thesis: there is enough evidence to support microbial life, and therefore, human life on Mars
Mars has often been cited as a planet capable of being colonized. Well it'd be difficult since it takes at least a year and a half to get there (with supplies being sent separately) with a small crew. That and no evidence of even potentially livable atmosphere.
At least, not for us.
The rovers on Mars, Spirit and Opportunity, have uncovered evidence that there had been a habitable environment in the past. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/11/wmars111.xml The evidence, a patch of pure silica, leads scientists to suggest that a fumarole environment may have created it. This same environment is habitable by microbes on Earth. Although no microbial life was spotted, they may be hiding underground.
In addition, images taken by the ESA's Mars Express Spacecraft suggest that there may be fresh ice forming on Mars. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7151190.stm Although ancient glaciers have been spotted before, these may have been formed within the last thousand years. It is a great achievement if these "white tips" identified in the images are glaciers; it suggests that life can exist on Mars.
Although microbial life is still far off from sentient life we have on Earth, there is still a chance for Mars to support life. Ultimately, if synthetic greenhouse gases were injected into the atmosphere, it could help terraform the planet by melting the ice craps and provide an environment suited for life. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_terraform_050203.html This process would taken hundreds or thousands of years, but creating a new, potentially habitable planet would be invaluable, both scientifically and for the good of humanity.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
They're more, like, guidelines anyways.
thesis: democracy can help lead political leaders move in the right direction
President Hugo Chavez's reforms were just defeated Monday last week by the very people who put him in power (with 63% of the vote just last year); the reforms were defeated 51% to 49%. Mr. Chavez is probably, and understandably, disappointed. But do not despair, o supporters of Chavez! for he has promised to keep fighting for his reforms: "I will not withdraw even one comma of this proposal, this proposal is still alive" he said. Commendable, but undoubtedly not what the people were looking for. However, I imagine he shall definitely relook his proposals, or at least hold off until the opportune moment.
Vietnam, although not democratic, is still affected by pro-democratic protesters. About 300 of them showed up in front of the Vietnamese embassy in Washington to protest the arrest of 6 political activists all the way in Vietnam; two of them happen to be US citizens. They were a part of the group called the "Viet Tan". Officials in Washington protested against imprisoning people for "peaceful assembly", while 11 US lawmakers wrote to Vietnam's prime minister, complaining that these arrests "violate the government of Vietnam's promise to continue to improve its human rights record". Undoubtedly Vietnam will have to respond to these protests, hopefully with positive results.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7124313.stm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071211/pl_afp/vietnamrightsusarrests
President Hugo Chavez's reforms were just defeated Monday last week by the very people who put him in power (with 63% of the vote just last year); the reforms were defeated 51% to 49%. Mr. Chavez is probably, and understandably, disappointed. But do not despair, o supporters of Chavez! for he has promised to keep fighting for his reforms: "I will not withdraw even one comma of this proposal, this proposal is still alive" he said. Commendable, but undoubtedly not what the people were looking for. However, I imagine he shall definitely relook his proposals, or at least hold off until the opportune moment.
Vietnam, although not democratic, is still affected by pro-democratic protesters. About 300 of them showed up in front of the Vietnamese embassy in Washington to protest the arrest of 6 political activists all the way in Vietnam; two of them happen to be US citizens. They were a part of the group called the "Viet Tan". Officials in Washington protested against imprisoning people for "peaceful assembly", while 11 US lawmakers wrote to Vietnam's prime minister, complaining that these arrests "violate the government of Vietnam's promise to continue to improve its human rights record". Undoubtedly Vietnam will have to respond to these protests, hopefully with positive results.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7124313.stm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071211/pl_afp/vietnamrightsusarrests
Friday, December 7, 2007
Kyoto is going downhill lately...
thesis: the Kyoto protocol needs to be reformed in order to better meet their goals
The Kyoto protocol has been in effect since 1990. It's ultimate goal was to reduce carbon emissions so that the threat of global warming (not sure if it's a real issue) would be avoided. The decade of 1990 seemed to produce relatively mild results with industralized nations showing a reduction in emissions. But the trend seems to have reversed in 2000; emissions have been growing ever since. The United States rejected the Kyoto protocol in 2001. Although 36 countries which promised to cut emissions by 5% can easily meet their target before 2012, overall emissions are still rising.
Currently the Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2012. Nearly 180 countries will meet in Bali, Indonesia to begin talks on the new draft. The Kyoto protocol currently only applies to industrialized countries, leaving large developing nations such as China and India free to increase their emissions at their discretion. However, most developing nations could not afford to reduce their emissions; in fact, some need to increase their emissions to stabilize. Not requiring developing nations to have specific goals allows powerhouses like China to continue to build. "The US in particular argues that with China's emissions set to overtake and eventually exceed its own, there is little point in making a deal that includes only developed nations" 1. Without resolving the issue of whether or not developed nations should be included, the Kyoto protocol will remain largely ineffective.
In addition, there is no way to keep nations from rejecting the Kyoto protocol when they feel it is no longer in their best interests. The United States, frustrated with the thing, left during a time where the United States was a key player in leading the effort. Nevertheless the treaty continued on without them, but if a new treaty is to be made, how are we to make nations stick to their word?
There are many problems with the Kyoto protocol, and probably still will be. One can only wait and see how this new resolution unfolds and if it is effective.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7131530.stm
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=220&sid=1296183
The Kyoto protocol has been in effect since 1990. It's ultimate goal was to reduce carbon emissions so that the threat of global warming (not sure if it's a real issue) would be avoided. The decade of 1990 seemed to produce relatively mild results with industralized nations showing a reduction in emissions. But the trend seems to have reversed in 2000; emissions have been growing ever since. The United States rejected the Kyoto protocol in 2001. Although 36 countries which promised to cut emissions by 5% can easily meet their target before 2012, overall emissions are still rising.
Currently the Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2012. Nearly 180 countries will meet in Bali, Indonesia to begin talks on the new draft. The Kyoto protocol currently only applies to industrialized countries, leaving large developing nations such as China and India free to increase their emissions at their discretion. However, most developing nations could not afford to reduce their emissions; in fact, some need to increase their emissions to stabilize. Not requiring developing nations to have specific goals allows powerhouses like China to continue to build. "The US in particular argues that with China's emissions set to overtake and eventually exceed its own, there is little point in making a deal that includes only developed nations" 1. Without resolving the issue of whether or not developed nations should be included, the Kyoto protocol will remain largely ineffective.
In addition, there is no way to keep nations from rejecting the Kyoto protocol when they feel it is no longer in their best interests. The United States, frustrated with the thing, left during a time where the United States was a key player in leading the effort. Nevertheless the treaty continued on without them, but if a new treaty is to be made, how are we to make nations stick to their word?
There are many problems with the Kyoto protocol, and probably still will be. One can only wait and see how this new resolution unfolds and if it is effective.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7131530.stm
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=220&sid=1296183
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)