http://yasuni-itt.gob.ec/blog/2010/12/01/ecuadors-amazon-drilling-pledge-still-to-take-shape/ is the link I found about the Yasuni-ITT project proposed by the Ecuadorian government and accepted by the United Nations Development Programme. President Rafael Correa of Ecuador proposed leaving the area of the Yasuni National Park free from oil drilling in exchange for $3.6 billion from national and international donors. This amount is calculated to be half of the total profits the government would be making if it drilled in this area. So far countries such as Chile and Spain had provided the Ecuadorian government with $100,000 and $1.3 million, respectively. Consideration for this plan also came from the indigenous communities that live in this area of which two remain in isolation, the Tagaeri and Taromenane Nations. For these communities, conservation is essential to their welfare, as a native explains, “For us indigenous people who work in conservation, drilling is one of those projects that would destroy nature”. This project has two main objectives; develop ecotourism in this area and to discontinue oil drilling that destroys the biodiversity of the region.
When this project was first proposed in 2008, it was an innovative manner of dealing with oil extraction in this area of the Amazon that has suffered a lot of negative environmental impacts from international companies and the lack of interest from the national government. However the government is now more than ever committed with conservation. The Ministry of Tourism has developed an enormous campaign stressing the importance of visiting natural sites throughout the country, which has also launched a huge campaign of investing in ecotourism.
Personally from my visits to this country, I do see the interest of citizens to visit these sites, they usually opt for eco-friendly cabins in the Amazon, the highlands, or on the beaches. I do see a success in this type of tourism because it is not only bringing back a greater connection of citizens to nature but it is also raising the income for the communities that sell their services and goods in these areas. I do not think that ecotourism is replicable in all areas, there are a lot of factors that should be taken in consideration. For example, are the citizens of the country concerned with the state of nature, and is the marketing of ecotourism emphasizing important benefits that a citizen can gain from visiting these sites, among many other factors. I do see hope by these types of initiatives, especially when I see a countries adhering to these types of commitments of conserving the environment, at a time where the international community has been largely criticized for their lack of response.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Green Roads in Italy
This is a great story from a few months ago about making solar power more efficient in Italy. A highway connecting Catania and Siracusa just got a 30km extension that will be entirely solar powered. The tarmac includes photo voltaic cells that will power any lit signs along the road as well as emergency phones. Excess generated energy can be used to meet local needs. This is the largest project of many that Italy is taking to make its roads more carbon neutral. Italy is also looking at using LED bulbs for traffic lights.
One of the biggest complaints about solar power is the amount of space that the panels take up. It is true that if we attempted to power the world's energy needs through solar power that the area covered in solar panels and the infrastructure necessary to distribute that energy would be inefficient. However, this story is about the success of providing local solar power in a way that does not take up too much space, is not unattractive or harmful to wildlife (big complaints with wind power), and can demonstrate how simple it is to make a small change to make the world a better place.
Although the solar road is only 30 km long, this method could easily be replicated elsewhere in Italy and around the world. In some places (where sunlight is not as abundant year round), it would be less cost effective, but in many places this would be an easy way to begin the shift to solar.
http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/11/italy-goes-solar-first-sun.cfm
One of the biggest complaints about solar power is the amount of space that the panels take up. It is true that if we attempted to power the world's energy needs through solar power that the area covered in solar panels and the infrastructure necessary to distribute that energy would be inefficient. However, this story is about the success of providing local solar power in a way that does not take up too much space, is not unattractive or harmful to wildlife (big complaints with wind power), and can demonstrate how simple it is to make a small change to make the world a better place.
Although the solar road is only 30 km long, this method could easily be replicated elsewhere in Italy and around the world. In some places (where sunlight is not as abundant year round), it would be less cost effective, but in many places this would be an easy way to begin the shift to solar.
http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/11/italy-goes-solar-first-sun.cfm
Attack on the Antarctic
This article talks about increased international concern for Antarctica that was sparked by the sinking of a cruise ship in the region. As tourism in Antarctica grows, the environmental harm is beginning to show and both activists and scientists are concerned about the effects that human contact will have on the natural environment. So now, states are attempting to strengthen regulations to protect the habitat – with new rules such as only allowing 100 passengers to disembark a vessel at a time and forcing ships to use lighter fuels (causing many cruise lines to cancel their routes).
The Antarctica problem is being effectively and quickly addressed by the international community. Because it is a shared international space, with clear benefits for each state to maintain the habitat, countries were willing to take fast action to protect it. Also, the Antarctica region has a very high profile – with its lovable penguins and majestic ice floes – and therefore, it is newsworthy and will grab the attention of the general public. It might be hard for the average person to care about the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which they can’t see the effects of or understand), but the suffering of a baby penguin is a very real and touching story. The protection of Antarctica is also being supported by many different actors, which is helping it to be more effective. Nations are addressing the issue, as well as scientists, environmental activists, and even the International Maritime Organization.
