Evaluation # 8

Hello Professor,

This blog will focus on the second part of the Climate lab. The reason being, is that in the lab, the concept was still a little fuzzy and by studying and depicting it here, I am hoping to fully understand the two dimensional climate model explained in Richars Wolfson's "Energy, Environment, and climate". 

The purpose of the two dimensional climate model is to illustrate in a simplified way how the earth's energy balance works and how the energy exchange between the surface and the atmosphere functions. As we know from previous chapters, the energy balance of the earth entails that the same amount of energy enters from the sun as it is reflected back to space. 

Due to the emissivity(the effectiveness of molecules in absorbing and radiating energy) of the molecules in the atmosphere, the manner in which the energy leaves the earth is not as uniform as when it enters. Almost 100% of the earth's energy is derived from the sun. Even though, the earth receives 235 W/m^2 of solar energy, not all of it reaches the surface. A large amount of the solar energy is directly reflected back to space by the greenhouse gases. This is attributed to their high emissivity rate, which is not constant and depends on the atmosphere's temperature and molecular concentration of greenhouse gases. 

The remainder of the solar energy that is not directly radiated back to space, reaches the earth's surface. Although the radiation of the surface depends on the surface's temperature, in total its emissivity is close to one. This means that the earth's surface absorbs and emits energy very well.  As a result, the energy that reaches the earth is reflected back to space. This is how the earth's energy balance occurs.

However, before earth's surface energy is reflected back to space, it is absorbed by the atmospheric gases of the lower atmosphere due to the difference in temperature between the earth's surface and the atmosphere. This difference in temperature, absorption of energy, and retention of energy is what we refer too as the greenhouse effect. One can go as far as to deduce that life is possible on earth due to the presence of greenhouse gases. Otherwise the earth's average temperature would be 254 Kelvin or -19. 15 Celsius, which would be way beyond water's freezing point. 

Blog Abstract

        Blog Abstract

Blog #1: September 10

“Green, Sustainability, and Systems Approach”

This blog defines, explains, and analyses each concept.

 

Blog #2: September 14

“Opinion of the Week”

This blog expresses its opinions about the presentation held that week. It also advises for a class blog in which every student can have access to the power point of the presentations held so a more profound understanding can be achieved.

 

Blog #3: September 21

“Opinion of the Week”

This blog admires the teaching methodology, which encompasses a balance of lecture with individual teaching trough research.

 

Blog #4: September 21

“Evaluation on the First Plenary and Lab”

This blog expresses a positive opinion of the first plenary session, which was about sustainability. The second part of the blog expresses contentment with the lab on solar constant because it propelled the internalization and understanding of that concept.

 

Blog #5: October 5

“Systems Approach and Kafka”

This blog appreciates the summary given in class of the terms “green”, “sustainability”, and “systems approach”.  It also makes the comparison of the concept of systems approach with Franz Kafka’s story of “The Castle”.

 

Blog #6: October 13

“Color”

This blog extends on lab conducted in class on color. It explains how color works and explains why we perceive the colors we do.

 

Blog #7: October 19
“Thermodynamics”

This blog explains and focuses on the three ways of heat transfer: convection, conduction, and radiation.

 

Blog #8: October 26

“Beyond Oil”

This blog focuses on the explanation of Hubbert’s Peak and well as the concepts of “Hubbertians” and “Cornucopians” raised in the book “Beyond Oil” by Deffeyes.

 

Blog #10: MIDTERM

Blog #11: November 9

“Coal War”

This blog is about the article on the Scientif American magazine called “Coal War: Georgia Halts Construction of New Coal- Fired Plant”. It resumes it while giving an analysis of its significance on environmental field. 

Class Assignment from November 14

Emissivity:

As we know, heat can be transferred through convection, conduction, and radiation. As long as objects have a higher temperature than absolute zero (-273 Celsius), its molecules vibrate as a result they are constantly absorbing and emitting electro-magnetic radiation. For example, if an object is hotter than its surroundings, it will emit energy and if is colder, it will absorb energy from its surroundings. As a result, the net flow of electro-magnetic energy between two objects depends on the temperature difference between the two.

