Josh's site

Bill McKibben states, “If they [Exxon, BP, etc.] carry out their business plan, the planet tanks.”

1. Play Devil’s Advocate for Exxon, BP or some other Petrochemical company. Don’t they deserve an opportunity to run their business, just as the Home Depot, JetBlue, or Whole Foods does? Pretend you are Rex Tillerson or some other exec at Exxon or BP. Argue for your right to run a business. What would you claim the benefits are? A good business plan is one that always accounts for growth. What happens to your “growth” after the fossil fuel reserves runs out (which we learned was around 2795 gigatons at the time this movie was made)?  

I think that they realize that fossil fuel won’t always be around so they need to make the most out of it and capitalize to make the most amount of money they can. Because once it’s gone it’s gone.

Van Jones states that other businesses can’t “put garbage on the street” for free, claiming that the fossil fuel companies are the only businesses who get to pollute for free. He adds that “doing otherwise would impair their ability to make money.”

2. Reflect on this analogy. Do you agree that the fossil fuel industry is polluting our environment with no repercussions? If you do agree, what penalty do you think they should receive for polluting for free? If you disagree, explain your answer.

aI believe that they are polluting the environment. For example they are putting their waste into the ocean and making the ocean unlivable for aquatic life. I feel that they should record the amount of waste they dispose improperly into the environment. To prevent it they should be fined by the pound a hefty amount. Thus preventing them from polluting the environment.

A DIFFERENT KIND OF MATH
To level the playing field, Bill McKibben suggests we use taxpayer money to make the shift to green energy.

3. From what you understand about the candidates running for president (both Republican, Democrat or Green/Independent), who among them do you think would agree with this idea the most? You may consider those who have already withdrawn from the race as well. Make your case for this candidate, highlighting why you think they might agree with McKibben. [No need to do any research on candidates; just make a case for who among them you think would agree most with McKibben]

I think the independent will. The two power parties (republican and democrat) are both being funded by very wealthy people to help support their campaign. these people will also influence the decisions that they make. Also, history has shown recently both parties aren’t worried about it. Obama let the keystone pipeline go when he was in office and Trump is still letting it go today.

WHO COULD RESIST?  T/F 

4.The profit from hydrocarbons: 137 Billion in one year. T/F

true

 5. The Profit from hydrocarbons: 375 mil a day. T/F

true

 6. 6 mil in tax breaks for fossil fuel companies. T/F

ture

 7. Rex Tillerson was appointed as the Secretary of State in Trump’s cabinet when Trump got elected. Before that, he was the CEO of Exxon where he made $100,000 a day. T/F  

true

8. He has since been replaced with Mike Pompeo. T/F

true

IF THEY WERE SERIOUS…

Bill McKibben indicates there are 3 things the CEOs of fossil fuel companies would do if they were serious.

9. List the 3 things the CEOs should do if they were serious about reducing carbon emissions.   

produce less toxins

proper use of getting rid of waste

use up less fossil fuels

FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE

Since it appears that profit is the only thing that matters to fossil fuel companies, Jim Hansen suggests that we must “fight fire is with fire.” Bill McKibben adds that we must “take away their veneer of respectability” by divesting. Divesting means to not invest in oil companies.

10. Colleges across the country took this charge seriously, with Maine’s very own Unity College being the first to divest as an institution. The president of that college, Stephen Mulkey, argues a great point when he states, “It is inconsistent with the reason these institutions [colleges] exist for them to continue to invest in something that is dedicated to the destruction of civilization.” Unpack this statement. If UNE is dedicated to YOUR future, is it hypocritical of them to invest in Exxon, BP and other fossil fuel companies?

I believe that in some ways it is because these companies are ruining this earth with how they are polluting it and disposing of waste improperly. AT the same time though UNE may need oil or gas to run certain things on campus, so i think the main thing for UNE is to minimize the use of fossil fuels as much as possible, but at the same time it’s hard to get away from.

11. Do you know if  UNE has divested its endowment away from the companies which are destroying your future?

I know UNE tries to incorporate things that are “green” as much as possible. for example when they build the new commons they tried to make it as green as possible

12. Would you ask President Herbert the question directly, if you had the chance?

If somehow the topic got brought up I would, but it wouldn’t be the first thing that comes to mind to say.

