As we watched the Leonardo Dicaprio documentary this past week, it made me realize that climate change is a bigger issue than what I initially realized. I did not realize that so many cities were being submerged because of global warming. Climate change not only affects the weather and sea level, but is also melting glaciers and sea ice. This is killing off polar animals such as seals and polar bears, and dumping harmful toxics into the sea from the glaciers. Leonardo traveled to different countries to try to figure out the current status was on global warming in other countries. One of the countries he went to was India, and he spoke to another activist there who is trying to change global warming, as well. This lady said that America is the number one distributor to global warming. She informed Leo that things can be done to change global warming, but that not enough effort is being put forth from Americans in order to do so.
I did not realize that America was the number one distributor to global warming. I thought that, possibly, China may be a greater distributor considering the pollution rate is higher there. My question is, is the Indian woman that Leo was talking to correct? Are we not putting forth enough effort in order to make these changes? In my opinion I would answer this question by saying, possibly. We cannot put forth the effort if we do not have a sufficient amount of resources in order to do so. If we cannot replace these nonrenewable resources with solar or wind energy then there is little or no way global warming will become absent. Plus, with America’s population being that of a large amount, it will take years upon years, if ever, to get people to change their ways. This message about global warming/climate change needs to get out there and the facts need to be displayed. If people do not see the facts that global warming exists because of all of these factors through how we live our every day lives, then people will just continue to disbelieve that global warming exists. This is a huge issue in America, and if there is some way for us to make a difference by using different energy, then why not try it? Again, my question is, are we putting forth enough effort to change this issue or are we slacking?
As we have learned in this past week, us humans have a lot of impact on climate change. We don’t realize how much of an impact we may have sometimes, as I didn’t, but it is a big enough of an impact to be causing detrimental problems all around the world, within the environment. Using cars causes pollution, burning fossil fuels causes harm, eating beef, and so on all cause global warming to rise. The heat that all of these things are creating is dispersed into the air and trapped underneath Earth’s atmosphere. This causes temperatures to rise which results in sea levels rising, ice sheets/icebergs melting off into the oceans and contaminating the water, and many other things that is detrimental to the environment around us.
My cliché question is, how are we going to change this? Global warming has been debated for years, whether we are the real cause of it or whether it’s just naturally occurring. As we discussed, do we take an objective action to go about this or a self-reliance action? It is proven that the use of coal and fossil fuels is causing this earth to have a tremendous rise in temperature. With the jobs, technology that we have, places we need to be, it’s hard to change our lifestyles that we are so used to, but if we can get the message out there about how much this is affecting the world around us, then maybe things will begin to change.
Disposable batteries contain heavy metals and several 0ther chemicals that are not friendly to the environment. Many natural resources are also used to produce disposable batteries which is not safe for the environment. On the other hand, there is a solution to this problem, rechargeable batteries. As this website says, “Rechargeable batteries comsume up to 23 times less non-renewable natural resources than disposable batteries” (Valentine). This article also states, “Rechargeables have 28 times less impact on global warming, 30 times less impact on air pollution, 9 times less impact on airacidification, and 12 times less impace on water pollution!” (Valentine). Rechargeable batteries are more expensive to buy, but in the long run it is cheaper because they can be used up to 1,000 times each. Using rechargeable batteries reduces all of the harmful things that are done to the environment as opposed to using disposable ones. In reality, rechargeable batteries seem to be a double standard because they are friendly to the environment and benefit the consumer because they can be used hundreds of more times than disposables. These batteries are also known stay charged for a longer period of time than disposables because of their disposable parts.
These batteries are friendly to the environment and also more convenient for the user. Disposable batteries are harmful to the environment because of their harsh chemicals and heavy metals, and when disposed into landfills these chemicals are detrimental to the environment. There are no negative consequences to buying rechargeable batteries other than being more expensive to buy at first, but in the end, they have a more beneficial outcome.
In this past week, we were shown the world’s largest disaster which was the Union Carbide incident in Bhopal, India. This disaster consisted of the release of toxins from UCIL facility tanks into the drinking water. During December 2, 1984, water entered a side pipe following into one of the tanks. These tanks contained MIC (methyl isocyanate), a highly toxic chemical. The impacts of this toxin being exposed to the drinking water and air in Bhopal are detrimental. Women who are pregnant and have a child after consuming this toxin will result in their child having retardation, deformities, and even death. These are only some of the effects of this toxin. After this toxin was found to be causing these appalling effects on the people of Bhopal, not only did the UCIL factories do nothing about it, they denied it. The political people of Bhopal also denied this fact, which ultimately led to nothing being done about his disaster.
