Posts Tagged ‘warming’
Since 1990’s a new generation of satellite sensors with powerful capabilities have been launched to collect massive amounts of data about our planet and the many changes it has experienced.
There are dozens of remote sensing satellites orbiting the Earth collecting invaluable information about the Earth’s surface, oceans and the atmosphere and how they interact. Satellite images have been collected for scientific and technical purposes as well as just appreciating its simple beauty. These satellites collect information that our eyes cannot, collections from 30M to 0.5M resolution is now available.
To view original story with images go here http://news.satimagingcorp.com/2009/10/satellite_image_technology_monitoring_global_warming_and_climate_change_.html
Satellite images provide important land coverage information for mapping and classification of land cover features, such as vegetation, soil, water and forests for monitoring and managing Earth’s vital natural resources and the current global climate changes.
The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. From glacial periods (or “ice ages”) where ice covered significant portions of the Earth to interglacial periods where ice retreated to the poles or melted entirely – the climate and the Earth has continuously changed.
The shallow end of the Glaciers are melting swiftly. Glaciologists have determined that areas of the glacial lobe were 98 feet lower in 2004 than they were in 2000. That’s double the rate of pre-1999 thinning.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.
Scientists have been able to piece together a picture of the Earth’s climate dating back decades to millions of years ago by analyzing a number of surrogate, or “proxy,” measures of climate such as ice cores, boreholes, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun.
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying this data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.
Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will increase during the next century unless greenhouse gas emissions decrease substantially from present levels. Increased greenhouse gas concentrations are very likely to raise the Earth’s average temperature, influence precipitation and increase in storm patterns as well as raise sea levels. The magnitude of these changes, however, is uncertain.
Digital Elevation Models
Satellite images allow scientists to remove vegetation, water and geological cover from the image data which allows them to produce the most detailed available Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of landscape topography. The creation of DEMs will revolutionize geological applications, land-use studies, soil science, and much more to better understand the global climate changes occurring around the world.
Digital elevation models provide details about landscape features which in result, will allow us to clearly make out the shape of our landscape and understand how water, ice, and soil might move across its surface, how it came to be its present shape and how rapidly the changes are occurring.
Is anybody sure about the cause of global warming? One thing is certain. The answer to THAT question is NO.
A lot of people would say it is air pollution, and the newest president of the USA seems to think so. Can a new government save future generations from global catastrophe? A market for cleaner-burning fuels might help stop climate change and President Obama’s administration could make this possible. So a number of environmental groups and lobbyist groups hope.
One such special interest group is known as Ceros. This coalition of environmental organizations and investors wishes for Obama to curtail global warming. They figure he could pass legislation to reduce green house gas emissions by 25% below 1990 levels before 2020, and they might be right.
One step in achieving this end is “honest accounting of financial risks that companies and investors face from climate change,” according to Ceros. Another might be dispensing with a system of emissions credits to force this honest accounting instead of providing an avenue for deep-pocketed corporations from easily buying their way out of responsibility.
Who wouldn’t want Barack Obama’s government to take charge in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and rates of deforestation? Is this even the right person for the job? No one person can do it all, of course.
According to Obama, “The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our own peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe.”
This tells us that he has some regard for scientific research, and that he believes we CAN do something about global warming. Applying science correctly provides a good start to arriving at a solution. And scientists will play a big role in finding a solution, even if that solution is simply a “wait and see what happens”.
A scientific approach includes taking off the blinders and thinking creatively to arrive at one or several solutions. Focussing on carbon in initiatives such as the National Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which is trying to find “clean” fuels instead of the ones we currently consume, takes the sights off other climate drivers and other greenhouse gases. Water vapour being chief amongst those.
Another example, please…
It has been said that the sun is the only source of global warming. A new energy economy proposed by Obama would rely on renewable energy such as solar and wind, both of which depend on sunlight. Other documents have said that extra sunspot activity can reduce cloud cover, resulting in a more heated planet/atmosphere system.
Furthermore, An Inconvenient Truth shows Al Gore putting carbon dioxide as the culprit as far as global warming is concerned. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide. But a credible theory of climate variations points to Milankovitch Cycles, where changes in earth-heating patterns occur in a recurring pattern.
