Monday, June 22, 2009
EVIDENCES OF GLOBAL WARMING IN ANGOLA
There is evidence of effects of global warming in my country because the average of the maximum temperature in the Littoral region of the country a year ago was 31 degrees centigrade, but now if is around 36 degrees Celsius. There are some occurrences of marine storms that we usually call calemas, which have become more and more violent and erosive. Moreover, we observed during the rain season much more quantity of rains than meteorologists expected, and more than what happened 10 or 20 years ago. On the shoreline, it is clear to see strong erosion marks against rocks, houses destroyed, soil eroded and bridge damages. These could be effects of sea level rising and wind increasing along of the coast. Another kind of evidence we have been identifying is increase of ravines in many places main in the interior. Flooding have been frequent, in the urban areas for example, the cities located in the plateau. The government has constructed new channels to evacuate the water from cities caused by rains. Furthermore, Angola has a variety of geographic settings, including desert that is known as the Namibe desert, where desertification has take place so fast. In this area the government and environmentalists organized campaigns for people engaged in the replanting processes. Even though the government has been making a lot of efforts, the situation has become worse due to the climate change. In conclusion, global warming is a global problem, so it will affect all of us wherever we are; therefore, our participation as environmentalists for saving the environment is urgent and very important.
How to Convince a Household to be Green
The topic of this paper is how to convince household to be Green. It argues that a household should be friendly environmental for saving the planet. Pollution has been global problem, so improving energy efficiency helps a household be green environmentally. There are 3 ways to accomplish this for this. First, we have to increase the energy efficiency of automobiles. Second, we should increase the energy efficiency of houses. Finally, we should increase the energy of efficiency in appliances.
Currently, it is important to have adequate comprehension that human activity has been the main risk to harm the environment. Population grows faster, causing widespread environmental degradation. There are people who think that CO2 emission is more dangerous to the planet than we thought, and we have to make an urgent decision, but there are others who think that we can deal with risk because there is scientific knowledge to justify it. Population is the biggest problem because increasing population growth will continue to increase the environmental degradation. Population growth forces people to expand urban and suburb an areas, shrinking agricultural land and natural areas. Automobiles, factories and buildings cause emissions such as sulfur oxides and carbon oxides into the atmosphere, causing environmental problems.
Moreover carbon dioxide emission has been the principal cause of global warming, because it is produced in the greatest quantity. The high temperature caused by global warming, will change food production, and reduce in water supply, pressing population to migrate to another areas where there is a water supply. It will reduce biodiversity, and cause deforestation, which makes reduction and extinction of species and agricultural problem. It will raise sea level; infrastructures in coastal areas will flood, and coral reefs, and wetlands will be destroyed, forcing erosion in the area. It will increase violent weather, heat waves, and droughts, and create more hurricanes and typhoons. Human health could be in danger from spreading diseases. This could result in a tragedy for the human and planet. Consequently, what should we do to face the threat of global warming? Are you concerned with global warming? Have you already decided to calculate your own carbon footprint?
However, this is the issue. There is the fastest, cheapest and most effective way to reduce carbon dioxide and other pollutant emission into the atmosphere. It is logical to begin greenhouse emissions with where consumption occurs; therefore, we start from the household carbon footprint. In order to make a household cooperate to reduce its carbon footprint, we have to increase the energy efficiency of automobiles, houses and appliances, thus reducing the output of the CO2. According to the Obama’s proposal “we should promote green technologies and fuel efficiency standard ” (Obama, 2007, para 2). I will describe how to make household closely to a green planet. Finally, I will explain that a household can reduce carbon dioxide by increasing energy efficiency in cars, houses and appliances.
A household can reduce its gas emission using energy and technology efficiency in cars. Worldwide emissions resulting from on carbon dioxide from fuel combustion have been rising for many years. R.L. Berg and M.C. Hager say that carbon dioxide emissions also depend on the carbon content of the fuels (2007). Using more efficient cars, people save money and reduce gas emission. For example, if people a car that is technically and energy-efficient, it can help reduce vehicle fuel consumption and increase mileage. Cars use clean fuel which incorporates fuel cells that combine stored hydrogen with oxygen from the air to produce electricity. People might use motor vehicles that are inexpensive, safe, and can drive a long distance without the need to refill.
Furthermore, in Barack Obama on environment: he says “This to happen, we’ve got to be courageous enough to not just talk about it in front of the Sierra Club or organizations already sympathetic to us. When I announced my proposal to increase fuel efficiency standards on cars, when I announced my proposal to increase fuel efficiency standards on cars, I went to Detroit in front of the automakers and said they had to change their ways. I have to say the room was quiet and nobody clapped, but that’s okay. Part of what the next president has to do is not just tell the American people what they want to hear, but what they need to hear” (2009, para.6). This changing would mark a new era for the next generation. On the other hand, the government should provide credits to people who want to buy a green car.
Nowadays, energy efficiency is one the most debatable issues in congresses, parliaments, and governments, and it could constitute an important issue to researchers for making a new change worldwide. However, emissions of nitrogen oxides have increased because the combination of overpopulation and growth in distances traveled. The control of pollution has been based on cleanup rather than pollution prevention. The easy way to begin to reduce car pollution is finding substitutes for banned or reduced products that release hydrocarbons. People have to starting energy efficiency by reducing use of fossil fuels, especially oil and coal, and consecutively shifting to renewable energy sources. This action should be taken in account together.
Moreover, energy efficiency requires technology which offers better performance and less pollution. It is time for making a decision, therefore the quick and efficient measure to take households involved in a green environment would be to slowly introduce on the market vehicles that are fuel efficient, and prohibit selling conventional vehicles. G.T. Miller, Jr. said “ Find substitutes for or ban use of consumer products that release hydrocarbons, including aerosol propellants, paints, household cleaners, and barbecue starter fluids.”(1994, p.126) Consequently, new technology implies probable additional costs which make new automobiles a little expensive. It might frustrate people, but this is the new reality that it has to be done, and people have to confront that situation in order to go green, to save the planet and themselves.
Barak Obama says the environment: “Here’s the deal we can make with auto companies. It’s a piece of legislation I introduced called Health Care for Hybrids, and it would allow the federal government to pick up part of the tab for the auto companies retiree health care costs. In exchange, the auto companies would then use some of that savings to build and invest more fuel efficient cars” (2008, para.13). For those who don’t have money to buy new car, bicycling to work is how they maintain their physique or they take public transportation or commute. The new fuel efficient vehicle should have lower toxic emission, better fuel economy and better performance. Automobiles should be changed to a renewable energy source such as ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas, propane, and hydrogen and solar.
Homes of the energy efficient construction can consume less energy for heating, cooking and heating water and guide us to save money. G.T. Miller Jr. mentioned that we should “Use energy-efficient light bulbs, refrigerators, and other appliances” (1994, p. 116). Houses should improve building systems promoting environmental construction, providing their designers and manufactures with solar home panels, for instance to install at home photovoltaics panel to generate energy that can pump water, refrigerate, charge batteries and supply homes with lighting. The solar energy systems are more efficient because they concentrate sun energy, cost less expensive and have environmental benefit. G.T.Miller, Jr. says, “Use solar energy to heat household space or water as much as possible” (1994, p 116). In addition, some energy improvement can be made in older homes to reduce heating and cooling cost. A green house is better protected from cold, heat, moisture, pollution and noise. Green buildings provide, environmental, ecological and social sustainability.
Furthermore, Montana Greenpower says, “There currently are a number of tax credits both federal and state available to consumers for improving their home’s energy efficiency. For example, credits are available for energy-efficient windows and doors, insulation, roofs, heating and cooling systems, water heaters, and biomass stoves” (n.d., para.3). This is a good incentive for making a household go green. The houses are considered one of the potential pollution emitters into the atmosphere, mainly produced by combustion of fossil fuel. Montana Greenpower said “Did you know that your home can be a greater source of pollution than your car? In fact, 16 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are generated from the energy used in houses nationwide” (n.d., para.114 ). There are other pollutants such as CFCs existing in air conditioners, refrigerators, and others products that must be replaced by injecting new products with energy efficiency, cleaned by removing chorine and propane into the atmosphere or banned by taking them away G.T. Miller, Jr., in his article, says that Lovins argues, “Greatly improving worldwide energy efficiency now is a money –saving, life-saving, Earth-saving offer that we should not refuse, even if climate change was not a possibility” ( -------page)
Also plant at least a tree for each house to help to clean the environment. Larry, West mentioned, “ If you have the means to plant a tree, start digging. During photosynthesis, trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. There is an integral part of the natural atmospheric exchange cycle here on Earth, but there are too few of them to fully counter the increases in carbon dioxide caused by automobile traffic, manufacturing and other human activities. A single tree will absorb approximately one ton of carbon dioxide during its lifetime.” (n.d.para.8). We have to improve energy efficient, reducing use of fossil fuel and control population growth. Government should regulate and inspect which house hasn’t planted, so it should pay a fine.
