This bill is stating that the climate change of the Earth is probably due to the increase in human greenhouse gas emissions. It cites quite a few sources supporting this claim as well, and stating that there is evidence that carbon emissions are unhealthy for humans. The bill asks for Congress to recognize that litigation is needed to help control this problem and the risks of global warming, and to recognize that the changing global temperature is likely due to the increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.
Here is a copy of the bill I am using:
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.
Whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in March 2007 that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas concentrations;
Whereas the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that climate change may lead to increased drought, more heavy downpours and flooding, more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires, greater sea level rise, more intense storms, harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife, and ecosystems, and higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant;
Whereas the National Academies of Sciences recognizes significant global warming is occurring, it is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities, and this warming has already led to change in the Earth’s climate;
Whereas the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) has concluded that rising sea levels are submerging low-lying lands, eroding beaches, converting wetlands to open water, exacerbating coastal flooding, and increasing the salinity of estuaries and freshwater aquifers;
Whereas the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) affirms 2008 was the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on combined average of land and ocean surface temperatures;
Whereas the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) affirms that greenhouse gas concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere have increased dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, with carbon dioxide growing from about 280 ppm in 1850 to about 380 ppm today; and
Whereas the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes that the climate system of the Earth is warming and that most of the increase in global average temperatures is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas emissions; and
(2) recognizes legislation is needed to mitigate risks humans and ecosystems face from a warming climate system.
Taken from: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr111-354
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Assignment 5
1. Do you think that currently developing countries have the right to exploit forests (and other natural resources) as Europe and the US did to increase their economic well-being?
a. Why or why not?
This is an interesting question, on the surface I would say that a country has the right to do with its own resources as it pleases. Countries like the United States that are currently developed need to find a way to have sustainable natural resources. If a developing country chooses to deplete its natural resources and have a ‘tragedy of the commons’ then that developing country should not receive aid from a country that has planned for sustainability. This may seem cruel, but it shouldn’t be the responsibility of a few nations who planned better to support those who do not.
On the other hand, it could be seen as a moral obligation for developed countries to steer developing nations in the right direction, forcing them to conserve and plan for sustainability. This will slow economic development in the short term, but in the long term it will prove beneficial. The developed nations would probably have to use force (economic or otherwise) to achieve this goal, which is obviously not optimal (or even legal). The developed nations need to choose which action they will take, either one of these options would probably work; one is more humane and much more difficult to achieve.
2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate?
a. Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate?
Equity would be difficult to achieve between developing and industrialized nations. Developing nations produce more carbon emissions per capita than developed nations do, that’s just the way it is. A middle ground must be met though, so yes.
b. What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case, should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not?
When producing large amount of emissions, developing nations are affecting all nations, which is not equitable. They should be required to reduce emissions. However, developed nations should help by giving monetary aid or technological aid to help reduce emissions of developing nations. A developing nation should have the right to have a stronger economy and a higher standard of living, if developed nations want fewer emissions, then they need to help the developing nation by providing technological or monetary support.
c. Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations?
A developing nation should expect to have developed nations help them financially if sanctions are to be put on emissions. Fewer emissions generally equates to less money and growth for these countries. If these developing nations are expected to produce less for the good of all, then they should be compensated in some way. To be equitable, it seems to me that sanctions on development should be supplemented with some sort of aid.
a. Why or why not?
This is an interesting question, on the surface I would say that a country has the right to do with its own resources as it pleases. Countries like the United States that are currently developed need to find a way to have sustainable natural resources. If a developing country chooses to deplete its natural resources and have a ‘tragedy of the commons’ then that developing country should not receive aid from a country that has planned for sustainability. This may seem cruel, but it shouldn’t be the responsibility of a few nations who planned better to support those who do not.
On the other hand, it could be seen as a moral obligation for developed countries to steer developing nations in the right direction, forcing them to conserve and plan for sustainability. This will slow economic development in the short term, but in the long term it will prove beneficial. The developed nations would probably have to use force (economic or otherwise) to achieve this goal, which is obviously not optimal (or even legal). The developed nations need to choose which action they will take, either one of these options would probably work; one is more humane and much more difficult to achieve.
2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate?
a. Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate?
Equity would be difficult to achieve between developing and industrialized nations. Developing nations produce more carbon emissions per capita than developed nations do, that’s just the way it is. A middle ground must be met though, so yes.
b. What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case, should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not?
