Tsunamis
Even Hollywood-scale waves fall short when depicting a tsunami's full size and power. Once launched by an undersea earthquake or landslide, tsunamis can race across the ocean at the speed of a jet liner (500 mph). Wave peaks can be hundreds of miles apart. All that moving water can add up to three storeys of wave crashing into coastlines and the people who live along them. The December 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean off Sumatra was a tragic reminder that just because tsunamis are rare doesn't mean we can put them out of our minds.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Abrupt Climate Change
Abrupt Climate Change
studies and debates on potential climate change have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. But recent and rapidly advancing evidence demonstrates that Earth's climate repeatedly has shifted dramatically and in time spans as short as a decade. And abrupt climate change may be more likely in the future.
studies and debates on potential climate change have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. But recent and rapidly advancing evidence demonstrates that Earth's climate repeatedly has shifted dramatically and in time spans as short as a decade. And abrupt climate change may be more likely in the future.
Global warming is the increase
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]
Corporate America warms to fight against global warming
Corporate America warms to fight against global warming
By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Corporate leaders don't normally invite the federal government to raise their taxes. But that's exactly what Paul Anderson is doing.
Anderson, the chairman of Charlotte-based Duke Energy, wants the federal government to fight global warming by taxing companies based on the "greenhouse gases" they pump into the atmosphere — just the sort of big-government remedy the Bush administration says would hobble the economy.
For his efforts, Anderson has been excoriated by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and threatened with an "exorcism" by an industry peer.
But Anderson, 61, is no closet left-winger. He's a registered Republican, Bush backer and member of the president's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. That such a Big Business stalwart is demanding federal action on climate change illustrates an unmistakable evolution in corporate thinking, motivated both by evidence that global warming already is affecting the economy and by the prospect of fat profits from new environment-friendly products.
"If we approach this rationally, it will not be disruptive to the economy and will not turn the world upside down and will, at the same time, address the problem," says Anderson.
Corporate America, which once regarded cries of "global warming" about as favorably as The Communist Manifesto, increasingly is embracing the need for reducing human contributions to the planet's rising temperatures. Forty companies — including Boeing, IBM, John Hancock and Whirlpool — have publicly endorsed the notion that climate change is real by joining a business council organized by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Electric power companies are the single largest industrial emitter of carbon dioxide, the chief chemical culprit in "global warming." But Duke Energy on the East Coast, California's PG&E on the West Coast, and other utilities see mandatory federal emission caps as preferable to the current patchwork of state regulations they confront. A uniform national standard would eliminate costly uncertainties hanging over investment decisions on new multibillion-dollar power plants, they say.
It's not just power companies that are agitating for action. Institutional investors are demanding that companies disclose their financial exposure to future climate changes. Insurers are abandoning underwriting in coastal areas threatened by costly Hurricane Katrina clones, and companies such as General Electric and DuPont are gearing up to prosper from the transition to a carbon-constrained world. Last year, Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry Paulson, now Treasury secretary-designate, warned that the time needed to address climate change was running out.
"There's a sea change underway in American business," says Al Gore, the former vice president. "What's different in business audiences in the past year or so is a new and widespread receptivity, a keen awareness, an eagerness on the part of large numbers to find out how they can take a leadership position. And a recognition, too, that there are profits to be made."
Insurers may prove to be the canaries in the coal mine of climate change. As global temperatures rise, instances of severe weather — hurricanes, tornadoes, even hailstorms — are expected to become more intense and more damaging. Though no single event can be definitively linked to long-term warming of the atmosphere, Mother Nature is getting more costly for insurers.
Annual weather-related insured losses rose from $1 billion in the 1970s to an inflation-adjusted average $15 billion in the past decade, according to Ceres, a coalition of institutional investors and environmental groups. The group said soaring weather-related insurance claims, which it linked to the warming climate, are leading to higher premiums and greater coverage restrictions for policyholders. As private insurers flee vulnerable areas, state and local government "insurers of last resort" are being left with the bill, Ceres said.
After being battered by losses from four Florida hurricanes in 2004, Allstate last year refused to renew policies with 95,000 homeowners and 16,000 commercial property owners in the state.
"We are girding for the onslaught of the next hurricane season," Allstate CEO Ed Liddy said last month. "What's new is the intensity of this (storm) cycle could be a lot worse than things that we've seen before."
Well before climate change turns Iowa into oceanfront property, its financial impact on insurers could affect everything from building codes to land-use policy, says Tim Wagner, director of the Nebraska Department of Insurance, who chairs a National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) climate-change task force.
The panel was scheduled to kick off its deliberations last year at a September conference in New Orleans, which was washed out by Hurricane Katrina.
In Nebraska, several years of unusually severe hailstorms have prompted insurers to raise deductibles and encourage a shift to hail-resistant roofing — which costs about twice as much as a conventional asphalt roof.
The potential financial impact on insurers is so great that it threatens to paralyze policy-writing in the most vulnerable geographic areas. To ensure the industry has the financial resources to weather repeated catastrophic events, a federal reserve fund financed by a new tax on all insurance policies might be needed, Wagner says.
"Climate change is so big, it's very hard for the man-on-the-street to understand what's taking place. The plain truth of the matter is it's here and it's going to be costly," Wagner says.
By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Corporate leaders don't normally invite the federal government to raise their taxes. But that's exactly what Paul Anderson is doing.
Anderson, the chairman of Charlotte-based Duke Energy, wants the federal government to fight global warming by taxing companies based on the "greenhouse gases" they pump into the atmosphere — just the sort of big-government remedy the Bush administration says would hobble the economy.
For his efforts, Anderson has been excoriated by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and threatened with an "exorcism" by an industry peer.
But Anderson, 61, is no closet left-winger. He's a registered Republican, Bush backer and member of the president's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. That such a Big Business stalwart is demanding federal action on climate change illustrates an unmistakable evolution in corporate thinking, motivated both by evidence that global warming already is affecting the economy and by the prospect of fat profits from new environment-friendly products.
"If we approach this rationally, it will not be disruptive to the economy and will not turn the world upside down and will, at the same time, address the problem," says Anderson.
Corporate America, which once regarded cries of "global warming" about as favorably as The Communist Manifesto, increasingly is embracing the need for reducing human contributions to the planet's rising temperatures. Forty companies — including Boeing, IBM, John Hancock and Whirlpool — have publicly endorsed the notion that climate change is real by joining a business council organized by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Electric power companies are the single largest industrial emitter of carbon dioxide, the chief chemical culprit in "global warming." But Duke Energy on the East Coast, California's PG&E on the West Coast, and other utilities see mandatory federal emission caps as preferable to the current patchwork of state regulations they confront. A uniform national standard would eliminate costly uncertainties hanging over investment decisions on new multibillion-dollar power plants, they say.
It's not just power companies that are agitating for action. Institutional investors are demanding that companies disclose their financial exposure to future climate changes. Insurers are abandoning underwriting in coastal areas threatened by costly Hurricane Katrina clones, and companies such as General Electric and DuPont are gearing up to prosper from the transition to a carbon-constrained world. Last year, Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry Paulson, now Treasury secretary-designate, warned that the time needed to address climate change was running out.
"There's a sea change underway in American business," says Al Gore, the former vice president. "What's different in business audiences in the past year or so is a new and widespread receptivity, a keen awareness, an eagerness on the part of large numbers to find out how they can take a leadership position. And a recognition, too, that there are profits to be made."
Insurers may prove to be the canaries in the coal mine of climate change. As global temperatures rise, instances of severe weather — hurricanes, tornadoes, even hailstorms — are expected to become more intense and more damaging. Though no single event can be definitively linked to long-term warming of the atmosphere, Mother Nature is getting more costly for insurers.
Annual weather-related insured losses rose from $1 billion in the 1970s to an inflation-adjusted average $15 billion in the past decade, according to Ceres, a coalition of institutional investors and environmental groups. The group said soaring weather-related insurance claims, which it linked to the warming climate, are leading to higher premiums and greater coverage restrictions for policyholders. As private insurers flee vulnerable areas, state and local government "insurers of last resort" are being left with the bill, Ceres said.
After being battered by losses from four Florida hurricanes in 2004, Allstate last year refused to renew policies with 95,000 homeowners and 16,000 commercial property owners in the state.
