Reflection

In order to understand how climate changes, it must be studied at local, regional, national, and global levels. After looking at the climate changes in each of these areas in conjunction with what I have learned about the Earth’s history for the past 4.5 billion years, I realized that what we as humans are contributing to the Earth’s climate is insignificant. Our contribution is insignificant in that the Earth will eventually recover from the forcing we have placed upon it. Carbon dioxide levels will be balanced out and will eventually return to equilibrium. What I failed to overlook earlier was that the problem revolved around the continuation of the human race as we know it, not of the Earth’s continuation. What we have started only affects us. From this perspective, global warming presents a very real problem. Just like viewing climate change on a global level, global warming is very relevant to the perspective of the viewer. By “saving” the Earth we are really only saving ourselves. Everything we do today to lower our carbon dioxide emissions and pollution output will only affect the human race. Further in the Earth’s timeline, these emissions will not matter. What we do is only for ourselves. Our actions are not for some disembodied creature that we must have intact in order to survive. We act for ourselves, so that the Earth will not change so much that we can no longer survive as a race. The Earth can and will react and change according to the imbalances we have created for it. It is we as a human collective who must be concerned. Personally, I feel more of a responsibility to the human race than to the Earth as a nonliving thing. If we can spread the notion of a responsibility toward each other rather than towards an Earth which will inevitably outlast us, will we be able to counteract the damage we have done to our future wellbeing and be able to continue to inhabit the Earth.

-Tyler Huth, Cornell University Student

A World of Change...

The problem of global warming is real. No matter how much skeptics cherry pick or doubters deny, the evidence is clear; climate is changing. The effects can already be seen with the recent droughts in the southeast, or increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes, or the higher than average temperatures over the last couple decades. However, just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean its not there. Several effects may be “there” but are either just too gradual for us to notice, or so regrettable that we refuse to believe they can be occurring. Sea level rise is a serious issue that will affect millions soon, but cannot necessarily be seen like an intense hurricane. Declining biodiversity and the introduction of foreign diseases is something that is gradual and too “slow” to catch with the naked eye. Even the drop in ice cover cannot be visually observed over a day, but rather over years. Nonetheless, these effects are occurring and undoubtedly, our dumping of anthropogenic gases into the atmosphere has either initiated them or accelerated exponentially an otherwise slow natural process.

After arguing with a skeptic for hours on the reality of global warming, I realized that the main point of doubters is that this is all just natural; all this warming and extreme weather and sea level rise is something that is occurring due to cyclical processes either in the solar intensity of the sun or on the earth systems. However, when I asked if this person wanted to see data refuting his argument, he blatantly remarked that there was no need to, he was right, and I was wrong. Epiphany: maybe skeptics aren’t as dumb as I had thought but rather naïve and ignorant of the facts. Maybe they just don’t want to admit that global warming is occurring because it is not something pleasant or something that is easily dealt with. Maybe, just maybe, skeptics know deep inside that global warming is real, but if they admit it to themselves and others, then that would mean that they must do something about it. I think part of this may be the fault of extreme warnings made by climatologists of an inevitable apocalypse without possible redemption; some people think we have surpassed the “tipping point” and anything done to mitigate anthropogenic climate change at this point would be futile. This is most likely erroneous, but nonetheless irrelevant, as we should still try to fix the problem that we created regardless of a chance that it’s too late. The world is definitely changing. But we must approach the issue with a positive attitude, for it is only then that we can hope to fix this problem for all future generations and provide a habitable planet for all organisms.

-Michael Bennett, Cornell University Student

Parting Thoughts...

Well, the semester has come to a close and it is time to reflect on what I have learned. When I look back on it all, I realize that I have learned a vast amount about how the systems of the earth work and interact. I can describe how the carbon cycle works as well as tell you about the general atmospheric circulation patterns of the earth. But even though I know much more now that I did before, I now also know enough to realize the depth of what I don’t know. The field of earth science encompasses so much (everything enclosed within our blue sphere in space) that it seems almost impossible that someone could learn everything about the earth’s inner workings. And indeed, there is an almost infinite store of knowledge that no one knows. We spend our lives chipping away at this endless mass of knowledge in the hopes that we will eventually arrive at the ultimate answer to everything. I don’t think we’ll ever get there. In this class (and in life!) every answer brings only more questions.

One thing that I think we do have enough knowledge to realize is that the earth cannot sustain us the way we are using it now. The thing that separates us humans from other animals is our ability to consciously understand or surroundings and how the work. Doesn’t this sentient ability also give us some moral responsibility over the environments we so readily destroy? It would be a shame if our brain capacity (the reason we are able to alter our environments to such a scale) was also the reason for our downfall. The human race is capable of changing, we do it every day. All we need to do is have a little more respect for the planet we live on.

