Saturday, May 10, 2008

1:21 AM

It is impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts. Do you agree?

It is indeed quite impossible to reach a global consensus on environmental conservation efforts in our world today. Though efforts have been constantly made as people are increasingly aware of the importance of environmental conservation, there is a great disparity in views on how this should be achieved.

Take the Kyoto Pact for example. The Kyoto pact was brought about to reduce the carbon emissions of countries, so as to boost environmental conservation. However, though some people may agree this is a positive measure, many others feel that it is ineffective as 3 countries who are major producers of carbon emissions, are not included in the pact. One of the countries in dispute is China, which was excluded as it is still in the process of development. This shows that key personnel of environmental conservation feels that development and economic growth of the world as a whole should take precedence and priority over saving and preserving Mother Earth. On the other hand, many members of the public would feel that every country should play their part in environmental conservation as no matter how small a country is, they are bound to produce carbon emissions. Thus, they should shoulder part of the burden of conservation for fairness and equality to be upheld. After all, isn’t this one of the key goals of democracy, to uphold equality? As a result, a global consensus is not reached.

Another reason why a global consensus is impossible is because different people living in different environments may have different perceptions on the severity of environmental degradation. For example, a person living in a highly industrialized country like China would most likely be exposed to higher levels of pollution, leading them to call for greater and more stringent conservation measures. However, a person living in farmlands, away from urban areas, such as the farming areas in New Zealand, may experience relatively good environmental conditions. They are thus more likely to take the importance of conservation lightly, and may not press for, or want to take part in measures introduced.

Sometimes, effects of environmental degradation might also be exaggerated. For instance, the threat of biodiversity loss is indeed present, but the statistics are often exaggerated to make the situation more severe than it really is. For instance, even though forests in the eastern United States were reduced to fragments totaling just 1-2% of their original area, there was only extinction of one forest bird. This shows us that people often tend to think worst of situations, arising from imperfect knowledge. As such, people would suggest many different measures to solve the problems, and it is highly unlikely that a consensus would be made under such circumstances. Thus, for global consensus to be reached, everyone must have the same mindset and mentalities, which is obviously unattainable given the different genetic make-up of people.

Response to kiawoon's post: I agree with Kiawoon that people cannot be overly-anxious to solve global environmental issues all at one go, or their efforts may backfire. After all, there's a phrase that goes, "more haste, less speed". I feel that even though environmental conservation should be high on the list of people's agenda, people should start with realistic measures like reducing the amount of fossil fuels burnt by switching to public transport. Though this might seem insignificant, its cumulative effects would help to boost conservation efforts.

Melissa :)

0 comments

12:12 AM

The current hype over environmental issues is unnecessary. Do you agree?

Environmental issues are at the tip of everyone’s tongue nowadays. From young children to scientists all over the world, words like “organic foods”, “chlorofluorocarbon” and “biofuels” are being discussed. Those are words that a mere 30 years ago would not exist in most people’s vocabulary. Yet now, those words are appearing everywhere, not only in newspapers reports, and advertisements and environmental issues rank highly on the list of problems that the United Nations Foundation, a public charity, is trying to solve. I certainly agree that environmental issues are important, but I cannot help but wonder whether all the publicity about them is exaggeration on the media’s part.

An environmental problem that scientists are trying to rectify is that of the depletion of natural resources. This gave rise to the concept of 3Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle. As many natural resources such as fossil fuels and trees are not renewable, scientists warn that if we continue to employ them at the rate we are using now, resources like natural gas will run out by the middle or end of this century. Hence the mad rush to diversify alternative forms of energy such as wind, solar, hydro and nuclear energy. And there’s the current darling of America: biofuels. Yes, biofuels like ethanol, under their predecessors, does not produce poisonous gases like sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain. However, what is not highlighted is the failures of biofuels. A recent report in TIME magazine has highlighted the fact that the amount of corn needed to run an ethanol- fueled SUV can feed a man for 365 days- or a year! The hype over depletion of natural resources might have led to premature usage of biofuels before it is fully developed and refines, which might lead to even more problems in the society.

