The advantages and disadvantages of adventure free essay sample

Adventure Tourism is a term that is not easily defined. For one thing, different people will have different ideas of what is â€Å"adventure†. For one person, â€Å"adventure† may be something as simple as camping outside in a tent, or walking through a wilderness area for an hour. For another, this would be considered passive tourism or exercise, whereas adventure would mean participating in dangerous and physically (also maybe emotionally) challenging activities, such as climbing a sheer rock face or white water rafting in dangerous rapids. Traditionally, adventure tourism has been perceived to be a younger person’s activity. In recent years, however, older people are keen to enjoy new experiences once their children have left home. The degree of challenge desired may be quite different. Some will balk at undertaking potentially dangerous activities like walking on a rope bridge across a deep ravine, and find a trek through the jungle at ground level sufficiently challenging. We will write a custom essay sample on The advantages and disadvantages of adventure or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Some will find another’s ‘adventure’ decidedly unpleasant, disagreeable, foolishly reckless, traumatic or boring. It is clear that adventure tourism has no distinct boundaries. For the past two-and-a-half years, I have been writing about adventure topics for The Adventure Corner travel blog, on everything from the merits of bumpy roads to tracking devices on narwhals. From my own thoughts on adventure to the latest scientific research, we’ve covered a lot of ground together. Looking over all of these articles since my first appeared here on February 9, 2010, I realize that one theme keeps showing up: Adventure travel is simply good for you. So I’ve compiled a Top Ten list of the reasons why. While there are several physical health benefits to adventure travel, the advantages for your mental wellness are just as impressive. Too, adventure travel can enlighten your soul   and even help save the world . Can you think of anything else that can do all that? Ten Reasons Why Adventure Travel Is Good for You 1) When you get dirty, you improve your physical health. Scientists have recently reported that our modern obsession with cleanliness might be leading to a rise in allergies, asthma, and inflammatory bowel disease. Getting dirty could just be the best path to developing a strong immune system. Going on adventures means getting dirty — and healthier.   Outdoor activities can prevent (or treat) a wide range of health problems. Doctors around the country are now handing out â€Å"park prescriptions† for conditions ranging from heart disease to obesity to attention deficit disorder. Adventure travel takes park prescriptions to the next level. 3) There are no age limits on adventure. Anyone can make nature a playground. Adventure travel is an activity you can stick with for life. Take a hike, get a bigger brain. Research indicates that hiking or walking grows brains. Typically, your hippocampus gets smaller once you hit your mid fifties, leading to memory loss. But a group of middle-aged adults that took three, forty-minute walks a week for a year grew their hippocampi, on average, by 2 percent, which could improve their retention for years. Hiking adventures will keep you mentally sharp. Going on adventures raises your tolerance for uncertainty. Placing yourself in situations where things don’t always go as planned — such as on an adventure trip — helps you learn to cope with the uncertainties in life. And there is no shortage of those. Adventure travel lets you safely â€Å"try on† alternate lives. One of the best things about embarking on an adventure is that you can shed your familiar skin for a while and pretend to be anything you want to be — before you take a drastic and permanent step. Who would you be if you lived there? Going on adventures fosters reflectiveness, a mental skill often in short supply today. Adventures give us pleasant memories, which we often bring back to the forefront of our minds for reminiscing. This means that our journeys â€Å"marinate† awhile, an especially valuable exercise these days when we’re all so perpetually busy that most of what we do passes by in a flash and is gone forever — without having any real meaning attached to it. Butreliving our adventures again and again allows us the time — and capability — to learn something from them. 8 ) Adventure travel feeds your dreams and builds your confidence. The editor of National GeographicTraveler Magazine once suggested that the â€Å"Cycle of Travel† went like this: 1) dream, 2) plan, 3) go, 4) share. But no matter how many steps it takes to get there, the one thing that’s certain about traveling to spectacular nature spots is that it soon becomes addictive. Experiencing one wilderness just doesn’t seem to be enough; your soul quickly calls for more. And each time you go, you find yourself changing. Adventures build your confidence; and with each successive one, you challenge yourself just a little bit more. I would add a fifth step to the Travel Cycle: dream bigger. 9) Adventure experiences remedy a societal ill: loss of adventurous children and the extinguishing of wanderlust. Today, the United States is facing what some have described as an epidemic: the loss of the adventurous childhood. The Outdoor Foundation reports that youth participation in outside activities has declined for three straight years. And when parents overscheduled kids and insist on being involved in every one of their activities — when they become â€Å"helicopter parents† — they kill a child’s desire to explore. The spark for wanderlust goes out, permanently. 10) Adventure travelers may be more important than ever for saving the world. Some scientists warn that in nine years’ time (or less), global warming will become impossible to reverse, and triggering accelerated climate change. If they’re right, a group of individuals within the general public is going to have to come forward and upgrade their environmental efforts, if the world is to survive. That select group of people just may turn out to be adventure those who typically venture beyond the envelope in the outdoors. As Mark Twain once wrote, â€Å"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore Dream Discover. † The only disadvantage is the cost! Tiresome Expensive What are the advantages and disadvantages of living in a foreign country? Give illustration and reasons to develop your ideas. Who doesnt want to live in a foreign country? I assert that everybody dreams it. Living in another country is a challenge for everybody, even tough it is for business purpose, vacation, study, or other reasons. So, what is the positive and negative impact? As far as I concerned, the first advantage staying in a foreign country is that people can make a lot of friends. Once you land your foot at that place, you will have a new atmosphere. Everybody that you see and meet is unfamiliar for you. In my experience, when I had my vacation to Singapore, I have made a lot of fellows because I meet a lot of new people there. The second advantage is the chance to improve your language. Socializing can enhance your knowledge. For example, Tuti, my best friend, who is studying in Canada. Firstly, she doesnt have good English knowledge and pronunciation. But after studying there for two years, her English is improving fastly. Except that, people can learn cultures from locals. Each country has various cultures. For example, I have a friend who came from England to Indonesia, my country. He told me that he have learned many things after his visit to Indonesia. Except the advantages that we can get, there are also having the disadvantages. People need to spend a lot of money especially for living place. The cost of living can be higher because you need to pay for staying in an apartment or in boarding house. For example, my father spends a lot of Ringgits when he visited Malaysia, because he was staying at a hotel. But, it will be lucky if you have any relative that you know and you can stay in their house. Another disadvantage is a person need to take care everything by oneself especially for health. To sum up, staying in foreign country is like an adventure for me, even though there are some disadvantages that I dont like. So, when I to staying in overseas, all that I must think about is all the advantages. Staying in a new place is interesting right? Just try it! This exciting course covers the scope and nature of adventure tourism in todays market and looks at the sources and types of opportunities available within this fast growing industry. Other topics include: outdoor adventure and management training, the customer, artificial environments, supply, geography, sustainability, and environmental impacts. This course develops a capacity to plan and manage the provision of adventure tourism services.

