WVUM 90.5FM | WE ARE THE VOICE | University of Miami

Archives

Not Aiding the Enemy, But Still Found Guilty

By Mike Kanoff | Counterpoint | July 31st, 2013 |

Image Source: (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

Unsurprisingly, I’m writing about Bradley Manning this week. In case you missed it, Bradley Manning has finally been given a verdict: guilty of more than a handful of crimes, but not guilty of one very important charge– aiding the enemy. I’ll get more into the specifics of that charge later, but the remaining 20 charges carry a combined maximum of 136 years in prison, so PFC Manning is anything but in the clear. The sentencing has already begun, and could last into the last days of August.

I’ve written on Manning before, so I won’t go into the back-story again, but I think it’s worth mentioning that he has already spent three years in prison before his trial, so it has been agreed upon that his sentence should be reduced by 1,274 days. Anyway, time to move onto the big charge: aiding the enemy and why even though he has been found guilty of other crimes, this one is a win for whistleblowers. Most of the logic behind going after Manning as harshly as the military did was something along the lines of “if it’s available for everyone in the world to see, then that includes our enemies, so therefore public disclosures are equal to giving the information directly to the enemy.” As I’ve argued before, this is not the case here, even though that line of reasoning may seem valid, one must take intent into account: if one’s intention is to truly “aid the enemy,” then it follows that one would not inform one’s own side of such aid, as making information public would. Instead, by releasing information publicly, it allows both sides to see it, giving a “heads-up” to both parties: the “enemy” side gets information X and the “non-enemy” side gains the information that the “enemy” side has information X, which could be useful to the “non-enemy” side.

Further to that point, Manning’s information was not immediately disclosed; it was given to Wikileaks, providing a window of time in which the military could have changed tactics, had any even been compromised in the first place. Given those two points, I believe Manning when he says that he was merely a whistleblower rather than a traitor.

As for the other charges: any wrongdoing Manning may have done is far outweighed by the benefit to the public’s right to know. This should be true of all whistleblowers: exposing something that needs to be exposed should not come with a life imprisonment threat.

More on the PFC Manning case this Friday during the show [1pm EST].

Review: Fruitvale Station and Coogler’s Portrayal of a Human

By Chloe Herring | July 30th, 2013 |

 

In a debut feature-length film, director and Bay Area-native Ryan Coogler shows how you get into the head of a mercurial, misunderstood black man: by spending a day in his shoes. And maybe his independent film Fruitvale Station doesn’t exactly opportune the audience a gamut of understanding into every black male’s mentality; but it does give a gracious glimpse into the affectionate bonds and touching aspirations as well a grim view into the frustrations and aimless decisions and that make up the man, but nonetheless take no bearing on an incident that tragically claimed the life of Oscar Grant.

Fruitvale Station, produced by Forrest Whittaker and Nina Yang Bongiovi, does not shy away from controversy as it opens with 2009 New Year’s Day footage of train station police officers battering a darkly clothed man. A crowd yells and pleads in protest for the detained individuals. And then one singular gun shot.

Michael B. Jordan (The Wire, Friday Night Lights), plays Oscar Grant who was fatally shot in the back by a police officer in 2009 at stop on the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station after returning from a San Francisco firework show.

Fruitvale Station captures the essence of Oscar’s personality through his interactions. Jordan’s character will capture audiences who will relate to his aspirations to do better, the purpose that his daughter establishes to his life, the tension, trust and love for his girlfriend, and the merry social outing he shares with friends.

Moved along by Oscar’s phone activity, the too-literal on-screen text messages end with the culmination of planned New Year’s Eve celebrations. The film, following a striking rendition of the immediate interactions leading up to Oscar’s death, successfully amplifies the emotions of those individuals closest to him: his mother played by Octavia Spencer, his girlfriend played by Melonie Diaz, and his precious daughter Tatiana who is played by Ariana Neal.

His humor, sentimental moments shared with his family and child, and even his questionable choices leave the impression that Oscar is only human. But those same moments that make him human will tear at the heart of those who understand his death avoidable, unnecessary, unfair.