Maybe Obama got in at the right time with his campaign promises and we will see improvements take place that would have happened without anybody’s effort at all. Barack will certainly get the credit, though.
A new technique has been developed to recycle plastic which would normally end up in landfill.
Currently approximately 12% of plastic found in household plastic and packaging is currently processed.
Now, however, a process has been developbed by Warwick University which could mean 100% of this type is waste can be recycled.
Municipal plastic solid waste is often too time-consuming and labour intensive to separate and clean and ends up going straight to landfill rather than being recycled.
Engineers at the University have invented a process that can cope with every piece of plastic waste and can even break some polymers, such as polystyrene, back down to its original monomers.
The researchers have devised a unit which uses pyrolysis (using heat in the absence of oxygen to decompose of materials) in a ‘fluidised bed’ reactor.
Tests have shown that the researchers have been able to literally shovel in to such a reactor a wide range of mixed plastics, which can then be reduced down to useful products. Many of these products can then be retrieved by simple distillation.
The products the Warwick team have been able to reclaim from the plastic mix include: wax that can be then used a lubricant; original monomers such as styrene that can be used to make new polystyrene; terephthalic acid which can be reused in PET plastic products, methylmetacrylate that can be used to make acrylic sheets, carbon which can be used as Carbon Black in paint pigments and tyres, and even the char left at the end of some of the reactions can be sold to use as activated carbon at a value of at least £400 a tonne.
This research could have a significant impact on the budgets of local authorities and produce considerable environmental benefits.
The lead researcher on the project, University of Warwick Engineering Professor Jan Baeyens, said:
“We envisage a typical large scale plant having an average capacity of 10,000 tonnes of plastic waste per year.
“In a year tankers would take away from each plant over £5 million worth of recycled chemicals and each plant would save £500,000 a year in land fill taxes alone.
“As the expected energy costs for each large plant would only be in the region of £50,000 a year the system will be commercially very attractive and give a rapid payback on capital and running costs.”
The work will be of great interest to local authorities and waste disposal companies who could use the technology to create large scale reactor units at municipal tips which would produce tanker loads of reusable material.
At Be Seen Go Green, we offer solutions for a variety of Environmental issues. Please click on the following link to contact us.
What Makes a Home a Green House?
One of the hottest topics today is about being environmentally friendly. There are many ways to become environmentally friendly about the home including water preservation and energy reduction. This not only helps with a positive action by reducing your impact on the environment, but will also save you money!
Lets take a look at what makes a home green.
Reduced Energy Use
Energy comes in many forms such as electricity, natural gas, oil, etc. The creation or use of this energy results in greenhouse gas emissions that affect our planet in a negative way.
Methods of Reducing Energy Usage
Insulation, One of the best things that you can do to make a green house is to ensure that the walls, windows, attic, and floors are all well insulated and draft free. The majority of the energy used in a home goes towards heating the house. Good insulation will prevent the air temperature from escaping the home and save you money on your utilities.
Energy Star Appliances When one of your appliances has reached it’s end of life, or when you are building a new home, consider installing an appliance that meets energy star requirements. This will ensure that it will use over 30 percent less electricity or fuel than a typical appliance of that type.
Other options include advanced mechanical Systems On demand tankless water heaters, geothermal HVAC equipment, and even solar power is a great way to reduce the amount of energy that is wasted to run the plumbing, heat and air, and electrical systems in the home. While they can have a higher upfront cost than a typical unit of its kind, tax incentives from the government can offset a good deal of the extra cost and allow you to make the money back within a few years time.
Reduced Water Use
Water is another essential resource that can be preserved in our day to day use around the house.
Low Flow Fixtures Many low flow shower heads and toilets developed a bad reputation in the past because they could not live up to their less efficient counterparts. Fortunately, todays better engineered models and aerators allow you to experience the luxury and ease of use that you prefer, while additionally using a significantly lower amount of water.
Efficient Clothes Washers Many of the newer front loading clothes washers use as little as half of the water of a typical top loading washer. For families who are constantly putting in a new load of dirty clothes, this can lead to a significant savings in cost and water usage over time.
