A new report warns that conflicts over water and food could intensify as the climate changes.
By Brad Knickerbocker
For years, the debate over global warming has focused on the three big "E's": environment, energy, and economic impact. This week it officially entered the realm of national security threats and avoiding wars as well.
Monday, May 19, 2008
5 Deadliest Effects of Global Warming
Global Warming effects
Green house gases stay can stay in the atmosphere for an amount of years ranging from decades to hundreds and thousands of years. No matter what we do, global warming is going to have some effect on Earth. Here are the 5 deadliest effects of global warming.
Green house gases stay can stay in the atmosphere for an amount of years ranging from decades to hundreds and thousands of years. No matter what we do, global warming is going to have some effect on Earth. Here are the 5 deadliest effects of global warming.
Causes of Global Warming
“As human-caused biodiversity loss and climate disruption gain ground, we need to keep our sights clear and understand that the measure of a threat is not a matter of whether it is made on purpose, but of how much loss it may cause. It's an ancient habit to go after those we perceive to be evil because they intended to do harm. It's harder, but more effective, to "go after," meaning to more effectively educate and socialize, those vastly larger numbers of our fellow humans who are not evil, but whose behavior may in fact be far more destructive in the long run." (Ed Ayres, editor of Worldwatch magazine, Nov/Dec 2001)
Methane Bubbles Make Global Warming Worse
By Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 06 September 2006 01:05 pm ET
Methane gas bubbles up from Siberian lakes at up to six times the rate previously thought as a result of global warming, a new study suggests. The result: more global warming.
posted: 06 September 2006 01:05 pm ET
Methane gas bubbles up from Siberian lakes at up to six times the rate previously thought as a result of global warming, a new study suggests. The result: more global warming.
Global Warming: Methane Could Be Far Worse Than Carbon Dioxide
Methane gas, abundantly trapped as a half frozen slush in the northern hemisphere's tundra permafrost regions and at the bottom of the sea may well be a ticking time bomb, says geologist John Atcheson in an article published by the Baltimore Sun in December last year. Methane is about twenty times stronger as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Since arctic warming seems to procede faster than expected, there is a real danger that deposits of methane and similar gases trapped in normally frozen ground, may thaw out and "belch" into the atmosphere, wreaking havoc with our computer simulations of global warming.
CO2 and Global Warming
By Jim Blair
This post is largely in response to recent articles about global warming that have appeared in The Economist, April 1-7 (Global Warming and Cooling Enthusiasm p33, and Reading the Patterns p65) and in National Review, May 1 (Hot Air in Berlin p18). These articles were topical because of the United Nations Climate Conference in Berlin last month.
The first Economist article is mostly about the international politics of the debate: OPEC nations strongly oppose any action to reduce emissions since "greenhouse gases" means mostly CO2 which comes from burning petroleum. Low islands and countries with low sea coast regions are more interested in doing something. Poor countries don't want their energy options limited before the can industrialize--unless they are compensated. The rich energy efficient nations of Europe made promises to reduce emissions, but now, faced with keeping them, are losing enthusiasm.
But my concern here is with the science: Will current practice alter the climate of the earth?
Every object emits energy depending on its temperature:("black body" radiation). The hotter the object the shorter the wavelength. For very hot objects the radiation can be seen, as in "red hot", or if even hotter, "white hot". For cooler objects, you can't see the energy, but it is still there as infrared (IR) which you may feel as heat, or microwave which you can't feel. A sidewinder snake can find a mouse in the dark by detecting the heat the mouse emits. The earth emits in the long IR. Even the black empty space of the universe emits 7.35 cm radio energy, corresponding to 3 degrees K, heat left over from the Big Bang.
Polyatomic gas molecules absorb long IR and microwave energy when they tumble. CO2, with 3 atoms per molecule does this. So does methane (CH4) and water vapor (H2O). These gases in the air adsorb IR energy that the earth would otherwise radiate into space. They act like a blanket.
I think it perfectly acceptable to say that CO2 "absorbs heat". Infrared radiation that would otherwise pass through an atmosphere goes in one side (here the bottom) and does not come out the top. It has been "absorbed". The energy of the IR is transferred to the CO2 molecules causing them to tumble faster, and this transfers some of the energy formerly in the IR radiation to the other gases in the atmosphere by the collisions. They then move faster. This is commonly called being "warmer".
If anyone thinks that the transfer of IR energy (commonly called "heat") into the earth's atmosphere will not result in any change, they should offer some explanation as to just what they think happens to that extra energy. And besides more energy there is also a change in the energy distribution of the atmosphere. More heat absorbed in the lower atmosphere would mean less made it to the upper atmosphere: the lower would be warmer, but the upper would be cooler. So to measure this effect, it is important
just which part of the atmosphere is examined.
Human activity releases CO2 from the fossil fuels that we burn, especially since the industrial revolution. The CO2 level in the air has been monitored since the 1950's and is increasing. Besides a natural annual change (it drops each spring as plants grow and rises each fall as leaves decay), there has been a steady background rise of about 20% in the past 100 years. This is caused by humans. And it should cause the earth to get warmer.
Nearly 100 years ago the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius and the American geologist Thomas C. Chamberlin independently advanced the hypothesis that changes in the abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would affect the surface temperature of the earth. Arrhenius estimated that a doubling of the concentration would cause a global warming of about nine degrees C. In 1939 G. S. Callendar suggested that the global warming observed over the previous 60 years might have been caused by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Gilbert N. Plass argued along similar lines in the early 1950's.
None of the above is in dispute. But when coal burns it also releases small particles and SO2 which forms small droplets: these reflect incoming sunlight and cool the earth. This offsets the warming effect, but the relative balance is in dispute. Also there is a "law of diminishing returns" here. Maybe CO2 levels are already high enough that more does not make much more difference.
The other two articles cited both view the problem as a "signal-to-noise ratio" problem, and so do most who discuss it. Is the earth actually warming? Can the warming "signal" be measured against the natural variations in temperature "noise level"? But they misunderstand the nature of the problem: it is actually a "compared-to-what" problem. What is the basis of the comparison? That is, is the earth warmer than what?
Humans have been raising the CO2 level for several hundred years. The earth was warning up as expected until about 1940, but has not warmed up as much as predicted since then. The implied comparison is to a "flat" baseline of constant temperature. There is no "control earth" without a build up of CO2 to compare to. But the proper comparison is to the expected temperature.
I am surprised no one else seems to understand this because I thought it was common knowledge that history has been characterized by warm and cold cycles of 50 to 100 year duration, for example, ice skating and winter fairs on the Thames river in London during the "little ice age" of the 17th century.
Studies of the ice cores drilled in the Greenland glacier suggest a pattern of cold spells based on the superposition of two cycles: 80 years and 180 years. The causes of this complex pattern is not known (but there is some C-14 evidence that the 180 cycle may be due to changes in the sun). At any rate this pattern fits all the cold spells since 1200 A.D.--except that we should now be in a cold period that should have started about 1950 and continue until about 2000 A.D. These results were published in the 1970's.
The cycles are associated with Willy Dansgaard, and are discussed in the chapter on the history of climate in the text book GEOLOGY TODAY from CRM. See Figure 1 for the past record of warm and cold spells since 1200 AD, and the predicted "little Ice Age of 1970-2000 AD.
At about the same time, the proponents of the greenhouse effect were predicting a global warming, but they did not consider the natural climate cycle.
Since neither the predicted warming nor the predicted cold spell has happened, the conventual wisdom is that both ideas are wrong. I think it is at least as likely that both are correct: but since 1950 the two have been canceling each other out. Just when the natural cool period was beginning to weaken, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo produced a few years of extended cooling. Now that effect is wearing off, and the natural cold cycle will give way to a warm cycle which will add to the greenhouse warming rather than subtract from it. Things should warm up in the next decade. See Figure 2 for how the expected cold spell is greatly reduced by the effect of the CO2 increase.
Solar or wind is not yet capable of replacing the coal plants. Steam turbine natural gas (ie methane) has been proposed as an alternative, but although methane releases less CO2 per kilowatt of electricity generated, it still burns to CO2. And the more it is used, the more will leak or spill into the atmosphere, where it is much more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the three major objections to the use of nuclear reactors to generate electric power were the mining of uranium, the safety of the reactor operation, and the disposal of the reactor waste products. No one seems to realize that it is a different world today.
The former Soviet Republics have about 28,000 nuclear warheads, and the US about as many. They contain enough uranium and plutonium to supply the worlds electricity, probably until solar or fusion becomes practical. Whatever the risk of a state-of-the-art nuclear power plant, it is certainly safer than a nuclear warhead. And reactor waste presents less of a disposal problem than weapons grade uranium or plutonium. See 'GREENHOUSE GAS & THE ECONOMY' (on my web site) for my plan to deal with these problems.
This post is largely in response to recent articles about global warming that have appeared in The Economist, April 1-7 (Global Warming and Cooling Enthusiasm p33, and Reading the Patterns p65) and in National Review, May 1 (Hot Air in Berlin p18). These articles were topical because of the United Nations Climate Conference in Berlin last month.
The first Economist article is mostly about the international politics of the debate: OPEC nations strongly oppose any action to reduce emissions since "greenhouse gases" means mostly CO2 which comes from burning petroleum. Low islands and countries with low sea coast regions are more interested in doing something. Poor countries don't want their energy options limited before the can industrialize--unless they are compensated. The rich energy efficient nations of Europe made promises to reduce emissions, but now, faced with keeping them, are losing enthusiasm.
But my concern here is with the science: Will current practice alter the climate of the earth?
What gas?
Every object emits energy depending on its temperature:("black body" radiation). The hotter the object the shorter the wavelength. For very hot objects the radiation can be seen, as in "red hot", or if even hotter, "white hot". For cooler objects, you can't see the energy, but it is still there as infrared (IR) which you may feel as heat, or microwave which you can't feel. A sidewinder snake can find a mouse in the dark by detecting the heat the mouse emits. The earth emits in the long IR. Even the black empty space of the universe emits 7.35 cm radio energy, corresponding to 3 degrees K, heat left over from the Big Bang.
Polyatomic gas molecules absorb long IR and microwave energy when they tumble. CO2, with 3 atoms per molecule does this. So does methane (CH4) and water vapor (H2O). These gases in the air adsorb IR energy that the earth would otherwise radiate into space. They act like a blanket.
"Greenhouse gases do not "absorb" heat. They make the atmosphere less transparent to the infrared."
I think it perfectly acceptable to say that CO2 "absorbs heat". Infrared radiation that would otherwise pass through an atmosphere goes in one side (here the bottom) and does not come out the top. It has been "absorbed". The energy of the IR is transferred to the CO2 molecules causing them to tumble faster, and this transfers some of the energy formerly in the IR radiation to the other gases in the atmosphere by the collisions. They then move faster. This is commonly called being "warmer".
If anyone thinks that the transfer of IR energy (commonly called "heat") into the earth's atmosphere will not result in any change, they should offer some explanation as to just what they think happens to that extra energy. And besides more energy there is also a change in the energy distribution of the atmosphere. More heat absorbed in the lower atmosphere would mean less made it to the upper atmosphere: the lower would be warmer, but the upper would be cooler. So to measure this effect, it is important
just which part of the atmosphere is examined.
Who, us?
Human activity releases CO2 from the fossil fuels that we burn, especially since the industrial revolution. The CO2 level in the air has been monitored since the 1950's and is increasing. Besides a natural annual change (it drops each spring as plants grow and rises each fall as leaves decay), there has been a steady background rise of about 20% in the past 100 years. This is caused by humans. And it should cause the earth to get warmer.
Nearly 100 years ago the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius and the American geologist Thomas C. Chamberlin independently advanced the hypothesis that changes in the abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would affect the surface temperature of the earth. Arrhenius estimated that a doubling of the concentration would cause a global warming of about nine degrees C. In 1939 G. S. Callendar suggested that the global warming observed over the previous 60 years might have been caused by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Gilbert N. Plass argued along similar lines in the early 1950's.
None of the above is in dispute. But when coal burns it also releases small particles and SO2 which forms small droplets: these reflect incoming sunlight and cool the earth. This offsets the warming effect, but the relative balance is in dispute. Also there is a "law of diminishing returns" here. Maybe CO2 levels are already high enough that more does not make much more difference.
The real issue: compared to what?
The other two articles cited both view the problem as a "signal-to-noise ratio" problem, and so do most who discuss it. Is the earth actually warming? Can the warming "signal" be measured against the natural variations in temperature "noise level"? But they misunderstand the nature of the problem: it is actually a "compared-to-what" problem. What is the basis of the comparison? That is, is the earth warmer than what?
Humans have been raising the CO2 level for several hundred years. The earth was warning up as expected until about 1940, but has not warmed up as much as predicted since then. The implied comparison is to a "flat" baseline of constant temperature. There is no "control earth" without a build up of CO2 to compare to. But the proper comparison is to the expected temperature.
I am surprised no one else seems to understand this because I thought it was common knowledge that history has been characterized by warm and cold cycles of 50 to 100 year duration, for example, ice skating and winter fairs on the Thames river in London during the "little ice age" of the 17th century.
Where did the little ice age go? Global warming ate it!
Studies of the ice cores drilled in the Greenland glacier suggest a pattern of cold spells based on the superposition of two cycles: 80 years and 180 years. The causes of this complex pattern is not known (but there is some C-14 evidence that the 180 cycle may be due to changes in the sun). At any rate this pattern fits all the cold spells since 1200 A.D.--except that we should now be in a cold period that should have started about 1950 and continue until about 2000 A.D. These results were published in the 1970's.
The cycles are associated with Willy Dansgaard, and are discussed in the chapter on the history of climate in the text book GEOLOGY TODAY from CRM. See Figure 1 for the past record of warm and cold spells since 1200 AD, and the predicted "little Ice Age of 1970-2000 AD.
At about the same time, the proponents of the greenhouse effect were predicting a global warming, but they did not consider the natural climate cycle.
Since neither the predicted warming nor the predicted cold spell has happened, the conventual wisdom is that both ideas are wrong. I think it is at least as likely that both are correct: but since 1950 the two have been canceling each other out. Just when the natural cool period was beginning to weaken, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo produced a few years of extended cooling. Now that effect is wearing off, and the natural cold cycle will give way to a warm cycle which will add to the greenhouse warming rather than subtract from it. Things should warm up in the next decade. See Figure 2 for how the expected cold spell is greatly reduced by the effect of the CO2 increase.
The twisted politics of energy - nuclear power
There is a strange political component to what should be a technical- scientific question. The Left believes in the green-house effect and the Right doubts it. But the Left opposes nuclear power while the Right supports it. When the dangers of CO2 are understood, the greenhouse effect is a compelling argument for shutting down coal and gas power plants, and only nuclear ones can replace them - at least in the short run.Solar or wind is not yet capable of replacing the coal plants. Steam turbine natural gas (ie methane) has been proposed as an alternative, but although methane releases less CO2 per kilowatt of electricity generated, it still burns to CO2. And the more it is used, the more will leak or spill into the atmosphere, where it is much more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the three major objections to the use of nuclear reactors to generate electric power were the mining of uranium, the safety of the reactor operation, and the disposal of the reactor waste products. No one seems to realize that it is a different world today.
