Extra Credit Deliberation Reflection #2

As a Penn State student, I recently attended a deliberation on the ethics of having an on-campus preacher, commonly known as the Willard preacher. The discussion was eye-opening and brought up many thought-provoking points that I had never considered before.
One of the first things that stood out to me was the respect that many people had for the Willard preacher’s passion, even though they did not necessarily agree with his beliefs. However, the conversation quickly turned to the question of how to handle the preacher’s presence on campus.

The group’s first approach was to create designated zones on campus where public speakers like the Willard preacher could be restricted to. The idea was that students could either avoid these areas altogether or go there specifically to engage in intellectual discussions. While some people felt that this approach would be helpful, I personally felt that it might violate free speech rights, as it would be up to the university to determine where these zones would be.

The second approach focused on the importance of intellectual exploration and the idea that students should be allowed to ignore or engage with the Willard preacher as they please, without any university intervention. Unfortunately, there was very limited participation in this discussion, which made it difficult to gauge how the group felt about this approach.

The third and final approach focused on upholding free speech policies, which many people felt was the most important issue at stake. The group discussed ways to increase security on campus, which could potentially help de-escalate the controversy that the Willard preacher often creates. It was shocking to learn that the preacher has been physically attacked by faculty members in the past, highlighting the level of controversy and anger that he can generate.

It was interesting to hear that the Willard preacher is paid by a local church and that preaching is his actual job. This fact raised further questions about the boundaries between free speech and paid activism and the potential for conflict of interest.

The question of free speech and its boundaries on college campuses has been a hotly debated topic in recent years, and the discussion around the Willard preacher is just one example of this larger issue. While some argue that free speech is a fundamental right that should be protected at all costs, others believe that certain types of speech can be harmful or offensive and that there should be limits to what can be said in certain settings.

Overall, the deliberation was insightful and educational, but it was unfortunate that the lack of participation weakened the strength of the discussion and limited the diversity of opinions. The virtual format may have contributed to this lack of engagement, but it was clear that this was a topic that sparked a lot of passion and interest among those who did participate. I was very glad I decided to attend this fascinating deliberation and look forward to watching how Penn State deals with people like the Willard preacher as we head into the next presidential election.

Extra Credit Deliberation Reflection

As a participant in a deliberation held on February 25 at 6:30pm on food waste and food insecurity at Penn State, I had an enlightening experience. The deliberation brought together a diverse group of people to discuss an issue that affects not only our campus but also the wider community. The discussion was centered around food waste and food insecurity, and it was interesting to hear different perspectives on these issues.

One of the things that stood out to me was how the deliberation began. The moderators asked for a show of hands about who had witnessed food insecurity, which created an instant connection between participants. We were then divided into two small groups, and I was placed in the first group. This gave the discussion a more personal feel, and I felt like I could relate to the experiences of others.

During the deliberation, the moderators used a board to write down key points, which I found to be a helpful tool. However, they did not show it to us, which made it feel a little bit pointless for audience members. Additionally, the moderators did not allow audience members to talk as much as I would have liked. This made the discussion feel less engaging and less valuable since we were not able to share our own thoughts and ideas.

Despite these shortcomings, there were many interesting points that were raised during the deliberation. For example, the moderators asked us if we purchased food at on-campus convenience stores, and the group consensus was that the prices at convenience stores on campus were overinflated for the proportions. It was also interesting to learn that the highest meal plan did not cover three meals a day, and the most common meal plan level did not even cover two meals a day.

The moderators then moved the discussion to food waste, and this was where things got interesting. We learned that total food waste, including that from dining halls, amounted to 450,000 pounds each semester. This was a shocking number, and it made me realize how much food we are wasting as a community. I could relate to the issue of throwing away food from dining halls because of not liking it, and it was interesting to hear about the sources of food waste. However, the moderators did not tie in how reducing food waste can help combat food insecurity, which I felt was a missed opportunity. They also did not go into detail about how other universities are implementing a swipe system for meals rather than a pay-per-amount system. This could have been a useful discussion point for us to consider.

The discussion then moved on to resources for dealing with food insecurity, such as the Lion’s Pantry and a “pay what you can” system through the student farm. It was helpful to learn about these resources, but it was disappointing to hear that there is clearly not enough advertising for them.