 

So what is emissivity?

Emissivity is the property that each object has to either emit or absorb electro-magnetic energy. The emissivity of an object depends two things: Its material and surface area.

 

The scale 0-1 describes the objects efficiency as an emitter and absorber.

è   A black object is a perfect emitter/absorber.

è   A shiny object is a poor emitter/absorber.

 

One must take into account that the objects efficiency rate as an emitter is equal to its efficiency as an absorber!

 

Since emissivity describes the electro-magnetic energy exchange between two objects, the emissivity for visible light (low wavelength) is different for that of infrared (high wavelength).

 

Question 3:

In what sense is radiation the only heat-transfer process affecting the planet’s energy-balance? In what sense do other processes play a role?

 

The earth receives all its energy from the sun through radiation and most of it is reflected back to space. The term energy balance refers to an equal amount entering and leaving a system. On earth, the energy balance is achieved through electro-magnetic radiation. Energy from the sun enters the earth in two forms, through light (short wave energy) and through infrared radiation (long wave energy). The short wave energy enters and leaves the earth without inhibition since none of the atmospheric gases absorb visible light. Yet molecules in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, and methane absorb the infrared radiation, or long wave energy. The short wave absorption by those gases is the key element in the establishment of the planet’s energy balance because some energy is then prevented from leaving the earth. As a result of the atmospheric gases the earth’s average temperature is raised from 254 Kelvin to 287 Kelvin. Our planet’s energy balance consists of an equal rate of short wave energy that enters and leaves the planet, yet the entrance and exit of long wave energy is not the same.

Other processes like clouds, oceans or geographical variations influence the planet’s energy balance. However, they are rather ignored in the big picture because their influence on the energy balance is minimal in comparison to the atmospheric gases. Yet the increase of fossil fuel consumption, which has significantly increased the presence of atmospheric gases, especially CO2, has contributed in altering the earth’s energy balance. The reason is that now more short wave energy is absorbed. As result, more energy from the sun is retained in the atmosphere than it naturally should!

Evaluation # 7

Good Evening Professor,

This week, my group had to work on the article "Coal War: Georgia Halts Construction of New Coal- Fired Plant". Our article was written on July 3, 2008 and depicted the first time that a court denied the continuation of the construction of a coal-fired plant in Chattahooche River in Georgia. The jurisdictional reason was that the permit for the plant neither contained a cap of CO2-emissions nor was seeking to implement any technologies to control them. The plant aimed to produce 1,200 mega-watts and as a result this plant would have emitted 8-9 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. In the United States the coal production is responsible for 40% of the C02- emissions. Additionally, coal fired plants have the highest output rate of Co2 per unit of electricity among all fossil fuels. Yet coal is also responsible for 50% of the U.S energy.  

This denial of the continuations of the construction of the coal-fired plant is quite significant in the political as well as in the environmental field since it is the first time that the Clean Air Act has been enforced by the Energy Protection Agency.  The Clean Air Act has been around since 1963. This legislation seeked to reduce smog and air pollution in the sixties. Realistically, the ratification of this act by congress was more or less a charity act for most people were not concerned with the environment back then. As the years passed, this act was modified and amended. The reduction of acid rain called upon and so was the concern of the ozone depletion. With time, this act became for specialized and dealt with pressing environmental issues, yet no organization or government body was assigned to enforce the act. This caused the act to be politically insignificant. Yet in May 2008 a Supreme Court Ruling gave the Energy Protection Agency the power to enforce the Clean Air Act that had been on the shelves for quite some time. This ruling changed the game since now they possess the political power to control, prohibit, and regulate issues associated with the environment. Finally, environmental protection can begin to happen since it can now be politically enforced!

