Blog Stage 7: Transitioning to Alternative Energy

     When you look at modern energy consumption in our country, you see that in 2011, "about 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 42% attributed from coal" whereas renewable energy accounted for only about 5%, according to the United States Energy Information Administration's website. Now consider the effects that fossil fuels have on the environment and on humans and animals as well; greenhouse gases that warm our ecosystems and gases that are damaging to humans and animals. If we are to keep societies healthy, as well as maintain a stable environment, then we must advance and execute renewable sources on a wider scale than what we currently are. Renewable sources such as solar and wind are grossly outmatched by coal and oil, which are the leading sources of fuel in America. 

     Looking at which fuel is more efficient, one would side with coal and oil simply because it currently produces the most energy, but that is in part because of a gross dependence on fossil fuels and because solar technology is currently more expensive. But what is more important, cheap fuel or safe, renewable fuel? The answer is clear and obvious; renewable energy systems like solar and wind. What is our government doing to further these renewable energy technologies? Luckily, they are funding R&D programs that are working to make solar and wind energy technology more cost efficient, as well as more energy efficient. The benefits of renewable energy simply outweigh the benefit of fossil fuels. They will create more jobs and help stimulate the economy. They will lead to cleaner air, as well as reduced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that are helping to warm the Earth. Currently, President Obama has requested a "$28.4 billion Fiscal Year 2014 budget for the Energy Department, including $2.78 billion for the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)," stated on U.S. Department of Energy's "Sunshot Initiative." 

     I support this request, and believe that it is wholly necessary in order to ensure a cleaner future for America. If we take a step back and look at how we consume fossil fuels, we should realize that our dependence on them is too great and dangerous. The time to transition to cleaner sources is now, and this budget for the Energy Department is helping to make that happen. We need to lessen our dependence on oil and coal, and use what is available every day; the Sun's light, the constant winds of the Earth, and the power of water and other clean sources. I believe that we have outgrown fossil fuels. They won't last forever, so advancing technology to fit our future needs today is simply the smartest thing we could do, and to not do so is reckless.

Sources: 

United States Energy Information Administration

United States Department of Energy

Blog Stage 6: NASA Budget Cuts; Beneficial or Detrimental?

     On the blog "Land of the Pleas and Home of the Craves," classmate Cheri Morris claims that cutting NASA's budget is harmful to the safety of US citizens and that too many people remain uneducated because of a lack of media attention. She goes on to say that within NASA, certain programs are receiving cuts, such as planetary science programs, water and systems, and atmospheric changes. These fields of studies are all necessary for the overall safety of not just America, but globally. I agree that NASA shouldn't reduce it's spending on programs as important as the ones listed. Detrimental is an understatement when considering the possible catastrophes that could occur as a result of a meteor strike or of a sudden rapid acceleration of global warming, which then we as humanity are responsible for the damage to the environment.

     If one considers the dangers that space poses to Earth's fragile ecosystem, then one could logically come to the conclusion that one of only two surefire ways to ensure our continuity as a species is to continue funded research into planetary defensive measures that we could employ when necessary. A moderate to severe budget cut could hinder NASA's ability to educate and research methods of protection. Furthermore, interplanetary travel and colonization of space and other planets, such as Mars, are the other ways to further our species by not limiting ourselves to one planet that may be the recipient of a future massive meteor impact. That situation could spell the end of humanity, as well as any and all life forms inhabiting Earth, so colonization outside of Earth is simply assurance of our survival.

     I realize that the federal government needs to cut federal spending when necessary and that other nations have space programs that do research as well, but NASA has more importance than most people realize, and hindering this important agency is doing more long term harm than short term good when you look at the facts. People need to be educated on space and it's threats, as well as our harmful actions to the environment.  People need to open their eyes to the dangers of space, and of our own actions, like global warming, and start focusing on what we can do to make sure we as a nation and as a species continue forward while experiencing little to no threats. And people need to realize that our existence isn't eternal and that even though there are no immediate catastrophic dangers present, humanity's lifetime is shortening every day that we don't advance our defenses against future meteor impacts or resolve the global warming problems.

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. 

Blog Stage 3: Drones in the Courts

With the Obama Administration's drone program, the idea of "drone courts" has come to attention in which executive decisions concerning the usage of drones to target and kill individuals would be reviewed by the Judicial branch. In the New York Times Opinion section, an editorial titled "Who Will Mind The Drones?" discusses an alternative. The primary audience of this article would seem to be the general public, especially near the end of the editorial when he states "our Constitution's greatest virtues," which lends support that it is directed towards the average American.

In his argument, the author claims that this is not the best plan of action. He favors the idea of a separate "national security court" within the Executive branch itself in which this new executive court would be better suited for reviewing executive decisions on whether to allow drones to kill targets or not. He supports this by pointing out that judicial courts "lack national security expertise, they are not accustomed to ruling on lightning-fast timetables" and that "their primary work is on domestic matters and they usually rule on matters after the fact, not beforehand." So in other words, the courts in the judicial branch have little to no experience when dealing with military matters that involve quick decisions as they usually deal with legal matters that pertain to domestic issues. He also goes into detail as to how the national security court would function within the executive branch. 

I support the author in his argument against allowing the Judicial branch to review decisions concerning drone usage because I also feel that there are better alternatives that would be more suited, such as his national security court idea. There would be experts well qualified for the job as opposed to Supreme Court Justices. The Executive branch deals with military decisions involving strikes, not the Judicial. Therefore, it is more reasonable to create an executive court that could review these decisions and assume that they would review decisions better than judicial courts.

Blog Stage 2: Rejection of Gun Laws

As many as fifteen states, from South Carolina to North Dakota, have rejected the new US gun laws, introducing bills that would nullify the new gun policy. Much criticism and rejection stem from the fact that these new gun laws are viewed as unconstitutional and according to Casey Guernsey, who is state representative for Missouri, state that “We aren't here to do the bidding of the federal government,” and that “Whenever they go out of bounds, it’s our responsibility to step up.” 

In Wyoming, who has some of the least restrictive gun control in the nation, claims that any gun law that restricts ammunition clip sizes and outlaws semi-automatic weapons is unenforceable and that federal agents who attempt to enforce the new gun laws will succumb to the Firearm Protection Act. This act defends Wyoming residents from the new gun laws and prosecutes any federal agent that attempts to enforce them, which can leave them with five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. 

Many states challenge and nullify the new gun laws. This article touches on an important issue facing America, especially since the recent Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. Should Washington outlaw semi-automatics and limit clip sizes? Many believe that it is not within our government's power to do so, but many support Washington's decision. 

To read the article, click the link below: 

Some States Push Measures to Repel New U.S. Gun Laws