Our take on the final page of The Lorax:
"So...
Here!" yells the Once-ler
As he opens the door.
"I have on last Truffula seed
And I won't hide anymore!"
It takes more than one person, or two, or three
To change the world and live free.
Our actions must be bigger than you or than me
To stop a repeat of the Truffula Tree.
The steps that we take should reach for a solution,
Like saving a species or stopping pollution.
Each of us has a role in a bigger play,
So it is important to listen, then say:
"We are here and we matter,
But we aren't here alone!
We must learn to coexist
Before we're all gone."
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Obama Administration Should Choose a More Complete Plan..
After reading about President Obama's speech last week on reducing oil imports, it was clear that this is becoming a more prominent issue for the Obama administration. Al thought President Obama has in multiple times mentioned his commitment in cutting by a third the amount of barrels of oil a day imported from abroad by 2025, I believe that for this estimation to be a better calculation, there should be stricter regulations, and more commitment, incentives, and concern from the general public about the importance of being less dependent on imported oil.
President Obama proposes achieving the previous goal by producing more domestic oil, increasing energy efficiency and relying on cleaner alternatives. I think these measures are necessary yet I also believe that he is leaving out a key component- public support, commitment, and knowledge about this these changes. Indeed, investing in more high-speed rail and mass transit, in more fuel-efficent trucks and cars, and makaing use our the nation's natural gas reserves will decrease our oil dependency. However, what use is this off if the public is not also actively engage in these shifts. The Obama Administration should not estimate that these changes will just happen smoothly, instead they should also invest in programs that educate the public on alternatives that can save more energy and about the importance of changing out wasteful habits. Also, the funding for these new measures do not sound convincing to me. President Obama mentions that our economic situation is not the best and that leaving these energy shifts for later will just result in higher prices, yet he does not mention how will these be funded right now. For these reasons, I feel that the plan could be more complete if it also implemented an educational program.
President Obama proposes achieving the previous goal by producing more domestic oil, increasing energy efficiency and relying on cleaner alternatives. I think these measures are necessary yet I also believe that he is leaving out a key component- public support, commitment, and knowledge about this these changes. Indeed, investing in more high-speed rail and mass transit, in more fuel-efficent trucks and cars, and makaing use our the nation's natural gas reserves will decrease our oil dependency. However, what use is this off if the public is not also actively engage in these shifts. The Obama Administration should not estimate that these changes will just happen smoothly, instead they should also invest in programs that educate the public on alternatives that can save more energy and about the importance of changing out wasteful habits. Also, the funding for these new measures do not sound convincing to me. President Obama mentions that our economic situation is not the best and that leaving these energy shifts for later will just result in higher prices, yet he does not mention how will these be funded right now. For these reasons, I feel that the plan could be more complete if it also implemented an educational program.
Speech on Oil Reduction
President Obama clearly stated in his speech that the US will reduce importing oil because gas prices are getting too high. He further stated that all large companies are now required to use fuel efficient vehicles. He is also aiming for puchasing only fuel efficient government cars and trucks by 2015. He is confident that "If we're going to upgrade all of America's fleets, our businesses need to step up, as well." This proposal seems like the Obama administration is reducing the oil imports because oil prices are too high; they are not doing it for improvements of the environment. In other words, what they care is a success in the economy, not improvements of the environment. I felt that the proposal is so selfcentered. Moreover, it is unrealistic to me because as far as i understand, you definitely need a car to go somewhere in the states. In DC because public transportation is quite good that we do not have to have cars for individuals. However, when I went to Florida, it was so inconvenient without the cars. The states is just too big that we need cars to go somewhere. Whereas Japan, which is almost same size as California state, has good public transportation. Although many of the households own cars, they do not use cars that often. People usually use bikes to go somewhere, or they walk and use public transportation. One of my friend, who is not Japanese, came to visit Japan one day, and she was surprised how people use bikes to go everywhere. I think the land of Japan is small compare to the states that it is possible for us to use bikes or walk to get to destination because everything is compressed. Hence, I feel that the proposal is too unrealistic, and he will definitely get oppositions especially from the large companies that use vehicles.
Interesting statement on politics and agriculture
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/04/the-watchdog_n_844433.html#2_almost-two-dozen-congressmen-receive-farm-subsidies
What it means to make a promise
President Barack Obama has broken my heart. But it's my own fault.
When I began campaigning for Senator Obama in the summer of 2007, he had not announced many of his policy positions. He was the young, upstart candidate and many of the other volunteers and staffers I knew in New Hampshire liked Obama for his charisma, for the fact that he seemed to listen to his constituents, and made decisions based on rational thought. A lot of thought. Many of us liked him because we assumed that after all of his thinking he would reach the same conclusions we had reached.
