Sunday, April 13, 2008
compromise? I don't know about that one...
For my Energy and Society Final Project, I want to study the Amazon Jungle in Brazil. This jungle is undergoing major physical changes in order to provide more ethanol energy. While this is a great step in the alternative energy direction, what will ultimately be the price of this change? I'm hoping this is topic (which is similar to Caroline's "2.5 Million" post) can sustain a full class period and still be compelling and interesting at the end of the 40 minutes. So if anyone can post similar situations or ideas, please let me know!
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Carbon Sequestration
I have decided to write my essay on carbon seqestration. I want to describe the idea behind it as well as evaluate its potential as an alternative energy source, analayzing the potential benefits and costs of the process, and by addressing some of the controversy that surrounds it. If you find any information on it, any interesting articles or anything else, please post it as a response to this post; I need all the help I can get! Thanks!
Why So Pessimistic?
I have noticed lately that with my increasing exposure to commentary on the current energy situation that many people greet the issue with pessimism, doubt, and sheer cynicism. I myself often fall victim to this attitude; I am skeptical about the potential we have for change, and about the likelihood of our successful escape from the crisis. I can't help but wonder, however, how heavily this pessimism is playing into our lack of success. If people were less overwhelmed by the direty of the situation, less hopeless about our future, and more aware of the possibilities for change, would there be more of an incentive to make one? If people knew that there really is still hope, that it isn't over yet, would they feel more compelled to act?
After reading the first portion of The End of Fossil Energy, I was blown away by Howe's cynicism and lack of hope. Howe seems authoritatively jaded on the subject of alternative energy; he certainly seems to be knowledgeable on the subject and well aware of our situation. However, I thought his book was meant to encourage people to act, and to enlighten people to how crucial acting really is in this situation. But after reading just the beginning of this book, I already feel overwhelmed and clueless. All he has done so far is list all of the mistakes we have made as a society, and how impossible it is going to be to rectifiy the problems we have created for ourselves. One portion of the text that really struck me was in Howe's discussion of the potential ethanol energy holds:
"Some think tanks like ILSR... argue that with modern methods, and if it's done just right, the energy output of ethanol and co-products is greater than the input. On the contrary, the recognized expert on the subject, Cornell University professor David Pimentel...has been teaching and writing for years that growing biomass for transportation fuel is absolutely faulty thinking."
In this example, Howe presents a possibility for hope, and then immediately shoots it down without any further acknowledgement. He chooses to believe and support the pessimistic view on things, without even acknowledging why the other view is impossible or less credible.
While I whole-heartedly understand and respect Howe's desire to educate the masses and get people involved in energy conservation, and I am amazed by his efforts to do so, I don't think that approaching the issue with a pessimistic attitude is necessarily the way to go. I understand that people need to know the facts, and that giving them false hope is just stupid, but I don't think overdramatizing the situation is ok either. I think people should be given the facts, but I don't think we need to be constantly reprimanded and beaten down for the mistakes that have already been made. If we have acknowledged that we messed up, and are already suffering enough from the consequences of our actions, what good is constantly badgering ourselves about them going to do? Once we know the situation, and understand its causes, we need encouragement and optimism to make a difference. People need to be given hope that there is potential for change, or nobody is going to try. If we don't think that we can make a difference, there's no incentive to make an effort. I think we have done the job of promoting the idea that we have failed at creating a sustainable environment, and now it is time to move on and actually make a change. Words are only so powerful; now we need to act.
After reading the first portion of The End of Fossil Energy, I was blown away by Howe's cynicism and lack of hope. Howe seems authoritatively jaded on the subject of alternative energy; he certainly seems to be knowledgeable on the subject and well aware of our situation. However, I thought his book was meant to encourage people to act, and to enlighten people to how crucial acting really is in this situation. But after reading just the beginning of this book, I already feel overwhelmed and clueless. All he has done so far is list all of the mistakes we have made as a society, and how impossible it is going to be to rectifiy the problems we have created for ourselves. One portion of the text that really struck me was in Howe's discussion of the potential ethanol energy holds:
"Some think tanks like ILSR... argue that with modern methods, and if it's done just right, the energy output of ethanol and co-products is greater than the input. On the contrary, the recognized expert on the subject, Cornell University professor David Pimentel...has been teaching and writing for years that growing biomass for transportation fuel is absolutely faulty thinking."
