Friday, February 21, 2014

Climate change. Are you fracking kidding me? And wood pellets… not feed, but fuel.

Turn to any content or news source – be it newspapers, magazines, TV, cable, radio or online outlets – and you’re bound to come across the term “Climate Change.”
For those of you living under a rock for the last 50 years or maybe in a hyper barrack chamber somewhere, we have some breaking news for you… climate change is occurring, and it is a hot-button issue in the world today - especially in the United States.  So what is climate change?  What causes it?  What does climate change have to do with US policy?  And what effect does US and the EU’s policies have on the international “climate change” stage?  In order to answer these questions, we need to understand what is climate and how does climate change.  Climate is defined as “ the long-term average of conditions in the atmosphere, ocean, and ice sheets and sea ice described by statistics, such as means and extremes” (NOAA 2009: 16).  Climate change refers to “any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature or precipitation) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer)” (EPA 2012: 3).  The Environmental protection agency also states that climate change can be caused by natural or human factors (EPA 2012: 3).  Human activities such as the burning of coal to generate electricity or the use of fossil fuels can contribute to climate change.  Changes in climate can affect us in many ways in our daily lives.  For example, climate change can impact the volume of rainfall and also influence agriculture crop yield (EPA 2012: 3), leading to concerns of drought or flooding.  A main cause of climate change is the Greenhouse Effect.  The Greenhouse Effect is described as the increased emission of greenhouse gases that causes the atmosphere to retain more heat, which in turn leads to global warming (EPA 2014). Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) are emitted by human activities such as burning of fossil fuels such as in coal-powered industrial plants or even driving a car with gasoline or diesel as its fuel source.  Since the United States is one of the world’s leading emitters of greenhouse gases, we decided to concentrate on carbon emissions within the realm of US “green” energy technology, specifically biomass production and its use as an energy source.
            According to UK’s Biomass Energy Centre, biomass is defined as “biological material derived from living, or recently living organisms.  In the context of biomass for energy this is often used to mean plant based material” (Biomass 2011).  For our purposes, we chose to focus on wood pellets, which are made through a process that turns waste from wood manufacturing (for flooring, construction and other purposes) into tiny compressed pieces.  These small pieces, or pellets, are then, in turn, burned as fuel to create energy (either heat or electricity).
At first glance, this seems like a win-win situation – turning waste from one type of natural product into a viable product that is seen as environmentally “friendly” to use for fuel.  There is, however, potential for wood manufacturing and pellet productions companies to take advantage of the rising market of opportunity.  In the US, the industry essentially at the present monitors itself.  The problem arises when it’s not just wood waste that is being used for this purpose, but whole trees as well.  This could lead to trees being harvested en masse to feed the growing pellet business.  Live trees effectively remove carbon dioxide from the air by the process of photosynthesis (Friedland et al 2012: 524).  They act like atmospheric “filters.”   So it follows that less trees means less carbon dioxide is being filtered from the atmosphere.  This could have the exact opposite effect on Climate Change.  Or to put it another way, it could have the same big picture effect as burning coal.  In the United States, 87% of the forests in the southern states are privately owned, which means owners could decide to clear-cut their land for profit.   There are currently no federal (or individual state) policies to prevent that from happening.  “The forests are coming down” (Sausman 2013).
            With many nations searching for new methods of mitigating the effects of climate change while simultaneously searching for efficient, economically viable replacements for fossil fuel, there is a race to find the next best green alternative.  Biomass is often viewed as a “carbon neutral” fuel source, meaning it neither increases nor decreases the carbon input in the environment.  Biomass production can be economical, requiring minimal processing.  Burning of wood pellets is considered more efficient that coal (Ball 2008).
Its not just the effects on the environment and global climate change that are at stake.  Policies (or lack thereof in some cases) are having an impact, and will continue to affect the global economy.  Through legislation and incentives, the EU has recently been encouraging its member states to increase its use of renewable energy like wind, solar, and other high-tech and expensive methods of creating energy.  Despite the money pored into new technology and government incentives, about half of Europe's energy consumption is produced by biomass.  In Poland, biomass makes up 80% of energy consumption (Wood 2013).  The EU has turned to the US and Canada to fill its need for biomass in the form of wood pellets.  Wood pellet manufacturers are springing up all over the southern US and areas of Eastern Canada.  At present, the southern states are fulfilling the vast majority of what the EU needs in terms of biomass.  This means that the pellets have to be produced, delivered to ports, shipped across the Atlantic Ocean before they reach their final destination for consumption (Wood 2013).  Suddenly, it doesn’t seem like such a great idea.
  Considering the environmental aspect as relates to climate change, the policies of the US and the EU along with the economic impact… is biomass (in this particular case wood pellets) is the new Green Gold?  As we shall explore, the proof is in the pine pudding.