The former Soviet Republics have about 28,000 nuclear warheads, and the US about as many. They contain enough uranium and plutonium to supply the worlds electricity, probably until solar or fusion becomes practical. Whatever the risk of a state-of-the-art nuclear power plant, it is certainly safer than a nuclear warhead. And reactor waste presents less of a disposal problem than weapons grade uranium or plutonium. See 'GREENHOUSE GAS & THE ECONOMY' (on my web site) for my plan to deal with these problems.
Source : http://www.bigissueground.com/scienceandfuture/blair-co2andglobalwarming.shtml
GLOBAL WARMING: The Rise of CO2 & Warming
The Earth has been warming since 1910, with a temperature maximum reached in the 1990’s. (The year 2001 is now the second warmest year on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization.)
The scientific conclusion reached is that warming is real.
But is this warming man-made? Carbon dioxide has been rising since the time of James Watt (1736 – 1819), inventor of the auto-controlled steam engine that helped jump-start the industrial revolution. Since then, coal, oil and natural gas have powered our economies. Hydro-power and nuclear power are comparatively minor contributors to energy needs (excepting certain countries such as Norway and France).
Today the amount of carbon dumped globally into the atmosphere corresponds, on average, to one ton per person on the planet, each year. In the United States, carbon-based energy is especially important. The average American per capita emission is 5 tons of carbon annually. In Sweden (with a similar standard of living as the US) the carbon output is less than two tons of carbon per person per year.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas – it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth. The physics of this process was established by the Irish physicist John Tyndall (1820 – 1891) and the effect was calculated by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859 – 1927).
The basic argument (that is, that greenhouse gases keep the Earth comfortably warm) has never been challenged, and it follows that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level.
More information on the greenhouse effect.
Given this background, we next need to ask:
How much of the observed warming in this last century can be ascribed to the observed loading of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases by human activities?
First, we turn to the reconstruction of the rise of carbon dioxide since the time of James Watt. The early part of the series is derived from extracting air in polar ice, and measuring its carbon dioxide content. The later part is based on the measurements of Charles D. Keeling, since 1957, on Mauna Loa.
The overall rise is from just below 280 ppm (the “pre-industrial” value) to the present values above 360 ppm, an increase of a factor of 1.3. The logarithm of 1.3 is 0.11, that of 2 is 0.30. Thus, we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsius (as found in numerical experiments using climate models), we should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees Celsius. We do see the lower number of this range, but this does not prove that the rise upon doubling of carbon dioxide is in fact 1.5 degrees. The reason is that we are in a “transient”, that is, the change is too fast to allow equilibrium to establish itself.
In fact, the answer is not known with a high degree of certainty, not only because of the lack-of-equlibrium problem (which involves uptake of heat by the ocean), but also because of additional complexities arising from air pollution, trace gases other than carbon dioxide, possible changes in the brightness of the Sun, and effects from volcanic activity.
Thus, in answer to the above question: Estimates vary from “little” to “much” to “most”, with the latter answer being the more credible one.
One way to obtain a quick estimate answer is by doing some simple calculations, based on the work of Svante Arrhenius, assuming a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide (Arrhenius proposed a somewhat greater effect, neglecting compensating factors). The result is the graph below, showing that CO2 forcing can explain the temperature rise. That said, there may also be a role for the Sun in modifying the temperature rise driven by greenhouse gases. The minor drops in temperature right after 1900 and after 1960 coincide with reduced solar activity. To be sure, while this simple calculation may be enough to explain the observations, it is not a mathematical proof that the warming that has occurred since the days of James Watt is entirely due to human activity. It merely represents the simplest possible explanation.
Another way of stating the situation is this:
There is no compelling evidence that the observed overall warming in the 20th Century is anything but man-made.
The burden of proof is on those who would have us think that natural causes are solely or mainly responsible for this trend.
Of course, showing that the observed warming entirely agrees with reasonable expectations for the rise in carbon dioxide does not exclude the possibility that some of this warming would have occurred anyway, without human help. But the warming of the past 30 years, from 1970 to the present, is unexplainable by any known natural cause. In any case, considerable further warming is very likely if emissions continue as in the past.
We know that CO2 causes warming. We do not know the likely rate within a factor of three. Ignorance is not a good basis for dealing with risk.
The scientific conclusion reached is that warming is real.
But is this warming man-made? Carbon dioxide has been rising since the time of James Watt (1736 – 1819), inventor of the auto-controlled steam engine that helped jump-start the industrial revolution. Since then, coal, oil and natural gas have powered our economies. Hydro-power and nuclear power are comparatively minor contributors to energy needs (excepting certain countries such as Norway and France).
Today the amount of carbon dumped globally into the atmosphere corresponds, on average, to one ton per person on the planet, each year. In the United States, carbon-based energy is especially important. The average American per capita emission is 5 tons of carbon annually. In Sweden (with a similar standard of living as the US) the carbon output is less than two tons of carbon per person per year.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas – it traps heat radiation that is attempting to escape from Earth. The physics of this process was established by the Irish physicist John Tyndall (1820 – 1891) and the effect was calculated by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1859 – 1927).
The basic argument (that is, that greenhouse gases keep the Earth comfortably warm) has never been challenged, and it follows that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere undoubtedly produces a rise in temperature at ground level.
More information on the greenhouse effect.
Given this background, we next need to ask:
How much of the observed warming in this last century can be ascribed to the observed loading of the atmosphere with greenhouse gases by human activities?
First, we turn to the reconstruction of the rise of carbon dioxide since the time of James Watt. The early part of the series is derived from extracting air in polar ice, and measuring its carbon dioxide content. The later part is based on the measurements of Charles D. Keeling, since 1957, on Mauna Loa.
The overall rise is from just below 280 ppm (the “pre-industrial” value) to the present values above 360 ppm, an increase of a factor of 1.3. The logarithm of 1.3 is 0.11, that of 2 is 0.30. Thus, we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsius (as found in numerical experiments using climate models), we should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees Celsius. We do see the lower number of this range, but this does not prove that the rise upon doubling of carbon dioxide is in fact 1.5 degrees. The reason is that we are in a “transient”, that is, the change is too fast to allow equilibrium to establish itself.
In fact, the answer is not known with a high degree of certainty, not only because of the lack-of-equlibrium problem (which involves uptake of heat by the ocean), but also because of additional complexities arising from air pollution, trace gases other than carbon dioxide, possible changes in the brightness of the Sun, and effects from volcanic activity.
Thus, in answer to the above question: Estimates vary from “little” to “much” to “most”, with the latter answer being the more credible one.
One way to obtain a quick estimate answer is by doing some simple calculations, based on the work of Svante Arrhenius, assuming a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide (Arrhenius proposed a somewhat greater effect, neglecting compensating factors). The result is the graph below, showing that CO2 forcing can explain the temperature rise. That said, there may also be a role for the Sun in modifying the temperature rise driven by greenhouse gases. The minor drops in temperature right after 1900 and after 1960 coincide with reduced solar activity. To be sure, while this simple calculation may be enough to explain the observations, it is not a mathematical proof that the warming that has occurred since the days of James Watt is entirely due to human activity. It merely represents the simplest possible explanation.
Another way of stating the situation is this:
There is no compelling evidence that the observed overall warming in the 20th Century is anything but man-made.
The burden of proof is on those who would have us think that natural causes are solely or mainly responsible for this trend.
Of course, showing that the observed warming entirely agrees with reasonable expectations for the rise in carbon dioxide does not exclude the possibility that some of this warming would have occurred anyway, without human help. But the warming of the past 30 years, from 1970 to the present, is unexplainable by any known natural cause. In any case, considerable further warming is very likely if emissions continue as in the past.
We know that CO2 causes warming. We do not know the likely rate within a factor of three. Ignorance is not a good basis for dealing with risk.
Source : http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html
CO2 Pollution and Global Warming
When does carbon dioxide become a pollutant?
By Roberta C. Barbalace
[Nov. 7, 2006]
CO2 in the political spotlight
Carbon dioxide has taken center stage in the environmental arena in recent months. In August of 2003 the US Administration reversed the 1998 decision of the previous administration, which had classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and made it subject to the provisions of the Clean Air Act. As a result of the reversal of the 1998 decision, automobile manufacturers and power plants have been able to avoid making costly modifications that would have been required under the 1998 ruling. In 2006 environmental groups pushed for legislation that would reinstate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In August of 2006 EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant concluded that since the Clean Air Act does not specifically authorize regulation to address climate change, CO2 is not a pollutant (1).
The reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.
Finding the source of increased CO2 in the atmosphere
The Carbon Cycle
Some scientists have suggested that when the earth was new (about 4.5 billion years ago), CO2 may have made up as much as 80% of the earth's atmosphere. About 2 billion years ago, the concentration of CO2 was likely 20 or 30%. Human life and even most life could not have survived in such an atmosphere. With the evolution of photosynthesizing plants, the concentration of CO2 dropped and the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere increased.
Remember that in photosynthesis:
CO2 +H2O + energy from sun ==> O2 + sugar
Both plants and animals undergo respiration in which
Sugar + O2 ==> CO2 +H20 + energy
In addition, when plants and animals die, the dead organisms decay and give off CO2.
According to BBC Weather (2), the present amount of carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere every year by plants is almost perfectly balanced by amount of carbon dioxide put back into the atmosphere by respiration and decay. The carbon dioxide produced in this manner is part of a cycle in which new carbon does not enter the system, but rather it keeps changing in form. They might be contained in sugars, proteins, starches, cellulose…and the list goes on and on. As living organisms undergo respiration (the metabolism of sugars to produce energy for basic metabolic needs), or as organisms die and decompose, the carbon compounds are broken down and add CO2 to the atmosphere. The CO2 is used by plants in the photosynthesis reaction, and the cycle keeps going.
Deforestation
When trees die and decompose, CO2 is released. This is part of the normal carbon cycle. When trees are cut down and used for fuel, the CO2 is also released. The rate at which CO2 is released as a result of using trees for fuel is increased. However, when trees are used for building construction, furniture, etc, the carbon is not released rapidly into the environment. One would suspect then that harvesting trees for this purpose would result in less CO2 release into the atmosphere for any given period. That might be correct, except that the tropical forests are being depleted, and with a reduction in vegetation, there is a reduction in photosynthesis. As a result, the carbon cycle is interrupted and the CO2 is not being converted into sugars and oxygen. CO2 accumulates. According to University of Maryland researchers (3), the UN reported that deforestation had decreased between 1980s and the 1990s, when, in fact, it had increased, and the CO2 emissions from deforestation had increased. If CO2 is increased due to deforestation, one would expect the oxygen level to decrease as a result of decreased photosynthesis.
Fossil Fuels
A third source of carbon dioxide comes from stored CO2. The carbon found in fossil fuels was laid down over millions of years. Because the organisms did not decay completely, the carbon was never released into the atmosphere as CO2. Instead, it was stored up in the earth. Once fossil fuel has been recovered, processed and burned, the CO2, which would normally have been released over tens of millions of years, is suddenly all released within a period of a few hundred years, thus increasing the amount of CO2 in the environment.
Global Warming
Some scientists have suggested that ocean warming is resulting in increased CO2 and not the other way around (5). This is based on the idea that there is a lot of CO2 trapped in the oceans, and as the temperature rises, the CO2 is released, since the solubility of gases is inversely proportional to temperature. Oceans have long been considered to be a sink for atmospheric carbon. If it is releasing CO2 as a result of warming temperatures, the CO2 should be decreasing in the oceans.
Separating Carbon cycle CO2, deforestation CO2, oceanic CO2 and fossil fuel CO2
It becomes important to determine the source of the increase in CO2 from 280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005.
Isotopes of carbon may hold a key to determining the source of the increased carbon in the atmosphere (4,5,7). The studies are based on the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. Carbon has three possible isotopes: C-12, C-13 and C-14. C-12, which has 6 neutrons, is by far the most prevalent carbon isotope and is a stable isotope. Carbon 13 is also a stable isotope, but plants prefer Carbon 12 and therefore photosynthetic CO2 (fossil fuel or wood fuels) is much lower in C-13 than CO2 that comes from other sources (e.g.: animal respiration) Carbon-14 is radioactive. Studies of carbon isotopes in CO2 has resulted in the following findings (5,7,8).
There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.
There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12.
There are other clues that suggest the source of increased CO2 is not related to the warming of the ocean and subsequent release of CO2 from the ocean.
There has been a decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. If ocean warming was responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2, because O2 is also released as the water is warmed.
The ocean is a sink for atmospheric carbon, and the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. If the atmospheric CO2 was the result of oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 in the ocean should not be rising as a result of ocean warming.
There is still some resistance to the theory that the increase in CO2 results from the burning of fossil fuel, and that the increase in CO2 is responsible for global warming. There is little pressure on the US power plants to reduce CO2 emissions; so here it's still "Burning of fossil fuel is good for the environment" and "the world is flat." However, European power plants faced with reducing their CO2 emissions significantly by 2008 and even more between 2008 and 2012 as required by the Kyoto Protocol, have embarked upon a unique way to reduce the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere (9). The technique known as carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves siphoning off and burying the CO2 underground. While the CO2 is not "gone," it is contained. For now they have to report it as "released CO2," but The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is working out plans to give industries credit for carbon capturing and storing in the second phase, from 2008-12, of the European carbon trading scheme. It will be interesting to see the effect of keeping the CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere. Of course, the next step would be to find a way to treat the stored CO2 or find a use for it.
Source : http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Privacy Policy
Privacy Policy for http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com
If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at gunita.tyas@gmail.com
At http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include Google Adsense, .
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com's privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.
If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at gunita.tyas@gmail.com
At http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include Google Adsense, .
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. http://www.globalwarming-no.blogspot.com's privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Top 50 Things To Do To Stop Global Warming (part two)
26. Switch to green power
In many areas, you can switch to energy generated by clean, renewable sources such as wind and solar. In some of these, you can even get refunds by government if you choose to switch to a clean energy producer, and you can also earn money by selling the energy you produce and don't use for yourself.
27. Buy locally grown and produced foods
The average meal in the United States travels 1,200 miles from the farm to your plate. Buying locally will save fuel and keep money in your community.
28. Buy fresh foods instead of frozen
Frozen food uses 10 times more energy to produce.
29. Seek out and support local farmers markets
They reduce the amount of energy required to grow and transport the food to you by one fifth. Seek farmer’s markets in your area, and go for them.
30. Buy organic foods as much as possible
Organic soils capture and store carbon dioxide at much higher levels than soils from conventional farms. If we grew all of our corn and soybeans organically, we’d remove 580 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere!
31. Eat less meat
Methane is the second most significant greenhouse gas and cows are one of the greatest methane emitters. Their grassy diet and multiple stomachs cause them to produce methane, which they exhale with every breath.
32. Reduce the number of miles you drive by walking, biking, carpooling or taking mass transit wherever possible
Avoiding just 10 miles of driving every week would eliminate about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year! Look for transit options in your area.
33. Start a carpool with your coworkers or classmates
Sharing a ride with someone just 2 days a week will reduce your carbon dioxide emissions by 1,590 pounds a year. eRideShare.com runs a free service connecting north american commuters and travelers.
34. Don't leave an empty roof rack on your car
This can increase fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by up to 10% due to wind resistance and the extra weight - removing it is a better idea.
