Issue 2: Is Sustainable Development Compatible with Human Welfare?

Issue 2

Is Sustainable Development Compatible with Human Welfare?

Authors: Jeremy Rifkin and Ronald Bailey

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. sustainable development – “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 20-21)

b. profligate – shamelessly immoral

c. confab – short for “confabulation”, which means discussion

d. vacillates – to change opinion or stance.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, argues for the positive viewpoint. He claims that by the history of our continents, America and Europe are fundamentally different. Americans pursue individualistic success and “the American dream”, while Europeans settle for communal happiness and quality of life. Americans are 28% wealthier than Europeans, but, he claims, Europeans have a higher quality of life because they are not competitive.

Because of this, our viewpoints on nature and its sustainability vary as well. Europeans look more to the interconnectedness that nature provides while Americans see things individualized or packaged in compartments.

Europeans employ the precautionary principle, and Rifkin champions this policy as the best way to protect nature and life form well-being. Americans, however, have never signed this policy into law and will most likely not do so in the future.

Ronald Bailey, an environmental journalist, provides the negative side of the argument. He believes that economic growth is the only way to eradicate poverty and improve the environment. He says, “[p]overty eradication is clearly crucial to preventing environmental degradation, too, since there is nothing more environmentally destructive than a hungry human.” (p. 30) He mocks the ‘Greens’ who, after the World Summit on Sustainable Development, complained that they failed to accomplish anything because he says, they wished for the summit to “set the international agenda for sweeping environmental reform over the next 15 years.” (p. 29)

What they desire, Bailey claims, is an end to economic growth and globalization. Globalization, they say, is the bane of the developing world. Yet, the UN reports that “[d]uring the 1990s the economies of developing countries that were integrated into the world economy grew more than twice as fast as the rich countries. The ‘non-globalizers’ grew only half as fast and continue to lag further behind.” (p. 30)

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

Show me a soccer or football game as they call it, game and then tell me again that Europeans aren’t competitive.

He praises Europe for their spoken commitment for the entire paper, but very briefly acknowledges that Europe’s actual commitments remain weak and not concrete. People and governments can say all they want and it will sound good, but it is actions that make policy and decide the changes that occur. All he could give as an example was Europe’s opposition to genetically modified foods, which they finally decided to use after many regulations and tests, labeling, and additional research after the product made it to the public.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

Rifkin seems to flaunt over the Europeans and his narrow view that they are all nature-loving conservationists, filled with unity and interconnectedness. Europe has its own problems, and I don’t buy this at all.

I do not think that anyone has the right to regulate our reproduction or capitalist interests because they are concerned about sustainability. The economy cannot stagnate so that future generations have a world to live in, because the world the future would receive would be degenerated and poor, desolate and weak. I would rather the future inherit wealth and strength, security and national pride, with the desire to explore more frontiers – just like our ancestors did and we do now, as Americans.

Issue 12: Is It Time to Revive Nuclear Power?

Issue 12

Is It Time to Revive Nuclear Power?

Authors: Michael J. Wallace and the Editors of Public Concern

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. capital-intensive – refers to the initial costs of a project, which, in the case of nuclear energy, is very high.

b. nuclear versus nucleur (for our President) – nuclear refers to the process of creating energy and to cohesiveness, such as a family. Nucleur is not a real word. It might be confusing for some people because the nucleus of a cell is spelled with a ‘u’ and implies cohesiveness as well.

c. nuclear meltdown – Occurs when the control and cooling of the reactor core of a plant fails and the fission reaction and products can overheat the system, reducing the ability of the containers to contain the radiation. There is high risk of releasing high radioactivity to the environment.

d. deregulation – refers to the whole or part removal of government regulations on an industry, in this case the electricity industry, and includes the removal of price control. Prices are then left to be subjected by market forces.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

Michael J. Wallace, Executive Vice President of Constellation Energy, argues for the positive. He lists the many benefits to nuclear energy: (1) does not burn any fossil fuel, (2) does not emit air pollution or contribute to smog or haze, (3) does not depend on any foreign resource to fuel our country, thereby strengthening our independence, (4) does not emit carbon dioxide and therefore does not contribute to the ever-growing problem of global warming. He says that with the security measures in place to keep nuclear energy safe, the only problem remaining with nuclear energy is not having enough of it.