Sources:

Ball, J. (30 December 2008).  Green goal of ‘carbon neutrality’ hits limit. Wall Street
Journal. US News. Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123059880241541259

Biomass Energy Center. (2011). What is biomass? Biomass Energy Center. Retrieved
from
http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=76,15049&_dad=portal
The Economist. (6 April 2013). Wood, the fuel of the future. The Economist. Business.  
Retrieved from
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21575771-environmental-lunacy-europe-fuel-future

EPA. (2014). Causes of climate change. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Retrieved from
            http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

EPA. (2012). US climate change indicators. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. Retrieved from
            http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/pdfs/climateindicators-full-2012.pdf

Friedland, A., Courard-Hauri, D. & Relyea, R. (2012). Environmental science:
Foundations and applications. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Galbraith, K. (1 May 2012). Wood makes a comeback as a fuel. The New York Times. Green Column.    
           Retrieved from
           http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/business/global/wood-makes-comeback-as-a-fuel.html?_r=2&

Hausman, S. (16 December 2013). Hardwood forests: Wood pellets & sustainability. WVTF Public 
           Radio.  Retrieved from
http://wvtf.org/post/wood-pellets-sustainability

NOAA. (2009). Climate literacy: The essential principles of climate sciences; A guide for
Individuals and communities. NOAA. Retrieved from
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/literacy/climate_literacy.pdf

Williamson, L. (5 May 2011). Why is the UK backing biomass power? The Guardian.
Environment. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/may/05/biomass-power-costly-climate-solution
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Potential World World III in Asia?



This semester we will be focusing on two territorial disputes with China. The first, involving the Spratly and Paracel Islands, is with Vietnam while the second is a dispute with Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Other countries, which include the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan (Republic of China), and Brunei also claim these islands, however Vietnam and Japan have the greatest claims over the above island chains.

First, the Senkaku Islands in Japan and the Diaoyu Islands in China, which include eight uninhabited islands are “important shipping lanes, offer rich fishing grounds and lie near potential oil and gas reserves[,]… strategically significant position, amid rising competition between the US and China for military primacy…”

(BBC Asia). After World War II, Japan renounced claims to many territories, after losing so much during the war.  China raised no objections to the renouncing and returning of these territories, until the 1970’s, when the issue of oil, fishing, and various mineral resources emerged in the area. The Senkaku and Diaoyu Islands has encouraged China to bolster their argument of ownership over a large swath of the East China Sea. In September 2012, the Japanese government bought three islands from private owners to prevent them from falling into “Ultranationalist hands”. Beijing responded with anger by “sending its air and naval vessels into the area claimed by Tokyo, often coming within firing range of the Japanese planes and ships sent to intercept them.” Having said this, tension has been rapidly increasing in the East of China among territories between Japan.
Shinzo Abe, The Japanese Prime Minister, compared the current situation between Japan and China to that of Germany and the U.K. prior to the First World War. Let’s hope that the leaders of both nations communicate in order to avoid and calm the rough seas while we approach the next territorial dispute between China and Vietnam.

Similarly, China has provoked conflicts with Vietnam regarding the Paracel and Spratly Islands, which are South of China’s sea. Although issues date 40 years back, during the Vietnam War, problems have once again arisen due to the fishing rules and naval clashes at the Paracel Islands. On January 19, 1974, when the Southern Vietnamese navy (backed by the United States) had a naval clash with the Chinese forces, who also supported to North Vietnamese, Chinese military units seized islands in the Paracels occupied by South Vietnamese armed forces, and Beijing claimed sovereignty over the Spratlys. By then, Vietnam still owned some parts of the Paracel and Spratly Islands, but did not approach the issue until both North and South Vietnam were unified. Until recently, China imposed fishing rules that "require foreign fishing ships to obtain approval to enter waters it has placed…including those surrounding the Paracels.", with reports of China harassing Vietnamese fishermen. Since then, the Vietnamese media has raised reports on China's new fishing regulations, in which Hanoi, the capital of Vietnam, has deemed to be "illegal and invalid." Hoang Sa, the name of the Paracel Islands in Vietnamese, deeply sparks nationalism as the country boycotts China and their goods, but also hostility towards the Chinese community living in Vietnam, no longer considering the separation between the Northern and Southern Vietnamese.  