In conclusion, the deliberation was an informative experience that brought together a diverse group of people to discuss important issues related to food waste and food insecurity. However, there were some shortcomings, such as the lack of audience participation and the disjointed flow of the discussion. Despite this, I came away from the deliberation with a greater understanding of the issues and a desire to learn more and take action to help combat food waste and food insecurity in my community.

Crypto and Energy

Making the Most of Crypto Mining Tax Breaks - CoinDesk

Source: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2018/04/09/making-the-most-of-crypto-mining-tax-breaks/

Cryptocurrency has become synonymous with terms like stock trading and investments. Although it is becoming more mainstream (you can buy it straight from your Venmo app), crypto is still a foreign concept to most. Unfortunately, since many people lack an understanding of it, the harms of cryptocurrency can go easily unnoticed. In the same vein as my civic issue blogs and issue brief, this blog will discuss one of cryptocurrency’s glaring issues: energy waste.

In case you don’t know how cryptocurrency works, here is some brief background information: cryptocurrency mining is the process of verifying and adding transactions to a network by solving complex mathematical problems using high-powered computers. “Miners” compete to solve these problems, and the first miner to solve the problem is rewarded with a certain amount of cryptocurrency. This process requires a significant amount of computational power and energy consumption, as the algorithms become more complex over time. In a sense, cryptocurrency is like a virtual diamond that tests the limits of what society will deem valuable.

As mentioned, cryptocurrency uses a lot of energy. Mining companies will line up computers in massive warehouses and let them churn out money. The most power-intensive Bitcoin mining operation, called Riot Platforms, uses the same amount of electricity as nearly 300,000 homes. These companies will purchase their electricity in advance which puts strain on the grid and costs far less than what an average homeowner would pay. Most of these operations were originally based in China, but after several recent government crackdowns on cryptocurrency, bitcoin mining companies began to pop up in the United States. With this new influx, power grids are starting to experience a unique slew of problems that these power monsters have caused.

When crises occur, these companies profit from others’ losses. For example, after a storm in Texas, Bitcoin mining company Bitdeer was ordered to shut off its power under an agreement that allowed it to do so if the system was about to fail. In return, it began paying the Bitcoin company, Bitdeer, an average of $175,000 an hour to keep the computers offline. Over the next four days, Bitdeer would make more than $18 million for not operating, from fees ultimately paid by Texans who had endured the storm. These companies are in a unique position where they can make more money by shutting off their services, as nothing bad happens to the company if they don’t mine and still get paid.

In addition to these issues, Bitcoin mining operations are causing serious damage to the environment. The New York Times discovered that 34 large Bitcoin operations in the United States were causing nearly 16.4 million tons of carbon pollution each year. These results are due to the fact that mining companies are creating an electricity demand that can only be satisfied with fossil fuels. Many power grids have a mix of renewable and fossil fuel sources, but when a constant supply of power is needed, these grids have no choice but to direct “dirty” electricity to these companies.

In conclusion, the energy consumption and environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining are serious concerns that need to be addressed. As the popularity of cryptocurrency continues to grow, so too does the demand for energy to power these operations. The massive amounts of electricity required for mining are putting a strain on power grids and causing environmental damage. It is crucial that steps are taken to reduce the energy waste of cryptocurrency mining, whether through the use of renewable energy sources or other means. It is important for individuals and companies involved in cryptocurrency to be aware of the harm they may be causing and take responsibility for their actions.

Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/09/business/bitcoin-mining-electricity-pollution.html

Scammers and AI Voice Cloning

GitHub - CorentinJ/Real-Time-Voice-Cloning: Clone a voice in 5 seconds to generate arbitrary speech in real-time

Source: https://repository-images.githubusercontent.com/188660663/f7563980-8c7b-11e9-9035-bb7565431093

I was hoping to be done with my depressing Artificial Intelligence blogs, but I found another topic that was too good to pass up: scammers are using Artificial Intelligence powered voice cloning, and then extorting money from others in a variety of ways. For example, a few days ago a father received a phone call stating that his daughter was being held hostage and demanded a ransom be paid. To make matters worse, the scammer used a replica of the daughter’s voice to convince the father that she was in danger. Fortunately, her mother called the daughter’s cell phone and discovered that they had been duped. However, in many cases, the victims are not so lucky.

Another victim I found lost $15,449 when they sent a “lawyer” bitcoin in exchange for legal fees covering their son’s supposed car crash that killed a U.S. diplomat. The combination of the impossibilities of tracking cryptocurrency transactions and anonymous phone calls has left the police with little recourse of action, and the victim will probably never recover the money.

