Archive for November, 2010
Clean Green Computing
November 30th, 2010 | 
Author:
Clean Green Computing
Green and Clean Computing
Little thought may be given to the energy consumption of computers, but as more and more computers are purchased each year, it is not just the number of computers that forces increased energy consumption but the way in which computers are being used that adds to the building energy burden. Research has shown that most computer desktops are not being used a great deal of the time they are running and are left on for long periods of time. As with other forms of energy consumption, electricity is wasted when it is not being used and this burns fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide into the air and cause smog, acid rain and other detrimental environmental side effects.
The typical desktop computer consists of a system unit which houses the central processing unit (CPU), a monitor and a printer. The CPU may require 100 watts of electrical power; the monitor, which may be 15 to 17 inches, may require another 50-100 watts; a laser printer can use as much as 100 watts or more while ink printers use as little as 12 watts while printing. The cost for operating a 200 watt system all day and night, everyday, would be $125 annually, while the cost of operation for normal business hours of 40 hours per week would range around $30 annually. Considering the tremendous benefits derived from using computers, this figure may not appear extensive, but when multiplied by the many computers used on a daily basis in this country, the total grows phenomenally.
There are many ways to reduce personal computer energy consumption. Computers, printers and monitors can be turned off when not in use. Many years ago, it was considered harmful to the computer if it were turned on and off periodically during the course of a day. However, the internal circuitry of personal computers is designed to be protected from power damages that might result from on and off switching. Doing so will not substantially affect the computer’s useful life.
The use of screen savers wastes energy and should not be used. They go back to the days when, if not used, images would be ingrained on screens if they remained on too long, but updates in technology have long made the use of screen savers unnecessary.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has also developed technology for computers and monitors that can be programmed to automatically power down to a lower power state when not in use. This “sleep mode” can reduce energy consumption by 60% to 70% and these “Energy Star” computers serve to gain efficiency without any loss in computing performance.
Green computing extends beyond the personal computer to the use of related devices and materials. For example, paper waste can be reduced by printing as little as possible and only when necessary, recycling waster paper, using electronic mail instead of faxing to eliminate the need to produce a hard copy, and trying to print on both sides of the page when possible. In addition, printer and toner cartridges can be recycled. Although this is a practice that has been discouraged in the past by printer and toner cartridge manufacturers, such recycled cartridges save resources and reduce pollution and solid waste. Disposing of electronics as well can be done through recycling agencies to reduce waste and provide for recycling of functional equipment.
Finally, green computing also means not buying new equipment unless there is a real need for it. Close investigations can be made regarding upgrading hardware or software before purchasing a new computer. However, if the determination is made that a new computer system should be purchased, there are “Energy Star” computers, monitors and printers on the market. In addition, ink jet printers use 80% to 90% less energy than laser printers and soon, even “Green Computers” will reach the marketplace for sale.
Visit http://www.OCRuggedLaptops.com for more information about the rugged laptop industry.
World Tech Update
Posted in 
Climate Modeling Proves Global Warming, a Global Warming Alarmist Recently Noted
Climate Modeling Proves Global Warming, a Global Warming Alarmist Recently Noted
Many folks have taken to Global Warming, which by definition means the planet is warming due to CO2 from man-made emissions. If the planet were warming from any other source, it would be by definition called climate change. Unfortunately for the Global Warming evangelists the planet may not be warming, in fact, as of late the solar minimum is at a record low, and the planet is cooling.
Still, the believers in this doom and gloom scenario say that Climate Computer Modeling proves it. Oh, really, because as it stands humans wrote those computer models and the algorithms that generate these futurist prediction. In fact, one of the biggest issues with the climate modeling is they keep re-adjusting them to get the desired resultant. There is something seriously fishy about that.
Personally, I do not like pollution, land, sea or air, or even all that space debris up there. That’s just proof of inefficiency, which is not worthy of human potential or intellect. But, computer modeling is only as good as the program and data. Garbage in = garbage out.
If reduction of pollution, let’s say CO2 is the goal then let’s dump the scientific pretendism and get real; let’s just say that the human race has agreed to reduce greenhouse gases on the planet caused from mankind and then start doing it. But to hold this Global Warming doomsday theory out as real is really not helping anyone. In fact, we are liable to change our entire civilization’s infrastructure for no reason whatsoever.
Because the reality is that the Earth’s atmosphere and ambient surface temperatures heat up and cool in cycles and they have for billions of years, and there is nothing that mankind presently can do about that. Think on it.
