Hi everyone,
I'm starting a new job and hopefully moving into a new house in the coming days. Thus, I won't have time left over to devote to this blog. I fully intend, once I am settled and back to a normal schedule, to continue this blog and the goals for which it stands.
So, expect me back in a couple weeks. Thank you so much reading and contributing.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Update
Sorry guys, no post this week. had a really packed weekend and am starting at a new, busier office tomorrow. I'll have one for next Sunday.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Man-Made Climate Change
Man-Made Climate Change, or as it was more widely-known, Global Warming, is a top-ranking political topic. The phenomenon is now called Climate Change because certain areas of the Earth are getting cooler instead of warmer. In this post I will analyze the arguments for and against Climate Change as well as its effect on the political sphere. I am not a meteorologist, but I will do my best to synthesize the scientific data. For all those scientists who are reading, please lend your thoughts.
In brief, Man-Made Climate Change is a warming or cooling of certain areas on Earth due to the proliferation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone) serve to absorb and expose infrared radiation onto the Earth after collecting it from both the Sun and thermal radiation that emits from the Earth itself. Naturally occurring gases warm the Earth, but the rise of man-made chemicals and gases have increased the amount of absorption and exposure, thus warming the Earth past what is normal.
Another argument from the pro-Climate Change camp is that soot particulates (both natural and unnatural) can have an unnatural cooling effect on the Earth. Whether it be from volcanic eruptions or aerosol particulates, certain particles block the suns radiation and cool the area the stratosphere they inhabit covers. Artificial pollutants have contributed slightly to this effect, while Greenhouse gases are the more prominent proponent of Man-Made Climate Change.
Those who do not agree with the prediction that irreversible damage will be done to our ozone layer rely mostly on the information gathered by those who made the study in the first place. They say that the evidence is not clear, accurate, or able to fully predict the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. They also say that current mitigation strategies (techniques to lower CO2 emissions) would only harm the economy more than it would lower Greenhouse Gases. To be more specific, limiting industry for a projected anticipation based on imperfect data would do neither the climate or the job market any good. In general, unless there is more compelling evidence, they aren't going to accept the theory.
Next, I will address both public and scientific opinion on Man-Made Climate Change. In 2008, there was an overwhelming acceptance of Climate Change, with Scientists being in near unanimous agreement that humans were affecting the Earth in this negative way. Many opposed it then, and a good few were unsure. In 2012, four years later, much has changed. The Scientific Community is still mostly in agreement, but those who oppose the theory are now being funded by like-minded non-scientists, and new studies are coming out rejecting the previously projected predictions. Political rhetoric, mostly from the conservative side, has become more vocal in their disagreement and warning of the dangers of limiting industry. All this has had an effect on public opinion, with more and more people becoming unsure of the likelihood of Man-Made Climate Change, as well as more of the public disagreeing with it completely.
It is here that I will give my personal belief on Man-Made Climate Change. As usual, the truth is in the middle of all the mud-slinging. Humans have a negative effect on the Earth, this is no secret. Deforestation limits the benefits trees and plants have on regulating CO2 and O2 in our atmosphere. Pollutants have a visible effect on the air and ocean. Anyone who travels from Los Angeles to Big Bear can easily see how industry can brown the sky and create for less pure air quality. The BP and Exon Valdez oil spills harm and pollute wildlife, and toxic dumps make water undrinkable. These are obvious issues. Climate Change is less obvious, but only slightly so. I have no doubt that the artificial and extra gases we release into the air have a negative effect on the Earth. Substances that don't occur in nature aren't handled well by it either; for instance, styrofoam can take anywhere from 1 million to an eternity to decompose. While the evidence purported by the Scientific Community is compelling to me, there is a chance it may be exaggerated. The opposition has a point in that the studies are not conclusive and are difficult to prove. However, this does not mean they should be cast aside. The studies should be refined and improved, while measures that lower emissions but do not place harmful limits on the economy should be implemented. Measures such as better fuel economy and cleaner energy, as well as renewable energy, should have greater funding and focus.
Once again, I turn the discussion over to you, the readers. Which side, if any, do you support? What should be done?
Thanks for reading.
In brief, Man-Made Climate Change is a warming or cooling of certain areas on Earth due to the proliferation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone) serve to absorb and expose infrared radiation onto the Earth after collecting it from both the Sun and thermal radiation that emits from the Earth itself. Naturally occurring gases warm the Earth, but the rise of man-made chemicals and gases have increased the amount of absorption and exposure, thus warming the Earth past what is normal.
Another argument from the pro-Climate Change camp is that soot particulates (both natural and unnatural) can have an unnatural cooling effect on the Earth. Whether it be from volcanic eruptions or aerosol particulates, certain particles block the suns radiation and cool the area the stratosphere they inhabit covers. Artificial pollutants have contributed slightly to this effect, while Greenhouse gases are the more prominent proponent of Man-Made Climate Change.
