Blog 10: Tragety of Globalization

As globalization has increased, markets have been created for "rare" and "exotic" luxuries. This had led to the extinction of many animals. Poachers come from around the world to get their hands in this market and it comes at a cost. Some are eager to put a ban on poaching everywhere to preserve these animals, which sounds great right? Well as of January, a ban came into effect prohibiting all hunting in the southern African country except on game farms or ranches. This sounds like it would be a good thing, but on the other side of this, the people who have lived off the land and these animals for millions of years are now the ones endangered.

This is a prime example of how globalization can be seen a as a downfall. It had turned an entire culture upside down. These poachers came in and are responsible for the loss of all these animals that are now endangered. The effect of these outsiders has come to the cost of the people who live there more than anything. The poachers can go and poach somewhere else, but this culture has nowhere to go. Yes, these rules were put in place because save the animals, but you can't do that without destroying the people who were sustaining the land just fine. As one of the As one of the bushpeople said, "We cannot damage the wildlife. If we kill one animal we eat it for a month. “These people even started getting arrested for killing animals. It’s sad that these people, who were not doing anything wrong, didn’t even get a say to what was going to be happening to them. And this was on an international level, so it wasn’t just a corrupt government. What sad is that they are still allowing controlled game hunting. They are still allowing people to kill these animals for fun, but ignoring the people that need the animals to survive.

LINK: http://gu.com/p/3zdd3

Blog 10: Obama Administration Again Delays Keystone XL Decision

Summary:
This article describes the Obama administration's most recent delay in the looming decision over the controversial Keystone XL pipeline proposal. A judge in a Nebraska state district court ruled that the path of the pipeline through Nebraska was unlawful, and as a result, the decision on the pipeline will have to be stalled for further review. The time for public comments has expired with over 2.5 million people commenting on the issue. However, the time period for agency comments has now been extended. Agencies will be able to comment until 14 days after a final decision on the Nebraska route has been made. If Nebraska decides to block the pipeline's route entirely, it will present a host of problems for the developers and the State Department. If Nebraska decides to allow the pipeline but at a different location, all analyses of the original State Dept. report on KXL will have to be redone.
Analysis:
I think that one way or another, the Obama administration will approve this pipeline. The article mentions that a decision will likely be made after the 2014 elections in November. Since the decision to approve this pipeline would be unpopular among Obama supporters and democrats in general, it makes sense to delay it. More and more opposition to the pipeline has been building up recently, with anti-KXL activists holding signs and waving banners at rallies across the country that say "We will dismantle the pipeline" or "I pledge to destroy the pipeline". This issue definitely has all the ingredients needed for the peaceful protests to turn violent. The article says environmental activists were enthused by the delay, but to me it seems very concerning. This administration has proven time and time again that it has no interest in the health of the environment and the strength of America's diverse ecosystems, so I think taking yet another delay is just more proof that the pipeline will be approved. If the administration were serious about climate change, they would reject this pipeline right now.

Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/18/keystone-xl-obama_n_5175185.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green&utm_hp_ref=green

Blog Ten: Climate Efforts Falling Short, U.N. Panel Says

Summary: This blog was about the third recent report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a group of officials in the United Nations that discuss climate change and possible solutions. The Panel agreed that, without extreme restrictions and changes in greenhouse emissions, there will be significant changes and potential catastrophic disasters seen worldwide within the next 15 years. Without limiting global warming, the average temperature (globally) could rise nearly 4 degree Fahrenheit – enough to lead to rising sea levels, inability to grow adequate food, and mass extinctions of animal and plant species. The positive end of solutions, such as implementing solar or wind power, is finding that these energy sources are becoming cheaper. However, in order to cut harmful emissions to an acceptable degree, new technologies will need to be added. These new technologies have not yet been created, and when they are, they will more than likely be quite expensive. The Panel found that, the costs in order to clean up our environment would be quite significant and, while many societies will be much richer than they currently are, over 5 percent will be poorer than they were initially, before having to dole out the money to fix previous generations mistakes.