The quick and effective actions in the Antarctica case are potentially replicable and definitely give hope to the environmental fight. The actions could be replicable if the next problem is presented with the same international and emotional appeal as Antarctica was. Without widespread support from nations and the actual interest of their constituencies, it will be very difficult to replicate this success. However, as more regulations are created to protect the Antarctic region and tourism is being controlled, a sliver of hope should emerge for environmentalists – it certainly did in me.
Top Retailer Trying to Make a Difference
My article is not really about the environment, but is about a company taking an initiative to improve both public’s health. In the article, it was announced that Wal-Mart, out of all companies, has banned polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), a chemical that is a flame retardant and used in electronics, furniture, sporting goods, pet supplies, curtains, toys, and etc. The chemical has been found to cause health problems in lab animals. And recently the EPA listed PBDEs as a chemical to be concerned about. Even though it is on this list it is still not banned in the United States.
So Wal-Mart banning it is a huge step forward in lowering the usage of the chemical, and that is why I chose this article. It is also shows Wal-Mart in a different light without all the flank the chain gets from multiple sources, the fact that they came out before the government in banning a substance, instead of being told to do it afterwards, so kudos to Wal-Mart. And since Wal-Mart is a major buyer of almost everything, it is going to change the usage of the PBDEs. Producers that use PBDEs are going to be reluctant to use it if they cannot get it to the major retailer. Wal-Mart is taking the same steps that Whole Foods took when it refused to sale bottles that had BPA’s in it.
This story also brings in a bit of hope. If a major retailer, in the future, is able to say that they do not want a product for fears of it not being environmental. This could cause producers of those certain produce that use unsustainable materials to change their production patterns and supplies, so they do not lose out on the market. It is as the top scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, Richard Dension, states about the new Wal-Mart ban, “The companies producing for Wal-Mart are not going to a special line for them and another line with those chemicals for everyone else. And this is going to make it easier for other retailers to follow suit.” I know it is a bit far fetch, but one can only hope that m in the future more companies would require higher environmental standards for the produces.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022502977.html?hpid=moreheadlines
So Wal-Mart banning it is a huge step forward in lowering the usage of the chemical, and that is why I chose this article. It is also shows Wal-Mart in a different light without all the flank the chain gets from multiple sources, the fact that they came out before the government in banning a substance, instead of being told to do it afterwards, so kudos to Wal-Mart. And since Wal-Mart is a major buyer of almost everything, it is going to change the usage of the PBDEs. Producers that use PBDEs are going to be reluctant to use it if they cannot get it to the major retailer. Wal-Mart is taking the same steps that Whole Foods took when it refused to sale bottles that had BPA’s in it.
This story also brings in a bit of hope. If a major retailer, in the future, is able to say that they do not want a product for fears of it not being environmental. This could cause producers of those certain produce that use unsustainable materials to change their production patterns and supplies, so they do not lose out on the market. It is as the top scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, Richard Dension, states about the new Wal-Mart ban, “The companies producing for Wal-Mart are not going to a special line for them and another line with those chemicals for everyone else. And this is going to make it easier for other retailers to follow suit.” I know it is a bit far fetch, but one can only hope that m in the future more companies would require higher environmental standards for the produces.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022502977.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Turning Tough Trash Into Food-Friendly Fuel
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/dec/07-turning-tough-trash-food-friendly-fuel
According to the article, biological engineer, Ratna Sharma-Shivappa, is trying to investigate the way to "break down the problematic woody material in grasses withour harming the energy-containing carbohydrates that the plants also contain." We usually use corn to make biofuels, but this research could lead to make inexpensive biofuels by using inedible crops.
I think this research is an effective form of action because if she founds out the way to break down the woody material in grasses, we do not have to rely too much on corns to produce ethanol. However, this requires a lot of money and time. So this research can be replicable to those countries that are economically developed, but it is difficult to do the same research in developing countries.
According to the article, biological engineer, Ratna Sharma-Shivappa, is trying to investigate the way to "break down the problematic woody material in grasses withour harming the energy-containing carbohydrates that the plants also contain." We usually use corn to make biofuels, but this research could lead to make inexpensive biofuels by using inedible crops.
I think this research is an effective form of action because if she founds out the way to break down the woody material in grasses, we do not have to rely too much on corns to produce ethanol. However, this requires a lot of money and time. So this research can be replicable to those countries that are economically developed, but it is difficult to do the same research in developing countries.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Why I eat What I eat
When I was seven I became a vegetarian. This started because my sister (who was nine at the time) had read an article in version of Smithsonian for kids about slaughterhouses. My mom explained to her that the article was a thing called propaganda (the cover had a picture of a cow on the front with a large cartoon tear coming out of its eye), but since she had been a vegetarian on and off when she was in college, said that we could give it a try. We hardly ever ate meat anyway. About a week later, we were all dying for hamburger. Since then, I have never intentionally eaten meat. I gave up fish a few years later because I couldn't stand the idea of boiling a lobster alive.
