- http://vatlieu.us/about-vietnam.html?view=mediawiki&article=List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Kyoto Protocol
Friday, December 11, 2009
The Man who planted trees
After he finished that task he then began to make honey from honey bees. He went on doing other things for the benefit of others and helping the earth.
This movie showed us that one person really can make a difference in their habitat. If people do a few simple, small things, it can add up to one big difference. After learning all about global warming, how the atmosphere is crumbling, how the polar ice caps are melting, etc. it was nice to end the semester with such an uplifting movie. It gets you thinking about how much one or even ten men can accomplish, if they put their minds to it. Quitting would be the worst thing that can happen. If you don't quit, then you can never fail!
Al Gore's theory.... global warming!
During the movie An inconvenient Truth Al Gore showed pictures of what was on earth years ago, and what it is now. It is all very fascinating and scary. Al Gore states from his movie, “As important as it is to change the lights and the windows, it is far more important to change the policies, and there are many places where people can find the individual actions that can save energy, save money and reduce pollution, and yet the ultimate solution to this crisis has to come in the form of new policies, new laws and new treaties that are international in scope.”
AL Gore agrees that it is ironic that "he has, from time to time, taken to the entertainment biz to press the case — “a lot of people glean a good bit of knowledge from the humorous treatment of the news” — and he says he would “love the chance” to do a followup to “Truth,” although none is in the works.
Al Gore is a very smart, passionate man who knows what he is talking about. From watching his video I was inspired to change my ways for the better of the earth. I think he should do A follow up to "An Incovienient Truth". It would be great to see if the changes that people have made, has helped the planet at all.
Industry Pollutants affect Obesity in Akwesasne boys and girls
Industry factories were polluting the rivers from which the Akwesasne people fish with Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's). Some of the corporations with factories in the area are General Motors, and Alcoa Inc.
PCB's are lipophilic, meaning they accumulate in fat tissue. They also bioaccumulate (are passed on through trophic levels) and are highly resistant to breakdown in the body.
Fish was a main part of the Akwesasne diet, but as a result of PCB accumulation in the rivers, an advisory was made to eliminate fishing in these areas and to discontinue consumption of fish from the area. The advisory may have come too late for many individuals who had already been exposed and contaminated by the PCB's. For those who were not, dramatic changes in the diet adversely affected their body weight.
Akwesasne people experience a very low socioeconomic status. Many of these people work in the factories for little pay. We learned in class that low SES individuals tend to purchase calorie-dense foods because they are inexpensive and filling. In Akwesasne Nation, the drastic change in diet was substituting high protein lean fish for calorie-dense and nutrient-deficient foods readily available in stores catering to low-income individuals.
The effects have been drastic.
Information on the effects of PBC's on obesity in Akwesasne nation can be found in the following link.
http://esc.syrres.com/sraupstateny/downloads/symposium%20presentations/david.ppt#18
Enron: What Went Wrong
Trade
The Last Video
Education
- There is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education
Family
- The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values. New York: The New Press, 2001
Alternative Energy
Lately there has been a lot if talk in my community about solar power,two of my close friends are going to school at Hudson Valley Community College to learn how to install the panels, and learn more in depth about the solar market. One of my friends always tells me that this is going to be the new market and that it is going to make money, I agree with him to a certain extent but not fully. I believe that solar power could very well be one of the most useful forms of power the only thing that I see posing as a problem is the financial aspect. The reason why people use oil or any other form of fossil fuel as a power source is because it is not hard to obtain and it is inexpensive to use.Eventually both of those statements will be false do to the factor of peak oil that is inevitable in the long run. This is where solar power could do some good the only downside to this is the financial burden that it has. If solar power were made less expensive I believe more people that are environmentally conscious would use this form of energy for their homes and businesses, and if there was some form incentive for corporations to make the switch like tax breaks or government funding I believe they would readily make the switch too. As with most things positive reinforcement is needed to cause a change.
The Many Benefits of Urban Living
Earlier in the semester we watched a video titled "The End of Suburbia". It highlighted the many cons of living in the suburbs and the environmental implications that exist in attempting to sustain the suburban lifestyle. Suburbs tend to be isolated from businesses and places of work. This increases the need for vehicles to get around. Obviously, that has implications on the environment. Using a vehicle as a primary means for transportation has a negative effect on the health of individuals as well because it decreases the opportunity for exercise. Though, in children, this can be countered with participation in sports and recreational activities, adults in the suburbs tend to lead a much more sedentary life-style. This may be a contributor to the obesity epidemic.
City dwellers tend to use mass transit for transportation, lowering carbon dioxide emissions. The proximity of businesses, schools and jobs means people can walk or cycle to and from their destinations. City parks provide green space for recreational activities as well as reduction of atmospheric CO2. There is more opportunity for physical activity, which may help decrease rates of obesity.
I know many people will agree will not agree with the idea that raising a family in a city/urban environment is better, but I found growing up in an urban environment to be a positive experience for me. There are parks within walking distance of most residential areas. I could go to the museum or the theatre or school without the need of a vehicle. I was exposed to a wide variety of cultures. There was always something to see or do; some new food to try or new person to talk to. I gained a certain wisdom that can't necessarily be measured, but I know has everything to do with my constant exposure to different people and situations.
