Spinnaker [Distributed: Wednesday, September 20, 2006]

Global warming - the mere mention of the term has, in some instances, been enough to spark heated debates and blatant animosity between proponents of each side. Men and women have argued for decades over its alleged existence, to what extent it threatens the human way of life and what the best response could potentially be for this generation and future ones.

Consensus now seems to be that the human race has a very big problem on its collective hands. The development of industry and its accompanying technology over the past couple centuries has proceeded at a breakneck pace with little regard to its environmental repercussions. Scientific evidence has been pouring in lately in a manner that seems to almost exclusively favor the notion that things are getting hotter.

Glaciers are melting in Washington state. Thick clouds of inverted smog permanently choke many of the once-pristine valleys of the Rocky Mountains. Sea levels are gradually rising and there's a gaping hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole.

Dec. 11, 1997 represented a landmark in the worldwide case to quell the impending environmental degradation posed by the threat of global warming. The United Nations opened for signing the Kyoto Protocol, whose objective is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

As of 2006, more than 160 countries worldwide have signed the agreement and pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Two notable countries, however, have signed the agreement but refuse to ratify it, citing political reasons.

One is Australia, who claims that a conversion to Kyoto Protocol standards would cost citizens jobs and, anyway, they think they're doing enough to help the environment. With a $300 million pledge on the part of the government over the next three years to cut greenhouse gas emissions, it's hard to argue that they're feigning sincerity.

The other, which comes as less of a surprise than it ought to, is the United States. At the time of signing, the Clinton administration felt similarly to the Australians in that the consequences of a "green" conversion could be potentially harsh in the economic sphere. An economic analysis released in July 1998, however, outlined a strategy for a gradual restriction of emissions that could save the country as much as 60 percent over initial estimates. But no reconsideration of the policy was adopted.

And now the Bush administration has its own reasons for refusing to ratify the treaty. It's not fair, Bush says, that other countries get special treatment. China is exempt, for example. Therefore, the reasoning of the administration goes something like this: The United States will continue to pump carbon dioxide and other harmful gasses into the atmosphere until others are made to stop.

This is a special brand of reasoning that for most people hasn't been used since kindergarten days: if the other kids get to do it, then so do I. Far be it from the United States government to play a leadership role in environmental affairs. About three weeks ago, California's legislature passed a new bill imposing the most stringent restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions in the history of the United States.

The measure cleared the state senate by a 46-to-31 vote and later sent it to Gov. Schwarzenegger for final approval. Provisions outlined in the bill call for a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide produced within state borders by 2020. The intent is to bring those levels back down to where they were in 1990.

At least eight states are in tow. The last hope for U.S. environmental policy, it would seem, is for the country's constituent governments to lead it as a whole into a new understanding of responsible environmental policy. In the mean time, concerned citizens can rally behind the hope that California will continue to be a pioneer in environmental reform, and that the momentum of its decisions will be enough to carry the rest of the country, even begrudgingly, into a cleaner, brighter future.

Adjusting to college can be harder for home-schooled

Student Opinion

Moving off to college is already a scary experience for the average high school graduate, but it can be an extreme transition for the graduating home-school student.

Going from the constant supervision of your parents to a community full of scarcely-supervised young adults can be both an exciting and worrisome change. How do you handle the pressure? What advantages, if any, do you have as a home-school student?

On the positive side, you are already accustomed to self-motivation. As a home-school student, you weren't in competition with a class full of other people. You had to make a personal commitment to your studies for the sheer fact of bettering yourself, not to stand out or impress a teacher or keep from getting held back (although the wrath of mom and dad was always a factor).

While you may have had parents who stood over your shoulder, many of you simply did your schoolwork in your room at your own initiative, so you know how to motivate yourself and get the work done. You won't have any constant supervision in college, and you'll need that self-reliance to get things done.

What are the disadvantages of being a home-school student? Among others, the most difficult is probably the peer pressure. No doubt you have been involved in activities with other teens and have dealt with issues of peer pressure already, but never at this level or with this much independence. There will be opportunities to take part in things that for a fleeting moment seem easy to get away with, and you must know how to balance pleasure with the personal and physical consequences.

All college students deal with peer pressure, but someone coming from a high school has been more predisposed to it than a home-school student.

That brings up the most important point. As a home-school student, you have had time to discover who you are. You weren't busy trying to keep up with a high school schedule. You had the free time to explore the culture around you and to decide what you believe, what you're interested in and what makes you who you are as an individual. You have been able to settle those internal questions, and you know what you want going into college.

Success will come in staying true to yourself, your beliefs and your desires, not letting the peer pressure of college culture define you. It's tempting, but you must think long-term. Undergraduate college for most people only lasts four or five years and after that all the energy you've put into shaping yourself according to their image has just been wasted effort. You have never had to be something you're not as a home school student, so why start now?

Remember individual personality, initiative and creativity is what sets a person apart in the career world, and it is those characteristics that create a successful person.

There are advantages and disadvantages on both sides of the spectrum, for the high school student and the home-school student.

Not only do you have to recognize what advantages you have and make the most of them, but you also have to recognize the disadvantages that may require more attention and effort to overcome.

Home-school student or not, the same rules apply: know yourself, be yourself, better yourself and the rest will fall into place.

Fashion industry finally realizes skinny isn't only form of beauty

Student Opinion

After being told for many years that girls must be unhealthily thin in order to be considered beautiful, the perspective is now beginning to change.

Spain has banned super-thin models on the catwalk and now a British minister of Parliament wants London Fashion Week to ban them as well.

