The New 3 R’s
The New 3 R’s
I was back in the grocery store this Saturday, but it was not the prices (although I did manage to keep it under ninety pounds once again) that caught my eye or even what other people were buying. In fact, what I noticed this Saturday did not happen until I was home and unpacking my weekly shopping. What I noticed was the amount of packaging, most of it useless, that I put into the bin. Of course, we have been using our green bags for over a year now so we are not throwing very many plastic ones away. Well, in fact we don’t really throw any away, because we try to follow the adage…Reduce, re-use, re-cycle. I want to look at how the 3 R’s of reduce, re-use, recycle fits into all of the Frugal Fam core values.
Family first. Since we are our children’s first and best teachers, I think that the time we invest in teaching them about all things environmental is an excellent investment in our futures and theirs. Isn’t it ironic that reduce, re-use, recycle could become the new 3 R’s. In fact so I don’t wear out my fingers re-typing it all over and over again, let’s us that term in the rest of the article to refer to reduce, re-use, recycle. It is never too early to begin either. At three, my daughter knows the difference between the bin and the recycle bag (sometimes better than my eighteen year old).
Saving money. In fact, in the UK most councils offer free recycling facilities to all residents, which means that recycling costs us nothing. There are examples too of how recycling can actually save you money though, such as my wormary, which produces organic liquid fertiliser and compost or reducing your energy consumption by turning down the thermostat. And as I have shown in past post about Freecycle, charity shops and similar services, you can save a great deal of money by re-using items that someone else may no long need.
But in the USA recycling too can actually pay money. Although not as easy for many American families to place bags or special bins on the stoop (although some forward thinking counties and cities are offering curb-side recycling as in the UK), the profit from this activity can be used to fund extras or meet essential obligations. Before I left Los Angeles in 2006, there were increasingly mini-recycling centres often in the parking lots of grocery stores. Families could take their paper, metal and plastic products and turn them into paper…paper money that is. In some ways this is more incentive to recycle than the UK system. What if your family could pay for its holiday through recycling? Perhaps even clean up your street? I know that my three years old loves helping me to pick up trash in her park. Could your family do something similar?
Environmentally friendly. Like I said, the 3 R’s are among the basics of environmentally friendly. It is one of the easiest things that we can all do to save this special planet for our children and grand-children. Alright, we have all heard the pundits talk about how recycling does not make a difference. So to clear up a few of those myths:
- Enough energy is saved by recycling one aluminium can to run a TV set for three hours.
- A steel mill which uses recycled scrap reduces related water pollution, air pollution, and mining wastes by at least 70 percent.
- Creating one ton of recycled paper uses only about 60 percent of the energy needed to make a ton of virgin paper.
- Seventeen trees are saved for each ton of recycled newspaper.
- Recycling steel and tin cans saves 74 percent of the energy necessary to produce them.
- Today most bottles and jars contain at least 25 percent recycled glass.
Healthy living. It may not be immediately obvious how the 3 R’s can make you healthier, but I have a couple of examples:
- Reduce your carbon footprint by walking to school, the store and anywhere else you can…also increases the amount of exercise you are getting. Walking is actually one of the best exercises there is.
- Eating fresher often means that there is less packaging as frozen, tinned and jarred products, which produce more waste also, are likely to have more added salts, sugars and preservatives.
- Reducing the carbon miles of your food by growing your own fruits and vegetables also allows you to grow them organically as well as having the benefit of reducing your stress through the pleasurable hobby of gardening.
Now that we have talked about how the 3R’s of reduce, re-use and recycle keep with the Frugal Fam core values, I hope that each of you will join me in this journey and share your ideas for Reduce, Re-use, Recycle.
Terri O’Neale is the mother of six; ranging in age from 3 to 22. She has been both a working and stay-at-home mother at various times in her life. She was also a single mother for almost five years, before re-marrying the love of her life at the age of forty. Obviously, she has a life-time of training in raising a family on a tight budget. In addition to these real life experiences, she possesses a bachelors degree in health education and a minored in environmental management in her masters programme.
Terri feels strongly that this is one of the most challenging times in history for the family, but she also believes that families with the will and resolve to address the pressing issues of saving money, becoming greener, leading healthier lifestyles and spending more time with one another can endure these challenging times and come out victorious in the end.
Through Frugal Family articles, blogs, videos and social networking, she helps modern families rediscover some lost art forms such as cooking, sewing, and gardening. The goal is not to go back in time or become fanatical, but to help all families find simple and effective ways that fit into their lifestyle to make moderate changes with huge impacts. For more information, check out her blog http://frugalfam.wordpress.com/.
