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.

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.

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.

 

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

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

source: https://www.science.org/content/article/scubalike-technology-could-suck-carbon-dioxide-smokestacks

As gas prices spike and Europe faces a major energy crisis, the world’s insurmountable energy needs for the future are becoming more apparent. The energy cravings of 8 billion people have shouldered the consequences, as is the case far too often, on marginalized communities that are paying the price. Fossil fuel-fired power plants are plaguing the lives of minorities, and as political battles rage and energy demands increase, the effects will only worsen unless immediate preventative measures are taken.

In 2012, 39 percent of those living within three miles of a coal-fired power plant were people of color, and to make matters worse, according to the NAACP, the most toxic plants were in the poorest and most minority-major communities. Even in 2020, 68 percent of African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant despite making up only 13 percent of the US population. These statistics illustrate the severity of environmental racism regarding energy production because these plants are far from safe. For example, as of 2016, there are about 200 sites nationwide where coal ash pollution has tainted air and water: In 2014, Duke Energy’s Dan River Steam Station dumped 39,000 tons of coal ash and 27 gallons of wastewater into the Dan River, in 2008, a coal ash pond at the Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee failed, releasing over 1 billion gallons of ash and causing extensive damage to the surrounding area, and in 2002, the General James M. Gavin Power Plant bought out an entire to town to avoid lawsuits related to air pollution. These incidents are common, and due to the surrounding demographic, they are much more likely to affect marginalized communities.

Despite widespread support for decommissioning fossil fuel-based energy production, the lobbying efforts of the dying industry have only increased. The political battle between lobbyists and conservation activists has slowed progress. For example, Obama-era regulations regarding coal-fired power plants were quickly overturned by the Trump administration. Despite acknowledging that low-income Black and Latino communities face disproportionate risks from the added pollution, the administration prioritized saving jobs at power companies destined to go bankrupt rather than the health of millions. Due to these actions, in 2021, 21.9 percent of US energy was still produced from coal, and electricity produced from these plants was the source of 32 percent of total U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions that year.

The tangible effects of this air pollution can be observed through the increased health issues minorities face. For example, approximately 13.4% of African American children suffer from asthma as compared to only 7.3% of White children. In addition, the death rate from asthma is 172% higher for African Americans than for whites, and African Americans are more likely to develop and die from lung cancer despite lower smoking rates. These are not coincidences, and the effects of being within a smokestack’s danger radius cause serious health problems.

In the coming years, the energy demand is expected to skyrocket, and as electricity prices increase more than 8% in one year, minorities are being hit the hardest. Jacqui Patterson, senior director for the organization’s Environmental & Climate Justice Program, says minority-owned homes are typically less energy efficient resulting in higher bills for electricity and heating. A 2016 report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and the Energy Efficiency for All coalition corroborates this claim, as they found the energy cost burden is up to three times higher for low-income, African American, and Latino households compared to higher-income white households.

In addition to these expenses, many marginalized communities are in higher risk zones for climate change-related destruction compared to other areas. A majority of African Americans say they are already feeling the effects of severe heat and extreme storms, which are becoming more frequent and erratic due to climate change, according to a March 2020 poll commissioned by the Environmental Defense Fund and Moms Clean Air Force. Patterson alleges that many African American homes are ill-prepared for recurring events like floods and heat waves due to climate change. This added risk often results in substantially more destruction when disaster strikes and overall community wealth decreases. To make matters worse, a study done by Rice University and the University of Pittsburgh found that white communities saw higher levels of reinvestment in their communities after natural disasters in comparison to their minority counterparts further exacerbating the inevitable monetary damages of climate change. Even if natural disasters do not occur, global temperature increases would provoke even higher spikes in large swaths of the United States including the Great Plains, Midwest, Northeast, and Southwest. The already horrific air quality would decrease further, prompting more respiratory issues and deaths for many African Americans. In addition, Native Americans and Latinos are more likely to be affected by extreme temperatures where they work. Latinos would be 43 percent more likely than others to lose work hours and pay because of the heat, and American Indians and Alaskan Natives are 37 percent more likely to also lose hours. Patterson’s words, “…are less likely to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, yet we are more impacted by climate change” ring with truth.

However, the fight is far from over, and countless organizations such as the NAACP, The Equitable and Just National Climate Platform, the NRDC, and many others are leading the charge for a fairer and sustainable future. Individuals can also make a difference by following standard environmentally friendly practices, as the fight against climate change also protects minorities who would be most affected by global temperature increases. In addition, choosing candidates carefully to ensure the affected people get proper representation in government is another vital step citizens can take to help end environmental racism when voting.

All in all, environmental racism is rampant due to the dirty fossil fuel industry, and the unchecked pollution produced by coal power plants is severely harming minorities. As climate change progresses, the effects will worsen unless immediate action is taken to end this injustice and prevent global temperature increases.