Lance Winslow – Lance Winslow’s Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/.
iUnika Unveils Ultralight Cheap Solar-Powered Netbook | Inhabitat … What if keeping your laptop charged was as simple as setting it out in the sun? That’s the promise behind a brand new netbook that may just break the. The Coral-200: A Solar Powered Phone for the Masses | Inhabitat … Just last week we brought you news of the Blue-Earth, Samsung’s new solar powered touch phone. Well, it turns out that they are not the only company with. Win a Hymini Portable Wind + Solar Gadget Charger! | Inhabitat … Put green power in the palm of your hand! Having trouble keeping your gadgets charged on a daily basis? Ever had your cellphone run out of juice on you. Solar-Powered Crystalline Towers Unveiled for Abu Dhabi … Aedas, one of the world’s largest architectural practices, joined up with Arup to design the Abu Dhabi Investment Council Headquarters Towers, a set of twin towers outfitted with a crystalline/honeycomb shell that protects the buildings … Iceland's Gorgeous Passive Solar Hof House | Inhabitat – Green … Deep in the northern chill of Iceland, just outside the arctic circle, the Hof House sits snugly within its landscape. Built on an existing estate, Studio.Green Technology
Hybrid SUV
Sometimes, simple acts such as going to the grocery store can turn into a moral dilemma. Is it better to choose the piece of organic fruit produced on the other side of the country or the non-organic version grown locally, 50 miles away? Are the benefits of chemical-free shampoo worth an extra 5 bucks a bottle? Will I really be able to enjoy a cheap chocolate bar knowing that the growers of the cocoa beans were likely not fairly compensated? As much as I’d like to say that I always buy the product that is environmentally safe and sustainably produced, in reality, that’s not always the case. First, the sheer amount of information required to be able to distinguish between products is staggering. You need facts regarding environmental impact, transportation costs, and fair trade practices, to name just a few. And there are plenty of misinformation and greenwashing campaigns out there to steer you in the wrong direction. Second, of course, there are times when the high cost of an ethically made product turns me off from buying it. Even consumers with the best of intentions have their breaking points. The thing is, companies who go out of their way to implement sustainable practices endure a greater cost of production. Sure, they can sometimes capitalize on this by marketing to conscientious consumers who are willing to pay a bit more, but the fact remains that in today’s system, environmentally minded production is punished. On the other hand, companies who move their factories (and jobs) to developing countries with lax environmental standards and cheap labor are able to make products at a fraction of the cost and undercut their competitors (while shipping materials and finished goods all around the world and adding to our greenhouse gas problems). The way it’s set up, high environmental standards in one country drive companies to relocate in places where it’s permissible to pollute in order to compete in the marketplace. Chaco, the Colorado-based athletic sandal company, is a prime example of even a well-intentioned company being forced to follow suit to maintain competitive pricing on their products. In fact, 95% of all footwear in the world is produced in China, whose poor environmental regulation and sometimes dangerous environmental problems are well known. With current talk about cap and trade emissions programs, this phenomenon may only get worse. So how do we even the playing field and reward companies for good business practices? When I think about this problem, I keep coming back to an idea I encountered in a casual conversation with a stranger while traveling. I can’t remember his face or his name, but his idea has stuck with me and festered in my mind for the better part of a year. His take was that putting the financial burden of environmental responsibility on the companies just doesn’t make sense for the reasons I’ve given above. In a global marketplace, it renders companies less competitive than those that operate free of environmental and labor regulations. Wouldn’t it make more sense to put an “environmental impact” or “ecological footprint” tax on the product itself? Ugh, a tax? Initially, I didn’t warm to the idea either. But think about it: adding a tax proportionate to a product’s ecological and social footprint eliminates the cost advantage of irresponsible production. All those environmental costs that are currently not included in our economic system would be factored in and would increase the price of unsustainably made products. This, in turn, would make moral dilemmas at the grocery store much easier. Is it more sustainable to buy distant, organic produce or local, non-organic produce? The tax-adjusted pricing should inform my decision. Can I afford the chemical-free shampoo? Yes, because the price of its chemical-laden competitors would be raised through the environmental impact tax and eliminate the cost advantage of choosing that product. The money raised from the tax could fund its implementation and other sustainable programs such as public transportation (high speed rail, anyone?) and alternative energy. Perhaps it could even make a dent in our gaping budget deficit. Won’t this cost me money? You may be thinking, “Sure, that’s a good idea in concept, but that will raise my bills – grocery, clothes, everything.” Well, yes, that’s true. But maybe if we see the true cost of the products we casually consume, we can make a more informed decision about what is really necessary to our lives. Additionally, programs such as this often have the greatest impact on the poor. But this could be compensated for by using some of the tax revenue for need-based assistance programs. Regardless, running an economic system on the assumption of infinite resources is fundamentally flawed. Currently, environmental impacts such as air pollution, water pollution, and deforestation are not factored into the cost of a product: they are considered “externalities.” These costs need to be included in the system in a way that does not punish those who engage in sustainable business practices. By taxing a product’s environmental impact, it levels the playing field for the consumer. Disclaimer Of course, I am not an economist or policy guru. I don’t know how to implement such a tax or if it would even be possible (though compared to creating a carbon trading market, perhaps it’s not that difficult). This is only the musing of a concerned, intelligent citizen trying to brainstorm ways to make our economic system fit within the bounds of our ecological constraints. What do you think? Would such a tax have a beneficial effect on our production system? Join the conversation over at our website! Jill Mueller is a conservation biologist, avid cyclist, and freelance writer. She has combined forces with a good friend and dietitian to start The Barefoot Badger, a blog promoting healthy, sustainable living. Check us out!
Hybrid SUV
To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?
