Green Energy Ventilation

Archive for December, 2011

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

CO2 Footprint of a Product

We’ve certainly seen quite a few companies come out and say that their manufacturing facilities have a zero impact on the environment, meaning zero footprint, but indeed, there is much controversy on how to determine what a zero foot print is. It’s almost impossible to get to zero, even if a company goes and plants 10,000 trees over the course of 5-years.

The other day at a Think Tank meeting, we were talking about how to establish a complete CO2 discharge chain of a product, including all its components in the process of making it. From the wrappers, card board box, printing, assembly, energy to do all that, the distance the people traveled to work in what type of cars, etc. I mean really narrowing down the actual discharges.

Not because we are Global Warming alarmists, but because we feel it is not exactly correct for a company to claim Zero Emissions. And that we must have a more realistic view of the total process, Supply chain and all.

Many companies like Dell in Texas have stated that they have finally achieved zero emissions, but they were attacked for stating that, why? Because, everyone has a different concept of what nothing is. In other words we are all out there fighting over nothing and that makes no sense to anyone, no matter how you figure it.

Indeed, we should be applauding Dell for their solar panels, LEEDs certified warehouses and assembly plant and all their hard work and meaningful dedication to do the right thing. And yet, we are not doing that are we? Instead we find people attacking businesses, even those that go out of their way, spending millions of dollars to do the right thing. I ask are we doing the right thing by allowing persnickety environmental complainers to attack America’s greatest companies?

Lance Winslow – Lance Winslow’s Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/.

Free Computers of Your Green Life Segment!

An Environmental Tax to Reveal a Product’s True Cost?

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!

EPA's Science Green Technology

Fort Cherry Schools of Technology Dir.

How Can Technology Help the Environment?

How can technology help improve the environment? Are we promoting a more singular existence, where individualism is the force that is driving us along? We are now living in a world that is in an accelerated mode of change and innovation. Is this rate of change detrimental to our existence? Think about this for a moment. On the one hand we have improvements in all areas of our lives some are greater than others. On the other hand we are looking at the effects of the harmful destruction of our planet earth.

The first computers started to emerge around the 1940′s, now we have computer processors in a lot of the electronic equipment we use every day. We even have computers that can fit in your hand that have more power than the first computers.The first Television and television transmission appeared in 1925 and now we are watching gigantic flat screens, some as big as buildings and others screens as small as wrist watches. In the past 80 years the medical field has also grown in leaps and bounds in the areas of IVF, genetic research, cloning, stem cell research, along with the progress in the prevention, cure and management of various diseases. Other fields such as astronomy, environmental science, weapons/warfare and engineering have also had their fair share of extraordinary development achievements.

Looking at the issues of Global warming and human environment interaction we are currently facing within our natural environment. Should we really be in a race to ruin the land where we live? We cannot keep up with the current technology, just look at all the equipment you have taken to the recycle tip in just the last 12-24 months. Consider how many Televisions, Videos, DVD players, Computers, Laptops, Hi-fi’s and Home entertainment systems you have changed or bought recently, the list is endless. When an improvement is made to a product it can sometimes make the original product obsolete. Satellite Navigation equipment a new and easily available product for everyone. Even if you only use it once a year it is believed to be a must have product. Mobile phones is another product every man and his dog has one these days. How often do you change your mobile phone for the latest model? Can you ever imagine being without a mobile phone? How did we ever cope without them? The raw materials used to make a phone cannot be recycled easily. 

I believe as we get to understand one part(s) of our lives we seem to lose sight of others parts that are equally as important. What can be done to slow down the rate of change or how do we as a nation become more aware of the effects of the rate of change has on our environment.

If we could not have a new television or other new product until the old one had been recycled properly we would help the environment tremendously. Today if we implemented this many products or versions of products would be missed because of the speed at which technology changes. Like the latest flat screen with super clear picture quality. It seem that every other week we get the next new and improved product. Just look at washing power or washing up liquid advertisements.

Just some food for thought more to come soon.

Take advantage of more free valuable content at this website: http://computerbass.com/

You will find something of interest…

Recycle Your Second Hand Clothes

Landfill in the UK is becoming a huge problem. With the drop in the price of recycled products, the issue is what to do with all of the waste that we produce. The breakdown of waste in landfill sites creates huge amounts of the greenhouse gas methane. There are also many products that will not breakdown and will remain in the environment for ever with the potential to contaminate water supplies.

Traid, a charity specializing in the recycling of textiles reports that 900,000 tons of shoes and clothing are thrown away each year in the UK. Only 200,000 tons per year are recycled and the rest is dumped in landfill. The government estimates that similar amounts of between 550,000 and 900,000 tons of textiles are thrown away each year.

