Earths global Energy Budget

Earth’s Global energy Budget is an article written by Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo, and Jeffery Kiehi. This article dwells on various issues related to earth’s energy budget. It also focuses on the sources of earth’s energy and various methods used to measure it (Trenberth, Fasullo, and Kiehl 1).Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Earth’s global Energy Budget specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Sources of Earth’s Energy Earth’s climate is determined by the quantity and distribution of ration from the sun. A stable climate is usually achieved when outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) regulates incoming absorbed solar radiation (ASR). Inward bound radiant energy is usually absorbed by the earth’s atmosphere. The shortwave energy (radiant solar) is converted into kinetic energy, potential energy and latent energy before is it released as longwave radiant energy (Trenberth, Fa sullo, and Kiehl 1). Energy may be transported in different forms, stored for a short period or transformed into the different types, thus creating different types of climate on earth’s surface. In addition, the energy balance can be altered in several ways adjusting earth’s climate and weather (Trenberth, Fasullo, and Kiehl 1). Modern technology is currently being used to estimate and analyze earth’s energy budget. Some experts have used satellite data to document earth’s energy budget for the annual cycle and inter-annual changeability. Several new measurements have been done, especially from CERES (clouds and the earth’s radiant energy system) devices on a number of platforms. In addition, there are several new estimates made about earth’s energy budget that are credible. Several examinations on the content of ocean heat have also provided a comprehensive analysis of the global heat balance (Trenberth, Fasullo, and Kiehl 2). For example, Trenberth, Fasullo, and Kiehl present an evaluation of the earth’s energy budgets at the surface and Top of atmosphere (TOA) for the global ambiance, land surface and ocean on the basis of ocean temperature estimates, land domain simulations and analysis of data retrieved from satellite (2). They limited the TOA budget to correspond to estimates of the global disparity during latest periods of satellite coverage related to adjustments in climate and atmospheric composition (Trenberth, Fasullo, and Kiehl 2). They also analyze the ocean heat budget in great detail and provide observable estimates of energy deviation and a complete evaluation of uncertainty. By discretely examining the land and ocean spheres, Trenberth, Fasullo, and Kiehl discovered a setback in the previous alteration made to Earth Radiation Budget Experiment data when NOAA-9 fail and found it appropriate to harmonize the record independently over land and ocean rather than on a global basis.Advertising Lo oking for essay on environmental studies? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The outcome was a modified and somewhat better value for the global outgoing longwave radiation than in KT97. Nonetheless, even larger adjustments emerged from using CERES data that apparently reveal better precision of CERES retrievals and its accuracies in retrieval method as well as its utilization of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer technology for scene recognition (Trenberth, Fasullo, and Kiehl 2). The discussions above have outlined some of the key issues and problems associated with determining earth’s energy budget. It is appropriate to inspect the ocean and land spheres independently so as to take advantage of the limitations that arises with them and particularly to the capability of the land and ocean to store energy. Earth’ Energy Imbalance and Implications According to the article Earth’ Energy Imbalance and Impl ications, human beings are potentially susceptible to changes in global temperature. Although climate change is caused by several environmental agents, there is a general concession that the current trend in global warming is as a result of human activities that have altered atmospheric composition (Hansen, Sato and Kharecha 1). Causes of Global Warming The greenhouse effect is basically the major cause of global warming. For example, when the level of carbon dioxide rises, the atmosphere becomes denser at infrared wavelengths. A denser atmosphere causes the earth’s heat radiation in space to emerge from high and colder regions of the atmosphere thereby preventing heat energy to escape to space. The short-term imbalance between the heat energy absorbed by the atmosphere and heat energy released to space causes the earth to warm until planetary energy equilibrium is re-established. A climate forcing is defined by planetary energy discrepancy attributed to an adjustment of atmo spheric composition. Climate sensitivity, defined as the ultimate change of global temperature per unit forcing, is a well-known phenomenon. However, there are two key elements that constrain the ability of humans to predict changes in global temperatures on a long-term basis (Hansen, Sato and Kharecha 1). The first element is climate forcing brought about by man-made aerosol which is virtually immeasurable. Aerosols are fine elements; such as sulfates, dust and black soot, suspended in the air. Aerosol climate forcing is intricate since aerosols both absorb solar radiation (which increases temperatures) and reflect solar radiation to space (causing temperatures to fall). Moreover, atmospheric aerosol can change cloud properties and cloud cover. Second, the rate at which the temperature of the earth’s surface moves toward stability in reaction to a climatic forcing is determined by the manner in which heat perturbations are efficiently blended into the ocean (Hansen, Sato and Kharecha 2).Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Earth’s global Energy Budget specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Climate sensitivity is determined by climate feedbacks- which entail numerous physical processes that arise when climate adjusts in reaction to a forcing. Positive (magnifying) feedbacks raise the climate response whereas negative (weakening) feedbacks decrease the response. Climate problem are mainly caused climate feedbacks. Climate feedbacks are complex phenomena to grasp because a climate forcing can be wrongly interpreted as a climate feedback and vice versa. Climate models- developed on the basis of physical laws that portray the dynamics and structure of the land processes, ocean and atmosphere- are utilized to simulate climate. These models help climate experts to grasp the nature of climate sensitivity since they can alter processes in the climate model and examine their interactions (Hanse n, Sato and Kharecha 4). As noted above, global warming is mainly caused by human activities. However, there are several environmental factors that contribute to changes in global temperature. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide increases the density of the atmosphere which in turn prevents heat radiation from escaping to space. This phenomenon leads to global warming. In addition, humans are unable to analyze the underlying cause of global warming because of the complicated nature of climate feedbacks (Hansen, Sato and Kharecha 4). Principles of Remote Sensing According to the article Principles of Remote Sensing written by Aggarwal, remote sensing is a method used to monitor atmosphere or earth’s surface using satellite technology or airplanes (23). Several aspects of electromagnetic field are used in remote sensing. It captures data on electromagnetic energy reflected by the surface of earth. The quantity of radiation from radiance (object) is determined by both radiat ion striking the radiance and the property of the object (Aggarwal 23). Remote Sensing Remote sensing refers to the indirect process of acquiring information about objects found on earth’s surface. Humans use sensing instruments to measure electromagnetic energy transmitted by an object. Remote sensing instruments enable humans to capture images of earth’s surface in different wavelength areas of electromagnetic spectrum (EMS). A number of of the pictures symbolize reflected solar radiation in the observable infrared areas of the EMS whereas others measure the amount of energy released by the surface of earth (Aggarwal 24). Remote sensing is essentially a multifaceted science discipline which entails an amalgamation of several disciplines for example photography, spectroscopy, electronic, telecommunication and computer. These disciplines are combined to form a complete system called Remote Sensing System.Advertising Looking for essay on environmental studies? