Star Trek Into Darkness

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is how Captain Kirk rationalizes working with a terrible foe. Is it logical? Is it safe? A confusing sense of morals and ethics is what drives J.J. Abrams' newest "Star Trek" adventure, "Star Trek Into Darkness," and yet it's still a lot of fun. That's what is most appealing about J.J. Abrams in his role as directing the "Star Trek" films: he understands the delicate balance between action and thought, rarely focusing too much on one or the other. Consider that in one scene Starfleet is attacked by a merciless killer--it's a loud, somewhat intense fight scene with lots of laser blasts. Only moments later, we get an allegorical debate on the ethics of counterterrorism. Most of all, the filmmakers here understand the character-driven nature of the series. The action scenes are all good fun, but the ones that are more lasting are the character scenes.  "Star Wars" fans should rest assured with Abrams directing "Episode VII" next year.

We're more or less on a new adventure here, as Starfleet is attacked by a callous Starfleet officer, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is ordered to hunt him down and destroy him. Harrison knows that he can hide in dangerous enemy territory where Starfleet would not dare chase after him, but chase they do. I could be a bit more specific in these details but as expected, the plot is a bit confusing with likely more than one hole in it. Regardless, when I watch space opera of this kind, I'm not necessarily after perfectly comprehensible details. Who cares about details when there's such a terrifying performance by Cumberbatch? Cumberbatch is particularly enjoyable as the villain, with a deep low voice that is haunting; I can only imagine that Pine, Zachary Quinto and others were just a bit frightened on the set. (Though, as an actor, Cumberbatch could probably afford to relax his jaw a bit and tone it down.) Fans will be happy that virtually every character is given something to do instead of simply pressing buttons. Scott (Simon Pegg) conflicts with Kirk about new weapons being brought on board the Enterprise, while Spock (Quinto) continues not so much to struggle with his emotions but to struggle to clarify them to those who do not understand him. Sulu (John Cho) gets to take the helm for some scenes and threatens his enemies not to test him, or else he will unleash the firepower of the Enterprise. (I'm sure George Takei was smiling.) And Pine was good as Kirk in the first one, but here he is really good, perfectly comfortable in his role, striking the right balance of brilliance and arrogance. But I think the best performance is by Peter Weller as the hawkish cold warrior intent on provoking wars with Starfleet's enemies. His constant lectures towards Kirk, not-so-subtly calling him "boy," fuel the disconnect between the two.

Oscar-winner Michael Giacchino's score is haunting, particularly the piano tune that accompanies Harrison and his actions. I'm a harsh critic of CGI, but Abrams and his team at ILM have made visual effects that actually (mostly) looked quite good. They back up half-a-dozen exciting scenes, like the opening chase through a bizarre jungle hued in red or a roller-coaster head-dive through a debris field. And instead of a gratuitous amount of green screens, Karen Manthey provides some really nice, elaborate sets. But one consistent flaw in every Abrams movie is his inability to sustain a film passed the second act; indeed, with "Star Trek Into Darkness," the third act is just as clunky as it is in his other films. Still, he and his writers (Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, his collaborator on "Lost") put together a nice, albeit somewhat unoriginal story. I'm not a fan of spoilers at all, and it will be delicate not to spoil anything. That being said, there are numerous surprises here, and some of them might cause more eye-rolling than amusement. The writers have enjoyed going further with adjusting the "Star Trek" mythology and flipping everything. Indeed, there are scenes here that mirror scenes in previous "Star Trek" films (again, I won't elaborate on why); I was touched by these scenes, but alas, not as much as the originals. Still, the scenes are clever, as is this movie.  I think I might like it more than its immediate predecessor.

On a personal note, "Star Trek" from 2009 was the last movie I reviewed for the Daily Kent Stater in undergrad.


film, movie, cinema, J.J. Abrams, Chris Pine, Kirk, Spock, Star Trek, Star Wars, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch

Read More →

400

Two weeks ago, it was revealed that there is currently 400 parts-per-million of CO2 in our atmosphere. The last time this happened, humans were not on this planet. There are detrimental consequences. As I searched around the web for a variety of different bad news, I was surprised at the good news I was finding. The good news is surprising and encouraging, but it by no means suggests that we are really making the revolutionary changes we need to sustain our planet's health. Regardless, I thought about sharing some of the news:

There's some good news.

1. The U.S. has actually lowered its emissions. As much as I would like to credit the current administration for this, much of it is due to factors outside of the government's control. And unfortunately, a large part of it is due to the recession, as people have cut back on energy use because of the economic conditions. Additionally, the shale boom is credited with lowering CO2 emissions because natural gas is becoming more prevalent in the U.S. and is about half as dirty as coal or petroleum. With coal being "dead man walking" and the increasing price of oil , natural gas seems to be benefiting the U.S.; for example, "Made in America" is making a comeback and "Made in China" is declining as it's becoming cheaper to produce goods in America than it is in China.

