Greenhouse gases naturally blanket the Earth and keep it about 33º C (Celsius), warmer than it would be without these gases in the atmosphere. This is called the Greenhouse Effect. Over the past century, the Earth has increased in temperature by about .5º C which many scientists now believe is the result of an increased concentration of the main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorocarbons.
This climate change, over the past century, has become known as “the beginning of Global Warming”. Many of these scientist claim that if these gases are produced at increasing rates, the resulting effects will be: more severe floods, longer droughts, increasing prevalence of insects, rising sea levels, shift in amount and location of precipitation, as well as the ice caps melting. These global warming changes are also said to cause lower health and decrease economic development. Not all scientists agree with this theory of Global Warming. This other theory argues that Global Warming is a natural phenomenon, hence is part of the Earth's natural cycle.
To date, neither theory can, without a doubt, prove which is true. The only thing that can be seen and is agreed upon by both sides is that the Earth has seen an increase of greenhouse gas emissions at extremely high rate and has shown only minuet signs of decreasing these emissions until a few years ago: The Kyoto Protocol of 1997, humans have taken the first step in decreasing these emissions to help ensure our future.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
What A Bunch Of Whiners!
There are many people (over 70 groups), who are not very happy with Caterpillar. This is because Caterpillar has recently joined the USCAP (United States Climate Action Partnership). USCAP is made up of companies and environmentalist groups who wish to put a “cap-and-trade system” on carbon emissions. Here are some comments by the opposed groups stating their “up-right and respectable” views:
What miners are saying:
"Caterpillar has joined with some of the most radical environmentalists who have been enemies of mining, including coal, for decades. The stated policy of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership is a 60 to 80 percent reduction in us carbon emissions by 2050. China's emissions of carbon dioxide are already exceeding those of the United States, and China's told the world that they are going to do nothing about it.... Jobs will be exported overseas and people on fixed incomes will see their energy costs skyrocket.
So the policy of Jim Owens will destroy the American economy for no environmental benefit. As a result of this, I sent him a letter a couple of months ago telling him that Murray Energy Corporation will no longer do business with Caterpillar. This will result in the loss of millions of dollars in business to Caterpillar."
- Robert E. Murray, Chairman, President and CEO, Murray Energy Corporation
What seniors are saying:
"Many seniors on fixed incomes are already struggling with the high cost of heating and cooling their homes. I'm afraid that what Caterpillar is promoting would only drive those costs higher, perhaps even out of reach for those who most need affordable energy."
- Jim Martin, President, 60 Plus
What national leaders are saying:
"I am personally disappointed that such an excellent company as Caterpillar has made the fateful decision to turn its back on its shareholders and American consumers. Unfortunately, much of the business community has been deceived into believing that a cap-and-trade regulatory regime will provide certainty. This is a fallacy. Europe's emissions trading system has engendered significant financial uncertainty, rampant political jockeying by industry seeking regulatory advantage over competitors, and corruption. Yet, Europe's emissions continue to rise. A similar regulatory regime in the U.S. would lead us down the same path, creating economic hardship with no environmental benefit."
- Hon. Malcolm Wallop, former U.S. Senator and Chairman of Frontiers of Freedom
What black leaders are saying:
"Cap-and-trade will have a negative economic impact on consumers, especially lower-income households. According to the Congressional Budget Office, `most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers,' disproportionately harming fixed and lower income households. What kind of CEO would intentionally cause financial hardship to millions of consumers?"
- Deneen Borelli, Fellow, Project 21
What farmers are saying:
"Where Caterpillar used to think first about American agriculture, they have now joined with groups that have been consistently opposed to the growing of America's food, and opposed to the use of Caterpillar machinery.
It is difficult to understand why Caterpillar would work with groups who are unfriendly to agriculture when agriculture has been a source of Caterpillar's success. Joining with the USCAP to establish a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions works against rural agriculture and desperately needed energy sources. That Caterpillar also gave a grant of $12 million to The Nature Conservancy to assist in their purchase of what was once known as `the largest farm in Illinois,' so that it could be turned into a wetland, is also puzzling. This makes Caterpillar appear to be unfriendly to supporting American agriculture and the farmer's role in supplying food for the world."
- Joyce Morrison, Farmer and Agricultural Environmentalist
What the construction industry is saying:
"Sooner or later, big business screws the people who literally made them. I have traveled as a guest of Caterpillar to Peoria to see the immensity of their equipment. They can literally move mountains. My son, who owns the business now, has run equipment for sales videos for Caterpillar, free of charge! They may be able to move mountains, but all the greens have to do is threaten a whispering campaign against them and they cave.
