My classmate posted in Blogger that Texas should use death penalty more often. She argues that death penalty is a valid means of detering crimes and giving justice to the victims. Another argument of the post is that in the worst cases the imprisoned murderers would bribe the jail for assistance to escape.
In my opinion, the current use of death penalty in Texas works fine and it should not be used more frequently.
The United States has the most executions among western countries each year and the majority are carried out in Texas. We learned in GOVT2306 class that Texas' early history justified harsh punishment on criminals, which I totally agree with. However, simply increasing the use of death penalty does not solve crimes. My home country also favors the use of death penalty on capital crimes. In fact, the executions in China per year exceed the total number of executions in the USA since 1980s. My country imposes death penalty on capital murders, dealing heroins and involving in terrorism. Recently, our public even proposed death penalty on human trafficking. But the frequent use of death penalty does not lower crime rate in my country. In many cases, death penalty could make criminals more brutal. If the criminals were faced with the capital punishment, they would spare no mercy on the victims. Another example is illegal drugs. In China, selling 50g of methamphetamine is surely punishable by death penalty. This law does deter some people from dealing drugs. But high risk comes with high profit and the drug lords are still importing illegal drugs through the border.
On the other hand, death penalty is irreversible if the inmate was wrongly convicted and executed. This is the major difference between death penalty and life sentence without parole. In my opinion, the death penalty in the USA is used with considerable caution. A death row inmate usually stays in prison for 10 years before the sentence is carried out. The long appeal process makes death penalty very slow and difficult to be carried out so that any wrongly convicted inmate has enough time to overturn the sentence. Although the justice seems too late for the victims' family, we should bear in mind that the justice system is not only designed to revenge for the victims, but it must also assure that no citizen is punished for something he/she has not done. If we increased the use of death penalty, there will be many appeals overlooked by the courts, hence increasing the risk of executing the wrong person. Unfortunately, my country used to carry out speedy execution after conviction (in the 1980s), which resulted in many deaths of innocent inmates.
For these reasons, I believe that the cautious use of death penalty in Texas and the USA works fine. It prevents two extreme cases. One is no punishment on capital crimes like Europe (the Norwegian gunner who killed 30 people was merely punished by life imprisonment). The other is the greater risk of executing the wrong people like China. Last but not least, the original post seems a bit sentimental when expressing the support of death penalty. It's true that I'm also pro-death penalty like the author. Personally I would like to see all murderers and terrorists put to death, but I more firmly believe that a good justice system should not be swayed by public anger or the sentiment of avenge
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Obama's Clean Power Plan is Ideal but Impractical
President Obama's new countermeasure on global warming mandates the states to reduce their carbon dioxide emission by 32% compared to that of 2005 by the end of 2030. Currently the United States is the leading nation in the world that emits CO2. Among the 51 states, Texas is the largest producer of carbon dioxide due to its oil and gas industry. Hence the Clean Power Plant is expected to have a long-term and major impact on Texas economy.
In my opinion, the plan is well intended but not practical. On the one hand, Texas will be faced with more severe consequences of global warming, such as increased flooding and strength of hurricanes. On the other hand, Texas' economy relies heavily on oil and gas industry. Not only do oil and gas companies contributes significantly to Texas' GDP, but the three major airlines based in Texas (Southwest, American, United's Houston branch) are also dependent on fossil fuels. Therefore, the provisions of the Clean Power Plan will hurt Texas' economy badly.
Additionally, this plan is no better than keeping using fossil fuels. A provision of the plan allows the government to sell the privilege of emitting carbon dioxide. While the big companies have more than enough money to bid the emission right, such policy would put more burdens on smaller businesses, which worsens the unemployment rate. Moreover, this provision does not help raising the awareness of environmental protection because the big companies can emit as much CO2 as they want provided that they can pay for it.
The other provision of the clean power plan encourages the states to employ renewable energies, such as solar energy and wind turbines. Technically, solar and wind are not stable energy sources (in case of cloudy weather and windless days), which are not adequate to provide a stable electrical grid for a state as large as Texas. Secondly, solar energy is converted into electricity by photo voltaic cells, which themselves are made of toxic materials. In order to convert photons into electrical energy, semi-conductors must be used. Many solar cells contain toxic compounds of selenium. Once decommissioned, these solar cells will post new threats to the environment.