Supposedly, the U.S. has actually reduced its emissions the fastest, falling to levels even below what the U.S. pledged at Copenhagen several years ago. (I find this hard to believe; as the Vancouver Observer put it, "The Americans?  Really?")

But President Obama and his team deserve some credit. They have reduced pollution from cars, cut harmful emissions from power plants and proposed the first regulations of CO2-producing factories, limiting the amount of emissions from these plants. Additionally, the Recovery Act, arguably the best piece of legislation from his administration, contained over $4 billion in tax cuts for individuals to energize their homes more efficiently and $13 billion in tax cuts for  renewable energy production; the law was clearly the largest energy bill in the history of the country with vast environmental reach, covering electric vehicles, smart grids, renewables, etc. (See Michael Grunwald's glowing defense of the Recovery Act called "The New New Deal.")

But has the U.S. actually lowered its emissions? Read the bottom.

2. There are other serious steps in the right direction.  Carbon sequestration is happening. With the help of Energy Star products, last year, Americans prevented 242 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. You hate the way those eco-friendly compact florescent light bulbs take a long time to light up? Then look to the impressive (and cost-efficient) LED lightbulbs that are taking over. South Korea, one of my favorite countries, plans to launch the most aggressive carbon-trading market in the world. Bill McKibben has organized one of the most effective environmental activist groups, 350.org, and there are many other activist groups, like fossilfree.org. People are still interested in this and people are still making a difference.

3. The rise of EFH (Energy from Heaven). The price of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells per watt has immensely decreased from a high of $76 per watt to a low $0.74 per watt this year. Portugal is apparently operating at 70 percent renewable energy! Has this incredible ingenuity of renewable energy that is taking place in Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and even the United Arab Emirates been happening in America?

A little bit. Perhaps the most obvious example is renewable energy in Chicago.  Chicago and other cities have enough usable wind for energy, but as you can see in the video, conventional wind turbines are safe to use in open areas but dangerous to use in urbane areas. To solve this, scientists developed a propeller based on DNA strands (they call it "the Helix") so that it can safely power buildings. In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been given about $50 million from the Sierra Club to fight coal based on public health grounds. Additionally, he's presiding over a city with massive potential for solar energy and other renewable energy sources.    

     

And some bad news.

The biggest concern is that these steps are not enough. The U.S. still is one of the two major culprits in carbon dioxide emissions. Kevin Matthews argues that this decline in U.S. emissions is highly misleading, that he U.S. actually increased its emissions and that the EIA report does not factor in methane emissions (so stop eating cows). Shakeb Afsah and Kendyl Salcito at Think Progress argue that natural gas has had a limited effect on replacing coal, that in fact the vast majority of the emissions decrease has to do with the reduction of petroleum and coal use and the increase of EFH; natural gas (an "energy from hell"), in essence might have replaced coal in some areas but actually offset its decrease by its increase in other sectors (see the graph to the right for the increase during the shale gas boom period of 2006-2011). Even those who trumpet natural gas should recognize that natural gas is not a long-term solution to this problem.    

We've made some steps in the right direction, but it's clearly not enough. We're still having fun, and we shouldn't be.





environment, 400, 350, natural gas, oil, emissions, CO2, renewable energy, Obama, New Deal, Recovery Act

Read More →

Happy (Late) Earth Day

Happy (Late) Earth Day, everyone. As I've been teaching pre-medical students the bizarre language known as English and working to complete my Master's degree, I haven't had as much free time as I would like. So now, in honor of Earth Day, I would like to take a moment to write about one of my favorite topics: the environment. Here are five observations about the current state of things and some advice on what we can do to solve it:


1. Stop using plastic (or at least try to)! Plastic is a profound problem. But there's good news and bad news--the bad news is that contrary to what we all hope, about 90 percent of all plastic bottles are in fact not recycled; about four-fifths of all plastic bottles end up in the ocean and then into our stomachs (diapers go through a similar route). Instead of being recycled into new bottles, plastic bottles are more likely to be down-cylced. The good news is that we can live in a world without plastics. There are relatively simple ways to do so. You can of course buy a reusable steel bottle to avoid plastic bottles, and probably the easiest is to buy reusable shopping bags; go a step further and buy reusable produce bags. Another easy thing to do buying a juicer so you can make your own juice, including types not often found in grocery stores, like watermelon juice and cucumber juice. This is also healthier, as store-bought juice is either too sugary and/or devoid of fiber.   

