LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-coal-electricity-20130711,0,1786862.story
Pollution is arising as an urgent matter. Currently increased amount of greenhouse gas indicates that global warming issue grew more severe. In fact, Global Warming Potential (GWP) and amount of greenhouse gas are directly proportional to each other. Coal, which emits greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, unavoidably emerged as a main energy source since natural gas, possibly the most efficient and environmentally friendly energy source, is limited. Such environmental problems concerned me for natural problems directly affect humans.
After reading the article, I posed a question to myself: is it better to spend more money, searching for natural gas that is less harmful to nature or to save up more money by using coal, which is deadly to both human and nature? My answer to the question was to dedicate more money by making earth to a less polluted place to live in.
Human has been using up the natural resources since a long time ago. Inevitably, natural resources have been drastically decreasing in its amount, for it is limited. Consequently, as the amount decreased, the price charged on the remaining resources naturally began rising. Especially oil, which is essential for cars, prices have been dramatically changing. For example, according to the article, "Coal's share of total domestic power generation in the first four months
of 2013 averaged 39.5%, compared with 35.4% during the same period last
year".
President Obama persisting on a project targeting to decrease amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere gives me hope, for it refers to how government is putting an effort to enhance the situation. However, the plan has not been quite fruitful. Ironically, rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rather increased.Less usage of power plant, a main exit of carbon dioxide, is the main policy that President Obama tends to pursue.
Attempting to use public transportation instead of your own car, turning lights off that are not in use and such will bring down the needed amount of electricity. As the amount of required electricity decreases, usage of coal will naturally diminish, concluding in less pollution.
You make a good point, Reina. As you say, we should "dedicate more money by making earth to a less polluted place to live in." That being said, from where and from whom should this money come? To some extent, you imply in your last paragraph that we can offset the cost of such green initiatives through behavioral changes. Were we to implement such changes, how much would be saved? In answering that question, another arises: why should that savings be spent on green initiatives rather than on other equally pressing issues? Admittedly, I am all for going green; however, I am hesitant to actually spend extra money to do it. What might you say to those who are in similar positions?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your criticism :) I personally viewed spending extra money on green initiatives as better dedication than to anywhere else since the earth is where people live in and if we continue on polluting the earth to satisfy our greed by choosing to live more conveniently, we will eventually reach the point where the earth becomes a planet where human can't reside in. For example, as one of the most severe problems of global warming, the sea level in Antarctica and other continents are rising and that signals that there will be even more disastrous consequent effects of pollution. Therefore, people should not show hesitancy on contributing time and money in order to prevent earth from reaching irrevocably polluted status.
DeleteI totally agree with you! I'm not in the situation to judge where our national budget should be spent, but I think finding an alternative form of energy to reduce our carbon emissions is the most important investment at this point. In the long run, the benefits will outweigh the initial spending, and overall we will save more money. I wish you would have gone a little further with your analysis, like proposing some solutions or discussing Obama's possible motives. Great job!
ReplyDelete