The increasing technology and efficiency will help to improve accommodations by making them a more convenient and friendlier environment. We should create energy conservation and efficiency for utilities, so this helps people to be green and save money and electricity. For example, utilities should have energy efficient compact light bulbs, air conditioners, storm windows, doors, refrigerators and heaters or other appliances. Larry, West says, “ Wherever practical, replaces regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. Replacing just one 60-watt incandescent light bulb with a CFL will save you $30 over the life of the bulb. CFLs also last 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs, use two-thirds less energy, and give off 70 percent less heat. If every U.S. family replaces one regular light bulb with a CFLs, it would eliminate 90 billion pounds of greenhouse gases, the same as taking 7.5 million cars off the road” (n.d., para. 3).
Using solar, wind, biomass, and other forms of renewable energy is the goal to reduce gas emission. Energy efficiency such as insulation is easy to install. Solid waste produced should be reduced, through the reducing, reusing products, and recycling materials. Recycling conserves natural resources and is friendlier environmentally. Larry, West says, “ Do your part to reduce waste by choosing reusable products instead of disposables. Buying products with minimal packaging (including the economy size when that makes sense for you) will help to reduce waste. And whenever you can, recycle paper, plastic, newspaper, glass and aluminum cans. If there isn’t a recycling program at your workplace, school, or in your community, ask about starting one. By recycling half of your household waste, you can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide annually” (n.d., para1). All these are ways to incorporate households being green because they could have conserved appliances and slowly increased the competitive pressure for changing to renewable energy.
It is clear that a good way to pursue an environmentally healthy household is to increase the technology and gradually introduce energy efficiency in automobiles, houses and appliances. Technology helps to contribute the achievement of the objective, but government can also insist on regulating and implementing encouraged measures for using renewable energy. These will provide to household saving money, making houses more comfortable and being green. Finally, Alternative Energy Sources mentioned “Tips on grants and saving money and of course access to the Living Database Of US Renewable Energy Incentives. Many governments now recognize that by necessity. Think economic crisis pushing along renewable and energy-efficiency” (2009, p.428) carbon dioxide can be reduced or eliminated from the environment by householders involving and improving technology and energy efficient in cars, houses and appliances, and government should give many tax credits which are accessible to consumers to improve their homes’ energy efficiencies.
References:
Alternative Energy Sources (n.d.). Alternative Energy Sources Governments Offer All Kinds of Solar Energy Grant. Retrieved from http://ww.alternative-energy-sources.com/
Berg, R. L. & Hager M.C. (2007) Visualizing Environment Science: Air and Air Pollution. U.S Wisley National Geographic
Montana Greenpower (n.d). Frequently Asked Questions::Energy-Efficient New Construction. Retrieved June 7, 2009 from http://www.montanagrenpower.com/faq/newconst.php
Miller, Jr.,G.T. (1994). Environment Problems and Solutions. Belmont, California: A Division of Wadsworth, Inc.
Obama, B. (2007) Obama on environment. OnThelssues. Promote green technologies and fuel efficiency standards. Retrieved June 7, 2009 from http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barak_Obama_Environment.htm
West, L. (ND) Environmental Issues: Top 10 Things You Do to Reduce Global Warming. About.com. Retrieved from June 18, 2009 from http://www.environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/tp/globalwarmtips.htm
Currently, it is important to have adequate comprehension that human activity has been the main risk to harm the environment. Population grows faster, causing widespread environmental degradation. There are people who think that CO2 emission is more dangerous to the planet than we thought, and we have to make an urgent decision, but there are others who think that we can deal with risk because there is scientific knowledge to justify it. Population is the biggest problem because increasing population growth will continue to increase the environmental degradation. Population growth forces people to expand urban and suburb an areas, shrinking agricultural land and natural areas. Automobiles, factories and buildings cause emissions such as sulfur oxides and carbon oxides into the atmosphere, causing environmental problems.
Moreover carbon dioxide emission has been the principal cause of global warming, because it is produced in the greatest quantity. The high temperature caused by global warming, will change food production, and reduce in water supply, pressing population to migrate to another areas where there is a water supply. It will reduce biodiversity, and cause deforestation, which makes reduction and extinction of species and agricultural problem. It will raise sea level; infrastructures in coastal areas will flood, and coral reefs, and wetlands will be destroyed, forcing erosion in the area. It will increase violent weather, heat waves, and droughts, and create more hurricanes and typhoons. Human health could be in danger from spreading diseases. This could result in a tragedy for the human and planet. Consequently, what should we do to face the threat of global warming? Are you concerned with global warming? Have you already decided to calculate your own carbon footprint?
However, this is the issue. There is the fastest, cheapest and most effective way to reduce carbon dioxide and other pollutant emission into the atmosphere. It is logical to begin greenhouse emissions with where consumption occurs; therefore, we start from the household carbon footprint. In order to make a household cooperate to reduce its carbon footprint, we have to increase the energy efficiency of automobiles, houses and appliances, thus reducing the output of the CO2. According to the Obama’s proposal “we should promote green technologies and fuel efficiency standard ” (Obama, 2007, para 2). I will describe how to make household closely to a green planet. Finally, I will explain that a household can reduce carbon dioxide by increasing energy efficiency in cars, houses and appliances.
A household can reduce its gas emission using energy and technology efficiency in cars. Worldwide emissions resulting from on carbon dioxide from fuel combustion have been rising for many years. R.L. Berg and M.C. Hager say that carbon dioxide emissions also depend on the carbon content of the fuels (2007). Using more efficient cars, people save money and reduce gas emission. For example, if people a car that is technically and energy-efficient, it can help reduce vehicle fuel consumption and increase mileage. Cars use clean fuel which incorporates fuel cells that combine stored hydrogen with oxygen from the air to produce electricity. People might use motor vehicles that are inexpensive, safe, and can drive a long distance without the need to refill.
Furthermore, in Barack Obama on environment: he says “This to happen, we’ve got to be courageous enough to not just talk about it in front of the Sierra Club or organizations already sympathetic to us. When I announced my proposal to increase fuel efficiency standards on cars, when I announced my proposal to increase fuel efficiency standards on cars, I went to Detroit in front of the automakers and said they had to change their ways. I have to say the room was quiet and nobody clapped, but that’s okay. Part of what the next president has to do is not just tell the American people what they want to hear, but what they need to hear” (2009, para.6). This changing would mark a new era for the next generation. On the other hand, the government should provide credits to people who want to buy a green car.
Nowadays, energy efficiency is one the most debatable issues in congresses, parliaments, and governments, and it could constitute an important issue to researchers for making a new change worldwide. However, emissions of nitrogen oxides have increased because the combination of overpopulation and growth in distances traveled. The control of pollution has been based on cleanup rather than pollution prevention. The easy way to begin to reduce car pollution is finding substitutes for banned or reduced products that release hydrocarbons. People have to starting energy efficiency by reducing use of fossil fuels, especially oil and coal, and consecutively shifting to renewable energy sources. This action should be taken in account together.
Moreover, energy efficiency requires technology which offers better performance and less pollution. It is time for making a decision, therefore the quick and efficient measure to take households involved in a green environment would be to slowly introduce on the market vehicles that are fuel efficient, and prohibit selling conventional vehicles. G.T. Miller, Jr. said “ Find substitutes for or ban use of consumer products that release hydrocarbons, including aerosol propellants, paints, household cleaners, and barbecue starter fluids.”(1994, p.126) Consequently, new technology implies probable additional costs which make new automobiles a little expensive. It might frustrate people, but this is the new reality that it has to be done, and people have to confront that situation in order to go green, to save the planet and themselves.
Barak Obama says the environment: “Here’s the deal we can make with auto companies. It’s a piece of legislation I introduced called Health Care for Hybrids, and it would allow the federal government to pick up part of the tab for the auto companies retiree health care costs. In exchange, the auto companies would then use some of that savings to build and invest more fuel efficient cars” (2008, para.13). For those who don’t have money to buy new car, bicycling to work is how they maintain their physique or they take public transportation or commute. The new fuel efficient vehicle should have lower toxic emission, better fuel economy and better performance. Automobiles should be changed to a renewable energy source such as ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas, propane, and hydrogen and solar.