Director Ryan Coogler demonstrates serious potential for future projects with this film. Fruitvale Station sometimes delicately, at other times raucously but always thoughtfully portrays the day of internal and intimate battles, the struggles and triumphs of Oscar Grant. Coogler was likely touched by the tragedy of Oscar Grant’s death; the impassioned care that he demonstrates in Oscar’s character development is evident, making the film deserving of attention and certainly worth the watch. With his ability to shed comprehensive light on characters, expect powerful work from him in the future.

Counterpoint Recap 7/26: The Value of Higher Education

By Meg McGee | Counterpoint | July 29th, 2013 |
Counterpoint's Meg McGee has "the last word" after every new edition of Counterpoint.  After reading her latest recap, hear audio of the discussion she's referencing embedded below the post:

On Friday’s show, we covered a slue of topics, the smoking ban on campus, the Miami-Dade county’s decision to take funding out of libraries, Detroit’s bankruptcy, and the passing of a student loan deal in Congress.

Our entire panel agreed that the cost of college/university is skyrocketing and something should be done to change it. However, our topic grew into a larger discussion over if college is valuable in order to succeed. Matt De La Fe, our conservative contributor, argued that college degrees aren’t necessary for success and that there are plenty of jobs one can go into without a degree. While I think this argument is valid (to an extent), it is far from the reality we live in these days. Yes, there are celebrities, athletes, musicians, artists, and other innovative people in our society that make millions of dollars without having finished college. But the chances of that happening to an average Joe are not that high and if nothing else, a Bachelor’s degree is a safety net in case your multi-million dollar idea goes awry.

Everyone knows the economy and job market is bad, especially for young Americans and post-grads. So naturally, having a college degree gives you a slight advantage over someone who only has a high school diploma. The days of skipping out on college are over, there is no Woodstock, there are no protest movements, millennials have to get to work. We have to go to college and college is not cheap. So while there is no one putting a gun to our heads forcing us to take out enormous loans for college, our society leaves us with few other choices. For me, I have to go to school for what I want to do and not just undergrad but grad school and PhD. program. I think a lot of young Americans are taking huge risks by having $100k in loans but it certainly beats the alternative to working at McDonald’s with no degree. A college degree is the new high school diploma.

Until our country is able to get the costs of education down across the board, we will see more students not being able to go to a 4-year institution and instead having a high-unemployment rate for young adults. Though Congress passed this deal, there are still provisions in it to keep interest rates rising on student loans. I think student loan debt is a problem that Wall Street is cashing in on and once the “bubble” explodes, we could see another financial crisis affecting the next generation of Americans.

Below is audio of the discussion on student loans and the value of a college degree.  Counterpoint airs live Fridays at 1p.m. EST

Counterpoint Clip: Student Loans and the Costs of College by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

 

Interview: Phillip Agnew of the Dream Defenders and #TakeOverFL [Audio]

By Hyan Freitas | News Director | July 26th, 2013 |

Phillip B. Agnew is executive director of the Dream Defenders.  The organization, made up mainly of young people and college students, is getting a lot of attention for their efforts to “take over Florida”. They’re literally making Florida’s state capital building their home for now as they push for Florida’s state legislature to, via a special session, pass something they’re calling “Trayvon’s Law” which they say would  address issues like the racial profiling, zero tolerance policies which create school-to-prison pipelines, and the Stand Your Ground.

They’ve already gotten  Governor Rick Scott’s attention, and other lawmakers in Tallahassee are starting to listen in as well.  Even celebrities and national media outlets are paying attention and helping spread their message.  In an interview with ‘The Weekly Voice’ live from the capital via phone, Agnew  discussed his organization, their efforts at the state capital and some of the roadblocks and successes that have come their way leading up to their 11th day of “occupation”.

