For those who don't know, the Kyoto Treaty is a binding agreement initially adopted on December 11, 1997 for industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The treaty was an addition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, how about that for an acronym!). The UNFCCC is a broader international environmental treaty who's goal is to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
A total of 191 nations/states have already signed and ratified the protocol, so who's the only signatory still holding out? None other than the United States. Although this may make us seem like the bad guys, there are reasons why the treaty failed several times to find ratification by the U.S. Senate and Clinton Administration in 1997 then again in 2001 by the Bush Administration. The primary reason for our nation's historical lack of support for Kyoto is the fact that it would likely harm the American economy and workforce. Signing the treaty would potentially cause a large loss of jobs and would increase our dependence on foreign oil. Also, the treaty's loose restrictions placed on two of the biggest developing countries China and India, didn't resound well with our governmental decision makers.
So we continue to make the right move by not signing, correct? Well, not necessarily. By being one of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases, the Kyoto Treaty loses substantial power and meaningfulness without our support. Because of this, the U.S. has received plenty of open criticism from other world leaders saying we have failed in the areas of international cooperation and environmental ethics. It is true that the possible effects to our economy are quite devastating but the truth of the matter is that these effects have not been fully proven.
I believe that if we were to finally sign the Kyoto Treaty, the worldwide effort to decrease greenhouse gas emissions would be immediately kick-started. The technological capabilities of the United States are incredibly immense and I believe, upon signing, we would have the leading role placed directly upon our shoulders. This pressure is a lot to deal with, and with the possibility of losing jobs for American people hanging in the forefront it's a responsibility that's tough to decide whether to take on or not.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
I disagree Churchill
In yesterday's class a Winston Churchill quote was introduced to us. It reads...
"I have always considered that the substitution of the internal combustion engine for the horse marked a very gloomy milestone in the progress of mankind."
Although he was a promoter of science and technology, Churchill also felt that in some instances advancements in these fields could be dangerous to society. Rather than the traditional horse and buggy, people were suddenly zipping around in cars at higher speeds. Many people would think, as it seems Churchill did, that this seemingly more dangerous environment on the roads would lead to more accidents, injury, and death. But as a matter of fact, the ratio of accidents to vehicle miles traveled actually decreased with the introduction of the internal combustion engine.
Another major improvement brought about by the internal combustion engine and the introduction of cars was the absence of horse waste that once covered roads and especially city streets where vehicle congestion was much higher. City sanitation improved greatly and a once never wavering stench was reduced to a high degree.
And most importantly the overall efficiency of travel was greatly improved. Travel no longer depended on a horse's stamina but rather an easily reproducible piece of technology. Once the internal combustion engine and the automobile were made cost effectively and affordable by the middle class, thanks to Henry Ford's assembly line technique of mass production, societies in many places were able to enjoy the many benefits that the new technology had to offer.
So Churchill, I disagree with your "gloomy milestone" classification, I'd consider the development of the internal combustion engine to be quite spectacular.
"I have always considered that the substitution of the internal combustion engine for the horse marked a very gloomy milestone in the progress of mankind."
Although he was a promoter of science and technology, Churchill also felt that in some instances advancements in these fields could be dangerous to society. Rather than the traditional horse and buggy, people were suddenly zipping around in cars at higher speeds. Many people would think, as it seems Churchill did, that this seemingly more dangerous environment on the roads would lead to more accidents, injury, and death. But as a matter of fact, the ratio of accidents to vehicle miles traveled actually decreased with the introduction of the internal combustion engine.
Another major improvement brought about by the internal combustion engine and the introduction of cars was the absence of horse waste that once covered roads and especially city streets where vehicle congestion was much higher. City sanitation improved greatly and a once never wavering stench was reduced to a high degree.
And most importantly the overall efficiency of travel was greatly improved. Travel no longer depended on a horse's stamina but rather an easily reproducible piece of technology. Once the internal combustion engine and the automobile were made cost effectively and affordable by the middle class, thanks to Henry Ford's assembly line technique of mass production, societies in many places were able to enjoy the many benefits that the new technology had to offer.
So Churchill, I disagree with your "gloomy milestone" classification, I'd consider the development of the internal combustion engine to be quite spectacular.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Is it fair?
The following situation and accompanying question were posed in a recent class discussion: Two commuters are both traveling to the same workplace. Gerald takes a light rail commuter train and experiences a travel time of 30 minutes. Gregory drives a personal car and experiences a 10 minute travel time. Is this fair?
In my opinion it's not a matter of fairness, but simply a matter of differing situations. There are many reasons for which this scenario may be occurring. Perhaps Gerald does in fact own a personal car but he chooses to take the bus to save money that would otherwise be spent on gas. Or maybe he enjoys reading the paper during his commute in the morning, and not having to operate the vehicle in which he's riding allows him to do so (I realize some commuters attempt to read the paper as well as drive their own vehicle but that's a topic for another discussion).