Of course, the power company responsible for the power plant is appealing the the ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia, arguing that when the permit was given, the EPA did not yet have the power to enforce the Clean Air Act. This is a valid point. The resolution of this political dispute remains to be seen. Yet we cannot deny that the denial was a stepping stone in environmental politics. 

Bibliography:

Scientific American: "Coal War: Georgia Court Halts Construction of New Coal-Fired Plant"

The Sierra Club Organization: "http://nevada.sierraclub.org/conservation/powerplants/EECcoalplant.html"

Energy Protection Agency, The Clean Air Act: "http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/"

MID TERM

Mid Term Carbon Footprint Project

By Andrea Devis

Part I: Carbon footprint calculation

What is carbon footprint?

Carbon footprint is the representation of the effect that human activities have on the climate in terms of the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted by each individual, household, or industry.

 What is the total of CO2 emitted in the United States?                                                                                                                  According to the Energy Information Association in 2005 28.192 million metric tons of Carbon Dioxide were emitted into the atmosphere worldwide. The United States is responsible for 21.1% of those emissions with a rate of 5.956 million metric tons. The United States emitted 13,131 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2005. This means that the average of CO2 emissions is about 22,58 pounds per person of CO2 or 49,73 metric tons. That number was extracted by dividing the U.S population estimate from the U.S Census Bureau by the total of carbon dioxide emitted into the earth by the United States in 2005.

The Energy Protection Association estimates that energy production-related activities are the leading source greenhouse gas emissions. They accounted for 86% of the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere in 2006.

 

How was my households CO2 footprint calculated?                                                                                                                               Before I start, I want to give you an idea of my lifestyle. I live in a single, unattached family home in Maryland, which was constructed in the fifties. Four people reside permanently in the house. We own two vehicles, a mid-size car and an SUV. I commute to the university every day, my mother commutes to work, and my father travels back and forth from South America. My grandmother does not commute.

I used two different websites to calculate the carbon footprint of my household.

The first one was Nature Conservancy at www.nature.org and the second one was Carbon Counter at www.carboncaounter.org.

According to nature.org my household emits 100 tons of CO2 per year. This is supposedly lower than the United States average, which is 110 tons of CO2 per year.

                                               

                                                My Household (Tons/year)          U.S Average

Home Energy	51	30% above Average
Driving and Flying	36	22% below Average
Food and Diet	11	30% below Average.
Recycling and Waste	3.7	21% below Average

 

Nature.Org is an organization that is focused on the conservation of habitats as well as the clear reduction of individual CO2 emissions. As a result the entire calculator is based on reduction and addition of emissions through certain actions. Before every category is measured, the U.S average is given as a starting point. Then through three or four questions that are answered in an quantitative basis (very little, some, a lot) CO2 emissions are added or deducted. As a result one gets a very vague average. Additionally, one has very little control in making the calculations more precise or understanding how they are calculated for only the sources of the used data is given.

 

The second source used to measure my household’s carbon footprint was carboncounter.com. This source estimates that the average CO2 emission per person in the United States is 21.28 tons per year. By typing in my data it estimated that my carbon footprint is 40.20 tons per year. This showed that my carbon footprint doubles that of the United States average. The reason, for which it was so high was due to my frequent air travel.

 

                                                  My Household (Tons/year)     U.S Average(Tons/year)

Home CO2 Emissions	13.63	11.16
Auto CO2 Emissions	12.49	5.02
Air CO2 Emissions	14. 08	0.46

 

Carboncounter.org is an organization that tries to compensate for the individual carbon footprint by funding environmental projects that would neutralize the CO2 emissions. According to one’s footprint, it suggests the amount of money one should donate. This calculator is more precise than the first one. The reason being is that one could enter more accurate data such as the kwh used for electricity in the household, the miles traveled per car, and the miles traveled on airplane. Naturally the calculations also stem from the average of the U.S CO2 emissions. The data used in the calculation is from the same source as the first carbon footprint calculator used (EPA, US Department of Energy, and US Department of Transportation, among others). This website is also more transparent because it tells one directly how the calculations were conducted, while nature.org does not.