Interview: Phillip Agnew | the Dream Defenders #TakeOverFL by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

The Weekly Voice airs Fridays at 10a.m. EST and is hosted by Hyan Freitas on WVUM 90.5FM | WVUM.org

Amash Amendment Fails: Close But No Wired-for-Sound Cigar

By Mike Kanoff | Counterpoint | July 25th, 2013 |

(Image Credit: Florida Today)

 

Well, I was kind of hoping to be writing about a win for the Amash Amendment, but I suppose a loss will have to do. In case you missed it, the U.S. House of Representatives voted and ultimately defeated (205-217 with 12 abstaining) an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill that would have taken away funding for the NSA’s blanket telephone spying. The day before the vote, the White House and NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander held “emergency meetings” to urge Congress to vote against it.

 

Me being… me, I have to admit that I’m more than a little disappointed that this amendment didn’t pass. It would have been a quick and clean way to put a full stop to blanket phone surveillance while still allowing for targeted surveillance of suspects under investigation. That said, when the White House is scared enough to hold “emergency meetings” ahead of domestic spying prevention votes, I get hopeful. As the advocacy organization Demand Progress put it: “even though we lost, the other side is flipping out right now.” Not bad for an amendment that was voted on only two days after it left committee.

 

So where does this leave us? It seems to me that more or less, the vast majority of people are against the NSA’s surveillance programs (multiple ones have been revealed now: PRISM, ECHELON, BLARNEY, etc.) but it appears as though the tide is only starting to turn on the issue. Obama has welcomed “discussion” on the issue, but it seems almost impossible to have a well-formed discussion about it since the programs are already in place and running: it’s like a kid asking a parent’s permission to eat a cookie after he’s already started eating the cookie. As for curbing the surveillance programs, we might have to wait for the 2014 election cycle: all House seats and 33 Senate ones are up for grabs and at the rate the “spying discussion” is going, it could hopefully become a major issue.

 

In the meantime however, I would remain hopeful: the Amash Amendment might have failed, but that was only looking at phone surveillance, which has historically been less antagonizing than Internet surveillance. It might be just a tick away from justifiable to retain phone metadata, but I have a feeling that Internet surveillance won’t go over so well when the time comes.

 

 

Climate Change Series | Part III: Ideas

By Jordan Lewis | Counterpoint | July 25th, 2013 |
This post is part of a series aimed at providing one perspective to the broad topic of climate change.  Overall, this series will include mention of the causes of climate change, how it affects us and personal ideas from the writer on approaches that can be taken to solve this complex and global issue.  Facts are facts, but any personal views expressed throughout this series are those of the writer alone.  For this particular post, it is important to note that the author, Jordan Lewis, is the former president of UM’s Young and College Democrats. His sources are disclosed below this post, however.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     —————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The President’s Plan

 Last month, the President unveiled his plan for addressing climate change. It sets us in the right direction but in my opinion does not come close to solving the problem adequately. It is, however, cognizant of the political divide and does not require any action from Congress, only Executive Orders.

  • President Obama’s plan to direct the EPA to work with state and local governments to limit carbon pollution at power plants is a common-sense but still significant move.
  • The President set a goal to double wind and solar energy by 2020.
  • The FY 2014 budget will increase research by 30%.
  • The President set a goal to have a performance equivalent of 54.5 MPG by 2025.
  • The administration released plans to make rural utilities more sustainable, and to help make electricity generation more efficient.
  • The administration will also develop fuel standards for heavy trucks in the future.
  • The federal government will consume 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

While these measures are positive, and show a commitment to fighting climate change, they aren’t aggressive enough to lower our footprint to responsible levels.

 

A Responsible Plan For Now and In the Future for the USA

We need to take aggressive steps to combat climate change. Here are some policy ideas to help mitigate climate change:

 Efficiency:

  • Encourage automobile makers to enhance MPG standards, sooner. The technology exists to produce 40-MPG compact cars immediately, and President Obama’s proposal of 54.5 MPG could and should be met sooner. We can and should aim higher. Provide incentives that make electric vehicles, hybrids, and other efficient vehicles affordable on the marketplace.
  • Provide more tax-incentives for energy-efficient appliances and machinery.
  • Encourage sustainable agricultural practices, with a lessened reliance on fertilizers.
  • Set higher efficiency standards for electricity generation (like the Obama plan at power plants).