Danish Goes ‘Green’ Island
I few weeks ago I came across an article about the deforestation situation of all the tropical rainforests. It talked about the main causes this beautiful places, origin to thousands of different life forms, are being damaged by people in so many different ways, among others: subsistence agriculture, colonization, tourism, and civilization development (savetherainforest). This latter caught my attention the most, because last week I went to my teak farm, and I got to see with my own eyes how a highway development affects our rainforest and trees so badly. My teak farm is located about 1 hour drive from Panama City, it is located in the Colon province, home of Colon City (second biggest city in our country, Panama). Last year the government decided to build a long overdue highway connecting both cities (of course I am all for improving the quality of life of my countrymen) but I can not agree with the amount of deforestation that took place in order to build this highway. Hundred of acres deforested in order to make way for four lanes that will bring better days to a lot of people, no doubt; but also brought a lot of disorder and chaos to a well established eco system that has being here long before us, and will continue to be here for (hopefully) thousands or millions of years after every single one of us has left this world. Since development of cities is inevitable, specially today where commerce since to grow exponentially, cities expand rapidly, and the whole world seems to be at everybody s fingertips, we need better way of transport and communication, but could we also be more interested in both preserving and saving tropical rainforests and trees? The answer is a big OF COURSE! I would have loved to see our government promoting the planting of trees in different areas of our country in order to make up for the ones lost during the development of this highway, or during the construction of so many other infrastructures around the country. Also having more people come forward and speak up as energetic and belligerent they are about so many other problems we have on this planet. Maybe all we need are more ways to let people know about this, get them involved. Since so much rainforest is lost every year, roughly about twice the size of the state of FLORIDA, this has become a problem for every single one of us earthlings, I think we need to get the word out, raise awareness and get people involved! Tropical Rainforest account for only 2% of land surface but through photosynthesis of trees they take massive amounts of CO2 emissions and make air clean and breathable again for every one of us. SO WE ALL NEED OUR RAINFOREST AND MORE TREES!! Pax Sanchez
Danish Goes 'Green' Island
Development Vs Rainforest Tropical
isachosan@gmail.com
Should I Really Buy Into It? Environmentally Friendly Paint.
Should I Really Buy Into It? Environmentally Friendly Paint.
Over the past few years, more and more people have become quite aware of the need to take care of the environment and take responsibility for our part in saving the planet from ecological disaster brought on by the inventions and waste products created by man. As a natural result of the many developments, inventions, and innovations made by man, the environment has slowly been degraded to the point that it has become a real point of concern for everyone living on the planet. The toxic byproducts of the manufacture of most of the inventions of man have slowly choked and poisoned the environment, slowly producing adverse conditions that would take years to undo, if at all. Other than the production of fuels and modern lubricants, another source of chemical pollutants that are not only toxic to the environment but also directly to humans as well, are the various paints being made in manufacturing plants. These paints have pigments that are laced with lead, and this lead is a heavy metal that is highly toxic.
Thankfully, some paint manufacturers have taken the problem to heart and devised new compounds that are lead free and contain no other toxic chemicals, in effect, environmentally friendly paint. This is probably one of the best developments in the field of synthetic materials, since having environmentally safe paint is beneficial not only to the environment long term, but also directly and immediately upon humans, since this paint does not exude the strong toxic fumes that people have come to associate with freshly applied paint. Environmentally friendly paint is in many ways better then the traditional paint of old, not only in the fact that it will not poison the environment, and the residents of the house using it eventually, but also because of the fact that formulation of the environmentally safe paint actually allows it to dry quite faster than traditional paints. What’s more is that the colors found available in environmentally friendly paint are as varied as the ones you find in traditional paint, so finding the paint color that you like in non-toxic form should be quite easy now.
In case you are wondering just how environmentally safe paint is beneficial to you, here are just a few pointers:
Not a health hazard
There are millions of people with both diagnosed and undiagnosed chemical allergies that are easily triggered by numerous stimuli, and one of the most popular irritants are the traditional paints and their strong, noxious fumes. Environmentally friendly paint exudes little, if at all, chemical fumes when they are applied and while they are drying, making it ultimately ideal for the home and for places where people tend to stay indoors for a long period of time.
Safe for the environment
Like the name suggests, environmentally safe paint is just that, safe for the environment. Production of this type of paint did not in any way contribute to the contamination of groundwater and landfills, and does not have any substance in it that will deplete the ozone layer even faster. This is the entire reason for making this type of paint. Rest easy knowing that as you use environmentally friendly paint, you are in no way damaging the environment
Cost-efficient and effective
Environmentally friendly paints are known to perform rather well in coverage, scrubability, and in hiding the flaws that came out during previous coats of paint. People who have used environmentally safe paints say that the paint itself has enough body to allow more areas to be covered with the same amount of paint that would normally only cover a smaller surface area. This translates into significant savings by not having to buy more paint than is necessary.
Water-based paint
Being water based means it can be easier to clean, since it will not retain and absorb dirt and other stains, much like what traditional paint tends to do. A lot of discoloration in old paints is primarily because of dust and dirt actually seeping into the paint, causing it to grow darker and uneven in color.
Rico Franco is an SEO Copywriter/Marketing Specialist specializing in optimized written content and marketing/advertising copy. He was awarded by the Catholic Mass Media Awards in 2005 for Best Business/Feature story written, produced, and aired. Rico also writes various articles in paint colors, online games, and other topics.
