https://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0Acr6x1r26iPAZGR2NHp2djhfMGRwOXpkOWRu&hl=en_US
2. Reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the criteria established. Where these good criteria, or should there have been different criteria established?
The criteria were pretty solid, however I think the credibility of the authors could have come into play a bit more than we expected.
3. Reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the presentations as a whole. Consider the "yes" and "no" groups as a whole.
I think all of the groups presented quite solid arguments. Both sides used the information we had to build a solid argument for their respective position. However, since our class was divided into two groups researching opposing sides, it was easy for any off-base arguments to be picked apart. I think this factor led to more solid information being presented.
4. Reflect on the group management of your group. What went well, what did not?
Our group worked well together, although I think we could have been more productive. I think it would have been more beneficial for the group if we all worked on separate aspects of the paper. We all kind of collaborated on the presentation as a whole which may have decreased our productivity.
Our group worked well together, although I think we could have been more productive. I think it would have been more beneficial for the group if we all worked on separate aspects of the paper. We all kind of collaborated on the presentation as a whole which may have decreased our productivity.
5. Reflect on the personal "ethic" you felt in your group. Did you believe in your position? Where you arguing against your beliefs?
After getting more in-depth into the research, I began to feel that the paper was not credible (our group was arguing the opposite). I think most of our group also realized that the credibility of the paper was questionable at best, and we were then in a position to argue against our beliefs. I think this may have affected the quality of our presentation - it is difficult to present a captivating argument for something you don't believe in.
After getting more in-depth into the research, I began to feel that the paper was not credible (our group was arguing the opposite). I think most of our group also realized that the credibility of the paper was questionable at best, and we were then in a position to argue against our beliefs. I think this may have affected the quality of our presentation - it is difficult to present a captivating argument for something you don't believe in.
6. Did the class make the correct decision when considering the broader impacts of the global warming/climate change debate? Why?
I think we did make the correct choice, as I think the vast majority of science and academia disagrees with the assertions that this paper made.
I think we did make the correct choice, as I think the vast majority of science and academia disagrees with the assertions that this paper made.
7. Explain the statement, "What we do in the US, soon will not matter." Provide evidence to justify this statement.
This means that our nation's slow, gradual process of of establishing all things "green" and claning/protecting the environment will eventually be surmounted by the deleterious practices of other countries who place a higher value on industrialization than the environment. It is difficult to convince developing countries who are reliant on coal and oil to transition to renewable energy sources (industries still in their infancy) when it is not economically feasible to them whatsoever. Thus, many countries continue non-environmentally-sound industrialization that damages the environment far faster than we can protect it.
This means that our nation's slow, gradual process of of establishing all things "green" and claning/protecting the environment will eventually be surmounted by the deleterious practices of other countries who place a higher value on industrialization than the environment. It is difficult to convince developing countries who are reliant on coal and oil to transition to renewable energy sources (industries still in their infancy) when it is not economically feasible to them whatsoever. Thus, many countries continue non-environmentally-sound industrialization that damages the environment far faster than we can protect it.
8. Explain this statement, "What we do as individuals matters." Provide evidence to justify this statement.
The example used in class is that unplugging your phone charger isn't going to save the world. Although it doesn't hurt to make more conscious decisions in that regard, it certainly isn't going to save the environment. The common ideology we have is to be reactive in our conquest of sustaining our environment; we recycle, re-use, and minimize waste. These are all great things to do, but they really aren't fixing anything. We need to be proactive in fixing the environment - we can't continue digging carbon from the ground and burning it into the atmosphere forever- it simply isn't possible. Someone is going to develop a technology someday that can change the way we use energy. We need to work forward, not backward, and in that sense, what we are doing today as individuals will someday change the way we use energy.
The example used in class is that unplugging your phone charger isn't going to save the world. Although it doesn't hurt to make more conscious decisions in that regard, it certainly isn't going to save the environment. The common ideology we have is to be reactive in our conquest of sustaining our environment; we recycle, re-use, and minimize waste. These are all great things to do, but they really aren't fixing anything. We need to be proactive in fixing the environment - we can't continue digging carbon from the ground and burning it into the atmosphere forever- it simply isn't possible. Someone is going to develop a technology someday that can change the way we use energy. We need to work forward, not backward, and in that sense, what we are doing today as individuals will someday change the way we use energy.
No comments:
Post a Comment