In this example, Howe presents a possibility for hope, and then immediately shoots it down without any further acknowledgement. He chooses to believe and support the pessimistic view on things, without even acknowledging why the other view is impossible or less credible.
While I whole-heartedly understand and respect Howe's desire to educate the masses and get people involved in energy conservation, and I am amazed by his efforts to do so, I don't think that approaching the issue with a pessimistic attitude is necessarily the way to go. I understand that people need to know the facts, and that giving them false hope is just stupid, but I don't think overdramatizing the situation is ok either. I think people should be given the facts, but I don't think we need to be constantly reprimanded and beaten down for the mistakes that have already been made. If we have acknowledged that we messed up, and are already suffering enough from the consequences of our actions, what good is constantly badgering ourselves about them going to do? Once we know the situation, and understand its causes, we need encouragement and optimism to make a difference. People need to be given hope that there is potential for change, or nobody is going to try. If we don't think that we can make a difference, there's no incentive to make an effort. I think we have done the job of promoting the idea that we have failed at creating a sustainable environment, and now it is time to move on and actually make a change. Words are only so powerful; now we need to act.
2.5 Million People
I was thinking today about The Three Gorges conversation we were having on Friday. Mr. Adams pointed out that although this dam may help hydroelectric advances, but it displaced a lot of people. According to: http://internationalrivers.org/en/china/three-gorges-dam, the dam displaced at least 1.3 million people. Although this number is 1 million less than the other, the amount of people is still very significant.
Once Mr. Adams brought this up, I accused everyone all over the world, basically, of always "nit-picking." I basically said that nothing is ever good enough for anyone and when someone tries to fix one issue, another person finds something wrong with it. Then, pretty much the rest of the class said to me, "well, 2.5 million people isn't exactly nit-picking." Then, I said okay fine may it isn't but. . . and then I used another example.
I regret that I took back my statement that the dam situation is nit-picking. Although it is really unfortunate that so many people got displaced, someone needs to stand up and make those tough decisions. Is it more important to become less oil dependent by creating a source of hydroelectric power, or are the at least 1.3 million people more important. Perhaps I would make a terrible politician and I would never be elected, because I do not think those 1.3 million people are always the most important.
Yell at me for saying that and say I have no heart or what not, but hear me out first. The reason why we are in this oil predicament, if you will, is that no one said 50-100 years ago, "We need to stop making our lives SO EASY and we need to stop using oil so much because it will be detrimental to our society and the WORLD in the next 100 years." No one got up and said that. No one dared to defy the growing oil companies and the profiting governments. No one dared to defy the people that were now getting the chance to have energy easily available to them. No one dared to put the men that led various oil companies out of business. Can you imagine if you lived in that time period and some one said to you: ehh let's drop this amazing source of fuel we found and stop using it so much just because it will benefit people we won't even know ONE HUNDRED years from now?
The reason why you probably can't imagine this is because everyone is about the present. It is basic human instinct to fend for yourself and your loved ones. It is basic instinct to live in the now. However, like I said before, this is what lead us to the oil problem we're in now.
Now, we have ANOTHER chance to try and make things better by expanding other source of energy. But if people cannot prioritize then it will never happen. Some bold person out there needs to say the future is more important.
Perhaps that is impossible to say, because is it philosophically or psychologically whatever possible to value something that is not attainable and has not happened yet?
Either way, I wrote this post because sometimes 2.5 million people is nit-picking. Come to me in 100 years (although that is not highly unlikely) and tell me that. I know that I am not part of that 2.5 million people so I don't know what it's like. But me and everyone in the world needs to realize that it's not just about us. I am guilty of fending for myself and I am not trying to say I am better than anyone, it is just the first step to realize that what I have just said is true.
Once Mr. Adams brought this up, I accused everyone all over the world, basically, of always "nit-picking." I basically said that nothing is ever good enough for anyone and when someone tries to fix one issue, another person finds something wrong with it. Then, pretty much the rest of the class said to me, "well, 2.5 million people isn't exactly nit-picking." Then, I said okay fine may it isn't but. . . and then I used another example.
I regret that I took back my statement that the dam situation is nit-picking. Although it is really unfortunate that so many people got displaced, someone needs to stand up and make those tough decisions. Is it more important to become less oil dependent by creating a source of hydroelectric power, or are the at least 1.3 million people more important. Perhaps I would make a terrible politician and I would never be elected, because I do not think those 1.3 million people are always the most important.