35. Keep your car tuned up
Regular maintenance helps improve fuel efficiency and reduces emissions. When just 1% of car owners properly maintain their cars, nearly a billion pounds of carbon dioxide are kept out of the atmosphere.
36. Drive carefully and do not waste fuel
You can reduce CO2 emissions by readjusting your driving style. Choose proper gears, do not abuse the gas pedal, use the engine brake instead of the pedal brake when possible and turn off your engine when your vehicle is motionless for more than one minute. By readjusting your driving style you can save money on both fuel and car mantainance.
37. Check your tires weekly to make sure they’re properly inflated
Proper tire inflation can improve gas mileage by more than 3%. Since every gallon of gasoline saved keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, every increase in fuel efficiency makes a difference!
38. When it is time for a new car, choose a more fuel efficient vehicle
You can save 3,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year if your new car gets only 3 miles per gallon more than your current one. You can get up to 60 miles per gallon with a hybrid! You can find information on fuel efficiency on FuelEconomy and on GreenCars websites.
39.Try car sharing
Need a car but don’t want to buy one? Community car sharing organizations provide access to a car and your membership fee covers gas, maintenance and insurance. Many companies – such as Flexcar - offer low emission or hybrid cars too! Also, see ZipCar.
40. Try telecommuting from home
Telecommuting can help you drastically reduce the number of miles you drive every week. For more information, check out the Telework Coalition.
41. Fly less
Air travel produces large amounts of emissions so reducing how much you fly by even one or two trips a year can reduce your emissions significantly. You can also offset your air travel carbon emissions by investingin renewable energy projects.
42. Encourage your school or business to reduce emissions
You can extend your positive influence on global warming well beyond your home by actively encouraging other to take action.
43. Join the virtual march
The Stop Global Warming Virtual March is a non-political effort to bring people concerned about global warming together in one place. Add your voice to the hundreds of thousands of other people urging action on this issue.
44. Encourage the switch to renewable energy
Successfully combating global warming requires a national transition to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass. These technologies are ready to be deployed more widely but there are regulatory barriers impeding them. U.S. citizens, take action to break down those barriers with Vote Solar.
45. Protect and conserve forest worldwide
Forests play a critial role in global warming: they store carbon. When forests are burned or cut down, their stored carbon is release into the atmosphere - deforestation now accounts for about 20% of carbon dioxide emissions each year. Conservation International has more information on saving forests from global warming.
46. Consider the impact of your investments
If you invest your money, you should consider the impact that your investments and savings will have on global warming. Check out SocialInvest and Ceres to can learn more about how to ensure your money is being invested in companies, products and projects that address issues related to climate change.
47. Make your city cool
Cities and states around the country have taken action to stop global warming by passing innovative transportation and energy saving legislation. If you're in the U.S., join the cool cities list.
48. Tell Congress to act
The McCain Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would set a firm limit on carbon dioxide emissions and then use free market incentives to lower costs, promote efficiency and spur innovation. Tell your representative to support it.
49. Make sure your voice is heard!
Americans must have a stronger commitment from their government in order to stop global warming and implement solutions and such a commitment won’t come without a dramatic increase in citizen lobbying for new laws with teeth. Get the facts about U.S. politicians and candidates at Project Vote Smart and The League of Conservation Voters. Make sure your voice is heard by voting!
50. Share this list!
Send this page via e-mail to your friends! Spread this list worldwide and help people doing their part: the more people you will manage to enlighten, the greater YOUR help to save the planet will be (but please take action on first person too)!
Source : http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips.html
In many areas, you can switch to energy generated by clean, renewable sources such as wind and solar. In some of these, you can even get refunds by government if you choose to switch to a clean energy producer, and you can also earn money by selling the energy you produce and don't use for yourself.
27. Buy locally grown and produced foods
The average meal in the United States travels 1,200 miles from the farm to your plate. Buying locally will save fuel and keep money in your community.
28. Buy fresh foods instead of frozen
Frozen food uses 10 times more energy to produce.
29. Seek out and support local farmers markets
They reduce the amount of energy required to grow and transport the food to you by one fifth. Seek farmer’s markets in your area, and go for them.
30. Buy organic foods as much as possible
Organic soils capture and store carbon dioxide at much higher levels than soils from conventional farms. If we grew all of our corn and soybeans organically, we’d remove 580 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere!
31. Eat less meat
Methane is the second most significant greenhouse gas and cows are one of the greatest methane emitters. Their grassy diet and multiple stomachs cause them to produce methane, which they exhale with every breath.
32. Reduce the number of miles you drive by walking, biking, carpooling or taking mass transit wherever possible
Avoiding just 10 miles of driving every week would eliminate about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year! Look for transit options in your area.
33. Start a carpool with your coworkers or classmates
Sharing a ride with someone just 2 days a week will reduce your carbon dioxide emissions by 1,590 pounds a year. eRideShare.com runs a free service connecting north american commuters and travelers.
34. Don't leave an empty roof rack on your car
This can increase fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by up to 10% due to wind resistance and the extra weight - removing it is a better idea.
35. Keep your car tuned up
Regular maintenance helps improve fuel efficiency and reduces emissions. When just 1% of car owners properly maintain their cars, nearly a billion pounds of carbon dioxide are kept out of the atmosphere.
36. Drive carefully and do not waste fuel
You can reduce CO2 emissions by readjusting your driving style. Choose proper gears, do not abuse the gas pedal, use the engine brake instead of the pedal brake when possible and turn off your engine when your vehicle is motionless for more than one minute. By readjusting your driving style you can save money on both fuel and car mantainance.
37. Check your tires weekly to make sure they’re properly inflated
Proper tire inflation can improve gas mileage by more than 3%. Since every gallon of gasoline saved keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, every increase in fuel efficiency makes a difference!
38. When it is time for a new car, choose a more fuel efficient vehicle
You can save 3,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year if your new car gets only 3 miles per gallon more than your current one. You can get up to 60 miles per gallon with a hybrid! You can find information on fuel efficiency on FuelEconomy and on GreenCars websites.
39.Try car sharing
Need a car but don’t want to buy one? Community car sharing organizations provide access to a car and your membership fee covers gas, maintenance and insurance. Many companies – such as Flexcar - offer low emission or hybrid cars too! Also, see ZipCar.
40. Try telecommuting from home
Telecommuting can help you drastically reduce the number of miles you drive every week. For more information, check out the Telework Coalition.
41. Fly less
Air travel produces large amounts of emissions so reducing how much you fly by even one or two trips a year can reduce your emissions significantly. You can also offset your air travel carbon emissions by investingin renewable energy projects.
42. Encourage your school or business to reduce emissions
You can extend your positive influence on global warming well beyond your home by actively encouraging other to take action.
43. Join the virtual march
The Stop Global Warming Virtual March is a non-political effort to bring people concerned about global warming together in one place. Add your voice to the hundreds of thousands of other people urging action on this issue.
44. Encourage the switch to renewable energy
Successfully combating global warming requires a national transition to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass. These technologies are ready to be deployed more widely but there are regulatory barriers impeding them. U.S. citizens, take action to break down those barriers with Vote Solar.
45. Protect and conserve forest worldwide
Forests play a critial role in global warming: they store carbon. When forests are burned or cut down, their stored carbon is release into the atmosphere - deforestation now accounts for about 20% of carbon dioxide emissions each year. Conservation International has more information on saving forests from global warming.
46. Consider the impact of your investments
If you invest your money, you should consider the impact that your investments and savings will have on global warming. Check out SocialInvest and Ceres to can learn more about how to ensure your money is being invested in companies, products and projects that address issues related to climate change.
47. Make your city cool
Cities and states around the country have taken action to stop global warming by passing innovative transportation and energy saving legislation. If you're in the U.S., join the cool cities list.
48. Tell Congress to act
The McCain Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would set a firm limit on carbon dioxide emissions and then use free market incentives to lower costs, promote efficiency and spur innovation. Tell your representative to support it.
49. Make sure your voice is heard!
Americans must have a stronger commitment from their government in order to stop global warming and implement solutions and such a commitment won’t come without a dramatic increase in citizen lobbying for new laws with teeth. Get the facts about U.S. politicians and candidates at Project Vote Smart and The League of Conservation Voters. Make sure your voice is heard by voting!
50. Share this list!
Send this page via e-mail to your friends! Spread this list worldwide and help people doing their part: the more people you will manage to enlighten, the greater YOUR help to save the planet will be (but please take action on first person too)!
Source : http://globalwarming-facts.info/50-tips.html
Top 50 Things To Do To Stop Global Warming (part one)
Global Warming is a dramatically urgent and serious problem. We don't need to wait for governments to find a solution for this problem: each individual can bring an important help adopting a more responsible lifestyle: starting from little, everyday things. It's the only reasonable way to save our planet, before it is too late.
Here is a list of 50 simple things that everyone can do in order to fight against and reduce the Global Warming phenomenon: some of these ideas are at no cost, some other require a little effort or investment but can help you save a lot of money, in the middle-long term!
1. Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (cfl)
CFLs use 60% less energy than a regular bulb. This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
2. Install a programmable thermostat
Programmable thermostats will automatically lower the heat or air conditioning at night and raise them again in the morning. They can save you $100 a year on your energy bill.
3. Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer
Almost half of the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling. You could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment.
4. Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner
Cleaning a dirty air filter can save 350 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
5.Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchases
Look for the Energy Star label on new appliances to choose the most energy efficient products available.
6. Do not leave appliances on standby
Use the "on/off" function on the machine itself. A TV set that's switched on for 3 hours a day (the average time Europeans spend watching TV) and in standby mode during the remaining 21 hours uses about 40% of its energy in standby mode.
7. Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket
You’ll save 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple action. You can save another 550 pounds per year by setting the thermostat no higher than 50°C.
8. Move your fridge and freezer
Placing them next to the cooker or boiler consumes much more energy than if they were standing on their own. For example, if you put them in a hot cellar room where the room temperature is 30-35ºC, energy use is almost double and causes an extra 160kg of CO2 emissions for fridges per year and 320kg for freezers.
9. Defrost old fridges and freezers regularly
Even better is to replace them with newer models, which all have automatic defrost cycles and are generally up to two times more energy-efficient than their predecessors.
10. Don't let heat escape from your house over a long period
When airing your house, open the windows for only a few minutes. If you leave a small opening all day long, the energy needed to keep it warm inside during six cold months (10ºC or less outside temperature) would result in almost 1 ton of CO2 emissions.
11. Replace your old single-glazed windows with double-glazing
This requires a bit of upfront investment, but will halve the energy lost through windows and pay off in the long term. If you go for the best the market has to offer (wooden-framed double-glazed units with low-emission glass and filled with argon gas), you can even save more than 70% of the energy lost.
12. Get a home energy audit
Many utilities offer free home energy audits to find where your home is poorly insulated or energy inefficient. You can save up to 30% off your energy bill and 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Energy Star can help you find an energy specialist.
13. Cover your pots while cooking
Doing so can save a lot of the energy needed for preparing the dish. Even better are pressure cookers and steamers: they can save around 70%!
14. Use the washing machine or dishwasher only when they are full
If you need to use it when it is half full, then use the half-load or economy setting. There is also no need to set the temperatures high. Nowadays detergents are so efficient that they get your clothes and dishes clean at low temperatures.
15. Take a shower instead of a bath
A shower takes up to four times less energy than a bath. To maximise the energy saving, avoid power showers and use low-flow showerheads, which are cheap and provide the same comfort.
16. Use less hot water
It takes a lot of energy to heat water. You can use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of carbon dioxide saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year) instead of hot.
17. Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible
You can save 700 pounds of carbon dioxide when you air dry your clothes for 6 months out of the year.
18. Insulate and weatherize your home
Properly insulating your walls and ceilings can save 25% of your home heating bill and 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Caulking and weather-stripping can save another 1,700 pounds per year. Energy Efficient has more information on how to better insulate your home.
19. Be sure you’re recycling at home
You can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide a year by recycling half of the waste your household generates.
20. Recycle your organic waste
Around 3% of the greenhouse gas emissions through the methane is released by decomposing bio-degradable waste. By recycling organic waste or composting it if you have a garden, you can help eliminate this problem! Just make sure that you compost it properly, so it decomposes with sufficient oxygen, otherwise your compost will cause methane emissions and smell foul.
21. Buy intelligently
One bottle of 1.5l requires less energy and produces less waste than three bottles of 0.5l. As well, buy recycled paper products: it takes less 70 to 90% less energy to make recycled paper and it prevents the loss of forests worldwide.
22. Choose products that come with little packaging and buy refills when you can
You will also cut down on waste production and energy use... another help against global warming.
23. Reuse your shopping bag
When shopping, it saves energy and waste to use a reusable bag instead of accepting a disposable one in each shop. Waste not only discharges CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, it can also pollute the air, groundwater and soil.
24. Reduce waste
Most products we buy cause greenhouse gas emissions in one or another way, e.g. during production and distribution. By taking your lunch in a reusable lunch box instead of a disposable one, you save the energy needed to produce new lunch boxes.
25. Plant a tree
A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Shade provided by trees can also reduce your air conditioning bill by 10 to 15%. The Arbor Day Foundation has information on planting and provides trees you can plant with membership.
Here is a list of 50 simple things that everyone can do in order to fight against and reduce the Global Warming phenomenon: some of these ideas are at no cost, some other require a little effort or investment but can help you save a lot of money, in the middle-long term!
1. Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (cfl)
CFLs use 60% less energy than a regular bulb. This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
2. Install a programmable thermostat
Programmable thermostats will automatically lower the heat or air conditioning at night and raise them again in the morning. They can save you $100 a year on your energy bill.
3. Move your thermostat down 2° in winter and up 2° in summer
Almost half of the energy we use in our homes goes to heating and cooling. You could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple adjustment.
4. Clean or replace filters on your furnace and air conditioner
Cleaning a dirty air filter can save 350 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
5.Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchases
Look for the Energy Star label on new appliances to choose the most energy efficient products available.
6. Do not leave appliances on standby
Use the "on/off" function on the machine itself. A TV set that's switched on for 3 hours a day (the average time Europeans spend watching TV) and in standby mode during the remaining 21 hours uses about 40% of its energy in standby mode.
7. Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket
You’ll save 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple action. You can save another 550 pounds per year by setting the thermostat no higher than 50°C.
8. Move your fridge and freezer
Placing them next to the cooker or boiler consumes much more energy than if they were standing on their own. For example, if you put them in a hot cellar room where the room temperature is 30-35ºC, energy use is almost double and causes an extra 160kg of CO2 emissions for fridges per year and 320kg for freezers.
9. Defrost old fridges and freezers regularly
Even better is to replace them with newer models, which all have automatic defrost cycles and are generally up to two times more energy-efficient than their predecessors.
10. Don't let heat escape from your house over a long period
When airing your house, open the windows for only a few minutes. If you leave a small opening all day long, the energy needed to keep it warm inside during six cold months (10ºC or less outside temperature) would result in almost 1 ton of CO2 emissions.
11. Replace your old single-glazed windows with double-glazing
This requires a bit of upfront investment, but will halve the energy lost through windows and pay off in the long term. If you go for the best the market has to offer (wooden-framed double-glazed units with low-emission glass and filled with argon gas), you can even save more than 70% of the energy lost.
12. Get a home energy audit
Many utilities offer free home energy audits to find where your home is poorly insulated or energy inefficient. You can save up to 30% off your energy bill and 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Energy Star can help you find an energy specialist.
