Blog Stage 5: Global Warming; A Rise For Concern

Many say global warming is a myth, even when faced with the unequivocal truth that the Earth is warming. On the contrary, many scientists agree that global warming is the direct result of carbon dioxide emissions that stem from human activity. Despite the fact that carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, is being released into the atmosphere daily and the fact that the temperature has been steadily rising since the previous century, there are many who choose not to believe it, despite any credible evidence that suggests otherwise. 

I believe that increased CO2 emissions is one of the reasons for global warming, if not the main cause. It's the slow steady accumulation of decades of CO2 emission that is why we see polar ice melting at increased rates. My main concern is how our government is dealing with this increase in temperature and CO2 emissions. I argue that their should be an increase in regulation of oil and gas in an attempt to reduce CO2 emissions, and in turn reduce the temperature to a level in which polar ice is no longer melting at the rate we see today, as well as reduce pollutants being released into our cities.

Now whether you believe that we humans are to blame for global warming, or if you even believe in global warming at all, I still think it prudent to at least consider a policy that would regulate carbon dioxide emissions from sources such as motor vehicles and other various fossil fuel plants. While carbon dioxide is a natural component in Earth's atmosphere, pollution is detrimental to humans and animals, and carbon dioxide accounts "for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities" (EPA). For this reason, I believe it is imperative that we act now rather than slowly let CO2 levels rise to dangerous levels. Whether the government is already considering increasing regulation on oil or not, I believe it is necessary. 

You may completely disagree with my argument, but I believe that increasing oil regulation is at least a step toward reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The government could also increase funding for alternative energy programs that could in the future render oil and gas obsolete, but seeing as how our government is in a financial bind, that is not as realistic as a legislative policy that would increase oil regulation. This policy would not be a solution, but a step towards a solution. With each step, we can reach the end goal which is to greatly reduce carbon dioxide and its effects.

Source: "Greenhouse Gas Emissions"

Blog Stage 4: Are Drones the Problem?

What are drones being used for? Many Americans believe they are simply being used to carry out killings against high level terrorists. In the blog post, The 3 Real Problems With Drone Strikes, the author Cenk Uygur states that the issue is not with the drones themselves, but with the US government and how our government is using them. His intended audience is an average American, simply because it is speaking out to fellow Americans and how we feel about the usage of drones by our government. He outlines three main problems, the first being that we have used drones to kill targets, which may or may not have intentionally been US civilians. Recently, a drone strike was carried out, resulting in the deaths of two Americans, Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son. Whether they were the intended recipients of the drone strike or simply collateral damage, these attacks were carried out without evidence or a trial prior to the strike. 

The second issue is that many strikes are against unidentified targets, in which basis for the attacks rely solely on signature readings, such as a collection of weapons in a single location. Even if there is a lack of hostility in the area, the drone strikes are still carried out, bombing the location and killing possibly innocent people. This lack of knowledge on who our government kills is immoral, as we have no idea who is being executed, which could include innocent children and adults not involved in terrorism. In fact, "only 2 percent of the strikes have hit high level al-Qaeda figures." There is no justification for these killings because there is no evidence to support them. 

The third and final issue is that the government will carry out "double taps" in which we kill first-responders and anyone attempting to help the wounded. I fully support the author in that the government is abusing the drones. Rather than making rational and moral decisions regarding where and why the government targets individuals, it seems that they will kill anyone, even possibly American citizens, without any reasonable evidence or a trial before making decisions. 

I believe that morality is currently eroding within our government, especially when concerning executive decisions that involve non-threatening suspects being killed simply because they seemed threatening or were "collateral damage." The author's three concerns are reasonable and raise an important question; do you think our government is exceeding it's legal boundaries for the sake of the War on Terror? I think they have, and that even if these actions are legal, which depends on if the killing of the two American citizens was intentional or not, they are at least considered highly immoral as there is no justification or evidence to support such actions.