"We are girding for the onslaught of the next hurricane season," Allstate CEO Ed Liddy said last month. "What's new is the intensity of this (storm) cycle could be a lot worse than things that we've seen before."
Well before climate change turns Iowa into oceanfront property, its financial impact on insurers could affect everything from building codes to land-use policy, says Tim Wagner, director of the Nebraska Department of Insurance, who chairs a National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) climate-change task force.
The panel was scheduled to kick off its deliberations last year at a September conference in New Orleans, which was washed out by Hurricane Katrina.
In Nebraska, several years of unusually severe hailstorms have prompted insurers to raise deductibles and encourage a shift to hail-resistant roofing — which costs about twice as much as a conventional asphalt roof.
The potential financial impact on insurers is so great that it threatens to paralyze policy-writing in the most vulnerable geographic areas. To ensure the industry has the financial resources to weather repeated catastrophic events, a federal reserve fund financed by a new tax on all insurance policies might be needed, Wagner says.
"Climate change is so big, it's very hard for the man-on-the-street to understand what's taking place. The plain truth of the matter is it's here and it's going to be costly," Wagner says.
New hope for Copenhagen deal
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 7:49PM GMT 17 Nov 2009
Earlier in the week world leaders, including President Obama, admitted that it will be impossible to draw up a legal treaty in time for a key UN summit in Copenhagen this December.
Instead they suggested a 'political agreement' that was widely seen as a tactic to give rich countries time to haggle over swinging cuts in pollution.
However Denmark, that has a huge amount of influence as the host country of the summit, has made it clear that the politically-binding agreement will not be an easy option.
Speaking after a meeting of environment ministers in Copenhagen, Lars Loekke Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister of Denmark, said all rich countries will have commit to targets while poor nations must also agree to cut emissions.
"All developed countries will need to bring strong reduction targets to the negotiating table in Copenhagen," he said.
The pressure is now on for the world's biggest polluters, the US and China, to come up with numbers to show they are willing to make serious cuts in emissions.
During a meeting in China both sides made all the right signals by supporting the principle of a cut in emissions and money to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
President Obama supported the Danish proposal.
"Our aim there [in Copenhagen], in support of what Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark is trying to achieve, is not a partial accord or a political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations, and one that has immediate operational effect," he said
But despite the positive words from politicians, Yvo de Boer, head of the UN negotiations, said the world needed "more movement".
"Industrialised countries must raise their targets and financial commitments further... I look to the United States for a numerical midterm target and a clear commitment on finance," he said.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recommended that the rich world cuts emission by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020 while poor nations reduce pollution against "business as usual". The rich countries are also expected to put forward billions of pounds every year to help poor countries cut carbon emissions and adapt to climate change.
Environmental groups pointed out that the US and China have still failed to make any firm commitments on money or cutting emissions.
Isabel Sande Frandsen, Climate Advisor for Oxfam International, said rich countries are simply delaying the decision. :
"Instead of simply replacing old political commitments with new ones, rich countries need to focus on delivering the urgent actions required of them by Copenhagen – deep and binding emissions cuts and finance to help poor countries curb their emissions and adapt to climate change," she said.
South Korea was the latest country to sign up to a target this week, promising to reduce greenhouse gases by four per cent on 2005 levels by 2020. Brazil also pledged to cut its emissions by 36 per cent against business as usual by 2020.
Ed Miliband, the UK Climate Change Secretary, said momentum was building for a strong deal at Copenhagen.
“The aim of Copenhagen continues to be to get a comprehensive and ambitious agreement. Today's affirmation from Presidents Obama and Hu that this is their ambition is very welcome and necessary. With less than three weeks to go before the talks start, we must strain every sinew for an agreement with maximum ambition, with immediate action on mitigation and finance and a clear trajectory to peak global emissions by 2020," he said.
Published: 7:49PM GMT 17 Nov 2009
Earlier in the week world leaders, including President Obama, admitted that it will be impossible to draw up a legal treaty in time for a key UN summit in Copenhagen this December.
Instead they suggested a 'political agreement' that was widely seen as a tactic to give rich countries time to haggle over swinging cuts in pollution.
However Denmark, that has a huge amount of influence as the host country of the summit, has made it clear that the politically-binding agreement will not be an easy option.
Speaking after a meeting of environment ministers in Copenhagen, Lars Loekke Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister of Denmark, said all rich countries will have commit to targets while poor nations must also agree to cut emissions.
"All developed countries will need to bring strong reduction targets to the negotiating table in Copenhagen," he said.
The pressure is now on for the world's biggest polluters, the US and China, to come up with numbers to show they are willing to make serious cuts in emissions.
During a meeting in China both sides made all the right signals by supporting the principle of a cut in emissions and money to help poor countries adapt to climate change.
President Obama supported the Danish proposal.
"Our aim there [in Copenhagen], in support of what Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark is trying to achieve, is not a partial accord or a political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations, and one that has immediate operational effect," he said
But despite the positive words from politicians, Yvo de Boer, head of the UN negotiations, said the world needed "more movement".
"Industrialised countries must raise their targets and financial commitments further... I look to the United States for a numerical midterm target and a clear commitment on finance," he said.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recommended that the rich world cuts emission by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020 while poor nations reduce pollution against "business as usual". The rich countries are also expected to put forward billions of pounds every year to help poor countries cut carbon emissions and adapt to climate change.
Environmental groups pointed out that the US and China have still failed to make any firm commitments on money or cutting emissions.
Isabel Sande Frandsen, Climate Advisor for Oxfam International, said rich countries are simply delaying the decision. :
"Instead of simply replacing old political commitments with new ones, rich countries need to focus on delivering the urgent actions required of them by Copenhagen – deep and binding emissions cuts and finance to help poor countries curb their emissions and adapt to climate change," she said.
South Korea was the latest country to sign up to a target this week, promising to reduce greenhouse gases by four per cent on 2005 levels by 2020. Brazil also pledged to cut its emissions by 36 per cent against business as usual by 2020.
Ed Miliband, the UK Climate Change Secretary, said momentum was building for a strong deal at Copenhagen.
“The aim of Copenhagen continues to be to get a comprehensive and ambitious agreement. Today's affirmation from Presidents Obama and Hu that this is their ambition is very welcome and necessary. With less than three weeks to go before the talks start, we must strain every sinew for an agreement with maximum ambition, with immediate action on mitigation and finance and a clear trajectory to peak global emissions by 2020," he said.
Biomass
Biomass
Ask most people which renewable energy source is the most widely used and they would say either wind or solar, but they’d be wrong or at least they certainly would in America. Since 2000 Biomass has been the most highly produced alternative energy in the United States. Using plant and animal material to create energy isn’t without its downfalls. It would almost certainly meet with competition from residents if biomass power stations were to be created in built up areas. The decomposing plants and animal waste creates an awful smell that is incredibly difficult to mask but it is very renewable (there’s always plants and animal waste)
Ask most people which renewable energy source is the most widely used and they would say either wind or solar, but they’d be wrong or at least they certainly would in America. Since 2000 Biomass has been the most highly produced alternative energy in the United States. Using plant and animal material to create energy isn’t without its downfalls. It would almost certainly meet with competition from residents if biomass power stations were to be created in built up areas. The decomposing plants and animal waste creates an awful smell that is incredibly difficult to mask but it is very renewable (there’s always plants and animal waste)
Wind Energy
Wind Energy
Harnessing the power of the wind and using it to our ends is hardly a new idea. Windmills have been and still are used for many different purposes and have been for a great many years, but the improvement of turbines combined with the improved technology to turn the motion of turbine blades into an energy source has seen the use of turbines explode.
Wind power is very popular, but in order to provide a reasonable amount of power it may prove necessary to have large amounts of turbines. On windy days, and even not so windy days some turbines make a noise that many residents consider to be unbearable. Areas of open countryside are protected by conservation orders, which means they can’t be built there either and if there is no conservation order there are still protestors willing to do almost anything to stop the turbines being built. The only viable option left is to use offshore wind farms and these are being investigated, developed and planned all around the world but it takes too many turbines to create a reasonable amount of power and eventually they will have to be built inland; a matter that will be contested wherever the wind farms are proposed to be built.
Harnessing the power of the wind and using it to our ends is hardly a new idea. Windmills have been and still are used for many different purposes and have been for a great many years, but the improvement of turbines combined with the improved technology to turn the motion of turbine blades into an energy source has seen the use of turbines explode.
