Thursday, June 5, 2008
week 3: threat of global warming?
Is there really such a thing as global warming?
The article I read this week was about progress made to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution. Apparently, greenhouse gases have decreased by three percent, according to the White House’s top environmental advisor. He says that this can be partially attributed to new programs under the Bush administration. However, it goes on to say that the private sector and favorable weather conditions have also helped, along with the government. The article claims that the U.S. has taken the major steps to “combat global warming.” I guess he wants everyone to take a minute and thank the Bush administration for its hard work and the greenhouse gas decrease. The policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate center thinks otherwise. According to him, government statistics show the opposite of what the environmental advisor believed. Therefore, the question is what can possibly be done and is there a threat?
It seems pretty clear that there is a lot of pollution. It is definitely important to try to reduce the pollution and greenhouse gases. According to Climate Change Central, “Strictly speaking, global warming and global cooling refer to the natural warming and cooling trends that the earth has experienced all through its history.” Ok then. It seems the temperature of the earth has fluctuated throughout history. Does that mean there is something called global warming that will melt the polar icecaps and flood the world? It’s impossible to know for sure. NOAA.gov says global warming is “an overall increase in world temperatures which may be caused by additional heat being trapped by greenhouse gases.” The debate seems to be on whether or not the horrible definition of global warming is a real threat or not. We should definitely consider reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. I think there definitely is a possibility that something could happen in the future. Since there has been a trend in fluctuations in the earth’s temperature, it makes me feel like the threat is not that bad. If temperatures continue to rise though, there could be a problem. I’m always open to new things and the possibility of this concept. I think we need to continue the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, before it’s too late. In response to the article, I don’t think anyone person/thing can be credited with the decrease in greenhouse gases as it occurred from a number of sources. No one could really definitively say that it is all because of the Bush administration that the gas emissions have decreased.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
week 3: article one-pager
“White House Claims Green Success”
The big hubbub right now seems to be “going green” and doing everything that is environmentally friendly with the threat of global warming looming. In the article, the White House’s top environmental adviser claims the Bush administration has taken the major steps in the fight against global warming. There have apparently been decreases in some air pollution and a decrease in greenhouse-gas emissions. The decrease is being attributed to the government, the private sector, and the weather, which have all contributed. This claim that the Bush administration has done so much to combat global warming sparked a debate in the Senate. It seems some people believe the government has done very little as most of the changes can be attributed to favorable weather conditions. There are plans to discuss the issue at upcoming international summits, which have other nations involved. If global warming is real (I’m not saying it’s not) then the effort to save the planet will involve more than just the U.S. All of this “going green” stuff would help and trying to lower emissions helps, but in the end this will have to be a group effort among the world nations. I thought this article was interesting. I have not read a whole lot of this issue in a while. I do remember debates between people about if global warming is real or not. I guess it is a fact that there is a lot of pollution in the country and in the world. Efforts to reduce pollution and greenhouse-gases are important, as those are real. Part of the article says government statistics show the opposite of this new claim of the Bush administration’s triumphs. If these positive things occurred under this government, then why would the numbers be different? It is clear that no one really knows what’s going on around here as everyone has conflicting stories, opinions, and information. Instead of focusing on who should be credited with the three percent decrease in greenhouse gases, we should be focusing on ways to keep reducing them and other pollutants. Sure, this could mean the nation is making progress in improving the environment, but it is just one step. The entire world should be involved if it is not already and more steps need to be taken to save the planet. If the air pollution and greenhouse gases led to increasing temperatures to melt the polar ice caps, causing floods, we would be in some serious trouble.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/03/white-house-claims-green-success/?page=2
The big hubbub right now seems to be “going green” and doing everything that is environmentally friendly with the threat of global warming looming. In the article, the White House’s top environmental adviser claims the Bush administration has taken the major steps in the fight against global warming. There have apparently been decreases in some air pollution and a decrease in greenhouse-gas emissions. The decrease is being attributed to the government, the private sector, and the weather, which have all contributed. This claim that the Bush administration has done so much to combat global warming sparked a debate in the Senate. It seems some people believe the government has done very little as most of the changes can be attributed to favorable weather conditions. There are plans to discuss the issue at upcoming international summits, which have other nations involved. If global warming is real (I’m not saying it’s not) then the effort to save the planet will involve more than just the U.S. All of this “going green” stuff