Use Rain Water For Irrigation For those who want to really cut down on water usage, storage tanks that collect rain water during a storm for latter use to water the garden and lawn can save thousands of gallons over the span of a summer.
These are just a few of the many ideas out there that will help ensure that your home is green. Environmentally friendly decisions in the home can lead to wallet friendly results over time and allow for the satisfaction of knowing you are reducing your negative impact on the planet.
At Be Seen Go Green, we offer solutions for a variety of Environmental issues. Please click on the following link to contact us.
One of the more startling stories recently was an article on the climate in Alaska, where the average temperature has risen seven degrees in the last 30 years and mosquitoes have shown up in normally frigid Barrow, the northernmost town in North America.
Large portions of Alaska are melting and other strange things are happening. Just a few hours’ drive from Anchorage, a four-million-acre spruce forest has been killed by beetles, a development that is both astonishing and depressing. It is believed to be the largest loss of trees to insects ever recorded in North America.
“Government scientists,” wrote the author, “tied the event to rising temperatures, which allow the beetles to reproduce at twice their normal rate.”
Meanwhile, enormous wildfires have been raging in bone-dry regions of the West and Southwest. Fires whipped by high winds in the mountains of eastern Arizona have driven thousands of residents from their homes. One local official, John Stewart, said: “The forest is burning like you’re pouring gasoline on it. And the wind is like taking a blow torch to it.”
In Colorado, which is enduring its worst drought in decades, residents have been trying to cope with at least five major fires, including the largest in the state’s history. Investigators believe it was deliberately set by a U.S. Forest Service worker. The long drought and continuing hot weather provided the conditions that enabled this apparent act of arson to explode into an unprecedented conflagration.
Big fires are becoming the rule. By late last week authorities reported that in the first six months of this year, nearly two million acres have burned or are currently burning in the United States, which is almost twice the average of the last 10 years.
Strange, indeed. Mosquitoes in northernmost Alaska. Much of the West and Southwest ablaze. Extended droughts. Extreme heat waves.
Can you say global warming?
The year 2003 was, globally, the second hottest on record. The hottest was 1998.
Now imagine that just a few more years go by and the world becomes hotter still, which will almost certainly be the case. What then?
Do you think, maybe, we should be paying more attention to this?
What is missing in most conversations in the U.S. about global warming is a sense of urgency. A Bush administration report earlier this month acknowledged that human activity – the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere – was the primary cause of the recent warming of the planet, and that the warming will result in some extremely serious consequences in the U.S.
President Bush (who has distanced himself from his own administration’s report) wants to rely mostly on voluntary – not mandatory – efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Under the president’s strategy, it’s estimated that emissions will actually increase over the next decade. We’re speeding toward a wall and the president is not only refusing to step on the brake, he’s accelerating.
Ten years is too long to wait to do something real about this problem. Dr. David Armstrong, a professor of geosciences who is an expert on climate change, has studied the imminent threat that planetary warming poses to the world’s coral reefs. These are ecosystems so abundant in animal and plant life that they are sometimes called the rain forests of the oceans.
Dr. Armstrong noted that one of the essential questions of the global warming debate is, “How warm is too warm?”
When you consider that the increased warming is already threatening to decimate the world’s coral reefs, and that we’re already seeing the melting of the tundra in Alaska, and that alpine ecosystems are already being squeezed off the tops of mountains, it’s not too difficult to reach the conclusion that “too warm,” in Dr. Armstrong’s words, “isn’t awfully far from where we already are.”
Closing our eyes and pumping another decade’s worth of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the current very dangerous rate would not seem to be a very bright idea. The gases remain in the atmosphere for centuries, and in some cases millenniums, which means the damage cannot quickly be undone.
What a miserable legacy for this generation to leave to its children and grandchildren.
This briefly explains the essence of the Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program which is the newest integration into the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32).
Information that is related to emerging and existing refrigerant gas monitoring, reporting, tracking and management legislation is communicated here. As with all other pending legislation, the refrigerant management is still subject to many changes.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act or AB 32 was first passed in 2006 taking effect in 2010, which is a comprehensive directive aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2010.
This goal is derived from the increase of greenhouse gasses in California since 1990. To reverse the pollution of 16 years in the United States in less than 14 years, the legislation aims to cut down greenhouse gas emissions to its 1990 levels.
