BIO 1000
THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

CLASS DISCUSSION EXAMPLES

LINK TO WEBBOARD DISCUSSION

LINK TO DISCUSSION HOME

EXAMPLE 1 | skip to example 2

Article Description & Critique:

Topic:	DISCUSSION CLOSED: Need to Boost Recycling Efforts (1 of 17), Read 113 times
Conf:	Group 3
From:	Melissa Student student@excite.com
Date:	Thursday, September 16, 2004 03:15 PM Originally Posted 25-Aug-2004 09:20

Author- Janet Urquhart Title- City Council wants to Boost Recycling Efforts Date published- August 25, 2004 http://www.aspentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040825/NEWS/108250006&rs=2 In Aspen Colorado, the City Council discussed possible solutions to increase recycling. This meeting took place on Tuesday, August 24th. The Mayor, Helen Klanderud, agreed that recycling is very important and that more needs to be done. Klanderud did say that there was a budget issue but also added, "Government always has money for what's important to it". Some of the possible suggestions to increase recycling included: requiring downtown businesses to recycle cardboard and glass, starting a backyard compositing program for yard waste, putting recycling bins next to garbage cans at public places, and imposing new rules for trash haulers. A councilwoman suggested that small steps need to be made first and then from there larger things will happen. Taking the steps to recycle will reduce the amount of trash being put into their local landfill. I definitely agree with this article. I believe recycling can be very rewarding to our environment. Not only will recycling decrease the amount of trash put into our landfills, it will also decrease the amount of natural resources we need to make new products. The City Council members in Aspen understand how important it is for people to recycle. I think that all City Councils need to become more concerned about the environment. I also feel that the National Government should offer more money to begin recycling efforts. If steps are not taken to reduce the amount of garbage thrown into our landfills, one day there will be no where to put our trash. The City Council's idea of putting recycling containers next to public garbage cans is a very smart idea. When I was on vacation in Wisconsin, I visited a few places that already had the recycling receptacles next to trash cans and I remember how easy it was to separate my garbage into the appropriate bins. I think that all public places need to provide recycling bins. This easy step would be very beneficial to the environment and may also inspire individuals to take action at home.

Reply 1:

Topic:	A Need to Boost Recycling Efforts (2 of 17), Read 96 times
Conf:	Group 3
From:	alyssa student astudent@hotmail.com
Date:	Thursday, August 26, 2004 09:57 AM

I agree with this article. I also think that they should spend more money and time to recycle. A good idea would be to start out small. Start by placing recycle bins at mall food courts or just concerts or big events taking place in the city. After a while, the city would realize that if the bins were there, that people would recycle more. This idea would eventually lead to the people themselves and the city to save a great deal of money. I also like how the city council is concerned about this deal. In the near future i think it will be required everywhere to begin recycling and saving our resources.

Reply 2:

Topic:	A Need to Boost Recycling Efforts (3 of 17), Read 86 times
Conf:	Group 3
From:	Catherine Student student8@hotmail.com
Date:	Friday, August 27, 2004 10:00 AM

I also agree, this should be an issue that is addressed. It is good to see that all of the council members have a positive outlook on recycling and have ideas on where to start the process. Recycling should be required in all cities, it's been a huge issue for years. I am surprised that they are waiting to start recylcling due to lack of funds. That issue has always bugged me when it came to politians or city officials. It would be nice for once to see an article where they address the problem, come to a solution, and if the funding is not there to assist with it, cut city employees salaries for one year and use that money towards the issue that they seem to think is so important. They could always start small and work their way to bigger things. I believe that if they are passionate about improving the recycling habits of their city, they will do whatever it takes to get the project started instead of just talking about it in a meeting.

Reply 3:

Topic:	A Need to Boost Recycling Efforts (6 of 17), Read 59 times
Conf:	Group 3
From:	Eric Student student84@yahoo.com
Date:	Thursday, September 02, 2004 02:54 PM

Well as stated as above, those are all vary good reasons to boost re cycling efforts. I can't really think of anything else off the top of my head to add to these idea's, but I did find a very interesting site. It is a product that I can say everyone of us uses but would never think of it being made re cycled material. Here's the link http://www.clothesmadefromscrap.com/ I would have never though they could use recyclable to produce such a product.

EXAMPLE 2 | back to example1

Article Description & Critique:

Topic:	Drilling In ANWR (1 of 32), Read 213 times
Conf:	Group 1
From:	Mindy Student mstudent@yahoo.com
Date:	Thursday, September 16, 2004 03:18 PM Originally Posted 23-Aug-2004 21:26

http://www.theeastcarolinian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/06/09/40c6385f2ed09 The article I chose to discuss is on drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge or ANWR. The author argues that the Democrats and environmentalists are to blame for blocking drilling in this oil rich area. The article also argues that their reasons are unfounded. The main reason to block drilling is the disaster it would cause to the surrounding area. This article argues that technology has advanced so much that even in the event of a huge spill, the effects would be minimal. I would say that I agree with the Democrats and environmentalists. One reason is that I don't believe that the damage would be as minor as they claim. Another reason I think they shouldn't drill is because we need to save some fossil fuels for later use. We already consume too much of the fossil fuels we have access to now. Maybe more time should be spent trying to find alternative ways to power our cars and heat our homes. If a spill happened, it would seep into the ground before people were able to get there to clean it up.

