Aaron Riedford
Biology 100
“Andes Water Supply”

Melting glaciers means more than just the loss of a pretty view in national parks. For the people of El Alto and its sister city La Paz, Bolivia—the world’s highest capital—it means a drastic reduction in usable water. The glaciers, which have been reduced in size by global warming, provide a third of the city’s water. Similar problems are occurring in Quito, Ecuador, and in Bogota, Colombia. Not only do these cities rely on glacier-supplied water for drinking, but also for crops and hydroelectric plants. The country is suffering for the acts of the large, developed countries of the world. Bolivia, South America’s poorest country, contributes to 0.03% of the world’s CO2 emissions, compared to the U.S., which is responsible for one fourth. It is estimated that water demand will outstrip supply by 2009 unless large, water-saving projects are immediately put into action. Time is short, but these highly expensive projects are just now in the initial stages. The glacier loss will lead to other problems as well, including less rain and lowland diseases such as malaria.

Even prior to reading this article, I was aware of the melting glacier problem. I knew this could not be a good thing, but I never realized why, nor how directly glaciers could affect humans. Fresh water, while it seems plentiful enough, is not exactly easy to come by; if I am not mistaken, less than 1% of earth’s water is drinkable fresh water. Our problem in America is that we tend to think we’ll never run out of anything. The glacier problem is not affecting me directly now, but it could be a serious problem in the future. It is terrible that poor countries like Bolivia must pay for the carelessness of large, powerful countries like the U.S. Overall, the way in which this article affects me most is that I am stuck in a country filled with people who do not care. All I can do is to do my part to help the planet, but that does not seem to be enough.

Aaron Riedford
Biology 100
“Poor Hit Hardest”

Developed nations, a leading cause of global warming, must immediately take action against it for the sake of all countries, particularly poor ones who do not possess the funding or ability. A recent report by the U.N. stated that rich nations will need to provide $86 billion per year by 2015 to strengthen vulnerable countries against global warming. $44 billion of this would go to “climate-proofing” developing nations, $40 billion to helping the poor deal with climate risks, and $2 billion to strengthening responses to natural disasters. The report also stated that increased energy efficiency, alternative fuels and even the reduction of tariffs could help the problem. Brazil’s sugar cane ethanol is more efficient than the corn ethanol of the U.S., but high tariffs (meant to protect American farmers) nearly double its price in America. Brazil’s president Luis da Silva suggested that lowering the tariff could help Brazil and mitigate climate change by reducing the amount of farmland needed—thus decreasing the amount of deforestation by burning, a leading cause of CO2 emissions.

This article throws a lot of large numbers out at the reader, which makes fixing the global climate change problem seem somewhere between difficult and impossible. Unfortunately, this impression which the article gives off is probably all too accurate. Large countries that possess the funds to fix problems are slow to react if they are not directly affected by them. The U.S., in particular, will be reluctant to either put out large amounts of money or lower tariffs. This article does not affect me on an individual level, but I am a citizen of the United States, a label which in today’s world seems to be becoming less of an impressive thing and more of a disgrace. The U.S. has a capitalist economy, which means that everyone is reluctant to put aside their gains to help the planet. Heaven forbid we should use a more efficient imported biofuel to replace imported oil—U.S. farmers might make less money.

Aaron Riedford
Biology 100
“U.S. Carbon Emissions”

Dan Arvizu, director of the National Renewable Energy Lab of the Department of Energy, has stated that the U.S. is moving toward the regulation of carbon emissions. Arvizu said that he was “neutral as to which carbon management regulation there will be.” He also stated that the U.S. is headed in a different direction than it was a few years ago, with utility companies and U.S. oil giants wanting carbon policies. Despite the Bush administration’s adherence to a voluntary approach in controlling gas and oil, Arvizu says its position is beginning to change. Bush stated in a recent Washington conference that each nation should set targets and decide how to combat global warming without hindering economic growth. Bush also recently accepted a mandatory renewable fuel standard for vehicles, and the government will put $2 billion into alternate fuels in the next few years. Currently, transportation is responsible for 30% of carbon emissions in the U.S., whereas the global average is 20%.