Global Warming – Are We to Blame?
Global Warming – Are We to Blame?
Global warming is one of those topics that I still find myself wondering what to truly believe. Is our CO2 production really the culprit in the warming of the planet? Or are there some other larger influences at play here. I have a hard time believing mankind’s activities are solely to blame for any kind of climate change.
After all, CO2 is only one of many greenhouse gases that can affect the warming trend. Water vapor is by far the most abundant and effective at influencing the greenhouse problem. But I don’t see any kind of public concern over evaporation of water in any way at all. Okay, I realize that there is little or even nothing that can be done about that but the point is CO2 is just a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases affecting our climate. So if water vapor is by far the largest greenhouse gas then why are we so obsessed by manmade CO2? Mankind’s ego.
We see a small trend in the planets temperature rising and of course we assume it must be what we are doing. I am truly pleased to see that we are taking an interest in reducing pollution from cars and industry but I really have my doubts about the connection to global warming at least in the significant way the media would like us to believe.
The media is sounding the alarm bell which of course sells more newspapers than reporting the less extreme predictions surrounding the warming trend. The weather models produced by scientists predict a reduction in the temperature differences between the poles and the equatorial regions. This will in fact reduce the number of violent tropical storms, as there will be less of a temperature discrepancy to stimulate them. Also the warming of the regions closer to the poles will allow agricultural pursuits in areas where it was not possible before. Food production would be able to rise accordingly. The alarmist media isn’t interested in those types of stories it seems.
The change in the world’s temperature is just that, change. There is irrefutable evidence that the temperature of the planet has and most likely will always be changing regardless of what we are doing. What are we so afraid of? Do the alarmists doubt mankind’s ability to adapt and cope with a few degrees of temperature change or even sea levels rising a meter or so? There will doubtless be hardships and even some displaced people in some regions but man has the ability to adapt and change. We have demonstrated this through the ages. I am confident that we will not only survive these changes but also learn to use them to our advantage.
I live in Canada and if you ask anyone living north of the temperate zone about rising temperatures the resounding response would be “bring it on, we could use a little global warming around here”. Life will improve greatly for huge numbers of the world’s population with a couple of degrees increase in the planet’s temperature. Migration to areas that were before considered uninhabitable by most will have a more moderate climate allowing for farming and other activities. You can’t sell newspapers with stories like that.
The scientific data indicates that 1998 was the warmest year on record. The planet has been cooling ever since. A quote from Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences “The earth is at the peak of one of its passing warm spells, It’ll start getting cold by 2012, and really, really cold around 2041″. So who are we to believe? A respected scientist or Al Gore who has made millions from his crusade for the planet and his questionable agenda and phony pseudo science.
If the planet is warming I can honestly say I hope so. We will get by and probably do well in the process. What really concerns me is the muzzling of real science in the debate. An objective media would go a long way in helping us all deal with the facts as they truly are. Focusing on the alarmist perspective only causes undue fear where none is warranted.
Is driving our SUV’s and minivans really the problem here? Or is our planet just going through another climate cycle like it has done so many times before? The only thing I know for sure is I can’t count on the media to provide the answers.
