Offshore drilling is in the center of the debate for energy independence. Many see this option as a way to lower gas prices for Americans and to reduce our independence on foreign oil. Behind the slogan, "Drill Baby Drill", many conservatives are pushing for the advancement of offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. However, offshore drilling is in no way the right path for America to take if we truly want to be energy independent. In fact more offshore drilling is a step in the exact wrong direction. Offshore drilling is not a good idea because the environmental risks of drilling are too high, resources and funding for energy independence should be spent on other renewable options, and additional offshore drilling is only a short term solution to a long term problem.

-Environmental damages resulting from offshore drilling include oil spills, rig fires and damages to oceanic flora and fauna. It is not a question of if a large spill will occur but when. History shows us that offshore drilling is dangerous to local environments.

-Additional drilling is a step in the wrong directions. True energy independence in the future will include clean, renewable resources such as solar and wind power. By focusing on drilling still we delay our inevitable shift towards renewable energy. Some of this reluctance to shift focus is due to political ties to big oil companies which hinder democratic and progressive change in favor of profits.

-The additional drilling is inefficient and will not affect the US prices of oil or supply for years. This time it would take to produce additional oil should be spent on developing new sources of energy. The amount of oil found in the Gulf is not enough to truly make a difference in our energy resource supply.

TreeHugger
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/offshore-drilling-oil-false-hope.php

Texas A+M Economist
http://www.kbtx.com/tamu/headlines/25544349.html

Gulf News Article
http://gulfnews.com/business/opinion/americans-debate-pros-and-cons-of-offshore-drilling-1.118235

Energy Bill- Offshore Drilling Language
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/01/22/22greenwire-offshore-drilling-language-poses-problems-for-73614.html

Wash Post-Obama Drilling Ban
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/11/drilling-ban-revisited/

USA Today Article
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-13-offshore-drilling_N.htm

Ethanol Scam

I was very interested in the ethanol scam chapter of Food Inc. It is a major issue that received a lot of hype when first introduced as a possible energy source. It seemed all so easy, grow corn, make it into ethanol and no more oil would have to be used ever. However, as the chapter points out and as the issue has been researched more and more it becomes apparent that the idea of corn ethanol is very unlikely and highly inefficient. While the technology is now available to produce cars which could run entirely on ethanol, the issue of how to produce enough ethanol is troubling. To start, there is no where near enough land in the US to produce enough corn to power everything currently relying on oil. In fact the amount of land currently used to produce corn could only power roughly 6% of all cars in the US. Add to this fact that the production of corn ethanol results in higher food prices, increased air pollution, increased water consumption, and water pollution, it is obvious that the risks of becoming completely dependent on corn ethanol are not only unfeasible but also too costly to the environment.

Position for Research Exploration

After exploring the options of offshore drilling I have decided to be against drilling. The reason for my opposition includes the limited short term benefits of drilling, the environmental impacts that are inherent in drilling and the lack of focus towards a new renewable and clean source of energy. It is apparent to me that the decision to increase offshore drilling would be illogical and only add to America's dependence on traditional energy sources such as oil and coal. Instead my position is to keep the rigs we currently have operating but spend future oil investments in the development and implementation of new energy sources such as solar and wind power. While the actualization of these energy sources as viable and large scale enough to power the US seems far off, the use of these sources is also an important step in creating energy independence. In my essay I will explain why offshore drilling is not a good future option for the US and focus on how better the resources could be used to create new energy sources for the US.

Food Inc Forst Installment

The moment in the movie that continues to stand out in my mind is the segment when they first show chicken farming. The man Vince is driving out to his houses and is explaining how the process works and how the chickens are raised. Everything seems set to go until text appears on the screen and explains to the audience that Vince would not be able to show us his houses because representatives of Tyson strongly suggested that he not let the film crews in. From there the film crew goes to another chicken farmers house, whose name I cannot recall. However this lady seems a bit more skeptical of her role in chicken farming for Tyson. What is effective in the films presentation of this chicken farmer is the various overlays of text they add to supplement her very personal, intriguing story. The director gets her to really open up about her personal feelings of chicken farming and how the chicken industry has evolved. The most interesting part of the whole clip is how she starts talking about the chicken house upgrades she has to constantly keep pace with and how they have thrown her into debt. The text then explains that the average chicken farmer has more than 500000 in loans but only receives about 18000 a year from their labor. This disparity really stood out in my mind as the ultimate example of exploitation in the food industry.

Things in the film that really helped emphasize and explain the material better included the moving fonts, the overlays of facts, and just the personal perspective that every interview seemed to have.