Rebuild Our Country

America’s infrastructure is in need of repair. A stimulus package would create millions of jobs and make our country stronger and more energy-efficient.

Build efficient roads and bridges.

Invest in renewable energy projects. Solar and wind powered energy sources are available and are not being used to the extent in which they could be used. Allocate funds for research.

Invest in Mitigation Strategies

  • Climate change will bring about many of the negative impacts as explained above. We need to invest in strategies that protect against some of these impacts.
  • Explore building seawalls along our coasts to mitigate sea level rise.
  • Explore crops that are more adept to warmer climates.
  • Build irrigation systems that save water, including microirrigation (as used in Israel)
  • Erect buildings that can sustain extreme winds and other forces of nature.

Engage in global pacts to reduce carbon emissions

  • By not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, it indicated that we were not willing to take significant steps to reduce climate change.
  • By entering into international agreements, we will spread goodwill that will encourage other countries to limit their emissions.

Reduce our dependence on coal and oil

Coal and oil are dirty fuels that form a major part of carbon emissions. Carbon is the most utilized fossil fuel in the world but also the dirtiest. Oil is ubiquitous in American transportation and industrial production.

Reducing our dependence on oil saves consumers money, enhances national security, and will reduce air pollution in our cities.

We should make it a priority to phase off coal and oil use as soon as possible. In order to fill our energy needs, we can utilize natural gas. Natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel and is generally abundant in the United States. There are significant environmental hazards to natural gas extraction. Natural gas extraction involves a technique called hydraulic fracturing, in which chemicals, water, and sand are blasted into wells in order to draw gas to the surface. This has threatened our water supplies and allowed gas to seep out into homes. Americans must know what chemicals are used in these fracking techniques, and safeguards set in place to protect our water supply.

Finally, natural gas should be used as a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

Avoid the production of wasteful synthetic fuels, including Keystone XL  

Synthetic fuels, such as tar sands, require additional energy input, and present enormous environmental damages. Keystone XL is a tar sands project. Let’s discuss the Keystone XL Pipeline:

  • Tar sands are a mixture of sand, clay, water, and a viscous oil-like substance called bitumen, which can then be refined to produce oil. These tar sands are abundant in Alberta, Canada.
  • The tar sands project has caused massive deforestation and environmental degradation in Canada. In order to fully reach these tar sands, it will require the destruction of an area larger than Florida[1].
  • Each barrel of tar sands produces three types the amount of greenhouse gases as regular oil.
  • Tar sands are an environmental hazard, containing arsenic, mercury, lead and other carcinogens. It endangers aboriginal communities and the communities by which the Pipeline would pass by.
  • The Keystone XL Pipeline would run across America’s Rockies and through areas vital to ensuring our food supply. The most critical area it would cross is the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies 30% of the water used for irrigation for agriculture[2]. A spill of this corrosive, toxic oil would threaten our nation’s breadbasket for a significant time to come. Early portions of the pipelines have already leaked, three times in South Dakota. There were 12 spills in this past year.
  • The tar sands would be refined in America but shipped overseas. It would not reduce dependence on foreign oil.
  • The tar sands project could actually cost Midwest farmers 20 cents per gallon in higher fuel costs[3].
  • Major unions oppose this project because there are few decent, permanent jobs to oppose the pipeline. It will create 35 permanent jobs (according to the State Department) while creating 51 coal plants worth of carbon[4].
  • Other nations are opposed to allow such a pipeline in their sovereign territory.
  • NASA scientist James Hansen described the Keystone XL as “game over for the climate.”
  • Simply put, President Obama’s plan to reduce the impact of climate change will be a mere paperweight if he approves the Keystone XL pipeline.