When I'm purchasing food, this is what I think about most. It's fairly easy to shop vegetarian. Eating out can be trickier. Traveling can be the worst. But being vegetarian is a good way to reduce excess consumption. Eating from low trophic levels prevents calorie waste. For each calorie of meat you consume, ten calories of plant were consumed.
I've tried to eat locally as well. I grow a garden at home. I frequent farmers' markets, both in New Hampshire and here in D.C. Eastern Market provides great diversity of produce, and I highly recommend the Dupont Market.
When I'm purchasing food, this is what I think about most. It's fairly easy to shop vegetarian. Eating out can be trickier. Traveling can be the worst. But being vegetarian is a good way to reduce excess consumption. Eating from low trophic levels prevents calorie waste. For each calorie of meat you consume, ten calories of plant were consumed.
I've tried to eat locally as well. I grow a garden at home. I frequent farmers' markets, both in New Hampshire and here in D.C. Eastern Market provides great diversity of produce, and I highly recommend the Dupont Market.
Food Choice
Just like Christine said, my food choices are based on my preference. I personally think that food in the US is all greasy and unhealthy. I did not hate it at first, so I kept eating American food for couple months. After a while, I realized how I gained so much weight. Since then, I stop buying food and started to cook for myself. I personally think that food in the US is not eco-friendly because the amount of food that they serve is too much. Also, by eating too much food, people tend to gain weight, and as a result people tend to rely on technology (i.e. cars) because they do not want to move.
I have consumed Japanese food and orange juice in the last few days. I think the tetra packs of orange juice have had the greatest environmental impact because I could have used Brita and could have drank tap water so that I did not have any trash nor waste resources. However, I think I do not waste too much food because I only cook the amount of food that I can eat them all. Also, I usually eat only two times a day, so my trash can does not get full for a week.
I have consumed Japanese food and orange juice in the last few days. I think the tetra packs of orange juice have had the greatest environmental impact because I could have used Brita and could have drank tap water so that I did not have any trash nor waste resources. However, I think I do not waste too much food because I only cook the amount of food that I can eat them all. Also, I usually eat only two times a day, so my trash can does not get full for a week.
My Considerations When Purchasing Food
We all eat food, but I always wonder if we even take the time to consider the history behind the food item we are about to purchase? While growing up, I never thought about these details- food was taken for granted. However, now that I live on my own and must go grocery shopping, such questions come to mind every time I make the choice to purchase food.
The first question that comes to mind is usually, how unhealthy does this food item look to me. I make my first filter by looking at the food for a few seconds. Yet, if I get puzzled I then look at the nutrition facts to get a better idea of the amounts of elements this food might carry per serving. I base my decision on the amounts of calories per serving, trans fats, sugars, and sodium. Yet, when it comes to juice, milk, eggs, and yogurt which contain high amounts of calcium, I them only purchase them if they are low-fat or organic.
Although my first consideration is to look at the nutrition facts of such foods, recently I also think about their environmental impact. After learning about the waste of packaging food, inefficiency of agricultural lands, energy lost in transportation and fish that is in danger of extinction, I now make sure that I am not contributing to such negative impacts. Yet, I feel largely disappointed, as many others do too, at the lack of knowledge and information about which products are environmentally sustainable, or how the product is taking more environmentally friendly choices. It is very difficult to even try to considerate the impact such food has on the environment because of the previous reasons, in addition to higher costs of organic food choices. For these reasons, whenever I ask myself how is this product environmentally, it is usually an unanswered question.
Furthermore, when thinking about my recent purchases, I believe that the packaging of beverages- plastics and aluminum-has the greatest environmental impact. This always becomes apparent when collecting the bottles for recycling. Although, I try to recycle as much as possible, the packaging of other items always generates so much waste. I feel that this is because we are a market for products and the more elaborate and attracting a product looks, the more we want to buy it. Having lived in Ecuador for a great part of my life, I am always impressed when I go to the market there, and at how little packaging this type of shopping requires- usually a large basket in which all the fruits and vegetables are thrown into. I wonder if here in the United States, will we be able to see this as a common practice in the future?
The first question that comes to mind is usually, how unhealthy does this food item look to me. I make my first filter by looking at the food for a few seconds. Yet, if I get puzzled I then look at the nutrition facts to get a better idea of the amounts of elements this food might carry per serving. I base my decision on the amounts of calories per serving, trans fats, sugars, and sodium. Yet, when it comes to juice, milk, eggs, and yogurt which contain high amounts of calcium, I them only purchase them if they are low-fat or organic.