Free Essays on Engineer

The most important lesson I learnt was at my last consulting assignment when I seized the opportunity to take initiative in a team that was operating as a â€Å"Leaderless Team† due to lack of development manager. I learnt that people don’t at first follow worthy ideas but they follow worthy leader who promote worthwhile ideas. More often than not people will change their direction or their aims if they believe in the credibility of the leader. Having an understanding of that has changed my whole approach to leading. As a leader to accomplish the same I strive to build credibility first and forge relationship with my team-members so they buy into me first then only my vision has a chance of becoming reality. Despite being an outsider I was able to build relationship with the employees. I believe that genuine acts of caring uplift the spirits and draw people forward. For instance when the team had to meet a crucial deadline I volunteered to help a team-member who needed to leave work early to take care of his infant son. On another instance I helped resolve an impasse created when a team member could not communicate effectively to the database administrator the design criteria behind a change request. I believe cooperation is merely working together in agreement but collaboration is much more than that. Collaboration is working together aggressively wherein each person brings something to the table that adds value to the relationship and synergy to the team. Additionally, by not being suspicious of teammates and adopting the mind-set where you complete rather than compete with teammates the team can achieve stretch goals. With that mindset when I noticed that the whole team was experienci ng difficulties while following a software development process including the tool that facilitated the process she cataloged problems and investigated the traditional practices and proposed solutions to enhance productivity. This camaraderie helped me ... Free Essays on Engineer Free Essays on Engineer The most important lesson I learnt was at my last consulting assignment when I seized the opportunity to take initiative in a team that was operating as a â€Å"Leaderless Team† due to lack of development manager. I learnt that people don’t at first follow worthy ideas but they follow worthy leader who promote worthwhile ideas. More often than not people will change their direction or their aims if they believe in the credibility of the leader. Having an understanding of that has changed my whole approach to leading. As a leader to accomplish the same I strive to build credibility first and forge relationship with my team-members so they buy into me first then only my vision has a chance of becoming reality. Despite being an outsider I was able to build relationship with the employees. I believe that genuine acts of caring uplift the spirits and draw people forward. For instance when the team had to meet a crucial deadline I volunteered to help a team-member who needed to leave work early to take care of his infant son. On another instance I helped resolve an impasse created when a team member could not communicate effectively to the database administrator the design criteria behind a change request. I believe cooperation is merely working together in agreement but collaboration is much more than that. Collaboration is working together aggressively wherein each person brings something to the table that adds value to the relationship and synergy to the team. Additionally, by not being suspicious of teammates and adopting the mind-set where you complete rather than compete with teammates the team can achieve stretch goals. With that mindset when I noticed that the whole team was experienci ng difficulties while following a software development process including the tool that facilitated the process she cataloged problems and investigated the traditional practices and proposed solutions to enhance productivity. This camaraderie helped me ...

