The Hidden Spill

Earlier, I wrote an essay on the effects of advertising called "Climate Change: The Elephant in the Room." It highlighted the ways by which the American public is largely unaware of critical environmental issues taking place right now. I linked the lack of awareness to a media which innately censored stories and information to protect the reputation of their advertisers. News networks like CNN and FOX News rely on, for a large part of their profits, on advertising for companies which have strong ties to the oil industry. The result, as I described, was a certain amount of censorship on stories on climate change in order to prevent those companies from ever being portrayed in a bad light. Just breaking now, is a story closely related to my argument in my essay, that will prove to be a significant player in the future of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The following video serves as a good introduction to the problem:

This video was uploaded on Youtube.com, March 31,2013, showing a neighborhood in Arkansas severely effected by a recent ExxonMobil pipeline oil spill.

According to the Los Angeles Times, "the ExxonMobil pipeline spill, initially estimated to have released at least 157,000 gallons of crude oil [has] driven more than 20 families from their homes." (Pearce). This spill, which is now worse than previously estimated was devastating to the families effected as well as the surrounding ecosystem which was primarily environmentally sensitive wetlands (Shrogren). Still, despite all the damage, media coverage has been remarkably low.

I found out about this spill by stumbling upon the video above on April 1. Naturally, I wanted to learn more, only to find that information was not easily available. Usually, major issues immediately hit the headlines, but that was not the case with this Arkansas oil spill. During the first week following the spill, the only news story I could find from an agency I knew was NPR. NPR of course, is publicly funded, and therefore unrestrained by the agendas of their advertisers. I started to wonder if this spill was purposely hidden from the public.

Upon further investigation, after nearly two weeks after the spill, I found another news agency that picked up on the mysterious lack of information, the RT Network. By no surprise, like NPR, they are also non-profit. The following video brings up an interesting question.

 The RT Network speculates that a no fly-zone around the spill is part of an Exxon Mobil cover up.

According to RT, the no-fly zone around the spill, set up by the FAA, may be an attempt to hide the damage from the public. It is important to keep in mind that this also comes in a time when oil companies are trying to get the Keystone XL pipeline passed. A spill of this magnitude would most certainly sway some public opinion against the pipeline. As I mentioned in my essay, "Climate Change: The Elephant in the Room," companies like ExxonMobil have incredible power in the United States government. It would not surprise me at all, if they were indeed using the FAA to prevent negative publicity.
 
This oil spill goes to show how much power oil companies like ExxonMobil have. They can manipulate the media, as well as the government, at their own whim. There is the old cliché that "money can't buy happiness." Try telling that to the oil industry.

Works Cited

Exxon Pipeline Breaks in Arkansas. Prod. Drew Barnes. 2013. Online Video.

"Media Grounded: No-fly Zone over Arkansas Oil Spill to Censor News Coverage?" YouTube. 
             YouTube, 04 Apr. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.

Pearce, Matt April. "Arkansas Oil Spill Is Only a Fraction of Annual Pipeline Losses." Los Angeles
             Times. Los Angeles Times, 12 Apr. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.

 Shogren, Elizabeth. "Arkansas Oil Spill Sheds Light On Aging Pipeline System." NPR. NPR, 04
             Apr. 2013. Web. 12 Apr. 2013.

Fracking: A Problematic Solution

            In recent years, exploitation of unconventional oil and natural gas reserves in the United States has generated much controversy. At the height of the debate is a relatively new fossil fuel mining method called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Unlike conventional drilling, fracking utilizes water and chemicals under pressure to fracture underground shale rock, thus releasing, what is referred to as shale gas or oil, which may be trapped within it (King). While the technique has existed for over a century, new chemical and drilling advancements have caused it to boom since the 1990s. The method has proven successful at tapping once inaccessible reserves throughout the country and the world, but has also posed several new risks to the environment and public health. In response to numerous cases of contaminated land and water supplies as result of fracking activities, states have begun to regulate the relatively new industry. Supporters believe strongly that the benefits it would have for United States energy security far outweigh the disadvantages and that regulations should be lifted to increase access to public and private land. However, considering evidence from past fracking accidents, it is hard to say that promoting it would be in the best interest of the American people. Due to its potentially damaging effects on the environment and public health, fracking should not be pursued as a method to reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign energy.  

