Barter
9/4/2019 11:48:45 am
A short article about the choices that government makes between climate and wealth based of a President Trump quote.
Reply
Kallie Boring
9/6/2019 02:11:28 pm
There should not be a question of choosing wealth or choosing the environment, both are equally important to sustaining the economy and justice of the United States and as such should be equally viewed on the best way to accomplish both goals. However, plans created by democratic nominee, Elizabeth Warren, as well as other democratic nominees suggest improvements and experiments for environmental development and design. In contrast, many of the republicans, including President Trump, fear that this type of plan is too risky and will result in loss of wealth for the United States. This should not be the issue because although the USA might lose some money in the beginning, the long-term effect will be much more valuable. The improvements made will create more income, especially in improving unemployment, while insuring that the USA stays ahead with the world powers, something that President Trump has shown to be deeply concerned with. By improving the environment, the USA will insure and even increase the wealth.
Reply
Emma Vaterlaus
9/6/2019 04:17:06 pm
I agree that the improvements being suggested by the Democratic nominees are the best course of action. One of President Trump's campaign promises in the 2016 Election was addressing unemployment in areas still recovering from the Recession, along with resolving some of the accumulative debt owed to China. If the President were to adopt even a slightly environmental-friendly platform relating to clean energy, it would have tremendous benefits for the economy. As Kallie mentioned, government funded, or even government encouraged, clean energy facilities would open up new job opportunities for millions, clean up the environment, and bring in more cash. If President Trump chose to he could use this cash to pay off some of the debt the US owes to China. Not to mention, if President Trump were to adopt such a stance, not only would he be fulfilling some of his 2016 Election promises but he would greatly improve his chances in the upcoming 2020 Election because the environment would no longer be a single issue worth voting over if both parties have similar platforms.
Sarah Cornaby
9/9/2019 09:50:29 pm
I definitely agree that wealth and environment are equally important, and I like how you pointed out that although environmental projects might cause some loss of wealth in the beginning, the long-term effects will be well worth it, and the economy will stabilize over time. On the other hand, if the US only focuses on the economy, then the environment will go downhill and snowball out of control, possibly even past the point of reversibility, where Earth may no longer be habitable for humans.
Kambria Cash
9/10/2019 02:21:04 pm
This is a very interesting take on the issue. It is unfortunate that there is a divide between what we as citizens believe to be most important. You make a good point about the democratic plan that has been offered, however there will always be a risk involved. It will be very interesting to see how the results of the election will change what is focused on.
Grace Dixon
9/4/2019 11:03:07 pm
I believe that President Trump proposes a false dichotomy when he implies that he will choose the American economy over fighting climate change. While it is true that cutting carbon emissions will damage fossil fuel industries, finding and using alternative sources of energy will create new jobs and potentially help the economy in the long run. According to the International Labor Organization 24 million jobs will be created by achieving the Paris agreements goals while only 6 million jobs will be lost, resulting in a net gain of 18 million jobs. In addition, not fighting climate change could also prove to be detrimental to certain industries such as agriculture forestry, and fisheries, who's products are dying because of climate change. Also sever weather caused by climate change has resulted in 1.6 trillion dollars in damage since 1980. Scientists from Nature International Journal of Science estimate that if temperatures rose by 2 C global GDP would drop 15% and if it rose by 3 C global GDP would fall 25%. If nothing is done average temperature will rise by 4 C by 2100.
Reply
Tristan Lewis
9/7/2019 10:07:58 pm
I think that you narrowly missed the point of president Trumps stance on the issue of climate change. No solution to environmental damages is without its own costs. Although there are some pretty substantial benefits to early investment into more eco-friendly energy sources, there are also outstanding costs. Trump suggests that the U.S remain out of the agreement as a means to avoid further deficits that could range from $3 to $6 trillion. In my opinion, it would be much more efficient for the U.S to use its current energy resources to domesticate the production of eco-friendly energy sources and thus eliminate the need for imported goods that are both unpractical and unregulated.
Reply
Grace Dixon
9/9/2019 06:32:08 pm
I agree that combating climate change will require a substantial amount of money, however I believe that it will be more economical beneficial in the future. I also agree that the transfer to more eco-friendly energy sources will not be immediate and that we must use all resources available to us in order to make that transfer.