Nuclear energy satisfies 20% of all American energy needs, and has 103 reactors operating today. Nuclear reactors are currently operating at 90% capacity. Public opinion has increased in favor for nuclear power over the years, as well. 80% of Americans feel that nuclear power is an important part of our energy future and 67% favor its use. 60% agree that there should be new power plants built nearby existing power plants in order to satisfy our energy needs.

We rely too much on natural gas. Over the past five years, 90% of new generators were fueled by natural gas. Our over reliance upon this fuel leaves us vulnerable to insecurity both internationally and domestically. We cannot face the foreign affairs with the objectivity needed if we are reliant on another country’s export of oil. Also, we are vulnerable to price spikes and supply disruptions. We are putting all of our eggs in one basket, so to speak.

New nuclear power plants can offer stability in the market, by offering the vital energy at a set price to consumers, and by reducing the overwhelming demand for natural gas. Without the high demand for natural gas, users of natural gas do not have to pay for the higher competition and when supply is low, they are not paying higher. Nuclear power plants produce electricity that otherwise would be supplied by oil, gas, or coal and would therefore not have emissions that these technologies are subject to.

Unfortunately, it seems that the nuclear power industry requires funding through Congress. In 2006, the Administration pledged $56 million to the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, and they still need more to go ahead with building new plants. Nuclear technology is capital-intensive, but leaves the market with a price stability unfound in other energy technologies.

The negative argument, authored by the editors of Public Citizen, argues that nuclear energy is too unreliable and too risky to rely upon. They instead insist that we move to clean and renewable energy sources that are safe. They call for legislators to pursue energy that is safe and clean, sustainable, is regulated, and that in essence, places the citizens’ energy needs before the corporate need for profits.

They feel as though nuclear energy is unreliable (evidenced by the Northeast and Midwest blackout of 2003), over budgeted (e.g. the Grand Gulf in Mississippi) by tax-payers, and unsafe (Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island). The possible risks of a nuclear power plant are: (1) the rupture and degradation of the steam generator tube could cause a nuclear meltdown and at least sixteen occasions of this has occurred since 1975; (2) the degradation of reactor vessels and its components could lead to a loss of coolant and exposure to the reactor, which would lead to a meltdown (occurred in March 1987 at Turkey Point 4 in Florida but was prevented from a meltdown by a quarter inch of stainless steel); (3) overall cutting corners with safety and inspections on both parts of the energy companies and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission puts all of us at risk.

Nuclear reactors are powered off-site, and the blackout or any power loss causes the plant to go on emergency generators for safety operations while they shutdown. They have to have power to keep the coolant circulating to prevent the reactor core from overheating and thus, having a meltdown. Nuclear power plants rely on diesel fuelled backup generators. However, between the dates of September 2002 and August 2003, there have been fifteen reported failures of the backup generators. On seven of these occasions, the plant had to shut down. And on four of those occasions, all the backups failed all at once! Of the nuclear power plants that are subject to the power grid that failed in 2003, four out of nine had to be shut down because their backup power generator failed.

Why are the backup generators so important? According to the editors of Public Citizen, “[w]ithout emergency generators, steam and battery power provide a “last chance” means to cool a reactor and stave off a meltdown. The batteries can operate for between two and eight hours; but in the recent blackout, Detroit did not see full power returned until Saturday, August 16, over 36 hours after power first went out. Had the emergency generators failed during this timeframe – as they did in the aforementioned situations – a nuclear meltdown and widespread radioactive release is rendered not at all beyond possibility.” (p. 222) So grand power outages demonstrate a great risk of nuclear power.

If there were a power outrage, and if a meltdown were eminent, what response can the public have and how would they be aware of such an event? There are emergency sirens in place to alert the public; however, these are powered by the same power grid as the nuclear plant is on. Therefore, in a blackout, they would be rendered inoperable.

But, even with a warning, all the public can do is evacuate the area. Evacuation plans are formed by local emergency personnel. However, former Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director James Lee Witt found many of these evacuation plans to be inadequate in 2003. Even the local EMS services are not confident of their ability to aid the general public. One hundred seventy-five Indian Point-area first responders signed a petition to FEMA, voicing their concerns that their best efforts could not organize an evacuation or in any other way protect the public from a meltdown. The nuclear power plant at Indian Point is near New York City and a potential twenty million lives would be at stake.