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More There are several phases in a remote sensing process: discharge of electromagnetic radiation (EMR); transmission of energy from the source to earth’s domain; interface of electromagnetic radiation with the surface of earth; broadcast of energy from earth’s surface to the remote sensor; and output of sensor data (Aggarwal 24). The radiation from the sun is either reflected by earth’s surface, conveyed into the surface or emitted by earth’s surface. On interaction, the electromagnetic radiation experiences several adjustments in direction, magnitude, polarization, phase and wavelength. These adjustments are registered by the remote sensor and the interpreter is able to retrieve vital data concerning the object under observation. The data retrieved has spectral information (color, spectral mark and tone) and spatial data-direction, shape and size (Aggarwal 30). As noted above, the main source of radiation and electromagnetic radiation is the sun. Radiation f rom the sun is usually reflected by earth’s surface and sensed by airplane-borne sensor or satellite. The interaction between the atmosphere and electromagnetic radiation is critical to remote sensing for two key purposes. First, the interactions of electromagnetic with atmosphere enable interpreters to acquire important information concerning the atmosphere itself. Second, data conveyed by electromagnetic radiation is adjusted while navigating via the atmosphere. The atmospheric elements disperse and soak up the radiation reflected from the object by altering its spatial allotment. Both absorption and scattering differ with respect to their effect from one end of the spectrum to another (Aggarwal 34). Atmospheric scattering takes place when electromagnetic radiations are redirected by fine particles suspended in the atmosphere. Scattering not only alters the spectral signature of objects but also decreases the contrast of the image. The quantity of electromagnetic radiation scattered is determined by a number of factors: the wavelength of EMR; the mass of particles; the volume of particles; and the density of the atmosphere. The concentration of these particles fluctuates depending on the season and time. This implies that the outcomes of scattering will be spatially irregular and will differ from one season to another (Aggarwal 35). As noted above, the sun is the main source of EMR. Remote sensing refers to the indirect process of acquiring information about objects found on earth’s surface. Humans use different sensing instruments to measure electromagnetic energy transmitted by an object. The quantity of radiation from an object is determined by both radiation striking the radiance and the property of the object. Remote sensing is thus a useful technique for identifying and classifying various features of the earth and atmosphere. Works Cited Aggarwal, Shefali. Principle of Remote Sensing. Dehra Dun: Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, n.d. P rint. Hansen, James, Sato Makiko, and Kharecha, Pushker. Earth’s energy Imbalance and Implications. New York: Columbia University Earth Institute, 2010. Print. Trenberth, Kevin, Fasullo John, and Kiehl, Jeffery. Earth’s Global Energy Budget. Boulder, Colorado: National Center for Atmospheric Research, 2008. Print. This essay on Earth’s global Energy Budget was written and submitted by user Claudia V. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Voiced vs. Unvoiced Pronunciation

Voiced vs. Unvoiced Pronunciation Voiced vs. Unvoiced Pronunciation Voiced vs. Unvoiced Pronunciation By Maeve Maddox Two terms I often use when writing about pronunciation are voiced and unvoiced. Apparently they are not as familiar in this context as I assumed they were. A reader has asked me to explain my use of them. In one sense, to voice something is the same as to say or speak it: Homeowners voice their concerns about increased earthquake activity. Likewise, in some contexts, unvoiced means unspoken: If people seem tense because of  unvoiced  disagreements, you may have to bring  concerns  out into the open. In the context of pronunciation, however, voiced and unvoiced refer to consonant sounds that are uttered with the lips, tongue and teeth in the same position, but which produce different sounds. Voiced sounds result when the vocal cords are touching and vibrate. Unvoiced sounds are pronounced with the vocal cords apart. For example, both sounds, /d/ and /t/ are uttered with the tongue in the same position, but the sound at the beginning of the word dog is voiced. The sound at the beginning of the word toy is unvoiced. The following English consonant letter pairs represent voiced and unvoiced sounds: b/p = boy, pit d/t = dog, toy v/f = van, fan Note: The usual spelling for the unvoiced sound in this pair is f. An exception is the word of, in which the letter f represents the voiced sound. j/tch = jet, witch Note: The letter g represents two sounds. The â€Å"soft† sound is the same as that of the letter j. The â€Å"hard† sound belongs to the following consonant pair. g/k = girl, kite The letter s and the letter-combination th represent both voiced and unvoiced sounds: s = music [voiced], sing [unvoiced] th = they [voiced], thin [unvoiced] The sound /zh/ is represented by the letter g in a few English words derived from French, such as genre and menagerie, but more often the sound /zh/ is spelled with the letter combination si: invasion, intrusion, vision. The /zh/ sound is also spelled with the letter s followed by u: visual, casual. The unvoiced sound of /zh/ is /sh/, as in ship. The sounds for the letters l, m, n, ng, and r are voiced. They do not have unvoiced equivalents in English. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Spelling category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Math or Maths?"Have" vs "Having" in Certain ExpressionsPreposition Mistakes #1: Accused and Excited

Mental health and mental disorder module(psychososial studies Degree) Essay

Mental health and mental disorder module(psychososial studies Degree) - Essay Example The existence of mental disease and the legality of the psychiatric specialization are not universally acknowledged. Some specialists, especially Doctor Thomas Szasz, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Syracuse, seriously stand up against the practice of use of the definition "mental illness." The anti-psychiatry movement frequently refers to what it means by "myth of mental illness" and dispute against a biological cause for mental disorders, or also states that all human experience has a biological origin and so no type of behaviour can be called a disease per se. In this particular work I would like to study depression from the general point of view and from the point of view of Thomas Szasz in order to prove or disprove his position. So, is depression a disease or a myth? Depression is the most widespread disease of XX century. During all the past and in present century depression was considered as a normal condition of artistic, creative people. We heard more than once:  «I am in depression, live me along ". Nowadays, depression is a dangerous disease, which causes unfeigned suffering. However there are some scientists who do not agree with it, they are Thomas Szasz and his colleagues Jeffrey A. Schaler and Ron Leifer. 1. The first point: â€Å"A disease scientifically is defined as a biological abnormality that affects living tissues. Trees can be diseased, plants, animals, and humans. A real disease is typhoid fever, we call it a literal disease. Spring fever sounds like a disease but it is not a disease. The whale is a real animal, but it is not a fish, it is a metaphorical fish. So when we say depression is not a disease, we do not minimize the human phenomenon suffering. It exists like the whale exists but it is not a disease.† (Thomas S. Szasz Cybercenter for Liberty and Responsibility, 1998). 2. The second point: â€Å"Treatment has got nothing to do with