Homes of the energy efficient construction can consume less energy for heating, cooking and heating water and guide us to save money. G.T. Miller Jr. mentioned that we should “Use energy-efficient light bulbs, refrigerators, and other appliances” (1994, p. 116). Houses should improve building systems promoting environmental construction, providing their designers and manufactures with solar home panels, for instance to install at home photovoltaics panel to generate energy that can pump water, refrigerate, charge batteries and supply homes with lighting. The solar energy systems are more efficient because they concentrate sun energy, cost less expensive and have environmental benefit. G.T.Miller, Jr. says, “Use solar energy to heat household space or water as much as possible” (1994, p 116). In addition, some energy improvement can be made in older homes to reduce heating and cooling cost. A green house is better protected from cold, heat, moisture, pollution and noise. Green buildings provide, environmental, ecological and social sustainability.
Furthermore, Montana Greenpower says, “There currently are a number of tax credits both federal and state available to consumers for improving their home’s energy efficiency. For example, credits are available for energy-efficient windows and doors, insulation, roofs, heating and cooling systems, water heaters, and biomass stoves” (n.d., para.3). This is a good incentive for making a household go green. The houses are considered one of the potential pollution emitters into the atmosphere, mainly produced by combustion of fossil fuel. Montana Greenpower said “Did you know that your home can be a greater source of pollution than your car? In fact, 16 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are generated from the energy used in houses nationwide” (n.d., para.114 ). There are other pollutants such as CFCs existing in air conditioners, refrigerators, and others products that must be replaced by injecting new products with energy efficiency, cleaned by removing chorine and propane into the atmosphere or banned by taking them away G.T. Miller, Jr., in his article, says that Lovins argues, “Greatly improving worldwide energy efficiency now is a money –saving, life-saving, Earth-saving offer that we should not refuse, even if climate change was not a possibility” ( -------page)
Also plant at least a tree for each house to help to clean the environment. Larry, West mentioned, “ If you have the means to plant a tree, start digging. During photosynthesis, trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. There is an integral part of the natural atmospheric exchange cycle here on Earth, but there are too few of them to fully counter the increases in carbon dioxide caused by automobile traffic, manufacturing and other human activities. A single tree will absorb approximately one ton of carbon dioxide during its lifetime.” (n.d.para.8). We have to improve energy efficient, reducing use of fossil fuel and control population growth. Government should regulate and inspect which house hasn’t planted, so it should pay a fine.
The increasing technology and efficiency will help to improve accommodations by making them a more convenient and friendlier environment. We should create energy conservation and efficiency for utilities, so this helps people to be green and save money and electricity. For example, utilities should have energy efficient compact light bulbs, air conditioners, storm windows, doors, refrigerators and heaters or other appliances. Larry, West says, “ Wherever practical, replaces regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. Replacing just one 60-watt incandescent light bulb with a CFL will save you $30 over the life of the bulb. CFLs also last 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs, use two-thirds less energy, and give off 70 percent less heat. If every U.S. family replaces one regular light bulb with a CFLs, it would eliminate 90 billion pounds of greenhouse gases, the same as taking 7.5 million cars off the road” (n.d., para. 3).
Using solar, wind, biomass, and other forms of renewable energy is the goal to reduce gas emission. Energy efficiency such as insulation is easy to install. Solid waste produced should be reduced, through the reducing, reusing products, and recycling materials. Recycling conserves natural resources and is friendlier environmentally. Larry, West says, “ Do your part to reduce waste by choosing reusable products instead of disposables. Buying products with minimal packaging (including the economy size when that makes sense for you) will help to reduce waste. And whenever you can, recycle paper, plastic, newspaper, glass and aluminum cans. If there isn’t a recycling program at your workplace, school, or in your community, ask about starting one. By recycling half of your household waste, you can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide annually” (n.d., para1). All these are ways to incorporate households being green because they could have conserved appliances and slowly increased the competitive pressure for changing to renewable energy.
It is clear that a good way to pursue an environmentally healthy household is to increase the technology and gradually introduce energy efficiency in automobiles, houses and appliances. Technology helps to contribute the achievement of the objective, but government can also insist on regulating and implementing encouraged measures for using renewable energy. These will provide to household saving money, making houses more comfortable and being green. Finally, Alternative Energy Sources mentioned “Tips on grants and saving money and of course access to the Living Database Of US Renewable Energy Incentives. Many governments now recognize that by necessity. Think economic crisis pushing along renewable and energy-efficiency” (2009, p.428) carbon dioxide can be reduced or eliminated from the environment by householders involving and improving technology and energy efficient in cars, houses and appliances, and government should give many tax credits which are accessible to consumers to improve their homes’ energy efficiencies.
References:
Alternative Energy Sources (n.d.). Alternative Energy Sources Governments Offer All Kinds of Solar Energy Grant. Retrieved from http://ww.alternative-energy-sources.com/
Berg, R. L. & Hager M.C. (2007) Visualizing Environment Science: Air and Air Pollution. U.S Wisley National Geographic
Montana Greenpower (n.d). Frequently Asked Questions::Energy-Efficient New Construction. Retrieved June 7, 2009 from http://www.montanagrenpower.com/faq/newconst.php
Miller, Jr.,G.T. (1994). Environment Problems and Solutions. Belmont, California: A Division of Wadsworth, Inc.
Obama, B. (2007) Obama on environment. OnThelssues. Promote green technologies and fuel efficiency standards. Retrieved June 7, 2009 from http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barak_Obama_Environment.htm
West, L. (ND) Environmental Issues: Top 10 Things You Do to Reduce Global Warming. About.com. Retrieved from June 18, 2009 from http://www.environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/tp/globalwarmtips.htm
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Getting time on Youtube
I have used YouTube many times for both the purpose of finding important information and for finding entertainment. I have found information about politics, environment, history and science. Normally, this is a site where I can find evidences because the news is frequently filmed and reported. Furthermore, on YouTube has covered information worldwide and in different areas. In fact, it is a good source for being informed about the occurrences around the world. However, using YouTube for entertainment, actually, I have used it mostly for watching movies and sports, especially, soccer game. Another option is culture that I have required from them essentially in music and sports. For example, I used to watch international soccer games through YouTube. YouTube provides a variety of excellent information; therefore, it makes difficulty for me to make a decision which is the most preferred program. It is a useful sector of information which works for people’s benefit and for the nation. There are many advantages using YouTube because it offers people updated world events, knowledge, and amusement. YouTube is available for everybody, anywhere, any time and it is free to use it. It is clear that YouTube is an excellent tool of communication and information considered internationally.
How to convince a household to be green
I am interested in household carbon footprint, and dealing with this topic will improve my knowledge and understanding about effects of matter which could also encourage some people to be protectors of the planet. Currently, it is important to have adequate comprehension that human activity has been the main risk to harm the environment. Furthermore, population grows faster causing widespread environment degradation. However, there are people who think that CO2 emission is more dangerous to the planet than we thought, and we have to make an urgent decision, but there are others who think that we can deal with risk because there is scientific knowledge to justify it. Carbon dioxide emission has been the principal cause of global warming because it is produced in the greatest quantity. Because of the high temperature caused by global warming, it will cause sea level rising, change in precipitation, reduction or extinction of many species and agricultural problems. Then, rising sea levels would flood economic infrastructure in coasts, and coral reefs, and wetlands will be destroyed. Droughts, dries, hurricanes and typhoons will be common in many areas. Human health alters disease and disrupt in biodiversity, causing extinction of species and appearance of new species. This could result in a tragedy for humans and the planet. Consequently, what should we do facing the threat of global warming ? This is the issue. There is the fastest, cheapest and most effective way to reduce carbon dioxide and other pollutant emissions into the atmosphere. It is logical to begin greenhouse emissions to where consumption occurs; therefore, we start from the household carbon footprint. In order to make a household cooperate to reduce carbon footprint, we have increase the energy efficiency of automobiles, houses and appliances, thus reducing the output of the CO2. According to Obama’s proposal, “promote green technologies and fuel efficiency standard ” (Obama, 2007). I will describe how to make household closely to green planet. Finally, I will explain that household can reduce carbon dioxide by increase energy and technology efficiency on cars, house and appliances.