-Max Royster, Cornell University Student

Projects....

I guess it’s a little bit difficult to put down into words everything that I have been able to take away from this project. Its different too; This wasn’t a math project where I spent the entire semester piecing equations together, I was doing my part to make a difference in the world. Its weird to think about that on a broader scheme. Mostly because before this project I never thought that anyone in their right mind would possibly listen to what I had to say about global climate change. So what have I learned from this whole thing? The cure for world hunger? The end to poverty? Its much more simpler than that. I’ve learned that I have to start small. Not “we”, not “us”; I. It starts with one. That’s all it takes. I guess that throughout my life I’ve depended on other people too much. But ill tell you what, I am not going to leave this climate change mess all up to my kids.

Now for the “we part”. We, as a community, as a population, as a union, need to stand up for what we believe in. we need to change the way that we live and the way that we view life. Its easy to slap that “buy local” sticker onto your car, but unless you are willing to make a change, unless you are willing to help others make a change, you might as well just hop into your gas guzzling SUV and bring it to the dump, because its not worth a thing. That isn’t to say that small gestures such as bumper stickers are meaningless. On the contrary. I believe that any way to get your message heard is a good way. But I also believe in taking action.

So the next time you go to Wegmans, splurge for the reusable bags. Hey, we’ve all got to start somewhere.

-Kelsey Gleason, Cornell University Student

Mixed Feelings...

After our first meeting at the Museum of the Earth, I had mixed feelings about the project we were about to begin work on. On the one hand, I was excited to contribute to something “real,” a museum exhibit, instead of doing the usual final project that has significance only in the class I’ve created it for. On the other hand, I wasn’t sure if we were the right people for the job. Originally, I thought that students in a freshman level class wouldn’t have the appropriate level of knowledge and experience to create an information guide to the public on such a delicate, important topic.

After completing the project, my opinion on this is mixed. I’ve definitely come to see the project as a win-win situation for both the Museum and the students in my class. As the students do research and work on the project, they gain knowledge while the Museum gains an addition to their exhibit. It’s true that while doing research I often found myself feeling less knowledgeable than I would have liked about many of the topics I was reading about and then writing about in the project, however I also realized that our less educated perspective was also an asset to the exhibit. As we were often reminded, the exhibit is intended for the general public, so our content should be structured appropriately. As those with a perspective between the well-educated on climate change and the general public perhaps we were the bridge the exhibit needed. I am also reminded that our professor and teaching assistant, who certainly have the qualifications I was worried we may have lacked, were there to guide and edit our work so that any factual errors or gaps were corrected and filled.

In the end, I’m definitely proud of the final product (I know I’ll be bringing my parents to see the exhibit!) and I think it was a fun way to integrate the theme of the semester, taking action, with an academic project.

-Fiona Kirkpatrick, Cornell University Student

Challenges....

Writing from the tail end of this collaboration with PRI and the Museum of the Earth is much different from initially being unsure of what to expect at the commencement of the project. While researching, writing and completing the final layout for my portion of the design I have learned a number of things that I feel are important for future educational projects regarding the impending global Climate Change.

I think that the most imposing obstacle regarding modern environmental awareness is the challenge of making people realize that rather than some far-off leftist propaganda, climate change is happening today. Whenever I try to encourage awareness I am, overwhelmingly, met with sentiments of frustration and disdain. The “yeah right, not here not now” mentality that is so detrimental to most efforts towards change is completely pervasive in today’s culture. I have to agree that it is an easy issue to discard, especially as we are so isolated in our little collegiate utopia, but as a global policy, this is terrible.

So, in setting out on this project, this was my primary goal. My final layout design included a number of visuals that I hope will be beneficial in spreading the feeling of necessity that will hopefully foster future action. My portion of the project was temperature, so I opted to include the quintessential climate change graph comparing temperature to CO₂ concentration over the last 450,000 years. By superimposing this information with details about the possible effects of temperature increase and the incredible rate of anthropogenic atmospheric CO₂ change, the pamphlet will (I hope) convey some anxiousness, hopefully enough to encourage public action/policy change.

To conclude: I, you, we, everyone, we are the people that have to deal with this. Not because in fifty or one hundred years our children are going to be screwed, but because we’re going to be screwed now and (maybe) permanently into the future if we don’t do something. This is not an issue to be left to others, to be thrown to the side for others, this is an issue that must be dealt with everywhere, by everyone, now.

-Lloyd Ellman, Cornell University Student

Mitt Romney a Second Opinion...