13. Cover your pots while cooking
Doing so can save a lot of the energy needed for preparing the dish. Even better are pressure cookers and steamers: they can save around 70%!
14. Use the washing machine or dishwasher only when they are full
If you need to use it when it is half full, then use the half-load or economy setting. There is also no need to set the temperatures high. Nowadays detergents are so efficient that they get your clothes and dishes clean at low temperatures.
15. Take a shower instead of a bath
A shower takes up to four times less energy than a bath. To maximise the energy saving, avoid power showers and use low-flow showerheads, which are cheap and provide the same comfort.
16. Use less hot water
It takes a lot of energy to heat water. You can use less hot water by installing a low flow showerhead (350 pounds of carbon dioxide saved per year) and washing your clothes in cold or warm water (500 pounds saved per year) instead of hot.
17. Use a clothesline instead of a dryer whenever possible
You can save 700 pounds of carbon dioxide when you air dry your clothes for 6 months out of the year.
18. Insulate and weatherize your home
Properly insulating your walls and ceilings can save 25% of your home heating bill and 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. Caulking and weather-stripping can save another 1,700 pounds per year. Energy Efficient has more information on how to better insulate your home.
19. Be sure you’re recycling at home
You can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide a year by recycling half of the waste your household generates.
20. Recycle your organic waste
Around 3% of the greenhouse gas emissions through the methane is released by decomposing bio-degradable waste. By recycling organic waste or composting it if you have a garden, you can help eliminate this problem! Just make sure that you compost it properly, so it decomposes with sufficient oxygen, otherwise your compost will cause methane emissions and smell foul.
21. Buy intelligently
One bottle of 1.5l requires less energy and produces less waste than three bottles of 0.5l. As well, buy recycled paper products: it takes less 70 to 90% less energy to make recycled paper and it prevents the loss of forests worldwide.
22. Choose products that come with little packaging and buy refills when you can
You will also cut down on waste production and energy use... another help against global warming.
23. Reuse your shopping bag
When shopping, it saves energy and waste to use a reusable bag instead of accepting a disposable one in each shop. Waste not only discharges CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, it can also pollute the air, groundwater and soil.
24. Reduce waste
Most products we buy cause greenhouse gas emissions in one or another way, e.g. during production and distribution. By taking your lunch in a reusable lunch box instead of a disposable one, you save the energy needed to produce new lunch boxes.
25. Plant a tree
A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Shade provided by trees can also reduce your air conditioning bill by 10 to 15%. The Arbor Day Foundation has information on planting and provides trees you can plant with membership.
Source : http://www.azocleantech.com/details.asp?ArticleID=15#3
Recycle your E-Waste
As we become greater consumer of electronics, we are left with a pressing issue of what to do with all our old or outdated TVs, laptops, cell phones, smartphones, or MP3 players? Even worse, most communities have no other recourse than to throw out old electronics which means they either end up in landfills or shipped abroad to litter and pollute other countries.
Electronic waste or E-waste is the fastest growing part of the solid waste stream with only about 12 percent of the waste recycled nationwide. Some of the materials in electronics pose a serious problem. Lead, mercury, cadmium, and other hazardous materials are commonplace ingredients. If not handled properly, these toxic substances can be released upon disposal and can be hazardous to both human health and the environment. Not to mention metals and other components can be recovered from used electronics which protect our environment from unnecessary mining.
E-Waste that does not fill up our landfills is packed in trailers and shipped “out of sight, out of mind” to developing countries for alleged recycling as highlighted in a recent National Geographic article, and the compelling short video, “Dumping on the Poor“. Many of the men, women, and children living in poverty are paid to disassemble these shipped electronics, exposing themselves to the hazardous materials. To make matters worse, many of these materials end up in the water supply, poisoning the local drinking water.
How can I recycle my E-waste?
Without federal or state legislation, recycling options are few and far between. Below are a few recycling options:
Drop off your e-waste at a local collection event or site.
Send your e-waste back to the manufacturer.
Bring in your e-waste to a local retailer.
Contact your legislator to support E-Waste recycling in Illinois.
You can go to the EPA to find out more e-waste recycling options in your state. National recycling groups offer resources to help find local e-waste recycling as well including Basel Action Network, and National Recycling Coalition. Most manufacturers of cell phones will take back old or used phones at retail stores, but it is best to contact your local store for details. Other resources include Call to Recycle, EPA Plug-In Partners, and Earth911 which have extensive information on cell phone and other electronics recycling.
Most computer manufacturers offer take back programs either at retail stores or by mail. Make sure to check the requirements - some exchanges are free while others have a nominal change. Your best bet is to go to the manufacturer directly and find out. Here are a few that offer these programs: Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Apple, Sony.
More and more larger retailers have trade in programs or accept some electronics including Circuit City, Best Buy, Staples, and Office Depot.
Electronic waste or E-waste is the fastest growing part of the solid waste stream with only about 12 percent of the waste recycled nationwide. Some of the materials in electronics pose a serious problem. Lead, mercury, cadmium, and other hazardous materials are commonplace ingredients. If not handled properly, these toxic substances can be released upon disposal and can be hazardous to both human health and the environment. Not to mention metals and other components can be recovered from used electronics which protect our environment from unnecessary mining.
E-Waste that does not fill up our landfills is packed in trailers and shipped “out of sight, out of mind” to developing countries for alleged recycling as highlighted in a recent National Geographic article, and the compelling short video, “Dumping on the Poor“. Many of the men, women, and children living in poverty are paid to disassemble these shipped electronics, exposing themselves to the hazardous materials. To make matters worse, many of these materials end up in the water supply, poisoning the local drinking water.
How can I recycle my E-waste?
Without federal or state legislation, recycling options are few and far between. Below are a few recycling options:
Drop off your e-waste at a local collection event or site.
Send your e-waste back to the manufacturer.
Bring in your e-waste to a local retailer.
Contact your legislator to support E-Waste recycling in Illinois.
You can go to the EPA to find out more e-waste recycling options in your state. National recycling groups offer resources to help find local e-waste recycling as well including Basel Action Network, and National Recycling Coalition. Most manufacturers of cell phones will take back old or used phones at retail stores, but it is best to contact your local store for details. Other resources include Call to Recycle, EPA Plug-In Partners, and Earth911 which have extensive information on cell phone and other electronics recycling.
Most computer manufacturers offer take back programs either at retail stores or by mail. Make sure to check the requirements - some exchanges are free while others have a nominal change. Your best bet is to go to the manufacturer directly and find out. Here are a few that offer these programs: Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Apple, Sony.
More and more larger retailers have trade in programs or accept some electronics including Circuit City, Best Buy, Staples, and Office Depot.
Article source : http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.org/personal-action/recycle-your-e-waste
global warming - "Waste Management for a Modern World"
By: D. Both
Waste Management refers to the process of (i) collection of waste matter generated mainly by human consumption and activity, (ii) transport and shipment of the collected waste matter to a waste treatment facility and (iii) processing/recycling this waste material for further use or disposing it for good.
Waste Management is required for three reasons. One, you can't be having waste lying around in any area as it will make the area look awful and the waste will raise a stink. Two, if waste is unattended to, it will attract pests and termites and the chances of a disease spreading will increase. Three, Man has realized that, if he allows waste to pile up or even burned, such an act would be disastrous for our environment. It is a mans duty to control waste and recycle it back into use by recovering resources from it.
History Of Waste Management
Once upon a time, when the density of population was low, the exploitation of the world's natural resources was minimal and manageable. Plus, there was not much of industrialization and the wastes generated by humans were mostly biodegradable and thus their impact on the environment, minimal. This coupled with the fact that not much waste was generated, man did not feel the necessity to manage it.
Time flew, population grew and before humans knew it, the industrial revolution set in (18th Century). People from rural areas migrated to cities and industrial towns en masse. Human consumption began to get concentrated and waste began multiplying. The proliferation of waste led to many diseases such as bubonic plague, cholera and typhoid, which led to suffering and death.
From this event on, the industrialized nations realized the importance of waste management.
Recovering Resources From Waste
As the world population increases and waste grows in volume, the world's scientists and planners have evolved technologies to recover resources from waste, which can be used again. For example, the developed nations have sophisticated facilities that convert the calorific content present in waste into electricity. In developing nations, manual laborers sift through the waste and extract recyclable material from it, thereby reducing the volume of waste that needs to be disposed.
Recycling Waste
The term recycling is universally associated with waste management. When we say recycle, we mean that our everyday waste will be collected, processed and then reused in another form. For example, products made out of paper, aluminum, plastic are collected and converted back into paper, aluminum and plastic respectively. Recycling of waste items made up of one material is an easy task.
Electronic waste is sent to developing nations where recycling plants extract gold and copper from the e-waste. Used automobiles are scrapped and their metal is sold to scrap lots, which then sell the metal back to factories for re-conversion. And so on.
Waste Management Techniques
Nations employ many techniques to deal with their waste. Here is a brief roundup of these techniques:
1. Landfill: This is the most traditional way of managing waste, by dumping it in a landfill. Countries such as Australia that have vast expanses of land, normally dispose their waste in abandoned quarries or mines. A landfill is an inexpensive way to get rid of waste. However, care should be taken to ensure that only waste that does not harm the environment is dumped in landfills. Populous countries or small countries, such as Japan, have to resort to other means to manage their waste.
2. Incineration: Incineration is the disposal of waste by burning it. However, incineration is not an effective tool for waste management as the burning of waste consumes resources and energy, destroys the recyclable material present in the waste and emits many harmful pollutants.
3. Composting: Composting is a technique in which organic waste materials (food, plants, paper) are decomposed and then recycled as compost for use in agriculture and landscaping applications.
4. Mechanical Biological treatment: In this technique, a variety of waste (plastic, paper, glass, etc.) are fed in bulk into the waste treatment plant. The MBT process extracts the recyclable content in the waste and converts it to calorific fuel that can be used by cement/power plants.
5. Pyrolysis and Gasification: These are thermal techniques, using these, waste is treated at high temperatures and at a very high pressure. In Pyrolysis, the waste material is converted to solid or liquid. The solid material can be further refined into a carbon form while the liquid extract can be used as energy-giving oil. In gasification, the waste material is converted into a synthetic gas, which can be burned to produce more energy.
In conclusion, waste management has become part of our survival strategy. If we have to live, we will produce waste. If we do not treat waste, it will choke us. Waste is a problem, waste Management is the solution.
Waste Management refers to the process of (i) collection of waste matter generated mainly by human consumption and activity, (ii) transport and shipment of the collected waste matter to a waste treatment facility and (iii) processing/recycling this waste material for further use or disposing it for good.
Waste Management is required for three reasons. One, you can't be having waste lying around in any area as it will make the area look awful and the waste will raise a stink. Two, if waste is unattended to, it will attract pests and termites and the chances of a disease spreading will increase. Three, Man has realized that, if he allows waste to pile up or even burned, such an act would be disastrous for our environment. It is a mans duty to control waste and recycle it back into use by recovering resources from it.
History Of Waste Management
Once upon a time, when the density of population was low, the exploitation of the world's natural resources was minimal and manageable. Plus, there was not much of industrialization and the wastes generated by humans were mostly biodegradable and thus their impact on the environment, minimal. This coupled with the fact that not much waste was generated, man did not feel the necessity to manage it.
Time flew, population grew and before humans knew it, the industrial revolution set in (18th Century). People from rural areas migrated to cities and industrial towns en masse. Human consumption began to get concentrated and waste began multiplying. The proliferation of waste led to many diseases such as bubonic plague, cholera and typhoid, which led to suffering and death.
From this event on, the industrialized nations realized the importance of waste management.
Recovering Resources From Waste
As the world population increases and waste grows in volume, the world's scientists and planners have evolved technologies to recover resources from waste, which can be used again. For example, the developed nations have sophisticated facilities that convert the calorific content present in waste into electricity. In developing nations, manual laborers sift through the waste and extract recyclable material from it, thereby reducing the volume of waste that needs to be disposed.
Recycling Waste
The term recycling is universally associated with waste management. When we say recycle, we mean that our everyday waste will be collected, processed and then reused in another form. For example, products made out of paper, aluminum, plastic are collected and converted back into paper, aluminum and plastic respectively. Recycling of waste items made up of one material is an easy task.
Electronic waste is sent to developing nations where recycling plants extract gold and copper from the e-waste. Used automobiles are scrapped and their metal is sold to scrap lots, which then sell the metal back to factories for re-conversion. And so on.
Waste Management Techniques
Nations employ many techniques to deal with their waste. Here is a brief roundup of these techniques:
1. Landfill: This is the most traditional way of managing waste, by dumping it in a landfill. Countries such as Australia that have vast expanses of land, normally dispose their waste in abandoned quarries or mines. A landfill is an inexpensive way to get rid of waste. However, care should be taken to ensure that only waste that does not harm the environment is dumped in landfills. Populous countries or small countries, such as Japan, have to resort to other means to manage their waste.
2. Incineration: Incineration is the disposal of waste by burning it. However, incineration is not an effective tool for waste management as the burning of waste consumes resources and energy, destroys the recyclable material present in the waste and emits many harmful pollutants.
3. Composting: Composting is a technique in which organic waste materials (food, plants, paper) are decomposed and then recycled as compost for use in agriculture and landscaping applications.
4. Mechanical Biological treatment: In this technique, a variety of waste (plastic, paper, glass, etc.) are fed in bulk into the waste treatment plant. The MBT process extracts the recyclable content in the waste and converts it to calorific fuel that can be used by cement/power plants.
5. Pyrolysis and Gasification: These are thermal techniques, using these, waste is treated at high temperatures and at a very high pressure. In Pyrolysis, the waste material is converted to solid or liquid. The solid material can be further refined into a carbon form while the liquid extract can be used as energy-giving oil. In gasification, the waste material is converted into a synthetic gas, which can be burned to produce more energy.
In conclusion, waste management has become part of our survival strategy. If we have to live, we will produce waste. If we do not treat waste, it will choke us. Waste is a problem, waste Management is the solution.
Article source : http://www.energyefficienthomearticles.com/Article/global-warming----Waste-Management-for-a-Modern-World-/3599
Plastic Waste: More Dangerous than Global Warming
We have all seen those graphic photos depicting the fate of marine mammals tangled in discarded fishing nets. And the sight of a soft drinks bottle floating by while we are canoeing in our local lake or river of choice is not a rarity.
But the real problem with plastic pollution in the world's waters -- the fact that it never, ever, degrades -- is more or less invisible to the naked eye, and is more immediate than anyone thought. And some argue that companies have the potential to alleviate the crisis in a big way.
Stephan Becker, founder of Beautiful Oceans, a for-profit corporate framework that offers courses in marine conservation to scuba divers and snorkelers, is one of those people who believes the corporate world can have a tremendous impact on reducing plastic pollution.
According to Becker, who studies plastic pollution in oceans, the biggest problem concerning industry and plastic waste is that not enough is being done to ensure that products can be reintegrated into nature.
More than a Drop
Plastic is particularly damaging because it is not biodegradable, he says, and plastic particles, although invisible, remain unmoving in the water and eventually become part of the food chain.
In oceans, areas called gyres, which have strong currents facilitated by circular wind movement, pull in waste and become densely populated by a stagnant surplus of plastic. Becker says that in some gyres, there is five times more plastic than zooplankton. The plankton, he says, have plastic debris in their bodies, which means plastic has entered the food chain, since zooplankton are at the core of the marine food chain.
