Ramblings right or wrong: INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

The Grand Finale’!!!

mmaszara — Mon, 07 May 2007 06:23:17 +0000

I had quite a few problems with posting my blogs on my page (one of which was realizing the difference between SAVE and PUBLISH), but I finally managed to post them all. It was hard to decide which blogs were my best because I was so thrilled with almost all of them. I’ve provided two extra blogs and one extra comment just incase you do not find one of each satisfactory enough.

I hope this is what you were asking for! If not, please email me so I can change it to the format you want.

Sincerely, Maia Maszara

Four Best Blogs:

“Sexy politics… (the profession of prostitution)”
“China’s lack of paranoia”
“Amen”
“Energy Independence”

Extra, just in case you think one is a little lacking, blogs:

“Adaptation”
“Who Screwed Up Globalization?”

Best Comment:

[Comment on Cole Akin’s blog, “Is there an environmental answer?”] (provided below along with link)

“Although Cole makes a good, and admitably obvious point, I feel that the problem is one which is expected. It is not often where a problem of this magnitude has a miricle cure which will address the entierty of the issue. I feel that rather than picking a poisen, it should be looked, as he suggested, from a utilitarian point of view, where it is only picking the best solution which will cause the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. In addition to this, it is important to look not at one solution but, as the governemnts, NGOs and IGOs have looked at the problem, as a combination of solutions, incorperating each to the point where it causes an efficient amount of support with not enough negatives to serve as solutions which will create other problems. This is an issue which will require tackling from many different directions.

Extra, just in case you think that one is a little lacking, comment:

[Comment on my own blog, “China’s lack of paranoia,” in response to Alan Dale’s comment] (provided below, along with link)

“I believe Mr. Dale adds an excellent point to my blog. I am happy he went in depth with the issue of China’s stance. The Chinese government believes that because they produce less pollution per person, in comparison to many other states which are even less advanced than China, that the amount of pollution they create should not be focused on as much. They in fact, seem more efficient and should therefore not be made to incorporate change, because so many other countries need much more pressure on adapting to a more environmentally safe approach of living than they do. And so, Mr.Dale’s second point that if other countries which pollute more per person (such as the United States) was to address their issues, then maybe the Chinese government would feel more obligated to enforce change as well. The first step of which, being the commitment to a worldwide plan, such as the Kyoto Protocol .create should not be focused on as much. They in fact, seem more efficient and should therefore not be made to incorporate change, because so many other countries need much more pressure on adapting to a more environmentally safe approach of living than they do. And so, Mr.Dale’s second point that if other countries which pollute more per person (such as the United States) was to address their issues, then maybe the Chinese government would feel more obligated to enforce change as well. The first step of which, being the commitment to a worldwide plan, such as the Kyoto Protocol .”

04.26 Be sure for insurance

mmaszara — Mon, 07 May 2007 05:35:36 +0000

While many individuals are afraid of how to prepare for the effects of global warming, the insurance industry has been faced with facts which could lead to nothing less but panic. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has reported to insurance companies that rise of the possibility of disasters is real. Temperatures have been increasing, leading to a larger amount of natural disasters over the next few decades which means that insurance industries will have to be paying more and with a higher likeliness of going bankrupt. This means that insurance for those who have or want it will rise as well, creating problems where people might no longer be able to afford the insurance they’ll need. Many who do not believe the attention global warming is getting is just, will obviously feel robbed by the problems the idea of it will create in their pocket-books.

About environmental issues: Global Warming: Should Insurance Companies Worry?

By Larry West,
April 25, 2007

04.22 Adaptation

mmaszara — Mon, 07 May 2007 05:34:37 +0000

If one has watched the award winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” they would have seen the effects of global warming on the polar bear population. While temperatures are going up, melting ice, polar bears are dieing from drowning. But while some evidence has proved to show problems within animal populations, many scientists have concluded that while the effects of global warming are gradual, not drastic, animals will adapt as they always have. There have been hotter and colder temperature reports, and animals have survived. Migratory habits have been changed, species have moved, and/or adapted. Although there is so much stress on the catastrophic possibilities of negative outcomes for animals, maybe it would be better to focus on our own problem of adaptation, as populations of people do not simply abandon their preexisting life and move unless forced by extreme conditions to do so. I believe we, as humans, find it difficult to change dramatically with certain people who refuse to accept that there are outside factors we cannot control. These people many times do not understand the need of individual change. What could be the extreme outcome would be people who have more money and intelligence to prepare surviving, and those who are less aware or less economically stable, not. This would be pure Darwinism at its best. Only the aware and economically strong would survive.