Abortion Survivor Stories Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Abortion Survivor Stories - Essay Example The most dominating risks include damage to mother’s fertility in future and increased chance for maternal mortality (Paxson 125). Usually women prefer medical abortion as more natural or safe process but statistics entail a considerable number of cases that face abortion failures and the most common after-effects of medical abortion include heavy bleeding, Thrombosis, infection and even death, similarly, surgical abortion may lead to anesthetic complications, hemorrhage in addition to infection and death. The most prominent complications that cause abortion failures include perforation of the uterus and cervical lacerations (Abortion Clinics). An abortion success may eradicate mother from unwanted pregnancy, may release her from the pain of labour and all painful period, but abortion failure; on the other hand, may lead to increased risks and damages to health and life of both, mother and the child (Abortion Clinics). 1. Melissa Ohden is an abortion survivor who was born under very bad circumstances back in 1977. Her mother decided to abort her child when she was seven months pregnant, as she was not content with this pregnancy. Melissa was thought to be aborted with the help of saline abortion where a saline solution surrounds the fetus eventually causing burning and thus killing of fetus. However, Melissa survived due to ineffectiveness of this saline abortion in immediate time. As saline abortion requires quite long periods of time to get complete and therefore, Melissa was lucky enough to live and grow. Finding, Melissa was still surviving in the womb, the mother decided to throw her out after her birth. So, Melissa was put in the garbage where a nurse found her crying and therefore saved her life. Melissa now holds a Master’s degree in social working. She gave birth to her own child in 2008, in the very same hospital where her mother has tried to abort her once. She is livng a happy a nd content life and raising

Terrorism Surveillance Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Terrorism Surveillance - Essay Example However, there are concerns arising that are focused on the states intrusion into people’s privacy and have stirred up a major controversy. One can, hence, wonder just how far the government should go with their surveillance and are there any regulatory measures that can see to it that people’s privacy is upheld. The following essay will focus on the threats that the new surveillance technologies have posed to innocent individuals. Also, it will give insight on whether or not these technologies can be regulated, whether or not giving up some liberties for general safety is necessary and if the same measures should be applied locally and internationally. Lastly it will offer an analysis on the probability of the measurements being used by authoritarian regimes in the future. Electronic surveillance, when employed as a means for law enforcement, national security, domestic relations or industrial espionage has a potential of restricting and, in due course, negating the citizens right to be let alone. The history of the random uses to which the technology has been used on the domestic level, suggests that individuals such as the American citizens, are vastly susceptible to violations on rights to individual privacy. The United States’ first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, fourteenth and the eighteenth amendments, to some lengths, forbids arbitrary as well as unlawful invasions to privacy. Shortly after the 9/11 terrorism act, the United States Congress passed some security measures that were well intended but in various ways violate the citizen’s privacy. For example, the PATRIOT Act exceedingly increased the federal governments power to collect and analyze personal information related to the United States’ citizens. While the su pporters of the motion indicate that the wider surveillance bodies are expected to disclose and eliminate terrorism plans, the opponents argue that the extended powers violate

Canadas Decision To Withdraw From The Kyoto Protocol Politics Essay

Canadas Decision To Withdraw From The Kyoto Protocol Politics Essay Canadas decision to leave the Kyoto Protocol in 2011 resulted in countless debates and controversy in Climate Change discussions. This paper therefore aimed to provide answers to the ethical question whether Canada decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol was a move in the right direction. To do that, the issues of moral responsibility, justice as well as Canadas interest in a global economy were analysed as it relates to the Kyoto Protocol. The research concluded that Canada should not have withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol according to the moral obligations in reducing global greenhouse emissions as well as the financial burden to meet such a reduction in emission is relatively constant over time. Keywords: Kyoto Protocol, justice, moral responsibility INTRODUCTION The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets over a five-year period (2008-2012) for 37 industrialized countries and the European community. This was done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions causing global warming which sum up to an average of 5% compared to 1990 levels. While the Convention encouraged industrialised countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so, this being the major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention. Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. (UNFCCC). The Government of Canada officially notified the UNFCCC on December 15, 2011 that Canada would exercise its legal right to withdraw formally from the Kyoto Protocol. Canada was committed to cutting its greenhouse emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990. Environment minister Peter Kent cited Canadas liability to enormous financial penalties under the treaty unless it withdrew. In order to fulfil its obligations, the country would have to purchase a significant and costly amount of international credits using funds that could be invested on domestic priorities. (Government of Canada). Canadas decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol resulted in a lot of debate and controversy whether or not the Protocol is effective and provides the long-term solution the world seeks to the problem of Climate Change. Our goal in this essay is to analyse whether Canada decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol was a move in the right direction. The responsibility of the government of Canada to take (in) actions on the treaty represents an ethical issue. To what extent is Canada obligated to other countries of the world as well as to current and future generations of mankind on global warming? Was Canada ethically right to withdraw from the treaty? Should Canada put aside its own interest in order to be more committed to the Kyoto Protocol and help solve the global issue of climate change? In order to provide answers to these questions, a detailed analysis of the issues at hand has been carried out. Section two describes the role of Canadas responsibility as well as its moral claims in Climate Change negotiation. Section three discusses the issue of International justice as it relates to the Kyoto Protocol while section four assesses Canadas interest in global discussions on Climate Change. A number of concluding remarks based on the preceding precepts were provided in section five of this paper. RESPONSIBILITY: ASSESSING MORAL CLAIMS IN INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS This chapter addresses the role of responsibility to climate change negotiations. The issue of how to measure and compare Canadas responsibilities to other countries in terms of climate change mitigation has been controversial, not least with respect to comparisons between the large emitters, such as the US and China. But, what really defines the term responsibility? According to Ellermann et al., to be responsible for something harmful is to be worthy of blame for it (Ellermann, Hà ¶hne and Mà ¼ller). Blame/responsibility in the context of climate change should be seen based on certain acts (i.e. emission of greenhouse gases) that cause global warming. For example, if someone smokes a cigarette in a closed room filled with people, and if the smoke emissions resulting from this act are deemed to be harmful to other people, then they may be judged to deserve unreserved blame just because the emissions are harmful or because they smoked voluntarily, in the full knowledge of the harmfulness of the emission. Such a person is considered to be morally responsible as opposed to be casually contributing. The