Post Comments like this:
1. Your Name
2. A Title
3. A short personal commentary what you learned from it or what made you curious about it given the week's class content. However, it doesn't have to be about the week's content, only something related to human-environmental interactions.
4. Then put a long line ('-------------------)'.
5. Then cut/paste A SMALL PART of the article or topic you found. (This is because blogger.com now has a limit of "4096 characters" in blog comments. However, that should be enough to concentrate on your own comments, and provide an excerpt and a link to the original article. If you do want more space, and I encourage it, post a second time to get another "4096 characters".)
6. Then a small line '---'.
7. Then, finally, paste the URL (link) of the post.
Post for the first week on this thread. I'll set up a new main post each week, and then we will do the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a test comment of what to do.
ReplyDelete1. Mark Whitaker
2. My Comment's Title
3. There is something about the following article that interests me, fascinates me, and/or makes me wonder what the article leaves out, etc. I can write as much as I want on this blog about my view on the article and the issues that it discusses. I can write about personal experiences that the article reminded me about. I can write about a different view of the same issues that the article mentions. I can convince people of something, express my intelligence, and express my emotion in this comment.
-----------------------------
[repost introduction to article here]
---
[URL / web location of the article]
1.Deborah Min-Jee Kang
ReplyDelete2.The case study of Haiti
3. After class, I had a short conversation with Professor Mark upon the issue of the current earthquake in Chile. When the earthquake shook the nation, leaving buildings and people’s lives shattered, I was utterly shocked about the fact that it was only less than 2 months ago when Haiti had been devastated by another earthquake. I glumly predict that for many Haitians, the earthquake would have been one of the many crises they have gone through, or merely the biggest one. Even before the Haiti earthquake, the nation was facing a serious food crisis and was suffering under the legacy of imperialism.
Both the food crisis and the legacy were produced mainly by the Western or namely rich countries. The black stained pages of our history writes that Haiti was long used as a plantation for serving France and other imperial countries. The United States, in particular, had long been accused of invading militarily, embargoing, and supporting dictators in Haiti in the past. The result for this long train of kind interventions was a ravaged economy, ruined roads and agriculture, and no places for popularly elected officials to stand. Today, as the US and world financial institutions forced the country to open its markets, the subsidies to American farmers prevent Haitian crops to enter the US border while the subsidized crops are being dumped in Haiti.
Yet, I do not only blame nor criticize other neighboring countries. I also see the irresponsible president of Haiti who cannot provide comfort to his people. I also see the long history of corruption in Haitian government. I also see the weak infrastructure that was broken as soon as the earthquake hit. The preparedness or state prior to the crisis was almost the opposite with Chile that was hit by a stronger and more devastating earthquake and had only 300 dead. We could infer the causes of such results from the comparison between the two countries; one, “the western hemisphere's poorest country,” the other, “a country with Latin America's highest per capita GDP.”
When the earthquake suddenly occurred in Haiti, an uncomfortable shock wave disguised with naivety spread through the globe. Nations pretended that the cause for this very crisis that stroke the poor nation and took away so many lives was purely environmental. They immediately wore the clothes of an environmental determinist and assumed that it was only an environmental problem that could have not been stopped. Yet, they were wrong. There were indeed other factors that determined the situation. While the aid should be given with the proper amount, countries have to organize its use and consider its transparency to really rebuild the nation into a strong one.
----------------------------------------
The 8.8-magnitude earthquake that hit Chile early on Feb. 27 was 500 times stronger than the 7.0 quake that killed an estimated 200,000 Haitians last month. And yet the number of casualties in Chile appears to be exponentially smaller, with the official death toll still in the hundreds. Far fewer people were rendered homeless than in Haiti, and much of the telephone service in Santiago and parts of central Chile had been restored within five hours.