Wind power is very popular, but in order to provide a reasonable amount of power it may prove necessary to have large amounts of turbines. On windy days, and even not so windy days some turbines make a noise that many residents consider to be unbearable. Areas of open countryside are protected by conservation orders, which means they can’t be built there either and if there is no conservation order there are still protestors willing to do almost anything to stop the turbines being built. The only viable option left is to use offshore wind farms and these are being investigated, developed and planned all around the world but it takes too many turbines to create a reasonable amount of power and eventually they will have to be built inland; a matter that will be contested wherever the wind farms are proposed to be built.
Using the Sun for Power - How It Works
Using the Sun for Power - How It Works
With massive rebate programs and tax credits being issued by state and federal governments, using the sun to generate electricity is very popular. So, how does it work?
Generating electricity from the sun is all about converting sunlight into power. Importantly, the process has nothing to do with converting the heat produced by sunlight into energy. This common misconception leads to a lot of confusion regarding solar systems.
The technology behind solar systems is known as photovoltaic technology. Essentially, this technology involves using sunlight to create a chemical reaction. During the chemical reaction, electrons are released from the relevant material and collected by tiny wires. This process creates a direct current of electricity. The electricity is then converted to usable alternating current electricity and stored in a battery or fed into a utility grid system.
Solar platforms use this exact process to produce energy. The arrays are made up of small squares called photovoltaic cells. A collection of these cells forms a single panel and a collection of panels makes up a “solar array.” The size of your array is entirely dependent upon the amount of electricity you want to produce.
The photovoltaic cells in a solar array are where the action happens. The cells are typically made with crystalline silicon under a glass cover. When sunlight hits the crystalline silicon, the material reacts by kicking off electrons. Tiny wires built into the cells collect the electrons in the form of an electrical current. This current is then sent to an inverter, which converts it to usable electricity.
The biggest issue with solar platforms is how efficiently they convert sunlight into electricity. The answer depends on how much you want to spend. Top brands will convert at roughly 15 percent efficiency. Less expensive brands will convert at 5 to 10 percent efficiency. The more efficient the panels, the fewer you will need.
It has become clear that our reliance on fossil fuels is only going to lead to further problems, whether political, environmental or economic. Advancements in solar technology as well as incredible tax breaks and rebates make using the Sun as an energy source a viable solution for you.
With massive rebate programs and tax credits being issued by state and federal governments, using the sun to generate electricity is very popular. So, how does it work?
Generating electricity from the sun is all about converting sunlight into power. Importantly, the process has nothing to do with converting the heat produced by sunlight into energy. This common misconception leads to a lot of confusion regarding solar systems.
The technology behind solar systems is known as photovoltaic technology. Essentially, this technology involves using sunlight to create a chemical reaction. During the chemical reaction, electrons are released from the relevant material and collected by tiny wires. This process creates a direct current of electricity. The electricity is then converted to usable alternating current electricity and stored in a battery or fed into a utility grid system.
Solar platforms use this exact process to produce energy. The arrays are made up of small squares called photovoltaic cells. A collection of these cells forms a single panel and a collection of panels makes up a “solar array.” The size of your array is entirely dependent upon the amount of electricity you want to produce.
The photovoltaic cells in a solar array are where the action happens. The cells are typically made with crystalline silicon under a glass cover. When sunlight hits the crystalline silicon, the material reacts by kicking off electrons. Tiny wires built into the cells collect the electrons in the form of an electrical current. This current is then sent to an inverter, which converts it to usable electricity.
The biggest issue with solar platforms is how efficiently they convert sunlight into electricity. The answer depends on how much you want to spend. Top brands will convert at roughly 15 percent efficiency. Less expensive brands will convert at 5 to 10 percent efficiency. The more efficient the panels, the fewer you will need.
It has become clear that our reliance on fossil fuels is only going to lead to further problems, whether political, environmental or economic. Advancements in solar technology as well as incredible tax breaks and rebates make using the Sun as an energy source a viable solution for you.
Renewable Energy
Renewable energy utilizes natural resources such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat, which are naturally replenished. Renewable energy technologies range from solar power, wind power, and hydroelectricity to biomass and biofuels for transportation. About 13 percent of primary energy comes from renewables although the technical potential for their use is very large, exceeding all other readily available sources. Renewable energy sources worldwide in 2005. Off-grid electric and ground source heat pumps not included. Source: Renewable energy technologies are sometimes criticised for being unreliable or unsightly, yet the market is growing for many forms of renewable energy
Recycling
Recycling
Recycling is the reprocessing of materials into new products. Recycling generally prevents the waste of potentially useful materials, reduces the consumption of raw materials and reduces energy usage, and hence greenhouse gas emissions, compared to virgin production. Recycling is a key concept of modern waste management and is the third component of the waste hierarchy.
Recyclable materials, may originate from a wide range of sources including the home and industry. They include glass, paper, aluminium, asphalt, iron, textiles and plastics. Biodegradable waste, such as food waste or garden waste, is also recyclable with the assistance of micro-organisms through composting or anaerobic digestion.
Recycling is the reprocessing of materials into new products. Recycling generally prevents the waste of potentially useful materials, reduces the consumption of raw materials and reduces energy usage, and hence greenhouse gas emissions, compared to virgin production. Recycling is a key concept of modern waste management and is the third component of the waste hierarchy.
Recyclable materials, may originate from a wide range of sources including the home and industry. They include glass, paper, aluminium, asphalt, iron, textiles and plastics. Biodegradable waste, such as food waste or garden waste, is also recyclable with the assistance of micro-organisms through composting or anaerobic digestion.
Take Action!
Take Action!
There are many simple things you can do in your daily life — what you eat, what you drive, how you build your home — that can have an effect on your immediate surrounding, and on places as far away as Antactica. Here is a list of few things that you can do to make a difference.
There are many simple things you can do in your daily life — what you eat, what you drive, how you build your home — that can have an effect on your immediate surrounding, and on places as far away as Antactica. Here is a list of few things that you can do to make a difference.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Energy
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Energy
It is essential that we find affordable and workable sources of alternative energy before the world completely consumes the already limited stock of fossil fuels. Many countries have started to introduce renewable energy schemes and more still have invested money into researching and even producing different sources of alternative energy
It is essential that we find affordable and workable sources of alternative energy before the world completely consumes the already limited stock of fossil fuels. Many countries have started to introduce renewable energy schemes and more still have invested money into researching and even producing different sources of alternative energy
The Future for Solar Energy
The Future for Solar Energy
Dreaming of the first step towards innovation. People all over the world and especially in America are dreaming of a green world where there will be only solar power energizing the needs of the entire country. Our experts feel that in several years, solar power will be cheap enough to compete with conventional electricity
Dreaming of the first step towards innovation. People all over the world and especially in America are dreaming of a green world where there will be only solar power energizing the needs of the entire country. Our experts feel that in several years, solar power will be cheap enough to compete with conventional electricity
Global Warming
Global Warming
All over America people are launching an exciting grassroots movement to help solve one of our country's most pressing problems: global warming. Local leaders are moving forward with innovative energy solutions that cut our dependence on oil, benefit public health and save taxpayer dollars. These leaders are on the way toward a safer and more secure future.
"The truth is we all must begin reducing global warming, and fortunately there is much to do. read more
All over America people are launching an exciting grassroots movement to help solve one of our country's most pressing problems: global warming. Local leaders are moving forward with innovative energy solutions that cut our dependence on oil, benefit public health and save taxpayer dollars. These leaders are on the way toward a safer and more secure future.
"The truth is we all must begin reducing global warming, and fortunately there is much to do. read more
10 Most Surprising Places to Find Petroleum
About one quarter of the oil consumed in this country is used for industrial purposes. Plastic production is the most obvious example, as awareness grows of the harm plastic does to the earth and people shun the material when they can.
But oil has permeated more of our lives than most people realize. Here, the most surprising places you'll find oil, in some form, as a key ingredient:
1. Chewing gum
It lasts as long as it does for a reason—just about all brands on store shelves today use petroleum-based polymers. (Unless you find, say, Chicza's organic rainforest gum, but I haven't seen it at any 7-Eleven lately.) In fact, Goodyear—the tire and rubber company—supplies Wrigley's with much of its gum base.
2. Hair dye
As if the toxic chemicals in hair dye weren't enough reason to avoid coloring your hair. Try finding more natural alternatives, or just go au naturale.
