Effects of Fossil Fuels

Effects of Fossil Fuels Every year, 5.5 million people die prematurely because of air pollution (Lelieveld et al 367). In fact, that number is more than the deaths caused by malaria and HIV/Aids combined. By 2050, the number is projected to double if the problem cannot be tackled properly (Carrington). When asked how to address this problem, a common answer is to reduce our fossil fuels productions. But how can we the world together solve this problem? In the recent book This Changes Everything, the author, Naomi Klein describes how the world is struggling to reduce carbon emissions, and we are approaching the point where climate change is soon to be out of control. The author expresses her indignation about the machinations of big polluters and their collaborators, and concludes with a hope of a revolution when societies suddenly decide they have had enough (Klein 464), so only mass social movements can save us now (Klein 450). To do so, she urges people to act and apply comprehensive boycotts, divestments , and penalties against lobbied politicians, parties, countries and corporations that are destroying our resources and future. One of the remedies she mentions is the divestment movement which can stop the intention of pushing the planet beyond the boiling point of big oil companies (Klein 354). Divestment def: Divestment is considered as one of the few remaining practical strategies likely to awaken organizations and individuals around the world to the powerful necessity of massive and immediate action to fight against climate change and extractivsm because it is morally, strategically and financially important. Greenhouse gas emissions in the world are continuing to increase rapidly, yet the climate is worse than anticipated. Scientific evidence suggests that, with the absence of significant progress to slow emissions, the climate of the earth will warm up at least 3 degrees Celsius, if not more. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change conclude that if future temperature increases two or three more degree, one-sixth of the worlds population would face floods or droughts and reduce crop production in Africa enough to put several hundred million people at risk of starvation (Lockwood). In order to keep the world safe, international commitments based on scientific evidence have committed to keep warming around 2 °C of the pre-industrial baseline. However, the earth is currently at about 0.8 °C above this pre-industrial level (IPCC). Without strong and meaningful solutions to slow down emissions, the dangers of warming at higher levels such as 3 °C or 6 °C wi ll likely result in the sea level rise up to three feet by 2100 and ten feet by 2300 (World Bank). Hundred millions people will have to seek for new settlements. Catastrophic fires will take place in Amazon forests more often, which is responsible for ten percent of the worlds oxygen supply. Yet, the Himalayan ice sheet will melt, causing 2 billion people in Asia losing water supply for drinking and farming. However, fossil fuel extraction companies rely on extracting resources that are incompatible with the 2 °C warming threshold. Carbon budget has been estimated at 565 gigatons of carbon dioxide in 2012, but fossil fuel companies hold reserves that are estimated at 2795 gigatons which is five times as much compared to the carbon budget. In other words, only 20 percent of their reserves can be exploited and burned without exceeding the 2 °C warming threshold, and the other 80 percent must be kept intact in the ground. Despite the truth that burning fossil fuel will ca use the world to reach the limit of warming, they continue to extract and also pour billion of dollars every years into finding new resources, about 674 billion in 2012. Furthermore, they have spent billion on exploring unconventional fossil fuels which are more harmful to the environment such as coal seam gas and tar sand. These activities are considered as unscrupulous behaviors, regardless of whether these extraction and exploration companies are putting money into research and development methods related to cleaner harnessing methods and alternatives, and alsotheir activities have contravened local laws or jeopardized indigenous peoples health by causing water contamination and releasing emissions during the exploitation process. To smoothen those exploitation processes, fossil fuel companies have funded climate change deniers and influenced politicians to ensure legislations that limit environmental rules can be passed. They also advertise campaigns against proposed initiatives , exaggerating the potential job losses and imbalance of energy security. Therefore, fossil fuel companies have shown a lack of integrity and accountability, so continuing to invest in these companies does not fit social morality any more. As in Bill McKibbens words, If its wrong to wreck the planet, then its wrong to profit from that wreckage. However, fossil fuel companies and opponents argue that the world is so dependent on fossil fuels, and any abrupt change will impact on the poorest countries and communities because only fossil fuels can lift them out of poverty. In fact, the world has seen that alternative energy has brought benefits to the worlds poor. For example, in Bangladesh and Mongolia, more than 3.5 million solar homes systems have been installed in rural Bangladesh, creating 70,000 direct jobs (World bank). The solar homes system has been changing their lives by not only lighting up their homes with low-cost energy, but also provide a safer energy source to cook rat her than burning coal and wood because indoor air pollution is one of the main causes of death in these countries, due to the use of dirty oil or coal plant to cook (Varma). If we perceive that destroying the climate in which humanity evolved by promoting fossil fuel emissions is wrong, then making profit from investing in these companies is also unethical. Divesting may not prevent fossil fuel companies from continuing their activities. It will, however, put the pressure on them to behave responsibly and make them not to continue acting with impunity. Although there is a widespread agreement that institutional investors leaving their funds will not directly harm fossil fuel companies, there may be a direct financial impact on the areas where funds are reinvested. Renewable energy and other clean technology companies are widely recognized as under-capitalized, meaning that greater investment in these sectors could help push the development of alternative and renewable energy. In a report in 2014, the IEA confirms that global financial support for fossil fuels in which exploration is only a portion, was estimated at $ 550 billion in 2013. That was four times