Environmental Matters

Final Group Response

2004-12-06T12:00:00.000-08:00

The environment was not a heavily debated topic in the 2004 Presidential election, yet once we researched the topic we found that there are many interesting issues relating to the environment. Due to the controversial nature of issues surrounding the environment, our group project has proven to be a successful debate on the pros and cons of different stances on specific environmental issues. Each of our group’s members offered a unique view on each topic, but realistically we understood that no opinion represents an absolute truth about the environment. This realization allowed us to openly debate the issues without heated and rude arguments. The structure of this process has allowed us all to explore the varying opinions of different individuals and attempt to recognize and appreciate the opinions of everyone. The most affective aspect of the project was that every member was writing about the same articles. By sharing the articles, we could explore the same exact issues and see where the different group member’s ideas varied. If we had not collaborated and found individual articles the project would have been ineffective. A very positive characteristic of our group was the mutual respect for other people’s opinions. The issues were hotly debated yet no one dismissed the opinions of the other members. This allowed each group member to feel comfortable enough to state their beliefs without the fear of rejection by the other group members. The combination of the factors listed all contributed to a successful and informative group project.

Take Ownership of the Extinction Issue

2004-12-06T08:27:00.000-08:00

It is scary to consider that so many animals are endangered. It is also unacceptable that things can be done to protect these animals, yet nothing is being done. My view on how to positively affect the environment has always remained the same. The power lies in what individuals do to contribute to the effort. The realization is that our ecosystem is so tightly knit that when we cut down one tree it affects the entire rainforest. People disrupt the ecosystem all the time and nothing is being done, even though live beings are being killed. If everyone were to realize this, our situation would be much better. We could more effectively allocate our resources and enforce stronger policies for environmental protection. But there is no way that this would work until awareness is raised and people begin to realize that the environment affects them directly. We are all driven by selfish motives, and therefore if we see the effects of the decline of our environment and how they affect us personally, then action will be taken, and results will be outrageously impressive. The problem is that right now people either don’t know the urgency of the problem, or don’t see the way that it affects every single life on planet earth. Please don’t be ignorant and continue to treat the issues of our environment as if they are not your problem. Take ownership of the issues and make a difference. Every little bit counts and small contributions create big changes.

Extinction Response

2004-12-06T01:37:00.000-08:00

I don't think it is as big of a deal that species are going extinct as it is made out to be. I understand that the way humans live sometimes can lead to extinction early for a particular species, by way of destroying their homes, or taking their food, etc. I think extinction is a naturaly cycle that would have happened anyway, and so we do not need to try and save animals that do not provide anything to the world like some "3 eyed green tree squirrels" or something. Some animals don't do anything, and so its not a big deal if they become extinct. I think sometime in the very very distant future, somehow all humans will die out too, and I don't want to be kept in a zoo, or in a cage and forced to mate to save the species (well, maybe the cage would be the worst part). I don't think an animal going extinct is such a big deal that some people want to completely change the human species' way of life to save one of the animals. If animals go extinct, it is because their species could not survive in today's world and we should not give them the crutch they nieed to live. If they are not tough enough to adapt and live today, they should go extinct, its the survival of the fittest and the weak animals that cannot reproduce sufficiently die out, thats just how it goes.

Smog and Ozone Response

2004-12-06T01:30:00.000-08:00

I think it is always a good idea to lower emissions and the level of smog in the air. A study linked smog and pollution in urban areas to higher hospital rates, but not to mortality rates. I think this is because the immediate effects of smog are not death, but in the long term, they can lead to it. The government recommends lowering smog and pollution by about one third. This is an absolutely perfect idea, completely amazing actually. The only problem with the article is that they do not explain how this reduction would occur. Maybe if the author had some kind of plan or somehow showed how the government wanted to make the pollution levels decrease, this article would be a lot more believable. I don't like smog and pollution, but until there is a plan that will work to lower the levels, it is never going to be solved by speculation and hopeful thinking. As long as people stay out of polluted areas and inside during smog alerts as much as possible, it should not be a problem for our generation. I know it sounds selfish, but i'm sure future generations will have some sort of plan to fix pollution, because our generation has failed in finding one, and therefore we will not be able to fix the problem.

Recent Whale beachings not normal

2004-12-05T10:30:00.000-08:00

I have never heard of anything like this, and at the same time it would not surprise me a bit if this happens again in the near future. Today, technology is increasing so rapidly its hard to examine clearly the effects new technology have on the environment. What happened last weekend was not natural and definitely at the expense of humans. I can almost assure you it was because of the sound bombing taking place in the Oceania region looking for mineral deposits on the ocean floor. The region between New Zealand and Australia is extremely rich in marine life. That marine life is very unique and should not be harmed. I know that the dolphins and whales that beached themselves did so becasue of the sound bombing and whales and dolphins use some type of sonar to communicate but we need to make sure this does not happen again to any type of animal. I agree with Bob Brown, the leader of Australia's Green Party, that the sound bombing for oil and minerals sound be stopped until after the whale migration season. If problems still exists the Australian government should consider banning the sound bombing until answers develop as to what is really making the whales and dolphins beach themselves. I admit I am not very sympathetic about the environment but this is a matter that needs to be taken seriously and addressed very soon. What happened to those whales and dolphins is inhumane. I know no one meant to hurt all of the whales, however it was because of us that this occurred. An answer needs to be found and a new method should be used to search for oila nd mineral deposits under the ocean floor in the mean time.

