Monday, December 7, 2009
Article on Yahoo!News
It dawned with the warmest winter on record in the United States. And when the sun sets this New Year's Eve, the decade of the 2000s will end as the warmest ever on global temperature charts.
Warmer still, scientists say, lies ahead.
Through 10 years of global boom and bust, of breakneck change around the planet, of terrorism, war and division, all people everywhere under that warming sun faced one threat together: the buildup ofgreenhouse gases, the rise in temperatures, the danger of a shifting climate, of drought, weather extremes and encroaching seas, of untold damage to the world humanity has created for itself over millennia.
As the decade neared its close, the U.N. gathered presidents and premiers of almost 100 nations for a "climate summit" to take united action, to sharply cut back the burning of coal and other fossil fuels.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told them they had "a powerful opportunity to get on the right side of history" at a year-ending climate conference in Copenhagen.
Once again, however, disunity might keep the world's nations on this side of making historic decisions.
"Deep down, we know that you are not really listening," the Maldives' Mohamed Nasheed told fellow presidents at September's summit.
Nasheed's tiny homeland, a sprinkling of low-lying islands in the Indian Ocean, will be one of the earliest victims of seas rising from heat expansion and melting glaciers. On remote islets of Papua New Guinea, on Pacific atolls, on bleak Arctic shores, other coastal peoples in the 2000s were already making plans, packing up, seeking shelter.
The warming seas were growing more acid, too, from absorbing carbon dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gasin an overloaded atmosphere. Together, warmer waters and acidity will kill coral reefs and imperil other marine life — from plankton at the bottom of the food chain, to starfish and crabs, mussels and sea urchins.
Over the decade's first nine years, global temperatures averaged 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees F) higher than the 1951-1980 average, NASA reported. And temperatures rose faster in the far north than anyplace else on Earth.
The decade's final three summers melted Arctic sea ice more than ever before in modern times. Greenland's gargantuan ice cap was pouring 3 percent more meltwater into the sea each year. Every summer's thaw reached deeper into the Arctic permafrost, threatening to unlock vast amounts of methane, a global-warming gas.
Less ice meant less sunlight reflected, more heat absorbed by the Earth. More methane escaping the tundra meant more warming, more thawing, more methane released.
At the bottom of the world, late in the decade, International Polar Year research found that Antarctica, too, was warming. Floating ice shelves fringing its coast weakened, some breaking away, allowing the glaciers behind them to push ice faster into the rising oceans.
On six continents the glaciers retreated through the 2000s, shrinking future water sources for countless millions of Indians, Chinese, South Americans. The great lakes of Africa were shrinking, too, from higher temperatures, evaporation and drought. Across the temperate zones, flowers bloomed earlier, lakes froze later, bark beetles bored their destructive way northward through warmer forests. In the Arctic, surprised Eskimos spotted the red breasts of southern robins.
In the 2000s, all this was happening faster than anticipated, scientists said. So were other things: By late in the decade, global emissions of carbon dioxide matched the worst case among seven scenarios laid down in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. scientific network formed to peer into climate's future. Almost 29 billion tons of the gas poured skyward annually — 23 percent higher than at the decade's start.
By year-end 2008, the 2000s already included eight of the 10 warmest years on record. By 2060, that trajectory could push temperatures a dangerous 4 degrees C (7 degrees F) or more higher than preindustrial levels, British scientists said.
Early in the decade, the president of the United States, the biggest emitter, blamed "incomplete" science for the U.S. stand against rolling back emissions, as other industrial nations were trying to do. As the decade wore on and emissions grew, American reasoning leaned more toward the economic.
By 2009, with a new president and Congress, Washington seemed ready to talk. But in the front ranks of climate research — where they scale the glaciers, drill into ocean sediments, monitor a changing Earth through a web of satellite eyes — scientists feared they were running out of time.
Before the turn of the last century, with slide rule, pencil and months of tedious calculation, Svante Arrheniuswas the first to show that carbon dioxide would warm the planet — in 3,000 years. The brilliant Swede hadn't foreseen the 20th-century explosion in use of fossil fuels.
Today their supercomputers tell his scientific heirs a much more urgent story: To halt and reverse that explosion of emissions, to head off a planetary climate crisis, the 10 years that dawn this Jan. 1 will be the fateful years, the final chance, the last decade.