Reply 1:

Topic:	Drilling In ANWR (2 of 32), Read 186 times
Conf:	Group 1
From:	Jessie Student student@lycos.com
Date:	Wednesday, August 25, 2004 09:57 PM

I totally agree with Mindy. I think a lot of our government concerns right now are for short term, and what we can achieve now. I do not think that we are as advanced in technology right now, as they say that we are. If we were to look at the long term effects of doing something like that, they are not so good compared to how it would benefit us now. I think that we do consume too much oil now, and we do need to find other ways to use oil charged things like cars. We have already started to use electrical cars, but I think we should start car pooling too. Our economy and citizens are going to regret it when we don't have any oil left someday. Then what will we do? Walk everywhere? America is too overweight and lazy to do something so difficult. (My own opinion)

Reply 2:

Topic:	Drilling In ANWR (3 of 32), Read 178 times
Conf:	Group 1
From:	Jennifer Student student6@yahoo.com
Date:	Thursday, August 26, 2004 06:11 PM

1) For a long time, Europe has paying paying higher prices on oil than we are now, but they have fast trains designed with new technology to cut back on energy consumption. They also drive small energy efficient cars when they need to drive. Why is Europe so much more advanced in transportation than America - the technological capital of the world? a) In American society, people want to have their own cars to be completely independent of everyone else. They don't want to sit next to strangers on a train. They want to sit in their bubble of comfort and be completely independent of their fellow neighbors and community. b)Europe has prices on gas around $6 a gallon encouraging it's citizens to drive new efficient cars (including hybrids which are cars that do not use gas unless they go above 40 miles per hour.) In America, on the other hand, with this administration having ties to oil companies, encourages it's citizens to consume, consume, consume in the name of money, money, money. To help its citizens consume more oil before any regulations are put forth, society encourages its people to drive SUV's and large pick-up trucks. You will find too many people in the city driving Hum-V's and Escalades unable to drive faster than 40 miles per hour fueled on a lot of gas, and themselves fueled on perception of self and ego. We DO have the technology to get past our oil dependent ways. Taking oil from a wildlife refuge in Alaska does not get to the root of our self-inflicted problem - ties to oil companies in the government, ignorance and delusion by the American people, and a society where each individual is expected to be completely independent of the other (America is an exception in this when compared to the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, families live together, work together. Communities live together, work together, love together. These communities have less crime, less suicide, less stress, less depression, etc. When America gets over its fear of being dependent or together, you will see technology driven, environmentally cautious trains across America where people travel side by side.)

Reply 2:

Topic:	Drilling In ANWR (5 of 32), Read 165 times
Conf:	Group 1
From:	Angelo Student student@msn.com
Date:	Friday, August 27, 2004 02:40 PM

I've got a few problems with the stated comments on drilling in ANWR as well as the global climate of crude oil and its subsequent pricing. First, drilling there would hardly devastate the refuge. the area needed is minuscule. If allowed to drill in the allotted area of the coastal plain, only 2-5 thousand acres would be needed, that is not even one half of one percent of the entire refuge; hardly as drastic a disruption as many claim it to be. However, while on the topic of devastation, lets discuss the people of Northern Alaska. The jobs in this region are few and far between. Many families live in two or three room houses and would be considered poor by the "lower 48's" standards. Drilling in ANWR would bring thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars to the state. Secondly, Europe's gas prices are not higher due to some globally conscious hierarchy that is out to encourage better gas consumption practices. it is a result of heavy taxation due to socialist practices, such as state funded health care for example. Europe is hardly a ecological preservationist region. it has contributed to a very large percent of pollution along with lower enforced standards than our own. Also, as has been submitted by many, drilling would drive down prices of petroleum based products by helping to subsidize the cost and dependency of foreign based oil. Jennifer, I understand your passion about finding alternative power sources, but i think you are a little off base. I'm not sure what to address first when you say, "this administration having ties to oil companies," but to me it sounds like misleading rhetoric that hardly has anything to do with the administration at this time. If your speaking of Haliburton and and V.P. Dick Cheney, it is true only in that he was a chief executive of the company, however, he doesnt benefit from the company handling the contract work in Iraq, no matter what Michael Moore told you. Haliburton is the only company big enough and with the proper equipment to handle the operations that are needed to be done. that is why they are there. Digressing, I too would like to see alternate power sources being made, however the government should not slow our economic engine which is fueled by petroleum, for the sake of a cleaner fuel. work is funded by the government, but the work is being done in the private sector, as it should. All major inventions that have revolutionized the way we do things has come from the direct work of private financiers. This is because it is "do or die" for them, so to speak. they're budget is not limitless. they rely on they're motivation and belief that what they're doing is for the good of all, and that time is not on their side. This is what brings out the Thomas Edison's, the Benjamin Franklin's. This personal drive, not a government run research group, is what brings change.

It got much better, but space is limited...