Imagine a world 10 degrees hotter than in is today, no arctic ice, no coral reefs, and sea levels risen to drown countless coastal cities. This is our planet if nothing is done about Global Warming.
It’s no recent news that Global Warming exists and that it is indeed an issue. However, 28% of Americans still don’t believe Global Warming is real. Carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 20% in the last century due to human activities. The average global temperatures have raised 1.4˚F, and in places like Alaska and western Canada, the increase in temperature is as severe as 7˚F in only the last 50 years.
Temperature changes aren’t the only effects of global warming. Acording to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), sea levels have been projected to rise 2 feet in the next 100 years, which would displace millions of people living in coastal areas.
The EPA has also projected that, if the emission trends continue, the coral reefs will be completely destroyed by 2050. This is most likely within your lifetime.
According to The World Health Organization, 150,000 deaths per year are due to the effects of global warming such as extreme weather, drought, heat waves, decreased food production and the increased spread of diseases like malaria. Although Americans are used to the luxury of clean tap water, air conditioning, seemingly endless food supply, and vaccinations, some people in the world are less fortunate, and are not invincible to the effects of global warming.
The only effects United States citizens are seeing is a 1˚F rise in the average temperature and a 5% increase of precipitation, surely we can’t be THAT responsible for global warming?
Well, not exactly.
The United States only makes up 4.5% of the global population, but is responsible for 25% of global carbon dioxide emissions (second highest in the world, second only to China). The European Union (EU) makes up 7.3% of the global population and is responsible 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions. In other words, the EU is about 1.6 times larger than the US, but the US is responsible for 10% more of the global carbon dioxide emissions than every European country put together.
So what are these European countries doing that we aren’t?
Europe has always had slightly stricter emission standards than the US, but the problem can’t be fixed solely by standards and regulations. After all, we all know that us Americans “want our government out of our business”, including the tailpipes of our cars.
I want you to ask yourself, how often do you ride a public bus, the light rail, a train? How about your family members? Your neighbors? 10% of Europeans use these means of travel every day, versus 2% of Americans.
8% difference of people who use public transit in the US vs. Europe, 10% difference of carbon dioxide emissions in the US vs. Europe.
It’s not hard to imagine why Americans don’t use public transit as avidly as Europeans; most cities in the United States don’t have easily accessible and/or cheap public transit. Yearly passes for the Metro system in Paris are free to residents of the Île-de-France region, and they can be used for the bike rental system as well. A monthly pass for the New York subway and public buses is $89.
You’re probably wondering how the French government can afford to provide public transit for free, and unfortunately, the answer is a word most Americans cringe at: Taxes.
France introduced a payroll tax dedicated solely to public transportation; the only payroll taxes in the US are social security (FICA), Medicare, Federal tax, and Individual state tax (if applicable). By having a specific fund for public transportation, France is dedicating money to be spent directly to public transportation; therefore it continues to be functioning and available to every French citizen. Since the United States only dedicates a portion of tax money to public transportation within a pool of tax money that goes to many other things, it makes it more difficult for the government to improve the system and make it less costly for citizens.
I’m not saying the only solution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the US is to raise taxes for public transportation; it’s just a matter of where the taxes go. Until this happens, there are many things you can do. Consider public transportation, ride your bike, walk, turn off your lights when you leave the room. This is your planet, so love it. We don’t get another one.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Political Segregation: The Blinders on the Eyes of Democracy
I am a very strong liberal. I have my ways of thinking what “should” and “shouldn’t” happen with the government, the economy, society, etc. It would be great for me if everyone else thought exactly like me, but unfortunately, not everyone does. This is why extremes don’t work in modern politics.
President Bush and the Republican Party are a prime example. They were extreme, and infuriated a lot of democrats, this in turn forced the republicans to retaliate and become more extreme themselves, which in turn forced the democrats to become even more extreme, and now there is a deep segregation of beliefs and most interactions are negative and anger based. Now what happens when you get these parties together in congress? Nothing gets done because they can never come to an agreement.
The easiest way to retaliate against an opponent is to get angry at them and oversimplify things. This is amplified through the media. The truth is, there is not such extreme political segregation among society as the media portrays. A Stanford University political scientist by the name of Morris Fiorina observed that the media finds the most extreme people in society to back up their beliefs, when in reality, all of America is not that polarized. We have our significant differences in social and moral issues like abortion and gay marriage, but when it comes down to economic specifics, the extremes are not commonly seen. Since politicians are under the harsh magnifying glass of the media, we are only going to hear the things the media wants us to hear, i.e, the things that make us mad.