The book I feel is a more detailed reference guide to the film. The main sections we have covered thus far include first person perspectives of Eric Schlosser and Gary Hirschberg, both of whom have major sections in the film about their concepts and ideology. I liked teh intermittent chapters a little better in that they give more facts about the actual "food inc." and tell the true story of what is wrong with our food industry. The chapter on the six worst practices in the meat industry was pretty powerful and stuck out in mu head.

To Drill or Not to Drill? Prospectus Intro

So I have decided to change my topic from invasive species to offshore drilling which I think is a much more accessible and relevant topic to today's environmental issues. Offshore drilling has become a major topic of debate in the US today as oil prices are rising and the search for energy independence is on the forefront of national policy. The logic behind offshore drilling is that the US needs oil, the US has the resources that produce oil, so why not get it from US soil (water)? While it is true that the US does produce some oil already, many people in the general public , the oil industry, and government alike are calling for an expansion of oil drilling and production. Currently America only produces about 10% of the total oil used in the world. Much of this oil comes from the Louisiana coast (an offshore drilling sector), Alaska, and California (half offshore, half on land). The idea of expanding offshore drilling would target the Gulf of Mexico where an estimated 18 billion extra barrels of oil could be produced on top of the 68 billion already being procured.
While the facts are that the US has oil and it can be drilled and used there are also two sides to the debate over whether or not the US should actually follow through with the plan. The side that is in favor of drilling cite the rising price of gas as an important reason to drill. They say that any extra gas would help alleviate the principles of supply and demand. If there is greater supply, the price of gas will go down. The pro side also looks to the dependence on foreign countries (mainly in the middle east) as a unhealthy relationship and one that puts the US at the whim of major oil producing countries. If the US can find and use more of its own resources then we are less likely to be hurt if supply of oil from those foreign producers diminishes or ceases.
On the other side of the ball, those against additional offshore drilling have three main concerns, environmental side effects of drilling, the irrational time line of producing from additional offshore drilling and the dependence on traditional energy resources. The first concern, environmental impact, includes the possible catastrophic risk of oil spills along America's coastlines which would not only harm wildlife and plant species but also ruin the tourism industry in areas such as Florida and Texas. They say it is not a question of if an accident will occur but when it will occur. The second argument against drilling is that the actual time it would take to procure any oil from additional drilling is a minimum of 8 years. The logic is that in eight years is far too long to wait for oil especially since the US would run through the oil found in only three years. Eight years of work and potential environmental damages are not worth three years of oil use. And finally, opponents of drilling say that drilling is a step in the wrong direction. rather than spend millions to find more oil which runs out in a short time span, why not invest in new energy technology which has the potential for clean, renewable use for decades to come.

Texas A+M Economist
http://www.kbtx.com/tamu/headlines/25544349.html

Gulf News Article
http://gulfnews.com/business/opinion/americans-debate-pros-and-cons-of-offshore-drilling-1.118235

Virginia Senators
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60R15M20100128?type=politicsNews

Energy Bill- Offshore Drilling Language
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/01/22/22greenwire-offshore-drilling-language-poses-problems-for-73614.html

Wash Post-Obama Drilling Ban
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/11/drilling-ban-revisited/

Offshore Magazine
http://www.offshore-mag.com/index.html

USA Today Article
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-13-offshore-drilling_N.htm

Natural Gas.org
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/extraction_offshore.asp

David Maywhoor

I thought that Mr. Maywhoor's presentation was interesting and very much well meaning. I understand his points that is a negative thing to have the government using public taxpayer land to clear cut forests. It is obviously a very passionate topic for him and one that is important to the environment of Ohio. His organization seems well-meaning as well. However I did disagree with several points that Mr. Maywhoor made, namely that the use of public land for forestry shoudl be completely done away with. While he notes that the clear cutting of forests is short-sighted in terms of the environment I would also argue that his view taht all public land should be preserved and not used for logging is also short sighted. The reason I say this is that he does not take into account the local economies that are supported by public land logging. He noted that many of the communities that use public land for logging arefairly poor and rely on the logging for jobs etc. To completely cut all those jobs and take away the local economy of some communities could be devastating to the people that live there. It seems as if Mr. Maywhoor was calling for the abolishment of logging without creating a viable future option, especially for the local communities involved. The other issue I took a different stance on which I believe Eric Reece would agree with me on is the fact that the money from logging is mainly used by the communities. Maywhoor suggested that the money be distributed around the state equally to maximize fairness for the taxpayers of Ohio. However as it is I believe the money created from the logging needs to stay mainly in the communities from which it came. It does not make sense in my mind to distribute those funds to places in Ohio such as Cleveland or Cincinnati which have no interests or economic ties to Ohio logging. In order to create a better future for those communities that are logging it is necessary to give back the resources created from logging includign better education, jobs, and community improvemment projects. If these steps are taken then perhaps we could eventually ween off public logging and still have productive, sustainable communities.