Analysis: This article raised some really important points. Climate change is a well-known issue that affects every living and non-living thing on our planet. It will take a group effort in cleaning up the mess, just as it was, for the most part, a group effort in creating the problem (though some countries, our own being one of them, “donated” more to the issue than others). Also, while it is easy to say you will cut down on emissions by using public transportation or walking or some other small thing (that is in fact still important), it really isn’t an easy matter. Much of the carbon gas released into the atmosphere comes from industrial processes or factory farming. So what can we do? Are we, as a developed country, really ready to give up our industry or the (amount of) meat that is consumed here? Because, from the way the article talks, there may either be new technologies created to clean up the environment, or there may simply be huge taxes added on to products or the production of products that are not environmentally safe. How many of us will be able to afford these luxuries? 

This article was published in The New York Times on Monday 14 April 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/science/earth/un-climate-panel-warns-speedier-action-is-needed-to-avert-disaster.html?emc=edit_th_20140414&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=67003518&_r=0

Blog 9: Three-Quarters Of World Bank-Backed Projects Still Don't Evaluate Climate Risks: Report

Summary:
This article concerns a report from the World Resources Institute, a nonprofit organization. The researchers involved with the report uncovered and analyzed information pertaining to loans being distributed by the World Bank, and found that only around 25% of the funded projects contained no assessment regarding climate change. In 2013, the World Bank admitted that climate change could seriously undermine poverty alleviation and the path to sustainability for developing, and also promised to make climate change more a more prevalent factor regarding the projects they fund. The World Bank also continues to fund coal-powered projects, one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Despite all of this, the WRI believes that the World Bank is serious about moving forward on climate, and has made several suggestions to the World Bank, and the World Bank generally agreed with their suggestions.

Analysis:
The World Bank needs to take climate change more seriously when funding projects. The point that is lost in all of this, though, is that the West is responsible for an extremely disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases and environmental destruction when compare to the developing world. The focus and the pressure of climate change needs to be laid at the doorstep of the US and other developed nations, because we are the largest contributors. Who are we to tell the developing world how to develop when we can't even reign in our own pollution? I do hope the World Bank makes the right decisions going forward, though, and I hope they offer real, profitable, and sustainable infrastructure projects to these developing nations. 

Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/world-bank-climate-change_n_5104895.html?utm_hp_ref=climate-change

Blog Nine: U.S. Gas Tantalizes Europe, but It's Not a Quick Fix

Summary: This article went into detail about how the United States would potentially supply much of Eurasia (particularly Eastern European countries, like Hungary, Ukraine, Bulgaria and Greece) with natural gas. The idea is nice and almost valiant of the United States, but it comes with a steep price. There are currently workers in Louisiana that are building a terminal in order to send natural gas anywhere on the globe, and it will be completed by the end of 2015. However, this obviously doesn't solve the immediate issue. Gazprom raised the price for gas in the Ukraine up 80% this past week, which is only adding to the tension between these two countries. While there are bills already in the process of being approved, it could cost nearly $7billion (or more...) to build the terminal, and $100million just to find suitable sites for these terminals, besides the one currently being built. As stated earlier, the building of the terminal(s) can take several years, but this is after construction has begun. It may take months or even years just to get the approval to build these terminals.

Analysis: I wrote a blog about an article regarding Russia's withholding gas from the Ukraine a few weeks ago. Basically, Russia was using the natural gas supplies that they serve much of Eurasia with (through their company, Gazprom) as a threat, such as "if you do/don't do this, we will raise the prices or put you on a stiff budget of natural gas." So I'm glad to see somewhat of a "follow up" article about this. Personally, I think the gas terminal construction idea is a terrible one. I'm against natural gas, because it's really a dirty form of energy. I think we should start making more moves towards renewable energy. Not only are they better for the environment, but you have to ask yourself - when was the last time you heard of two (or more) countries fighting over solar power? Or wind power? You can't. Maybe I'm missing something, but those are resources available to any and every one. If we began implementing these resources, and did so on a global scale, people wouldn't have to pay for gas anymore (or at least what they had been paying, since they wouldn't use as much) and people wouldn't necessarily become as sick due to smog, poor air quality, unsafe water, etc.

