The articles posted in this section highlight the dissatisfaction toward Obama's administration and the way they have not reacted to climate change. Obama promised the US voters that he would address climate change and make progress toward improving the US carbon footprint. Instead, he has not made any noticeable steps toward this end. As addressed in the politico.com article, Obama will not see the end results of positive climatic impacts. The next administration will most likely end up taking credit for any of these impacts. As Orr would appreciate, King Hezekiah from the Christian Bible committed a fatal error, revealing the total of his treasurers to another ruler. As punishment, God decreed that his kingdom would fall, however, the king selfishly asked that it not be during his rule but during that of his descendants. Obama will suffer the opposite of this: any good impacts of his climate policies will not be realized until his descendants take office.
Another issue with Obama's rule is that, although he has addressed a carbon cap and other positive climatic changes, he has not made any specific goals or promises. In addition, several Congressmen have to please their constituents, many of whom do not believe in climate warming, or at least support carbon fuels like coal. In Southern Illinois, many people are in support of the coal industry, that gives many people jobs that would otherwise not be able to support their families or be forced to work in lesser-paying jobs. As one Congressman stated, the climate laws need to be "reasonable" and "for the times". By this, I am assuming they mean that the laws need to be tailored to people who want to sacrifice the environment for the economy. They want more compromises and less tailoring.
Al Gore's Ted Talk was very predictable, addressing the evidence of the ice cap shrinking, the worldwide droughts, and issues with deforestation and fossil fuels. The issue with the increasing carbon footprint and the decreasing ice on mountaintops. However, the comments following the video were very interesting. The comments demeaned Al Gore because he was a politician. Another commenter stated that Al Gore apparently plays by "do as I say not as I do" rule; living in large houses (in different expensive locations) with fireplaces and by the beaches he feels will soon be flooded. I checked this through snopes.com (which I see as a valuable source) and it seems that the Gores do live extravagantly compared to most Americans; however, they are trying to live as sustainably as possible given their status. A more recent New York Times article discusses more details of the Gores houses and extravagant spending (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/fashion/the-end-of-the-line.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).
Finally, the Politics and Global Warming pamphlet addressed how the Tea Party views the world, based on some recent statistics and surveys. Most are distrusting of scientists in general, which leads to their doubts about global warming and evolution. Some of them think that scientists have skewed their data about climate warming, and they also have deceived the nation into thinking that God didn't create the world. They are not worried about climate warming; therefore, they don't think that any effort needs to be made to reduce our environmental impact. Tea Party members also have strong opinions that will not change, which is evidenced toward their strong views about abortion, gay rights, evolution, and other high-profile issues. They also distrust the government, despising taxes and valuing the economy over the environment. Finally, Tea Party members tend to be older, white males who own their own houses, are married, live in the South, work, are conservative evangelicals, and don't believe in evolution. This is a scary group of people that have unfortunately greatly influenced the populace and placed fear in the heart of die-hard liberals. I went to a Rick Santorum rally in Southern Illinois, which was mostly attended by Tea Party members. I listened to him dispute the government and the "political science" not "climate science", or basically doubting the science community. It was discouraging, but not as discouraging as preachers telling their Facebook friends that God wanted them all to vote for Santorum.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Journalism engages climate change
As a former journalism major, and someone who wrote for newspapers from age 14-21, I appreciated this branch into how the mainstream news media views climate change, and further the impact of even one damning story on the perceptions of a nation or even the world.
The Guardian article addressed the negative implications of the release of private information emailed by some top climate change scientists. They viewed this not only as a breech of privacy, but also as evidence for a few emails being misrepresented as a coverup for the true nature of climate change. They correctly addressed the fact that other scientists had corroborated this information and it is not a big hoax.
The Telegraph article was written by someone who obviously has it out for the climate change scientists, especially since he wrote a book about his skewed view of this. He correctly points out that some of the correspondence is not flattering of the scientists and indicates that they did not want to release their data to those who might have found fault with it. They further tried to silence their critics, and even made very hateful remarks toward them, to colleagues. These emails were never supposed to reach the publics eye, so they are not censored to only reflect neutral emotions toward those who were trying to discredit them by any skewed means possible.