Enforce legislation to limit carbon emissions for industry

Despite efficiency increases and sustainable-use strategies, Congress should develop a plan to limit emissions from industry and factory groups. Cap and trade systems and carbon taxes are among the options that have been considered throughout the world. Cap and trade sets limits on carbon pollution and uses a market scheme where firms can purchase more credits on the open market. Such a proposal passed the House in 2009 but was not voted on in the Senate. A carbon tax scheme would place a tax on carbon emitters that could be offset by lowering other taxes on citizens. In terms of limiting carbon emissions, the carbon tax may have more might. Neither is politically feasible at the moment.

Utilize urban planning techniques and mass transportation

The government should emphasize sustainable urban planning strategies. The benefit of sustainable cities is that transportation costs are lower, for consumer products and transportation to work. Less land is required, allowing more land to be set aside for green space. Finally, the cities provide an opportunity to utilize effective mass transportation systems. Our systems should be made to run on renewable fuels and should be attractive for residents to travel on.

Research techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere

We need to prepare for climate change getting worse in the future. Thus, we must invest in research to find sequestration methods that are effective. Sequestration removes carbon dioxide from power plants (carbon capture and storage) and the environment and stores it in the Earth or other place that will not contribute to climate change. Carbon capture technology is already being implemented, but other sequestration techniques are still under study.

Encourage contraception and population controlA way to fight climate change would be to provide low-cost contraception to developing countries. This would not only lower demand for fuels and climate footprint, but also improve standards of living and the status of women. It’s a win-win.

Engage in Reforestation practices in the United States and across the world

The United States should invest in setting aside land to allow native forest to regrow, adding to biodiversity and taking carbon out of the atmosphere. We should encourage other nations to protect their forests.

Encourage personal responsibility and the 3 R’s

As a society, the American people should look to make changes in our lifestyle to lower our carbon footprints. We should buy less, reduce, reuse, and recycle. We can reuse a lot of household items and keep them out of landfills. By recycling products, we save energy that would be used to make them. We could make one less trip on an airline this year. We should look to purchase goods that are recyclable and use paper instead of plastic and Styrofoam. We should look to kick our habit of buying plastic water bottles that are expensive, carbon intensive, and clog up landfills. American tap water is cheaper, cleaner, and healthier than most bottled water. Finally, we should look to eat less meat. Consumption of meat produces carbon dioxide at several levels. Land is cleared in many developing countries to raise cattle, removing carbon sinks, and with the burning of trees, releasing it into the atmosphere. Up to 45% of all of the land on the Earth is occupied with livestock grazing[5]. Cattle also require larger grain (100 times more water) inputs than other crops. Finally, cattle belch methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the environment.

Encourage the purchase of locally made products

We can also reduce our carbon footprint by buying locally, at farmers markets and mom-and-pop stores, rather than from overseas. Cargo ships account for 3% of carbon emissions, but that’s small compared to the footprint of a commercial airliner. Buying local helps the environment and local businesses. Everybody benefits and it puts people to work. With the trade deficit so starkly in favor of China, it’s time to put our resources to work to encourage the purchase of more American products, including enforcing the label “Made in x” for all products coming from overseas.

 

Climate change is a threat to us, our children, and our grandchildren. We need to fight for a future and press our leaders to limit emissions in order to have a liveable world for the next generations.

Sources:


[1] http://ran.org/what-are-tar-sands

[2] http://www.nrdc.org/land/files/TarSandsPipeline4pgr.pdf

[3] http://www.tarsandsaction.org/keystone-xl-facts/

[4]http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/17/1885621/keystone-pipeline-will-create-only-35-permanent-jobs-emit-51-coal-plants-worth-of-carbon/

[5] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/we-could-be-heroes/

Climate Change Series | Part II: Why Care?