Charles J. Hanley has covered climate issues for The Associated Press since the Kyoto conference of 1997.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Solomon Belay e-portfolio paper 4 rough draft
Choices enable freedom and the ability to etch one’s path of the future. But choices can also present a burden and can be a gamble. In the poem A Road Not Taken by Robert Frost, Frost brings up the concept of “two roads diverged in a yellow wood”. The poem continues to talk about how the character looks down both roads and tries to decide which road to take. Approaching a fork in the road, I believe that Nye, Merchant, Nordhaus and Shellenberger would all agree that the choices we as mankind make now dictate the future. What they say about the types of choices and the effects of them are what they differ in opinion to. This metaphor of two roads serves as a great embodiment of this idea of choices that we have with regard to technology and our relationship with the natural world. Each of these authors has their own unique way of connecting the metaphor “two roads” to their beliefs and ideas.
Nye would use the metaphor to explain how he believes that technology is helpful and in the long run, beneficial to the environment. Nye would connect his ideas to being that one road would represent the idea of reducing the use of technology that are harmful for the environment. The other road that Nye would explain is that of retaining “harmful” technologies and increasing the effect of “green” technology but also being flexible when it comes down to necessities. Nye would argue that the later of the roads is the one to take because of several reasons that he explains in his essays.
When it comes to Merchant, she probably brings the most abstract ideas of the 3 authors. Merchant would absolutely agree that this metaphor serves as a perfect example of the future. Merchant would most likely say that one path is that of severally constricting many forms of “harmful” technologies and leaving the earth’s environment in good shape. She would also likely say that the other path is the continuation of usage of technologies and the diminishing of the earth’s environment. These ideas almost come straight from the book that she writes, Ecological Evolutions. In her book, she mentions ….
Last we have that of Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger. This duo actually shares closely similar ideas with Nye rather than Merchant. Nordhaus and Shellenberger would argue that the first road is the retaining of technology and increase of beneficial “green” technology and have maintained a good environment. They would probably say that the second road is neglecting to change the usage harmful technologies and diminishing resources to lead to a cataclysmic result. These beliefs are reflected through their essay, Break Through.
Essay 4 (previous post was mistaken, cant post in eportfolio)
Ashwin Telukuntla
Technology in New England
Professor Deese
Section EF
Essay 4
What thoughts would spring into your mind if you were sitting on the moon staring at our spectacular planet? Would you think about the future of Earth or just gaze at its majestic beauty? Now imagine spending this moment with three influential authors, historian David E. Nye, historian Carolyn Merchant and environmentalist Rachel Carson. While sitting at Lunar Sands Casino with these three scholars, a bet is created on the future of the Earth in year 2064. From interpretations of various essay’s written by Nye, it is likely that Nye would say that the future of the Earth depends on the path of science and technology. Merchant would take the stance that the Earth will be worse off than it is today and Carson would likely agree with Merchant in that the Earth is heading towards its doom. I believe that the Earth may be better off in 2064 than it is today due to the large emphasis that is currently being placed on positive environmental actions and efficiency increasing technologies.
By 2064, the world has the option of two separate fates: prosperity or destruction. Nye would say that the future of the planet depends heavily on the course of science and technology in the upcoming years. If technology and innovations continue toward the “bigger is better” philosophy and disregard any environmental or social consequences, the Earth in 50 years will be that of a planet in shambles. However, if technology and innovations prioritize a level of green and efficiency while maintaining a strong environmentally conscious agenda, the future of the Earth could be that as seen on the Jetson’s. Although Nye focuses heavily on science and technology as a future predictor of Earth, he also would agree that various societies cultures would drastically alter the planets future. For instance, if people on the planet wanted to wear only natural fibers and eat meat on a daily basis, the Earth’s resources would be depleted at exponential rate compared to if people were willing to wear synthetic fibers and consume meat less frequently. If an accurate prediction could be made about the future of technological and cultural preferences, Nye would make a stronger and clearer claim about the state of our planet in 2064.
Although Nye does not seem to take a firm side on the bet, Merchant would take a clear side on the future of the Earth. Merchant believes that mechanism and capitalism are emptying our resources at a rapid pace. In her book, Ecological Revolutions, she explains all the harm we are currently causing our planet. Such as the massive amounts of damage to the ozone layer that was caused by the use of CFC’s (Chlorofluorocarbons). CFC’s are emitted with Styrofoam, refrigerators and aerosol sprays. Today, there has been more of an effort to reduce or eliminate this molecule from everyday products. In the eyes of Merchant, one can assume the Earth in 2064 will look similar to that of planet Venus. Merchant was very active in the mid-late 20th century and many of her assumptions are based of that time period. If Merchant considered many of the new paths taken by societies today, her belief may differ but in accordance to her writings, Merchant does not have faith in this planets future.
