Texas Emissions

My classmate Nick Eckert posted a commentary titled, Texas Emissions, on his blog, texasglimpse.blogspot.com.  In his commentary he talks about tackling the problem of carbon emissions, and how Texas is falling behind on the switch to alternative energy compared to other states.  

Eckert mentions that according to US Energy Information Administration, Texas ranks number one in total carbon emissions.  At first, this doesn't seem unreasonable.  Texas is the second most populated state so it is only reasonable for it to be high on the list, but further research would change your mind.  Texas is the undisputed leader in total carbon emissions with a total of 656 million metric tons.  This is more than the next two states combined.  The amount of disregard that Texas has for the environment is just careless.

There have been efforts to try to tackle this issue at the federal level, but none have proved to be successful in Texas.  Eckert mentions the Federal Clean Air Act.  This act regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources.  As Eckert says, Texas is not keeping up with the standards because the state has grown accustom to its energy consumption.  The main culprit is power plants.  According to an article by TheTexas Tribune, power plants are responsible for about 40 percent of the state’s carbon dioxide. 

Eckert suggests that we invest more money on renewable energy.  I completely agree with this statement.  We are always procrastinating, and looking for short term solutions for a long term problem.  Even natural gas is not a viable solution.  Texas has enough natural gas to supply us with energy for approximately 92 years; but what happens after its depleted, and the long term effects it will have on the environment. As Eckert says, standards will keep getting stricter causing existing power plants either shut down or have to pay a substantial amount of money to conform to the standards. We need to think about future generations and how we can make their lives a better place.  

Is Fracking Worth The Risk?

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is a process that extracts natural gas from deep within the earth.  It is accomplished by drilling down into the earth, then horizontally, and injecting pressurized water, chemicals, and sand through a pipe. This creates new channels in the rock where the natural gas can be extracted. 

First I want to address the pros and cons of fracking in Texas.  There is a lot of natural gas deep within the earth.  The amount is big enough to make the whole US, let alone Texas, energy independent for about a century.  This is a big deal because it would make us less dependent on unstable countries in the Middle East for oil.  Also, using natural gas as an energy source creates fewer carbon emissions than coal.  The positives of fracking can help Texas, and the US’ economy, and is at least worth considering.

Alongside the advantages to using hydraulic featuring, there is also many downsides to using this method. Firstly, between two to eight million gallons of water is used in an average sized fracking well.  According to Michigan Live, as many as 35 million gallons of freshwater is removed from nearby aquifers for each well in Michigan.  Texas is always in a drought and cannot afford to waste this much water.  Fracking involves pumping highly toxic chemicals into the earth, and there is a chance that it could reach, and poison the groundwater.  The chemicals are so toxic, that the water cannot even be cleaned in a treatment plant.  The companies that make the fracking fluid are not required to disclose the mixture of chemicals, so it doesn't allow scientists to study the harmful effects, or allow for residents to prepare in case an accident does happen.  A big downside to hydraulic fracturing is the greenhouse gases.  Natural gas is “cleaner” than oil when burned, but an average of 3% of the gas is leaked out in the fracking process.  This gas consists largely of methane, which is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide.  The fracking process also uses a lot of energy, and the wells are exhausted relatively quickly so it is necessary to drill many wells to meet the demand. 

Fracking can have a significant effect on Texas’ economy.  In time it can be a useful source of energy until we can eventually harness renewable energy in the practical manor, but I believe that the negatives outweigh the positives.  Until more research is done on the fracking process, and the chemicals used, the risks are too high to make this a primary source of energy in Texas. 

The Truth About Electronic Cigarettes

My classmate S. Singh posted a commentary titled, Keep e-cigs from being villianized inTexas, on his blog, lonestartxgov.blogspot.com.  In this commentary he talks about how electronic cigarettes are being heavily criticized here in Texas.  I strongly agree with Singh because I have family members who have quit smoking using this device.

