Global climate change commentary

In the editorial piece We Should Fight for Global Climate Change by Kyuree Kwak, the author makes the point that climate change is an ongoing issue, and while costly to fix, it is a price worth paying. I completely agree. As humans, it is our duty to protect the Earth from its biggest threat: ourselves.

While some dismiss that global warming even exists, the evidence for it is clear. Temperatures have risen, causing increased glacial melting, which led to a sea level 8 inches higher than it was 100 years ago. With the effects of climate change increasing in rapidity, scientists believe the sea level will have risen anywhere from one to four feet by 2100. This human-induced problem will have untold consequences for plants, animals, and humans alike.

Cutting back on our carbon footprint, with things like fluorescent lights and recycling, will certainly save the environment in the short-run, but I believe that harnessing renewable energy is the long-term answer. Solar powered houses are starting to gain recognition, as well as wind turbines. With correct design and planning, solar houses can save you money and allows you to be energy independent, in solar energy cannot be bought or monopolized. Renewable energy is by no means ready to completely compensate for our current needs, but with time and a little money put toward this research, we can one day rely solely on infinite sources, rather than finite, all while saving the Earth along the way.

Hit the road, frack (part 2)

Time and again, fracking has proven to be detrimental to our environment. From air and water pollution to soil spill contamination, it is obvious that we need to find less harmful sources of energy to satisfy our energy needs. However, a substantial portion of the public advocates for the continuation of hydraulic fracturing.

One notable explanation for this lack of effort is that putting a stop to fracking would raise petroleum prices. Oil prices have been plummeting, in part because the Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries, or OPEC, are insisting on increasing production, making it the highest we have seen in years. The increased oil supply in the U.S. (from fracking and such) also help drive prices down.
In addition, the U.S. currently relies heavily on Saudi Arabia for its petroleum needs, but with increased domestic output, many believe we can become much more self-reliant in petroleum.

If we place more restrictions on and eventually stop fracking, our domestic output will drop substantially, increasing oil and gas prices and strengthening our dependence on Saudi Arabia, both of which are disagreeable for the vast majority of Americans. For the consumer, cheaper gas is always better, and for the average American, self-sufficiency is preferred to dependence on monarchial countries.

Even so, the benefits of stopping hydraulic fracturing far outweigh these benefits. If we slowly add more restrictions on fracking, it will make the transition to more environmentally-friendly methods much easier. If we allow ourselves to remain dependent on Saudi Arabia's oil in the short-term, we can focus on finding better ways to extract energy sources or even move toward renewable energy research so that we are completely self-reliant in the long run. In addition, fracking is extremely expensive, so the plunging gas prices have already caused some fracking wells to downsize activity or even go out of business. By beginning fracking restrictions now, we may have to pay a bit more for gas for a while, but it is worth the cost because we can also ensure an independent United States and save the environment.

Legalize cannabis commentary

In Madison Bush Couch's recent blog post Legalize Cannabis, she makes the point that the benefits of marijuana outweigh its negative effects, and I completely agree-- marijuana has performed wonders in the world of medicine.

Back in the early 1900s, marijuana was first outlawed by the United States, even though cannabis was already widely used. Fear of Mexican immigrants, who called this substance "marihuana," was the primary cause of the marijuana ban in the western part of the country and fear of African Americans using cannabis to "take advantage" of white women was the primary cause in eastern states. Basically, outlawing marijuana was a form of outlawing non-whites.

Obviously, there are negative side effects of marijuana use, which are the reasons for its continued prohibition. However, the author makes the compelling point that alcohol and tobacco are harmful yet legal substances. Interestingly enough, alcohol was prohibited at one time in American history but after 13 years was deemed legal. Although alcohol consumption fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it increased to about 60 to 70 percent higher than pre-prohibition levels, and we could be seeing a similar pattern with marijuana. With certain regulations, marijuana should legalized nationally so we can learn more about its positive effects in medicine.

Hit the road, frack (part 1)

Environmental issues are an ever-present debate between Republicans and Democrats. The politics of fracking are especially severe, with liberals fighting tooth and nail to put a stop to it. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is the process of retrieving natural gas by drilling and injecting a fluid into the ground at a pressure high enough to fracture shale rocks, releasing the gas. Although it provides the United States with much-needed energy, fracking takes an extreme toll on the environment and should be stopped.

The impacts of fracking can be seen in air and water pollution, soil spill contamination, and even earthquakes. The U.S. alone holds over 500,000 active fracking wells. To complete one fracking job, water is mixed with sand and 40,000 gallons of chemicals, which is then injected into the ground. Contamination of nearby groundwater is not unheard of-- studies show that the water near one of these wells has a concentration of methane 17 times higher than normal and over 1000 recorded cases of water contamination. Methane, the main constituent of natural gas, is 25 times more apt than carbon dioxide to trap heat in the atmosphere, making it a prime suspect in global warming. In addition, a mere 30 to 50 percent of the water, sand, and chemical mixture is recovered, leaving the rest of this toxic fluid in the ground where it can evaporate and create contaminated air and acid rain. 