Obama had many opinions forced upon him. "Anti-war," "environmentalist," "tax-increaser." You name it, somebody in this country probably thinks or thought he fit that description. It's not entirely unjustified, he was against the Iraq war from the start, we supported far more environmental positions than any of his opponents in either the Democratic or Republican fields. But once you bear those labels, it's hard to live up to them fully, especially when you're president.
Even as a staffer, I had to espouse and argue for positions I didn't necessarily believe in. I am a pacifist, Obama believes the war in Afghanistan is justified. It breaks my heart that he has now gotten engaged in the Libya conflict without employing the diplomacy he pushed for during the campaign. I support alternative energy and I am opposed to offshore drilling, but I remember dealing with the backlash in Florida when Obama announced he favored offshore drilling during the summer of 2008. I remember specifically two days before his announcement talking alternative energy with a constituent who demanded that Obama support offshore drilling. "He can drill right in my backyard if he wants to," he told me. And I told him about the dangers of offshore drilling and why alternative energy was a better solution, because based on my opinions and Obama's energy positions to that point, I thought he would agree with me.
My point is, for the past two years we've been treating Obama like he's a sell-out. To some extent this is true, there are issues I wish he could have pushed further, but to a large extent it's a fault of our own perception that Obama thinks like us. That Obama supports everything entirely different from past administrations.
USA Today took on Obama's speech at Georgetown from this perspective. But looking at the key points, they are exactly the same as when he was campaigning. Although we may disagree, we have to remember that this was the most progressive environmentalist of the candidates. Aren't we glad we didn't end up with someone who wasn't doing anything? Even though it's taking the back burner, the NPR article points out that Obama is still pushing for high fuel efficiency and in other ways reducing fuel consumption.
The problem is that environmentalism isn't popular today. People are not going to make large changes to their lifestyles for the environment, and so the Obama team has to find a way to address environmental issues through other avenues.
Today Obama is filing papers to run for re-election. So many people are frustrated with him, but we can't give up yet.
When I began campaigning for Senator Obama in the summer of 2007, he had not announced many of his policy positions. He was the young, upstart candidate and many of the other volunteers and staffers I knew in New Hampshire liked Obama for his charisma, for the fact that he seemed to listen to his constituents, and made decisions based on rational thought. A lot of thought. Many of us liked him because we assumed that after all of his thinking he would reach the same conclusions we had reached.
Obama had many opinions forced upon him. "Anti-war," "environmentalist," "tax-increaser." You name it, somebody in this country probably thinks or thought he fit that description. It's not entirely unjustified, he was against the Iraq war from the start, we supported far more environmental positions than any of his opponents in either the Democratic or Republican fields. But once you bear those labels, it's hard to live up to them fully, especially when you're president.
Even as a staffer, I had to espouse and argue for positions I didn't necessarily believe in. I am a pacifist, Obama believes the war in Afghanistan is justified. It breaks my heart that he has now gotten engaged in the Libya conflict without employing the diplomacy he pushed for during the campaign. I support alternative energy and I am opposed to offshore drilling, but I remember dealing with the backlash in Florida when Obama announced he favored offshore drilling during the summer of 2008. I remember specifically two days before his announcement talking alternative energy with a constituent who demanded that Obama support offshore drilling. "He can drill right in my backyard if he wants to," he told me. And I told him about the dangers of offshore drilling and why alternative energy was a better solution, because based on my opinions and Obama's energy positions to that point, I thought he would agree with me.
My point is, for the past two years we've been treating Obama like he's a sell-out. To some extent this is true, there are issues I wish he could have pushed further, but to a large extent it's a fault of our own perception that Obama thinks like us. That Obama supports everything entirely different from past administrations.
USA Today took on Obama's speech at Georgetown from this perspective. But looking at the key points, they are exactly the same as when he was campaigning. Although we may disagree, we have to remember that this was the most progressive environmentalist of the candidates. Aren't we glad we didn't end up with someone who wasn't doing anything? Even though it's taking the back burner, the NPR article points out that Obama is still pushing for high fuel efficiency and in other ways reducing fuel consumption.
The problem is that environmentalism isn't popular today. People are not going to make large changes to their lifestyles for the environment, and so the Obama team has to find a way to address environmental issues through other avenues.
Today Obama is filing papers to run for re-election. So many people are frustrated with him, but we can't give up yet.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
A new debate on an old problem
The proposals spelled out in President Obama’s speech at Georgetown, last Wednesday on lessening the nations dependency on oil from aboard is an encouraging one. It is also a topic that has been repeated multiple times throughout different presidencies. But even with the cry for the American people to become more energy efficient as a nation, we still have not cut our ties with foreign oil.
