Which Green is best?

As the global economy continues to recover from recent set backs and grow as a whole, we began to believe that life is changing for the better; yet were you to ask an environmentalist a similar question, they might have a different answer. The truth is, as economies boom and industrialize, the environment suffers.

As you can see, it's the economic powerhouses and industrialized countries that are the biggest emitters of pollution. Since the map's creation, areas such as China, Turkey, India and Latin America have only continued to grow. This growth, though it might've improved economic production, has put more pressure on the environment. Now imagine if Africa were to join global economy and pull itself out of poverty, the ecological impacts would be detrimental, and perhaps, futile. Though this is yet to happen, our ecological situation is already unsustainable as is. As the Human race grows in numbers and in productivity, our earth unfortunately doesn't. Realizing this, we ask the question: What should be done? It seems that we must choose between rapid economic development or slowing (with the possibility of halting) progress in favor of preserving our earth.

Yet looking at the issue further, we come to realize there is no need to choose between the two. Instead, we need to preach and practice moderation and sustainability. Only through moderate and controlled growth will we be able to enjoy a clean environment alongside a thriving economy. China is one of the largest polluters because it, like the U.S. did in the early 19th century (except with 1 billion people, yikes!), is going through industrialization and is not exactly concerned with efficiency of production and the pollution it emits; however, an effort is being made. After feeling the harmful effects of pollution in its own country, it has chosen to plan its economic growth and make a better effort to monitor pollution. It's simple: the more efforts that are made by all of the countries of the world to monitor growth and production, the better our chances for survival in the future.

As for the more developed countries such as the US,  its our responsibility to research and implement new greener forms of technology. Though the transition to becoming more green might at first hurt economic progress, as the interview explains, it eventually will pay off in the long run and perhaps end up benefiting the economy in the end. The unfortunate thing about the situation is many countries reluctance to make an effort. Until they are effecting directly by ecological deterioration, not enough will be done in order to prevent the destruction of our environment. And unless the world can come together and all agree that preserving the earth on which they live is important enough to act, our doom seems imminent.

Efforts for the environment

This weekend, I was at a Model United Nations conference in Chicago. This is the second year I have gone, and I must say I enjoyed my time there, both in and out of session. The way this Model UN is set up is similar to the real UN, with parliamentary procedure and committees tackling real problems. While its purpose is to provide aspiring high school students with a taste of politics and a learning experience, many find the ever present competition too much to avoid. But apart from frantic competition, Model UN sheds light on way more than global political procedure; delegates are forced to stare many contemporary issues in the face.
One such issue is the environment

Is Coal a Parasite?

I was reading an article by Jonathan Thompson on Thursday about the transition of the US coal market to China. Thompson talked about how the popularity of coal in America is declining rapidly, which would seem good for the world. If the the world's second largest energy consumer and emissions producer stopped burning coal, that would be good, right? Wrong. According to Thompson, US coal companies are doing what the tobacco industry did twenty five years ago; move to international markets. Chief among these markets is China, whose projected consumption would lead to an overall increase in coal production and exportation.

This transition raises a critical question; Is this shift from America to other nations worth the money? Evidently, a decrease in consumption of coal in the US will reduce our carbon footprint, but net global consumption of coal will be on the rise. More consumption will lead to more sales of coal by American producers, which will increase the value of the coal industry. More consumption will also lead to more pollution. Is the pragmatic growth of China worth the smog they will leave in their wake?

The costs of this transition far outweigh the benefits. Passing the habit on to someone else does not solve our problem, does not solve everyone's problem; how to treat the environment. We as a global community must work together to preserve the planet we all share. To fall in line with what we've been discussing in my English class, people from different places must put what they have in common before what they uniquely value. If we can not put the coal behind us as a global society, we won't be able to solve our energy problem.

The cost of war

Recently, NATO aircraft performed two air strikes on military posts by the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing 25 soldiers. The death count was confirmed by Pakistani officials, who also said that the attacks were unprovoked, and in response to heightening tensions between the United States and Pakistan.

I want to take this opportunity to look at this event, and war in general, in a new light. Far too often, nations rush into conflict, waving flags for their cause and protecting what they believe in at any cost, only to realize how much they have destroyed in the end, regardless of whether or not they vanquished their opponents. In situations like war, no one ends up winning because so much is lost in the heat of battle.

In order for a nation to go to war, so many resources must be expended. Below I have given the top ten nations in terms of military spending per capita:



As you can see, nine of the top ten spend over $1,000 per person on military expenditures. This money goes to resources to fight war, such as research and development, materials for weapons production and money to fund troops' salaries. These initial costs of war are staggering; the fact that countries are willing to pour obscene amounts of money into their military programs only spells doom for the world's natural resources.

The true tragedy of war is the end, when the casualties have been realized. One that is always among the dead is the land, ravaged by the diseases of men and riddled with bullets and shells. As technology and weaponry has become more advanced, the destruction of the land has only increased. Nuclear bombs and other powerful warheads make land uninhabitable for decades.

As is always the case, these consequences of war are often buired in a corner when a nation is considering whether or not to fight for their land. But if destruction is allowed to continue at the murderous pace of war, will nations have any land to fight for?

Oil spills

As I begin my blog, I've been looking for topics that have significant environmental basis. In my search, I have found something that saddens me greatly; a new oil spill.

An ocean cargo ship crashed into a coral reef in New Zealand on Wednesday. The ship was carrying over half a million gallons of oil. Nine olympic swimming pools combined contain half a million gallons, just to give you an idea. Even though only 500,000 gallons have spilled, they are spread over a span of 5 kilometers (about 3 miles), which will make cleanup all the more difficult.

Speaking of cleanup, crews have been working around the clock to clean up the spilled oil. A maritime exclusion zone has been established around the spill to help humans avoid harm.

What I want to know is how are the animals and wildlife going to be protected. I know that oil spills are sadly too uncommon for most of the stuff I'm saying to not be cliche, but I want to know something more. I, like many people, am always concerned about cleanup and damage to wildlife, but I also want to know what kind of processes are involved in trying to improve ships and detection technology of storms, coral reefs, and ocean depth, so that oil spills can be prevented. I believe that an oil spill avoided is ALWAYS better than an oil spill that is cleaned up well.

When I saw this article about the oil spill, it made me think of how humans often have such disreagrd for nature. I couldn't help but draw a parallel to the Poisonwood Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisonwood_Bible) and how colonization, much like oil spills, destroyes the environment and natural resources of a region

First Blog Post

Hello, and welcome to my blog! This blog is a blog I have to do for my Senior Year English class, but its focus will be largely upon environmentalism. Every time I blog, I will look at a current event or something relevant and discuss how it impacts the environment, and how it could be changed to impact the environment less. I'm big on efficiency; I don't like waste, so I figured that sharing ways that things are efficient or inefficient would enlighten others.