Although my first consideration is to look at the nutrition facts of such foods, recently I also think about their environmental impact. After learning about the waste of packaging food, inefficiency of agricultural lands, energy lost in transportation and fish that is in danger of extinction, I now make sure that I am not contributing to such negative impacts. Yet, I feel largely disappointed, as many others do too, at the lack of knowledge and information about which products are environmentally sustainable, or how the product is taking more environmentally friendly choices. It is very difficult to even try to considerate the impact such food has on the environment because of the previous reasons, in addition to higher costs of organic food choices. For these reasons, whenever I ask myself how is this product environmentally, it is usually an unanswered question.
Furthermore, when thinking about my recent purchases, I believe that the packaging of beverages- plastics and aluminum-has the greatest environmental impact. This always becomes apparent when collecting the bottles for recycling. Although, I try to recycle as much as possible, the packaging of other items always generates so much waste. I feel that this is because we are a market for products and the more elaborate and attracting a product looks, the more we want to buy it. Having lived in Ecuador for a great part of my life, I am always impressed when I go to the market there, and at how little packaging this type of shopping requires- usually a large basket in which all the fruits and vegetables are thrown into. I wonder if here in the United States, will we be able to see this as a common practice in the future?
What to eat?
When it came to looking at all the food that I have eaten over the weekend a lot of it was process and probably had some environmental impact. For the last two days I was at a track meet and ate foods that I associated with being at a track meet. This means my meals consisted of a lot of bagels, bananas, power bars (Luna and Soy Joy), PowerAde, water, and pasta dishes.
All of these foods have caused some type of environmental impact. For example the banana, it most likely did not come from the United States, but somewhere in South America, where it had to be shipped or flown in to the supermarket where I purchased it. The flyer miles that my bananas racked up probably have more than exceed the amount of miles I will fly this entire year. Plus there is the refrigeration that has to be accounted for. Bananas have to be kept at a certain temperature while traveling so they can arrive in the supermarket fresh, I cannot imagine how much energy must be used to just keep the bananas refrigerated.
Moving on from bananas and to my power bars, bagels, PowerAde all of this product include some form of corn or soy product. Soy and corn both dominate a vast amount of agriculture space and has lead to environmental degradation in large amounts of the Mid West. As large corn and soy farms are often monocultures that destroy the local ecology of the area. These farms also require a great amount of pesticides, fertilizers, and water. The first two find themselves in waterways and makes their way down into rivers creating dead zones.
My pasta dishes also probably had some corn in it. I had both of them at an Italian restaurant and can only assume that the meal was not entire cooked in the restaurant but instead made somewhere else and simply heated up and served to me. All the ingredients had to get assembled somewhere probably a good distances away, before making it to the restaurant, so like the banana my pasta dishes had to have racked up some flyer miles.
This is just looking at the environmental impact that my food had and not at the fact that everything was wrapped in plastic that was for the most part thrown out, because it had food on it was, non recyclable. The only things that did not get thrown out were the PowerAde bottles, because I can use them multiple times as water bottles.
After looking at this blog I realized that most of my choices when it came to choosing food over the weekend were based off of what was convenient and familiar to me. Think about the environment and what role my food had on it did not even cross my mind. But if I had to guess if I went to the exact same places and tried to eat with as little environmental impact, I am not sure I much I would be able to eat over the weekend, considering I was away.
All of these foods have caused some type of environmental impact. For example the banana, it most likely did not come from the United States, but somewhere in South America, where it had to be shipped or flown in to the supermarket where I purchased it. The flyer miles that my bananas racked up probably have more than exceed the amount of miles I will fly this entire year. Plus there is the refrigeration that has to be accounted for. Bananas have to be kept at a certain temperature while traveling so they can arrive in the supermarket fresh, I cannot imagine how much energy must be used to just keep the bananas refrigerated.
Moving on from bananas and to my power bars, bagels, PowerAde all of this product include some form of corn or soy product. Soy and corn both dominate a vast amount of agriculture space and has lead to environmental degradation in large amounts of the Mid West. As large corn and soy farms are often monocultures that destroy the local ecology of the area. These farms also require a great amount of pesticides, fertilizers, and water. The first two find themselves in waterways and makes their way down into rivers creating dead zones.
My pasta dishes also probably had some corn in it. I had both of them at an Italian restaurant and can only assume that the meal was not entire cooked in the restaurant but instead made somewhere else and simply heated up and served to me. All the ingredients had to get assembled somewhere probably a good distances away, before making it to the restaurant, so like the banana my pasta dishes had to have racked up some flyer miles.
This is just looking at the environmental impact that my food had and not at the fact that everything was wrapped in plastic that was for the most part thrown out, because it had food on it was, non recyclable. The only things that did not get thrown out were the PowerAde bottles, because I can use them multiple times as water bottles.
