EARTHWIDE EXPERIMENT: Climate change could turn catastrophic if efforts are not made to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause it.
Image: NASA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The enormity of global warming can be daunting and dispiriting. What can one person, or even one nation, do on their own to slow and reverse climate change? But just as ecologist Stephen Pacala and physicist Robert Socolow, both at Princeton University, came up with 15 so-called "wedges" for nations to utilize toward this goal—each of which is challenging but feasible and, in some combination, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions to safer levels—there are personal lifestyle changes that you can make too that, in some combination, can help reduce your carbon impact. Not all are right for everybody. Some you may already be doing or absolutely abhor. But implementing just a few of them could make a difference.
Forego Fossil Fuels—The first challenge is eliminating the burning of coal, oil and, eventually, natural gas. This is perhaps the most daunting challenge as denizens of richer nations literally eat, wear, work, play and even sleep on the products made from such fossilized sunshine. And citizens of developing nations want and arguably deserve the same comforts, which are largely thanks to the energy stored in such fuels.
Oil is the lubricant of the global economy, hidden inside such ubiquitous items as plastic and corn, and fundamental to the transportation of both consumers and goods. Coal is the substrate, supplying roughly half of the electricity used in the U.S. and nearly that much worldwide—a percentage that is likely to grow, according to the International Energy Agency. There are no perfect solutions for reducing dependence on fossil fuels (for example, carbon neutral biofuels can drive up the price of food and lead to forest destruction, and while nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases, it does produce radioactive waste), but every bit counts.
So try to employ alternatives when possible—plant-derived plastics, biodiesel, wind power—and to invest in the change, be it by divesting from oil stocks or investing in companies practicing carbon capture and storage.
Infrastructure Upgrade—Buildings worldwide contribute around one third of all greenhouse gas emissions (43 percent in the U.S. alone), even though investing in thicker insulation and other cost-effective, temperature-regulating steps can save money in the long run. Electric grids are at capacity or overloaded, but power demands continue to rise. And bad roads can lower the fuel economy of even the most efficient vehicle. Investing in new infrastructure, or radically upgrading existing highways and transmission lines, would help cut greenhouse gas emissions and drive economic growth in developing countries.
Of course, it takes a lot of cement, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, to construct new buildings and roads. The U.S. alone contributed 50.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in 2005 from cement production, which requires heating limestone and other ingredients to 1,450 degrees Celsius (2,642 degrees Fahrenheit). Mining copper and other elements needed for electrical wiring and transmission also causes globe-warming pollution.
But energy-efficient buildings and improved cement-making processes (such as using alternative fuels to fire up the kiln) could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world and prevent them in the developing world.
See what we're tweeting about
60 Comments
Add CommentOne often ignored generator of greenhouse gas, the worst greenhouse gas, namely methane, is the septic tank. It is also a major polluter and health risk since it dumps raw untreated sewage into the environment and nitrates that can cause miscarriage and death of small children. We need to get rid of them and replace them with household treatment systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right, although septic systems are relatively small source compared to sewage treatment plants and landfills. However, there is no doubt that the waste issue (to put it politely) is a large one. Fortunately, there seem to be some good solutions on offer, whether it be capturing the methane produced at landfills and using it as fuel or, dare I say it, recycling some of those other waste products.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is about 3.6 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and human activity puts out about 52 billion tons per year...or 0.014%. Are we going to make that much of a difference?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am surprised that the article did not include wood burning as an activity to eliminate; it is regarded as "the fastest-growing form of pollution in American cities." Unfortunately, people think it is a "solution" rather than the pollution it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForget wood burning in American cities. What we really need to eliminate is wood and charcoal and dung burning in villages throughout the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[url http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=235006DA-E7F2-99DF-30481E19A0C76818]Brown Haze from Cooking Fires Cooking Earth, Too[/url]
Good points were made. Smaller family size was listed near the back but probably should be close to the front of the list. Smaller houses is missing from the list. The statement about divesting oil stocks and investing in companies practicing carbon capture seems simplistic and not well researched. How would selling oil stocks reduce consumption of petroleum products? How many companies practicing carbon storage are traded on stock exchanges? Finally, the statement about bad roads and fuel economy also needs explanation. Is this refering to extra miles driven in Senegal as drivers swerve to avoid holes in the road? I doubt bad roads are even a minor contributor to climate change in comparison to other factors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEach uran atom burnt for electricity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisis one missing for
atomic bombs ;
nuclear stations of the 4th generation should be accelerated to burn the nuclear waste, to generate Hydrogen and to get nearer to the Fusion.