References:
Barack Obama on environment (2007). On TheIssues. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Environment.html
Obama, B. (2009, May 19) Obama’s Fuel Efficiency Proposal. CBS6. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.wtvr.com/Global/story.asp?S-10386050
Western Daily Press (2008, Jan). Step up for a lower carbon footprint. Highbeam research Jan 2008. Retrieved May 21, 2009, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-15141910.html
Leiserowitz, A. (2009, Jan 6). “American Support for Local Action on Global Warming” Roper-Yale Environment Poll. Retrieved May 31, 2009 from http://www.environment.yale.edu/pubs/American-support-for-local-action-on-global-warming/
Montana green power (ND). Frequently asked questions: Energy –efficient New Construction. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.montanagreenpower.com/faq/newconst.php
References:
Barack Obama on environment (2007). On TheIssues. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Environment.html
Obama, B. (2009, May 19) Obama’s Fuel Efficiency Proposal. CBS6. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.wtvr.com/Global/story.asp?S-10386050
Western Daily Press (2008, Jan). Step up for a lower carbon footprint. Highbeam research Jan 2008. Retrieved May 21, 2009, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-15141910.html
Leiserowitz, A. (2009, Jan 6). “American Support for Local Action on Global Warming” Roper-Yale Environment Poll. Retrieved May 31, 2009 from http://www.environment.yale.edu/pubs/American-support-for-local-action-on-global-warming/
Montana green power (ND). Frequently asked questions: Energy –efficient New Construction. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.montanagreenpower.com/faq/newconst.php
Friday, June 19, 2009
SHOULD STUDENTS BE ALLOWED TO USE WIKIPEDIA
Wikipedia is widely used by people of different backgrounds, ages and purposes around the world. Many people consider Wikipedia an important tool for knowledge and as competent editor because they can find information necessary for their goal. Did you realize that? There are many students who use Wikipedia for academic purposes, and they think that they will be excellent in overall subjects of studies. However, the students should not be allowed to use Wikipedia because is not peer reviewed data for academic research, academic sources and for content.
Students are not recommended to use Wikipedia for academic research because the information is not approved for peer review, so it is not accurate and lack of credibility. The information is written and has an edited for anyone because it is a popular website and it is easy to access to the database. Because the information is not recognized or evaluated by experts, they are exposed to free availability and present weaknesses. Moreover, many sources are not cited in Wikipedia. For example, students need to integrate knowledge and scientific methods to develop research. Thus they will be able to learn research skill and to get the opportunity for finding the logic. Meredith Byers quotes Don Wyatt, Chairman of the Department, as saying that Wikipedia is not an accurate source for students’ research (2007).
Wikipedia should not be an academic source for students because the material is not verified or assessed by experts. There is insufficiency on variety and quality of data. Furthermore, many articles are not organized or comprehensive. Many articles are not supported by source and contain grammatical errors. In fact they need a competent editor with professional capacity and experience. The Wikipedia database is frequently in transformation; for instance, the data used for writing a research paper could not be the same version when you finish the research. On the contrary, sometimes the data are not updated, so cannot be used as principal source. According to Edward Bilodeau, “As for Wikipedia, I would agree that, for a variety of reasons, it is probably not a proper source for academic work. Many professors would not accept an encyclopedia entry as a citation in a paper, regardless of which encyclopedia it came from. Some might accept it as a source of a definition, perhaps, but in those cases, it would have to be an encyclopedia recognized in that field. Wikipedia, in a general sense, wouldn’t make the grade” (2008, para.8).
Wikipedia has a limited contend and deficient quantity on a variety of topics. For example, there are many changes in fields such as art, science, politics, history, technology and so on, but the specific topic inside the field of science is poor quality in context of content and diversity. We are not contradicted to say that it is negative to permit users generating content. This is the reason that Wikipedia has been criticized as not very good quality learning material due to inconsistency and imperfection in specialization of topics. According to Jason Wolverton, “it is not the number of articles available on Wikipedia that is up for debate, though. The argument amongst scholars is that the information available on Wikipedia is not necessarily accurate and that the articles themselves are particularly susceptible to internet vandalism” (2007, para.11).
Many people say that Wikipedia has succeeded because it has an advantage compared to other sources of references, and it has coverage by large number of writers, editors, and readers accessible in many languages. Moreover, many people can work at some time on one document. The opposing idea is irrelevant because Wikipedia has been provided more internet coverage than books published. Wikipedia made in books are not located in different parts of the world; also the internet has a disadvantage in terms of durability of data that is constantly changing. For example, we can save and conserve the same information in a book for a long time.
In conclusion, Wikipedia is not an appropriate source of good quality learning material for students in academia, or in specific content areas. Even though, it has a global coverage and free availability, It is inconsistent for research skill, has insufficient content in a variety of topics and is absent credibility in its database.
References:
Wolverton, J. (2007, Jan 22). Wikipedia Wisdom, Valley Vanguard, Retrieved June 5, 2007 from http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1141
Bilodeau, E. (2008, Jan 14). Weblog. Academic banning of Google and Wikipedia misguided. Retrieved on June 5, 2009 http://www.cooweblog.com/bilodeau/archives/003743.html
Byers, M. (2007, Aug 3). Controversy over use of Wikipedia in academic papers arrives at Smith, Sophian, Smith College. Retrieved on June 5, 2009. http://www.tinyurl.com/2dyt65
Students are not recommended to use Wikipedia for academic research because the information is not approved for peer review, so it is not accurate and lack of credibility. The information is written and has an edited for anyone because it is a popular website and it is easy to access to the database. Because the information is not recognized or evaluated by experts, they are exposed to free availability and present weaknesses. Moreover, many sources are not cited in Wikipedia. For example, students need to integrate knowledge and scientific methods to develop research. Thus they will be able to learn research skill and to get the opportunity for finding the logic. Meredith Byers quotes Don Wyatt, Chairman of the Department, as saying that Wikipedia is not an accurate source for students’ research (2007).
Wikipedia should not be an academic source for students because the material is not verified or assessed by experts. There is insufficiency on variety and quality of data. Furthermore, many articles are not organized or comprehensive. Many articles are not supported by source and contain grammatical errors. In fact they need a competent editor with professional capacity and experience. The Wikipedia database is frequently in transformation; for instance, the data used for writing a research paper could not be the same version when you finish the research. On the contrary, sometimes the data are not updated, so cannot be used as principal source. According to Edward Bilodeau, “As for Wikipedia, I would agree that, for a variety of reasons, it is probably not a proper source for academic work. Many professors would not accept an encyclopedia entry as a citation in a paper, regardless of which encyclopedia it came from. Some might accept it as a source of a definition, perhaps, but in those cases, it would have to be an encyclopedia recognized in that field. Wikipedia, in a general sense, wouldn’t make the grade” (2008, para.8).
Wikipedia has a limited contend and deficient quantity on a variety of topics. For example, there are many changes in fields such as art, science, politics, history, technology and so on, but the specific topic inside the field of science is poor quality in context of content and diversity. We are not contradicted to say that it is negative to permit users generating content. This is the reason that Wikipedia has been criticized as not very good quality learning material due to inconsistency and imperfection in specialization of topics. According to Jason Wolverton, “it is not the number of articles available on Wikipedia that is up for debate, though. The argument amongst scholars is that the information available on Wikipedia is not necessarily accurate and that the articles themselves are particularly susceptible to internet vandalism” (2007, para.11).
Many people say that Wikipedia has succeeded because it has an advantage compared to other sources of references, and it has coverage by large number of writers, editors, and readers accessible in many languages. Moreover, many people can work at some time on one document. The opposing idea is irrelevant because Wikipedia has been provided more internet coverage than books published. Wikipedia made in books are not located in different parts of the world; also the internet has a disadvantage in terms of durability of data that is constantly changing. For example, we can save and conserve the same information in a book for a long time.
In conclusion, Wikipedia is not an appropriate source of good quality learning material for students in academia, or in specific content areas. Even though, it has a global coverage and free availability, It is inconsistent for research skill, has insufficient content in a variety of topics and is absent credibility in its database.