            According to advocates, bans and regulations on fracking should be loosened, in order to decrease the United States’ dependence on foreign energy and boost the economy. According to the American Petroleum Institute, “fracking has been used in more than one million U.S. wells, and has safely produced more than seven billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas” (“Hydraulic Fracturing | Energy Tomorrow”). Advocates maintain that even with so much past production, environmental impact has been minimal. It is also believed that with further exploitation of once inaccessible oil and natural gas reserves, the United States will significantly reduce oil imports from foreign countries. Domestic fracking has the ability to make trillions of cubic feet of natural gas available for our use (“Hydraulic Fracturing | Energy Tomorrow”). Considering that natural gas is a relatively clean fossil fuel, it would not only improve our energy security, but could help usher in a new gas-powered economy. With conventional oil supplies on the decline, it seems to some, that fracking will be our best option to supply our future energy needs.

To some degree, advocates of fracking have a point. History has shown us that when we depend too much on foreign oil, we are susceptible to the instabilities of the countries we import from. In 1973, OPEC countries, angered about United States support for Isreal in the Yom Kippur War, embargoed all petroleum shipments to the United States and its allies, causing an energy crisis. The result quadrupled the cost of oil per barrel, and caused massive shortages of gasoline, diesel, and other essential oil based products (“1973 Oil Crisis”). To avoid such crises again, we would logically need to become more self-reliant in the energy sector. While the United States has been decreasing oil production since 1970, fracking is one way that we could slightly rebound that decline (EIA). According to the United States Energy Information Administration, there is an estimated 862 trillion cubic feet of economically recoverable natural gas from fracking within the borders of the United States (EIA). Natural gas from fracking could be a good alternative to oil as supporters of the drilling method often highlight. With oil steadily increasing in price and decreasing in supply, there will come a time when we will no longer be able to use oil to power our economy. The massive natural gas resource the United States has would clearly make us one of the world’s leading producers, but in turn may severely damage our own land.

The use of fracking would in part increase our overall supply of oil and natural gas, but only at a cost of the local and global environment as well as public health. In the words of Laurie Gral, “Fracking has caught the public's attention by raising concerns about the contamination of water wells, air pollution, above-ground spills, earthquakes and property damage it may cause” ("Who wants to be a Shaleionaire? Hidden concerns of fracking"). There have been numerous reports recently regarding questionable drilling practices by fracking companies, some of which have to make us question whether it is worth the potential damage. There is also the issue of global environmental harm, in which the exploitation of shale gas could delay innovations in renewable energy. By making a massive fossil fuel source available, there will be little reason for people to begin moving toward alternative energies like wind or solar. With climate change becoming more and more of a threat, a delay in reducing carbon dioxide emissions could be very problematic for future generations.

The hydraulic fracturing process requires the use of various chemicals that have proven to be very damaging to the local ecosystem and especially drinking water supplies. Above ground spills of chemical laden fracking fluid have led to numerous reports of animal and plant deaths surrounding the spill according to the non-profit group Earthjustice. In one 2009 report, “nearly all of the aquatic life was wiped out along a 30-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek” in Blacksville, Virgina. (“Fracking Across the United States”). The cause was later tied to fracking fluids which were disposed of in the creek. Along with this, there have been thousands of reports nationwide of water contamination by fracking activities (Gral). The potential for water contamination is highest for underground water supplies as shown in figure 1.  

Figure 1: This diagram of hydraulic fracturing demonstrates the potential for contamination of underground water supplies (Stephens).

