3. In this video, Dan Barber - anti-Malthusianistic, and part agrees with treadmill of production theory, i think - talks about an alternative way of agriculture with a new way of fish farming(?) as an example. Current agribusiness is "high on capital, chemistry, and machines" and criticizes it for "quickly eroding ecology." He argues that we need to start changing our way of thinking to "how can we enable every community to feed itself." He suggests, like Janine Benyus, to look into the ecological model for answers to problems. After seeing this video, my question is, again, how could we make it possible? How could we, when under capitalism, the ultimate goal is always creating more profits, and the monopoly capital and governments hold the power (but aren't so willing to change?)
---
*it's a really short (only 20 min) and interesting video!! I strongly recommend everyone else to watch it!!*
1.Hyo Jin, CHO 2.Why there is no green party in Korea? 3.Currently, we learned about social movement and sate’s relationship; Actively inclusive state, Actively exclusive state, Passively inclusive state and Passively exclusive state. The existence of Green party especially in the UK and in Germany was impressive. In Korea we do not have green party. I thought the green party is very important as while green movement is only delivered through social movement, there is high possibilities that state ignore or repress unless this green social movement gains high attention and supports from people. (It seems state does not like social movement much.) However, once green party is formed, it would be better to reflect green efforts in national policies more directly and quickly. It is quiet frustrating that Korea is busy only dealing with two main parties, especially their political conflicts. It seems to me, that limited range of political parties makes people to forget environment issue. It is even hard to find environment news in newspaper except Four River Project, which is even losing attention because of coming local election. Maybe Korea cannot be explained in any form, whether active or passive, inclusive or exclusive in dealing with environment. When Green party can gain supports from people? It would be great as that support will be beyond regionalism and will be able to relieve blind and stupid conflicts between GNP and DLP. ------- 4. Korea, we do not have green party. According to the article, there were some efforts to establish green parties but steadily it failed. The writer points out the reason for this; core environmentalists’ group not yet strongly developed. In Korea’s politics, there exist two main parties; Grand National Party (GNP) and Democratic Labor Party (DLP). And supporters are evidently divided according to regions; for instance Kyung Sang province regions’ residents are highly pro to GNP while Geon Ra province region’s residents are highly pro to DLP. Moreover, GNP is well known for its conservative ways of policies focusing on development of economy and for wealth (or for the rich). In the other hand DLP is kind of progressive party. Although there are some other parties, usually not only people but also mass media do not put much attention to these parties. Therefore, in the case of efforts to build green party, it has hardly caught people’s attention. Moreover, there are not many people who are eager to be in green party so that green party could not satisfy the political party’s member quota which is rule of formation of political party is stating. Middle of 1990s’, some environmentalists and ecologists appeared and they steadily extended their activities. However, because of Korea’s political party atmosphere which is only focused on main two parties, there is lack of advantages to establish green parties and even stages that green party can stand on. The writer is saying that although there is increasing efforts of some local government to build green policies, still it seems insufficient for green party to occur. -------- http://www.pdjournal.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=27061
1.Franziska Mittelstädt 2. Fish deserve as much protection as rhinos and tigers 3. This article is a good example of the diffrent social construction of the diffrent endangerments of animals.
The tiger and the panda have been always the "most famous" critically endangered animals and created a kind of symbol for the process of extinction of many species caused by human action. Besides the fact that there are only few animals left of this species, I argue that both have special "skills" to be that popular. The panda is probably one of the most cutest animals of the world, with its big eyes it is affecting our motherly insticts. The tiger on the other hand has high reputation and is not only in Asia a symbol for power, strength and mystery. I am very sure that the majority of people like both animals and are seriously concerned about their survival.
But what about fish? Why are not so many people worried about the survival of fish? This animal is not a mammal, maybe therefore we think it can reproduce itself very fast and in almost infinite manner. Furthermore we do not have the feeling that humans occupy fish's natural living environment - nobody builds houses on large scale in the oceans. But maybe even more important is that we see fish as a non-intelligent and non-attractive being. For me it seems that fish is not constructed as a real animal, but more like a natural resource like wood.
Of course is another problem of the social construction that everything living in the oceans is seen as common properity - maybe not always in consumption perspective, but at least in the perspective of protection.