key difference between being morally responsible and causally contributing is that the former causes the greatest harm to everyone and is to be blamed while the latter (Co2 exhalation while breathin g in the room) causes insignificant problems and should not be blamed. We can therefore infer that since climate impacts are anthropogenic, it would inevitably have a large number of causes and actors, each either morally responsible or causally contributing to global warming. So, the question arises, Is Canada morally responsible or casually contributing to the problems of climate change? To put in other words, Should Canada be among countries to be blamed from changes in the climate? Canadas GHG emission in a global context To assess the moral responsibilities of Canada to climate change, it is important to compare Canadas situation with other countries in term of greenhouse gases (GHG) emission. According to the International Energy Agency, Canadas CO2 emission from fuel combustion in 2009 accounted for approximately 2% of global emissions (International Energy Agency). In other words, Canada is the 7th largest emitter of global emission in the world. Macintosh HD:Users:eds:Desktop:Screen Shot 2012-12-28 at 6.50.47 PM.png Figure : Distribution of world carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion in 2009 (International Energy Agency) Likewise, if comparison is made from the total CO2 emission equivalent per capita, Canada is one of the worlds largest per capita GHG emitters. Canada ranks 15th out of 17 countries for GHG emissions per capita and earns a D grade  [1]  (The Conference Board of Canada). In 2008, Canadas GHG emission was 22 tonnes per capita, significantly higher than the 17-country average of 15 tonnes per capital. Between 1990 and 2009, Global emissions of CO2 have increased by 38%, while Canadian CO2 emissions have increased by less than 19% (Minister of Environment Canada). Figure : GHG Emissions in 2008 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per capita (The Conference Board of Canada) It can therefore be concluded from both figures that Canada is a major emitter of greenhouse gases causing global warming and is therefore morally responsible to the changes in the climate. One of the main reasons for its increase in GHG emissions has been the growth in exports of petroleum, natural gas, and forest products. However, there is great chance to substantially reduce Canadas GHG emissions by utilizing lower emitter technologies and increasing energy efficiency. Assessing Canadas commitment to International Climate Change negotiations Since it has been established that Canada is morally responsible to changes in the climate, to go ahead with a decision to be involved in global negotiations on climate change appears to be the next logical thing to do. When Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol on December 12, 2002, it firmly demonstrated its support for the UNFCCC process, as well as its commitment to meet specified targets under the treaty. Canada had committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emission by 6% over the 1990 baseline levels during the first commitment period from 2008-2012 (Minister of Environment Canada). This was considered to be an optimistic target for Canada as its GHG emissions steadily increased after Conference of the Party 3 (COP-3) to the extent that the 6% reduction from 1990 levels now translates into an actual reduction of approximately 21% from 1990 based on current GHG emissions levels (UNFCCC). However, in December 2011, Canada announced its withdrawal from the first implementation period (2008-2012) of the Kyoto Protocol. This was supported by a speech from Canadas Environmental Minister, Peter Kent: . . . Kyoto Protocol- for Canada is in the past. As such, we are invoking our legal right to formally withdraw from the treaty. This decision formalizes what we have said since 2006 that we will not implement the Kyoto Protocol This withdrawal aimed to avoid an estimated $14 billion penalty as a result from Canadas failure to meet its emissions reduction targets when the Kyoto Protocol expires on December 31, 2012. Canada, however still remains a part of the UNFCCC process for negotiating the next implementation period. After its withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol, Canada proposed a new strategy by committing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 17% below 2005 levels, or 607 Mt, by 2020, under the Copenhagen Accord (Minister of Environment Canada). In order to achieve this goal and its renewed commitment to climate change mitigation, Canada has introduced four major initiatives including: passenger automobile and light truck GHG emissions regulations, heavy-duty vehicle emissions regulations, regulations on coal-fired electricity generation, and regulations in other key sectors including oil and gas (Minister of Environment Canada). Canada also indicated its willingness to continue to engage in UNFCCC negotiations to support the establishment of a fair and comprehensive global climate change regime as well as to contribute $1.2 billion in new and additional climate change financing by the end of fiscal year 2012/2013. This is to assist developing countries efforts to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change (Minister of Environment Canada). However, Canada would not invest any money to the new Green Climate Fund until all major emitters accept legally binding reduction targets and transparent accounting of greenhouse gas inventory. In other words, this funding was taken from previously existing aid package (Kent). Now, going back to the research question, Should Canada have withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol? Based on the principles of moral responsibilities (as defined earlier), we believe Canada withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol was a wrong decision. According to a state responsibility principle of international law, every internationally wrongful act of a state constitutes the international responsibility of that state (International Law Commission). Furthermore, in the international environment law context, it stated that there is a state right to exercise exclusive sovereignty over the use of land, natural resources and the environment within its territorial boundaries. This right is not unlimited and must not violate on the rights of other states to the use and enjoyment of their environment. In the context of its moral responsibility to other countries, Canadas excessive GHG emissions (as discussed earlier) and its subsequent withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol leads to an internationall y wrongful act. With an earlier commitment to the Kyoto obligation and a continuing non-compliance with its emissions targets, it is still linked to specific moral consequences as a breach to a morally binding treaty. Furthermore, Canadas climate change strategy under the Copenhagen Accord has no global emissions targets for 2020 or 2050. The accord solely proposes listing the voluntary targets of developed and developing countries. Therefore, based on the current assessment of country pledges, it will put the world on a track toward 3.5 to 4 degrees of warming in 2020, which still causes higher warming and bigger threat to the global ecosystem compared to the studies of 2 degrees warming limit set by IPCC (Heinberg). On the other hand, Canada did dropped out of Kyoto just over a year before the end of the first commitment phase as they think that they would not meet Kyoto targets by the end of the first commitment phase. It was reinforced with the fact that the major emitters of GHG were not included in the Kyoto Protocol, such as China and India. Moreover, this could lead other countries facing their own economic problems to follow suit, and consequently weaken the only internationally ratified agreement in emissions reduction, making it more difficult for the next implementation period or even other future agreements to succeed, which, again, depends on the moral will of the nations that will sign the agreement. However, these views remain arguable. In the next section of the essay, the discussion of Canadas withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol will be based on international justice; whether it was legally fair to the global community to withdraw from the Protocol. JUSTICE IN CLIMATE CHANGE The precise definition of the word justice in climate change is still a topic of debate. In general, justice is a term that is used interchangeably with fairness. In principle it represents a concept of moral rightness. In this section, the concept of justice within the Kyoto Protocol will be discussed and how it influenced Canadas decision