A more practical approach would be refining the use of fossil fuels. For example, fuel cells use catalysts and electrodes to oxidize fuels and generate electricity. It is more efficient and cleaner than burning fossil fuels and more stable than solar and wind energy. The fuel cell is a mature technology as well. Since 1970s, many spacecrafts (for example, the Apollo and space shuttles) have been powered by fuel cells. Another technology is carbon dioxide capture, which runs flue gas and basic solution into absorber and then strip the CO2 from absorber liquid product. In this way, CO2 can be isolated before it is emitted to the atmosphere. From the perspective of an engineering student, I believe that optimizing the use of fossil fuel with fuel cells and the CO2 capture suits large states like Texas better than the alternate energies mentioned in Obama's plan.
In my opinion, the plan is well intended but not practical. On the one hand, Texas will be faced with more severe consequences of global warming, such as increased flooding and strength of hurricanes. On the other hand, Texas' economy relies heavily on oil and gas industry. Not only do oil and gas companies contributes significantly to Texas' GDP, but the three major airlines based in Texas (Southwest, American, United's Houston branch) are also dependent on fossil fuels. Therefore, the provisions of the Clean Power Plan will hurt Texas' economy badly.
Additionally, this plan is no better than keeping using fossil fuels. A provision of the plan allows the government to sell the privilege of emitting carbon dioxide. While the big companies have more than enough money to bid the emission right, such policy would put more burdens on smaller businesses, which worsens the unemployment rate. Moreover, this provision does not help raising the awareness of environmental protection because the big companies can emit as much CO2 as they want provided that they can pay for it.
The other provision of the clean power plan encourages the states to employ renewable energies, such as solar energy and wind turbines. Technically, solar and wind are not stable energy sources (in case of cloudy weather and windless days), which are not adequate to provide a stable electrical grid for a state as large as Texas. Secondly, solar energy is converted into electricity by photo voltaic cells, which themselves are made of toxic materials. In order to convert photons into electrical energy, semi-conductors must be used. Many solar cells contain toxic compounds of selenium. Once decommissioned, these solar cells will post new threats to the environment.
A more practical approach would be refining the use of fossil fuels. For example, fuel cells use catalysts and electrodes to oxidize fuels and generate electricity. It is more efficient and cleaner than burning fossil fuels and more stable than solar and wind energy. The fuel cell is a mature technology as well. Since 1970s, many spacecrafts (for example, the Apollo and space shuttles) have been powered by fuel cells. Another technology is carbon dioxide capture, which runs flue gas and basic solution into absorber and then strip the CO2 from absorber liquid product. In this way, CO2 can be isolated before it is emitted to the atmosphere. From the perspective of an engineering student, I believe that optimizing the use of fossil fuel with fuel cells and the CO2 capture suits large states like Texas better than the alternate energies mentioned in Obama's plan.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Toll Roads Does Not Solve Growing Traffic in Texas
A classmate of mine believes that building more toll roads is the solution to the increasingly compact traffic in Texas, even if foreign investments are unavoidable. The article can be found in this webpage. However, I believe that improving public transport, including civil aviation and railroad, is a better alternative to toll roads.
As an engineer, I am always concerned with the technical perspective of a proposal prior to whether foreign companies are involved. An issue is how much traffic can new toll roads diverge? Not many. Currently the interstate highways generally have three to five lanes on each side in downtown areas and two or three lanes in the suburb. I have seen some toll expressways in Dallas and Houston. They are single lane highways. Practically, it is not possible to build 8-lane toll roads in addition to the existing highways. Therefore, I don't see how single lane (or dual lanes) expressways can alleviate the traffic flow. Secondly, I note that these toll roads have fewer ramps than regular interstate and Texas expressways. An important reason behind building highways is to spur economic growth. Hence bypassing many blocks is not helpful to local economy. Thirdly, building toll roads is against the Texan value of small government. Charging to use toll roads means charging tax payers another time after using their taxes to build the toll roads.
But what are the alternatives? I would recommend the employment and refinement of RNAV approach procedures in major airports. RNAV combines GPS, on-board inertial navigation and radio navigation to guide airplanes through a precise path to approach the airport. With this technology, we can optimize air traffic flow, enhance safety in malicious weather conditions,thereby increasing the number of flights. Another way to solve the needs of transportation of the growing population would be reviving railroads.