After looking at this blog I realized that most of my choices when it came to choosing food over the weekend were based off of what was convenient and familiar to me. Think about the environment and what role my food had on it did not even cross my mind. But if I had to guess if I went to the exact same places and tried to eat with as little environmental impact, I am not sure I much I would be able to eat over the weekend, considering I was away.
Thoughts on Food
Honestly, my food choices are solely based on my own taste preferences, convenience and cost. I tend to like more organic, vegetarian-like options, but these (unfortunately) are almost always more expensive than the typical fare. Environmental considerations are not usually at the forefront of my decision-making process in the grocery store or at a restaurant. They might influence my choices more if I was more informed on the subject of the environmental impact of different food items.
In regards to the food items that I’ve consumed over the last couple of days, I would say that the food item with the largest environmental impact is rice. Rice paddies have posed a huge environmental problem for Southern China, but new irrigation techniques are slowly eliminating this impact. The beverage that caused the most environmental harm is the plastic bottle of Coca-Cola that I bought on Saturday. Unfortunately, the plastic bottle is very bad for the environment and could end up swirling somewhere in the Earth’s oceans – as we learned last class.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Which Approach is the Right One, Obama?
There seems to be many different approaches when it comes to reducing our country's reliance on fossil fuels as our source of energy. President Obama will propose ending the annual $4 billion in oil company subsidies, however when looking more in-depth into his proposal, it seems that we would be substituting one fossil fuel for another. Obama's policies support and encourage the switch from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas, and spending enormous amounts of money in developing technology that captures carbon dioxide emissions from oil refineries and coal plants. In other words, we would still be encouraging our reliance in fossil fuels by supporting the expansion of the natural gas industry, as well as the oil and coal industries, if a carbon capturer was created. Indeed, President Obama is also supporting alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar with a fifty percent increase in reserch spending for these, yet with heaving lobbying and a history of reliance it seems to me very difficult that President Obama will be successful in continuing with his proposed plan.
Furthermore, as the country recuperates from the economic recession many people believe, as Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, that "if the president were serious about job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers". Many believe that by ending the subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies, unemployment will soon follow. Yet they have ignored that by expanding alternative sources of energy, more jobs can also be created. The reality is that these industries, based on fossil fuels, have an enormous advantage over alternative sources of energy. Although some people propose putting a a price to carbon emissions or ending all subsidies to create an equal ground for all industries, I believe that if the government seriously wants to consider doubling the amount of electricity produced from cleaner technology by 2035, about 15 years from now, it should support the expansion and development of alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar energy.
Furthermore, as the country recuperates from the economic recession many people believe, as Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, that "if the president were serious about job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers". Many believe that by ending the subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies, unemployment will soon follow. Yet they have ignored that by expanding alternative sources of energy, more jobs can also be created. The reality is that these industries, based on fossil fuels, have an enormous advantage over alternative sources of energy. Although some people propose putting a a price to carbon emissions or ending all subsidies to create an equal ground for all industries, I believe that if the government seriously wants to consider doubling the amount of electricity produced from cleaner technology by 2035, about 15 years from now, it should support the expansion and development of alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar energy.
How do we get to clean energy?
John Broder's piece in the New York Times makes the case that President Barack Obama is playing a two-sided game with oil and coal. Can he ever win? For the past two years Obama has been proposing moderate solutions to problems his addressed radically on the campaign trail, not because he believes the moderate solution is the correct one, but because the "right" solutions get shot down as socialist or big government before he can even propose them.
Playing with the economy is a tricky subject. If the 112 congress ends all energy subsidies, it will be on their heads when energy prices go up (and they will go up -- we do not pay even close to the true cost of energy). This does not mean it's right for congress to sit on their hands and pander to their biggest donors. Rather, it means we face a political system where it's far easier to do the popular thing and get reelected in four or six years than to do the right thing. Like a teenager needs the guiding and disciplining hand of a parent (although he may not realize or appreciate that until later), so America needs the guidance of its government.
Ideally, if all subsidies were removed from the energy market, clean energy would become the popular choice. Realistically, it would take years for this to happen and our planet does not have years. Americans must be persuaded to make the right choice for their environment by subsidies for clean energy, low energy usage, and a removal of subsidies for coal and oil.
Playing with the economy is a tricky subject. If the 112 congress ends all energy subsidies, it will be on their heads when energy prices go up (and they will go up -- we do not pay even close to the true cost of energy). This does not mean it's right for congress to sit on their hands and pander to their biggest donors. Rather, it means we face a political system where it's far easier to do the popular thing and get reelected in four or six years than to do the right thing. Like a teenager needs the guiding and disciplining hand of a parent (although he may not realize or appreciate that until later), so America needs the guidance of its government.