A MORAL CATASTROPHE

Sierra Club President Michael Brune is quoted in the movie as saying, “We will have a moral catastrophe on our hands” if nothing is done. When I was in college, back in 1992, I was an active member of a college club called Campus Women’s Alliance at Colorado State University. We basically educated people about feminism and the inequality toward women that is built into social and economic systems. The president of the club liked to borrow an adage from the 60’s movement: “If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem.”

13. If you agree that it will take an effort on everybody’s part to change the numbers of gigatons of CO2, then what are you willing to do? Do you agree with this adage, that if you are not working towards solving this problem, then you are part of the problem? Explain why/ why not

I believe that we are all part of the problem. We all do something that pollutes the earth in on way that we can all prevent. I know when I get bored I like to go for drives. That send toxins into the earth’s atmosphere. I can stop that to help reduce the amount and if everyone does their little part it will cause a big impact on a healthier planet.

I’m ranking these on a 1-10 scale.

1. _Flow/cohesion/clarity of thoughts in each paragraph as demonstrated by easy-to-read sentences with little to no grammatical or punctuation errors

I think for this section I deserve a 8 out of 10. I think the flow of the essay was really good and that there were some good transitions. I think it was pretty clear and easy to understand as well. After reading this i know that there were some errors in grammer and that’s one of my biggest issues, and I’m still trying to improve on it.

1. ___Thesis. Is your thesis a position, something you can argue for? Or mere observation? Have you taken it to the next level by starting off with a subordinate clause such as “Because” “Despite the fact” “Since” or “Although”?

I think my thesis is a 10 out of 10. I think this was a strong thesis that I had. Also I used that thesis to anchor my paper, and in every paragraph I used my info to relate it back to my thesis.

1. ___Development of ideas throughout paper using your “bread crumb trail” ie transitions

I give myself a 9 out of 10 for this one I think that my transitions were very good and they help organize my paper and make the paper flow nicely

1. ___TRIAC elements and mastery

I would give myself a 9 out of 10 for this. I implemented all aspects of the TRIAC formula in my paper where they needed to be and I think I used them very effectively.

1. ___Barclay’s formula elements and mastery. Are your 2 sources in the Barclay’s graph relevant to each other as well as to the overall arc of the paper?

I think for Barclay’s paragraph is a good 9 out of 10. I used two sources in the paragraph. I transitioned between them both well I think. They were both analyzed well and it was clear that they related back to my thesis. The one thing about it is that I think it could have been chopped up a little bit so it didn’t seem too lengthy.

1. ___Naysayer clear and relevant? Is it more than one sentence that starts “some may argue”?

I think for my naysayers paragraph is a 9 out of 10. I made it very clear about how people may find it relevant and also brought in a quote to support it. After that Though I used good reasoning and went back to my thesis to explain why they were wrong to go forward with gene editing.

1. ___Development of ideas and organization. Do your paragraphs follow a logical path? Is there a clear relationship between your claim sentences and your original position (thesis)? Are your claim sentences the “foot soldiers” for your thesis?

I will give myself a 8 out of 10 for this one. I think that My story was pretty organized and had a good flow. I think the claim sentences I came up with helped me map out my paper and supported my thesis very well.

1. ___Quotes. How well does your evidence from the texts illustrate a point or prove a point? Are there any coyote quotes evident in your essay? Are you stretching your “signal verb” glossary by using active signal verbs like “argues” “claims” “discusses” “urges” “explores” etc?

For my quotes I believe that I deserve a 10 out of 10. I used the necessary amount of quotes and I believe hat I chose great quotes and analyzed them pretty well. Also the quotes I used they fueled my argument and supported my thesis very well.

1. ___MLA. Are your in-text citations correct? Have you correctly cited when using paraphrase? Are other sources besides Lama correctly cited? And how does that Works Cited page look.

I believe for this one I deserve a 7 out of 10. I’m usually really good about having my citation in my paper, but I was looking over mine and realized I left out one citation. Other than that I think for the most part mine were good. Also my bibliography was pretty good too.

1. ___Intro. Is your thesis stated clearly? Do you grab the reader with a hook? Are your sources introduced? Has the background of the issue been stated sufficiently?

For this one I’m gong to give myself a 10 out of 10. This is because I feel that I had a very strong hook in my paper and I added all the needed background info, and lastly I had a very clear thesis in my paper.

1. ___Conclusion. Is your conclusion a confident pronouncement of “I SAY”? Does it re-state your position/thesis? Does it leave the reader compelled to ask more questions about the subject beyond the last sentence, using either a hypothetical or rhetorical device? Does it warn of the consequences should your action plan/thesis proposal not be heeded? Does it offer a “celebration tale” if your thesis is followed?

