation. In addition, you state that both Hilary and Obama are in support of your policy position, however, I am curious to know what kind of plan you propose to reduce carbon emissions. I also agree that signing with the Kyoto Protocol may not be very important, that being as long as the United States reduces emissions independent of other nations in a serious attempt to better ourselves. Therefore, I entirely agree with you on this standpoint, that being it will be a key environmental issue in this upcoming election, however, the question becomes will the next president actually deliver?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#restore-us-leadership
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=003000620BMX
http://www.american.edu/TED/kyoto-emissions.htm
Post a Comment