Greens used to bash heavy equipment in my neighborhood. Bulldozer was a dirty word. But when we had record-breaking floods here, they were melting down my telephone trying to get out of their driveways. They love you when you move heaven and earth the way they want it moved. Caterpillar needs to take a lesson from that! The earthmoving business is a high overhead business as it is. Lots of the smaller companies are on the verge of getting out of it because we've almost reached the point of diminishing returns. When you can't afford to feed the equipment, the equipment has to go. The greens' arch nemesis, big corporations, can do the earthmoving for subdivisions and strip malls and the rest of us can all get with nature and do it with hatchets and horses."
- James Jarrell, Jarrell's Excavating, Inc.
"Regrettably, our culture's push towards political correctness has intimidated all too many men and women of science who know better ¬ or should know better ¬ into standing on the sidelines on various issues because they don't want to suffer the fallout of taking a stand for what is true. Even worse are those who have added their allegiance to causes for which they have no scientific expertise, simply because it is the politically correct thing to do.
This environmental agenda, along with the media's support of it, wouldn't be such a problem except for the economic impacts that will result if we take their so-called science seriously. Intimidating companies into restricting their use of fossil fuels, or even the building of devices that depend upon those fuels, will not only impact those companies financially but will also impact the individuals and families that are dependent upon those products."
- David E. McCarthy, PE, Civil Engineer
What taxpayer groups are saying:
"Carbon caps are really a not-very-hidden tax on the users of energy ¬ all of us. It is wrong to seek to use government as the lever of achieving competitive advantage. It is wrong for companies to sell out their customers in exchange for short term political gain."
- Lew Uhler, Founder and President, National Tax Limitation Committee
What foresters are saying:
"I think Caterpillar is cutting their nose off to spite their face. They are in the business of selling equipment to industries that will be hurt by carbon caps and I think they ought to rethink their position. Caps and these sorts of policies will cause a lot of harm, but not any real environmental benefit. This is more a cultural agenda than an environmental agenda. The environmentalists are using this issue to hurt the U.S. economically to bring about a cultural change, not so much an environmental change. Their actions are not scientifically based."
- Bruce Griffith, President, Griffith Lumber Co., Inc.
"If Caterpillar succumbs to the delusion of cap-and-trade, we'll buy Nissan and let Caterpillar squabble with other companies over unworkable allocations, just like EU manufacturers.
How can Caterpillar support cap-and-trade and threaten to put us out of business with the higher cost of electricity and fuel? And higher wages to offset our employees' outrageous food costs?"
Jane Hogan, Secretary-Treasurer, Ontario Hardwood Co.
They sound so hurt and lost with Caterpillars’ decisions. This just goes to show that not everyone out there is doing something to help SAVE our earth; that is sad. Kudos to Caterpillar, though for doing the right thing and trying to do something to keep our earth green even though they have been destroying it, to an extent. It also goes to show that people will say anything in order to stop something that will take money out of their bonus checks, even though we are talking about our world here. Do these people realize that if the world is uninhabitable they will be out of a job anyway?
Sheesh, good for nothing near-sighted jerks.
What miners are saying:
"Caterpillar has joined with some of the most radical environmentalists who have been enemies of mining, including coal, for decades. The stated policy of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership is a 60 to 80 percent reduction in us carbon emissions by 2050. China's emissions of carbon dioxide are already exceeding those of the United States, and China's told the world that they are going to do nothing about it.... Jobs will be exported overseas and people on fixed incomes will see their energy costs skyrocket.
So the policy of Jim Owens will destroy the American economy for no environmental benefit. As a result of this, I sent him a letter a couple of months ago telling him that Murray Energy Corporation will no longer do business with Caterpillar. This will result in the loss of millions of dollars in business to Caterpillar."
- Robert E. Murray, Chairman, President and CEO, Murray Energy Corporation
What seniors are saying:
"Many seniors on fixed incomes are already struggling with the high cost of heating and cooling their homes. I'm afraid that what Caterpillar is promoting would only drive those costs higher, perhaps even out of reach for those who most need affordable energy."
- Jim Martin, President, 60 Plus
What national leaders are saying:
"I am personally disappointed that such an excellent company as Caterpillar has made the fateful decision to turn its back on its shareholders and American consumers. Unfortunately, much of the business community has been deceived into believing that a cap-and-trade regulatory regime will provide certainty. This is a fallacy. Europe's emissions trading system has engendered significant financial uncertainty, rampant political jockeying by industry seeking regulatory advantage over competitors, and corruption. Yet, Europe's emissions continue to rise. A similar regulatory regime in the U.S. would lead us down the same path, creating economic hardship with no environmental benefit."