"U.S. Gas Tantalizes Europe, but It's Not a Quick Fix"

This article was published in The New York Times on 8 April 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/business/energy-environment/us-gas-tantalizes-europe-but-its-not-a-quick-fix.html?ref=science

Blog Eight: Panel's Warning on Climate Risk: Worst is Yet to Come

Summary: This article talks about a report that was released on Monday, March 31 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This panel was created by the United Nations in order to discuss climate science and current issues that are feeding into climate change. The report states that ice caps and sea ice in the Arctic are melting, water supplies are dwindling in many areas of the world, and many species of organisms are either migrating to other, more hospitable areas of the world or they are simply dying out. To add to this, oceans are rising and becoming more and more acidic due to the levels of carbon dioxide that is being absorbed, due to industry or car exhaust. The article makes a connection between these happenings and the global social problems that will result. For example, with lack of water as well as poor or toxic soil comes the inability to grow food. As we have discussed in class, when resources are in short supply, violence can certainly start making its mark on the people of the area. 

Analysis: This was a great article. We just finished talking in class about violence, and I think it’s interesting to consider how violence begins, in relation to global social problems such as the issue of climate change. I think that a lot of people tend to brush it off as being an issue, but not a “serious” issue. Climate change is definitely having an impact on every person and organism on this planet, as the article stated. In one way or another, it affects us all and as easy as it often is for us (as Americans) to say, “violence won’t happen here; it won’t affect us that badly,” it’s absurd to think that. When you no longer have clean water because it’s full of chemicals and you no longer have food because you can’t grow anything, what do you think will happen? Overall, I thought this was a good article and I highly recommend it to anyone, interested in Environmental Issues/Climate Change or not – READ THIS. (I also recommend listening to “Collapse (Post-Amerika)” by Rise Against if you’re into that sort of thing…it’s also relevant.)

Article published in the New York Times on 31 March 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/science/earth/climate.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry860%23%2FPanel%2527s%2520warning%2520on%2520climate%2520risk%3A%2520worst%2520is%2520yet%2520to%2520come&_r=0 

Blog Seven: Fish Embryos Exposed to Oil From BP Spill Develop Deformities, a Study Finds

Summary: This article, as the title suggests, was about the contamination and poor development of fish embryos that had been exposed to oil during the BP oil spill. The oil spill, also known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, occurred almost four years ago and included the spillage of nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Researchers have discovered numerous deformities in several different species of fish embryos, including herring, salmon, and tuna. One of the researchers, Barbara Block, also stated that it is a recently discovered fact that petroleum “has a cardio-toxic impact on vertebrate hearts.” The researchers stated that, at this present time, there is no obvious decrease in fish populations in this area which the oil spill occurred.

Analysis: As an Environmental Studies major, reading articles like this one just make me shake my head. The information is there. We know that these chemicals and resources can bring harm to not only ourselves but to other living, breathing creatures as well. Honestly, it’s quite stupid that we allow things like this to even happen. When animals are exposed to toxins and we then eat them, the level of toxicity found in our bodies is actually amplified compared to what was in the animal’s body. Besides the immediate concern of which fish were affected by the oil spill, you must also consider the possibility of fish sales and also the sheer size and volume of this spill. There is honestly no telling how far the oil could have spread or how many countries it affected, directly or indirectly. It may take another ten or fifteen years to have a full view of this spill, from the event itself to the last effects of its aftermath. I’ve heard that hindsight is 20/20. I’m curious to see whether we keep our eyes open and observe in the future or if we will close them and pretend like we saw nothing. 

Published in the New York Times on Tuesday, March 25, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us/fish-embryos-exposed-to-oil-from-bp-spill-develop-deformities-a-study-finds.html?_r=0

Blog 6 - To Plastic, or Not to Plastic? That is the question in UK!

How "disposable" are these "disposable" plastic bags? We take our groceries from point A to point B, and then they usually get thrown in the trash. That's the end of these "disposable" bags, right? No, they end up sitting in a landfill for thousands of years. The European Union is on board to cut down plastic bag usage by 80% in ten years. This week, MEPs approved proposals to curb the sale of single use plastic bags in every member state. This would require each government to take some form of legislative action to curb free handouts of plastic bags. Many places in Europe have already started to ban plastic bags. These places were having their streets and beaches filled with these bags so they are already use to the change. Studies have shown that three-quarters of seabirds and one third of fish in the English Channel have been found to be contaminated by plastic waste, much of it from plastic bags. 