Contemporary marketing Assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Contemporary marketing Assignment - Essay Example With such keen interest in building a strong brand, two issues usually come up. One has to do with the components of a strong brand and the other has to do with ways of developing a strong brand (Farris et al., 2010). While customer loyalty is mainly described by what individuals do, brand loyalty usually is defined by the feelings and impressions of individuals (Dawes, 2009). A number of global brands can boast the kind of loyalty and passion shown by generations of certain companies like Disney. Disney Company is going to be the basis of this paper on which examples will be drawn on how the company has come up with strategies to build a strong brand that leads to increasing customer retention and loyalty. For more than eighty years, the company has experienced and maintained a lasting and comfortable position in the market. There are numerous reasons as to why the company has managed to be as so, but one of the main reasons is because of the creation of a strong brand (JZMcBride an d Associates, 2011). This document will scrutinize various ways through which Disney Company has built a strong brand, which has helped the company retain millions of customers and their loyalty thus increasing profits. The paper will cite specific examples of how the company has managed to do this. There are different ways through which Disney is able to keep its customers happy and loyal. One of the ways through which the company has accomplished this is through the creation of a brand promise. The company has been able to narrow down its promise of brand to a single action, which is using heart to entertain (JZMcBride and Associates, 2011). Studies suggest that loyalty includes some level of pre- dispositional commitment in a brand. Loyalty to a brand is seen as a construct that is multidimensional. Such loyalty is dependent on a number of distinct psychological processes and it involves a number of measurements, the perceived value of customers, trust in brands, satisfaction of customers and commitment are all thought to be key influencing entities of loyalty to a brand (Fournier, 2007). As it follows, the strategy of Disney to use heart or feelings in entertaining the customers fulfils all these requirements and ensures that the company maintains the loyalty of its customers. Another way the company builds its brand and retains customers is by controlling its brand. By being true to its brand in numerous ventures is what differentiates the company from other brands in the market. For instance, the company owns ABC, which broadcasts numerous programs. For instance, ABC broadcasts a show Called Pan Am that is based on the lives of individuals in the 1960s. One thing that one notices is that the show does not include scenes of smoking even though they were increasingly common during this time. This shows that the company wishes to stick to its promise of broadcasting shows that are family friendly (JZMcBride and Associates, 2011). According to a number of st udies, commitment to behaviour of repeated purchase are considered as necessary elements for creating brand loyalty and customer loyalty, followed by satisfaction, perceived value and brand trust. Several scholars claim that enhancing customer

Facts of the Case Essay Example for Free

Facts of the Case Essay New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendments takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London. In 1990, the city of New London was designated a distressed municipality. n6 The city was experiencing economic decline and suffered from an unemployment rate that was twice Connecticuts rate as a state. n7 As a result of these conditions, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) was called upon by state and local officials to plan New Londons redevelopment. n8 After the NLDC developed a plan to build a Fort Trumbell State Park, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceutical company, revealed its plan to build a $ 300 million research facility on a site immediately adjacent to Fort Trumbell. n9 The addition of Pfizer to the New London area was anticipated to entice other businesses to migrate to the city, effectively serving as a catalyst to the areas rejuvenation. n10 The NLDC received State approval, and the plan for Fort Trumbell State Park was completed. n11 The final plan for the Park encompassed services and businesses that would cap italize on the added commerce resulting from the inclusion of Pfizer to the area. n12 The NLDC intended to create jobs and increase tax revenue with the development plan, but the Park was also intended to bolster the areas aesthetic qualities and leisure activities. n13 The NLDC received permission from the city council to exercise eminent domain in the citys name, enabling it to acquire the property for the ninety-acre Park. n14 The NLDC was able to purchase most of the property in the target area; however, it was unable to secure fifteen pieces of real estate after negotiations. n15 One such piece of real estate was owned by Charles and Wilhelmina Dery who had lived on their property for over sixty years. n16 The properties of the nine owners who refused to sell, including the Derys property, were located in areas appropriated by the NLDC as sites for park support, such as parking, retail services, or office space. n17 In November of 2000, the NLDC condemned the fifteen properties that remained to be acquired in order for the development plan to advance. n18 LEGAL QUESTION: does a public purpose constitute a public use for purposes of the Fifth Amendments Taking Clause, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation? Specifically, does the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (see main article: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights), protect landowners from the use of eminent domain for economic development, rather than, as in Berman, for the elimination of slums and blight? LENGTH: 8662 words STUDENT CASENOTE: Kelo v. City of New London NAME: Lia Sprague SUMMARY:? In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court debated whether the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes qualifies as a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. In November of 2000, the NLDC condemned the fifteen properties that remained to be acquired in order for the development plan to advance. Upon a finding that the proposed uses were not attributable to the above factors, the court affirmed the judgment for the parcel 3 takings and reversed the judgment regarding parcel 4A, allowing both parcels to be seized through eminent domain. The Court relied on this rationale to find that the use of private parties to further the public benefit was an acceptable method to achieve public use. Weighing this with the idea that transfers intended to confer benefits on particular, favored private entities, and with only incidental or pretextual public benefits, are forbidden by the Public Use clause, Justice Kennedy stated that courts should seriously investigate accusations of private party favoritism by the government entity. Justice Thomas agreed that replacing the words public use with public purpose effectively erased the Public Use Clause from the Fifth Amendment. Establishing such a safeguard appropriately balances the public policy concerns both supporting and criticizing the use of eminent