President in Denial

The Paris Climate Agreement is an agreement signed by 196 different countries across the world that will be set to begin in the year 2020. It was first proposed in 2015.  Its main goal is to deal with the issue of climate change and greenhouse-gas emissions with the overall desire to decrease global warming. This agreement will see that each country will plan and determine a report on their greenhouse-gas emissions and how they have contributed to global warming. The long-term goal is to keep the increase in temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. 

President Trump first stated his plans to withdrawal from the agreement when he was running for presidency. He believed that the whole idea of climate change was a hoax. The coal industry was also a key supporter and gave his campaign a lot of money during his run. He also stated that the agreement was economically burdensome even though practically every country in the world would be participating. I do not believe that these reasons are sufficient enough to not be a part of the agreement. Climate change in our world is a very real issue and to have a president that does not believe that it exists and cares more about money is a very scary thing. 

I think that it is very important for the U.S. to remain in the agreement. This agreement could mean a very big step into fighting climate change and greenhouse-gas emissions. The world is finally working together against a common enemy that was created by ourselves. To deny that existence or claim that it does not matter is completely ridiculous. 

With China and India being among the top countries that are developing better climate laws, I think that is extremely surprising. When I think about those countries, I think about overpopulation and pollution so to see that they are really stepping up to improve the climate is a really wonderful thing to see. 

Seaweed over Salmon?

Our demand for fish is rising in popularity due to the claim that it is healthier for you and is somewhat easy to come by. Of course, with such a high demand for these fish, consequences of course arise. During the Ted Talk, speaker Paul Greenburg explained the different ailments and issues that fishing creates. 

The first fish that he mentioned was the shrimp. He stated that in order to catch 1 pound of fish, 10-15 pounds of waste fish are caught and die. This fish can be used for fish food. Shrimp is also very carbon intensive. One may suggest that we could switch to farming shrimp which although is a good idea and lessens the likelihood of catching other kinds of fish or marine life, Mangrove Forests, where the shrimps would live, are slowly being depleted and destroyed from this farming. The second fish that was mentioned was the tuna. Tuna is in extremely high demand and is in even worse of a position since it is a k-species. The tuna are also really bad for aquaculture. The third fish that was mentioned was the salmon. Dams all across the U.S. prevent the salmon from reaching their spawning grounds and therefore are unable to properly reproduce. Such a high demand for salmon make it difficult for salmon as well. The last fish is the white fish that has changed in species over the years. Currently the Alaska Polach is in high demand and 2-3 billion fish are taken out of the sea each year and thus may be depleted in the next few years. 

Greenburg did, however, mention other species that we should perhaps turn to instead of these four fish that would be much more sustainable for the environment. The first one is the muscle. This is high in omega-3 and protein, filters lots of water, and is great in carbon emission. The third species is seaweed. Seaweed is also great at water filtration and you can also feed it to cattle and it also requires no extra water for growth because it already lives in the water. The final fish is the clupeids. This fish is usually used to feed salmon but instead can be fed to humans. He mentioned an ideal fish that he has not yet discovered. This fish would be high in omega-3, protein, it would be vegetarian, oily, adaptable, and fast growing. 

Greenburg did seem optimistic in the future. Of course there is room for growth and we need a lot of change for us but I think if people became more conscious of this information and what their fish eating habits do to the environment, they may be more likely to make the positive change.  

Life with no AC?

I try to live my life without feeling the guilt that I am doing something bad to the planet such as using plastic bottles or other single use plastics. I also feel that being vegetarian (and very soon vegan) contributes greatly to helping the planet. Although these things do help the earth, there are things that I cannot live without that aren’t so good. I think that one thing I could not live without would be my car. Although I don’t have my car down here, whenever I am home I have to drive in order to get to places so that of course requires gas. Over the summer I have to drive a lot for work or if I’m traveling. Another thing that I cannot live without would be my laptop. I am always on it and although I love the idea of not using technology, at this moment there is absolutely no way that I cannot have my laptop with me since I need it for school, communication, research, entertainment, and many other things.  To be parted from it would be very difficult to adjust to and I hate to admit that. 

One thing that I believe I could live without would be air conditioning. Although air conditioning is wonderful to have and I love cranking my AC down super low, I do think that I could get along without it. Most places in Europe don’t have air conditioning so really it is just a luxury we have become accustomed to here. The first time I went to Europe and was young and spoiled with AC, I was very uncomfortable to not have some air flow while I slept and had to leave the window or porch door open despite being in two very loud and very populated cities during the 2014 World Cup. As you can imagine, being woken up happened frequently. The second time I went to Europe was last summer. I had gotten somewhat used to the idea of no AC and taught myself that it’s okay to be without it and totally possible. Another thing that I could live without would be electricity. I know earlier I said I needed my laptop which kind of contradicts this but besides that I do think I could live without it. If I had a bunch of candles and a wood stove, I’d be set and content for the most part. 