Otherwise to much
money will be wastet to "detect" alternative Mini-
bioenergies, only
taking away the food
of the poor people !
You can have only
a big and bigger growing world - by
producing more
big energies and not by saving and
producing more
small energies !
Ah the irony of climate change, what I was hoping that someone would point out is that some oil company stocks are exactly the same stocks you would buy if you were investing in carbon capture and storage (so far, only used for things like getting more oil or natural gas out of the ground). As for bad roads, it's not Senegal but the U.S. of A. that I'm talking about. Check your gas mileage between rural routes and interstates (or heck, even just interstates that are poorly maintained). Of course, that's another wonder of oil...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow long is it going to take before it is realized that warming has been going on for a long time. If we believe the geologic record, 30,000 years ago, where Seattle now is, there were 300 ft. of ice. 15000 years ago, Lake Missoula was filling and emptying as ice retreated. 10000 years ago the Cascade Range was covered with glaciers. They are now almost gone. The planet warms whether we tie ourselves in knots or not. Learn, grow, adapt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo doubt climate change is a recurring feature of the planet. But we are tipping the scales on the present one and taking ourselves into territory we may not like (such as New York becoming an Amsterdam, to take an example from the opposite coast.) Learn, grow, adapt indeed but also mitigate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"yet it takes roughly 10 gallons of oil to make one gallon of JetA fuel. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this comment is someone disingenuous. It implies that 10 gallons of crude go into a refinery and 1 gallon of JetA comes out. That is not the case. You get gasoline, diesel and all kinds of feedstocks as well.
Please check out "biodiesel biochar". This simple technology would give us fuel from renewable sources, perpetually rich soils for our crops and (if widely used) radically reduce CO2 in the atmosphere!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was calculated somewhere that it would take something like one 2004 tsunami a day for 18 years to bring the world's human population down to levels that could enable us to reach some kind of 'balance with nature'. I've not done that depressing math. However, if that is even about half- right, then 9 of the 10 'solutions' proposed are not real answers to our plight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisearth sq mi 55,985,955
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisacres / sq mi 640
acres on earth 35,831,011,200
Acres to support 1 human per UN 54
humans earth can support per UN 663,537,244
what is wrong with the above picture?
Also, how can 7 lbs of gasoline produce 20 lbs of CO2?
--
Edited by Donatwork at 12/12/2007 12:16 PM
> Also, how can 7 lbs of gasoline produce 20 lbs of
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> CO2?
I'll tell you how. IPCC model, that's how. The way models and calculations go is: "Crap in, crap out..." then write a paper and hope Al Gore or Sc. Am. picks it up.
--
Edited by jrtorres at 12/14/2007 11:41 AM
"Also, how can 7 lbs of gasoline produce 20 lbs of CO2?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe gasoline contributes the "C" part but not the "O2" part. That's contributed by the air through oxidation, or "burning" in the common vernacular. "CO2" means there are two oxygen atoms for each carbon atom. Additionally, each oxygen atom weighs about 4/3 as much as a carbon atom, so if you completely oxidize 7 lbs of carbon into CO2 you get about 25 2/3 lbs of CO2. "25 2/3? But they said 20!" Well, gasoline is part hydrogen too, so that takes away some of that 7 lbs from CO2 production, but hydrogen atoms are only about 1/12 as heavy as carbon atoms so it's not that much of a reduction. The rest is due to incomplete oxidation, making part of the exhaust carbon monoxide, CO, the stuff that makes sitting in a running car in a closed garage so dangerous and such a classic method of suicide.
And I'm not even a chemist!
--
Edited by Johnay at 12/16/2007 10:41 PM
Based on figures in your article, If I do the following math, it appears the earth has 6 billion people to many.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissq mi of land 56,000,000
acres / sq mi 640
acres on earth 35,840,000,000
Acres to support 1 human, per UN 54
humans earth can support, per UN 663,703,704
Where am I wrong?
