We look at the impact of the drafted climate agreement, speak to experts about the controversy surrounding our 28th president and discuss the new FAA drone registration requirement.
What’s next after nations approve climate agreement at COP21 in Paris
Despite being pushed into overtime and nearly being tripped up by the meaning of a singular ‘shall’ instead of ‘should,’ the negotiations among 195 countries for a sweeping plan to combat climate change came to an end at the UN climate conference of parties.
The agreement that emerged will create a bottom-up system that allows countries to set their own goals for reducing carbon emissions and how it plans to achieve those goals. They’ll have to increase those goals over time, and submit a new plan every five years, starting in 2018.
The agreement isn’t etched in stone yet; it will still have to be approved by 55 countries that plan to implement it, and those 55 countries must collectively be responsible for 55% of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.
While many are celebrating the agreement as a landmark event in the global fight against climate change, others are skeptical about how much the agreement will actually change and whether certain countries will be able and/or willing to live up to their end of the bargain. Others worry that the lack of a mechanism to punish countries who don’t meet the goals they set for themselves will undermine the transparency and accountability at the heart of this agreement.
Still, supporters say that the way the agreement is structured requires countries to take inventory of and report their sources of carbon emissions, and hope that will help hold countries accountable.
Adoption of the Paris Agreement
Guests:
Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council
Frank V. Maisano, a Senior Principal at the international energy lobbying firm Bracewell & Guiliani in the firm’s government relations and strategic communications practice
'Fleek,' 'yaas' and a crying emoji: How dictionaries are staying relevant in a time of Internet slang
Oxford Dictionaries announced the tears-of-joy emoji as its “Word of the Year” last month, which left many pondering what constitutes as a word, and why a piece of internet slang would be powerful enough to get such notoriety.
But emoji’s aren’t the only internet slang that’s popped up in dictionaries, “wtf” and “nsfw” have also made the cut for Merriam-Webster, along with “fleek” in Dictionary.com. Vocabulary enthusiasts may cringe at the idea, but the English language is constantly changing, so doesn’t it make sense that dictionaries would adapt accordingly?
With the accessibility of Google and UrbanDictionary.com, the likes of Oxford and Merriam-Webster have had to keep up, which means including internet slang.
What do you think of Oxford naming an emoji as its “word” of the year? Should dictionaries keep adding new slang to their repertoire or does including them make a mockery of the English language?
Guest:
Caitlin Dewey, digital culture critic for the Washington Post and author of the article, "Why dictionaries have started sanctioning even the dumbest Internet slang"
Should Woodrow Wilson’s legacy be re-examined?
Recent student protests at Princeton University have brought to the fore a debate many historians have had over the decade: the legacy of Woodrow Wilson and how the 28th President of the US should be remembered.
In November, students at Princeton protested on campus demanding a more inclusive climate at the Ivy League for minority students. Among other things, protesters demanded that the name Woodrow Wilson be removed from the university. After a 32-hour sit-in, the president of the school promised to consider those demands.
Wilson is considered an icon of modern liberalism for many, but how should his views on race be factored into remembering him? Should his name be removed from Princeton and other institutions?
Guests:
Eric S. Yellin, associate professor of history and American studies at the University of Richmond and the author of “Racism in the Nation’s Service: Government Workers and the Color Line in Woodrow Wilson's America” (University of North Carolina Press, 2013)
David Greenberg, Associate Professor of History at Rutgers University. He is the author of the forthcoming book, “The Republic of Spin” (W.W. Norton & Company, 2016), looking at the rise of the White House spin machine
Surprise! FAA requires hobbyists to register drones
The Federal Aviation Administration announced today that drone hobbyists across the country will need to register their unmanned aircrafts if they weigh over 9 ounces.
Owner of an unmanned drone would need to provide a name, a physical address, and an email address with the FAA.
Those who fail to join the registry could be fined.
Is a national drone registry the best way to ensure everyone’s safety and privacy?
Guests:
Brian Wynne, CEO of the association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a drones trade group with 7,500 members from government, industry and academia. He is a member of the task force that made recommendations on the registry to the FAA.
Rich Hanson, government and regulatory affairs representative at Academy of Model Aeronautics, a group representing 185,000 hobbyists nationwide and participated in the task force
Can the K-1 visa program be relied on to vet terrorists?
Last week the FBI revealed that Tashfeen Malik, the woman who is a suspect in the recent mass shooting in San Bernardino, was radicalized before she ever filled out her K-1 Visa to come to the U.S. This was evidenced by some social media posts that she had made describing her support for Jihadism.
This has sparked a demand from lawmakers and about how she was not detained by a screening process that is said to be rigorous. Reports are coming in that Malik was interviewed at the U.S. embassy in Pakistan and was vetted by five different government agencies. In addition to this her name and picture checked against a terror watch list and her fingerprints were run against two databases.
Is the K-1 Visa program strong enough? Should more have been done or is this just an example of how difficult it is to vet every single person who may intend to come to the U.S. with terrorist intentions?
Guests:
Jessica Vaughan, Director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies
Alma Rosa Nieto, Legal analyst based in Los Angeles and member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association
The Planetary Society cofounder on space exploration’s next frontier
More than ever, Mars exploration seems to be within our reach.
Entrepreneurs from Amazon’s Jeff Bezo to Tesla’s Elon Musk have put their money in making human travel to the Red Planet a reality.
In his book “Human Spaceflight: From Mars to the Stars,” Louis Friedman, renowned astronautics engineer and co-founder of The Planetary Society, discusses his hope that humanity is expanded to Mars, which should be the last planet that people ever set foot on. Once it’s accepted that Mars is the only viable place for humans to personally explore, Earth’s space program can become an exciting and relevant venture once again.
What’s more, with Mars being the final destination for humanity, people can continue to explore the universe through supporting technologies. Friedman’s vision for the future of space travel includes nanotechnology, robotics, artificial intelligence and more. In this way, he says, humanity can continue to expand throughout the solar system, even if it never goes beyond Mars.
What are the current obstacles in the way of human space travel? What should humanity’s motivation be for exploring space? How long is it going to take for us to truly settle on Mars?
Guest:
Louis Friedman, author of “Human Spaceflight: From Mars to the Stars” (University of Arizona Press, 2015). He is the co-founder of The Planetary Society, a nonprofit organization that promotes the exploration of space