-----
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1968576,00.html#ixzz0h1dL5xrc
1. Sung Yeon Lee (Michelle)
ReplyDelete2. Recommendation of Thomas L. Friedman’s book
3. First of all, I note that the date of the article is not that recent, since it was a book review written right after the release of the book called “The World is Hot, Flat and Crowded” by Thomas Friedman, that I am about to introduce in this post. I am still reading this book and have not finished it yet but I thought the contents would contribute to our class so I thought I would introduce it to the class. First of all, Thomas Friedman is a good writer, although the contents of this book is rather boring since it is related to how we should use the energy more efficiently, and petropolitics, etc. There is even a chapter called “If it isn’t boring, it isn’t green”
He criticizes the U.S. government on giving subsidies on oil prices so Americans can get their gas cheap. He instead demands that oil prices and gas prices should be three times as much as they are now and use that money to subsidize new reusable energy sources. What makes this book different from other environmental solution books is that Friedman really knows what he’s talking about. His plans are raw and harsh with realistic methods that governments should implement. Like his referring to the current electricity providing system as an ‘all you eat buffet’ created by a moron, which leaves people no incentives to preserve energy. He suggests a smart electricity system in which according to time schedules that electricity is consumed the most, the cost are high and at night when there is less demand, electricity becomes cheaper.
Another part I agree with is a quote from his book saying that the value of nature cannot be calculated through economic costs. We modern people are so used to giving everything a price tag, thinking only in economic terms that Friedman says that we have forgotten the pure value of nature alone, nature itself (which I totally agree with). He says quote “It must be appreciated, revered, and preserved as a value apart and above all things economic and practical.” And also “Without and ethic of conservation we will lose that which is priceless but has no price tag.”
I see the green revolution that he is talking about in this book is a very good example of hybrids of different areas which we talked about in class. He talks about the boundaries of politics, society, economy and ethical issues all linked to the thread of the environment.
-----------------------------------------------
In this, Friedman has somewhat naively rediscovered one of the 'hybrids'- those 'modern' systems mixing politics, science, technology and nature, of which 'global warming' is a prime example.
The five elements of Friedman's particular 'hybrid' are energy and natural resources supply and demand; the 'petrodictatorship'; climate change; energy poverty and biodiversity loss. For him, 'the convergence of global warming, global flattening (ie the technological revolution and the levelling of the global economic playing field), and global crowding' is driving these problems 'well past their tipping points into new realms we've never seen before, as a planet or as a species'.
----
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/3560588/Review-Hot-Flat-and-Crowded.-Why-the-World-Needs-a-Green-Revolution-by-Thomas-L.-Friedman.html
1. Ye Eun Cho
ReplyDelete2. Bycatch | Greenpeace International
3. In our class, professor mentioned "by-catch". Bycatch means fish that are caught without intending to do so and are thrown back to the ocean. The main problem of by-catch is that the fish that are caught mostly dies on the ship and are thrown back again. The dead fish hurts the marine eco-system. Moreover, endangered species are caught in the net as well. However, this is not the only problem. The real problem is that there is no accurate report of by-catch, therefore promising solutions can not be sought. The following is the article.
----------------------------------------
Estimates vary as to how serious a problem bycatch is. Latest reports suggest that around eight percent of the total global catch is discarded, but previous estimates indicated that around a quarter of might be thrown overboard. Simply no-one knows how much of a problem this really is.
The incidental capture, or bycatch, of mammals, sea-birds, turtles, sharks and numerous other species is recognised to be a major problem in many parts of the world. This figure includes non-target species as well as targeted fish species that cannot be landed because they are, for instance, undersized. In short, anywhere between 6.8 million and 27 million tonnes of fish could be being discarded each year, reflecting the huge uncertainties in the data on this important issue.
The scale of this mortality is such that bycatch in some fisheries may affect the structure and function of marine systems at the population, community and ecosystem levels. Bycatch is widely recognised as one of the most serious environmental impacts of modern commercial fisheries.
The victims
Different types of fishing practices result in different animal/species being killed as bycatch: nets kill dolphins, porpoises and whales, longline fishing kills birds, and bottom trawling devastates marine ecosystems.
It has been estimated that a staggering 100 million sharks and rays are caught and discarded each year. Tuna fisheries, which in the past had high dolphin bycatch levels, are still responsible for the death of many sharks. An estimated 300,000 cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) also die as bycatch each year, because they are unable to escape when caught in nets.
Birds dive for the bait planted on long fishing lines, swallow it (hook included) and are pulled underwater and drowned. Around 100,000 albatrosses are killed by longline fisheries every year and because of this, many species are facing extinction.
Bottom trawling is a destructive way of 'strip-mining' the ocean floor, harvesting the species that live there. As well as the target fish species, this also results in bycatch of commercially unattractive animals like starfish and sponges. A single pass of a trawl removes up to 20 percent of the seafloor fauna and flora. The fisheries with the highest levels of bycatch are shrimp fisheries: over 80 percent of a catch may consist of marine species other than the shrimp being targeted.