The Science News article does point out that the emails are evidence of unethical behavior, but nothing more. However, none of these articles could be used to disprove climate warming. They also make a good point that there are more important concerns that we are dealing with right now than whether or not someone made fun of someone else or was hateful to them.
I think that the purpose of these articles is two-fold. First, they should present a warning to people that think that private conversations will remain that way. If you speak badly of someone, you have no guarantee that it will not make it back to them. Further, there are more important issues in life than whether or not you are currently arguing with someone. It should not be a huge shock that scientists are upset with naysayers that try to turn people's attention to consumerism and away from real problems, such as global warming and world hunger, etc. Strife between people and personalities and nations exists and has existed since the dawn of man. What is more important is that we filter ourselves to brush aside the unnecessary issues in life and focus on what matters.
The Guardian article addressed the negative implications of the release of private information emailed by some top climate change scientists. They viewed this not only as a breech of privacy, but also as evidence for a few emails being misrepresented as a coverup for the true nature of climate change. They correctly addressed the fact that other scientists had corroborated this information and it is not a big hoax.
The Telegraph article was written by someone who obviously has it out for the climate change scientists, especially since he wrote a book about his skewed view of this. He correctly points out that some of the correspondence is not flattering of the scientists and indicates that they did not want to release their data to those who might have found fault with it. They further tried to silence their critics, and even made very hateful remarks toward them, to colleagues. These emails were never supposed to reach the publics eye, so they are not censored to only reflect neutral emotions toward those who were trying to discredit them by any skewed means possible.
The Science News article does point out that the emails are evidence of unethical behavior, but nothing more. However, none of these articles could be used to disprove climate warming. They also make a good point that there are more important concerns that we are dealing with right now than whether or not someone made fun of someone else or was hateful to them.
I think that the purpose of these articles is two-fold. First, they should present a warning to people that think that private conversations will remain that way. If you speak badly of someone, you have no guarantee that it will not make it back to them. Further, there are more important issues in life than whether or not you are currently arguing with someone. It should not be a huge shock that scientists are upset with naysayers that try to turn people's attention to consumerism and away from real problems, such as global warming and world hunger, etc. Strife between people and personalities and nations exists and has existed since the dawn of man. What is more important is that we filter ourselves to brush aside the unnecessary issues in life and focus on what matters.
Policy makers summary
The policy-maker summary was written by climate change scientists with the goal of reaching the politicians that could best create alternatives and make changes that would positively impact the climate. They highlighted the worst possible anthropogenic land changes that impact the environment and then cited evidence of how this is causing massive shifts in climate, more than what could be expected if natural forces were the only ones in play.
However, the scientists failed to create a unified goal for policy makers, and they further failed to present potential scenarios that are even relevant to future scenarios. The assumptions presented were that the whole world is going to react in one way to global climate change, and that these reactions will not only be unified, but will also be very predictable. If anthropology has taught us anything about cultures and people's, it is that they are very distinct and not as predictable as one would expect. Languages that could have, and arguably should have died, still exist. People groups that could have coexisted peacefully with any other nation were driven to extinction by a rival group that had bigger weaponry and an unhealthy sense of moral superiority.
Further, there is no one solution to problems of this magnitude. As the "green revolution" demonstrated, the solution to world hunger is not by trying to transport large farming equipment, pesticides and herbicides to countries that already have problems with erosion and bad forest management. Instead, each area or region has to produce individualized solutions that cater to the specific needs of their populace. An example of how this sort of individualized solutions can create positive change could be the current status of some homeschool families. As a product of one such household, I know both the positives and negatives of this form of individualized learning. However, it gave my siblings and myself a chance to start "adult" behavior and take on individualized, specific and meaningful projects and activities at an early age. It allowed me to take a college entrance exam at the age of 15, and it allowed my brother to graduate with two bachelors degrees (mathematics and civil engineering) as a fifth year senior at the age of 20.
