Comparing two global warming videos

When comparing two global warming videos, a documentary done by CBC NewsWorld and Al Gore on Charlie Rose- I saw similarities and differences.

The documentary was longer, it gave more detail and explained the topic well. This video was a longer length than the interview with Al Gore. It wasn’t as intense and less threatening. The scientists interviewed explained the study between global warming and climate change. How they’re linked, what climate change has done to our globe already and is causing right now. They talked about computer models and what is predicted in the future. Details we provided including the hockey stick chart and explanations on the green house effect. The scientists were also interesting when asking their own questions about the environment. One mentioned that there must be something missing in the atmosphere that we don’t know yet and another gave the audience something to think about when mentioning that when we look at the past, does the future look so bad? The documentary also gave other views on the topic. They mentioned that they realize there are other views, other studies and that computer models are not in sync with reality. In the last two sections of the video, the sea level evaporating was discussed because of temperature increasing, but then talked about how if somewhere something is evaporating, then somewhere else, something is precipitation- meaning the water level is rising somewhere else. The scientists also mentioned that the ice will melt in Antarctica, making the sea level rise significantly. However, they said that won’t happen for almost 2,000 years I think they said. This documentary was more objective and informative.

The video of Al Gore on the Charlie Rose show, was quite different from the documentary, but similar too. I thought this video had mostly differences from the documentary. Al Gore sent a totally different mood out to the audience. Seemed like his attitude was that he was right and everyone else needs to follow him. What he talked about and his film trailer contained the fear factor persuasive technique to draw the audience in. This drew me out. I was disinterested in what Gore had to say because he was biased. He was the only one that was in this video. Gore didn’t mention any sources he talked to, sources were all basically “off the record,” no one else was interviewed nor did he present a counter argument. The argument that Gore fixated on was that the globe temperature has increased and will continue to increase, until ice in the north will soon melt and basically flood a lot of our land. The other video presented this similar case but seemed to be more realistic about the issue. Gore mentioned that there is no debate left on what is happening, that there is a main consensus. Gore also mentioned that basically no one is doing anything about the issue and that his film will create a sense of urgency. Gore’s video was focused on mission-based framing.

Both videos used computer models to based information off of. Both videos agree that the debate is not that global warming is in existence, but that it’s what is causing global warming.

Some of Ch. 9 of Made to Break summary

Here is the first part of chapter 9, Made to Break -the last chapter.

Electronic components- built to have short lives. Cell phones, computers are only lasting a short amount of time compared to what they could be lasting (a long time) because of obsolescence. After the short use, electronics are thrown away, as a result, the amount of e-waste in the U.S. is increasing. This leads to burning the e-waste, which leads to toxins filling the air, which leads to health issues for residents: air pollution and when buried, seeps in soil and poisons it. Currently, the U.S. exports e-waste materials to developing countries for unregulated disassembly- but as organizations become stricter; the U.S. will soon be prevented from this- which is good. Cause for e-waste: increasing short lifespan of electronics and miniaturization.

Why E-waste occurs: Cell phone e-waste is growing – ppl who already have cell phones are replacing them with newer models; ppl who have a phone are getting a second one. This makes the term “obsolescence” obsolete because “it makes no sense to call a working phone obsolete when the make and model is still available for purchase and continues to provide service.” Cell phones are being thrown away and not disassembled for reuse- which contributes to the many sitting in landfills- a storage problem no program has imagined will be able to solve. E-waste happens becaue consumers value what is new and not old. Advertising makes us believe that what we have now is no good and we need to buy the new item by encouraging dissatisfaction. Rapid evolution of technology has rendered everything ‘disposable.’ Colin Campbell studied consumption and looked at the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors that surround the acquisition of new goods. Studied what he called “neophilia,” or love of new things. Three types of neophiliacs. In relation to neophilia is a form of conformity, social cascade. America is participating in a worldwide cascade of cell phones...

Chapter 7 and 8 notes for Made to Break

This isn't near all of the notes for the 2 chapters in Made to Break--- rest will come soon!
So far in chapter 7:

1960’s-America saw a beginning toward an information society. With many products being developed, obsolescence started to take on abstract meanings, not just physical objects: training, knowledge, skills. Obsolescence->miniaturized circuitry->start of e-waste.

