Comment on the Three Gorges Dam

As I've read about the Three Gorges Dam, actually I think that this project can become a very good project for China as it can give a huge amount of energy supply. However, it has to be considered, whether China will be able to handle this huge amount of energy or not since it is not easy to do so. If China government cannot handle this energy well, then this project will more or less become a huge loss for China as it has consumed a huge amount of cost, destroyed many historical sites, and also damaged the environment around.

I think that the Three Gorges Dam project is also a bit too risky to be done since in doing such a large project, everything must be done in high-class level, where checking, building, etc must be taken very seriously as a single mistake might cost great danger for China.

Indonesia Banned Youtube??

I heard from my friend that Indonesian government banned youtube and spent billions for this. The reason that the government banned youtube was because the controversial movie titled 'FITNA'. I've watched the movie and I agree that this movie is too offensive to islamic and this could start a war among religions on earth. However, I won't talk much about the movie itself.

I don't really understand what is the Indonesian government doing by banning youtube. I mean, they spent so much money for it and somehow I feel that they are not updated about how good internet is. Around one or two days after they started banning youtube, people had already known the other way to access youtube by accessing it from another website. Money had been spent, but I can say, for nothing. They just wasted country's money for nothing.

The government should have asked youtube personally to remove the video from it website rather than spending money to prohibit Indonesian accessing youtube.

Different Approaches in Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emission

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (n.d.), as cited in Connor (2007), “Concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are at their highest levels for at least 650,000 years” (para. 1). This number is quite surprising, considering the fact that global warming is mostly caused by carbon dioxide gas. Concentration of carbon dioxide has reached 380 parts per million and keeps increasing at a rate 2 parts per million every year (Juniper, 2007). All countries in the world are now considering global warming as a major problem which may endanger not only humans, but also the entire environment on earth. The most obvious example is about the increment in temperature of the earth. According to Juniper (2007), if greenhouse gases had not reached today’s levels, earth would have been around 15 centigrade colder which would have a real effect for the earth, mainly in a place like Antarctica, where some parts of ices have started to melt and causes the sea level to increase at rate 2 mm every year (Munk, 2003). Many conferences have been made regarding global warming by most countries and it has been agreed that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is the best thing that can be done to reduce the increasing rate of global warming (Kyoto Protocol). Currently, there are two common approaches to deal with this problem. The first approach is a technological approach, which is usually adopted by well developed countries like the U.S.. The second approach is a human approach, which is usually adopted by a developing country like Indonesia.

The U.S., as a well-developed country, is using technology approach, which is known as “Twenty in Ten” (“Twenty in Ten,” 2007), to reduce its carbon emission where Research and Development programmes for climate change are established with impressive budgets. Through this Research and Development centre, new energy sources are being developed to substitute current energy sources, fossil fuels, which emit a huge amount of carbon dioxide. It is expected that a highly efficient and cheap new energy source will have substituted fossil fuels by a few years ahead. Currently, the U.S. government is also trying to increase cars’ efficiencies (“Twenty in Ten,” 2007); therefore the amount of gasoline consumed is decreasing which also helps in reducing carbon dioxide emission.

In contrast, Indonesia, as a developing country, still does not have proper technology to establish such a research and development centre. Therefore, it has its own approach to deal with climate change. According to the Indonesian State Minister for the Environment (2007), the government will publish a policy about placing value on carbon in the near future which means that people or factories will have to pay when they pollute the environment. The government hopes that people will start reducing their carbon emission, especially carbon dioxide when they have to pay for it. In the same article, it is also stated that Indonesia is asking for technology transfer from well-developed countries to deal with climate change because by using technology, Indonesia can be a few steps further in its process to reduce carbon emission.

In comparing how the U.S. and Indonesia approach carbon dioxide emission problem, we realize that the differences in their approach are really obvious. The U.S. is actively reducing its carbon dioxide emission by its technology, while Indonesia is quite passive in dealing with climate change problem as it doesn’t have enough power. Actually, both methods will work in reducing carbon emission although passive method will take longer to show its result. A well-developed country is supposedly support a developing country in dealing with climate change since they all live in the same planet.

In conclusion, the U.S. and Indonesia have different approaches to deal with climate change whereas a well-developed country is usually using technological support while a developing country is usually using preventing method and asking for support from a well-developed country. But, in order to save our planet, all countries have to work together, well-developed countries and developing countries, and support each other in dealing with this global warming.





References
Connor, S. (2007). Carbon dioxide rate is at highest level for 650,000 years. The Independent. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/carbon-dioxide-rate-is-at-highest-level-for-650000-years-434809.html
Indonesia asks for technology transfers in dealing with climate change. (2007, December 1). People Daily. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/6313157.html
Juniper, T. (2007). BBC: Saving planet earth. United Kingdom: HarperCollins Publisher.
Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. (n.d.). Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php
Munk. (2003). Ocean science: Ocean freshening, sea level rising. Science Magazine. Retrieved Marh 11, 2008, from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;300/5628/2041
Revkin, A.C. (2007). As China goes, so goes global warming. The New York Times. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/weekinreview/16revkin.html
Twenty in ten: Strengthening America’s energy security. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from the White House Web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energy.html

