1. Evidence of Extreme Climate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7a-Hs9UxYo
2. Obama and climate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbQC_KWjGhI
3. Hansen on extreme climate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX2KyF0p-xU
4. Extreme Weather and climate change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpxxPJv6vQs
5. Extreme Weather and climate change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adp6xN7E_Qc&playnext=1&list=PL2456E55F1A834112&feature=results_main
Monday, December 10, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Turning notes into sentences for essay
Reasons why corporations will not succeed in the next ten years
right to develop argument - while we could argue that the countries who want clean development will fail because they lack the power to force rich countries to give them money, we could also argue that they will succeed. why? because they may find a way to work collectively together. we can see this in the conferences that the video shows (find name of video and discuss it here). these conferences keep bringing different groups of people together, and united they will have more power because they will be able to speak with a united voice.
another reason, along these same lines: as natural disasters hit the rich northern countries harder, people there will feel more for those suffering in the global south. they will be able to compare experiences, and this overlap will create bonds of sympathy.
another reason? - the countries of the global south may begin to take their claims to the international criminal court or the united nations - .... they will bring the "climate debt" argument to these big global bodies and make headlines as they do so. this will grab people's attention, and legal people won't be able to defend the reasons why polluting countries should not pay off the countries of the global south.
another reason: the countries of the global south may go on some kind of "resource strike" like the 1973 oil embargo by middle east countries against the US. that is, they might stop selling valuable resources like oil, or minerals such as lithium, and thereby create demand in the rich countries for these products.
Reasons why corporations WILL succeed in the next ten years
in a world where economic growth is occurring very slowly, the people of the rich countries will not want to give money to people in the developing countries. they will instead complain about a lack of jobs and how much education costs. if this climate debt argument had happened before the 2008 crisis, maybe there would have been more money around.
racism: the people with the most money in the global north are still generally racist towards people in other countries who are non-white. they do not see these people as fellow human beings in large enough numbers to justify giving them all the money necessary for climate change.
media: Americans see very little of the rest of the world. most americans don't travel. most americans don't know another language. they simply are ignorant of what's happening in the global south. the media purposely doesn't allow americans to see what's happening in other parts of the world, where people are affected by climate disasters.
lack of artist and celebrity attention: people in the global north worship money, not talent. the number of artists and musicians and athletes who care about these issues is very small. americans don't see their "heroes" caring about any of these issues -- so why should they?
selfish leaders - as we see with "disaster capitalism," many people in leadership positions in the global north are in it for the money and for short-term profit. even if people did unite together and demand payments for climate debt, the leaders wont' allow it because they have the most to lose, since they hold the cards to wealth and power in the culture.
Links on blog:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/nyregion/on-a-staten-island-avenue-coming-home-to-sift-through-the-wreckage.html?hp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et3shqUBnsg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-0_gDXqYeQ
right to develop argument - while we could argue that the countries who want clean development will fail because they lack the power to force rich countries to give them money, we could also argue that they will succeed. why? because they may find a way to work collectively together. we can see this in the conferences that the video shows (find name of video and discuss it here). these conferences keep bringing different groups of people together, and united they will have more power because they will be able to speak with a united voice.
another reason, along these same lines: as natural disasters hit the rich northern countries harder, people there will feel more for those suffering in the global south. they will be able to compare experiences, and this overlap will create bonds of sympathy.
another reason? - the countries of the global south may begin to take their claims to the international criminal court or the united nations - .... they will bring the "climate debt" argument to these big global bodies and make headlines as they do so. this will grab people's attention, and legal people won't be able to defend the reasons why polluting countries should not pay off the countries of the global south.
another reason: the countries of the global south may go on some kind of "resource strike" like the 1973 oil embargo by middle east countries against the US. that is, they might stop selling valuable resources like oil, or minerals such as lithium, and thereby create demand in the rich countries for these products.
Reasons why corporations WILL succeed in the next ten years
in a world where economic growth is occurring very slowly, the people of the rich countries will not want to give money to people in the developing countries. they will instead complain about a lack of jobs and how much education costs. if this climate debt argument had happened before the 2008 crisis, maybe there would have been more money around.
racism: the people with the most money in the global north are still generally racist towards people in other countries who are non-white. they do not see these people as fellow human beings in large enough numbers to justify giving them all the money necessary for climate change.
media: Americans see very little of the rest of the world. most americans don't travel. most americans don't know another language. they simply are ignorant of what's happening in the global south. the media purposely doesn't allow americans to see what's happening in other parts of the world, where people are affected by climate disasters.
lack of artist and celebrity attention: people in the global north worship money, not talent. the number of artists and musicians and athletes who care about these issues is very small. americans don't see their "heroes" caring about any of these issues -- so why should they?
selfish leaders - as we see with "disaster capitalism," many people in leadership positions in the global north are in it for the money and for short-term profit. even if people did unite together and demand payments for climate debt, the leaders wont' allow it because they have the most to lose, since they hold the cards to wealth and power in the culture.
