Local Governments Set Targets to Battle Climate Change
The City of Portland and Multnomah County are working together on an ambitious goal to reduce greenhouse gas emission. Jointly, the City and County are developing a climate action plan to be implemented in late June 2009. Through this plan, they are aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% per person by 2050. This percentage goal was derived from scientific evidence that the world would need to reduce carbon emissions 50-80% below 1990 levels in order to prevent a global disaster. This is an example of local government planning for sustainability.
The sustainability plan being drafted included: reducing the number of miles people drive a day, a drop in electricity use, and an increase in trips by bicycle. The City and County have set goals for 2012 and expect the plan to be fluid, making updates regularly. The 2012 goals include: installing residential solar electric systems, plant yard and street trees, create community garden plots, limit regional urban growth, and add rooftop gardens. The City of Portland has had progress in the past on lowering emissions without federal subsidies. With the Obama Administration’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they are hoping that local progress should be easier.
It is great that the City of Portland and Multnomah County are developing an aggressive and ambitious tactic to address the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. However, I view this issue as being national or even global. If the scientific reports are correct and the world needs to take dramatic measures to sustain our environment, the steps taken by the City and County – while admirable – would not matter in the long run if the nation does not begin to address this issue nationally and globally. In the past, our government has not taken a great stance on improving the environment or working with other countries. I would agree, that with the new administration, we should see progress come from our national leaders and the US should become more active in global discussions.
The City of Portland and Multnomah County are ahead of most of the rest of the country. They are being proactive and taking environmental matters into their own control at the local level. I believe that if policy-makers had tried to implement the issue at the federal level, it would provide more funding and support at the local level. Additionally, if the climate action plan were implemented nationally, I’m positive that the US would see lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The draw backs I could foresee with enacting at the federal level, is the loss of autonomy and restrictions that the policy could impose on the state and local governments.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Weekly Assignment #12: Article 2
International Coalition Pushes for Adaptation to Climate Change
Web Link: http://www.iied.org/climate-change/media/international-coalition-pushes-for-adaptation-climate-change
In February, Bangladesh hosted the Third International Conference on Community Based Adaptation in Dhaka. At the conference a new initiative was established: the Global Initiative on Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change. This initiative is focused on helping the world’s poorest communities adapt to climate change. This initiative is an example of international planning as discussed by Wheeler in chapter 7. In addition, this is also an example of sustainability planning through organizing and coalition building, as discussed in chapter 6.
Fifty countries had a presence at the conference through research institutions, non-profits, donors, etc. The coalition of institutions is tasked with developing best approaches to adapting to climate change. Some communication methods that were going to be utilized for the initiative were an online platform to be used to share information between groups. Additionally, further international conferences would be organized to share information, best practices, adaptation strategies, etc. The next conference is scheduled in Tanzania in September.
Another aspect mentioned in the article is the importance of providing adaptation methods that can be implemented at the community level. As discussed by Wheeler, industrialized and less developed countries experience different problems. The world’s poorest communities have inadequate funding towards climate change and hardly any investment in technology towards environmental issues. The technologies and methods developed by this coalition will have to be implemented at the community level. Therefore, strategies developed by the initiative must be affordable and realistic for these communities to put into operation. In essence, the industrialized world will be providing the toolkit for these communities.
This article addressed a few of Wheeler’s topics: international planning, coalition building, and industrialized vs. developing nations. International planning has its difficulties. There are language barriers and distance barriers. Through this global initiative, they have addressed these obstacles by developing an online platform and scheduling additional in-person conferences. Through the coalition building, theses groups will be able to share best practices and hopefully develop climate change methods for these communities.
Web Link: http://www.iied.org/climate-change/media/international-coalition-pushes-for-adaptation-climate-change
In February, Bangladesh hosted the Third International Conference on Community Based Adaptation in Dhaka. At the conference a new initiative was established: the Global Initiative on Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change. This initiative is focused on helping the world’s poorest communities adapt to climate change. This initiative is an example of international planning as discussed by Wheeler in chapter 7. In addition, this is also an example of sustainability planning through organizing and coalition building, as discussed in chapter 6.
Fifty countries had a presence at the conference through research institutions, non-profits, donors, etc. The coalition of institutions is tasked with developing best approaches to adapting to climate change. Some communication methods that were going to be utilized for the initiative were an online platform to be used to share information between groups. Additionally, further international conferences would be organized to share information, best practices, adaptation strategies, etc. The next conference is scheduled in Tanzania in September.