Just as one solution does not work for every agriculture project or every school curriculum, there should not be, and cannot be, a unified solution for climate warming. However, I also feel that one needs to be addressed, starting with those countries that are the biggest contributors of greenhouse gases.
However, the scientists failed to create a unified goal for policy makers, and they further failed to present potential scenarios that are even relevant to future scenarios. The assumptions presented were that the whole world is going to react in one way to global climate change, and that these reactions will not only be unified, but will also be very predictable. If anthropology has taught us anything about cultures and people's, it is that they are very distinct and not as predictable as one would expect. Languages that could have, and arguably should have died, still exist. People groups that could have coexisted peacefully with any other nation were driven to extinction by a rival group that had bigger weaponry and an unhealthy sense of moral superiority.
Further, there is no one solution to problems of this magnitude. As the "green revolution" demonstrated, the solution to world hunger is not by trying to transport large farming equipment, pesticides and herbicides to countries that already have problems with erosion and bad forest management. Instead, each area or region has to produce individualized solutions that cater to the specific needs of their populace. An example of how this sort of individualized solutions can create positive change could be the current status of some homeschool families. As a product of one such household, I know both the positives and negatives of this form of individualized learning. However, it gave my siblings and myself a chance to start "adult" behavior and take on individualized, specific and meaningful projects and activities at an early age. It allowed me to take a college entrance exam at the age of 15, and it allowed my brother to graduate with two bachelors degrees (mathematics and civil engineering) as a fifth year senior at the age of 20.
Just as one solution does not work for every agriculture project or every school curriculum, there should not be, and cannot be, a unified solution for climate warming. However, I also feel that one needs to be addressed, starting with those countries that are the biggest contributors of greenhouse gases.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Orr 2011
"We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children"
This Native American proverb speaks to the main sentiments of the author.
The first chapter that we encountered in our reading focused on the declining vocabulary of the youth of the world, in conjunction with a declining interest in real issues. Just as the news media presents information on the potential homosexuality of Justin Bieber with more consistency and greater attention than the rape crisis in India, popular culture also consumes more of the attention of an average US citizen. As a recent Facebook post clearly states, what would shock people of the 1950s about today is that we have pocket devices capable of tapping all the known knowledge in the world, and we use it to look at cat videos and start online arguments on trivial matters. The chapter argued for a common literature to be reintroduced in the US, for people to begin to use language directly, and for a reintroduction of philosophy and religion into conversations. While I think that philosophy and religion are indeed great subjects of inquiry, I do not know how much they influence the current shift in the mainstream culture toward increasing disinterest and stupidity.
Although I agreed with Orr's conclusions that climate change is happening, and that people are systematically ignoring it, I did not appreciate many of his examples and felt that some of them were particularly offensive. In chapter 29, he outlines Pascal's Wager as a justification for reconsidering climate change. While the premise is honorable, the argument is flimsy at best. Pascal's Wager is fraught with religious issues that needed to be addressed before he tried to use this argument to justify why people should reconsider their view toward climate change. First, Pascal's Wager is very offensive to people who do not hold to a religious belief system, and even offensive to those that do. The wager holds that all religious individuals are better people, nicer and with long-term goals, while those who aren't are focused on frivolous pursuits and instant gratification. This is wrong on so many different levels that to address them would be a major deviation to the goal of this post. Suffice it to say, as a teacher of religion and as a child of very religious individuals, I have my doubts that Pascal is anything short of a fraud. Regardless, the points made in the course of the chapter, mainly that no one can foresee the future implications of climate change and that we, therefore, need to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best, are good.
Perhaps my favorite line in the book was from chapter 30, during which Orr discussed the coal industry, which has dire effects on surrounding populations and settlements. "Coal companies' efforts to plant grass and a few trees here and there are like putting lipstick on a corpse." These companies destroy natural habitats, disrupt ecosystems, subject the surrounding humans to negative health effects, and yet any monetary gains from this exploitation end up leaving the state.
