Hello classmates!

My name is Shahid, however, I go by Sasha. I’m an interesting culmination of my experiences. I’m a third culture kid (or TCK), which means that I grew up in several countries. I’m half Pakistani, quarter Scottish and quarter German, though most of my childhood was spent in the Middle East and South Asia. Because of my early introduction to such different ways of living, I have this innate desire to fully embrace the culture I’m enveloped by. Many people think that I lived somewhat of glamorous childhood, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. I remain semi-envious of the stability that many of my friends have taken for granted, however, looking back I’m able to recognize how invaluable of an experience this all was.

Im 25 years old, working towards my Psych BS and am a super senior. This is my second semester on World Campus and I’m very much looking forward to getting to know all of you guys.

Im very creative, and in my spare time I love working on my writing, poetry, youtube channel, and on recording music. For me, recording is therapeutic and incredibly cathartic.

From this course I hope to learn more about the impact we, as humans have had on the earth. Climate change is becoming increasingly relevant and during our lifetimes many more initiatives to combat our impact on the environment will emerge. I’m fascinated by the incredibly complex and creative solutions that are already in the works. As individuals and as a society we will aggressively need to start thinking about our energy consumption, the materials we use and of useful ways to save and renew resources.

Best,

Sasha

In a capitalist system of unregulated commerce, the market will adjust to environmental factors – but it will adjust too late.  When we run out of oil, the market will replace it with something else – but it will be too late.  In other regards of climate change, such as pollution, water and soil degradation, shortages, drought, hunger, loss of fisheries and forests: externalities for which an unimpeded capitalist system has no mechanism to combat. Furthermore, efforts to regulate economies in the interest of combatting climate change and reversing or preventing its detrimental effects must be a global one.

The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 attempted to do this, but lacked strict enforcement and universal inclusion.  The United States refused to sign the treaty, and achieving the emission reductions were mostly left to national discretions.  This is why the United Nations must be empowered to implement a cap and trade scheme – one that is international, and removes the possibility of “safe havens” for corporations to pollute.

The idea of cap and trade is less burdensome than a flat tax on carbon, and far more effective.  Businesses that emit more will have to pay more, and those that reduce their emissions will be financially rewarded.

The difficulty in implementing regulation lies in the still developing countries, who are going through the process of industrialization, and at the same time are being asked to participate in emission-reduction and other climate change-related initiatives.  These countries include China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and to a certain extent, Russia.  The argument is that Europe and the U.S. created the climate problems that we had today, and that it is only fair that China and India have their turn to create Pittsburghs and Manchesters of their own as they industrialize.

Unfortunately, such equity is not possible in addressing climate change.  All countries must come together for meaningful work to be done.  It is fair, however, that industrialized countries contribute more, financially, than those who are still in the process of developing.

Sources:

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works
https://www3.epa.gov/captrade/

The article “Global Warming Rapidly Melts Massive Greenland Glacier” focuses on global warming in Greenland, when a massive glacier in the northeast region has melted and will end up raising global sea level by one foot and a half if it is melted completely. The article talks about how impressive the melting speed of the glacier was. On the other hand, scientists are not sure how long could it take for the entire glacier to melt and affect the planet, but they guarantee that according to recent events, it shouldn’t take long. These glaciers that have been melting in Greenland and other regions in the world are due to warming temperatures both in the sea and in the air. The ice part outside water melts due to the warmer air, and the ice inside the water melts due to the warmer ocean water passing by.

The article also talks about other ice sheets that are compromised due to this issue the world has been suffering lately. The two major ice sheets on earth are located in Greenland and Antarctica. The impressive fact about these two ice sheets is that it makes up to 99% of the freshwater ice in the planet. Global warming on the ice sheets can now be noticed by naked eye, and severe actions must be taken in order to control this situation in not only Greenland, but also other regions that are directly affected by global warming. Rising of sea level would cause a drastic effect in small islands around the world as well as cities located in the coast.

Reference: http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/11/12/greenland-glacier-melting-global-warming-climate-change/75661092/

Ashanti Thomas

April 24, 2016

Earth 103

Blog 12

Blog 12

 How does ancient climate inform us about future climate?

We can determine ancient climate by looking at tree rings, fossils, glaciers, and etc.