Sources:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-plants-smother-communities-of-color/

https://www.greenamerica.org/climate-justice-all/people-color-are-front-lines-climate-crisis

https://www.epa.gov/tn/epa-response-kingston-tva-coal-ash-spill

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210511-how-coal-pollution-dismantled-a-town

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-trump-epa-coal-plant-pollution-rollback-20200909-2hwywrlojna7rjjx3aw7pl5g64-story.html

https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/8/15/racial-disparities-and-climate-change

https://naacp.org/resources/coal-blooded-action-toolkit

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-and-the-environment.php

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-will-our-electricity-supply-change-future

http://a. https://energynews.us/2020/06/30/how-energy-issues-and-civil-rights-issues-intersect/

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.php

 

 

 

 

 

 

For my passion blog, I have chosen to continue my topic from last semester on ethics related to recently introduced technology because I was very comfortable writing about this last semester. Also, I doubt the flow of new tech is going to stop anytime soon, so I will have plenty of material for commentary and analysis.
For my civic issues blog, I plan to write about my previously mentioned topic of the energy needs of the future with an emphasis on the effects on minorities, concerns related to a growing population, and the sustainability paradox surrounding billionaires (effects of private jets, mansions, etc.) Not only am I passionate about these subjects, but I also believe analysis of these topics is valuable, as these are serious issues my generation will face in the coming years.

1. Introduction – I will be following a Cause-Effect structure (for now)
   1. Thesis: I believe in the value of “leaving the nest”: the time that many parents and children inappropriately dread.
   2. Reiterate the thesis to specify the topics I will be addressing
      1. There comes a time in everyone’s life where one must face the unknown alone, and I believe this period should be invigorating and exciting.
   3. Cause: Memory of my 18^th birthday, and why I was so excited to turn 18
      1. For me, that time occurred on my 18^th birthday.
      2. When I woke up that morning, I could feel the independence, the opportunities, and the excitement becoming a legal adult brought for me.
      3. As always, I loved the celebrations, and this birthday was extra special. The dates had aligned perfectly with my mom’s vacation, and so I got to spend my momentous day in balmy Puerto Rico with my family.
      4. Despite these fortunate events, my favorite memories originated from the menial tasks I was finally allowed to do.
         1. I applied for a credit card, registered to vote, signed up for selective service, and did anything else I could think of doing now that my longstanding age barrier had been removed.
      5. Added imagery
         1. Even the inviting blue water and Puerto Rican summer couldn’t keep me from sitting on the beach working on my phone while my family enjoyed themselves differently.
         2. And if you know anything about me, I typically love the beach and everything related to it.
         3. However in this case, the entire day, from start to finish, I was obsessed with taking control of my life.
      6. Completing these menial tasks made me feel like an adult, and I realized this is what I’d been waiting for my entire life. I had yearned to “leave the nest” and try my own hand at the game of life.
   4. Effect: I believe this experience has enhanced my college experience, and made it much more bearable than I originally thought before arriving
      1. This focus on exhilarating independence made my college transition much smoother than anticipated.
      2. I thought I would be terrified to attend my first college class, but because of the eagerness I possessed to be on my own, I was ready.
      3. Not only was I ready, but I also actually enjoyed organizing my dorm room with fake little plants, eating at the horrible dining halls, and sleeping in a new bed.
      4. My mindset and excitement to be on my own had created a shield of positivity that kept away the stress I had dreaded.

1. Conclusion: Reiterate thesis and generalize my belief for the reader or listener
   1. The unknown is inherently frightening, but it doesn’t have to be.
   2. I believe in the value of “leaving the nest” because I should be excited to try new things, and with this positive mindset, the unknown becomes a lot less intimidating.

My first idea for the “This I Believe” project is to create a narration communicating the importance of “leaving the nest”, and I would use a story about my 18th birthday as an illustration. My second idea is to discuss the power of knowledge/learning. I’m not sure what exact example I would use yet, but I would focus on how education has impacted my life and my parents’ lives. For my passion blog, I think I will be sticking with my previous topic of ethics and technology, but I am also considering tackling the new wave of problems posed by the rise of artificial intelligence in recent years. For my Civic Issues blog, I am considering writing about the energy needs of the future with an emphasis on the effects on minorities, concerns related to a growing population, and the sustainability paradox surrounding billionaires (effects of private jets, mansions, etc.). I am also considering the topic of the electoral college with an emphasis on its effectiveness and applicableness, the changing nature of U.S. politics, and possible alternatives.

For our History of a Public Controversy Project, we have decided to do an analysis of the

controversy surrounding the war on drugs. Some ideas presented by my group and myself include:

the systemic racism behind criminalizing certain drugs, society’s opinions on decriminalizing

marijuana and other drugs, and why both sides believe how they do. For example, crack cocaine

possession results in higher penalties than powder cocaine despite being the same drug. Not only is

this illogical, but it also targets minorities who tend to use the cheaper version of cocaine: crack cocaine.

Personally, I would like to depict the pitfalls created by the war on drugs and show the benefits of

legalizing certain drugs, but I have not yet discussed which side we will be arguing yet with my

group members.

 

If we do take this side, we could analyze how effective jail time is at reforming felons jailed for

possession and related charges. We could also look at other countries’ methods of fighting drug

addiction and criminal activity, as many European countries have completely different opinions on

how to deal with drug abuse. I do not believe all drugs should be legalized, so we may include an

argument about which drugs should and should not be legal for recreational use.