I just can't keep my mouth shut.

Here's an article we had to read in my geography class, and my response to it. My professor thinks everyone is entitled to their opinion, hence this is an opinionated response. I really think global warming is a bunch of BS, but I tried to respond intelligently. I'm not totally satisfied with my writing, but hopefully such responses will be more polished and organized as I am forced to write more of them.

Read it critically, don't just read and absorb. This dude uses some writing strategies to bring you to his side/point of view.

The Coming Resource Wars

My response:
“The Coming Resource Wars”, an article written in 2006 by Michael T. Klare, suggests a scenario of imminent war and violence as people all over the world struggle for control of dwindling resources necessary for global function and survival. The exploding population, inefficient use of resources including fossil fuels, agricultural products, and fresh water, and expansion and development of nations threaten to wipe out supplies. Global climate change also threatens the world’s resources because of the rising of sea levels due to melting glaciers, increasing temperatures that will create more arid conditions in many places, and unpredictable weather conditions to which underdeveloped countries may not be able to adapt. Klare offers only two solutions to the impending disasters—rely on military power to obtain resources once shortages begin to occur, or “take meaningful steps to reduce the risk of cataclysmic climate change.”

The only valid point Klare makes, perhaps unintentionally, is that resources are being used inefficiently on a global scale. An energy crisis may be the only major problem to occur in the near future, considering the rate of global consumption of fossil fuels and the looming end to the supply. As for clean water, people have long suffered without this necessary resource in underdeveloped countries and supplies are decreasing in the United States now as well. Part of the problem with the emerging lack of fresh water in the U.S. is due to urbanization and development in areas that were never able to support the amount of people that now reside there. One example is southern California, which relies on water from Colorado to support a population basically living in a desert. All over the U.S. reservoirs and aquifers are being drained faster than they can be replenished; this is a result of poor planning and wasteful overuse. As far as food supplies needed on a global scale, resources are not going to run out in the way Klare’s doomsday article describes. The rate of growth of the population is slowing and will continue to do so into the future, and agriculture is still highly productive world-wide. This is not to say that the lack of food in third world countries should not be addressed—there is still much progress to be made in feeding the young, growing nations of the world.

It seems that Klare believes that global warming is the main source of many of these resource problems. This is not so, and finding a solution to “global warming” is not the answer to any of the scenarios suggested. One real solution is that industrialized nations such as the U.S. use their resources more efficiently as an example to developing nations such as India and China, who have enormous populations and the expectation of living the same quality of life that Americans enjoy. Another practical solution is to find ways to purify drinking water in places where water exists but is heavily contaminated. One example of this is an ingenious inventor who designed a straw that filters contaminated water to a level that is safe to drink, and this invention is already being utilized in underdeveloped countries where in the past people have had no choice but to consume dirty water. New methods of agricultural cultivation are also being investigated, some of which can be implemented in compact areas or unfavorable weather conditions.

The climate is changing, whether people accept it or not. The reason, however, is natural, not anthropogenic. Humans are polluting the air, water, earth, etc., but will not cause any long-term damage to the planet. Truly, only time will tell what irreversible damage has been inflicted and what is being corrected naturally.

***

Not my best writing. I would have much preferred to do lots of research and throw facts in this guy's face, but we're just supposed to write how we "feel" about it. I hate opinions. Give me facts. Give me credible sources and CITE them in your writing. Don't just say something about "recent studies" and expect me to believe or agree with you.

College has turned me into an academic critic. Stay tuned--I'm going to talk about abortion next.

-K

A comment on current events

Usually, I keep my opinions about politics, current events, culture, and society off my blog because of the potential for controversial content that I don't want to argue with someone about, but I feel that a few things have to be said.

First, I think Relient K was right when they said "Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong" in their song The Only Thing Worse Than Beating a Dead Horse is Betting on One. So I am going to state my opinion, although the right to an opinion has become heavily abused in American culture (example: blogs). You can have an opinion and still be wrong, you just get to ignore anyone who tells you so. Regardless, I'd like to comment on a few things.

I think the whole "green", "eco-friendly" movement is just that--a movement. It's a trend that is going to fade in one way or another. There is the possibility that people will adopt sustainable practices on a large scale, but more likely nothing will get accomplished once the PR people decide that the "green" logos aren't working to sell more products anymore. A lot of companies are actually taking advantage of the trend and trying to market their products as sustainable or "safe for the environment" when they really aren't.


Take, for instance, the compact fluorescent light bulb. I heard through the grapevine that by 2012 we may be forced to use compact fluorescents in place of all incandescent bulbs, because they supposedly last so long and conserve so much energy. I acknowledge that CFLs last longer than incandescents, but for one thing that replacement idea is just silly because LEDs are the future of lighting. I don't know what materials an LED light bulb is made of, but I do know that CFLs contain MERCURY, and if you read the side of the base of the bulb it says to "dispose according to local, state, or federal laws." Well, that's just great. We're going to replace the majority of incandescent lights in America with compact fluorescents which contain an element that, if exposed to the air when you, say, break the bulb, will cause all kinds of health problems depending on the amount of exposure.

But hey, why should we worry about it? We'll just deal with it way down the road when they actually start wearing out and we have to replace them. In the meantime, let's start putting lead in our paint and asbestos in our insulation again.

GE plans to use LEDs
NY Times reports incandescents are obsolete in 2012

-K