Links on blog:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/nyregion/on-a-staten-island-avenue-coming-home-to-sift-through-the-wreckage.html?hp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et3shqUBnsg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-0_gDXqYeQ
Monday, December 3, 2012
Gathering Key Terms from Climate Change
Watch the videos below and gather key terms for your final paper.
Climate Debt
NDAA
The Shock Doctrine
Climate Debt
NDAA
The Shock Doctrine
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
CATW Sample Paragraph: Exercise
Because I see many people in other country become sick from eating unsafe food while I hear less about our country get sick from food, I think America can be the place to be safe to eat from. Therefore Americans have the safest food in the world.
CATW Practice Exam
Promoting
Lotteries: Is It Right To Encourage Gambling?
William
Pride, “The Writers’ Selection, Kathleen McWHorter, 2nd edition,
2000
Lotteries are not a
recent phenomenon in the United States. Holding a lottery financed the
settlement of Jamestown, Virginia in 1612. In 1894, the last lottery shut down,
and lotteries remained illegal until 1964. As states began exploring ways of
raising money without raising taxes, lotteries recaptured their appeal and
their legal status.
Given that the odds
of winning the top prize in a state lottery are extremely small, 1 in 12
million, why do millions of people line up to spend a hard-earned $22 billion a
year in lottery tickets? They take a chance because the fantasy of getting rich
quick is so appealing. To make that fantasy seem real, state governments spend
almost $300 million a year on entertaining and imaginative lottery advertising.
Critics claim that
most lottery advertising fails to meet the same accuracy and fairness standards
required of private sector advertising. They believe it is wrong for states to
encourage gambling, not only because it advances a something-for-nothing
mentality, but because it is addictive. Although supporters maintain that
lottery participation is voluntary, experts insist that lotteries are the most
habit forming type of gambling. Pointing to statistics that low-income families
spend a larger proportion of their income on tickets than other groups,
opponents assert that lotteries burden the poor rather than generate revenues
to help them.
At one time,
cigarette and alcohol advertisers faced the question, Should advertisers
protect people from themselves? Courts eventually answered yes by placing
restrictions on the advertising of those products. Lottery advertisers now face
similar questions. Should governments promote a game in which the vast majority
of players lose? Should states sponsor activities that adversely affect lower
income people? For now states insist that they advertise a legal product in a
truthful way and continue to use advertising as the main ingredient in lottery
promotion.
Sample Revised CATW
Revamp the US immigration laws would be the key to calm the
bad economy
situation because illegal immigrants would be able to work and help the
economy paying taxes and spend their money. The article ̈Are Illegal
Immigrants Good for the US Economy ̈ by Walter Ewing stated that even
though the legal status is a problem for illegal immigrants, they
contribute to the US economy. Undocumented immigrants are the five percent
of the all workers in the US and they help to our economy like a legal
worker or consumer. In addition if the legal situation would change for the
undocumented people that would be excellent for the economy because they
will work without the idea to be deported.
Many people usually consider illegal people as bad persons; however the
twelve million illegal immigrants in the US are very helpful to the US
economy. I believe they are important because without them we would live a
worst economy situation. The main reason why they are so important in order
to help our economy it’s because they pay taxes to the US government even
though they never will get any benefits they contribute with their money.
Also every purchase that they did is helpful, they have to buy food or pay
rents many ways how they contribute with the economy even though they are
not legal residents.
As I said before all undocumented immigrants pay federal and state income
taxes but they are not eligible for all the programs that their money help
fund. I believe that illegal taxes situation is bad because they are paying
something that they never will get it. In my point of view pay something
and get nothing is not equal or fare. Even though they are illegal
immigrants they have to receive something. May be not like a legal person
but they could receive less than legal residents. For example legal
residents are able to see dentist every 3 months, in my opinion the illegal
residents could see a dentist twice a year.
Ewing showed a 2006 study by The Texas State Comptroller in the article. It
said that illegal immigrants enhance 18 billion dollars to the state’s
economy output. Basically all the money transactions from undocumented
immigrants contribute with Texas economy and help many businesses. I agree
with Ewing because as long a resident from Texas spend his or her money in
Texas and not in other states this resident is helping many business and
workers in Texas. Even though he or she is an illegal immigrant doesn’t
matter as long he or she uses his or her money in Texas a worker would save
his job position and a business would still making profits.