the subsidies for renewable energy. Because of the huge costs for exploring reserves and the fluctuation in prices of coal and oil, these generous public subsidies are deemed uneconomic, holding back investment in renewable. But if billion of dollars are withdrawn from fossil fuels companies, what are the sectors where the investments could yield high returns and also facilitate the transition to renewable and clean energy system? A recent report from the Sustainable Conservation Alliance found that colleges investing in lighting and heating energy efficiency at their facilities earned an average return on investment of 28 percent. Renewable electricity generation such as wind, solar and biomass, not only reduces emissions but also creates jobs. Some investors argue that fossil fuels companies promise to make fossil fuels become a cleaner source of energy, so divestment is not necessary. The fact that large fossil fuel companies often have some activities in the field of renewable energy makes the divestment movement become complicated. Some observers also argue that shareholder involvement may motivate fossil-fuel companies to convert into renewable energy providers. However, renewable energy accounts for only a small proportion of activities, reaching a peak of 6% by 2015), and there is currently no sign that the transition will occur. As Klein asserts, And even as the demand for renewables increases, the pe rcentage the fossil fuel  companies spend on them keeps shrinking by 2011, most of the majors were spending less than 1 percent of their overall expenditures on alternative energy, with Chevron and Shell spending a deeply unimpressive 2.5 percent. New reserves are still being exploited and explored although in most cases further development is incompatible with the limits of safe climate change. Historically, companies and industries that have not been able to grow fast enough to transform their underlying business operations tend to become outdated and then replaced by new ones. Divestment can facilitate the transition to clean economy. That a massive global transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies, led by solar, also means that there are and will continue to be competitive investment returns earned from carefully selected investment exposure to renewables. The movement is criticized when it gets more attention. It is described as an empty strategy: When you sell your shares, new investors will take your spot. They also have the same influence. Therefore, some investors claim that the divestment from fossil fuel companies is a symbolic act. But what the emergence of this networked, grassroots movement means is that the next time climate campaigners get into a room filled with politicians and polluters to negotiate, there will be many thousands of people outside the doors with the power to amp up the political pressure significantly with heightened boycotts, court cases, and more militant direct action should real progress fail to materialize. And that is a very significant shift indeed. (Klein 355) History shows that divestment campaigns do work by removing the social license of the companies and casting them as social pariahs that run counter to social values. This results in a country or industry running into serious difficulties. As Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu have insisted, the divestment campaign in the 1980s was critical to the overthrow of apartheid in South Africa. In the 1990s a divestment helped bring major changes in the tobacco industry after decades of denial. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ As a recent Oxford University study has shown,1 even when divestment has no direct, substantial financial impact on companies, it helps to remove the social license of companies pursuing highly destructive practices. In doing so it helps build a movement that harms the public image of these companies, reduces their political support, and thus impacts their financial interests. Such a campaign can thus help convince the companies to act in a more socially and environmentally responsible way. The campaign can also help convince governments to restrict the GHG emissions of the fossil fuel industry. True, fossil fuel is not in itself a social evil the way apartheid or tobacco addiction are. However, the impact or global warming caused by fossil fuels is far more extensive than apartheid and tobacco. And that impact will be hardest for developing countries and the poor, and the devastating social injustice that will result outstrips the terrible consequences of apartheid. Similarly, the health impacts of global warming will be more deadly than tobacco addiction. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ Fossil fuel companies are aware of the devastating harm they are causing and will cause. Yet they are working very hard to continue profiting from the use of fossil fuels and they are fighting against the promotion of renewable energy that we need. While the production of energy itself is a social necessity, to knowingly continue the production of energy that will cause vast pain and destruction for the financial gain of a few is indeed evil. If you own fossil fuels you own global warming. You own the most likely cause of global economic and possibly even civilization-level failure, and moreover, you own a power source that is having an increasingly tough time competing economically. The human community has never faced such certain and devastating consequences if action is not taken. Apart from nuclear war, climate change dominates all previous threats to humanity in its scope and extent. The magnitude of the threat in itself represents a powerful argument in favor of divestment. The movement will send an important message to the world that climate change is happening and immediate actions are needed through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and shifting rapidly to the carbon-free world. Such changes can be considered disruptive and difficult, but necessary and will benefit human health and wellbeing in the short run and in the years and decades to come.  There are strong moral and financial reasons for organizations an d individuals to divest from fossil fuels. Also, divestment is an opportunity for organizations to align their investments with their values and show leadership on climate action. It is not only a political issue or something to be handled by big organizations. Anyone can do something to contribute and to convince institutions to divest. Maybe there is a local divestment group you could join or simply support the international campaigns of 350.org. Ask your bank if they are still investing in fossil fuels. It is up to us to decide where our money is working for.