When water and chemicals are forced down a drill shaft, it causes fractures in the surrounding rock. As shown in figure 1, the fractures can reach very close to an underground aquifer. If there is not proper sealing between the shale rock and aquifer, it is then very likely that the aquifer will become contaminated with the chemicals. The situation can escalate if the aquifer is connected to several drinking water wells as the water may become toxic or radioactive (Gral). If regulations on fracking were loosened, the potential damage, as shown by past accidents, would be devastating to local communities relying on aquifers for water. In this sense, the damage that fracking could do would far outweigh its benefits it would have in improving energy security.

On a larger scale, by opening up United States natural gas reserves, fracking could inadvertently cause a century delay in addressing global climate change. Opponents and supporters of fracking agree that oil is a limited resource and that natural gas could, in theory, replace it with regards to transportation and energy production. While natural gas is much cleaner than oil, producing half the carbon dioxide emissions, it is still a fossil fuel, and would still contribute to global climate change (EPA). Some say that natural gas would serve as a good stepping stone to renewable energy. However, the United States’ current natural gas reserves are expected to last for at least a century given our current rate of consumption. A century of a natural gas economy, would also be a century with little in the way of environmental progress. With an abundant source of a fuel that we know well, investors would be less likely to invest in newer, more risky renewable energies. In a sense, by making natural gas more available, fracking would deter innovations that would help curb global climate change. The delay could be very damaging, if climate change predictions are correct.

            The disadvantages of fracking outweigh it advantage to provide enhanced energy security in the United States. Advocates of the drilling method acknowledge that a combination of foreign oil dependence and the depletion of our oil supplies will require us to reduce our demand on oil. A better solution than fracking however, would be by investing in renewable energies like windpower, biofuels, or solar. For New York, the possibility of transitioning their entire energy infrastructure to renewable energy is within reach as Rob Jordan of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, explains.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo will soon decide whether  to

approve hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the state. To

date, no alternative to expanded gas drilling has been proposed.

But a new study finds that it is technically and economically

feasible to convert New York's all-purpose energy infrastructure

to one powered by wind, water and sunlight. (Jordan)

The possibility for creating an economy entirely dependent on renewable energy is possible for not only New York, but the country. By investing in clean energy, the United States would be able to track on a path toward energy independence, all the while slowing the effects of climate change. It would have the same economic and energy security benefit of fracking, without the potential damage to the environment.

            The damaging effects of fracking does not justify the risk that it can pose to the environment and public health. Advocates propose that regulations on fracking should loosened in order to promote energy security for the United States. In truth, fracking would dramatically improve energy security by increasing the United States’ production of domestic fuel. The consequences, however, can be problematic for not only those living around drilling sites but for the world. Fracking would make an incredible natural gas resource available for our use, but may in turn delay progress to slow down climate change, and could cause dangerous land and water contamination. For that reason, a better alternative to improving United States energy security would be to promote and invest in clean, renewable energy.

Works Cited

"1973 Oil Crisis." Actionforex.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

"Fracking Across the United States." Map. Earthjustice.org. N.p., 9 May 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

Gral, Laurie. "Who wants to be a Shaleionaire? Hidden concerns of fracking." Journal of Property Management Jan.-Feb. 2013: 28+. Academic OneFile. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

"How Dependent Are We on Foreign Oil?" Eia.gov. United States Energy Information Administration, 13 July 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

"Hydraulic Fracturing | Energy Tomorrow." Energytomorrow.org. American Petroleum Institute, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

Jordan, Rob. "Stanford Researcher Maps out an Alternative Energy Future for New York." Stanford.edu. Stanford University, 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

King, Hobart. "What Is Hydraulic Fracturing." Geology.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

"Natural Gas." EPA.gov. Environmental Protection Agency, 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

Stephens, Duane. "Hydraulic Fracking Has Rewarded Oil and Gas Investors." Technorati.com. N.p., 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

A Word on Compromise

According to a Gallup Poll, congress had an average approval rating of 14% last year (Newport). This indicates to me, as it should to anyone else reading this, that there might be a problem with the way congress is operating. According to the Democrats, the Republicans are the problem because they refuse to negotiate. Interestingly, the Republicans blame the Democrats for the exact same thing. Still, no progress is being made to pass bills for the greater good of the citizens of the United States, or to improve their dismal approval rating. The solution naturally would be to compromise on the issues set before them, but this has never been a talent of our nation's senate. Every decision made in this country is either black or white; there is no grey area, compromise, or acknowledgement of the other side of an argument. The reason for such bullheadedness just may be the method of our congress people's arguments.