27 November 2013 Q&A: China-Japan islands row. BBC World Asia. Retrieved




David E. Sanger (December 1 2013) In the East China Sea, a Far Bigger Test of

Power Looms. The New York Times. Retrieved From www.nytimes.com

bigger-test-of-power-looms.html

James Holmes (January 5, 2014) Asia’s Worst Nightmare: A China-Japan War. The

National Interest. Retrieved From www.nationalinterest.org

war-9662

Ankit Panda (January 23, 2014) Shinzo Abe At World Economic Forum: 'Restrain

Military Expansion In Asia'. The Diplomat. Retrieved From www.thediplomat.org

restrain-military-expansion-in-asia/

Nga Pham (January 14, 2014). Shift as Vietnam Marks South China Sea Battle. BBC World Asia. Retrieved from
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Catalyst For Change



On December 16, 2012 in a neighborhood south of New Delhi, a young woman was brutally gang raped by six men. The 23 year old woman was accompanied by her male friend who was beaten before they began raping her. Not only did these men rape an innocent woman but they also penetrated her with a metal rod, causing injuries that damaged her abdomen, intestines, and lungs. Unfortunately the injuries were so severe that the woman died at a hospital in Singapore. Four of the men were convicted (Mukesh Singh, Vinnay Sharma, Pawan Gupta, Akshay Thakur) and have been hung for their crime. Ram Singh, part of the convicted group, died in prison while the unnamed juvenile will serve three years in a reform home.



This event, which sparked national and even international outcry due to it’s horrific and savage nature, emerged as a byproduct of a multitude of factors. In India, rape is currently reported on an average of every twenty-one minutes. Out of the thirty five major cities, in Delhi (the nation’s capital where this case occurred), rape is higher than any other city in the country. Over 400 cases arose in 2010 alone and it has been commonly referred to as “the most unsafe city for women.” Percentage wise, NDTV has demonstrated how rape is nationally taking place alongside kidnapping and abduction. It can be said that internally, the issue emerged as a product of three main factors: history of patriarchy, modernization within a traditional context, and inadequate legal structures. The first of these as mentioned in this article, has to do with a history of patriarchy. Skewed interpretations of Hinduism and male dominance after the attack of the British Raj (colonial era), left groups within the country divided and separated. As time progressed, sexual liberation under the British was quelled as “improper” and many ideals of Hinduism were misinterpreted as a result. This factor and the modernization forced upon the nation after colonial rule resulted in many males within the country feeling uncomfortable with the new rise in female power, prominence, and presence. As a byproduct, rape culture (especially within villages), has been seen as a predominant force that not only requires structural modification (more widespread legal repercussions), but also a radical mental restructuring of the way in which women are perceived.

Because of this horrific incident, outrage has been expressed across the country and throughout the world. Following the 2012 rape case, more reports about rapes have been pouring out of India. One of these took place in a rural village in the Birbhum district of eastern India. In this incident, a 20 year old woman was raped by 12 men for having a relationship that was not approved by the tribal leader. According to The Guardian, sexual violence attacks and rape, especially on foreigners, have hit global headlines, including the rape of a 51 year old tourist as she was walking back to her hotel. The United Nations has urged India to change their laws and policies in order to ensure the security and safety of women. India has facilitated structural change in laws and policies but the change has yet to be seen “on the ground”. It will take a lot more than changing laws to stop the rape outbreak, it will need a change of mindset. Jason Burke of The Guardian states that commentators say this wave of violence towards women is a result of women trying to claim their basic rights and freedoms denied to them.
The New Delhi rape case has particularly grabbed the attention of the world, though rapes have constantly been occurring at extreme numbers. What stood out about this case, however, was its gruesome nature and how it served as a catalyst for national backlash. Recently, a 20-year woman was admitted to a hospital in critical condition. Her rape was under orders from village elders due to an “inappropriate” relationship because they had disapproved of her relations with a specific man. In a tribal run setting, there are many strict traditions. The leader of this woman’s village had originally fined the couple 25,000 rupees but because she could not pay, men were ordered to do as they pleased with her. In these villages elders are extremely influential in villager’s lives and women are still very much  treated like second-class citizens. Thirteen men were arrested for their association with this rape as well as the elder leader. Since the 2012 gang rape case, India has tightened its anti-rape laws but as seen through these recent cases, there is little change being done on the ground. Women across India live with a daily fear of sexual violence and often victims never receive justice in return.
Cases of sexual violence like the ones seen recently in India have become a new tool in political rebellion and as a war tactic. Rape is used in a multitude of tactical ways. It’s been seen as punishment for disobedience and also a tactic to defile or sterilize women with the intention of ceasing the reproduction of a certain population that is now legally classified as genocide. Basic human rights that are guaranteed protected under the universal human rights act are being violated in the use of rape as a weapon. “Freedom from fear” is being ignored as many women’s daily life is dominated by fear of being raped or experiencing sexual violence. While it is easy to put the New Delhi rape case at arms length as an isolated or “third world” incident, rape is spreading and becoming more common. As seen with the New Delhi case and many others in history, a tragic and horrific incident has to take place to incite the fury of human rights injustices to create global change. 