Ideally, if all subsidies were removed from the energy market, clean energy would become the popular choice. Realistically, it would take years for this to happen and our planet does not have years. Americans must be persuaded to make the right choice for their environment by subsidies for clean energy, low energy usage, and a removal of subsidies for coal and oil.
To Subsidize or Not to Subsidize?
I personally feel that the oil companies should not receive any more tax breaks or subsidies from the American government or any government for that matter. The oil companies are already a highly profitable industry, and the market for oil does not appear to be dying down any time soon. I am not quite sure, why tax breaks and subsidies are given to oil and coal companies, I can only assumed that it is because at one time they were seen as not having an advantage on the world market that has since changed. And since oil and coal companies now dominate the world market there is not further need to subsidies them.
The same cannot be said about other energy sectors, especially the renewable energy sector. The government should provide tax breaks for these industries at least until they can get their footing. Obama in his State of the Union Address stated that more jobs should be created in the renewable energy fields and in green jobs, but no one wants to privately start up these companies because there are high setup cost with no guarantee for returns, so one of the only ways to get these jobs started is to subsidies and provide tax breaks for them.
The flaw in this, however, is that no one is going to want to subsidies these industries once they are well off, this is to say that the renewable energy market gets off the ground. This is the major problem when the government steps in to subsidies any industry. Once the industry is up and running and no longer needs the help and the money, the government faces opposition from the industry for trying to cut back the tax breaks and subsidies. But with this aside if one of the current goals of this government is to get sustainable energy moving forward then, I feel that they should provide start up money to these industries. Michael Levi, the energy and climate change analyst, at the Council of Foreign Relations, makes and interesting point when he states, “But an effort to eliminate all energy subsidies without instituting better alternative policies should be understood for what it is: a recipe for cementing the dominance of additional fossil fuels against their competitors (Broder, NYT).” That statement is true if the government did not help support these industries the current energy companies such as oil and coal would continue to have the market advantage since all of their start up endeavors have already been laid down and they are at a point of making a return.
So what should our government do? In my opinion they should stop listening to oil and coal lobbyist and put the money they would have been provided to these industries into renewable energy sources. That way no new money is needed, it is just redirected into another industry.
The same cannot be said about other energy sectors, especially the renewable energy sector. The government should provide tax breaks for these industries at least until they can get their footing. Obama in his State of the Union Address stated that more jobs should be created in the renewable energy fields and in green jobs, but no one wants to privately start up these companies because there are high setup cost with no guarantee for returns, so one of the only ways to get these jobs started is to subsidies and provide tax breaks for them.
The flaw in this, however, is that no one is going to want to subsidies these industries once they are well off, this is to say that the renewable energy market gets off the ground. This is the major problem when the government steps in to subsidies any industry. Once the industry is up and running and no longer needs the help and the money, the government faces opposition from the industry for trying to cut back the tax breaks and subsidies. But with this aside if one of the current goals of this government is to get sustainable energy moving forward then, I feel that they should provide start up money to these industries. Michael Levi, the energy and climate change analyst, at the Council of Foreign Relations, makes and interesting point when he states, “But an effort to eliminate all energy subsidies without instituting better alternative policies should be understood for what it is: a recipe for cementing the dominance of additional fossil fuels against their competitors (Broder, NYT).” That statement is true if the government did not help support these industries the current energy companies such as oil and coal would continue to have the market advantage since all of their start up endeavors have already been laid down and they are at a point of making a return.
So what should our government do? In my opinion they should stop listening to oil and coal lobbyist and put the money they would have been provided to these industries into renewable energy sources. That way no new money is needed, it is just redirected into another industry.
Pick a Side, Any Side...
Even though I am not very well-read in this subject, I think that I can understand the basic thought process behind President Obama’s decision to cut subsidies to oil companies. The oil companies represent the enormous “big business” powers that he is trying to fight, and they have one of the largest (and strongest) lobby presences on Capitol Hill. However, I disagree with the way that President Obama is carrying out his plan to fight oil. First of all, although oil represents that largest energy sector in the United States, the article points out that there are many other environmentally damaging energy sectors that will still get incentives and subsidies from the government without punishment. It is an unfair attack on a single actor in a multi-actor problem.