Sources of error:

What is the most puzzling, are the very different averages that are attained from the same sources. My calculations estimate the CO2 emission to be around 49,73 tons per person per year. Nature.org estimates the U.S average at 110 tons per year. And carboncounter.com estimates the average to be at 21,28 tons of CO2 per person per year.  A clear explanation could not be found. 

 

Part II: Aviation

According to the Energy Protection Agency 71.1 million tons of CO2 were emitted into the atmosphere through aviation transportation in 2006. That is 12% higher than in 1990.  The data given is very vague since the calculation of the aviation emissions depends on many variable factors. Depending on the stage of the flight, the plane will burn more or less fuel. Depending on the charcteristic of the engine, more or less fuel will be burned. Lastly the fuel burned and the quantity of CO2 emitted also depends on the flight conditions. If the plane is overloaded it will burn more fuel than if it is not. 

Yet by researching through governmental agencies our group will try to derive realistic averages of U.S aviation emissions. Then we will see what percentage the aviations emissions are from the total emission of the United States. Consequently we will try to find out where most of the emissions emerge from (either engine type, flight condition, or flight phase). With this we hope to acquire an overview and can propose a realistic starting point for emissions reduction. In proposing our solution, we will also take into account that the aviation industry is a high investment industry, which prevents the industry’s aging infrastructure to be replaced within a short time period.

 

 

Bibliography:

http://www.esd.rgs.org/glossarypopup.html

Energy Agency Information, Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2005 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/carbon.html 

U.S Census Bureau, Population estimate: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=PEP_2006_EST&-_lang=en&-mt_name=PEP_2006_EST_G2006_T001&-format=&-CONTEXT=dt

 

Web-Flyer, Calculation of Miles flown in 2008: http://www.webflyer.com/travel/milemarker/getmileage.php?city=DCA&city=MIA&city=&city=&city=&bonus=0&class_bonus=0&promo_bonus=0&min=0&min_type=m&bonus_use_min=0&class_bonus_use_min=0&promo_bonus_use_min=0

Evaluation # 6

Good evening Professor,

I would like to focus my blog on the book "Beyond Oil". I think it is a very good reading! It is the exact background information that the course needs to be able to carry out more profound discussions about alternative energy. 

I really appreciated how each fossil fuel was explained in a detailed manner, from the molecular structure to the different types of market prices and government policies. I really gained a scientific and factual overview, that I definitely lacked before. After going through Hubert's simplified calculations, the curve made a lot of sense. Yet, it remained unclear how Deffeyes concluded that we hit 94 percent of the oil that we can ever expect to hit. On the one hand he derives it from Huberts calculations yet on the other hand he mentions how difficult it is to find oil reserves through seismic exploration. Even though oil reserves have certain characteristics like anticlines, salt domes or faults, it is difficult to believe that all the ocean surface has been explored with either laser or sound-waves. Yet I do acknowledge his point that any new discoveries would not make a difference in the depleting fossil fuels due to the rising demand.

His central point is very relevant and one that we have discussed in class. Since he has a scientific perspective, he lacks the politician's cynicism. This makes it understandable why he loses a little bit touch with reality, as he proposes future solutions or alternative scenarios. But he is calling for political leadership and  its actions. Deffey mentions that we have missed the period in which alternative energy sources could have been experimented with and developed parallel so that the transition from fossil fuels to new energy sources would be a smooth one. He says that now we just have to cope with trial and error, which will take a harder tole on society. The "Hubertians" and "cornucopians" disagree on the time frame in which oil will deplete. However, both are aware that fossil fuel sources are not infinite. Hubbertians, according to Deffey's portrait, seem more precarious because they are calling for a blueprint of the world's resources so we can be honest with ourselves as a civilization and have a bigger control in which direction the wind of the future will take us. While the "cornucopians" are simply waiting for the invisible hand of the market and consequently for the extreme scarcity to drive prices up and prolong the supply. Naturally an alternative would emerge but be at a very high cost to our momentary living standards and economies. 