Sarah Cornaby
9/5/2019 08:09:02 pm
I believe that the goals of a healthy environment and a flourishing economy are not as mutually exclusive as President Trump presents them. While immediately dedicating all funds and time to combating climate change would likely damage our economy, this is an extreme course of action, and not one that most environmentalists would suggest. Many environmentalists and politicians recognize that climate change is a big issue that can't be solved all at once, so they are willing to compromise in the hopes that little changes will combine over time to force back climate change. For example, reusable energy sources such as wind power have been introduced over time, and are now found in many prominent countries around the world. President Trump attempted to downplay the success of wind power, stating that he refused to waste the wealth of the US "on dreams, on windmills, which frankly aren’t working too well." However, the U.S. is actually the second largest producer of wind energy, and the wind turbines are working very well so far, with the largest farms holding steady with a capacity of 11,895 Megawatts of power. If projects such as these wind farms are slowly integrated into our society, coupled with more environmentally friendly policies, then it is quite feasible that the economy and climate could flourish hand in hand.
Reply
Zachary Shastay
9/5/2019 08:24:16 pm
I believe that president Trump has a valid point with his statement that we have valuable resources underneath us and we would do ourselves harm by not taking advantage of it. I believe this statement to be true because it is not the governments job to keep our air clean and reduce global warming, the purpose of the government is to provide for our country and protect us from any threat or harm. We as a whole need to stand up and reduce global warming and keep our air clean, we as humans have destroyed this Earth by polluting it and damaging the ecosystem within it. Also, recently 10 democratic candidates have embraced a carbon tax that could possibly cut carbon emissions in the US. There is just one problem, will this ultimately solve the issue? Taxing people more will make them more angry and will never give their support to this Tax, this is why we need to take a larger approach to the issue of global warming that will show everyone how much a change needs to happen.
Reply
Kallie Boring
9/7/2019 04:02:17 pm
While the issue of a carbon tax is a decision that needs to be approached with cation, I do not believe people will completely outright deny the tax. After all, the tax will come only if a democratic candidate becomes president in which case, the people essentially would have voted for the person accepting the tax. The tax would then need to be approved by congress. The government, in all parts, are "by the people, for the people" so if this carbon tax were to come into play, it would only be because of the people, whom we as citizens rightly voted for, created and initiated the tax. You argue that the government does not have a duty to "keep our air clean and reduce global warming" however you do say that " the purpose of the government is to provide for our country and protect us from any threat or harm". Aren't those two contradicting statements. By not supporting the efforts to clean the air and reduce global warming, the government is in fact limiting our power and harming us through the health damages caused by polluted air, water and even land. You say that we need to stand up and solve the issues at hand, however how can we do that without a government to support us, a government that should be "by the people" and in fact "for the people".
Reply
Tristan Mercier
9/9/2019 09:35:06 am
Obviously pointing out contradictions in your proposed role and nature of our government would be purely pedantic, but I do find it important to point out that we as citizens would not have any vote when it came to implementing a carbon tax. Now what I believe Zach was trying to express was the role of government as a defender of our safety from war, terrorism, etc. and instead it is our duty as citizens to try to fix this pressing issue, which sounds like it agrees with your belief in a “by the people, for the people” philosophy.
Tristan Lewis
9/7/2019 10:26:25 pm
I like your idea about the privatization of climate change prevention efforts. Government subsidizing of companies that either reduce pollution or develop new/ more efficient methods of energy production could reduce climate change without massive government spending. The same result could be achieved through a Carbon Tax that rewards companies that embrace clean production practices. Although this will cause an initial raise in energy costs, consumer demand could be stimulated through similar taxes on individual CO2 output and thus reduce costs overall.
Reply
Veronique Pomerleau
9/9/2019 04:20:37 pm
Do the constant fires not threaten to cause us harm? Do the polluted oceans not have the potential to threaten our seafood supply? Does the air that we breathe every day not have the potential to destroy our lungs in the future? It is my humble belief that the government has the power to implement certain changes to save the only world we have and should. While the economy is important our health and well being is certainly being attacked and the worst of it is that these problems are our own doing. If anyone has any power to help deter the deterioration of our earth they should contribute. But the president has the power to take the larger steps that you mentioned.