4. Do the emotionless eyes of sea creatures leave our hearts cold?
When is an endangered species not an endangered species? When it lives in the sea, apparently. Despite continuing carnage in the ocean, marine creatures were refused any protection at the United Nations conference on trade in wildlife that ended yesterday in Doha, Qatar.
Tigers, rhinos and elephants are all better protected after the meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites). But hammerhead sharks, bluefin tuna and other marine species should be quaking in their skins. For when it comes to fish, the world has decided that scientific evidence of imminent demise is not reason enough to defend them against overexploitation. The conflict between trade and conservation is nothing new, but it is pretty well established that if you let trade in wildlife run rampant, soon there will be nothing left to sell. That is why the UN set up Cites in the first place.
So why did fish get such a raw deal? Is it that we care less about life that is so very different from us? Do the emotionless eyes of fish leave our hearts cold? Is it an extension of the convenient myth that fish feel no pain? The truth is far more shocking. All fingers of blame point directly at Japan. The high value of bluefin tuna — a single specimen can reach £112,000 — led it to orchestrate a full-scale campaign against proposals to ban trade in the species. Diplomatic missions were sent to developing nations to bully them into agreeing with Japan’s conviction that fish cannot be endangered.
That way of thinking is grounded in ignorance. The oceans long seemed infinite in their capacity to produce such riches, and any sign that this was not so was hidden by our inability to peer into the depths. Science has now stripped back the veil and revealed the extent of the depletion. It is this science that Japan and its allies have chosen to not to see.
Unfortunately for life in the sea, Japan’s campaign made waves far beyond the bluefin. Sharks are in dire trouble thanks to China’s appetite for using their fins in soup. About 73 million sharks are killed each year as a result, and sharks don’t reproduce fast. But far from favouring a ban, nations voted against even the most basic monitoring of the trade.
Red and pink corals have now all but vanished from the Mediterranean and are being stripped from the Pacific, but proposals to control that trade were also swept away.
Fish don’t recognise borders and boundaries. Yet one nation, Japan, by its cynical use of political power is robbing the world of a shared resource. ----------------------
3. After what the professor said about us having not many choices in the world- for example, not being able to press a switch to use solar power or nuclear power for electricity- because there is not a system which is accessible to us, I really saw how limited we are in our choices. For example, even though I want to go to a convenience store and buy an organically produced bottle of juice, if they don’t sell it then my choice would not really be my own. In order for the public to really be able to choose for themselves, what they really want, we need the businesses and the governments to really take the effort to build us a structure with all the available options. So a large responsibility is put on the leading conglomerates and government’s shoulders. It seems as if many companies are now catching on to the green trend and it seems as if Samsung, in particular as Korea’s number one company and one of the world’s largest electronics maker, has felt their responsibilities. I have seen advertisements of Samsung’s cell phones in the future, which shows the cell phones being charged with solar power. With this image in mind, when I saw this article about Samsung investing in green technologies, I thought maybe this would mean that there would be more ‘choices’ coming our way. As we talked in class, as long as we are deprived of certain methods and restricted to what the society can provide to us, we are not really free to make our own choices. We don’t know if that day will ever come when all the possible choices are fully available to us, to buy cell phones which can be charged by solar power, to be able to turn on a switch for solar power if we want to, to be able to drive an electric or an hybrid car if we want to for the same price, but I hope as I see in this article, that many companies will endeavor to build us a structure so that in the future, we really know what the public’s true choices are.
4. The world’s biggest electronics maker, Samsung, is to invest billions of pounds in green technologies over the coming decade. Samsung Group announced its plans to diversity into environmental businesses from its headquarters in Seoul, South Korea, earlier this week. It said it planned to invest a total of £14.5 billion over the next decade in five major new areas of businesses, including solar cells, rechargeable batteries for hybrid electric vehicles and Light Emitting Diode (LED) technologies. The company said it would also be diversifying into the healthcare sector .... Samsung, which is better know for making computer chips and mobile phones, said it expected to create nearly 35,000 jobs through its investments in green technologies and generate £23 billion in annual revenue from the sector. ... Governments around the world are now investing in green industries to address the issues of depleting energy resources and the protection of our planet’s environment, which present pressing challenges to the global community," commented Kun-Hee Lee, Samsung Electronics chairman.