3. Asphalt
Also known as bitumen, the material used to resurface roads (as well as in roofing materials) is an oil-based hydrocarbon. Meaning—if you noticed that road construction slowed down in your area at all in the last year, rising oil costs may well have been the reason.
4. Crayons
The main ingredient is paraffin wax, a petroleum product also used in most candles.
5. Ink
Ever wonder why so many companies with an eco-conscience tout their use of soy-based ink?
6. Pantyhose
...and all other nylon products. All petroleum-based.
7, 8, 9, 10...Ok, there's going to be more than 10 items on this list
Heart Valves. Pillows. Aspirin. Ammonia. Toothpaste. Toothbrushes. Guitar strings. Shoe polish. Tape. Rubbing Alcohol. Vitamin capsules. Solvents. Caulking. Insecticides. Deodorant. Glue.
The wax layer of the packaging your frozen food comes in. (And, of course, the fertilizers that farmers used to grow much of that food.)
Given the ubiquity of oil, it's not an easy thing to get away from, no matter how much bike-riding and food-growing we do for ourselves. (Though both of things are a great start—keep 'em up!) But, like other addictions, we got ourselves hooked, and with serious effort and dedication, we can get ourselves unhooked.
Join the oil detox and start weaning yourself today.
But oil has permeated more of our lives than most people realize. Here, the most surprising places you'll find oil, in some form, as a key ingredient:
1. Chewing gum
It lasts as long as it does for a reason—just about all brands on store shelves today use petroleum-based polymers. (Unless you find, say, Chicza's organic rainforest gum, but I haven't seen it at any 7-Eleven lately.) In fact, Goodyear—the tire and rubber company—supplies Wrigley's with much of its gum base.
2. Hair dye
As if the toxic chemicals in hair dye weren't enough reason to avoid coloring your hair. Try finding more natural alternatives, or just go au naturale.
3. Asphalt
Also known as bitumen, the material used to resurface roads (as well as in roofing materials) is an oil-based hydrocarbon. Meaning—if you noticed that road construction slowed down in your area at all in the last year, rising oil costs may well have been the reason.
4. Crayons
The main ingredient is paraffin wax, a petroleum product also used in most candles.
5. Ink
Ever wonder why so many companies with an eco-conscience tout their use of soy-based ink?
6. Pantyhose
...and all other nylon products. All petroleum-based.
7, 8, 9, 10...Ok, there's going to be more than 10 items on this list
Heart Valves. Pillows. Aspirin. Ammonia. Toothpaste. Toothbrushes. Guitar strings. Shoe polish. Tape. Rubbing Alcohol. Vitamin capsules. Solvents. Caulking. Insecticides. Deodorant. Glue.
The wax layer of the packaging your frozen food comes in. (And, of course, the fertilizers that farmers used to grow much of that food.)
Given the ubiquity of oil, it's not an easy thing to get away from, no matter how much bike-riding and food-growing we do for ourselves. (Though both of things are a great start—keep 'em up!) But, like other addictions, we got ourselves hooked, and with serious effort and dedication, we can get ourselves unhooked.
Join the oil detox and start weaning yourself today.
The Simplest, 4-Step Quiz to Determine Your Carbon Footprint
ou know it's better to eat local and vegetarian, you know it's better to reduce the amount of packaging you consume and to use public transportation to get around. But do you know how much all of these things add up—how much arable land is used to support your lifestyle? How many planets would be required to support the world's population if everyone consumed the same number of resources as your household? Use Wa$ted's Ecological Footprint Calculator to find out.
How to Go Green: Carbon Offsets
How to Go Green: Carbon Offsets
Newspapers, radio, television, magazines, blogs, podcasts, in fact any media you can think of, has awoken to the issue of climate change or global warming. When mainstream publications, the likes of Sports Illustrated and Vanity Fair, cover the topic you know there is something going on. Not to mention that a documentary full of graphs, statistics and grainy photos of glaciers can scoop up an Oscar. And thousands of eminent scientists, the world over, sign a document concurring that there was 90 percent certainty that the planet has a temperature and it is a human induced fever. To reduce the patient's prognosis of increased convulsions; such as hurricanes, droughts, floods, heat waves, etc; experimental treatments are underway.
Newspapers, radio, television, magazines, blogs, podcasts, in fact any media you can think of, has awoken to the issue of climate change or global warming. When mainstream publications, the likes of Sports Illustrated and Vanity Fair, cover the topic you know there is something going on. Not to mention that a documentary full of graphs, statistics and grainy photos of glaciers can scoop up an Oscar. And thousands of eminent scientists, the world over, sign a document concurring that there was 90 percent certainty that the planet has a temperature and it is a human induced fever. To reduce the patient's prognosis of increased convulsions; such as hurricanes, droughts, floods, heat waves, etc; experimental treatments are underway.
Obama’s biggest eco-challenge
Obama’s biggest eco-challenge: To overcome obstacles in congress and from lobbyists so he can move beyond just the rhetoric of a green agenda and truly pursue an economic rebirth and environmental revival as one and the same.
What Environmental Challenges Await President Obama?
What Environmental Challenges Await President Obama?
Just minutes ago, Barack Obama took the oath as the 44th president of the US. But the excitement wasn’t exclusive to the inauguration attendees partying on the D.C. mall. Leaders and volunteers at environmental NGOs are also ringing in the renewed sense of hope and change—for they are the experts hard at work trying to push eco-education, policy and conservation to the fore.
We turned to Planet Green’s non-profit partners to see what they think Obama’s biggest environmental challenges are and what he will need to do to meet them with success.
Matt Petersen, President & CEO, Global Green USA
Just minutes ago, Barack Obama took the oath as the 44th president of the US. But the excitement wasn’t exclusive to the inauguration attendees partying on the D.C. mall. Leaders and volunteers at environmental NGOs are also ringing in the renewed sense of hope and change—for they are the experts hard at work trying to push eco-education, policy and conservation to the fore.
We turned to Planet Green’s non-profit partners to see what they think Obama’s biggest environmental challenges are and what he will need to do to meet them with success.
Matt Petersen, President & CEO, Global Green USA
Why to Go Green
Why to Go Green
You’ve probably noticed that green is everywhere these days--in the news, politics, fashion, and even technology. You can hardly escape it on the Internet, and now with the Planet Green TV network, you can even enjoy eco-friendly entertainment 24 hours a day. That’s all great as far as we’re concerned, but with a million messages and ideas coming at us from all sides, it can be easy to get caught up in the quotidian stuff—switching to organic foods, turning down the thermostat, recycling, say -- without thinking about the big picture of how your actions stack up. Worse, you could even be suffering from a little green "fatigue" -- that is, tuning out the green messages due to their ubiquity.
You’ve probably noticed that green is everywhere these days--in the news, politics, fashion, and even technology. You can hardly escape it on the Internet, and now with the Planet Green TV network, you can even enjoy eco-friendly entertainment 24 hours a day. That’s all great as far as we’re concerned, but with a million messages and ideas coming at us from all sides, it can be easy to get caught up in the quotidian stuff—switching to organic foods, turning down the thermostat, recycling, say -- without thinking about the big picture of how your actions stack up. Worse, you could even be suffering from a little green "fatigue" -- that is, tuning out the green messages due to their ubiquity.
Save energy to save money.
Save energy to save money.
Set your thermostat a few degrees lower in the winter and a few degrees higher in the summer to save on heating and cooling costs.
Install compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) when your older incandescent bulbs burn out.
Unplug appliances when you're not using them. Or, use a "smart" power strip that senses when appliances are off and cuts "phantom" or "vampire" energy use.
Wash clothes in cold water whenever possible. As much as 85 percent of the energy used to machine-wash clothes goes to heating the water.
Use a drying rack or clothesline to save the energy otherwise used during machine drying.
Save water to save money.
Take shorter showers to reduce water use. This will lower your water and heating bills too.
Install a low-flow showerhead. They don't cost much, and the water and energy savings can quickly pay back your investment.
Make sure you have a faucet aerator on each faucet. These inexpensive appliances conserve heat and water, while keeping water pressure high.
Plant drought-tolerant native plants in your garden. Many plants need minimal watering. Find out which occur naturally in your area.
Walk or bike to work. This saves on gas and parking costs while improving your cardiovascular health and reducing your risk of obesity.