The concept is heavily criticized mainly because of lack of knowledge.  Many people don’t understand how these devices work, and jump to conclusions because of the name. Singh mentions that regular cigarettes have over 4000 harmful, cancer causing chemicals that e-cigs do not.  Electronic cigarettes work by vaporizing nicotine, the product that satisfies a smokers craving for cigarettes. It works similarly to nicotine patches, or gum, but gives the user the feeling of smoking an actual cigarette by inhaling and exhaling the vapor.  According to Medical News Today, people who use electronic cigarettes are 60% more likely to succeed, compared to people who use willpower or nicotine replacement therapies. 

Many critics are against e-cigs because they assume that minors will use them as a gateway to traditional tobacco products.  Singh states that there are already restrictions in place to prevent their sale to people under the age of 18. Electronic cigarettes are specifically made to be a healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes.  Any reputable brand of e-cig will advertise this, and does not target a younger audience like cigarette companies used to do back in the day. 

Singh also talks about an article by the New York Post titled, “E-cigs could save hundredsof millions of lives: scientists.” In this article, they say that 53 leading scientists have warned the World Health Organization to not classify e-cigs as tobacco product “as it could jeopardize a major opportunity to slash disease and deaths caused by smoking.”  They also state that e-cigs are “among the most significant health innovations of the 21^st century.” 

I personally have never smoked a cigarette, but I completely agree with S. Singh. I believe that electronic cigarettes are something that will revolutionize the industry, and save millions of lives in the process. 

Paper Or Plastic?

The first thing you hear when you walk into a grocery store is, paper or plastic?  Or should I say, kill a tree or choke a fish?  The debate between these two items has been getting bigger and bigger as environmental awareness is becoming a bigger deal in Texas.

Austin stores are now starting to ban plastic bags because they clog landfills and arehazardous to animals. According to the NW waste management website, Bags by the Numbers, an estimated 14 billion plastic bags are used in the US every year.  It takes 20+ years for plastic to biodegrade, and only 1% of plastic bags are ever recycled.  The rest are dumped in landfills and the ocean. An estimated 100,000 marine animals are killed every year due to plastic bags.  After hearing all of this information, one might suggest that paper bags would be a better option, but they are just as bad.  About 14 million trees are cut down in order to make paper bags.  Also, paper bags are much more costly to make.  There is 50% more air pollution and it takes 40% more energy to make paper bags versus plastic bags.  Both methods for bagging your groceries are equally bad.  The best solution is a reusable bag. 

Austin is already doing their best to promote reusable bags, but this has to spread to everywhere in Texas.  Many stores in Texas like HEB and Target are heavily promoting reusable bags and only use paper bags when necessary.  This is a great start but I believe that a statewide ban necessary to produce serious change.  This may seem like going overboard, but without a statewide ban, serious change will never take place.  The reason why billions of plastic and paper bags are still being produced today, is because people still don’t take it very seriously.  An alternative solution, which some stores already do, would be to charge people that don’t bring their own bag.  Over the years, Austin has been labeled as a “green” city, now it is time to spread that label to the entire State of Texas.  

Threat of terrorism mandates law-abiding Texans provide full fingerprints for driver licenses

Ms. Yvonne Larsen posted an editorial titled “Threat ofterrorism mandates law-abiding Texans provide full fingerprints for driverlicenses” in the Big Jolly Politics blog, on June 19^th, 2014.  The blog was based on an article posted by The Dallas News Watchdog, regarding a new law that requires people to provide a full set of fingerprints to renew or get a driver’s license.   

The author believes that the new law is surrendering our personal information and should not be allowed. Her intended audience are all Texans that have a driver’s license, or are going to receive a driver’s license.   She wants to spread the word that we are giving away personal information by allowing the DMV to record your fingerprints even if you haven’t been arrested.  I disagree with this statement.  By allowing the DMV to record fingerprints, they are actually protecting you from fraud.  Many occupations such as law enforcement, military, and medical care, already require fingerprints and they don’t have any problems. I also believe that your fingerprint isn't “personal information.” Yes your fingerprint is unique to you, but it can only be used as identification purposes unlike your address or social security number; which nobody hesitates to give out when getting their driver’s license.  