As a new voter, the process of finding a presidential candidate to support seems overwhelming. Not only are there still many candidates at this time but the number of issues our nation faces is astounding. Trying to pick the best of the bunch requires careful understanding of all subjects relating to their election. In this blog I will focus on the environmental policies of Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Romney firmly believes that the US needs to reduce its dependence of foreign oil. He proposes that we do this by increasing funding for research into alternative energy sources. He is a strong supporter of nuclear power as well. He also advocates increasing energy efficiency and the cleaner burning of fossil fuels through processes such as carbon sequestration. All of these are environmentally friendly policies but I don’t see how he will implement them. He wants to curb federal spending but claims he is going to implement an, “Energy Revolution if you will. It will be our generation’s equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the Moon.” (http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/ending-energy-dependence) It is my understanding that a project on that scale will cost a considerable sum of money, while Romney aims to cut government spending. He also claims to support alternative energy but opposes the “Cape Wind” proposal which would put offshore wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod. It seems that former governor Romney says he supports these alternative energy types but takes a “not in my backyard” stance when they are proposed in his state. Romney also intends to reduce or dependence on foreign oil through the drilling of oil in domestic sites, notably ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf.

All in all, Romney’s environmental reform claims seem promising at first but at a closer glance I think that they conflict with his other policies. Given the nature of politics, I think he is trying to please everybody and that it would be very unlikely for many of the changes he wants to make to occur if he was elected president. For these reasons I give Romney a C on his environmental policies.

Photo Credit: This United States Congress Image is in the public domain.

-Max Royster, Cornell University Student

Dennis Kucinich

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

John McCain

When considering a Presidential candidate (this is really my first time partaking in such a patriotic pastime) I think it is important to take a look at the balance of issues. John McCain says that he is “Ready to Lead” the country into an environmentally sound future, just what does that mean in terms of a Presidential candidate, especially one aligned with the conservative side of the coin?
By his own admission, McCain leans heavily left on many environmental issues; specifically the truth of climate change and the need to take action to combat future problems. In this way he differs from the conservative ignorance displayed by his party-mates towards the most important long-term issue of our time. One would be inclined to hail McCain as the evolved, modern Republican, an idea that he embodies in some senses, but his environmental policy does leave some doubts, specifically in the interplay between activism and foreign policy.

“I believe climate change is real…I agree…we may reach a tipping point where we cannot save our climate,” these are both quotes that show both an evolution in the policies of the Republican party and a unique quality about John McCain himself. In his willingness to accept the scientific evidence for modern global warming, McCain has proven his awareness and maturity in the modern world. Yet he still shows a darker political lining by stating that the US was right to reject the Kyoto Protocol, based on the fact that China and India have not ratified the contract. This is a simply illogical comparison. India and China are the two most populous countries on the Earth and are still very definitely in developmental stages, strikingly unlike the modern, industrialized US. Indeed these countries should be kept in check, but to refuse to sign the treaty on this basis alone is simply asinine.

McCain’s final issue presented details his policy regarding the reduction of reliance on foreign oil in the nation. He aims to simultaneously convert to less carbon-dependent fuel sources while extracting oil from our own land and the land of those allied with the country. Presumably this would require drilling in Alaska and in similarly protected regions, certainly not a positive point for a self-proclaimed environmentalist.

Quantitatively, I’ll give the man a B, but until he clarifies a few logistical issues he seems to fall just short of a true environmentalist.

Photo Credit: Official Portrait from the United Sates Senate

-Lloyd Ellman, Cornell University Student

Bill Richardson

Bill Richardson, a democratic candidate for president and the current governor of New Mexico, has made altering America’s energy usage and protecting our environment one of his top priorities. Richardson aspires to “make America a clean energy nation like [he] made New Mexico a clean energy state” (http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/energy). Some of his specific proposed policy points include: cutting oil demand by 50% by 2020, requiring electrical companies to generate 50% of their power from renewable sources by 2050, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050, restoring the Clean Water Act, and providing incentives to encourage states with low recycling rates to improve their programs. Richardson supports increasing funding for the development of alternative energy sources including wind, solar, and nuclear, although he does not support nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain. To read quotes from Richardson on climate and energy as well as other issues, check out http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Richardson.htm. And to see footage of Richardson presenting his energy plan at “Primary Energy ’08” in Keene New Hampshire last month check out http://fora.tv/2007/10/21/Bill_Richardson_Primary_Energy__08.

It seems pretty clear that Bill Richardson has made a point of putting together a comprehensive, rigorous, and hopefully viable plan make Americas energy use more sustainable, and less harmful to our environment. In addition, Richardson’s record as governor of New Mexico would seem to indicate that these are not empty promises, as he has in fact worked hard to make New Mexico’s energy use more sustainable. On a standard letter grade scale, I would give Richardson’s climate and energy policy an A.