I fully support the method of prevention which the hubbertians are calling for!

Evaluation on Color (october 12)

(This is the evaluation, which I had technical difficulties with.)

Hello Professor,

Thank you for the meeting today. It was very enjoyable. I am sorry that it was cut short but I had class at 2:20 pm.

The internet is not allowing, the "New Post" window to be opened so I am sending you the fourth evaluation through this medium. Thank you for understanding.

I am writing the blog today because yesterday night, I got carried away by my research. One thing led me to another and then it was too late. Anyways, I hope it is still ok.

         I chose to investigate further on the concept of color, that was dealt with this week on the lab, for it is a subject that has always intrigued me. As I was doing my research, I was hoping to find answer what color really is. The best definition that I was found was on The Illusion Theory of Colors in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Colors conceptualized as objective, perceiver-independent, intrinsic feature of physical bodies are properties not found in nature. The colors in objects which we represented as them having, are ones that no object actually has." This definition basically states that colors are not the universal and objective elements that we are taught in elementary school, rather they are the synaptical interpretation of a phenomena physics. 

The physical phenomenon that constitutes color is really fascinating.  In ancient times it was believed taht the purest form of light was "white" light. Yet during the Enlightment period, Rene Descartes started notticing that the colors present in the rainbow where the same ones that were produced at the edge of a glass. Consequently, he concluded through mathematical analysis that those colors were produced by the refraction of light. Yet is was Isaac Newton who discovered that it was not the "white" light that produced the colors in the rainbow but rather that the colors were composing the "white and pure" light. Newton arrived at this conclusion by letting a ray, in a darkened room, go through a prism.  As a result red, orange,yellow, green, blue, and violet appeared on the screen. The reason for the colors being portrayed on the screen, was the way in which the prism caused the light to be refracted or "broken" into various different angles. To prove that "white" light really consisted out of those six colors, he introduced a second prism in his experiment, which was placed in front of the first one. As he predicted, the light visible on the screen was the "white" one.  The second prism re-refracted or "mended" the light that had been "broken" by the first prism. It cancelled the effect of the first one like a ordinary sheet of glass does. So, when we detect a red glass it due to the fact that only the lightwave that constitutes the color red is able to pass through. All the other components of light have then been absorbed by chemicals present in the glass. 

         Yet how are we able to see the redness of the glass? As the wavelenght of the color red passes through the glass, it activates one of the light sensitive cells present in our retina. It is believed that we have three different light sensitive cells: red, green, and blue. Other colors are not necessary for different combinations of those base colors can bring about all the colors of the light spectrum. This theory was established by Thomas Young and amplified by Herman Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz. As a result this theory is known as the Young-Helmholtz- Theory of Color. So the color purple is the result of the blue and red light cells being activated. And white light is the result of blue, green, and red being activated equally. 

         Color is then a composition of our brains interpretation of  a physical phenomenon. Do you then see the same green, as I do?? 

 

 

 

Bibliography:

Understanding Physics by Isaac Asimov

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Spektrum Lehrbuch Biologie

Evaluation #5

Hello Professor,

Oh my! You gave me a good scare this afternoon. :)

Again I would like to focus my blog on the Lab. As we focused on thermodynamics I was able to realize how a simple solution such as insulation can have an immense effect on the reduction of CO2-emissions. 

Insulation is simply the barrier that prevents the three principle laws of heat transportation. As work is turned into heat, through the law of diffusion, it will disperse itself through the matter. This occurs as electrons get charged, vibrate, and pass off the energy to the next electron. As a result the energy contained in heat, will diffuse itself through the matter until all electrons are charged equally (or until the temperature has leveled itself through the matter). There are three different ways in which the heat energy can be transfered through matter: Conduction, convection, and radiation. 