In my opinion, being environmentally friendly is no longer a lifestyle choice, instead being a social imperative. We are constantly reminded that the world is dying; we are running out of space to bury rubbish; the Earth is overheating; species are dying out. We are all expected to do our part for the environment. People even shoot you dirty looks when you take a non-biodegradable plastic bag for your groceries. The aggressive green campaign has led to the appearance of the concept of “econ-anxious”. The condition causes people who feel that they are not as environmentally friendly to suffer from panic attacks and loss of appetite. It just goes to show that there are detrimental effects of the overemphasis on environmental issues.

That is not to say that we should just completely not care about the environment. It is an accepted fact that environmental issues are affecting the world, and that we have to find a way to solve them, if not they will worsen and we will be the ones suffering in future. However, there is a limit to it. There should not be exaggerated reports and extensive coverage of environmental issues, causing people to think that the problem is actually more serious and urgent then it really us. This might in fact cause more ill effects than the benefits it was supposed to bring in the first place.

Hence, the current hype over environmental issues is not totally unnecessary. It is essential, but only to a small extent. Without the publicity generated, it is impossible to get all of the people to act. Only with the combined effort of everyone can we save this Earth we call our home.

TIME magazine: It’s inconvenient being green (Nov 21 2007)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hype

http://rutlandvt.blogspot.com/2007/10/climate-change-hype-or-planetary-crisis.html

0 comments

Saturday, May 3, 2008

4:31 PM

Sports-Application Qn 2

I agree to a large extent that sport has become more globalised and dominant. This is the age of sport. Every year, there are sure bound to have major sporting events, such as the tennis Grand Slams, the FIFA World Cup, Olympics, Commonwealth games, etc. Sports have grown because nowadays, many people take up sports to keep fit to improve their health. There is an increased concern to lead a healthy life and not to rely on medical facilities due to the rising health costs. People can live longer if they lead a healthy life. Playing sports can also build up one’s physical appearance (such as the image of a desirable body) which makes one feel good. Hence, there is a greater participation of sport which causes it to become more globalised and dominant.

In addition, there are also an increasing number of people watching sport programmes. Since sport is a democratic activity, athletics from different backgrounds all over the world can take part without causing any problems. Also, sport is something which everyone can do, regardless of age. Since sports can be either competitive or recreational, people who do not excel in certain sports will not be inferior. Many people enjoy watching sports because they would like to see the supreme skill of athletics who act as a benchmark for the rest of the people. There is also the excitement of not knowing who will be the winner till the very last minute which also adds on to the desire of watching sports. Sport is one of the few platforms that can offer this type of thrilling excitement which many people desire. Since most sport programmes are aired over the TV through satellite dishes to the global world, it receives a worldwide audience. Therefore, sports has become more globalised and dominant.

Sport is a form of globalization. It has the ability to cross national frontiers and transcend different cultures. Sport is associated with different nations and places. Sport has an extraordinary ability to communicate even though there might be language barriers. Examples of global occasions are the Olympics and the World Cup. These sporting occasions bring together players and athletics from different races and ethnicities when events are held. These events are so popular and huge that they receive a worldwide audience base.

In conclusion, sport has regained its status from previously being the back page of society in the past to being more globalized and dominant in the society of today.

Jessie :x

0 comments

Friday, May 2, 2008

11:35 PM

Do you think modern Olympics has lost its purpose?

To a large extent, I think that modern Olympics has lost its purpose. The original idea of the Olympics games were in the belief that sports is an integral part of education, “a sound mind in a healthy body”. As quoted from the article, “The most important thing in the Olympics is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well.”

From my perception, some of the athletes, in the pursuit of glory and honour for their country, forget this important idea. Their obsession with winning has led to doping, or the administration of performance enhancing drugs. It truly defiles the spirit of Olympics; not only were the drugs harmful to health, but it was unethical to win not through one’s own ability. To these athletes, their desire to win has overcome their moral values. “Grace in losing” is something else that the athletes fail to possess.