Photo Credit: United States Department of Energy

-Win Wharton, Cornell University

John Edwards

Edward’s position on Climate and Energy is to stall global warming, use technology to gain more energy independence, and to use global warming to indirectly create revenue for the United States. He plans to halt global warming by capping the levels of CO2 emissions according to scientific recommendations. This will be achieved through “pollution permits” which will allow companies to exceed their limits. The approximate $10 billion raised through this will be used to create technologies that will be clean, renewable, and efficient and to create 1 million jobs for Americans.

Another portion of his plan involves adopting caps on CO2 emissions in order to give the US credibility and a foothold in the politics behind halting global warming. In order to help developing countries become clean as they adopt a higher standard of living, the plan will also involve the US sharing its technology to prevent newer sources of CO2 emissions before they begin.

A third portion of the plan involves gearing the US towards making cleaner, more efficient and renewable products from everyday products to our methods of transportation. In addition to this, his plan will meet the ever growing demand for electricity by using better technologies to cut various products’ electricity usage.

These ideas seem well founded and are broadly consistent with what many scientists agree with is necessary to halt global warming and minimize any effects on climate change that we have already incurred. However, these goals may be difficult to accomplish to their full extent, and will most likely be boiled down to a few key changes. Nonetheless, as his intentions seem well founded and a few key changes would make a great difference, I give him a B+ for his plan and the likelihood that he will make positive changes.

Sources:
http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/
http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/new-energy-economy/
Photo: United States Congress: Official Senate Portrait

-Tyler Huth, Cornell University Student

Mitt Romney

On his official campaign site, www.mittromney.com, Mitt Romney has a section devoted to his stands on political issues called "Issue Watch". In the page on "Energy", he is quoted as saying:

"We're using too much oil... We have an answer. We can use alternative sources of energy -- biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear power -- and we can drill for more oil here. We can be more energy independent and we can be far more efficient in the use of that energy."

- Governor Romney, Waterloo Courier, September 29, 2006

This is a somewhat vague stance to have on such an important issue. In one brief paragraph, his motivation for pursuing alternative energy and drilling for more oil in America is summarized as: "we must become independent from foreign sources of oil". Thus, his reasoning behind any reduction in energy consumption is political; he implies that a reduction in oil consumption would reduce our ties to the Middle East, which he vehemently crusades against on other parts of his site. He makes no mention of climate change, which should be a major issue in politics right now considering the most recent data taken at the North pole, which shows dramatic and unexpected decreases in the size of the ice sheets this summer. Instead, he suggests oil drilling in the Arctic national Wildlife Refuge, which would wreak havoc on the natural environment there.

In a press release from Thursday, Mar 08, 2007, Romney states that he is willing to fund research for alternative energy such as “biodiesel, ethanol, nuclear, and coal gasification”, but he makes no mention of how much money he will allocate to this research.
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney allowed the passage of Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan , which committed Massachusetts to achieve ten specific goals, including the reduction of "GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2010" and in the long term, a reduction in CO2 levels to "75-85% below current levels" ( Massachusetts State Government). However, when he announced the passage of this plan, Romney seemed ambivalent about the veracity of climate change. In an official letter attached to the plan, he stated, "If climate change is happening, the actions we take will help…If climate change is largely caused by human action, this will really help. If we learn decades from now that climate change isn't happening, these actions will still help our economy, our quality of life, and the quality of our environment" (Ebbert). Today, as he adopts a running platform that he believes will appeal to conservative America, Romney seems unlikely to strive to implement a similar program on the national level. In a February 2007 press release, Governor Romney stated, "Unfortunately, some in the Republican Party are embracing the radical environmental ideas of the liberal left. As governor, I found that thoughtful environmentalism need not be anti-growth and anti-jobs. But Kyoto-style sweeping mandates, imposed unilaterally in the United States, would kill jobs, depress growth and shift manufacturing to the dirtiest developing nations." Governor Romney is concerned about the economic implications of environmental reforms, and is presumably unwilling to strive for better fuel economy standards or any serious reduction in CO2 emissions. He is only willing to support research as a means to reduce oil consumption because he believes it will create jobs and benefit the economy.

The bottom line is that we need a President with enough courage and foresight to make huge changes in America's environmental policy. Mitt Romney gets a D+ for understanding that we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and research alternative energy sources, but being unwilling to accept the reality of climate change.



Works Cited

Ebbert, Stephanie. "Romney hedges on global warming". Boston Globe. 7 May, 2004.

Massachusetts State Government. Executive. Office for Commonwealth Development. Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan 0 2004. 31 Oct. 2007 .

Photo Credit: This United States Congress Image is in the public domain.