Thanks for the explanation, now I'll try and understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe [url http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/report/06_Regional_Perspectives.pdf]report[/url] the article cites actually cites [url http://www.ecologicalfootprint.org/pdf/Footprint%20of%20Nations%202005.pdf]this report[/url] for the figures. It includes marine & inland fisheries and open ocean.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you put a time frame on solutions, I fear that your last suggestion of needing some form of geoengineering will become a major player. And so shouldn't we be studying the benefits and side effects instead of treating this approach like "the crazy aunt in the attic?" I have public and private communications from IPCC members agreeing that we need to study; but quickly moving from the subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Sol Shapiro at 12/20/2007 1:27 PM
Here's an idea that needs further thought: It seems to me that it might be better to promote landfilling over incineration and use of virgin fiber rather than recycling pulp when the global carbon balance is considered. When reforesting practices are employed, and used paper is land-filled, is this not an efficient carbon-sequestering cycle even more efficient than original forest?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthank u very much for the art., if followed even a bit, this will not only evove and benefit humanity intellectually but also spiritually, i feel personally, that so called developed societies need to follow this more strictly to save themselves/ the planet, also i'd suggest that if R & D could be done to break the poly-carbon chain of the waste/ scrapped polymers such as tyres, electronics items plastics, PVC etc. to convert them into usable fuel then we could save the humanity in a great way. thanks, from- Suman Dayal, New Delhi
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans have separated themselves from other creatures with several "breakthrough" discoveries. Fire, for example. Tools, the domestication of animals, the wheel, etc. About a hundred years ago, a significant discovery boosted Mankind into our modern dilemma. The fixation of Nitrogen allowed for two world wars, and the explosion of population from 1 billion to 6 billion. The ultimate solution to separating human existence from dependency on the Earth's resources lies in the ability to duplicate what a plant does. Fix Carbon. If humans could create fuel, food, and fiber from air, water and electricity (from non-fossil fuel obviously) and also let loose a benign germ that caused autoimmune contraception, then cohabitation of civilized humanity and all other living creatures could then co-exist. Micro-fusion and carbon fixation, combined with controlled population growth, is the answer to global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHemp. Save the trees, make fuel, build houses... the list goes on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"SOLUTIONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE"? Folks, climate change is inevitable. It is not a "problem" that can be solved. It is an ineviable fact of life - a force of nature literally! More importantly climate change cannot be stopped. Those who think otherwise should get out more. Yes, there will be adverse consequences - but the sea level was rising long before anthropogenic climate change scams became the biggest hoax in history. Besides the alternative to global warming is global cooling resulting in miles of ice covering much of North America, Asia and Europe. That what you prefer? Me? NO THANKS - I will take some more warming any time!
Who voted that the 1970 decade was "the best" temperature anyway? What, you think suddenly if we waste billions, no actually TRILLIONS of dollars suddenly there will be no more hurricanes, no more floods, no more famine, heat waves, wildfires, drought and no more climate change?
WRONG!
All those things will still happen. We just will have wasted all the money and resources we had on the scam of anthropogenic warming so we will just suffer all the more with every disaster.
Sheesh, some people are idiots!
in his multiple spam posts on the last page "JohnGault" says:
"Micro-fusion and carbon fixation, combined with controlled population growth, is the answer to global warming."
Good luck on items 1 and 3. Item 2, well at least for now good luck there too. EX: they have been talking about how the wonders of a fusion driven world are "just around the corner" since well before most of us were alive I bet.
Ah, even here - on page 1 of posts - dibiello is spreading his misinformation although - to his credit - he got the first sentence right. It's a wonder he could not continue the trend by extending the simple logic of that one fact he got right.:
"No doubt climate change is a recurring feature of the planet. But we are tipping the scales on the present one and taking ourselves into territory we may not like (such as New York becoming an Amsterdam, to take an example from the opposite coast.)"
The claim "we are tipping the scales" implies two things: First, that there ever was a balance. On just about any scale we look back at the climate of the Earth it is clear there NEVER WAS A BALANCE. Change is the only constant evident. Second, that man is more powerful than nature, than the sun, etc. Yeah, dibiello, you go and believe that if you must but please stop insulting intelligent people by expecting to win them over to your fantasy world please.