As part of the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) the Air Resources Board (ARB) has approved an early action measure to reduce high-global warming potential (GWP) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by establishing new legislation and defining requirements related to improved monitoring of AC/HVAC systems, enforcement of regulations, reporting of refrigerant usage, and recovery, recycling, or destruction of high-GWP refrigerant gases.
The greenhouse gasses (GHGs) as defined by the California’s AB 32 are identical to those gasses already identified in the Kyoto Protocol and are already being regulated, monitored, and managed by many other countries around the World.
In addition to carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the most widely known GHG, the following gasses are also defined as GHGs with high global warming potential (GWP) carbon equivalent emissions by the AB 32 legislation:
* Methane (CH4): a byproduct of natural geological phenomena and decomposition of waste; the majority of methane is derived from natural gas drilling.
* Nitrous Oxide (N2O): a pollution from exhausts coming from motor vehicles, processes in industries and other industrial pollutants of the air; like methane, nitrous oxide can also be a product of waste decomposition in nature and agriculture.
* Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6): a gas used for various electrical applications, including gas insulated switchgear. Sulfur Hexafluoride is also being used for applications in experiments.
* Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) & hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs): a collection of commonly used refrigerant and aerosol gasses with a wide variety of other commercial applications.
Some Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) are CFCs and HCFCs which are identified in title VI of the US Clean Air Act (Section 608).
Global warming and climate change are matters that have increasingly been in the public eye in recent times and worldwide action is being taken to tackle the affect these two factors have on the environment.
Global warming results in climate change which in turn has implications for everyday activities and factors, such as growing crops and nature conservation.
Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and a sustained increase causes climatic change and alters long-term weather patterns. The world is experiencing global warming because too much carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere.
The carbon rises to the earthâ€™s upper atmosphere where it acts like an insulating coat, reflecting heat from the sun back to the earthâ€™s surface.
Changes to the climate come with potentially damaging consequences. Ice caps are starting to melt at the Poles, which could cause sea levels to rise. Higher temperatures and less rainfall are being recorded in areas which already suffer from drought.
One of the main sources of carbon is the burning of fossil fuels for energy, typically used to heat homes and run vehicles like cars and motorbikes.
More and more energy providers are recognising the negative effects of climate change and introducing different ways of tackling the issue.
There are several ways in which you can also help to combat climate change. Buying green energy is a good way of helping to reduce some of the causes of climate change.
Look for providers who use clean, renewable sources which are better for the environment. Some providers offer green energy at the same price as the standard service so doing your bit for the earth wouldnâ€™t cost you any extra.
You could also investigate the possibility of making your own energy. Solar panels can generate electricity and hot water for your home which saves you money and reduces carbon emissions. Some providers even offer to buy back any excess electricity you generate so you can be sure energy is not being wasted.
There are also ways you can save energy around the home. Cavity walls and roofs account for the majority of heat lost in the home so insulating these areas significantly reduces consumption. Fitting a jacket around your hot water tank also helps to conserve gas and electricity.
Have your boiler serviced regularly to make sure everything is in working order and replace any old devices as they can run inefficiently and use more energy than need be.
When it comes to the devices you use around the home you can save pennies by doing a few simple things.
Avoid using the standby button as this can actually use more energy than what is required to operate the appliance in the first place. Simply switching off your electrical items instead of using stand-by can save several pounds each month and decreases energy consumption.
It’s not just the planet that’s hotting up, it’s the whole debate about global warming. Especially now that we can see and feel its effects every day. Yet you’ve probably noticed that when it comes to taking action, the focus always seems to be on what each of us can do personally. We the people must use energy-saving light bulbs, fly less, recycle, use green energy, take our appliances off standby, and so on. But perhaps, like me, these entreaties leave you feeling a bit ripped off. Perhaps you, too, are wondering what part business, industry and governments have to play? It’s certainly true that there are things individual citizens can and must do, but surely really significant reductions ultimately depend on tough, international legislative action. After all, if personal responsibility were all that has ever been necessary to solve problems, why were political systems and governments invented in the first place? Once we’ve taken individual action, is that it? Or is there more to be done? What really seems to be needed is a way of acting collectively to ensure that governments around the world start co-operating to solve global warming instead of talking more hot air while the planet burns.