Research Prospectus: Invasive species

So I decided that my topic for the research will be invasive species. I find the topic very interesting in that it is not a typical problem you hear about. It is also exciting because it involves intense natural competition and is a perfect exhibit of evolution in action. The first thing I wanted to research in this topic is a couple of species I have heard about and known were causing a problem. Recently the asian carp which is an enormous fish brought into the United States in the 1970's for help with algae control was found in a river tributary of Lake Superior. This suggests that the Asian carp will enter the Great Lakes (the largest fresh water source in the world). The negative effects of Asian carp infestation are that the carp literally eat its way through the Great Lakes. It can eat 40 percent of its body in a day. (Chicagotribune.com) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1208byrnedec08,0,7604635.column After the asian carp i found another species that is considered invasive called the snakehead pike. This is a nasty looking fish that also eats its way through competition. It has no predators above it and will take over fish populations. The fish is very interesting because it can live 4 days on land and can breath atmospheric air. It can travel across the land and move from lake to lake. This gives environmental agents fits because they want to eradicate the snakeheads but they spread rapidly and can jump ponds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakehead_(fish) After snakeheads I swithSo I decided that my topic for the research will be invasive species. I find the topic very interesting in that it is not a typical problem you hear about. It is also exciting because it involves intense natural competition and is a perfect exhibit of evolution in action. The first thing I wanted to research in this topic is a couple of species I have heard about and known were causing a problem. Recently the asian carp which is an enormous fish brought into the United States in the 1970's for help with algae control was found in a river tributary of Lake Superior. This suggests that the Asian carp will enter the Great Lakes (the largest fresh water source in the world). The negative effects of Asian carp infestation are that the carp literally eat its way through the Great Lakes. It can eat 40 percent of its body in a day. (Chicagotribune.com) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1208byrnedec08,0,7604635.column After the asian carp i found another species that is considered invasive called the snakehead pike. This is a nasty looking fish that also eats its way through competition. It has no predators above it and will take over fish populations. The fish is very interesting because it can live 4 days on land and can breath atmospheric air. It can travel across the land and move from lake to lake. This gives environmental agents fits because they want to eradicate the snakeheads but they spread rapidly and can jump ponds. So I decided that my topic for the research will be invasive species. I find the topic very interesting in that it is not a typical problem you hear about. It is also exciting because it involves intense natural competition and is a perfect exhibit of evolution in action. The first thing I wanted to research in this topic is a couple of species I have heard about and known were causing a problem. Recently the asian carp which is an enormous fish brought into the United States in the 1970's for help with algae control was found in a river tributary of Lake Superior. This suggests that the Asian carp will enter the Great Lakes (the largest fresh water source in the world). The negative effects of Asian carp infestation are that the carp literally eat its way through the Great Lakes. It can eat 40 percent of its body in a day. (Chicagotribune.com) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1208byrnedec08,0,7604635.column After the asian carp i found another species that is considered invasive called the snakehead pike. This is a nasty looking fish that also eats its way through competition. It has no predators above it and will take over fish populations. The fish is very interesting because it can live 4 days on land and can breath atmospheric air. It can travel across the land and move from lake to lake. This gives environmental agents fits because they want to eradicate the snakeheads but they spread rapidly and can jump ponds.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakehead_(fish)After this I switched focus and went to a plant invasive specie called kudzu. Kudzuis common just about everywhere in the eastern US and grows at an incredible rate. It can grow up to a foot a day and literally covers entire houses and forests. Obviously this creates some problems as it is a parasite to communities and the environment as well. Kudzu can cover a tree and basically kill and take down the tree. It will cut off life to anything it covers. At this point there is little hope for eradication because it grows so fast and is so plentiful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu I found all this research interesting I have to figure out what my position would be on this topic. I want to research ways that that people are trying to deal w these problems. For instance, people are proposing many options to deal with the asian carp problem. One solution would be to close or renovate the Chicago Sanitation and Shiping canal or outfitting the structure with fish zappers that kill many fish in hopes of staving off one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakehead_Fish
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1208byrnedec08,0,7604635.column