I got news for you. The sea level has been much higher and much lower and man had NOTHING to do with it just like he has NOTHING to do with it this time. Get a clue - I and others keep throwing them at you and I know several of them had to hit you right smack in the face yet you keep saying "What was that" and continue on as blind, deaf and dumb as ever.
--
Edited by Greg001 at 01/27/2008 2:34 AM Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
http://www.energybulletin.net/21736.html "world food supply just about meets demand, with no reserve to cover further population growth. But the population will grow anyway, and the world's existing grain supply for human consumption is being eroded by three different factors: meat, heat and biofuels."
Biofuels are the developed world's "let them eat cake" solution. There is only one global warming solution that will not result in provoking major war following plummeting living standards due to per capita demand outstripping supplies of food and energy. Nuclear power. Use safe, air-cooled designs from Sweden. Biofuels cannot do it without dooming the world in decades to mass starvation and removing virtually all forests from the planet. We have to stop pretending these "Mother-goose beautiful" fake solutions will work in a holistic picture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverybody is talking about reducing stuff that they think contribute to climate change. I haven't heard or read anything discussing what to do to counteract the effect of what we are emitting into the atmosphere or something. We need INNOVATION!! Imagine if we did not have firemen and fire fighting apparatus and we just depended on "don't play with matches, turn off your heater before you leave the room, maybe make sure you have a lightning arrester so your house will not be set on fire by the lightning!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to hear some ideas!! Can we do something to contain/capture/counteract the alleged causes of climate change?
We don't really want to go back to the old ages, hanging our clothes outside to dry, not use computers because they use up energy, etc.
For all we know, those thousands(the rate it is going, probably gazillions in the next few years) of windmills will probably affect the earth's weather because the gulf stream may be altered. Who knows!
--
Edited by Ano Nymous at 02/07/2008 7:52 PM
Great Article. Keep it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood Article. Keep it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatureguy
its2hot.in
I am 99% sure that it's simply too late to do anything to stop the Titanic from sinking. All we can hope is that the survivors can salvage human knowledge so that those few who will survive don't enter a long if not permanent dark age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts not the climate change from 15,000 or 30,000 years ago until now that we are worried about. Its the climate change from here going forward that has us concerned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyay
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisoops. Anyways, what I meant to say was that I think your data proves exactly just how much of an impact we are having. at 52 billion tons of CO2/year, every 20 years we are putting out 1 trillion additional tons. That means about every 70 years we are doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Additionally, this model assumes that we continue producing 54 billion tons per year when every reliable source suggests otherwise, that the global continue will continue its current trend of increasing emissions. So we are looking at doubling CO2 AT LEAST every 70 years according to you? Yeah I'd say we are making a difference......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe follwoing book offers a major climate change solution. It is based on ecoo-taxation and claims to have the power to turn things around for the environment. There is a lot of information at the publisher's website below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 21st Century Environmental Revolution: A Comprehensive Strategy for Conservation, Global Warming, and the Environment / Mark C. Henderson.
The book has received a positive review by David McCorquodale, co-chair of Green Pages, the US Green Party quarterly (http://www.gp.org/greenpages/index.php). See it an other information at the publisher's website:
<a href="http://wavesofthefuture.net/">Waves of the Future</a>
Keywords: <a href="http://wavesofthefuture.net/">eco-taxation strategies</a>, <a href="http://wavesofthefuture.net/">global warming solutions</a>
in the last 900,000 years, CO2 concentration has never exceeded 280 ppm, and that includes during the hottest of greenhouse phases. today, the average amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the U.S. easily exceeds 380 ppm. the earth transitions from greenhouse to icehouse phases once every 100,000 years, (at least for the last 900,000 years). before 1.2 million years ago the transition was about 41,000 years (in tune with the earth's obliquity or 'axial tilt' periodicity, however no one really knows why or how this shift in transition periods happened). the concern with increasing climate has nothing to do with it being unnatural or anything of the sort, since it has been happening for millions upon millions of years. the concern lies in the rate at which it is happening. had a dramatic increase in CO2 like this been seen 10,000 years ago, one would have literally seen the fastest shift from an icehouse-greenhouse in earth's geologic history. we are currently experiencing the earth's 7th mass extinction, one which took no more than 150 years to propogate (in contrast to the tens of thousands of years it took for previous extinctions to ensue).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisiron fertilization of the oceans is currently one of the most viable ways to directly sequester carbon from the atmosphere. the fertilization of iron (a mineral which is delivered to the oceans before every ice house due to glacial scraping against bedrock) increases the productivity of the phytoplankton which reside on the ocean surfaces. clearly, this is another risk entirely and of a different caliber. it isn't a matter of whether or not man 'can' or 'should' alter or 'better' nature for his or its benefit (clearly a huge issue in ecological & environmental ethics), simply that when man does try to alter nature he usually 'messes it up' one way or another. a great example of this is the attempt to control the infestation of russian olive trees or tamarisk in the west by introducing the salt cedar leaf beetle from asia. there are now two major infestations that are taking over floral and faunal ecosystems throughout the great basin and beyond.