domain for economic development. TEXT:? [*381] I. Introduction In Kelo v. City of New London, n1 the Supreme Court debated whether the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes qualifies as a public use within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. n2 The city of New London attempted to use the power of eminent domain to seize property to give to private companies in order to increase commerce in the area. n3 The Court found that, deferring to precedent, the public use requirement had been interpreted broadly. n4 Accordingly, in a five-to-four vote, the Court held that New Londons plans constituted public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. n5 II. Statement of Facts A. New Londons Development Plan and the Taking In 1990, the city of New London was designated a distressed municipality. n6 The city was experiencing economic decline and suffered from an unemployment rate that was twice Connecticuts rate as a state. n7 As a result of these conditions, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) was called upon by state and local officials to plan New Londons redevelopment. n8 After the NLDC developed a plan to build a Fort Trumbell State Park, Pfizer Inc. , the pharmaceutical company, revealed its plan to build a $ 300 million research facility on a site immediately adjacent to Fort Trumbell. n9 The addition of Pfizer to the New London area was anticipated to entice other businesses to migrate to the city, effectively serving as a catalyst to the areas rejuvenation. n10 The NLDC received State approval, and the plan for Fort Trumbell State Park was completed. n11 [*382] The final plan for the Park encompassed services and businesses that would capitalize on the added commerce resulting from the inclusion of Pfizer to the area. n12 The NLDC intended to create jobs and increase tax revenue with the development plan, but the Park was also intended to bolster the areas aesthetic qualities and leisure activities. n13 The NLDC received permission from the city council to exercise eminent domain in the citys name, enabling it to acquire the property for the ninety-acre Park. n14 The NLDC was able to purchase most of the property in the target area; however, it was unable to secure fifteen pieces of real estate after negotiations. n15 One such piece of real estate was owned by Charles and Wilhelmina Dery who had lived on their property for over sixty years. n16 The properties of the nine owners who refused to sell, including the Derys property, were located in areas appropriated by the NLDC as sites for park support, such as parking, retail services, or office space. n17 In November of 2000, the NLDC condemned the fifteen properties that remained to be acquired in order for the development plan to advance. n18 B. The Procedural History Petitioners filed suit in the Superior Court of Connecticut for the Judicial District of New London seeking injunctive relief to prevent the acquisition of their property through the use of eminent domain. n19 Petitioners argued that the takings at issue could not satisfy the public use requirement of Article 1 Â § 11 of the Connecticut Constitution (equivalent to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States) which reads in pertinent part: The property of no person shall be taken for public use, without just compensation therefor[e]. n20 The petitioners submitted that a taking cannot be for a public use if it is motivated by a private entity. . . and if ultimately a private entity is to determine the fate of the property owners. . . . n21 The Superior Court found that broad statements on public use and deference to the legislature must be qualified. n22 The Superior Court further stated of its role in eminent domain actions: If the court considers the [*383] purpose not to be reasonable or connected to a valid public use, it is the duty of the court to declare the act authorizing the taking as unconstitutional. n23 After review of the facts, the Superior Court held that the statements regarding the use of parcel 4A were too vague and uncertain to allow the court to conclude the takings here [were] necessary and would not be unreasonable. n24 The court granted a permanent injunction against destroying the properties located in parcel 4A and granted a temporary injunction against the destruction of the properties in parcel 3 after finding that the takings were justified as to allow the petitioners to appeal without losing their homes. n25 Both parties appealed the trial courts judgment to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. n26 The appellate court stated that since the takings were authorized by the legislature, the standard the judiciary must apply was one of unreasonableness, bad faith, or abuse of power. n27 Upon a finding that the proposed uses were not attributable to the above factors, the court affirmed the judgment for the parcel 3 takings and reversed the judgment regarding parcel 4A, allowing both parcels to be seized through eminent domain. n28 The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut. n29 III. Decision and Rationale A. The Majority Opinion of the Court The Supreme Court held that the takings proposed by the City for the purpose of economic development are for a public use as directed by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. n30 It has been well established that the government is barred from taking private property solely for the purpose of transferring it to a private entity for its use. n31 The Court analyzed whether New London would be barred from taking property from petitioners to allocate to private parties for support services for Pfizer, a private corporation. n32 In order for the takings at issue here to violate the public use [*384] clause, the plan must have been adopted with the purpose of benefiting a particular class of identifiable individuals. n33 The Court stated that the governments pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties. n34 The Court directed the focus to be on the future use of the taking, rather than on the immediate benefit. n35 The Court warned that by focusing solely on the benefit to private parties, the purpose of [the] taking becomes confused with the mechanics of how the resulting public benefit was accomplished. n36 The Court relied on this rationale to find that the use of private parties to further the public benefit was an acceptable method to achieve public use. However, a determination still had to be made regarding whether the development plan encompassed public use of the condemned property. n37 Even though, in this case, the property would not be opened for use by the general public, the Court had previously embraced a broad interpretation of public use that was satisfied in this situation. n38 At the end of the nineteenth century, the Court began to apply a public purpose standard, effectively rejecting the notion that the general public must be allowed actual use of the taken property. n39 Therefore, the Court applied this public purpose standard to New Londons development plan which promoted creating jobs, generating tax revenue, and helping to build momentum for the revitalization of downtown New London. n40 The Court examined how the concept of eminent domain met the changing needs of society during its public purpose analysis. n41 In Berman v. Parker, n42 the Court upheld a plan seeking to distribute property in a blighted area to both public and private entities for the purpose of redevelopment and found that non-blighted property was still a justified taking because the project was analyzed as a whole. n43 Thirty years later, the Court decided Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff n44 where it found that the elimination of a land oligopoly was a sufficient public use even though the property was put back in the hands of private parties. n45 In the same year, the [*385] Court held in Ruckleshaus v. Monsanto n46 that the benefit to competition in the pesticide market outweighed any benefit given to subsequent applicants. n47 The Court applied this trend of