Unfortunately, that is not the worst of it.
Plastic is a bigger danger than global warming, or at least it is in the immediate sense, considering it is snuffing out the lowest common denominator in the food chain, says Neil Seldman, a waste recycling expert and president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance, an organisation with a long track record of promoting sustainable communities.
Seldman, like Becker, also sees potential for companies to ease the problem, both by creating public awareness of a not-so-highly-publicised issue and by greatly downsizing the use of plastic altogether.
His organisation, along with the Earth Resource Foundation, an environmental education non-profit, is campaigning for stores to stop using plastic bags at checkout counters and to instead hand out or sell reusable burlap or canvas bags.
So far, he says, companies have been extremely receptive to the idea.
Although most of the talks are still in the works and Seldman has not yet released the names of the companies involved with the campaign -- which is aptly titled "Zero Waste at the Checkout Counter" -- he says that one of the stores that recently implemented the policy has already reported saving thousands of dollars by eliminating its use of plastic bags.
Beyond the Checkout
Saving money through the alteration of plastic consumption is not limited to supermarkets and retailers through the elimination of plastic bags, according to Seldman. "There is a lot of money to be made in alternative plastics and in managing refillable reusables," he says.
Becker also says that companies are taking notice of the issue. For example, Daimler Chrysler and General Motors Canada are two of many companies that are part of a huge collaborative effort to create environmentally friendly cars in Canada.
The collaboration, known as the Auto21 project, was developed to research the possibility of the creation of a largely biodegradable vehicle.
Seldman says that although companies are making changes when they become aware of the plastic pollution crisis, the changes are not coming fast enough. Industry, he says, will have to make major alterations in the near future, both to keep up with the evolving and rapidly growing sustainable community and to pull the world's oceans out of a state of desperation.
But the real problem with plastic pollution in the world's waters -- the fact that it never, ever, degrades -- is more or less invisible to the naked eye, and is more immediate than anyone thought. And some argue that companies have the potential to alleviate the crisis in a big way.
Stephan Becker, founder of Beautiful Oceans, a for-profit corporate framework that offers courses in marine conservation to scuba divers and snorkelers, is one of those people who believes the corporate world can have a tremendous impact on reducing plastic pollution.
According to Becker, who studies plastic pollution in oceans, the biggest problem concerning industry and plastic waste is that not enough is being done to ensure that products can be reintegrated into nature.
More than a Drop
Plastic is particularly damaging because it is not biodegradable, he says, and plastic particles, although invisible, remain unmoving in the water and eventually become part of the food chain.
In oceans, areas called gyres, which have strong currents facilitated by circular wind movement, pull in waste and become densely populated by a stagnant surplus of plastic. Becker says that in some gyres, there is five times more plastic than zooplankton. The plankton, he says, have plastic debris in their bodies, which means plastic has entered the food chain, since zooplankton are at the core of the marine food chain.
Unfortunately, that is not the worst of it.
Plastic is a bigger danger than global warming, or at least it is in the immediate sense, considering it is snuffing out the lowest common denominator in the food chain, says Neil Seldman, a waste recycling expert and president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance, an organisation with a long track record of promoting sustainable communities.
Seldman, like Becker, also sees potential for companies to ease the problem, both by creating public awareness of a not-so-highly-publicised issue and by greatly downsizing the use of plastic altogether.
His organisation, along with the Earth Resource Foundation, an environmental education non-profit, is campaigning for stores to stop using plastic bags at checkout counters and to instead hand out or sell reusable burlap or canvas bags.
So far, he says, companies have been extremely receptive to the idea.
Although most of the talks are still in the works and Seldman has not yet released the names of the companies involved with the campaign -- which is aptly titled "Zero Waste at the Checkout Counter" -- he says that one of the stores that recently implemented the policy has already reported saving thousands of dollars by eliminating its use of plastic bags.
Beyond the Checkout
Saving money through the alteration of plastic consumption is not limited to supermarkets and retailers through the elimination of plastic bags, according to Seldman. "There is a lot of money to be made in alternative plastics and in managing refillable reusables," he says.
Becker also says that companies are taking notice of the issue. For example, Daimler Chrysler and General Motors Canada are two of many companies that are part of a huge collaborative effort to create environmentally friendly cars in Canada.
The collaboration, known as the Auto21 project, was developed to research the possibility of the creation of a largely biodegradable vehicle.
Seldman says that although companies are making changes when they become aware of the plastic pollution crisis, the changes are not coming fast enough. Industry, he says, will have to make major alterations in the near future, both to keep up with the evolving and rapidly growing sustainable community and to pull the world's oceans out of a state of desperation.
Original source : http://greenbiz.com/feature/2007/05/04/plastic-waste-more-dangerous-global-warming
Top 10 Things You Can Do to Reduce Global Warming
Burning fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, oil and gasoline raises the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect and global warming.
You can help to reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which in turn reduces global warming, by using energy more wisely. Here are 10 simple actions you can take to help reduce global warming.
1. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Do your part to reduce waste by choosing reusable products instead of disposables. Buying products with minimal packaging (including the economy size when that makes sense for you) will help to reduce waste. And whenever you can, recycle paper, plastic, newspaper, glass and aluminum cans. If there isn't a recycling program at your workplace, school, or in your community, ask about starting one. By recycling half of your household waste, you can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.
2. Use Less Heat and Air Conditioning
Adding insulation to your walls and attic, and installing weather stripping or caulking around doors and windows can lower your heating costs more than 25 percent, by reducing the amount of energy you need to heat and cool your home.
Turn down the heat while you’re sleeping at night or away during the day, and keep temperatures moderate at all times. Setting your thermostat just 2 degrees lower in winter and higher in summer could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.
3. Change a Light Bulb
Wherever practical, replace regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. Replacing just one 60-watt incandescent light bulb with a CFL will save you $30 over the life of the bulb. CFLs also last 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs, use two-thirds less energy, and give off 70 percent less heat.
If every U.S. family replaced one regular light bulb with a CFL, it would eliminate 90 billion pounds of greenhouse gases, the same as taking 7.5 million cars off the road.
4. Drive Less and Drive Smart
Less driving means fewer emissions. Besides saving gasoline, walking and biking are great forms of exercise. Explore your community’s mass transit system, and check out options for carpooling to work or school.
When you do drive, make sure your car is running efficiently. For example, keeping your tires properly inflated can improve your gas mileage by more than 3 percent. Every gallon of gas you save not only helps your budget, it also keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
5. Buy Energy-Efficient Products
When it's time to buy a new car, choose one that offers good gas mileage. Home appliances now come in a range of energy-efficient models, and compact florescent bulbs are designed to provide more natural-looking light while using far less energy than standard light bulbs.
Avoid products that come with excess packaging, especially molded plastic and other packaging that can't be recycled. If you reduce your household garbage by 10 percent, you can save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.
6. Use Less Hot Water
Set your water heater at 120 degrees to save energy, and wrap it in an insulating blanket if it is more than 5 years old. Buy low-flow showerheads to save hot water and about 350 pounds of carbon dioxide yearly. Wash your clothes in warm or cold water to reduce your use of hot water and the energy required to produce it. That change alone can save at least 500 pounds of carbon dioxide annually in most households. Use the energy-saving settings on your dishwasher and let the dishes air-dry.
7. Use the "Off" Switch
Save electricity and reduce global warming by turning off lights when you leave a room, and using only as much light as you need. And remember to turn off your television, video player, stereo and computer when you're not using them.
It's also a good idea to turn off the water when you're not using it. While brushing your teeth, shampooing the dog or washing your car, turn off the water until you actually need it for rinsing. You'll reduce your water bill and help to conserve a vital resource.
8. Plant a Tree
If you have the means to plant a tree, start digging. During photosynthesis, trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. They are an integral part of the natural atmospheric exchange cycle here on Earth, but there are too few of them to fully counter the increases in carbon dioxide caused by automobile traffic, manufacturing and other human activities. A single tree will absorb approximately one ton of carbon dioxide during its lifetime.
9. Get a Report Card from Your Utility Company
Many utility companies provide free home energy audits to help consumers identify areas in their homes that may not be energy efficient. In addition, many utility companies offer rebate programs to help pay for the cost of energy-efficient upgrades.
10. Encourage Others to Conserve
Share information about recycling and energy conservation with your friends, neighbors and co-workers, and take opportunities to encourage public officials to establish programs and policies that are good for the environment.
These 10 steps will take you a long way toward reducing your energy use and your monthly budget. And less energy use means less dependence on the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming.
You can help to reduce the demand for fossil fuels, which in turn reduces global warming, by using energy more wisely. Here are 10 simple actions you can take to help reduce global warming.
1. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Do your part to reduce waste by choosing reusable products instead of disposables. Buying products with minimal packaging (including the economy size when that makes sense for you) will help to reduce waste. And whenever you can, recycle paper, plastic, newspaper, glass and aluminum cans. If there isn't a recycling program at your workplace, school, or in your community, ask about starting one. By recycling half of your household waste, you can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.
2. Use Less Heat and Air Conditioning
Adding insulation to your walls and attic, and installing weather stripping or caulking around doors and windows can lower your heating costs more than 25 percent, by reducing the amount of energy you need to heat and cool your home.
Turn down the heat while you’re sleeping at night or away during the day, and keep temperatures moderate at all times. Setting your thermostat just 2 degrees lower in winter and higher in summer could save about 2,000 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.
3. Change a Light Bulb
Wherever practical, replace regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. Replacing just one 60-watt incandescent light bulb with a CFL will save you $30 over the life of the bulb. CFLs also last 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs, use two-thirds less energy, and give off 70 percent less heat.
If every U.S. family replaced one regular light bulb with a CFL, it would eliminate 90 billion pounds of greenhouse gases, the same as taking 7.5 million cars off the road.
4. Drive Less and Drive Smart
Less driving means fewer emissions. Besides saving gasoline, walking and biking are great forms of exercise. Explore your community’s mass transit system, and check out options for carpooling to work or school.
When you do drive, make sure your car is running efficiently. For example, keeping your tires properly inflated can improve your gas mileage by more than 3 percent. Every gallon of gas you save not only helps your budget, it also keeps 20 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
5. Buy Energy-Efficient Products
When it's time to buy a new car, choose one that offers good gas mileage. Home appliances now come in a range of energy-efficient models, and compact florescent bulbs are designed to provide more natural-looking light while using far less energy than standard light bulbs.
Avoid products that come with excess packaging, especially molded plastic and other packaging that can't be recycled. If you reduce your household garbage by 10 percent, you can save 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide annually.
6. Use Less Hot Water
Set your water heater at 120 degrees to save energy, and wrap it in an insulating blanket if it is more than 5 years old. Buy low-flow showerheads to save hot water and about 350 pounds of carbon dioxide yearly. Wash your clothes in warm or cold water to reduce your use of hot water and the energy required to produce it. That change alone can save at least 500 pounds of carbon dioxide annually in most households. Use the energy-saving settings on your dishwasher and let the dishes air-dry.
7. Use the "Off" Switch
Save electricity and reduce global warming by turning off lights when you leave a room, and using only as much light as you need. And remember to turn off your television, video player, stereo and computer when you're not using them.
It's also a good idea to turn off the water when you're not using it. While brushing your teeth, shampooing the dog or washing your car, turn off the water until you actually need it for rinsing. You'll reduce your water bill and help to conserve a vital resource.
8. Plant a Tree
If you have the means to plant a tree, start digging. During photosynthesis, trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. They are an integral part of the natural atmospheric exchange cycle here on Earth, but there are too few of them to fully counter the increases in carbon dioxide caused by automobile traffic, manufacturing and other human activities. A single tree will absorb approximately one ton of carbon dioxide during its lifetime.
9. Get a Report Card from Your Utility Company
Many utility companies provide free home energy audits to help consumers identify areas in their homes that may not be energy efficient. In addition, many utility companies offer rebate programs to help pay for the cost of energy-efficient upgrades.
10. Encourage Others to Conserve
Share information about recycling and energy conservation with your friends, neighbors and co-workers, and take opportunities to encourage public officials to establish programs and policies that are good for the environment.
These 10 steps will take you a long way toward reducing your energy use and your monthly budget. And less energy use means less dependence on the fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming.
Original source : http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/tp/globalwarmtips.htm
How to Fight Global Warming
The biggest cause of global warming is the carbon dioxide released when fossil fuels like oil and coal are burned for energy. So when you save energy, you fight global warming (and save money, of course). Here are some easy steps you can take:
Raise your voice.
We need new laws that will steer our nation toward the most important solutions to global warming -- cleaner cars and cleaner power plants. Send a message to your elected officials, letting them know that you will hold them accountable for what they do -- or fail to do -- about global warming.
Choose an efficient vehicle:
A car that gets 20 miles per gallon will emit about 50 tons of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. A car getting 40 mpg will emit half that much. When buying your next car, pick the least-polluting, most efficient vehicle that meets your needs. Maybe it's an innovative hybrid that combines a gasoline engine with electric motors (and never needs to be plugged in). Or maybe it's a wagon instead of an SUV. And over the average lifetime of an American car, a 40-mpg car will save roughly $3,000 in fuel costs compared with a 20-mpg car, so compare fuel economy performance before you buy. (See www.fueleconomy.gov's Find and Compare Cars feature.)
Drive smart.
Get your engine tuned up and keep your tires inflated -- both help fuel efficiency. If all Americans kept their tires properly inflated (and a government study shows that many don't), gasoline use nationwide would come down 2 percent. A tune-up could boost your miles per gallon anywhere from 4 to 40 percent; a new air filter could get you 10 percent more miles per gallon.
Drive less.
When possible, choose alternatives to driving (public transit, biking, walking, carpooling), and bundle your errands together so you'll make fewer trips.
Buy energy-efficient appliances.
Use your consumer power when buying appliances by shopping for energy-efficient models. You may spend a little more up front, but you'll save a lot on electricity, and you'll reduce pollution produced by power plants. Look for the Energy Star label, which identifies the most efficient appliances. You can also use the Energy Guide labels to compare the efficiency of specific models. Remember that refrigerators consume the most electricity in the home. Today's refrigerators consume less than one-fourth the energy of models built 30 years ago, so an upgrade could mean huge energy savings for your household. Click here for more energy-saving tips.
Replace your light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs.
While compact fluorescents are initially more expensive than the incandescent bulbs most people use, they last 10 times as long. What's more, a compact fluorescent will lower your energy bills by about $15 a year, and by more than $60 during its life. It will also keep half a ton of carbon dioxide out of the air.
Weatherize your home or apartment.
For a very small investment, you can cut your heating and cooling expenses and reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Use weatherstripping to seal drafts around windows and doors. If a draft comes through electrical outlets or switches on outside walls, install foam draft blockers behind the cover plates. Use covers (inside or outside) on air conditioners during cold months. And make sure your home has adequate insulation. Many older homes don't have enough, especially in the attic. You can check the insulation yourself or have it done as part of an energy audit, provided by many utility companies. Call your company to see if it offers this service.
Choose renewable energy.
If you live in a state where you can choose your electricity supplier, pick a company that generates at least half its power from wind, solar energy and other clean sources. Even if you don't have the option to select a supplier, you may still be able to support renewable energy through an option on your electricity bill. For details, see NRDC's guide to buying clean energy.