would help and trying to lower emissions helps, but in the end this will have to be a group effort among the world nations. I thought this article was interesting. I have not read a whole lot of this issue in a while. I do remember debates between people about if global warming is real or not. I guess it is a fact that there is a lot of pollution in the country and in the world. Efforts to reduce pollution and greenhouse-gases are important, as those are real. Part of the article says government statistics show the opposite of this new claim of the Bush administration’s triumphs. If these positive things occurred under this government, then why would the numbers be different? It is clear that no one really knows what’s going on around here as everyone has conflicting stories, opinions, and information. Instead of focusing on who should be credited with the three percent decrease in greenhouse gases, we should be focusing on ways to keep reducing them and other pollutants. Sure, this could mean the nation is making progress in improving the environment, but it is just one step. The entire world should be involved if it is not already and more steps need to be taken to save the planet. If the air pollution and greenhouse gases led to increasing temperatures to melt the polar ice caps, causing floods, we would be in some serious trouble.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/03/white-house-claims-green-success/?page=2
week 3: editorial one-pager
"Criminal-Friendly in Rockville"
Shawn Henderson of Landover was charged with first-degree murder in the death of a local woman. Henderson is a convicted robber. His trial has not yet been held, so his guilt is unclear, but he is definitely a dangerous criminal. In 2000, Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Durke Thompson sentenced Henderson to twelve years in prison for three separate robbery attempts in which Henderson had stabbed people. The sentence was reduced to ten years in 2004 by Judge Thompson. Henderson ended up getting out of parole in 2006, after only serving six of the ten years. He is now at a detention center after the latest crime, awaiting the trial. People were killed during Henderson’s robbery attempts, yet he got out of prison after a mere six years. Judge Thompson shortened the sentence and helped let this dangerous man back out of the streets where he killed another innocent person. This is not the first time the judge has made a ruling like this one. In 2000, he was involved in a child molester case. “Judge Thompson appeared to suggest that his 11-year-old victim was partly to blame for inviting the man into her bedroom.” Even if the child had “invited the man into her bedroom,” child molestation is a serious crime that should not be taken lightly. It is not the child’s fault. This editorial really freaked me out. I found it really scary to think that a circuit court judge, who people think should be intelligent and responsible, could play a part in crimes like this. He actually shortened Henderson’s sentence when the crimes involved him “stabb[ing] or slash[ing] people’s throats.” He was involved in three different robbery attempts and he still gets out after six years. It has been about two years since he was out on parole and he has committed another crime, although the trial has not been held yet. If he is found guilty for this one, then he should be locked up for a long time. The sentence should not be shortened in this case as Henderson obviously did not learn anything in the last six years he spent behind bars.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/02/editorial-criminal-friendly-in-rockville/
Shawn Henderson of Landover was charged with first-degree murder in the death of a local woman. Henderson is a convicted robber. His trial has not yet been held, so his guilt is unclear, but he is definitely a dangerous criminal. In 2000, Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Durke Thompson sentenced Henderson to twelve years in prison for three separate robbery attempts in which Henderson had stabbed people. The sentence was reduced to ten years in 2004 by Judge Thompson. Henderson ended up getting out of parole in 2006, after only serving six of the ten years. He is now at a detention center after the latest crime, awaiting the trial. People were killed during Henderson’s robbery attempts, yet he got out of prison after a mere six years. Judge Thompson shortened the sentence and helped let this dangerous man back out of the streets where he killed another innocent person. This is not the first time the judge has made a ruling like this one. In 2000, he was involved in a child molester case. “Judge Thompson appeared to suggest that his 11-year-old victim was partly to blame for inviting the man into her bedroom.” Even if the child had “invited the man into her bedroom,” child molestation is a serious crime that should not be taken lightly. It is not the child’s fault. This editorial really freaked me out. I found it really scary to think that a circuit court judge, who people think should be intelligent and responsible, could play a part in crimes like this. He actually shortened Henderson’s sentence when the crimes involved him “stabb[ing] or slash[ing] people’s throats.” He was involved in three different robbery attempts and he still gets out after six years. It has been about two years since he was out on parole and he has committed another crime, although the trial has not been held yet. If he is found guilty for this one, then he should be locked up for a long time. The sentence should not be shortened in this case as Henderson obviously did not learn anything in the last six years he spent behind bars.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/02/editorial-criminal-friendly-in-rockville/
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
week 2: 700 million barrels of oil in government stockpile
With summer approaching, many people are planning vacations and many student drivers are out of school. That can only mean one thing… gas prices are going to skyrocket. Gas prices are just about $4 a gallon right now. Who knows how high they will be midway through the summer. Crude oil is currently around $130 a barrel, so people are trying to find a solution to bring prices down.