References:
Wolverton, J. (2007, Jan 22). Wikipedia Wisdom, Valley Vanguard, Retrieved June 5, 2007 from http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1141
Bilodeau, E. (2008, Jan 14). Weblog. Academic banning of Google and Wikipedia misguided. Retrieved on June 5, 2009 http://www.cooweblog.com/bilodeau/archives/003743.html
Byers, M. (2007, Aug 3). Controversy over use of Wikipedia in academic papers arrives at Smith, Sophian, Smith College. Retrieved on June 5, 2009. http://www.tinyurl.com/2dyt65
HOW TO MAKE HOUSEHOLD BE FRIENDLY TO THE ENVIRONMENT
Currently, as population grows faster, and people consume more and more natural resources, so there is widely extended environmental degradation. Human activities release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Industries, fossil fuel, consumption, deforestation and land use change are contributing to global warming. This warming caused by quantity of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause planet castrastrophe. Global warming is unavoidable and there are people who think that we can deal with risk because there is scientific knowledge to justify it. Furthermore, people are more concerned about reducing weight than saving the planet. What we can do as an individual to promote environmental sustainability? Have we already thought about being responsible? Honestly, have we decided to know how much carbon footprint we spend? However, we can inspire a household to be environment friendly, replacing slowly, improving in energy and efficiency in automobiles and appliances, houses and industries, thus reducing its carbon emission to the atmosphere.
A household can reduce its gas emission using energy and technology efficiency in cars. Worldwide emissions depending on carbon dioxide from fuel combustion have been rising for many years. Moreover, carbon dioxide emissions depend on the carbon content of the fuels. Using more efficient cars and power plants, people save money and reduce gas emission. For example, if people a car that is technically and energy-efficient, it can help reduce vehicle fuel consumption and increase mileage. For example, as hybrid cars use clean fuel which incorporates fuel cells that combine stored hydrogen with oxygen from the air to produce electricity. People might use motor vehicles that are inexpensive, safe, and can drive a long distance without the need to refill. Another example is Barack Obama on environment: “When I announced my proposal to increase fuel efficiency standards on cars, I went to Detroit in front of the automakers and said they had to change their ways ” (2009, para.x). These can result in friendly environment.
Homes of the energy efficient construction can consume less energy for heating, cooking and heating water and guide us to save money. Houses should improve building systems promoting environmental construction, providing their designers and manufactures with solar home panels, for instance to install at home photovoltaics panel to generate energy that can pump water, refrigerate, charge batteries and supply homes with lighting. The solar energy systems are more efficient because they concentrate sun energy, cost less expensive and have environmental benefit. In addition, some energy improvement can be made in older homes to reduce heating and cooling cost. A green house is better protected from cold, heat, moisture, pollution and noise. Green buildings provide, environmental, ecological and social sustainability.
The increasing technology and efficiency will help to reduce in industries energy consumption and environment degradation. Industries with high CO2 emission that contribute to global warming, acid precipitation and other environmental problems is possible to separate carbon dioxide produced during the combustion of fossil fuels and then isolate it from the atmosphere. For example, factories can use cogeneration, which is one energy technology with a bright future which is a combination of heat and power. This system can enable hospitals, hotels, restaurants, factories and others business to use less energy. Using solar, wind, biomass, and other forms of renewable energy is the goal to reduce gas emission. The government should incorporate regulations for having low emission rate and increase the competitive pressure to change to renewable energy.
Some people say that homeowners have to pay lot of money to installing renewable energy sources. The systems can be expensive to purchase and install and they provide electricity only intermittently, when weather conditions permit, but during unfavorable conditions residents must purchase electricity from their local utility. The argument is irrelevant because the system permits homeowners to produce their own energy to a “net meter” Their electricity consumer saves money while contributing to a cleaner environment. Furthermore, the government gives many tax credits which are accessible to consumers to improve their homes’ energy efficiencies.
It is clear that a good way to pursue an environmentally healthy household is to increase the technology and gradually introduce energy efficiency in automobiles and appliances, houses and industries. Technology helps to contribute the achievement of the objective, but government can also insist on regulating and implementing encouraged measures for using renewable energy. These will provide to save money, make industries more sophisticated, and make houses more comfortable and environmental friendly. Alternative Energy Source (N.D). “Tips on grants and saving money Retrieved June, 16 2009 from http:www.and of course access to the Living Database Of US Renewable Energy Incentives. Many governments now recognize that by necessity. Think economic crisis pushing along renewable and energy-efficiency” (N.D). Finally, carbon dioxide footprint can be reduced or eliminated from the environment by householders involving and improving technology and efficient appliances in cars, houses and industries.
References:
Barack Obama on environment (2007). On TheIssues. Retrieved June 7, 2009. From http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Environment.html
Obama, B. (2009, May 19). Obama’s Fuel Efficiency Proposal. CBS6. Retrieved June 7,2009, from http://www.wtvr.com/Global/story.asp?S-10386050
Western Daily Press (2008, Jan.). Step up for a lower carbon footprint. Highbeam research Jan 2008. Retrieved, May 21, 2009, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-15141910.html
Montana green power (ND). Frequently asked questions::Energy –efficient New Construction. Retrieved, June 7, 2009, from http://www.montanagreenpower.com/faq/newconst.php
Leiserowitz, A. (2009, Jan 6). “American Support for Local Action on Global Warming” Roper-Yale Environment Poll. Retrieved May 31, 2009 from http://www.environment.yale.edu/pubs/American-support-for-local-action-on-global-warming/
A household can reduce its gas emission using energy and technology efficiency in cars. Worldwide emissions depending on carbon dioxide from fuel combustion have been rising for many years. Moreover, carbon dioxide emissions depend on the carbon content of the fuels. Using more efficient cars and power plants, people save money and reduce gas emission. For example, if people a car that is technically and energy-efficient, it can help reduce vehicle fuel consumption and increase mileage. For example, as hybrid cars use clean fuel which incorporates fuel cells that combine stored hydrogen with oxygen from the air to produce electricity. People might use motor vehicles that are inexpensive, safe, and can drive a long distance without the need to refill. Another example is Barack Obama on environment: “When I announced my proposal to increase fuel efficiency standards on cars, I went to Detroit in front of the automakers and said they had to change their ways ” (2009, para.x). These can result in friendly environment.
Homes of the energy efficient construction can consume less energy for heating, cooking and heating water and guide us to save money. Houses should improve building systems promoting environmental construction, providing their designers and manufactures with solar home panels, for instance to install at home photovoltaics panel to generate energy that can pump water, refrigerate, charge batteries and supply homes with lighting. The solar energy systems are more efficient because they concentrate sun energy, cost less expensive and have environmental benefit. In addition, some energy improvement can be made in older homes to reduce heating and cooling cost. A green house is better protected from cold, heat, moisture, pollution and noise. Green buildings provide, environmental, ecological and social sustainability.
The increasing technology and efficiency will help to reduce in industries energy consumption and environment degradation. Industries with high CO2 emission that contribute to global warming, acid precipitation and other environmental problems is possible to separate carbon dioxide produced during the combustion of fossil fuels and then isolate it from the atmosphere. For example, factories can use cogeneration, which is one energy technology with a bright future which is a combination of heat and power. This system can enable hospitals, hotels, restaurants, factories and others business to use less energy. Using solar, wind, biomass, and other forms of renewable energy is the goal to reduce gas emission. The government should incorporate regulations for having low emission rate and increase the competitive pressure to change to renewable energy.
Some people say that homeowners have to pay lot of money to installing renewable energy sources. The systems can be expensive to purchase and install and they provide electricity only intermittently, when weather conditions permit, but during unfavorable conditions residents must purchase electricity from their local utility. The argument is irrelevant because the system permits homeowners to produce their own energy to a “net meter” Their electricity consumer saves money while contributing to a cleaner environment. Furthermore, the government gives many tax credits which are accessible to consumers to improve their homes’ energy efficiencies.
It is clear that a good way to pursue an environmentally healthy household is to increase the technology and gradually introduce energy efficiency in automobiles and appliances, houses and industries. Technology helps to contribute the achievement of the objective, but government can also insist on regulating and implementing encouraged measures for using renewable energy. These will provide to save money, make industries more sophisticated, and make houses more comfortable and environmental friendly. Alternative Energy Source (N.D). “Tips on grants and saving money Retrieved June, 16 2009 from http:www.and of course access to the Living Database Of US Renewable Energy Incentives. Many governments now recognize that by necessity. Think economic crisis pushing along renewable and energy-efficiency” (N.D). Finally, carbon dioxide footprint can be reduced or eliminated from the environment by householders involving and improving technology and efficient appliances in cars, houses and industries.