Along with Merchant, Carson would likely believe that the Earth in 2064 will be much worse off than it is today. Carson can be claimed as one of the first true environmentalists in the United States. Carson played a major role in the DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) issue that plagued the United States in the Second World War. DDT is a chemical that was very widely used in that era to control a large array of problems, from pests to diseases. This molecule was thought to the miracle control substance, until the side effects were discovered. DDT is an extremely stable and durable compound and therefore does naturally breakdown. The widespread use of this compound caused toxic and poisonous pollution to the environment around the world. Due to Carson’s efforts, such as the publication of her book, Silent Spring, which explains many of the negative consequences of DDT, the use of DDT within the United States was banned. Since Carson lived in a time where environmental consequences were not prioritized the least bit, her view toward the future of our planet is likely to be very negative.
My belief on the future of the Earth is similar to that of David Nye. I believe that the Earth in 2064 will be of much higher quality than it is today. Since the Industrial Revolution, the United States has, for the most part, disregarded the environmental consequences of its actions. In attempt to grow and create industries across the nation, the United States and other developing countries (in the relevant time period) were expanding at a high rate and releasing a strong carbon footprint. Much of this rapid industrialization took place in the two centuries. Today, these same industrialized nations changed their strategies. Since the environment changed for the worse since the industrialization period, many countries are placing incredible efforts in order to save the planet. This change in priorities has lead me to believe that the future of our planet is bright and prosperous. With the emergence of energy efficient and environmentally friendly homes, appliances, cars, factories etc., the Earth's demise will not come as quickly as others thought. Although many promising actions have taken place, there are still various factors that can destroy the current plan. Nations such as India and China, that have been rapidly industrializing in the past few years have caused a great deal of environmental harm. With immense construction and production of goods in such a dense area of land, the carbon footprints released from this area of the planet is on a new level. If more third world countries attempt to massively industrialize, the Earth's future may be filled with darkness and pollution, but my faith in man leads me to believe the Earth is not destined for that future.
A persons idea on the future of the planet is mainly based upon the time era of history they experienced. For instance, Merchant and Carson would have a much more pessimistic view about the future of the Earth since most of their exposure to the world was in the earlier part of the century when environmental concern was not widely prevalent. On the other hand, Nye and I have been exposed to the latter part of the 20th century along with the 21st century, which reflects our more optimistic opinion since we are currently in a time of transition in the realm of environmental concern. Based upon the decision to proceed with "bigger is better" or "energy efficiency" the future of the Earth cannot be accurately predicted. However, if the we continue on the current path we are on today, I would bet the Earth will strive towards becoming a utopia.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Jon Stewart on scandal over hacked CRU emails a.k.a. 'climategate'
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| ||||
For more background on this story click here.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Eportfolio for Lani Rush Paper 4
Robert Frost is arguably the most famous American poet, and his standout work “The Road Not Taken” has been criticized and analyzed by many, from schoolchildren to philosophers. The metaphor of two paths in “The Road Not Taken” is most often compared to choosing between what is easy and what is right, but it can also be applied to many different dilemnas in our lives and society. One such situation is the evolution of our relationship with the natural world. I believe that differing scholars see different paths. In the opinon of David Nye the two paths available are continuing along the current road of consumption and a fossil-fuel driven market, or using technology to find a new means of supporting our infrastructure. Carolyn Merchant might see the choice before us as one closely related to destruction or salvation, our current path leading us to an unsustainable future and our ruination. She might also see a different path, where the cultural outlook has changed such that Mother Nature is respected and our society has reevaluated its goals and values. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger might use two paths also, between old and new politics. They might view old politics as the path that will lead us toward our destruction via inaction, and the path of new politics our salvation. All three sources can use Robert Frost’s “Two Roads” to explain the relationship ship between the natural world and society: Nordhaus and Shellenberger relate environmentalism to our political struture, Nye analyses the relationship between the natural world and the cultural choices of our technology, and Carolyn Merchant explores the relationship between cultural values and nature. All of these observers see two paths, one that heads toward enlightenment and a better relationship with the natural world and one that leads to our destruction, however imminent. I believe that we are at a unique place in history and our choices are not as clear cut as two roads.
Carolyn Merchant has detailed the road we have traveled to come to this fork quite well, and her view of the shifts in time is most easily seen in the chart on page 26. The view of nonhuman Nature provides a close parallel between the relationship of humanity to the environment. Carolyn Merchant’s opinion, Native American society viewed nonhuman Nature as “active,” believing that the natural world was seen as a living system. This relationship was focused on “reciprocity between humans and nature,” showing the equality of man and natural forces. The colonial ecological revolution occurs, however, and this perspective shifts to viewing nature as “passive commodities” but also fosters a “fatalistic acceptance of nature.” The natural world is seen as something to use to the fullest extent, but still has its own power and mystery. After the capitalist revolution, the natural world is seen as a “scientific object” to be studied and understood. This understanding then leads to “domination and mastery of nature.” Carolyn Merchant believes we are still in the aftermath of the capitalist revolution, thus we are still in the mindset of seeing the natural world as something to own, possess, use, and discard as we see fit. Her two paths that fork in a yellow wood might be the path of continuing as we are, holding dominion and mismanaging our power over the earth, or a path with a different cultural view of Nature. Perhaps she would see a “road less traveled” of a society that see Nature as a living being to be respected and cared for. I believe Carolyn Merchant would also be admant that making this cultural shift would, in the end, “make all the difference.”
