'445- THE HOTTEST NUMBER AT CLIMATE TALKS' (p18, The Sunday Times, May 6 2007)
I came across this article regarding a meeting that was held to deal with the problem of greenhouse gases emission. The number 445 is the number of parts per million(ppm) of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that is ideal for the environment. Based on a United Nations climate change report, an amount between 445-535ppm of greenhouse gases would cause a rise in temperature by 2 to 2.8 degree Celsius, reaching a peak by 2020. The European Union has been advocating the reduction of greenhouse gases emission, but other countries like USA and China weren't as compliant.
After reading through this article, I can't help but feel disgusted by the way some countries react to this plea. For that, I would choose to focus on the major powers of the world, mainly USA, China and India. As superpowers, they tend to be example setters, so whatever action they take would have made a great deal on impact on the other countries' take on this environmental problem. However, in their pursue for economic development, they are going all out to explore all means to achieve that, even at the expense of the environment. The scientists have done their job- countries jollywell know that the emission of greenhouse gases is harmful to the environment, yet nations choose to neglect this fact in their pursue for economic development. This is a display of selfishness by these countries, as they are putting their own needs before the world's.
Yet, such show of selfishness is rather inevitable. Officials from the respective countries have the responsibility of sustaining their own country's welfare, so in order to achieve that, they would prefer not to let any other factors obstruct their plans for the country. Therefore, I feel that there's a need for countries to come to an absolute consensus to conquer this problem. First, I would like to point out that countries all chase for economic growth cause they want to be able to compete with the other countries. So, there is a need for countries to come to an agreement to put the environment before economic development, such that the actions that they take take environment into consideration first before fulfilling its main objectives. If every country agrees to put that into action, countries won't have to worry about falling behind in today's economy, as every country would put environmental welfare over economic gains. After all, the level of development in a country is relative, and is based on how one country fares with respect to other countries.
One acts in a selfish manner cause they feel others are too. This is why we can't exactly blame the individual countries for displaying a rather apathetic view on these environmental problems. Instead, we need to get the representatives of each country to really sit down and mutually reach a common goal with regards to the environment. The problem right now is that climate talks are not exactly successful in the sense that countries are not open about this environmental issue which they think conflicts their goals of economic development. The countries are just rejecting this proposal because they do not want their goals to be hindered by obstacles like this. They are not willing to even consider this compromise for the sake of the environment. What I feel is that the panel concerned with climatic change should offer some solutions as to how the compromises made to mitigate air pollutions can be offset by. For example, for factories that eject toxic gases as wastes, devices could be installed to filter the harmful gases. However, the cost of the device would reduce the profits of the company. Therefore, the panel could try to come up with a scheme to allow such devices to be sold at lower prices, so that firms that comply to this move do not feel the monetary loss as much.
All in all, I know that countries are in a difficult situation, but what I am trying to point out is that there are things the panel and the countries can do if they really have the heart to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It takes two hands to clap- the panel has to understand the predicament of the countries and seek solutions for them, while the countries themselves should make an effort to try and protect the environment, amidst the minor implications it may have on the country's economy. If we don't save the Earth, who would?
Monday 7 May 2007
Thursday 3 May 2007
Impact of mass media on society
For centuries mass media has played an integral role in people's lives, and still is. It has helped link the world closer together and allow more people to better informed of the news happening around the world. Although the mass media is supposed to neutrally serve as a platform to disseminate information, the complexity of the world these days make impartiality and transparency of information almost impossible.
On a surface level, a journalist's main job is to write out and present all the information they have managed to retrieve and discover. However, it doesn't exactly work this way in today's context. What journalists are permitted to write are actually limited by both the corporation, and in some countries, the government as well. Inevitably, for the sake of their own job security, they have to conform to these bodies. The human instinct to look after one's own need first come into play on this occasion, where the journalists rather do things that will keep their jobs secure than doing a good job of their own, since doing a good job for this case doesn't necessarily produce positive responses from their heads. For this, we can't exactly blame them for the deviated information that may be published, but just simply map out the complications in mass media that lead to distortion of information.
