1.
What
do they propose be the solution to the energy crisis is?
They
begin the movie by comparing our environmental and energy problems to a wedge.
If we stop at the level of emission we are at now then we can fix the problems
by chopping up the wedge into seven parts. Now this wedge can be filled with as
many different seven pieces as you choose. This means that the solution to our
energy crisis is not one single solution or even two or three but seven
different solutions. These solutions can match up or one solution can take up
two or three parts as long as each part meets the goal set out for it. A few of
the ideas for these solutions are efficiency, solar power, wind power, and other
types of renewable and clean energy solutions. If each piece of the wedge
reduces our emissions by 1billion tons of CO2 emissions then it will
fulfill its spot in the wedge and get us one step closer to a solutions.
2.
Do
you agree or disagree with their assessment of how to solve the problem?
I think the analogy they use of
the wedge is easy and simple to understand especially for someone who doesn’t understand
all of the science and details of the energy crisis. Where our society is now,
we don’t have the technology or the ability to solve our problems with one
quick and easy solution. The problem needs many solutions that can all
contribute to the main goal of reducing our CO2 emissions and
finding more renewable sources of energy. I think part of the solution they didn’t
address is that these issues need to be done collectively as the human race.
One country does not have the solution and one single country cannot fix the
problems occurring. If every nation worked together and helped each other by
using the proposed solutions of wind, solar, efficiency etc. then we can all
combine them to begin fixing our energy crisis problem.
3.
Do
they accurately address the effects of the environment, society and economy
when they consider what alternative energies to use?
I think this movie does a good
job of really addressing the effects these solutions will have on the
environment, society, and the environment. The ideas for solutions to our
problem seemed to be pretty realistic or the people proposing them realized
they may not be very realistic. For example, the scientists who came up with an
alternative fuel to use on our vehicles using fermentation and yeast know his
fuel isn’t the immediate answer because of the large cost. What he does know is
it’s a step in the right direction toward finding alternative means of fuel.
There was also the scientist who came up with material that catches CO2
and takes it out of the environment. This idea is a good one yet how much
material can we really make? Will people want this or huge wind mills in their
back yard? The answer to that is no they won’t but eventually they may have no
choice. I think the people who are working on these technologies and the people
who are funding them realize the solution needs to be effective enough to
actually fix the environment, it needs to be something society will accept and
want to use/do, and it needs to be profitable somewhat. There are many people out
there working on these problems and that’s exactly what society needs right
now, many different yet effective solutions.
You mention that you agree with the wedge analogy as a way to promote change in our policies at least in part because we do not yet have the technology necessary to impact our environment in a meaningfully positive way or to ween ourselves off fossil fuels. However, don't you think that it would be worthwhile to pursue such technologies even though they may not yet available. In my opinion this is a more viable method of changing our energy consumption habits as it seems a lot easier to create new technologies then to change our general thought processes as a species.
ReplyDelete