Big Green Building and skyscrapers

There is a loss of wonder and excitement from skyscrapers. These buildings are now becoming environmentally friendly or green. This would both clean the environment and be a popular sight for both locals and tourists. Dr. Yeang is in charge of projects such as this because his designs won the Ecological Design in the tropics. For irrigation these buildings use rain water and recycle waste water. The only thing holding this back is the initial cost of material. There are many institutions willing to deal with the high costs up front as long as they know they are helping to clean up the environment around us. There are many ways these building also pay for themselves in the long run. Some of these ways are with lighting from the sun the energy bill will be lower. One more is the proper use of ventilation the building will need less heat and air conditioning. This would save them a considerable amount of money.

In my opinion I think this is a great idea. Now instead of complaining about the problems people will be part of the solution. We could be doing this one building at a time and slowly reversing the damage we have done to the environment over the last thousand years. This would be good all around. It would look great and could even be a tourist attraction. It is a large building so a lot of work can be done on the inside jus like any other building. So I say we do as much as we can with what we have.

 James Hill

SUV article

The United States has an extremely steady flow of gasoline, putting it in a different position when compared to other nations. This is a major reason why we can afford to not only purchase, but drive "gas guzzlers" everywhere. These cars get a whopping ten miles to the gallon, and our country was founded on car corporations that pride in the oversized vehicle. Many SUV's have become a status symbol, having pathetic gas milage and realeasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then cars of smaller sizes. Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern nations that produce large amounts of oil can afford to purchase gas guzzlers also. This may be because they are increasing in wealth as a whole, or because they are the source of the gasoline industry. This shows that these nations have excess money to spend, and choose to purchase inefficient big cars rather than hybrids and smaller cars. Economic influence is proven in data and recent events, including when we got hit hard by the recession. Car companies and SUV dealers were hit extremely hard as people realized they were not only expensive but unworthy of thirty grand. Now a trend is starting to catch on, and cars like the Prius are beginning to outhsine bigger competitors like hummers and escalades. ALthough Prius's themselves might be considered a status symbol, it is competition between neighbors that is slowly conserving gasoline and reducing pollution. As people begin to see this, a shift in the automotive industry will likely develop. 

-------->steve turrisi

"Big and Bad" Article Response

One of the main reasons for the lack of popularity of S.U.V.s in countries other than America is the price of gasoline, coupled with less economic prosperity than what is (or at least was) experienced in the United States. The huge S.U.V. was a status symbol, it represented power, success, and affluence. The vehicle made the driver feel invincible in their giant steel cage (although, as the article has shown, the lack of mobility that accompanies such a huge vehicle can make them far more dangerous than smaller cars). When gas was as cheap as a dollar and a half per gallon, people were fine with gas mileages that were under ten miles per gallon, so long as people could see them in their brand new Expedition or Escalade. Take the Hummer as an example, the first edition of this S.U.V. was simply a painted over military vehicle meant to navigate war zones, now driven on civilian roads, and it sold incredibly well. The fact of the matter is, probably ninety-nine percent of the people who drive S.U.V.s don't have any need for a vehicle of that size (and I know this from experience, my mother owns an Explorer and it's just the two of us, plus throw in the fact that she's an engineer, so the heaviest thing she needs to carry in her truck is a set of rolled up building plans). The rest of the developed world has already recognized the lack of a market for such large vehicles, but Ford struck gold when their converted F-150, renamed the Expedition, sold so well for so long. Luckily, with the increase in the price of gas, coupled with the economic downturn, not everybody can afford to keep driving a gas guzzler, clearing the way for new, more fuel efficient cars, such as those that have been driven in Europe and Japan for years.

-Eric

"Green" Article Review

Obama Looking at Cooling Air to Fight Warming - Associated Press

This article took me by surprise when I first read it, as I had never even considered the existence of "global cooling", but now this radical idea is being considered as a weapon against global warming. Basically, global cooling, known as geoengineering, works like this: instead of releasing pollution particles into our air, as we do now (which reflects heat back onto our planet), we instead shoot them into the upper atmosphere, where they will do the opposite, reflecting the suns incoming rays. Of course, such a drastic measure is only to be used in a last ditch effort to avoid catastrophe, but the fact that such an idea is even on the table shows a sort of desperation on mankind's part to avert this disaster, which we have known about since the 1960's. The assistant to the president on science and technology, John Holdren, proposed the plan to Obama mainly because he doesn't see the United States and other developed nations reacting to the problem fast enough to prevent the "tipping points" that indicate real problems. One such "tipping point" is the complete dissappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic, which is expected to completely dissappear by 2050. However, such a drastic measure to save our planet doesn't come without risks, as the sulfur particles shot into the upper atmosphere may eat away at the ozone layer around the polar ice caps, but this doesn't even compare to possible side affects that scientists haven't factored into the equation. Overall, the fight against global warming looks to be in a sorry state. It could be too early to call, but if something isn't done in the next fifty years, there will be drastic environmental consequences, and even if something is done, it may already too late considering the damage that has already been done in the past 100+ years. My view may seem extremely pessimistic, but i find it hard to be optimistic for the future when so many problems have been shoveled onto my generations lap, seeing as the current generation doesn't seem to want to take responsibility now, opting instead to hold off on problems until there is a noticeable enough negative impact.

-Eric

i wrote this last blog...

steve typed this last article on picking an opposing opinion with the author, forgot to put name

differing with a point of view in article on war

On page 466 he says that as fossil fuel surpluses decrease, the United States remains unprepared. I disagree, and although we are not the leaders in this "green revolution", we are by far not sitting around. As we speak plants are producing solar panels and parts for windmills, nuclear power plants and the generators they house are producing fission reactions, and we are taking steps toward altering the way we produce and use energy. The next twenty years will result in very cheap alternative energies,allowing us to break free from our middle eastern oil addiction. The author also states that we are becoming more reliant on food from outside sources and nations, and again I have to disagree. The United States is toward the top of the food production list when it comes to food sources.  The United States processes over one third of the total food production in the world, This makes us stronger as a whole, and as technology grows even more, we will continue to maximize crop yields and corn crop production. The author is also forgetting that as we get greener, we will begin to export these technologies and those who install and utilize them will take the lead within the next decade, working on globally "greenifying" the world. We possess some of the most innovative attitudes in the world, and it is obvious the author is underestimating one of the strongest powers in the world. The United States is slowly but surely preparing for a future without fossil fuels.  

question 3 article on war

The United States and other nations are always trying to become independent and free from other nations resources. Providing your own resources, energy sources, food, and raw materials will benefit that countries economy in the long run. This prevents interactions and potential problems between countries, and the steady dollar value of the resource or service being provided. This is seen today as the United States tries to become free from middle eastern oil, as we try to rely less on China for economic support and stimulus, especially as developing nations try to utilize raw materials found in their own countries. Economic independence will provide more work for the workforce of that individual country, and a country non-relient does not have to worry about dramatic price increases, tariffs, and other exporting of good problems can also be avoided. It will also allow a developing nation to make more of its own choices, keeping them free from foreign culture, influence, and even rule. 

--->steve turrisi