For my conclusion I believe that I get and 8 out of 10. I think my conclusion does pretty well wrapping everything up. I gave a solution that could potentially help gene mutations. We just need time.

Dalai Lama says it is best exaggerating to us “it is simply to point out that we must become aware of the awesome implications of this new area of science” (Lama 63). Dalai Lama is surely right about becoming more aware of the implications of gene getting because as technology advances we will get closer to being able to successfully edit genes. We need to know how that fully effects a human though before we jump right into testing on humans.

 Also, they believe that Gene editing can get rid of a hereditary disease when a baby is an embryo and not even close to being born. Dalai Lama even touches on this topic: “So it is conceivable if we humans utilize our newly found genetic knowledge skillfully, it could help foster a greater sense of affinity and unity not only with our fellow human beings but life as a whole”(Lama 67). Dalai Lama is surely right about this because as he may not be aware people like He Janiku are rushing gene-editing studies before anything can be concluded about them. Showing that running these experiment is more important than knowing about the implications first

I believe that in September 2020 the coronavirus will be gone. I know right now it seems scary but, I believe that the rate of infection will slow down at some point in May or June allowing people to go back to normal to their everyday lives. We will all be able to go back to school in the fall and continue your education back at our respective universities. However, I believe that this virus will cause serious changes in our society. First of all, everywhere you will see plexiglass walls between you and the register at all stores to stop the spread of germs. Gyms will be a lot more sanitary than they were before. Hospitals will become more prepared than ever after all the shortages coronavirus has brought to them like mask, gloves, etc. Also, we will see people taking more sick days to protect coworkers and classmates from getting sick. The world will go back to normal by September 2020 but, the world will be a lot more cleaner and safer for humans

1. Think back on the answer you gave for the Tianna Clark essay. Reflect on what you would be willing to be an “activist” for and what you would be willing to “protest.” What emotions are involved in each pursuit? Describe the causes and your reasoning behind your “activism” and your “protesting.”

the difference between being an activist and being a protester is that for activism you bring the issue to the forefront, like writing an article about it. While protesting you actively do something to show change like a strike for example. Something I would show activism for right now is staying inside. I would show through social media we are going through a pandemic with COVID-19 and the only way to slow it down is staying inside and quarantine yourself. one thing I would protest I would have protested for would have during the civil rights movement. After learning what black people had to go through during that time that infuriates me the hell that they went through and The emotions running through me would have wanted change immediately.

2. What effect does protesting have, as seen in the movie? Were the activists/protesters able to stop the Keystone Pipeline? (*This movie ends without the final judgment from Obama. Google the issue to find out what transpired).

The effects of protest in this movie SHow innocent people getting arrested and going to jail. Unfortunately, their protest for the Keystone Pipeline did not pan out. They continued to build the line and they are still building it to this day.

FOSSIL FUELS: WHAT DO YOU “REALLY” KNOW? True/False:

3. Co2 is produced from burning fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas); Co2 is what is heating up the earth’s atmosphere b/c it is trapped and unable to be released. T/F

True

4. Fossil Fuel industry has enormous political power b/c of the money it is able to make. T/F

True

“You can’t keep increasing your economy on a finite planet.” ~ Juliet Schor

5. What does Juliet mean by this statement? If you agree, what, in your opinion, is the alternative?

What this quote is saying is that if you get too greedy you will ruin the planet. The planet has limits and if you stretch those limits to boost economy you will be ruining this earth. I agree with this statement and my solution to it is that we need to not be greedy as people and set limits on the economy.

CARBON FOOTPRINT?

6. “Reducing the carbon footprint” feels like dated language (the movie was made in 2012). Does anyone talk about the carbon footprint? Where? In what way have you heard it discussed? Do you know how to calculate your own carbon footprint?

A carbon footprint is how much greenhouse gas individual releases into the atmosphere. I heard about it growing up, but not too much lately. I think that it’s hard for an individual to measure their carbon footprint because it’s hard to see what produces greenhouse gas and how much greenhouse gas an object produces.

OK BUT WHAT IS REALLY AT STAKE? Agree/ Disagree

7. Bill McKibben: “It will be an utter calamity if we do not reduce the carbon emissions.” Agree/Disagree. Briefly unpack your response

I agree because the more carbon we let into the atmosphere than the worse the climate will be and climate change can lead to serious consequences for humanity.