But to use ancient climate to determine future climate may be difficult. In an article titled “Ancient climate records ‘back predictions’” one of the most prominent facts state, “Records of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere millions of years ago support current predictions on climate change, say scientists.” This shows that the fossils that have been preserved for 2-3 million years have helped to preserve evidence as well predicting our future climate because our rising CO2 levels are matching those of the past and the ones predicted. (BBC)

By comparing past climate records with recent climate records it is easier to see what climate changes are reoccurring or what changes are similar to the past and that is how you can use ancient climate to predict future climates.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31131336

As reported by New York Times “Wildfires, Once Confined to a Season, Burn Earlier and Longer”, wildfires began to break out this year in late February. Like Alaska, many states have had an increase of wildfire during this year. This year alone, New Mexico has had 140 fires, doubling last year’s number. The fires have affected many areas; near the Colorado River, two recreational vehicle parks had to be evacuated from the area. Today’s wildfire season has become longer over the past years, not only in the United States but all over the world.

Many blame climate change for the events due to drier winters and warmer springs. As reported by Matt Jolly, an ecologist for the United States Forest Service, there are locations where the fire seasons last for the whole year. Alone in the United States, there were over 10 million acres that were burned, the highest ever recorded.

There are several wildfire academies around the country. At the Arizona Wildfire and Incident Management Academy, there are three separate types of training for firefighters. The academy prepares firefighters for today’s growing fires through a strategy called “indirect attack.” Unfortunately, the majority of environmentalists agree that the effects of global warming will only deteriorate, therefore assuming that the fires will also increase.

In December 2015, diplomats from 160+ countries met to discuss the looming issues of global warming and climate change. The New York Times has been extensively covering the results coming from this conference, as many of the countries begin to enact policies resulting from this conference. China, for instance, the largest polluter in the world, has pledged to either plateau or show decline in pollution by the year 2030, including stating that twenty percent of their energy will come from non-fossil fuel sources. China further committed to control public interest in future construction projects and industry with high amounts of pollution. Additionally, they pledged to set up a market for greenhouse gas quotas by 2017.

The United States pledged to cut emissions levels to more than 25 percent of 2005 levels by the year 2025. However, with The Donald looking like a possible president, this would be unlikely to occur, seeing as he does not accept the established science of human caused global warming.

The European Union vowed to cut emissions by forty percent by 2030, which seems possible given the fact that they are cutting them based on 1990 levels.

The article I read this week laid out the commitments put forth by many of the world’s leaders in the Paris Climate Accord that was signed in New York last week. The major parties include the US, the EU, China, India, Brazil, and Indonesia. All of these global powers promise a reduction in carbon emissions ranging from 20-40% below some value no earlier than 1990. China, America, and the EU plan to accomplish this primarily by shifting away from coal to renewable energy sources, like India who plans to increase its solar energy generation by more than a factor of 30, while countries such as Brazil and Indonesia plan to stem the mass deforestation that occurs in those countries. Russia, unsurprisingly, has made no formal commitment to combat climate change. India was also one of the only countries to commit to a significant reforestation program. One thing I found both interesting and embarrassing was that no public official in China vocally denies climate change, while here in the US, two of the leading presidential candidates as well as numerous members of congress and the Supreme Court openly reject the science of climate change. Additionally, it is embarrassing that Obama’s major initiative to begin mitigating global warming has been stalled by complaints filed in the Supreme Court that cannot be ruled upon until a new Justice is appointed. Brazil and the EU also face potential political challenges that may cause them to fall short of their commitments.

Though many scientists criticize the pledges made as not being aggressive enough in combating global warming, it is a critical step in the right direction that I trust will be built upon and upgraded in the coming decades. The cooperation shown by the world’s leaders is truly inspiring as someone who is very concerned about our climate, and I look forward to what we will be able to accomplish in the future.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/21/science/paris-agreement-carbon-dioxide-global-warming.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fearth&action=click&contentCollection=earth&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

If we want a sustainable future, are we better off letting the market (i.e., profits) control the decision making, or relying on some kind of a regulatory plan?

There is often the touting in politics of letting the invisible hand of the market decide how things are to be done, as though the market will always decide to do the right thing in it’s best interest. Which is nonsensical at best and deliberately misleading at worst. I know soda is bad for me. The Dr. Pepper I just drank had 250 calories in it and I loved it. Salad is good for me, and I don’t eat it. The market is comprised of people, people make bad decisions for their short term interest all the time.

Politically it’s provable that deregulating economic markets and energy markets would not help the economy. George Bush called it Voodoo economics, then as Reagan’s Vice- President denied that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hnM6xNjeU But Bush was correct all along.

Fast forward to modern day and we have politicians debating the existence of facts because they get massive amounts of lobbying money, otherwise known as bribes, from fossil fuels, special interests, and generally not for the environment in their policies.

