Blog #2-November 14th-I believe

I Believe

I believe that the current financial crisis and the economic setback the world is suffering is the perfect opportunity to begin “de-carbonizing” the world. Experts and indeed some politicians have argued that because of the deteriorating economic circumstances fighting climate change is a luxury they cannot afford, categorizing it as a secondary political objective. In my opinion, it is a comprehensible perspective, for many heads of States are afraid that major investments might escalate the situation. But I believe this view is short-sighted; a low-carbon economy is essential to the economic recovery –especially in the long term- and not an optional bolt on.

Economists argue that in order to kick-start the economy governments across the world need to invest in major infrastructure in order to stimulate demand in the economy, increase investment and create more jobs. This presents us with the unique opportunity to start creating the low-carbon infrastructure we need, such as more renewable energy generation, better public transportation networks, improved electricity grids, and a network of pipelines to carry captured CO2 from fossil fuel plants to storage facilities.

Investing in these types of technologies, along with the implementation of measures and policies to structure financial and industrial markets to deliver social and environmental goods, will re-ignite the economy, reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, and improve energy and climate security.

The political will has demonstrated its effectiveness when stabilizing the banking crisis. Therefore, the same political will is needed to fight the current economic setback and the environmental issues that are yet to come. Hence, international political agreement is needed on how to incur climate change beyond 2012. In fact, the world’s attention is now on the UN summit in Copenhagen in 2009, where major negotiations will take place. The price of carbon is another issue that needs to be taken into consideration. Having a global carbon market, where the price of carbon will be regulated and maintained at a significant financial value, will help drive CO2 out of the economy.

These measures do not just reduce CO2 emissions, but have immense economic benefits. By driving investment into a cleaner technology and diversifying our sources of energy, we can help reduce the price volatility of oil, and create more jobs in all sectors of the economy. These benefits would not be felt only by developed nations, but by developing nations too, who also have a lot to gain. By transitioning into a cleaner technology, expanding their research on the topic, and diversifying their sources of energy, they can attract inward investment into clean energy, and the price of energy and fuel will reduce significantly.

We live in a changing world. One that is vulnerable to everything that happens within the planet and outside. The current economic crisis in the United States affected all nations across the globe. Thousands of people lost their jobs, thousands of companies went bankrupt, and heads of states are worried that the problem might escalate. On top of that, we have the issue of global warming and that every day, the ozone layer ruptures even more. The time is now to start thinking about future generations. We need to ask ourselves if what we are doing will benefit the world on the long term or just on the short term, leaving future generations vulnerable to the unknown consequences of our acts. I believe that reducing our dependency on oil is a crucial, yet extremely difficult task that can at least be commenced by investing in “greener” technology.

Morley, Elliot. "Low-Carbon economy is not a luxury." BBC 21 Oct 2008 14 Nov 2008 .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7680624.stm

I Believe... Sustainable Development

I believe the issue of energy consumption and the increasing demand of oil throughout the world is one which requires the world's attention and every country's cooperation. The consequences are apparent, for the oil consumption is increasing at an alarming rate, as well as the energy consumption in developed countries, such as the G8 nations (US, Canada, Japan, Germany, Russia, France, the UK, and Italy) which consume 60% of the world's energy and the ciphers are expected to increase 40% by 2020.
Experts believe that the world's oil reservoir may not last more than eighty years. They have studied current oil extraction and consumption rates and have reached the conclusion that even with the intense energy saving strategies exercised by millions of people, the amount of oil and energy consumed will consistently continue to increase. Experts are also aware of the byproducts of the consumption and burning of oil: the global emission levels of CO2 are expected to increase 50% in 2020 aggravating the already established global warming.
The current consumption of oil, hence consumption of energy is one of the greatest counterexamples of sustainable development in the present. Today, the extraction rates of oil exceed the ones suggested in order for the fossil fuels to last for many years. Companies and governments are facing a reality that will affect the whole global population: the world is running out of oil sooner than expected.
There is no immediate way to replace fossil fuels. Even though renewable sources of energy exist, forecasts predict that in 2020 they will only make up 3% of the total global energy consumption.
The current world without oil cannot be even imagined for most of today's technology spins around fossil fuels. This can definitely change. Governments can start implementing policies to become more independent from oil, allowing for the expansion of research and construction of hydro electrical facilities (dams), wind farms (windmills), etc., in order to reduce the impact when oil finally expires.
In conclusion, the world is extracting vast amounts of oil leaving future generations vulnerable to any sort of consequences. Consequences that range from technological to environmental. There is no coming back from this situation, it is irreversible. It is a matter of preparing for the future, expanding research of new sources of electricity and power, and minimizing pollution in order to delay the severe repercussions of global warming (even though we are starting to encounter some). If nothing is done regarding this issue, it could lead to the extinction of the human species and many others of the planet Earth.

Class work of September 23

1. 
   
1. Both articles talk about one of the most pressing issues in the planet. The first article explains how hard it is to provide internet access to areas, such as the village of Knysna, because first, the area is so remote; it is, literally, one of the furthermost populated areas in the world; second it is too impoverished to provide internet access. The article specifies that in order to do so, they need equipment, similar to those that transmit cell phone signals, such as repeaters and immense parabolic antennae. Currently, the government is setting up all of these systems and have allowed schools, such as the Smuttsville Primary, to have internet connections and as well as public libraries so that evry person in the community has free internet connection.
   