Buy clean energy certificates.
Another way to help spur the renewable energy market and cut global warming pollution is to buy "wind certificates" or "green tags," which represent clean power you can add to the nation's energy grid in place of electricity from fossil fuels. For information, see Green-e. And here's an innovation that's catching on: calculate the global warming pollution associated with your everyday activities, then buy enough certificates to offset them and become "climate neutral." Two places to learn how: NativeEnergy's WindBuilderssm program and Bonneville Environmental Foundation's Green Tags program. (NRDC worked with these two groups to make our February 2003 Rolling Stones concert to raise awareness about global warming climate neutral.)
Raise your voice.
We need new laws that will steer our nation toward the most important solutions to global warming -- cleaner cars and cleaner power plants. Send a message to your elected officials, letting them know that you will hold them accountable for what they do -- or fail to do -- about global warming.
Choose an efficient vehicle:
A car that gets 20 miles per gallon will emit about 50 tons of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. A car getting 40 mpg will emit half that much. When buying your next car, pick the least-polluting, most efficient vehicle that meets your needs. Maybe it's an innovative hybrid that combines a gasoline engine with electric motors (and never needs to be plugged in). Or maybe it's a wagon instead of an SUV. And over the average lifetime of an American car, a 40-mpg car will save roughly $3,000 in fuel costs compared with a 20-mpg car, so compare fuel economy performance before you buy. (See www.fueleconomy.gov's Find and Compare Cars feature.)
Drive smart.
Get your engine tuned up and keep your tires inflated -- both help fuel efficiency. If all Americans kept their tires properly inflated (and a government study shows that many don't), gasoline use nationwide would come down 2 percent. A tune-up could boost your miles per gallon anywhere from 4 to 40 percent; a new air filter could get you 10 percent more miles per gallon.
Drive less.
When possible, choose alternatives to driving (public transit, biking, walking, carpooling), and bundle your errands together so you'll make fewer trips.
Buy energy-efficient appliances.
Use your consumer power when buying appliances by shopping for energy-efficient models. You may spend a little more up front, but you'll save a lot on electricity, and you'll reduce pollution produced by power plants. Look for the Energy Star label, which identifies the most efficient appliances. You can also use the Energy Guide labels to compare the efficiency of specific models. Remember that refrigerators consume the most electricity in the home. Today's refrigerators consume less than one-fourth the energy of models built 30 years ago, so an upgrade could mean huge energy savings for your household. Click here for more energy-saving tips.
Replace your light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs.
While compact fluorescents are initially more expensive than the incandescent bulbs most people use, they last 10 times as long. What's more, a compact fluorescent will lower your energy bills by about $15 a year, and by more than $60 during its life. It will also keep half a ton of carbon dioxide out of the air.
Weatherize your home or apartment.
For a very small investment, you can cut your heating and cooling expenses and reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Use weatherstripping to seal drafts around windows and doors. If a draft comes through electrical outlets or switches on outside walls, install foam draft blockers behind the cover plates. Use covers (inside or outside) on air conditioners during cold months. And make sure your home has adequate insulation. Many older homes don't have enough, especially in the attic. You can check the insulation yourself or have it done as part of an energy audit, provided by many utility companies. Call your company to see if it offers this service.
Choose renewable energy.
If you live in a state where you can choose your electricity supplier, pick a company that generates at least half its power from wind, solar energy and other clean sources. Even if you don't have the option to select a supplier, you may still be able to support renewable energy through an option on your electricity bill. For details, see NRDC's guide to buying clean energy.
Buy clean energy certificates.
Another way to help spur the renewable energy market and cut global warming pollution is to buy "wind certificates" or "green tags," which represent clean power you can add to the nation's energy grid in place of electricity from fossil fuels. For information, see Green-e. And here's an innovation that's catching on: calculate the global warming pollution associated with your everyday activities, then buy enough certificates to offset them and become "climate neutral." Two places to learn how: NativeEnergy's WindBuilderssm program and Bonneville Environmental Foundation's Green Tags program. (NRDC worked with these two groups to make our February 2003 Rolling Stones concert to raise awareness about global warming climate neutral.)
Original source : http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/gsteps.asp
Fossil fuels are to blame, world scientists conclude (part two)
•Congress. After winning a majority in the House and Senate in November's election, Democrats have climate-change bills in the works. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is creating a special committee on climate change. Next week, the House Science and Technology Committee will discuss the IPCC report.
•States. More than 12 states are taking steps to reduce greenhouse gases. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this month ordered the world's first low-carbon limits on passenger-car fuels in the most populous state. The new standard would reduce the carbon content of transportation fuels at least 10% by the year 2020.
•Cities. More than 375 mayors who have signed pledges since 2005 to cut greenhouse-gas emissions in their communities launched a drive last week for major climate legislation in Congress this year. They represent 56 million people in all 50 states. The day after the State of the Union address, the U.S. Conference of Mayors announced global warming is No. 1 on its top-10 list of priorities.
•Industry. Ten major companies, including industrial giants General Electric, Alcoa and DuPont, joined four environmental and climate groups last week to demand swift passage of federal legislation to cut emissions that worsen warming. Their U.S. Climate Action Partnership says further delay only "increases the risk of unavoidable consequences … at potentially greater economic cost and social disruption."
In their own studies, Tebaldi and her colleagues at NCAR found broad agreement in climate projections for North America by 2100, including a rise in average temperatures from 3 to 9 degrees.
That could lead to more frequent heat waves and more warm nights when daytime temperatures linger longer after sundown, especially in the South and West, Tebaldi's group concluded. NCAR also says increasing rain would soak northern states but bypass the already dry Southwest, where drought would be more common except when torrential rains bring flash floods.
The IPCC report is likely to reflect climate uncertainties and disagreements, too. Scientists have strongly debated the last two years, without resolution, whether global warming intensifies hurricanes.
Rising sea levels are a huge concern for the USA because more than half the population lives within 50 miles of the coastlines, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 2001 report contained a wide estimate of the rise this century — from 3.5 inches to 34. MacCracken says that projection has fallen to about 20 inches or less.
Such a drop in the top estimate alarms glacier experts such as John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, who was quoted in the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper as saying the low projection is "misleading." He says the low number accounts only for the heat-related rise of sea level and slow trickles from ebbing glaciers, and it ignores potential ice-sheet collapses in Antarctica or Greenland.
"Greenland is just a relic of the last Ice Age, after all, just jutting out into the Atlantic, frozen at latitudes further south than anything else," MacCracken says. "What might happen when it gets warmer?"
Are reports too cautious?
MacCracken contends past IPCC reports have been too conservative, partly by design, in warning about the dangers of climate change, especially sea level rise.
"Scientists don't like to be wrong, so they tend to discount the most uncertain things," MacCracken says. "And that's good, but policymakers and risk managers usually want to know the worst case, as well as the middle one, when they plan for things."
Every IPCC report has been controversial. When the 1995 report's economic analysis estimated that the worth of a human life in a developing nation is less than in developed ones, it triggered protests and sit-ins.
In 2005, federal hurricane researcher Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC, suggesting its hurricane warnings were too overblown and "politicized."
Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado at Boulder has suggested that development and deforestation, rather than the burning of fossil fuels, are the main drivers behind global warming. He says on his climate-science website that the IPCC should recognize the importance of these other factors.
In contrast, Australian scientist Tim Flannery has complained in his 2005 book The Weather Makers: How Man is Changing the Climate and What it Means for Life on Earth that IPCC estimates downplay the impact of warming.
In Paris this week, the process of negotiating and revising the short summary is painstaking and "line by line," says Kevin Trenberth, one of the lead authors and climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. More than 100 of the panel's 193 member nations are taking part in the negotiations on the summary, he says.
"They'll do a lot of rewriting. It's all going to change to cover the concerns of each nation," whether it's monsoons in India or polar bears in Canada, says MacCracken, who helped lead the USA's involvement in the IPCC in 1995 and 2001. The summary also must be translated in six official U.N. languages.
•States. More than 12 states are taking steps to reduce greenhouse gases. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this month ordered the world's first low-carbon limits on passenger-car fuels in the most populous state. The new standard would reduce the carbon content of transportation fuels at least 10% by the year 2020.
•Cities. More than 375 mayors who have signed pledges since 2005 to cut greenhouse-gas emissions in their communities launched a drive last week for major climate legislation in Congress this year. They represent 56 million people in all 50 states. The day after the State of the Union address, the U.S. Conference of Mayors announced global warming is No. 1 on its top-10 list of priorities.
•Industry. Ten major companies, including industrial giants General Electric, Alcoa and DuPont, joined four environmental and climate groups last week to demand swift passage of federal legislation to cut emissions that worsen warming. Their U.S. Climate Action Partnership says further delay only "increases the risk of unavoidable consequences … at potentially greater economic cost and social disruption."
In their own studies, Tebaldi and her colleagues at NCAR found broad agreement in climate projections for North America by 2100, including a rise in average temperatures from 3 to 9 degrees.
That could lead to more frequent heat waves and more warm nights when daytime temperatures linger longer after sundown, especially in the South and West, Tebaldi's group concluded. NCAR also says increasing rain would soak northern states but bypass the already dry Southwest, where drought would be more common except when torrential rains bring flash floods.
The IPCC report is likely to reflect climate uncertainties and disagreements, too. Scientists have strongly debated the last two years, without resolution, whether global warming intensifies hurricanes.
Rising sea levels are a huge concern for the USA because more than half the population lives within 50 miles of the coastlines, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 2001 report contained a wide estimate of the rise this century — from 3.5 inches to 34. MacCracken says that projection has fallen to about 20 inches or less.
Such a drop in the top estimate alarms glacier experts such as John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, who was quoted in the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper as saying the low projection is "misleading." He says the low number accounts only for the heat-related rise of sea level and slow trickles from ebbing glaciers, and it ignores potential ice-sheet collapses in Antarctica or Greenland.
"Greenland is just a relic of the last Ice Age, after all, just jutting out into the Atlantic, frozen at latitudes further south than anything else," MacCracken says. "What might happen when it gets warmer?"
Are reports too cautious?
MacCracken contends past IPCC reports have been too conservative, partly by design, in warning about the dangers of climate change, especially sea level rise.
"Scientists don't like to be wrong, so they tend to discount the most uncertain things," MacCracken says. "And that's good, but policymakers and risk managers usually want to know the worst case, as well as the middle one, when they plan for things."
Every IPCC report has been controversial. When the 1995 report's economic analysis estimated that the worth of a human life in a developing nation is less than in developed ones, it triggered protests and sit-ins.
In 2005, federal hurricane researcher Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC, suggesting its hurricane warnings were too overblown and "politicized."
Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado at Boulder has suggested that development and deforestation, rather than the burning of fossil fuels, are the main drivers behind global warming. He says on his climate-science website that the IPCC should recognize the importance of these other factors.
In contrast, Australian scientist Tim Flannery has complained in his 2005 book The Weather Makers: How Man is Changing the Climate and What it Means for Life on Earth that IPCC estimates downplay the impact of warming.
In Paris this week, the process of negotiating and revising the short summary is painstaking and "line by line," says Kevin Trenberth, one of the lead authors and climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. More than 100 of the panel's 193 member nations are taking part in the negotiations on the summary, he says.
"They'll do a lot of rewriting. It's all going to change to cover the concerns of each nation," whether it's monsoons in India or polar bears in Canada, says MacCracken, who helped lead the USA's involvement in the IPCC in 1995 and 2001. The summary also must be translated in six official U.N. languages.
Original source : http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-01-30-ipcc-report_x.htm
Fossil fuels are to blame, world scientists conclude (part one)
A major international analysis of climate change due Friday will conclude that humankind's reliance on fossil fuels — coal, fuel oil and natural gas — is to blame for global warming, according to three scientists familiar with the research on which it is based.
The gold-standard Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report represents "a real convergence happening here, a consensus that this is a total global no-brainer," says U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, former director of the federal government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey.
"The big message that will come out is the strength of the attribution of the warming to human activities," says researcher Claudia Tebaldi of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.
Mahlman, who crafted the IPCC language used to define levels of scientific certainty, says the new report will lay the blame at the feet of fossil fuels with "virtual certainty," meaning 99% sure. That's a significant jump from "likely," or 66% sure, in the group's last report in 2001, Mahlman says. His role in this year's effort involved spending two months reviewing the more than 1,600 pages of research that went into the new assessment.
Among the findings, Tebaldi says, is that even if people stopped burning the fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas blamed most for the warm-up, the effects of higher temperatures, including deadlier heat waves, coastal floods, longer droughts, worse wildfires and higher energy bills, would not go away in our lifetime.
QUICK QUESTION: What do you fear most about global warming? | WEATHER GUYS BLOG: Serendipity: Climate report coming out on Groundhog Day
"Most of the carbon dioxide still would just be sitting there, staring at us for the next century," Mahlman says.
"The projections also make clear how much we are already committed" to climate change, Tebaldi says, echoing the comments of more than a dozen IPCC scientists contacted by USA TODAY. Even if every smokestack and tailpipe stops emissions right now, the remaining heat makes further warming inevitable, she says.
The report will resonate worldwide because the current debate over global warming has been more about what is responsible — people or nature? — than about whether it is happening.
President Bush only recently has acknowledged the link, mentioning global warming in last week's State of the Union address. It was the first time he has included climate change in the annual speech before Congress. Bush called for developing renewable and alternative fuels.
The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. This will be its fourth climate assessment since 1990. The last one, in 2001, predicted average global temperatures would rise 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by the end of this century. The rise from 1901 to 2005 was just 1.2 degrees.
The report is the work of more than 2,000 scientists, whose drafts were reviewed by scores of governments, industry and environmental groups. The document is based on research published in the six years since the last report.
The analysis comes at a time when awareness of global warming in the USA and efforts to combat it are more intense than ever. Former vice president Al Gore's climate-change documentary An Inconvenient Truth scored two Oscar nominations last week. Meanwhile, some states and hundreds of American cities are taking steps to curb emissions that intensify the heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.
Leaks about droughts, floods
Officially, the panel's 2007 findings are still under wraps, but details have been leaking out for a year, particularly in recent weeks.
News accounts have featured projections of more droughts, floods, shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels.
There is so much media attention now, "I almost think there won't be any surprises compared to six years ago," says Steve Running, a University of Montana ecologist. "When the report came out (in 2001) it was all 'new' news. This time, I think everybody will say, 'Well, yeah, that's already what we've been hearing about.'
"Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for the Climate Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, says the studies underlying the report make the broad conclusions clear anyway. A 2005 Nature magazine study, for example, narrowed the 2001 estimate of warmer temperatures to an increase from 2.7 to 8.1 degrees by the year 2100.
Similarly, two Science magazine studies in 2005 of satellite and balloon measurements of temperature confirmed the Earth's atmosphere is warming exactly as predicted from human-caused increases in carbon dioxide.
Wave of new initiatives
What will be released this week is the first of three parts of the report: a scientific synthesis of global warming's physical manifestations that includes measurements and projections of temperature, precipitation, storms, wind, polar melting and sea levels. New this time is a chapter on paleoclimatology, the study of climate change from fossils and the reconstruction of data and clues going back hundreds of thousands of years.