Those who do not agree with the prediction that irreversible damage will be done to our ozone layer rely mostly on the information gathered by those who made the study in the first place. They say that the evidence is not clear, accurate, or able to fully predict the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere. They also say that current mitigation strategies (techniques to lower CO2 emissions) would only harm the economy more than it would lower Greenhouse Gases. To be more specific, limiting industry for a projected anticipation based on imperfect data would do neither the climate or the job market any good. In general, unless there is more compelling evidence, they aren't going to accept the theory.
Next, I will address both public and scientific opinion on Man-Made Climate Change. In 2008, there was an overwhelming acceptance of Climate Change, with Scientists being in near unanimous agreement that humans were affecting the Earth in this negative way. Many opposed it then, and a good few were unsure. In 2012, four years later, much has changed. The Scientific Community is still mostly in agreement, but those who oppose the theory are now being funded by like-minded non-scientists, and new studies are coming out rejecting the previously projected predictions. Political rhetoric, mostly from the conservative side, has become more vocal in their disagreement and warning of the dangers of limiting industry. All this has had an effect on public opinion, with more and more people becoming unsure of the likelihood of Man-Made Climate Change, as well as more of the public disagreeing with it completely.
It is here that I will give my personal belief on Man-Made Climate Change. As usual, the truth is in the middle of all the mud-slinging. Humans have a negative effect on the Earth, this is no secret. Deforestation limits the benefits trees and plants have on regulating CO2 and O2 in our atmosphere. Pollutants have a visible effect on the air and ocean. Anyone who travels from Los Angeles to Big Bear can easily see how industry can brown the sky and create for less pure air quality. The BP and Exon Valdez oil spills harm and pollute wildlife, and toxic dumps make water undrinkable. These are obvious issues. Climate Change is less obvious, but only slightly so. I have no doubt that the artificial and extra gases we release into the air have a negative effect on the Earth. Substances that don't occur in nature aren't handled well by it either; for instance, styrofoam can take anywhere from 1 million to an eternity to decompose. While the evidence purported by the Scientific Community is compelling to me, there is a chance it may be exaggerated. The opposition has a point in that the studies are not conclusive and are difficult to prove. However, this does not mean they should be cast aside. The studies should be refined and improved, while measures that lower emissions but do not place harmful limits on the economy should be implemented. Measures such as better fuel economy and cleaner energy, as well as renewable energy, should have greater funding and focus.
Once again, I turn the discussion over to you, the readers. Which side, if any, do you support? What should be done?
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Health Care
This is a topic in which I have a very difficult time gathering unbiased and straight-forward information. The supporters of each side can be incredibly inflammatory and zealous, making the truth or even the pros and cons of each very murky. Therefore, I invite anyone with expertise or general knowledge in the area to lend their voice and correct me where I am wrong.
It is my understanding that Universal Health Care is a government-run system in which every citizen possesses health care insurance. This is achieved through a higher tax rate paid by the citizens than what we in America are used to. Such a system is embraced by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Russia, most of continental Europe, certain parts of South America, Mexico, many areas of Asia including India, and other countries are attempting to obtain it.
The current system in America is a sort of hybrid. Government-run programs such as Medicare and Medicaid provide health insurance for the elderly and impoverished, while there is a wealth of private health insurance companies that provide services to those who can afford them.
The current political issue, which has been mounting for years, is that around 50 million Americans are without health insurance because they can not afford it or are illegal aliens. While many have cried out for health care reform, everyone has decried either one or all of the proposed reforms. Some propose a shift to the Universal Health Care system, while opponents claim that will require an unacceptable raise in taxes that Americans neither want nor can afford especially in this economic client. The recent passing of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was meant to extend affordable and updated coverage to 30 million Americans (a good third of which are illegal immigrants). This has been met with extreme opposition by the conservative right as a drain on the economy and American people. Supporters claim the opponents would rather let those who can't afford health care to do without. Both are not entirely true in their assertions, and the truth of the matter is no clearer than it was when I began this post.
For my opinion, I'm afraid I don't know exactly where we can go from here. I agree that raising our taxes isn't going to necessarily going to help our economic state, but it is abhorrent that 50 million Americans are without basic health insurance. We are a first world country, this and other items such as discrimination, bigotry, corruption, and other malefactors should not be an issue. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. Our infrastructure is quite sizeable compared to many countries of Europe who place confidence in their Universal Health Care. The US has almost 6 times the population of the UK, and twice the population of Russia. Our issues of illegal immigration, debt, conflict in congress, and other problems wouldn't be able to handle the immediate or even gradual shift to a non-competitive system. To make such a drastic change would be risky at the least and destructive at the most, and the inefficiency of our government is not something I would put my trust into when it came to my health. While countries with Universal Health Care tend to have longer life expectancies, they also don't have our same problems, so one system does not always translate well in a different situation.