Online News Video Of A "green" fleet
Online News Video Of A “green” fleet
Many folks have taken to Global Warming, which by definition means the planet is warming due to CO2 from man-made emissions. If the planet were warming from any other source, it would be by definition called climate change. Unfortunately for the Global Warming evangelists the planet may not be warming, in fact, as of late the solar minimum is at a record low, and the planet is cooling. Still, the believers in this doom and gloom scenario say that Climate Computer Modeling proves it. Oh, really, because as it stands humans wrote those computer models and the algorithms that generate these futurist prediction. In fact, one of the biggest issues with the climate modeling is they keep re-adjusting them to get the desired resultant. There is something seriously fishy about that. Personally, I do not like pollution, land, sea or air, or even all that space debris up there. That’s just proof of inefficiency, which is not worthy of human potential or intellect. But, computer modeling is only as good as the program and data. Garbage in = garbage out. If reduction of pollution, let’s say CO2 is the goal then let’s dump the scientific pretendism and get real; let’s just say that the human race has agreed to reduce greenhouse gases on the planet caused from mankind and then start doing it. But to hold this Global Warming doomsday theory out as real is really not helping anyone. In fact, we are liable to change our entire civilization’s infrastructure for no reason whatsoever. Because the reality is that the Earth’s atmosphere and ambient surface temperatures heat up and cool in cycles and they have for billions of years, and there is nothing that mankind presently can do about that. Think on it. Lance Winslow – Lance Winslow’s Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/.
Online News Video Of A "green" fleet
Climate Modeling Proves Global Warming
Scientists Ask For Higher CO2 Cuts at Copenhagen’s Spring
Scientists Ask For Higher CO2 Cuts at Copenhagen’s Spring
The International Scientific Congress on Climate Change was held in Copenhagen between 10th to 12th March and organised by the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU): the conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report next June. Almost 1,600 scientific contributions of researchers from over 70 countries have been received, and more than 2,500 delegates attended the event.
Connie Hedegaard, Minister of Climate & Energy of Denmark said that we have “to avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable” and she pointed to their example: this European country has become a net energy exporter in 30 years, creating a green growth as a stable solution of the 70s oil crisis. The messages of the congress are various. The risk that current trends of the climatic system will accelerate has a more defined and significant meaning: more probable abrupt and irreversible shifts, and we are already above the worst scenarios published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001. Thus the big problem is trying to at least slow down these trends if not reverse them. The experts tell us that fast regional and global mitigation strategies are needed and that the more we wait the more expensive and ambitious actions will have to be taken in the future. The fact that scientists have come to the point of saying that “Inaction is Inexcusable” means also that people who studied relentlessly for decades are frustrated by the inaction of governments, businesses and people: it is understandable given that their work has not been considered and used enough, if not at all, up to now. They are speaking louder and clearer now. The different roles of politicians and scientists have to be combined. It is time for leaders to rely firmly on science as a basis for tough and unavoidable decisions. A “societal transformation” is being asked for by a wide group of the most intelligent people on the planet including diffusion of sustainable behaviours, innovative leadership, removal of subsidies and reduction of “vested interests”. These are all very explicit messages to politicians and public alike: there is a lot of work to do between now and next December’s COP15.
In the final debate the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, summarised the six messages given by scientists as 6 keywords: Urgency (of the climate change challenge), Direction (long term target to be defined), Action (short term targets to be set), Fairness (to the poorest and most vulnerable), Opportunity (to originate large benefits), Governance (creation of a new global multilateral era). He stated firmly that “Business As Usual is dead” and asked his colleagues to follow Obama’s call for a Green New Deal, already asked for by public opinion and by many political parties in the world.
After the final debate with the panel of scientists an impatient Rasmussen asked for clear words on the CO2 emission target to be set in the new treaty. Prof. Daniel Kammen, Obama’s Senior Policy Advisor, stated that an entire new industrial revolution is needed to cut 1990’s CO2 emissions by 80% in 2050 and Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf agreed on this point. The feeling was that the other panelists didn’t mind… At this point the Prime Minister concluded that the ambition for COP15 can be this -80% long-term objective following the precautionary principle to avoid worse impacts (than the ones presented in 2007 IPCC report) already hypothesized by new works. Overall a more direct communication between scientists and policy makers took place in this huge meeting: now it’s time for delegations to study and prepare the ground for brave steps forward to be made by the international community in Copenhagen’s crucial Conference of the Parties #15. Will we be able to navigate better our “ship” in the solar system during the over 200 rotations it will make before then?
Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding to Climate Change.
For further information on Climate Change please visit the Responding to Climate Change website –
http://www.rtcc.org
*Next event: Copenhagen, 24-26 May 2009. World Business Summit on Climate Change
Clarian's box o' solar rides on Kleiner Perkins love to nab GE win …
Iris Kuo is the VentureBeat’s lead GreenBeat writer. She has reported for The Wall Street Journal in Hong Kong, Houston …
GE Invests In Makers Of Solar-Powered Air Conditioners, And Eleven …
At a conference held by General Electric (GE) this morning in New York, chief executive Jeff Immelt revealed his company’s plans to invest $45 million in twelve digital energy, or smart-grid related companiesâ?? the first of several …
Solar Energy From Sahara Desert Could Power Europe â?? But At What …
Middle East The leading clean technology and environment news site on the Middle East.
