Why we should ALL care about Climate Change

When I first read this CNN article, "Why are Muslims marching for climate Change" I was a bit confused because the obvious answer to me is that because we care and as humans, it is our duty to care about this world and preserve it for future generations. As I continued to read I notice the relation between climate change and religion. Many Muslims live in areas that are severely affected by climate change and millions of people are becoming displaced due to famine, heat waves, floods and extreme weather. These people are becoming environmental refugges, and due to the high climate of the Trump administration and their recent behaviors towards Muslims, it is unsure what the future holds for those who practice this religion.

Muslims in America and across the world are united in this fight to combat climate change. To address this pressing issue, 80 global Muslim leaders from over 20 countries released the Islamic Declaration of Global Climate Change. This initiative urges governments around the world to phase out the use of fossil fuels and make the transition to using renewable energy. In addition to that, the Global Muslim Climate Network has encouraged thousands of Muslims to find solutions and to take meaningful actions. For example, recently many mosques have switched over to running their buildings using solar enegry. This small but important step is wonderful because it shows initiative and demonstrates how important this issue is to the Muslim community.

President Trump's clear denial on climate change is nothing short of divisive and fails to properly address a burning issue that will affect the future of this planet. Saturday's Climate Change March on Washington put aside Trump's rhetoric on this issue and focused on unity among all individuals who see this as an important issue. Muslims, Christians and those of all faiths and those with none see climate change as a problem and it shows that we as people must continue to fight for peace and unity, without letting our differences divide us.

45's 100th Day: Climate Change March

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/29/thousands-march-washington-protest-against-donald-trumps-policy/

Saturday, April 29th marked the 100th day in office for Donald Trump. The president decided to hold a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. He spoke about the administration's decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, his appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, job creation, a crackdown on immigration and terrorism as some of his achievements. However, back in the city he works in (D.C. not West Palm Beach or NYC), there was a much bigger event going on. The Climate Change March on Washington.

Thousands of people braved the intense heat on Saturday to march along Pennsylvania Ave protesting Trump's stance on climate change and his cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency. Hundreds of similar marches occurred throughout the country and other parts of the world. 

It will be interesting how the United States will deal with the issue of Climate Change in the next 4 and even 8 years. All the countries in the world look to the United States to see what their course of action will be. So far the current administration has decreased the funding for the EPA and even this past week the president signed executive order that basically dismantle Obama's policies.The order looks to curb the federal government's enforcement of climate regulations by putting American jobs above addressing climate change. The White House is arguing that the best way to protect the environment is to invest in the economy.

The world can not wait 4 or 8 years for the United States to pick up on climate change issues. As the world's super power and one of the largest carbon emitters in the world, it is imperative that the United States act now on climate change. That is why thousands marched along Penn. Ave passing the Trump Hotel, making their way to the White House. There really is no "Plan B" for Planet Earth.

Social Media and Emergency Response

While victims of Hurricane Katrina may have only had Facebook to spread news, search for family members and voice their opinions, today there are a plethora of social media outlets in which people from any side of a disaster can use. Experts, for the most part, agree that the heavy use of social media has positive effects although others have pointed out social media may serve as a catalyst to spread false information during disasters in the future. However, overwhelmingly social media has the capability to create a positive spread of information during disasters.

            Specifically, the ability to alert family and friends about ones’ safety status has become popularized thanks to apps like Facebooks ‘safety check-ins.’ With a click of a button people can quickly ease their loved one’s fears. According to the Scientific American magazine other website and popular applications are also adapting their services to include a safety check in option. For example, google is in the process of creating a system like this which would coincide with their google hangouts and Gmail applications. Similarly, WhatsApp already includes a check in option which is enhanced by their location services. Overall, the development of these options will not only assure others of where their friends and family is but also increase overall safety in communities around the world.