So who is in danger of this possible scam? Usually, I answer this question by citing some news article or paper, but I wanted to try to find out for myself how hard it would be to pull off such a scam. I figured out pretty quickly that anyone who can use the internet can achieve frightening results in a short matter of time.

A quick google search revealed several services that will do comprehensive voice cloning for only a few dollars. Check out https://www.resemble.ai/ if you want to try it yourself for free through the free trial. On the other hand, if someone is tech savvy and doesn’t need high-quality audio (especially if the planned method of delivery is through a phone) they can train an Artificial Intelligence model and get decent results within a couple of hours. As a computer science student, I chose this route, and I discovered that some projects can operate on as little as 5 seconds of clean audio to produce unlimited convincing speech. Here’s the project I was using: https://github.com/CorentinJ/Real-Time-Voice-Cloning, and here is a quick demo of the software: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O_hYhToKoA&ab_channel=CorentinJemine.

Anyways, after my research, I have concluded that anyone with more than 5 seconds of uninterrupted identifiable audio on the internet is at risk. A few years ago, voice cloning was only something accomplished in movies and research centers with hours of perfectly curated audio recordings, but now, millions of people with a digital footprint can have their likeness copied and used maliciously. The implications are horrifying, and as more Artificial Intelligence technology becomes available to the public, this is only one way that people are going to weaponize it. As Artificial Intelligence becomes more accessible, it is important for individuals to be aware of the risks and take precautions to protect themselves. Only through collaboration and awareness can we ensure that the benefits of Artificial Intelligence are maximized while minimizing the risks such as voice cloning.

Sources:

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/ai-can-replicate-voices-in-high-tech-phone-call-scams-ftc-warns-167092293563

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/05/ai-voice-scam/

Artificial Intelligence Job Takeover

A.I. automation could impact 300 million jobs – here's which ones

Source: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107216138-1680003265064-gettyimages-1225909164-20191205_1335_2.jpeg?v=1680012218&w=929&h=523&vtcrop=y

I’ve been trying to avoid writing a depressing Artificial Intelligence blog for a while, but I couldn’t resist the urge after several news outlets began to show off a new report from Goldman Sachs that focuses on the impact of AI in the workplace. In short, researchers at Goldman Sachs discovered that 300 million jobs around the world are vulnerable to some degree of AI takeover. Here is one analogy from an Oxford researcher that I thought helped explain the dangers of AI integration: “Consider the introduction of GPS technology and platforms like Uber. Suddenly, knowing all the streets in London had much less value – and so incumbent drivers experienced large wage cuts in response, of around 10% according to our research. The result was lower wages, not fewer drivers.” In my previous blog about images being generated with AI, it is easy to see how AI could swiftly destroy the careers of contracted artists, such as logo designers, by creating numerous unskilled artists who just use AI to generate products faster and better than their competitors.

Multiple reports, including the Goldman Sachs report, highlighted US legal workers and administrative staff as particularly at risk from generative Artificial Intelligence. Other office jobs such as consulting, insurance, and data entry are also likely to be impacted. At the lower end of the spectrum, maintenance, construction, and cleaning jobs are the least likely to be automated, as they fall into a manual labor sector that can be difficult to automate.

However, Goldman Sachs estimated that AI integrations could result in a gradual increase of over 7% in the United States GDP (Gross Domestic Product value). In addition, according to the BBC, the UK government is eager to promote investments in AI, as they believe advances in AI will increase productivity. These reports portray AI as a tool to increase productivity with the unfortunate side effect of making several jobs obsolete. I believe that Artificial Intelligence will be a transformative force. For example, ChatGPT (the controversial all-purpose online program many of us have used) has not made assigning homework ineffective because it takes a personal touch to understand what an instructor actually wants out of a question. As a computer science major, I use ChatGPT to explain concepts that my instructors have badly explained during lectures. ChatGPT is a useful tool that increases my productivity, but it can’t outright do my homework because it doesn’t understand the open-ended questions that I have been given (many times I don’t understand them either). Right now, Artificial Intelligence is only as powerful as the user behind it. Akin to how search engines evolved, I believe AI will become easier to use as it advances.

All in all, 300 million jobs lost is a frightening statistic, but I don’t expect to see a significant problem for a while. In my opinion, as Artificial Intelligence advances, humans will have to work smarter and leave the low-level tasks for the machines as has happened many times in the past.