2. Solar Power to the People, With a Lot of Public Help
3. Alternating solar energy to electricity is one of the most efficient way to stay eco-friendly. Photovoltaic technology have been growing since 1950s. This technology brings electricity from sun into homes and commercial buildings. However due to tax, the technology met a dead end. Now that the policy changed to 30 percent upfront grant instead of heavy tax, schools are providing this technology to students to learn more about it. It is strange how Korea can be over competitive with education yet somehow miss out on real life outdoor education. Not only for children but to save energy bills since photovoltaic technology saves electric needs. Hopefully Korea would soon adopt this technology.
4. In operation since 2008, the system provides about 70 percent of the school’s annual electric needs and will save more than $100,000 on its energy bills over the next 15 years.
Installing it cost the school nothing. In a business arrangement becoming common for solar projects like this, the project developer, Solar Power Partners, installed, owns and operates the system. It then sells power back to the school through a long-term power purchase agreement.
Not surprisingly, the number of installations has grown the most rapidly in the states with the most solar-friendly policies and regulations, especially those that require the utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources. California still leads the market nationwide, but states like New Jersey, Arizona, Florida and Massachusetts each doubled their capacity in 2009, Mr. Sherwood said. He also estimated that total grid-connected photovoltaic capacity could reach 2,300 megawatts by the end of 2010, roughly the equivalent of four average-size coal or gas-fired power plants.
A maturing solar industry with declining costs set against rising energy prices for fossil fuels should help. But Bob Powell, chief executive of Solar Power Partners, said parity will come only when the full cost of dirty energy is charged versus clean energy. “There must be some way to account for the cleanup required with burning coal, which you don’t have with solar, to achieve long-term parity,” he said.
3. In my opinion, the environmental issues are not political, because all people get the influence of the environment degradation regardless of their political interest. In this sense, Beck said that the risk of contemporary society is equal. Therefore, the environmental concern (people’s concerns toward environment) has to neutral, I believe. However, in the below article, we can know the different environmental interests according to people’s political tendency. In addition to, many countries in the world have the same situation. Most liberal or progressive parties show the environmental concern more than that of conservative parties. I am really curious about why the parties(people) have similar attitudes toward the environment by party’s(people’s political) tendency. Is it just opposition or agreement for the ruling party? Also, is it impossible to build common concern to the nature without political interest? I always miss the changing of the environmental policies when the government is changed. If we had had same concern toward the nature, we would have consistent environmental policies and protect the nature better.
------ 4. As Earth Day marks its 40th birthday, three-fifths of Americans consider themselves either active in or sympathetic to the environmental movement, a new Gallup poll shows. Although the percentage of those favoring the green movement has declined about 10 percent since Gallup first measured it in 2000, it "remains high" at 61 percent, Gallup said. … The poll showed similar levels of support for the environmental movement's impact. Sixty-two percent of Americans say the movement has definitely or probably done more good than harm, down from 75 percent in 2000. Roughly a third of the public said the movement has done more harm than good. Those most supportive of the environmental movement or its impact are the young, college graduates, Democrats and self-described liberals. While men and women are equally likely to believe the movement has done more good than harm, women are more likely to personally associate themselves with it. Gallup's annual environmental survey has shown increased political polarization over environmental issues, particularly global warming. Republicans and conservatives are now significantly less likely than Democrats, moderates and liberals to be sympathetic to the environmental movement or to say it is doing more good than harm. … The poll also showed that 90 percent of Americans have voluntarily recycled, 85 percent have reduced their household energy use and 76 percent have bought products specifically because they thought they were better for the environment over the past year. These numbers have remained steady since 2000. -------http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/22/22greenwire-gallup-poll-finds-most-americans-supporting-en-19618.html?scp=1&sq=environment%20movement&st=cse
1.Dingyuan Hou 2.Public supports energy over environment: poll 3.The article shows for the first time in 10 years Americans are more likely to say the United States should give more priority to developing oil, natural gas and coal than to protecting the environment. That reminds me of the six mechanisms in relation to the rise of mass culture and cultural standards that stimulate the levels of consumption. However, in the result of the following polls, what I see is the fact that most consumers don’t want to worry about running out of fuel or polluting the environment. Though we hear media talking a lot about our over-consumption and the limits of energy supplies, I kinda got the feeling that people just don’t get aware of the energy crisis we are faced with. And it will be too late for us to start discovering new energy when all the oil, natural gas and coal are used up. I was surprised by the result of poll where more than half of the people are in favor of proceeding to exploit energy. Nevertheless, the environmental problems can’t be solved just by the efforts of environmentalists or governments without the support of public. And it’s high time to educate the public to be environmentally minded.
