mood: determined
listening to: Risque - Cute Is What We Aim For

I was cleaning my rather messy room when I got hold of my paper from my Environmental Science class a long time ago. It always amused me to see that I got 55/50. (I still don't understand why, really. There was no "extra credit" section. MYSTERY) My favorite part of the paper was this:

What was your personal reaction to the documentary?

Even before I watched the documentary, I’m already aware how dangerous the effects of global warming are. I consider myself an environmentalist in little ways; I tell people I know that making bonfires (siga) is bad for the ozone layer, I do not use sprays with CFCs and encourage my family not to also, I do not litter and encourage others not to (but they don’t listen though), among other things. Some would say that I am just an obsessive compulsive. Setting that comment aside, my purpose is really for the benefit of our environment (because it’s common sense that I’ll be affected by it). Since I was little, I am already concerned of pollution (especially air pollution since I have hereditary allergies) and wastes. I am also a health-conscious type of person since my body is weak and my immune system is functioning lower than others (or so they say). Due to these reasons, I really give importance to our environment.

When I heard that we’re going to watch a documentary about the environment, I got excited. I hope that my classmates and other students will see the real world and change their ways. Unfortunately though, it seems that the seriousness of the topic stayed only in the IMC, since I see them back to their unproductive ways afterwards. (I’m not trying to make them look bad, I’m just telling facts and they are like symbolic figures in relevance to our society.) I guess their argument will be that they’ll contribute only a small portion of the effect in our environment. If that’s the case and other people have that same idea, then gather them around and there’s a great number of people doing those things—which in sum, will not be a “small contribution” after all. If their argument will be that others will clean it up later, then they’ll seem like children who need looking after, which defies their sense of responsibility and initiative. If they’ll reason that the world won’t be destroyed right away, then they arrogantly reject the idea that of course the event won’t have an immediate impact because it’s slowly progressing to it (like the luke warm water turning hot). Before they know it, it’s already a dilemma. It’s really a pity—they epitomize the general population of our country. No wonder they say Filipinos are wasteful procrastinators. The streets littered with garbage, factories and cars still smoke, people who do not care if they contribute to the rate of dying of our planet—it is really a sad sight, not to mention it gives a bad reputation to our once beautifully clean country.

Watching this documentary made me realize the more fatal effects of global warming like to the polar bears and birds. I’m glad I got to know of those things because now I could somehow impart those facts to other people and persuade them to stop their destructive deeds. In the end, man really is the reason why our world is in extreme danger. How ironic that despite the need to survive, we kill ourselves. Despite the growing improvements in various aspects of our lives, it will actually be the cause of our downfall.

I hope more people (students in particular—because some of them might be environmentalists or politicians someday) will get to watch this. Even if they go back to their unproductive ways, at least knowledge of our world’s dilemma is already imparted to them. (Though they will not act upon it, there will still be at least a little chance or hope that before they litter, they’ll remember the documentary and have second thoughts about doing it.)

It will be up to us to save our planet. After all, we won’t be happy handling great crises later on.

I know there was no structure, but it wasn't an essay so it didn't matter that much.

Here are the questions before that one. (That was the last question.) Read if you're still interested. People must watch An Inconvenient Truth so that they'll be aware of the effects of global warming and how we contribute to it.

Who is Mr. Al Gore?
Al Gore is the 45th Vice President of the United States. He served the country from 1993 to 2001. He previously served in the U.S. House of Representatives (1977-85) and the U.S Senate (1985-93) representing Tennessee. In 2007, he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measure that are needed to counteract such change.”

Gore was a democratic nominee for president in the 2000 election. He lost to the Republican candidate George W. Bush in spite of winning the popular vote. legal controversy over the Florida election recount, eventually settled in favor of Bush by the Supreme Court, made the election among the most controversial in American history.

More recently, Gore has been an environmental activist, lecturing on the topic of global warming, which he labels "the climate crisis”. In 2006, he starred in the Academy Award-winning documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, regarding the environment.


According to Mr. Gore, what are the three factors causing the collision between man and the environment?
According to Gore, the three factors causing the collision between man and the environment are the (drastically increasing) population (since people are the cause of pollution and global warming), science and technology (factories’ smoke, oil spills, chemicals, et cetera), and man’s way of thinking or attitude (procrastination, arrogance, ignorance, skepticism).