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65102150

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/28/ai-automation-could-impact-300-million-jobs-heres-which-ones.html

Intro Paragraph for Issue Brief

Renewable Energy as the Solution for Environmental Racism

Over the last few years, environmental disasters have made the headlines repeatedly, from the Flint Michigan water crisis in 2014 to a landmark lawsuit filed in “Cancer Alley” a week ago. Unfortunately, these calamities disproportionately affect marginalized communities and rekindle efforts to blame elected leaders for not preventing these blatant effects of environmental racism. Not only are these events egregious violations of human rights, but they also sow mistrust of government officials in the public and promote instability. To prevent these reoccurring blunders, federal and state governments should undergo a comprehensive transition to renewable energy to counter the effects of centuries of environmental racism. Throughout this shift, resources, such as widespread capacity builders, should be dedicated to educating the public on the benefits of renewable energy in order for an equitable distribution of the benefits that renewable energy can provide.

 

Tech Startups and SVB

History of Silicon Valley in One Animated Timeline

Source: https://i.insider.com/592d7378b74af41b008b4fd2?width=1136&format=jpeg

On March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank failed after a bank run, marking the second-largest bank failure in United States history and the largest since the 2008 financial crisis. This was a catastrophic event, and it sent the government into full panic mode. Almost immediately, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation closed the bank and took over its management and assets. However, I know very little about the inner workings of the U.S. financial system, so I will be focusing on the ripples (tidal waves would be a more accurate metaphor) this event has had in the tech industry, specifically the startup sector. Silicon Valley is a crazy place for tech startups, as it has become the destination of choice for establishing technology businesses. Companies like Apple, Google, HP, Intel, Adobe, and eBay have placed their headquarters and have no plans on leaving anytime soon. Before I chose Penn State, I was considering schools in the area, as the opportunities for computer science grads there are extensive. Everyone is hiring in the hopes of becoming the next big tech company.

Before its collapse, Silicon Valley Bank was the glue that held local startups together. SVB was well known for courting risky startups that no other sane bank would take on. In addition, SVB had a special connection with its customers. They were highly flexible on repayment schedules, provided a variety of free services catered towards startups, and were even known to support failing companies if executives liked a sales pitch. According to several past customers, SVB was startup heaven. However, every gambler loses, and SVB lost everything. A risky bet in U.S. Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities went south after the Federal Reserve hiked up interest rates causing their investments to rapidly depreciate. If SVB had held onto investments, they might have made a profit, but instead, they sold them at a noticeable loss as a precaution. In the end, their cherished customers depleted their cash reserves and caused a run on the bank due to sheer fear caused by this choice.

After the collapse, CEOs were scrambling to find new ways to pay their employees. Unfortunately, the FDIC only insures up to $250,000 per customer/organization, and for most companies, a meager quarter of a million wouldn’t last a week. To prevent this from destroying the tech industry and causing a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis, the government announced that it would make an exception and refund every penny, regardless of the total amount, to customers. So far, this strategy has worked and only a couple more banks have failed (if that is considered a success).

However, SVB is gone, and even if it returns, I doubt that it will ever be the same. Startups are inherently risky, and without a bank that can acknowledge and accept this risk, innovative ideas like Snapchat and BeReal may never survive the startup phase. SVB was unique and as their name suggests, they were an integral part of the Silicon Valley craze that many customers already miss.

Sources:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/061115/why-silicon-valley-startup-heaven.asp

https://www.wired.com/story/wine-skiing-and-loans-how-silicon-valley-bank-became-startups-best-friend/

https://www.wired.com/story/silicon-valley-bank-svb-the-weekend-silicon-valley-stared-into-the-abyss/

 

The Promise of Renewable Energy: How We Can Transition to a Cleaner, More Equitable Future: Future Energy Needs #3

Windfarm in Germany

Source: https://www.wri.org/insights/why-renewable-energy-solution-high-prices

In my previous civic issue blogs, I discussed several problems derived from the use of fossil fuels in the present and future. To continue the analysis, I want to shift to a potential solution that would prevent these aforementioned predictions and begin to heal the current damage done by a broken system. Renewable energy has the potential to address environmental injustice by creating jobs, reducing the extreme energy burden minorities face, and eliminating the deadly health problems caused by air pollution. With these benefits, renewable energy is a promising solution to the energy needs of the future. However, there is significant work to be done to ensure that the problems that plagued the fossil fuel industry do not creep into the renewable energy sector and ruin its incredible potential.