Consider telecommuting if you live far from your work. Or move closer. Even if this means paying more rent, it could save you money in the long term.
Lobby your local government to increase spending on sidewalks and bike lanes. With little cost, these improvements can pay huge dividends in bettering your health and reducing traffic.
Set your thermostat a few degrees lower in the winter and a few degrees higher in the summer to save on heating and cooling costs.
Install compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) when your older incandescent bulbs burn out.
Unplug appliances when you're not using them. Or, use a "smart" power strip that senses when appliances are off and cuts "phantom" or "vampire" energy use.
Wash clothes in cold water whenever possible. As much as 85 percent of the energy used to machine-wash clothes goes to heating the water.
Use a drying rack or clothesline to save the energy otherwise used during machine drying.
Save water to save money.
Take shorter showers to reduce water use. This will lower your water and heating bills too.
Install a low-flow showerhead. They don't cost much, and the water and energy savings can quickly pay back your investment.
Make sure you have a faucet aerator on each faucet. These inexpensive appliances conserve heat and water, while keeping water pressure high.
Plant drought-tolerant native plants in your garden. Many plants need minimal watering. Find out which occur naturally in your area.
Walk or bike to work. This saves on gas and parking costs while improving your cardiovascular health and reducing your risk of obesity.
Consider telecommuting if you live far from your work. Or move closer. Even if this means paying more rent, it could save you money in the long term.
Lobby your local government to increase spending on sidewalks and bike lanes. With little cost, these improvements can pay huge dividends in bettering your health and reducing traffic.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
How to Go Green: Electricity
The cost of electricity is going up (both in dollars and in environmental and health impacts) and it doesn't show any signs of doing otherwise. About half of the energy in the American grid is coal generated. We won't bore you with what you already know: coal is a really stinky, dangerous, nasty, unsustainable, and silly way to make power. By using less energy, and greening the electricity that we do use, we can lighten our footprint immensely. The subject of electricity and its environmental impacts is a massive one and we can't cover every corner of it here; hopefully, this brief guide can offer some solid suggestions for greening your electricity and use thereof.
New Year's Resolutions
Landscape gardeners make New Year's resolutions just like everyone else.
Please access and vote in my New Year's poll on the Landscaping at Suite101 Home Page.
Let me know what is tops on your list for 2007! If I haven't included it in the Poll, scroll down past the blog section of Landscaping and let readers and me know what your priority is in the discussion area of Landscaping.
Thanks,
Please access and vote in my New Year's poll on the Landscaping at Suite101 Home Page.
Let me know what is tops on your list for 2007! If I haven't included it in the Poll, scroll down past the blog section of Landscaping and let readers and me know what your priority is in the discussion area of Landscaping.
Thanks,
Newest Guides for How to Go Green
Earth Day
Spring Cleaning
Spring Break
Like Celebrities
Wedding Engagement
Dating
Alternative Energy
Skiing & Snowboarding
Work from Home
Workouts
New Year's
Cocktails
Beers
Thanksgiving Day
Gadgets
Wine
Dinner Parties
Halloween
Job Searches
Commuting
Natural Skin Care
In the Bathroom
Dorm Rooms
Back to School
Investing
Bathroom Renovation
Hybrid Cars
Volunteerism
Why to Go Green
Laundry
Barbeques
Spring Cleaning
Spring Break
Like Celebrities
Wedding Engagement
Dating
Alternative Energy
Skiing & Snowboarding
Work from Home
Workouts
New Year's
Cocktails
Beers
Thanksgiving Day
Gadgets
Wine
Dinner Parties
Halloween
Job Searches
Commuting
Natural Skin Care
In the Bathroom
Dorm Rooms
Back to School
Investing
Bathroom Renovation
Hybrid Cars
Volunteerism
Why to Go Green
Laundry
Barbeques
Five Ways To Green Your New Year's Resolutions
First Things First
When creating a New Years resolution list, there are a few criteria that help you reach those goals:
Stretch a bit - make your resolutions achievable yet slightly out of easy grasp. There's nothing like the feeling of reaching a goal that seemed unreachable just a year ago.
Look within - as you are conjuring your list, try to think beyond the glow of the January momentum. January is one of the busiest months for gym enrollment, yet how many of those hopefuls are still pumping iron in April? Think about what you want your year to look like. Project yourself into the end of 2009, what are the things you will look back on proudly?
Do it for YOU - the things you put on your list should reflect the things you want for yourself. Check your inner compass to make sure that you are not trying to reach other people's expectations first (unless they match with your own).
Take your time - a great way to get your list started is to take a few hours, (or days) and go sit in a place that inspires you. Does the beach give you ideas? Do you think best and most creatively when you are hiking on the path doing yoga? Do your best ideas come through when you're in the shower? Keep a pad and paper near by as you ponder your best 2009. Inspiration can strike anywhere.
When creating a New Years resolution list, there are a few criteria that help you reach those goals:
Stretch a bit - make your resolutions achievable yet slightly out of easy grasp. There's nothing like the feeling of reaching a goal that seemed unreachable just a year ago.
Look within - as you are conjuring your list, try to think beyond the glow of the January momentum. January is one of the busiest months for gym enrollment, yet how many of those hopefuls are still pumping iron in April? Think about what you want your year to look like. Project yourself into the end of 2009, what are the things you will look back on proudly?
Do it for YOU - the things you put on your list should reflect the things you want for yourself. Check your inner compass to make sure that you are not trying to reach other people's expectations first (unless they match with your own).
Take your time - a great way to get your list started is to take a few hours, (or days) and go sit in a place that inspires you. Does the beach give you ideas? Do you think best and most creatively when you are hiking on the path doing yoga? Do your best ideas come through when you're in the shower? Keep a pad and paper near by as you ponder your best 2009. Inspiration can strike anywhere.
The GoGreen Conference
The GoGreen Conference is a unique opportunity to learn the latest in sustainable practices for your business. This very special one day conference is designed to educate, motivate and inspire you - the aspiring or established business owner/leader - to take your green quotient to the next level and to put your business on a sustainable path.
The GoGreen Conference will take place in both Seattle and Portland in 2010, featuring sustainable business leaders from the Pacific Northwest.
The GoGreen Conference will take place in both Seattle and Portland in 2010, featuring sustainable business leaders from the Pacific Northwest.
More Going Green stories
U.S. companies look to BBQ fuel for freezers
Newsweek: Companies overhype the 'green' angle
Exxon makes first big biofuel investment
Green jobs growing at twice national average
Summit predicts 2 million green jobs in U.S.
Jobless seek training for green-collar jobs
Auto suppliers cross over to wind power
10 hot green job industries in 2009
Stimulus plan sparks growth of green jobs
From the archives
‘i-house’ is giant leap from trailer park
It’s not easy being green in an economic crisis
Cash for trash: Reuse stores make use of refuse
IBM plans to get deep into the water business
EU slaps import fees on U.S. biodiesel
Massive Saudi water-power plant nearly ready
Weary catfish farmers now landlords of algae
Indonesia, S. Korea work on seaweed power
‘WALL-E’ producer Disney seeks to cut waste
It's a first: Whale sedated to remove rope
Some experts fear seas will rise faster
Interior secretary has wind power on agenda
advertisement
Newsweek: Companies overhype the 'green' angle
Exxon makes first big biofuel investment
Green jobs growing at twice national average
Summit predicts 2 million green jobs in U.S.
Jobless seek training for green-collar jobs
Auto suppliers cross over to wind power
10 hot green job industries in 2009
Stimulus plan sparks growth of green jobs
From the archives
‘i-house’ is giant leap from trailer park
It’s not easy being green in an economic crisis
Cash for trash: Reuse stores make use of refuse
IBM plans to get deep into the water business
EU slaps import fees on U.S. biodiesel
Massive Saudi water-power plant nearly ready
Weary catfish farmers now landlords of algae
Indonesia, S. Korea work on seaweed power
‘WALL-E’ producer Disney seeks to cut waste
It's a first: Whale sedated to remove rope
Some experts fear seas will rise faster
Interior secretary has wind power on agenda
advertisement
10 Ways to Go Green and Save Green
How can we live lightly on the Earth and save money at the same time? Staff members at the Worldwatch Institute, a global environmental organization, share ideas on how to GO GREEN and SAVE GREEN at home and at work.