Emulation, miniaturization, microchips: Emulation is the ability to run software applications of earlier less powerful computers with losses in processing speed. Convinced consumers to reinvest in IBM hardware because earlier investment in software, data storage, personnel training wouldn’t become obsolete. 1965 – The first IBM System/360s shipped- same yr of the PDP-8 minicomputer and geranium crystal transistor; first integrated circuits ever used in computers. Integrated circuits made compactness possible->miniaturization. Gordon Bell, the architect for the PDP (by Kenneth Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corp) believed that simpler machines with fewer instructions would consistently perform as well as larger machines. Revenues went up for DEC, but nothing compared to IBM so far. IBM missed DEC’s great expansion, corporate model and target audience. Companies went to PDP for their needs, they couldn’t afford IBM’s mainframes. DEC looked at the need for subminiaturization and lightweight circuits. 1958 – government funded research into micromodules for a new level of submin. Jack Kilby designed a single wafer semiconductor of germanium. Robert Noyce designed a semiconductor circuit in 1959 called Micrologic-with silicon – the “monolithic idea”. 1963 – IBM engineers were becoming worried their micro-modules were becoming obsolete because of the invention of mono-lithics. ICs become more available and cheaper but IBM still didn’t want to use them and still used ceramic micro-module circuitry. Many other areas in the U.S. used ICs: Aviation’s Autonetics, NASA...

Dr. Murphy's presentation

Dr. Murphy’s presentation on product obsolescence and e-waste fit in with our first 2 themes of the class, oil and obsolescence by a number of ways. Right away Dr. Murphy talked about e-waste. E-waste is the result of product obsolescence and disposable technology and products. Oil fits in with the presentation because oil is what provides the transportation for the technologies to get to stores for consumers to purchase.

Policies to reduce toxic waste are laws Murphy talked about such as regulations, and packaging policies. Regulations such as being a recycling-based society, and waste management and public cleaning laws are in effect. Packaging what makes up most of America’s waste. Murphy gave suggestions to purchase triple-concentrated detergent for smaller containers. There are container and packaging laws out. There is so much waste created because food and technology have to be packaged in order to be shipped safely. Other laws such as food recycling and laws to promote green purchasing.

Obstacles we face in the future are landfills reaching their maximum capacity and us having to dump garbage in the oceans perhaps. We will need to find more land that we can put our waste on. He mentioned that a container can be invented to wait to disintagrate for a week or two and then when your garbage is ready it does. Challenges such as behaviorial changes and mindset changes are obstacles we will face.

Obsolescence and Made to Break themes

The themes of Made to Break and obsolescence converge by one item being produced and then each item produced after that, plays off the previous item. Consumers and producers find better ways of making products. Consumers then want every new item that is produced and sold. Producers study consumers and produce new items again. Planned obsolescence plays off progressive and technical obsolescence, making older items obsolete. For a couple of examples, when cars were produced each type of car designed after that reflected off each other. Each later model looked better and ran better than the previous model. When AM radio was produced, FM was later introduced and was a better product by sending out a sharper sound.

Capitalism seems that it will not succeed without obsolescence. Without disposable products, planned obsolescence, psychological obsolescence, progressive obsolescence and technical all build off each other to keep our economy moving. Americans make a want, a need. We want a new product because the one we have doesn’t function as well as the new item (or is broken). We naturally want the new, best item out on the market, and with advertising, companies make consumers think that we need the new, best item out there. Without obsolescence pushing consumers to buy new products that are out on the market, the country wouldn’t be making any money at all. We’d have to rely on products breaking for consumers to purchase new items, if producers didn’t come up with new versions of products. Obsolescence is a natural and normal cycle of any business, and economic system. Being part of any business is to make money.

Slade’s approach to obsolescence fits in with the themes, however it seems like his approach doesn’t have another side to it. There are many good facts, and history to back up his approach, but he doesn’t give a different side to the obsolescence idea. Like I said in the paragraph before, the economy can’t function without obsolescence and that’s agreeing with Slade. He says that obsolescence is a positive for the country, but what about it being a negative for the country? Factories mass produce a product. Consumers are buying it. Shortly after, the company comes out with a new product and now consumers want that one. What about all the items still on shelves or sitting in factories not being sold because of the new product taking over? This wastes resources, space and energy. Also, what about the old product owned by the consumer that was replaced? It’s most likely thrown away because it has become obsolete to them. This is a negative because all the now obsolete products are taking up landfill space, or adding harmful chemicals to the land.