2. The second article explains a problem present in the United Kingdom. It talks about that the UK has very specialized technology to produce faster internet connection, but the equipment to produce it is very expensive. It is possible to have this technology in urban areas because a large amount of people have and use internet so the prices of the connections remain stable. In rural areas, in the other hand, not so many people use nor want to use internet, and so using this technology for the rural regions is very expensive and would make the prices of internet very high. So now, internet prices in the rural areas are extremely high or there is no internet at all. Governments of the United Kingdom are doing what they can to try to solve the problem, and in fact, for instance, the Scottish government in partnership with the telecommunication company Thus created an initiative known as Pathfinder to allow schools and local offices to have super fast and cheap/free internet connections.
2. People who do not have internet in those neighborhoods may face many difficulties eventually. Quoting an excerpt from the first article: "They don't need to walk 1.5 km to the town in order to go on and do research work" and "It has actually opened doors to information, because we live in this global village in a sense. Knysna's become a global village because it doesn't matter where you live, you can actually have access to information. Whether you come from the rich or you come from the poor community, the facilities are the same." Internet, like the article stated opened millions of doors for people. Now in this village, children who need to do homework which requires research do not need to walk one and a half kilometers and spend maybe hours investigating to get this information. When they say it doesn't matter whether you are rich or poor, everyone has access to the same information. This is an example of how internet "flattened" our world. People who do not have access to internet will fall behind and will only be limited to do several activities. When certain jobs go obsolete and some are replaced with the internet, people who do not have experience in the topic will be unemployed and unable to do many things because they will not have the necessary discipline and experience to do so.
3. Venezuela has many remote and rural areas without internet, out of the approximate 27 million people, only about 6 million use and know about the internet. Moreover, very few villages outside main cities do not even know the term internet, these villages are generally located in states such as Bolivar, Amazonas, Merida, Delta Amacuro, Nueva Estparta, etc. Right now, CONATEL, which is a government entity is trying to eliminate this so called internet divide in the rural areas. As an example, we will use village Nevados, in Merida. This village is located nearly 3000 meters above seas level and just recently (2003), radio technology was brought to the village. CONATEL has the goal of setting up 10 PC with internet access, three phone lines, one fax, one scanner and one photocopier, because right now, they only have one public phone and to get a copy, they had to go to the nearest town with donkeys , something that would take them about 4 hours. The project is thought to be finished by January of 2009. This internet access points will benefit the villagers and affect their lives because they will now be communicated with the world, even though they are not close at all.

Disruptive Technologies

Disruptive Techs Criteria

1. Meets previous needs.

2. Makes an aspect of your life easier:
a. Time saver
b. Energy saver
c. Money saver
d. Etc.

3. Leads to cleaner environment.

4. Uses fewer resources.

5. Displaces/replaces old established techs.

6. Availability
a. Mass consumption

7. Social Impact

Product to analyze: Aluminum Can

Is the aluminum can a disruptive technology?

Let us follow the criteria shown above to determine this:

1. Does it meet previous needs?

a. Before, it was very difficult to pressurize beverages and add gas to them and store these gasified drinks for an extended period of time. Although there are plastic bottles now that can be pressurized and can contain gasified beverages the aluminum can is cheaper and is easier to recycle and sterilize. Right now most companies use it for soft drinks and beers, being the most popular liquid container in the market. It does meet previous needs because before cans were invented, people used to drink gasified beverages from glass bottles and these were only accessible to specific social classes.

2. Does it make an aspect of your life easier?

a. The can is definitely a money saver, thus improving that aspect of my life. For example, I like root beer, they sell it now in both plastic bottles and cans, but the can is at least three times cheaper. I can enjoy the same amount of root beer for a cheaper price.

3. Does it lead to a cleaner environment?

a. Because cans are so easy to recycle, indigents seek for these cans in the streets and collect them, selling them later for a price. These cans are then converted into other cans or more aluminum products. Unlike plastic bottles, which are harder to recycle pollute the streets more than cans.

4. Does it use fewer resources?

a. Plastic bottles come from plastic, which comes from oil. Right now, there is enough supply of oil for eighty years maximum, showing that oil is running out. Aluminum, in the other hand, even though it is a non-renewable resource, has a greater supply therefore will last longer than oil. It takes more oil to make one bottle that aluminum to make cans.

5. Did it displace old established techs?

a. The can’s predecessor is the glass bottle. Even though the glass bottle has not gone obsolete yet, its use is very limited so we could say that it technically did not replace it but practically did.

6. Is it available? Is it consumed/used by the masses?

a. The can is a worldwide product used for every soft drink in the market. It is specially promoted with Coca Cola.

7. How did it impact society?

a. Cans revolutionized the world since their appearance in the market. Not only did they make drinks cheaper, but propelled the whole drinking industry into a new level. Level of greater demand, greater supply and happier costumers.

In conclusion, we could say the aluminum can is a disruptive technology. Taking into consideration all criteria mentioned above, a product that has practically replaced another, propelled a huge industry into success, a product that opened the doors of gasified drinks to people with limited economic resources, should be considered a disruptive technology.