When producing large amount of emissions, developing nations are affecting all nations, which is not equitable. They should be required to reduce emissions. However, developed nations should help by giving monetary aid or technological aid to help reduce emissions of developing nations. A developing nation should have the right to have a stronger economy and a higher standard of living, if developed nations want fewer emissions, then they need to help the developing nation by providing technological or monetary support.
c. Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations?
A developing nation should expect to have developed nations help them financially if sanctions are to be put on emissions. Fewer emissions generally equates to less money and growth for these countries. If these developing nations are expected to produce less for the good of all, then they should be compensated in some way. To be equitable, it seems to me that sanctions on development should be supplemented with some sort of aid.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Assignment 4
West Oakland, California is the area affected by this environmental justice issue. “West Oakland experienced expansions during the two World Wars, as shipbuilding attracted residents from inside and outside the country, resulting in a diverse group of people living in the area. With the end of World War II, West Oakland suffered from severe job losses, and its economic decline continued through the 1980s. West Oakland today bears witness to its social and economic history. Its residents are 64% African Americans, 16% Latinos, and 9% Asian and Pacific Islanders. West Oakland also hosts numerous abandoned waste sites from its industrial past, contaminated with lead and vinyl chloride, among many other chemicals with multi-syllabic names, as well as a large port that attracts diesel truck traffic and polluting marine vessels. The leading causes of death in West Oakland during 1996 to 1998 were heart disease (27%) and cancer (22%), and respiratory illnesses like asthma are a big problem (Kang, Helen).”
The author suggests that the socioeconomic status along with the large ethnic minority population is the reason that the government is not acting in the best interest of the community. However, it is probably more likely that the socioeconomic status of the community has more of an effect on the governments’ inaction.
Those of lower socioeconomic status usually have less access to higher education. If the community is ignorant of the harmful effects of the environmental factors around it, then it is unlikely that they will petition for change. More highly educated and affluent communities are more likely to have access to information pertaining to their environment, and are more likely to have the resources to make changes within the community. The more affluent community would probably have more political influence, which is an idea outlined by David Konisky, who suggested that government behavior may be influenced by the political capacity of potentially affected populations. This idea is relevant because it takes a static characteristic, such as race, and removes it from the equation. Konisky believes that the government may be discriminating based on SES, not race. Low income communities have less political power because they lack the necessary capital, both educational and monetary. The fact that minorities are overrepresented in some low SES communities is more coincidental than an act of an oppressive, racist government. This is what Konisky found in his research, that there was a strong correlation between poverty and state enforcement, while racial compensation of a community (controlled for SES) did not seem to correlate with state enforcement.
In this article, a woman from the low SES area started a petition to solve an environmental problem, and she ended up winning her case. The woman saw an inequality, and stated that the current laws were not sufficient for dealing with the problem she was interested in. She created a petition, organized a campaign, and resolved the issue. This type of action may be atypical in a low SES community, but the article shows that the government will respond to the 'squeaky wheel'.
Link to article: http://lsnc.net/equity/2009/05/15/a-case-study-of-environmental-justice-work-in-west-oakland/
The author suggests that the socioeconomic status along with the large ethnic minority population is the reason that the government is not acting in the best interest of the community. However, it is probably more likely that the socioeconomic status of the community has more of an effect on the governments’ inaction.
Those of lower socioeconomic status usually have less access to higher education. If the community is ignorant of the harmful effects of the environmental factors around it, then it is unlikely that they will petition for change. More highly educated and affluent communities are more likely to have access to information pertaining to their environment, and are more likely to have the resources to make changes within the community. The more affluent community would probably have more political influence, which is an idea outlined by David Konisky, who suggested that government behavior may be influenced by the political capacity of potentially affected populations. This idea is relevant because it takes a static characteristic, such as race, and removes it from the equation. Konisky believes that the government may be discriminating based on SES, not race. Low income communities have less political power because they lack the necessary capital, both educational and monetary. The fact that minorities are overrepresented in some low SES communities is more coincidental than an act of an oppressive, racist government. This is what Konisky found in his research, that there was a strong correlation between poverty and state enforcement, while racial compensation of a community (controlled for SES) did not seem to correlate with state enforcement.
In this article, a woman from the low SES area started a petition to solve an environmental problem, and she ended up winning her case. The woman saw an inequality, and stated that the current laws were not sufficient for dealing with the problem she was interested in. She created a petition, organized a campaign, and resolved the issue. This type of action may be atypical in a low SES community, but the article shows that the government will respond to the 'squeaky wheel'.
Link to article: http://lsnc.net/equity/2009/05/15/a-case-study-of-environmental-justice-work-in-west-oakland/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