The first benefit of renewable energy is its ability to create millions of stable jobs. As of 2018, the renewable energy sector employs 777,000 people according to the Environmental Defense Fund. The solar and wind slices saw immense job growth as the number of employees rose by an average of 20% in just one year from 2016 to 2017. In total, the clean energy economy remains a large source of jobs with 4 million employees in the United States. Unfortunately, as of 2021, the clean energy sector is dominated by white men. About 61 percent of clean energy workers across America are white non-Hispanics, and women represent less than 30 percent of all workers in the sector despite accounting for nearly half of the U.S. labor force. This lack of diversity threatens to cause women, Hispanic and Latino workers, and Black workers to miss out on one of America’s great economic expansions. To rebuild a better, more environmentally friendly, and fairer economy, the United States should prioritize increasing diversity in the clean energy industry. To ensure that economic benefits are shared more equitably, policies supporting the energy sector and its transition to low carbon should prioritize the inclusion of women and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. With these targets in mind, the injustices of a fossil fuel past can be avoided, and the full potential of renewable fuels can be reached.

Renewable energy will also reduce the severe energy burden many minorities currently face. According to Energy News, low-income households and those led by people of color already have higher energy burdens than their more well-to-do counterparts. A bigger share of their incomes goes to meet basic energy needs, and those costs are even higher when people live in low-income housing that isn’t energy efficient. On the other hand, the technologies that are required for successful renewable energy production have been steadily dropping in price while fossil fuel prices have spiked in recent years. For example, according to the World Resources Institute, the costs of solar have dropped 85% since 2010, and the costs of both onshore and offshore wind energy production have dropped about 50%. In addition, in Europe, where the energy crisis has hit the hardest, households equipped with solar panels are saving an average of 60% on their monthly electricity bills. According to the International Energy Agency, if the world can reach net-zero emissions, average household energy bills in advanced economies will be lower in 2030 and 2050 than today. With these benefits, renewable energy appears to be the solution to ending energy burdens for minorities and low-income households. However, minority homes are typically less energy efficient than the average American home. Only cutting energy costs using renewable energy is a significant step, but its effects are limited due to other injustices that have left minorities in substandard homes.

In addition, according to the United Nations, adopting renewable technologies for energy production results in better health for communities typically in the form of reduced air pollution. Currently, about 99 percent of people in the world breathe air that exceeds air quality limits and threatens their health, and in 2018, air pollution from fossil fuels caused $2.9 trillion in health and economic costs, about $8 billion a day. As discussed in my previous blogs, minorities in the U.S. bear the brunt of the worst of the pollution which is usually produced at coal-fired power plants. Renewables and energy efficiency measures will help displace power plants running on coal and other fossil fuels. As such, areas with the most coal-fired power generation will benefit the most from a transition to renewable energy production according to a study by Jonathan Buonocore, a research associate at Harvard’s Center for Health and the Global Environment. Unfortunately, reporting by Reuters has found that renewable technologies are not being quickly adopted by minority households causing some advocacy groups to oppose certain solar power initiatives arguing that they deepen social and racial inequality. In response, solar companies have been trying to tap into the lower-income segment by lowering the credit score requirement for financing solar panels and showcasing that solar energy is not just a product for the rich. At SolarCity, a top U.S.-based solar installed company, the chief executive believes it comes down to a branding issue and public commonplace: “We have to get the word out that solar is not just a product for the rich,” says Lyndon Rive. In addition, solar companies are up against fears that poor Americans are effectively paying for the lucrative incentives for the rich, something that traditional utilities have sought to exploit in the past. In order for the clean air benefits of renewable energy to reach those that can benefit the most from them, new companies must first convince minorities and low-income households that these technologies will help them not poison their communities as fossil fuels did in the past.

All in all, renewable energy has the potential to solve many of the issues created by environmental racism and the fossil fuel industry. Although there is no silver bullet and many additional steps will be needed for renewable technologies to have a significant impact, renewable energy is a promising solution to the energy needs of the future.