to drop-out of the agreement. The Kyoto Protocol created a framework, built on the principles agreed to under the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. One of this principles state that: The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof (UNFCCC,Article 3, Principle 2). The goal of the Protocol is the reduction of greenhouse gases by developed countries (Annex I), while allowing developing countries (non-Annex I) space to increase their emissions. The Protocol also charts a path way for global cooperation via market-based regulatory instruments. Countries must meet their targets primarily through national measures according to the treaty. However, the Kyoto Protocol offers them an additiona l means of meeting their targets by way of three market-based systems: emissions trading (known as the carbon market), clean development mechanism and joint implementation. These mechanisms help parties meet their emission targets in a cost-effective way and help stimulate investment in renewable sources of energy (UNFCCC). Figure 3: Kyoto Protocol Participation Map (UNFCCC) Justice of the Kyoto Protocol and Canada The Kyoto Protocol framework has two implications to international justice particularly relevant for any discussion involving a broad participation of countries in climate mitigation. They include grandfathering principle and the per capital approach. These two concepts would be extensively discussed in this section of the paper in relations to Canada. Grand Fathering Principle Firstly, the Kyoto Protocol uses the grandfathering principle by recognizing the 1990 emission levels of developed countries as a basis for determining emission limitation targets. This limits the ability of the Protocol to include the participation of developing countries in the future (Aslam,175). Compared to the current emissions of developed countries, developing countries have very low emission levels. However, there seem to be a gradual yet rising trend of emission levels among developing countries particularly Indian and China. From the perspective of the government of Canada, this is one of the setbacks of the Kyoto Protocol. Developing countries which are not bound to cut emissions will be the major pollutants in the future, while present industrialized nations are required to reduce emission levels. This translates into an economic cost for developed countries which would result in unequal economic positions. Also it raises the question of why Canada should bare more respon sibility compared to developing nations with rising emission levels, knowing that in the near-future it will no longer be one of the major players in climate change. Grandfathering enabled national targets to be negotiated without any discussion of a long-term, environmentally sound, collective target for all countries-both developed and developing nations. Secondly, no clear rule was created to help differentiate targets between Annex I countries (Aslam,175). This can be translated in the fact that while in 1990 (the reference year for Kyoto Protocol emission levels), Canada had already taken up some actions to reduce Green House Gases, other countries of Annex I (for example former Soviet Union countries) did not take any measures to reduce greenhouse gases. Thus, the Kyoto Protocol creates a certain injustice towards countries like Canada which has taken some action in the past, but which is not taken into account in the protocol. This lack of capacity within the Kyoto Protocols to involve developing countries in order to have any future success represents the greatest problem of the treaty. Also, the Protocol fails to differentiate between Canada and the rest of Annex I countries and fails to take into account future major climate change contributors. This increases the burden on the present day developed nations like Canada and creates a lack of fairness between the agreements of participating parties. This resulted in a number of proposals which have the purpose of expanding participation while also honouring the Climate Convention principle of differentiation among nations. One of the most controversial approach focuses on equal per capita entitlements (Aslam,176). Per Capita Approach The per capita approach implies dividing the total greenhouse gas emission (in mega tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) of any country equally among the number of people living in that country. It is a key indicator to represent, for example, the economic output or emissions of each individual in a particular country. This is used to determine how much each country should be allowed to emit in relation to its population size. The per capita indicator helps evaluate emission discrepancy among countries (Aslam,176). It can also help facilitate an acceptable emissions-related burden-sharing agreement among countries of different population size. Although some concerns exist regarding the application of the per capita approach, it remains very difficult to ethically justify any unequal or disparate claims to a global commons, such as the atmosphere (Aslam 184). In the context of climate change, the greatest efficiency gains in the design of a Green House Gas tradeable permit policy stem from utilizing the low-cost mitigation options of developing countries(even if no additional mitigation is forthcoming from this group itself) and then from requiring emission reductions from developing countries at some future date (Rose and Stevens, 359). Using such a per capita allocation system in climate change negotiation, when compared to other approaches, causes developing countries generally to gain more in terms of relative benefit. This should be fine to all parties involved-both developed and developing countries because as discussed in the section of moral responsibilities, most developing nations are casually causing as opposed to morally responsible for climate change. It follows that such a system would encourage more developing countries to join global agreements and thus attract an earlier possible entry to the negotiation table. Such a sch eme should result in emissions trading to maximizing the benefits. Furthermore, owing to the nature of climate change and its associated complexities and uncertainties, any effective approach needs to be flexible to incorporate future scientific developments as well as accommodate variations among countries. A suitable per capita approach is one that is able to tighten or relax yearly contraction on emission budgets, as well as realign its overall reduction trajectory to respond to any change in GHG concentration target. However, the per capita approachs flexibility to account for the differing national circumstances is limited. Quantified emission levels, such as the ones used for the per capita approach, do not account for the social quality of these emissions-that is, it cannot clearly distinguish between luxury and survival emissions (Agrawal,1). Also, there is a big impact on the disparity of emissions among nations by factors such as geographical or climatic conditions and the structure of the respective economy and energy supply, which such s implified indicators simply fails to take into consideration(Aslam,190). This represents a big problem for Canada due to its vastness, cold climate and the economy which is focused on energy production. In comparison to developing countries, adopting such a system forces Canada to the losing end of the rope. The per capita emissions rights as a defining concept of justice in Climate change discussions causes the worlds largest nations- such as China and India- to be significant net gainers, while principal losers would be the nations now having high per capita emissions-Canada would lose a great deal (see Figure 2). Also, as a follow up to the preceding argument, the notion that larger states tend to be poorer makes the per capita approach very attractive. But this can result in a crude and even arbitrary way of redistributing wealth as not all large states are poor and not all small states are rich. Also the distribution is made to both greenhouse gases winners and losers as some rich or poor states will face much more serious consequences due to climate change while others are far less vulnerable. This is a drawback to this scheme as the per capita system fails to take this into consideration (Posner and Sunstein,12). Another serious drawback for states like Canada is the fact that with the per capita system, governments that would adopt policies to promote economic growth would have to face penalties due to the fact that such policies would increase Green House Gas emissions leading to more warming of the climate(Posner and Sunstein,13). The proposed per capita system seems even less attractive from the perspective