Genetically Modified Beets

For hundreds of thousands of years, genetic modification of plants has taken place. Beginning in Jericho in 7000 B.C. humans changed wheat by simply using their hands. This represents early manipulations techniques. Now with new technologies and concepts surrounding genetic engineering, discoveries take place nearly everyday. In a recent New York Times article, the story of genetically engineered sugar beets emerges. Robert Green a sugar beat farmer will no longer have to employ harmful herbicides any longer because of the new genetically engineered beets. The beets will survive without the harmful application of Monsanto's herbicides because of genetic manipulation.

Many believe that this interferes with the natural order of nature and will essentially create a disharmonious situation within nature. Others believe that trying to perfect a beet will lead to attempts to perfect the human being through medial genetic manipulation. Laws, standards, and regulations must be in place to ensure that situations like this do not occur. People must practice diligence. Because of genetic manipulation, harmful application of herbicides no longer has to occur, therefore this is a plus for the environment.

Strides in Kyoto

With quite recent change in leadership in Australia, came a step in the right direction for Kyoto and climate change. The new liberal Prime Minister of the Labor Party in Australia, Kevin Rudd, beat his conservative opponent John Howard. With his victory, Rudd plans to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This is quote promising for supports of this legislation, which now leave behind the United States and China.

This change in leadership and therefore, agenda, shows the importance of a nation's leader in the issue areas that get addressed. Good leadership in issue areas leads to positive outcomes. Can the battle to get the United States to sign and ratify Kyoto be as easy as using democracy to translate public opinion into public policy? Surely the public voted George W. Bush into office for a second term, therefore, climate change was obviously not the number one issue in their minds. However, with scientific consensus surrounding climate change and its human induced nature, perhaps the democratic process will work in the favor of those who wish to see steps taken in environmental legislation addressing climate change in 2008. The U.S. is most often looked to as a leader, however this has not been the case with global warming.

Alternative Energy: Aestheticism v. Solution

Many different scenarios exist surrounding climate change. One way to approach this issue is through the development of technologies in the form of alternative energy sources. One such alternative energy source is wind power. By harnessing the wind through the use of wind turbines (pictured-above-left) clean energy is produced. In a recent New York Times article, the pro's and con's of these turbines arose. Located in the travel section, this article debated the negative ramifications of wind farms on the tourism sector in Greece. Aesthetic concerns like this engender the NIMBY of the "not in my backyard" syndrome. Similar to the tourism objections surrounding the renewable energy source of wind power is another example of a renewable technology; solar power. In another New York Times article, the aesthetic nature of solar panels (pictured-above-right) was debated. The Syverson's who live in Nassau County in New York wish to install solar panels in order to do their part to help the environment. However, the town has turned them down because of NIMBY reasons and aesthetics.

Perhaps the turbines will hurt tourism in Greece, however as the Greek director of Greenpeace, Nikos Charalambidis, reasons "If the climate gets worse here, tourists will vanish and not come back." Because of increased carbon emissions, some answer to alleviate the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere is necessary. Also, as in the case of Nassau County, NIMBY reasons must not deter the use of renewable energy sources. In fact, in this day, such acts should be encouraged, not turned down.

Greater Urgency Surrounding Climate Change

A recent New York Times article highlighted the importance of action on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the IPCC, (the recent co-winner of the Nobel prize shared with Al Gore), in its recent report heightens the necessity for real collaborative action surrounding global warming with obligatory participation from China and the United States. Like many scientists have asserted, Rajendra Pachauri, a leader of the IPCC, says that the steps taken within the next few years to alleviate climate change effects are vital. Jeffery D. Sachs of Columbia said that, "It's extremely clear and is very explicit that the cost of inaction will be huge compared to the coast of inaction." For those that do not believe that climate change is real and human induced, must realize that the scientific evidence is incontrovertible.

This article also highlighted the response from President Bush in that, "the issue warrants urgent action and we need to bring forward in a more accelerated way the technologies that will make a lasting solution possible." Usually Bush responds to climate change in an aloof manner, however at least he actually acknowledged the "urgency" of the issue. However, will action take place during this administration? Many believe the United States must wait until 2008 for such a possibility.

The IPCC on Climate Change