Spent fuel, or irradiated fuel, is submerged in large pools of water. Irradiated fuel has more radioactivity on average yet is kept in a less secure tank than the original fuel. Also, the backup generators do not power these fuel pools. Without power, they cannot keep the water circulating and it can lead to the exposure of the fuel rods, which leads to a fire and meltdown. The greatest risk is when new irradiated fuel is added to the fuel pool from the reactor chamber. Most reactors refuel every eighteen months. If a blackout or other power loss were to happen during this time, the public would burden the risks.

The sixteen reactors that submitted applications to renew their operators’ licenses were accepted. But most of these reactors, they claim, are falling apart and need repair. Beyond that, most of the repair efforts have been akin to patching a hole on a submarine. The most reliable thing about a nuclear plant is that is it dangerous. And the irresponsible attitude of legislators and regulators is not helping the situation.

The push for the energy bills in the House and the Senate do not address the blackout danger and other dangers demonstrated by a nuclear plant. Yet, it allows for incentives to nuclear operators and research and development, and promotes the construction of new nuclear power plants. The House subsidizes $3.2 billion and the Senate provides $1.5 billion to the nuclear industry. This foolish attitude by the legislative branch of the United States government is costly to the taxpayer and puts its citizens at great risk.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

Nuclear energy does not produce the waste that burning fossil fuels does. In that, it seems a viable solution to our energy problem. We would not be caught up with the many problems in the Middle East – at least, not so much as we currently are. We could be a stronger country by relying more on nuclear power.

However, nuclear power is dangerous. The risks involved and the price for the initial building and security guards are great. Human mistakes with such a volatile substance would result horrendously.

What solution can we find? Is it possible to have nuclear energy, with all its benefits and shortcomings, to supply our nation’s ever-growing need? Is there a reason to have the plants so close to humans? Couldn’t we have the plants out in the middle of nowhere and feed our nation energy from nuclear power at a safe and secure distance?

Congress would have to be involved to look steadfastly at the nuclear corporations and the needs of the citizens it is supposed to protect from danger and greed, and say, “Well, we need this energy, but we also need to be safe from danger,” not weigh the greed more heavily than the needs of citizens.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

I’m finding this hard to stomach. I read the pro argument and was completely convinced of the value of nuclear energy. But then, I read the con argument and am appalled that they aren’t policing the situation any better. After reading both, I must say I’m still convinced on the value of hydrogen fuel and wind and solar power. I believe the reason we aren’t just powering our homes and businesses with solar and wind power and our cars with hydrogen is because of corporate and political greed. They can’t really regulate and control solar and wind power because it’s free – all the consumer needs is the equipment. It’s distressing to think that our lives, health, and safety are put at risk because some elite few want to make more money.

Issue 9: Should the U.S. Be Doing More to Combat Global Warming?

Should the U.S. Be Doing More to Combat Global Warming?

Authors: Jerald L. Schnoor and the Bush Administration

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. animal husbandry - the agricultural practice of breeding and raising livestock

b. biogeothermal cycle – refers to the symbiotic relationship between the Earth and humans. Human activity can alter the Earth, and the Earth, in this case, the atmosphere will change. This resulting change impacts on humans and other life forms.

c. albedo – “(Latin for white) commonly used to apply to the overall average reflection coefficient of an object. The greenhouse effect, by trapping infrared radiation, can lower the albedo of the earth and cause global warming.” (Source: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html)

d. arrears - a legal term for the type of debt which is overdue after missing a payment.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

The positive argument argues that global warming does exist and that human activity is to blame. Consequently, we must take drastic measures to reduce carbon dioxide levels within our atmosphere to curb the climate change. This relates to Issue One: The Precautionary Principle. As the data is, some scientists say it indicates a climate change whereas politicians and other scientists can take that same data and say it indicates a biogeothermal cycle occurring.