The article I read for this week had to do with these rising prices. The U.S. has an emergency stockpile of oil with about 700 million barrels. Some members of Congress called to release some of these barrels in an effort to lower prices. Energy secretary Samuel Bodman disagreed with this idea saying the stockpile is for emergencies and should not be used to affect prices. The article commented that part of this idea to release the stockpile oil was because prices dropped eighteen percent when President Clinton released some of the emergency oil in 2000. Bodman wants to reserve the oil in the event of an emergency or if the flow of oil into the U.S. is cut off. The oil has been used twice in response to interruptions: during the Gulf War and after Hurricane Katrina.
This idea that releasing the stockpile oil could potentially influence prices is interesting. There is a drawback to the plan, though. Bush had stopped adding to the oil reserve after a piece of legislation passed by Congress to halt deliveries. If the government began to release the oil, but failed to add oil back, the supply would be slowly depleted. Although there is the potential to lower prices, what would happen in the event of an emergency? Oil was released after Hurricane Katrina, so what happens if something similar happens and the supply is low? I don’t think release this oil will get the desired effect in the end if it means decreasing the emergency reserve. 700 million barrels sounds like a lot of oil, but the U.S. alone goes through more than 20 million barrels a day. If the flow of oil into the country were halted and we had to depend on internal sources (the reserve), there is the potential to run through the entire stockpile after about a month. I would hate to see the country burn through the reserve to lower prices and then have a national emergency of some sort without this emergency stockpile.
I guess it all depends on how much oil was supposed to be released. I am not sure how many barrels it would take to make a considerable impact on prices, but I am pretty sure it would have to be a lot. I do not think the solution we have been searching for is going to be in releasing this emergency stockpile. Prices seem to have been impacted the most with the demand increasing faster than the supply. If it all comes down to supply and demand, then the prices are out of our control. For now, I guess people should just suck it up or try alternatives like more fuel-efficient cars or carpooling.
I can definitely see where Bodman was coming from in refusing to release the oil. It is for emergencies, not to influence prices and this is not exactly an emergency. Just be thankful you most likely don’t have to buy diesel fuel, it’s close to $5 a gallon.
The article I read for this week had to do with these rising prices. The U.S. has an emergency stockpile of oil with about 700 million barrels. Some members of Congress called to release some of these barrels in an effort to lower prices. Energy secretary Samuel Bodman disagreed with this idea saying the stockpile is for emergencies and should not be used to affect prices. The article commented that part of this idea to release the stockpile oil was because prices dropped eighteen percent when President Clinton released some of the emergency oil in 2000. Bodman wants to reserve the oil in the event of an emergency or if the flow of oil into the U.S. is cut off. The oil has been used twice in response to interruptions: during the Gulf War and after Hurricane Katrina.
This idea that releasing the stockpile oil could potentially influence prices is interesting. There is a drawback to the plan, though. Bush had stopped adding to the oil reserve after a piece of legislation passed by Congress to halt deliveries. If the government began to release the oil, but failed to add oil back, the supply would be slowly depleted. Although there is the potential to lower prices, what would happen in the event of an emergency? Oil was released after Hurricane Katrina, so what happens if something similar happens and the supply is low? I don’t think release this oil will get the desired effect in the end if it means decreasing the emergency reserve. 700 million barrels sounds like a lot of oil, but the U.S. alone goes through more than 20 million barrels a day. If the flow of oil into the country were halted and we had to depend on internal sources (the reserve), there is the potential to run through the entire stockpile after about a month. I would hate to see the country burn through the reserve to lower prices and then have a national emergency of some sort without this emergency stockpile.
I guess it all depends on how much oil was supposed to be released. I am not sure how many barrels it would take to make a considerable impact on prices, but I am pretty sure it would have to be a lot. I do not think the solution we have been searching for is going to be in releasing this emergency stockpile. Prices seem to have been impacted the most with the demand increasing faster than the supply. If it all comes down to supply and demand, then the prices are out of our control. For now, I guess people should just suck it up or try alternatives like more fuel-efficient cars or carpooling.