Reply
Kambria Cash
9/10/2019 02:20:52 pm
I agree with your comment. I don’t believe that it is the sole responsibility of the government to help improve the earth. It should be of some, but not complete. The people have many ways that they on their own can help improve the Earth. The economy should not be compromised.
Reply
Keely Brandt
9/5/2019 08:45:32 pm
I personally think that Trumps views on climate change is going to hurt his elections. While he believes that America’s economy should come before climate change , he forgets the fact that by becoming more environmentally conscious he could be creating more jobs. He also claims to be someone who wants “the cleanest water on earth.”and more but he is still willing to use sources that can cause serious harm to the water and air. While trump claims to be an environmentalist, in actuality the president favors money over a clean and safe planet. There are other candidates who believe in a more environmentally friendly plan and realize that there are things that large corporations are doing to create a climate change and that it should be fixed. This is why I believe that there is a large group of voters who will not vote for him , Trump, because he won’t take climate change as serious as other candidates.
Reply
Calista Radovich
9/9/2019 08:57:57 pm
I agree with you when you say this could hurt Trump's reelection campaign. As the years go on, more talk of "Earth coming to an end" is happening. This is because more people are taking a look into what we, as a population, are doing to our planet, good and bad. So when Trump claims he is an environmentalist, he is kind of countering himself when he doesn't put up profit to help better the environment. This could cause him to lose many voters because although he says he wants the cleanest air and purest water, what is he doing to actually make those things happen?
Reply
Maddie Peters
9/9/2019 09:23:06 pm
I completely agree that Trumps views on climate change will hurt him in the upcoming elections. It will especially affect his potential young voters as they tend to have a more progressive point of view.
Reply
Sarah Cornaby
9/9/2019 09:54:46 pm
I also agree that Trump's dismissive views of climate change will hurt him in the upcoming election in some ways, as he will lose the votes of those who value environmental protection. There have been many debates over this subject, and it seems like it will be one of the subjects that causes those voters who are still in between as far as Democratic or Republican to be swayed towards one candidate or the other.
Reply
Grace Dineen
9/10/2019 11:48:14 am
I agree that President Trump will most likely lose some potential voters to the democratic candidates based on their climate change position. Also that being environmentally conscious and finding new ways to create clean energy energy will create many jobs which will help boost the economy. I disagree that Trump doesn’t favor a clean plant though. Although he was absent for the G7 meeting his team was there and supported the idea of helping the Amazon forest fire on behalf of Mr. Trump. He does care about the environment more than some might think. Since the 2016 election more investors have been sticking up for the environment. While Trump’s predecessors may seem like they have a better plan for the environment and cutting down on emissions their plans lack detail on how that change will get done.
Reply
Tristan Lewis
9/5/2019 08:49:36 pm
I believe that president Trump is in the right state of mind when it comes to the exclusivity of climate change and American wealth. Although the United States is one of the largest producers of energy and by far the largest consumer of manufactured goods, these facts do not correlate to an unproportionately high pollution rate. In fact, the United States creates 1/8th of the pollution that China and India release per person. Though many would advocate for the increased use of solar and wind power, such methods propose their own issues that significantly impact the environment. For example, the production of solar panels is primarily completed in China where there are few to no restrictions on how pollution is disposed of. Additionally, the construction of wind farms has proven on multiple occasions to effect flight patterns of migratory birds and bats. Rather than focusing on international issues, the U.S should focus on resolving internal issues that directly improve the living standards of citizens. Consequentially, I do not believe that the United States should dedicate already scarce government funding to an issue that will have little to no impact on climate change as a whole.
Reply
Kallie Boring
9/7/2019 03:33:50 pm
You make a bold statement in saying that the wealth of the United States is more important than spending money on the current materials to 'improve' the environment. I love the fact that you state how those methods haven't been truly working and are in fact creating more issues in themselves. However, is it fair to suggest that those methods (meaning solar and wind power) are the only ones capable of improving our environment. Surely there are much more ideas out there to be explored upon and used. I understand the worry about money and I appreciate your last sentence about the improving internal conflicts first and foremost, thereby I believe that by improving internal environmental conflicts, the economic prosperity as well as the environmental prosperity of the United States will increase dramatically over the years for the benefit of the people.