2. Students need to be taught critically about the problem. Instead of boring students with a trivia-based approach in the classroom that they will likely not retain, students need to comprehend the bigger picture, that the status quo benefits those are contributing more to the problem (e.g. China, the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia) and destroying countries that contribute less (e.g. Bangladesh, the Maldives, Nigeria, and Haiti). Bill Bigelow, a critical pedagogist, has written a curriculum described in his article "The Big One" (2009)  "Environmental justice movements," he wrote, "are beginning to imagine a future that is greener, more cooperative, more democratic, and less oriented toward profit, consumption, and economic growth." Students should be taught that they have a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth, that it is selfish to be otherwise, and that they have the power to change things.

3. One party is greener than the other. Perhaps no finer example of this exists than the contrast between Democratic and Republican environmental policies. After the 1973-1974 oil embargo, some countries had effective responses. France, for example, established nuclear power as its main energy source (though, interestingly, America, because of its size, actually uses more nuclear power than France. Nevertheless, France powers almost eighty percent of its nation by cleaner nuclear power). Denmark, despite heavy gasoline and CO2 taxes, has had tremendous growth for decades but a fairly flat energy use increase. Under President Carter's administration, fuel standards for cars and trucks were raised (something President Obama has continued to do). How did President Reagan respond? By simply lowering the standards, from 27.5 miles per gallon to 26 miles per gallon. President Bush tried to reverse Clinton-era air conditioning regulations and by doing so would have wasted billions of dollars and 50 million metric tons of carbon, or about the equivalent of 34 million cars on the road. (A court reversed the administration's decision.) Republicans used to have a environmental legacy to be proud of; consider Teddy Roosevelt's national parks initiatives and Richard Nixon's creation of the EPA. But Reagan, the Bushes, and the Tea Party have tried to make sure that is reversed.

Thomas Friedman, in his book "Hot, Flat and Crowded," noted that after 9/11, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked if President George W. Bush believed the American people needed a lifestyle change to combat terrorism. His answer was "a big no." The President, he said, "believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one." So instead of enacting what Friedman calls a "Patriot Tax" to combat mass murderers, the U.S. government gave us massive tax cuts, establishing enormous debt we are still struggling to pay off, and told us to go shopping.

(The current administration deserves praise for its green work, but more is needed.  The administration should be pressured until it adopts tough regulations for CO2 emissions for power plants.)

4. It shouldn't be easy and it shouldn't be fun. According to Friedman, we're not having a green revolution, we're having a green party. A green party is fun and easy to do. You just have to change your light bulbs and plant a tree and you can continue to mow your lawn, drive your car, eat all the meat you want, not pay any more taxes, and vote for the GOP. We're past the point where changing light bulbs can solve the problem. Consider a list of the more challenging steps needed (and Friedman claims these are the "easy" ones): replace 1,400 coal-powered plants with natural-gas powered ones, install carbon capture and sequestration at 800 plants, cut electricity by 25 percent. Consider that Indonesia and Brazil are just under China and the U.S. in terms of CO2 emissions. Why? Because of all the deforestation. How many of us could live without paper?

People of the higher-income nations, particularly Americans, have not been asked to seriously sacrifice to solve this problem. Some ways could actually help us, like converting our dumb electric grids to smart ones, so people are encouraged to use electricity at hours of the day when the grids are under less pressure (instead of the current system where people are charged a flat rate no matter when they use electricity). Mowing your lawn the old-fashioned, eco-friendly way will not only save you money but also get you some exercise. Switching to a more plant-based diet will help lower methane emissions (which are far more harmful than all those hummers we hate so much) but could also help prevent doctors removing an artery from your leg to put in your heart when you are rushed for surgery. And despite my previous complaints against President Bush, his 2007 law (a law phasing out incandescent light bulbs and one which his modern contemporaries call socialism) is a step in the right direction, and changing your light bulbs can make a difference. But we need to work much, much harder.

5. Hypocrisy is humbling. Or rather, admitting you're a hypocrite is. I myself profit off of an oil-producing nation, and I use a massive amount of CO2 just to get here (and travel internationally for vacation). Does this make me a hypocrite? Of course it does. But I recycle and don't use plastic and compost and vote Democrat! But I need to change just like everyone else. I would rather be hypocritical about this issue than dumb, but hypocrisy is nothing to be proud of.  

Finally, remember that 99 is not 100, and you should help the planet because it's the right thing to do, not because it's sexy.


UPDATE: Here's the New Yorker's interesting articles on President Obama's environmental legacy and Al Gore.

Read More →