A typical argument consists of a thesis, followed by evidence to support that thesis, a refutation of the opposing argument, and a conclusion (Kirszner). This general method has always been good at starting fights, but rarely addresses a serious problem in our society because at least one side is blind to the other's opinion. A pro gun advocate would completely ignore any argument for gun control simply because they feel their view is under attack. They don't see a universal problem or any way to compromise, because in their mind, they are the only person who can possibly be right. The problem with the traditional argument is that it fails to acknowledge the opposing view. Without respecting another's opinion, absolutely no compromise can be made.

Psychologist, Carl Rogers, developed the Rogerian Argument form to create an argument grounded in compromise and respect rather than frustration. It consists of the usual thesis, evidence, and refutation, but includes a more civilized manner by which to argue. The speaker addresses a universal problem and suggests solutions all while maintaining that the opposing argument does have some validity. It is less of an "attack" on an opposing view than a typical argument and generally has more success at reaching a verdict. A pro gun advocate may coynsider listening to another's argument if they can see a common problem and realize that the other person respects their opinion. 

If our political parties used Rogerian argument to address their concerns about the United States, we would be in much better shape than we currently are now. Every argument in the senate always seems to end up as a stalemate. Even problems with an almost obvious solution continue to see no progress being made whatsoever. The Rogerian Argument makes all the sense in the world to achieve a solution to an argument. One would think that congress would be the first to employ it's method. Considering that they don't, I really  question how fit our elected officials really are to run this country. 

Works Cited

Kirszner, Laurie G., and Stephen R. Mandell. "Understanding Argument." Practical Argument: A Text and

              Anthology. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. N. pag. Print.

Newport, Frank. "Congress Begins 2013 With 14% Approval." Congress Begins 2013 With 14%   

            Approval. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Mar. 2013.

The Global Warming Paradise

Here's a segment from Fox News that may be interesting...

Demonstrated in this Fox News segment  is the single biggest misconception about climate change, or "global warming"

The term global warming has long been used to describe the average global temperature increase over the last century by scientists worldwide. However, because of it's terminology, confusion has run rampant throughout the media and the general public as to it's meaning. Many, (including Fox News apparently) are now under the impression that global warming always means warmer winters and less snow. Some go as far as believing that they will soon be able to go to the beach in the dead of winter. In some cases, like in the preceding video, any snowfall is perfect grounds for disproving global warming all-together. Such beliefs are tragically inaccurate and are simply a result of a lack of understanding of the concept.

I, as well as the scientific community now choose to use the term climate change rather than global warming to describe the increase  of average global temperature. This is to avoid confusing people with their previous notions of global warming as a tropical paradise. The real truth of global climate change is tragically different than is commonly believed. True, some places will receive less snow per year, but in return will be experiencing more, potentially devastating, climatic abnormalities. Chicago for instance, may have record low snowfall totals, but in the same year may experience their longest and hottest dry-spell. Global climate change can be better described by more extreme weather for places that never had such extremes. Massive snowstorms are not out of the question, as are not massive hurricanes like Sandy which devastated the east coast.

To put it simply, if people don't know that climate change exists, or if humans are the cause of it, they are unlikely to take measures to slow the process down. Fox News, and other news agencies, play a big roll in this misunderstanding. The difference between the general public, which is largely informed by the media, and scientists, educated on climate change, is evidenced by the graph below.

Figure 1. Response to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The general public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx) (Masters).