a solution must be sought not just in humanity's ability to adapt technologically, but in behavior modification which emphasizes the recognition of regional biotas as a whole. this includes tending to local economy, self reliance regarding food provision, & the preservation of whatever wildlife we have left. these things may not reverse climate change per se, but they would certainly ease man's inevitable transition to being sustainable once again.
Our industrial revolution needs to strive towards "greener" production facilities... thus having less of a carbon imprint..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHOORAY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat to see realism about the climate debate, instead of 10 solutions there is just 1 that encompasses all solutions which is simple, transparent, and avoids regulations.
100% ENERGY TAX to replace all other taxes, corporate, national, personal, property, death, consumer taxes and any others you can dream up.
The ENERGY TAX would be implemented over a 5 year period replacing all the other taxes one by one and collected at source , for example at the well or pit head ,or quarry.
This tax would be based on the potential energy value of the substances and a single price put on these per unit of energy.
The collection of this tax would be simple and far easier to control against fraud and evasion.
To encourage the correct direction of reduced energy use, environmental good behavior, and social harmony, a system of rebates would be introduced.
These rebates would be to give families rewards for reducing population and staying together as a family unit and not requiring social handouts.
Rebates for environmental and energy conservation would be only temporary to encourage the correct direction of the corporate and personal way of life.
The real benefit would be to make energy the real debate in all parts of life and question the direction and the uses it is put to.
The capitalist system would remain in so far as it is necessary to have ambition, drive, and enthusiasm for the new way forward.
MONEY=ENERGY=CLIMATE CHANGE
This formula is simple and shows that it is the financial system that has to change and find new ways of running a smart economy with less money and subsequently less energy.
Money is only a tool by which we transfer energy from one form to another and pass energy from one person to another.
Money is also a store of potential energy that can be released when needed, with the purchase of goods, energy and labour.
Simple
Transparent
Easy to understand
Equal to all
Rebates and overall tax reduction
Theses are all the things politicians are asking for but due to personal greed and selfishness are not prepared to take the bold decisions necessary.
Obama is a breath of fresh air, but THIS is the real step needed to save civilization as we know it for our children, not to mention our grandchildren.
What changed our lives since the middle-ages? It is technology. And every new wave or generation of technology will do that again. Now we need urgently a new generation of technology on energy efficiency and energy generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNowadays politicians however are primarily communicators whithout the expierience and knowledge to manage and stimulate technological change.
China is an exception to this. They will, on economical motives, adapt to the new energyword just as Japan adapted to be a car-production country after worldwar 2.
Massive investments in current technology will not help us enough. It is time to think better.
A CO2 reduction plan was envisaged during my M.Sc. in Environmental Technology, as a class-assignment in 1999-2000. It was a low tech plan which could easily be put into practice where the whole world could come to play. The plan offered a new dimension to carbon trade for businesses. The outline was as below-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFast-growing trees assimilate CO2 out of air fast (4 times faster than natural forests). We need to harvest these trees for their fast growing period in selected areas around the world. The harvest (dry hard wood is >50% carbon and very slow degrading; about 25% of fresh wood is carbon) will be put away into caves, empty mines and natural faults- thus putting away atmospheric CO2 safely and cheaply for a very long time. After all, thousands of years old similar fossilized trees we use (oil, coal and gas) cause air CO2 to rise. Why not put back some?