Sure, I’d love it if we all agreed to raise taxes and cut military spending, but we don’t. In order to run a country properly, everyone needs to be involved. This means the country must have leaders that are not extreme and are willing to pull from both sides since the only way to make everyone happy is to include everyone’s views. However, modern politics and the media have made it so we can’t just “meet in the middle”. Political parties have become more focused on making decisions that will give their party a good reputation among likeminded people, and that will make the other party look bad, rather than focusing on what the country as a whole actually needs.
If a candidate who swung back and forth between parties on political issues ran, they would never get elected, or even nominated, because people are afraid of someone who “can’t make up their mind”, but do they realize it’s the only way things will ever get done in the government? Our government has become more of the two parties bickering and bashing each other simply because it’s the “norm” in their party, and therefore the true care and attention for what society needs has been lost. When I say society, I don’t just mean the groups of people that political parties and their accompanying candidates try to appeal to, I mean EVERYONE. Democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, men, women, majorities, minorities, dogs, and cats of all kinds.
But what can we do about this problem? Are we going to go on for the rest of eternity with the same uninformative, nasty, party-bashing politics we have today?
No.
We abandon the parties. We have taken the labels “Democrat” and “Republican” and turned them into labels of lifestyle, far beyond political beliefs. Until a person can clearly articulate their individual political beliefs and values, they become a political lamb who conforms to the beliefs that “the other side” is wrong, simply because they’re the other side. Even worse, the political lambs check out of the system entirely because it’s “too confusing” or “not important” or “doesn’t apply to me”. We all know one of those people. Since we’re so distracted with our labels, why not just take them away to help everyone focus on the raw facts of the issues and important decisions involved with politics?
You may be thinking that this would cause complete turmoil in our political world, but think about it: right now if you’re a democrat you will probably vote for the democrat just because he’s a democrat, and not even consider the republican candidate, because since he’s a republican, so he’s probably wrong. What if people didn’t know the labels of the candidates, and were therefore forced to research where they stand and make their decision based on weather or not they agree with their fundamentals.
There would obviously be trends between the “democratic” and “republican” candidates and the people who vote for either, but it would help society get away from the beliefs forced upon them by their parties, and to get away from the political bashing of one party versus another. This in turn would help open society’s eyes and force them to make decisions of what THEY think is right for the country, not what THEIR PARTY says is right for the country. Although abolishing political labels immediately is not realistic, the idea of shifting society towards not caring about the labels is what can motivate people to think for themselves.
Think for yourself, vote for yourself, and break down the walls of political segregation; the blinders on the eyes of our democracy.
President Bush and the Republican Party are a prime example. They were extreme, and infuriated a lot of democrats, this in turn forced the republicans to retaliate and become more extreme themselves, which in turn forced the democrats to become even more extreme, and now there is a deep segregation of beliefs and most interactions are negative and anger based. Now what happens when you get these parties together in congress? Nothing gets done because they can never come to an agreement.
The easiest way to retaliate against an opponent is to get angry at them and oversimplify things. This is amplified through the media. The truth is, there is not such extreme political segregation among society as the media portrays. A Stanford University political scientist by the name of Morris Fiorina observed that the media finds the most extreme people in society to back up their beliefs, when in reality, all of America is not that polarized. We have our significant differences in social and moral issues like abortion and gay marriage, but when it comes down to economic specifics, the extremes are not commonly seen. Since politicians are under the harsh magnifying glass of the media, we are only going to hear the things the media wants us to hear, i.e, the things that make us mad.
Sure, I’d love it if we all agreed to raise taxes and cut military spending, but we don’t. In order to run a country properly, everyone needs to be involved. This means the country must have leaders that are not extreme and are willing to pull from both sides since the only way to make everyone happy is to include everyone’s views. However, modern politics and the media have made it so we can’t just “meet in the middle”. Political parties have become more focused on making decisions that will give their party a good reputation among likeminded people, and that will make the other party look bad, rather than focusing on what the country as a whole actually needs.