of Canada compared to the grandfathering principle. Thus, one of the reasons for Canadas withdrawal from the agreement is that it fails to agree with the concept of justice as defined and implemented by the Kyoto Protocol. Due to the different responsibilities of carbon emission between developed countries and developing countries (as is shown in Figure 3) and also the differences within the developed countries (United States, Japan, and Canada), a lot of effort has to be made to redefine the concept of justice within the Kyoto Protocol. From the year 2009 to 2012, United Nations Climate Change Conferences held annual conferences to strengthen the effect of justice among other issues within the protocol and at the same time, reach more agreements. However, little progress has been made during these processes. For developed states like Canada, the concept of justice within the Kyoto Protocol still remains elusive. However, respecting the emission targets of the Protocol would represent a heavy financial burden to the government of Canada, to meet the demands would result in a conflict with its own interests. CANADAS INTERESTS IN CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS Climate change has a price tag and it could be very expensive. Cutting the emissions by amounts agreed by the Kyoto Protocol in little more than a decade requires a massive financial cost to the government of Canada. In this section of the essay, we hope to look into Canadas interest in respecting the emission targets of the Kyoto protocol. To do this, we hope to answer two questions: What is the total financial cost to the government of Canada to respect the emission targets of the Kyoto protocol? More importantly, are these costs justified? Secondly, how important is Canadas relationship with the United States with respect to climate change negotiation? Canada: Financial cost of respecting emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol Respecting the emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol represents a huge cost to Canada. But, what exactly is the financial cost? It was estimated by the Canadian Chamber of commerce that the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will cost about $30billion, or 2.5% of the Canadas GDP by 2010 (Montreal Economic Institute). It was also estimated by the Liberal cabinet in 2002 that a loss of 200 000 jobs and a decrease of 1.5% in the Canadian GDP was inevitable (Bà ¶hringer). The cost of climate change for Canada could rise from roughly $5 billion per year in 2020 to between $21 billion and $43 billion per year by the 2050s (National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Canada). This cost depends upon a combination of factors: the growth of global emissions and the economic and population growth of Canada. However, global mitigation leading to a low climate change future reduces costs to Canada in the long term. This reinforces the argument that the world would benefit environmentally and economically from a post-2012 international climate arrangement that systematically reduces emissions from all GHG emitters including Canada over time. On the contrary, if firm measures are not taken when it is still possible to do so, no one can accurately predict the weight of the consequences that can happen. We believes that abiding to the Kyoto Protocol will cost much less than the possible consequences of climate change problems, such as the increase of extreme meteorological phenomena. We also believe that the progress in adopting the Kyoto Protocol will reduce greenhouse gases as it will become costly to pollute and easier to adopt best environmental practices. Canadas relationship with the United States United States represents Canadas strongest ally within the North America. But, what is the relationship on the issue of Climate Change? Interestingly, Canada follows the same path with both past Bush and current Obamas administration of the United States (Ljunggren). Canada was widely criticized for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. Some were of the opinion that Canada ends a decade-long saga that began in earnest when George W. Bush walked away from the global climate treaty in 2001. Others continue to argue that the close links between the two countries meant that Ottawa ultimately felt it had to follow Washingtons lead and ignore the diplomatic fallout. Furthermore, the plan Canada will follow instead of the Kyoto Protocol is almost identical to Barack Obamas plan for the United States. The Canadian governments current plan, which would cut emission by 17 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020, is almost identical to the strategy of the government of the United States. Both countries are committed to pursuing a practical and sustainable plan to address the Climate problem (Minister of Environment Canada). Canada fully acknowledges the problem of global warming and the well-being of the earth is also an important issue to North America. However, the cost to respecting the Kyoto Protocol can be justified. Although, the goals of the Protocol were established not by science, but by political negotiation but they do provide the long-term solution the world seeks to the problem of climate change. Furthermore, Canada argues that the Kyoto Protocol could have potentially significant repercussion for the global economy and is therefore arbitrary and ineffective. It goes on to say the Protocol is fundamentally flawed and is not the correct vehicle with which to produce real environmental solutions. However, finding another workable solution to the problem of global warming do not represents the way forward as the cost to Climate change mitigation is likely to be constant over time. CONCLUSION The Climate is changing due to anthropogenic causes; hence, the goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind. Canadas decision to leave the Kyoto Protocol in 2011 resulted in countless debates and controversy in Climate Change discussions. It argues that the Kyoto Protocol do not provide the long-term solution the world seeks to the problem of climate change. It however remains committed to pursuing a practical and sustainable plan to address the problem of global warming. The purpose of the essay was to analyse whether Canada decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol was a move in the right direction. This analysis involves the moral responsibility of Canada to climate change negotiations, justice as it relates to the Kyoto Protocol as well Canadas interests in a global economy. A number of arguments based on these concepts were considered and documented in this essay. Based on the principle or moral responsibility, we believe Canada withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol was a wrong decision. As discussed in the essay, the increase of Canadas GHG emission is strongly related to the problem of global warming and apparently has a strong negative effect on other countries in terms of the usage of the environment. Canadas decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol the only internationally ratified agreement in emissions reduction shows that it may violate the right of other states in the near future. The Kyoto Protocol framework (as it relates to international justice) has two implications particularly relevant to any discussion of broad participation in climate mitigation. They include the grandfather principle and the per capita system. The failure of the Protocol to address emission cuts by developing countries-the major pollutants in the future, clearly reflects its setback. Thus, one of the reasons for Canadas withdrawal from the agreement is that it fails to agree with the concept of justice as defined and implemented by the Kyoto Protocol. Due to the different responsibilities of carbon emission between developed countries and developing countries, a lot of effort has to be made to redefine justice within the Kyoto Protocol. Finally, Climate change has a price tag and cutting the emissions by amounts agreed by the Kyoto Protocol in little more than a decade requires a massive financial cost to the government of Canada. However, the cost to respecting the Kyoto Protocol can be justified. Although, the goals of the Protocol were established not by science, but by political negotiation but they do provide the long-term solution the world seeks to the problem of climate change. Furthermore, Canada argues that the Kyoto Protocol could have potentially significant repercussion for the global economy and is therefore arbitrary and ineffective. However, finding another workable solution to the problem of global warming do not represents the way forward as the cost to Climate change mitigation is likely to be constant over time.