Largest Solar Power Plant In New England, Western Massachusetts …
PITTSFIELD, Mass. â?? On land poisoned by toxins from a long-gone manufacturing era, more than 6500 solar panels face the south sky, capturing the sunlight of a late autumn day in the Berkshire Mountains. They’re ready to deliver power to …
VIDEO: Solar-Powered Keyboards
If you have opted for a wireless keyboard know the importance of rechargeable batteries and wall charger. Although it is easier to charge after while.
Green Tip – Moms Use Clothe Diapers
Green Tip – Moms Use Clothe Diapers
Sure, this is a little messier than the easier, disposable version. However, do you even realize the amount of disposable diapers that are filling landfills?? Cloth diapers are a choice that every mother should seriously consider. Let’s look at some facts that are quite alarming…
Disposable Diapers Sobering Facts:
* from birth to about 2-1/2 the average child will go through about 7,300 diapers
* the cost for that is about $2600
* 18 billion diapers enter landfills each year
* disposable diapers make up about 3.4 million tons of trash
* health risks such as fertility issues in males, eyes, nose and throat issues and even asthma-like symptoms have been connected to disposable diapers!
* long term negative affects on animal and water life.
* the chemicals that make disposable diapers white increase the risk of cancer
* affect development
* they use more water. yep. you may need to wash cloth diapers, however, way more water is used making disposable diapers!
* a study, conducted by Anderson Laboratories in 1999 and published in the Archives of Environmental Health, found that disposable diapers release chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and dipentene. They have been shown to have toxic health effects, such as cancer and brain damage, when used over time or high exposure.
* they use 1.3 million tons of wood pulp. that’s about 1/4 million trees every year.
* they take up to 500 years to break down.
* more viruses than you want to know about…including polio, survive for two weeks or more after disposed of.
There are many many many more reasons to avoid disposable diapers. However, I think our readers are intelligent and the above information is enough to get you thinking! Research for yourself. You will be shocked!
Go for organic natural reusable cloth diapers. You will not only be helping the environment and saving money, you will also protect your sweet precious love bugs from harm!
Copyright © Green Christian Network, All Rights Reserved
About the Author: Cindy Taylor is a Christian stay at home Mom who love the Lord and cares about God’s planet. You can see her passion and writing at her website, Green Christian Network (http://greenchristiannetwork.com).
pros and cons of solar energy â?? Pros and cons of solar power | The … Pros and cons of solar energy is energy that is most talked about these days. This is because not everyone is aware of its benefits and drawbacks. Everything comes as a package having its share of pros and cons of solar energy. … Solar Power Lures J.R. Ewing, Holy See – The Source – WSJ Larry Hagman, who played the ruthless and cunning oil baron JR Ewing in “Dallas,” the ’80s TV series, is no longer in the oil business. He’s in green energy. Sol Cinema: The World's Smallest Solar-Powered Movie Theater … The Sol Cinema is the world’s smallest solar powered cinema. Biofuels, Solar Power Farther Along Than Many Think – Report Advanced biofuels, CSP, and solar PV will see accelerating adoption and growth and are on track to change the global energy mix far earlier than is often assumed. Their costs are falling rapidly, and they are on the path to becoming … Sharp Completes Recurrent Solar Acquisition for $305 Million … Sharp is better know for its other products, of course, but this technology giant is gaining more and more of a solar energy presence. To up its clean energy focus, it recently bought 100% of Recurrent Energy stock for $305 million. …Green Technology Airline Flight Test
A Summary of the Pending GHG Regulations
A Summary of the Pending GHG Regulations
The newly formed Obama administration has listed greenhouse gas (GHG) tracking and reporting as a major goal, with the objective of protecting the future of the environment by reducing today’s carbon footprint. If no action were taken, the makeup of the earth would significantly altered. Future actions will establish a market drive carbon cap and trade program to drive GHG emissions reductions.
Greenhouse Gas tracking is outlined in The Climate Registry Protocol, which details the requirements for mandatory monitoring and tracking. The premise around greenhouse gas tracking are included in the U.S. Clean Air Act, aimed at improving air quality and lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes mandatory reporting of the gases contributing to global climate change from about 13,000 facilities nationwide. These facilities account for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions within the United States and present a logical starting point for emissions reductions in the US. The regulation would cover companies that either release large amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) directly or produce or import fuels and chemicals that when burned emit large amounts of carbon (CO2) gases.
One of the major focuses of the Greenhouse Gas tracking protocol is refrigerant gases used in refrigeration and cooling systems by numerous facilities, including manufacturers, food processors, retailers, grocery stores, office buildings, municipalities and hospitals, just to name a few. Because of their chemical makeup, refrigerant gases contain significant levels of carbon in the form of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Use of these compounds has been regulated under the U.S. Clean Air Act for several years.
Greenhouse gases absorb and release radiation into the atmosphere, setting off a global warming effect on earth. The intent and overall goal of GHG tracking relates to better collection and management of the emissions data now so informed decisions can be made about future carbon trading schemes. The tracking protocols also help government entities to more accurately inventory the amounts of emissions reaching the atmosphere. The new GHG legislation puts in motion the data collection, organization, and first stage reporting mechanisms to allow the US to accurately calculate and maintain a GHG emissions baseline across the entire economy. This will allow for better understanding today as well as to determine progress for future Cap and Trade programs. With this accurate information, it can be determined if the guidelines are effective in lowering the harmful effects of these substances to the ozone layer.