Another aspect mentioned in the article is the importance of providing adaptation methods that can be implemented at the community level. As discussed by Wheeler, industrialized and less developed countries experience different problems. The world’s poorest communities have inadequate funding towards climate change and hardly any investment in technology towards environmental issues. The technologies and methods developed by this coalition will have to be implemented at the community level. Therefore, strategies developed by the initiative must be affordable and realistic for these communities to put into operation. In essence, the industrialized world will be providing the toolkit for these communities.
This article addressed a few of Wheeler’s topics: international planning, coalition building, and industrialized vs. developing nations. International planning has its difficulties. There are language barriers and distance barriers. Through this global initiative, they have addressed these obstacles by developing an online platform and scheduling additional in-person conferences. Through the coalition building, theses groups will be able to share best practices and hopefully develop climate change methods for these communities.
Weekly Assignment #12: Article 1
Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan
Web Link: http://www.worldchanging.com/local/losangeles/archives/006116.html
As part of the flood control project in the 1930’s the Army Corps of Engineers paved approximately 80% of the Los Angeles River. The river spans 51 miles from the San Fernando Valley to Long Beach and is mostly recognized from movies such as the Terminator and Grease. This article focused on the finalization of the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan. The revitalization project is a prime example of the planning process discussed by Wheeler in Chapter 6, sustainability planning.
The plan-making for the project became tangible when the Los Angeles Ad Hoc River Committee was established in 2002. Five members from the Los Angeles City Council preside on the committee. The Master Plan is a $2 billion initiative by the City of Los Angeles to renovate a 32-mile section of the river that is located within the City of Los Angeles. Some council members that are active in the committee have a direct connection to the river –most of their precincts are adjacent to or surround portions of the LA River. The groups that have a direct impact on the project are the citizens that live closet to it.
The Master Plan envisions new parks, vegetation, and wetlands on the 32-mile stretch in an effort to make the river apart of the community. Historically, the river has divided neighborhoods and kept them apart. One of the visions of the Master Plan is to bring communities together. The Master Plan consists of 239 projects that would be implemented over a 20-year period. Included in the plan is outreaching to the community. In an effort to educate, garner support, and obtain input from stakeholders – they will be holding one-hour workshop to discuss the plan. As part of sustainability planning discussed by Wheeler, the organizers of the Master Plan are attempting to educate the public, communicate the plan, and gain their support. This is an important factor since the plan is aimed at revitalizing these neighborhoods in conjunction with the plan.
This article provided a good example of Wheeler’s sustainability planning. The Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan went through all the steps related to planning: plan-making, visioning, implementation, best practices, review of proposals and alternatives. Through this process, institutions played a major role in moving the project forward: the City of Los Angeles, the City Council Members, and the Los Angeles Ad Hoc River Committee. This involved a great deal of organizing and coalition building to get the right people at the table and to move forward with developing the plan. Additionally, communication with the community was a major factor in education.
Web Link: http://www.worldchanging.com/local/losangeles/archives/006116.html
As part of the flood control project in the 1930’s the Army Corps of Engineers paved approximately 80% of the Los Angeles River. The river spans 51 miles from the San Fernando Valley to Long Beach and is mostly recognized from movies such as the Terminator and Grease. This article focused on the finalization of the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan. The revitalization project is a prime example of the planning process discussed by Wheeler in Chapter 6, sustainability planning.
The plan-making for the project became tangible when the Los Angeles Ad Hoc River Committee was established in 2002. Five members from the Los Angeles City Council preside on the committee. The Master Plan is a $2 billion initiative by the City of Los Angeles to renovate a 32-mile section of the river that is located within the City of Los Angeles. Some council members that are active in the committee have a direct connection to the river –most of their precincts are adjacent to or surround portions of the LA River. The groups that have a direct impact on the project are the citizens that live closet to it.
The Master Plan envisions new parks, vegetation, and wetlands on the 32-mile stretch in an effort to make the river apart of the community. Historically, the river has divided neighborhoods and kept them apart. One of the visions of the Master Plan is to bring communities together. The Master Plan consists of 239 projects that would be implemented over a 20-year period. Included in the plan is outreaching to the community. In an effort to educate, garner support, and obtain input from stakeholders – they will be holding one-hour workshop to discuss the plan. As part of sustainability planning discussed by Wheeler, the organizers of the Master Plan are attempting to educate the public, communicate the plan, and gain their support. This is an important factor since the plan is aimed at revitalizing these neighborhoods in conjunction with the plan.