I recently produced the feature film The Harvest Project. Find out more and view the trailer at http://www.theharvestprojectmovie.com The movie is also available for sale at http://www.filmannex.com/search/searchkey/harvest%20project You can contact me at doug_king@shaw.ca
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Doug_G_King
american idol – green brain
Even with the economy cooling, “Green” products remain — well — if not hot, still very warm. In a report released in February ‘09, market research firm Mintel predicts 19% growth for eco-friendly products through 2013, even though the current economic downturn is expected to negatively impact sales through this year. But “Green” can mean a lot of different things to different people. And that produces some understandable confusion for consumers as to what is truly “Green” and what is instead “Greenwashed”. [Greenwashing is when companies over-hype the positive environmental impact of their products or policies. Tsk-tsk.] Each and every day we review green deals and giveaways before posting them online to ensure the products being promoted are indeed eco-friendly. Some are easy to assess, like a sweepstakes for a Prius. But many times, the green aspect of a product is not as clear-cut as it is for a hybrid car. To help us determine what’s green and what’s not, we looked to criteria established by trusted non-profits, such as Green America, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Consumer Reports, and compiled the following rules-of-thumb: 1) Above all, use common sense. Ask yourself … 2) Look for Certifications/Associations Is the product certified or does the manufacturer have a membership association? Here is just a small sample of the many, many green certifications and associations out there. Consumer Reports “Greener Choices” website has a terrific Eco-label section which can help you sift through the meaning and relative significance of various labels. 3) Read the Ingredient List If a company or product doesn’t have certification/membership affiliations, is there some way for consumers to evaluate their green claim? For example, products that claim to be natural should include a complete ingredient list. 4) Is the Product Fair Trade Certified? Fair trade certification ensures not only that the producer of a good is paid a fair price but also that social and environmental standards are met during production of that good. Many companies may claim their products are fair trade, but you should double check to see whether the product has actual certification from a fair trade labeling organization. In the U.S., that organization is TransFair USA (though at this time, they only certify agricultural products, like coffee and tea.) 5) Is the Product Vegan or Vegetarian? According to a report by U.N. climate experts, animal production is responsible for 18 per cent of all greenhouse emissions, most of it emitted in the form of methane from belching cattle. Yes, that’s right — gassy cows. So shifting your purchases to vegetarian or vegan products — not only food, but items such as shoes and beauty products — can mean fewer burping Bessies and less harm to the environment. Shoppers looking to go green are welcome to use these rules of thumb as a starting point when trying to evaluate the “greenness” of product. But in order to become true green consumers, there is no substitute for first-hand knowledge. We highly encourage shoppers to become as educated as possible on what is and isn’t considered green these days, and how they can evaluate green claims. Be forewarned — trying to decipher what’s green is not a perfect science, but the non-profits mentioned above are excellent places to start your coursework. Good luck! Report Links: Mintel Finds Fewer Americans Interested in Going “Green” During Recession (Feb 09) Ecobunga! (http://www.ecobunga.com) lists hundreds of deals and giveaways for eco-friendly products — everything from coupons on organic foods to sweepstakes for hybrid cars. They review every promotion before publishing it online to ensure that is indeed a bonafide green deal. Ecobunga! is pleased to have recently received the Green America Seal of Approval for socially and environmentally responsible businesses.
american idol - green brain
Is it Green? – A Shopper’s Guide to Buying Eco-Friendly Products
Livestock a major threat to environment (Nov 06)
Yahoo Vs Google – Who’s Greener?
Yahoo Vs Google – Who’s Greener?
Silicon Valley is known for both innovation and hype. Recently, this pool of innovation has extended beyond bandwidth to the protection the environment. Google and Yahoo, the search engine giants, are both headquartered in the Valley and have been making headlines by greening their offices, reducing energy consumption, and carbon trading. The PR motivations are obvious, but are the green benefits really there? To set apart the hype from reality, we have analyzed the green value of both Google and Yahoo’s headquarter facilities.
We looked at the ecological services provided by green landscape features such as trees and open space (i.e. grass). Grass and trees are pervious surfaces, meaning they allow water to permeate into the ground. Roofs, sidewalks, patios, and asphalt parking lots are examples of impervious surfaces, where rainwater drains into the public storm drains. Heavy metals, oil, and other pollutants are carried off parking lots in rainwater, which often lead directly to open water habitats, where fish, birds, and reptiles live.
In terms of ecological services, trees and grass have been proven to:
1. Remove and store carbon from the atmosphere,
2. Remove certain airborne pollutants,
3. Permits rainwater to seep into the ground as opposed to draining into the stormdrains, and
4. Remove certain waterborne pollutants.
Here is a look at how green Google and Yahoo really are and how the measure up against each other.
Google Green Report
Google’s headquarters, the Googleplex, covers 44 acres, nearly 50% of which is grass or tree canopy. This is an impressive paved to open space ratio. The grass and trees on the Googleplex remove roughly 2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.04 tons per year per acre. In addition, 530 lbs. of air pollution are removed per year (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter), or 12 lbs. per year per acre. It was assumed that the parking lot of the Googleplex is asphalt, and not a type of porous pavement, so the cost of managing rainfall runoff from the Googleplex is $4,474 per year, or $103 per year per acre. The abundance of grass and tree canopy on the Googleplex go a long way to offset the water quality impacts of the paved surfaces (mainly the parking lot). On average, the grass and trees reduce water pollution by 6%, as opposed to the entire property being paved.