---------------------------------- 4.The poll was conducted a few weeks before President Barack Obama announced he would open offshore oil drilling in some parts the U.S. East Coast, Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Half of 1,014 U.S. adults, who were surveyed March 4-7 by Gallup, said the country should give more priority to developing and producing the fossil fuels. Only 43 percent said protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies. It was the first time in the 10 years that Gallup has been asking the question that energy production was favored over environment. The poll was released a few weeks before Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, Lindsey Graham, a Republican and Joe Lieberman, an independent, hope to unveil a compromise climate bill that would effectively put fees on fuels such as gasoline and coal to reduce emissions of gases blamed for warming the planet. The bill would also seek to increase incentives for offshore drilling and nuclear power. According to the poll, 52 percent of Americans favored greater energy conservation while only 36 percent favored greater production of oil, natural gas, and coal as a means of solving the country's energy problems. Oil prices have risen about $6 since early March to about $87 per barrel, an 18-month high, on strong economic data in the United States, the world's top petroleum consumer. The Gallup data have a 4 percentage point margin of error. ------------------- http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63536B20100406
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
1. Wonmi Nam
ReplyDelete2. Alternative Way of Agriculture
3. In this video, Dan Barber - anti-Malthusianistic, and part agrees with treadmill of production theory, i think - talks about an alternative way of agriculture with a new way of fish farming(?) as an example. Current agribusiness is "high on capital, chemistry, and machines" and criticizes it for "quickly eroding ecology." He argues that we need to start changing our way of thinking to "how can we enable every community to feed itself." He suggests, like Janine Benyus, to look into the ecological model for answers to problems.
After seeing this video, my question is, again, how could we make it possible? How could we, when under capitalism, the ultimate goal is always creating more profits, and the monopoly capital and governments hold the power (but aren't so willing to change?)
---
*it's a really short (only 20 min) and interesting video!! I strongly recommend everyone else to watch it!!*
---
[http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_how_i_fell_in_love_with_a_fish.html]
1.Hyo Jin, CHO
ReplyDelete2.Why there is no green party in Korea?
3.Currently, we learned about social movement and sate’s relationship; Actively inclusive state, Actively exclusive state, Passively inclusive state and Passively exclusive state. The existence of Green party especially in the UK and in Germany was impressive. In Korea we do not have green party. I thought the green party is very important as while green movement is only delivered through social movement, there is high possibilities that state ignore or repress unless this green social movement gains high attention and supports from people. (It seems state does not like social movement much.) However, once green party is formed, it would be better to reflect green efforts in national policies more directly and quickly. It is quiet frustrating that Korea is busy only dealing with two main parties, especially their political conflicts. It seems to me, that limited range of political parties makes people to forget environment issue. It is even hard to find environment news in newspaper except Four River Project, which is even losing attention because of coming local election. Maybe Korea cannot be explained in any form, whether active or passive, inclusive or exclusive in dealing with environment. When Green party can gain supports from people? It would be great as that support will be beyond regionalism and will be able to relieve blind and stupid conflicts between GNP and DLP.
-------
4. Korea, we do not have green party. According to the article, there were some efforts to establish green parties but steadily it failed. The writer points out the reason for this; core environmentalists’ group not yet strongly developed. In Korea’s politics, there exist two main parties; Grand National Party (GNP) and Democratic Labor Party (DLP). And supporters are evidently divided according to regions; for instance Kyung Sang province regions’ residents are highly pro to GNP while Geon Ra province region’s residents are highly pro to DLP. Moreover, GNP is well known for its conservative ways of policies focusing on development of economy and for wealth (or for the rich). In the other hand DLP is kind of progressive party. Although there are some other parties, usually not only people but also mass media do not put much attention to these parties. Therefore, in the case of efforts to build green party, it has hardly caught people’s attention. Moreover, there are not many people who are eager to be in green party so that green party could not satisfy the political party’s member quota which is rule of formation of political party is stating.
