do we have our priorities in the correct order? Since when was finance of greater importance than the lives of many? As long as we let these businesses continue to expose deadly Ultra Violet radiation on the members of the public, we can be sure some people will suffer from melanoma. We must not allow any delay in one of the only plausible methods of reducing melanoma because think about it; other causes of melanoma would be the beach which obviously cannot be banned. The sooner we initiate the ban, the sooner lives are saved.
We are more likely to consult other world powers to justify our reasons for going to war. A just war today, for civilized countries, have to have approval from the United Nations. An argument about the guidelines that St. Thomas Aquinas had suggested is now it is considered too subjective. "What constitutes a just cause is in the eyes of the beholder, as are the probability of success and any estimate of likely costs and benefits." (Haass, 2009) If war is the only answer to save lives, yes it is justifiable not matter the time or the place.
An example of reducing waste is the behavior of recycling. However, with matters such as pollution and waste that affect the world drastically, and social structures that have been put in place to regulate these areas, people still focus on technologies that still hinder the world instead of building self sustainable projects have a positive effect on the longevity of Earth that exists today. Richard Sclove’s article, “I’d Hammer Out Freedom: Technology as Politics and Culture”, provides a detailed explanation of his theory of how technology plays in someone’s everyday role. It is up to each individual to define how they will allow technology to play a role in their life, and to what
Pollution Prevention Melissa D. Byerley ENV 325: Environmental Management Instructor Robin Glenn June 10, 2013 There are a variety of ways to prevent pollution including altering production or manufacturing processes, eliminating waste at the source, promoting the use of non-toxic or less-toxic substances, implementing conservation techniques, reusing materials or items, and population control; which can all work simultaneously for a better world, but issues such as political processes and policies create a hindrance. The many ideas surrounding pollution prevention are quite often simple, but due to economic impacts, these options are not always favorable because worldwide governments want the most successful economy possible, and
Choosing open standards is highly strategic. Their benefits and positive impact are debated and seen at the highest decision making levels. Interoperability is a major requirement for the ICT sector as societies, governments and industry increasingly move towards global collaboration and integration. 2. In general, why would a layered architecture be viewed as beneficial?
Investigating the Editorial: 1) The topic of David Suzuki’s editorial is the effects of emissions on climate change and possible ways to fight it. 2) The author’s opinion on the topic is that we need to embrace the Kyoto Protocol because it takes time to put international treaties in place and emissions continue to increase and it is the only realistic option as it is already in place and set up. 3) The purpose of this editorial is to bring to the attention of the reader the effects of climate change and to make them aware that waiting to fight it is not an option. 4) a. The criticism in the editorial is that the Kyoto Protocol is not enough to reduce emissions that climate change as stated in the editorial “Alone, it will do
I would recommend the book When Presidents Lie by Eric Alterman, The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World by Peter Schwartz, and Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America by Thomas L. Friedman. I think reading these books would help the presidents in making good decisions for our country. The first book that I would recommend the candidates to read is When Presidents Lie by Eric Alterman. This book is about lies the presidents have told and their consequences. This is a good book for the presidents to read because it shows the consequences of deceit and it shows when it is acceptable to lie and when it isn’t.
Speech We categorically believe that fracking is not the answer to the UK’s energy needs. I will be discussing health and environmental issues and my partner will be talking about the economic disaster it would undoubtable be. My argument will use the US as a case study for what could hypothetically become in the UK if fracking does in fact take off. Just a few years ago, fracking was sold to us as the ideal pathway to utilising our vast reserves of natural gas, a “perfect bridge fuel.†Gas executives promised that fracking would help rural communities, create jobs, cut carbon pollution and pose no threat to air and water quality, it sounded almost too good to be true, and it was. Now, several years after the start of America’s fracking
This plan includes (1) closing background check loopholes; (2) banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines; and (3) improving mental health services. [2] Although the president's plan is well within the confines of the Constitution, the limits imposed by the Court, combined with a fragmented mental health system, mean that no constitutionally permissible plan will be fully effective (citation). Still, the president's plan could reduce the devastating toll of firearm injuries and deaths through a public health strategy. Whether a massacre of grade-school children in a Connecticut town will alter the political dynamics of gun control remains unclear. The nation can only hope that the worst tragedies will inspire the greatest bipartisan
economy. Oil tycoons and their friends in the white house think the answer to the current oil crisis is to roll back regulations designed to protect the environment and open up delicate habitats, such as ANWR, for oil development. Even the most liberal estimates of recoverable oil remaining in ANWR range from 9 - 16 billion barrels, less than a three year supply for the U.S. Why take grave risks for such short term benefits? The Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the nation’s most effective environmental action groups, states, “...a ‘drill first, ask questions later’ strategy is not an effective, sustainable solution”(Reducing America’s Energy Dependence). How could our leaders be so short-sighted?