Yahoo Green Report
The Yahoo headquarters, Yahooplex, covers 28 acres, a third of which is grass or tree canopy. This is a classic ratio of paved to open space for large office complexes in California. So far, par for the course. The Yahooplex removes 0.36 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.01 tons per year per acre. 114 lbs. of air pollutants are removed per year, or 4 lbs. per year per acre. In terms of rainfall, the cost associated with runoff is $9,219 per year, or $331 per year per acre. The grass and tree canopy help offset the paved areas with a 2.3% reduction in water pollution as opposed to the entire property being paved.
The final green analysis?
Google kicks Yahoo’s butt, largely due to the forethought, or luxury, of the Googleplex having 50% of its property surface providing green services. The good news for both Google and Yahoo is that over time, as trees grow, so will the tree’s canopy and mass, thus storing more carbon and removing more air pollutants.
Green next steps for both Google and Yahoo is to:
- Install porous parking surfaces, allowing up to 80% of rainwater to seep into the ground,
- Install green roofs, absorbing rainwater while reducing cooling costs and energy consumption, and
- Planting larger trees on the south and west sides of the buildings to reduce cooling costs and energy consumption.
While we crunched the hard numbers to settle the Google vs. Yahoo green debate, this report illuminates the great opportunity that awaits these two Silicon Valley giants to harness the ecological services of green surfaces.
Chris Erichsen is a GIS Mapping consultant with the Erichsen Group, GIS and Mapping in northern California. He has over 10 yrs of GIS experience and helps many industries around the world apply GIS mapping technology. Learn more examples of GIS mapping capabilities.
The Classroom of Mobile Technology
Yahoo Vs Google – Who’s Greener?
Yahoo Vs Google – Who’s Greener?
Silicon Valley is known for both innovation and hype. Recently, this pool of innovation has extended beyond bandwidth to the protection the environment. Google and Yahoo, the search engine giants, are both headquartered in the Valley and have been making headlines by greening their offices, reducing energy consumption, and carbon trading. The PR motivations are obvious, but are the green benefits really there? To set apart the hype from reality, we have analyzed the green value of both Google and Yahoo’s headquarter facilities.
We looked at the ecological services provided by green landscape features such as trees and open space (i.e. grass). Grass and trees are pervious surfaces, meaning they allow water to permeate into the ground. Roofs, sidewalks, patios, and asphalt parking lots are examples of impervious surfaces, where rainwater drains into the public storm drains. Heavy metals, oil, and other pollutants are carried off parking lots in rainwater, which often lead directly to open water habitats, where fish, birds, and reptiles live.
In terms of ecological services, trees and grass have been proven to:
1. Remove and store carbon from the atmosphere,
2. Remove certain airborne pollutants,
3. Permits rainwater to seep into the ground as opposed to draining into the stormdrains, and
4. Remove certain waterborne pollutants.
Here is a look at how green Google and Yahoo really are and how the measure up against each other.
Google Green Report
Google’s headquarters, the Googleplex, covers 44 acres, nearly 50% of which is grass or tree canopy. This is an impressive paved to open space ratio. The grass and trees on the Googleplex remove roughly 2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.04 tons per year per acre. In addition, 530 lbs. of air pollution are removed per year (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter), or 12 lbs. per year per acre. It was assumed that the parking lot of the Googleplex is asphalt, and not a type of porous pavement, so the cost of managing rainfall runoff from the Googleplex is $4,474 per year, or $103 per year per acre. The abundance of grass and tree canopy on the Googleplex go a long way to offset the water quality impacts of the paved surfaces (mainly the parking lot). On average, the grass and trees reduce water pollution by 6%, as opposed to the entire property being paved.
Yahoo Green Report
The Yahoo headquarters, Yahooplex, covers 28 acres, a third of which is grass or tree canopy. This is a classic ratio of paved to open space for large office complexes in California. So far, par for the course. The Yahooplex removes 0.36 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.01 tons per year per acre. 114 lbs. of air pollutants are removed per year, or 4 lbs. per year per acre. In terms of rainfall, the cost associated with runoff is $9,219 per year, or $331 per year per acre. The grass and tree canopy help offset the paved areas with a 2.3% reduction in water pollution as opposed to the entire property being paved.
The final green analysis?
Google kicks Yahoo’s butt, largely due to the forethought, or luxury, of the Googleplex having 50% of its property surface providing green services. The good news for both Google and Yahoo is that over time, as trees grow, so will the tree’s canopy and mass, thus storing more carbon and removing more air pollutants.
Green next steps for both Google and Yahoo is to:
- Install porous parking surfaces, allowing up to 80% of rainwater to seep into the ground,
- Install green roofs, absorbing rainwater while reducing cooling costs and energy consumption, and
- Planting larger trees on the south and west sides of the buildings to reduce cooling costs and energy consumption.