Middle of 1990s’, some environmentalists and ecologists appeared and they steadily extended their activities. However, because of Korea’s political party atmosphere which is only focused on main two parties, there is lack of advantages to establish green parties and even stages that green party can stand on. The writer is saying that although there is increasing efforts of some local government to build green policies, still it seems insufficient for green party to occur.
--------
http://www.pdjournal.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=27061
it's news in Korean :-)
1.Franziska Mittelstädt
ReplyDelete2. Fish deserve as much protection as rhinos and tigers
3. This article is a good example of the diffrent social construction of the diffrent endangerments of animals.
The tiger and the panda have been always the "most famous" critically endangered animals and created a kind of symbol for the process of extinction of many species caused by human action. Besides the fact that there are only few animals left of this species, I argue that both have special "skills" to be that popular. The panda is probably one of the most cutest animals of the world, with its big eyes it is affecting our motherly insticts. The tiger on the other hand has high reputation and is not only in Asia a symbol for power, strength and mystery.
I am very sure that the majority of people like both animals and are seriously concerned about their survival.
But what about fish? Why are not so many people worried about the survival of fish? This animal is not a mammal, maybe therefore we think it can reproduce itself very fast and in almost infinite manner. Furthermore we do not have the feeling that humans occupy fish's natural living environment - nobody builds houses on large scale in the oceans. But maybe even more important is that we see fish as a non-intelligent and non-attractive being.
For me it seems that fish is not constructed as a real animal, but more like a natural resource like wood.
Of course is another problem of the social construction that everything living in the oceans is seen as common properity - maybe not always in consumption perspective, but at least in the perspective of protection.
4. Do the emotionless eyes of sea creatures leave our hearts cold?
When is an endangered species not an endangered species? When it lives in the sea, apparently. Despite continuing carnage in the ocean, marine creatures were refused any protection at the United Nations conference on trade in wildlife that ended yesterday in Doha, Qatar.
Tigers, rhinos and elephants are all better protected after the meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites). But hammerhead sharks, bluefin tuna and other marine species should be quaking in their skins. For when it comes to fish, the world has decided that scientific evidence of imminent demise is not reason enough to defend them against overexploitation.
The conflict between trade and conservation is nothing new, but it is pretty well established that if you let trade in wildlife run rampant, soon there will be nothing left to sell. That is why the UN set up Cites in the first place.
*continued*
ReplyDeleteSo why did fish get such a raw deal? Is it that we care less about life that is so very different from us? Do the emotionless eyes of fish leave our hearts cold? Is it an extension of the convenient myth that fish feel no pain?
The truth is far more shocking. All fingers of blame point directly at Japan. The high value of bluefin tuna — a single specimen can reach £112,000 — led it to orchestrate a full-scale campaign against proposals to ban trade in the species. Diplomatic missions were sent to developing nations to bully them into agreeing with Japan’s conviction that fish cannot be endangered.
That way of thinking is grounded in ignorance. The oceans long seemed infinite in their capacity to produce such riches, and any sign that this was not so was hidden by our inability to peer into the depths. Science has now stripped back the veil and revealed the extent of the depletion. It is this science that Japan and its allies have chosen to not to see.
Unfortunately for life in the sea, Japan’s campaign made waves far beyond the bluefin. Sharks are in dire trouble thanks to China’s appetite for using their fins in soup. About 73 million sharks are killed each year as a result, and sharks don’t reproduce fast. But far from favouring a ban, nations voted against even the most basic monitoring of the trade.
Red and pink corals have now all but vanished from the Mediterranean and are being stripped from the Pacific, but proposals to control that trade were also swept away.
Fish don’t recognise borders and boundaries. Yet one nation, Japan, by its cynical use of political power is robbing the world of a shared resource.