Integrating the Needs of Children into Disaster Response

On April 26, 2017, the House of Representatives the Homeland Security for Children Act which aims to incorporate the needs of children into disaster preparedness planning.
When I first read about the passing of this bill, by first thought was "well of course children need extra help and guidance when it comes to natural disasters. I mean, they are just kids". However, even though that might be a common thought, this idea has been seemingly absent from legislation until now, which is very shocking.
Representative Donald Payne Jr, who authored the bill and is a ranking member of of the Homeland Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, made a very powerful statement on this issue: "Children are not tiny adults. But too often, that is how federal policy treats them when there is not a deliberate effort to do otherwise".
This bill will allow the input and feedback on certain policies from organizations representing the needs of children. This makes a lot more sense in the context of the needs of children because who would understand the psychology and needs of children more? The government or child need based organizations?
Clearly, the demographic of children effected by disasters is tragically high. What people don't understand is that a child's response to a disaster versus an adult's response to a disaster are two completely different things. According to the Center for Disaster Philanthropy website, "Developing brains are vulnerable to longer-term impact in areas such as memory, regulation of emotions, and attention. Also, children may be especially impacted by trauma because they are less able to anticipate danger and may be less able to articulate how they feel. Children may blame themselves or others for not being able to prevent the disaster and keep them 'safe'".
This bill aims to to improve the areas of disaster management and recovery and child physical health and trauma care. As subcommittee chairman Representative Dan Donovan said, "the Homeland Security for Children Act provides peace of mind that the future of our most treasured assets -- our children -- are safe in the face of emergencies".
This bill is very admirable in what it is trying to accomplish, but it will be a while until the gaps in the current child disaster response are filled. And some things still remain unclear. What exactly will this bill do for children in the long run? More psychological care? More long term monitoring? The perimeters, at least to me, still are unclear. However, I do feel like this bill is a jump start to a whole new level of positive political intervention in disaster response efforts.

http://www.hstoday.us/briefings/daily-news-analysis/single-article/house-passes-homeland-security-for-children-act/1e3f4b576b74e46367fc37ec33e96df6.html

http://disasterphilanthropy.org/issue-insight/children/

Media and How it Affects the Environment

Social media has been a catalyst for change in many ways regarding the environment for the past few years. The People's Climate March in D.C. and the support that has resulted from a social media campaign is proof of this. The Dakota Access Pipeline movement gained immense attention after actress Shailene Woodley live streamed her arrest on Facebook, bringing awareness to the injustices at the camp in Dakota. However, what about last year when Rowan Jacobsen published an opinion article titled, Obituary: Great Barrier Reef (25 Million BC-2016). Within a matter of hours, the article was shared all over the internet on different social media outlets, convincing many individuals that the Great Barrier Reef was officially extinct. And although many parts of the reef have experienced extreme bleaching, the ecosystem is by no means extinct. The article was intended to be a satirical reality check, highlighting the importance of the Great Barrier Reef but the reality it demonstrated instead was how easily people will believe what they read. 

In addition to this social media dilemma, a recent article How America Lost Faith in Expertise published by Foreign Affairs highlighted that this issue is broader than simply social media. The article explains that media and all that is available through the internet, has created a society where expertise has waning authority. Individuals have access to limitless technology that provides facts but that information does not equate to knowledge on a certain subject and there is also no guarantee that the information you find is accurate. Not everyone has the skills necessary to dig through the billion websites available to recognize reliable websites that hold important information. The article points out that, "Ordinary people who already had to make hard choices about where to get their information when there were a few dozen newspapers, magazines, and television channels now face endless webpages produced by anyone willing to pay for an online presence".  

So how does this affect the environment? There is a history of the media giving voice to both sides to the climate change problem (i.e. those that deny any change is occurring and scientists who argue that change is happening) in attempts to be objective to the issue. Unfortunately, in the pursuit of objectivity, journalists drew on studies published by fringe scientists and in effect provided the public with an inaccurate perception of the global warming narrative. Although this type of coverage has decreased since the mid-2000s, it has still left a scar on the climate change narrative (i.e. Congressman who brought snowball into session https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8). Thus, the history of media coverage on climate change paired with the confirmation bias that exists when people ignore experts and only search for media that confirms their preexisting beliefs causes issues for the fight against climate change.


How America Lost Faith In Expertise: 
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-02-13/how-america-lost-faith-expertise

Dr. Jane Goodall at AU

Video: World-renowned ethologist and conservationist Dr. Jane Goodall recently spoke at AU, discussing hope, peace, and conservation at the School of International Service, AU.

