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.