Self-Centered Motives Misdirected!

2004-12-01T21:07:00.000-08:00

Research has been done which indicates that the deterioration of the ozone, caused by increased air pollution is increasing the death rate. I find this incredibly alarming. When I talk to people who do not necessarily care about the environment, it seems that the only reason that they do not care is because it is hard for them to grasp how the environment directly affects them. This study alone should be proof enough to change everyone's mind. I believe that it is safe to say that nearly everyone values life to some extent. If you value life, you need to take action and protect it. It is never acceptable for something you value so much to be taken away; therefore we all need to begin treating our environment with care. I know that it is cliché, but we must begin carpooling, using our resources wisely, recycling, and participating in the many different things that will bring a brighter tomorrow for all not only our generation but those that follow us. It is easy to argue that the government needs to provide a bigger budget and create more environmental promotion groups, but that has already been done. The government is working hard to provide, yet nothing will be accomplished unless individuals take things into their own hands and decide that they want to make a difference. If the death rate continues to increase at the rate that the study suggests the generations of people that follow us will be faced with some incredible hardships simply because our generation did not treat our environment properly. Now is the time for everyone to take action and take part in creating a brighter tomorrow.

Whale Beachings Must Be Solved

2004-12-01T20:23:00.000-08:00

There is a tragedy on the hands of New Zealand and Australian officials. Beachings of whales is a problem that must be solved immediately. It is completely understandable that whales do beach themselves and this is a natural process but there is no way to argue that the recent whale beachings are natural. Hundreds of whales and dolphins have been found beached in a time period of only three days. I believe that many people don't realize the incredibly complex and dependent eco-system that exists. While it seems like whales are insignificant to our daily lives, it would be tragic if they became extinct. The entire structure of our eco-system, especially for all marine life, would be dramatically affected in a negative manner. Because of this, I strongly support making this issue a priority and increasing the budget in order to fix the problem immediately. I am ashamed at the way humans take our environment for granted and don't even care when a fellow habitant of this great earth is in danger. If the budget was increased the problem that is currently at hand would be fixed and the research could help prevent further problems in the future. If you love the beach, whale-watching, seafood, sandcastles, or anything that involves marine life I challenge you to take a stand and support the improvement of research to prevent the deterioration of marine life. It is intolerable to allow whale beaching to continually occur. Something must be done quickly and in an effective manner.

Whales Response

2004-12-01T19:11:00.000-08:00

I think the fact that the government is doing "sound bombing" in the area where all three of these major beachings occurred may be a part of the reason they happened. Dolphins and whales use sonar echolocation to find their way through the water, and "sound bombing" sounds like something that could affect how these animals function. I think a study into why these beachings occurred would probably show that this may have been part of the reason. I don't believe that dolphins and whales intentionally kill themselves, like some sort of mass suicide, which means they had a reason to be out of the water. if the sound bombing sent sound waves through the water, it could have been something that scared the animals and messed with their own senses and therefore, they tried to find a way to get away from it. since sound travels very well in water, especially with the animals enhanced sonar and hearing, they most likely were trying to get away from whatever was occurring and it just so happened that the only way to do so was to get out of the water. Maybe if the people looking for oil under the oceans would wait until after the migration of these animals, the problem would not have occurred. I do not believe that these animals had any other reason to do this, and therefore place the blame on the "sound bombing". The Australian government claimed that there was no connectoin between the events found so far, but I believe if they did an in-dpeth study, they would find that the reason for these tragedies was because of the search for oil and other natural resources under the ocean floor.

Smog increase-urban deaths/Green credentials Response

2004-11-30T21:00:00.000-08:00

The problem with air pollution seems to be getting progressively worse. More studies are being made with the effects of harmful gases in the ozone on the people in urban cities. In an article written a few weeks ago, the author suggests that increases in air pollution caused by cars, power plants and industry can be directly connected to higher death rates in U.S. cities due to studies conducted. Although the article states many statistics to prove its argument, what stuck out to me was the fact that most of the patients that had been admitted into the hospital had a history of chronic respiratory problems. This is no surprise to me because I myself suffer of asthma and know the hardships of being ill. Even though the statistics vaguely prove that it is affecting all people, it is obvious that something does need to be done, and fast. The increase in sickness among people with respiratory problems is physical proof that it will greatly affect the health of everyone later.
With the U.S. government still planning their own solutions to the gas pollution problem, businesses have taken it upon themselves to introduce greenhouse gas reduction programs in the meantime. Neil J. Numark, chairman of the Sustainable Energy Institute says that "U.S. companies and state regulators are clearly getting out in front of the federal government in addressing climate change.” Public image is obviously important to big businesses, and that might explain why companies were “keen to cut emissions.” It is important to them to protect their public image, and by emphasizing to be seen “environmentally responsible” they can secure their position. Many companies, however, welcome the introduction of environmental regulations at a national stage. Numark says that “U.S. industry increasingly recognizes that we are moving towards carbon constraints in this country. Many prefer this be done in a uniform way at the national level, not through the patchwork of state regulations that's now emerging." I agree with what he says. Conflicts with uniformity can arise if it stays at a state level.

