Many people today question the myth of Global warming. Often because they feel it does not affect them, plus who cares if it’s a little warmer. Well it is not a myth and it will affect us eventually. Granted the effects of global warming may not necessarily cause the world to end and the economy to crash in your life time, but it will in no doubt affect us and eventually cripple our economy if measures are not taken to prevent this.
The United States of America vs. Kenya is up first. The United States consumes on an annual basses of 7794.8 killogrammes of oil equivilant per capita, Kenya consumes 481.2 kgoe. annually. Why is this happening the easiest answer Kenya’s main source of energy come from hydroelectric stations located along the Tana River, and the Turkwell George Damn. The United States Primary source of energy comes from 40% petroleum, 23% from coal, and 22% natural gas. That’s enough information to show United States is doing in conserving our natural resources and how depleting those resources can hurt our economy. Another way is to look at the main source of income for the two. Kenya’s main source of income comes from tourism, 63% of their GDP ruled by showing people their culture and homes. The United States’ has a Capitalist Mixed economy driven by the mass production of their natural resources. What does this mean for the future of America that is burning up their natural resources so fast they can’t blink? The United States will have to change, or endure a long hard fall to the bottom.
North Korea is a Country that has already taken that last step in 1990 in the “Arduous March” killed 300,000 to 800,000 per year due to famine and mal nutrition. The major cause for the famine is the breakup of allied communist states, as well as economic and resources mismanagement. By 2006 North Korea made its way back to only 37% of their children being chronically malnourished. In Korea’s defense they only consume 894.1 kgoe annually, compared to Singapore 5158.7 kgoe annually. The reasoning for that Korea consumes less is because Korea has already felt the shock of losing their resources and trying to recover, where as Singapore is still a growing country that has not
All of the technology and all of the money in the world will not change a thing if we do not change people. The United States is one of the worst in the consumption of natural resources. The American dream has grown from a white picket fence, family, in a safe neighborhood to keeping up with the Jones’. The problem will continue until you can get the people to stop excessive use of natural resources. It does no good for my grandma to boil her curlers to save money, while an actor spends his day cruising around in his private helicopter or yacht. The change that needs to be made is with people. We as people created our economies to survive off mass production and buying in quantities, but the time has come for us to adapt once again and save ourselves from our own monster.
Brock Davidson
Is this an article about global warming or the U.S. using up resources?? I have no argument with the fact that the U.S. is wasting so much energy and not taking advantage of our opportunity to innovate resource conservation. Of course trees are being destroyed needlessly and oil consumption is off the charts, but where is the facts about global warming except for 'it exists'. My question would be is it a direct correlation of human impact on the earth, or is it just apart of the cycle our world goes through to regulate itself? I'm not a scientist but I believe a little global warming had to take place to end the ice ages and we all came out pretty good on that one. I don't want to seem like I'm down playing the impact humans have had on the earth; I'm just saying that a little more data on the negative impact, if any at all, would really help me take a side on this issue.
ReplyDeleteJeff C.
I have taken two environmental science classes, and I’ve studied both sides of the global warming issue, so I can understand the general viewpoint you are presenting. However, had I read this article without any prior exposure to the issue, I’m afraid I would’ve been absolutely lost. You jumped straight from global warming to resource conservation. Since your argument is a mixture of these two issues, you could do one of two things to make it more direct.
ReplyDelete1.) You could change your title, and focus on resource conservation instead. Global warming might be mentioned as a side note, but you could very easily use the evidence you have to support a “reduce, reuse, recycle” argument instead. (For the record, I agree that the U.S. must change its blasé attitude about resource depletion.)
2.) You could focus on the debate over the existence and causes of global warming, rather than potential solutions. You would need to show evidence of global temperature change and global climate change. You would also need to discuss multiple causes of these changes, both natural and manmade. Then you could make your case that humanity is causing significant change, and that it threatens our future.
--Melanie Kyles
This is a very important topic and I thought you presented some good facts, but I do agree with the previous to comments that you could either change the title or focus more of your attention on global warming. The statistics do reach out and grab the readers attention and help with the persuasion. Another suggestion would be to break up the article to allow for easier reading. I did think you started the article well and ended it well. Overall this fun article to read and I think it does stick in the readers mind that something really does need to be done about the environment.
ReplyDeleteZach Race