If a candidate who swung back and forth between parties on political issues ran, they would never get elected, or even nominated, because people are afraid of someone who “can’t make up their mind”, but do they realize it’s the only way things will ever get done in the government? Our government has become more of the two parties bickering and bashing each other simply because it’s the “norm” in their party, and therefore the true care and attention for what society needs has been lost. When I say society, I don’t just mean the groups of people that political parties and their accompanying candidates try to appeal to, I mean EVERYONE. Democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, men, women, majorities, minorities, dogs, and cats of all kinds.
But what can we do about this problem? Are we going to go on for the rest of eternity with the same uninformative, nasty, party-bashing politics we have today?
No.
We abandon the parties. We have taken the labels “Democrat” and “Republican” and turned them into labels of lifestyle, far beyond political beliefs. Until a person can clearly articulate their individual political beliefs and values, they become a political lamb who conforms to the beliefs that “the other side” is wrong, simply because they’re the other side. Even worse, the political lambs check out of the system entirely because it’s “too confusing” or “not important” or “doesn’t apply to me”. We all know one of those people. Since we’re so distracted with our labels, why not just take them away to help everyone focus on the raw facts of the issues and important decisions involved with politics?
You may be thinking that this would cause complete turmoil in our political world, but think about it: right now if you’re a democrat you will probably vote for the democrat just because he’s a democrat, and not even consider the republican candidate, because since he’s a republican, so he’s probably wrong. What if people didn’t know the labels of the candidates, and were therefore forced to research where they stand and make their decision based on weather or not they agree with their fundamentals.
There would obviously be trends between the “democratic” and “republican” candidates and the people who vote for either, but it would help society get away from the beliefs forced upon them by their parties, and to get away from the political bashing of one party versus another. This in turn would help open society’s eyes and force them to make decisions of what THEY think is right for the country, not what THEIR PARTY says is right for the country. Although abolishing political labels immediately is not realistic, the idea of shifting society towards not caring about the labels is what can motivate people to think for themselves.
Think for yourself, vote for yourself, and break down the walls of political segregation; the blinders on the eyes of our democracy.
Bennet vs. Buck; The Choice for Colorado
I’ve been sulking around, coughing and sneezing, anxiously awaiting this coming election. I’m counting on all of you to get out and vote, so I figured I should inform you, my dear citizens, about some candidates and their policies, to help you take a stand
I’ve spent the last few days analyzing Ken Buck and Michael Bennet, a quite interesting situation, I must say.
A little bit about Michael Bennet (adapted from his campaign website http://www.bennetforcolorado.org):
- He was the former Superintendent of Denver Public Schools
- Served two years as Chief of Staff under Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.
- He was the Managing Director of the Anschutz Investment Company
- Served as the Weld County District Attorney
- Worked as a prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C
- He has volunteered and served on the boards including, A Woman's Place, North Range Behavioral Health, Juvenile Assessment Center, PAVE (promoting alternatives to violence), Fresh Start, a charter school for expelled students, the Genesis Project, and the Restorative Justice Coalition.
I searched a bit on votesmart.org, just to find that both candidates “refused to tell citizens where he/she stands on any of the issues addressed in the 2010 Political Courage Test, despite repeated requests from Vote Smart, national media, and prominent political leaders.”
Oh? Well what exactly are they hiding from us? The people from votesmart.org were, however, able to create a short list of certain issues and where the candidates stand.
Michael Bennet:
 |
| http://www.votesmart.org |
Even though the candidates aren’t as open with their policies as some citizens might prefer, it wouldn’t hurt to analyze the information we do have and take a stand.
The first thing to consider is what our country needs:
- Lower debt
- Improve education
- Improve environment health (yes people, our planet, along with our democracy is dying, you might want to pay attention)
Michael Bennet has experience in the financial business, in turn giving him experience necessary for dealing with debt. Ken Buck was… a prosecutor?
Michael Bennet is the former Superintendent of Denver Public Schools, in turn giving him the experience of interacting with teachers, parents, and students. Ken Buck… worked on a committee to help a charter school for expelled students?
Ken Buck does not support using government funds to improve the economy, federal education standards for K-12 students, or environmental regulations to reduce the effects of climate change. So, what exactly is he planning on doing while in office?
From the perspective of your precious democracy, I want you to get out and take a stand. Maybe debt, education, and the environment aren’t important to you? Maybe they are? I don’t care. If you’re of age, go out and vote. I’ve given my two cents, and its time for you to give yours. I’m weak, sick, tired, and struggling. The only way you can help me is to take a stand. I’ve given you some information to help you start, so don’t give up now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)