I can definitely see where Bodman was coming from in refusing to release the oil. It is for emergencies, not to influence prices and this is not exactly an emergency. Just be thankful you most likely don’t have to buy diesel fuel, it’s close to $5 a gallon.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
week 1: what's the deal with west virginia?
In class the other day, a couple different issues were brought up. I decided to take a closer look at some of the stuff going on in the 2008 presidential campaign. As many of you are hopefully aware, there is a close race between Obama and Clinton for the Democratic nomination, with Obama ahead by a slim margin. The West Virginia primary was last Tuesday, Clinton being the victor. The day of the primary, the Washington Times featured an editorial about some trends surrounding the state. The state has proven to be important in the fate of the election for the Democrats. The author of the editorial said that for a majority of the time, West Virginia is needed to win the whole election. If Al Gore had won the state, he would have won the election, but the Florida recount problems did not help either.
I thought this was an interesting idea, though it is probably just a coincidence. Although some people think that their one, single vote cannot make a difference, a state can make a difference. I find it to be a little strange that it turns out to be this one in particular, unless it is just because of being able to win over the demographics of the state. According to CNN's tracking of the primaries and caucuses, Clinton only won twenty pledged delegates in West Virginia. This does not seem like that many to me with the sixty-seven delegates in the North Carolina primary the week before.
I found it a little strange that the author put so much emphasis on West Virginia. When I mentioned something about the editorial to someone, he said it was utterly ridiculous and a mere coincidence at most. That was a little harsh. Former presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, Sr. were able to win the presidential elections because of West Virginia. I'm sure there would have to have been some others, those were just a few examples given.
Here's the deal. Obama currently has more superdelegates than Clinton, even with her win in West Virginia. Past elections have shown that Democratic success lies with the vote in West Virginia, as the winner has been affected by the state in the case of Gore. That should mean West Virginia's vote in the general election is seemingly crucial, not as much with the primary as Clinton is pretty far behind.
Part of CNN’s article “What Might West Virginia’s Primary Mean?” read, “If Obama gets the nomination and it looks like the only way he can win is to get those West Virginia Democrats back, you can be sure he will think seriously about asking Clinton to go on the ticket.“ It is pretty clear that Obama has a lead and may very well beat Clinton. There is a problem when it comes down to a state like West Virginia. Bush won in 2000 because of social issues and guns as we got the “Bush Democrats” in West Virginia at the time. It could be though that the vote comes down to West Virginia because of the certain social issues and stances taken in this traditionally Democratic state. When the time comes in November for the general election, this state could play a role in which party wins, but it will also depend on which Democrat gets the nomination. I guess we’ll see how much of a difference one state can actually make when it comes down to the end of the primaries and then to the general election.
I thought this was an interesting idea, though it is probably just a coincidence. Although some people think that their one, single vote cannot make a difference, a state can make a difference. I find it to be a little strange that it turns out to be this one in particular, unless it is just because of being able to win over the demographics of the state. According to CNN's tracking of the primaries and caucuses, Clinton only won twenty pledged delegates in West Virginia. This does not seem like that many to me with the sixty-seven delegates in the North Carolina primary the week before.
I found it a little strange that the author put so much emphasis on West Virginia. When I mentioned something about the editorial to someone, he said it was utterly ridiculous and a mere coincidence at most. That was a little harsh. Former presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, Sr. were able to win the presidential elections because of West Virginia. I'm sure there would have to have been some others, those were just a few examples given.
Here's the deal. Obama currently has more superdelegates than Clinton, even with her win in West Virginia. Past elections have shown that Democratic success lies with the vote in West Virginia, as the winner has been affected by the state in the case of Gore. That should mean West Virginia's vote in the general election is seemingly crucial, not as much with the primary as Clinton is pretty far behind.
Part of CNN’s article “What Might West Virginia’s Primary Mean?” read, “If Obama gets the nomination and it looks like the only way he can win is to get those West Virginia Democrats back, you can be sure he will think seriously about asking Clinton to go on the ticket.“ It is pretty clear that Obama has a lead and may very well beat Clinton. There is a problem when it comes down to a state like West Virginia. Bush won in 2000 because of social issues and guns as we got the “Bush Democrats” in West Virginia at the time. It could be though that the vote comes down to West Virginia because of the certain social issues and stances taken in this traditionally Democratic state. When the time comes in November for the general election, this state could play a role in which party wins, but it will also depend on which Democrat gets the nomination. I guess we’ll see how much of a difference one state can actually make when it comes down to the end of the primaries and then to the general election.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