- Hon. Malcolm Wallop, former U.S. Senator and Chairman of Frontiers of Freedom
What black leaders are saying:
"Cap-and-trade will have a negative economic impact on consumers, especially lower-income households. According to the Congressional Budget Office, `most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers,' disproportionately harming fixed and lower income households. What kind of CEO would intentionally cause financial hardship to millions of consumers?"
- Deneen Borelli, Fellow, Project 21
What farmers are saying:
"Where Caterpillar used to think first about American agriculture, they have now joined with groups that have been consistently opposed to the growing of America's food, and opposed to the use of Caterpillar machinery.
It is difficult to understand why Caterpillar would work with groups who are unfriendly to agriculture when agriculture has been a source of Caterpillar's success. Joining with the USCAP to establish a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions works against rural agriculture and desperately needed energy sources. That Caterpillar also gave a grant of $12 million to The Nature Conservancy to assist in their purchase of what was once known as `the largest farm in Illinois,' so that it could be turned into a wetland, is also puzzling. This makes Caterpillar appear to be unfriendly to supporting American agriculture and the farmer's role in supplying food for the world."
- Joyce Morrison, Farmer and Agricultural Environmentalist
What the construction industry is saying:
"Sooner or later, big business screws the people who literally made them. I have traveled as a guest of Caterpillar to Peoria to see the immensity of their equipment. They can literally move mountains. My son, who owns the business now, has run equipment for sales videos for Caterpillar, free of charge! They may be able to move mountains, but all the greens have to do is threaten a whispering campaign against them and they cave.
Greens used to bash heavy equipment in my neighborhood. Bulldozer was a dirty word. But when we had record-breaking floods here, they were melting down my telephone trying to get out of their driveways. They love you when you move heaven and earth the way they want it moved. Caterpillar needs to take a lesson from that! The earthmoving business is a high overhead business as it is. Lots of the smaller companies are on the verge of getting out of it because we've almost reached the point of diminishing returns. When you can't afford to feed the equipment, the equipment has to go. The greens' arch nemesis, big corporations, can do the earthmoving for subdivisions and strip malls and the rest of us can all get with nature and do it with hatchets and horses."
- James Jarrell, Jarrell's Excavating, Inc.
"Regrettably, our culture's push towards political correctness has intimidated all too many men and women of science who know better ¬ or should know better ¬ into standing on the sidelines on various issues because they don't want to suffer the fallout of taking a stand for what is true. Even worse are those who have added their allegiance to causes for which they have no scientific expertise, simply because it is the politically correct thing to do.
This environmental agenda, along with the media's support of it, wouldn't be such a problem except for the economic impacts that will result if we take their so-called science seriously. Intimidating companies into restricting their use of fossil fuels, or even the building of devices that depend upon those fuels, will not only impact those companies financially but will also impact the individuals and families that are dependent upon those products."
- David E. McCarthy, PE, Civil Engineer
What taxpayer groups are saying:
"Carbon caps are really a not-very-hidden tax on the users of energy ¬ all of us. It is wrong to seek to use government as the lever of achieving competitive advantage. It is wrong for companies to sell out their customers in exchange for short term political gain."
- Lew Uhler, Founder and President, National Tax Limitation Committee
What foresters are saying:
"I think Caterpillar is cutting their nose off to spite their face. They are in the business of selling equipment to industries that will be hurt by carbon caps and I think they ought to rethink their position. Caps and these sorts of policies will cause a lot of harm, but not any real environmental benefit. This is more a cultural agenda than an environmental agenda. The environmentalists are using this issue to hurt the U.S. economically to bring about a cultural change, not so much an environmental change. Their actions are not scientifically based."
- Bruce Griffith, President, Griffith Lumber Co., Inc.
"If Caterpillar succumbs to the delusion of cap-and-trade, we'll buy Nissan and let Caterpillar squabble with other companies over unworkable allocations, just like EU manufacturers.
How can Caterpillar support cap-and-trade and threaten to put us out of business with the higher cost of electricity and fuel? And higher wages to offset our employees' outrageous food costs?"
Jane Hogan, Secretary-Treasurer, Ontario Hardwood Co.
They sound so hurt and lost with Caterpillars’ decisions. This just goes to show that not everyone out there is doing something to help SAVE our earth; that is sad. Kudos to Caterpillar, though for doing the right thing and trying to do something to keep our earth green even though they have been destroying it, to an extent. It also goes to show that people will say anything in order to stop something that will take money out of their bonus checks, even though we are talking about our world here. Do these people realize that if the world is uninhabitable they will be out of a job anyway?