Mexican War and the Austrian Succession War

The two nations that wrestled in the Mexican War were both ill prepared and ill-equipped to fight.  Ã‚   The United States, whose population largely did not expect a war with the Mexicans almost immediately following the independence struggle in Texas, naturally did not arm its soldiers.  Ã‚  Ã‚   Though Congress voted to declare war in an overwhelming majority, it did not readily act to enlarge the army or navy until after the declaration.  Ã‚   Indeed, there were less than 10,000 troops on any of the few expeditions launched by the government in Mexican territory. If the United States was not prepared for a struggle with the Mexicans, the latter was less than suited for the conflict.  Ã‚   At the time, Mexico was languishing under the on-again, off-again rule by the war hero and tyrant Santa Anna.  Ã‚   He had fought against the Texans, lost and was ejected by an angry mob, leaving only a general or another to stand in his place.   When the latter became unpopular, Santa Anna would return and rule Mexico anew.   Prior to the Mexican War, the dictator was again toppled by mutinous soldiers, a General Paredes, and his own capital, Mexico City.  Ã‚   When the Mexican government did declare war against the United States, several factions throughout the country â€Å"declared† themselves against the government.   In the midst of this, Santa Anna was called in again to take the reins. Thus it was that the Mexican War utilized a small number of troops, and its subsequent major engagements involved less than 5,000 troops at any one time.  Ã‚   The objectives of the Americans, at the outbreak of the War had been to force the annexation of California and resolve the border dispute between it and Mexico.  Ã‚   These were the initial goals, and it was only out of sheer paralysis in Mexican politics that the war was dragged on and led to the long American march to Mexico. This was not at all different from any of the wars fought among the major powers of the 17th and 18th century for dynastic succession, particularly the Austrian Succession.  Ã‚   In idea it was the challenge of the succession of Maria Theresa as Empress of Austria.   In practice, it was primarily the Prussian goal of seizing the Austrian province of Silesia.   Dynastic wars like this were limited to regions of conflict, and were soon ended once an army of one power had been decisively defeated, or had reached their objectives.  Ã‚   Oftentimes, allies would agree to a separate peace with their enemies, and the war would only be prosecuted to its totality if the sovereignty of one nation were endangered. At the outbreak of war the Mexicans had 20,000 men on the roles, and 24,000 officers.   Most were not even prepared to go to war, and were hundreds of miles away from the fighting. The subsequent American punitive expeditions in California were reminiscent of the engagements between Prussia and Austria during the Austrian Succession.   Much of the initial fighting in that war occurred in Silesia, and gradually spread, but was mostly limited to the southern German territories. The fighting in California was mostly between armies in the mere hundreds; the decisive battles of Rio San Gabriel, and La Mesa were fought off between Americans in the hundreds and native Californians with less than that number.  Ã‚   In the former, the Californian artillery failed them, and in the latter the Californians had mere cavalry lancers to the American rifles. The fighting, meanwhile, in Northeastern Mexico, and on the road to Mexico itself, was harder fought.  Ã‚   Zachary Taylor fought a hard-fought, stalemate in the city of Monterrey, where the able Mexican commander General Pedro de Ampudia held off 2,638 American troops to his 3,140, for two days with great losses.  Ã‚   Eventually the fighting degenerated to the city streets, and Taylor, rather than have to go through the effort of a protracted battle against the enemy, agreed to an armistice with the Mexicans.  Ã‚   The general soon broke this agreement, and resumed the march to Mexico. The rampant demoralization of Mexico made the American campaign easier, as the Mexican military command was disjointed, and divided.  Ã‚  Ã‚   Like Maria Theresa going off herself into the field of battle, Santa Anna, after being forced out of exile by his government, promptly took its reins, levied 16,000 troops by sheer will, and marched off to meet Taylor himself in Buenavista.  Ã‚   When General Taylor finally faced the Mexican army, in the Battle of Buena Vista, 4,000 of Santa Anna’s troops had died of hunger, disease and desertion. They were exhausted when they faced the enemy.  Ã‚   Nevertheless, through the discipline of the ranks, the Mexican forces had at one point outflanked and near to routing the enemy, but for the timely reprieve of American artillery that drove the Mexican chargers off.  Ã‚  Ã‚   Defeated, Santa Anna was forced to march humiliatingly all the way back to Mexico City. These were the only major battles in the war that involved armies of thousands, and they were concentrated on the cities and employed siege warfare.  Ã‚   The battles that were fought before that time were greatly smaller in scale as to the battles fought between the Austrians and the Prussians in Silesia, or the Austrians against the Prussian ally in Bavaria. Like the Austrian Succession War, however, these Mexican-American engagements involved sweeping cavalry attacks.  Ã‚   The necessity of battle would compare Santa Anna with the despairing Queen of Austria, but the tactics he wielded were reminiscent of the Prussian Frederick. California having been occupied by the Americans, and Santa Anna having been defeated, the Americans would have assumed the Mexicans would sue for peace.  Ã‚   Indeed, Mexico fragmented yet again upon news of the defeat.  Ã‚   However, like Maria Theresa before him, who faced the Prussians alone and with no European ally left both during and after the First Silesian War (which was part of the Succession War), Santa Anna and his government refused to make peace, forcing the sending of another American expedition this time to force peace upon the capital. This was the army of General Winfield Scott, opening the campaign by an ambitious amphibious assault on the city of Vera Cruz.  Ã‚   Following the city’s surrender after a violent trade-off of artillery fire, Scott marched off to Cerro Gordo, where Santa Anna with a force of 12,000 men prepared to ambush them.  