----------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7076342.ece
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Sung Yeon Lee
ReplyDelete2. Will our choices become broader?
3. After what the professor said about us having not many choices in the world- for example, not being able to press a switch to use solar power or nuclear power for electricity- because there is not a system which is accessible to us, I really saw how limited we are in our choices. For example, even though I want to go to a convenience store and buy an organically produced bottle of juice, if they don’t sell it then my choice would not really be my own. In order for the public to really be able to choose for themselves, what they really want, we need the businesses and the governments to really take the effort to build us a structure with all the available options. So a large responsibility is put on the leading conglomerates and government’s shoulders. It seems as if many companies are now catching on to the green trend and it seems as if Samsung, in particular as Korea’s number one company and one of the world’s largest electronics maker, has felt their responsibilities. I have seen advertisements of Samsung’s cell phones in the future, which shows the cell phones being charged with solar power. With this image in mind, when I saw this article about Samsung investing in green technologies, I thought maybe this would mean that there would be more ‘choices’ coming our way. As we talked in class, as long as we are deprived of certain methods and restricted to what the society can provide to us, we are not really free to make our own choices. We don’t know if that day will ever come when all the possible choices are fully available to us, to buy cell phones which can be charged by solar power, to be able to turn on a switch for solar power if we want to, to be able to drive an electric or an hybrid car if we want to for the same price, but I hope as I see in this article, that many companies will endeavor to build us a structure so that in the future, we really know what the public’s true choices are.
4. The world’s biggest electronics maker, Samsung, is to invest billions of pounds in green technologies over the coming decade.
Samsung Group announced its plans to diversity into environmental businesses from its headquarters in Seoul, South Korea, earlier this week. It said it planned to invest a total of £14.5 billion over the next decade in five major new areas of businesses, including solar cells, rechargeable batteries for hybrid electric vehicles and Light Emitting Diode (LED) technologies. The company said it would also be diversifying into the healthcare sector
....
Samsung, which is better know for making computer chips and mobile phones, said it expected to create nearly 35,000 jobs through its investments in green technologies and generate £23 billion in annual revenue from the sector.
...
Governments around the world are now investing in green industries to address the issues of depleting energy resources and the protection of our planet’s environment, which present pressing challenges to the global community," commented Kun-Hee Lee, Samsung Electronics chairman.
http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/samsung-to-invest-billions-in-green-technologies-1406.aspx
1. Ye Eun Cho
ReplyDelete2. Solar Power to the People, With a Lot of Public Help
3. Alternating solar energy to electricity is one of the most efficient way to stay eco-friendly. Photovoltaic technology have been growing since 1950s. This technology brings electricity from sun into homes and commercial buildings. However due to tax, the technology met a dead end. Now that the policy changed to 30 percent upfront grant instead of heavy tax, schools are providing this technology to students to learn more about it. It is strange how Korea can be over competitive with education yet somehow miss out on real life outdoor education. Not only for children but to save energy bills since photovoltaic technology saves electric needs. Hopefully Korea would soon adopt this technology.
4. In operation since 2008, the system provides about 70 percent of the school’s annual electric needs and will save more than $100,000 on its energy bills over the next 15 years.
Installing it cost the school nothing. In a business arrangement becoming common for solar projects like this, the project developer, Solar Power Partners, installed, owns and operates the system. It then sells power back to the school through a long-term power purchase agreement.
Not surprisingly, the number of installations has grown the most rapidly in the states with the most solar-friendly policies and regulations, especially those that require the utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources. California still leads the market nationwide, but states like New Jersey, Arizona, Florida and Massachusetts each doubled their capacity in 2009, Mr. Sherwood said. He also estimated that total grid-connected photovoltaic capacity could reach 2,300 megawatts by the end of 2010, roughly the equivalent of four average-size coal or gas-fired power plants.
A maturing solar industry with declining costs set against rising energy prices for fossil fuels should help. But Bob Powell, chief executive of Solar Power Partners, said parity will come only when the full cost of dirty energy is charged versus clean energy. “There must be some way to account for the cleanup required with burning coal, which you don’t have with solar, to achieve long-term parity,” he said.