-----------------------------------------
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/bycatch
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Name : Ja Youn Kim
ReplyDelete2. A Title: Korea Ready to Make Inroads into Electric Car Market
3. Within phenomenona, there are many inner connected factors. One could be social policy influencing the environment.
One of examples which was given in a class was an electric car. Hybrid cars are more common than electric cars on the market. It is not to do with efficiency. The company named CT&T successfully developed an electric car 10 years ago. By then an electric car was prohibited from being driven on roads under “automobile management act” in Korea. Therefore domestic citizens could not buy and use electric cars.
I was curious about what happened since then. The revised bill with the amended rule allowing
an electric car has been passed at the National Assembly. It will be in effect from 30th Mar 2010. The following article deals with CT&T's electric car. Not long left before we see electric cars on the roads in Korea.
I guess that more companies will be encourged to invest and develp electric cars under new regulation. If all goes well, they will have more power to pressure the government to make additional environmentally-friendly policy.
-----------------------------------------------
Korea Ready to Make Inroads into Electric Car Market
South Korea’s CT&T producing a neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) became one of companies being in the spotlight thanks to the government’s “plans on facilitation of electric automobile industry” put out on Thursday. A NEV, a car running at a maximum speed of less than 60km, is dissimilar from a “full speed electric vehicle (FEV) in process of development and production by integrated automakers.” A NEV is prohibited from being driven on roads as a number plate is not granted under the current “automobile management act”. In order to amend the rule, the revised bill is pending at the National Assembly. The government on this day has announced of its plan to devise following measures including designation of NEV driving zone.
CT&T-produced electric card named “e-Zone” is mainly being exported to offshore markets upon its mass production from May last year. In South Korea, “e-Zone” has been supplied for office uses at the Cheong Wa Dae or as assisting vehicles in golf fields, but not to ordinary citizens. CT&T managing director Baek In-young said: “Once the revision is passed by the year-end, we plan to put e-Zone on the market for domestic citizens as well.”
CT&T is well known in the overseas market than the local market. The company has displayed three units of electric cars in the welcoming ceremony of the G20 summit held last month in Pittsburgh, the U.S. During the event period, Pittsburgh governor stated: “We will develop the entire Pennsylvania state into the electric car mecca with an introduction of CT&T electric vehicles.”
South Korea is also spurring a development of “online electric car” led by the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. The car is automatically charged with magnetic field generated by electric current flowing in underground electric wire.
“KEV-1”, currently under development by the Korea Electric Vehicle Industry Association, is also planned to be mass produced around the end of 2010.
2009.10.08 MK (매일경제)
-----------------------------------------------
http://news.mk.co.kr/outside/view.php?year=2009&no=524587
1. Grace Lee
ReplyDelete2. Dollar Value = Nature
3. I was first attracted to this article by its title. It talks about putting a monetary value on our environment to protect biodiversity. It argues that we are losing our nature because it is free.
I certainly agree with what the article implies: majority of the people react to realistic, monetary values. Though environmentalists cry out for dying rainforests and significant loss of ecosystems, people truly get shocked when they read statements like: “annual investment of $45 billion to biodiversity conservation could safeguard about $5 trillion in ecosystem services.” People are also reactive to incentives. Therefore, the effort to reward those who create more ecosystem services and charged those who damage would, in theory, work.
Even though these monetary values are to promote participation in preserving our planet, I believe that putting a price to our nature is beyond our capability. The government can release funds to employ workers to preserve an already existing ecosystem. However, that cost is not how much that ecosystem is worth. Unlike how parents can pay a company to produce a plastic toy and sell it to them for $10, no money in the world can compensate for all the resources that nature provides us.
We cannot avoid the rules of consumption and production that determine our welfare both internationally and domestically. Still, nature is the only thing that we should not mix in together with all the other man-made goods and services. We do not control the nature yet we are controlled by it. When nature suffers, the ecosystem suffers; and when the ecosystem suffers, we will too suffer. Therefore, we do not have the right to price it. Instead, we should preserve and respect the environment for all that has provided for our existence.
------------------------
Nature lovers might cringe at the term "ecosystem services" to describe, say, the view of a pristine beach or a stream teeming with trout. But a growing number of experts within the scientific and economic communities say that putting real economic value on components of nature will help protect the environment and promote biodiversity.
---------
Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1970173,00.html