The major points the positive argument’s author Jerald L. Schnoor makes are:

We know that the increase in greenhouse gases are being caused by humans because (1) the increase began in the end of the 18^th century with the start of the Industrial Revolution, (2) our global emissions match the rate of CO₂ increase in our atmosphere, (3) “the temporal and spatial dynamics of CO₂ in the atmosphere, mixing from north to south, and fluctuating annually with an increase in the baseline each year, can only be explained by human emissions.” (p. 155)

Global warming is occurring. The Earth is 1.1ºF or 0.6ºC warmer on average than it has been in the past 1,000 years. General Circulation Models predicted twenty years ago that the Arctic would have a more obvious reaction to the warming trend because the ice would melt first, which increases the albedo of the earth surface and causing more increase in temperatures. The sea is also warmer, which worries climatologists because there will be more evaporation, which could potentially cause more extreme events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods.

Humans and the environment are affected by global warming. The summers are hotter than before. Professor Tony McMichael of the Australian National University estimated ~160,000 people died in 2003 from heat stroke resulting from the climate change. Pollutants in the air pose great risks to the elderly and asthmatic. Also, there has been an overall pole ward or elevation increase movement in plant and animal populations worldwide, though other populations just have decreasing numbers.

The United States needs to ratify the Kyoto Treaty. It was signed, but never ratified. He believes that the U.S.’s objection to developing countries being allowed to emit greenhouse gases is wrong. The U.S. currently emits approximately 25% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. He believes that “developing countries also must reduce emissions if we are to be successful in preventing global warming, but only after they have reached a certain level of income and development. … [T]he developing world must be allowed to reach some level of prosperity before being obliged to reduce emissions.”

We can reduce greenhouse gas emissions while securing our energy needs. By using our energy efficiently and relying on wind power, we can reduce our use of fossil fuels by 50%. Wind power is growing 30% per year since 1995.

The negative argument believes that global warming is real, but that it’s blown out of proportion. There will be no climate change, it’s just a warming trend that happens every hundred years or so. Also, the Bush Administration and other detractors feel as though the trade-off of protecting our environment at the expense of our economic growth is ill-advised. They offer a solution of reducing greenhouse gas emissions so that the economy may still grow. However, Schnoor does not accept this, as a growth in an economy coupled with reduced emissions still results in the same emissions as we now have or more, both of which are at a dangerous level for our planet.

The changes implemented by the President are outlined thus:

Reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. by 18% over the course of ten years

o Economic growth is the solution, not the problem. It will fund research and technology needed to combat a climate change. We need to implement emissions reductions, regardless of incomplete scientific data.

o Reducing 183 metric tons of emissions per million dollars GDP to 151 metric tons by 2012. This is comparable to the requirements that the nations who have signed the Kyoto Protocol.

Substantially improve the emission reduction registry

o Participation has been limited with the 1995 Energy Policy Act and the Secretary of Energy has been directed to make improvements that would compel businesses to comply for incentives.

Protect and provide transferable credits for emissions reductions

o Businesses and individuals can register the reductions they make and ensure no penalty under any future climate policy. Those who implement real reductions in emissions will be given transferable tax credits.

Review progress toward goal and take additional action if necessary

o Allows for a revision in 2012 that may include more incentives and voluntary measures to accelerate technological advances.

Increase funding for America’s commitment to climate change

o America is spending $4.5 billion total in climate regulation – a figure unmatched in the world.

Take action on the Science and Technology Review

o The President has devoted $1.7 billion to fund research on both climate change and new energy technologies.

Implement a comprehensive range of new and expanded domestic policies

o Tax incentives for businesses, investors, and individuals for use of solar, wind, and biomass power, and for use of hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.

Promote new and expanded international policies to complement our domestic program

o The President is investing $25 million in climate observation stations in developing countries, and has challenged other developed nations to match it.

o The President has tripled funding for his Debt-For-Nature program, which releases developing countries from their debt to the U.S. by promising not to release their rainforests to logging use.

o The President has provided a way for joint research to be conducted with Central America, Italy, and Japan concerning the climate change.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

If developing countries have no limit on their emissions, and their economy is growing, wouldn’t their emissions increase? So if developed countries reduce their emissions and another country is increasing theirs, isn’t it the same as if the developed country remained the same with their emissions and the developed country stayed low? What good is this? The source of emissions does not matter as much as the total amount of emissions, because it is the overload of emissions that our planet cannot handle. Not the origin of emissions.