Climate change is in the news. It seems like everyone's "going green." We're glad you want to take action, too. Luckily, many of the steps we can take to stop climate change can make our lives better. Our grandchildren-and their children-will thank us for living more sustainably. Let's start now.
We've partnered with the Million Car Carbon Campaign to help you find ways to save energy and reduce your carbon footprint. This campaign is uniting conscious consumers around the world to prevent the emissions-equivalent of 1 million cars from entering the atmosphere each year.
Keep reading for 10 simple things you can do today to help reduce your environmental impact, save money, and live a happier, healthier life.
Save energy to save money.
State of the World 2009:
Into a Warming World
Set your thermostat a few degrees lower in the winter and a few degrees higher in the summer to save on heating and cooling costs.
Install compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) when your older incandescent bulbs burn out.
Unplug appliances when you're not using them. Or, use a "smart" power strip that senses when appliances are off and cuts "phantom" or "vampire" energy use.
Wash clothes in cold water whenever possible. As much as 85 percent of the energy used to machine-wash clothes goes to heating the water.
Use a drying rack or clothesline to save the energy otherwise used during machine drying.
Save water to save money.
Take shorter showers to reduce water use. This will lower your water and heating bills too.
Install a low-flow showerhead. They don't cost much, and the water and energy savings can quickly pay back your investment.
Make sure you have a faucet aerator on each faucet. These inexpensive appliances conserve heat and water, while keeping water pressure high.
Plant drought-tolerant native plants in your garden. Many plants need minimal watering. Find out which occur naturally in your area.
Less gas = more money (and better health!).
World Watch Magazine
Walk or bike to work. This saves on gas and parking costs while improving your cardiovascular health and reducing your risk of obesity.
Consider telecommuting if you live far from your work. Or move closer. Even if this means paying more rent, it could save you money in the long term.
Lobby your local government to increase spending on sidewalks and bike lanes. With little cost, these improvements can pay huge dividends in bettering your health and reducing traffic.
Eat smart.
If you eat meat, add one meatless meal a week. Meat costs a lot at the store-and it's even more expensive when you consider the related environmental and health costs.
Buy locally raised, humane, and organic meat, eggs, and dairy whenever you can. Purchasing from local farmers keeps money in the local economy.
Watch videos about why local food and sustainable seafood are so great.
Whatever your diet, eat low on the food chain [pdf]. This is especially true for seafood.
Skip the bottled water.
Use a water filter to purify tap water instead of buying bottled water. Not only is bottled water expensive, but it generates large amounts of container waste.
Bring a reusable water bottle, preferably aluminum rather than plastic, with you when traveling or at work.
Check out this short article for the latest on bottled water trends.
Think before you buy.
Low Carbon Energy Report
Go online to find new or gently used secondhand products. Whether you've just moved or are looking to redecorate, consider a service like craigslist or FreeSharing to track down furniture, appliances, and other items cheaply or for free.
Check out garage sales, thrift stores, and consignment shops for clothing and other everyday items.
When making purchases, make sure you know what's "Good Stuff" and what isn't.
Watch a video about what happens when you buy things. Your purchases have a real impact, for better or worse.
Borrow instead of buying.
Borrow from libraries instead of buying personal books and movies. This saves money, not to mention the ink and paper that goes into printing new books.
Share power tools and other appliances. Get to know your neighbors while cutting down on the number of things cluttering your closet or garage.
Buy smart.
Climate Change Reference
Guide
Buy in bulk. Purchasing food from bulk bins can save money and packaging.
Wear clothes that don't need to be dry-cleaned. This saves money and cuts down on toxic chemical use.
Invest in high-quality, long-lasting products. You might pay more now, but you'll be happy when you don't have to replace items as frequently (and this means less waste!).
Keep electronics out of the trash.
Keep your cell phones, computers, and other electronics as long as possible.
Donate or recycle them responsibly when the time comes. E-waste contains mercury and other toxics and is a growing environmental problem.
Recycle your cell phone.
Ask your local government to set up an electronics recycling and hazardous waste collection event.
Make your own cleaning supplies.
Join the Million Car Carbon Campaign by purchasing your Earth-Aid kit today.
The big secret: you can make very effective, non-toxic cleaning products whenever you need them. All you need are a few simple ingredients like baking soda, vinegar, lemon, and soap.
Making your own cleaning products saves money, time, and packaging-not to mention your indoor air quality.
Bonus Item!
Stay informed about going green. Sign up for our weekly newsletter or subscribe to World Watch, our award-winning magazine.
Climate change is in the news. It seems like everyone's "going green." We're glad you want to take action, too. Luckily, many of the steps we can take to stop climate change can make our lives better. Our grandchildren-and their children-will thank us for living more sustainably. Let's start now.
We've partnered with the Million Car Carbon Campaign to help you find ways to save energy and reduce your carbon footprint. This campaign is uniting conscious consumers around the world to prevent the emissions-equivalent of 1 million cars from entering the atmosphere each year.
Keep reading for 10 simple things you can do today to help reduce your environmental impact, save money, and live a happier, healthier life.
Save energy to save money.
State of the World 2009:
Into a Warming World
Set your thermostat a few degrees lower in the winter and a few degrees higher in the summer to save on heating and cooling costs.
Install compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) when your older incandescent bulbs burn out.
Unplug appliances when you're not using them. Or, use a "smart" power strip that senses when appliances are off and cuts "phantom" or "vampire" energy use.
Wash clothes in cold water whenever possible. As much as 85 percent of the energy used to machine-wash clothes goes to heating the water.
Use a drying rack or clothesline to save the energy otherwise used during machine drying.
Save water to save money.
Take shorter showers to reduce water use. This will lower your water and heating bills too.
Install a low-flow showerhead. They don't cost much, and the water and energy savings can quickly pay back your investment.
Make sure you have a faucet aerator on each faucet. These inexpensive appliances conserve heat and water, while keeping water pressure high.
Plant drought-tolerant native plants in your garden. Many plants need minimal watering. Find out which occur naturally in your area.
Less gas = more money (and better health!).
World Watch Magazine
Walk or bike to work. This saves on gas and parking costs while improving your cardiovascular health and reducing your risk of obesity.
Consider telecommuting if you live far from your work. Or move closer. Even if this means paying more rent, it could save you money in the long term.
Lobby your local government to increase spending on sidewalks and bike lanes. With little cost, these improvements can pay huge dividends in bettering your health and reducing traffic.
Eat smart.
If you eat meat, add one meatless meal a week. Meat costs a lot at the store-and it's even more expensive when you consider the related environmental and health costs.
Buy locally raised, humane, and organic meat, eggs, and dairy whenever you can. Purchasing from local farmers keeps money in the local economy.
Watch videos about why local food and sustainable seafood are so great.
Whatever your diet, eat low on the food chain [pdf]. This is especially true for seafood.
Skip the bottled water.
Use a water filter to purify tap water instead of buying bottled water. Not only is bottled water expensive, but it generates large amounts of container waste.
Bring a reusable water bottle, preferably aluminum rather than plastic, with you when traveling or at work.
Check out this short article for the latest on bottled water trends.
Think before you buy.
Low Carbon Energy Report
Go online to find new or gently used secondhand products. Whether you've just moved or are looking to redecorate, consider a service like craigslist or FreeSharing to track down furniture, appliances, and other items cheaply or for free.
Check out garage sales, thrift stores, and consignment shops for clothing and other everyday items.
When making purchases, make sure you know what's "Good Stuff" and what isn't.
Watch a video about what happens when you buy things. Your purchases have a real impact, for better or worse.
Borrow instead of buying.
Borrow from libraries instead of buying personal books and movies. This saves money, not to mention the ink and paper that goes into printing new books.
Share power tools and other appliances. Get to know your neighbors while cutting down on the number of things cluttering your closet or garage.
Buy smart.
Climate Change Reference
Guide
Buy in bulk. Purchasing food from bulk bins can save money and packaging.
Wear clothes that don't need to be dry-cleaned. This saves money and cuts down on toxic chemical use.
Invest in high-quality, long-lasting products. You might pay more now, but you'll be happy when you don't have to replace items as frequently (and this means less waste!).
Keep electronics out of the trash.
Keep your cell phones, computers, and other electronics as long as possible.
Donate or recycle them responsibly when the time comes. E-waste contains mercury and other toxics and is a growing environmental problem.