Here are some catch-up articles!

2004-11-30T09:27:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/30/australia.whales.reut/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/11/16/smog.study.reut/index.html

Green Credentials Response

2004-11-29T11:40:00.000-08:00

It is good to see a percentage of US firms trying to lower emissions of greenhouse gases. The reason the federal government has not been able to sign something like the Kyoto treaty is because of the costs, economically, that would pursue if the government tried to enforce the treaty on all firms within the US. This is good to see individual firms taking the the initiative because this way it is better for everyone. The firms cutting down on harmful emissions right now will probably see increased benefits in a couple years. Once other firms in the US see this they will take the steps needed to cut their emissions as well, when the time is right. Once, US firms are not as threatened to the Kyoto treaty as they are now, then I believe the US will sign the protocol and the last couple firms will be able to economically make the environmental standards. I believe this is the best method in lowering harmful emissions from firms because if the government would have signed the treaty earlier, the firms would feel threatened and maybe even move to a country that did not sign the treaty. Letting the firms decide on whats best is the right thing, because sooner or later the public eye will take notice on which firms are helping the environment and which ones are contributing more to global warming. If the govenrment had stepped in and signed the treaty, firms would have to lower their standards by February 2005 and not all firms would have been able to do that. Those firms would then be fined. With that fine and the costs that come with making the firms' process more "enivronmentally friendly" the firm would be in huge trouble economically. Its stock would drop and it would have a lot of trouble getting out of the hole that was dug becuase of the kyoto treaty. Lowering emissions over a longer period of time would not hurt the firms as much and would give them time to restructure the process of their company.

Species extinction's article

2004-11-28T14:51:00.000-08:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6502368/

this week article

The global watchdog just released this year “Red List.” Along with the list, they added that the world's biodiversity is declining at a very fast rate. Some of the statistics they reported are 15 species have gone extinct in the past 20 years and another 12 survive only because it is held in captivity. Although these numbers does seem alarming, this is all part of the process of life. Throughout history, animal comes and go. Plenty of animal have become extinct as time continues. However, the only difference now and then is that human have increased this process. What human have done are destroyed some of these species homes, used up their food resources, and introduced pollutions and diseases. I do not think that just because these animals are going extinct that it is a bad thing. Since these things do happen over the courses of time. However, we still should try to save as many of them as we can, especially when humans are increasing this extinction rate. The report adds that many of these extinctions are occurring in poor nations. I agree with this. Mostly likely in poor nations, they do not have the ability to help these species from going extinct. What they must do is slowly start off some program to help these species. Sure it most likely won’t have tons of funding, or great success early on, but it is better the nothing. Then slowly they can ask for help from other nations who have better ability to help these species from going extinct. It is just that extinction will keep on happening like it or not, however; we should not increase this rate but keep it as minimal as possible.

Green credentials response

2004-11-26T21:26:00.000-08:00

It is great news to hear that the Kyoto Protocol will come into effect starting Feburary 2005. Due to this protocol, globlal warming should be alot less. Therefore, we will live in a better world. However, it is sad to hear that both U.S. and Australia backed out of the signing. I believe it would be better if the U.S. had signed this protocol, considering we are the world leading polluter. The U.S. reasons for not signing this is because having to reduce the level of carbon dixiode emissions could cost them a bundle. Since America are very dependent on its fossil fuels. Well all this goes back to money. America does not want to be involved in this because in the long run it would cost them dearly economicly. It is a trade off of more money for a less healtier environment to live in. Despite U.S. none involvement, many American business has stepped forward and have tried to reduce their carbon dixiode emissions. This is great news to hear so many American companies welcoming the challenges. Despites some reports of these companies doing this as a way to comply with regulations from state for companies emitting to much carbon dixiode. Some other companies has welcome this despite not being under the regulations. If many other companies continues to follows, slowly the air that we breath will be more fresh then ever.

Amazon Response

2004-11-26T20:46:00.000-08:00

I do not like the sounds of this. If farmers of Brazil continues to use their method of slash and burn, surly the forest will be destroyed soon enough. These poor farmers must be given more land to work with. For soils to keep on working and producing good crops, farmers cannot continue to use it seasons after seasons. They must take turns using different land to grow crops, so that while one land is being used, another can regenerate itself and then can be used later down the road. This does not help when Brazil isn't excatly one of the riches country out there. However, they must start somewhere. And that somewhere does not mean it has to be foreign help. I agree with what Jon said. The Brazilan government does need to think of some effective plan to help with the Amazon's problem. They must be willingly put out an amount of money to help the farmers and save the forests. Only then, can other nations see their efforts and then would want to come in with some form of aids. Once the forest are getting the help it so needs, then slowly can the government in turn think of producing more soybeans for exports to make more money. They must start small first, and slowly develop some new method better then the slash and burn method to help the forest, then after that they can begin to think of making money. These poor farmers can only do so much, but if the government are behind them and willingly to do whatever they can to save the forests, i'm sure things will work out in the end.