The author also mentions that “the surrender of your personal information is not limited to fingerprints.”  Since 2010, “Texas has been using facial recognition software to match driver’s license photos with government databases looking for persons wanted by law enforcement for various reasons.”  I partially agree with her above statement.  I understand the reason why some people would feel uncomfortable with this because your picture is “personal information”, but I don’t have a problem with it.  The government uses this facial recognition software to minimize the abuse of Texas driver’s licenses by criminals and terrorists.  If using facial recognition software has caught criminals in the past, then it should be used when necessary.

 

The author makes the statement that credit card companies don’t need fingerprints, so the DMV doesn't either.  This is a valid point, but the technology is now being tested. The article, Forget Credit Cards-Swipe Your Finger Instead, from The Fiscal Times, talks about using fingerprints to buy goods, instead of swiping a credit card.  This will make the process more secure and stop criminals from stealing your money. 

The author is very enthusiastic about her opinions on this issue, but I don’t believe that she provides enough proof the back up her arguments.  Fingerprints required for new driver’s licenses will only provide you with more protection from criminals.   

Here we go again: Texas redistricting

In the article “Herewe go again: Texas redistricting”, published by My San Antonio, the Express-News Editorial Board talks about the constitutionality of gerrymandering.  Gerrymandering is, according to the Oxford dictionary, to “manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party of class.”  To an ordinary person, this sounds extremely illegal as it is basically discriminating against certain groups of people to favor a political party.  

The authors intended audience are the Texas voters, specifically Democrats and minorities.   This is because the gerrymandering in the State of Texas is targeted to minimize the power of Democratic voters. The author emphasizes that “gerrymandering for partisan purposes is as illegal as doing it to rob racial and ethnic minorities of representation.”  It is a form of discrimination as it indirectly prohibits minorities from letting their voice be heard. 

The author emphasizes that Texas, and Republicans, are not the only ones that do this; Democrats also do it.  The author even jokes by saying that “even educated Greens do it, or would if their numbers reached critical mass.”  The purpose of this was to stress that this is not only a local issue, it is a nationwide issue that has to be fixed. 

The author provides a solution to this issue by referencing former Justice John Paul Stevens’ book. Although the best solution for tackling the issue of gerrymandering is to making it entirely illegal, this is unlikely to happen.  The author provides a reasonable solution by stating that the next best solution is to take redistricting out of State legislative’s hands altogether.  He states that the redistricting should be in the hands of an independent redistricting commission. Some States have already implemented this solution, and it has been proven to work.  In article by the League of Women Voters, “New Report Examines InauguralCalifornia Redistricting Commission,” the author, Maggie Duncan, found that this process of an independent commission exceeded expectations.  The commissioners actively sought input from the public, and it was proven to be a success. 

The author provides valid evidence to support what most people already agree to be an illegal activity.  The fact that gerrymandering is perfectly legal is because the people in charge are the ones making the rules. The citizens need to be actively involved in local Government to makes these changes happen. 

Climate Scientists: Texas is Missing an Opportunity

The Article

The issue of climate change has been a very controversial topic for many years.  Here in the State of Texas, the extremely conservative government rejects all efforts in reversing climate change.  This article sheds some light on what is actually happening with our environment with proof from climate scientists, and Rice University professors. Texas is the highest producer of greenhouse gasses, and the total amount produced by Texas alone is greater than the next two States combined.   Sea levels are rising every year, and temperatures keep going up, causing extreme drought. Because of this, farmers are forced to move further north because of the excessive heat and lack of water.  The leaders in Texas don’t want anything to do with climate change, so progress can never be made. Governor Rick Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbot have rejected every effort to combat global warming, and have spent over $350,000 suing the environmental protection agency.  The issue of climate change is growing exponentially, but since climate change is a “liberal issue”, most republicans in office immediately reject it.   I encourage everyone to read this article because this issue will never go away.  Until something drastic gets done, the State of Texas will always fall behind in the efforts to protect the environment.