Again, as an anthropologist, the connections drawn between global warming and slavery were enough to make me very indignant. The thought that anyone could compare the atrocities suffered at the hands of US slave-holders, to those enacted by the corporations and governments that ignore climate change is insensitive to say the least. A quote was even presented (on page 303) that basically said that the slaves could be freed, but the victims of global warming can expect no reprieve. I don't understand how this statement passed the editors, and I further don't understand how someone with such a coherent and thoughtful explanation of the detriments of climate change could expect to use this as an example and get anyone to listen to him! The cries of those subjected to slavery for centuries need to be louder than those who are subjected to the negative effects of fossil fuels! I cannot begin to decry this comparison enough. The subject of slavery is one that holds great emotional power, so I can see why so many different groups looking for a change in the way that they are treated or viewed have created a comparison between their movement and slavery. However, many of those groups, and this chapter included, have only served to alienate anyone who might have listened to them. This is a misuse of comparisons, a misuse of the power presented to Orr through the publication of his words, and a misuse of the power afforded to Orr through his status as a white man living in the US.
To the defense of Orr, he brought up a point that Lester and Hart failed to make, and that was acknowledging that climate change often effects those least able to adapt.
In chapter 33, again, I feel that Orr overstepped his bounds as an author. He compared climate change to abortion, in that abortion kills a life that has the potential to live, while climate change kills many humans and other animals that might otherwise have lived. To say that abortion kills a life is a very subjective statement that needs more documentation. Abortion disposes of cells with the potential to someday form into a human, if it continues as a parasite for about 9 months, and as a baby with limited means to sustain itself for many years after. On the other hand, climate change negatively changes the lives of many species that have the full potential live, and have been living independently for many years. These are not equal comparisons at all! Again, I do not understand why this comparison, which merely served to boil my blood, was even brought up. Fully functional animals with clear quality of life and success as an active member of society cannot begin to be compared to fetuses with no distinguishable quality of life who are not members of society. I understand the comparison as it should have been made, between potential life and potential death, but it does not belong in an academic setting and should never have been addressed in the course of this book.
Americans, as Orr correctly states, are both addicted to greed and consumption and have not been told the total picture of the climatic state. They are told to replace devices and recycle, not to reduce their overall carbon footprint and to stop using and consuming as much as they desire. The solutions presented by Orr, which I see as viable, include a focus on local goods, community outreach and cooperative interactions, and a return to incorporating nature in our daily life. As a product of a rural hobby-farm, I am aware of the vast benefits of being raised with a healthy exploration of the great outdoors.
Finally, Orr discusses non-violence, bringing up Gandhi. He states that wealth and weapons only serve to make us cowards, and that we need to move away from our dependence on weapons and the military. As an advocate for non-violence, I tend to agree with his conclusions.
This Native American proverb speaks to the main sentiments of the author.
The first chapter that we encountered in our reading focused on the declining vocabulary of the youth of the world, in conjunction with a declining interest in real issues. Just as the news media presents information on the potential homosexuality of Justin Bieber with more consistency and greater attention than the rape crisis in India, popular culture also consumes more of the attention of an average US citizen. As a recent Facebook post clearly states, what would shock people of the 1950s about today is that we have pocket devices capable of tapping all the known knowledge in the world, and we use it to look at cat videos and start online arguments on trivial matters. The chapter argued for a common literature to be reintroduced in the US, for people to begin to use language directly, and for a reintroduction of philosophy and religion into conversations. While I think that philosophy and religion are indeed great subjects of inquiry, I do not know how much they influence the current shift in the mainstream culture toward increasing disinterest and stupidity.
