Part II: Assessment of Class
1. This class strived to integrate multiple facets of global
warming, (i.e., political, societal, economic, and scientific)
in an effort to illustrate the complexities of reaching an international
consensus. Do you feel that this class adequately addressed these
different components? Do you feel there was greater emphasis placed
on one aspect of global warming?
We talked about
this after the class was over, but with an additional 9 or 10
people it would have given us the opportunity to explore a few
more avenues, which I don't think we covered or maybe covered
very well. I have a personal fetish for alternative energy, and
would like to have seen much more shown on this subject. I personally
felt that I could have educated a number of people in the class
on things they never knew there was a potential for, including
the professor.
I feel like this class did a good job of addresses all of the
facets applicable to global warming. It had to in order to give
a thorough understanding of the topic. Although all were covered,
I think that the least emphasized was the impacts on society.
I feel that this class successfully achieved the encompassing
of all of this aspects. The final days of the actual summit I
think are a prime example of this. The work that was done has
to be carefully worded in order to protect each country from economic
disadvantages and political gain. Throughout the entire course
we not only argued and debated over the rates of global warming,
but I would say half the time if not more was put into debates
of economical and political equality for each country in the Protocol.
In the first part of the class it was necessary to enforce the
scientific aspect of global warming. From there it was impossible
to ignore all of the other aspects involved in international policy
making. There was a good combination between the humanities and
sciences.
I think in the beginning of the class there was greater emphasis
put on global warming in the beginning of the class but after
that it really did look into other facets.
As I have already mentioned, this class very adequately addressed
these various components of climate change. In class lectures,
it seems that there was more emphasis placed upon the scientific
elements of global warming. However, the student presentations
were quite effective for integrating the other aspects. Since
the lectures from the professor were kept to a minimum, the class
wasn't overly scientific. Much of the information that I came
across on the internet also emphasized political, societal and
economic impacts of global warming.
The class was set up in the right way. In only a three week time
period it's hard to address each facet equally, however I think
the way in which the class was conducted was the correct way.
I think we addressed political, societal, economic and scientific.
Yes there was a greater emphasis placed on the scientific and
the economic then some emphasis on the societal. Political aspects
I don't think we considered that too much.
I may be bias to the entire aspect of global warming, but I felt
the entire did not appropriately address the economic side of
the problem. That is what the real world has to face. We revolve
around economics ...money makes the world go round. I thought
it was a poor decision to assume the problem of global warming.
It seemed that we took the environmental side of the debate. To
solve the problem, you need to look at both sides, and I don't
think this was achieved as accurately as possible.
I feel that this class adequately integrated multiple components
of international agreement processes. I understood the economic,
political, and social facets that were major contributors to reaching
a global agreement. I think that the level of scientific information
was important and critical to understanding of global climate
change. The other social, economic, and political components were
also necessary, but less emphasized. I think that this was the
right balance between areas.