Sheesh, good for nothing near-sighted jerks.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
GLA - Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emmissions
Unless the GLA (Greater London Authority) takes radical steps, such as the removal of all cars from London, it will not meet its goals for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, according to a new report.
The GLA is committed to reducing London's carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2025, but most climate scientists argue that even more rapid reductions will be needed if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. A team of experts from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and the Transport Studies Unit (Oxford University Centre for the Environment) revealed that London is on course to reduce land transport emissions by only 10%-23%.
They do, however, offer a radical vision which could achieve a 72% drop in emissions by 2030 -- a figure that is 83% lower than the current UK average. The solution involves combining a car-free London with high levels of active transport (for example walking and cycling) and realistic but challenging energy-efficient improvements.
James Woodcock, who led a team of researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical medicine, comments: “Only the car-free greater London scenario is close to achieving the emission reductions required by 2030. Even then we need to reduce carbon fuel use on our public transport. Car-free streets could transform the quality of our urban environment, while improving health. Although London has made small improvements, achieving a car-free city would require a dramatic move in favor of walking and cycling”.
Land transport emissions in London have remained stable since the 1990’s and are now responsible for 14% of global warming emissions. Although cycling has been rising in popularity, more than seven out of ten car journeys are less than 8 kilometers.
Calculations show that a car-free London would reduce emissions up to 49%. The car-free London model deducted a 72% reduction in emissions, with active transport making up 53% of all trips. Given the lower starting point, this means 83% lower emissions than the predicted average for the year of 2000.
The authors highlight the many benefits, in terms of public health and safety, which the adoption of the car-free scenario would achieve. Not only would people benefit in terms of improved health from more physical activity, more people would be willing and able to walk or use a bike for greater distances.
The GLA is committed to reducing London's carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2025, but most climate scientists argue that even more rapid reductions will be needed if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. A team of experts from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and the Transport Studies Unit (Oxford University Centre for the Environment) revealed that London is on course to reduce land transport emissions by only 10%-23%.
They do, however, offer a radical vision which could achieve a 72% drop in emissions by 2030 -- a figure that is 83% lower than the current UK average. The solution involves combining a car-free London with high levels of active transport (for example walking and cycling) and realistic but challenging energy-efficient improvements.
James Woodcock, who led a team of researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical medicine, comments: “Only the car-free greater London scenario is close to achieving the emission reductions required by 2030. Even then we need to reduce carbon fuel use on our public transport. Car-free streets could transform the quality of our urban environment, while improving health. Although London has made small improvements, achieving a car-free city would require a dramatic move in favor of walking and cycling”.
Land transport emissions in London have remained stable since the 1990’s and are now responsible for 14% of global warming emissions. Although cycling has been rising in popularity, more than seven out of ten car journeys are less than 8 kilometers.
Calculations show that a car-free London would reduce emissions up to 49%. The car-free London model deducted a 72% reduction in emissions, with active transport making up 53% of all trips. Given the lower starting point, this means 83% lower emissions than the predicted average for the year of 2000.
The authors highlight the many benefits, in terms of public health and safety, which the adoption of the car-free scenario would achieve. Not only would people benefit in terms of improved health from more physical activity, more people would be willing and able to walk or use a bike for greater distances.
Friday, September 7, 2007
What? My House Produces Greenhouse Gases?
Lately people have been focusing their attention on what they can do to their car as far as helping to reduce the emission put out into the air. This is all fine and dandy but their still are other ways and things to be looked at that will help in the fight for a greener earth. The answer just doesn’t lie within car modifications or bio-fuels, but as well as in the place of residence.
Reducing your emissions of ozone harming gases is not just prevalent in your car but also the makeup and what your residence is. Residential energy accounts for 16 percent of all greenhouse gases being emitted into the air. If you are building a house or even thinking about building one, one of the best and most cost effective ways to help reduce green house emissions is to begin thinking and using precautions at the blueprint stage while installing low-tech, pragmatic techniques that will help maximize a new home's efficiency. Installing those systems from the start is far cheaper than retrofitting an existing house.
Oru Bose, a “sustainable-design” architect in Santa Fe, New Mexico helps explain what can be implemented right from the start of building a house to reduce those nasty green house emissions.