Sympathetic Minds vs Rational Minds

When Reece discusses Wendell Berry's theory on "two minds" he distinguishes between the "sympathetic mind" and the "rational mind". The sympathetic mind sees the world (society and nature) as a delicate balance which is made of intricate connections and interconnectedness. The sympathetic mind has an "impulse towards wholeness". For me this translates into thinking on a macro scale and in long durations of time. It also involves interpreting the world from an objective and empathetic point of view. The rational mind on the other hand is more calculated and logical. It thinks in short term and in regards to specific analysis and data. This translates to a closed mind which cannot conceptualize the feelings or motivations of other outside actors. For the rational mind, there is one goal that must be accomplished without concession.
Reece displays that his mind is one Wendell Berry would term a "sympathetic mind" and he shows this many times in his book. The first example I find that Reece is "sympathetic" is on pg. 184 when he discusses part of the coal operators rhetoric that eastern Kentuckians have "already fucked [the mountains] up anyways, why not mine it?" In this statement it is apparent that the coal operators are very much in the rational mindset. Reece counters with the fact that the reason the mountains are messed up are because of interrelated and overlooked issues such as rampant poverty that accounts for improper plumbing and waste management. He sees the underlying connections between the peoples poverty and the exploitation of the people by the coal companies themselves. To Reece, Appalachia is a region with value that has been squandered and taken from the people. He sees value in the lifestyles that Appalachian people had lived for years even if it is basic subsistence like hunting/ gathering and small share crops.
The second example I found of Reece's "sympathetic mind" is when he is discussing the end of Lost Mountain and quotes several philosophers on ecology and the duty of humans to steward the land. He says that the rapidly developing forces of science and technology ,and also implicitly, business must also be met with two other forces- ethics and aesthetics. For him a prime example of what not to do is strip mining. His reasoning is we inherently love things that are beautiful and that we do not destroy what we love. Thus, strip mining and irresponsible stewardship of the earth is unethical. It destroys the true value of the earth. Of course, coal operators would see this argument as irrational a waste of good resources.

For the second part of this blog I found a quote on pg 233: "Our spiritual crisis is that we, as individuals, too often cannot see beyond our own inflated narcissism to love something whose value cannot be immediately translated into monetary terms or human uses...What is disturbing and destructive is that our ethical values, our spiritual values, and our aesthetic values have not kept pace with science." I really find this quote to be profound. In my eyes this quote can be applied not only to strip mining and environmentalism but to global expansion and the exploitation of both human and environmental resources. Globalization has been driven by technology and science. Feasible worldwide communication and transportation are really a phenomena of the last century and have created a global market and economy in which efficiency and profit are the main motivators. The rapid destruction of natural resources (i.e Subharan Africa, rampant pollution over Asia, and the destruction of millions of acres of rainforest) is overburdening a planet which is already on a path on instustainabity. This mirrors also the exploitation of human resources (i.e outsourcing, child labor, and essentially slave labor in some countries). With power comes responsibility. Our ethics and view of the global affairs have not changed from a simpler time. It seems that many still perceive only the here and now or cannot find the empathy for exploitation. If I can't see the destruction of a rainforest or the worker slaving for pennies a day then I am not responsible. It doesnt directly affect my life. These are dangerous viewpoints in a world that needs to take the right steps to preserve itself from destruction.

Lost Mountain Blog1

Reece's argument in Lost Mountain for the preservation of contiguous forest is that, without it, many species who call the forest home die out. His prime example of this is the cerulean warbler which has seen a 70% population decrease in the past 50 years. He also notes how other species like the wood rat depend on the forest for their home. Strip mining is destroying enormous chunks of the Appalachian mountains and forests which negatively affects hundreds of native species. Supporters on the other hand would rather the activists stop worrying about the animals so much and worry about creating jobs through strip mining.

Reece also describes the mountains and forests in a reverential manner. He describes the Appalachian ecosystem as maintained by "intelligence". Intelligent in the sense that every organism has its role in life, how ever insignificant or small. Some humans, including the advocates of strip mining dont comprehend this and thus justify the use of harmful environmental practices. He says that the forests know what they're doing and how to maintain their life, its humans that are destroying this balance.

From my perspective, the conservation of forests and mountains is more important than the coal industry. It is true that coal is a necessity but the damages caused by the mining are lager than the benefit of using coal cheaply. Reece makes a great point on pointing out the discrepancy between what eastern Kentuckians are giving to the coal industry and what they are actually getting from it. Eastern Kentuckians are basically just exploited for their land and given nothing in return and its killing both people and the environment.

I come from a family that enjoys a pretty active lifestyle especially in the summers when we visit family in both Virginia and New York., Often we we will camp out and enjoy the outdoors. To me forests and mountains have always been a place of sanctuary and peace to get away from class/work etc. So, the descriptions that Reece gives of the "intelligence of nature" and the importance of conservation ring very true to me.