This article provided a good example of Wheeler’s sustainability planning. The Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan went through all the steps related to planning: plan-making, visioning, implementation, best practices, review of proposals and alternatives. Through this process, institutions played a major role in moving the project forward: the City of Los Angeles, the City Council Members, and the Los Angeles Ad Hoc River Committee. This involved a great deal of organizing and coalition building to get the right people at the table and to move forward with developing the plan. Additionally, communication with the community was a major factor in education.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Weekly Assignment #11
General Questions:
How do you believe sustainability should be defined for policy-making?
There can be many interpretations of sustainability. To remain consistent for policy-making purposes, sustainability should include the “three E’s” that Wheeler discussed: environment, economy, and equity. Sustainability of the environment is important if future generations will be able to enjoy the quality of life we have today. The economy plays a major role in how much a country can focus on the long-term idea of sustainability because there may be more immediate and urgent needs. In an ideal world, we can have it all. Realistically, direct basic needs of shelter, food, and water trump the support of sustainability. Furthermore, it is important that sustainability is equal to all and not just focused in a particular area.
There should be room for interpretation and flexibility to allow for micro and macro analysis. Additionally, the definition should be flexible for the different types of problems that are faced. Needs differ and it is important to leave room for interpretation. Some progress is better than no progress. Allowing elasticity in the classification will hopefully result in advancement towards sustainability.
What are the difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal?
The difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal are vagueness, immediate results, and measuring outcomes/results. First, technology is ever changing. There are many gaps in our knowledge of the impact we are having on the environment. Many researchers are making assumptions and are not building their analysis on concrete facts. Therefore, there is no definite conclusion that can be reached. For example, we can not say with certainty if we do X it will result in Y.
Second, humans have a short-term memory. In our society, we are used to instant gratification and receiving results in real-time. Sustainability is not meant to have immediate results. This makes it more difficult to obtain funding and support. There are other needs that we have a society that can reap quicker foreseeable outcomes.
Third, measuring outcomes and results of sustainability efforts will take years. Taking this into consideration, there are no distinct methods we can take now to determine what those outcomes may be. Taking action may create a more sustainable environment in the future and it may not. We can invest years, resources, and funds into sustainability – with no guarantee of a positive outcome. If sustainability becomes a policy goal today and there are no seeable positive results in a few years – funding may be cut.
If you had to design a practical framework to help a state environmental agency (e.g., Arizona Department of Environmental Quality) achieve ecological, economic and social sustainability, what would that framework look like? For example, how would you include citizens? How would you include experts? Which experts would you include?
Under our current economic conditions, I would first begin designing a framework by bringing experts from all fields together. Experts would include corporations, small businesses, non-profit organizations, citizen groups, local governments, active citizens, etc. First, I would look solicit organizations within Arizona, since they are more likely to be familiar with the specific issues Arizona faces and have a higher interest in contributing to sustainability. After we have identified the organizations, individuals, and groups that have a stake, I would next look to national groups that have an interest in contributing to our cause. Finally, I would reach out to other State’s to see if they have designed similar frameworks in order to identify best practices.
When the ground work has been completed, I would then pull together a committee that would be responsible for overseeing the sustainability project. The committee would be comprised of stakeholders that have a vested interest in seeing the project through to completion. The State will oversee the committee. The main responsibilities of the committee would be to identify the main areas of ecological, economic, and social sustainability. The challenges of funding, gaining political and public support would need to be addressed and solutions identified. Additionally, implementation and tracking measures would need to be devised.
Voters and politicians often want short term results, but many argue that sustainable development calls for a long-term policy plan. How do we take the long term view that sustainable development requires in this political environment?
Americans want instant results. We face many challenges when a long-term view is necessary to obtain results. We see many examples of eagerness in our society today such as our current economic crisis, the multiple stimulus packages, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. With the media frenzy and politicians campaigning for re-election, we’re faced with a difficult task in promoting long-term policies. With government, policies and change take time. When the government moves too quickly, problems usually arise. Therefore, it is important to educate the public and the politicians on the importance of sustainability.
A critical factor is getting the media more informed. The media plays a major role in influencing public perception and can be used as an advantage instead of a hindrance. Finally, we would need to emphasize small milestones in addition to the big picture. Informing the public of progressive steps would allow them to see some results of sustainable development and keep the progression moving forward. I believe that sometimes addressing the public has more to do with marketing and presentation than with concrete facts. If we’re able to combine the two together and market the initiative, garner support, and spread awareness – this will increase the likelihood of success.