According to Mr. Gore, what are the three factors causing the collision between man and the environment?
According to Gore, the three factors causing the collision between man and the environment are the (drastically increasing) population (since people are the cause of pollution and global warming), science and technology (factories’ smoke, oil spills, chemicals, et cetera), and man’s way of thinking or attitude (procrastination, arrogance, ignorance, skepticism).


Explain the analogy between the frog and man’s attitude towards changes in the environment like global warming.
Mr. Gore gave an example of a frog that leaped in a container with hot water. Sensing the temperature, it leaped out immediately. Another example after that features the frog leap in a container with luke warm water. This time, because it’s luke warm, the frog can handle it’s temperature, thus, it stayed there. Then the luke warm water began to grow hot. The frog still stayed in the container since it can still handle the temperature. If this prolongs, the frog will be in deep trouble when it can’t handle the heat anymore.

The water represents the situation or the dilemma we’re in. If man is suddenly faced with a big crisis, then man immediately fights back or attempts to save himself. The result will be that the crisis will be acted upon and therefore saves man. But if man is put in a situation when the problem is not that big a deal [yet] (pertains to the luke warm water), man tends to procrastinate and the problem will just keep getting bigger (pertains to the luke warm water turning hotter). What he meant to say, in regards to environmental problems such as global warming, is that man right now is procrastinating in terms of making changes in the environment. If we don’t act right away, we’ll be in big trouble later.


What was Mr. Gore’s point when he presented “Reposition of Global Warming” as a theory rather than a fact?
He presented it as a theory rather than a fact because it is not yet certain whether or not the people will act on the reposition despite the fatal situation of our world. The Reposition of Global Warming will only be a fact when people react to it and actually do the reposition, eventually saving ourselves and our planet.

Mr. Gore gave a quote here as an example, “Even doctors smoke Camel.” The quote meant to point out how ironic it is that doctors smoke cigarettes when it is a fact that cigarettes endanger our health. It gives out the impression that cigarettes might not be so bad after all since doctors smoke. So in regards to people and the environment, if the men in politics (or any person with a position) and the government do not stress the enforcement about global warming, there is no guarantee that the people will act upon it when they’re informed, seeing as even the authorities do not give it a big deal, which in actuality really is a big deal.


Mr. Gore’s documentary has the US as its setting. Does it apply to Philippine setting?
Yes it does, seeing as Filipinos are procrastinators and practice ningas cogon. Our country already has many environmental hazards like smoke-belching vehicles and air-polluting/water-polluting factories. Mr. Gore’s documentary was for the whole world to know that is why he travels to many countries now and then to impart this scientific knowledge for people to act upon it. Every nation contributes; it is just that the US has the most contributions, seeing as it is one of the top countries with high technologies and other economic advancement.


What was Mr. Gore’s main objective in his program for spreading global warming? Was it technical in nature?
It is technical in nature and more than that. His objective is to open man’s mind of how our world is doing right now. It is to urge man to act upon it before it is too late. It is to lay down facts and theories to encourage man’s thoughts. Many environmentalists, theorists, and philosophers already warned man of their activities—that someday negative things will happen to our planet. What Gore is trying to do is the same. He wants to make an impact to make people listen more than ever before because the effects of global warming are fatal to us, and it’s already acting upon animals and nature in general.


What evidences did Mr. Gore present to show that Global Warming exists? Name at least three.
The melting of glaciers, change in weather, and disturbances of Ecological Niche are some of the evidences that we have global warming. Compared in the past, the glacier’s rate of melting rapidly increased in recent years. In regards to weather changes, we have more and stronger typhoons and floods, and other natural disasters—which proved to be so destructive. The disturbances of the ecological niche proved to be fatal as well; some species of animals are endangered or on the verge of extinction.


What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know, but, what we know for sure that ain’t so.” What does this quotation mean in relation to the documentary?
I think this goes to the Skeptics mentioned for they tend to be too open for skepticisms to actually believe in the already laid-down facts or limit their urge to know the truth (because it tends to be inconvenient for this matter). In relation to the documentary, Mr. Gore wants to point out that we should be over the believe-it-or-not situation, rather to act upon it since there are already these informations at hand. Unfortunately though, if people are not informed enough or have limited information—what they already know that they think they’re sure of is really not the matter. The statement proves to be very influential and controversial.

BTW, I shall change my layout very sooooon. I finally narrowed down the 3 layouts that I like the most. =)

Labels: school

I want to stop wondering "what-ifs".
I need to know "what is".