A Chinese saying is Catastrophe = Opportunity . Could we not witness the CO2 rise as an opportunity to store some energized Carbon (similar to currency?) for foreseeable future use? Businesses may choose to grow & bury calculated numbers of trees each year to compensate for their extra carbon emission need. This plan will help developing countries come to terms with the worlds Carbon Trade agreement where they can even keep the harvest for themselves. The plan allows a proportionate trade between businesses and the earth, which is only apt.
This act means no offense to tree-lovers, forest-lovers or nature lovers. Only newly grown, purposefully, commercially harvested trees will be used, leaving natural forests alone. Scientists will calculate the numbers of trees required each year and decide types of trees to harvest for total sustainability.
Desperate time calls for desperate measures. I know this is not The solution, but as an Environmental Technologist I believe it has the signature of being a substantial part of it.
Here I urge all Environmental Action Groups and scientists to commission the plan as good enough to counter any other CO2 reduction plan (if not better), and press worlds policymakers to acknowledge the same so that carbon traders may get this plan as a choice.
Unique Advantages of the Plan:
=======================
It's very easy to make armchair suggestions about what politicians and corporate conglomerates should do to stop global warming. It's much harder to make the commitment to set agressive personal goals (and achieve them) for what you will do to reduce your carbon footprint. We won't make any significant difference until we give up the American ideal of ease of lifestyle and the right to personal consumption. May I suggest grow your own food, keep a few chickens, walk to work, live in a smaller house, drive a smaller fuel efficient car - or better yet, use public transportation, shop at Goodwill, use recycled materials in home improvements, make Christmas gifts, compost yard and kitchen waste, collect rain water and install rain gardens on your property.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.greenat50.com
Let's talk technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion: Provide current technologies a sufficient solution to the climate problem.
Answer: No
Question : If you were a president, would you use all of your budget allocated for the climate problem on insufficient (current) technologies.
Answer: Up to you, but hopefully not.
In my opinion a good key of distribution = 50 % current (eg pv cells , wind turbines, housing insulation etc.) and 50 % on future technology.
Question: How do you manage the future technology generation process.
Answer:
Waiting and hoping is not the best option, understanding the process is more helpfull.
Understanding what universities can and cannot.
Understanding what the business R&D can and cannot
Understanding the technology / product live-cycles.
Understanding human motivation (to invent or not)
Understanding management.
Succes
In the mean time you might think of (see google) the geenenturbine and the geenenconcentrator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to share my interest as one of the principals of Royal Wind, we have designed an Ocean Temperature Regulatory System using our revolutionary turbines to power cold water pumps. Our system is designed to pump large amounts of cold water to the surface of the ocean to create cold water thermoclines. We believe that widespread use of our system worldwide would result in a much desired global temperature regulation and reduction. The health of our oceans and the increased carbon sequestration are linked to global sustainability. We feel that without intervention the oceans are in danger of collapse. The health of our oceans is crucial to the maintenance of oxygen levels in the atmosphere. If the oceans die, we will struggle to survive. It’s all connected: ocean health, carbon sequestration, and global temperatures. Here’s the plan:
To install our ocean-current powered cold water pumps in strategic locations worldwide, creating cold water thermoclines, increasing the sequestration of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Our system will also be used to build the polar icecap back to a more acceptable year-round base level which will also ensure the continued function of the thermohaline and of the North Atlantic drift. Our system will also be used to create cold water barriers to hurricanes. We can solve the Earth's problems with the right effort. We must if we plan to continue living on this Earth.
Erm.... now forgive me for pointing out the obvious... but even if every person on the planet disappeared tomorrow morning...along with our technology! wouldn't the surplus co2 still be there? Given that the whole argument is that we have surpassed the ability of the planet to 'sink' co2....the solution rests on getting rid of it... not simply stopping it... stopping co2 would have almost zero impact on the global warming!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisErm.... now forgive me for pointing out the obvious... but even if every person on the planet disappeared tomorrow morning...along with our technology! wouldn't the surplus co2 still be there? Given that the whole argument is that we have surpassed the ability of the planet to 'sink' co2....the solution rests on getting rid of it... not simply stopping it... stopping co2 would have almost zero impact on the global warming!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe can attribute the increase in climate change to high rate of deforestation in the tropical countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe can attribute the increase in climate change to high rate of deforestation in the tropical countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery nice outline of what can be done. Let's show that the passive ones are wrong. A lot of people in my direct area react the same: what can one man do? Typical reaction for a rationalist. But hey, let's keep dreaming of a green world and put our shoulders under the anti-global-warming movement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found a great link on eitb.com that goes into the problem and sums up the solutions. With commentary of Rajendra Pachauri. Check it out! http://www.eitb.com/infography-multimedia/climate-change/solutions.html
Very nice outline of what can be done. Let's show that the passive ones are wrong. A lot of people in my direct area react the same: what can one man do? Typical reaction for a rationalist. But hey, let's keep dreaming of a green world and put our shoulders under the anti-global-warming movement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found a great link on eitb.com that goes into the problem and sums up the solutions. With commentary of Rajendra Pachauri. Check it out! http://www.eitb.com/infography-multimedia/climate-change/solutions.html
what can i do to stop global warming?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTURNING PROBLEMS INTO OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCLIMATE CHANGE = ATTITUDE CHANGE
The solution is simple but very hard when Billions of people are involved unless something catastrophic happens..