How do you believe sustainability should be defined for policy-making?
There can be many interpretations of sustainability. To remain consistent for policy-making purposes, sustainability should include the “three E’s” that Wheeler discussed: environment, economy, and equity. Sustainability of the environment is important if future generations will be able to enjoy the quality of life we have today. The economy plays a major role in how much a country can focus on the long-term idea of sustainability because there may be more immediate and urgent needs. In an ideal world, we can have it all. Realistically, direct basic needs of shelter, food, and water trump the support of sustainability. Furthermore, it is important that sustainability is equal to all and not just focused in a particular area.
There should be room for interpretation and flexibility to allow for micro and macro analysis. Additionally, the definition should be flexible for the different types of problems that are faced. Needs differ and it is important to leave room for interpretation. Some progress is better than no progress. Allowing elasticity in the classification will hopefully result in advancement towards sustainability.
What are the difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal?
The difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal are vagueness, immediate results, and measuring outcomes/results. First, technology is ever changing. There are many gaps in our knowledge of the impact we are having on the environment. Many researchers are making assumptions and are not building their analysis on concrete facts. Therefore, there is no definite conclusion that can be reached. For example, we can not say with certainty if we do X it will result in Y.
Second, humans have a short-term memory. In our society, we are used to instant gratification and receiving results in real-time. Sustainability is not meant to have immediate results. This makes it more difficult to obtain funding and support. There are other needs that we have a society that can reap quicker foreseeable outcomes.
Third, measuring outcomes and results of sustainability efforts will take years. Taking this into consideration, there are no distinct methods we can take now to determine what those outcomes may be. Taking action may create a more sustainable environment in the future and it may not. We can invest years, resources, and funds into sustainability – with no guarantee of a positive outcome. If sustainability becomes a policy goal today and there are no seeable positive results in a few years – funding may be cut.
If you had to design a practical framework to help a state environmental agency (e.g., Arizona Department of Environmental Quality) achieve ecological, economic and social sustainability, what would that framework look like? For example, how would you include citizens? How would you include experts? Which experts would you include?
Under our current economic conditions, I would first begin designing a framework by bringing experts from all fields together. Experts would include corporations, small businesses, non-profit organizations, citizen groups, local governments, active citizens, etc. First, I would look solicit organizations within Arizona, since they are more likely to be familiar with the specific issues Arizona faces and have a higher interest in contributing to sustainability. After we have identified the organizations, individuals, and groups that have a stake, I would next look to national groups that have an interest in contributing to our cause. Finally, I would reach out to other State’s to see if they have designed similar frameworks in order to identify best practices.
When the ground work has been completed, I would then pull together a committee that would be responsible for overseeing the sustainability project. The committee would be comprised of stakeholders that have a vested interest in seeing the project through to completion. The State will oversee the committee. The main responsibilities of the committee would be to identify the main areas of ecological, economic, and social sustainability. The challenges of funding, gaining political and public support would need to be addressed and solutions identified. Additionally, implementation and tracking measures would need to be devised.
Voters and politicians often want short term results, but many argue that sustainable development calls for a long-term policy plan. How do we take the long term view that sustainable development requires in this political environment?
Americans want instant results. We face many challenges when a long-term view is necessary to obtain results. We see many examples of eagerness in our society today such as our current economic crisis, the multiple stimulus packages, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. With the media frenzy and politicians campaigning for re-election, we’re faced with a difficult task in promoting long-term policies. With government, policies and change take time. When the government moves too quickly, problems usually arise. Therefore, it is important to educate the public and the politicians on the importance of sustainability.
A critical factor is getting the media more informed. The media plays a major role in influencing public perception and can be used as an advantage instead of a hindrance. Finally, we would need to emphasize small milestones in addition to the big picture. Informing the public of progressive steps would allow them to see some results of sustainable development and keep the progression moving forward. I believe that sometimes addressing the public has more to do with marketing and presentation than with concrete facts. If we’re able to combine the two together and market the initiative, garner support, and spread awareness – this will increase the likelihood of success.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Weekly Assignment #10
Values Framework
H.R. 14 would establish the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 (FOARAM). FOARAM addresses a few of Cohen’s questions on the values framework. First, the issue stems from behavior fundamental to our lifestyle. The Act would establish criteria for monitoring the changes in ocean chemistry due to chemical inputs from the atmosphere. The chemical inputs are human created and the pH levels in the ocean are decreasing due to these activities. Additionally, FOARAM can be addressed and progress made without confronting the basic value conflicts. The Act does not require changes. Instead, the Act establishes methods in monitoring and research to align with the environmental strategic research plan established by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Political Framework
H.R. 14 is on the political agenda, the act was referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology on January 6, 2009. With the current emphasis on environmental climate change and the impact of human behavior on the environment, FOARAM is a legitimate issue that should be addressed by Congress. The issue of ocean chemistry has not played a prominent role in electoral politics. There has been a lot of discussion around climate change and water conservation, however chemical levels in the oceans has not specifically been addressed. The political stakeholders would be the committees and councils associated with the Act. They include NASA, Ocean Science and Technology of the National Science and Technology Council, and the National Science Foundation. FOARAM is a political issue in conjunction with other environmental concerns surrounding water quality. The Federal government is primarily responsible for addressing the issue and setting standards nationwide.