However, the Administration is not taking global warming as a real threat. When the EPA put out its report in 2002, that admitted that global warming was indeed real and that human activities were to blame for it, President Bush reacted with a retort that seemed to dismiss the report in its entirety.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

I do not know if President Bush believes in global warming or not. I don’t think he does, as his actions do seem to be strong and decisive to combat it, I wonder if he actually believed in it, would he not do more? We certainly need to do more. I do not agree with the Kyoto Protocol because I feel it is unrealistic and would harm our country more than it would help our environment. But, as the producer of nearing 25% of global emissions, we are responsible to do our part to help our world. I believe our vast resources could be used to research and implement innovative technologies that would curb our overuse of energy. Also, we could follow Australia’s path and make incandescent light bulbs illegal for use because it pulls too much energy that is not used for light, but rather, heat. Any method that us to promote the welfare of our environment should be taken seriously, considered, researched, and funded. The environment has too long be taken for granted.

Issue 8: Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be Opened to Oil Drilling?

Should the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be Opened to Oil Drilling?

Authors: Dwight R. Lee and Jeff Bingaman

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. preservationist – a person who believes that nature should be left alone because its value lies in its existence.

b. conservationist – a person who believes that nature should be developed and that its value lies in what value humans can get from it.

c. NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires any government agency that is planning an action to provide an environmental impact statement.

d. Attwater’s prairie chicken - Tympanuchus cupido; a chicken native to Texas prairie lands, endangered, loss of habitat due to land development.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

Dwight R. Lee argues that while nature should be preserved, one should also weigh the benefits of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He uses an example of the Audubon Society, which argue against drilling in Alaska, when they chose to allow drilling on their own land for a cool $25 million. He points out that the society weighed the hefty benefit with the risk and concluded the benefit outweighed the risk. Similarly, he is arguing we consider the benefits to drilling in Alaska and weigh them ourselves in the risks. Everyone will have a different opinion, because the risk, in this case, is purely subjective. What it comes down to is how much value you place on the environment and whether or not you will own the benefits.

Lee discusses the precautions the oil company would take; having learned a lot from the environmentally and public image disaster of Prudhoe Bay.

He then performs an analogous cost-benefit analysis of the lives of American soldiers versus the lives of wildlife animals. There is no mistaking that the American presence in the Middle East has always been and is now, oil motivated. Most of our energy comes from that area, and we are going to protect it. Some have died. So, we have lost American lives because of protecting our oil interests; is it not better to instead lose animal life for that same oil instead? This is assuming, of course, that the drilling company makes a mistake and does end up killing some animals. The risk to them is not evident.

The opposing viewpoint, by Senator Bingaman, makes claims that even if we were to drill in Alaska, it would benefit us little. He states that nothing will come of the preserve for ten years, and then would peak in production in twenty-four years, producing a 4% of our need. He argues instead that we should look to alternative energy resources.

He believes that if drilling must ultimately occur, then the stipulations must be: (1) development must be accordance with the existing laws, (2) 50% of the profit would go to the Treasury, and (3) the oil is used in the United States.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

How convenient it is, that an environmental society could lease out its own land to drilling companies for some cash with which they can save other pieces of land from the same state!

Lee’s argument completely convinced me. If you don’t own the benefit, what good is it to you? But I also noticed how he skipped over the environmental impact quite quickly. His opinion is that our need is greater than the value of that land and its inhabitants. So, to him, if something dies as a result of the drilling, the cost was and is worth it.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

I’m not very convinced that the drilling company would be perfect. But I am thinking about his analogy to our troop’s deaths because of the need for oil. I would rather a caribou die than a human. But isn’t there a better way? Why oil? Why not a different type of energy? Where is it?

Issue Ten: Will Hydrogen End Our Fossil Fuel Addiction?

“Will Hydrogen End Our Fossil Fuel Addiction?”