Most things I buy are because I want them (mostly). I do think that I can reduce my spending/consumption on things such as going out to eat/get takeout and clothing since those are the things I spend most of my money on. I don’t need tons of clothing nor do I need to eat out every day. I think under normal circumstances I could reduce. The thing that separates me from it is want. Less consumption would mean going out to eat only on special occasions, only buying new clothes when I need them, and walking everywhere I go if I can. I would be a lot more conscious about my everyday choices since I eat out a lot of shop way too much.

In the future I would love to be able to live in a small cabin somewhere in the woods with no electricity (but possibly solar powered) and no running water. This dream is pretty extreme but I have been wanting to do it for a while. A reason I love to camp is because it feels more natural and real rather than living in an artificial world where I can turn on a light with a switch or get clean drinking water from turning a knob. I feel like it would be better to work for these things and in doing so I would be a lot more grateful that I had light or clean water. It would also be helping the planet as well. I would also like to have my own garden though I would not depend on this garden for my only source of food. I’d like to live near a small town where I can get basic supplies and food that I could reach by riding on a bike. This would be an awesome way to live for me and would be very beneficial to the planet. 

Just In: Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism

The question of whether or not vaccinations do cause autism has been a topic growing in popularity. The argument, in simple terms, is the theory that if you are to give your kid a vaccination, the likelihood of them getting autism goes up thus indicating that vaccinations cause autism. The authors of this publication are people representing the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. I do find this a reputable source because on the last page it shows all of their references and it is an article coming from a children’s hospital that gives supported evidence. Some of the concerns that the article gives is the possibility that getting too many vaccines in a short time frame puts the child at risk, the MMR vaccine causes autism, and that the thimerosal vaccine causes autism (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2016, Vol. 2). All of these concerns were proven wrong in this article from evidence (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2016, Vol. 2). 

All of the facts that this article gave were supported by scientific evidence. One such study described in the article was by Michael Smith and Charles Woods. They wanted to find out if delaying/withholding vaccines from children due to fear of getting autism would cause the children any harm. They found that children who were not vaccinated and those who were vaccinated were equally as likely to develop autism (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2016, Vol. 2). Another finding in this article was whether or not thimerosal causes autism. Hundreds of thousands of children who were given the vaccine containing thimerosal and those who got the vaccine without thimerosal were studied. The conclusion was found to be that both groups were equally as likely to get autism (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2016, Vol. 2). 

I never believed that vaccines caused autism so this article reaffirmed my opinion. I think the idea of vaccines giving children autism is ridiculous and just putting the children at more of a risk of contracting the illnesses/viruses that the vaccines would have prevented. 

Reference Section

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Spring 2016. "Vaccines and Autism: What you should know". Philadelphia, PA. 

Death to the Truth

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MqTOEospfo&t=31s

In the society that we live in today, we rely on the information through other people either by facts or opinion and we make our own conclusion from that information. However, often times that information is not reliable or even true. As said by Neil deGrasse Tyson, our country, as well as the world, feeds into this false information that denies science and misinforms the public. This denial keeps people from discussing and fixing the true problems at hand such as climate change. I think he believes that his words are so important because he realizes the state of ignorance and denial that our society is in and how little we do to try to get to the true issues at hand. An example of this that he states is largely represented in politics. Many people would choose to deny a scientific fact and argue over that rather than accept it and work to get a solution.

I do believe that  these words are very important. We believe that our society is very informed by how easy it is for us to get the latest news and information yet many of us are still holding on to beliefs that are proven to be wrong and rather not have any desire to change their belief. They do not want to accept that they are wrong and this is why our society is set so far back. We deny the facts and argue over them when instead we should accept the truth and move towards a solution to better our lives as well as the planet. A wonderful example of this is the argument of the climate change. It is a proven fact that the earth is getting warmer and yet there are still people in politics today that deny those facts despite all the information that is proving them wrong.

I believe that Tyson means, regarding to an informed democracy, that if these science deniers were to rise to power, they would keep facts and information from the public and deny them thus resulting to an uninformed public. Facts will be denied that need to be addressed politically in order to benefit humanity’s future. The truth, in their eyes, does not matter and is wrong so therefore it should not be considered anymore than that.