Greenhouse Gas tracking involves measuring direct and indirect emissions and keeping extensive records on its usage, maintenance, leak containment and disposal. Heating and cooling systems, as well as other energy consumption, are defined as direct emissions.
Better and more effective GHG management is an objective of the current US government. No longer will the US sit by and watch the world attack the issue of climate change. The US is now taking action to lower carbon emissions to the betterment of future generations. By taking no action, the earth’s makeup would significantly change, with humans and animals adversely affected and marine and plant life severely damaged.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) management and reporting is now falling under the EPA regulations contained within The U.S. Clean Air Act because the causes of global climate change is now well know. Human activities and the use of global warming substances, like refrigerant gases, are all leading to increased global warming. The substances are carbon dioxide, chlorine, bromine, nitrous oxide, chloroflurocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, methane, methyl bromide, methyl chloroform, sulfur hexafluoride, hydroxyl, perfluorocarbobs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, fluorine, and the fluorinated gases hydrofluorinated ethers and nitrogen trifluoride. The mandatory law is aimed at reducing the use of these substances to lower the effects of global warming.
Beginning in 2010, GHG management, tracking, and reporting will be environmental law for the highest emitting facilities. Part of the management will revolve around better tracking and reporting of refrigerant gases. Entities must submit usage reports and service records for all refrigerants having high GWP. Special calculations are applied to refrigerants when any leads occur. The GHG emission reporting rules and related protocols allow for progressive companies to take advantage of software already created to help with carbon emissions reporting. Some web applications allow organizations to track GHGs to the asset level across global, distributed facilities.
Software provided by Verisae tracks carbon dioxide (CO2) gas emissions according to The Climate Registry protocols across all sites so companies can manage their carbon emissions and work towards reducing their carbon footprint. To learn more effective refrigerant management tactics and the tools, you can research http://www.Refrigerant-Tracker.com
A Solar-Powered Gym So Cool It Might Convince You to Exercise
This French gym is so bizarre looking, it might compel you to do a few laps out of curiosity. But it’s also highly functionalâ??enormous windows provide lighting during the day, with a solar panels juicing bulbs at night.
Individuals can gain lots of advantages of solar energy. Solar energy in facts converts the sun’s rays into electricity with the assist of solar panels. And the.
Intersolar: Lower Prices on Solar BUT Barriers To Growth | Triple …
Bill Roth, founder of Earth 2017 and author of The Secret Green Sauce reports on the competitive prices now being achieved by utility scale solar PV power plants and conducts a video interview on a breakthrough solar tracking technology …
Six utility-scale solar power plants approved for California …
The approval of six major solar power projects on public land in California shows the federal government, states, and private enterprise really can work together.
Residential Solar Power â?? Know Just How It Can Improve Our Future
Solar power that is generated by solar panels can be a silent method and doesn’t involve any moving components. Solar power is energy which is made from the sun.
Water Efficiency – The Resource Matrix Part 2 of 4 – Water’s Role in Global Warming
Water Efficiency – The Resource Matrix Part 2 of 4 – Water’s Role in Global Warming
Last week, we introduced you to the Resource Matrix, which is everywhere, it is all around us. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
We showed you how economics leads to people maximizing their benefits in “win-lose” propositions: you want diamonds and gold for nothing and they want to give you useless junk for a king’s ransom. And how we’ve been hypnotized in believing what they want is also what we want.
But the scales have been falling from our eyes, we’re beginning to see the truth, and the power has been shifting away from the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd:
- Do-gooders have increased our awareness and worked to change deals from “win-lose” to “win-win”
- There is no “free lunch:” finite energy resources will run out; actions have consequences, and the consequences of our actions are already visible, rather scary, and quite irreversible; and that the “I want your goodies for nothing” crowd hasn’t been telling the truth
We now realize we’re all in this together: we have greater awareness of our actions and the desire to change, and have ways to change.
Hallelujah and Praise the Collective!
Today, we introduce the resource called water, its parallels with fossil fuels, and its role in global warming.
None of this is to dismiss or diminish the contribution of fossil fuels in global warming. Hey, just like the Special Olympics, if you participate, you get a medal. We just think that gold-medal winner Fossil Fuels has stolen the spotlight, letting silver-medalist Water Use keep us hypnotized in believing that water is a free lunch, and that nature will clear up polluted waters while getting away with breaking the rules.
Water, water, everywhere,
not a drop to drink.
According to our friends at How Stuff Works, who I wrote about sarcastically for their oxymoronic clean coal article in discussing how true public relations stuff really works, gives us this data:
- 98% of the planet’s water is in the oceans. It’s salt water – we can’t drink it or irrigate our crops with it.
- 2% is usable. Of that 2%:
- 80% is locked up in polar ice caps and glaciers
- 18% is underground in aquifers and wells
- 1.8% is in lakes and rivers
- 0.2% is elsewhere: either floating in the air as clouds and water vapor, locked up in plants and animals (and your body), and in foods and beverages.