Elena Moreno, Cornell University Student

Joe Biden

For this blog my assignment was to research presidential candidate Joe Biden and find out what his political views on the environment are. Was I amazed! It turns out he is extremely pro-environment, which really impresses me. He seems to have the beliefs and vindication of Al Gore but with more political boldness.

In case you don’t know who he is, Joe Biden is the Democratic Senator of Delaware and has been for 34 years. He is a serious advocate for the reducing of greenhouse gases and trying to reduce global warming. He has been the sponsor and co-sponsor of many important environmental bills such as the Clean Power Act and Boxer-Sanders Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. The latter is currently the most restrictive climate bill in the senate right now and will reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.

Another legislation Senator Biden has sponsored is the American Automobile Industry Promotion Act of 2007. The exact initiative can be viewed at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1055. Its basic agenda is to promote the research and distribution of hybrid and flex fuel cars. The Senator has also spoken about making all cars required to be flex-fuel by certain dates some not so far in the future. He also hopes to make legislation that would require fuel efficiency to increase by an average of 1mpg/year, which I find to be a slow but steady rate.

Reducing automobile emissions is not the only way that this candidate wants to help the global warming problem. He sponsored the FLIP to SAVE bill, which allocated government incentives to people and companies for changing to fluorescent light bulbs to save energy. He is also a strong supporter of biofuels as a new, renewable energy source. In an interview I watched he said that he believes that corn is a good starting point to get biofuels off the ground, but then we’ll have to move on to other crops and methods.

Senator Biden seems willing to put his money where his mouth is on this subject, and he believes we should repeal tax breaks for oil companies. He seems to be more aggressive and outspoken about the environment in his campaign than many other candidates have been in the past. He has an 84% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters and claims that he makes energy security a “top priority.” He has said:

"If I could wave a wand, and the Lord said I could solve one problem, I would solve the energy crisis. That's the single most consequential problem we can solve. It's what you have to do to get greenhouse gases under control."

--March 3, 2007, at a rally in Hartsville, S.C.

If you’d like to know more about Senator Joe Biden’s environmental and energy platform you can check out some of the following sites. The last has actual video clips of interviews and questions.

http://joebiden.com/getinvolved/petitions/energy_security - his official site

http://biden.senate.gov/issues/energy.cfm

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/08/29/biden_factsheet/ -- live video feeds!

Photo Source: Official Photograph from the United States Senate in Public Domain

-Michael Johnson, Cornell University Student

Hillary Rodham Clinton

So I’ve been asked to research Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her stance on climate change and global warming. For the most part I have found a pretty solid performance from her, but sometimes I wonder if it is for different reasons than what could be, such as to stop the Iraq War rather than for the good of the globe. This makes me wonder if she will drop or become lax on policies later on in her term. I will be fair and say that she has other reasons to do these things, but the war and dependence on foreign oil seem to be the ones she mentions the most. This discussion is solely on global warming and climate change issues, not the war itself, so I will stay away from these topics as best I can.

Her policy and platform on global warming, climate change, and energy usage has been growing, with the clearest beginning starting in 2005 when she was running for the senate seat in the 2006 elections. She is currently on the Environment and Public Works Committee in the Senate. She has co-authored numerous bills regarding climate change, global warming, energy conservation, and what the people can do about it. One of her more recent efforts is the Strategic Energy Fund that she proposed last May, which takes away tax breaks for big oil and relieves them of some of their profits in order to use the money gained to do research on clean energy. Also, she started talking about “something like a national institute of energy” (speech, May 2006). She has also voted for many different bills that are in favor of taking steps to combat global warming, as well as voting against the numerous bills that have come up that will contribute in some way to climate change, be it taking away preservations of land or giving breaks to oil and gas companies. Some of these such measures included the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Innovation Act, which failed to pass, and the more recent (and more hardline) Boxer-Sanders Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act.

However, she is a proponent for “clean coal,” which is not as clean as we would like. To be fair she has stated that “… I think you have got to admit that coal – of which we have a great and abundant supply in America – is not going away. So how do we best manage the possibility of using clean coal, but having very strict environmental standards?” (Clinton on the Record, grist.com article), which shows to me that she is thinking about it as logically as she can and is only looking into clean coal as an option since we cannot get away from it. It is a very sound point that we would not be able to immediately switch to all renewable energy right now because first, it cannot support our energy use, and, second, we don’t have the resources, plants, or processes in place to pull it off. Looking into cleaner ways to deal with fossil fuels until technology arrives is a thought, but not as green a thought as one would hope.