In addition to the extensive scientific conclusions, which MacCracken says have been settled, a short "summary for policymakers" is still being hammered out and will be released Friday in Paris.
The second phase of the report is on the effects of those measured and projected changes and is due in April. A third group's work on ways to try to lessen those impacts is to be released in May.
Original source : http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-01-30-ipcc-report_x.htm
The gold-standard Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report represents "a real convergence happening here, a consensus that this is a total global no-brainer," says U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, former director of the federal government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey.
"The big message that will come out is the strength of the attribution of the warming to human activities," says researcher Claudia Tebaldi of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.
Mahlman, who crafted the IPCC language used to define levels of scientific certainty, says the new report will lay the blame at the feet of fossil fuels with "virtual certainty," meaning 99% sure. That's a significant jump from "likely," or 66% sure, in the group's last report in 2001, Mahlman says. His role in this year's effort involved spending two months reviewing the more than 1,600 pages of research that went into the new assessment.
Among the findings, Tebaldi says, is that even if people stopped burning the fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas blamed most for the warm-up, the effects of higher temperatures, including deadlier heat waves, coastal floods, longer droughts, worse wildfires and higher energy bills, would not go away in our lifetime.
QUICK QUESTION: What do you fear most about global warming? | WEATHER GUYS BLOG: Serendipity: Climate report coming out on Groundhog Day
"Most of the carbon dioxide still would just be sitting there, staring at us for the next century," Mahlman says.
"The projections also make clear how much we are already committed" to climate change, Tebaldi says, echoing the comments of more than a dozen IPCC scientists contacted by USA TODAY. Even if every smokestack and tailpipe stops emissions right now, the remaining heat makes further warming inevitable, she says.
The report will resonate worldwide because the current debate over global warming has been more about what is responsible — people or nature? — than about whether it is happening.
President Bush only recently has acknowledged the link, mentioning global warming in last week's State of the Union address. It was the first time he has included climate change in the annual speech before Congress. Bush called for developing renewable and alternative fuels.
The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. This will be its fourth climate assessment since 1990. The last one, in 2001, predicted average global temperatures would rise 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by the end of this century. The rise from 1901 to 2005 was just 1.2 degrees.
The report is the work of more than 2,000 scientists, whose drafts were reviewed by scores of governments, industry and environmental groups. The document is based on research published in the six years since the last report.
The analysis comes at a time when awareness of global warming in the USA and efforts to combat it are more intense than ever. Former vice president Al Gore's climate-change documentary An Inconvenient Truth scored two Oscar nominations last week. Meanwhile, some states and hundreds of American cities are taking steps to curb emissions that intensify the heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.
Leaks about droughts, floods
Officially, the panel's 2007 findings are still under wraps, but details have been leaking out for a year, particularly in recent weeks.
News accounts have featured projections of more droughts, floods, shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels.
There is so much media attention now, "I almost think there won't be any surprises compared to six years ago," says Steve Running, a University of Montana ecologist. "When the report came out (in 2001) it was all 'new' news. This time, I think everybody will say, 'Well, yeah, that's already what we've been hearing about.'
"Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for the Climate Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, says the studies underlying the report make the broad conclusions clear anyway. A 2005 Nature magazine study, for example, narrowed the 2001 estimate of warmer temperatures to an increase from 2.7 to 8.1 degrees by the year 2100.
Similarly, two Science magazine studies in 2005 of satellite and balloon measurements of temperature confirmed the Earth's atmosphere is warming exactly as predicted from human-caused increases in carbon dioxide.
Wave of new initiatives
What will be released this week is the first of three parts of the report: a scientific synthesis of global warming's physical manifestations that includes measurements and projections of temperature, precipitation, storms, wind, polar melting and sea levels. New this time is a chapter on paleoclimatology, the study of climate change from fossils and the reconstruction of data and clues going back hundreds of thousands of years.
In addition to the extensive scientific conclusions, which MacCracken says have been settled, a short "summary for policymakers" is still being hammered out and will be released Friday in Paris.
The second phase of the report is on the effects of those measured and projected changes and is due in April. A third group's work on ways to try to lessen those impacts is to be released in May.
Original source : http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-01-30-ipcc-report_x.htm
Fossil fuel
Fossil fuels or mineral fuels are fossil source fuels, that is, hydrocarbons found within the top layer of the earth’s crust.
They range from very volatile materials with low carbon:hydrogen ratios like methane, to liquid petroleum to nonvolatile materials composed of almost pure carbon, like anthracite coal. Methane can be found in hydrocarbon fields, alone, associated with oil, or in the form of methane clathrates. It is generally accepted that they formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants and animals[1] by exposure to heat and pressure in the Earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.[2] This is known as the biogenic theory and was first introduced by Mikhail Lomonosov in 1757. There is an opposing theory that the more volatile hydrocarbons, especially natural gas, are formed by abiogenic processes, that is no living material was involved in their formation.
It was estimated by the Energy Information Administration that in 2005, 86% of primary energy production in the world came from burning fossil fuels, with the remaining non-fossil sources being hydroelectric 6.3%, nuclear 6.0%, and other (geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste) 0.9 percent[3]
Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources because they take millions of years to form, and reserves are being depleted much faster than new ones are being formed. Concern about fossil fuel supplies is one of the causes of regional and global conflicts. The production and use of fossil fuels raise environmental concerns. A global movement toward the generation of renewable energy is therefore under way to help meet increased energy needs.
The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (= 21.3 gigatons) of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year (one tonne of atmospheric carbon is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide).[4] Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that enhances radiative forcing and contributes to global warming, causing the average surface temperature of the Earth to rise in response, which climate scientists agree[who?] will cause major adverse effects, including reduced biodiversity and, over time, cause sea level rise.
Original source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
They range from very volatile materials with low carbon:hydrogen ratios like methane, to liquid petroleum to nonvolatile materials composed of almost pure carbon, like anthracite coal. Methane can be found in hydrocarbon fields, alone, associated with oil, or in the form of methane clathrates. It is generally accepted that they formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants and animals[1] by exposure to heat and pressure in the Earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.[2] This is known as the biogenic theory and was first introduced by Mikhail Lomonosov in 1757. There is an opposing theory that the more volatile hydrocarbons, especially natural gas, are formed by abiogenic processes, that is no living material was involved in their formation.
It was estimated by the Energy Information Administration that in 2005, 86% of primary energy production in the world came from burning fossil fuels, with the remaining non-fossil sources being hydroelectric 6.3%, nuclear 6.0%, and other (geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste) 0.9 percent[3]
Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources because they take millions of years to form, and reserves are being depleted much faster than new ones are being formed. Concern about fossil fuel supplies is one of the causes of regional and global conflicts. The production and use of fossil fuels raise environmental concerns. A global movement toward the generation of renewable energy is therefore under way to help meet increased energy needs.
The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (= 21.3 gigatons) of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year (one tonne of atmospheric carbon is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide).[4] Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that enhances radiative forcing and contributes to global warming, causing the average surface temperature of the Earth to rise in response, which climate scientists agree[who?] will cause major adverse effects, including reduced biodiversity and, over time, cause sea level rise.
Original source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
Human activity linked to rise in hurricanes
Elizabeth A. Thomson, News Office
A'ndrea Elyse Messer, Penn State
May 31, 2006
Human-induced climate change, rather than naturally occurring ocean cycles, may be responsible for the recent increases in the frequency and strength of North Atlantic hurricanes, according to MIT and Penn State researchers.
"Anthropogenic factors are likely responsible for long-term trends in tropical Atlantic warmth and tropical cyclone activity," the researchers report in an upcoming issue of Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American Geophysical Union.
The Atlantic hurricane season begins June 1.
From data going back to the 19th century, scientists have found a correlation between the temperature of the sea surface in the tropical Atlantic and tropical cyclone activity. Warmer surface temperatures are associated with increases in strength and duration of cyclones.
But what is causing the increased surface temperatures?
Some scientists believe human-induced climate change is behind the trend. Others cite a natural cause, the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) -- an ocean cycle similar to, but weaker and less frequent than the El Ni̱o/La Ni̱a cycle.
Kerry A. Emanuel, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, and Michael E. Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences at Penn State, used a statistical method to separate the influences of one from the other.
"The important result of this work is that the tropical North Atlantic sea surface temperature appears to be controlled largely by radiative forcing, which has changed over the past century mainly owing to sulfate aerosol pollution and greenhouse gas increases," Emanuel said.
"There is no evidence of any 'natural cycle' in tropical North Atlantic sea surface temperatures in late summer and early fall. And since the sea surface temperature is strongly linked to Atlantic hurricane activity, this suggests there is no 'cycle' in the latter," he said.
In a seeming paradox, Emanuel and Mann also found that some pollutants have actually mitigated the warming problem.
Some gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane in the upper atmosphere, create the greenhouse effect associated with global warming; other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in the lower atmosphere, cool the Earth's surface by reflecting sunlight.
Because of prevailing winds and air currents, pollutants from North America and Europe move into the area above the tropical Atlantic. The impact is greatest during the late summer when the reflection of sunlight by these pollutants is greatest, exactly at the time of highest hurricane activity.
This suggests that the cooling from pollutants in the atmosphere tempered the rise of sea surface temperatures and number of hurricanes. However, the industrialized world is doing much better at controlling the amounts of aerosols going into the atmosphere, and the cooling effect has been decreasing since the 1980s.
Original source : http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/hurricanes.html
A'ndrea Elyse Messer, Penn State
May 31, 2006
Human-induced climate change, rather than naturally occurring ocean cycles, may be responsible for the recent increases in the frequency and strength of North Atlantic hurricanes, according to MIT and Penn State researchers.
"Anthropogenic factors are likely responsible for long-term trends in tropical Atlantic warmth and tropical cyclone activity," the researchers report in an upcoming issue of Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American Geophysical Union.
The Atlantic hurricane season begins June 1.
From data going back to the 19th century, scientists have found a correlation between the temperature of the sea surface in the tropical Atlantic and tropical cyclone activity. Warmer surface temperatures are associated with increases in strength and duration of cyclones.
But what is causing the increased surface temperatures?
Some scientists believe human-induced climate change is behind the trend. Others cite a natural cause, the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) -- an ocean cycle similar to, but weaker and less frequent than the El Ni̱o/La Ni̱a cycle.
Kerry A. Emanuel, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, and Michael E. Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences at Penn State, used a statistical method to separate the influences of one from the other.
"The important result of this work is that the tropical North Atlantic sea surface temperature appears to be controlled largely by radiative forcing, which has changed over the past century mainly owing to sulfate aerosol pollution and greenhouse gas increases," Emanuel said.
"There is no evidence of any 'natural cycle' in tropical North Atlantic sea surface temperatures in late summer and early fall. And since the sea surface temperature is strongly linked to Atlantic hurricane activity, this suggests there is no 'cycle' in the latter," he said.
In a seeming paradox, Emanuel and Mann also found that some pollutants have actually mitigated the warming problem.
Some gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane in the upper atmosphere, create the greenhouse effect associated with global warming; other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in the lower atmosphere, cool the Earth's surface by reflecting sunlight.
Because of prevailing winds and air currents, pollutants from North America and Europe move into the area above the tropical Atlantic. The impact is greatest during the late summer when the reflection of sunlight by these pollutants is greatest, exactly at the time of highest hurricane activity.
This suggests that the cooling from pollutants in the atmosphere tempered the rise of sea surface temperatures and number of hurricanes. However, the industrialized world is doing much better at controlling the amounts of aerosols going into the atmosphere, and the cooling effect has been decreasing since the 1980s.
Original source : http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/hurricanes.html
Forest management may mitigate global warming
MADISON --A study published today, Nov. 23, in the journal Science suggests that forest management may be used to restrain the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.
Many groups have proposed forest management as a simple way to offset global warming. More trees, they argue, will remove from the atmosphere more carbon dioxide, a gas plants use to grow and reproduce. But, numerous climatic and ecological factors confound this apparently simple solution, report researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Harvard University.
During the last century, the world's average temperatures have risen by one degree and sea levels have risen by more than six inches as a result of increased amounts of both natural and human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Many scientists believe high levels of carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels and wood products burn, could permanently alter the environment.
To investigate forest management as a method for controlling global warming, researchers conducted a decade-long study of carbon exchange between the atmosphere and Harvard Forest, a 60-year-old forest stand dominated by northern red oaks. Specifically, they measured how much carbon the trees and soils stored and how much they released.
In the short term, carbon exchange depended primarily on physical and climatic factors such as time of day or season. "At night, the trees respire, so more carbon dioxide is released from the forest," says Carol Barford, one of the researchers who now works at the UW-Madison Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment. "During the day, the trees photosynthesize, which requires the net uptake of carbon."
Seasonal patterns also produced fluctuations. The date the fall and spring seasons began, the amount of snow covering the ground or the amount of rain during the summer all seem to affect carbon exchange, she says. "Discrete weather features make a big difference in carbon balance from year to year." But Barford adds, "Over a decade, all those variations wash out."
The researchers' results suggest that, in the long term, ecological factors -- not climatic ones -- change carbon balance. The types of tree species in the forest, their growth rate and the age of the forest can all alter carbon uptake. These factors, Barford notes, can be influenced by forest management.
At maturity, for example, trees store less carbon and remove less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The number of dead trees also affects carbon balance. When a tree decays, Barford explains, it releases some of its carbon back into the air.
Barford and the Harvard team used two methods to determine carbon dioxide levels. A tower-based method, known as eddy covariance, measured the net storage and net release of carbon into the air. Ground-based biometry, a longer-standing method, measured changes in the trees' diameter, a direct indication of carbon storage. Both measurements produced similar results -- an important finding, Barford says, that brings validation to the newer method.
These results suggest that forest management can help mitigate global warming by controlling carbon exchange -- but numerous factors should be considered. "What to do about forest management is a complex issue," Barford stresses. "Our results do not lead clearly to any one management recommendation."
Original source : http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-11/uow-fmm111901.php
Many groups have proposed forest management as a simple way to offset global warming. More trees, they argue, will remove from the atmosphere more carbon dioxide, a gas plants use to grow and reproduce. But, numerous climatic and ecological factors confound this apparently simple solution, report researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Harvard University.
During the last century, the world's average temperatures have risen by one degree and sea levels have risen by more than six inches as a result of increased amounts of both natural and human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Many scientists believe high levels of carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels and wood products burn, could permanently alter the environment.
To investigate forest management as a method for controlling global warming, researchers conducted a decade-long study of carbon exchange between the atmosphere and Harvard Forest, a 60-year-old forest stand dominated by northern red oaks. Specifically, they measured how much carbon the trees and soils stored and how much they released.
In the short term, carbon exchange depended primarily on physical and climatic factors such as time of day or season. "At night, the trees respire, so more carbon dioxide is released from the forest," says Carol Barford, one of the researchers who now works at the UW-Madison Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment. "During the day, the trees photosynthesize, which requires the net uptake of carbon."
Seasonal patterns also produced fluctuations. The date the fall and spring seasons began, the amount of snow covering the ground or the amount of rain during the summer all seem to affect carbon exchange, she says. "Discrete weather features make a big difference in carbon balance from year to year." But Barford adds, "Over a decade, all those variations wash out."
The researchers' results suggest that, in the long term, ecological factors -- not climatic ones -- change carbon balance. The types of tree species in the forest, their growth rate and the age of the forest can all alter carbon uptake. These factors, Barford notes, can be influenced by forest management.