While we crunched the hard numbers to settle the Google vs. Yahoo green debate, this report illuminates the great opportunity that awaits these two Silicon Valley giants to harness the ecological services of green surfaces.
Chris Erichsen is a GIS Mapping consultant with the Erichsen Group, GIS and Mapping in northern California. He has over 10 yrs of GIS experience and helps many industries around the world apply GIS mapping technology. Learn more examples of GIS mapping capabilities.
Plasma Gasification Plant Benefits
Plasma Gasification Plant Benefits
Plasma Gasification Plant (PGP) projects are being developed by at least five gas plasma technology companies, and there are real benefits to be obtained from this technology for the destruction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW).
There is some debate still whether the process has been demonstrated to be a vaible technology which can be reliably operated by our waste management companies at reasonable cost and in compliance with all emissions regulations. However, the consensus seems to be largely in acceptance now that the technology is largely proven and inherently cleaner than incineration.
Although, gasification is used as a power generating technology, and gas plasma plants do provide a power feed-in to the local power grid, it should be realised by all that the purpose of selecting plasma gasification is currently that of achieving maximum waste mass destruction. The intent of the PGP is primarily to provide an efficent and clean method of dispoing of large quantities of residual MSW. Plasma gasification, although it does produce energy from waste is not primarliy an Energy from Waste (EfW) or Waste to Energy technology. There are other better proven, more efficient, and potentially always also cheaper ways to produce Energy from Waste, such as incineration.
PGPs suffer a high sacrificial load from the use of power at the electrodes to generate the plasma, and energy is also expended before the MSW reaches the plasma zone in the gasifier in chopping up and ensuring that the particle size of the waste is quite small. For this reason they do expend a large proportion of the power generated just in maintaining their own internal power demand.
However, as a waste destruction method producing an inert residue without creating at the same time high levels of toxic gaseous emissions the gas plasma process excels according to reports made to date. It has every reason to be cleaner as well because the reactions which take place in the plasma state take place so quickly and completely that the toxic organic chemicals produced in other combustion processes simply don’t get a change to be produced.
For a waste management process PGP therefore holds a very good prospect of adoption, as it is a process which is very efficient at diverting waste away from landfill, and thus scores highly among local authority waste disposal engineers who are constantly seeking to comply with regulations to reduce the amount of organic waste sent to landfill.
The PGP process however, also holds another merit and that is that it is being viewed more favourably by the public than incineration, and one main reason for that would be its clean emissions record when compared with incinerators historically.
Throughout Europe the requirement for BMW to be reduced by ever larger percentages necessitates the use of new technology to achieve this high rate of waste diversion, even after high recycling has also been achieved.
Look out for a plasma gasification plant appearing in a district near you soon, and look favourably upon it!
Steve has built a great web site where there are a lot more facts about gasification. This is a hot subject indeed for this technology which has become an essential read for all those who appreciate renewable energy issues and are interested in taking action to reduce the impact of climate change.Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Steve_D_Evans
GreenTech's News
An Earth Day Lesson
An Earth Day Lesson
Scientists have discovered that forest trees offer unexpected help in the fight against climate change. Tropical rain forests are soaking up more carbon dioxide pollution that anybody realized. Almost one-fifth of our fossil fuel emissions are absorbed by forests across Africa, the Amazon and Asia, suggests Simon Lewis, a climate expert at the University of Leeds, who led a a laborious study of the girth of 70,000 trees across Africa.
David Ritter, senior forest campaigner at Greenpeace UK, said, “This research reveals how these rain forests are providing a huge service to mankind by absorbing carbon dioxide from our factories, power stations and cars. The case for forest protection has never been stronger.”
And yet we continue to cut them down across the world at an alarming rate!
What will happen when we lose natures best carbon filters?
As a nature nut, I feel compelled to address these very questions in this Earth Day lesson, because up until now, truly had not understood the serious impact we humans have had on the very things in nature that can save us from destruction, like rain forests …up until now, that is.
I’m grateful to have joined an incredibly talented and caring circle of people through on-line social networking who have inspired me to learn all about Earth Day, connect with the people involved in it and take action on what I’ve learned by celebrating Earth Day Birthday. This Earth day Lesson is written with the intention to inspire you to do the same.
Having just recently moved to Australia, I was fortunate enough to experience a wild rain forest filled with several waterfalls on a friend’s property. It was an experience that will stay with me forever because we can not feel the power of a special place like this and not intuitively know we have a duty to protect this amazing life form from destruction. The desire to share the spirit which envelops it is intense!