Science & Technology Framework
Science plays a significant role in FOARAM. The primary requirements of the Act utilize technology to research, monitor, and document the impact on chemical levels. The Act is specifically geared towards utilizing acidification research and space-based equipment to monitor ocean chemical levels and its impacts. The Act does not address scientific uncertainty directly. Instead it is focused on the research aspect in determining the impacts and monitoring changes.
Policy Design Framework
H.R. 14 is designed for research and exploration into monitoring the impact of the human lifestyle has on the chemical levels of the ocean. The FOARAM would be a step forward in monitoring ocean acidification levels. Through a combined approach of research and technology, the Act will help provide progress toward a solution in policy design around preventative measures that can be taken to reduce the imbalance occurring in the acidification levels.
Management Framework
The organizational capacity does exist to directly encourage the use of technology to research and monitor the environmental problem. The National Science Foundation (NSF) director currently carries out ocean acidification research and supports competitive, merit-based, peer-reviewed research and proposals surrounding monitoring of chemical levels and its impacts. NASA has the space-based equipment in place. FOARAM would require NASA utilize this equipment to monitor ocean acidification levels. Additionally, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be required to provide grants for research and incorporate merit-based grants with participating agencies. The resources are in place, FOARAM is a method to unite the various resources and point them in the same direction, under a unified strategic plan.
H.R. 14 would establish the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 (FOARAM). FOARAM addresses a few of Cohen’s questions on the values framework. First, the issue stems from behavior fundamental to our lifestyle. The Act would establish criteria for monitoring the changes in ocean chemistry due to chemical inputs from the atmosphere. The chemical inputs are human created and the pH levels in the ocean are decreasing due to these activities. Additionally, FOARAM can be addressed and progress made without confronting the basic value conflicts. The Act does not require changes. Instead, the Act establishes methods in monitoring and research to align with the environmental strategic research plan established by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Political Framework
H.R. 14 is on the political agenda, the act was referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology on January 6, 2009. With the current emphasis on environmental climate change and the impact of human behavior on the environment, FOARAM is a legitimate issue that should be addressed by Congress. The issue of ocean chemistry has not played a prominent role in electoral politics. There has been a lot of discussion around climate change and water conservation, however chemical levels in the oceans has not specifically been addressed. The political stakeholders would be the committees and councils associated with the Act. They include NASA, Ocean Science and Technology of the National Science and Technology Council, and the National Science Foundation. FOARAM is a political issue in conjunction with other environmental concerns surrounding water quality. The Federal government is primarily responsible for addressing the issue and setting standards nationwide.
Science & Technology Framework
Science plays a significant role in FOARAM. The primary requirements of the Act utilize technology to research, monitor, and document the impact on chemical levels. The Act is specifically geared towards utilizing acidification research and space-based equipment to monitor ocean chemical levels and its impacts. The Act does not address scientific uncertainty directly. Instead it is focused on the research aspect in determining the impacts and monitoring changes.
Policy Design Framework
H.R. 14 is designed for research and exploration into monitoring the impact of the human lifestyle has on the chemical levels of the ocean. The FOARAM would be a step forward in monitoring ocean acidification levels. Through a combined approach of research and technology, the Act will help provide progress toward a solution in policy design around preventative measures that can be taken to reduce the imbalance occurring in the acidification levels.