Recycle your cell phone.
Ask your local government to set up an electronics recycling and hazardous waste collection event.
Make your own cleaning supplies.
Join the Million Car Carbon Campaign by purchasing your Earth-Aid kit today.
The big secret: you can make very effective, non-toxic cleaning products whenever you need them. All you need are a few simple ingredients like baking soda, vinegar, lemon, and soap.
Making your own cleaning products saves money, time, and packaging-not to mention your indoor air quality.
Bonus Item!
Stay informed about going green. Sign up for our weekly newsletter or subscribe to World Watch, our award-winning magazine.
NEW YORK TIMES HEADLINES
Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead - May 21, 1975 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1FFD395D137B93C3AB178ED85F418785F9
REPORT THE ARCTIC IS GETTING WARMER; Explorers and Fishermen Find Climate Moderating About Spitsbergen. FIRST NOTED ABOUT 1918 Old Glaciers Have Disappeared - February 25, 1923 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F13F7395516738DDDAC0A94DA405B838EF1D3
MACMILLAN REPORTS SIGNS OF NEW ICE AGE; Explorer Brings Word of Unusual Movements of Greenland Glaciers -- Coal Deposits Show Polar Climate Was Once Tropical - September 28, 1924 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C14FB3C5B12738DDDA10A94D1405B848EF1D3
AMERICA IN LONGEST WARM SPELL SINCE 1776; TEMPERATURE LINE RECORDS A 25-YEAR RISE - March 27, 1933 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00617FF3D5E1A7A93C5AB1788D85F478385F9
REPORT THE ARCTIC IS GETTING WARMER; Explorers and Fishermen Find Climate Moderating About Spitsbergen. FIRST NOTED ABOUT 1918 Old Glaciers Have Disappeared - February 25, 1923 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F13F7395516738DDDAC0A94DA405B838EF1D3
MACMILLAN REPORTS SIGNS OF NEW ICE AGE; Explorer Brings Word of Unusual Movements of Greenland Glaciers -- Coal Deposits Show Polar Climate Was Once Tropical - September 28, 1924 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C14FB3C5B12738DDDA10A94D1405B848EF1D3
AMERICA IN LONGEST WARM SPELL SINCE 1776; TEMPERATURE LINE RECORDS A 25-YEAR RISE - March 27, 1933 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00617FF3D5E1A7A93C5AB1788D85F478385F9
Global Warming vs Global Warming Theory
I am just curious why this wiki is not titled with "Theory." If you type "Global Warming Theory" into the search, it brings up the "controversy" page. While I feel that it can be argued as to the extent of global warming that has occurred (I'm not favoring a side either way here, folks), it seems as though the idea of the earth's temperature increasing to the present date has been extrapolated and blended with the theoristic models which attempt to predict future scenarios.
Please do not read this wrong: I am not implying that the models don't have substance or are incorrect. I am just saying that these ideas need to be presented correctly. Here is an example: for many years, the atom was thought of as "plum pudding model"; that gave way to the Bohr model, which gave way to quantum model. In our schools, these are presented as truths, as they can meet certain expectaions when tested against current beliefs held by scientists; everyone at the time thought the Bohr model was correct. The truth of it is, these are just THEORIES. Highly provable theories, but theories none the less.
I just feel that there should be more information in the article, including the title, that future modeling is a scientific conjecture, like most things in science.
I hope this makes sense, and hopefully this is not redundant.
Please do not read this wrong: I am not implying that the models don't have substance or are incorrect. I am just saying that these ideas need to be presented correctly. Here is an example: for many years, the atom was thought of as "plum pudding model"; that gave way to the Bohr model, which gave way to quantum model. In our schools, these are presented as truths, as they can meet certain expectaions when tested against current beliefs held by scientists; everyone at the time thought the Bohr model was correct. The truth of it is, these are just THEORIES. Highly provable theories, but theories none the less.
I just feel that there should be more information in the article, including the title, that future modeling is a scientific conjecture, like most things in science.
I hope this makes sense, and hopefully this is not redundant.
National Resources Stewardship Program
Four hundred and forty million years ago, when CO2 levels are estimated to have been more than 10 times today's, our planet was in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years. At other times, high CO2 levels coincided with warm periods. There is no meaningful correlation with temperature in the geological record. Over the past half million years, the Antarctic ice core records show a remarkable link between temperature and CO2 . Yet, these records consistently show that temperature rises some 800 years before CO2 rises, not after it. Even over the past century the CO2/warming correlation is poor, with significant cooling taking place between 1940 and 1980 while human-produced CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly. In all these records there is no evidence to show that CO2 has ever acted as a climate driver or even as a significant secondary effect to accelerate climate warming.
IPCC Crushes Scientific Objectivity, 91-0.
Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change.
The most glaring example of this bias has been the lack of interest on the IPCC’s part in figuring out to what extent climate change is simply the result of natural, internal cycles in the climate system. In Chapter 9 of the latest (4th) IPCC report, entitled “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, you would think the issue of external versus internal forcing would be thoroughly addressed. But you would be wrong.
The IPCC is totally obsessed with external forcing, that is, energy imbalances imposed upon the climate system that are NOT the result of the natural, internal workings of the system. For instance, a search through Chapter 9 for the phrase “external forcing” yields a total of 91 uses of that term. A search for the phrase “internal forcing” yields…(wait for it)…zero uses. Can we really believe that the IPCC has ruled out natural sources of global warming when such a glaring blind spot exists?
The most glaring example of this bias has been the lack of interest on the IPCC’s part in figuring out to what extent climate change is simply the result of natural, internal cycles in the climate system. In Chapter 9 of the latest (4th) IPCC report, entitled “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, you would think the issue of external versus internal forcing would be thoroughly addressed. But you would be wrong.
The IPCC is totally obsessed with external forcing, that is, energy imbalances imposed upon the climate system that are NOT the result of the natural, internal workings of the system. For instance, a search through Chapter 9 for the phrase “external forcing” yields a total of 91 uses of that term. A search for the phrase “internal forcing” yields…(wait for it)…zero uses. Can we really believe that the IPCC has ruled out natural sources of global warming when such a glaring blind spot exists?
An Expensive Urban Legend
About.com describes an “urban legend” as an apocryphal (of questionable authenticity), secondhand story, told as true and just plausible enough to be believed, about some horrific…series of events….it’s likely to be framed as a cautionary tale. Whether factual or not, an urban legend is meant to be believed. In lieu of evidence, however, the teller of an urban legend is apt to rely on skillful storytelling and reference to putatively trustworthy sources.
I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming.
But skillful storytelling has elevated the danger from a theoretical one to one of near-certainty. The actual scientific basis for the plausible hypothesis that humans could be responsible for most recent warming is contained in the cautious scientific language of many scientific papers. Unfortunately, most of the uncertainties and caveats are then minimized with artfully designed prose contained in the Summary for Policymakers (SP) portion of the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This Summary was clearly meant to instill maximum alarm from a minimum amount of direct evidence.
Next, politicians seized upon the SP, further simplifying and extrapolating its claims to the level of a “climate crisis”. Other politicians embellished the tale even more by claiming they “saw” global warming in Greenland as if it was a sighting of Sasquatch, or that they felt it when they fly in airplanes.
Just as the tales of marauding colonies of alligators living in New York City sewers are based upon some kernel of truth, so too is the science behind anthropogenic global warming. But there is a big difference between reports of people finding pet alligators that have escaped their owners, versus city workers having their limbs torn off by roving colonies of subterranean monsters.
I contend that the belief in human-caused global warming as a dangerous event, either now or in the future, has most of the characteristics of an urban legend. Like other urban legends, it is based upon an element of truth. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming.
But skillful storytelling has elevated the danger from a theoretical one to one of near-certainty. The actual scientific basis for the plausible hypothesis that humans could be responsible for most recent warming is contained in the cautious scientific language of many scientific papers. Unfortunately, most of the uncertainties and caveats are then minimized with artfully designed prose contained in the Summary for Policymakers (SP) portion of the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This Summary was clearly meant to instill maximum alarm from a minimum amount of direct evidence.
Next, politicians seized upon the SP, further simplifying and extrapolating its claims to the level of a “climate crisis”. Other politicians embellished the tale even more by claiming they “saw” global warming in Greenland as if it was a sighting of Sasquatch, or that they felt it when they fly in airplanes.