It seems that many of her stances discuss the war in Iraq and wants to “break the addiction to foreign oil” (“Powering Up For 2006 – and Beyond, grist.com article). ”These are only supplementary reasons, if reasons at all, in my mind. There is no guarantee that once these “reasons” go away that the eco-friendliness of the government will continue. I would much rather see someone in higher office giving the better reasons to do these things, including making sure the world is a good place for generations to come. She also lobbied and voted for a trial tire burn in New York State, which ended very early after too much pollution was caused.

All in all, a solid record that someone can stand on. There are detractions from her stance, but very few blatant inconsistencies. Also, I see a lot of talk, but not a similar amount of action, though she has taken steps to work on the issue itself. I think that she should get a B+.

Please note:

In looking up Senator Clinton’s stances, I’ve done my best to stick to her own words, because I think that they are the most accurate gage. No one can spin something if it is the full text of someone’s words. On her supporting sites, they can pick quotes and choose bill proposals that put her in the best light, just as on opposing sites they can do the complete opposite. However, using the full text of speeches I think one can find a clear picture without these lenses.

For further reference:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/environment/

The speech I referenced from May 2006: http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=255982&&

A good interview and a link to a summary of key points on her campaign:

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/08/09/clinton/

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/08/09/clinton_factsheet/index.html

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2005/11/08/hillary-clinton/index.html

And for those who don’t know, CNN did a debate in partnership with YouTube. I highly recommend watching both the Democratic and the Republican debates. I think it puts a good spotlight on all of the issues facing the presidential candidates.

Photo Source: Official U.S. Senate Photo of Senator Clinton used with out permission under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.

-Laura Santamaria, Cornell University Student

Barack Obama

Barack Obama’s position on Climate Change is clearly outlined on his official website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/); “Barack Obama believes we have a moral, environmental, economic, and security imperative to address our dependence on foreign oil and tackle climate change in a serious, sustainable manner.” Obama’s website cites several current and possible future consequences of global warming as support for his position, for example the melting of the ice caps and more.

In order to address the problem of global warming, Obama promises to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 using cap-and-trade programs instead of a carbon tax. These programs establish an overall cap on carbon emissions that is divided into “allowances that represent the permission to emit that amount,” which companies are free to buy and sell. Some of the money generated from these allowances will go towards the development of clean energy and will help “lower-income Americans afford their energy bills by expanding the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, expanding weatherization grants for low-income individuals to make their homes more energy efficient, and establishing a dedicated fund to assist low-income Americans afford higher electricity and energy bills.”

Obama believes that the path to “achieving the necessary revolution toward low carbon energy production” includes “increased investment in basic research and human capital” by doubling science and research funding for the development of clean energy and by using funds from the cap-and-trade auction program to train workers on clean technology and development; “investment in key technology development” by creating a “Clean Technologies Development Venture Capital Fund;” and “setting standards to allow the market to invest and innovate” through a national low carbon fuel standard.

Obama also believes that “improving energy efficiency is the fastest, cheapest most cost-effective method to reducing greenhouse gas emissions…” Obama plans to make the federal government the leader in saving electricity, ensuring that new federal buildings are at zero-emissions by 2025, by making federal buildings more efficient and by overhauling federal efficiency codes. Obama also plans to make all new buildings carbon neutral by 2030, to eliminate the use of traditional incandescent light bulbs by 2014, and to invest in a “digital smart grid.”

Barack Obama also plans to make America energy independent, reducing oil consumption by 35% by 2030. To do this, Obama will “increase fuel economy standards,” “invest in developing advanced vehicles,” “build biofuel distribution infrastructure,” and “build more livable and sustainable communities.”

In addition to and as a consequence of these numerous domestic changes, Obama will “make the U.S. a leader in combating climate change around the world.” Overall, Obama’s Climate Change policy is ambitious and impressive. However, I did find myself wishing he had outlined the intended environmental impact of his plans in more detail and with more scientific basis instead of just providing a laundry list of projects without a description of exactly what effect each project is intended to have. So, overall, I give Barack Obama an A-.

Photo Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mountaineerpics/1218476612/. This photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

-Fiona Kirkpatrick, Cornell University Student

Rudy Giuliani

Up until recently, Republicans have been associated with turning their heads and smoothly changing the subject whenever issues of Global Warming has come up. Rudolph Giuliani may be one of the first Republican candidates in the upcoming presidential election who takes a stand and speaks publicly on global warming issues. Giuliani says that he “definitely” believes in global warming, and continually praises Governor Schwarzenegger for being so progressive on the subject of global warming. According to a California newspaper, Giuliani was quoted on the topic of global warming saying "The big question has always been how much of it is happening because of natural climate changes and how much of it is happening because of human intervention.'' In the same article he bashes Al Gore for not “recommending solutions”. I searched and I searched and I still have yet to find a single published article, website, or journal where Giuliani offers up solutions for Global Warming. Maybe he is right in that Gore should be more explicit in saying what should be done about the issue, but Giuliani, while continually stating what a great job Schwarzenegger is doing on the subject of global warming, has yet to offer up any solutions himself. Because Republicans have typically avoided the subject of Global Warming all together until recently, it is a good thing that the former NYC Mayor is even giving thought to the subject publicly at all. Even by seeing what little Giuliani has to say on the matter is good news because it means that global warming and environmental issues all together are no longer predominantly democratic issues, but republican issues also.

