Renewable Energy- Policy Project

I topic that I chose to read about is the environment. I believe that this issue is largely significant in the world right now, especially with all the information about global warming. The details that former Vice President Al Gore talked about in his movie are significant and his winning of the the Nobel Prize explains how important that the environment is right now. The topic that I will be focusing on is renewable energy. This type of energy includes energy from hydrogen, water, solar, and wind power. Basically this means that gasoline is not a renewable source of energy, which will be one of the primary components of my discussion.

I believe that as a country we need to not only find, but use alternate and renewable forms of energy because we are running out of oil and it is not getting any cheaper. For example, yesterday I bought gas for $4.39 a gallon, which is not as ridiculous as my dad who had to buy premium gas which costed him $4.70 or so. This is not right at all because we have alternate sources of energy, like hydrogen but we are not using them or the government is not stressing the importance of this. The 2006 Renewable Energy Policy: Tax Credit, Budget, and Regulatory Issues stated that "high gasoline prices have stimulated a DOE proposal for aggressive development of cellulosic ethanol as an alternative to gasoline and corn-based ethanol. The focus is on using biotechnology to simplify processes and reduce costs." However, since 2006 gasoline prices have been on the rise, causing the price per barrel to increase to over $100 per barrel. I believe that the government needs to make policy that forces more research to be put into renewable energy and that by a certain date this needs to be found and all cars need to have this alternative source of energy. Although we have hybrid cars on the market now, the problem is that they are so expensive and that people will be more likely to buy the same car that is not in hybrid form. So, the car companies should also make the cars at an equal or lesser price, so that more people will be willing to buy them.

The government has been trying to make significant strides in solar energy, however. "The Bush Administration’s FY2007 budget request for the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Renewable Energy Program seeks $359.2 million, which is $84.0 million, or 30.5%, more than the FY2006 appropriation. In support of the President’s proposal for an Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), the request includes major funding increases for solar energy (to support the Solar America initiative) and biomass (to support the Biorefinery Initiative). The main increases are for Solar Photovoltaics ($79.5 million) and Biomass ($59.0 million)." I believe that solar energy will help our world significantly because we are using less power, thus our energy prices are cheaper and there is less pollution. My aunt and uncle in Lancaster have solar panels on their home and sometimes their bill is only $1.50 or only a few cents. I believe that if everyone gets solar panels the environment may not be perfect, but there would be much less pollution. However, their is a price to the solar panels which also makes people less likely to buy them. In order to get most solar panels it is about $20,000 which is way more than pocket change to most, although it pays for itself in about a year or less it is very difficult for most to pay these kind of fees for a type of energy when they need food and other necessities. Also, recently their have been cuts to the solar energy money which is unfortunate because these panels could have helped with cars and maybe one day their can be a type of car with them. Although there has been cuts I still believe that policy should be made that in larger cities solar, at least some, should be mandatory in the next few years. If they do not make it mandatory the government should at least give some benefits, like tax breaks, to those who have solar in their home.

This Renewable Energy Policy helped teach me more about another type of energy that most people do not think of, this is wind energy. Although seemingly simple, wind energy can be very helpful in the long run because it gives you energy through something that will always be here, wind. To convert wind into energy their are windmills and large turbines, you may be able to see these sometimes in a deserted location or even by a farm. The government has given a large amount of consideration to wind energy, however there have been some problems. " major debate has erupted over the safety and economic and environmental aspects of a proposal by Cape Wind Associates to develop an offshore wind farm near Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The parties to the debate are waiting for the results of a Department of Interior (DOI) environmental impact statement and a Coast Guard study of navigational safety aspects. Also, concern that large wind turbines may disrupt radar systems led to federal actions to halt several wind farm developments, pending the results of a study by the Department of Defense (DOD) that was due in early May 2006. In late June 2006, the Sierra Club filed suit to compel completion of the DOD radar study. An agency of the United Kingdom has studied modifications to turbines and radar systems that may help solve the problem." I am glad that their is a solution to this problem, but I do not think that wind energy has been used enough. I believe that large factories should be required to use some sort of renewable energy, especially if they are a huge cause to pollution. Although most sources of renewable energy are hard to use I believe that wind energy may be one of the easiest types of energy to find. Therefore, I believe the government needs to make tougher restrictions on business and making them in the next 7 years or so find an alternate form of energy, that will be part of their energy source and as time goes on be their main source of energy.

For more on the Renewable Energy Policy you can read it for yourself here: http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL33588.pdf

Super-Duper Tuesday Will Matter

The primary season has been very, very exciting, especially in the world of AP US Government. The primaries are so exciting because no one is a front runner at all. So much money was spent in Iowa for the caucus and Obama and Huckabee won. However, we went right back to where we started when Clinton and McCain won. Basically no one knows who is going to win the Democratic and Republican nomination after the two most important primaries of the election. This makes many happy because this means that the field will be open for the February 5th which is when the primaries are for California and 23 other states. Everything is going crazy with Hillary's surprising win and Romney's silver wins. This is going to be a tight race and who knows if religious conservatives will continue to vote for Huckabee or they will vote for another candidate. Romney needs saving and Thompson needs to win South Carolina or he will be out of the race completely. Also, Edwards needs to think fast or he might need to drop out, especially since Kerry will now help out Obama. Richardson is out, so who will drop out next?