Quite frankly, I think that President Obama needs to choose a definitive path for all energy options and stick diligently to that road. Either eliminate all subsidies on the energy sector or put them in (in smaller numbers) for both fossil fuels and clean-energy alternatives. Personally, I think that the subsidies should be removed entirely, but regardless, it is clear that President Obama needs to make a stand in one direction or the other – he cannot continue to meander down the middle of the road.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Obama's Right Decision
I personally agree with President Obama's decision because as Dr. Kreutzer said “petroleum and coal survive just fine in places where there are no subsidies." However, this also means "slowing development of cleaner-burning fuel sources," but I dont think it's going to be a big problem because there is always demand for coal and petroleum, and the US is one of the developed countries in the world, I dont think its economy drastically decreases just because there is no longer subsidies for an industry. Another good thing about eliminating subsidies is that we can reduce greengas emission because if there is no subsidies for oil companies, the price of oil increases, and people would not use cars as often as they used to be (probably). I think the government can use $4 billion for investing in clean-technology ventures that helps to improve the environment instead of using it as subsidies for an industry.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Cleaner technology is not our savior
Hlaue makes a point an excellent point as she established that if we are to use technology for our environmental problems, we first ought to address the root causes. It seems that many people are confident that technology can be used in a positive manner to reduce carbon emmissions.Indeed, many corporations, cities, and governments have come up with "Green Codes" or clean enery iniciatives that will reduce our fossil fuel consumption and create greater enery efficiency. Even Thomas Friedman has laid out the missin of statement of this new movement, "To built a technologically advance America, a shining green city on a hill and then the Chinese will emulate us". Yet it is important to understand that there is much more than a mission statement to resolve the environmental crisis.
Technology can absolutely be used in a positive manner by focusing in the creation of products that can lower their impact in the environment. It seems that cleaner technology might be our savior, yet we cannot leave behind the social and economic aspects that motivate us to actually make use this "new technology". There are great ideas in mind, even the United States plans to cut carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2020. However, for this transformation to occur we must also acknowledge how will this technology complement our social and economic plans we as individual have, as local communities and as a nation. For this reason, I strongly believe that it is crucially important to include these sectors too; cleaner technology is not our savior.
Technology can absolutely be used in a positive manner by focusing in the creation of products that can lower their impact in the environment. It seems that cleaner technology might be our savior, yet we cannot leave behind the social and economic aspects that motivate us to actually make use this "new technology". There are great ideas in mind, even the United States plans to cut carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2020. However, for this transformation to occur we must also acknowledge how will this technology complement our social and economic plans we as individual have, as local communities and as a nation. For this reason, I strongly believe that it is crucially important to include these sectors too; cleaner technology is not our savior.
The Use of Technology as a Diversion
While part of me agrees with Yumiko and Christine - technology has improved some aspects of our lives such as food production and medical care - there is also no denying that in addition to causing harm to our environment, some technologies have left us with a deteriorated quality of life. Our ability to think creatively has been diminished by mass media and and non-participatory entertainment. Because of this, we are unable to effectively use technology to reduce our impact on the environment to the extent necessary.
In the past 30 years there have been a number of technological advances that have prevented toxins from escaping into the atmosphere. We have developed SO2 scrubbers and hybrid cars. But these "solutions" do not address the true problems behind sulfur or CO2 emissions. SO2 scrubbers do not reduce the amount of sulfur being produced, but merely capture that SO2. Hybrid cars do not address the harms of personal transportation or fossil fuel dependence, but merely reduce the CO2 emitted (and they're not even particularly good at that).
Technology has allowed us to create solutions for symptoms while still denying the severity of the underlying cause. What is worse is that many of the problems we face arise from previous technological advances. Yes, it is wonderful that we are able to produce enough food for our ever-growing population due to agricultural technologies, but would we have the problem of over population and land-use change (forest to cropland) that we have if we had never developed the farm technology we have today?
We must accept that technology cannot be the solution to our environmental problems, if we continue to deny the root of those problems.
In the past 30 years there have been a number of technological advances that have prevented toxins from escaping into the atmosphere. We have developed SO2 scrubbers and hybrid cars. But these "solutions" do not address the true problems behind sulfur or CO2 emissions. SO2 scrubbers do not reduce the amount of sulfur being produced, but merely capture that SO2. Hybrid cars do not address the harms of personal transportation or fossil fuel dependence, but merely reduce the CO2 emitted (and they're not even particularly good at that).
Technology has allowed us to create solutions for symptoms while still denying the severity of the underlying cause. What is worse is that many of the problems we face arise from previous technological advances. Yes, it is wonderful that we are able to produce enough food for our ever-growing population due to agricultural technologies, but would we have the problem of over population and land-use change (forest to cropland) that we have if we had never developed the farm technology we have today?
We must accept that technology cannot be the solution to our environmental problems, if we continue to deny the root of those problems.
Technology good or bad?
Technology has moved us forward to the place we are now, but at a cost to our environment. Technological advances really started with the Industrial Revolution and have continued into the technological age, but with every technological advance environmental damage is being done. For example, back in the 1800’s the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and the start of what can be said is the advancement of technology, no one knew the amount of damage being done to the environment. They might have had a slight chance of knowing that damage was being done to their health however, when they were not able to breathe the local air or see the sky for that matter. A new technology brought the industrial world out of seeing skies filled with coal smoke and into a “cleaner” world and that technology was the world’s developed to the use of oil.