Group: Adriana Levandowski, Jacklyn Ngo, 
Monica Chitre, Taylor Valencia, Tiffany Quach



Citations:

Rawat,Shivani. Daigle,Katy.(2013, September 13). India Gang Rape Case: 4 Men Sentenced to Death.HuffingtonPost.com. Retrieved February 10,2014, from

  • BBC News India
North, Andrew (2014, January 14). India: Woman gang raped on orders of ‘kangaroo court’ BBC News. Retrieved February 16, 2014 from 

  • The Guardian



Posted by at No comments:

Iranian Nuclear Talks: Topic, History, & Analysis


For the past 20 years, Iran has attempted to acquire the resources needed to build nuclear weapons with resistance from all over the world. Over these years, the capital of Iran, Tehran, has gained the knowledge and technology needed for building these deadly weapons. This has included things like engaging in uranium enrichment despite the fact that Tehran has said that their nuclear programs have nothing to do with violence or wartime activities. They have stated that their efforts are "legal and authorized by becoming members of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" (Iran Watch). Iran has been proven guilty for doing everything in their power to build certain things needed for one thing only: nuclear weapons. Because Iran has made significant efforts to increase their nuclear power, it has become one of the most challenging issues in today’s world. The United States and Israel have been especially involved in the campaign to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons resulting in serious tensions between the three countries. The West has tried in many ways like imposing sanctions on the country although these sanctions have not done much to change anything about Iran's nuclear interest. The United States has come forth saying that Iran has no need for nuclear energy and that their energy program already in place is a disguise for creating nuclear weapons. Both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration have taken the stance that they will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon from Iran, once again causing anger from the Iranians. 

Iran's nuclear program began in the 1950's when they built a civilian nuclear program in which the United States supported by providing a nuclear reactor to the country. Later in the 1960's, Iran agreed to become part of the 51 states who signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty with regards to never becoming a nuclear state. The change of heart with regards to Iran restarting their nuclear program was because of the Iranian-Iraqi war in the 1980's. Leader at the time, Ayatollah Khomeini, began to secretly start a new nuclear program in hopes that they could stop the Iraqi offense of Saddam Hussein into their country. In the mid-90's, Iran and Russia agree to sign a 800 million dollar contract to build two light water reactors within a few years. The United States was making serious attempts to stop countries around the world from selling any products containing nuclear knowledge to Iran. Because of this signed contract, US Congress imposed sanctions on Iran that prevents foreign investment of over $20 million in Iran's energy program. In 2002, secret plans were discovered that stated Iran's energy program included a water plant at Arak and an uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. The United States once again accused Iran of building weapons of mass destruction but Iran continued to sign contracts with Russia to finish their plant. In 2006, the U.S., China, France, Germany, Russia, and the UK came up with incentives for Iran to stop its uranium program that the International Atomic Energy Agency made legally binding for the first time. In the following years, the United States made it clear to the world that Iran now had a very real capability to produce dangerous nuclear weapons with their refusal to halt their enrichment program. Hassan Rouhani became president in 2013 and told the United States that they were going to maintain their nuclear energy program but that they would share more information on what exactly they were doing with it. Finally in 2014, the United States decided to lift sanctions on Iran resulting in Iran agreeing to decrease all uranium enrichment programs and stop the work on the water reactor in Arak. It remains to be seen whether this will actually happen or not. 

The nuclear program presents a serious issue for the world. It begs to consider the consequences every country could have if dangerous nuclear weapons were to become an actual reality in today's world. It presents questions for all governments to consider on what the best plan of action is to prevent things like this from happening again. Nuclear programs are a matter of national security and the safety of civilians is compromised if and when something like this is actually manufactured. Tensions between the United States and Iran will continue to build and create political turmoil if both countries continue to react to one another in such extreme ways. These nuclear weapon discussions have severe consequences on our every day lives. They create fear, anxiety and distrust within a nation. If we aren't made aware of what is going on with regards to live destruction weapons, we are setting ourselves up for naivety. 

Sources:

The New York Times. (2014). Timeline on Iran's Nuclear Program. Retrieved February 20, 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/20/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-timeline.html?ref=nuclearprogram#/#time243_7198

Arms Control Association. (2012). Timeline of Nuclear Diplomacy with Iran. Retrieved February 20, 2014 from http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran

Washington Institute. (2013). Policy Notes: Iran Nuclear Talks, A Brief History and the Road Ahead. Retrieved February 19, 2014 from http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/PolicyNote15a_Singh.pdf

Iran Watch. (2012). A History of Iran's Nuclear Program. Retrieved February 19, 2014 from http://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/weapon-program-background-report/history-irans-nuclear-program

NPR: Parallels. (2014). Iran Nuclear Talks: What To Expect Next. Retrieved February 19, 2014 from http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/02/04/271538619/irans-nuclear-talks-what-should-we-expect-next


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)