In the heat of the competition, some athletes are also overcome by emotion and act aggressively towards their opponents, resulting in injuries and fights that in turn harms not only their own country’s reputation but also that of the sport.

Of course, this is not to say that all athletes are unethical. Some of them certainly do possess sportsmanship and integrity when taking part in the games, but the increasing number of athletes who are suspended for doping shows that honesty is a fast disappearing moral value.

Another purpose for the creation of the Olympic Games was to foster friendship among nations. However, it is evident that the games have led to hostility between countries, or further emphasized existing unhappiness amongst countries. Evidence of this can be seen through the many boycotts that have plagued the games since its revival. With the coming Olympic games held in Beijing, China, we can see that the coverage given to the games is a perfect opportunity for other countries to stage political protests. More significantly, many countries use the boycott of Olympics to “blackmail” China. An instance is that of French president Sarkozy, who suggested the boycott of the Beijing Olympics last month, in order to increase pressure on China over the “Free Tibet” issue, where they claim the Chinese authorities have not exercised restraint in dealing with the Tibetan independence movement.

Additionally, the 2008 Olympic torch relay, with the theme “Journey of Harmony”, is a stark contrast to protests held in many cities along the route. The issue in question is again because of politics, particularly those related to China’s less than spectacular human rights record, and of the recent unrest in Tibet. Ironically, instead of harmony in the 6 continents the torch relay was held, relay runners were met with hostility and violence.

Nowadays, the Olympic Games has begun to be less of a way for athletes to showcase their sports abilities and to cultivate goodwill among countries, and more of a stage where political dramas are acted out.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3620417.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Olympic_Torch_Relay

0 comments

12:18 AM

Sports- Application qn 4

I can’t agree more that exercise should be integrated as an important aspect of the lives of people today. With great advances in the society, the number of people who are keeping active is going downhill, and that is not a cause for celebration. Industrialization and technology have led to many great changes in the lifestyles of people. One negative effect is the increase of saturated animal fat, processed sugar and salt in our diet. With rising affluence, people tend to indulge more, especially when it comes to satisfying their stomachs. The increase in unhealthy food in the market takes a toll on the health of people, as seen from uphill climb in the rates of coronary heart disease, hypertension, cancer, constipation and so on. This causes people to be increasingly reliant on modern medicine. I’m not implying that medicine is not good, but it needs to be regulated. An excess of anything is definitely not beneficial. Instead of being over-dependent on medicine, we should take up an active role and start being responsible for our own well-being. The key to good health? The answer lies in exercise.

Over the past century, evolution of the world has taken place at such a fast rate that people are not quick to adapt. There is now a stark difference in activity patterns and environments from the past. People in the past have to toil and labor to earn a living, while most people now live in a lap of luxury. This has caused a complacent attitude to develop, making people neglect the importance of exercise. What is important is only their work and leisure. Exercising should and needs to be encouraged as it helps to relieve stress, and concurrently keeps people in good shape. Isn’t this highly focused on in our world where advertising has created an image that people has to live up to? This is also vital today, as people are stretched to their limits in terms of their workload. Exercise is a good channel for them to relieve stress. Otherwise, people may turn to violence, self-mutilation and anger.

Lastly, healthcare takes up a large proportion of the world expenditure. If this problem is solved, money can be channeled to areas where it is needed more, such as education and the poor. The reason why there is increased expenditure in healthcare is due to the fact that people have become inactive. Their body needs exercise to function well. Without exercise, regulation of the body is poor and the immunity against diseases is threatened. The best way is not to turn to medicine, but instead, focus on prevention and restoration. Diseases can be kept at bay through exercise. So why don’t all of us step out of our air-conditioned rooms for a run outdoors? However insignificant that might seem, its cumulative effect would be natural medicine for our body, and our way to good health.

Melissa

0 comments

March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008