Global Warming and Mt. Everest Response

2004-11-25T22:21:00.000-08:00

With the heightened fear of global warming around the world, its effects are already slowly taking a toll on a significant landmark. Mt. Everest’s ice caps are slowly melting. "In 1953 snow and ice reached all the way to base camp, but now it ends five miles above," says Pemba Dorje Sherpa, an Everest climber who, in May, beat the fastest climbing time of just over eight. This could result in flooded Himalayan lakes could risk the lives of many, not to mention damaging a “unique” environment. A UK-based campaign group called Friends of the Earth is pushing to be heard. The group, including Everest climbers such as Reinhold Messner, delivered a petition last week to the UN’s asking for the mountain to get monitoring and “assessment of the risks.” Also, they are pushing for the coral reefs in Belize and glaciers in Peru to be added to the danger list. Even though our government is already pursuing a plan to minimize global warming formed by carbon dioxide, it may be too for these natural sights. I agree with the group and encourage their determination in restoring the mountain’s beauty and significance to Nepal and the rest of the world. I think more groups should be formed in helping to protect this sight by fundraising. That is a way the rest of the world can contribute to the cause. The longer we can keep these historic locations from further corruption, the better it will be later when our kids can still marvel at the beauty and pureness of the mountain.

Article: "U.S. firms prove green credentials"

2004-11-25T21:34:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/11/18/globaloffice.greenhouse/index.html

New US Global Warming Treaty Response

2004-11-19T16:15:00.000-08:00

In the past, I have been very hesitant to put my support behind the US signing and agreeing to any type of global warming treaty. However, the first one the US decides to sign with 13 other countries is one I finally agree with. I haven't seen the whole treaty or anything, just this article, yet I feel the treaty is good enough for America to sign. It not only makes signees cut their emissions on methane greaty, it also calls for investing up to $53 million in companies to do it profitably. This way the treaty does not effect businesses negatively. This just shows that there are ways of cutting harmful gas emissions in an efficent and economically fisible method. Hopefully this legislation helps change the Kyoto treaty so that it is not as harmful to the economy as it will be once implemented next year by dozens of developed countries. The US is being smart about global warming. They see that it is a problem, but a problem that can be fixed when the economics of the treaty are favorable to the US as well. Many Senators have been talking about the environment and its troubles lately because of new reports of global warming situations and examples all across the world, and Bush's plans to drill in the Arctic now that the Republicans have a stronger lead in the Senate and House of Republicans. It is good though to finally see treaties presented to the table that are not outrageous claims to cut off all unclean emissions at this very moment. I think this Treaty will lead to a brighter future and better understanding between environmentalists and the rest of the world.

US Global Warming Treaty - Article

2004-11-19T02:50:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/19/globalwarming.ap/index.html

Brazil Response

2004-11-17T07:54:00.000-08:00

Brazil's economy depends heavily on the farmers and the agriculture. 40% of the nations revenue is from exports of farm goods. The country is one of the poorest in the world, and it is only going to get worse. Brazilian leaders need to find a way to help the agriculture succeed and maintain or their country is going to be even poorer. Slash-and-burn farming is one problem that must be dealt with. When a farmer uses the land and then abandons it to move to another, more fertile location, it leaves a path of destruction, especially rainforest areas, that is detrimental to not only the country, but the world. The environment should be protected when possible, and Brazil needs to get on the ball to protect the treasured forests so they are not completely wiped out within the country. If farmers had better materials and supplies, they could use the land they are on for a longer period of time and would not need to cut down rainforsest to provide them with more land. The Brazilian government seems to make a lot of noise on this topic, but has yet to do anything productive to help the country. Until they take the problems seriously, nobody else in the world can help them. They must form and execute a plan before its too late.

Global Warming and Mt. Everest - ARTICLE

2004-11-17T05:04:00.000-08:00

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=2&u=/nm/20041117/sc_nm/environment_everest_dc

The Amazon Response

2004-11-16T14:03:00.000-08:00

I completely agree with Jon Christopher on the Amazon forest issue. Brazil is one of the poorest countries in the world. “Brazil has one of the worst distributions of wealth for a country as big and rich in natural resources,” states the article. The main source of income to the government comes from agriculture. Brazil is the top exporter of “coffee, sugar and cane ethanol, orange juice, beef and poultry,” and is not too far behind the United States in exporting soybean. Today, “farm exports make up over 40 percent of the country's trade revenues.” However, little of this growth in farm exports gets to the poor. This is one of the challenges the Brazilian government must overcome to improve its economy. All the government sees, though, are dollar signs with every tree a farmer burns down and a soybean farm is grown in place of the forest. The Brazilian government believes that if there is so much concern over the conservation of the rainforest, other richer countries should be able to chip in. They insist that, "If we're going to succeed at preserving our forests as world assets, we need resources and rich countries will have to chip in." I believe however, that the Brazilian government should make a bigger effort in involving their citizens and pushing farmers to using a more efficient method than the slash and burn method to restore the forest before we help. They cannot solely depend on other countries to solve their problems for them.