Why Parenting Is More Important That School

According to Annie Murphy Paul and the studies done by the University Of California-Irvine, North Carolina State University, and Brigham University, parental involvement in their children’s academic life such as checking homework, attending school meetings and events, discussing school activities at home has a more powerful influence on students’ academic performance than anything about the school the students attend.Research also reveals something else: the parents, of all backgrounds, don’t need to buy expensive educational toys or digital devices for their kids in order to give them an edge. Engaging in this reciprocal back-and- forth gives children a chance to try out language for themselves, and also gives them a sense that their thoughts and opinion matter. All parents need to do is talk. My position on this issue presented by Annie Murphy Paul is one of agreement. I concur that talking to your children and engaging in their academic life can have a positiv e effect in their school performance.All the research that were mentioned in Paul’s article reinforced and supported the claim that students perform better or are more interested in their school work if their parents are involved and show interest in their school activities. As the article mentioned, background and digital devices are not a guarantee for good grades; neither are paying for an expensive private school or tutoring. What it comes down to is interaction, talking. I believe this to be true. When a child sees their parents’ involvement in their academia they feel a sense of importance.In my line of work I come across children and parents who come from a variety of backgrounds. Sometimes I see children and the amount of involvement that their parents play in their academic growth show through the amount of information that the child is able to retain. The multiracial children that I’ve come across who have difficulty reading and writing have this probl em because of their parents inability to speak English properly (Hispanic decent) or because of the limited amount of involvement in their child’s education progression.As a child growing up my parents’ involvement with my academics were very limited. They didn’t give me the impression that exerting great achievement in my school work was necessary so I didn’t feel the need to go to college immediately after high school. Looking back now that I’m an adult I wish they had. I feel that if they pushed me harder or talked to me and encouraged me to pursue a college career after high school it would’ve saved me a whole lot of stress as an adult, now that I’m trying to pursue my college degree. As a parent now, I throw myself into my children’s academics and social life.I try to get involved as much as possible to show them that education is important. I want them to pursue college and to be successful. I know that my involvement is an encouragement to them and they’ve told me countless times how grateful they are for my support. My daughter is always telling me how important my presence is at her school functions and my son will remember when I miss a soccer game. I believe that just the knowledge that children have of a support group, namely their parents, in their corner gives them a sense of purpose.They don’t want to disappoint their parents so they feel this pressure to please. After a while that sense of accomplishment becomes internalized to where they self-motivate themselves and want to do their best, want to get good grades, want to succeed and excel. I feel like it’s my job as a parent to motivate my children to be better than who they are, better than what/who I am, and to work for the things that they want. In conclusion, I believe that the studies conducted by scholars and gathered by Annie Murphy Paul are true.I’ve seen this first hand and I am a product of poor paren tal involvement. I can see how my involvement in my children’s lives brings positive reinforcement to their academic progression. Personally, I believe that teacher involvement does play a role in a student’s progression but not as great an impact as the parent does on the child. The family is the central learning center for every individual and if a child see’s how important their education is to their parent(s) they in turn want it for themselves to progress.