The graph above has been compiled from a survey of 3146 climate scientists and a 2008 Gallup poll (Masters). It clearly shows that scientists, that work in the field and have seen the evidence, overwhelmingly agree that climate change is  mostly caused by human activities. The general public however, does not have this sort of agreement. According to the graph, around 40% of the public don't believe that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures" (Masters). Less than 60% are in agreement with it, unlike 97% of actively publishing climatologists. People simply don't understand climate change enough to make educated decisions. It is very likely that the media is to blame.

Works cited

Masters, Jeff, Dr. "Opinion Polls on Climate Change." Web log post. Wunderground.com. N.p., n.d. Web.

           11 Feb. 2013.

Climate Change: The Elephant in the Room

As if monster storms, brutal heat, and decade long droughts were not enough, one would think losing our cities to the ocean would make people think twice about global climate change. Still, they would be hard pressed to find anyone today, particularly in the United States, who have a concrete opinion on the matter. Global climate change, more commonly referred to as global warming, has been building momentum for over a century, due to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions as result of human activities. The potential consequences, as estimated from an overwhelming amount of evidence, are immense. Still, the people and government of the United States, continue to promote activities that are detrimental to the environment all the while discouraging those that are not. We continue to see little in the ways of environmental progress in our society even as the effects of global climate change become more apparent. This slow environmental progress raises a question, why is there so much pushback from Americans on an issue that just may be the biggest challenge of our future? The reason for the lack of response to climate change is a result of special interests’ dedication to maintaining the current economic status quo.

When we consider the most profitable businesses in the world, there are always a handful that consistently make the top ten of the Fortune 500 list. Among the most notable in 2012 were Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips (CNNMoney). All of these companies have one aspect in common; they all rely on fossil fuels to make a profit. Fossil fuels, which include oil, natural gas, coal, and their by-products, are the dominant source for energy in the United States and the world. In 2011 alone, “nonrenewable fossil fuels made up more than four-fifths of U.S. energy consumption” (U.S. Energy Information Administration). Fossil fuels are notoriously dirty fuels from an environmental perspective as they release a significant amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when they are burned (Kaczmarek). Carbon dioxide is considered the lead contributor to global warming as it traps heat in the atmosphere and thus warms the planet (Kaczmarek). Oil companies like Exxon Mobil rely solely on oil to make their profit. Environmental progress logically means reducing fossil fuel consumption, a situation which is less than ideal for companies so dedicated to profiting off of them. This, as it turns out, has become one of the biggest hindrances for environmental progress.

We would be naïve to believe that a company like Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in the world, has little say in United States politics. According to The Center for Responsive Politics, fossil fuel companies invested over $138,000,000 in lobbying efforts in the United States government in 2012 (“Lobbying Spending Database”). Among the bills they lobbied for was an amendment to the Clean Air Act to “prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change” (“Lobbying Spending Database”). This amendment would essentially eliminate the chance of the EPA regulating CO₂ emissions to curb its effects on climate change. It would be a clear win for the fossil fuel lobby, as they would not be forced to reduce their environmental impact. Reducing their environmental impact would require significant investment in green technologies which would, in turn, affect their profits negatively. Such lobbying is all too common in Washington, and it is ultimately preventing bills related to climate change from getting passed. The effects of the private sector on mitigating climate change are not limited to government, but on the people of the United States as well.

Educating the public on an issue is one of the most important methods to gain support for a cause. Much like electing a political figure, people need knowledge to make an educated decision on an issue; otherwise they will not be able to establish a concrete opinion. As far as climate change goes, Americans have always been ill-informed. According to a Yale University study, only one in ten Americans believe they are “very well informed about climate change;” of those test subjects, only fifty percent “understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities” (Leiserowitz). The fact that global warming is caused by human activities is no longer debated in the scientific community as it is believed by a large percentage of Americans. Based on Yale University’s study, too many Americans are kept out of the loop with regard to climate change. This misunderstanding and lack of knowledge are the results of very poor coverage on climate change by the media.