Conduction occurs in solid matters, in which all molecules are in direct contact with each other. Yet just because a matter is solid, it does not necessarily mean that it will transfer heat or equalize the temperature throughout the matter. That depends on the properties of the material. For example Styrofoam will never conduct heat like copper does. The reason for this is the molecular structure and the position of the electrons in both materials. As the electrons of copper start vibrating and consequently distribute the heat throughout the object, the molecules of the styrofoam won't. The cause is that the phonons in the Styrofoam have such a low energy level, that the energy introduced through heat is not sufficient to get them to vibrate and distribute heat.  In copper the thermal conductance rate is very high and in styrofoam the thermal resistance is very high as well.

The second way in which heat energy is conducted through matter is convection. This type of heat transfer happens in fluids and as a cause of the law of diffusion. In liquids the particles in the matter are not bound as close together as the ones in the solid matter are. Yet heat is transmitted in the same principle. The energy added to some molecules will get them vibrating, as a result that vibration will exited the next molecule until all have the vibration in the particles, or simply the same temperature. The Brownian motion is a result of that.

The third and least common type of heat transfer is radiation. It occurs only in gaseous matter. Due to the fact that in gases, the direct connection of the electrons is missing, heat cannot be transfered like it is in conduction or convection. As a result, in radiation, the heat introduced into the electrons is converted into electromagnetic heat. Then heat is transmitted through frequencies, like infrared. 

The reason for which insulation is so fascinating, is because it prevents either conduction, convection, or radiation from taking place. That is why a vacuum is the best type of insulator. 

Yet, we are well aware that we could not build a vacuum around our house to prevent heat from leaving during the winter and from entering in the summer. As explained above, certain materials that are quite inexpensive can carry out the duty of insulation since their thermal resistance or R-value is high. Foam possesses such property. As a result, we should try to install as much as we can in our houses on the ceilings and walls so the most amount of heat possible will stay in the room and can be prevented from leaving. Consequently, less energy will be wasted in either the heating or air conditioning system and less emissions will be produced. 

Even though insulation foam, does not prevent conduction, convection or radiation like a vacuum does, it certainly lower the thermal conductivity rate. By installing more of it in our homes, we can certainly lower our carbon footprint!

Evaluation #3

Good Evening Professor,

This week has been the most constructive one so far. Even though, I have definitely enjoyed the last weeks of class, I had trouble finding the direction in which the course was suppose to take me, or where I was suppose to take the course. Although the course entails teaching methods that I find very productive, until now, I had not been able to attain an overview of it. 

You might be asking yourself, why this week seemed to tie everything together for me. There are two major reasons. The first one was how the lecture and the lab nicely complimented each other. The fact, that the lab only extended what had already been started by you, made the lab fit much better into the curriculum of the week.

The second reason why this week was very constructive was the methodology in which the class was taught. I really embraced the fact, that you were the one teaching the class. Because after having done the amount for this class independently, in my opinion it seemed that summary was needed. It was essential not only to estimate if the direction I was taking was the correct one but also for the class to attain an equal foundation of the new concepts. That is why I would find it very useful, if we could do, in the following weeks, what you did this week with the term of "Systems Approach". The lecture that you held in class, was very needed and therefore very appreciated. 

In addition the summary, reminded me of a book I read in the past by Franz Kafka called "The Castle". Too bad, that it did not come to me when the definitions were due. Being written by Kafka, the book is dark and pessimistic but it tells the story of how character K. arrives at a village that is solely dependent on the castle that is up the valley. Character K. was previously hired as a land surveyor but when he gets there his paperwork has been lost. Since people are only allowed in the village if the castle permits it, Character K. is given a temporary substitute job. As he attempts to sort things out, he realizes the complex bureaucratic system that has been created by the castle to control the village. No one seems to understand it. After months of trying, he finally receives a viewing with the king. Yet his exhaustion from his incapacity to understand the complex system prevents him from having a successful meeting and is therefore unable to get his initial position as a land surveyor. What happens to Character K. afterwards is left to our imagination for the novel ends abruptly since Kafka was not able to finish it.  