Brazil rainforest Response

2004-11-15T09:56:00.000-08:00

Since I can remember, people have been saying that the rainforest region of Brazil is losing ground to soybean farms at an alarming rate. In the early 90s people were talking about how much of the rainforests in Brazil had been lost already. Now in 2003, the Brazilian government still has not found a solution and in fact it is getting worse. The article states that the depletion of the rainforest each year has doubled in size since 2000. The rainforests in Brazil are shrinking at an alarming rate. So why isn't the Brazilian government taking a hard stance on the issue? Because the soybean farms that are planted in place of the rainforest are helping out the Brazilian economy, even though it is not stabilized. The Brazilian government sees money signs every time another peasant farmer cuts down another rainforest tree by way of anciet slash-and-burn methods. The government however wants other countries to come in and solve their own problem of deforestation. They have called on wealthy countries to help them out so they can save the Amazon rainforest for everyone, but they will only do it if they don't have to use their own money to stop the rapid deforestation. The Brazilian government must make an effective plan that will incorporate the Brazilian people if they really do want to save the rainforests. They will have to convince the Brazilians that it is better in the long run if they save the forests, instead of cutting them away using very inefficient methods.

Article

2004-11-10T21:07:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/10/brazil.environment.forest.reut/index.html

Lake Okeechobee Response

2004-11-10T20:51:00.000-08:00

The disaster that struck Lake Okeechobee serves as both a reminder of our duties to the environment and a realization that this might happen again in the future, and we need to plan to secure the safety of animals in the area. As the article stated, the lake was hit by all four hurricanes that went through Florida in the past months. Before the hurricanes hit, the lake was lush- product of four years of intense conservation. The winds and rain left the shore “littered with carcasses of alligators, fish and birds,” and flooded. Even though the lake was intentionally kept at a higher level, for flood control and back-up water supply for southeastern Florida. When it began killing plants that were flooded, conservationists took action. Four years later the restoration was close to perfect. Florida’s Governor, Bush, announced that he would accelerate a plan to build three reservoirs, costing one billion dollars. In my opinion, his decision to support this plan so graciously is an incentive for more people to help in raising money for the restoration of the lake. We, as citizens, should uphold certain responsibilities to our surrounding environment. This is a great way for the community to get involved and help raise money for the reparations. What we also have to keep in mind, though, is that this might happen again. To be prepared in the future, there should be a committee formulated to invoke plans to protect the animals. For now, Gov. Bush is doing the right thing and I fully support him.

Article: Alaska oil drilling back on agenda(Updated)

2004-11-10T15:12:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/bush.energy.ap/index.html

Lake Okeechobee Response

2004-11-10T00:07:00.000-08:00

This just shows that humans are not the only reason why some ecosystems are deteriorating. Of the four major hurricanes that hit the Florida peninsula, all helped weaken the ecosystem surrounding Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida. Francis and Jeanne took direct paths through the Lake. In the last four years, environmentalists have been trying to restore the ecosystem surrounding Lake Okeechobee. Their efforts had helped the ecosystem start to thrive again. However, the hurricanes this fall have destroyed all their time and effort. The last four years have gone down the drain. But they will not give up and say they will just have to work harder. That takes motivation and a desire to keep the environment clean and healthy. Some people around the world probably believe that all Americans do is consume resources and do not contribute to keeping the environment beautiful. That is totally false. Biologist Donald Fox proves them wrong, because of his determination to restore an ecosystem that once was thriving and unbreakable. He goes on to state that his short term solution is to make the longer term solution quicker. Obviously he is dedicated to helping America stay beautiful. If more people flowed in Donald's footsteps the process would be faster and easier in trying to clean up the US's trash dumps, hazardous waste sites, and even decaying ecosystems. Even if it means going the extra mile and waiting for a recycling can instead of a trash can, it still helps. If people would just learn to clean up their own waste, the fight to keep America clean would be a whole lot easier.

The Lake Okeechobee Tragedy

2004-11-09T21:48:00.000-08:00

The Lake Okeechobee tragedy is extremely saddening. All four of the recent hurricanes that occurred in Florida wrecked havoc upon Lake Okeechobee. While it is nobody's fault that the hurricanes hit this wildlife area, it is our responsibility to take care of the damage that has been done. As the article states, Florida’s Governor Bush is planning on investing large sums of money into the area in an attempt to save the animals and economy surrounding the issue. This decision made by Governor Bush to support the environment is undoubtedly the right thing to do. While I do support Bush’s plan it is understandable for people to question why the money would not go to support the families who were victims of the hurricanes. The question is reasonable but people must comprehend that this problem at Lake Okeechobee is a disaster, just as the damage to the families is a disaster. The environment is always worth restoring and with the support of government officials the protection of our environment is easier and provides a brighter future for America. As the article discussed, the environment definitely affects more than just the aesthetics of our nation. The environment is intertwined with our economy which hits much closer to home for many American citizens. When you consider the effects of the environment on the economy the decision to restore an environmental area is very beneficial to the population surrounding it. Therefore I am very excited that Governor Bush has made the decision to whole-heartedly support the restoration of the wildlife areas of Lake Okeechobee.