News networks like CBS, FOX, and CNN have the ability to connect with and inform an incredible amount of people. As a result, much of our knowledge about current events and issues is derived from such sources. According to a Media Matters For America research study, climate change continues to see little coverage in the media, despite scientist’s rising concerns (Fitzsimmons). Jill Fitzsimmons explains the decline in coverage with Sunday news programs like Meet The Press and This Week,

Since 2009, climate coverage on the Sunday shows has declined

every year. In 2012, the Sunday shows spent less than 8 minutes on

climate change, down from 9 minutes in 2011, 21 minutes in 2010,

and over an hour in 2009. The vast majority of coverage - 89 percent

- was driven by politics, and none was driven by scientific findings

(Fitzsimmons).

Despite 2012 being the hottest year on record, with the worst United States drought, Hurricane Sandy, and the most sea ice melt in history, news coverage of climate change was the lowest it had been in four years. United States news networks clearly chose not to include climate change in their programs. They also made the choice to interview, not scientists who understand the subject, but republican politicians who typically have an anti-climate change belief (Fitzsimmons). The reason for this censorship is the television network’s affiliation with certain companies.

Television networks make a profit by selling commercial and sponsorship spaces throughout their programming. It is then in their best interest, from a business standpoint, to censor news stories and topics that may work against the interest of their advertisers. For example, if a grocery store sponsored a news segment, it would be very unlikely that the network would choose to include any stories about food poisoning as it might deter people from buying certain foods. The same goes for companies with anti–climate change interests. Automobiles are considered one of the biggest problems with regard to climate change due to their emissions and fossil fuel use. A news story, sponsored by a car company, simply would not include any information regarding climate change because it would portray it in a bad light. Automotive advertising has been, for the last three years, the highest advertising expenditure out of all consumer product categories and is rising (Kantar Media). It only makes sense that a news network would not “bite the hand that feeds them.” The result, however, only hurts the viewers, as they can be misled or uninformed about an important issue. Without knowledge about climate change, the public is not able to develop an opinion and push for reform.

            Some people and businesses believe that the reason for such lack of knowledge about climate change is simply because it is a lesser problem than other current issues. People in the United States are caring more about more immediate issues like the economy and job creation. Climate change at this time is not on the minds of Americans and, in some cases, is completely ignored or mocked. They do not believe that an already weak economy should be risked on attempting to mitigate the effects of climate change. In truth, enacting new regulations, and pushing for environmental reform will be difficult given the state of the economy. However, it is imperative that progress be made to protect future generations. Americans that consider today’s economy a higher priority to addressing climate change fail to understand the potential consequences it might have on the economy itself in the future. If scientific predictions are correct, on the effects of climate change, the agricultural industry will struggle, gas prices will rise uncontrollably, and coastlines and major cities will be overtaken by rising oceans. It is likely that if the skeptics knew the true effects of global climate change on the future, they would consider it a higher priority. The cause for their skepticism just may be a lack of understanding on the subject.

            The goal of big companies is to make a profit, and sometimes a profit requires unsustainable practices. Companies like Exxon Mobil make their money from selling fossil fuels, which are considered major contributors to global climate change. They invest in lobbying efforts in the government to prevent environmental reforms from changing their ways. Having anti-climate change agendas translates into the media, where immense advertising expenditures keep important information out of the minds of the general public. Such censorship leads to an ill-informed society, where a catastrophe as devastating as climate change can be kept hidden away. It leads to skepticism and ultimately a country unprepared for the future. Scientists are peering into our future now and they are revealing potentially devastating consequences of our actions today. The writing is on the wall, and the initiative must be made to change for the better.

Works Cited

"Ad Spending." TVB.org. Television Bureau of Advertising, n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.

Fitzsimmons, Jill. Media Matters For America. Rep. N.p., 8 Jan. 2013. Web. 6 Feb. 2013.