That being said, I'm also not pleased with many of our private institutions, I've been through interviews with companies that are clearly scams and should be kept in check with smart and efficient regulations. However, regulations are currently contributing to the lack of competition between insurance companies, and when there is a lack of competition, the costumers suffer. Less and less is being covered, and costs are going up. Doctor's are being forced to run larger practices just to stay afloat, but still can't attend to all their patients.
I suppose I don't object to our current hybrid system. Those that want a higher and faster quality of health care, and that can afford it, should have it. Meanwhile, the government should provide a lower cost alternative that competes with its privately funded kin. The current system, however, is not working. The issue of illegal immigration hurts everyone involved. A pregnant woman can cross the border illegally, and the border patrol is required by law to give them a map to the nearest hospital. The child is born, and they are an American citizen. This is a very delicate situation; by no means should the woman be turned away, but when she doesn't pay for the service, the hospital suffers. Multiply this by millions times a year, and the issue becomes apparent.
I now turn it over to you, the readers. What do you think should be done? Should we repeal Obamacare in its entirety? Should we keep it and move to a universal system? Should be we elaborate on the hybrid system we currently possess? I invite discussion, correction, and (hopefully) progress. I think everyone can agree, this is a very crucial issue that needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
It is my understanding that Universal Health Care is a government-run system in which every citizen possesses health care insurance. This is achieved through a higher tax rate paid by the citizens than what we in America are used to. Such a system is embraced by the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Russia, most of continental Europe, certain parts of South America, Mexico, many areas of Asia including India, and other countries are attempting to obtain it.
The current system in America is a sort of hybrid. Government-run programs such as Medicare and Medicaid provide health insurance for the elderly and impoverished, while there is a wealth of private health insurance companies that provide services to those who can afford them.
The current political issue, which has been mounting for years, is that around 50 million Americans are without health insurance because they can not afford it or are illegal aliens. While many have cried out for health care reform, everyone has decried either one or all of the proposed reforms. Some propose a shift to the Universal Health Care system, while opponents claim that will require an unacceptable raise in taxes that Americans neither want nor can afford especially in this economic client. The recent passing of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was meant to extend affordable and updated coverage to 30 million Americans (a good third of which are illegal immigrants). This has been met with extreme opposition by the conservative right as a drain on the economy and American people. Supporters claim the opponents would rather let those who can't afford health care to do without. Both are not entirely true in their assertions, and the truth of the matter is no clearer than it was when I began this post.
For my opinion, I'm afraid I don't know exactly where we can go from here. I agree that raising our taxes isn't going to necessarily going to help our economic state, but it is abhorrent that 50 million Americans are without basic health insurance. We are a first world country, this and other items such as discrimination, bigotry, corruption, and other malefactors should not be an issue. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. Our infrastructure is quite sizeable compared to many countries of Europe who place confidence in their Universal Health Care. The US has almost 6 times the population of the UK, and twice the population of Russia. Our issues of illegal immigration, debt, conflict in congress, and other problems wouldn't be able to handle the immediate or even gradual shift to a non-competitive system. To make such a drastic change would be risky at the least and destructive at the most, and the inefficiency of our government is not something I would put my trust into when it came to my health. While countries with Universal Health Care tend to have longer life expectancies, they also don't have our same problems, so one system does not always translate well in a different situation.
That being said, I'm also not pleased with many of our private institutions, I've been through interviews with companies that are clearly scams and should be kept in check with smart and efficient regulations. However, regulations are currently contributing to the lack of competition between insurance companies, and when there is a lack of competition, the costumers suffer. Less and less is being covered, and costs are going up. Doctor's are being forced to run larger practices just to stay afloat, but still can't attend to all their patients.
I suppose I don't object to our current hybrid system. Those that want a higher and faster quality of health care, and that can afford it, should have it. Meanwhile, the government should provide a lower cost alternative that competes with its privately funded kin. The current system, however, is not working. The issue of illegal immigration hurts everyone involved. A pregnant woman can cross the border illegally, and the border patrol is required by law to give them a map to the nearest hospital. The child is born, and they are an American citizen. This is a very delicate situation; by no means should the woman be turned away, but when she doesn't pay for the service, the hospital suffers. Multiply this by millions times a year, and the issue becomes apparent.
I now turn it over to you, the readers. What do you think should be done? Should we repeal Obamacare in its entirety? Should we keep it and move to a universal system? Should be we elaborate on the hybrid system we currently possess? I invite discussion, correction, and (hopefully) progress. I think everyone can agree, this is a very crucial issue that needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)