Reply
Tristan Mercier
9/9/2019 09:46:47 am
I’m glad you pointed out the larger perpetrators of climate change, who seem to slip the minds of Democrats leading the charge for environmental reform. I think climate change being a worldwide issue is overlooked and should be resolved with a global resolution between the largest polluters in the world, i.e. India and China, rather than a fight the US must go about alone.
Reply
Zachary SHastay
9/9/2019 06:45:31 pm
I very much loved how you included that the US government has a tight budget for many issues within our country. I also support your claim that the government needs to focus on fixing the lives of our people internally first before we can start worrying about areas that are somewhat unfixable. If we focus our attention on more of the homelessness and poverty within ur country it will bring more people into the workforce and ultimately funnel more money Into the sports where we can start worrying about pollution and climate change.
Reply
Grace Dixon
9/9/2019 08:38:23 pm
I agree that solar and wind power do have their drawbacks and more work and research has to be done in the field. I also agree that the US should focus on improving the living standards of its citizens but I would argue that part of that includes lowering pollution and emissions. According to the Global Carbon Atlas, China produces the most CO2 emissions with 9,839 Metric tons of CO2 equivalent produced in 2017. The US is second with 5,270 MtCO2 and India third with 2,467 MtCO2. However if you look at the amount of CO2 emissions released per person the US releases 16 tons of CO2 per person in the year 2017 with China producing only 7 tons of CO2 per person and India producing 1.8 tons of CO2 per person. China promised to reduce its carbon intensity by 60-65% below its 2005 level by 2030 and India promised to lower it by 33-35% below 2005 levels over the same period and they both have put in place efforts to accomplish their goals.
Reply
Emma Vaterlaus
9/5/2019 09:12:04 pm
President Trump is valuing the wealth of The United States over the health of the United States. Air pollution can cause serious health issues if it gets out of hand, such as lung cancer, heart disease, and even long-lasting damage to the brain. According to the American Lung Association, Los Angeles, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Houston, Texas; and New York, New York are all within the top ten most polluted cities in America, and as a result the citizens of those cities may experience some of those side affects. They deserve more than that.
Reply
Tristan Mercier
9/5/2019 09:45:07 pm
President Trump’s suggested exclusivity between clean and renewable energy and wealth is rather shortsighted, as while the United States is a large exporter of fossil fuels, those WILL eventually run out, and it would benefit the US much more if we were to diversify our energy supply and production sources well before that occurs. However, I believe it is a dangerous slope to go down if the government were to enforce arbitrary conditions upon private energy companies regarding renewable energy and current consumption of fossil fuels. The president’s position is starkly contrasted with the platform of nearly every Democratic challenger, who support among other things, carbon taxes, and the proposed Green New Deal. The growing importance of this issue to voters could swing the election away from President Trump if new voters are single issue voters.
Reply
Zachary Shastay
9/9/2019 06:50:42 pm
I support your idea that we need to diversify and produce more renewable energy so we are more prepared for the future. I truly believe that if we were to find an energy source that was effective and cost effective we will be able to reduce costs for our government and be able to focus our attention on larger issues that are affecting the US. But how much money would we put into researching new energy source ideas until we have put too much money into it to be effective?
Reply
Calista Radovich
9/9/2019 08:51:46 pm
That is an excellent point Zach. If we want to stop using fossil fuels, we need to research, but how much researching will need to be done to use energy as efficiently as we hope, taking money out of our hands. I have never thought about it that way before. Also, we cannot just abruptly stop using fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy all at once. That could cause chaos if we are not careful. Many consequences follow the benefits of switching to a renewable energy source.