By Jordan Lewis | Counterpoint | July 24th, 2013 |
This post is part of a series aimed at providing one perspective to the broad topic of climate change.  Overall, this series will include mention of the causes of climate change, how it affects us and personal ideas from the writer on approaches that can be taken to solve this complex and global issue.  Facts are facts, but any personal views expressed throughout this series are those of the writer alone.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      —————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The Effects of Climate Change

Sea level rise would threaten the world’s coastal cities, including Miami. Over 100 million people live within three feet of sea level. In the developing world, sea level rise would hit the hardest, causing massive refugee crises and deaths from disease and other impacts. The effects will also be felt at home. According to Jeff Goodell of the Rolling Stone, with just three feet of sea level rise, 1/3 of South Florida will be underwater. With six feet, ½ of South Florida will be gone. The Florida Keys are already vulnerable to sea level rise[1]. Since 1920, South Florida has seen over 9 inches of sea level rise.[2] The projected sea level rise is double that. South Florida expects to see a sea level rise of 9 to 24 inches in the next 50 years. NOAA projects a general sea level rise from 2.5 to 6.6 feet by 2100[3].

Temperature projections are varied due to uncertainties about carbon emissions in the future. If we lower our emissions, warming will slow, but the converse is also true. The IPCC expects a global temperature increase of at least .2 degrees Celsius per decade for the next two decades[4]. Even if we stopped emitting carbon today, the result of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere would increase. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change recommends a hard limit of 2 degrees Celsius warming. After this point, dangerous positive feedback mechanisms would enhance carbon inputs into the atmosphere and thus increase warming. Such feedbacks include the release of methane from Arctic permafrost, release of carbon from the oceans, desertification, forest fires, increased water vapor (a greenhouse gas), and a loss of albedo from Arctic glaciers (Snow and ice reflect heat back towards the atmosphere. Without such cover due to climate change, this capacity is reduced.)

v  Plant life will migrate toward the poles, and up to ¼ of all organisms will go extinct, including the polar bear.

v  Extreme weather events will happen more often. Without natural barriers to erosion, the effects of such storms will be worse.

v  Rainfall patterns will change. Some areas will receive record amounts of rain while others will go into prolonged drought. In areas such as China and Northern Africa, the movement of desert threatens arable land.

v  Certain diseases such as malaria will thrive due to warmer climates, putting much of the tropical and semi-tropical world at risk.

v  Damage caused by climate change will be measured in trillions of dollars. The Stern Review estimates damage due to climate change at about 5% of global GDP[5].

v  Water supplies will be critically reduced due to salinization, increased evaporation, and drought. It has been said that the next wars will be fought over water supplies.

v  Many parts of the world that depend on agriculture, including the Midwest, could suffer from drought and increase pestilence, decreasing global yields. Changes in ocean salinity will impact fisheries around the world and the economies that depend on fishing.

 

Sources of Greenhouse Gases

Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Here is the breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States[6]:

  • Electricity: 33%
  • Transportation: 28% (90% of which is petroleum)
  • Industry: 20%
  • Commercial and Residential: 11%
  • Agriculture: 8% (fertilizers, livestock)
  • Deforestation combines for 20% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Cement: 4% worldwide
  • Aviation: fastest growing: 3.5% worldwide
  • Garbage: 3% worldwide

More information worldwide[7]:

  • Coal: 25% Gas 19% Oil 21%
  • Direct Emissions: 34.6% (Agriculture, Land Use, Waste)
  • 76% CO2 15% Methane 7% Nitrous Oxide
  • The atmospheric carbon levels have passed 400 parts per million, the highest level in 3 million years. Some scientists have advocated for 350 ppm as a safe level. We’re far from that[8].

 

Sources:


[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-city-of-miami-is-doomed-to-drown-20130620?page=2

[2] http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/05/3485930/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says.html

[3] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/06/noaa-sea-level-rise/1750945/

[4] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

[5] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

[6] http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

[7] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/31/this-giant-chart-shows-where-all-our-greenhouse-gases-come-from/

[8] http://americablog.com/2013/05/global-warming-heat-trapping-co2-concentration-passes-400-ppm-milestone.html

Climate Change Series | Part I: Fact or Hypothesis?