increasingly broad interpretations of the phrase public use to the facts of the present case and found that New Londons redevelopment plan served a public purpose. n48 New London developed a plan that it hoped would enable the city to overcome its economic strains. This plan included a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational uses of land, with the hope that they [would] form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. n49 According to Berman, the Court cannot judge the plan on a piecemeal basis, but must examine the possible outcomes of the plan as a whole. n50 The Court compared the economic benefit in this case to the previously mentioned cases and found no reason to distinguish between economic benefit received through tax revenue and increased job prospects from the economic benefits that have been previously upheld by the Court. n51 This rationale was further justified after looking at New Londons development plan. n52 Courts have long deferred to the decisions of state legislatures, absent a showing that the purpose was illegitimate or that the taking was validated by irrational justification. n53 The Courts position is to adjudicate the issue of public use and once that issue has been resolved, the legislature may use its discretion in determining by what means the plan will be accomplished. n54 The Court pointed out that states are able to place restrictions on its ability to procure property through eminent domain. n55 In this case, Connecticut had a statute specifically permitting the use of eminent domain for economic development. n56 As a result of this deference to legislation, combined with a broad interpretation of public use and the allowance of private parties as an intermediary towards the final goal of public purpose, the Court held that New Londons proposed takings satisfied the [*386] public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. n57 B. The Concurring Opinion of Justice Kennedy Justice Kennedy emphasized the utilization of a rational-basis standard of review for cases analyzing the public use clause. n58 Weighing this with the idea that transfers intended to confer benefits on particular, favored private entities, and with only incidental or pretextual public benefits, are forbidden by the Public Use clause, Justice Kennedy stated that courts should seriously investigate accusations of private party favoritism by the government entity. n59 Petitioners attempted to establish a need for a rule that presumptively invalidates any takings for purposes of economic development in order to allow the Court to discover the true motives behind the takings. n60 Justice Kennedy pointed out that the trial court in this case carefully examined the evidence and found that the primary motivation of the plan was to utilize Pfizers presence in the city to create an increase in commerce, a finding that eliminated the need to establish a higher standard of review in this case. n61 He was careful to note that some cases may warrant a presumption of invalidity. n62 However, Justice Kennedy stated that because the city developed a plan with substantial anticipated economic benefits that was subject to the review of the citys underlying motivations, and because the identities of the private entities were not established at the onset of the development planning, this case presented no circumstances that would justify an increased standard of review. C. The Dissenting Opinion of Justice OConnor, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas Justice OConnor disagreed with the majoritys opinion which stated that there were incidental private benefits in this case that were inferior to a substantial public benefit. n63 She felt that the reverse was true, and that by ruling in such a way, the Court had effectivelydelete[d] the words for public use from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. n64 This was consistent with the petitioners argument stating that the government may not take their property for the private use of other owners simply because the [*387] new owners may make more productive use of the property. n65 The premise of this argument was based upon the judiciarys position to determine the meaning of public use as it differed from the legislatures opinion. n66 Justice OConnor conceded that the Court should defer to the legislatures determination of what constitutes public use. n67 However, if the legislatures power to define this term was unlimited, without the possibility of a review from the judiciary branch, the Public Use Clause would amount to little more than hortatory fluff. n68 Justice OConnor recognized that certain circumstances exist in which the Public Use Clause should be interpreted broadly. She disagreed, however, that this should be a generalized holding allowing the inclusion of economic development as a public purpose. n69 As support for this argument, Justice OConnor distinguished two of the cases upon which the majority relied to reach their holding. n70 In Berman, the Court upheld a taking of blighted property, part of which was passed to private parties for the sake of redevelopment. n71 Congress had determined that the blighted area was hazardous to the health, safety, morals, and welfare, and thus eminent domain was appropriate to eliminate these conditions. n72 Looking at the neighborhood as a whole, the public purpose of eliminating hazardous conditions took precedence over allowing an owner of a non-blighted store to keep his property. n73 In Midkiff, the Court upheld a taking for the purpose of eliminating a land oligopoly that was skewing the States residential fee simple market, inflating land prices, and injuring the public tranquility and welfare. n74 Justice OConnor distinguished the two cases from the case at bar because the takings in Berman and Midkiff eliminated an affirmative harm on society rather than the public receiving a benefit that was secondary to private parties benefit. n75 By distinguishing the above cases, Justice OConnor found that precedent did not compel the majority to uphold such a broad rule that contained no limitations. n76 [*388] D. The Dissenting Opinion of Justice Thomas Justice Thomas agreed that replacing the words public use with public purpose effectively erased the Public Use Clause from the Fifth Amendment. n77 He stated that the present case is not the only case that has misconstrued the Takings Clause; rather, the line of cases leading up to the present have strayed from the Clauses original meaning. n78 Examining the language of the Fifth Amendment, Justice Thomas concluded that the phrase public use would be unnecessary verbiage if not interpreted as a limitation, and thus states that the Public Use Clause is therefore an express limit on the governments power of eminent domain. n79 After examining the plain language of the public use requirement, Justice Thomas further concluded that the drafters intended the clause to carry a narrow meaning requiring actual public employment of the taken property. n80 He also analyzed the Constitutions common-law background as well as the historical uses of eminent domain to reach the same narrow definition of public use. n81 Justice Thomas then examined a case relied on by the majority, Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, n82 by stating that the majority improperly relied on dicta in the case that was unnecessarily broad and cited no supporting authority. n83 This reasoning was brought up again by Justice Thomas when discussing United States v. Gettysburg Electric R. Co. , n84 from which the court relied on dicta stating that the judiciary shall respect the legislatures judgment when deciding a question of public use unless that judgment is unreasonable. n85 Justice Thomas claimed that the courts should not exhibit deference to the decisions of the legislature in such cases because a court owes no deference to a legislatures judgment concerning the quintessentially legal question of whether the government owns, or the public has a legal right to use, the taken property. n86 He also