I am intending to use WordPress to establish my e-portfolio website. This is because it is foundationally the same as the psu.edu blog site we use. Because WordPress is the site that allows us to create our psu.edu blog site, I have a strong degree of familiarity with it from working within the program over the last two years.
In terms of my general organisation of the site, I would like to categories my tabs by topics and then filter in my work throughout these topics. The tabs I have in mind are: Fencing, International Baccalaureate, Scouting, Environment, and Resume. A lot of my writings and themes in college have revolved around these topics and these first four things have played a major role in shaping me into who I am.
For the advocacy project, I figure I might as well keep to the topic of my issue brief. I believe it is a very real issue with a very real possibility of implementation. To say it explicitly, I would advocate for Penn State to use LED lights in all future renovations and construction. I would probably do this in the form of the recorded speech. I’m not entirely sure about the level of specificity required for the intended audience but I believe looking within the PSU community is necessary. Perhaps I could direct my speech towards the intended audience of the architecture firm involved in designing ‘X’ building.
A Portrait of Abuse is a piece of advocacy. This work brings light to an issue that the author herself said is typically pushed under the rug. The images featured within the work vividly depict domestic abuse in a negative light. From an ethical standpoint, I believe this is sound. The domestic abuse would have happened regardless of the photographer present so at least it was documented with the intent of preventing abuse in the future.
I changed the intro a bit to make it more specific to relevant policy, it still needs more exigency, I plan on pressing climate approach.
LEDs: Penn State’s Power Saving Shift
Penn State is always in the process of renovating and upgrading buildings around campus. Within the 2019-2020 year alone Penn State was doing some degree of construction on ten residence halls across all five residence areas. Penn State is currently doing either renovations or reconstruction of three teaching spaces. The newest completed project on campus is the 193,000 square foot chemical and biomedical engineering, with a budget of 144 million one would think this lab space would be an environmentally conscious structure. However, this building lacks a key and dare I say easy, enhancement. It utilizes incandescent light bulbs, which are less efficient than their LED counterparts when it comes to light output per energy used. The designs are done up for all of Penn State’s construction for the next three years, but one thing is certain, Penn State construction will never stop. Penn State needs to better implement LED lighting systems into all our buildings, regardless of age.
The Green New Deal is a piece of potential legislation that calls for an extreme change in American Life. The GND primarily proposes the idea that the United States will be greenhouse gas neutral and on 100% renewable energy by 2030, however, this comes at an extremely high cost. Similar to FDR’s New Deal, the GND excludes a plethora of socialist reform ideas, classified as an “Economic Bill of Rights” which includes: the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing, and free college education. These legislative reforms go beyond environmental protection and act as an economic stimulus. The GND premiered through the Green Party in 2015 and was featured in Jill Stein’s presidential platform. In light of recent global climate studies, the GND has since found itself implemented into mainstream democratic platforms, with all 7 of the remaining democratic nominees for 2020 supporting or cosponsoring the legislation.
Economics and efficiency
From an economic standpoint, It is estimated that a GND transition would cost anywhere from 8.3-12.3 trillion dollars, or the equivalent of $52,000 to $72,000 per household, this obviously isn’t feasible in the form of taxation, even over a 10 year period. This level of government subsidisation hasn’t occurred proportionally on a scale of this magnitude since World War II. World War II effectively pulled the United States out of the Great Depression. The problem here is that the Government Debt would have to increase by several trillion dollars to finance this bill, and with that, we risk hyperinflation and crashing the stock market. Of course, economically speaking, a viable alternative to the Green New Deal would be a massive Carbon Tax on companies, make the tax high enough and companies will find a more environmentally friendly way to function. Implementing a carbon tax appears more feasible in today’s gridlocked legislator.
Environmentally speaking, 100% renewable energy by 2030 is an appealing idea at its core, but definitely far off. In 2017 only 11% of our energy was renewable and 9% was nuclear. The GND holds seven environmental objectives:
In addition to its large price tag, a criticism of the GND is that it suffers from a collective action problem. The reforms and pro-environment economic movement of the GND would only take place domestically. The United States accounts for 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Assuming the United States went Net-0, a 15% carbon dioxide reduction would not be sufficient to stop the snowballing degradation of our climate.
The GND is a solid example of the first round of legislation aimed at saving the environment. There is no easy answer to this, AOC said it best by saying, “ “So people are like: ‘Oh, it’s unrealistic. Oh, it’s vague. Oh, it doesn’t address this little minute thing.’ And I am like, ‘You try! You do it!’”
Topics to explore
The price of retrofitting (changing from Incandescent to LED)
The payback period
Learning under LED versus Incandescent (Light color?)
BANERJEE, ONIL, et al. “AN ECONOMY-WIDE ANALYSIS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY IN BANGLADESH.” Climate Change Economics, vol. 6, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1–17. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/climchanecon.6.1.03.