By Jordan Lewis | Counterpoint | July 23rd, 2013 |
This post is part of a series aimed at providing one perspective to the broad topic of climate change.  Overall, this series will include mention of the causes of climate change, how it affects us and personal ideas from the writer on approaches that can be taken to solve this complex and global issue.  Facts are facts, but any personal views expressed throughout this series are those of the writer alone.

————————————————————————————————————————————–

Is it happening?

Yes. That’s the answer from the scientific community. The International Panel on Climate Change found that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”. A recent study found that 97% of climatologists (out of 12,000 peer-reviewed articles) found that humans are causing changes in our Earth’s climate system. If 97% of doctors recommended a new treatment for cancer, it would change the medical paradigm when it comes to treating cancer.

 

Climate Denial

However, when it comes to climate change, our public and politicians have been slow to embrace decades of research and data. A comprehensive strategy to mitigate climate change is necessary, but has been met with opposition from industry and energy companies. These organizations, led by the Koch Brothers ($67 million by themselves[1]), have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to scientists and climate denial groups to manufacture data and delay critical policy. Brown & Williamson, a tobacco giant, noted in a memo “Doubt is our product”. It’s no wonder that groups such as the Koch Brothers are employing the strategies that the tobacco industry has used to combat evidence that smoking causes cancer. These industry groups have funded studies designed specifically to refute evidence of climate change, and use these studies to challenge the consensus that climate change is caused by human activity. In many cases, these scientists (geologists) have no credentials in the field of climate science. But some Koch Industries-funded scientists have recanted their skepticism of climate change, with one scientist, Richard Muller stating, “humans are almost entirely the cause” of climate change. In any case, the Koch’s are in a paramount position to lobby against climate policy in Congress. As the biggest donors to the Tea Party and conservative front groups such as Americans for Prosperity, ALEC, and Freedom Works, the Koch Brothers have considerable ability to fund campaigns and candidates that are opposed to climate policy. In fact, the increased power of the Tea Party to challenge incumbents has caused Republicans to side with the energy lobby to avoid a primary challenge. As a result, the majority of the Republican Party is at least skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, and has fought against climate policy, to keep oil subsidies, and against the EPA’s attempt to regulate greenhouse gases.

 

Evidence of Climate Change

 Our planet is warming at a pace that is unprecedented in history. This warming directly corresponds to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution. We must make a distinction between weather and climate; weather is an indication of atmospheric conditions over a short period of time, while climate is a measure of these conditions over an extended period of time. In this next section, we will use indicators of long-term climate to demonstrate that climate change is occurring at a rapid pace[2].

  • Most of the warming has taken place in the last 40 years, in the same time as carbon emissions have soared.
  • All 20 of the warmest years on record have occurred since 1981. All 10 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last 12 years. According to NOAA, 14 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years[3].
  • The argument that solar output causes climate change is a common theory used by climate skeptics. The years 2007-2009 experienced a deep solar minimum, yet were some of the hottest years on record.
  • 2012 was the hottest year on record for the United States, and second most extreme in our history.
  • This year is expected to be no different. The summer in Australia was their hottest ever. This May was the third warmest on record (1998 and 2005 warmer). In the last few weeks, a heat wave struck Alaska, soaring temperatures into the 90’s.
  • The global sea level rose 17 centimeters in the last century. The rate of sea level rise this decade is double that.
  • The top 700 meters of ocean have warmed by .3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. It takes an enormous amount of heat to warm the ocean by that amount.
  • Our ice sheets are diminishing rapidly. Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic km of ice per year from 2002 to 2006. Glaciers have retreated at record rates.
  • The acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by 30%. The amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans increases by 2 billion tons per year.
  • 2012 saw 362 all-time records high temperatures in the United States but no record lows[4]. Last week, Death Valley, California came close to recording the hottest temperature ever on Earth.
  • Every major governmental institution has indicated that anthropogenic climate change is happening.
  • Every nation except the United States and Australia ratified the Kyoto Protocol, signaling an attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Australia has since confirmed its intent to limit its greenhouse gas emissions.
  • The past few years have seen an increase in extreme weather that can be linked to a changing climate. A warming of the oceans strengthens the intensity of hurricanes. Six of the 10 strongest Atlantic hurricanes on record have occurred in the last 15 years. Hurricane Katrina killed 1,800 people along the Gulf Coast. Last October, Manhattan was under water from Hurricane Sandy, a year after the Northeast was struck by Hurricane Irene. 2012 saw a historic drought in the American heartland and in Russia, both vital breadbaskets for the planet.
  • The past decade has seen record numbers of extinctions and migrations of plant and animals to cooler climates.
  • Scientific records have indicated that such warming is unprecedented by studying the remains of corals and other organisms. The effects of climate change has been predicted and by substantiated by computer models.