What would happen with the contributions of undocumented immigrants, if
they change their legal status? Ewing believes that is still greater
because he mentioned that legal workers are easier to learn job abilities
and grow up. Basically he wants to change many immigrants’ laws because he
believes that legal immigrants would help better the economy than illegals.
Yesterday when I was reading a Latino newspaper, I saw an article about a
Mexican man, he was deported, and he said that he paid his taxes every year
and he never got something from the US government but they throw him out
like peace of garbage. He also agrees with Ewing’s article because he
believes that a better legal situation would be helpful for the bad economy
situation now in the US.
situation because illegal immigrants would be able to work and help the
economy paying taxes and spend their money. The article ̈Are Illegal
Immigrants Good for the US Economy ̈ by Walter Ewing stated that even
though the legal status is a problem for illegal immigrants, they
contribute to the US economy. Undocumented immigrants are the five percent
of the all workers in the US and they help to our economy like a legal
worker or consumer. In addition if the legal situation would change for the
undocumented people that would be excellent for the economy because they
will work without the idea to be deported.
Many people usually consider illegal people as bad persons; however the
twelve million illegal immigrants in the US are very helpful to the US
economy. I believe they are important because without them we would live a
worst economy situation. The main reason why they are so important in order
to help our economy it’s because they pay taxes to the US government even
though they never will get any benefits they contribute with their money.
Also every purchase that they did is helpful, they have to buy food or pay
rents many ways how they contribute with the economy even though they are
not legal residents.
As I said before all undocumented immigrants pay federal and state income
taxes but they are not eligible for all the programs that their money help
fund. I believe that illegal taxes situation is bad because they are paying
something that they never will get it. In my point of view pay something
and get nothing is not equal or fare. Even though they are illegal
immigrants they have to receive something. May be not like a legal person
but they could receive less than legal residents. For example legal
residents are able to see dentist every 3 months, in my opinion the illegal
residents could see a dentist twice a year.
Ewing showed a 2006 study by The Texas State Comptroller in the article. It
said that illegal immigrants enhance 18 billion dollars to the state’s
economy output. Basically all the money transactions from undocumented
immigrants contribute with Texas economy and help many businesses. I agree
with Ewing because as long a resident from Texas spend his or her money in
Texas and not in other states this resident is helping many business and
workers in Texas. Even though he or she is an illegal immigrant doesn’t
matter as long he or she uses his or her money in Texas a worker would save
his job position and a business would still making profits.
What would happen with the contributions of undocumented immigrants, if
they change their legal status? Ewing believes that is still greater
because he mentioned that legal workers are easier to learn job abilities
and grow up. Basically he wants to change many immigrants’ laws because he
believes that legal immigrants would help better the economy than illegals.
Yesterday when I was reading a Latino newspaper, I saw an article about a
Mexican man, he was deported, and he said that he paid his taxes every year
and he never got something from the US government but they throw him out
like peace of garbage. He also agrees with Ewing’s article because he
believes that a better legal situation would be helpful for the bad economy
situation now in the US.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Main ideas: Climate Debt
Climate Fairness/Climate Debt – Eco Justice for Poorer Nations
July 13, 2009 By“Worldwide, less than 8% of folks are responsible for 50% of emissions”, according to Professor Stephen Pacala of Princeton, co-author of Stabilization Wedges.
This group has a higher annual income than even the average American. But the US has the highest per-capita energy consumption rate of any nation, out-consuming the five most populated nations combined. Quite recent studies have confirmed what many already knew: that more affluent people consume more energy, and generate more green house gas (ghg) emissions. Thus, making significant cuts in ghg (to slow warming trends and mitigate climate change) without big cuts in this group’s ghg emissions is a major challenge.The impact of greenhouse gases on global warming in the short term, and the possibility of severe climate change in the medium to long term, promise to create significant and lasting hardships for everyone. But these hardships will fall hardest on the world’s poorest, who are the ones least responsible for ghg-induced climate change. Currently, all cap-and-trade and carbon taxing results in a flat tax on carbon usage. This will of course impact the poor the most. This reasoning has been used as a justification for not imposing carbon caps and taxes, as well as not implementing other environmental regulations–such as shifting to alternative forms of energy which, in the short term, may be more costly to low-income consumers (as opposed to cheap, but highly polluting, fuel sources like oil and coal). If you make energy more expensive to use, so the argument goes, this will inconvenience everyone to some extent, but it’ll be much less of a problem for more prosperous people.
EcoLocalizer (http://s.tt/12xKd)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)