Ã‚   A forward regiment of the American commander discovered the hidden location, and Scott moved away from the line of ambush and outflanked the enemy, killing 1000 to 3000. The dynastic, limited wars of Europe were prone to disunity in command.  Ã‚   France and Prussia had been united in an alliance against Austria, in the second phase of the war; when Prussian troops had been used to siphon off the Austrian invasion in France, the latter country’s army refused to aid their allies.  Ã‚   So, too, in the course of the American campaign leading to the capture of Mexico City, General Gabriel Valencia, who held numerical superiority over the Americans, was ordered to withdraw just as the Battle in Contreras was already set.   Santa Anna promptly left the general and his army to be sizably crushed by the Americans.  Ã‚   The subsequent battle of Chapultepec where a greatly outnumbered enemy force was abandoned by Santa Anna. Finally, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceded almost half of Mexico to the Americans.  Ã‚   Like Austria acceding to the Silesian loss, Mexico resigned to the loss of Texas.  Ã‚   Unlike the Austrian War, however, they also lost the California territory, as well as land that would comprise New Mexico.  Ã‚   It was a limited, set-piece campaign by the Americans, though it was not the first in the latter’s history.   The lack of discipline and unity of command of the armies of 17th and 18th century Europe haunted the Mexican army; Santa Anna acted more of a mercenary than a general. Had he prosecuted the war more competently, he would at least have forced better concessions from the Americans, for at the time of Buena Vista, most of California had already been lost.  Ã‚   The Mexican general could at least have fought battles that would have shaped the terms on the bargaining table.   As it was, brilliant though he might have been, Santa Anna lacked the fiber of integrity that Maria Theresa had. References Ritchie, D. A.   & Altoff A. & Wilson, Dr. R.  Ã‚   (1985).   Heritage of Freedom: History of the United States.   New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Simpson, L.B.   (1966).   Many Mexicos.   Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Durant, W. (1965).   The Age of Voltaire.   New York: Mahony & Roese. Mexican-American War. (n.d.) Retrieved April 9, 2008 from Wikipedia.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War.      

Economic Forecasting Paper

The most important resource that we felt that would be used to gather historical economic data as well as economic forecast data would be surveys of various consumers finances essay writer premium 3d. The consumer finance survey would be used to calculate all income of each individual family. These surveys of consumer finances for each individual family in the United States would be considered a qualitative type of research, but at times can also be a quantitative research as well.During these surveys we notices that the qualitative aspect of them can determine their results with the help of other research and studies, whereas the quantitative aspects of the survey’s results are made up of all the numerical numbers from each question. The various factors of demand and supply are Exchange rates, the distribution of income, Expectations, and Monetary and fiscal policies. Another shift factor of aggregate supply is a change in the productivity of the factors of production such as labor.Other shift factors are changes in import prices of final goods and changes in excise and sales taxes. Economists spend a lot of time tracking these shift factors because they are central to whether the economy will have an inflation problem. Aggregate demand management policy attempts to influence the level of output in the economy by influencing aggregate demand and relying on the multiplier to expand any policy-induced change in aggregate demand.The effectiveness of changes in fiscal policies using Keynesian and Classical models are, economists who focused on long-run issues such as growth were called Classical economists and economists who focused on the short run were called Keynesian economists. Classical economists believed in the market’s ability to be self-regulating through the invisible hand. A Classical economist takes a laissez-faire approach, and believes the economy is self-regulating. A Keynesian economist takes an interventionist approach, and believes that equilibrium output can remain below potential output. Economic Forecasting Paper The most important resource that we felt that would be used to gather historical economic data as well as economic forecast data would be surveys of various consumers finances essay writer premium 3d. The consumer finance survey would be used to calculate all income of each individual family. These surveys of consumer finances for each individual family in the United States would be considered a qualitative type of research, but at times can also be a quantitative research as well.During these surveys we notices that the qualitative aspect of them can determine their results with the help of other research and studies, whereas the quantitative aspects of the survey’s results are made up of all the numerical numbers from each question. The various factors of demand and supply are Exchange rates, the distribution of income, Expectations, and Monetary and fiscal policies. Another shift factor of aggregate supply is a change in the productivity of the factors of production such as labor.Other shift factors are changes in import prices of final goods and changes in excise and sales taxes. Economists spend a lot of time tracking these shift factors because they are central to whether the economy will have an inflation problem. Aggregate demand management policy attempts to influence the level of output in the economy by influencing aggregate demand and relying on the multiplier to expand any policy-induced change in aggregate demand.The effectiveness of changes in fiscal policies using Keynesian and Classical models are, economists who focused on long-run issues such as growth were called Classical economists and economists who focused on the short run were called Keynesian economists. Classical economists believed in the market’s ability to be self-regulating through the invisible hand. A Classical economist takes a laissez-faire approach, and believes the economy is self-regulating. A Keynesian economist takes an interventionist approach, and believes that equilibrium output can remain below potential output.