- Mark Hertsgaard explains how in his town there was a 150-gallon-a-day water limit and how at his daughter's preschool they were educated with ways they could reduce water wasting. Why is it necessary to control and limit how much water you use? What do you think you could do in your home or school to help reduce wasted water amounts?
- On page 266, Herstgaard explains how "more and more people in California are occupying the downstream areas that are at increasing risk from...flooding" but also how the California government developed a repair plan to fix state levees that "would cost $4.5 billion over ten years," (230). Do you think its right for people to be allowed to live in areas at high risk from natural disasters like floods? If so, to what extent do you think the government should spend money on protecting people from the severe changing climate and its effects in such areas?
- Hertsgaard explains how climate experts predict that "sea levels will rise at least 1 foot by 2050 and by as much as 4.5 feet by 2100," (232). With these rises, what type of effects will they have on the environment, society, and you yourself?
- On page 242, Hertsgaard explains that "it is poor countries that are suffering the brunt of climate change...but it is the rich countries greenhouse gas emissions that caused the problem in the first place. If we follow the principle of 'the polluter pays,' they are obliged to pay damages...This is compensation." Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? If so, how should rich countries pay this "climate debt"?
Monday, May 23, 2011
Chapter 9: While the Rich Avert Their Eyes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. Obviously, Hot has described the countless reasons why it is important to conserve water, but overall, I think Hertsgaard message when it comes to water conservation is this - we're running out and we need to be careful. I know I try my best to conserve water just by doing a few simple things (only doing FULL loads of laundry, taking shorter showers, using a pitcher of water instead of waiting for the tap to get cold).
ReplyDelete2. I do not think the government should allow people to live in high risk areas, but of coarse, money trumps morals in this situation. I obviously think the government should help these people, or at least give them a better warning of what is to come. If they don't want to help them, they need to explain to these people how at risk they are and label the land "Livable at your own risk."
3. It's hard to summarize the effects that sea level rise will have on society (it is practically the entire topic of Hot itself). However, I know that my favorite city in the world, NYC, would be under water if sea levels rise that much and my aunt, who lives in California, would be under water as well.
4. I think that its not about who pays who. I think that rich countries need to realize their influence and take a stand against climate change. We need to help poorer countries by being better, by trying harder, and by being serious against our changing climate.
I think we should pay. Period. I used to work for the EPA on a project called Superfund, where business and the government had to pay the entire cost of cleanup of a hazardous waste area. Although the program is no longer in place - I believe in the theory behind it: if you benefited and made a profit on something that harmed the Earth or others, you are responsible for making the damage as right as possible. I also wish we could learn from our mistakes - but I haven't noticed it so far....
ReplyDelete