Reality vs. America's Power

Upon first viewing both websites, there are noticeable differences in appearance and appeal. Reality.org's website is a lot bolder in style using a black and yellow color scheme with moving, bold animation. Reality also employs a little flying yellow bird which moves around the site running into big printed facts on clean energy. It is really attention grabbing.

America'sPower.org on the other hand is a little softer in approach and uses light pastel colors with a white background. They are definately more conservative in their appearance with your basic website layout and simple links that are easy to use. I feel that Reality.org's webpage appeals to me more in the sense that is is visually grabbing and draws my attention into the website. It is bold and much cooler than the basic, cookie cutter website of america'spower.org. The one complaint I do have with Reality is that the website is a bit confusing to navuiaget and the links to seperate pages are in small print at the bottom of the page. So, Americaspower is simpler to use and has its own appeal in easy to read and use links.

From what i can gather, the clean coal debate is a debate over whether or not the coal industry is really trying to developement and implement technology that would trap and eliminate CO2 gases from coal run electricity plants. America'sPower holds the position that while clean coal is a not a full on reality right now, the coal industry is making alot of progress in cleaning up coal plants and making coal a clean source of fuel. They seem to overlook environmental damages caused right now in the hopes that one day clean coal will be fully realized. They also argue that coal is too abundant and cheap to not use it as a main source of energy for America. Reality.org on the other hand has taken the stance that the coal industry is deceiving Americans with a false notion of "clean coal." They state that there is no clean coal right now and that coal industries are simply looking for profit. They would like to see Americas energy resources diversified into other renewable and truly clean options such as solar and wind power. reality.org suggests reducing the use of coal to stop harmful pollution until a truly clean coal can be obtained. They are interested in creating a 100% renewabale and clean fuel source for America.

The audiences for both websites also differ. reality.org's websites layout and message seem to be geared towards a younger maybe more idealistic audience that is environmentally conscious . An audience that is also fairly hip or saavy. Politically I would assume the audience for Reality is left leaning if not entirely liberal. America'sPower seems more geared toward "middle America" and its audience seems to be a little older and more moderate based on its layout and basic messages. This audience is probably concerned with the environment but the advantages of cheap energy for them outweigh the negatives of a not entirely clean coal. These people are probably a little less idealistic and see the changes being made by the coal companies as progress. Politically this audience is more moderate or right leaning.

The sponsors for Reality.org include the Sierra Club the Alliance for Conservation and the Wildlife Federation and their interests are definitely alligned to conservation of the enivronment. AmericasPower on the other hand is sponsored entirely by coal producing corporations whose alliances are based in their business. Due to this, I believe that Reality.org has a more pure ethos because their sponsors are not entirely in the fight for money. All the sponsors for Reality are nonprofits looking to help clean the environment which is hard to argue is a bad cause. Americas Power seems more intent on convincing people of the advantages of coal simply to maintain their current business level and profits. Their ethos in this case is tarnished by self interest.

Emotional appeal is used by both websites. Americas power is appealing to the average hardworking American by saying that coal is cheap and abundant and thus is a perfect source of fuel for America. They also say that in an economy such as ours, cheap energy is important for Americans concerned with financial security. Another tactic they use is subtle. They keep reiterating the dependence we have on coal throwing facts that over half the electricity produced is from coal. They play this off in a way that suggests America is run on coal and alwyas has been so why get rid of it? AmericasPower seems to suggest the advantages of coal outweigh any negative environmental impacts. Reality is the opposite of AmericasPower. Reality accuses the coal industry of sugarlining the "clean coal: debate and suggests that clean coal is a myth. The coal industries are simply out for profit. The other major emotional appeal for Reality is the environmental damages which they portray in hundreds of quotes by reputable sources about damages in the environment caused by coal. This appeal is animated in the flying yellow bird who runs violently into every fact which pops up on the screen, suggesting that coal is killing our birds (environment).

Visual representations for Reality parallel the audience it is attracting. They are basic, clean cut and simple. No frills just facts. There are pictures of average American's smiling, probably thinking about clean cheap coal. Reality's visual images are bold and ominous, portraying all the damages that coal has done to our environment. A flying, cute yellow bird is killed by the fact that coal is harmful to the environment.

Finally, I believe that the Reality site is more appealing to me. I like the presentationa nd color schemes of the site. The site is cooly presented and delivers a strong message. Americas Power to me is pretty cookie cutter and boring. I also align my beliefs more with the viewpoints on Reality.org so that website is more appealing to me.