Authors: David L. Bodde and Michael Behar

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. distributed production – the product is produced at the location in which it is distributed.

b. carbon sequestration – the process of removing carbon from the atmosphere.

c. effluent – pollution

d. nascent – coming or having come recently into existence.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

The positive argument, by David Bodde, is that a hydrogen-based society is waiting in the wings, and that the only problem will be in the transition. He says that the “present competes against the future” in that the implementation of any new energy technology has always been stagnated by what we are accustomed to. Another significant problem posed for hydrogen fueled vehicles is that the supply-demand chain would have to be immediately developed. This is not very likely in regards to any market. Suppliers need investors, who will only invest if there is large demand. Consumers will not purchase such technology if they cannot fuel up at convenient locations. Therein lies the problem.

To overcome this, the National Academy of Sciences came up with a plan to offer hydrogen fuel through distributed production. The negatives of such production are that the fuel would initially be two to five times the cost of regular gasoline and that, for the beginning of such development, carbon would be released during production.

Of course, everything needs to be paid for. Distributed production of hydrogen could be paid for through subsidizing the cost of the production or by raising the cost of the competition (gasoline, diesel).

He also discussed the problem of leaking fuel. One alternative to this could be by generating the fuel in the vehicle, like Daimler-Chrysler demonstrated with their sodium borohydride system.

The benefits of hydrogen fuel are probably already known to the reader, but here’s a list:

Decreased dependence upon oil leads to increased security for the U.S.

Decreased dependence upon any fossil fuels leads to a better environment state.

Use of hydrogen in place of oil removes the fear of shortages.

Decreased competition with other nations for oil, which implies a lower cost, better foreign relations, as hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

The negative argument, by Michael Behar, states that the transition is not only technological but also political and financial. He also says that the chances of getting there are very slim.

Behar argues that while hydrogen is abundant, it’s not so abundant here on Earth. We would have to use measures to extract it. And these measures are energy-costly. This energy that it takes to extract hydrogen is most likely not going to be environmentally friendly. While the cars and houses will not be emitting greenhouse gases, the power plants will still be.

U.S. water consumption would also increase by 10%, as the water needed for the electrolysis would require 4.2 trillion gallons of water a year. Researchers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory figure that our atmospheric hydrogen would increase four to eight times because of hydrogen leaks. Hydrogen is a gas and can leak through the tiniest of holes. Great efforts will have to be made in order to prevent leaking from consumer products. As we don’t get our cars checked too often, this is something that would have to be very strong in the beginning, with little chance for problems. These results are contested, however, and considered to be too large of an estimate. Behar states that the result of any increase in hydrogen in our atmosphere would result in more cloud cover, which could accelerate global warming.

Behar doesn’t believe that the U.S. is even committed to hydrogen technology, as we’re “only” spending $1.2 billion on it. By comparison, $1.5 billion is being spent on “healthy marriages” and $3.9 billion for a month in Iraq. Also, the massive effort it would take to convert our society to a hydrogen based one, he argues, is not realistic.

Regardless of whether or not we use hydrogen or nuclear power or an unforeseen alternative energy source, we need to make changes now. There is no debate over that. Greenhouse gases are piling up and the planet is warming up. If we do not make changes now to save our climate and our planet, we could be facing huge changes or extinction.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

I am amazed that statistics can be twisted to fit agendas. My jaw dropped when I read about how we’re “only” spending $1.2 billion on researching hydrogen fuel. That’s a very significant amount of money. He compared that sum to the cost of the war in Iraq, so of course it’s going to look low.

Hydrogen leaks never occurred to me. But I had heard about how much more fuel mileage we would get on hydrogen than we presently have on gasoline. Behar insists it is not true with hydrogen as a gas, but it would be possible if we used liquid hydrogen. Of course, this requires a temperature of -253 degrees Celsius. That would only be possible for our space missions.

I was aware of hydrolysis, the process in which hydrogen is split from water molecules using water. However, I was not aware of extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels. If we used this method, wouldn’t this just prolong the rape of our planet?

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

I am excited about hydrogen fuel and think it’s going to revolutionize our society. I do not like the idea of the oil giants controlling hydrogen, but in reality, they are the only ones who have the financial capability of researching and implementing such a change. But, wouldn’t it be great if we would never have to fill up? If the process could occur in our cars, we’d only have to get some water every month, instead of every week! How spectacular would that be?

Issue One: Precautionary Principle

“Is the Precautionary Principle a Sound Basis for International Policy?”