Global Warming Awareness 2007: Are Animals Affected by Global Warming?April 22, 2007

04.18 Energy Independence

mmaszara — Mon, 07 May 2007 05:34:01 +0000

Shockingly enough, there is an actual website where people bet on the results of global warming, and when they will happen (ex: when polar bears will become extinct, and other such nonsense). Although such a website can be considered a scam, many still willing fully participate in it, proving that once again the American public will attempt to turn any misfortune into a form of profit. As most of the article was just another reiteration on the effects of global warming, how we need to accept the concept as true, and need to make minor adjustments in our lives to help lessen the severity and possibly prevent Global warming, there was one line which made the blog worth reading. “It’s a win-win situation for the United States. If we can produce alternative sources of energy we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also becoming energy independent.” Here is where the subject becomes interesting. “Energy independence” is one obvious positive to finding alternative renewable energy resources, which I have not thought of. By creating these new energy sources we no longer would have the hidden need to stay in Iraq. We would no longer depend on some of the Middle East countries which in many cases we do not agree with morally. Many believe that the U.S. has been walking on eggshells, trying to maintain good relations with certain leaders it disagrees with on so many issues, just because we depend on them for oil. Ex: Egypt and Saudi Arabia. While independence is a good thing, in a world where we are making extreme improvements on relations because of Globalization, and creating a sort of dependence amongst the different states, to benefit together, no longer having the need to maintain such great relations with these oil exporting countries could create problems. Our relations could become weaker with the Middle East countries. Another huge problem which could surface as the Global North countries would eventually rely less on oil, would be an even larger gap amongst the Global North and South, as their most valuable resource would become less vital to these industrialized countries.

“Taking bets on Global warming”April 18th, 2007 10:43 am

http://blogs.dmjuice.com/?p=6763

04.08 Save the Children

mmaszara — Mon, 07 May 2007 05:33:25 +0000

The effects of Global Warming will eventually concern all living things by involving more than one area. Because of this, people of different regions and restrictions are finding ways to protect themselves; adjusting their lifestyles and/or homes by taking necessary precautions. Unfortunitly, the one group which many feel needs the most protion is the one least able to receive it. Children are extremely vulnerable to natrual disasters as they are the ones who are the least advantaged in abilities to prepare with no economic political power. In addition to this, many do not have the intellectual, or phisical tools needed to help them achieve money to create better, more stable, living conditions. The more disadvantaged one is economically, the less likely he/she is able to survive if a natural disaster occurs. According to the established UK charity, Save the Children, it is predicted that “up to 175 million children will be affected every year over the next decade by climate-related disasters like droughts, floods and storms.”The percentage of people at risk is quickley increasing as well. While these children are at high risk, we must ask ourselves if it is a moral duty to help them, who is to help them, and how. These are difficult questions, one that the blogger and I both feel unable to answer. The moral question of if help needs to be provided is difficult to answer as everyone has a different sence of moral obligation. For the questions follo, it is more difficult to answer How, much more than who. For I believe who should help would be the United Nations, while how is much more difficult as there are many regions which need to be catered to differently. In addition to this, we do not know of the extend global warming will get, nor do we have enough money it might require. Many will debate if it is even necessary to take such precautions while the future of global warming is so unpredictable. We also must worry about our own societies and the children which live in them. While we have enough money for some precautions which last to an extent, in many ways we are so dependent on our compared “luxuries” to those of third world countries, we might find ourselves in chaos and panic when they are taken away. Examples of which would be cars, electricity, and communication, where a long lack of any would result in extreme panic. Should we create extra efforts towards helping children of a less developed countries, while we still have a need to protect our own? Or, should we focus more on global success against the natural disasters of global warming in order to assure the lives of children world wide. Is there even enough evidence to point to a sure need of these precautions? Many believe no.

Children Already Bearing Brunt of Global Warmingby Kenny Luna, North Babylon, NY on 04. 8.07

Business & Politics (news)

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/children_alread.php

04.05 A Worthy Debate

mmaszara — Mon, 07 May 2007 05:32:57 +0000

Many agree that Al Gore has been named the God Father of the theory of Global Warming. While his movie, “The inconvenient truth”, has raised much awarness and interest, it has also been named as a miscalculated exaggeration with some incorrect information. During his movie he says that there is no longer a debate going on about the issue, as it is irrefutable. In response to this many scientists and economists have recently spoken up, asking for a debate with the former Vice President but have been denied. One in perticular, Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, has actually raised an awareness campaign, claiming that, “Global warming is not a crisis” . “The ad campaign and debate challenge are being sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based non-profit group that seeks to ‘discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems,’ according to its website.” He has asked Mr. Gore to debate with him at the Oxford Museum of Natural history, an area known for its famous debates. Gore’s representative has not yet responded, but with Monckton’s ad running in the Washington Post, New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, it is believed to be only a matter of time before Al Gore will eventually have to face the inconvenient truth that his argument is not as stable as he has shown it to be.

