Globalization and Its Relation to Global Warming Globalism is bad in other ways. Many individuals are aware of the term global warming. Whether they hear about it from the news, or just personally witness the unusual climate changes occurring around or close to them, they encounter minute impacts of global warming daily. However, most do not really understand just how serious of an issue global warming actually is at the moment. When talking about global warming, scientists are speaking of the global warming emissions that are on a constant upward swing. These emissions cause various problems. One of the problems is an increasing global sea level. Since 1880, the sea level has increased 8 inches, an obvious impact of Global Warming. While this may not seem like a great amount, this increase causes a higher risk of flooding to coastal and low-lying properties. Another problem is rising temperatures. Global warming emissions destroy the protective barrier between the earth’s surface and the intense heat given off by the sun. These increasing temperatures cause forests to be hotter and drier for longer periods of time. This then results in a longer forest fire season for the western United States. Also, it can lead to increased drought periods in many parts of the globe. This not only limits the drinking water supply, which people need to survive, but it destroys crops that don’t get an adequate amount of water. It also can put an increased pressure on pumping the ground water supply, since there is little to no rain water to continuously replenish it. Most people, myself included, enjoy watching the seasons change. However, with the increasing global warming conditions, the seasons are changing more rapidly and the fall and winter months are being cut shorter in length. According to the article Global Warming Impacts, spring arrives on average 10 days earlier in the northern hemisphere than it used to. This is causing the snow to melt more rapidly and raise the water levels in the oceans and seas. With the cold months cut shorter, there is less time for the cold weather to regulate viruses. For instance, mosquito’s carry many types of blood viruses, such as Zika. Without the cold winter months, mosquitoes are not controlled as they should be, and it is more likely for these viruses to spread quickly. Now that some of the global warming effects have been discussed at greater length, we need to understand what causes these effects. Most people know that it can be caused by an unnatural rise in carbon monoxide emissions or other hazardous materials being disposed of improperly. However, what they may not know is that globalization is a leading cause in the rise of global warming emissions. Globalization is the act of businesses operating on a worldwide spectrum and is possible through the implementation of trade agreements. While this may be beneficial for the business or company due to expansion, and increasing profits, most of the time it is not beneficial to help in cutting back on global warming. There are different ways as to how, but all-in-all it leads to an unnatural increase in carbon monoxide emissions. One way this is possible is through transportation. With businesses operating on a global level, there is more demand for travel and transportation. If the business is a service business, some of the time the companies must have employees travel from one location to another for various reasons. These employees normally travel by use of trains, planes, buses or automobiles. All the listed modes of transportation for travel give off carbon monoxide emissions, through the use of gas or diesel, which are types of fossil fuels. More common, however, is for production businesses and companies to transport goods or products. They may transport whole products to be sold through retailers or parts of products for production to be completed of the whole product. Goods and products are typically transported with the use of boats, airplanes, trucks, and sometimes trains. Once again, all of these types of transportation give off the harmful emissions. Another way this is possible is through politics. Since globalization means that businesses operate in multiple countries, they are able to work around global warming regulations to cut costs. Many production businesses produce some type of waste. This waste could be hazardous or it could just be something that decomposes over time. Regardless of what type it is; most waste gives off carbon monoxide emissions. Along with this, different countries have different regulations in an effort to cut back on global warming effects, although some countries regulations are stricter than others. For example, the regulations could be how to dispose of the waste or how much they are able to dispose of in a given period of time. It could also be how much emission they are able to release into the atmosphere for industrial plant companies. Many global companies look at these regulations and go to the areas that have less strict regulations to help cut costs of disposal and not have to find another alternative for the disposal of their waste. This then allows the business to pollute more than they should be able to and causes carbon monoxide emissions to increase greatly. Through globalization, companies are trying to expand their business and increase profits by cutting costs. However, globalization is costing more than it is worth with the negative effects that it produces on global warming. Globalization gives a direct correlation to increasing carbon monoxide levels in the atmosphere, which in turn leads to the negative effects of things such as rising temperatures. While globalization can have benefits to businesses and the environment in other ways, we must be mindful and conservative of its overall impact. Global warming is on a continuous rise and globalization will continue to affect it as time goes on.