Bernstein, Lenny, et al. An Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Rep. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Nov. 2007. Web. 4 Feb. 2013.

"Fortune 500 2012: Fortune 1000 Companies 1-100." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 21 May 2012. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.

Kaczmarek, Stephen. "The Carbon Economy." Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, MA. 4 Dec. 2012. Lecture.

Leiserowitz, Anthony, Nicholas Smith, and Jennifer R. Marlon. Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change. Yale.edu. N.p., 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 03 Feb. 2013.

"Lobbying Spending Database H.R.910, 2010." Opensecrets RSS. The Center for Responsive Politics, n.d. Web. 03 Feb. 2013.

"U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." Energy Perspectives: Fossil Fuels Dominate U.S. Energy Consumption. N.p., 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 04 Feb. 2013.

The Secret Behind the Misconceptions

Before developing my thesis for my first essay, I needed a topic that intrigued me, something that I could learn about and at the same time write a book about. That for me was clearly climate change, as it is, in my opinion, the biggest problem us humans will face in the next century. Of course, climate change as a topic is incredibly broad, as it entails so much politics, economics, and science. To add some specificity, I looked for something that bothered me most about climate change. It was the way so few people truly understand the subject.

 My inspiration came from a five minute conversation with the store manager at my work. After mentioning that I was in school as a geography major with hopes of studying climate, he piped up saying that “global warming is fake.” Of course, my next move was to refute that statement. I told him about carbon dioxide emissions and how it correlates to global temperature, out of control fossil fuel burning, and how rising populations will continue to demand more and more resources. Expecting more push-back  I was surprised to hear his response. In his words, “we’ll have to do something about it, but the problem is that no one can agree on a solution.” Here he was, an educated professional, starting with an anti-climate change belief and coming to a conclusion, after a two minute conversation, that there might be some truth in it. This led me to believe that he really has no concrete opinion on the matter. It made me think about how many other people I know are in the same situation. Upon more research, I found that this pattern is all too common. 
                According to a Yale University study, only one in ten Americans feel that they are “very well informed about climate change.” Along with this, only fifty percent of the subjects in the study believed humans were the cause. The fact that climate change is caused by humans is no longer debated by the scientific community. This has been the case for half a decade, yet so many members of the public, my store's manager included, still wonder if it is true. There is a factor in our society that inhibits knowledge about climate change, and I set out to figure it out. 

After setting up a causal chain, I realized that the underlying cause of such a lack of knowledge could very well be, special interests. More specifically, businesses like Exxon Mobil and BP who profit solely off of fossil fuels, a huge contributor to global climate change. They have more power than we can ever imagine in media, government, and in their customers. It only makes sense to me, that companies so dedicated to discredit climate change as a myth would be one of the biggest causes to the lack of knowledge in the general public about it. Upon further investigation, I found this to make more and more sense.

Works cited

Leiserowitz, Anthony, Nicholas Smith, and Jennifer R. Marlon. Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change. Yale.edu. N.p., 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 03 Feb. 2013. 

Assignment 3 Response

1. The "wife beater" clothing style has been increasing in popularity and brings up questions as to the inspiration of it.

2. According to smith the "wife beater," bears a disturbing name of domestic abuse, is often misunderstood by those who wear it, and dilutes the real effects of domestic abuse.

3. Smith includes the dictionary definition of wife-beater to demonstrate to the reader the real meaning of the word by the English language. In the writer's perspective, the name bears a much deeper meaning in that it represents domestic violence. Since it is currently being popularized, it is seeming to her that the meaning is being diluted.

4. Smith brings up that it is common for young people to simply ignore the meaning behind the name of  "wife beaters." She quickly attributes this ignorance to the fact that "children of abusers often learn the behavior from their elders." This insinuates that the reason it is becoming popular, is because the wearers just may be the next abusers. Her refutation therefore would create much controversy.

5. A picture would help strengthen the authors claim as it would give the reader a visual on not only what the clothing style looks like, but how it has been recently popularized.