At maturity, for example, trees store less carbon and remove less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The number of dead trees also affects carbon balance. When a tree decays, Barford explains, it releases some of its carbon back into the air.
Barford and the Harvard team used two methods to determine carbon dioxide levels. A tower-based method, known as eddy covariance, measured the net storage and net release of carbon into the air. Ground-based biometry, a longer-standing method, measured changes in the trees' diameter, a direct indication of carbon storage. Both measurements produced similar results -- an important finding, Barford says, that brings validation to the newer method.
These results suggest that forest management can help mitigate global warming by controlling carbon exchange -- but numerous factors should be considered. "What to do about forest management is a complex issue," Barford stresses. "Our results do not lead clearly to any one management recommendation."
Forests: Allies Against Global Warming
Deforestation, industrial activity and the use of fossil fuels have elevated carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere by 25 percent over the last 100 years. Concentrations of this heat-trapping gas continue to rise. Earth's mean surface temperature has increased as much as 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1860. The 1990s were the warmest decade in a thousand years. Scientists are nearly unanimous: unabated emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will bring further global warming and climate change.
Based on this compelling scientific evidence, 163 countries, including the United States, developed the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which sets goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The Protocol recognizes that forests play a key role in global warming, since they are both sources and sinks of carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, forest loss to agriculture or development, along with overharvesting, have made forests the second largest source of CO2. However, as Article 2 of the Protocol states, when existing forests are conserved and sustainably managed, or cut-over forests are replanted, they become effective long-term sinks.
Conservation, good forest management
help reduce the threat of global warming
Forest carbon "flux," or change, in U.S. carbon stores can be precisely measured. Researchers have identified the forests of the U.S. Pacific Northwest -- especially coastal redwoods and Douglas-firs — to have the most capacity for increased carbon sequestration of any in the world.
A pragmatic and economical place to start restoring the balance of our global carbon cycle is in our forests. With good stewardship, forests will continue to provide not only carbon sequestration, but wood products and many other benefits, such as fish and wildlife habitat, biodiversity, clean water and recreation opportunities. Without good forest stewardship, we may lose the carbon battle -- and with it, most of the benefits our forests provide.
A new market in forest carbon
to provide revenue to landowners
The capacity of forests to become enhanced carbon sinks can bring added revenue to landowners through the emerging market in forest carbon credits. A well-organized forest carbon market can provide a financial incentive for landowners to permanently conserve more forests and practice the type of management that results in carbon-rich forests.
In this market, forest owners committed to increasing carbon stores can sell these gains to entities seeking to offset carbon dioxide emissions. The Pacific Forest Trust recently completed the first transaction in this emerging market through our Forest Climate Program when it sold forest carbon credits to Green Mountain Energy Company.
By using existing scientific forest measurement tools, and ensuring that forest carbon projects yield permanent gains by securing them through conservation easements , forest carbon sequestration projects can be verifiable, enforceable, and provide carbon stores clearly additional to those that would have accrued otherwise.
A sound policy framework for forests and carbon in the United States
PFT has been working with policy-makers, forest owners and carbon producers such as utilities since 1994 to develop the best policies to promote forests as a secure means to mitigate global warming. Toward this end, PFT has developed a set of proposed rules for recognition of carbon credits, which it advocated at the recent climate change treaty negotiation in the Hague, Netherlands.
PFT has published Forest Carbon in the United States: Opportunities and Options for Private Lands, written by leading forest scientists. This report details how forests can best be managed to increase carbon stores. It also discusses the importance of establishing consistent standards for the accounting of forest carbon change, including credits and debits, which will allow the forest carbon market to function more smoothly for buyers and sellers. This will benefit the public by increasing net forest carbon stores and encouraging forest restoration and conservation.
Original source : http://www.pacificforest.org/policy/forest.html
Global Warming/Climate Change, What we can do about it
Climate Change is the most serious problem we face in the 21st century. Future generations are depending on us to do whatever we can to turn things around.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a group of over two thousand scientists, has concluded that global warming is beyond dispute, and already changing our climate. The last 30 years have seen the warmest surface temperatures in recorded history, and the NOAA has recently predicted 2007 will be the warmest year on record.
Scientists have concluded that human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is the major driving factor in global warming. read: how global warming has developed
Global warming can be slowed, and stopped, with practical actions that yield a cleaner, healthier atmosphere. The question is: will we act soon enough. It is a matter of time.
"Many people don't realize that we are committed right now to a significant amount of global warming and sea level rise," said Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "The longer we wait to do something about it, the more change we will have."
Ultimately it is up to each of us, as individuals and families, to take action to slow down and eventually reverse global warming through everyday awareness of our energy use and attention to ways we can conserve electricity and minimize fossil fuel usage.
What we can do
The goal is to bring global warming under control by curtailing the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases into the atmosphere.
We can contribute to this global cause with personal actions. Our individual efforts are especially significant in countries like the US and Canada, where individuals release 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per person every year.
We can help immediately by becoming more energy efficient. Reducing our use of oil, gasoline and coal also sets an example for others to follow.
Reduce electricity usage around the home
The largest source of greenhouse gases is electric power generation. The average home actually contributes more to global warming than the average car. This is because much of the energy we use in our homes comes from power plants which burn fossil fuel to power our electric products.
To reduce the amount of electricity used in our homes:
switch to energy-efficient lighting
Replace the familiar incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. For each CFL bulb replacement, you'll lower your energy bill and keep nearly 700 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the air over the bulb's lifetime. CFL bulbs last much longer and use only a quarter of the energy consumed by conventional bulbs. LED bulbs are also energy-saving, but have a narrower range of application. Advances in LED bulb technology, however, are leading to more applications for these bulbs in the home. LEDs are more efficient than CFLs and do not have issues surrounding disposal, as do the CFLs.
improve the efficiency of home appliances
Home appliances vary greatly in terms of energy-efficiency and operating costs. The more energy-efficient an appliance is, the less it costs to run. You can lower your utility bill and help protect the environment.
buy energy-efficient appliances
When shopping for a new appliance - especially a major appliance such as a refrigerator, dishwasher, or air-conditioner, select the one with the highest energy efficiency rating. By opting for a refrigerator with the Energy Star label, indicating it uses at least 15 percent less energy than the federal requirement -- you can reduce carbon dioxide pollution by nearly a ton in total.
reduce energy needed for heating
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, heating and cooling systems in the U.S. emit over a half billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. Much of the energy used for heating our homes is wasted, and yet the prevention is, in many cases, simple and inexpensive.
reduce energy needed for cooling
Air conditioners alone use up to 1/6th of the electricity in the U.S. and, on hot summer days, consume 43% of the U.S. peak power load. You can reduce much of the need for air conditioning, and enjoy a cost savings benefit, by using 'passive' techniques to help cool your home.
Improve vehicle fuel-efficiency
The second largest source of greenhouse gases is transportation. Motor vehicles are responsible for about a third of all carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. and Canada.
practice fuel-efficient driving
Every gallon of gasoline burned puts 26 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. You can boost the overall fuel-efficiency of your car as much as 30% by simple vehicle maintenance and attention to your style of driving.
buy a fuel-efficient car
Even more important is the choice of car or truck you buy. If you buy a new car that gets 10 more miles per gallon than your old car, the amount of carbon dioxide reduction realized in one year will be about 2,500 pounds. The new hybrid cars, using efficient gas-electric engines, can cut global warming pollution by 30% or more.
recycle air conditioner coolant
If your car has an air conditioner, make sure you recycle its coolant whenever you have it serviced. You can save thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide each year by doing this.
drive less
You'll save energy by taking the bus, riding a bike, or walking. Try consolidating trips to the mall or longer routine drives. Encourage car-pooling.
Conserve energy in the home and yard
Yard maintenance contributes significantly to greenhouse emissions. Per hour of operation, a power lawn mower emits 10-12 times as much hydrocarbon as a typical auto. A weedeater emits 21 times more and a leaf blower 34 times more.
reduce lawn size
Lawn size can be reduced by adding shrubs, beds, ground covers and mulched areas. Try creating a lawn area small enough to be mowed using an efficient reel (push) mower. Lawn edging can be set low enough to mow over, reducing or eliminating the need for a weed-eater.
recycle whenever possible
aluminum cans, newspapers, magazines, cardboard, glass - anything recycled reduces the energy needed to create new products. To find the recycling center nearest you, call: 1 800-CLEANUP. For ideas on home recycling.
eat locally produced food
Today, the food choices available in supermarkets come from all over the world. All of this 'traffic' in food requires staggering amounts of fuel - generally by refrigerated airplanes or transport trucks. Food transportation is one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
eat vegetarian meals
Vegetarian food requires much less energy to produce. Enjoying vegetarian meals once or twice a week results in significant CO2 savings.
paint your home a light color if you live in a warm climate, or a dark color in a cold climate. This can contribute saving up to 5000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year.
choose clean energy options
If you can choose your electricity supplier, pick a company that generates at least half its power from wind, solar energy and other renewable sources.
buy clean energy certificates and carbon offsets
Help spur the renewable energy market and cut global warming pollution with "wind certificates" or "green tags," which represent clean power you can add to the nation's energy grid in place of electricity from fossil fuels.
A “carbon offset” is an emission reduction credit which can be purchased by individuals, businesses and governments to reduce their net greenhouse gas emissions.
While it may be difficult to adopt some of these suggestions, any amount of energy saved is significant. Even small changes are worthwhile, as they spark our awareness. As we become more aware of the importance of saving energy, we find ways of saving where possible.
Making energy conservation a part of our daily awareness is essential to the goal of reducing global warming.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a group of over two thousand scientists, has concluded that global warming is beyond dispute, and already changing our climate. The last 30 years have seen the warmest surface temperatures in recorded history, and the NOAA has recently predicted 2007 will be the warmest year on record.
Scientists have concluded that human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is the major driving factor in global warming. read: how global warming has developed
Global warming can be slowed, and stopped, with practical actions that yield a cleaner, healthier atmosphere. The question is: will we act soon enough. It is a matter of time.
"Many people don't realize that we are committed right now to a significant amount of global warming and sea level rise," said Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "The longer we wait to do something about it, the more change we will have."
Ultimately it is up to each of us, as individuals and families, to take action to slow down and eventually reverse global warming through everyday awareness of our energy use and attention to ways we can conserve electricity and minimize fossil fuel usage.
What we can do
The goal is to bring global warming under control by curtailing the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases into the atmosphere.
We can contribute to this global cause with personal actions. Our individual efforts are especially significant in countries like the US and Canada, where individuals release 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per person every year.
We can help immediately by becoming more energy efficient. Reducing our use of oil, gasoline and coal also sets an example for others to follow.
Reduce electricity usage around the home
The largest source of greenhouse gases is electric power generation. The average home actually contributes more to global warming than the average car. This is because much of the energy we use in our homes comes from power plants which burn fossil fuel to power our electric products.
To reduce the amount of electricity used in our homes:
switch to energy-efficient lighting
Replace the familiar incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. For each CFL bulb replacement, you'll lower your energy bill and keep nearly 700 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the air over the bulb's lifetime. CFL bulbs last much longer and use only a quarter of the energy consumed by conventional bulbs. LED bulbs are also energy-saving, but have a narrower range of application. Advances in LED bulb technology, however, are leading to more applications for these bulbs in the home. LEDs are more efficient than CFLs and do not have issues surrounding disposal, as do the CFLs.
improve the efficiency of home appliances
Home appliances vary greatly in terms of energy-efficiency and operating costs. The more energy-efficient an appliance is, the less it costs to run. You can lower your utility bill and help protect the environment.
buy energy-efficient appliances
When shopping for a new appliance - especially a major appliance such as a refrigerator, dishwasher, or air-conditioner, select the one with the highest energy efficiency rating. By opting for a refrigerator with the Energy Star label, indicating it uses at least 15 percent less energy than the federal requirement -- you can reduce carbon dioxide pollution by nearly a ton in total.
reduce energy needed for heating
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, heating and cooling systems in the U.S. emit over a half billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. Much of the energy used for heating our homes is wasted, and yet the prevention is, in many cases, simple and inexpensive.
reduce energy needed for cooling
Air conditioners alone use up to 1/6th of the electricity in the U.S. and, on hot summer days, consume 43% of the U.S. peak power load. You can reduce much of the need for air conditioning, and enjoy a cost savings benefit, by using 'passive' techniques to help cool your home.
Improve vehicle fuel-efficiency
The second largest source of greenhouse gases is transportation. Motor vehicles are responsible for about a third of all carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. and Canada.
practice fuel-efficient driving
Every gallon of gasoline burned puts 26 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. You can boost the overall fuel-efficiency of your car as much as 30% by simple vehicle maintenance and attention to your style of driving.
buy a fuel-efficient car
Even more important is the choice of car or truck you buy. If you buy a new car that gets 10 more miles per gallon than your old car, the amount of carbon dioxide reduction realized in one year will be about 2,500 pounds. The new hybrid cars, using efficient gas-electric engines, can cut global warming pollution by 30% or more.
recycle air conditioner coolant
If your car has an air conditioner, make sure you recycle its coolant whenever you have it serviced. You can save thousands of pounds of carbon dioxide each year by doing this.
drive less
You'll save energy by taking the bus, riding a bike, or walking. Try consolidating trips to the mall or longer routine drives. Encourage car-pooling.
Conserve energy in the home and yard
Yard maintenance contributes significantly to greenhouse emissions. Per hour of operation, a power lawn mower emits 10-12 times as much hydrocarbon as a typical auto. A weedeater emits 21 times more and a leaf blower 34 times more.
reduce lawn size
Lawn size can be reduced by adding shrubs, beds, ground covers and mulched areas. Try creating a lawn area small enough to be mowed using an efficient reel (push) mower. Lawn edging can be set low enough to mow over, reducing or eliminating the need for a weed-eater.
recycle whenever possible
aluminum cans, newspapers, magazines, cardboard, glass - anything recycled reduces the energy needed to create new products. To find the recycling center nearest you, call: 1 800-CLEANUP. For ideas on home recycling.
eat locally produced food
Today, the food choices available in supermarkets come from all over the world. All of this 'traffic' in food requires staggering amounts of fuel - generally by refrigerated airplanes or transport trucks. Food transportation is one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
eat vegetarian meals
Vegetarian food requires much less energy to produce. Enjoying vegetarian meals once or twice a week results in significant CO2 savings.
paint your home a light color if you live in a warm climate, or a dark color in a cold climate. This can contribute saving up to 5000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year.
choose clean energy options
If you can choose your electricity supplier, pick a company that generates at least half its power from wind, solar energy and other renewable sources.
buy clean energy certificates and carbon offsets
Help spur the renewable energy market and cut global warming pollution with "wind certificates" or "green tags," which represent clean power you can add to the nation's energy grid in place of electricity from fossil fuels.
A “carbon offset” is an emission reduction credit which can be purchased by individuals, businesses and governments to reduce their net greenhouse gas emissions.
While it may be difficult to adopt some of these suggestions, any amount of energy saved is significant. Even small changes are worthwhile, as they spark our awareness. As we become more aware of the importance of saving energy, we find ways of saving where possible.
Making energy conservation a part of our daily awareness is essential to the goal of reducing global warming.
Original source : http://www.eartheasy.com/article_global_warming.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)