In his film, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore rightly points out that collective action depends on political will, but this, he says, is in short supply. Right again! The reasons for its scarcity, he suggests, are that it’s simply not in the short-term interests of the main polluting nations and their industries to take substantive action. So far so good, but the cartoon image he uses to hammer his point home is an unfortunate one: a pair of scales with gold bars on one side and the entire planet on the other. Gore uses this to demonstrate the absurdity of those who see economic prosperity and a healthy planet as an either/or choice: after all, what value could gold bars have if there’s no habitable planet in which to enjoy them? It’s plainly ridiculous, and so too, suggests Gore, is the reluctance of some to give up the gold bars.
But rather than ridicule those who fear for their short-term interests, shouldn’t we be trying to look at what may be their perfectly legitimate point, and trying to understand the forces that keep it relevant? Gore may have faced the inconvenient truth of global warming, but he is yet to face a second inconvenient truth: that stiff action on the part of the rich countries WILL have adverse economic effects, at least in the short term. And if global warming is dealt with in isolation, those costs WILL fall heaviest on the USA and on other big polluters. To deny the barrier to action that these short-term costs and disincentives represent, as Gore seems to, is to fall into the same trap as those who deny global warming itself.
I laughed along with everyone else when I saw the gold vs earth cartoon, but making fun of those who are wary of economic backlash is hardly likely to elicit the consensus Gore seeks. It also seems like a cheap shot when you keep in mind that had Gore actually become President in 2000, he would inescapably have joined the ranks of those he’s poking fun at. The president of the U.S. has only four years before facing another election, so Gore’s popularity and tenure in office would have been directly influenced by his corporate funders and their support for short-term gains to the US economy.
Today, there may only be few people who still cling to denying global warming. But knowledge and acceptance can’t effect change by themselves. What is urgently needed is a means to unlock the short-term barriers and disincentives that prevent decisive collective action – nationally and internationally. Make no mistake: in today’s globalised and largely borderless world, capital and jobs generally move to wherever in the world environmental and social costs are lowest and profits therefore highest. Any government moving first to significantly increase environmental costs or regulations in a bid to reduce emissions would definitely see investment and jobs moving elsewhere, thus making the nation uncompetitive. That’s why nothing changes except the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere just keeps on rising. Prime Minister Tony Blair at least seemed to recognise these realities when he pointed out that “The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge”.i
Unlike Gore, Blair clearly recognises this second inconvenient truth and he should not be blamed for stating it. But his statement only holds true IF nations fail to act together. This is the barrier that keeps the gold bars firmly on one side of the scales. However, if all nations co-operated, the necessary regulations could be implemented without any nation fearing capital or employment flight because there would be no low-cost haven for them to run to. Corporations, too, would have nothing to fear because all corporations would be subject to the same additional costs, so maintaining their relative competitiveness and their relative profitability. Think about that for a minute.
But there is a further problem: the biggest polluter, the USA, would have the biggest adjustment cost, so it has the least incentive to sign up to any cooperative agreement. This is why the Kyoto Protocol is not supported by the USA and Australia, another big polluter. It is also why the provisions of the Kyoto agreement are so mild and relatively ineffectual. Because if the nations supporting Kyoto agreed to tougher, more significant curbs, the costs involved would make them uncompetitive with nations, such as the USA and Australia, who refuse to participate.
The net result is a recipe for missed targets and an intergovernmental dead-lock of a kind which raises the third, final and most important inconvenient truth; this time one that concerns not so much governments or businesses but each of us as individual citizens. It’s a truth which all citizens around the world must urgently take on board: that we can no longer abdicate responsibility for taking collective action to politicians and governments alone. If free-riding governments are to be compelled to co-operate, then it must be citizens who force them to do so. We have no choice but to take the initiative, and stop assuming that politicians are in the driving seat of the global economy. It’s time to grab hold of the steering wheel and find a way of driving our politicians and governments toward co-operation. What’s needed is a method of achieving cooperation which removes the barriers and objections, takes away the fears of being uncompetitive, and replaces those fears with an enthusiasm for shared problem-solving.