Although I agreed with Orr's conclusions that climate change is happening, and that people are systematically ignoring it, I did not appreciate many of his examples and felt that some of them were particularly offensive. In chapter 29, he outlines Pascal's Wager as a justification for reconsidering climate change. While the premise is honorable, the argument is flimsy at best. Pascal's Wager is fraught with religious issues that needed to be addressed before he tried to use this argument to justify why people should reconsider their view toward climate change. First, Pascal's Wager is very offensive to people who do not hold to a religious belief system, and even offensive to those that do. The wager holds that all religious individuals are better people, nicer and with long-term goals, while those who aren't are focused on frivolous pursuits and instant gratification. This is wrong on so many different levels that to address them would be a major deviation to the goal of this post. Suffice it to say, as a teacher of religion and as a child of very religious individuals, I have my doubts that Pascal is anything short of a fraud. Regardless, the points made in the course of the chapter, mainly that no one can foresee the future implications of climate change and that we, therefore, need to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best, are good.
Perhaps my favorite line in the book was from chapter 30, during which Orr discussed the coal industry, which has dire effects on surrounding populations and settlements. "Coal companies' efforts to plant grass and a few trees here and there are like putting lipstick on a corpse." These companies destroy natural habitats, disrupt ecosystems, subject the surrounding humans to negative health effects, and yet any monetary gains from this exploitation end up leaving the state.
Again, as an anthropologist, the connections drawn between global warming and slavery were enough to make me very indignant. The thought that anyone could compare the atrocities suffered at the hands of US slave-holders, to those enacted by the corporations and governments that ignore climate change is insensitive to say the least. A quote was even presented (on page 303) that basically said that the slaves could be freed, but the victims of global warming can expect no reprieve. I don't understand how this statement passed the editors, and I further don't understand how someone with such a coherent and thoughtful explanation of the detriments of climate change could expect to use this as an example and get anyone to listen to him! The cries of those subjected to slavery for centuries need to be louder than those who are subjected to the negative effects of fossil fuels! I cannot begin to decry this comparison enough. The subject of slavery is one that holds great emotional power, so I can see why so many different groups looking for a change in the way that they are treated or viewed have created a comparison between their movement and slavery. However, many of those groups, and this chapter included, have only served to alienate anyone who might have listened to them. This is a misuse of comparisons, a misuse of the power presented to Orr through the publication of his words, and a misuse of the power afforded to Orr through his status as a white man living in the US.
To the defense of Orr, he brought up a point that Lester and Hart failed to make, and that was acknowledging that climate change often effects those least able to adapt.
In chapter 33, again, I feel that Orr overstepped his bounds as an author. He compared climate change to abortion, in that abortion kills a life that has the potential to live, while climate change kills many humans and other animals that might otherwise have lived. To say that abortion kills a life is a very subjective statement that needs more documentation. Abortion disposes of cells with the potential to someday form into a human, if it continues as a parasite for about 9 months, and as a baby with limited means to sustain itself for many years after. On the other hand, climate change negatively changes the lives of many species that have the full potential live, and have been living independently for many years. These are not equal comparisons at all! Again, I do not understand why this comparison, which merely served to boil my blood, was even brought up. Fully functional animals with clear quality of life and success as an active member of society cannot begin to be compared to fetuses with no distinguishable quality of life who are not members of society. I understand the comparison as it should have been made, between potential life and potential death, but it does not belong in an academic setting and should never have been addressed in the course of this book.
Americans, as Orr correctly states, are both addicted to greed and consumption and have not been told the total picture of the climatic state. They are told to replace devices and recycle, not to reduce their overall carbon footprint and to stop using and consuming as much as they desire. The solutions presented by Orr, which I see as viable, include a focus on local goods, community outreach and cooperative interactions, and a return to incorporating nature in our daily life. As a product of a rural hobby-farm, I am aware of the vast benefits of being raised with a healthy exploration of the great outdoors.
Finally, Orr discusses non-violence, bringing up Gandhi. He states that wealth and weapons only serve to make us cowards, and that we need to move away from our dependence on weapons and the military. As an advocate for non-violence, I tend to agree with his conclusions.
Lester and Hart Pt. 1
This section focused mainly on energy and ways to make the US create less carbon emissions. The section makes a great point that warmer temperatures have an impact on both agricultural yields as well as coastal dwellers.