Management Framework
The organizational capacity does exist to directly encourage the use of technology to research and monitor the environmental problem. The National Science Foundation (NSF) director currently carries out ocean acidification research and supports competitive, merit-based, peer-reviewed research and proposals surrounding monitoring of chemical levels and its impacts. NASA has the space-based equipment in place. FOARAM would require NASA utilize this equipment to monitor ocean acidification levels. Additionally, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be required to provide grants for research and incorporate merit-based grants with participating agencies. The resources are in place, FOARAM is a method to unite the various resources and point them in the same direction, under a unified strategic plan.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Weekly Assignment #9
General Questions:
Do you think that currently developing countries have the right to exploit forests (and other natural resources) as Europe and the U.S. did to increase their economic well-being?
Why or why not?
Yes, I do believe that countries have the right to exploit forests and other natural resources. Other countries have the right to become self-sufficient. The US and European nations used the resources at their disposal to become wealthy and independent nations. Developing countries have the resources available on their own lands to take the same route and should be able to utilize their resources as they deem necessary.
What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate?
This is a difficult question. For one, we want to improve the climate. Climate improvement can only be done as a collective. However, developing nations do not have the same resources that industrialized nations have and may not have the monetary funds to meet the expectations that are set. Two, developing nations probably contributed the least to the current climate problems. The majority of the fault would lay with industrialized nations.
It would seem that the industrialized nations are requesting developing nations to be part of the cleanup process even though they are not the major cause of the condition in the first place. With that, I would suggest that it be optional for developing nations to participate in cleanup efforts, but have a voice in the debate. Ultimately, we only have one Earth. Some nations have abused the climate more than others, but all nations should be included in the conversation.
Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate?
Yes, equity should be a goal in the climate change debate. A few nations hold the majority of the fault for current climate conditions. Nations that are less industrialized contributed far less to the pollution problem. There should be a threshold in place to ensure that nations that create more pollution should contribute more to the cleanup efforts and vice versa.
What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case, should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not?
I do not believe that a developing nation that values economic development more than slowing down global warming should be part of the consideration on whether a nation should participate in reducing emissions. Each country has the right to place their resources in the areas that they deem appropriate. For a developing nation, they have different circumstances and different restraints than industrialized nations. Therefore, their priorities should not be part of the determination.
I do believe that there should be a threshold set for all nations. Once their emissions reach this threshold, then they would be required to reduce emissions. It should also be taken into consideration the amount of time a country has contributed to emissions. For example, industrialized nations have produced more emissions over time – as opposed to a developing nation, which may be producing emissions now, but for a shorter time frame. Nations that are attempting to become self sufficient and improve their economy should have the flexibility to do so without the restraints of global oversight. By limiting these nations, we would be doing them a disservice by not allowing them to improve their nation and become self sufficient.
Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations?
Industrialized nations should be responsible for the majority of cleanup efforts. These nations have the highest emissions rates, they have contributed the most to the current climate conditions, and they are the wealthiest nations in the world. Developing nations should expect that these nations will reduce their emissions, find better technology that would reduce emissions, share the technology with other countries, and be primarily responsible for improving the environment. Industrialized nations have the resources, funding, and technology to accomplish the task.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Weekly Assignment #7
On your blog, post a 2-3 paragraph description of the bill that you want to use as the starting point for your topic for your Final Paper.
The bill that I will be using for my topic on my final paper is H.R. 14. The title of the bill is: To provide for ocean acidification research and monitoring, and for other purposes. H.R. 14 would establish the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 (FOARAM). The act was referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology on January 6, 2009. The sponsor of the H.R. 14 is Brian Baird.
The act defines “ocean acidification” as the change in the ocean’s chemistry caused by inputs from the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide. There are four (4) requirements for the FOARAM Act: (1) Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology of the National Science and Technology Council to create a strategic plan, (2) establish the ocean acidification program to be consistent with the strategic plan, (3) National Science Foundation director would continue acidification research and monitor its impacts, and (4) requires the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to utilize space-based equipment to monitor ocean acidification and its impacts.
The bill that I will be using for my topic on my final paper is H.R. 14. The title of the bill is: To provide for ocean acidification research and monitoring, and for other purposes. H.R. 14 would establish the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 (FOARAM). The act was referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology on January 6, 2009. The sponsor of the H.R. 14 is Brian Baird.
The act defines “ocean acidification” as the change in the ocean’s chemistry caused by inputs from the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide. There are four (4) requirements for the FOARAM Act: (1) Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology of the National Science and Technology Council to create a strategic plan, (2) establish the ocean acidification program to be consistent with the strategic plan, (3) National Science Foundation director would continue acidification research and monitor its impacts, and (4) requires the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to utilize space-based equipment to monitor ocean acidification and its impacts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)