Just as the tales of marauding colonies of alligators living in New York City sewers are based upon some kernel of truth, so too is the science behind anthropogenic global warming. But there is a big difference between reports of people finding pet alligators that have escaped their owners, versus city workers having their limbs torn off by roving colonies of subterranean monsters.
In Their Own Words: The IPCC on Climate Feedbacks
Despite the fact that the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming depends mostly upon the strengths of feedbacks in the climate system, there is no known way to actually measure those feedbacks from observational data.
The IPCC has admitted as much on p. 640 of the IPCC AR4 report, at the end of section 8.6, which is entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:
“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”
The IPCC has admitted as much on p. 640 of the IPCC AR4 report, at the end of section 8.6, which is entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:
“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”
October 2009 UAH Global Temperature Update +0.28 deg. C
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
2009 2 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
2009 3 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
2009 4 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
2009 5 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
2009 6 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 7 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 8 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
2009 9 +0.422 +0.549 +0.294 +0.511
2009 10 +0.284 +0.271 +0.298 +0.328
2009 1 +0.304 +0.443 +0.165 -0.036
2009 2 +0.347 +0.678 +0.016 +0.051
2009 3 +0.206 +0.310 +0.103 -0.149
2009 4 +0.090 +0.124 +0.056 -0.014
2009 5 +0.045 +0.046 +0.044 -0.166
2009 6 +0.003 +0.031 -0.025 -0.003
2009 7 +0.411 +0.212 +0.610 +0.427
2009 8 +0.229 +0.282 +0.177 +0.456
2009 9 +0.422 +0.549 +0.294 +0.511
2009 10 +0.284 +0.271 +0.298 +0.328
Global Warming’s Blue Dress Moment? The CRU EMail Hack Scandal
The recent hacking of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system has led to the release of hundreds, if not thousands, of e-mails which — if real — reveal the tactics and motivations of some of the top Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists. I hesitate to name names, but there are several websites now buzzing with all of the details and sample e-mails. The e-mails I have seen appear genuine, with obscure scientific details and language that would take considerable effort to create as part of a hoax. A few of the sites covering this unfolding story are:
Climate Depot
Anthony Watts: Watts Up With That?
Herald Sun: Andrew Bolt
Lubos Motl: The Reference Frame
Climate Depot
Anthony Watts: Watts Up With That?
Herald Sun: Andrew Bolt
Lubos Motl: The Reference Frame
ClimateGate and the Elitist Roots of Global Warming Alarmism
The hundreds of e-mails being made public after someone hacked into Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system offer a revealing peek inside the IPCC machine. It will take some time before we know whether any illegal activity has been uncovered (e.g. hiding or destruction of data to avoid Freedom of Information Act inquiries).
Some commentators even think this is the beginning of the end for the IPCC. I doubt it.
The scientists at the center of this row are defending themselves. Phil Jones has claimed that some of the more alarming statements in his e-mails have been taken out of context. The semi-official response from RealClimate.org, a website whose roots can be traced to George Soros (which I’m sure is irrelevant), claims the whole episode is much ado about nothing.
At a minimum, some of these e-mails reveal an undercurrent of elitism that many of us have always claimed existed in the IPCC. These scientists look upon us skeptics with scorn. It is well known that the IPCC machine is made up of bureaucrats and scientists who think they know how the world should be run. The language contained in a draft of the latest climate treaty (meant to replace the Kyoto treaty) involves global governance and the most authoritarian means by which people’s energy use will be restricted and monitored by the government.
Even if this language does not survive in the treaty’s final form, it illustrates the kind of people we are dealing with. The IPCC folks jet around the world to all kinds of exotic locations for their UN-organized meetings where they eat the finest food. Their gigantic carbon footprints stomp around the planet as they deride poor Brazilian farmers who convert jungle into farmland simply to survive.
Even mainstream journalists, who are usually on board with the latest environmental craze, have commented on this blatant display of hypocrisy. It seems like those participating – possibly the best example being Al Gore — are not even aware of how it looks to the rest of us.
Some commentators even think this is the beginning of the end for the IPCC. I doubt it.
The scientists at the center of this row are defending themselves. Phil Jones has claimed that some of the more alarming statements in his e-mails have been taken out of context. The semi-official response from RealClimate.org, a website whose roots can be traced to George Soros (which I’m sure is irrelevant), claims the whole episode is much ado about nothing.
At a minimum, some of these e-mails reveal an undercurrent of elitism that many of us have always claimed existed in the IPCC. These scientists look upon us skeptics with scorn. It is well known that the IPCC machine is made up of bureaucrats and scientists who think they know how the world should be run. The language contained in a draft of the latest climate treaty (meant to replace the Kyoto treaty) involves global governance and the most authoritarian means by which people’s energy use will be restricted and monitored by the government.
Even if this language does not survive in the treaty’s final form, it illustrates the kind of people we are dealing with. The IPCC folks jet around the world to all kinds of exotic locations for their UN-organized meetings where they eat the finest food. Their gigantic carbon footprints stomp around the planet as they deride poor Brazilian farmers who convert jungle into farmland simply to survive.
Even mainstream journalists, who are usually on board with the latest environmental craze, have commented on this blatant display of hypocrisy. It seems like those participating – possibly the best example being Al Gore — are not even aware of how it looks to the rest of us.
Anti-greenhouse effect
The anti-greenhouse effect is a neologism used to describe two different effects, coming under the header of "the cooling effect an atmosphere has on the ambient temperature of the planet." Unlike the greenhouse effect, which is common, an anti-greenhouse effect is only known to exist in one situation in the Solar System, as well as another which is a misnomer.
The conventional greenhouse effect occurs because the atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation, but largely opaque to infrared. In an anti-greenhouse effect, this situation is reversed (i.e. the atmosphere is opaque to solar, but lets out infrared).
The conventional greenhouse effect occurs because the atmosphere is largely transparent to solar radiation, but largely opaque to infrared. In an anti-greenhouse effect, this situation is reversed (i.e. the atmosphere is opaque to solar, but lets out infrared).
Greenhouse effect
The greenhouse effect is the heating of the surface of a planet or moon due to the presence of an atmosphere containing gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation.[1] Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system.[2] This mechanism is fundamentally different from that of an actual greenhouse, which works by isolating warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[3]
In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature[4] of 14 °C (57 °F) could be as low as −18 °C (−0.4 °F), the black body temperature of the Earth.[5][6][7] Global warming, a recent warming of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere,[8] is believed to be the result of an "enhanced greenhouse effect" mostly (more than 50%) due to human-produced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases.[9] This human induced part is refered to as anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature[4] of 14 °C (57 °F) could be as low as −18 °C (−0.4 °F), the black body temperature of the Earth.[5][6][7] Global warming, a recent warming of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere,[8] is believed to be the result of an "enhanced greenhouse effect" mostly (more than 50%) due to human-produced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases.[9] This human induced part is refered to as anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
What is the greenhouse effect?
There are two meanings of the term "greenhouse effect". There is a "natural" greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth's climate warm and habitable. There is also the "man-made" greenhouse effect, which is the enhancement of Earth's natural greenhouse effect by the addition of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels (mainly petroleum, coal, and natural gas). In order to understand how the greenhouse effect operates, we need to first understand "infrared radiation". Greenhouse gases trap some of the infrared radiation that escapes from the Earth, making the Earth warmer that it would otherwise be. You can think of greenhouse gases as sort of a "blanket" for infrared radiation-- it keeps the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer, and the upper layers colder, than if the greenhouse gases were not there.
About 80-90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas. The remainder is due to carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other minor gases.
It is the carbon dioxide concentration that is increasing, due to the burning of fossil fuels (as well as from some rainforest burning). This is the man-made portion of the greenhouse effect, and it is believed by many scientists to be responsible for the global warming of the last 150 years. Also, the concentration of methane, although small, has also increased in recent decades. The reasons for this increase, though, are uncertain.
About 80-90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas. The remainder is due to carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other minor gases.
It is the carbon dioxide concentration that is increasing, due to the burning of fossil fuels (as well as from some rainforest burning). This is the man-made portion of the greenhouse effect, and it is believed by many scientists to be responsible for the global warming of the last 150 years. Also, the concentration of methane, although small, has also increased in recent decades. The reasons for this increase, though, are uncertain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