If David Nye was to come to a fork in the woods down which he could not see, he might relate these paths to the use of technology in our society and how it is related to our cultural choices. He believes that “technologies are social constructions,” and perhaps he would see paths with different uses of technology. On the current path, we use technology to try to halt the progression of global warming and in half-hearted attempts at alternative fuels until all our sources of fossil fuels become unviable. On the other path, Nye might imagine a future where culture demands that beneficial environmental technology is developed and used in unforseen ways to address our current environmental woes.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger might see two divergent paths, one with old politics and one with the new. With old politics, we will be too late to effectively stop global warming and will eventually spiral into destruction. On the path with new politics, there is hope that we can merge interests and create an economy and society “that joins the individual’s self-interest with the common good.” Perhaps down this new political path, there would be an emergence of environmentalism that does not “seek to constrain human ambition and power” but rather “unleashes and directs them.” Both Nordhaus and Shellenberger and Nye’s path have a shift not in cultural values, but in technological and political ones.
All three sources have one thing in common, however. There is a choice between what is easy and what is right. The path we choose will be irrevocable and we will never stand at a similar juncture ever again. Nye, Nordhaus and Shellenberger, and Merchant all agree that now is the time for change. The source of the change, technological, political, cultural, differs between scholars, but there is always change. I believe that these scholars have a valid point. American society has recently elected a man whose campaign was based on change, and the world is ready. There is no time like the present to choose the road less traveled by, as we can all guess where the road more traveled by will lead. I believe that this change in the view of the natural world will come from the youth, for any of the reasons discussed by Nye, Merchant, or Nordhaus and Shellenberger. I propose that my generation will choose the path less traveled by, or in the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, we shall “go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
e-portfolio for Aimee Caplen for paper 4 2nd draft
WR100-Technology and Nature in New England
Professor R.S. Deese
December 2, 2009
Paper 4-Question Y
Earth’s recent climate issues have brought many people to question their usages of plastic, paper, glass, electricity, automobiles, and many other so-called necessities. There are varying ideas when it comes to the topic of the Earth’s crises: global warming and the future of human civilization and life on Earth. David E. Nye, Carolyn Merchant, and Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger each have their own view on the issues. Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s ideas of the world and how it must face a nightmare before any good happens are similar to the ideas of Nye and Merchant. However, each have their own ideas on how the very controversial topic of the century: where the Earth stands and how it can affect human civilization and life. I believe that the Earth’s status is diminishing, but it still has the ability to host the humans on Earth and keep them living and creating new generations for the next fifty years or more.
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger wrote an essay in 2004 regarding the topic of global warming. “The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World” compares the 2004 environmental crisis to Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I have a Dream” speech. Here Nordhaus and Shellenberger reveal that the “I Have a Dream” speech that we all thought started out optimistic, actually started out pessimistic. MLK was reminded by a fellow performer that he had spoken to her about how he had a dream. This is his most famous speech. MLK, Jr’s speech and the idea of negativity brings positive actions is the basis of Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s argument. They believe that the crisis of global warming must be a negative idea in everyone’s minds because it will force the world’s population to change it. Going green and helping the environment has become a big trend in the past decade. Nordhaus and Shellenberger believe that economic growth created environmentalism, which has now strayed away from the philosophical principal of analyzing the environment and creating ways to conserve the environment. While looking out on the earth rising, Nordhaus and Shellenberger will bet that fifty years from now the Earth will be still be threatened by global warming that may only slightly be fixed. However optimistic Nordhaus and Shellenberger are now, they will state that they wrote an essay about how America and the rest of the world are overlooking the issue of global warming.
The past few elections have focused on the issue of global warming. The candidates tell us that they will find an end, but when will we get to see it? The world in 2064 will be of a different state than it is right now, but I do not know exactly where it will be. More glaciers will be melted, causing the sea level to rise a few inches. I believe that this will not affect the world’s population too bad because the Earth has seen some huge changes. Humans have affected the Earth’s climate with the increased use of automobiles and CO2 emissions. We are going to look back in fifty years and question our decisions; this is if we still are here fifty years hence. Leo Murray posted a video on Vimeo titled, “Wake up, Freak out –then Get a Grip”. In the video he says, “[we] must actively confront powerful vested interest who will stop at nothing to prevent the changes that we need to be taking places”.