hypothesized that the Framers would not have subjected only the Public Use Clause to legislative deference out of all the provisions of the Bill of Rights. n87 He further argued that the Public Use Clause limits the legislative power of eminent domain, and thus by removing [*389] the power of the judiciary to oversee the limitation of that power, the purpose of the Clause is eliminated. n88 He analyzed the two cases Berman and Midkiff, and stated that the Court was wrong in those cases to equate the eminent domain power with the police power of the States. n89 He differentiated the two powers by concluding that the customary uses of police power do not require compensation to the citizens, while the uses of eminent domain always require compensation, concluding that the two powers were separate. n90 Justice Thomas further concluded that the combination of the above factors constructively eliminates the Public Use Clause from the Fifth Amendment, and he therefore stated that the appropriate interpretation of public use is that the property be used by the government or the public. n91 IV. Analysis Public policy dictates that the government should not be expected to compensate owners that hold out on selling their property in order to demand an unreasonably high payment. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment effectively overcomes this societal detriment; however, the public policy benefit favoring governmental takings needs to be balanced against the public policy favoring a citizens right to keep his property. With this in mind, the Framers added the Public Use Clause to the Fifth Amendment in order to limit the governments power to exercise eminent domain at its own discretion. Courts also need to remember this desire for balance between competing public policy issues when interpreting the Public Use Clause. The Supreme Court has gradually shaped the Public Use Clause to allow, in theory, any taking by the government that benefits the public regardless of whether that proposed effect is primary or secondary, substantial or minimal. The latest holding regarding eminent domain from the Supreme Court in Kelo allowed the taking of property for the abstract reasons of increased tax revenue and job opportunities. In the Courts holding, there were no express limitations on this new ability to confiscate property for such intangible benefits. Conversely, the Court stated that deference should be given to the legislatures decision of the appropriateness of the taking. n92 While the Court reviewed a comprehensive plan developed by the City outlining the intended uses of the condemned property, it did not require the City to show any proof that the intended uses [*390] were reasonably certain to result in the proposed public benefit. n93 The Court reasoned that if it were to impose such a requirement of proof, a significant impediment to the successful consummation of many such plans would result. n94 While there is a significant interest in promoting commerce, the Court seemingly overlooks the equally significant interest of affording homeowners protection from unnecessary takings. It seems reasonable to expect that if a city has an extensively planned development plan, such as was exhibited by the city of New London, it should further have planned out the financial details of such a development plan. This one additional step in the planning of the proposed takings could eliminate development plans that successfully complete the takings stage of the plan only to have the financing fall through, thus leaving the condemned homes empty and the land wasted. The law of waste is a basic property concept stating that land should be used in a way that maximizes the propertys value. n95 There can be no greater waste of property than to force owners to leave their homes and then allow the property to remain vacant while sources of funding are sought. There are many examples illustrating the aftermath of approving such a plan without forcing the legislature to obtain the means to institute that plan before issuing condemnation. n96 One particularly unjust case took place in Cincinnati, Ohio. n97 Nordstrom, the retail store, decided to locate in the city of Cincinnati. n98 However, a Walgreens store currently occupied the location that it wanted. n99 Walgreens agreed to move to a new location, but the new location was home to a CVS store. n100 The CVS store refused to move, and the city initiated condemnation proceedings in order to utilize its power of eminent domain, [*391] after which CVS agreed to settle. n101 The settlement required that the city move Walgreens to the lot across the street from CVS, which unfortunately held many small businesses of which the city condemned in order to give the land to Walgreens. n102 The problem looked resolved (at the expense of the small businesses that were forced to close their doors), but the city overlooked a clause in the agreement with Nordstrom. n103 Under the parties initial agreement, the city agreed to leave vacant the very parcel that it had just handed to Walgreens so that additional upscale' shops could be built adjacent to Nordstrom. n104 The city never rearranged the parcels, and Nordstrom never began building. n105 Nordstrom eventually announced that it would no longer be opening in Cincinnati on account of declining profit margins. n106 The city paved the vacant lot so that it could exist as a parking lot. n107 Luckily, a similar situation was resolved between the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) and Corcoran Jennison, the developer with whom the city contracted to build the hotel and convention center in Fort Trumbell. n108 An Associated Press article revealed that the NLDC claimed that Corcoran Jennison failed to find financing for the project and thus wanted to downgrade the quality of the hotel. n109 Corcoran Jennison rebutted that the NLDC was at fault because it set unrealistic standards for the hotel that were not economically feasible. n110 The president of the company, Marty Jones, stated that the company felt that the NLDCs tactics [did] not serve the communitys interests in generating timely economic development and new tax revenue at Fort Trumbull. n111 According to David Goebel, Chief Operating Officer of the NLDC, as of September 7, 2005, Corcoran Jennison has since obtained zoning approval for the plan and the plan is undergoing review as per the development agreement. n112 While funds have not been secured yet, the [*392] developer is currently pursuing final financial arrangements for construction of the hotel. n113 The fact that the city possessed an extensive proposed development plan could not have curtailed the dispute between the NLDC and the developer. The city is fortunate that it was able to compromise on its plan, thus preserving the premise that legitimized the takings, even though final funding is still absent from the project. However, a better safeguard than simply being fortunate should be required by the Court before upholding such takings. This safeguard is simple and legitimate; require proof to a reasonable certainty that such benefit will occur. If the city had been required to show proof of its financial backing, the developer would have been forced to find final funding before the condemnations were upheld by the Supreme Court. If the city of Cincinnati had been required to prove to a reasonable certainty that condemning small businesses for the sake of moving the Walgreens would allow a Nordstrom store to open in the city, perhaps city officials would not have missed the clause in the contract which delayed development of the store after which Nordstrom could no longer afford to open there. If the Court is unwilling to review the decisions of state legislatures, then it should impose a different safeguard for the property owners. This safeguard was appropriately suggested by the petitioners in Kelo and the benefit of such a review was promptly disregarded by the majority. n114 While it can be assumed that the legislature will not abuse its discretionary power, it is unreasonable