Rolling Along

As a counterpoint to the previous post I’d like to expound on some of the environmental benefits of analog cameras. The first is that digital cameras are frequently used for a few years or less, while analog cameras are often used for many years. (I have been using this camera for 10 years, and my father used it for more than 10 years before that-and I can still get parts and repairs for it, whereas most digital cameras will be obsolete after several years.) This is significant because the production of cameras and the production of the materials used are harmful to the environment. While developing film is more harmful that printing digital photos, storing prints is not as opposed to most digital pictures which are stored on hard drives which are harmful to produce and dispose of. To sum up, it’s not immediately obvious which is more environmentally, analog or digital cameras.

The switch from analog to digital cameras was arguably driven primarily by ease of use as well as convenience, however the environmental benefits of that switch should be noted, in order to maximize the effect. The most obvious benefit is the reduction in paper use because when people take digital photographs they can choose which ones they want to print, or may chose not to print any at all. The reduction of paper use, if significant enough, would cause a decrease in the number of trees that get cut down as well as a decrease in the amount of fuel used to produce and transport the paper. Developing film uses a significant amount of water as well as a large amount of chemicals, which are environmental hazzards when they are discarded.

Oil spills are just one of many problems associated with our over-use of fossil fuels. A recent oil spill in the Mississippi River is being called “the worst oil spill here in nearly a decade.” The environmental impact of oil spills is incalculable, due to the extreme difficulty in cleaning up after them, and the economic impact from closing the river is considerable. The heightened demand for oil has perhaps lead to shipping companies cutting corners which could lead to accidents, though it is not clear what the cause was of this incident.

Demand for oil has increased, especially in the developing world, and as a result the price of oil has skyrocketed. An increase in the price of oil would seem to have clear benefits for oil producers, howeverthat is not so, according to the Economist. The increases in the price of oil act as an inflationary force on the global economy, raising the price of a wide range of goods and services-all goods that use oil in manufacturing or transportation, as well as all services. A similar thing happened in the ’70s which resulted in a long term decrease in the demand for oil, and there is a fear that the same thing could happen now.
Another effect of the 1970’s oil crisis was the sudden accumulation of large amounts of wealth in a small group of people, and the resulting tensions “helped create a fundamentalist backlash that produced, among other things, al-Qaeda.” So perhaps a war to keep the price of oil down is actually a war against al-Qaeda, however ineffectual it is likely to be.

Terrorism can perhaps be defined as the use of an unwarrented degree of force, or the use of force against civilians or those whose guilt has not been proven. How can you defeat that? The current administration seems to think that you cannot defeat terrorism without using their tactics, not just against known terrorists but also those that are suspected of being connected to terrorists. While we may be far stronger militarily, terrorists are constrained by neither public opinion nor for that matter a system of laws. They will always be willing to go farther than we can. Recently Pakistani Talibal killed 28 members of a government sponsered peace committee to send the message that “whoever sides with the government will meet the same fate.” I have to question whether or not it is even possible to win a war against an enemy like that without the use of questionable tactics, and if so what the casualty rate would be.