As an engineer, I am always concerned with the technical perspective of a proposal prior to whether foreign companies are involved. An issue is how much traffic can new toll roads diverge? Not many. Currently the interstate highways generally have three to five lanes on each side in downtown areas and two or three lanes in the suburb. I have seen some toll expressways in Dallas and Houston. They are single lane highways. Practically, it is not possible to build 8-lane toll roads in addition to the existing highways. Therefore, I don't see how single lane (or dual lanes) expressways can alleviate the traffic flow. Secondly, I note that these toll roads have fewer ramps than regular interstate and Texas expressways. An important reason behind building highways is to spur economic growth. Hence bypassing many blocks is not helpful to local economy. Thirdly, building toll roads is against the Texan value of small government. Charging to use toll roads means charging tax payers another time after using their taxes to build the toll roads.
But what are the alternatives? I would recommend the employment and refinement of RNAV approach procedures in major airports. RNAV combines GPS, on-board inertial navigation and radio navigation to guide airplanes through a precise path to approach the airport. With this technology, we can optimize air traffic flow, enhance safety in malicious weather conditions,thereby increasing the number of flights. Another way to solve the needs of transportation of the growing population would be reviving railroads.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
How can a high speed rail benefit Texas economy and travelers
I shared a commentary expressing the possibility of building a high speed rail in Texas from Texas tribune last week. While I said building a high speed rail without government funding was unrealistic, the high speed rail is never a bad solution to transport the growing Texas population among metropolis.
The biggest resistance from the public maybe government funding. Judged from the precedents of high speed rail in America, government funding is not avoidable. The only high speed rail in USA, the Acela Express, is run by the state-owned corporation Amtrak. However, as the population of Texas grows and the metropolis expand, it is possible that the government can reduce its subsidiary on high speed rail gradually (assume there would be one) and ultimately yield it to private corporations. The reason behind is that high speed rails are profitable when it can carry a large amount of passengers.
As for the economic benefit of a possible high speed rail, an obvious one is that its convenience would bring business travelers from other states and even foreign countries. As a frequent flyer, I would be optimistic to foresee the mutual benefit between high speed rail and aviation transport. I fly 10K miles per year on international routes and round trips to the West coast. Like many other student flyers, my priority is low fare, fewer connections and shorter travel time. The current business mode of airlines is hub-to-hub, meaning that they carry passengers between large airports and then have the passengers take connection flights to smaller cities. The connecting flights are very time-consuming because many factors can cause delays (bad weather, heavy traffic flow, mechanical failure). In this case, connecting to small cities on high speed rail is a perfect alternative. In the case of Texas, there are three large carriers based here, namely, American Airlines at Dallas-Ft. Worth, Southwest at Dallas Lovefield and United (former Continental) at Houston George Bush Airport. Hence, these major airlines can sell joint tickets with high speed rail while keeping passengers flying into their Texas hubs. In this way, both railway and airlines in Texas can benefit from the growth of passengers.
On the other hand, the competition between airlines and railway benefits travelers. Faced with competition, airlines will try to take back their markets in the smaller airports by adding non-stop flights. In fact, non-stop flights are reviving in recent years. An example is the non-stop flight from Austin to London Heathrow operated by British Airways. This is partially caused by the vision of aircraft manufacturers. Boeing and Airbus have seen the potential in non-stop flights and designed the next generation of more fuel-economic jetliners (B787 and A350). It is reasonable to believe that the innovation in aircraft manufacturing can couple with the competition with high speed rail to force airlines to increase non-stop flights. Of course, more competition between the carriers results in lower fare for travelers.
The biggest resistance from the public maybe government funding. Judged from the precedents of high speed rail in America, government funding is not avoidable. The only high speed rail in USA, the Acela Express, is run by the state-owned corporation Amtrak. However, as the population of Texas grows and the metropolis expand, it is possible that the government can reduce its subsidiary on high speed rail gradually (assume there would be one) and ultimately yield it to private corporations. The reason behind is that high speed rails are profitable when it can carry a large amount of passengers.