Maddie Peters
9/5/2019 11:28:08 pm
President Trump has made it clear that he has more interest in the wealth of America rather than the health of it and it’s citizens. He has previously stated “I believe in clean air. Immaculate air. But I don’t believe in climate change.” His idea that the economy should come before the health of our country will cause more harm than good. Trumps solution of replacing CPP (Obama’s Clean Power Plan) with the Affordable Clean Energy rule allows “states to set their own emission standards for coal-fueled power plants”. This new policy, according to researchers, will possibly increase greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them as needed. Climate change is taking a toll on our country that would have major affects on all of us. Agriculture is an important thing being affected by climate disruptions, threatening the security of American’s food supply. The rise in temperature and the continually changing chemistry of ocean water is threatening marine-based food production. Other candidates such as Andrew Yang have an opposing view to that of President Trumps as Yang believes “climate change is an existential threat to humanity and our way of life” and should be “a top priority o the government”. Yang is concerned with the health of the average American and climate change with a plan of regulating fossil fuels and building a sustainable economy by transitioning to renewable energy. His solution of focusing on renewable energy could promote economic growth and moderate climate change. However while I do agree with Yangs approach, I believe there will never a an ultimate solution to the already extreme damage we have done to our planet.
Reply
Ernest Drake
9/5/2019 11:30:40 pm
I believe that president trump is wrong in not being more environmentally friendly but is only doing it for his possible re-election in 2020. By going with what he first ran on with expansion of fossil fuels and energy production to help with the economy he might think his supporters will be loyal. I believe that he is also wrong in this sense however because there is a growing fear of humans impact on the environment. If president trump did decide to have more effort towards trying to make America less of a harm on environment I think that he could’ve drawn in environmentalists from all political party’s. In regards to the economic setback I believe that president trump is right in trying to keep fossil fuels because our economy is so reliant on the source right now that if we abandoned them then there may be recession for a certain amount of time. In the long run though I believe that we will eventually have more environmentally efficient forms of energy but not for now at least for people in America enjoy low gas prices and cheep electricity. If a change happens I don’t think that Trump will enact it for I see him more of a conservationist rather than an environmentalist for he puts economy and politics in front of environment.
Reply
Kambria Cash
9/5/2019 11:38:43 pm
I believe that though Trumps comment has validity and can certainly be justified, there is definite potential for it to hurt him during the election. Single issue voters who oppose the way Trump views climate change and what should be done about, may sway towards a different vote solely because they disagree with his stance. However, I would agree with Trumps statement. I do not believe it to be the governments sole responsibility to deal with climate change. We as the people of the United States should be doing what we can individually to reduce pollution, the rate of global warming, etc. I don’t think it would do the US any good to jeopardize the economy and wealth, when the problem of climate change could be reduced by individuals. I believe that we as citizens should be proactive about creating a healthier plants. Trumps view of climate change and the actions that should take place largely contrast with democratic views on what actions should be taken place. There is an obvious and clear problem, however it shouldn’t be solely the responsibility of the government to fix. But, as I mentioned before, single issue voters may have a large impact on the election, depending on which end of the spectrum they agree with.
Reply
Emma Vaterlaus
9/6/2019 04:35:57 pm
I agree that as citizens of America, and inhabitants of Earth, we should take responsibility and do our part to be environmentally conscious. Sadly, humans are typically not that proactive.
Reply
Maddie Elias
9/10/2019 12:01:31 pm
I agree that it is not the governments main purpose to fix climate change, the citizens should also be environmentally conscious and try to do their own part in helping improve our country’s physical health. We shouldn’t be using our country’s wealth and resources on only improving climate change because it is not a main priority and we are not in danger at the moment. It would be wasted time if that’s all we focused on.
Reply
Grace Dineen
9/6/2019 12:25:36 am
I see the Republican party standing to lose young voters to the Democrats in the upcoming 2020 election due to President Trump’s opinion on climate change. A Harvard University survey found that 73% of Individuals under the age of 30 disapproved of Trump’s opinion on climate change and half were Republican. President Trump’s campaign has identified a strategy for winning re-election mainly focusing on immigration, race, and climate change. Most of Trump’s predecessors in the upcoming 2020 election support carbon tax and the green new deal such as Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, and Pete Buttigieg. They have all supported the ban of fossil fuel drilling and promised to zero out emissions by 2050, but their plans have been criticized for lacking detail. Trump has the right idea about America’s wealth and energy but the United States is second Biggest carbon dioxide polluter. If America’s wealth is based on energy it would be very beneficial to look into cleaner energy sources that preserve the environment but solar and wind energy aren’t the best ways. Solar panels are a source for clean renewable energy but to manufacture them it is a dirty and energy-intensive process. The process of making everything that goes into a solar panel produce air pollution, heavy metal emissions, and consume energy which in turn creates more air pollution, heavy metal emissions, and greenhouse gases. World energy demand is been growing about 2% each year for about half a decade and wind turbine energy only provided 0.46% of total global energy in 2014. We need to come up with a better way to make clean energy and cut down on emissions.