“Doing simple things could drastically reduce your energy costs, by 40%. For example, control heat, air and moisture leakage by sealing windows and doors. Insulate the garage, attic and basement with natural, nontoxic materials like reclaimed blue jeans. Protect windows from sunrays with large overhangs and double-pane glass. Emphasize natural cross ventilation. "You don't need to have 24th century solutions to solve 18th century problems," Bose says. “Next, consider renewable energy sources like solar electric systems, compact wind turbines and geothermal heat pumps to help power your home.”
There are also other sites that will help in retrofitting your home or put in other measures when building a new home such as, GreenHomeGuide.com. This site will point you in the right direction when looking for bamboo flooring, cork tiles, and countertops made from recycled wastepaper, among other great ways to keep the energy usage down as well as greenhouse gas emissions low.
As Always, Keep it Green.
Reducing your emissions of ozone harming gases is not just prevalent in your car but also the makeup and what your residence is. Residential energy accounts for 16 percent of all greenhouse gases being emitted into the air. If you are building a house or even thinking about building one, one of the best and most cost effective ways to help reduce green house emissions is to begin thinking and using precautions at the blueprint stage while installing low-tech, pragmatic techniques that will help maximize a new home's efficiency. Installing those systems from the start is far cheaper than retrofitting an existing house.
Oru Bose, a “sustainable-design” architect in Santa Fe, New Mexico helps explain what can be implemented right from the start of building a house to reduce those nasty green house emissions.
“Doing simple things could drastically reduce your energy costs, by 40%. For example, control heat, air and moisture leakage by sealing windows and doors. Insulate the garage, attic and basement with natural, nontoxic materials like reclaimed blue jeans. Protect windows from sunrays with large overhangs and double-pane glass. Emphasize natural cross ventilation. "You don't need to have 24th century solutions to solve 18th century problems," Bose says. “Next, consider renewable energy sources like solar electric systems, compact wind turbines and geothermal heat pumps to help power your home.”
There are also other sites that will help in retrofitting your home or put in other measures when building a new home such as, GreenHomeGuide.com. This site will point you in the right direction when looking for bamboo flooring, cork tiles, and countertops made from recycled wastepaper, among other great ways to keep the energy usage down as well as greenhouse gas emissions low.
As Always, Keep it Green.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Bio Fuel - What Part Of The Corn?
One of the biggest questions out their when it concerns bio-fuel is, “Which is the better part of corn, the husk or the kernel?” So far scientist and researchers have found out that even though ethanol is made from corn (among others such as soybeans, used cooking oil, and switch-grass), corn husks make what is called celluosic-ethanol.
Celluosic-ethanol is agreed upon to produce more energy than the kernel does. So why not start making E10 fuel (10% ethanol : 90% gas) with celluosic-ethanol? Well, for one, it is a lot hard to get the celluosic-ethanol out of the husk than it is to get ethanol out of the kernel. The harder it is to extract a specific item from things, the great the cost is to product a product. Corn husks aren’t the only things that can product celluosic-ethanol. Products such as wood pulp, municipal waste, and left over grain can as well.
Another problem that not only celluosic-ethanol fuels face, but ethanol as well, is the fact that it cannot be transported via a pipeline. Reason being is that the ethanol will corrode iron and that is what the majority of the pipelines world wide are composed of. This all can be fixed later on but it won’t be easy or cheap. On top of that, many processing facilities run on coal for their processors and often have to ship the fuel via trucks.
Don’t let this trouble you since the D.O.E. (Department of Energy) has actually doubled its efforts to research since 2005. If they haven’t given up than our hope is that much greater to find something that will help finally kick our nasty habit; Fossil Fuels.
As Always, Keep it Green
Celluosic-ethanol is agreed upon to produce more energy than the kernel does. So why not start making E10 fuel (10% ethanol : 90% gas) with celluosic-ethanol? Well, for one, it is a lot hard to get the celluosic-ethanol out of the husk than it is to get ethanol out of the kernel. The harder it is to extract a specific item from things, the great the cost is to product a product. Corn husks aren’t the only things that can product celluosic-ethanol. Products such as wood pulp, municipal waste, and left over grain can as well.
Another problem that not only celluosic-ethanol fuels face, but ethanol as well, is the fact that it cannot be transported via a pipeline. Reason being is that the ethanol will corrode iron and that is what the majority of the pipelines world wide are composed of. This all can be fixed later on but it won’t be easy or cheap. On top of that, many processing facilities run on coal for their processors and often have to ship the fuel via trucks.
Don’t let this trouble you since the D.O.E. (Department of Energy) has actually doubled its efforts to research since 2005. If they haven’t given up than our hope is that much greater to find something that will help finally kick our nasty habit; Fossil Fuels.
As Always, Keep it Green
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