8. Lester Brown: “Everyone talks about saving the planet. The planet will be here, in whatever state. We need to save the humans.” Agree/Disagree. Briefly unpack your response

I can agree with this statement. The earth physically will always be here. With climate change though we lose wildlife, aquatic life, and much more that humanity needs. So although the earth will be here physically we will lose humanity if we keep it up.

9. James Hansen: “The very top level of sustainability for planet earth in carbon emissions is 350 PPM (Parts Per Million); the ocean is 30% acidity; right now the PPM is 395 [this was 2012].” Does this science scare you? Yes/ No

Yes, this does scare me because that was data from 2012. It has definitely gone up since then and that harms our aquatic life. Whether we know it or not we need that to survive and without a healthy ocean, we don’t have a healthy planet.

IT MIGHT BE COOL TO BE AN ACTIVIST:  

Bill McKibben got more likes than the Justin Bieber article in Rolling Stone in July 2012 for his article detailing the math behind 350

10. Is it cool to be an activist? When will a cooler [literally cooler!] climate morph into another right we have as citizens, like clean water, and not be seen as some fringe “movement”? Do you think people still see it as an act of activism or is it more of a global concern? Ask at least one person in your household to weigh in on this last question and share their response/your conversation

I feel in today’s world this is more of global concern as climate change is being brought up more and more in politics now. Greta Thornburg won times person of the year for her efforts in climate change and being a climate activist. My mother also agrees that climate change is getting more political now than it was in 2012.

DO THE MATH (notes from the movie):

2 degrees Celsius: the allowed increase in degrees that is safe for the planet; anything above 2 degrees is too much

565=how much carbon in gigatons we can pour into the atmosphere in order to stay below the 2 degrees as described above; the time of the movie, roughly 15 yrs beyond 2012.

2795= the gigatons of fossil fuels already in their reserves, just waiting to be pumped out [5 times than the allowable amount as shown in the gigatons above]

11. So, what does 350 refer to? [Hint, chk out the quote from James Hansen]

350 refers to the maximum ppm for carbon emissions but also keep the earth’s climate livable.

We are in the year 2020 right now. Science and technology are moving at an extremely rapid pace. With the speed that it is moving at we don’t have enough time to stop and think if this is right. Dalai Lama Brings this up in his article he wrote called Ethics and the New Genetics. In this article he describes to us how If we change the genetic makeup of people numerous ethical questions arise from it and how with society respond to all of these issues. Too many questions arise from gene mutations that cannot be answered yet. 

Thesis: There are too many issues that arise from gene mutations related to ethics and Also accessibility. 

One thing that is great about this world is that it’s so diverse. There are many different cultures and habits people have that help make them unique in their own way. But then gene mutations get brought up. Everyone in this world wants to have “the perfect baby”. It’s understanding why people want that. The things that people love most are there children who they raise to be either great men or women. But what if gene mutation implications came into play? A lot of different people would want to make the perfect baby. In different cultures a lot of the perfect babies could turn out very similar to one another, and then another question arises: Where’s the diversity in society now? How can we be our own person if everyone’s genetic makeup is all so similar?

Although Not most scientists may think alike some may say gene editing is beneficial. They think that it could be very helpful in life to find diseases hidden in genes early and try and get rid of the bad gene. Also they believe that Gene editing can get rid of a hereditary disease when a baby is an embryo and not even close to being born. But then again this goes back to ethics. Why maybe try to edit genes in young people and embryos when they caould possibly find a cure for the particular disease in the up coming years. Also when the baby is an embryo there’s no consent of doing the editing and also we don’t know what the long term implications are. It’s all just too soon at this point we do not know enough about gene editing to be able to do it quite yet.

In this piece, the Dalai Lama talks about the relationship between science and ethics. In this piece, he explains to us how science has been advancing too fast and past what we find to be Ethical. He first goes on to talk about the genetic makeup and gene mutations in humans. gives us a variety of reasons as to why we shouldn’t genetically customize our babies, and why we shouldn’t gene test to see if we are positive for a specific genetic disease. Mostly during this part Dalai Lama brought up the fact that gene testing and genetically modify a person brings up a lot of ethical questions that seem to get overlooked. He also touches on the facts of cloning and what it could do to benefit humans in society. He did say that he’s not opposed to it but once again he brings up ethics, and this seems to be the main attraction of the paper. How can we make monumental scientific achievements, but at the same time make sure everything is within ethical reasoning.