Global Warming Skeptic Challenges Gore to Debate
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
April 05, 2007http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200704/CUL20070405a.html

04.03 Supreme Justice

mmaszara — Mon, 07 May 2007 05:32:19 +0000

On April 2^nd the Supreme Court made a decision which will hopefully make a huge impact on the U.S.A.’s position in the fight against global warming. The Environmental Protection Agency is one which has not had the authority to control greenhouse-gas emissions. Even though it has now been appointed such authority, it has stated that it does not have the ability or means to do so. “The 5-4 ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency is a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration, which argued that such gases are not air pollutants under the meaning of the Clean Air Act. [Before it was given the power] The EPA also said that even if it did have the authority to regulate new cars’ emission of greenhouse gases, it would choose not to, because the problem is being addressed in other ways.” Many, including those representing Massachusetts (a state who’s coast is drastically being affected by the rising sea level), have stated that the EPA is not doing its duties as an agency representing the environment, and is claiming that it can not attempt to solve the problem because it is avoiding the responsibility. Because of this, the supreme court has not only ordered the EPA to find a way, it has also decided to focus more policies on cutting greenhouse gas emissions produced by cars, as well as large factories, where, “companies have to use the latest cost effective technology to reduce pollution when they upgrade their plants”. The president and his cabinet also feel that this will be difficult to do, and disagree with the Supreme Court. This is partly because they feel that this will be a huge economic imposition which other countries, such as India and China are not taking. Because these other countries are not as concerned and are in fact becoming economically stronger while producing more emissions, the United States is getting worried. The U.S. has complained that as India and China would be “free-riding” the U.S. would be making efforts which impose on its economy and make no affect. The efforts would be useless as other countries increase in growth would counter the success. This has been a huge problem, where the U.S. has been so concerned about others growing more powerful, that it ignores the need of action. Even though the president is hesitant, I believe the Supreme Court’s ruling is a huge step to helping the international efforts to solve global warming.

SUPREMES RULE ON GLOBAL WARMING ISSUEApril 03, 2007 http://commonscold.typepad.com/commonscold/2007/04/supremes_rule_o.html

03.29 CO2 is good for you?

mmaszara — Mon, 07 May 2007 05:31:38 +0000

The author of this blog felt that although a change in the amount of pollution we create is needed, going to such a drastic change as our governments have been pushing, is not necessary. After analyzing the information and views of two Ottawa scientists, it has come to the attention of more and more activists’lobbyists that human production might not have as much of a role in Global Warming as once thought. Instead, it may be a natural process which the sun goes through which effects our planet. “‘…changes in the brightness of the sun’ are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’ in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate…” What is even more interesting is that theses two scientists suggest the growth in CO2 emission, which many scientists have suggested as being the ultimate problem, is actually a good thing, calling the gas “plant food” which only helps the environment. They do however still recognize the need to cut polution, but the author states that the amount of money and time spent on cutting emissions should be designated to other, more important problems where the U.S. funds aid. An example which he stressed was the need to spend much of this money on providing clean water to Africa. This brings the question: Should America be focusing more on the environmental problems (where clean causation and a need for immediate solution is debatable) or should we focus money on areas which we are positive of the situation and solution?

Two More Scientists Say Manmade Global Warming is HogwashDaveScotGlobal warming debate ‘irrational’: scientists Thursday, April 26, 2007 @ 10:00

03.26 bye bye birdie

mmaszara — Mon, 07 May 2007 05:31:03 +0000

This blog was rather interesting because it was written by someone from Great Britain about a present problem, supposedly caused by Global Warming. As the bird flu has been a problem in Britain, it seems that scientists have related the spread and length of the disease to be because of Global Warming. The problem only seems to be getting worse. The RSPCA, and environmental organization has researched the damage reporting that over 5 years songbirds are now at their lowest level in gardens. The amount of Blackbirds has decreased and overwhelming 25%. “Robin numbers are down by more than a third in the past decade.” The problem is that it is difficult to measure the amount of birds in one area, and if they are dieing or just moving to a new location. And in addition, why they would be moving. The RSPCA has asked birdwatchers to report if they see certain birds, but the problem is that birdwatchers may report less than they see in order for the government to bring more funding to save these birds. As Global warming is the blame, we must wonder, is the idea just a “cop-out”. I read in another blog that environmentalists are now relating their studies to Global warming in order to get more funding, as the government is now focusing so much on it and throwing other environmental issues to the end of their priority list. Could the relation of birds dieing and global warming be false? Could the birds just have moved or could scientists just be reporting smaller numbers now in order to jump of the band wagon of Global warming and receive more funding? Could the scientists reporting “Bye Bye Birdie” just be “crying wolf”… and can we blame them?

Bird Flu and Global Warming PanicMay 26^th 2007http://www.anorak.co.uk/news/tabloids/172028.html

03.22 Global Warming Shrinks Brains?

mmaszara — Mon, 07 May 2007 05:29:33 +0000

While most of this blog entry focused on attacking Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, it brought incredibly interesting information in the process. It seems that within the next year, a study by two scientists, Dr. Jessica Ash and Dr. Gordon Gallup, will be published with some soon-to-be highly debated topics. After analyzing 109 fossilized human skulls from around the world, both discovered that the closer to the equator, the smaller the brain size. They reasoned this to be caused by the relative temperatures of the regins. “This kind of talk harkens back to social darwinism and is sure to kick up skirmishes over race, IQ, inherited intelligence, etc., etc.They further suggested, that because of the change in heat signifying an adaption in brain size, this might mean that as our earth gets hotter during global warming, our brains might get smaller. Now that is definitly something to think about…

Global Warming to Shrink Brains?Thursday, March 22, 2007http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/03/global_warming__1.html