Global Warming Needs a Voluntary Response

2004-11-09T08:37:00.000-08:00

Global warming is an issue that is worthy of consideration yet it is an extremely challenging issue to solve. The article entitled “US Wants No Warming Proposal” written by Juliet Eilperin outlines the recent political occurrences surrounding the issue of global warming. Bush has been stating that he will not enforce required global warming policies upon the American people because it would hurt the American economy and many people would lose their jobs. This is a respectable decision. Though I feel that we should always consider what is best for our environment, I don’t believe that anyone should be forced to protect the environment at the cost of jobs. The bigger problem lies in the fact that a large majority of people are not willing to take steps as individuals in order to better our habitat. If everyone voluntarily joined to take small steps that would improve our environment the outcome would be incredible. The article that I mentioned previously told of a research document that is being used as proof that we need to enforce global warming prevention policies. While I understand that they are attempting to help I think that the money used toward that research would have been better spent on campaign ads and conventions to raise awareness about global warming and possibly induce some voluntary responses. President Bush is correct in standing firm and not allowing required regulations to be enforced but it should be an issue that the American people are concerned about and want to take action in voluntarily.

Lake okeechobee

2004-11-07T17:30:00.000-08:00

Article for this week

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/27/hurricanes.okeechobee.ap/index.html

Global Warming's response

2004-11-07T17:28:00.000-08:00

Actually, I think this is inevitable. These things are bound to happen because I do believe that the Earth temperature continues to rises every now and then. I am sure that the consumption of fossil fuels does not help, and most likely help increases the rate at which the Earth temperature rises. However, I do not think it is all on the human population. Our planet goes through a cycle of hot and cold. So it does not surprise me to hear that our temperature is going up. Just like, when the planet was in Ice Age, and then after that the climate went up. Sure the climate does not go down to frozen tundra, but for normal temperature it would be considered cold. Despite that, I still believe that we should take every precaution we can to help protect our planet. Especially when this rise in temperature is a lot more then the average it used to be. If the group lacks evidence, I think they only can continue to keep on trying to find more and more evidence to support their causes. Then they can show it to the Bush Administration, and hopefully then some precautions can be taken into account. If other nations want to help with the change in climate, I think they must first negotiate with America. Not say that they are side tracking the situation. I doubt that would help make us want to team up with them and resolve this problem. As it stands now, there are insufficient evidence to support the change in climate, however I believe it would be better if some form of precautions are taken into account now so when things do turn bad, we can deal with it.

No one wants warming policies

2004-11-06T16:40:00.000-08:00

This article title really hits me right in the gut. Everyone is against global warming caused by fossil fuels burned by citizens of the globe, just like the Bush Administration is. Yet, this writer makes it seem as though the US doesn't care about their consequences. The Bush Administration is against global warming if it is fully caused by emissions of fossil fuels. Research has yet to completely explain the fact of increased global warming and changes in the Earth's climate. Supposably, this report that is due to come out in the next few weeks is suppose to claim that global warming is greatly changing the Artic regions of the world, which includes the Wildlife Refuge in Alaska where the Bush Administration has been trying to expand the possibilities of building an oil pipeline. This report would set the Administration back on their plans in Alaska, so the writer thinks that the US is trying to delay the release of the report. The Administration is just making sure that everything is in order, and that all of the facts gathered over the last four years are true and free of fallacies. The report will have either positive or negative effects on the proposed plans for the Alaskan pipeline and the Administration is just making sure that the released data is correct. For the last couple decades environmentalists have been stressing the problems of global warming because of the actions of humans on the earth. There needs to be a worldwide team of researchers who need to preform experiments, crunch numbers, and figure out a conclusion on the issue of global warming and whether it is totally the worlds fault or if it is a combination of increased fossil fuel consumption and the earth changing its climate by itself. There has never been a definite answer and it is costing companies millions of dollars now and even more in the future if there is not an answer. It is obsurd and at this point many Americans as well as myself have not been convinced that it is totally our fault. The earth rotates in different climate cycles. Why can't this just be a new cycle, every problem on this earth has not been caused by humans.

Consumption will only Increase

2004-11-06T02:02:00.000-08:00

This is the first time I have heard the idea of a natural footprint and to me it sounds rather silly. It ends up putting the United Arab Emirates in the same category as the United States. Yes, maybe both countries use extensive resources to supply their wants and needs, however the United States does a much better job then the UAE in replacing their resources used. The US gives money, time, and support to countries to help them with geological destruction. To bring forth another issue within the article, consumption will never decrease throughout the world. The global population keeps growing and estimates are that the population will not peak out until 2300 at 9.1 billion. The problem stated in the article was that the Earth's inhabitants use 20% more resources than the Earth can produce or regenerate. This is obviously a problem, however no one has yet presented a viable solution on how it would be economically possible to slow down consumption. We must keep consuming so that economies, governments and individuals around the world can survive. If we cut off the resources, we are cutting off our own lifeline. We must use the human and physical capital we have at the moment. As the problem becomes more threatening and restrictful on growth and prosperity, the the people of the world will be able to work their way out of the predicament. I am not saying that we should just ignore the issue and keep buying huge Cadillac Escaldes with 12" lifts that guzzle a gallon of gas every 12 miles. What I am saying is that when the issue becomes life threatening for man, he will find a solution. Obviously, since man has not made an economically efficient solution to the problem, it has not become a priority yet. The solution will probably be a more efficient manmade use of energy that does not harm the earth, yet lets the people of the earth become more flexible and free to go, do, or see what ever will satisfy them. I believe the answer to the oncoming resource problem that the earth faces will be found in the next 15 years, however implementing that solution will take many more years. Maybe one of us will figure it out.