Perhaps one day a massive car accident blocking all lanes occurs on the main road which Gregory travels, and rather than the 10 minute drive he's used to he's stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic for an hour and a half. As he sits frustrated watching the clock on his dashboard, Gerald swiftly passes him by on a quick and reliable train ride to work.
If Gerald doesn't own a car but wishes he did so that he could shorten his travel time, then perhaps he should start saving for a car, or cut spending in some other area of his life so that he may afford one. It's not as though he is for some reason forbidden from choosing to drive his own car. I realize some people may not have the financial means to purchase a personal vehicle and that scenario may be viewed by some as unfair. But the fact of the matter is, we live in a world with a wide-ranging socioeconomic scale and there are amenities that are attainable for some and unattainable for others.
Because there are those who may not be able to purchase or operate a personal vehicle, it is important that we provide safe and reliable transportation alternatives. By making these systems (bus, rail, etc.) as efficient as possible, the difference between Gerald and Gregory's travel times may be reduced. And again, I don't believe this is making the situation more or less fair for anyone, but I do agree it's a step in the right direction for making all transportation systems/modes efficient and effective.
In my opinion it's not a matter of fairness, but simply a matter of differing situations. There are many reasons for which this scenario may be occurring. Perhaps Gerald does in fact own a personal car but he chooses to take the bus to save money that would otherwise be spent on gas. Or maybe he enjoys reading the paper during his commute in the morning, and not having to operate the vehicle in which he's riding allows him to do so (I realize some commuters attempt to read the paper as well as drive their own vehicle but that's a topic for another discussion).
Perhaps one day a massive car accident blocking all lanes occurs on the main road which Gregory travels, and rather than the 10 minute drive he's used to he's stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic for an hour and a half. As he sits frustrated watching the clock on his dashboard, Gerald swiftly passes him by on a quick and reliable train ride to work.
If Gerald doesn't own a car but wishes he did so that he could shorten his travel time, then perhaps he should start saving for a car, or cut spending in some other area of his life so that he may afford one. It's not as though he is for some reason forbidden from choosing to drive his own car. I realize some people may not have the financial means to purchase a personal vehicle and that scenario may be viewed by some as unfair. But the fact of the matter is, we live in a world with a wide-ranging socioeconomic scale and there are amenities that are attainable for some and unattainable for others.
Because there are those who may not be able to purchase or operate a personal vehicle, it is important that we provide safe and reliable transportation alternatives. By making these systems (bus, rail, etc.) as efficient as possible, the difference between Gerald and Gregory's travel times may be reduced. And again, I don't believe this is making the situation more or less fair for anyone, but I do agree it's a step in the right direction for making all transportation systems/modes efficient and effective.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
With new U.S. DOT fuel efficiency standards, everybody wins
Just recently, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) finalized new national standards for fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions for passenger cars and light trucks. Their new standards will apply to vehicles built between the years 2017 and 2025, by which time the fuel economy for an average car will have reached 54.5 miles per gallon which is almost two times better than the fuel economy of cars on the road today.
The results of these new standards are nothing but positive on all fronts. Not only will we reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, but Americans will use less fuel thus saving money as well as conserving a valuable and quickly diminishing natural resource. The popularity of fuel efficient cars such as the GM Chevy Cruze and the Ford F-150 with its EcoBoost engine, show that Americans as well as car manufacturers are already responding to the newly announced standards.
American carmakers are supporting these new standards as well. They are willing and ready to build cars that the American public desires. With fuel efficient tools and technologies already in place, manufacturers can continue to build upon these and create more innovative solutions. With the support of 13 major automotive manufacturers, responsible for building 90% of the cars sold in the U.S., it is clear that these new standards are a great boost towards a more sustainable future in the transportation realm.
"Simply put, this groundbreaking program will result in vehicles that use less gas, travel farther, and provide more efficiency for consumers than ever before--all while maintaining safety, protecting the air we breathe, and laying the groundwork for automakers to create jobs, developed advanced technologies, and improve quality of life for American families."
Works Cited
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2012/08/cafe-2017-2025.html#.UEagwfvlfTo
The results of these new standards are nothing but positive on all fronts. Not only will we reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, but Americans will use less fuel thus saving money as well as conserving a valuable and quickly diminishing natural resource. The popularity of fuel efficient cars such as the GM Chevy Cruze and the Ford F-150 with its EcoBoost engine, show that Americans as well as car manufacturers are already responding to the newly announced standards.
American carmakers are supporting these new standards as well. They are willing and ready to build cars that the American public desires. With fuel efficient tools and technologies already in place, manufacturers can continue to build upon these and create more innovative solutions. With the support of 13 major automotive manufacturers, responsible for building 90% of the cars sold in the U.S., it is clear that these new standards are a great boost towards a more sustainable future in the transportation realm.
"Simply put, this groundbreaking program will result in vehicles that use less gas, travel farther, and provide more efficiency for consumers than ever before--all while maintaining safety, protecting the air we breathe, and laying the groundwork for automakers to create jobs, developed advanced technologies, and improve quality of life for American families."
Works Cited
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2012/08/cafe-2017-2025.html#.UEagwfvlfTo
Monday, September 3, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)