Overall, Giuliani gets a C. Think back to high school—a C is average. You put in the right amount of effort, you said the right things, but it’s not quite A quality. He addresses the fact that global warming does in fact exist, but he doesn’t offer solutions or really state what a prevalent issue it has become. So Giuliani, sorry, but you’re average.

Check out these websites. The first is the article that I mentioned a lot from the California newspaper, and the second is a publication that gives all the important candidates positions on global warming. Interestingly enough, not much is to be said for Giuliani…

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/13/GIULIANI.TMP

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13392/

Photo Credit: Jason Bedrick/wikimedia

Kelsey Gleason, Cornell University Student

Above All Nations is Humanity...

Sitting down to write about global warming quickly reveals just how ignorant I am on the subject. Would I be more accurate saying climate change? And while the consensus now seems to be that within my lifetime we will begin to see the affects of global warming more and more clearly how will this affect daily life? Stories circulate of rising sea levels submerging New York City and possible mass extinctions but how credible is any of this? It seems people are concerned but the scope and complexity of the issues surrounding global warming are such that simply defining much less intelligently discussing and affectively dealing with global warming becomes a major challenge.

However global warming does exist and appears to have to potential to have far reaching impacts not only on the distant future but also on our own lives in the coming years, so it would seem imperative that we educate ourselves on the issue and honestly asses what steps can be taken now to prevent the catastrophic consequences of inaction. Equally as important, we need to ask our leaders to be honest with themselves, and act responsibly on our behalf. Obviously there is no quick fix but to simply pretend the problem does not exist may mean throwing away our collective future.

To accomplish anything meaningful to combat global warming we need to act together and be willing to go out of our way to do the little things. We all share a stake in the future of our planet and now more than ever we need to take responsibility for this shared future. How tragic would it be if we prove to be too shortsighted and self-interested to prevent an unprecedented catastrophe which we saw coming and might have avoided? “Above all nations is humanity” reads an engraving I pass often on my way to and from class and I think it is in this spirit that we must each do what we can, whether as nations, communities or individuals, to address the challenge of global warming. Together I am confident we can and will be successful preserving our world and our future.

-Patrick Clark Nadeau, Cornell University Student

Contained in a Photograph

Today in class, we looked at a picture of the earth taken from one of the first Apollo moon missions. This photograph, dated 1969, brought to light an important difference between our current generation and those of the past. We, unlike present and past policymakers, have grown up with this image; we imagine the earth as this same small, illuminated, blue orb in space. To our generation, the earth isn’t quite so unimaginably large as it has been in the past. It can be contained in a photograph.

While this photograph is only a symbol, the ideas behind it extend into a much larger dichotomy. Where in the past the earth was considered to be a system beyond human influence, the more recent generation has the conceptual tools to conceive of it as something more special and fragile. While those born in the sixties and before were raised in the fever of technological excitement and advancement, we have entered into a more cautious world. The harm technology and industry can have on the environment has passed from potential to tangible. Where climate change was once a possible risk for the future, it is now a clear and present danger.

Global warming is a heated issue. In the media, in government, and in homes around the world, people care deeply, and disagree, about the reality of climate change. But despite this controversy, the great majority of scientists agree that the earth’s climate is changing because of human influence. [1] The effects of these changes can already be seen in the frequency of severe storms, the flow of glacier ice and the proliferation of tropical disease.[2] While details and predictions can be variable, there is little question as to the existence of climate change.

The problem of climate change puts our generation in a unique position. Until today, decisions about environmental policy have been made by political and industrial leaders who won’t be around to see the effects. When I choose to either conserve or waste energy, my choice will directly affect my life some years down the road. Those more skeptical about the status and speed of climate change must at least admit that my decision will affect the lives of my children. We, the generation approaching adulthood, bear the weight of the future of our planet. While we “practice” thinking about climate change and what we can do about it in this cooperative project with the PRI, we are preparing for a difficult job that lies ahead for us as we become the leaders and citizens of tomorrow.

---

[1] IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

[2] “An Inconvenient Truth – The Science” Accessed 10/11/07.