A good part of my heritage can be traced back to some of the Scots- Irish, English and German settlers who first blazed a trail into what is now Southeastern Kentucky and East Tennessee. That part of the country was originally very fertile, with plenty of timber, game and good soil to plant and harvest crops from. That changed when timber and, later, coal companies came in to utilize the resources of the land, often at the expense of the people who were already living there. That kind of commercialism happened all over the Southern Appalachians, as these links will show: The Papers Corporation Invasion of the Apps Bad direction for the beautiful land of the Appalachians. The Southern Appalachians have become an economically impoverished area, with large swaths of empty land ( or land owned by absentee landlords) and many people living below the poverty line. I live in Northern Virginia, which is part of the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area. Through my father, I descend from early English and German settlers in the areas of Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia and Prince Georges County, Maryland. There’s no shortage of poverty here, either and jobs are certainly at a premium. The growing international community makes simple things like communicating to people in English occasionally a touch and go situation, as large minorities of people do not speak English ( or they speak it poorly). I grew up here, but I make my way to the southwest for certain family reunions that my mother’s family will hold in Tennessee every couple of years. The contrast between what I see at home and what I see down South is shocking, but even more shocking, I think, is what I see when I go up to the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia to visit my daughter. That part of West Virginia is flourishing! They have a strong economy, a large population growth and plenty of jobs for whoever wants to work. It’s also close enough to the DC Metro area that people can easily commute back and forth. That means that they earn money and spend it in an area that’s not as expensive as the DC area is; Positive Changes For Maryland Economy bounces back for Pittsburgh. , I also had a chance to see Western Maryland and Southwestern Pennsylvania, which looks to be just as prosperous as the Eastern panhandle of West Virginia .So, between the Pittsburgh Metro Area in the North and the poverty stricken Kentucky coal country in the South, you have two glaringly different parts of Appalachia. I’m very relieved that my daughter ( who through her mother has a heritage in the prospering towns of the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia as well as the Southwestern mountain areas of Pennsylvania) is growing up in a positive, robust economy that that area of West Virginia is enjoying at the moment. I can hope also that some day, all the investments and businesses that are vitalizing the economy in the more northerly parts of Appalachia might find their way down South. Time will tell, I reckon.
Immense Cost of Healthcare in the US by the mysterious Aleah first run, Saturday, June 10, 2017. What is really wrong with U.S. Health-care? Aleah lays it on the line. Our health-care system has a fundamental flaw: It’s far too costly. Americans spend $3.3 trillion a year on healthcare, which is 50 percent to 100 percent higher per capita than in other developed nations. For our money, we get some of the world’s most sophisticated treatment of cancer, heart disease, and other serious illnesses. However, a new Commonwealth Fund report released early last year underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical and healthcare services, prices and medical outcomes. The study statistics, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare was primarily designed to increase general health coverage for Americans and stem the continuous rise in health-care costs.G The study indicates that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2014, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality. That level of health spending relative to GDP is about 50 percent more than any of the countries studied for the report, which are Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth Fund said that in the U.S., the life expectancy in 2014 was an average of 78.8 years. By contrast, in Switzerland, which had the second-highest health spending per capita at $6,325, life expectancy was more than four years higher, at 82.9 years. But overall, U.S. health care is relatively mediocre, producing shorter life expectancy, higher infant mortality, and worse health overall than the systems in such countries as the U.K., Switzerland, Canada, Australia, and Sweden. Ryan-care won’t fix a broken system; Obama Care didn’t, either. Both were conceived as patches on an absurdly complex Rube Goldberg machine assembled over 75 years of haphazard decisions. Studies have found that 34 percent of the immense cost of our system is simply wasted, with no benefit to patients. Is health care a commodity like any other, which you can either afford or cannot? Or is it like education, electricity, or police and fire protection — basic necessities that government should ensure that everyone gets? We can’t decide. Our system is a clunky, free-market/socialist hybrid that ties coverage to employment, age, and income, with tens of millions of people falling through the gaps. Meanwhile, doctors, hospitals, insurers, drug companies, medical device makers, and malpractice lawyers strive to make as much money as possible tending to the sick. The average hip replacement in the U.S. costs $40,364; in Spain, $7,731. In the U.S., an angiogram is $914; in Canada, it’s $35. Lipitor costs $124 per month here and $6 in New Zealand. This is the elephant in the room. To address it, and to make health care truly available to all, would require radical change. But too many people and companies have a vested interest in a health-care system that’s the most expensive and inefficient in the civilized world. So that is what we’ll continue to have, no matter whose name precedes “care.”