What made me think of that novel is the fact that the systems approach is just a method so that we can simplify and direct our complex and boundary-less reality.

Have a nice week.

Looking forward to our meeting,

Andrea

Evaluation of First Plenary

Hello Professor,

I must say that the conference about sustainability on Thursday was a nice compliment to routinely class. I thought the project of sustainability has a lot of potential. Yet the most impressive thing, is how those two relatively young people were taking charge of it.  The information and data that they presented was a interesting. Yet it would have been better if they would have mentioned some of the obstacles that they have to deal with in trying to execute the sustainability project. Other than that, I really look forward to the incoming plenary sessions.

Forgive me but I  forgot to mention in my previous post, my impression about the Lab session as well as the movie idea. Since I was part of the second session of Lab, I must repudiate the accusation that the TAs were not informed. Their answers to a few questions that I had left no doubts. By carrying out an experiment about the Solar Constant, I could really grasp a concept that in the book, had been difficult to internalize. And since I am not a scientific individual by nature, it was extremely helpful! :)

In addition, I think the movie session will add a really fun element to our class. I am looking forward to handing in my suggestions.

This is all for the week. I wish you s great week! :)

sincerely,

Andrea

Evaluation #2

Good Evening Professor,

I hope you enjoyed your weekend. Unfortunately I came down with a cold. But back to the point. I had time to evaluate this week, and I must say I really enjoyed it. I thought the balance that you introduced between lecture and individual research time is quite good. I really liked how the abstract concepts were explained. Because, now that I think about it, a lecture similar to this week's of the terms "Green", "System Approach", and "Sustainability" could have only helped for preparing for the first plenary session. 

Thank you so much.

See you on Wednesday.

Sincerely,

Andrea

Evaluation #1

Dear Professor, 

So far, I am really enjoying the class. I think the main focus of the course of being critical towards the mass media messages is very useful. By questioning, one can not only filter false information but one can certainly get closer to the solution of a problem. 

The methodology of approaching an issue with a project seems very helpful and successful to me for I can submerge myself in one problem and acquire a 360 degree understanding of it. Yet while I learn profoundly about one subject, the knowledge of the other problems remain superficial; specially if one does not have a solid foundation in scientific subjects. That is why I would recommend  setting up a blog that everyone would have access too and for all powerpoint presentations to posted there after they were held. Consequently if doubts or questions remain, one can use the other presentations as tools to gain better understanding on subjects that one did not present and to calm any doubts. In that matter, we are all not only helping each other by building a network of information that everyone can rely on but also connecting all the issues on a platform enable to gain a good overview of the course.

Thank you so much. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Sincerely,

Andre

Green- Sustainability- System Approac

GREEN:

"We need to save our planet", is a commonly used slogan used by environmentalists, as the inevitable energy crisis seems to lure at our doorstep, as the traditional energy resources mitigate, prices soar, and alternatives seem scarce. People, like frantic ants, start to panic, as they always have done in the face of a crisis. Naturally, they become more irrational and tend be willing to go to any extent to prevent the storm. As a result of many decades in the business, advertisers have become very aware of this psychological characteristic that overrides human beings. That is how the term “Green” has slowly creped into our lives, to the point that a simple adjective has become a trend followed by millions and even acquired a benevolent and altruistic connotation in our colloquial slang.
Yet what does really mean to be "Green"?
To try and figure that out one should go back to the origin of the term "Green". Naturally it stems from all the living plants that surround us and as such it is the color that sustains life. So, does is mean that to be "Green” means to act like the Chlorophyll cells and convert the waste of others into our life line? Or is the term "Green" suppose to make us regard ourselves as part of a intricate system in which our actions affect the outcome of the big picture? Or is "Green" just a marketing strategy, which has proven to be very successful since the consumer has limited resources to check the validity of their statement?
In my opinion, the "Green" frenzy embodies all of those three aspects. First, if we act like the chlorophyll cells, we redefine what we used to label as waste. Consequently "the waste" from one product serves as a primary material for another one, like the copper from old telephone rods, or the "waste" can simply be reused for the same purpose, like glass rebottling. The economic and environmental success of the Recycling Industry is a perfect example of how beneficial acting like the chlorophyll cells can be. The Second aspect that the term "Green" embodies has a strong ideological direction in which the individual is forced to view him/herself as the brick of a building, in which a shifted position could have big repercussions on the stability of the whole. The second element is closely bound with the third one, for the constant advertising is the propeller of this new idea. It might be true, that the consumer has limited resources to verify the validity of an add campaign but the "Green" movement has definitely steered the market into a new direction, which until now has proven to be quite beneficial.







SUSTAINABILITY:

The Oxford Dictionary defines the adjective sustainable to be something that is "1. Capable of being borne or endured; supportable, bearable", also as something that is "2. Capable of being upheld or defended; maintainable", and lastly as something that is "3. Capable of being maintained at a certain rate or level". So, how come that term “Sustainability” become so important when facing and trying to find a solution for the energy crisis?
In my opinion, sustainability is the most important aspect in the energy crisis that must be kept in mind when looking for an adequate solution. The reason for the significance of that term is that the depleting natural resources, the high prices, and elevated CO2-emissions are making us change the entire motors of the industrialized economies, such as oil and natural gas that have propelled that have been the primary energy source since the Industrial Revolution. Since that period, the life standard and innovation of such nations has increased dramatically. Yet as we face decelerating motors as the resources deplete, the last thing we want to do is sacrifice all the advancement that has been achieved. For example if we were to power a household only on solar energy, its inhabitants would expect their entire house to be lit, to be warmed or cooled (depending on the season), for all their electronics to work with the same efficiency etc. yet they would mostly expect those services for the relatively same low energy prices that they have been accustomed too. The transition of energy sources should therefore be progressional so harsh economic repercussions can be prevented. On a larger scale sustainability means that the alternative energy sources that are going to replace the current ones, should neither compromise the living standard, development nor economic growth.

SYSTEM APPROACH:

A system is defined by The Webster Dictionary as "A group of independent but interrelated elements that comprise a unified whole". It is through the observational approach of inductive reasoning and the method of abstraction that the scientific field has been able to establish theoretical systems that allow us to comprehend our surroundings. Galileo, the father of modern science, was the one who introduced that method. As a result he was able to discover and understand the concept of acceleration by observing hundreds of times, how a ball fell to the floor. Today, that approach seems obvious yet that is not the methodology in which science has always been approached. The other approach taken towards science before Galileo's time was deductive. For example a religious belief was the premise of a scientific theory and all observations would be manipulated enable for them to back up the hypothesis.
If one transport him/herself back to modern time and tries to find a solution to the energy crisis, one will discover that this prevalent problem has various causalities that emerge from the interactions of different systems, such as political, economical, and ethical. For example: The organic waste of a slaughtering is sold to a factory that produces mulch. Yet there is no profitable possibility is the waste of mulch, so they dump it in the river. As a cause the water, which is the source of water for the animals from the slaughtering house, gets contaminated. As a result they die. The meat industry suffers from the loss and their price rises. Meanwhile the mulch industry suffers as well because they cannot buy the animal waste to produce their mulch; their prices rise as well. This example serves to depict how interconnected all the different industries and their problems are. If one tries to solve one problem, one should take into account how that solution affects other systems. The energy crisis is comprised of so many systems, that a general solution will be impossible to find. Therefore one should settle for the best partial solution.