Okay, so 20% of the usable water (only 0.4% of all water on Earth) is accessible, right?
Well . . . no. Many of the aquifers, wells, lakes, and rivers have been sucked dry like a once-juicy fly carcass in a spider’s web. (The 18% and 1.8% you see above is like the money in the Social Security Fund: there actually is nothing there.)
And many of those water sources that do still have a drop to drink are worse than the ocean’s salt water. Drink salt water and you’ll need to yawn into a bucket. Drink this water and you’ll kick the bucket.
And I know you aren’t asking this burning question:
“So . . . global warming to release fresh water from ice caps and glaciers is a good thing, no?”
Percentage this, percentage that.
Talk my language, will you?
I know I’m pulling the disgusting old government trick: drowning you in an ocean of water statistics.
So let’s make it plain and simple:
You bring in $10,000 a month. You’re also living high on the hog and doing your personal best to outshine every bling-bling Hip Hopster Musical Artist in materially conspicuous consumption:
- $9800 goes to the McMansion mortgage and gold-plated Rolls Royce lease
- $160.00 goes to investments in clothing and accessories
- $0.40 has been lost in the sofa cushions
- $39.60 a month is for everything else: food, phone and electric bills, income taxes, and all the other non-essentials: Don’t spend it all in one place!
Aquifers and wells and lakes and rivers:
Dry or polluted, oh my!
Fred Pearce, author of When the Rivers Run Dry, helps us quickly understand it:
We can all save water in the home. But as laudable as it is to take a shower rather than a bath and turn off the faucet while brushing our teeth, we shouldn’t get hold of the idea that regular domestic water use is what is really emptying the world’s rivers. Manufacturing goods … consumes a certain amount, but that’s not the real story either. It is only when we add in the water needed to grow what we eat and drink that the numbers really begin to soar. (emphasis mine.) (Fred Pearce, When the Rivers Run Dry, Boston: Beacon Press, 2006. p 3)
Here are a few numbers he gives:
- to grow a pound of rice: 250 to 650 gallons of water
- to grow a pound of wheat: 130 gallons
- to produce a quart of milk: 500 to 1000 gallons
- to produce a pound of cheese: 650 gallons
- to produce a 1/4 pound of burger: 3000 gallons
He kindly puts water use into perspective in annual terms:
- 1 ton (265 gallons) for drinking
- 50 to 100 tons (13,250 to 26,500 gallons) around the house
- 1500 to 2000 tons (397,500 to 530,000 gallons) for food and clothing
—————————————–
sidebar:
How Many Gallons to Produce One Pound of Beef?
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
US Beef industry’s Cattlemen’s Association: 441 gallons
Fred Pearce: 12,000 gallons
Water Footprint Network: 1854 gallons (calculations: 15500 litres of water per kg; 4079 gallons per kg; 1854 gallons per pound)
In an industrial beef production system, it takes an average three years before the animal is slaughtered to produce about 200 kg of boneless beef.
The animal consumes nearly 1300 kg of grains (wheat, oats, barley, corn, dry peas, soybean meal and other small grains), 7200 kg of roughages (pasture, dry hay, silage and other roughages), 24 cubic meter of water for drinking and 7 cubic meter of water for servicing.
This means that to produce one kilogram of boneless beef, we use about 6.5 kg of grain, 36 kg of roughages, and 155 litres of water (only for drinking and servicing).
Producing the volume of feed requires about 15300 litres of water on average.
—————————————–
Where does all that water come from?
From virtually everywhere
If it comes from imported goods (Thai rice or Egyptian cotton), the water comes from those countries.
When the water is collected from rivers or pumped from underground, as it is in much of the world, it’s:
- increasingly expensive
- increasingly likely to deprive someone of water (nothing to drink)
- increasingly likely to empty rivers and underground water reserves
And when the rivers are running low, as they are more frequently, there is less water to grow anything at all.
The water used in growing and producing goods around the world is known as “virtual water” and the trade of these goods is known as “virtual water transfers.”
And who’s the biggest water exporting Mouseketeer of them all? The United States.
When you drink coffee from Central America, you are influencing the hydrology of the region, virtually taking a share of the Costa Rican rains. The same is true within a national and regional boundaries. The Colorado River is drained so Californians can eat their Big Macs and have friends over for a Sunday afternoon barbecue.
In the same way that your use of fossil fuel is measured as a “carbon footprint,” your water use, actual and through virtual water transfer, is measured as a “water footprint.”
How big is my water footprint?
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours
Arjen Y. Hoekstra, professor at the University of Twente, the Netherlands, introduced the water-footprint concept in 2002. It “shows water use related to consumption within a nation, while the traditional indicator shows water use in relation to production within a nation.” (Hoekstra and Chapagain, Globalization of Water, Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008, p. 3)
With Hoekstra and Chapagain’s water footprint calculator (waterfootprint.org), you select your country, input food, domestic water use, and industrial goods consumption, press a button, and you get your:
- total water footprint for the year
- bar charts for the three components
- bar charts for individual food categories
For example, you’re in the US, eat only 1 pound of cereal a week (.4545 kg) and have a low-fat, low-sugar diet, use a low-flow showerhead, use a no-flush eco-toilet, and never run the tap while brushing your teeth. Two extremes:
- You’re the hippiest of the hip: making $10,000 a year: Your water footprint: 245 cubic meters (65,170 gallons)
- You’re the hippiest of the Yuppies: making $120,000: Your water footprint: 2979 cubic meters (792,414 gallons). Difference due to your income’s effect on industrial production.