Reply
Grace Dineen
9/6/2019 12:28:40 am
I meant the world energy demand has been growing 2% every year for about a century.
Reply
Calista Radovich
9/6/2019 11:26:43 am
I believe that President Trump should start using our nations weath as a beneficial tool, rather than a tool of superiority. The united states is the second largest producer of wind energy proving "windmills" do indeed work very well. If the government could see this and use the nations wealth to build upon these advances, instead of complaining about them, the nation could strive and we could then be a nation other countries look up to and follow. Through current systems of coal and fossil fuel burning, high amounts of carbon emmissions are being put into the air, polluting it. If we want to lessen the pollution in the air, we need ti start converting to solar and wind energy.
Reply
Calista Radovich
9/6/2019 11:30:20 am
Currently, President Trump has been using our wealth to make other nations feel less powerful. He wants America to seem as it is a powerful nation, maybe the most powerful nation. However, he needs to do something worth while with this wealth. Not just walk around and show it off. He needs to start putting this wealth into bettering our nation.
Reply
Barter
9/6/2019 11:35:41 am
Remember we are holding off on follow ups until everyone has posted once or until tomorrow and the "due date" is now Tuesday.
Veronique Pomerleau
9/9/2019 04:23:57 pm
I agree with your statements. Americans should lead the way in protecting the environment and the government should play an active role in contributing to conservation.
Reply
Maddie Elias
9/10/2019 12:11:02 pm
I agree with President Trump showing off the nations wealth rather than actually implementing laws to help conserve fossil fuel and to help control climate change. Like you said the United States needs to invest in more windmills because it has been proven beneficial.
Reply
Keely Brandt
9/10/2019 05:31:06 pm
I agree that trump should be using a lot of the country’s “wealth” on environmental issues but i disagree that he is using most of it for superiority as you put it. I think there are many issues that people disagree with trump but in the end he is doing what he thinks is best for the country. While he should listen to society and help fix the environmental issues it’s hard to fix what you don’t believe in.
Reply
Veronique Pomerleau
9/6/2019 01:33:31 pm
Environmental issues will continue to persist until some sort of solutions are implemented. It is important to maintain wealth but it is also essential to maintain a healthy environment for the sake of science, current generations, and generations yet to come.
Reply
Maddie Elias
9/10/2019 11:49:35 am
Although President Trump is not the biggest environmentalist, he still cares for our country’s well being. In fact “President trump has put in place the first ever green house gas standards” according to Mandy Gunasekara, who is part of the trump administration. I believe he will lose young supporters because he didn’t show up for the G7 meeting, but I think he still has chance in the 2020 election. This generation believes in climate change and because President Trump has mentioned before how he does not believe in climate change, many people will disagree with him and most likely vote for someone who is pro fixing climate change like democrat candidate, Andrew Yang, who’s top priority is to preserve fossil fuel and implement laws to control climate change for the health of our citizens. But, although President trump was not present during the meeting his team was, according to French President Macron. President Trumps main focus is on the safety of our citizens and the illegal immigrant issue, rather than the physical well being of our country and the young generation are more focused on climate change.
Reply
Grace Dineen
9/10/2019 12:02:50 pm
I agree that Trump does care about the well being of the United States but his focus seems to be pointed more towards the boarders than the environment. I still believe he does care for the environment due to the fact of his support with the Amazon forest fire. Trump definitely will lose young Republican supporters. Trump himself does not believe in climate change but a lot of his young voters do no matter what he says. They feel that they will be the most affected by it and choose to believe it exists and will impact their future. They most likely will find a candidate that has more priorities about helping the environment or not vote at all.
Reply
Keely Brandt
9/10/2019 05:28:12 pm
I agree that trump cares for our environment because I’m the end everyone does. I however believe that he cares for wealth more than he cares for the environment especially since he’s older and probably thinks that he’ll be dead before anything horrible happens. I also think that we should put more effort into the environment because it is becoming a very big and real problem.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2020
Categories |