Because of oil and gas drilling alone, a 2007 report predicted that Montana would see a 310 percent increase in smog, and in Ohio, 77 minor earthquakes occurred in the span of one month and were all linked to fracking activity. The consequences of hydraulic fracturing are ubiquitous.    

The arguments in favor of fracking usually consist of claims of its ability to produce jobs; banning fracking means higher rates of unemployment. Even so, as of 2013, oil and gas sectors only accounted for 2.5 percent of the GDP. Furthermore, an IDDRI report suggests fracking will only help the country's GDP see a .84 percent growth between 2012 and 2035. France, Scotland, Germany, and Bulgaria have all banned fracking because of environmental concerns; it is high time the U.S. did the same.   

Now, I am not suggesting the government implement a sudden and swift shutdown of all fracking wells; putting a stop to this destructive, yet somewhat useful, practice will take some time. If we begin by stopping the creation of new wells, then periodically impose more and more regulations (while simultaneously placing our focus on renewable energy research) until eventually stopping altogether, we can limit the damage of fracking and save the Earth. 

A loose canon

162 days into the 2016 year and the U.S. has already seen 133 mass shootings, including the worst in recent American history. In the Washington Monthly article "Just Say No to Guns on Campus" published June 16, author Kara Bilgin makes the point that allowing guns on campus will simply increase the gun-related violence in the country.

By publishing her article a mere four days after the Orlando shooting, Bilgin hopes to sway her liberal and grieving audience against the "campus carry" legislation with statistics and cogent reasoning. Bilgin herself seems to be a Democrat because of her stance on gun laws-- Republicans are well-known for their strong feelings in favor of such rights. In addition, Bilgin mentions her position as a Dean to prove to the audience that she has a special insight into the lives of college students. Eight states, including Texas and Mississippi, have already passed "campus carry" laws. According to Bilgin, this is "a terrible idea."

Bilgin's argument is built around three main reasons against "campus carry" laws. The first is that the innumerable stress college students face these days makes them more "prone to rash" decisions. The second is the ubiquitous alcohol abuse on campuses is already causing a wide range of issues from injury and suffering grades to assault and death. and guns would merely add to these problems. Thirdly, passing these laws would only increase the present issue of sexual misconduct and date rape. Bilgin backs up each of these claims with an abundance of conclusive facts and figures.

On the other hand, Bilgin does not mention any stats about increased violence specifically from one of the eight states that already passed the legislation. While her argument is both cohesive and convincing, it is missing vital information-- how are those states being affected? Without these details, her argument is nothing more than well-reasoned speculation. Gun control has become a notorious debate between Democrats and Republicans that usually ends with no real changes, but since this article was posted during the aftermath of a horrific shooting, only time will tell if gun laws will face real modifications.

Clinton clinches nomination; what about election?

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently snagged a major victory: the Democratic nomination. But can she really win the presidential election? In the Washington Post opinion piece "Can Hillary Clinton win?" published June 9, notable journalist Fareed Zakaria evaluates why he believes Clinton will win, despite the analytical data saying otherwise.

Zakaria, the liberal-leaning author of this article, directs his argument toward fellow Democrats in an attempt to renew their hopes for a third consecutive Democratic president. Although Zakaria appears to be a Democrat, he analyzes both sides of the issue with equal vigor (with a slight bias in favor of Clinton) and at the end, does not make an explicit claim about who he believes will win the election. With wild card Donald Trump in the picture, he argues, the already temperamental nature of social science becomes downright unpredictable.

Rather than simply asserting an argument, Zakaria relies on a plethora of social science models and hard facts to back up his claim. The meat of this article is in its logos, and the renowned Zakaria maintains credibility with his audience through his steady stream of factual evidence.

In the end, Zakaria takes a strong stance against Trump, calling him a "vulgar narcissist" and "pathological liar." In addition, he states that the predictions of models have little meaning when it comes to humans because of our ability to think, which will save us from electing Trump as president. This article is argued successfully because of the author's credibility from his wide range of supporting evidence and overall, makes logical sense. It also reinforced my own beliefs that America will save itself from choosing the wrong candidate, whoever that may be. By emphasizing individual thought, Zakaria puts the power in the hands of the people, reinforcing Constitutional ideas and encouraging people to look more closely at this election.

Trumping the media for votes

There's no doubt that former TV star and current presidential candidate Donald Trump receives a substantial amount of media attention, which is enough publicity to advertise his campaign.

Or is it?

In the MSNBC article "Donald Trump's 'huge and not widely understood' disadvantage" published June 9, author Steve Benen makes the point that Trump's achilles heel may prove to be one of the only things he's got going for him: his money. If Trump doesn't dedicate money to funding his campaign, Hillary Clinton's advertisements will control the message conveyed to the audience, giving her a clear advantage. In addition, Trump's brusque manner and controversial comments during much of his interviews may not give him the edge he needs to win the election. This article is worth the read because it goes beyond the artificial nature of Trump's widespread publicity and offers real insight into the Trump campaign.