Thursday, May 30, 2019

Planning Post on Saving Environment

My main topic is to discuss the responsibility that we all have to be better stewards over our environment. I recognize that this is an incredibly broad topic so I have decided to discuss how in order to save the environment the only sustainable option is for there to be a "Green Industrial Revolution" similar to the Industrial Revolution, but just innovation that will allow us to be environmentally friendly without the threat of a depression if measures were too drastic. This topic is engaging and relevant because its a topic that many people want to care about, but are not willing to make changes, and I want to show how one can make the necessary changes. I feel good about addressing the current criteria which I will show in the main body of this blog.

History Component

I mostly want to discuss the Industrial Revolution and The Great Depression. The Industrial Revolution came about due to a desire, an opportunity and the ability to innovate, but people were still concerned about losing their jobs due to inventions of machines that can do the work for them. The cotton gin is a good example of this. People experience that same fear today with AI and computers, but at the end of the day these inventions free up our mind to focus on other problems and over time the floor of the standard of living is raised and so is the ceiling. However, too drastic of changes can cause for there to be too much product and not enough to buy which can lead to an economic depression. I want to talk about how the carbon tax would be too drastic, but that measures to bring about a green industrial revolution through tax cuts and stimulated innovation is the only sustainable way to bring about the lasting change that is needed.

Rhetoric Component

There are some pretty remarkable statistics that show that while there has been an incredible boom in technology over the last 20 years, that has not changed how our industry works as a whole. I want to invoke ethos by showing that I understand both sides of the argument, and I want to propose an idea that people can rally behind. I want to invoke pathos by showing the changes that are already taking place in 3rd world countries and among our environment with animals and losing their homes. Kairos is relevant because this is one of the most talked about issues on the world stage today, and people want a solution.

Personal Component

I have been doing research for a long time about the adverse effects of the environment and about some proposed ideas to institute a carbon tax and for the Green New Deal. I've read things that are pro carbon tax and anti-carbon tax and the arguments that people make that are both articulate and understandable. I have been saddened to see a lot of rhetoric but no real changes to improve our plan to care for the world we live in. My hope is to articulate a plan that people on both sides of the aisle can support. 

3 comments:

  1. I like your aim to find a bipartisan solution to our environmental issues, it got me on board to think of some ideas! What do you think about nuclear power replacing fossil fuel power? Nuclear power can power electric vehicles as well. We can also design and build nuclear reactors with better safety features and containment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm all for nuclear! Especially the newer molten salt fluoride reactors.

      Delete
  2. Given the economic nature of pollution abatement, something that may help you on the historical side is looking the pollution permit system. It was basically permits allotted to companies that allowed a certain amount of pollution per permit. It was largely successful in reducing nationwide pollution but it was discontinued because of public opinion. Another controversy was that companies who had a harder time reducing pollution would just buy permits from smaller companies who could reduce pollution at lower cost. On the rhetorical side, maybe looking at utilitarian ideas and how even though nationally pollution decreased(the most good for most people), regionally, some areas got worse because certain companies owned more permits.

    ReplyDelete