So keeping this in mind, and noting that the Richard Branson and Elon Musk kinds of billionaires are the exception rather than the rule, what reason could anyone believe that the markets will do the thing that isn’t immediately profitable, for future potential profits and sustainability, unless there was signifigant penalties and incentives to make them do this? I end this diatribe, with a relevant quote from Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, “Every GOP administration since 1952 has let the Military-Industrial Complex loot the Treasury and plunge the nation into debt on the excuse of a wartime economic emergency. Richard Nixon comes quickly to mind, along with Ronald Reagan and his ridiculous “trickle-down” theory of US economic policy. If the rich get richer, the theory goes, before long their pots will overflow and somehow “trickle down” to the poor, who would rather eat scraps off the Bush family plates than eat nothing at all. Republicans have never approved of democracy, and they never will. It goes back to pre-industrial America, when only white male property owners could vote.”

He wrote this during the time of George W. Bush as president. He’s been dead for eleven years and he’s still right in my opinion. Electing a new congress that will hammer through pro environment policies should be a top priority. Half the Great barrier reef is dying.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/great-barrier-reef-half-of-natural-wonder-is-dead-or-dying-and-it-is-on-the-brink-of-extinction-a6992411.html We can either attempt to reverse course on this mess or crash headlong into it. And the decision in this country rests with the electorate. Maybe expect that the worst will come to pass, because the  trees are not going to come alive and drown the fires in India and China like they did in Isengard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8WyXv7hQvE

Earth day was this past week, so I thought it would be fitting to write about the celebration of the relatively new holiday by taking a look into the world’s oldest known tree. The tree is in Inyo National Forest and is a bristlecone pine. The name is Methuselah and it is approximately 4847 years old. You will not easily be able to find a picture of the tree as it is so well protected by the National Forest. The protection of a tree may seem excessive by some, but it is done for good reason, since many people are more interested in carving their initials into it than preserving it for the appreciation of the world. Another reason the protection is necessary is that another tree (which was even older) named Prometheus, which had the crown of the oldest tree previously, was cut down during research by a graduate student in 1964. Coincidentally, he was doing research on “the effects of climate change on receding glaciers by measuring their influence on the size of the rings of ancient pine trees” as we have studied recently in class. As ridiculous as it sounds, he felled the tree to retrieve a tool that he had gotten stuck in the trunk of the tree. It was about 4900 years old when it was cut down. Thankfully, he got his tool back though. Now these trees are much more heavily guarded by the forest service and details of the locations are heavily restricted. If someone does get the opportunity to see them in person, they are magnificent because of how wide they are and even more so, knowing that they only grow 1/100th of an inch on a good year.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/science/earth-day-worlds-oldest-tree-bristlecone-pine.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Big businesses are asking world leaders to do more to address climate change. The top executive from these companies – BG Group, BP, Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, Statoil and Total – called for a tax on carbon emissions. What they are asking for is for an efficient and predictable policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, a carbon tax would raise the price of fossil fuels, with more taxes collected on fuels that generate more emissions. The objective for this tax is to reduce demand for high-carbon emission fuels and increase demand for lower-emission fuels like natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear and hydroelectric that would face lower taxes or no taxes. The tax must also be applied to imported goods from countries that do not asses a similar charge on the use of fossil fuels. In the United States, federal and state taxes on gasoline and diesel are effectively carbon taxes. Yet, at the federal level these taxes have not increased since 1993.

However, not all the businesses agree with these taxes. This is why Christopher Knittel, an expert on energy economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says that a properly calibrated carbon price in the United States could effectively replace all the climate-related regulations businesses do not like, including renewable fuel mandates and President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. That would create a clear incentive for businesses and consumers to use less fuel, invest in efficiency and switch to cleaner energy. The only other necessary action, in Professor Knittel’s view, would be more government support for research and development to accelerate the quest for new energy technologies.

References:

• (2015, June 06). The Case for a Carbon Tax. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/the-case-for-a-carbon-tax.html
• Porter, E. (2016, March 01). Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Columbia. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/business/does-a-carbon-tax-work-ask-british-columbia.html

To help conserve endangered species like birds, we would have to work on not affecting the environment we live in. For example when we do not recycle we have to cut down twice as many trees to make up for product demands. That is destroying birds habitats.

people could recycle or buy products that do not affect the earth, such as natural and organic foods and products. Avoid supporting buying souvenirs that are made from these endangered species. Or even try planting simple trees or flowers on your property to help provide a simple home for a small bird.

http://www.endangered.org/10-easy-things-you-can-do-to-save-endangered-species/

You can easily help to protect endangered birds right in your backyard, by planting. In everyday life you live try to keep your animals like cats because even if they are domesticated they are still natural hunters and will hunt and kill birds when they are outside roaming freely.

