Hi guys my name is Hyeonja Jung from South Korea. I am studying in MPA program and this is my last semester. I start this class with lots of wondering and curiosity;
How can this unprecedented freezing winter be explained with global warming?
Which one is more dangerous to us, man-maid disaster or natural disaster?
Can earthian protect the disaster in the future?
Is there any environmental policy to satisfy everyone?
What should be the government priority between economy and environment in this economic crisis?
:
:
:
I wish I can find some clue to answer those questions after finishing this class.
I like the questions you pose Hyeonja. These are all very intriguing and seem to be absent in some of the discussion points that come up in these climate summits or "political pr" events which really see no progress towards a global effort. I am interested if you think there could be both a man-maid and natural disaster and its frequency in the same event? I would like to see a comprehensive approach to global environmental policy, but how do we accomplish this without hindering third world nation progress in the same manner western nations have prospered in the previous centuries? Do you think there could be some sort of incentive program to curb pollution in these nations?
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting idea and thoughts, Hyeonja. I really agree your thougts and acadeimc interests on desirable environemtnalism under seirous economic recession. Yeah, it is a very important topic or issue that scholars in the field of public policy shoule carefully discuss and finally reach consensus, I think.
ReplyDeleteI hope you develop your basic ideas and thoughts on environmental policy step-by-step. Moeover, good luck with your final semester in MPA studies.
I too am intrigued by your question regarding the environment and the economy...How can policy makers be leaders in this area, but at the same time not take away from the economic development and living standards most Americans are not willing to give up. In the future, I believe one of the ways to implement these policies is by cooperation between the government and large corporations. It will be interesting to how these issues resolve themselves and I'm looking forward to discussing this during the semester!
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting those links out there. You pose some really great questions. I watched An Inconvenient Truth some time ago and came away feeling reasonably convinced there was something to the argument. Then I went to see a presentation last November by Warren Meyer, who runs a web site called climate-skeptic.com. He filmed his presentation, which you can view at http://www.vimeo.com/7811562 or you can view a more polished slide show at http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html. Like the Sovereignty film, Meyer proceeded to pretty much blast the bulk of the arguments posited by Al Gore. I was especially taken aback by both of their arguments that ice core samples showed a positive correlation between CO2 levels and temperature when I learned that while there is a correlation, it was the increase in temperature that preceded the rise in CO2 by 800 years - not the other way around! Meyer also claimed that on the very day the media reported a record low arctic ice cap thickness, the Antarctic ice cap was at its all time thickest. At the very least, there seems to be enough evidence or counter- evidence to refute the global warming argument. The Gore camp wants us all to believe them, blindly it seems, yet seem to be unwilling to debate the issue. Why? If they are so certain of their results, then why not fight back against folks like Meyer and Sovereignty and defend their science? Are they afraid the naysayers are right? I would really like to see a group of respectable scientists go toe-to-toe on this issue. If the issue is man-made catastrophic global warming, and I am not sure that I believe there is such a thing, to divert resources and create policy based on these “facts” seems inappropriate; however, if the issue is global warming in general and the questions at hand are how do we protect our coastal cities from inundation by rising sea levels, or how do we keep our timber stands from burning to the ground, then let’s be honest about it and deal with those issues. There is one thing that Warren Meyer did not go into at all which was the Sovereignty argument that global warming is just a front to a more sinister attempt to gain control over the nations of the Earth through a world government. I find this notion extremely unsettling. It reeks of conspiracy theory, yet it would not be the first time that people attempted to master the earth.
ReplyDelete