-Will Whitney, Cornell University Student

Globalizing American Ingenuity

One of the most important things I think to remember about this global climate change problem is that it is global. America, as the world leader in CO2 emissions, must take a more pro-active stance in fighting this worldwide problem. I think that part of the problem in America is that we aren’t seeing the affects as much as other countries so it hasn’t hit home as much so to say. Katrina was the first major event due in part by global warming and many count it out as something that would have happened anyway or blames something else as its catalyst. While they may be right to some extent, there are many events in other parts of the world that are directly correlated to global warming and many other places that will suffer far greater if a warmer future is what is in store for them.

On the bus just this morning I overheard a conversation between a women and a young Australian student. She mentioned to him that it wasn’t too nice a day because it was raining. He quickly responded to her that in much of Australia rain was such a good thing because they had been in a drought for nearly a decade. He explained that in many places there was water rationing because the increased heat from global warming has caused precipitation to drop and wells to run dry. He is not the first person I’ve heard this from. An Australian principal, Andy Best, said the same thing a few weeks ago. He told about how his hometown was having problems with water and subsequently with food supply. His hometown was not very far south of the major city of Sydney. Australia has picked up the reigns locally and nationally and is working hard at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. They have independent companies that for free will go into a homes and reduce the amount of energy they use even as detailed as changing light bulbs. This not only saves the homeowner money, but also helps to reduce the reliance on power and subsequently fossil fuels. Australia is trying to change, but where is America?

Another place that will be greatly affected by global warming is the country of Bangladesh. With nearly most of its country less than 100 feet above sea level, a rise in sea level could destroy nearly their entire country. There country has 150 million people, about half that of the United States. Other islands in the south pacific and the Caribbean such as Haiti and Cuba, could be devastated as well. And Cuba is a place that deserves least to be ransacked by global warming.

Cuba has been called the leader in organic farming. They are likely one of the only sustainable countries in the world. They have made it a point to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and to reinstitute organic farming procedures and curtail their use of pesticides. In 2005 they had 5,000,000 of the light bulbs in the country replaced with low energy light bulbs cutting their lighting energy requirement by a third for the country as a whole. The Cuban government just recently began the Solar Institute in Santiago to find ways that they can take advantage of the suns power. This is a country where they are trying to eliminate tractors and use animals in their agrarian lifestyles. This is a country, where approximately 30% of all there energy comes from biomass, mainly sugar mills. Cuba is a country where they have, with the government at the helm, successfully increased their forested lands by 4% and that’s only the beginning. 55% of their forests are protected and 15% are used for scientific studies. I reiterate that Cuba is the only sustainable country in the world, yet with a slight increase in sea level they would lose 15 to 25% of their entire country.

These are certainly not the only countries that will be affected by global warming. All countries will be affected, yes including America. We are currently the largest agitator of global warming and it is time that we start acknowledging that and change our ways. There are many ways that we can do this even the American way: with a profit. Our country is gifted with the greatest higher education system in the world and with properly focused energy this gift could lead us to the forefront of this new technology making it cheap and accessible. It may seem like it is such an undertaking, and it is, but like John Hennessey, the president of Stanford, said it is “a series of great opportunities disguised as insoluble problems.” Now is when we should take American ingenuity global and heal not only our position as a leader, but the world itself.

-Michael Johnson, Cornell University Student

I Believe...

I came into this project with a vaguely understood yet strongly rooted opinion on global warming. While the extent of my research and education on the science behind climate change and human impact on climate change is shallow, I’ve found myself surrounded by enough of the well educated in the issue to confidently say I “believe” in global warming. That is, I think the climate is changing, that the significant portion of that change is due to human activity, and that if nothing is done it will very negatively affect us in return. I’ve become so comfortable with this being fact that it surprises me when every so often I encounter another peer who claims not to “believe” in global warming. While we’ve certainly conquered the opinion of the scientific community, I think we still have a while to go on the convincing front before any solution to the problem will come easily. In my opinion, the greatest ground must be covered through political means, and political battles are won, at least in America, through gaining the support of the majority. I’ve come to the conclusion that even most “believers” don’t seem to have the sense of urgency necessary to push for the creation of the legislation I believe we will need to solve the problem of climate change.

However. I know that making the switch from a passive “believer” in global warming to an active worker in reducing it isn’t difficult because I’ve found myself making the change over the past few months. I think the inspiration to change in the individual is best when it comes from somewhere close. I found myself imitating my parents’ changing of their light bulbs to more energy efficient ones, and my local grocery store’s use of reusable bags. So, after beginning to dive more deeply into the issue of climate change through this project in combination with personal experiences over the last few months, I’ve found that the big change that I know needs to happen will come from the culmination of the work of individuals fueled by inspiration from their personal lives and local community.

-Fiona Kirkpatrick, Cornell University Student