References:
Barack Obama on environment (2007). On TheIssues. Retrieved June 7, 2009. From http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Environment.html
Obama, B. (2009, May 19). Obama’s Fuel Efficiency Proposal. CBS6. Retrieved June 7,2009, from http://www.wtvr.com/Global/story.asp?S-10386050
Western Daily Press (2008, Jan.). Step up for a lower carbon footprint. Highbeam research Jan 2008. Retrieved, May 21, 2009, from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-15141910.html
Montana green power (ND). Frequently asked questions::Energy –efficient New Construction. Retrieved, June 7, 2009, from http://www.montanagreenpower.com/faq/newconst.php
Leiserowitz, A. (2009, Jan 6). “American Support for Local Action on Global Warming” Roper-Yale Environment Poll. Retrieved May 31, 2009 from http://www.environment.yale.edu/pubs/American-support-for-local-action-on-global-warming/
The Ozone Layer Threatened
According to the Stephen Leahy (2008) in his article “CLIMATE CHANGE: What Chemical lobby weakening ozone treaty”, He mentioned how ozone layer has been affected by chemical pollutants and its effects to the planet earth. The Antarctic ozone hole, observed and measured by U.S National and Space Administration (NASA), is about 27 million square kilometers. Up to one million people are affected by skin cancer every year and up to 10,000 people will die in the U.S.A. The agreement signed as the Montreal Protocol, by about 24 Countries, 20 years ago, lead by Argentina, U.S and Canada, avoided damage of the ozone layer and kept away tens of billions of tons carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Nevertheless, they found that ozone-destroying chemicals were mainly greenhouse gases, so the global warming increased more than carbon dioxide in each molecule. “Without the protocol, the ozone layer would be 30 in Washington, instead of today’s of 10” “ A less than three-minute exposure to the sun in Hawaii would have resulted in sunburn. The skin cancers would be at least 650 percent higher” said Paul A. Newman, an atmospheric physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, and co-chair of the Montreal Protocol’s Scientific Assessment Panel. However, the ozone layer is thin, and the emissions of ozone-damaging chemicals have been decreasing since 11 years ago approximately due to substitution of HCFCs and HFCs refrigerants known as hydrochlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons. HCFC’s damage ozone is five percent of the rate of CFCs, and HFC doesn’t damage. Both HCFCs and HFC are strong greenhouse gases. Furthermore, there are other options for refrigerants that can protect the ozone layer, for example, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons. The use of hydrocarbons such as iso-butane, propane in machinery such as refrigerators (green freeze) are perfect refrigerants for ozone, but the U.S. has not used them due to special interests of producers. On the contrary, during the economic crisis the governments will find it difficult to process activities in climate change due to commercial interests. Finally, at the end of 2009 almost 200 countries will discuss solutions for air pollution, deforestation, biodiversity problems and other dangers to the environment, in order to provide health, social, and economic advantages.
I totally agree that humans have been contributing to degrading the environment and have caused damage to the ozone layer and changed global temperature. The consequences of damages caused to the ozone layers has brought problems for human, animals and plants. Some people believe that the use of refrigerants can be another global pollution problem for ozone-damaging chemicals. However, the practical solution for making a safe environment is to create alternative sources of energies instead of a protocol agreement, application of refrigerants that are a not CFCs and reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases.
I totally agree with creation of a protocol agreement among countries as a preventive action for ozone-damaging, reductions in production and consumption of harmful elements. The ozone-destroying has not only been the cause of many human skin problems but also has been the cause of the problems for plants, animals and other species due to the UV radiation. All the countries should join their environmental problems with other countries because the environmental problem is global and they are interconnected worldwide.The governments should create policies for regulating commerce and manufacturing of refrigerators for producing green devices. New machines should require green combustibles. The refrigerants HCFC’s damage ozone at five percent the rate of CFC’s and HFC’s don’t. Both HCFC’s and HFC’s are strong greenhouse gases because these chemicals act as a layer in the atmosphere that traps heat like a greenhouse. This causes warmer temperatures; plants and animals species migrate North and South towards poles, there are several storms and droughts, and sea level rise. Alternative refrigerants are carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons (iso-butane, propane), for refrigerators (greenfreeze) and air conditioners. I don’t agree with the author that refrigerants could be harmful enough for making a new ozone-damaging chemical because this involves others sources threatened.
The situation of economic crisis definitely makes difficulty progressing activities from the governments for changing the climate. The economic crisis is also a global problem, and all the Nations should work together in order to get a solution. The only way to solve the problem is that investors have to develop new technologies in cars, industries, devices and natural resources for making a friendly environment. Finally, the best solution for saving the environment is to create and develop alternative sources of energies such as biomass, natural gas, wind energy, hydroelectric power, solar energy, hydrogen and nuclear power.
Reference:
Leahy, Stephen (2008). Climate Change: Chemical lobby weakening ozone treaty. Retrieved May 19, 2009 from http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=43888
I totally agree that humans have been contributing to degrading the environment and have caused damage to the ozone layer and changed global temperature. The consequences of damages caused to the ozone layers has brought problems for human, animals and plants. Some people believe that the use of refrigerants can be another global pollution problem for ozone-damaging chemicals. However, the practical solution for making a safe environment is to create alternative sources of energies instead of a protocol agreement, application of refrigerants that are a not CFCs and reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases.
I totally agree with creation of a protocol agreement among countries as a preventive action for ozone-damaging, reductions in production and consumption of harmful elements. The ozone-destroying has not only been the cause of many human skin problems but also has been the cause of the problems for plants, animals and other species due to the UV radiation. All the countries should join their environmental problems with other countries because the environmental problem is global and they are interconnected worldwide.The governments should create policies for regulating commerce and manufacturing of refrigerators for producing green devices. New machines should require green combustibles. The refrigerants HCFC’s damage ozone at five percent the rate of CFC’s and HFC’s don’t. Both HCFC’s and HFC’s are strong greenhouse gases because these chemicals act as a layer in the atmosphere that traps heat like a greenhouse. This causes warmer temperatures; plants and animals species migrate North and South towards poles, there are several storms and droughts, and sea level rise. Alternative refrigerants are carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons (iso-butane, propane), for refrigerators (greenfreeze) and air conditioners. I don’t agree with the author that refrigerants could be harmful enough for making a new ozone-damaging chemical because this involves others sources threatened.
The situation of economic crisis definitely makes difficulty progressing activities from the governments for changing the climate. The economic crisis is also a global problem, and all the Nations should work together in order to get a solution. The only way to solve the problem is that investors have to develop new technologies in cars, industries, devices and natural resources for making a friendly environment. Finally, the best solution for saving the environment is to create and develop alternative sources of energies such as biomass, natural gas, wind energy, hydroelectric power, solar energy, hydrogen and nuclear power.
Reference:
Leahy, Stephen (2008). Climate Change: Chemical lobby weakening ozone treaty. Retrieved May 19, 2009 from http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=43888
MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROBLEM
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The major environmental problem is oil spilling in the ocean. The oil companies that are working in exploration and production are responsible for oil spilling. For example, the main causes come from the pipelines during production or distribution to storages. These have been the greatest pollutant for a large variety of ecosystems in marine environments. Furthermore, the effects resulting from this contamination have been reflected in reduction of marine biodiversity and people’s needs. The major problem for solving this situation are the Petroleum Companies who want to make business as quick as possible due to the oil demand and economic crisis. The investors are looking more and more for profits rather than ecology. The companies should conserve and protect the marine species. Although, there are some governmental policies about oil spills, but the companies don’t care too much. I think the rules should be very strong and severe, because it would permit the companies to develop the higher safety control technology. The Companies will get less profit if they have to pay high taxes for the environment. In conclusion, the environment problem is a global issue, and everybody has to take part in making a friendly and sustainable environment.
The major environmental problem is oil spilling in the ocean. The oil companies that are working in exploration and production are responsible for oil spilling. For example, the main causes come from the pipelines during production or distribution to storages. These have been the greatest pollutant for a large variety of ecosystems in marine environments. Furthermore, the effects resulting from this contamination have been reflected in reduction of marine biodiversity and people’s needs. The major problem for solving this situation are the Petroleum Companies who want to make business as quick as possible due to the oil demand and economic crisis. The investors are looking more and more for profits rather than ecology. The companies should conserve and protect the marine species. Although, there are some governmental policies about oil spills, but the companies don’t care too much. I think the rules should be very strong and severe, because it would permit the companies to develop the higher safety control technology. The Companies will get less profit if they have to pay high taxes for the environment. In conclusion, the environment problem is a global issue, and everybody has to take part in making a friendly and sustainable environment.
