Author: Jeremy Cooley (Page 2 of 2)

The climate march that took place two weeks ago was a public display of how large and concentrated the climate change movement has become. Protests like this are strong indicators to the rest of the world what the common perception of climate change has become. Nevertheless, for all the good the climate change march has done to spread awareness, it has also reignited the people and organizations that believe climate change is either fake, or over-exaggeration. In this article by Dave Wakefield, CEO for a metal fabrication company, he does not necessarily deny that climate change does not exist, but instead states that climate change intervention is an attack on American capitalism. For the mid-west audience he is writing for this may strike harder, but blaming climate change for hurting capitalism is idiotic because capitalism/ rapid economic growth is essentially what caused climate change. Wakefield’s belief that the climate change march was an assault on capitalism scares me.

Going off the in-class topic of the Climate Change March, the article I read made note that Obama agreed with the protest and has restated that his goal for the near term is to cut carbon pollution 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. He then went on to talk about how we need more collective action and innovation to deal with the issue of climate change. I completely agree with everything he is quoted saying in this article, yet am perplexed to know why he still somewhat supports and the government defends fracking. If they truly had the environment and the well-being of future generations, I think the goal of 17%, could be higher. 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/09/23/presidential-visit-un-restrictions-and-climate-protest-could-lead-to-gridlock/

So a while ago I subscribed to this emailing list through facebook that keeps me up to date with stemming issues currently going on in the environmental community. It turns out that in fact the mailing list is linked to an environmental organization called Sum of Us. Relating this too our most recent Bosso chapter, Sum of Us occupies a very unique advocacy niche that is the product of technological innovation. Furthermore, it’s mission is to share global awareness on current environmental issues and promote a sustainable path for the future through mass social media. I found this very unique because the organization occupies a niche that could be very popular in terms of membership in years down the road as the younger generations of society get older and take leadership roles in their respective communities. They also make it very easy for people to donate money, or sign an electronic petition. This ease of participation from a microeconomics perspective could very well grow the organization exponentially because more times than not the average person will act morally if the moral option is available and manageable.

Nevertheless, I only bring up this because I would not know about a growing fight with new pesticide regulations that could have adverse effects on pollinators in the mid-west without being on Sum of Us’s social media list. To give a short background to the article, pollinators, most notably honey bees and monarch butterflies, have experienced large declines in their respective populations over the past few decades; this is incredibly bad because without pollinators our ecosystems do not work. A new petition put together by Syngenta aims  to increase the tolerable neonicotinoid pesticide level by 400 times! This to me is messed up. The pesticide is scientifically proven to destroy the immune systems of honeybees, our most prominent pollinator in the midwest where this pesticide would be mostly used. The even more frightening detail is that the EPA is considering Syngenta’s proposal. As educated individuals we cannot have another bald eagle incident. To get involved go on sumofus.com. And if you don’t believe me read the article http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060005321

In the New York Times article I read, Justin Gillis the author of the piece points out that the scientific community does not know nearly enough about climate change to either currently predict it, or solve it. This comes based off the notion that we know more about space than we do about our own oceans. I’ve heard this statement many times throughout my life and it kind of creeps me out because you would like to think understanding what’s in our backyard would be more important than knowing what’s in another galaxy. This seems to be our own fault for not allocating the appropriate funding to the right causes and in general dodging the tougher questions initially. Nevertheless, the article does mention some knew information involving climate change that I have never heard before. One, is that scientists are now taking more of an initiative to understand the oceans’ role in cooling the earth because in recent decades the earth’s temperature rise has slowed down; The oceans must have something to do with this. Secondly, that China’s coal addiction may actually be helping the rest of world:”Coal releases greenhouse gases that will have a long-term warming effect, of course, but it also throws particles into the air that can reflect sunlight back to space over the short term” (Gillis). This statement is strange to me, but you can’t rule it out. In summary the article provided some interesting information on climate change study and where it is headed. I’d definitely recommend glancing over this because some of the information seems before its time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/science/in-the-ocean-clues-to-change.html?ref=earth&_r=0