WE NEED THIS!! It is so helpful in multiple ways. Lets hope that in a few years we have solar roadways and a more sustainable future!
Month: November 2014 (Page 1 of 2)
As many of you know the Ferguson verdict was released today. The verdict ruled that no further action, or indictment would be made against the police officers that were involved in the shooting death of 18 year old Michael Brown. This verdict has left many African Americans perturbed and upset, but as of yet the protest currently being done have been only peaceful. I think this peaceful take towards direct action shows a particularly new face to the civil rights moment and is almost reminiscent of the direct action tactics read about in Guha; the activists do not want to cause any more pain through violence rather they want to convey their message through other mediums like blockades and tactics that hurt other areas of society not just other citizens.
In my book was the verdict correct? I think from all the surfaced details the court made the honest decision. Yes, the decision has left the civil rights movement and the African American population furious and disheartened, but the details supported the cops in this situation. The courts are their to administer the truth/justice and I support their decision in this case.
This article makes renewable energy sources seem plausible in the price driven world we live in. The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar sources has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is less expensive than coal and natural gas in some instances.
However, it is only appears to be cheaper because of the government subsidies that exist. My question is whether government subsidies are actually a sustainable method to get people to live more greenly.
In 2003, there was promise for hydrogen fuel cell cars. George W. Bush said in a speech that a child born in 2003 could be driving a hydrogen-powered vehicle for their first car. During the Obama Administration, the Government cut spending to hydrogen fuel cell research and development because of a lack of feasibility. Now, California, Germany, and Japan are all increasing the number of their hydrogen stations to about 50 by the end of next year in an attempt to generate support and infrastructure for these hydrogen cars.
The fact is, hydrogen cars are more inexpensive than electric, more efficient, and have a longer range. It’s just the infrastructure that is lacking. Hydrogen fuel-cell science is fully developed and ready to be scaled up to trucks and busses, so if we can generate the infrastructure, they would easily be incorporated into daily life.
Check out the article for the nerdy details about how hydrogen fuel cells work and how they are able to cut costs : http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/science/earth/hydrogen-cars-join-electric-models-in-showrooms.html?ref=science
It seems like a very promising technology. I wonder what is greener to produce, though? a hydrogen fuel cell or a Lithium-ion battery?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/science/earth/climate-tools-seek-to-bend-natures-path.html?_r=1
The solution to global warming is mining more rocks says on geochemist, Dr. Schuiling. This green-tinted mineral, olivine, is abundant around the work and can slowly take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Spreading this around roadways, play grounds, gardens etc. can help reduce global warming. In Norway, they have already begun to spread olivine around and there is a company called greenSands that sells olivine sand for home and commercial use. Critics of this solution say that this process will take too long to make a difference. There are other carbon sequestering solutions people have come up with, like spraying sulfuric acid droplets into the atmosphere so it can reflect the suns rays. The solar radiation management could be a quick fix to reduce global temperatures but result in dire consequences. Overall, I think olivine is a better route to take because the best and safest results require patience and happen over time.
The house has already to sent the pipeline project to the president’s desk for approval. The Senate, once it’s under Republican control come January, will most likely vote in the pipelines favor as well.
Supporters like to say that the 1,179-mile expansion of the pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from Canada to Texas, will create thousands of jobs. Opponents reply “it as an environmental disaster, suggesting that refining tar sands is incredibly toxic while raising the alarm that greenhouse gases will increase dramatically. Landowners along the proposed route worry about potential leaks”.
Obama will most likely veto the bill, with the notion that the goal should be to reduce emissions and boost energy efficiency, rather than block pipelines per se.
Over the past week, or so I have been really interested in US Drone policy because of a topic in another class and having watched the first episodes of the new season of Homeland that is centered around yet another drone attack that kills many Pakistani civilians. From both these I have been begun wondering does the drone program currently being implemented create the problem, or is it not necessarily the program and the problem lies deeper within the technology itself. After reading a few articles from the Huffington Post and a government document on Drone policy the problem may lie in both.
A major problem in US drone policy is that attacks do not need to be Whitehouse approved. This means military officials can act on instinct, which in many cases has resulted in the 2,400 deaths the program has accounted in the 5 years of its existence. The drones are good at taking out terrorist individuals, but high costs with regards to innocent life. For example the majority of people killed from drones in Pakistan are roughly between 416-987 innocent civilians, half of which is thought to be children. Furthermore, in most cases the drones killed more good people than bad people, which in large parts does more harm for society than good; killing innocent people only breeds more hate and anguish towards the United States, which in the long-run only enhances terrorist group power and continuity. A change in policy that makes more controls before a attack is done needs to be drafted because in my opinion a lack of inputs has resulted in many unnecessary attacks.
Another problem I see is the technology itself because it cuts out the intimacy and responsibility of warfare because the person carrying out the drone strike that kills 12 people is literally a hundred thousand miles away and therefore does not immediately have emotional registration for their actions; in some cases these attacks almost do not seem real and feel like a video game. There is definitely something wrong with treating human life as if it were a video game especially innocent lives. In the longer run I think the US should move away from attacks and focus more on the surveillance aspect of drones, which in most cases have been applicable both globally and domestically. Using drones for only surveillance purposes is the necessary move because people deserve better.
https://news.vice.com/article/400-people-bury-their-heads-in-the-sand-to-protest-australian-prime-ministers-stance-on-climate-change?utm_source=vicenewstwitter
When your prime minister calls climate change science “crap” and you can’t beat him, you might as well join him… figuratively. Yes, 400 protesters buried their heads in sand this past Thursday on a beach in Sydney, Australia, highlighting the need for their leader to address climate change at the G20 summit held over the weekend in Brisbane.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120292/2014-g20-summit-obama-challenges-abbott-climate-change
If you read this follow up piece, you’ll see how the Summit did end up including climate change in the agenda, even focusing on donating funds to poorer countries dealing with climate change.
A huge climate denier, Prime Minister Abbott has called for heightened coal use, lessened goals for renewable resources, and wants to focus on the economy alone.
It’s time Abbott has taken his head out of the sand.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363023227/solar-bike-path-opens-this-week-in-the-netherlands
Outside of Amsterdam in a town called Krommenie, crystalline silicon solar cells in durable casing will double as a bike path for citizens and solar panels to feed into the national energy grid. I don’t know, guys, northern Europe and Scandinavia sound pretty smart.
With years of testing, the panels have to be skid resistant and strong, yet translucent and dirt repellent to absorb sunlight. The first ever of its kind, the section laid down last week stretches for 230 feet. Although flat surfaces won’t be as efficient as panels on rooftops, the path should produce enough energy to run two or three households for a year.
There might be more like this coming our way! The article mentions a project based in Idaho called “Solar Roadways.”
In terms of recent readings, do you think technology like this has a place in a sustainable vision for the future?
http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/environment-and-nature/20141027/activist-vandana-shiva-speaks-in-redlands-about-dangers-of-pesticides
Vandana Shiva is an environmental activist from India. Her mission is to promote natural agricultural practices and environmental justice in India. Shiva works against large multinational corporations that produce GMO and use large amounts of pesticides. This article was about her visit to the Memorial Chapel at the University of Redland where she voiced her vision of a world that feeds everyone with food grown as nature intended. Shiva’s Ph.D. thesis was on quantum physics, which is very complex but in Shiva’s own words is shows how the “world is not separate. Everything is interconnected.”
Shiva’s work connects to the reading we did about the environmental movement in India. Shiva is trying to bring about environmental justice, especially to farmers and women. Hopefully she can bring about change that will be helpful to the health of the people and the world.
Recent Comments