Global Warming! The very words spark fear in our hearts. Al Gore has kindly provided us with an ultimatum: live eco-friendly or die. Even though there are some issues with his message (even some scientists have problems with some aspects of his research and presentation), the issue remains: something is going on, and we need to do something about it.
Humans are messing with the environment. Carbon dioxide emissions are continually increasing, all kinds of other crap (CFCs and the like) are also being put into the atmosphere, and the climate is changing. Is there a connection? Personally, I think there is. Critics of the idea of human-caused global warming point to evidence that the earth goes through phases where the climate heats or cools independent of human influence. And yet science has proven the effect of greenhouse gases and has shown what CFCs do to the ozone layer, and what this does to the environment. If humans have increased production of materials that cause global warming, I think it's pretty clear that global warming can be attributed to humans.
And yet the government of the United States does nothing. We didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol (which has its own issues), and we have so far done little to reduce the production of greenhouse gases. An industry-friendly government has relaxed regulations and essentially allowed industries to produce greenhouse gases unhindered. White House official and former oil lobbyist Phillip Cooney edited government reports to make unclear the contributions humans have made to global warming. With a government this reliable...well, it makes the idea of drilling for oil in the Arctic somewhat less attractive than it was already, making the proposition ugly as sin.
This is a separate issue, our dependence on foreign oil, but it ties in to the big picture of environmental destruction. Unlike Europe, the United States has failed to recognize the benefits of small cars, mass transport and other eco-friendly measures. We instead burn fossil fuels by the billions of dollars and send our manufacturing jobs overseas to China, which is conveniently exempt from environmental standards such as those set by the Kyoto Protocol. Such a good situation we've gotten ourselves into...and it's getting better.
The recent goals set by the president in his State of the Union address? Likely unreachable. Still, it shows he tried, right? Well, not quite. Sadly, I have little faith in a Republican agenda that is pro-environment. I await a change in regime next year, and pray for a government that is pro-environment.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
With all due respect
Because I have a blog, and feel free to rant however I want...I have decided to take full advantage of this privilege. Today's topic: financial aid. This is an issue with me because I represent the group of America least aided by financial aid: male, middle class, and white.
The recent trend in financial aid, especially aid provided by the colleges themselves, is that groups are moving away from merit-based aid and towards need-based aid. I view this as an extension of Title 9 - colleges are basically giving money to "qualified" students who are from the lower income brackets, taking aid away from students who may be (and in fact usually are) more qualified than these poorer students, but who come from middle-class or upper-class families. As usual, the wealthy have no problem dealing with this, as they can typically pay for good post-secondary education without aid.
But what about the middle class? The federal government has the FAFSA, which establishes the Expected Family Contribution, or EFC, for college education. The EFC is based upon what the government thinks the family can contribute to a student's education, not what the family is actually willing to contribute. Take my example. My father works, and earns about $90,000 a year. My mother does not work. Our expenses are low, we have a decent amount of savings, and three children at home. Our EFC is $30,000 a year. My parents have expressed a willingness to contribute about $10,000 a year. A little discrepancy between those numbers, no?
That EFC of $30,000 biases the system against me. As a member of one of the nation's largest population groups (MMW), colleges have little interest in providing me with aid. I am not poor, I am not a minority, and I am not female. My good grades and extracurricular activities are unable to overcome the enormous disadvantage that my heritage has landed me in. Essentially, I would receive more money for college if my parents made $40,000 a year and had a B- average. As it is, I apply for every grant and student loan I can, hoping somebody will value academics over how much money my parents and I have in our bank accounts. Right now I'm fighting a losing battle.
The recent trend in financial aid, especially aid provided by the colleges themselves, is that groups are moving away from merit-based aid and towards need-based aid. I view this as an extension of Title 9 - colleges are basically giving money to "qualified" students who are from the lower income brackets, taking aid away from students who may be (and in fact usually are) more qualified than these poorer students, but who come from middle-class or upper-class families. As usual, the wealthy have no problem dealing with this, as they can typically pay for good post-secondary education without aid.
But what about the middle class? The federal government has the FAFSA, which establishes the Expected Family Contribution, or EFC, for college education. The EFC is based upon what the government thinks the family can contribute to a student's education, not what the family is actually willing to contribute. Take my example. My father works, and earns about $90,000 a year. My mother does not work. Our expenses are low, we have a decent amount of savings, and three children at home. Our EFC is $30,000 a year. My parents have expressed a willingness to contribute about $10,000 a year. A little discrepancy between those numbers, no?
That EFC of $30,000 biases the system against me. As a member of one of the nation's largest population groups (MMW), colleges have little interest in providing me with aid. I am not poor, I am not a minority, and I am not female. My good grades and extracurricular activities are unable to overcome the enormous disadvantage that my heritage has landed me in. Essentially, I would receive more money for college if my parents made $40,000 a year and had a B- average. As it is, I apply for every grant and student loan I can, hoping somebody will value academics over how much money my parents and I have in our bank accounts. Right now I'm fighting a losing battle.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Life
Just because there's nothing better to do than to sit and think, I was contemplating the known universe and life itself. I came to this conclusion: Life is short, and rarely sweet; what fun you have does not repeat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)