Of course, cities are not perfect. There are dangers that exist there just like anywhere else, but I think the benefits outweigh the costs.
My Carbon Footprint
carbonfootprint.com defines a carbon footprint as:
"a measure of the impact our activities have on the environment, and in particular climate change. It relates to the amount of greenhouse gases produced in our day-to-day lives through burning fossil fuels for electricity, heating and transportation etc."
The image above, from carbonfootprint.com, shows the percentages that daily activities and consumption contribute to carbon dioxide emissions.
There are a number of websites available that offer people the opportunity to calculate their carbon footprint based on their daily activities and behaviors. One such website is nature.org.
The Carbon footprint calculator calculates your individual or household carbon footprint in tons of CO2 eq/year. The calculator asked me questions about home heating, travelling, appliance use, energy efficient light bulb use, diet and meat consumption, and recycling habits.
My results were quite surprising and lower than I expected. According to the calculator my personal carbon footprint is 7.9 (tons CO2 eq/year). This is compared to the average American's personal carbon footprint, estimated at 27, and the world average, estimated at 5.5. I was also surprised to see how much higher the carbon footprint of the average American is in comparison to the rest of the world. It makes me think that policies need to be made to regulate our carbon emissions. What's the awareness of climate change has not seemed to decrease the CO2 emissions in this country.
The fact that I don't drive a car may have a lot to do with my low carbon footprint. I live in a very large city with an efficient public transportation system. Owning a car is neither necessary nor convenient. I reside in an apartment building which does not allow me to regulate the temperature in my apartment, however, all of my light bulbs are energy efficient as are the majority of my appliances. This may also contribute to my lower footprint.
Another thing nature.org does is breakdown your behavior and offer advice on how to reduce your carbon footprint. I think everyone should visit the website and have their carbon footprint calculated. Is it lower or higher than you expected?
http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/carbonfootprint.html
Kyoto Protocol, Is it doomed to fail?
The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent below reported levels in 1990. 37 "Annex 1" countries commit to reducing the following greenhouse gases
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Nitrous Oxide
Sulfur-Hexaflouride
as well as
HFC's and PFC's (Flourocarbons)
Reported levels of greenhouse gases in 1990 were:
335 ppm Carbon Dioxide
1616 ppb Methane
310 ppb Nitrous Oxide
(global levels of Sulfur Hexaflouride not found)
Today, Carbon Dioxide levels have increased to above 385ppm. Methane levels are above 1750ppb and nitrous oxide levels are above 315ppb.
The Protocol places more pressure on developed nations that are principally responsible for the increase in greenhouse gas emissions at the turn of the century.
The problem with this is that, today, the nations most responsible for greenhouse emissions are developing countries just entering industrialization and attempting to catch up with already developed nations. The developing countries have substantially larger populations as well, which just duplicates the problem. If the protocol does not pressure them to commit to reducing emissions, the efforts of the treaty will be fruitless.
Another problem is that developed countries, like the United States, have diminished their greenhouse emissions by outsourcing their factories and plants to developing nations. This is completely counterproductive to the efforts of the protocol
It seems as if the Kyoto protocol is just a document showing the UN's intent on doing something about climate change. According to carbonify.com, signers to the agreement are not bound to commit to it unless their government ratifies it.
Worse yet, the United States recently refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol under the excuse that it would be bad for the economy. The irony is that the U.S. is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse emissions in the world. Another reason the U.S. refused to ratify the agreement was because developing nations like China would not be obligated to commit to the conditions of the agreement.
how can the UNFCCC expect to meet it's goals of reducing greenhouse emissions to safer levels if nations are not participating in the efforts?
Please watch this CNN video about the Kyoto Agreement
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/tech/2009/12/06/coren.kyoto.backgrounder.cnn.html
The following websites further explain the Kyoto Protocol, as well as it's limitations and successes. I encourage you all to check them out and let me know what you think. I am curious to see your positions on the ratification of the Protocol in the U.S.
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
http://www.carbonify.com/articles/kyoto-protocol.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Sequestration of Carbon in the Oceans
In efforts to reverse the carbon dioxide emissions, scientists have created very innovative ways of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. I read an article in Science Daily about using the Ocean to trap excess CO2 emissions. I did a little more research and found that scientists have been developing many ways to use the Ocean as a tool against climate change.
There are two methods under research at the moment for trapping carbon dioxide in the ocean. One method is injecting liquefied carbon dioxide into the deep ocean. Presumably, the pressure at the bottom of the ocean is strong enough to keep carbon dioxide from escaping from it's liquid form. "At great depths, CO2 is denser than sea water, and it may be possible to store it on the bottom as liquid or deposits of icy hydrates,"(b)
The second method under research is fertilizing the oceans. Phytoplankton on the surface of the ocean remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere pretty efficiently. Fertilizing the oceans with iron would promote phytoplankton growth and increase carbon dioxide removal with the assumption that the CO2 consumed by these microorganisms would sink to the bottom of the ocean and remain sequestered there or be consumed with the phytoplankton by fish(b).