Basically all this political drama means that the two presidential candidates are not set in stone, as they usually are, in the small (kind of wimpy in delegates) states of New Hampshire and Iowa. This all means that Super-Duper Tuesday (February 5th) will be one of the most important primaries for all voters, which is really exciting because this hasn't happened in a long time. Usually when California is supposed to vote the vote does not really mean anything because the two candidates were picked already by Iowa and New Hampshire. However, there is no clear winner meaning that this is going to be one exciting primary season. I am glad that bigger and more diverse states, like CA, will pick the next presidential hopefuls. Mark your calendars for February 5th, if you can't vote tell someone, I sure will.

Ron Paul Raising a Lot of Money, Wait Whose Ron Paul?

The Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has been making a lot of money these days on the Internet, even though not many people know who he is. However, one man is trying to change this by his Internet giving site. The man’s name is Trevor Lyman and he “doesn’t look the part of political fat cat” (Morain). Ron Paul “has raised more than $10 million in the last few weeks but has yet to hit double digits in the polls” (Morain). The presidential candidates are breaking fundraising records and Trevor Lyman is one of the biggest fundraiser of all of them. Lyman is doing everything in his power so that Ron Paul will get the attention that Lyman believes he deserves. Lyman created a “money bomb” which are dates that people donate money and help Ron Paul’s campaign grow, they have become quite successful. Lyman is an unlikely man for this money raising job because he is “a 37-year-old musician and Internet entrepreneur [who] didn’t finish college” (Morain). There are now houses throughout New Hampshire that will house about 1,000 members of Ron Paul’s volunteers. The funny thing is that Ron Paul has never met Lyman and even pronounced his name wrong when he was on “Face the Nation.” However, all of Lyman’s help for money has hired staff and bought television airtime, something that Lyman would want.

I had never really heard about Ron Paul until all this excitement occurred that he was raising so much money on the Internet, but I was shocked to hear how much he had actually raised. Ron Paul, in my opinion, will not win the Republican nomination because is too much of an unknown and too much of a libertarian for most. However, why are so many people giving him money? The answer to this is unknown, but perhaps it is because he has different ideals than most Republicans and that he is much more honest than all of the other candidates. Still, I am shocked that there has not been much more commentary about him in the last few months or even weeks. He is not a candidate to watch for the Republicans, but maybe he will be a possible Independent candidate once the Republican primary season is over. Will he win the election, probably not. However, it is very interesting to see how much support that the is gaining just on the Internet.

For more information: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-moneyman16dec16,1,4490146.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

So, Iran Doesn't Have Nuclear Weapons?

There was no need for Bush, Cheney, and Israel to be frightened about Iran’s nuclear weapons. This was because “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program” (Powers). This means that the American intelligence community has no need to be worried or to attack Iran at all. However, this is a very complicated piece of intelligence because “Who pressed to declassify these highly inconvenient findings?” (Powers). The president did receive these findings but when he was briefed on it he did not know whether to let it emerge over days or weeks or declassify these findings. Basically, the president decided to declassify these findings, but the editorialist believes that this also shows that the “White House has lost control over American intelligence” (Powers). Everyone believes that the Iranians stopped the bomb-design program during the easy part, not during the hard part which is when the fissionable material is needed and used. However, this is what “Iran is doing with its ongoing centrifuge program to enrich natural uranium” (Powers). Many believe that Iran will be able to make a nuclear bomb in less than ten years, which is a huge threat to Israel. “Israel dreads the difficulties of every sort promised by an Iranian bomb and has been hoping that the Bush administration was going to shut down the possibility once and for all. The new NIE intelligence estimate kills that hope” (Powers). The American intelligence says that there is no nuclear bomb program, which means that there is no way that the United States can begin a new war.

This is very exciting, but very frightening at the same time. This is exciting because these reports mean that there is no possible way that we will be able to go in to Iran and start a war. However, I am very skeptical of these reports because it seems as if they have come out of nowhere. If Iran has not had a nuclear weapon program since 2003, why have we all been so frightened? This is very good report that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program, but I am not sure if I really trust this. How do we know that this report is not false and that Iran is working on material that could be made into a nuclear bomb. All I hope is that Iran is not making nuclear weapons, therefore we will neither attack them nor will they attack Israel. I just hope that our intelligence agencies are proving to be intelligent at this crucial time.

For More Information Read Thomas Powers' article: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-powers9dec09,1,3609512.story

The Mideast Needs Help With Peace

President Bush has created a new plan that he spoke about last week for the situation in the Mideast. The plan “laid out an American role in the upcoming Mideast peace talks that challenges the accumulated wisdom of former secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and James A. Baker III and Presidents Carter and Clinton” (Richter). The plan, which calls for a limited U.S. role, may be harder to stick to then Bush thinks. Bush, defying diplomatic consensus, has said that he would not negotiate with Palestine and Israel, but would encourage them. Bush is using this approach because Rice has said that “the conventional approach, based on more active American prodding, simply ‘hasn't worked’” (Richter). However, this limited role makes people think that there might never be a peace agreement by the end of Bush’s term in office. Europeans and Arabs believe that the U.S needs an activist stance so progress is made. Without the U.S intervening with the peace agreements there is more of a burden on the other two countries and the agreements might not be as strong because usually the representatives from the countries make their agreements to appease the U.S. Most believe that the U.S. will not be staying out for long because they will want this agreement to be made.

