What surprised you about the process of Environmental Policy? Do you think that the U.S. Senate should have ratified the Kyoto Protocol? Why or why not. Why do you think creating and implementing environmental policy is so difficult locally, nationally, and internationally? Should communities and local government do more on a local level to create environmental policy? What environmental issues would you like to see addressed by policy makers?
The Environmental Policy process is incredibly long and frustrating, as with anything in politics. I was surprised about the amount of resistance the general public has for it.
I think that the senate should have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. I think that seeing that all the other countries did it should of been enough for the Us to do it as well. I think that 7% is a reasonable number even though we are a large country. I can see why they did not ratify the protocol, but I think that as a country we need to take care of this Earth.
I think it is difficult to implement environmental policy because it is hard to implement anything in general. It also seems that people have a lot of resistance to green movements and things like global warming. I think it is because that anything that would inconvenience the general public they automatically have resistance to it. People like speed and connivence and any environmental policy limits that, but for a good cause.
I think that communities and local government need to 100% create environmental policy for it to really work. More can be done locally than can be done nationally and I think that kind of a "grassroots" politic in the sense that it is starting at the smallest level of government would be the best way to make a change. I think that more things could be done locally and they would be better adjusted for that community. Nationally things are too standard for it to work for everybody.
I think we need to come up with solutions for our farming and meet production systems. I think that they need to be held accountable for their amount of polution. But I also think that people should take it upon themselves to help the environment. I wish that the government did not have to be involved at all. Unfortunately, the world has become solely about profit and the environment always suffers to make a greater profit.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Blog #13
What do you think of ecofemisnism before you read, and after? Did you have any strong reactions? What do forms of dominance do you see in the world around you?
Before I read I figured ecofeminism had something to do with women feeling oppressed and excluded from the "male dominated" world. I did not understand how they would tie it into ecology and nature.
After I read, I gathered that it was kind of similar to what I thought. I didn't realize that they think attacks on the environment are attacks on women because women are identified with being closer to nature than men.
I think that ecofeminism is kind of hypocritical and way to extreme. They want to make man and woman equal but their belief that women are closer to nature already but man and woman on separate pages. From what I gathered was that ecofeminists believe in gender equality, this does not seem like gender equality. Mother nature was a thing started by humans just like the division between man and women, so how can women be closer to nature than men? Which is why I think that ecofeminist taking attacks on nature just because women are more closely related to nature (by human doing) is silly. I kind of think even making that a point that they stand on really counteracts what they are trying to do.
In the world around me I do see differences between man and woman. Men are more dominant in many things, like sports and the world of business. But to tell the truth, I am not to offended by it. It is up to women to rise about it. Yes it's frustrating that women make less than men in certain instances, but I think that for the most part there are more important issues to focus on in the world. Maybe i'm speaking out of turn and I should be more upset over this, but for some reason it really does not make me to upset.
Before I read I figured ecofeminism had something to do with women feeling oppressed and excluded from the "male dominated" world. I did not understand how they would tie it into ecology and nature.
After I read, I gathered that it was kind of similar to what I thought. I didn't realize that they think attacks on the environment are attacks on women because women are identified with being closer to nature than men.
I think that ecofeminism is kind of hypocritical and way to extreme. They want to make man and woman equal but their belief that women are closer to nature already but man and woman on separate pages. From what I gathered was that ecofeminists believe in gender equality, this does not seem like gender equality. Mother nature was a thing started by humans just like the division between man and women, so how can women be closer to nature than men? Which is why I think that ecofeminist taking attacks on nature just because women are more closely related to nature (by human doing) is silly. I kind of think even making that a point that they stand on really counteracts what they are trying to do.
In the world around me I do see differences between man and woman. Men are more dominant in many things, like sports and the world of business. But to tell the truth, I am not to offended by it. It is up to women to rise about it. Yes it's frustrating that women make less than men in certain instances, but I think that for the most part there are more important issues to focus on in the world. Maybe i'm speaking out of turn and I should be more upset over this, but for some reason it really does not make me to upset.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)