We use them for maybe twenty minutes for them to sit in a landfill for thousands of years? that doesn't seem right. These bags are a useless pollutant since we have other, more environmentally satisfying ways of bringing our groceries inside. Not only do they clog the landfills, they also are a serious threat to marine wildlife. Plastic trash ends up in the ocean and the animals will think it's food. The EU is taking a huge step in the right direction here. Hopefully, more places will follow their lead and ban plastic bags as well. We have the technology to do away with these environmentally destructive bags. Without them, it's one less thing we will have to worry about the future. It does not seem fair that our future generations are going to have to pick plastic out of their drinks. Mmm.. Plastic soda anyone? 

Link - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/11/meps-back-plan-cut-plastic-bag-use

Blog 5: Chia's War on Pollution!

Wednesday, we saw a huge point go up for sustainability. China has officially declared a war on pollution. What does this mean? It means that one of the most polluted countries has decided to finally do something big for the environment. China is putting 35 million dollars towards the environmental protection agency there to hopefully reduce the toxic smog that has blanketed most Chinese cites. The main cause of this is amount of coal-power plants around the country. Luckily, a total of 50,000 small coal-fired furnaces will be shut down this year. Their government will also be implementing the clean water action plan. This is planned to strengthen the protection of sources of drinking water, prevent and control water pollution in key river basins, and carry out land restoration. Pollution has been a big issue for many years so I'm sure many Chinese citizens are excited to hear this news.

China is one of the most polluted countries and it's really nice to see that they are making this a national issue. Many times we see that environmental issues take a back seat to other issues until it become a huge problem. It ends up turning into more of a, "Wow, China is finally deciding to do something?" rather than, "Wow! Look at China take the lead in sustainability!" Pollution has been an issue for years there are their industrial revolution has sky-rocketed. This is another example of how developing countries need to start on the path of sustainability, rather than worry about it later. This is called an end-of-pipe solution where we see that instead of stopping the problem as the source, we wait until the end of the pipe to do something. Globalization has encouraged this because developing countries want become developed as quickly as possible, no matter the cost. This is a trait that every developed country has passed down, but we still wonder why things are only getting worse.

Blog Five: U.S. Hopes Boom in Natural Gas Can Curb Putin

Article Publication Date: 5 March 2014, New York Times

Summary: This article was basically about the natural gas company in Russia, known as Gazprom, threatening to stop supplying the Ukraine with natural gas. As an ally of the Ukraine, the United States has decided to step up to the plate and begin supplying the Ukraine with natural gas in order to make them more independent from Russia.

 

Analysis: This article seemed really interesting. I thought it really did a good job of showing how easy it is for resources to get pulled into arguments between governments. It has been a common move, as history shows, for Russian presidents to threaten to stop supplying goods if another nation-state does not comply with Russian rule or is at odds with them. The article also brought to light the issue of money and how easily people will slit their own throats for money. For example, the article mentions fracking and, aside from one small comment about fracking leading to the poisoning of some rural watersheds (no big deal, right?), the article talks almost approvingly of fracking, as if it will be a great money making strategy for the United States. For those of you that don't know what fracking is, it is a procedure in which fluid (a mix of water and various chemicals) is pumped into the ground at high pressure in order to break (or fracture) shale rocks in order to release the natural gas within. When natural gas is found, it spews back up, carrying much of the fluid pumped in with it. It usually takes between one and eight million gallons of water to do just one fracking job (what water crisis?). On top of this, as the article states, many people end up with contaminated water due to fracking in their area (If you've ever seen Gasland, you know what I mean). Natural resources and our usage of them are a pretty difficult topic to handle and discuss without bringing global politics into the matter, and unfortunately, the environmental impact of these fracturing procedures have been left out while Western countries try to defend the Ukraine against Russia. To me, it's quite a sticky situation. As an ally of the Ukraine, we cannot stand back while they are being bullied by Russia. At the same time though, I truly fear that this will just open the doors for us to implement fracking all over the United States or potentially in other countries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/us-seeks-to-reduce-ukraines-reliance-on-russia-for-natural-gas.html?src=me

 

http://www.dangersoffracking.com/