However brilliant these methods may seem, they are simply hypotheses and may fail. My concern is that testing these methods would mean experimenting with the delicate ecosystems that exist in the oceans.
Water and carbon dioxide mix together to form carbonic acid(b). High levels of carbonic acid in the oceans could change the pH and have adverse effects on the organisms living in them. The last thing we need is to disrupt another ecosystem.
Fertilizing the oceans may have adverse effects as well. It is not known for certain that the carbon sequestered in the phytoplankton will sink to the bottom, nor is it known what happens to carbon once it sinks to the bottom (b). One experiment done in the Antarctic Ocean found that "seven weeks after the experiment ended a distinct pattern of iron-fertilized plankton was still visible from space -- 'which means the fixed carbon was still at the surface.'"
Further detail on these experiment can be found at the links below.
Carbon sequestration sounds like an interesting idea, however, it is only a quick fix to the massive problem at hand. It will never work to eliminate excess emissions of CO2 if we continue life as we do. Changes must be made to reduce CO2 emissions so that our oceans don't have to pick up the slack.
(a) http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm
Visit this website. It provides up to date information about current atmospheric CO2 levels as well as historical data and tips on reducing our carbon footprint.
(b)http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sea-carb-bish.html
(c)http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080218134635.htm
Here is a link to a graph on thedailygreen.com showing trends in CO2 emissions over the last fifty years
http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/sY/carbon-dioxide-trend-lg.jpg
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Final Say
William Cline: The Economics of Global Warming
Cline, William. The Economics of Global Warming. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 1992.
Humans increase the amount of greenhouse gases released into the environment; however, natural factors also increase the greenhouse effect and are the cause of global warming. Global warming is continues to occur at this very moment, just like the Ice Age happened naturally overtime. But humans can decrease the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted into the environment by correcting some of their actions. If humans are not willing to correct their daily lifestyles, then they should realize how it would affect people in the future. Global warming would greatly endanger animals, humans, plant life, and the United States economy. William Cline declared:
Annual losses from sea-level rise would amount to an estimated $7 billion… Increased electricity requirements for air conditioning would amount to some $11 billion annually… Increased urban pollution with warmer weather would impose an annual cost on the order of $4 billion. An increased incidence of mortality with heat stress would amount to some $6 billion in annual losses. The lumber value of forest loss would be over $3 billion annually. Other tangible costs would arise from increased hurricane and forest fire damage, and there would be additional net infrastructure costs from increased immigration (Cline 5)
All these mortalities and amounts of money are not worth people thinking global warming is not important and not caring on what affect it will have on our children and the future of world.
In order to help save our grandchildren, we have to do our part in the world today to help for the future. As inhabitants of earth, we can walk more and drive less, or drive hybrids so there are less gases being emitted; use light bulbs that have the energy star; reduce, reuse, recycle; use water, heating, and air conditioning efficiently; plant trees and plants; and most importantly spread the news to others. These are just a few of the many solutions we can do to help slow the process of global warming. Our carbon footprints, which are the amount of carbon dioxide we produce, must be observed and decreased. If everyone in the world made a few of these changes, the world would be drastically better already.
Human Effect on the Environment: Global Warming
Global Warming can be briefly defined as the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans. However, there are so many ins and outs and causes and effects of Global Warming. Before the topic of Global Warming was brought to the table it was thought, better yet assumed by many people that our world is so big that we could not effect it in the least bit. Although that may have been true thousands of years ago, it does not hold true today. Our technologies and advancements have grown so great, that they, or better yet we, are actually destroying our world. So although we are moving forward in history as so advanced, our world is actually getting worse with each second that goes by.
Our earth’s atmosphere is the most vulnerable aspect of our ecological system. Carl Sagan explains it by saying “If you had a globe covered with a coat of varnish, the thickness of that varnish would be about the same thickness of the earth’s atmosphere compared to the earth itself”. The earth’s atmosphere is supposed to protect us from bad but all we are doing is destroying that protection ourselves. Research shows that the world has now become hotter than at any time during the past 1000 years. Global warming is changing distributions of plants and animals, including animal migration, population sizes and growth rates. It is changing the intensity and frequency of storms, droughts, fires, raising the level of the oceans, and melting glaciers. Unfortunately, all of these consequences are life-altering effects. Scientific research shows that heat-trapping emissions from human activities have caused most of the global warming observed over the past 50 years. The types of human activities that cause these heat emissions are such things as gases produced by vehicles, power plants, industrial processes and deforestation. In addition to those emissions, the intermingling of highways, human developments, plantations, and farms with nature has enormously fallen under the options for nature’s response to the current warming.
In my opinion, the small things can make a difference if everyone participates. Some things we can do to help save our environment are:
Change a light.
Drive less.
Recycle more.
Check your tires.
Use less hot water.
Avoid products with a lot of packaging.
Adjust your thermostat.
Plant a tree.
Turn off electronic devices.
Most importantly: Spread the word worldwide.