Global Warming Article

2004-11-03T22:34:00.000-08:00

Here is a link to a good article!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23541-2004Nov3.html

Natural Resource Consumption Response

2004-11-02T21:37:00.000-08:00

The problem with the Untied States, along with a number of other countries, consuming nonrenewable natural resources faster than the earth itself can regenerate is harmful to our future. I agree with Claude Martin of WWF who says that their needs to be a “balance between our consumption of natural resources and Earth’s ability to renew them”- especially with fossil fuels. The WWF report cites that “populations of land, freshwater and marine species fell on average by 40 percent between 1970 and 2000.” Also, pollution has become a problem from intense urbanization, and forests are being cleared- the one form of life that we fully depend on for survival. That is sad that we have come to let our environment get in this bad of condition. Even though some critics argue that we are using an abundance of the Earth’s resources, yet producing far more of the natural resources, I think that there are alternative ways we can save resources and raise our standard of living at the same time. For example, using energy efficient vehicles (such as the Hybrid) lessens fuel consumption. Loh also points out that governments, businesses and consumers should switch to energy-efficient technology, such as solar power. If something is not done about this soon, there will be far bigger problems awaiting us in the future. Our government should enforce the use of new energy efficient technology (and put money into perfecting this technology and making it more available to the consumer) to relieve the consumption of fossil fuels and save our standard of living.

This week article

2004-10-31T22:05:00.000-08:00

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/22/plundered.planet.ap/index.html

If the world keeps on consuming like this, eventually we will run out of resources.
Sure in our lifetime, the resources will not run out, but after us, our later generations would not have much left. In order for Earth to have a chance to regenerate, we must start by decreasing our consumption. Also, we must start to plant more trees and crops for future uses. This cannot be a one person effort, but it must be a global effort in order for it to work. Consumption of fossil fuels must also lower. Not only will we run out of it, but the more of it we uses, the more it is damaging our planet. Hopefully, new things that we create will become more efficient at using the Earth resources. The only problem with trying to lower our consumption is that it might be impossible. Not everyone will be bother with improving the planet, and you can not force everyone to follow certain rules. Hopefully, whoever gets elected as president will be able to start some kind of program to slowly lower these consumption rates. Slowly, our planet will get better and better and can continue to sustain life. Some would argue that by the time all of our resources are used up, our technology would have been so advanced that we would be able to fine new resources. However, if they think like that, then eventually those new resources would be used up, and in the end our planet would be nothing but just a lifeless place.

Alaska Response

2004-10-31T07:30:00.000-08:00

The issue of oil drilling in Alaska is an important issue that citizens should take more notice of, and call attention to the swap plan to see if it is really a benefit or a loss. The plan that the Bush administration is supporting will trade one-hundred fifty thousand acres of low-lying wetlands, not to mention a handful of other land that Doyon Ltd. promised to give up, for one-hundred ten thousand acres of high ground (possibly containing an abundance of oil and gas). All together, the refuge would end up with a net increase of ninety-six thousand acres. Sounds like a great trade-off, but this means that it could possibly open the Yukon Flats, including other areas, to gas and oil drilling. Those proposing the plan said that the swap would “protect important waterfowl habitat,” but one spokes man for The Wilderness Society contradicted this statement saying that “there was a risk that oil leaks and spills would flow downstream into the very wetlands officials say they are trying to protect.” This is obviously a risk the United States is willing to take, in this time of an oil shortage in our nation, but I think that the government should place stronger restrictions on drilling areas and make alternative plans for the future if problems arise. If these restrictions are not enforced, the land may be completely stripped of its natural resources before we know it. This may become an even bigger problem than the one we are faced with at this moment.

Kyoto Response

2004-10-29T15:57:00.000-07:00

Personally, I think that the United States made a good decision in backing out of the Kyoto proposal, unlike Russia who supports it fully. The treaty suggests a decrease in abundance of harmful gases in the air (from motor vehicles, factory plants, etc.) and ultimately a stall in global warming. The plan may in fact decrease the pollution in the air, but I don't think that it is the sole cause of global warming. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air that the plan suggests it will decrease in the amount of time they say is illogical. Between now and four years from now our population, and the number of automobiles, will grow tremendously. The proposal will also have a negative effect on economic growth in the United States. With our economic stance being so fragile, I think it would be a bad idea to take any chances. The U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs supports the government’s decision saying that Kyoto is ‘"an unrealistic and ever-tightening regulatory straitjacket, curtailing energy consumption.”’ The United States has come up with alternative solutions to the global warming problem to raise our standard of living and better the increasing pollution. I think that if the United States government is in fact putting a lot effort into finding their own strategy to fix the problem, it is only fair that we should let them be for the time, because they are the ones that really know how our nation works and what is best for it.