Sources:

https://www.edf.org/energy/clean-energy-jobs

https://e2.org/reports/diversity-in-clean-energy-2021/

https://energynews.us/2020/07/02/clean-energy-programs-can-help-address-some-racial-disparities-advocates-say/

https://www.wri.org/insights/why-renewable-energy-solution-high-prices

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/raising-ambition/renewable-energy

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/renewables-benefit-climate-public-health-19397

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-solar-minorities-insight/insight-u-s-solar-industry-battles-white-privilege-image-problem-idUKKBN0TS0GE20151209

The TikTok Ban…Again

TikTok Most Downloaded App In Q1 2022

Source: https://cdn.searchenginejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/tiktok-news-627a589cc98ff-sej-1280×720.png

The Chinese-owned company, TikTok by ByteDance, has created a controversy that is making its way back into Washington after several years since its inception. Donald Trump’s original tirade against TikTok made national news, so you might have heard about big scary terms like “data privacy crisis” or “algorithm manipulation”. These allegations were never successful in getting TikTok banned in the United States, but they did cause a new regulation to go into effect that stated TikTok must not be installed on government-provided mobile devices. Unfortunately, several lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are once again calling for the immediate ban of the most popular social media app.

So why are people worried about a simple app? The primary reason for their concern is that TikTok is owned by ByteDance which is a Chinese-based company. Due to the structure of the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), has immense power over how Chinese companies operate. In this case, many U.S. lawmakers are concerned that the Chinese government has direct access to a gigantic database of information TikTok has gathered from Americans. However personal information such as email addresses, phone numbers, and contacts are only part of their data security concerns. Lawmakers are worried that TikTok’s algorithm is so powerful that it can collect ultra-personal information. For example, through analysis of widespread interests and behavioral analysis, hypothetically the Chinese government could learn about American psychology at an intimate level and weaponize this information. In addition, there are concerns that the Chinese government could manipulate swaths of citizens by subtly adding propaganda to a user’s watch queue.

In my own highly unqualified opinion, the latter seems to be straight out of a dystopian novel like 1984. However, ByteDance was caught spying on journalists by tracking their physical location via IP address. In a failed attempt to plug leaks exposing the company’s cryptic connections the CCP, a team led by ByteDance’s chief internal auditor tracked several Forbes journalists. If this sounds bad, that’s because it is. Although ByteDance swiftly fired everyone involved, this incident demonstrated that TikTok can and will use its power in an authoritarian-inspired fashion. Forbes has continued to thrash TikTok with investigative reporting, and several other similar incidents have occurred since the controversy began.

These incidents have given lawmakers the perfect leverage they need to continue their crusade against the tech giant. In response, TikTok has recently doubled down and increased its lobbying efforts (with almost no success). In addition, TikTok plans to give U.S.-based company Oracle complete control over any American data. With these new safeguards, TikTok is attempting to separate itself from the CCP and build trust in the United States. TikTok CEO even claims that if the CCP were to request American data, they have no obligation to provide it. There is skepticism about the validity of this claim, but it does indicate a change in TikTok’s company strategy. Overall, TikTok has a long fight ahead of them, and it may be a while until we stop seeing the headline “TikTok Ban” every other week.

Sources:

https://www.wired.com/story/us-congress-tiktok-ban-privacy-law/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/02/15/ceo-tiktok-exclusive-interview/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/02/03/tiktok-delete-advice/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/12/22/tiktok-tracks-forbes-journalists-bytedance/?sh=a477dce7da57

The Unequal Burden of Carbon Emissions: How the Wealthiest Contribute to Climate Change and the Growing Carbon Gap: Future Energy Needs #2

Private jets: can the super-rich supercharge zero-emission aviation?

Source: https://www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/private-jet-zero-emission-aviation.jpg

Akin to my previous analysis of environmental racism, I now want to focus on the opposite side of the spectrum: the wealthiest individuals, corporations, and countries are the biggest contributor to climate change, and as a result, the responsibility for emissions reduction is unevenly shared around the world. In addition, as the earth warms and oceans rise due to the effects of climate change, the wealthiest will continue to burn significantly more energy than others, causing this “carbon inequality” to exponentially increase.

So how bad is the carbon gap right now? Unfortunately, it is staggering: currently, the wealthiest 10% of the world’s population consumes about 20 times as much energy as the poorest 10% of the world’s population according to a study cited by the BBC. A large portion of this disparity comes from air travel. For example, research shows that 15% of UK travelers take 70% of all flights, and yet 57% of UK citizens have never flown internationally. This example illustrates how such a relatively small number of people can collectively use ludicrous amounts of energy and emit incredible emissions. The statistics worsen further when comparing countries: only 2% of Chinese people and .02% of people in India are in the top 5% of global energy consumers. In modern times, it’s clear that emissions and energy usage correlate with wealth possessed by a few.