The United States should get involved in the Mideast peace talks. Although there is so much strain with other issues I think that this might be something good for a change. Many analysts have said that Palestine and Israel will not make peace if the U.S is not involved. I think that we should make this peace a reality and be a mediator. It seems like the U.S. has to get involved in everyone’s business, which is true, but in this case if we do not their will still be fighting and/or we will not get better tied allies, which we need at this point. Staying out of these talks just shows that we care too much about our problems in Iraq and in Iran more than other issues. I think in order to show that Iraq is not everything and that we are a caring nation, we should get involved with the Mideast peace talks.

For more information: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usmideast2dec02,1,4929352.story

School Lunches are Making us Fat, so Let's Fix Them

School lunches are one of the main causes of childhood obesity because the lunches are so unhealthy. In fact, “Lunches averaged 800 to 900 calories -- much higher than federal guidelines -- and were loaded with salt” (Gaouette). Since lunches are this unhealthy, many parents, nutrition advocates, and physicians are going to Congress so that they can change the farm bill. The farm bill “sets the nation’s agricultural agenda every five years” (Gaouette). By changing the farm bill these people can make sure that students will have better cafeteria lunches. However, the rewriting of this bill was stalled last week in the Senate, which means that it might not be rewritten until next year. Still, advocates are happy because they believe that with more time they will be able to make a better case that the bill is causing the unhealthy food in schools. The Senate bill, right now, is a $288-billon bill that spends on more fruit and vegetables, but advocates think that the bill is more about subsidizing farmers, not eating right. In fact, these subsidies “make fast food less expensive than fresh fruits and vegetables” (Gaouette).

Thinking about the lunches that they served at my elementary school, or even at Chaminade, just makes me sick. Most my elementary school lunches, which I did not eat because my mom is a dietician, were tater tots, hamburger, and a small fruit cup (which no one really ate. Then I look at Chaminade, which is so much worse, students are eating greasy pizza with greasy french-fries that sometimes have salt flavoring. What does this all equal? This food equals fat, sodium, and obesity. Schools need to overhaul lunches completely, and hopefully changing the farm bill will help. I think the government is ignoring the facts about obesity because they have so many other things that they need to deal with overseas. However, this is an extremely important issue that needs to be faced right now. Now, farmers are making more money a year than the average American, but they are not helping our children. The Senate needs to focus on fruits and vegetables and make the school food healthier. If they do not, then the schools need to change all by themselves.

For more information: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-farmbill25nov25,1,7067796.story

War-Crimes Trials Not Fair

There are upcoming war-crimes trials at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; however, there are problems about how these trials will occur. “The rules governing war-crimes trials here require defense lawyers and prosecutors to inform each other of witnesses they will call and evidence they will present at the military commissions” (Williams). However, the rules are vague on how much time is needed for the lawyers to inform each other of witnesses. The law does not make it necessary for the government to make witnesses available for pretrial hearings and it is okay for the witnesses to not be named or seen in the trial. “Defense lawyers for the terrorism suspects contend that the deck is stacked against them in preparing their cases. They say the administration officials running the tribunals can hide critical information and helpful testimony from the defense” (Williams). Last week in a case against in Canadian war-crimes suspect the United States withheld the name of an eyewitness that the U.S. had known about five years ago; the Canadians found about the eyewitness thirty-six hours before trial. This eyewitness contradicted everything that the Canadian lawyers were going to bring up; therefore, causing many to say that these trials are unfair. Also, “Affidavits sworn by bounty hunters in Pakistan who turned over more than 200 of Guantanamo's prisoners in exchange for sums upward of $5,000 are among the classified documents that neither defendants nor trial observers are allowed to see. That withholding of classified information from the defense and the public has resulted in many of the 305 prisoners here remaining in detention for nearly six years without knowing exactly what they are accused of or who made the accusations.” (Willilams).
I do not find the war-crimes trials to be fair because they are giving the side with more evidence more of an edge against the other side. Trials are supposed to be fair; the judge or the jury is supposed to see both sides of the case, the lawyers are given time to create a case, and lawyers need to show evidence to the other side with enough time for the other side to make a case. However, in war-crimes trials this is not happening and, in fact, the law is not doing what it is supposed to be doing. I do not think that it matters that the United States is benefiting from this because it is basically cheating to be able to win, with an unfair advantage, at the end. The article made the great point that this would not be allowed in a U.S. courthouse; then why is it allowed in the world? This situation needs to be rectified quickly, so people are not put in jail for war crimes or other situations when they might not even be guilty. What do you think?

For More Information Read Carol Williams's article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-gitmo13nov13,1,6567733.story