In considering the best way to safeguard the bird population, the most important aspect is their habitat.  If a birds habitat is destroyed, as is often the case, the bird has little chance of survival.  Yes, banning hunting in places where the population is threatened is important, as is protection of the nesting period and protection of their food supply – but habitats are the root of many of these secondary priorities.

In particular, coastal habitats are perhaps the most at risk to degradation, by nature of them being a shared bird-human habitat.  The Audubon Society counts this specific relationship as one of its five core efforts in protection of bird populations.  I have seen this often, as the Audubon Society has a wildlife preserve and education center in Wellfleet, Mass. (on Cape Cod).  The efforts of this group to protect birds that are nesting on the coast and preserve the dunes and grasses that they rely upon for survival, despite the relentless efforts by humans do degrade these natural habitats.

In protecting natural habitats, a combination of wildlife preserves and responsible sharing is the best path forward.  The Audubon Society cites “sharing our seas and shores” as its goal for marine bird preservation, one that is meaningful in conjunction with preservation of those shared habitats.  The key to all other defense and preservation of birds is protection of habitat, after which several other secondary efforts can be made to truly safeguard these populations.

https://www.audubon.org/conservation

Russia has long been at odds with the United States over various issues, dating back many decades. Most of this has to do with Putin and his divisive world views. Putin, for example, strongly denies the evidence supporting global warming and climate change, and does his best to keep it out of mainstream Russian media, according to this article. Putin’s opinions on climate change mimic it as a joke, with claims as outlandish as global warming being good because it will reduce spending on fur coats and increase grain production. Critics of Putin claim he believes the evidence is fraudulent and has the intention of economically restricting industrial countries like Russia. Grist author Katie Herzog believes that this could have a lot to do with money, and the recently breaking Panama Papers could back this statement up. The Panama Papers link enormous amounts of money to close advisers and friends of Putin with no explanation for how they came up with the money. For instance, payments of up to $200 million to a cellist and totaling $2 billion to Putin’s inner circle, with very little reasoning behind them, have been found. While it’s merely speculation now, these payments very easily could have come from oil tycoons, and with Russia being the largest producer of oil in the world, this seems logical. And seeing as retreating ice caps open up new areas for oil exploration, this seems to be a solid connection.

The article “Russia takes a skeptical approach to climate change thanks to Putin” talks about the reaction of Russia regarding a topic that has been debated a lot in the past few years: climate change. Due to its geographic location, which is close to the Artic, Russia is one of the countries that can get most affected by climate change and therefore the rise of sea level. Most people would think that because of this, people in Russia are really worried about it and are trying to figure out a way to fix this issue, right? But the answer is no.

Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, is trying his best to avoid Russian citizens to obtain more knowledge regarding this issue. After a visit to the Arctic in 2010, Putin was able to see retreating ice caps all over the place, but he still believed that the reason for climate change is not human activities. Putin believes that climate change is occurring naturally and humans are not related to it. It is said that one of the reasons why he believes this is because Putin is just plain delusional. Another good reason is because money. With climate change and the rise of sea level occurring in the world, polar ice would melt. With that happening, new areas of oil exploration would be opened near Russia, and the country would end up getting benefited by that. People are claiming that Putin should stop thinking about money and start realizing that the world’s future is in risk.

Reference: http://grist.org/article/russia-takes-a-skeptical-approach-to-climate-change-thanks-to-putin/

Earlier in the semester I posted about the severity of California’s water crisis and the measures the state’s governor had made to mitigate it. Last year the snow pack in the Sierra, which comprises nearly a 3rd of CA’s water source, was a mere 5% of the average. This year, thanks to the strong El Nino in the eastern Pacific, the snowpack was up to 87% of the average. [1] This seems at first glance to be a great improvement, and as though it could significantly aid Californian’s in their need for water. However, this is not necessarily the case for several reasons, which are enumerated in the article from the New York Times cited below. First and foremost, the majority of this snowpack is unlikely to be of help to the southern half of the state, which is typically drier to begin with. Second, as global warming progresses we are seeing higher proportions of the winter precipitation falling in liquid form as opposed to snow, causing more to run off quickly rather than be released slowly during spring time melting. Lastly, and coincident with my project topic for another class, the decrease in natural wildfires has lead to an average of 500% increase in trees per acre, which diminishes the water supply both through uptake for growing and proximate melting from the heat they give off. The primary message I took from this article was that despite having significantly more snowpack this year compared to last, Californians cannot afford to relax their water saving strategies in the face of global warming.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/science/california-snow-drought-sierra-nevada-water.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fearth&action=click&contentCollection=earth&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0