The reason for this is mostly due to the lifestyles the wealthy typically possess. As previously stated, transportation is a key factor. Regarding the ultra-wealthy, private jets are one of the causes of the considerable differences in an individual’s lifetime emissions. For example, one-tenth of all flights departing from France in 2019 were private aircraft. In just four hours, those individually owned planes generate as much carbon dioxide as an average person in the European Union emits all year. Going further up the wealth chain, billionaire-backed stunts, like Jeff Bezos’s controversial rocket launch, are more energy intensive than anything a person in the poorest 10% category could do over their entire lifespan. In addition, the diets of the wealthy are also significantly contributing to this carbon gap. According to the UN, about a third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are linked to food. As people get richer, diets tend to diversify and meat consumption rises. The average American in 2019 ate 53 pounds of beef, the most carbon-intensive meat, according to USDA. Meat production often requires extensive grasslands, which are often created by cutting down trees, releasing carbon dioxide stored in forests into our atmosphere. Also, cows and sheep emit methane as they digest grass and plants produced using chemical fertilizers that expend another greenhouse gas-nitrous oxide. The desire for meat is only growing, as growing middle classes in developing countries from China to South Africa are eating more meat than ever.

Our perceptions of “normal” are also part of the problem. For example, in the United States, owning a car is a normal and important item. Owning a car, especially an SUV, is an awesome way to increase an individual’s carbon footprint. The US is especially car saturated compared to other countries, and to make matters worse, finding a small fuel-efficient car in the US is becoming virtually impossible. Automotive manufacturers are unable to sell their subcompact cars in the US as well as in other countries because Americans care less about better gas mileage due to government subsidizing. In response, top car companies have simply cut or plan to soon cut all subcompact cars from their sales in the US, as selling overseas will bring in more profits. The remaining gas-guzzling SUVs are more expensive and far worse for the environment.

Overall, we have unintentionally villainized ourselves by our ambitions to diagnose the cause of carbon emissions, and we are obviously reluctant to fix the underlying issue. Professor Kevin Anderson, from the Tyndall Centre in Manchester says “The climate issue is framed by us high emitters – the politicians, businesspeople, journalists, academics. When we say there’s no appetite for higher taxes on flying, we mean WE don’t want to fly less. The same is true about our cars and the size of our homes. We have convinced ourselves that our lives are normal, yet the numbers tell a very different story.” The “normalcy” of our lives is harming those who live more sustainable lives albeit due to a less extravagant lifestyle. As a result of these commonplaces, the transition to a greener earth has become a challenging introspective journey. The wealthiest have the most power to influence public policy, and they have the most power to change their harmful lifestyles. For example, if just 1% of the most carbon-consuming travelers stopped flying, half of all aviation emissions would disappear overnight. If these global elites change, the governments, intuitions, and companies they lead will also change.

Assuming current trends continue, how does climate change factor into the future of carbon inequality? Global warming is predicted to significantly increase the global demand for energy, and the wealthiest will continue to disproportionally burn through their energy. For example, end-of-century warming alone is expected to increase energy demand in India and Nigeria by 145% and 2000% of their total current electricity production, respectively. In contrast, lower-income, hot areas, such as much of sub-Saharan Africa, are projected to remain relatively poor through 2100 and therefore lack the means to protect themselves with cooling during increased heat. In summary, areas that can afford to boost indoor cooling will, and those that cannot (over half of the global population) will suffer the most, according to Ashwin Rode, Director of Scientific Research at the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago.

To address these issues, most proposed solutions take the form of energy taxes or carbon taxes. For example, higher taxes on larger vehicles could force the markets back into selling unnecessary fuel-guzzling SUVs. In addition, frequent flyer taxes could make travelers think twice before booking that next flight.

In conclusion, the statistics show a staggering carbon gap, with the wealthiest of the world’s population consuming far more energy than the poorest. Due to the lifestyles of the wealthy, this gap will only increase unless the top 10% group, which many of us are in, try to restrict our carbon footprint and prevent undue harm to those who do not contribute to the problem.

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51906530

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-wealth-carbon-emissions-inequality-powers-world-climate/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7qnz3/us-automakers-phasing-out-affordable-subcompact-cars

https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/with-climate-change-only-the-rich-will-drive-an-increase-in-energy-use/Solutions

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/food