I intuitively knew I must share the experience, as well as my research as to what has been discovered about rain forests and their role in overcoming the challenge of global warming and the extinction of species.
Is “Deforestation” a Dirty Word?
It’s pretty easy to understand why deforestation has gotten a bad rap!
For example…
- Excessive commercial logging and clear cutting. These obvious moneymaking acts are rampant and the greedy business people make the bottom line their priority, regardless of its illegality and obvious wrong-doing.
- What happens to the animals! Trees are home to many species, including indigenous humans, who suddenly become homeless and often, extinct! Not to mention the demise of many plants which are natural wonders, many with healing properties.
- One major effect of deforestation is climate change. Deforestation has been found to contribute to global warming…the process when climates around the world become warmer as more harmful rays of the sun comes in through the atmosphere.
Changes to the earth as a result deforestation work in various ways:
One fact most people don’t realize is the abrupt change in temperatures it causes in the nearby areas. Forests naturally cool because they help keep moisture in the air. Some forget, also, about the water table underneath the ground. The water table is the common source of natural drinking water by people living around forests. Water table could dry up if not replenished regularly. When there’s rain, forests hold the rainfall to the soil through their roots, then the water sinks in deeper to the ground, replenishing the water table.
What do you suppose will happen when there are not enough forests anymore?
Water from rain will simply flow through the soil surface and not be retained by the soil. Or the water from rain will not stay in the soil longer, since the process of evaporation will immediately set in. Not good, right? I think we’d all agree that the need for drinking water is NOT negotiable.
So, if deforestation is so bad…why are we still allowing it?
Even though the word “deforestation” itself conjures up negativity and destruction, people don’t seem to realize that there are actually quite a few benefits of deforestation.
Just imagine what it would be like to live without the use of lumber. Wood is one of the most basic natural resources, and it is renewable simply by growing more trees. The trick is to balance it’s consumption by growing more trees to replace the ones removed. This is not, however, such an easy task.
With thousands of people losing their jobs, just imagine if the wood industry were to suddenly find themselves jobless. There are the people who cut down trees and process them and those who “clean up” after them. As forest is cut down, arable land becomes available for farmers, or used as an area to place urban living sites like apartments, houses, and buildings. If mandates are made for replanting trees, then jobs are also provided for the people performing that service.
With arable land being valuable for growing food, new land area provides a much needed place to grow a food supply to deal with the planet’s steadily expanding population of humanity. Additional living areas can be converted into more than just housing areas. Buildings can house offices for work, or factories to produce essential items, or even research facilities for things like new new medical or technological advances can end up in these deforested areas.
A colleague of mine, originally from Germany, would make a strong argument for forestry as a full time profession that can maintain a never ending supply of wood, as has been done in Europe for thousands of years. “In these forests, nobody clear cuts anywhere and trees are selectively selected while the rest of the forest remains and new tree-seedlings are put where the cut trees were. Europeans would probably argue that there are so many desert areas in the world that could be populated similar to the valley of the sun around Phoenix where no trees have to be sacrificed.”
Great arguments from both sides, so how do we proceed?
Let’s look at the REAL causes of Global Warming for answers
It comes full circle, back to carbon dioxide and the need for nature’s most effective carbon filter…forests.
Just think…Each time we drive a car, each time we use electricity from coal fired power plants, use natural gas or oil to heat our homes, we cause carbon dioxide (CO2) to be released into the atmosphere, as well as other heat trapping gases. The concentration of CO2 has increased by 31 percent since industrialization of our society and atmospheric methane gas has increased by 151 percent, caused mainly from agricultural activities like growing rice and breeding cattle.
As the concentration of these gases increases more heat is generated and trapped in the atmosphere. The increase in trapped heat alters our climate causing changed weather patterns which can bring unusually intense rainfall (precipitation) leading to flooding and severe storms, long dry spells leading to drought conditions and forest fires the like we just witnessed in the Australia Bush fires of 2009.
So what’s the solution?
There is no one best solution. Humans have been clearing forests over thousands of years for a variety of reasons. Obviously, as the statistics suggest above, much of the bad effects we experience today are happening at warp speed, so we really can’t afford to take our time in changing our ways.
Each of us can do something! Individually we can do small things…but together we can make a huge contribution to creating and implementing positive solutions. One has only to get on-line and Google the terms Earth Day or Earth Day Birthday to research, connect, watch, listen, take part and take action along with millions of other caring souls, government entities, non-profit associations and conscientious companies who are not letting any “grass grow under their feet”.