Yell at me for saying that and say I have no heart or what not, but hear me out first. The reason why we are in this oil predicament, if you will, is that no one said 50-100 years ago, "We need to stop making our lives SO EASY and we need to stop using oil so much because it will be detrimental to our society and the WORLD in the next 100 years." No one got up and said that. No one dared to defy the growing oil companies and the profiting governments. No one dared to defy the people that were now getting the chance to have energy easily available to them. No one dared to put the men that led various oil companies out of business. Can you imagine if you lived in that time period and some one said to you: ehh let's drop this amazing source of fuel we found and stop using it so much just because it will benefit people we won't even know ONE HUNDRED years from now?
The reason why you probably can't imagine this is because everyone is about the present. It is basic human instinct to fend for yourself and your loved ones. It is basic instinct to live in the now. However, like I said before, this is what lead us to the oil problem we're in now.
Now, we have ANOTHER chance to try and make things better by expanding other source of energy. But if people cannot prioritize then it will never happen. Some bold person out there needs to say the future is more important.
Perhaps that is impossible to say, because is it philosophically or psychologically whatever possible to value something that is not attainable and has not happened yet?
Either way, I wrote this post because sometimes 2.5 million people is nit-picking. Come to me in 100 years (although that is not highly unlikely) and tell me that. I know that I am not part of that 2.5 million people so I don't know what it's like. But me and everyone in the world needs to realize that it's not just about us. I am guilty of fending for myself and I am not trying to say I am better than anyone, it is just the first step to realize that what I have just said is true.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
NSTA Conference in Boston: Energy Education
Over this past weekend, I attended the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Conference in Boston. The conference is meant to expose science teachers all over the country to innovative teaching methods, curriculum and textbook aids, and to promote the study of science in schools. Though the conference is mostly based in advocating for the teaching of the basics in the natural sciences of biology, chemistry, and physics, I found that there was a lot of information about incorporating energy education into science curriculums.
Many of the booths I visited and one of the workshop lectures I attended focused on the importance of educating students about the dangers of pollution and global warming and the importance of energy efficiency. Most of the booths that addressed energy education discussed the importance of preparing the students of today for running the country tomorrow; we will be responsible for the choices made today, and for that reason, educating students about the current energy situation is crucial. The lecture I attended on energy conservation discussed the same things we have been addressing in class--the importance of alternative energy, the detriments of energy inefficiency, etc.
I brought back some pamphlets from the trip that I will bring to class on Friday or next week; some topics covered by the pamphlets include:
- water pollution (regulations, what to do to stop it, etc.)
- renewable energy
- global warming and CO2 emissions
- nuclear energy
- fuel cells
I found it very interesting that promoting "green" education has become so popular in the realm of education. I never thought of targeting the issue from this angle up until now, but I think it holds a lot of promise and certainly has the potential to affect great change. Some things you may want to comment on include: Do you think this policy will be effective in affecting change? Do you think it is important to educate the children even though they aren't the ones going out and making legislations on the issue? To what extent do you think energy education is already incorporated in science curicula, and is this enough?
Many of the booths I visited and one of the workshop lectures I attended focused on the importance of educating students about the dangers of pollution and global warming and the importance of energy efficiency. Most of the booths that addressed energy education discussed the importance of preparing the students of today for running the country tomorrow; we will be responsible for the choices made today, and for that reason, educating students about the current energy situation is crucial. The lecture I attended on energy conservation discussed the same things we have been addressing in class--the importance of alternative energy, the detriments of energy inefficiency, etc.
I brought back some pamphlets from the trip that I will bring to class on Friday or next week; some topics covered by the pamphlets include:
- water pollution (regulations, what to do to stop it, etc.)
- renewable energy
- global warming and CO2 emissions
- nuclear energy
- fuel cells
I found it very interesting that promoting "green" education has become so popular in the realm of education. I never thought of targeting the issue from this angle up until now, but I think it holds a lot of promise and certainly has the potential to affect great change. Some things you may want to comment on include: Do you think this policy will be effective in affecting change? Do you think it is important to educate the children even though they aren't the ones going out and making legislations on the issue? To what extent do you think energy education is already incorporated in science curicula, and is this enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)