PetitionEarth Blog

No matter where you live, I’m sure you’ve been hearing the hype about global warming. Promoters are predicting a huge temperature increase over the next 50 years, one which could quite possible destroy the world as we know it. Many people treat this as a fact, not a theory. But, is global warming all it’s cracked up to be? There’s evidence on both sides, and I’m going to show you the myths and facts about this theory.

The main concept of global warming is that greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, act as a global blanket. Since CO2 retains heat to a greater extent than oxygen, it keeps a greater percentage of solar heart on the earth. One of the main arguments for this concept comes from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. In the film, Gore shows an overlapping chart comparing global temperatures to CO2 levels. There appears to be a perfect match. This proves that an increase in CO2 warms the earth. Right? If you zoom in on the chart, a different story is revealed. A temperature increase actually precedes a rise in CO2 levels. This means that as the earth heats up from some other cause, CO2 levels rise. So, this means that historical data can not tell us whether or not CO2 increases the temperature. However, since global CO2 levels have never been this high, we can’t say for certain that no temperature increase will occur.

Global Warming advocates often say that the earth is warmer than it was a century ago, and, if this trend continues, a global crisis is at hand. But, even during certain periods of the 20^th century, the global temperature has actually decreased. This does not correlate with the constant increases in CO2 levels as the century moved along, implying that the temperature change is coming from another source. In fact, the burning of fossil fuels has little significance on even the global CO2 level. Only around 14% of CO2 levels is from burning fossil fuels, the rest are from natural processes. But, if fossil fuels don’t cause global warming, how come the earth has heated up over the past century?

It’s hard to find for certain what causes global warming, since it generally happens over a long time period. One theory though is that solar activity is the main influence in the global temperature. In the early 90’s, Danish scientist Friis-Christensen suggested that the changes in global temperatures can all be linked to solar activity, something humans can not influence, especially with CO2. Another explanation for the warming of the earth over the past 100 years is the fact that the earth’s temperature always returns to the mean. Around 300 years ago, the “little ice age” ended. This was a period of prolonged temperature cooling, though not quite to the degree of causing another ice age. Since that time period, the earth has been simply returning to the average global temperature. When analyzing the temperatures over the past few thousand years, one sees that the earth is actually cooler now than on average. So, this recent increase in temperature is nothing to worry about.

If Global Warming doesn’t exist, should we keep burning fossil fuels? Not necessarily. There are other energy sources which give us a cleaner environment and help make us energy independent. These are both important advantages to be considered. However, we should not panic and switch off fossil fuels too quickly, and destroy our economy. The switchover should be gradual, and the rate should be up to the markets to decide.

This 2008 democratic presidential nominee race is turning out to be one of the closest races in a long time. Many of the state primaries were decided by a small margin and there were not many blowouts in large states. As it stands now, Hillary Clinton has a slight lead in delegates over Barack Obama with each hovering around 1100 each. The democrats award delegates on a proportional basis to the percentage of votes they get in each state and it takes 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination. In addition to the delegates awarded by the states, there also exists superdelegates or around 796 important figures in the democratic party. These superdelegates are free to endorse any candidate and vote for any candidate. In essence, they are not bound to pledge their support and can change their mind and vote at any time. As it stands now, I believe Barack Obama will secure the nomination and would ultimately be a better choice for the Presidency.

Hillary Clinton is a junior senator from New York and former First Lady from 1993-2001. She, like many politicians, has an extensive background in law. Before the 2008 primaries started, she was thought to be the frontrunner for the democratic nomination and thought to be the only woman who had a chance to become president at this time. During her time as first lady because of her political prowess and involvement, she was often likened to Eleanor Roosevelt.

Barack Obama is a junior senator from Illinois and also worked in law before deciding to run for public office. He first made an impression at the 2004 keynote address at the democratic convention where his bold, and inspirational speech received nationwide recognition and praise. Since then, he announced his attention to run for the Presidency and has surprised many by winning numerous states by a large margin and hanging tough in those he lost to Hillary Clinton. His message is a message of change and I believe he will follow through with his dream for America.

While both candidates are democrats, and agree on many issues, there are some key differences in their positions. The first and foremost is the issue of the Iraq War. Hillary Clinton voted initially for the Iraq War but has since opposed the decision made by the Bush Administration. She has been criticized heavily for this “flip-flop” while Barack Obama was an opponent of the war since its very inception. I think that this shows that Barack Obama is not afraid to dissent from the popular position, he stands strong in his beliefs even when they are unpopular. He does not seem to rush into anything without thinking it through and is not afraid of confrontation as he said “Im not opposed to wars, Im opposed to dumb wars.”

The next important issue on which they differ is in their ideas for health care reform. While both understand the need for a change in the current system to help the many uninsured Americans, there is an important difference in their plans. While Hillary wishes for every American to have mandatory universal health care, Obama believes that only children should have mandatory health care. I believe that his version is superior because it makes sense that children should always be entitled to the medical care they need. However, adults should have the right to participate in private health care or a universal plan. I think that Obama’s plan is much more efficient and also will meet much less resistance.

One issue that I do not completely support Obama on but more so than Hillary Clinton is the issue of same-sex marriages. He believes that same-sex couples should be able to be a part of civil unions which grant them the same rights as a marriage. While Hillary believes that some form of civil union should be allowed. I personally think that if two people, regardless of their gender, wish to be together for life, I think they should be allowed to be married. I don’t see the reasoning of those who want to ban same-sex marriages. They are entitled to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness, no one should be able to stop that. While I wish Barack Obama fully supported same-sex marriages, he would take the first correct steps to finally realizing same-sex marriages.