Set Up For a Lower Carbon Footprint
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
In Western Daily Press (2008, Jan 21) in the article, “ Step Up For a Lower Carbon Footprint” the author mentioned three ways everyone can calculate personal carbon footprint spend in a year through sites on the internet. The author considered that although climate has changed progressively, British people are more concerned about losing weight rather than saving the planet. Each person can calculate his carbon footprint through the internet and each site has different measures, questions and results. The author used 3 different sites: First, www.carbonfootprint.com , where asked for which aked for which country you lived in, how many flights I’d taken, car mileage, heating and light from home, train transport, how much gas, electricity, oil, coal or propane gas; it included products bought, whether I buy organic, recycle, go to restaurants, bars or films and use livestock farming by year. She spent 0.038 tons of CO2 or £332 on gas, £232.78 or 0.179 tons of CO2 from electricity, and she drove 10.499 miles, equivalent to 3.026 CO2, air travel 2, 1.9, rail transport 1,000 miles equal 0.097 tones of CO2. The total of the personal carbon footprint was 8.672 tones of CO2, lower compared to the UK average of 9.8 tons; and the worldwide average carbon footprint is 4 tons per person. In order to struggle with carbon we must decrease to two tons, says Western Daily. Second, they connected to http://actonco2.direct.gov.u.k. on this site it asked for more details about property and lifestyle, such as (how old one’s house is, how many bathrooms it has, how many energy-saving lightbulbs she uses, and how much water she needs to boil a cup of tea, how many times she uses a washing machine, how many times she uses tyre pressure. The total carbon footprint was 8.62 tones compared to the UK average, which was -4.47 tons approximately twice the carbon emission. Third, the author linked to http://footprint.wwf.org.uk, where the average is 12.23 tons of CO2 per year, and the goal for reducing carbon is 2.59 tones of CO2 per person. This site, known as WWF, is confined to more facts on lifestyle such as how many times a week she eats meat and commutes, and how much she spends on jewellery and bath products instead asking for how much gas she uses. Finally, the three methods used for providing personal footprint are different, but they have the purpose of reducing personal carbon footprint.
Many people think that environmental pollution is not their responsibility, and there are people who know that environment is a concern nowadays, but they simply ignore it. Did you think about this worry? Did you think how much have you contributed to damaging the environment? Did you decide to save the planet by yourself? This is what we need to think about. However, although the environment pollution is a global problem, not only does the governments have to take care of it, but each of us should be responsible for managing our carbon footprint because we are a part of society. Household calculation is the good method for people to controlling how much carbon footprint they produce to minimize environment pollution. I agree with author because we can manage our carbon emission through an internet site such as www.carbonfootprint.com and http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk.where where we became a household calculator, protector and conservator of nature, but the author was not precise in the third site, http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/.
The author has a good point when he said that we can control the quantity of carbon emission produced by ourselves using the first internet site; for example, on this site, www.carbonfootprint.com , the carbon calculation requires questions like where you live, how much you spend or use gas, electricity, coal or propane, and flight, car, rail and bus miles, and it gives us the total of the carbon footprint that we contributed for damaging the environment. According to this site, the UK average carbon footprint is 9.8 tons per year. Moreover, this calculation involves all things you buy; for instance, if we buy products made in China, we have to include carbon emission of transportation from China to U.S. This is a good and efficient method of controlling pollution because the population is growing quickly and the government cannot control pollution adequately. It is necessary to increase human comprehension by explaining causes and effects of environmental destruction. Everyone has to feel like an environmental activist.
The second method to calculate individual carbon footprint is more concise due to the fact that if involves more detailed information about property, lifestyle, washing machine and more. Also, the UK average for carbon emission is 4.25 tons of CO2 per year. Here the average permitted per person each year is low, consequently fewer polluting emission. This site http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk helps people to compile, analyze and interpret the data in order to know whether their carbon emission has exceeded the limit. Furthermore, current pollution problems are addressed more and more, so the governments should legislate and maximize the total amount of the pollution that each person should spend during a year. The less the average carbon footprint per person, the better the health of the environment that is created.
On the contrary, the third method to calculate carbon footprint, http://footprint.wwarf.org.uk., is inappropriate and illogical, because the average of pollution permitted per person is 12.23 tons of CO2 per year. In addition, the questions used to calculate the quantity of pollutant elements are not precise; for example, the site doesn’t ask how much gas is used or spent. The high number 12.23 tons of CO2 permitted per person doesn’t make sense if we want to reduce or eliminate the environment problems. The reason for household calculation is to make the lower number possible of CO2 per person in order to preserve and protect the environment. Environmental problems depend on public education for understanding the issue. Environmental education is necessarily critical for appropriate conscious decision making and saving the universe. In conclusion, environmental problem is a global issue; therefore, everyone should consciously control their carbon footprint and make the environment sustainable for saving planet.
Reference:
Western Daily Press. (2008, Jan 21). “Step up for a lower Carbon Footprint.” Retrieved May 22, 2009, from Lexis Nexis database.
In Western Daily Press (2008, Jan 21) in the article, “ Step Up For a Lower Carbon Footprint” the author mentioned three ways everyone can calculate personal carbon footprint spend in a year through sites on the internet. The author considered that although climate has changed progressively, British people are more concerned about losing weight rather than saving the planet. Each person can calculate his carbon footprint through the internet and each site has different measures, questions and results. The author used 3 different sites: First, www.carbonfootprint.com , where asked for which aked for which country you lived in, how many flights I’d taken, car mileage, heating and light from home, train transport, how much gas, electricity, oil, coal or propane gas; it included products bought, whether I buy organic, recycle, go to restaurants, bars or films and use livestock farming by year. She spent 0.038 tons of CO2 or £332 on gas, £232.78 or 0.179 tons of CO2 from electricity, and she drove 10.499 miles, equivalent to 3.026 CO2, air travel 2, 1.9, rail transport 1,000 miles equal 0.097 tones of CO2. The total of the personal carbon footprint was 8.672 tones of CO2, lower compared to the UK average of 9.8 tons; and the worldwide average carbon footprint is 4 tons per person. In order to struggle with carbon we must decrease to two tons, says Western Daily. Second, they connected to http://actonco2.direct.gov.u.k. on this site it asked for more details about property and lifestyle, such as (how old one’s house is, how many bathrooms it has, how many energy-saving lightbulbs she uses, and how much water she needs to boil a cup of tea, how many times she uses a washing machine, how many times she uses tyre pressure. The total carbon footprint was 8.62 tones compared to the UK average, which was -4.47 tons approximately twice the carbon emission. Third, the author linked to http://footprint.wwf.org.uk, where the average is 12.23 tons of CO2 per year, and the goal for reducing carbon is 2.59 tones of CO2 per person. This site, known as WWF, is confined to more facts on lifestyle such as how many times a week she eats meat and commutes, and how much she spends on jewellery and bath products instead asking for how much gas she uses. Finally, the three methods used for providing personal footprint are different, but they have the purpose of reducing personal carbon footprint.
Many people think that environmental pollution is not their responsibility, and there are people who know that environment is a concern nowadays, but they simply ignore it. Did you think about this worry? Did you think how much have you contributed to damaging the environment? Did you decide to save the planet by yourself? This is what we need to think about. However, although the environment pollution is a global problem, not only does the governments have to take care of it, but each of us should be responsible for managing our carbon footprint because we are a part of society. Household calculation is the good method for people to controlling how much carbon footprint they produce to minimize environment pollution. I agree with author because we can manage our carbon emission through an internet site such as www.carbonfootprint.com and http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk.where where we became a household calculator, protector and conservator of nature, but the author was not precise in the third site, http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/.
The author has a good point when he said that we can control the quantity of carbon emission produced by ourselves using the first internet site; for example, on this site, www.carbonfootprint.com , the carbon calculation requires questions like where you live, how much you spend or use gas, electricity, coal or propane, and flight, car, rail and bus miles, and it gives us the total of the carbon footprint that we contributed for damaging the environment. According to this site, the UK average carbon footprint is 9.8 tons per year. Moreover, this calculation involves all things you buy; for instance, if we buy products made in China, we have to include carbon emission of transportation from China to U.S. This is a good and efficient method of controlling pollution because the population is growing quickly and the government cannot control pollution adequately. It is necessary to increase human comprehension by explaining causes and effects of environmental destruction. Everyone has to feel like an environmental activist.