The key is Media/TV where millions of people are watching every hour...example...
Here in the Philippines millions of tons of rice straw has been burned and being burned due to farmers ignorance = no media campaign... which could had been transformed into mushroom, handmade paper etc (100 uses). Yet we talk about
a kilo of carbon footprints...
Spirulina a 3.5 micro-algae had absorbed the CO2 and release oxygen in the ocean...3.5million years ago!
1 hectare of Spirulina culture could absorb 6.7 tons of CO2 a year..20million hectare of Spirulina culture in the Ocean could absorbed over 1.2Billion tons of CO2 in our dying Ocean every year!
Who will give away such a precious blue-green algae also known as green gold...
GEO FARM since 1990 had been absorbing CO2 and releasing oxygen and would like to culture it in the Ocean but we need help and media attention...
Edgard Guevara
+6329193402285
geofarm777@yahoo.com
geofarm777.110mb.com
We might be small but that is where big things start from...
Heal yourself... Heal the Earth!
If we put all together Eco-solutions under one roof that is Eco-village! Where Nature comes first!
Latin America includes much of the world’s biological diversity, as well as a wide variety of ecosystems, and different climatic regions. Brazil plays an important and unique role in climate change because it is one of the ten largest economies in the world and home to one of the greatest ecosystems and forests of the planet: the Amazon. Brazil is the eighth largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the third largest emitter in the developing world after China and India. Brazil suffers a lot from climate change, mainly because of the biologically diverse ecosystems. The tropical rain forest in the Amazon and the Pantanal wetland are of particular concern. Some studies show that, as temperatures rise, forest fires due to warmer, drier climate, increased deforestation and forest fragmentation could be more frequent. There is also concern that coral reefs along Brazilian coastlines could suffer from the effects of climate change, however, the studies about how climate change will affect agricultural productivity is not yet understood in detail. Another reason why Brazil’s climate change is important to the world’s climate change is Deforestation, which contributes to climate change first when forests are burnt, releasing greenhouse gases. When forests are cleared, carbon that was held in the soil is released as well, as carbon dioxide or methane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy delegation’s solutions are:
• Bring clean and renewable energy to the world´s population using a technique called microsolar that converts sunlight into energy. This new method is cheaper and easier to apply than actual solar panels. The health benefits of living free from the toxic gasses, emitted by burning kerosene, are even greatest. Recent studies show that the earth receives more energy from the sun in just one hour than the world uses in a whole year. And that wo billion people in the world have no access to electricity. For most of them, solar power would be their cheapest electricity source, but they cannot afford it.
• Stop the use of fossil fuels, instead use plant-derived plastics, biodiesel, and wind and water power.
• Every year, 33 million acres of forests are cut down. Paper recycling and forest management—balancing the amount of wood taken out with the amount of new trees growing—could quickly eliminate this significant chunk of emissions.
• Paople actually spend more money on electricity to power devices when off than when on. Purchasing energy-efficient gadgets can also save both energy and money, plus it prevents more greenhouse gas emissions.