Both of these candidates are strong choices for the Democratic party. Each has their own different strengths and weaknesses and appeal to different demographics. Barack Obama seems more suited for rallying large crowds of people, while Hillary sometimes falters under the pressure of so many eyes. Ultimately, I think Barack Obama’s message of change will inspire Americans to believe in change and believe in his ability to become the next President of The United States.

If you’ve been following the GOP’s primaries, you know that Huckabee’s chances of winning are nearly statistically impossible. However, Huckabee has persisted to campaign, and has drawn in a surprising amount of votes for his position. But, is this hurting the GOP’s overall unity, in effect putting a Democratic President into the White House later this year?

The main basis for this argument is that having a divided party will create a disturbance within the GOP. They will sling mud ads at each other, destroying the reputation of the eventual nominee. Also, valuable resources will be spent against each other, not at the Democratic side. Without unity, the Republican party stands no chance this November. Right?

In many former primaries, yes. However, this time it’s different. The candidates use different techniques, the opposition is very leftward leaning, and the primaries were held earlier than they have ever been before. Within the GOP, the main difference this year is Huckabee’s campaigning style. Unlike most nominees, who try and smear their opponent’s records, Huckabee has not run such ads. He believes in campaigning for what he believes in; explaining why he is a great candidate, not showing the flaws of the other candidates. Even if they campaign against each other, their reputations are not hurt. But, McCain must still run campaign ads, using precious resources, so surely this can’t help him?

Actually, it may. By staying in the race, Huckabee keeps the GOP in the political spotlight. McCain still must run ads, which keeps his name in voters’ minds. Secondly, news reports cover McCain’s victories, and losses, allowing McCain’s message to be brought into the homes of most Americans every night. This “free” publicity will prevent exclusive coverage of the Democratic frontrunners, creating much needed interest in his campaign. This year, pimaries were held earlier than ever, so this may be critical. With Clinton and Obama likely to duke it out over several weeks, if not months, it is necessary for Republicans to stay in the spotlight for as long as possible.

Finally, Huckabee’s charismatic and motivational speeches could be a powerful aid in a Republican win this November. Recently, Virginia’s primary saw a modern percent record of Evangelical Christians vote. This demographic is a core part of the Republican’s constituency. Though they came out to vote for Huckabee, by actively partaking in politics, they are going to see flaws in the “religious” aspects of the Democratic frontrunners, ie pro-abortion and gay marriage stances. This newly created awareness will motivate them to vote in November for whoever opposes the Democrats, namely McCain.

There are 300 million citizens living in the United States. There are estimates that 20 million illegal immigrants are also residing in our nation. When one out of every sixteen people is here illegally, there is good reason to be concerned. But, is this situation as big of a threat as some say, or is it, if anything, an advantage to our economy?

Even living in New York, you can see that there are illegal immigrants taking part in our everyday lives. From construction workers to gardeners, there’s a good chance you’ve seen an illegal immigrant working, even if you did not realize it at the time. Many people say that illegal immigrants are taking our jobs, and causing American unemployment. But, with a 5% unemployment rate amongst citizens, pretty much anyone who wants a job can get it. In fact, one may argue that illegal immigrants are simply taking up the jobs Americans don’t want. But, what happens when our country’s unemployment rate increases, and many more people are out of work? Then, Americans would be losing jobs to illegal immigrants and the immigrants would lose jobs and go hungry, creating problems for our nation. So, though at the moment, there does not appear to be an economic problem with illegal immigration, we don’t know what the future has in store for us.

Every illegal immigrant has broken the law; they came here. Though this may seem like it is not a horrible crime, the fact that they broke the law once has some concerned that they will break it again. But, does this mean that they are destined to have a criminal future? Yes…and no. The majority of illegal immigrants are well-intentioned people who want to earn a living. Some are criminals, but some Americans are also criminals. But, generally speaking, illegal immigrants work in unskilled occupations; the first jobs to go if the economy slows. So, if many illegal immigrants are out of work, and living on the streets, there is a much larger chance that they will resort to crime. Although most mean well, both their economic situation may encourage a few to break the law.

When an American worker earns a dollar, they generally spend it within our borders, in effect helping out some other person. However, many illegal immigrants came here to help their family, which is often still in Mexico. As they earn money, they send a large portion of their income back to Mexico to support family members. This is taking away money from American businesses, and hurting many. Though this impact can hurt people, the size of the illegal immigrant population’s income is proportionally smaller than the United States as a whole, so this issue is not as large as some claim it to be, but still harmful.

The economic implications give a mixed, though probably negative, picture of immigration. However there are still the national security issues. To me, this is the main reason why we should crack down on illegal immigration. If a lone illegal immigrant, with no money, can simply walk across the border, into our country, and stay here for the rest of their life, why can’t a terrorist, or group of terrorists. It would be much easier for a terrorist to go through Mexico into the U.S. than simply going to our country directly. This is a huge threat. We’ve seen the destruction which a few terrorists can cause, and must realize how large this threat is. If we do not secure our borders, we are not safe.

Though the economic implications of illegal immigration are not necessarily a significant problem, the threat to our nation’s security should make everyone want to secure the border. No matter which party you are in, it is your obligation to do everything possible to protect your nation. If we do not secure the borders, we are slacking on our duty.

Here’s a related petition that is topping the boards at the moment: Stop Funding for Illegal Immigrant Tuition