 

SOURCES:


[1] http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

[2] http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

[3] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/

[4] http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/05/1394711/2012-saw-362-all-time-record-high-temperatures-in-us-but-zero-all-time-record-lows/

Race and Justice in America: A Counterpoint Special

By Hyan Freitas | News Director | July 21st, 2013 |

Below you’ll find the full audio of Counterpoint’s roundtable discussion on race and justice in America.  We dedicated the entire Counterpoint hour to these topics in light of conversations that have started across the nation following the not guilty verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman.

We also split the show into three segments in case there is a specific topic that might be of more interest than another or if you tuned in late when it aired live.  Each has its own player below.

Part I: Reactions to the Verdict

Part II: A conversation on racial profiling: Is it an issue?

Part III:  The American Justice System:  Is it unfair to minorities?

Counterpoint: Race and Justice Special Edition [Full Audio] by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

 

Counterpoint Race and Justice Special: Reactions to the Zimmerman trial by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

Counterpoint Race and Justice Special- Discussing Racial Profiling by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

Counterpoint Race and Justice Special: Race and the justice system by Wvumnews on Mixcloud

This special aired July 19, 2013 | Counterpoint airs live Fridays at 1pm EST on WVUM 90.5FM | WVUM.org

U₦iv€r$i₮¥

By Mike Kanoff | Counterpoint | July 12th, 2013 |
http://media.cagle.com/81/2013/06/27/133834_600.jpg

Image Source: http://www.cagle.com/2013/06/monsters-university/

While I am sure it will come up on the show at some point, I want to give a quick stance on the recent doubling of student loan interest rates. Congress recently failed to block a doubling of interest rates on federal student loans from the then-current 3.4% to the new 6.8%. Currently, both houses are trying to put something together to bring the rate back down, but there has been no official movement at the time of writing.

 

Students go to college more so now than ever before; it is almost expected that an applicant for most jobs have a college degree. Unfortunately, and I think many people can relate, college isn’t exactly cheap, so the government was nice enough to help out. Of course, like all loans, the government charges interest, which used to be a bearable 3.4%, but which is currently 6.8%. As it is, the stereotype is that after graduation, the students start working at the lowest rung and earn just enough to eek out a living after paying their rents/mortgages/bills and loans back.

 

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue: you can’t take money from people who don’t have any. As I said above, the stereotype is that college students don’t have much money, since they are most likely going to school to be able to get a job in the first place. But on the other hand, the government has no obligation to give these loans, nor does it have an obligation to keep them at 3.4%, but since it has offered, and considering the other offers, like banks getting loans with near-0% interest, interest should at least be allocated appropriately.

 

Ultimately, it is still up to the student to accept the loan, and it isn’t wrong for the government to ask for the double rate, but it simply doesn’t make sense to. Either private lenders will beat the government, like any free market has the capacity to do, or the percentage of students going to school may drop for fear of being unable to repay. We certainly don’t want to end up with a generation deeply indebted from their college educations, but at the same time, there is no obligation for the government to make it cheap. The government guarantees 12 years of schooling; a high school diploma, and everything else is optional, even if it is preferred.

 

I think I can sum up my stance here with an simple analogy: if you want orange juice, you’ll likely get more from the fat, juicy, plump orange than you will from the one that’s yet to ripen and still green.