I may be biased due to the fact that I am constantly frustrated with the U.S.’s environmental policies, but this article seems to say, “We need to reduce carbon emissions, but we are doing almost nothing about it.” Arvizu states in the article that there will be a carbon regulation “of some sort”—not really very specific if you ask me. What irritates me more is Bush’s statement that each nation should “combat global warming without hindering economic growth.” This seems less like a plan of action and more like an excuse for the U.S. being so much slower to fight global warming. This article should affect everyone in the country, but unfortunately it does not. In the meantime, I am trying to reduce my own carbon emissions by riding a bike or walking when possible, driving a fuel-efficient Corolla, turning off lights and electronics when not needed, and so on. If a law is passed demanding more efficient cars, it will be a small victory for those of us who actually care.

"This I Believe"

Americans pride themselves on their so-called "rugged individualism." The secret to moving forward in life, to filling up your wallet, is not to rely on other people; on the contrary, you can find success only as a result of your own hard work and independence. If you want to climb to the top, you've got to do it alone, and you might have to step on some people along the way.

"Rugged individualism." It's a bit ridiculous. It makes me think of someone like Chuck Norris climbing an enormous rock face without help from ropes or harnesses. Of course, Chuck Norris can do that. But it's probably impossible for the rest of us. The rest of us need a bit of help.

All joking aside, I've never thought of myself as an individualist. My friends have always been very important to me. For me, nothing says "friendship" like getting pegged right in the face with a dodgeball, or going swimming at 11:00 at night. My friends have even used the syrup at IHOP as gel for a mohawk. But being with my friends is more than just a catharsis-they provide an irreplaceable support group.

Three people, in particular, have had made a permanent mark on me that is probably never going to come off. All of them were classmates of mine in high school. We chatted together before school, we tore our hair in frustration as we tried to figure out our calculus homework, and on Wednesdays we all piled into one car and took off to Noble Roman's for open campus lunch.

Such things may not seem to matter or to run very deep, but you have to look at it like a vault or a safe: it's not open very often, but there's something incredibly valuable inside nonetheless. And the outer surface does matter, because otherwise there's no way to get into it. Some people never open it because they don't know how, but I found the inside of the vault when I was a junior in high school.

It was December. The whole school was preparing for the Christmas Dance. And there were four guys--nice guys, but not really the most popular--who did not manage to get dates. Since no self-respecting guy shows up to a formal dance without a date, we had to figure out something else to do for the night. My buddy Dave offered his house as a hang-out location, so we all headed out that way.

We could have done any number of things there, but for whatever reason, we decided to sit on the back sun porch and talk. That's it. Just talk. It's not something teen-aged guys are known to do frequently, but we were never very normal, and everyone found plenty to say that night. We ranted about parents and studying, laughed at the more ridiculous comments that were made, gave each other what I'm sure we thought was good advice, and made plans for the future. That night, I knew exactly who my friends were.

That was four years ago. Today, I have a large group of friends that I spend time with nearly every weekend, usually playing Frisbee or dodgeball. But that large group hasn't replaced my small group of very close friends. This small number of people has grown to five or six, but included in those people are those high school buddies. Every once in a while, we'll have another "meeting"-sometimes with the original group, other times with an extra person or two. But every time we have such a talk, few though they are, I remember why I need friends. We all lead our own individual lives and make our own decisions, but we also support each other and make life much more bearable.

Of course, not everyone skips Christmas dance to chat with their friends, but everyone needs some kind of companionship. Families are incredibly important, but I believe that everyone needs outside friendships as well. A middle-aged accountant doesn't live as I currently do, alternating between studying and hanging out with friends as much as possible. Rather, he spends his week working, and goes home at night to his wife and kids. He (hopefully) loves his family, and if he's lucky he even loves his job, yet he always looks forward to a monthly game of poker with his buddies, or a weekend backpacking trip with an old friend. He needs their companionship.

So maybe most Americans aren't as rugged or individualistic as they'd like to think. We all need support from time to time. Everyone is impressed by Chuck Norris, but nobody really wants to be him. Most people would prefer to climb with a harness-so that even if they fall, they won't fall very far.