Comparing and Contrasting 2 Waste Disposal Schemes

Two waste disposal systems which are commonly adopted by many countries are zero waste and landfilling. Depending on the level of a country's economic development, one system is considered more suitable than the other. In Indonesia, the landfilling system is still preferred over zero waste because Indonesia is simply not ready to execute zero waste system which requires high technology and discipline of the people. If these two systems are compared, it is quite clear that zero waste system is much better in terms of financial and environmental savings. From the financial side, zero waste system can produce money by recycling wastes to be reused as basic materials to make new things. According to Collins (2002), New Zealand is even using zero waste system for an economic development since money can be produced and can give more work opportunities. In contrast, landfilling system does not give any financial benefit, and even causes land losses, since the lands used for landfilling system are not likely to be able to be used effectively anymore. From the environmental side, zero waste system has also more advantages than landfilling since it stores less waste in the environment because half of the waste has been recycled. In contrast, landfilling system stores waste totally in the environment and can cause pollution.

Zero waste system might be the best waste disposal system since it gives benefits to both the government and the environment, and should be adopted by Indonesia soon in the future and also most likely will be adopted by most countries in the world.

References

Collins, J. (2002, Oct 3rd). Radical plans for waste could herald a big clean-up. The Guardian Weekly. p. 25.

Comment for article: Saving Nature, But Only for Man

I do not really agree with the concept of saving nature only for mankind because I think that mankind, as a part of ecosystem on earth, is not supposed to dominate the earth. I agree with the point that people must be preferred above such animals or trees and I also do not prefer war to caribou habitation or owl habitation to families. But, I can see that there is a big problem in this point. It is true that now earth still has habitation of animals and trees which can be sacrificed for humans needs. But, what will humans do once there is no longer anything to be sacrificed on earth for them? Are they going to kill each other for the good of the rest of human? It sounds a bit disgusting to me.

It's true that humans must be preferred, but nature cannot always be sacrificed. Nature has almost reach its limit now where many extinctions happen, global warming, etc while humans still sacrificing nature for their needs. Human and nature should help each other in life. Sometimes sacrifice is needed, but it is not supposedly to come always from nature and for humans.

If we try to see from an almost extincted species of animal point of view, how will we see ourselves as humans? Its habitations are destroyed over and over again by humans, its kinds are hunted either for fun or food, etc while it cannot do anything to prevent it from happening. I feel that it's a bit sad.

I do not say that humans must live for natures and natures must be put as top priority on earth. It's just doesn't feel right to let natures are being sacrificed for humans and humans do nothing to, at least, protect natures.

Natures and humans are supposedly to live in balance since they need each other.

Water Deficit in Indonesia (Problem - Solution)

Water deficit is a current serious environmental problem in my home country, Indonesia, which first occurred 13 years ago. Serious step still has not been taken by the government as they think that this problem is still invisible in this country as a whole.

Statistics from Indonesia’s Environment observer says that supply of water in 2003 was 416.7 billion cubic meters more than demanded and by 2020 the supply will be around 407.6 billion cubic meters more than demanded. From these data, no one can see water deficit in Indonesia as a whole. But, if you see the detailed statistic for Java and Bali which have more than half of people in Indonesia says that supply of water in 2003 reached 25.3 billion cubic meters while demand was 38.1 billion cubic meters. Deficit of 134 billion cubic meters will be very likely to happen in Java by 2010. From these detailed statistics, the deficit is really visible and serious action is really needed to prevent any worse condition.

Actually, pollution to water and unavailability of clean water storage are the ones that cause this deficit. There are supposedly some good ‘engineering solutions’ for this problem. The government can build clean water storages in Java so that rainwater can be collected more effectively than depends only on forest. Water processing using is also important to clean polluted water and this can save a huge amount of water and can be used as supply water for people.

References

Water Deficit in Indoensia. (2007, November 29). Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://www.thejakartapost.com/yearender/nat09.asp

Comparison and Contrast

Indonesia and the United States have different approaches to deal with climate change. Indonesia, as a developing country, is using ‘human’ approach as it doesn’t have a good technology yet. In contrast, the United States, as a well developed country, has already had the technology and uses less ‘human’ approach.

According to Indonesian State Minister for the Environment (2007), Indonesia is dealing with climate change by placing a value on carbon emissions, which means that people or factories will have to pay when they pollute the environment. The government is hoping that people will start reducing their pollution to environment when they have to pay for it and this is hoped to be able to improve the environmental condition.

In a well developed country like the United States, the government tries to use technology to deal with climate change. According to the Greenpeace Global Warming Campaign (2007), the United States has been successful in reducing its reliance on fossil fuel (oil, gas, etc) and has started to use renewable energy sources. In the US now, nearly 80% of electricity can be produced by these renewable energy resources and it also has succeeded in reducing their carbon dioxide emission by 72%.

From the statistics, it can be observed that the US is seemed to be successful in its way of dealing with climate change. For Indonesia, as this policy is still new, the result is still a bit invisible and is expected to become visible in several years ahead.

References

"Dealing with Global Warming Without Nuclear Power." ENewsUSA. January 27, 2007. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from

http://enewsusa.blogspot.com/2007/01/dealing-with-global-warming-without.html

“Indonesia asks for technology transfers in dealing with climate change.” People’s Daily Online. December 1, 2007. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/6313157.html