to think a legislature that favors using eminent domain for the purposes of economic development will subject itself to safeguards favoring the property owners if it is not held to any review by the courts. With this in mind, some legislatures are taking it upon themselves to impose either stricter guidelines regulating the Public Use Clause or they are expressly stating that economic development is not a proper interpretation of public use. n115 This is evidenced by the fact that [j]ust five weeks after the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the use of eminent domain to seize private property for economic development, more than half of the states have introduced legislation to thwart potential abuses. n116 A legislative change route was suggested by the majority opinion and was apparently embraced by twenty-eight states. Such a change is also being embraced by federal legislation, as the House of Representatives is currently examining a bill that [*393] prohibits the dispersion of government funding to any city that uses eminent domain as a means to promote private commercial development. n117 While these twenty-eight states have taken the responsibility to ensure the fair treatment of their citizens, there remain twenty-two states that have not dealt with this pressing issue. For that reason, it is imperative that courts examine the possibility that the legislation might not have obtained all the avenues (and financing) necessary to achieve a successful result for both the city and the property owner. A balance can be struck between the needs of the public via eminent domain and the needs of the private property owner who is sacrificing his home for the public utility. The implication of a simple safeguard requiring a city to prove that its plan will be successful in achieving a public benefit is all that stands in the way of achieving this balance. V. Conclusion Eminent domain is a necessary action employed by legislatures for a variety of reasons. The Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that economic development was an appropriate reason for which eminent domain could be exercised. While noting that the city of New London possessed a comprehensive development plan, the Court imposed no express restrictions upon the ability of the legislature to exercise eminent domain for such purposes. The Court rejected the petitioners argument that the city should be required to show to a reasonable certainty that the public benefit would occur before the condemnation was allowed. This lack of legislative review by the Court constructively removed the Public Use Clause from the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution as the legislature now has free reign with which to decide for itself whether a proposed taking constitutes public use. While there is an assumption that the legislature will not abuse its power when deciding to take its citizens property, it should not be assumed that the same legislature will take the appropriate measures to safeguard that its citizens property will be utilized successfully. These measures should be implemented by the Court in the form of a review requiring the city to show with a reasonable certainty that the public benefit will occur. Th

Dimitri Shostakovich Essay -- essays research papers fc

Dmitri Shostakovich Dmitri Shostakovich, born on September 25, 1905, started taking piano lessons from his mother at the age of nine after he showed interest in a string quartet that practiced next door. He entered the Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg, later Leningrad) Conservatory in 1919, where he studied the piano with Leonid Nikolayev until 1923 and composition until 1925 with Aleksandr Glazunov and Maksimilian Steinberg. He participated in the Chopin International Competition for Pianists in Warsaw in 1927 and received an honorable mention, after which he decided to limit his public performances to his own works to separate himself from the virtuoso pianists. Prior to the competition, he had had a far greater success as a composer with the First Symphony (1924-25), which quickly achieved worldwide recognition. The symphony was influenced by composers as diverse as Tchaikovsky, Paul Hindemith, and Sergey Prokofiev. The cultural climate in the Soviet Union was, compared to the Soviet Union at its peak, free at the time. Even the music of Igor Stravinsky and Alban Berg, then in the avant-garde, was played. Bela Bartok and Paul Hindemith visited Russia to perform their own works, and Shostakovich toyed openly with these novelties. His first opera, The Nose, based on the satiric Nikolay Gogol story, displayed a thorough understanding of what was popular in Western music combined with his "dry" humor. Not surprisingly, Shostakovich's undoubtedly finer second opera, Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (later renamed Katerina Izmaylova), marked a stylistic retreat. However, this new Shostakovich was too avant-garde for Stalin. In 1928, Joseph Stalin inaugurated his First Five-Year Plan, an "iron hand fastened on Soviet culture," (Johnson) and in music a direct and popular style was demanded. Avant-garde music and jazz were banished, and for a while even Tchaikovsky was looked down upon. Shostakovich remained in good favor for a time, but it has been said that it was Stalin's personal anger at what he heard when he attended a performance of Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District in 1936 that sparked the official condemnation of the opera and of its creator. The focus of the opera was based around murder, conspiracy, and trickery, all of which were the worst things that a Russian could speak of. Shostakovich was brutally attacked in ... ...obert Dearling. The Music of Dmitri Shostakovich: the symphonies. Tantivy Press, 1979 Brown, Royal S. ‘Interview with Shostakovich.’ High Fidelity, 23 (October 1973). Fanning, David. The Breath of the Symphonist: Shostakovich’s Tenth. Royal Musical Association, 1988. Fay, Laurel E. ‘Shostakovich vs. Volkov: whose Testimony?’ The Russian Review (October 1980), pp. 484-93. Johnson, Priscilla and Leopold Labdez (eds.). Khrushchev and the Arts: the politics of Soviet Culture, 1962-64. MIT Press, 1965. Kay, Norman. Dmitri Shostakovich. Oxford University Press, 1972. MacDonald, Ian. The New Shostakovich. Northeastern University Press, 1990. Norris, Christopher. Bibliography of Russian Composers. White Lion, 1976. Olkhovsky, Andrei. Music under the Soviets: the agony of an art. Praeger, 1955. Salisbury, Harrison. ‘A Visit with Dmitri Shostakovich.’ New York Times, 8 August 1954. Schwartz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, 1917-1981. 2nd edition. Indiana University Press, 1983. Sollertinsky, Dmitri and Ludmilla. Pages from the Life of Dmitri Shostakovich. Hale, 1981. Volkov, Solomon (ed.). Testimony: the memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich. Harper & Row, 1979. Dimitri Shostakovich Essay -- essays research papers fc Dmitri Shostakovich Dmitri Shostakovich, born on September 25, 1905, started taking piano lessons from his mother at the age of nine after he showed interest in a string quartet that practiced next door. He entered the Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg, later Leningrad) Conservatory in 1919, where he studied the piano with Leonid Nikolayev until 1923 and composition until 1925 with Aleksandr Glazunov and Maksimilian Steinberg. He participated in the Chopin International Competition for Pianists in Warsaw in 1927 and received an honorable mention, after which he decided to limit his public performances to his own works to separate himself from the virtuoso pianists. Prior to the competition, he had had a far greater success as a composer with the First Symphony (1924-25), which quickly achieved worldwide recognition. The symphony was influenced by composers as diverse as Tchaikovsky, Paul Hindemith, and Sergey Prokofiev. The cultural climate in the Soviet Union was, compared to the Soviet Union at its peak, free at the time. Even the music of Igor Stravinsky and