The article that I chose to bring to the blog site is something that I never expected to appear on the NY Times environmental page. It is showing a correlation between the weather and shootings in the United States based on the highest cities who have dealt with gun violence and murder. In addition to the interesting comparison that is created throughout this article, it is fascinating due to how many different types of graphs that are used to highlight the different statistics of this study. It begins with a type if line graph, moves to a bar graph and then finishes with a plot graph. After going over the decrease on gun violence that led up to 2014, it highlights the rise in gun violence ever since. One overall point that the article brings up is that the cities who are documented experienced an increase in shootings when the days were warmer than in the past when they were cooler. Is there a real connection between whether and shooting statistics one may ask? It does seem rather far-fetched with the increase in weapons and technology over the years that there is a correlation, however the article does analyze multiple aspects. With one exception, San Francisco, to the data provided, all of the cities increased in shooting rates during hotter temperatures. This is the overall thesis of the article.
The answer that is provided to this weird question is rather simple. The overwhelming answer is that due to warmer temperatures, people in the cities are more likely to be outside more often. Due to being outside there is a heightened issue between conflicts of people. They use Philadelphia as the most prominent example to show the answer to this problem. Author Asher use this city because it provides data for both inside and outside shooting data which covers both of the variables to this problem. And although it may be small difference when looking at one city, across the whole country it becomes a significant difference. One quote from the article articulates this issue very well, “On average, about twice as many people are shot in Northern cities like Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit when it’s hot versus when it’s cold (only nonfatal shooting victim data was available for the latter two). In Southern cities like Atlanta and New Orleans, the effect exists but is weaker.”(Jeff Asher, NY Times)
This leads me question though, whether these two issues can be related or if this is a stretch. Are there aspects that have not been analyzed that add to this or is it as simple as the solution that they have provided? Although the data shows a rather simple correlation between the rise in temperature and rise in shooting I believe that there is more to this issue than just these two aspects. I am curious to see if others feel that the issue is this simple or more complicated. Further the issue of weather on human population sustainability. Many know the issues that have risen for animals but not for people such as this article investigates.
The graph below was the best and most descriptive from the three within the article:
Sustainability to me means successful problem solving in action. Since it can cover a variety of areas from economics to environmental conservation the problems that must be solved are endless. When someone fixes one of these issues for the better they are actively sustaining a better status for all and in the specific area. Growing up in a house hold with committed environmentalists has allowed me to see problem solving for sustainability first hand on numerous occasions. Some of the smallest examples seem to be direct fixes to the world’s largest of issues, like basic recycling or reducing your carbon footprint with better decision making on travel options. An issue that has always caught my attention with sustainability is that there seem to be a lot of people who think they are too little to make a change. That even if they recycled properly or carpooled to use less gas emissions that it would amount to a change worthwhile. It is one of the biggest issues I see with sustainability and seems to connect to many issues throughout the world today. I hope to explore the little things that are easy and will make a difference if we all just changed a habit or two for the better. Personally, I am a political science major who has taken classes and spent time in congress that have addressed actions taken to reverse and fix the effects of global warming. It has influenced me and my thoughts towards the environment directly driving me to enter this class and further my knowledge in the area.
I think that the article that you found is extremely interesting. That being said I would be curious to find a relatable article for your comments on CO2 levels and the corresponding physical damage to life on earth. I feel like many of us know that it is a major issue but do not understand what it directly is corresponding too. Possibly a good route for further investigation on this topic.
Your comments relating CO2 and photosynthesis needs for food and farming are extremely interesting. I wonder further however if there is a comparison between the photosynthesis CO2 produced and that of fossil fuels and artificial release. It could be a naive question but since it is a healthier production process is that different from the overall release of CO2 emissions.
One component of sustainability, focuses on the effect that occurs on the environment when harnessing fuel and energy. As the United States hit the Post Civil War Reconstruction Era, the use of coal supplanted a vast portion of the total energy usage done by the United States. Moving along the 20th century, the use of natural gas and petroleum has shot up exponentially. Curiously, following the invention of nuclear weapons and the creation of nuclear reactors, the energy usage as a percent of the total United States energy usage does not exceed 10%. This number surprised me, but I think it alludes to the extreme dependency and emphasis that the United States (as well as the rest of the world) places on petroleum and natural gas. As a result of our dependence, marginalizing and scaling down petroleum and natural gas extraction methods for the sake of environmental cleanliness will be met with steadfast opposition. Therefore, the dichotomy between the profits and ingrained role that natural gasses and petroleum play in our society, and the destruction these processes do to the environment will remain a powerful debate for decades to me. An important question must be asked when looking towards the future however. Should we transition away from Petroleum and Natural gas for the sake of environmental health and if so, should we pursue nuclear energy, hydroelectric energy, wind energy, or look towards the creation and utilization of an entirely new energy source? The answer to this question will reflect many possible futures not just disclosing the fate of energy consumption, but also the attitudes and difficulties that will arise in regards to stemming production to save the planet.
The production of animal based foods is an issue we have been discussing in class for the past few weeks and this chart helps break down consumption of meats and vegetables. The chart shows the required land, water consumption, and GHG Emissions for produces like wheat, rice, eggs, pork, and beef. The charts are higher when it comes to the consumption of meat as it takes more resource to cultivate. Producing animal-based foods is responsible for more than three-quarters agricultural land use around the world. The amount of land it takes to raise cattle is neisse compared to the land needed for agriculture. The resources that would be used on agriculture would not only be cheaper but have more benefit for everyone. Agriculture’s production-related greenhouse gas emissions is less compared to that of meat related consumption because of waste in resources. Because many animal-based foods rely on crops for feed, increased demand for animal-based foods widens the food gap relative to increased demand for plant-based foods.