As for the economic benefit of a possible high speed rail, an obvious one is that its convenience would bring business travelers from other states and even foreign countries. As a frequent flyer, I would be optimistic to foresee the mutual benefit between high speed rail and aviation transport. I fly 10K miles per year on international routes and round trips to the West coast. Like many other student flyers, my priority is low fare, fewer connections and shorter travel time. The current business mode of airlines is hub-to-hub, meaning that they carry passengers between large airports and then have the passengers take connection flights to smaller cities. The connecting flights are very time-consuming because many factors can cause delays (bad weather, heavy traffic flow, mechanical failure). In this case, connecting to small cities on high speed rail is a perfect alternative. In the case of Texas, there are three large carriers based here, namely, American Airlines at Dallas-Ft. Worth, Southwest at Dallas Lovefield and United (former Continental) at Houston George Bush Airport. Hence, these major airlines can sell joint tickets with high speed rail while keeping passengers flying into their Texas hubs. In this way, both railway and airlines in Texas can benefit from the growth of passengers.
On the other hand, the competition between airlines and railway benefits travelers. Faced with competition, airlines will try to take back their markets in the smaller airports by adding non-stop flights. In fact, non-stop flights are reviving in recent years. An example is the non-stop flight from Austin to London Heathrow operated by British Airways. This is partially caused by the vision of aircraft manufacturers. Boeing and Airbus have seen the potential in non-stop flights and designed the next generation of more fuel-economic jetliners (B787 and A350). It is reasonable to believe that the innovation in aircraft manufacturing can couple with the competition with high speed rail to force airlines to increase non-stop flights. Of course, more competition between the carriers results in lower fare for travelers.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
The future of railroad transport in Texas
A recent commentary on Texas Tribune argues for the possibility of building a high-speed rail in Texas. This article is written by two conservatives who work in the railroad industry. Based on the recent success of the inner-city light rail in Dallas-Ft. Worth, the authors believe that light-rail is the optimal solution to the increasingly packed Texas cities. They took Austin for example, where the south-to-north-bound roads of the city can be easily paralyzed in rush hours due to a few accidents. Personally I think the authors suggestion about Austin makes sense. In this summer I drive on every weekday between University of Texas and my work place on Burnet road. In rush hours, the traffic flow can slow down very easily but hardly speeds up. Even a single vehicle trying to make a left turn can stop a whole lane. So I totally agree with the authors that Austin deserves a light rail transit.
The authors also make their efforts to convince their conservative partners that public rail transit is not a poison on conservatism. They argues that public rail transits spurs economic growth and help many poor people to get to work, which alleviates the government's duty in intervening the market. They further dismiss the concern about the railroads' being subsidized by the government. The authors illustrate with statistics that railroads need less subsidiary than the current highway system.
However, I want to make a point that the authors are overly optimistic about building a high-speed rail network in Texas. They propose that the high-speed rail can be built by private companies without government subsidiary, which is not very reasonable. In my home country China, the expense of building one kilometer of high-speed rail is 130 million RMB (16 million USD), not including the maintenance expenditure on these technologically complex systems. Hence, building a high-speed rail without government funding is almost impossible. Nevertheless, the authors are right about refining inner-city transit in Texas with light rails
The authors also make their efforts to convince their conservative partners that public rail transit is not a poison on conservatism. They argues that public rail transits spurs economic growth and help many poor people to get to work, which alleviates the government's duty in intervening the market. They further dismiss the concern about the railroads' being subsidized by the government. The authors illustrate with statistics that railroads need less subsidiary than the current highway system.
However, I want to make a point that the authors are overly optimistic about building a high-speed rail network in Texas. They propose that the high-speed rail can be built by private companies without government subsidiary, which is not very reasonable. In my home country China, the expense of building one kilometer of high-speed rail is 130 million RMB (16 million USD), not including the maintenance expenditure on these technologically complex systems. Hence, building a high-speed rail without government funding is almost impossible. Nevertheless, the authors are right about refining inner-city transit in Texas with light rails
Friday, July 17, 2015
State Attorney General Conducting Investigation into Planned Parenthood
An article on Texas Tribune shows that Texas Attorney General has commanded an official investigation into the alleged preservation of fetal organs by the Planned Parenthood clinic. Early this year, an anti-abortion group named Center for Progressive Medics released a video portraying a high-level official of Planned Parenthood discussing harvesting fetal organs for medical researches in an inter meeting. This news is noticeable because abortion and stem cell research are a sensitive issue in Texas. Despite the conservatism of Texas on abortion, the controversy of stem cell research is at what stage can a fetus be classified as a living human being. Biologically, organs form after the fetus begins to differentiate. Hence, there is a risk that the company is actually harvesting organs from a nearly human fetus, which is unethical and brutal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)