Alban Berg, then in the avant-garde, was played. Bela Bartok and Paul Hindemith visited Russia to perform their own works, and Shostakovich toyed openly with these novelties. His first opera, The Nose, based on the satiric Nikolay Gogol story, displayed a thorough understanding of what was popular in Western music combined with his "dry" humor. Not surprisingly, Shostakovich's undoubtedly finer second opera, Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (later renamed Katerina Izmaylova), marked a stylistic retreat. However, this new Shostakovich was too avant-garde for Stalin. In 1928, Joseph Stalin inaugurated his First Five-Year Plan, an "iron hand fastened on Soviet culture," (Johnson) and in music a direct and popular style was demanded. Avant-garde music and jazz were banished, and for a while even Tchaikovsky was looked down upon. Shostakovich remained in good favor for a time, but it has been said that it was Stalin's personal anger at what he heard when he attended a performance of Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District in 1936 that sparked the official condemnation of the opera and of its creator. The focus of the opera was based around murder, conspiracy, and trickery, all of which were the worst things that a Russian could speak of. Shostakovich was brutally attacked in ... ...obert Dearling. The Music of Dmitri Shostakovich: the symphonies. Tantivy Press, 1979 Brown, Royal S. ‘Interview with Shostakovich.’ High Fidelity, 23 (October 1973). Fanning, David. The Breath of the Symphonist: Shostakovich’s Tenth. Royal Musical Association, 1988. Fay, Laurel E. ‘Shostakovich vs. Volkov: whose Testimony?’ The Russian Review (October 1980), pp. 484-93. Johnson, Priscilla and Leopold Labdez (eds.). Khrushchev and the Arts: the politics of Soviet Culture, 1962-64. MIT Press, 1965. Kay, Norman. Dmitri Shostakovich. Oxford University Press, 1972. MacDonald, Ian. The New Shostakovich. Northeastern University Press, 1990. Norris, Christopher. Bibliography of Russian Composers. White Lion, 1976. Olkhovsky, Andrei. Music under the Soviets: the agony of an art. Praeger, 1955. Salisbury, Harrison. ‘A Visit with Dmitri Shostakovich.’ New York Times, 8 August 1954. Schwartz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, 1917-1981. 2nd edition. Indiana University Press, 1983. Sollertinsky, Dmitri and Ludmilla. Pages from the Life of Dmitri Shostakovich. Hale, 1981. Volkov, Solomon (ed.). Testimony: the memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich. Harper & Row, 1979.

Economy versus the Environment Essay

Down to Earth by Ted Steinberg highlights the role of nature in US history. Steinberg provides historical events, from minute detail of migrating birds to monumental breaking up of Pangeae, to support his analysis and for readers to fully grasp the course of American history. He maintains that the continuous interaction between human and nature drives them to evolve. But the truth, of course, is that human has tendencies to disregard nature to achieve their ideal standard of living. Moreover, human’s present consumption puts the life of future generation at risk. Long before the European settlement in the region, America’s natural resources were already being threatened. Native American hunters utilized the world around them according to their needs. These early hunters drove mammoths to extinction, as well as the giant ground sloths and other prehistoric species. Many of them used fire to clear landscape which did served their purpose but harmed other plants and animals. Eventually, however, they became gifted stewards of their environment. Their activities, hunting, gathering and farming, were influenced by the cycles of nature. The early exploration dictated by personal consumption quickly followed by exploitation. Migrants poured in pursuit of gold and silver in the English colonies which was abandoned for intensive harvesting of lucrative crops or the trapping of animals. The slang â€Å"buck† for money in America refers to deer hides called buckskins, being exported for glove making and other forms of leather manufacturing. This economic system persists until the end of the colonial period. By mid-1800s, regions were identified by the kind of cash crops they produced. Tobacco, â€Å"King Cotton,† rice from South Carolina lowlands, timber from the virgin forests of the Great Lakes, Texas cattle and wheat from the Great Plains. The system made the nation wealthy but at a devastating cost to biodiversity. Steinberg pointed out that the major factor that brought the ecological change in America is â€Å"putting a price tag on the natural world. † Cities were expanding, farmers were becoming more specialized in their cash crops and companies were pushing for more profits. Nature was transformed to articles of trade. Lumber companies, for instance, led to much deforestation which led to loss of other plants and habitat of animals. The citizens of the US seemed to have a sense of â€Å"ecological amnesia,† oblivious to the effect on nature of ruthless exploitation despite the mounting evidence. Aside from lumber companies, other businesses and industries abused the natural resources for profit to further degrade the environment. A common man specializing in one type of cash crop had to rely on other farmers to provide for the needs not met by his own produce. Rivers where fish used to spawn were dammed and converted to companies’ energy source. Nature was completely ignored in the interest of commerce and industry. As trade and commercialization intensifies so as reliance of everyone on someone else. Economic activity, both production and consumption, relates to the environment in two ways: the environment provides the raw materials for production, and through the process of production and consumption, we emit wastes into the environment (Worster, 1994). However, human wants are limited while resources are finite. Demand always exceeds supply. So what happens now if we continue to strive to obtain more goods and services from our limited supply of non-renewable resources? Our present and future generations are in peril. Economic theories of trade argue that a country should concentrate on trading and producing goods and services where they have the comparative advantage (Krugman& Obstfeld, 2008). The comparative advantage in production is achieved if the input that was used is abundant in the country. For instance, labor intensive goods should be traded by countries with large population, while countries should concentrate in producing capital intensive goods if they are abundant in capital. This exactly what the early traders did. They traded according to their comparative advantage, maximized their profit and yes, abused the environment to further their gains. The economic thinking that competitiveness as a function of efficiency of labor and capital is outmoded (Epping, 2001). In other parts of the world, industries are starting to factor in the efficient way of using their natural resources. These efficiencies benefit countries, companies and local communities. Japan and Germany use half the energy input of American industry in their products. Energy represents about 10 percent of the cost of production and so they achieve with their efficiency about a five percent comparative advantage in world markets relative to US goods. The idea is to have a sustainable supply of both non-renewable and renewable resources relative to demand, to use the natural resources in a more efficient way to make the goods and services of a country, a company or a community more competitive in the market. We do not want to be the generation that kills everything. References Epping, Randy Charles (2001). A Beginner’s Guide To World Economy. New York: Random House, Inc. Krugman, P. & Obstfeld, M. (2008). International Economics: Theory and Policy. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Steinberg, Ted (2002). Down To Earth (pp. 1-115). New York: Oxford UP. Worster, Donald (1994). Nature’s Economy: The History of Ecological Ideas. United Kingdom: Cambridge UP.