Earth Day, which was founded by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson as an “environmental teach-in” in 1970, is celebrated each year on April 22, mobilizing 200 million people in 141 countries and lifting the status of environmental issues onto the world stage.
Events are happening in every corner of the earth. Attend one!
Mankind needs Mother Earth. Mother Earth needs you to participate! Can you put aside just $10.00 for a gift to give your Mother Earth on her birthday, April 22nd, 2009?
Debbie Ducic, also known as GutZy Woman, gently, supportively and passionately helps “GutZy Women (and Brave men)” overcome their fear and frustration of technology and multimedia marketing in order to be more successful in their businesses, fund raising efforts and lives. Debbie has expanded her reach and her professional resources by becoming an evangelist for socially conscious, eco-minded movements and she can be contacted through her website: http://www.gutzywomen.com . More valuable resources and information from Debbie as well as 49 other GutZy Web Women can be immediately accessed by downloading the “Attraction in Action, Volume 2″ book at her blog: http://www.debbieducic.com
Hybrid SUV
Cleanliness Analysis
Cleanliness Analysis
You cannot control that which you do not measure.
In more and more industries, the exact knowledge of particle contamination is gaining in importance. Contamination of materials in dimensions of a few micrometers was mainly of concern for the pharmaceutical and semiconductor industries. However, not only manufacturers of circuit board components, but also traditional car parts suppliers face new demands on particle recognition and contamination source identification.
Cleanliness for the automotive parts manufacturers has become a huge topic in today’s ever challenging continuous improvement world. The need to define, measure and control the levels of particulate contamination on product is the new norm for suppliers and automotive OEM’s.
Cleanliness directly relates to product warranties, reliability, performance and safety issues. It has long been known that a dirty product gives us poor quality and low life expectancy. The dirtier the transmission from new, the less time it will last.
It is crucial now to identify particles and their source so that effective elimination can be achieved. Residual contamination consists of particles that persist on the component’s surface after the final step in manufacturing. Such contaminants are introduced via parts from suppliers or arise during processing. After vehicle assembly, the contaminant particles can cause severe damage, loss of function or reduce the lifetime of the product.
Cleanliness is defined as the contamination level of a component surface. Common measures to quantify the cleanliness are mass of the contaminants as well as number, size of the dirt particles. In general, the customer will specify contamination limits. The supplier then has to maintain these levels and document them regularly by means of contamination analysis.
The analysis of the contamination has to be proven to not affect the result and to be effective in evaluating all the contamination present. Methods of extraction and evaluation are specified in the international standard ISO 16232. Particular attention must be paid to the extraction method to ensure no contributing factors are introduced to the evaluation. There are different methods of counting the resulting extracted particles but by far the most accurate, repeatable and cost effective is automated microscope analysis. The microscope with software can scan the filter membrane; sort the particles by size class and even determine basic material composition (metal, non-metal, fiber). Once the data is gathered a custom report can be generated based on the customer requirements.
For more information on cleanliness analysis, visit http://www.onclean.com
Chris Trower is the President of Onclean Labs Inc, an Ontario based lab specializing in third party cleanliness analysis testing.
About The faircompanies
The Perfect Solar Storm – From A Global Disaster
The Perfect Solar Storm – From A Global Disaster
The average solar cycle lasts for eleven years. The cycle includes a minimum of solar activity and a maximum. The sun is unusually quiet right now and has been for some time but there should be an increase in solar activity at some point in the near future.
The best current scientific estimate for the next solar maximum is 2012. If this estimate is correct, there is still a few years to try and prevent the potential of a future global disaster. A disaster that would begin on the surface of the sun and could end with tragedy on earth.
The surface of the sun is a mass of plasma that contains highly charged energy particles. Once in a while, some of these particles escape the suns surface and a mass of plasma travels through space on the solar wind. This process is known in scientific terms as a coronal mass ejection but it can also be called a solar storm.
A disaster for the planet would occur if a solar storm reaches and hits the earths magnetic shield in just the right way. If it were to happen, millions of people would lose their lives and the planet would be thrown into chaos as the technology that has become crucial to every day living suddenly gets taken away.
The perfect solar storm will start with skies that will be filled with a bright red aurora. However, soon everything will become dark as every electric bulb becomes devoid of light. The storms damage to the electric grid would be caused through an increased DC current. The runaway current would knock out and melt hundreds of key transformers within minutes, cutting off power for hundreds of millions of people.