Three notes on the calculations, because Professor Hoekstra is European and lives in the social welfare country that started birthing hippies in Amsterdam decades before they showed up in the US at Woodstock:
- You input kilograms for food:
- 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds = 35.2 ounces
- 1 ounce = 0.028 kilograms. 1 pound = 0.454545 kilograms
- Your water footprint is in cubic meters per year:
- 1 cubic meter = 35.3 cubic feet = 266 gallons
- The higher your income, the greater your water footprint, even if you don’t personally consume anything: you’re a capitalist pig supporting the Establishment Regime, I guess
So how is Cinnamon’s capitalist water footprint? Answer: 650 cubic meters (172,900 gallons)
I showed you mine. Now you show me yours:
Get the naked truth: Calculate your waterfootprint now:
Water’s running out:
I get the fossil fuel analogy so far.
And what about climate change?
We return to Fred Pearce’s book to find an example, of which he has oceans:
China’s Yellow River: The fifth longest in the world, it begins high in the mountains of eastern Tibet and journeys more than 3000 miles. Almost half a billion people depend on it for drinking and crop irrigation, and it’s made China the world’s largest wheat producer and second largest corn producer. Yet more than half of the lakes it feeds have disappeared over the last 20 years, and a third of pastures have turned to desert. This desertification generates huge dust storms that choke lungs in Beijing, close schools in Koreas, dust cars in Japan, and rain dust on mountains across the Pacific and Western Canada.
State irrigation projects along the Yellow River soak up the majority of its water – the total official allocations are greater than the actual flow.
The resulting drought could be an early warning sign of global warming.
Much of the declines in moisture reaching rivers is in line with prediction of climate researchers. So how does this global warming happen?
Higher air temperatures from desertification increase evaporation from oceans and intensify the water cycle. This increases atmospheric water vapor – 8 to 10% more than today. This increases global rainfall, but the rain is being redistributed: middle latitudes (read: the US) are becoming drier. Higher temperatures increase evaporation on land, meaning soil dries out faster, meaning less rainfall is reaching rivers.
The higher temperatures melt glaciers and snowpacks. At first, this leads to unpredecented floods. After the glaciers disappear, meltwaters that feed rivers disappear. The combined decreasing rainfall and increasing evaporation will lower moisture by 40% in the southern and western states.
The Sierra Nevada snowpack could diminish by 70 to 80 percent over the next 50 years. And some of the world’s most productive agricultural regions could dry up.
Global climate is becoming more extreme: the dry areas become drier, and the wet areas become wetter. And more areas are becoming dry deserts. Loss of habitat and agricultural lands. It’s a vicious cycle.
So what can you do?
Navigating through the Resource Matrix
As Fred Pearce points out, your drinking and bathing account for 0.05% of your total water consumption. Your food and clothing weigh in at 95.00%, although I find his 12,000 gallons needed to produce a pound of burger rather wild.
As Professor Arjen Y. Joekstra shows with his Water Footprint Calculator, your consumption of meats accounts for a lot, as does your guilt by association of being in an industrialized country.
The obvious solution: eat fewer e-coli burgers from your neighborhood Salt and Fat Slop Bucket restaurant.
The wiser solution: like your choices in energy use, become more aware of the resources needed to produce anything and the consequences. Such as luxurious cotton grown in the Egyptian desert.
Next article in the water efficiency series:
How an illiterate, lice-infested, foul-mouthed
peasant on some other side of the globe affects you
We continue going with the flow of water, when we show the parallel between the current hot Oil Wars and in the future cold Water Wars.
And all of this is for one purpose:
To help you see the Resource Matrix, everywhere, all around you.
Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . .
To your green, brighter future,
Cinnamon Alvarez,
A19
And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today.
You can access it now by going to: http://www.a19.com/pub/articles/
From Cinnamon Alvarez: Founder, A19 — woman-owned green manufacturer of hand-made ceramic lighting fixtures
Bright X-ray Solar Flare | Southgate Amateur Radio News Active sunspot 1121 has just unleashed one of the brightest x-ray solar flares in several years, an M5.4-class eruption at 15:36 UT on November 6th. Turning Energy Savings in London into Solar for Africa : TreeHugger Image credit: WK London, used with permission. We all know that energy conservation is good. And it is clear that solar can be a life saver in developing countries, as well as a great catalyst for improved school performance. Space Politics » US and India in space (and space solar power?) At a press conference in Washington on Thursday, American and Indian officials announced the creation of Kalam-NSS Energy Initiative to promote the development of space-based solar power (SBSP) in the two nations. … Eyes On The Solar System | Universe Today NASA’s beta version of Eyes on the Solar System, built by JPL and Caltech, offers a neat way of tracking a range of current space missions â?? for. $50 Million Australia-US Solar Research Pact | Australia | Epoch Times Australia and the United States will embark on a joint solar power research program in a bid to drive down the cost of the technology.The Classroom of Mobile Technology