Latin America includes much of the world’s biological diversity, as well as a wide variety of ecosystems, and different climatic regions. Brazil plays an important and unique role in climate change because it is one of the ten largest economies in the world and home to one of the greatest ecosystems and forests of the planet: the Amazon. Brazil is the eighth largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the third largest emitter in the developing world after China and India. Brazil suffers a lot from climate change, mainly because of the biologically diverse ecosystems. The tropical rain forest in the Amazon and the Pantanal wetland are of particular concern. Some studies show that, as temperatures rise, forest fires due to warmer, drier climate, increased deforestation and forest fragmentation could be more frequent. There is also concern that coral reefs along Brazilian coastlines could suffer from the effects of climate change, however, the studies about how climate change will affect agricultural productivity is not yet understood in detail. Another reason why Brazil’s climate change is important to the world’s climate change is Deforestation, which contributes to climate change first when forests are burnt, releasing greenhouse gases. When forests are cleared, carbon that was held in the soil is released as well, as carbon dioxide or methane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy delegation’s solutions are:
• Bring clean and renewable energy to the world´s population using a technique called microsolar that converts sunlight into energy. This new method is cheaper and easier to apply than actual solar panels. The health benefits of living free from the toxic gasses, emitted by burning kerosene, are even greatest. Recent studies show that the earth receives more energy from the sun in just one hour than the world uses in a whole year. And that wo billion people in the world have no access to electricity. For most of them, solar power would be their cheapest electricity source, but they cannot afford it.
• Stop the use of fossil fuels, instead use plant-derived plastics, biodiesel, and wind and water power.
• Every year, 33 million acres of forests are cut down. Paper recycling and forest management—balancing the amount of wood taken out with the amount of new trees growing—could quickly eliminate this significant chunk of emissions.
• Paople actually spend more money on electricity to power devices when off than when on. Purchasing energy-efficient gadgets can also save both energy and money, plus it prevents more greenhouse gas emissions.
While this touches many GREAT points, some are currently impossible due to lazy americans. Others also have already been set into motion. Some of these points contradict each other.Biofuels can be made from used cooking oil but by not eating meat we are taking that away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnot everything is in one article lighten up
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I suggest that all of you panic merchants out there who are "doing the math" To determine how to reduce the human population please, do us all a favor, and go first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy the % sign? Using your figures, annual anthropogenic emissions are 0.014 times (or 1.4% of) atmospheric C02 levels! That's a doubling of C02 levels in 70 years at current rates!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI personally burn wood to heat my home and at first I was concerned about my footprint. Two important points to consider here - first we only take dead trees, which also release C02 thru decomposition - second by removing these trees the forest is able to regrow faster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, there is the added bonus of planting. You can plant new trees, but you can replant oil :-) And given that young trees absorb more CO2 per pound then older trees (and of course dead trees), I believe we have effectively cut our footprint by a huge margin. Furthurmore, as time goes on, our replanted trees will continue to grow thus every year our footprint will become smaller and smaller and eventually become negative.
Wood burning is a sustainable alternative to home heating if and only if you follow certain practices. If you don't have any dead wood for example and you don't replant then you are going to quickly become a large net contributor.
Bottom line - each heating/cooking method should be considered on its own merits at the site in question - we must beware of broad sweeping statements related CO2. emmisions.
DISAPPOINTED
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Climate debate has not moved at all since I last wrote , In fact it seems to have gone into reverse , with most governments evading doing anything mainly due to the current economic crisis.
THE CHANCE OF A LIFETIME is being missed, We need to make the goverments and everyone aware that the over heavy tax and regulatory regime we have cannot go on. It is top heavy , very expensive and open to fraud evasion and avoidance, as we have seen is the last few weeks on a grand international scale.
THE FIX is to simplify the tax system to one replacing all existing taxes with a single Natural Resource Tax , applied at source and thus avoids a lot of the problems we have with the current tax system which are similar the world over.
The World Bank and the IMF have to really get their act together and realise that the only way in which the climate can be brought under control is by economic and fiscal changes to the tax incentive systems that need to be introduced.
THE EFFECT would be a fundamental change in the way all designers, manufacturers, and consumers buy and use the natural resources embedded within all goods and services they consume and use.
The consumer would then be paying a more realistic price for the damage caused by the resources employed in the consumables they use, They would be in the driving seat of developments by the very purchases they make. Indeed,making a true and fair market economy for all concerned including the planet!
wsugaimd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyour decimal place is off. S/B 1.4% added every year, and increasing every year. What have we added after, say, 25 years?
52 billion out of 3.6 trillion is 1.4%. That's significant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this