What impact does mass media have on the society today then? I would like to think that it has everything to do with the information takers, in other words, people who read the news. One has to be very clear about the neutrality of the article, and possesses the ability to evaluate and discern the information given. In fact, these are skills taught in General Paper and I am actually practising that approach in writing this post.
Anyway, back to the topic, the impacts. Generally, my point is that the impacts of mass media would ultimately be positive if the reader knows how to interprete information intellectually. If any piece of news published is twisted, a good reader would be able to distinguish it from the actual truth. People who fail to read rationally often get deviated from the truth, sad to say, due to the difficult circumstances of the journalists.
Of course, even the wittiest of readers may fail to pick up some logical errors. It's not exactly the readers' fault as the journalist's linguistic ability may occasionally overrun the reader's wit. This is when mass media can really be harmful.
If that happens, I have to say, it will still be better if the media is controlled by the government. Although this means that the news published would usually side the government, at least we are well aware of the controller's intentions. Although many people are critical of the fact that the newspapers in Singapore never publish articles that are against the government, we do have to note that this actually leads to a degree of stability here. Stability of a country is largely dependent on its political stability, something that we can say is achieved in Singapore. If newspapers were to publish articles that criticise and slam the government, this may unnecessarily raise the citizens' ill-feelings towards the government and raise tension in the country. There would be an increased friction between the citizens and the government, and opposition parties would take this opportunity to take charge of this situation. This all in all result in instability in the country, something anyone would last want as a consequence of mass media.
In a nutshell, we can look at mass media at different angles, in both a positive and negative light. In any case, I feel that as long as the country is safe and well, a slightly and inevitably perverse media can be pardoned.
On a surface level, a journalist's main job is to write out and present all the information they have managed to retrieve and discover. However, it doesn't exactly work this way in today's context. What journalists are permitted to write are actually limited by both the corporation, and in some countries, the government as well. Inevitably, for the sake of their own job security, they have to conform to these bodies. The human instinct to look after one's own need first come into play on this occasion, where the journalists rather do things that will keep their jobs secure than doing a good job of their own, since doing a good job for this case doesn't necessarily produce positive responses from their heads. For this, we can't exactly blame them for the deviated information that may be published, but just simply map out the complications in mass media that lead to distortion of information.
What impact does mass media have on the society today then? I would like to think that it has everything to do with the information takers, in other words, people who read the news. One has to be very clear about the neutrality of the article, and possesses the ability to evaluate and discern the information given. In fact, these are skills taught in General Paper and I am actually practising that approach in writing this post.
Anyway, back to the topic, the impacts. Generally, my point is that the impacts of mass media would ultimately be positive if the reader knows how to interprete information intellectually. If any piece of news published is twisted, a good reader would be able to distinguish it from the actual truth. People who fail to read rationally often get deviated from the truth, sad to say, due to the difficult circumstances of the journalists.
Of course, even the wittiest of readers may fail to pick up some logical errors. It's not exactly the readers' fault as the journalist's linguistic ability may occasionally overrun the reader's wit. This is when mass media can really be harmful.
If that happens, I have to say, it will still be better if the media is controlled by the government. Although this means that the news published would usually side the government, at least we are well aware of the controller's intentions. Although many people are critical of the fact that the newspapers in Singapore never publish articles that are against the government, we do have to note that this actually leads to a degree of stability here. Stability of a country is largely dependent on its political stability, something that we can say is achieved in Singapore. If newspapers were to publish articles that criticise and slam the government, this may unnecessarily raise the citizens' ill-feelings towards the government and raise tension in the country. There would be an increased friction between the citizens and the government, and opposition parties would take this opportunity to take charge of this situation. This all in all result in instability in the country, something anyone would last want as a consequence of mass media.
In a nutshell, we can look at mass media at different angles, in both a positive and negative light. In any case, I feel that as long as the country is safe and well, a slightly and inevitably perverse media can be pardoned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)