Alaska Response

2004-10-25T21:47:00.000-07:00

The situation concerning the land swap in Alaska has both pros and cons. The swap could be beneficial to the environment because "the refuge would wind up with a net increase of 96,000 acres." The only con is that with this swap there would inevitably be more oil drilling in the area. I understand that we need oil but to use land that was once a refuge for this purpose seems wrong. If the land is rich with oil it should be kept as it is now and it will always be there in case of a crisis in the future. Right now there are oil shortages but not sufficient enough to further destroy precious land in Alaska. If the United States continues to strip the land of resources we will find ourselves in big trouble in the near future. It is imperative that each person make small contributions to lead to conservation of natural resources. It is terrifying to think that one day all of our natural wildlife refuges may be filled will oil rigs and completely stripped of their beauty. This swap may seem like an insignificant issue but it seems to me that this situation is just one more instance of how our environment is not being protected as much as it needs to be. The article mentions that “the prospect of Yukon Flats oil development has attracted less attention than the Bush administration-backed plan to allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” It is unfortunate that a change in our environment is not being considered as a bigger issue in this election and that the Bush administration is not proposing more environmental protection initiatives.

Alaska Response

2004-10-24T18:13:00.000-07:00

I rather not see that more drilling is going to be happening. I just don’t think that it is good for the land. I do hope that if drilling will occurs that the driller will take all precautions. Since, there could be oil leakage and spills that could then run into the lower wetlands. However, because the deal for this land swap will give the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 150,000 acres of land when they are only giving away 110,000 acres, meaning after everything is said and done the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 96,000 acres; so they will be willing to swap the land. I think the deal will go through because Ted Stevens is in favor of this land swap. However, I do not know if Doyon getting all this oil is good are not. I am not sure if this will give them a bigger boost for their oil industry and then they will be able to sell this oil for higher prices. Even if they sell it at a higher price, surly it has to be lower then what the U.S. is currently getting. I am also surprised that trade hasn’t gotten a lot of attention. If it is about oil and gas, I was sure that it would attract plenty of attentions. I guess we won’t know until December 31, if this land swap will get pass or not. If it does, I hope everything turns out well.

Alaska Response

2004-10-24T08:12:00.000-07:00

I believe that if the United States wishes to rely less on foreign oil, then drilling in Alaska would be a good idea. Gas prices are high once again, because the price per barrel of oil is notably higher than it has been in the past. If the United States used Alaska to bring in oil, the country would be less dependent on other nations to supply our oil. Many people may think that this is an environmental issue, but the land isn't just being bought. Doyon wants to give up a lot of land for use as a wildlife refuge in exchange for land that may prove extremely rich with oil. Alaska has been known by some as a place where oil could be found and extracted easily, if only it were allowed. Doyon wants to trade about 150,000 acres of land, and only receive 110,000 in return. This obviously shows that the compant believes there is significant oil pockets in the region to make up for the loss of land that they face. If the oil is found in this land, it could be brought to the U.S. for a much lower price than if it were brought from overseas. The Alaska Headquarters of the Fish and Game service has approved the land trade. The trade is supposed to protect waterfowl in the area, but some people pessimistically think that the oil will leak and run downstream into the areas that the trade is supposed to protect. I don't think these people are thinking in an economic way at all. Canadians are upset because they don't want drilling so close to them either. I see it as saving the nation money by getting our oil from here and not across the globe.

Kyoto Response

2004-10-22T17:00:00.000-07:00

I believe Russia is making a vital mistake in trying to sign through the Kyoto Protocol, which would in turn tip the scale and put the effect worldwide. This is due to the standard that no fewer than 55 countries that made up at least 55 percent of global emissions in 1990; of course in order to have the Protocol a worldwide law. Russia already has a struggling economy and one that could get worse with the Kyoto Protocol in effect. The United States is making an economically viable stance, stating that the Protocol is too costly without true knowledge that global warming is a huge threat and caused by increased globalization and the burning of fossil fuels. The world knows that fossil fuels are not the cleanest type of fuel or energy, but is it really affecting the world's climate as much as all of the tree huggers and environmentalists say it is. In my point of view, I believe that the Earth is just experiencing a normal change of its environment through time. The Protocol calls for cutting carbon dioxide levels five percent from 1990 levels by 2008. This is an obsurd goal because the world's population keeps getting larger and transportation of far distances has been increasing as well. The Kyoto Protocol would not only be economic suicide but it would also have a tidal wave effect by slashing into government monies and thus in turn making investment and research decrease. Because investment and research would be down it would be harder for that country in invest and look for new and cleaner energy sources. Russia is making a big mistake and could be hurting its chances in becoming a more economic powerhouse, as it once was under the USSR. As we have seen before it seems as though when Russia and the United States differ, the US always gets the better end of the stick.

Article 2: Bringing up the Kyoto Protocol

2004-10-21T17:49:00.000-07:00

Here are two articles both produced by CNN however the first explains the US's stance on the treaty(Dec. 2003), while the second shows Russia's intent to sign the treaty (Sept. 2004). Which government do you guys think is taking the right side of Kyoto and back your opinion up.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/01/us.kyoto.reut/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/30/russia.kyoto.ap/index.html

Article Update on Alaska

2004-10-21T17:26:00.000-07:00

This is an article about Alaska wildlife refuge and problems now concerning the government drilling for oil within its borders. It is not an editorial or opinionated article but could help us start some blogs about the subject of whether or not the US should continue with its plans to drill there and build pipelines stemming from the oil drilling stations.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/21/environment.alaska.reut/index.html