“The greatest danger to our future is apathy.” -Jane Goodall

World-renowned British primatologist Jane Goodall shared her views on the environment and the “interconnectedness of life forms,” from humans to small insects, claiming each has their own role to play on earth when recently speaking on our campus at American University (AU Facebook 2017). With climate change being an obvious challenge to the prosperity of diverse wildlife, acting as a threat to the security of ecosystems and their inhabitants, Jane Goodall’s words can be applied to what we have learned in class, as well as our mock United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) simulation. As a designated UN Messenger of Peace, Dr. Jane Goodall has been described as “the woman who redefined man,” and holds passionate conservationist views on the environment.

The urgency of climate change is extremely prevalent today-- now more than ever as islands are submerged, forests catch fire, and biodiversity shrinks to a minimum. As discussed in our class debate, a main issue surrounding global support for environmental protectionist legislation and action is basic economics. Right now it is still cheaper to help destroy our planet than be eco-friendly, and that is one variable through societal shifts that will reduce our carbon footprints. In an article from the Guardian, Jane Goodall is quoted on the topic of Trump’s questioning of the Paris Agreement saying:

“‘I find it immensely depressing because many of us – not just my institute – have been working really hard to create the Paris agreement and global effort to cut carbon emissions,’ Goodall told journalists ahead of a speech at American University in Washington… ‘I have seen the result of climate change and we know, science has shown, that global temperatures are warming and these so-called greenhouse gases are blanketing the globe’” (Smith 2017).

Her expertise as a rewarded and distinguished environmentalist holds Dr. Jane Goodall’s words above those who may pass off global warming as a “hoax.” Goodall called the United States to action as well in her visit to AU, the first trip to the US since Trump’s nomination in November 2016, stating “Thinking that the USA isn’t going to play its part, such a major industrial country, is really very, very sad and it just means we’re going to have to work harder” (Smith 2017). President Trump, I urge you to listen to your intellectual superiors such as Dr. Jane Goodall when it comes to climate change. You now hold a critical seat in the global arena, and the agendas you advance during your time in office will hold severe consequences down the road. It is now time to act against climate change, not cower in dangerous ignorance.

Media: Relationship Between Economic Self-Interest and Disaster Aid

In reference to the Stromberg article we previously referenced would explain donor-recipient relationships based on factors of similarities, ties, and proximity. This explanation contributes to the constructivist perception of disaster aid between governments, where historical ties and relationships foster the elements necessary to provide aid. However, the aforementioned relationships did not include an analysis of the relationship between media coverage and it’s effect on allocating aid for disaster assistance.

The CARMA Report in 2006 on “Western Media Coverage of Humanitarian Disasters” revealed through its analysis of 6 disasters the way into the hearts of foreign disaster assistance is not through the tear-filled stories of survivors, but economic self-interest of the donor governments (e.g. tourists, tourist industry, etc.).  Hurricane Katrina generated 570 stories focused on its political and economic implications, rather than the 273 designated to reports on it as a humanitarian crisis (11). A similar pattern was recognized in the media coverage of the Kashmir and Bam earthquakes, where the data reveals coverage of politics and economy is reported on over 6% more.

The reason for political and economic coverage of disasters is not because there is a lack of humanitarian sympathies, rather the exact opposite. Humanitarian coverage is effective to gain the attention of media, but it cannot provide the critical linkage between the countries to intervene. In contrast, the concept of self-interest with underlying themes of economics and politics incentivize a donor government, beyond the simple explanation of moral obligation. I want to specifically reference the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami to emphasize certain actions of Australia’s aid allocation that indicate there is additional complexity than the relationships Stromberg highlights.

Australia had donated a substantial amount of aid during that disaster and from a constructivist perspective their relationship based on proximity as a regional power contributed to why they provided aid. Liberals were arguing that the proximity emphasized the economic interdependence between Australia and the countries stricken by disaster. However, the CARMA report reveals 40% of media coverage was dedicated to how the disaster affected westerners (7). Brad West and Ruthie O’Reilly, professors at the University of South Australia and University of Adelaide, conducted a study of Australian media coverage of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and argue that the Australian population was mobilized with a concept they refer as national humanitarianism (341). This concept highlights how countries use aspects of their own economic and political interests to tie them to the disaster in order to take initiative. This concept recognizes a key idea that sovereign states are not motivated by ‘moral obligation’.

Furthermore, the Australian media coverage included discourse-highlighting Australian interests – ranging from Australian tourists affected to praising Australian aid efforts. This self-interest component is a mechanism that overcomes the differences between governments, allowing them to find aspects they can find in a country in order to aid.