The climate conference has just concluded with almost 200 countries agreeing to lower their effect on climate change. While I think the deal reached is definitely progress, it seemed to have upset a lot of people in the process. Many are angry that switching to electric only and phasing out coal was not mentioned strongly enough. Smaller nations that have suffered tremendously under the effects of climate change through storms and rising water temperatures were upset to hear that there would be no reparations made for them from the damages they have incurred; instead a conversation would be started with bigger countries about what to do next. I believe this is unfair because we cannot keep standing by and letting the smaller nations suffer from the consequences of global warming created by the wealthiest countries. I feel that more should have been done at the meeting to support smaller nations as they combat the worst effects of climate change.
Through my current understanding, I believe that nuclear power is an underrated clean and sustainable source of energy. Nuclear energy doesn’t produce any carbon emissions, making it a viable sustainable source. However, many accidents have happened in the past that put a negative spotlight on nuclear energy, and for good reason, as they have been disastrous events. Many people are quick to condemn nuclear energy and cite these events, but what is overlooked most of the time is that they are a result of human error. With industries converting to autonomous work and cutting down on workers, it would also eliminate human error in operation. Nuclear power plant jobs involve many people doing specific roles, and this can easily be adapted to robotic machines fulfilling human tasks with no chance of dangerous mistakes. I believe that nuclear energy is viable for the future because it’s an efficient power source that produces zero emissions. If the nuclear operations field is autonomized, it would allow for completely safe operation of plants and the manufacturing of nuclear energy.
I chose CBS because I view it on TV often. The branch I am familiar with is Philadelphia, and I usually view it for live updates on the area. While I read a variety of different news pages, CBS is the main one I watch. The bias is -3.95. The reliability is 46.95. This means that it is complex analysis and facts reporting, and mainly unbiased with a very slight left lean. This doesn’t surprise me because these are the reasons I like CBS. They are largely unbiased while simultaneously providing a blend of analysis and facts that make the news interesting. I also like the personalities of the newscasters on CBS Philadelphia. They give a good presentation that keeps the viewers watching.
Switching to electric cars or not driving is simply not a possible conversion that a population could make in only ten years. America lacks the infrastructure to support total electric vehicle use. The way America is designed doesn’t support walking and biking either, with spread out cities and towns that lack useful bike paths or sidewalks. America’s green infrastructure pales in comparison to the European cities, where everything is close together and walking/biking is made convenient and widely used by citizens. When I first took an environmental science class, I was onboard with stopping the use of cars. However, when I actually became a driver I realized how beneficial cars are to our daily life, and they can’t be phased out. With many people not being able to afford an electric car so soon and who live in towns that lack green infrastructure, they need gas powered cars to survive. Synthetic fuel that is made from organic materials and can be pumped into an internal combustion engine like gasoline is the short-term answer because it greatly reduces carbon emissions and is sustainable for everyone in the U.S.
To the editor,
I am commenting on a column that appears on your website on June 17 by Gene Lyons: “America gains nothing from denying global warming.”
In his criticism of President Trump’s decision to get out of the Paris Agreement on climate change, Gene Lyons dismisses the coal industry as “dirty” and describes the unemployment of coal miners as inevitable by concluding: “it’s going to happen anyway.”
This assessment of the coal mining industry is ill-informed; the mining industry is responsible for the employment of 297,000, which, compared to the industry in 2005, has increased employment by roughly 30,000. The coal mining industry is clearly still growing.
In states that rely on coal powered electricity, the cost of electricity is 30 percent less then states that rely on other forms of electricity. Coal mining benefits citizens living in these states by lowering their cost of living.
Trying to close down the industry due to exaggerated climate change concerns makes no sense.
Hello! Today I slept in 30 minutes later than I usually do. After I woke up, I walked to German class.