Claim: In order for scientists to continue with scientific milestones they must educate the public on these milestones, and the pros and cons of each scientific discovery. The more educated the general population is on their scientific studies the more we can balance them with ethical reasoning in society.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Some of the weaknesses that were in my rough draft where I kept writing in the first person when this should have been a position paper. Also, my thesis was sorta weak and needed some improvements to make it stronger. Also, I was more nervous to elaborate on my anecdote but it wasn’t as strong as it could have been so I added more detail into it to improve it a lot more. A weak point int the final draft I feel is my bibliography. I had a hard time finding Anne’s citation and I could make one so I came up with one on the spot which is kind of iffy.

I think that overall the peer reviews worked really well. I believe that my groupmates made really great point on my paper that I could improve. I think that the sheet that was given to us before peer reviews really helped out and made this whole revisions process much easier.

In A New Civil Rights Kenji says, ” He told me his only advice for the coming years was that I should be more my self, that instead of reasoning within the law as it existed, I should speak my truth and make the law shape itself around me.” What Kenji is trying to say in this quote is that if you stay true to yourself and beliefs then you’re environment around you will respond to you in a positive way. I believe that it’s always great being honest with yourself with who you are and what you believe. If you’re not being honest with yourself are you really you? For someone to be at their full potential as a person then they need to accept themselves for who they are and try not to be someone that they are not. In the quote, I mentioned earlier he said if he speaks his truth then the law will shape around him. I relate that to a person being their true self then the world will shape around him. Meaning not everyone in this world will like you or agree with you, but stay being real with yourself and you’ll find the right people who you want to be with, and you’ll also enjoy the things that you are doing more.

I believe that you don’t always need a False self in order to succeed in life. Kenji says that the true self and the false self work side by side to help one another. He explains it by saying, “The true self and false self are symbiotic, Winnicott believes both selves will exist even in the healthy individual.” With this quote, he believes that they work with each other inside of a healthy individual. I believe that they do, but you don’t always need the false self to hide your true self. The false self Is what is supposed to help you initially. These are for things like your job interview, but once you pass through your job interviews you show your true self and have your co-workers except you fro who you are.

The only thing that belongs in the closet is your clothes. No person should stay hidden “in the closet”. You can’t flourish to be the person that you are, and you should never be scared to be you. You will find the people who love you for who you are and will be proud to be around you and spend time with you. also In a ted talk by Anne Hallward, she says, ” the thing about being in the closet is that you can see that it is very dark in there. And in that darkness, you can’t see very clearly.” Anne explains that in the closet you are more confused than when you just be yourself. You need to flourish and not be ashamed of you you are and express how you feel mentally and emotionally. to be happy with yourself you need to not be ashamed of who you are and be proud of the real you.

We all have something to be ashamed about, but that doesn’t mean being ashamed means you need to be scared to tell your story. Shame has such a negative effect on society, and in reality, you should see your shame as a positive. Everyone has a story and if one person shares there shame you may open the flood gates of shame. What I mean when I say that is telling a story of your shame creates a chain reaction of people opening up and expressing their shame. Anne Hallward told a story about how her dad had dementia and she just wished she died. When she shared her shame people opened up about their shame and during the talk she mentioned, “And the emails started coming in, saying thank you so much for saying that. I felt that way too about my mother but I felt so ashamed I didn’t tell anybody.” as you can see a lot of people have a lot in common and they just don’t know it. Shame is something that everyone has and when we express our shame people feel more comfortable expressing their own shame and turning a negative feeling into a comforting, positive feeling.

” Anne’s point is that if we keep exposing shame it will get weaker, and then make it not mean anything. ”
How is this line of thinking or perspective similar to Kenji’s take on covering? How are they different?
Nice annotations!

One example of Anne’s quote and Kenji quote being similar is this quote sounds a lot like a quote from The New Civil Rights. On page 542 Kenji says: ” A true self that must be expressed for us to have the feeling of being switched on, of being alive. And if the true self embodies the importance of authenticity”. How this quote relates to Anne’s idea of shame is you’re exposing shame and it gets weaker, and Kenji is saying if you show your true self you become more authentic. These two can relate because there’s positive reinforcement coming from both showing shame and showing true self. One way that they are different is that Kenji says that the true self works together with the false self to help protect the true self. When Anne is saying that hiding Shame can lead to not seeing clearly and you’re “in the closet”.