But as time has gone on the realization that oil, is not the clean substitute that it was held to be. And now in the 21th century, it would make sense for us to look at our world and change. Some people call for more technology, but what I am beginning to understand about technology is even if we find some substitute for oil, the new technological advancement, could have environmental impacts that we just don’t know about yet. Then when this new technology comes out, there is the process of getting the materials, through extraction of the environment.
An example of technology appearing to solve a current problem is the technology used to spark the green revolution. Farmers in Asia were able to approve crop yields by buying genetically modified seeds; the seeds however needed more water, which required a mass amount of irrigation along with a need to buy more seeds the next year instead of relying on the same seed to produce future yields. Not only did it this new technological innovation lead to a heavier increase in irrigation, but also a heavier use of pesticides, that went into destroying the local environment and creating a dependency of farmers on expensive seeds and tools, all in the name to increase crop yields, that were made available with technology.
Which leads me to my conclusion that technology on one side appears to be good for the human race in general, but as we use technology to solve of our current problems, new problems emerge.
But as time has gone on the realization that oil, is not the clean substitute that it was held to be. And now in the 21th century, it would make sense for us to look at our world and change. Some people call for more technology, but what I am beginning to understand about technology is even if we find some substitute for oil, the new technological advancement, could have environmental impacts that we just don’t know about yet. Then when this new technology comes out, there is the process of getting the materials, through extraction of the environment.
An example of technology appearing to solve a current problem is the technology used to spark the green revolution. Farmers in Asia were able to approve crop yields by buying genetically modified seeds; the seeds however needed more water, which required a mass amount of irrigation along with a need to buy more seeds the next year instead of relying on the same seed to produce future yields. Not only did it this new technological innovation lead to a heavier increase in irrigation, but also a heavier use of pesticides, that went into destroying the local environment and creating a dependency of farmers on expensive seeds and tools, all in the name to increase crop yields, that were made available with technology.
Which leads me to my conclusion that technology on one side appears to be good for the human race in general, but as we use technology to solve of our current problems, new problems emerge.
Tied to Technology
Because technology is such an integral part of daily life in the industrialized countries (such as the United States), I think that it is impossible to present it as a negative force – any significant environmental change will have to evolve in tandem with technological advancement. And as developing countries experience exponential growth, their key to success is technology. Consequently, neither party is willing to give up technology at the cost of their current or future economic success and societal happiness.
While I understand that technology has harmed the environment, the benefits of technological advancement should not be ignored. As Yumiko already stated, human quality of life has vastly improved as technology improved; these advances are clearly seen in higher life expectancy rates, the lowering of widespread disease (and sometimes, the total elimination of a disease), higher education levels, and an international economic boost. Since people are very acutely aware of the ways that technology has helped their individual lives, they will be loath to decrease that technological influence. Therefore, regardless of whether technology holds the key to a resolution of the world’s environmental challenges or not, the public is too attached to technology for any other solution to be totally accepted.
Personally, I am constantly impressed with the ways in which technology vastly improves our lives, and I think that people will use technology to help the environmental problems in the world. Technology is a slippery slope, and I think that the global society has passed the point of no return, and therefore, must embrace technology as part of the ultimate solution to the world’s environmental challenges. Technology must be included in any meaningful conversation about the deteriorating environmental condition, but it doesn’t have to be the only solution that the world relies on. I think that we should embrace technology but supplement it with additional solutions that the environmental experts have suggested.
Technology
I think to a great extent, I think technology is a positive effect in our lives because our quality of life has improved (well, at least I think) than what we had long time ago. Without technology's help, we wouldn't be able to get such high life expectancy rates, literacy rates, and more. Today, because of the Internet, we can readily search something that we want to know. Before technology had improved, we had to go to the library, or find some type of sources to answer the question. So in terms of quality of life, I think technology is a positive effect. However, I also think that technology is a negative effect on the environment. And this negative effect is actually reflected on us. For example, due to Ozone layer depletion, we, humans, absorb more heat (ultraviolet) than ever before. And this increases the posibility of getting skin cancer. Also, some of the people, who live close to the shore, lost their homes because the temperature of the planet has been increasing over the years which triggered to increase the sea level due to melting ice in antarctica.
So, I think technology has both a positive and a negative effect. However, even there is a negative effect, humans won't stop relying on technology anyway because we are all sellfish (that's what I think), and we want to live comfortably and happily. So I guess we have to find a solution that we can continue using technology while save the environment. And I'm sure one day, someone will find it! :)
So, I think technology has both a positive and a negative effect. However, even there is a negative effect, humans won't stop relying on technology anyway because we are all sellfish (that's what I think), and we want to live comfortably and happily. So I guess we have to find a solution that we can continue using technology while save the environment. And I'm sure one day, someone will find it! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)