Authors: Nancy Myers and John D. Graham

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. precautionary principle – “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of the activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.” p. 12

b. risk management – a concept that covers many disciplines and is basically the process of knowing what the risk is and how to best compensate in case that risk occurs.

c. cost-benefit analysis – a process of analyzing the costs and the benefits of a situation or product and deciding if the benefit is substantial enough to bear the costs.

d. draconian interpretation – a very severe interpretation.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

We have, in the past, just been reactionary to environmental problems. In this manner, it is the responsibility of the citizens to find the cause so the effect can be stopped. The precautionary principle was first initiated in Germany in the 1970s. It requires the responsibility of the company to first prove the safety of their chemicals, processes, etc. Internationally, it has been widely accepted. And many countries include it in their legislation.

The precautionary principle is a godsend for environmentalists because it allows communities to block corporations from starting the practice in question even when scientifically, the result is uncertain.

The basic argument comes down to two opposing points:

- If suspicion exists, caution is required; the environment is not to be risked.

- No action is needed until the scientific evidence is convincing. And even then, the value of the service should be weighed against the harm done to the environment.

So is the environment expendable? Would progress stop if we protected the environment? Consenters say yes, that technology innovations have always had some element of risk to them, whether it is risk to the public, the environment, or both. To implement the precautionary principle is to bring our progress to a screeching halt.

Mr. Graham, the author of the opposing side and a government employee through the Office of Management and Budget, argues that the United States government does not believe the Precautionary Principle exists. It is too ambiguous to be considered a law. He uses Reverend Thomas Malthus’s theory as one of his examples.

As you might recall, Rev. Malthus used mathematics to realize that, if the population grew exponentially, the human race would run out of food and living standards would become substandard. Now, that didn’t happen because of technological innovations that allowed us to produce more food and shelter more people.

But Mr. Graham uses it to his advantage as an example of a prediction of doom, based in science that never occurred. He argues that there are many ‘scares’ that are scientifically, though most are incorrect science, based. To prevent the progress of our nation because of a “chance” of something happening based on science that is questionable, or because of a perceived risk, is bad for the economy, nation, and progress.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

While reading the affirmative argument, I was reminded of the movie Erin Brockovich, and thinking how if the citizens of that town could have used the Precautionary Principle to prevent the practices of the company, they would have never suffered so many health ailments. It seems like a good idea, but the implementation of the Precautionary Principle seems to be vague. It allows citizens legal rights to stop or delay a business for fear of environmental or health risk. A great part of the Precautionary Principle is that it requires the business in question to defend itself, not as it normally is, where the citizens had to provide the proof. The business is on the defensive instead of the citizens, in other words.

Ms. Meyes, the author of the affirmative, provided several human disease examples that seem to be increasing problems we are facing. But when I read this list, I thought that (1) most of the diseases were unknown years back (ADHD, Alzheimer’s), (2) cancer screenings are more capable now, and (3) our diets have a greater effect on health than the environment but that is not mentioned. Is it not possible that genetic disorders, mental disorders, behavioral disorders, and cancer existed in the same capacity years ago, but doctors were unable to test for such things or were unaware these things existed? She admitted that other factors could have played a role, but seemed to jump to the conclusion that these were more environmentally influenced.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

I agree that companies and governments have too often turned a blind eye to the environment and the health of the general population when their bottom line is at stake. And a change such as the Precautionary Principle would force them to answer earlier rather than later, for any risk involved.

However, the Precautionary Principle is too loose in its interpretation and implementation. Theoretically everything could be questioned and blocked from occurring. This is bad for progress and business. There has to be a line.

The main question, then, is: where’s the line? The European Commission issued their line, which I agree with, in their February 2000 Communication. Here it is:

1. Precaution is a necessary and useful concept but it is subjective and susceptible to abuse by policymakers for trade purposes.

2. Scientific and procedural safeguards need to be applied to risk management decisions based on precaution.

3. Adoption of precautionary measures should be preceded by objective scientific evaluations, including risk assessment and benefit-cost analysis of alternative measures.

4. There are a board range of precautionary measures, including bans, product restrictions, education, warning labels, and market-based approached. Even targeted research programs to better understand a hazard are a precautionary measure.

5. Opportunities for public participation – to discuss efficiency, fairness and other public values – are critical to sound risk management. (p. 17)