------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/business/energy-environment/22SOLAR.html
1. Choi, Hye Jung
ReplyDelete2. Concern of the environment is political
3. In my opinion, the environmental issues are not political, because all people get the influence of the environment degradation regardless of their political interest. In this sense, Beck said that the risk of contemporary society is equal. Therefore, the environmental concern (people’s concerns toward environment) has to neutral, I believe. However, in the below article, we can know the different environmental interests according to people’s political tendency. In addition to, many countries in the world have the same situation. Most liberal or progressive parties show the environmental concern more than that of conservative parties. I am really curious about why the parties(people) have similar attitudes toward the environment by party’s(people’s political) tendency. Is it just opposition or agreement for the ruling party? Also, is it impossible to build common concern to the nature without political interest? I always miss the changing of the environmental policies when the government is changed. If we had had same concern toward the nature, we would have consistent environmental policies and protect the nature better.
------
4.
As Earth Day marks its 40th birthday, three-fifths of Americans consider themselves either active in or sympathetic to the environmental movement, a new Gallup poll shows.
Although the percentage of those favoring the green movement has declined about 10 percent since Gallup first measured it in 2000, it "remains high" at 61 percent, Gallup said.
…
The poll showed similar levels of support for the environmental movement's impact. Sixty-two percent of Americans say the movement has definitely or probably done more good than harm, down from 75 percent in 2000. Roughly a third of the public said the movement has done more harm than good.
Those most supportive of the environmental movement or its impact are the young, college graduates, Democrats and self-described liberals. While men and women are equally likely to believe the movement has done more good than harm, women are more likely to personally associate themselves with it.
Gallup's annual environmental survey has shown increased political polarization over environmental issues, particularly global warming. Republicans and conservatives are now significantly less likely than Democrats, moderates and liberals to be sympathetic to the environmental movement or to say it is doing more good than harm.
…
The poll also showed that 90 percent of Americans have voluntarily recycled, 85 percent have reduced their household energy use and 76 percent have bought products specifically because they thought they were better for the environment over the past year. These numbers have remained steady since 2000.
-------http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/22/22greenwire-gallup-poll-finds-most-americans-supporting-en-19618.html?scp=1&sq=environment%20movement&st=cse
1.Dingyuan Hou
ReplyDelete2.Public supports energy over environment: poll
3.The article shows for the first time in 10 years Americans are more likely to say the United States should give more priority to developing oil, natural gas and coal than to protecting the environment. That reminds me of the six mechanisms in relation to the rise of mass culture and cultural standards that stimulate the levels of consumption. However, in the result of the following polls, what I see is the fact that most consumers don’t want to worry about running out of fuel or polluting the environment. Though we hear media talking a lot about our over-consumption and the limits of energy supplies, I kinda got the feeling that people just don’t get aware of the energy crisis we are faced with. And it will be too late for us to start discovering new energy when all the oil, natural gas and coal are used up. I was surprised by the result of poll where more than half of the people are in favor of proceeding to exploit energy. Nevertheless, the environmental problems can’t be solved just by the efforts of environmentalists or governments without the support of public. And it’s high time to educate the public to be environmentally minded.
----------------------------------
4.The poll was conducted a few weeks before President Barack Obama announced he would open offshore oil drilling in some parts the U.S. East Coast, Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.
Half of 1,014 U.S. adults, who were surveyed March 4-7 by Gallup, said the country should give more priority to developing and producing the fossil fuels. Only 43 percent said protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting the amount of energy supplies.
It was the first time in the 10 years that Gallup has been asking the question that energy production was favored over environment.
The poll was released a few weeks before Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, Lindsey Graham, a Republican and Joe Lieberman, an independent, hope to unveil a compromise climate bill that would effectively put fees on fuels such as gasoline and coal to reduce emissions of gases blamed for warming the planet. The bill would also seek to increase incentives for offshore drilling and nuclear power.
According to the poll, 52 percent of Americans favored greater energy conservation while only 36 percent favored greater production of oil, natural gas, and coal as a means of solving the country's energy problems.
Oil prices have risen about $6 since early March to about $87 per barrel, an 18-month high, on strong economic data in the United States, the world's top petroleum consumer.
The Gallup data have a 4 percentage point margin of error.
-------------------
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63536B20100406