In addition to the problems of waste and landfill in the UK, there is also the consideration of the energy used and waste generated by the manufacture and distribution of clothing and textiles. Growth of cotton uses a huge amount of chemical pesticides and environmentally damaging cultivation methods. The manufacture of man made fabrics also has a huge environmental impact with. Demand for polyester the most widely used synthetic fabric has almost doubled in the last 15 years. The manufacture of polyester uses large amounts of crude oil and an energy-intensive process. It releases emissions including volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride, all of which can cause health problems for workers by causing or aggravating respiratory disease.

Second hand clothing is becoming more popular as people begin to recognise the real costs of fast fashion. Consumers are becoming more aware of their buying choices and ways that they can help the environment.

Finally, there is one more great reason to recycle second hand clothing. Just because you are fed up with a piece of clothing or it does not fit you nay more, it does not mean that it has no worth. You can make sure that the worth of your second hand clothing is realized by swapping it at a swishing party on a clothes swapping website, selling it or donating it to your favorite charity.

This article was written by Ceri Heathcote for posh-swaps.com, a website for swapping, buying and selling second hand and vintage clothing.

Clothes swapping and buying and selling second hand clothes is a great way to reduce the impact of fashion on the environment and to save money.

Going Green-6

City of Oxnard CA – Mobile Car Wash Rules Slated

The City of Oxnard, California is concerned with the quality of its storm water and rightfully so, as it has made great strides over the years. Oxnard CA is also home to the gateway to the channel islands with some incredible beaches and nice resort style living, and all that storm water leads to the ocean and those beautiful beaches. Thus, the city has chosen to start cracking down on mobile car washes.

This should not come as any surprise to anyone, as the city had previously implemented many programs to help clean the storm water runoff. They had developed a nearly bullet proof NPDES plan to insure clean water. The beaches never looked so good and this recent ruling to finish that job nearly a decade and a half later has come all the way down to washing of cars.

Our company had dealt with this issue in the late 80s and early 90s and helped write all the NPDES BMPs for several counties near there. The devices used are fairly easy to buy, and it really doesn’t take much, further it is my contention that all mobile car washes ought to follow the rules to protect the environment and there ought to be no excuses on that.

Indeed, over the years, we’ve worked with many cities on this, in fact, one thing we did was join the committees to help write the original BMPs for surface cleaners in Ventura County, CA where the City of Oxnard is located. A mobile car wash operator should not only follow the rules but be part of the solution. Think on that.

Lance Winslow – Lance Winslow’s Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/.

Temple Mecca Black Stone

Are Tsunami’s Caused by Global Warming ?

Throughout the history of our planet it has endured a constantly changing climate. It endured an ice age and has also experienced long periods of heat. But over the last two hundred years, give or take, the temperature of our planet has been steadily increasing. This change in the climate on earth is known as global warming, and global warming is the direct result of the industrial revolution.

Because of the industrial revolution, people are constantly burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal. But by burning these fuels dangerous greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) are then released into the earth’s atmosphere. These gases block heat rising from the earth from being able to escape into space. The same basic function that glass panels on greenhouses have, hence the name. Our burning of fossil fuels causes more than three quarters of all carbon dioxide emissions. Power plants and other stationary sources contribute more than half of that amount.

Along with increasing CO2 emissions, deforestation is on the increase as well. This is disastrous, because trees recycle CO2 and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. Because of the rise in deforestation levels the fossil fuels we burn are seriously jeopardizing our planet. We know that global warming is the cause of glaciers getting smaller and for the rise in sea levels. Plants and animals show clear and undeniable signs that they are affected in many different ways. Earth is experiencing longer seasons which results in rivers and lakes freezing later than usual and melting sooner. Without a doubt, global warming causes many changes and affects our planet in many ways but can it also cause a tsunami?

Nobody will ever forget the utter destruction, grief and loss left behind after the huge tsunami that hit parts of Asia on December 26th, 2004. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed, injured and traumatized. The areas it hit were left completely destroyed.

Generally speaking a tsunami is made up of a series of waves. More often than not the first one is the mildest. Prior to the arrival of the first wave, the shoreline recedes dramatically and often leaves the ocean floor exposed. They mostly occur where the water is shallow but they can also occur around coastal areas. In deep water a tsunami appears as a big wave and nothing more. In shallow water this is not the case. The wave can reach as high as one hundred metres, although, in all honesty, this is not at all common.

We know that tsunami’s can be caused by an earthquake, but this is not the only cause. They can also be caused through volcanic eruptions and landslides. Another cause is if a large amount of water is somehow displaced, such as when meteors happen to fall into large bodies of water. Tsunami’s are caused by events that can be, and are, affected by global warming, however global warming itself does not directly trigger the formation of a tsunami. Basically, it is an indirect cause.

One thing is certain, global warming is not a myth as some suggest. The planet is displaying clear signs that we dare not ignore.

For more global warming articles and daily news why not visit http://www.globalwarmingnewsblog.com – a site dedicated to information about climate change: effects, issues, causes, solutions, opinion and more.

Chek Technology Inc.