My reaction to this is, how in the world do we have many laws implemented to “keep us safe”, yet when something like this happens, the industry gets to be in denial while several people are being killed off, just to maintain a good image. The individuals of Bhopal whom obtain the power to do something, i.e.political figures, believed the industrial workers of the UCIL business instead of actually going into investigation to put a stop to this disaster in Bhopal. I don’t believe this was the UCIL factory’s fault, and I don’t believe that this business should be punished for this incident. However, I do believe that since the business was in denial for so long about this incident, that they should be punished for that. At this point in time, I do realize that the clearing of the toxin from the water and air is put into affect. I do not agree that, while the UCIL industry decided to deny this incident and many children/people were still being affected or even killed by this toxin, they should not have some sort of punishment for this action.
In this past week, we talked about the “Bliss” picture taken by Charles O’Rear, which is used on various Windows PC backgrounds. In class, we discussed how this picture on PC backgrounds looks much unlike the initial picture taken. The picture on PCs contrasts quite a bit from the unedited picture itself because it is exceedingly edited to make the aspects of the picture more vivid. The colors of the picture are edited to look brighter and more jovial. Some of my peers said that this may be done to help one feel happier and less stressed while doing his or her work. They also said that it is used as a sort of meditating landscape, something that is very pleasing to the eye. We learned that the actual place of this picture is a severely dangerous road considering there have been an enormous amount of car crashes on the road alongside this field. This picture is displayed to us through a Windows PC to provoke a positive emotion with nature, yet, the picture is hardly realistic.
Original picture taken by Charles O’Rear compared to edited version:
Many things in society are displayed aesthetically to us as young children. For example, in cartoons nature is constantly displayed as this colorful, vibrant place, when in fact, nature is most likely not as vibrant as shown in cartoons. In cartoons, the world is displayed as this safe place where we are seemingly immortal. This leaves children to their imaginations and helps protect their minds. Protecting their minds leads to viewing the world differently than it really is and brings out positive thoughts about the outside world.
In this past week, we talked about whether it is detrimental to the population, or not, to have more than two kids. This discussion made me wonder how much of our freedom is constantly being questioned. In my opinion, having a kid should be a personal decision and based on whether or not a family is able to support the children. This decision or happiness shouldn’t be felt as if it should be taken away just because of thoughts about excessive population. Yes, I agree that some may make irrational decisions to have children when they are not ready, but if the child is able to live in a stable and healthy environment, I say why hold back. On average, statistically 150,000 people die every day. This means that more room becomes available for new lives to come in.
People contribute to the world in many ways, and one good way is contributing new ideas. With more minds, more ideas are distributed and jobs occupied or created which results in contributing, possibly, bigger and better things to our current population. I understand that, as the population is rising, less jobs are available or harder to find, poverty is occurring, and etc., but I disagree that the decision to not have a bigger family should be based off of being afraid of overpopulating. Many people die every minute, and if more of the population agreed to not have as many children as desired, this just puts an enormous limitation on one of the biggest decisions of freedom that one has.
In today’s world, technology is more crucial than it has ever been. From academics to the work world, technology is part of our every day lives. Technology has helped make things to be easier and more convenient, yet while it’s adding to the world around us, it is also takes away from it. Do we choose technology over more important things? Perhaps we may abuse technology in a way. For example, one could be playing with his or her child outside or giving that child books, toys, etc. to play with. Instead, in my experiences, I have seen several parents buy their young children iPads, ipod touches, smart phones, and so on. This way of technology use is, in my opinion, technology abuse. Technology comes in great use when needed, such as doing school work and work-related activities, but using technology to take away from the time spent with your kids or loved ones is giving technology a bad name. It also takes away from the child using his or her imagination and may make them lazier. I’ve indefinitely heard one say, “Get off of your phone,” and this is because technology is being overused and chosen over other more important things.
A study was done in 2014 on more than 120,000 homes in the Unites States and here are the results. About 57% of parents claim that the reason their children don’t go outside is because they are using some type of electronic, such as video games, watching TV, or listening to music (Larson 2011). Another study showed that kids from ages 8 to 18 spent an average of over seven hours on an electronic device (Larson, 2011). This just goes to show that technology can be a good thing but not necessarily when being overused.