This past summer, I had the privilege of working at the Illinois Natural History survey assisting in botanical surveys across Illinois. The crop situation in much of the state was dire. In fact, yields of key crops were so low that the corn and soybean yield was the lowest in decades, and the drought was declared as bad as the 1988 drought (which was, coincidentally, the year I was born). Fortunately for botanical surveys, this meant that there were less mosquitoes and ticks to keep us company. Unfortunately, that also meant that an increasing amount of the vegetation was either dead or wilting under the strain of the heat. In addition, areas that had been active wetlands just five years prior were now planted with crops that would hopefully fare better than those planted in drier regions. In this way, the drought was not only impacting domesticated crops, and thereby yields and the returns of Illinois farmers, it was also impacting the native plants that used to thrive here. That was just the news from Illinois.
Over the winter break, I traveled down to Belize for a few short weeks of dissertation research between semesters. I was prepared for daily rain and a constant humidity that would make even 50 degree days seem incredibly chilly. Instead, I was met with temperatures that climbed into the 90s, but with humidity that made you sweat in the shade. The taxi drivers and my field assistants informed me that this weather was very unusual for this time of year. When I arrived, it had been so dry that my field assistant, who is also a farmer and owns cattle, had been forced to switch irrigation ponds to one that was no longer dry. This is the beginning of the classic "dry season" in Belize, with little rain expected for the next several months. Of course, before we left the rain returned with a vengeance, but with little of the potential accumulation and none of the colder temperatures.
These personal experiences pair nicely with Lester and Hart's examples, leading me to also conclude that the climate is warming, and significantly at that.
The solutions presented in the book were focused just on US energy, and mainly on reducing the carbon footprint. The solution to the fuel-driven economy of the US were nuclear and coal, wind and solar power, and even natural gas. Personally, I was shocked that someone would suggest that these are viable solutions, even for the short-term. As a biologist and anthropologist, I know the impacts that these alternative energy solutions have on multiple different species, including humans. Besides coal, fracking is perhaps the most disputed of the proposed alternative energy options. Fracking uses trillions of gallons of water along with billions of gallons of chemicals, and can contaminate nearby watersheds and, in turn, the many species that consume this water. Nuclear energy has many distinct drawbacks, as recently demonstrated clearly in Japan. In addition, the waste produced has very dire consequences both in the short and long term. Finally, wind energy often exploits areas that are key biologically, and also tends to disrupt bird migrations and other important biological processes. As mentioned in class, some people do not feel that these problems are enough to outweigh the benefits of these forms of energy. However, with some of the most brilliant minds ever evolved able to connect and share information and technology at rates and scales never before imagined, surely the future of energy does not have to involve as many sacrifices.
Another issue that I had with the Lester and Hart reading was with their disregard for countries and individuals other than human beings living in the US. Again, this greatly disturbs me. There are many more species living in the US besides humans. Just because we tend to have the greatest say in our own existence, and tend to negatively impact other species without caring much about it, does not mean that this is a viable way to exist! We do need to care that other species co-exist in our spaces. They do not need to be thought of as expendables or even as secondary to our own needs. The reason that we are able to exist as we do is because of the other species that we co-exist with. The sooner that more people realize this, the more protection can be afforded to other species. In addition, there are many more places on planet Earth besides the US. As an anthropologist, I am extremely offended that this section merely addresses other places in the world without giving it much thought or concern. The US is one of the most highly-industrialized and richest nations in the world, and even we cannot react quickly enough to natural disasters, such as tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes. If this is the US reaction, please stop to think about other countries that have far less resources and whose people are far less prepared or able to pick up and move given the increasing difficulties presented to them via climate warming.
Finally, the reading tends to suggest that the best method of proceeding forward in the energy innovation process is to employ competition, ie Capitalism. While this is, unfortunately, the mindset of many Americans, I do not feel that an innovation system focused on competition and backbiting is the best to solve this very global and very diverse problem. If anything, we need more cooperation and understanding between the different researchers and scientists who are working to make energy less carbon-dependent, thereby decreasing the negative impacts that are currently being felt through any energy usage.