The second method to calculate individual carbon footprint is more concise due to the fact that if involves more detailed information about property, lifestyle, washing machine and more. Also, the UK average for carbon emission is 4.25 tons of CO2 per year. Here the average permitted per person each year is low, consequently fewer polluting emission. This site http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk helps people to compile, analyze and interpret the data in order to know whether their carbon emission has exceeded the limit. Furthermore, current pollution problems are addressed more and more, so the governments should legislate and maximize the total amount of the pollution that each person should spend during a year. The less the average carbon footprint per person, the better the health of the environment that is created.
On the contrary, the third method to calculate carbon footprint, http://footprint.wwarf.org.uk., is inappropriate and illogical, because the average of pollution permitted per person is 12.23 tons of CO2 per year. In addition, the questions used to calculate the quantity of pollutant elements are not precise; for example, the site doesn’t ask how much gas is used or spent. The high number 12.23 tons of CO2 permitted per person doesn’t make sense if we want to reduce or eliminate the environment problems. The reason for household calculation is to make the lower number possible of CO2 per person in order to preserve and protect the environment. Environmental problems depend on public education for understanding the issue. Environmental education is necessarily critical for appropriate conscious decision making and saving the universe. In conclusion, environmental problem is a global issue; therefore, everyone should consciously control their carbon footprint and make the environment sustainable for saving planet.
Reference:
Western Daily Press. (2008, Jan 21). “Step up for a lower Carbon Footprint.” Retrieved May 22, 2009, from Lexis Nexis database.
Harmfull Basic Needs
In reality humans need basics things to help them living comfortably, but not all these things are healthy for themselves or for the planet; for example, cars, air conditioner and freezer are known as basic utilities for human. Cars are the main source of causing carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere. This gas emission is responsible for trapping heating on the planet, resulting in global warming. Furthermore, the effects of global warming bring to the earth many problems such as, increase in sea level rising, storms, acid rains,and drought. So in general, climate change alters and eliminates ecosystems and biodiversity. Air conditioners and refrigerators have the main source for release of chemical pollutants which have been destroyed the ozone layer. The damage of the ozone layer has caused illness such as skin cancer to the population. The skin cancer result from UV radiation comes from the light sun. Even though people know that all the devices are harmful, they still use them. Therefore, it is urgent and necessary to take action for saving people and plant. However, nowadays people are more worried about environmental problems, and they are struggle in order to make a green environment. I believe that people are very conscious of participating in making a clean and healthy environment, creating prevention methods such as renew, reuse and recycle. In conclusion, each one should feel like an environmentalist to protect plants and themselves; also, we should participate to create and develop new sources of energies.
Climate Change
According to, Stephen Leahy (2008) in his article “Climate Change”: What Chemical lobby weakening ozone treaty, the Antarctic ozone hole, observed and measured by U.S National and Space Administration (NASA), is about 27 million square kilometers. Up to one million people are affected by skin cancer every year and up to 10,000 people will die in the U.S.A. The agreement signed as the Montreal Protocol, by about 24 Countries, 20 years ago, lead by Argentina, U.S and Canada avoided damage of the ozone layer and kept away tens of billions of tons carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Nevertheless, they found that ozone-destroying chemicals were mainly greenhouse gases, so the global warming increased more than carbon dioxide in each molecule. “Without the protocol, the ozone layer would be 30 in Washington, instead of today’s of 10” “ A less than three-minute exposure to the sun in Hawaii would have resulted in sunburn. The skin cancers would be at least 650 percent higher” said Paul A. Newman, an atmospheric physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, and co-chair of the Montreal Protocol’s Scientific Assessment Panel. However, the ozone layer is thin, and the emissions of ozone-damaging chemicals have been decreasing since 11 years ago approximately due to substitution substitution of HCFCs and HFCs refrigerants known as hydrochlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons. HCFC’s damage ozone is five percent of the rate of CFCs, and HFC doesn’t damage. Both HCFCs and HFC are strong greenhouse gases. Furthermore, there are other options for refrigerants that can protect the ozone layer for example, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons. The use of hydrocarbons such as iso-butane, propane in machinery such as refrigerantes (green freeze) are perfect refrigerants for ozone, but the U.S. has not used due to special interests of producers. On the contrary, during the economic crisis the governments will find it difficult to process activities in climate change them due to commercial interests. Finally, at the end of 2009 almost 200 countries will discuss solutions for air pollution, deforestation, biodiversity problems and other dangers to the environment, in order to provide health, social, and economic advantages.
The refrigerants HCFC’s damage ozone at five percent the rate of CFCs and HFCs don’t. Both HCFC’s and HFC’s are strong greenhouse gases because these chemicals act as a layer in the atmosphere that traps heat like a greenhouse. This causes warmer temperatures; plants and animals species migrate North and South towards poles, there are several storms and droughts, and sea level rise. Alternative refrigerants are carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons (iso-butane, propane), for refrigerants (greenfreeze) and air conditioners. I don’t agree with the author that refrigerants could be harmful enough for making a new ozone-damaging chemical. The governments should create policies for regulating commerce and manufacturing of refrigerators for producing green devices. New machines should require green combustibles and a maximum amount of pollutant elements.
I totally agree that humans have been contributing to degrading the environment and have caused damage to the ozone layer and changed on global temperature. The consequences of damages caused to the ozone layers has brought problems for human, animals and plants. Some people believe that the use of refrigerants can be another global pollution problem for ozone-damaging chemicals. However, the practical solution for making a safe environment is to create alternative sources of energies instead of a protocol agreement, application of refrigerants that are a no CFCs and reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases.
I totally agree with creation of a protocol agreement among countries as a preventive action for ozone-damaging, reductions in production and consumption of harmful elements. The ozone-destroying has not only been the cause of many human skin problems but also has been the cause of the problems for plants, animals and other species due to the UV radiation. All the countries should join their environmental problems with other countries because the environmental problem is global and they are interconnected worldwide.The situation of economic crisis definitely makes difficulty progressing activities from the governments for changing the climate. The economic crisis is also a global problem, and all the Nations should work together in order to get a solution. The only way to solve the problem is that investors have to develop new technologies in cars, industries, devices and natural resources for making a friendly environment. Finally, the best solution for saving the environment is to create and develop alternative sources of energies such as biomass, natural gas, wind energy, hydroelectric power, solar energy, hydrogen and nuclear power.
Reference: Leahy, Stephen (2008, Sep.16). Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS). Climate change: chemical lobby weakening ozone treaty.. Retrieved May 18, 2009 from http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=43888
The refrigerants HCFC’s damage ozone at five percent the rate of CFCs and HFCs don’t. Both HCFC’s and HFC’s are strong greenhouse gases because these chemicals act as a layer in the atmosphere that traps heat like a greenhouse. This causes warmer temperatures; plants and animals species migrate North and South towards poles, there are several storms and droughts, and sea level rise. Alternative refrigerants are carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons (iso-butane, propane), for refrigerants (greenfreeze) and air conditioners. I don’t agree with the author that refrigerants could be harmful enough for making a new ozone-damaging chemical. The governments should create policies for regulating commerce and manufacturing of refrigerators for producing green devices. New machines should require green combustibles and a maximum amount of pollutant elements.
I totally agree that humans have been contributing to degrading the environment and have caused damage to the ozone layer and changed on global temperature. The consequences of damages caused to the ozone layers has brought problems for human, animals and plants. Some people believe that the use of refrigerants can be another global pollution problem for ozone-damaging chemicals. However, the practical solution for making a safe environment is to create alternative sources of energies instead of a protocol agreement, application of refrigerants that are a no CFCs and reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases.
I totally agree with creation of a protocol agreement among countries as a preventive action for ozone-damaging, reductions in production and consumption of harmful elements. The ozone-destroying has not only been the cause of many human skin problems but also has been the cause of the problems for plants, animals and other species due to the UV radiation. All the countries should join their environmental problems with other countries because the environmental problem is global and they are interconnected worldwide.The situation of economic crisis definitely makes difficulty progressing activities from the governments for changing the climate. The economic crisis is also a global problem, and all the Nations should work together in order to get a solution. The only way to solve the problem is that investors have to develop new technologies in cars, industries, devices and natural resources for making a friendly environment. Finally, the best solution for saving the environment is to create and develop alternative sources of energies such as biomass, natural gas, wind energy, hydroelectric power, solar energy, hydrogen and nuclear power.
Reference: Leahy, Stephen (2008, Sep.16). Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS). Climate change: chemical lobby weakening ozone treaty.. Retrieved May 18, 2009 from http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=43888
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Getting time on YouTube
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)