When Al Gore became fully aware of the dangers of global warming, he travelled far and wide to gain a deeper understanding of the science and its real-world effects, and justifiably so (although I do hope he planted plenty of trees to personally offset his carbon emissions). But Gore and the rest of us have so far failed to embark on another, far more urgent line of enquiry. If we genuinely wish to solve global warming and other global problems, we need to gain a deeper understanding of the barriers to collective government action under globalisation. For the deeper truth is that global warming and many other global “problems” are not the real problems at all. They are merely symptoms, albeit terrifying ones, of our failure as a global human society to co-operate. Until we understand the dynamics of co-operation and how to achieve it, and what we as citizens can do to unblock the barriers to it, international inaction, missed targets and deepening chaos will continue and global warming may well destroy human civilisation.
The Simultaneous Policy, a global citizen’s initiative, claims to have begun this vital journey and to offer a plausible and effective way that citizens can use their right to vote in a new way that drives the politicians of all parties and nations to collectively implement the measures we so desperately need. It seems that political representatives would find it a welcome relief to be freed from the restrictions that keep them beholden to big business interests and confined to wholly inadequate policies dictated by the need to keep their nations “internationally competitive”. This is reflected in the fact that already politicians from opposing sides of the spectrum – nationally and internationally – are pledging their support for the Simultaneous Policy as a result of voter pressure and/or enlightened social responsibility. Check it out for yourself at www.simpol.org – as Noam Chomsky commented, “Can it work? It’s certainly worth a serious try!”
A common mistake made by people who have a limited understanding about global warming will often loosely refer to the problem as either climate change or global warming. While the two have much to do with each other, they are two separate things that are related to the same cause, which is carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by human activity. Global warming is referring to the rise in the average global temperature. It is this rise in temperature that causes the climate changes being seen around the world.
It may seem like it isn’t a big deal, but this really is something people should be concerned about. Global warming has been proven to be greatly caused by the greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide that people are putting into the air through their daily activities. These emissions are caused by cars, airplanes, factories, businesses, or anything else that burns fossil fuels. While there are other greenhouse gases put into the air, carbon is what makes up the largest contributor from human activities. Many don’t realize that global warming affects everyone, perhaps not in the most obvious way every day, but it does affect everyone. Global warming is what is causing the earth to warm, which, as mentioned before, causes the major climate changes that are being seen. What are some of these major climate changes and what does this have to do with people? Floods, severe hurricanes, odd weather patterns such as abnormally cold or warm winters; all of these are products of global warming.
Food and resources come from the natural world and if global warming causes severe drought (which it is in many places around the world), the crop yield will be much lower and money is lost. Not to mention that it’s less food available to people. Global warming is also what is warming the polar ice caps and drying up other fresh water resources. Life needs fresh water and without it, life tends to die.
It is something that people can change if they can take responsibility over it. It is possible to slow and stop the global warming, making the world a healthier place with the necessary resources available. It means that the burning of fossil fuels has to stop. Using energy sources that don’t require the burning of fossil fuels is what is needed. The sun and wind are both excellent examples of the tireless sources of energy available to humans. Saving water and producing less waste is also needed to reduce the carbon emissions. As more people turn to alternatives instead of burning fossil fuels, global warming could be stopped, which in turn would stop causing the major climate changes that have been the cause of such devastation in recent years.
The European Union is imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs, replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU’s member states to switch from the current conventional lights they now have.
However, some problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs have to be left on all the time, they’re made from banned toxins and they won’t work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe says ‘green’ lightbulbs must replace all our old ones. They also are up to 20 times more expensive than conventional light bulbs. They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second.
These special ‘efficient’ light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I’m sure that this won’t inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs being included in Ross Tawdrey’s clean air act. This discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light bulbs by the year 2010.
As well as that, a lawmaker in California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment.
Hoping to get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to make the UK the world’s first green economy. Part of this plan is that every home in the UK is to be ‘carbon neutral’ within 10 years, making every house updated to ‘green’ standards. The government said they would provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on homeowners to make sure they go green.
John Sinclair, a member of the Taxpayer’s Alliance and critic of the plan stated, It’s bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable.
I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton?
Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.
It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.
If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.