Thinking back to it, during the Bush administration, the talk of the US people becoming energy efficient was on the drilling up in Alaska and taking oil from this country. This obviously got knocked down, and even still did not address our addiction with oil. As the Bush Administration moved out of the White House, and the Obama Administration moved in the focus has shifted to looking at cleaner energy, instead of having the focus primarily on drilling. That was the focus of the conversation at Georgetown University.
After reading the reviews of the speech, I could not help but think of Will Steger’s speech last week on climate change, and how he talks to climate skeptics on climate change, especially when it comes to fossils fuels, and how he frames the problem more in terms of security. Reading Obama’s speech our energy problems were frame again as a security matter, but more so as an economic solution. Obama’s plan would have it so that trucks would be more fuel efficient, higher fuel efficiency for cars, and possible drilling for natural gases and oil, and a possibility of opening up nuclear plants for energy. He made the claims that even though the on starts of these programs are going to be high they would create jobs. And the investments made now will be paid off in the future.
The interesting thing about Obama’s speech is the fact that Obama mentioned the option of drilling in this country for oil and natural gases. Something I thought we were trying to get away from. This new approach, in my mind is a way to gain support of both sides of the political spectrum, those on the political right who are more in favor of drilling in this country, and those on the left who are more open to alternative energy sources.
Thinking back to it, during the Bush administration, the talk of the US people becoming energy efficient was on the drilling up in Alaska and taking oil from this country. This obviously got knocked down, and even still did not address our addiction with oil. As the Bush Administration moved out of the White House, and the Obama Administration moved in the focus has shifted to looking at cleaner energy, instead of having the focus primarily on drilling. That was the focus of the conversation at Georgetown University.
After reading the reviews of the speech, I could not help but think of Will Steger’s speech last week on climate change, and how he talks to climate skeptics on climate change, especially when it comes to fossils fuels, and how he frames the problem more in terms of security. Reading Obama’s speech our energy problems were frame again as a security matter, but more so as an economic solution. Obama’s plan would have it so that trucks would be more fuel efficient, higher fuel efficiency for cars, and possible drilling for natural gases and oil, and a possibility of opening up nuclear plants for energy. He made the claims that even though the on starts of these programs are going to be high they would create jobs. And the investments made now will be paid off in the future.
The interesting thing about Obama’s speech is the fact that Obama mentioned the option of drilling in this country for oil and natural gases. Something I thought we were trying to get away from. This new approach, in my mind is a way to gain support of both sides of the political spectrum, those on the political right who are more in favor of drilling in this country, and those on the left who are more open to alternative energy sources.
Speech without Substance
In his speech at Georgetown the other day, President Obama made it very clear that we are too reliant on foreign oil. One of his main goals is to reduce daily oil imports (which total an average of 10 million barrels) by a third. However, the requirements that he laid out to reach this goal seem unrealistic and slightly misguided. In the USA Today Washington’s review of the speech, they listed Obama’s main objectives as:
1. Tap into the nation’s large reserves of natural gas.
2. Increase reliance on renewable biofuels.
3. Decrease reliance on oil by making cars and trucks more fuel-efficient.
4. Continue investing in high-speed rail and mass transit.
I’m not sure that simply shifting our reliance from one natural resource (oil) to another (natural gas) is an appropriate solution. Likewise, I have to take issue with his investments in high-speed rail and mass transit, because they are still not very widely used or available in the United States, and I’m not sure that they would be able to an efficient use of resources.
Also, one of the huge issues facing environmental reform is the initial price tag. Understandably, there is a sticker shock associated with the start-up costs of “going green.” However, I don’t think that the President appropriately addressed this issue. Rather, he seemed to just barely gloss over it in his speech. His quote is that “we are already paying a price for our inaction…if we do nothing, that price will only go up.” Quite frankly, this doesn’t seem like a very convincing argument. If Obama expects the opposition in Congress to support the initiatives and citizens to shift their lifestyle habits, he is going to need to be more convincing than “well, we may as well.”
In the article on NPR’s website, they included an analysis of President Obama’s speech on Friday as well. It seemed very similar, except it had extracted a promise from 5 major companies (including Verizon and PepsiCo) to start incorporating fuel-efficient vehicles into their fleets. However grand this seems, a mere 20,000 fuel-efficient trucks is just a drop in the bucket of what is needed to actually make a difference – considering the US alone has over 3 million commercial vehicles alone. Honestly, as sad as I am to say it, this energy push does not seem to have the push that a true change needs, and I think Obama realizes it. Because there is not even a bill attached, the political clout is lowered; it is even possible that it is just another speech to give Obama publicity, a positive image, and some press for the environmental community without too much effort. It is good that the issue isn’t being ignored, but there needs to be more substance in the speech before it can become a rallying point for America and actually point them in a new direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)