This past summer, I had the privilege of working at the Illinois Natural History survey assisting in botanical surveys across Illinois. The crop situation in much of the state was dire. In fact, yields of key crops were so low that the corn and soybean yield was the lowest in decades, and the drought was declared as bad as the 1988 drought (which was, coincidentally, the year I was born). Fortunately for botanical surveys, this meant that there were less mosquitoes and ticks to keep us company. Unfortunately, that also meant that an increasing amount of the vegetation was either dead or wilting under the strain of the heat. In addition, areas that had been active wetlands just five years prior were now planted with crops that would hopefully fare better than those planted in drier regions. In this way, the drought was not only impacting domesticated crops, and thereby yields and the returns of Illinois farmers, it was also impacting the native plants that used to thrive here. That was just the news from Illinois.
Over the winter break, I traveled down to Belize for a few short weeks of dissertation research between semesters. I was prepared for daily rain and a constant humidity that would make even 50 degree days seem incredibly chilly. Instead, I was met with temperatures that climbed into the 90s, but with humidity that made you sweat in the shade. The taxi drivers and my field assistants informed me that this weather was very unusual for this time of year. When I arrived, it had been so dry that my field assistant, who is also a farmer and owns cattle, had been forced to switch irrigation ponds to one that was no longer dry. This is the beginning of the classic "dry season" in Belize, with little rain expected for the next several months. Of course, before we left the rain returned with a vengeance, but with little of the potential accumulation and none of the colder temperatures.
These personal experiences pair nicely with Lester and Hart's examples, leading me to also conclude that the climate is warming, and significantly at that.
The solutions presented in the book were focused just on US energy, and mainly on reducing the carbon footprint. The solution to the fuel-driven economy of the US were nuclear and coal, wind and solar power, and even natural gas. Personally, I was shocked that someone would suggest that these are viable solutions, even for the short-term. As a biologist and anthropologist, I know the impacts that these alternative energy solutions have on multiple different species, including humans. Besides coal, fracking is perhaps the most disputed of the proposed alternative energy options. Fracking uses trillions of gallons of water along with billions of gallons of chemicals, and can contaminate nearby watersheds and, in turn, the many species that consume this water. Nuclear energy has many distinct drawbacks, as recently demonstrated clearly in Japan. In addition, the waste produced has very dire consequences both in the short and long term. Finally, wind energy often exploits areas that are key biologically, and also tends to disrupt bird migrations and other important biological processes. As mentioned in class, some people do not feel that these problems are enough to outweigh the benefits of these forms of energy. However, with some of the most brilliant minds ever evolved able to connect and share information and technology at rates and scales never before imagined, surely the future of energy does not have to involve as many sacrifices.
Another issue that I had with the Lester and Hart reading was with their disregard for countries and individuals other than human beings living in the US. Again, this greatly disturbs me. There are many more species living in the US besides humans. Just because we tend to have the greatest say in our own existence, and tend to negatively impact other species without caring much about it, does not mean that this is a viable way to exist! We do need to care that other species co-exist in our spaces. They do not need to be thought of as expendables or even as secondary to our own needs. The reason that we are able to exist as we do is because of the other species that we co-exist with. The sooner that more people realize this, the more protection can be afforded to other species. In addition, there are many more places on planet Earth besides the US. As an anthropologist, I am extremely offended that this section merely addresses other places in the world without giving it much thought or concern. The US is one of the most highly-industrialized and richest nations in the world, and even we cannot react quickly enough to natural disasters, such as tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes. If this is the US reaction, please stop to think about other countries that have far less resources and whose people are far less prepared or able to pick up and move given the increasing difficulties presented to them via climate warming.
Finally, the reading tends to suggest that the best method of proceeding forward in the energy innovation process is to employ competition, ie Capitalism. While this is, unfortunately, the mindset of many Americans, I do not feel that an innovation system focused on competition and backbiting is the best to solve this very global and very diverse problem. If anything, we need more cooperation and understanding between the different researchers and scientists who are working to make energy less carbon-dependent, thereby decreasing the negative impacts that are currently being felt through any energy usage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)