Question 3

question 3/ week 4

The argument presented in the article is definitely important. It will surely take more than just "little things" to get anything really significant done, especially with how bad the environment's shape is at this point. However, I do think that getting celebrities or these little books and guidelines or whatever to get people to make these little changes can be useful too. To really fix things, the author said that it would take massive changes in lifestyle, and that change wont come immediately and will have to be done gradually so people can adjust. The first step is awareness, and and these things bring awareness at least. It's not much, but it's a start; at least people are thinking about it now. It can also change the mindset of people somewhat, and they can probably build off of that. But yeah, there's still a lot of work to be done.

Week 3 Question

Michael Maniates brings up a good point; in order to make a significant impact on climate change the world needs to make significant changes. He claimed that in the next 30 years the US would have to cut carbon emissions by 80%. To achieve a reduction of emissions even close to 80% would require drastic lifestyle changes. The advocation of "easy answers" barley cracks the surface of what is needed to be done. What is needed is coordinated worldwide action that would more than likely need to put environmental concerns ahead of other issues.
Instead of whining about easy individual action as he gets flown around in his private jet, Bono could advocate for governmental policy change. Then again whining washed up rockstar is not exactly a prerequisite to global environmental policy. The things that are advocated by most "experts" like Bono or Tara Reid will not significantly impact our environment. Even if they did, anyone with any sense would not take orders from the rich elite of Hollywood. Politicians and scientists need to be the face of environmental policy, because this is their field. While individual action will not hurt the environment, we need to look at the big picture.

Question 3

The main argument is that people in power are not demanding enough of the public to change our impact on the earth. Therefore, the biggest environmental problem is the way politicians and environmentalists are addressing environmental change.

I think his argument makes a lot of sense. I do believe these little things people advocate are not enough to make an impact on the environment. Its an issue that hasn't been really been brought up. I definitely think more action is needed and that its not going to come from people. I think it needs to come from environmentalists and politicians, mainly people in power.

However, I think advocating small lifestyle changes is a good thing, I think it raises awareness for our consumption problem. I just think its not enough to rely solely on that.

question 2

Mike Huckabee's stand environmental issues centers around energy independence, and this means that he is probably more of a market liberal. He believes that if the US did not have to rely on foreign oil and had the ability to produce its own energy, it would help the economy. It didn't even seem that he cared about the environmental crisis that much, but instead wanted to make the country more green to reap economic benefits.

Senator Obama on the other hand, seems to care actually care about climate change and the environment, as opposed to just caring about the economic benefits that would result from environmentalism (although he does believe that it would also help the economy).
I guess he's somewhere between a market liberal and an institutionalist. In his speech, he mentioned that the world thought the White House's view on the issue was "isolated," and that the US should be a leader in the world's struggle to become more green. However, he also believes in technology and hopes that it can improve the economy as well.

I agree with what everyone else has said, and think that Senator Obama's plan is definitely the way to go. He seems to really care and has actually put a lot of thought into the issue. I agree with Tai because as evidenced by his quite specific plan, which is much more comprehensive than Huckabee's (or anyone else's), he knows what he wants to do.
Also, he mentioned that the US has to set an example that the rest of the world can follow, and this is definitely true. A lot of countries see the US as hypocritical because they're talking the talk but not walking the walk. I remember in some other class, we talked about how the US was telling some other country (i don't remember what it is) not to cut down their rainforests, but the other country was like "hey, you messed up all your resources to get where you are now, so why can't we do our thing with our resources so we can have what you have?" It'd definitely improve international relations if the US would try harder and go green.

Week 2 Question

Obama attributes environmental change to our demand of and reliance on oil. He has a detailed and well thought out plan for his solutions. I believe he sounds like a market liberal and an institutionalist. He takes a clear stand that the environment is an important issue without sounding alarmist. He offers many economic incentives for plans that improve the environment, such as incentives to farmers to restore grasslands. He also proposes large government investment in technology that will benefit the environment. These are all characteristics of market liberals. He is also an institutionalist when it comes to environmental change on an international level. He proposes international institutions, such as creating a new forum on global energy, to combat environmental change.

McCain seems to be a market liberal. He looks at environmental change through an economic lens. He argues that we need to care about the environment because our economy depends on it. He seems to be concerned but does not think there is an environmental crisis. He addresses this issue by proposing economic investment and incentive in technology that will solve environmental issues.

McCain had a much shorter and more vague stand on the environment. I think Obama's platform makes a lot more sense because his plan is much more thought out. McCain offers one or two vague sentences on what should be done but no actual plan. Also, Obama offers many more specific solutions, while McCain only has three. I think the categories is a good place to start when analyzing these two candidates' platforms but no one its into these categories perfectly.

post 2

my first reaction to reading the environmental platforms of the two candidates was that the platform of the democrat, Barack Obama, was much longer and more detailed than that of the republican, Mitt Romney. Obama seems to represent a bio-environmentalist, advocating reduced emissions, oil independence and other environmental based incentives. He stresses replanting trees and restoring grasslands as a way towards saving the environment. Romney on the other hand seems more like an institutionalist. His incentives are driven my helping the economy and the people. "Energy independence is crucial to our economy and our national security". he focuses on improving technology through nuclear power as a way to save the environment.
Having learned of these categories, it was much easier for me to distinguish the candidates platforms. It allowed me to associating each candidate with a general group with which his ideas were consistent with, further enabling me to infer other environmental beliefs of the candidate.
I would say that Obama is easily making more sense of the environment, as he has much more to say about it. he addresses not only issues of improving what we have, but on restoring what we've destroyed. He talks about emissions, clean energy, biofuels, oil independence, global standards and leadership within the government, while Romney only touches on the economy, nuclear power and technology. He fails to go into any depth regarding his proposed solutions as well. Obama, on the other hand, lays out not only what he sees as the clear and present danger, but he also sets out a clear plan of action to solve the environmental issues we face.