Those damaged transformers cannot be repaired only replaced and installing a replacement takes a well-trained crew a week or more. Its incredible to consider that most major electrical utilities have just one or two suitably trained crews available for these type of transformer repairs. In addition, there are only a few spare transformers available and the rest would have to be built to order. Its a process that can take nearly twelve months.
So, the power blackout from the perfect solar storm would last for months but its not just the absence of light that would be the problem. Drinking water would still come through the taps for maybe half a day after the storm. With no electricity to pump water from reservoirs, there would be no more tap water after that.
The electric grid is necessary for almost all natural gas and fuel pipelines to operate. As a result, fuel and natural gas will quickly run out and without food delivery, supermarket shelves would soon become bare. Soon it would become necessary to control public hysteria and the military would have to be called in to restore civil order
There will be no power for heat, cooling or refrigeration until the grid is repaired and after their back up generators run out, hospitals will not be able to provide modern healthcare. A lack of water and food will result in spreading disease but Pharmaceutical companies without electricity will not be able to produce the necessary medicine.
Of course, many will say that this is absurd science fiction and it cannot happen here, but this chilling disaster scenario was outlined in a report released last January (funded by NASA) by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
The fact is that a storm from the sun did hit the earths magnetic field in 1859. The effect of this solar storm on earth became known as the Carrington Event. The event was named after the amateur astronomer who observed two patches of intensely bright and white light emanating from a large group of sunspots that may have produced the event.
The solar storm that produced the Carrington Event created a red aurora across the planet from the poles to the tropics. Throughout the world, telegraph systems crashed, machines burst into flames, and electric shocks rendered operators unconscious. Compasses and other sensitive instruments reeled as if struck by a massive magnetic fist. It can happen again and the technology of the planet is now much more advanced and vulnerable.
The next solar maximum is estimated to return in about three years. A global disaster from the perfect solar storm can be prevented with proper contingency planning. There is still time for the government to be proactive and prepare to avoid disaster by creating a potential response to quickly repair the damage to the electric grid from the perfect solar storm.
James William Smith has worked in Senior management positions for some of the largest Financial Services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. He has always been interested in writing and listening to different viewpoints on interesting topics. Visit his website at http://www.eworldvu.com or his daily blog at http://www.eworldvublog.blogspot.com
USA – China – A G2 For Climate and Economy?
USA – China – A G2 For Climate and Economy?
China appears to view global warming as an economic issue, Obama’s administration is primarily focused on the current economic crisis as well, but climate change is also a serious crisis and a threat to the world’s economic system itself with all its present and predicted impacts. Don’t these global problems require an integrated economic and environmental strategy? The hypothesized summit between Barack Obama and the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, could be an important step to accelerate urgent actions needed both to face the global economic downturn and to build a solid climate pact.
China, in its last 5-year plan, sets targets to reduce national energy intensity (energy used per unit of GDP) by 20% between 2006 and the end of 2010. According to Deborah Seligsohn, China Program Director on Climate, Energy and Pollution of the World Resources Institute, this target seems to be realizable given their latest remarkable record (-1.8% in 2006, -3.7% in 2007, and -4.2% in 2008.) Last month Hillary Clinton met experts from the Asia Society and the Pew Centre for Climate Change that together wrote a report that could help the creation of this US-Chinese partnership on climate change. But the good examples from China, although not directly referred to CO2 emissions, and Obama’s ambitious plan on energy and climate will need decisions from other 13 countries (or federations such as the EU), including Russia, India, Japan to get 80% of world’s emissions “under control”. Nowadays the other 173 countries account for about 20% of total CO2 emissions, but population increase and old development patterns could dangerously increase their “pollution share” in the future: every nation will be then required to cut the CO2, but large amount of money are needed to do so. Where will our leaders take Dollars, Yuan or Euros these days?
Next steps: -264 days to COP15:
Two events along the path to Copenhagen will take place in Bonn from March 29th to April 8th: the 7th session of the AWG-KP (Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex 1Parties under the Kyoto Protocol) and 5th session of the AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention). As we can read on the UNFCCC website “this is the first of three planned negotiating sessions before COP 15 in December” and can hopefully prepare a good ground for delegations and political leaders to decide upon.
Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding to Climate Change.
For further information on Climate Change please visit the Responding to Climate Change website – http://www.rtcc.org
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Luca_Marazzi
Free Computers of Your Green Life Segment!