The problem is that girls took being thin too seriously. Many girls have greatly compromised their health in order to be accepted as looking beautiful.

This isn't a problem only on the catwalk. It is a nationwide dilemma in regular, everyday life. Girls younger and younger are being constantly exposed to media that is basically telling them that if they want to look good and get attention, they must be thin. After seeing models on television, in magazines and other forms of media, girls have taken it upon themselves to take action and lose weight, whether they need to or not. What's more, when girls try to lose weight, they don't really take health into consideration. Skinny doesn't always mean healthy, and it certainly doesn't always mean beautiful. Growing girls need many nutrients in order to be healthful and when cutting down on food or going on specific diets, they often don't get all of the nutrients their bodies need.

This applies to college-aged girls as well. Your body never stops requiring a variety of nutrients to remain healthy. Unfortunately, the desire to be skinny can, and often does, lead to eating disorders. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in 2000 1 to 4 percent of young women were affected by eating disorders. This may seem like a small percentage, but the number of girls affected seems to increase as the years go on. The more the media portrays "beautiful" as being ultra-thin, the more eating disorders there will be. We must hope that this idea of banning underweight and excessively skinny models in Spain and England will spread worldwide, and girls will start learning to accept themselves as they are.

Girls don't need to be skinny to be beautiful or attractive. What is really attractive is individuality and self-confidence. Girls need to start getting the message that it is OK to be individuals and it is OK to just be happy with who they are.

Residential students fed up with property-damaging flyers

Staff Opinion

It's hard for me to forget the date of last week's Yung Joc and Chingy concert, mainly because the flyer was imprinted on the windshield of my car.

Apparently the representatives for a local artist, Shot Out, who opened for the headlining acts, decided to place flyers for the show all over various cars parked in residential areas.

This may seem innocuous enough, at worst a little annoying, but the real problems occurred when the rain started. The flyers had the tendency to firmly adhere themselves to whatever surface they were laying on, including windshields and hoods.

Many students, myself included, returned to their vehicles only to see incredibly noticeable flyer-sized imprints left on their property.

Take a cursory glance around the parking lot of Osprey Village or other residential living areas; it's not hard to spot someone whose vehicle has been tagged. It's doubtful that the students whose cars were affected by these flyers enjoyed removing these annoyances from their vehicles.

This may seem like a minor grievance when compared to major campus issues like trying to find a parking spot or the rising cost of tuition, but I didn't appreciate scraping the flyer off my car's windshield with a razorblade. I'm almost positive there are more enjoyable things to do while on campus.

This is not an isolated incident. As a Village resident, I constantly see flyers plastered on parked cars. Be they advertisements for clubs or notices of upcoming campus events, they have the same effects, usually to deface cars, mar expensive paint jobs and obscure windshields.

If the flyers are caught before they cause damage, they are often thrown on the ground by aggravated students without a second thought. Not only do the advertisements vandalize cars, but they create a serious annoyance for custodial workers.

Many residents are completely fed up with this egregious disregard for personal property.

One Village resident said, "This has happened to me twice now and I think it's bull**** that they are getting away with it. They have no regards for other people's property."

The main problem I have with this situation is that it is so easily rectified. Flyers should be relegated to where they belong-bulletin boards-not students' personal property. If I wanted a flyer, I would take one for myself.

In the immortal words of comedian Mitch Hedberg: "When someone tries to hand me out a flyer, it's kinda like they're saying, 'Here, YOU throw this away.'"

The administration here at the University of North Florida needs to seriously consider this situation. Personally, I could go without knowing the date of "Ladies Night" at The Globe in exchange for my car not being vandalized. But, hey, that's just me.

Just getting over the parking issue is not a viable option

Letter to the Editor

Like everyone else, I have experienced the parking problem at the University of North Florida. I haven't complained much but I have heard enough of it from fellow students.

After reading Laura Sweat's article, I figured it was time to speak up. Ms. Sweat's opinion is completely ridiculous. She states herself that the situation is a nightmare, a problem. In my opinion, it is the number one problem of the school. So she suggests that we just "stop complaining"? Just forget about it?

I was taught to fix my problems. I admit that complaining will only go so far, but to just stop complaining and stop trying would be the opposite of what is good for the students. If it's the number one problem, why can't the university try harder to fix it?

Ms. Sweat states that there is no room for more parking. That is a strange statement because wherever I look, all I see are woods. Now, I enjoy the natural setting of the campus but this problem is too serious to worry about that. All it would take is to knock down a few trees and what do you know ... parking!

And who will pay for this? How about the ticket after ticket after ticket the university police are writing every day? Concrete can't be that expensive. [Then] all it would take is for students to cross the street and they would be on-campus, not five or 10 minutes from their classes.

And to conclude, Ms. Sweat states that the problem is not the school's fault.

Well, whose is it? They sold 3,000 more passes than spaces and they refuse to build more. The campus is not very big. If the school is growing year after year, why isn't the campus? Sure they may build a building or two, but not in actual size.

These are just my opinions and perhaps the university has some reason for not knocking down the trees. I for one do not see why.

Print Edition

DISCOURSE

Kyoto Protocol: U.S must sign on

Editorial

Adjusting to college can be harder for home-schooled

Student Opinion

Fashion industry finally realizes skinny isn't only form of beauty

Student Opinion

Residential students fed up with property-damaging flyers

Staff Opinion

Just getting over the parking issue is not a viable option

Letter to the Editor

This Week

News

Expressions

Sports

Print Edition