An Unforgettable Experience Essay

Though there was an atmosphere of gaiety yet it was tinged with an air of melancholy and sadness. My class-mates and I were in their best dresses. This was the first time in I he span of twelve years that I was not wearing school uniform. We all occupied our seats and the function started. First of all, there was a ceremony of lighting the lamp which was inaugurated by the Principal of our school. Then the students of 12th class lighted their candles from the big lamp. It was followed by the students of 11th class that was hosting the party in our honour. After this ceremony, programmes of entertainment were put up for our amusement and recreation by the hosting party. There were the items of balloon-breaking with a foot, buns-eating hanging down a sting, musical chair and such other allied things. Some of them sang folk songs and danced a rig. After that the stage was left to us to present our items. While our programmes were going on, dainty dishes containing potato chips, pastry, samosa and rasgullas were served to all those who were present. Along with these delicacies, coffee was also served. Some of the students had torn themselves away from the assembly to collect autographs of their beloved teachers. There were speeches in English and Hindi delivered by the Principal and teachers. They all advised us not to do any such deed as to lower the prestige of the school. They told us that we should never forget our ammeter and her ideals. In the end, we were all wished a brilliant success not only in the forthcoming examination but in life also.’ Then we had a photograph spree. ‘There were class-wise photographs with their class teachers and the-Principal and also individual photographs. This continued till it was -the time for the school to break. And by and by all went back home with a sad heart caused by departure but with new hope’s to enter a wider world of new challenges of life.

Pros and Cons of School Uniforms Free Essay Example, 1250 words

School uniforms are accompanied by a set of rules and standards, which must be followed to the letter. A female student cannot come to school wearing a skirt or a blouse that scantly covers her body and which may distract the attention of the male population within her surrounding. Male students are compelled to wear standard fitting clothes thereby eliminating cases such as sagging of trousers and oversize blazers, which might be used to conceal small weapons and other items such as drugs (Hamilton 78). In addition, uniforms eliminate the chances of students coming to school wearing items of clothing such as bandanas, T-shirts among others, which depict gang behavior and membership. Gang violence in US schools is not a new phenomenon and allowing students to decide on what to wear does not help much towards solving this problem. Students donned in gang colors will definitely attract the attention of rival gangs whether in school or on their way home. This is life-threatening and ev ery parent must support any initiative, such as wearing uniforms, meant to bring order and sanity in schools and the society in general (Brunsma 62). However, it is notable and widely acceptable that compelling students to wear uniforms is an intrusion into their freedom of choice (Hempelman 19). We will write a custom essay sample on Pros and Cons of School Uniforms or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now Every person irrespective of his or her age, gender or occupation deserves the right to make important decisions that impact on their lives. It is, therefore, justifiable to have people who are opposed to attempts by the government and other interested parties to impose uniforms on students. The US is a democratic nation in which people are free to make their own choices and students should not be exempted from this principle. Uniforms may be important in promoting equality among students but on the other hand, they deny them the opportunity to develop and express their individuality (Hempelman 28). Young people should be allowed to choose what to wear as this helps them to have a competitive advantage when they get out of school and into the society, which is full of diversity.