Archive for November, 2009
What it Really Is: Recycling
by Solar Guide on Nov.30, 2009, under Learn about Solar
What it Really Is: Recycling
Recycling has become the catch all phrase often used in place of the 3 R’s. But in its truest form recycling means taking one thing and changing it, usually chemically, into another. This is not to say that recycling is without value; it is certainly better than putting the items in the bin where they will end up in landfills and leach chemicals into our ground water. It is though to say that before you place anything in the recycle bag, first consider if you could reduce or re-use it, because everything that ends up in the recycling bag will have to be altered before it can be used again. Even then it is cleaner to produce goods from recyclables than from raw materials.
Here are just a few reasons to make certain that after you have reduced the amount of waste your create and re-used as many things as possible that your family puts as many things as possible into the recycling bins:
- Recycling one aluminium can saves enough energy to run a TV for three hours — or the equivalent of a half a gallon of gasoline.
- Each ton (2000 pounds) of recycled paper can save 17 trees, 380 gallons of oil, three cubic yards of landfill space, 4000 kilowatts of energy, and 7000 gallons of water. This represents a 64% energy savings, a 58% water savings, and 60 pounds less of air pollution!
- The 17 trees saved (above) can absorb a total of 250 pounds of carbon dioxide from the air each year. Burning that same ton of paper would create 1500 pounds of carbon dioxide.
- Recycling plastic saves twice as much energy as burning it in an incinerator.
- The energy saved from recycling one glass bottle can run a 100-watt light bulb for four hours. It also causes 20% less air pollution and 50% less water pollution than when a new bottle is made from raw materials.
- A modern glass bottle would take 4000 years or more to decompose — and even longer if it’s in the landfill.
Today is the actually a great day to talk about recycling. Each Thursday the council sends around men to collect our recyclables. The council gives us re-usable sacks, which we can use to collect all paper, cardboard, tin cans, aluminium, glass bottles and jars and plastic bottles. Unfortunately, they do not over recycling for other plastics. As I have been writing this series of blogs that has been one thing that I have been especially mindful of: how much plastic packaging manufacturers use that cannot be recycled and that it is estimated takes over 500 years to decompose in landfills.
But it is not just our plastics, glass, metals and paper that we recycle. Thanks to a wonderful programme through the Islington council, last year we were able to purchase a subsidized wormery to recycle our food waste into compost and liquid fertilizer for growing my own food. Actually, even though we may think that food thrown into the bin will degrade relatively quickly in the landfills, the biggest problem is the amount of methane, a dangerous green house gas, which it produces in that time. Methane is twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide and a major contribute to climate change. While my wormery cannot accommodate meat products I put all peels and unused fruits and vegetables into it. I should soon be harvesting my first patch of compost…just in time for my summer garden.
So how does my family do on recycling? Not too bad honestly. This week we had two bags of recyables and will only have two half full 13 gallon bin bags of other rubbish. Actually hubby and I got into a minor disagreement over the trash last night. One of the first rules of the 3R’s is to only throw out your garbage when the bag is full. In our case though, it had begun to smell. I am still looking for a solution…if anyone has ideas they would be greatly appreciated. But for a family of three adults and one pre-schoolers two large bags of recycling and one full 13 gallon bin bag in a week is pretty good I think. I imagine that there are single people, who put more than one bag in the bin each week.
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/.
Solar-power equipment costs declining 50% - Holy Kaw!
Solar-power equipment costs declining 50%. Posted Nov 29th, 2009 at 7:59 AM and seen 2234 times. A research firm called New Energy Finance predicts that the cost of solar-energy equipment will decline 50% between 2008 and 2009. …
Report: Solar Power to Be 50% Cheaper by Year End | CleanTechBrief
Energy research company New Energy Finance is predicting a 50% year-on-year drop in the â??levelizedâ? cost of solar power (that is, the lifetime cost per kWh before subsidies) by the end of 2009. The report also expects a 10% reduction in …
Solar Sail A Cool Kind of Solar Power in 2010 | InventorSpot
Recently The Planetary Society announced that by the end of 2010 it will try to launch another spacecraft, LightSail-1, into orbit propelled forward by the pressure of the sunlight. They tried this once four years ago and their …
Environmental Issues: Solar Energy | Create Solar Power
The reserves of fossil energy sources are melting before our eyes. According to various sources, we will be able to use oil and gas not more than during next.
How To Get Solar Electricity? | Create Solar Power
Projects of alternative energy sources have been implemented in many western countries within the last decade. It regards to wind, solar, tidal and so on. This.
To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?
by Solar Guide on Nov.29, 2009, under Learn about Solar
To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?
Sometimes, simple acts such as going to the grocery store can turn into a moral dilemma. Is it better to choose the piece of organic fruit produced on the other side of the country or the non-organic version grown locally, 50 miles away? Are the benefits of chemical-free shampoo worth an extra 5 bucks a bottle? Will I really be able to enjoy a cheap chocolate bar knowing that the growers of the cocoa beans were likely not fairly compensated?
As much as I’d like to say that I always buy the product that is environmentally safe and sustainably produced, in reality, that’s not always the case. First, the sheer amount of information required to be able to distinguish between products is staggering. You need facts regarding environmental impact, transportation costs, and fair trade practices, to name just a few. And there are plenty of misinformation and greenwashing campaigns out there to steer you in the wrong direction.
Second, of course, there are times when the high cost of an ethically made product turns me off from buying it. Even consumers with the best of intentions have their breaking points.
The thing is, companies who go out of their way to implement sustainable practices endure a greater cost of production. Sure, they can sometimes capitalize on this by marketing to conscientious consumers who are willing to pay a bit more, but the fact remains that in today’s system, environmentally minded production is punished.
On the other hand, companies who move their factories (and jobs) to developing countries with lax environmental standards and cheap labor are able to make products at a fraction of the cost and undercut their competitors (while shipping materials and finished goods all around the world and adding to our greenhouse gas problems).
The way it’s set up, high environmental standards in one country drive companies to relocate in places where it’s permissible to pollute in order to compete in the marketplace. Chaco, the Colorado-based athletic sandal company, is a prime example of even a well-intentioned company being forced to follow suit to maintain competitive pricing on their products. In fact, 95% of all footwear in the world is produced in China, whose poor environmental regulation and sometimes dangerous environmental problems are well known.
With current talk about cap and trade emissions programs, this phenomenon may only get worse.
So how do we even the playing field and reward companies for good business practices?
When I think about this problem, I keep coming back to an idea I encountered in a casual conversation with a stranger while traveling. I can’t remember his face or his name, but his idea has stuck with me and festered in my mind for the better part of a year. His take was that putting the financial burden of environmental responsibility on the companies just doesn’t make sense for the reasons I’ve given above. In a global marketplace, it renders companies less competitive than those that operate free of environmental and labor regulations.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to put an “environmental impact” or “ecological footprint” tax on the product itself?
Ugh, a tax?
Initially, I didn’t warm to the idea either. But think about it: adding a tax proportionate to a product’s ecological and social footprint eliminates the cost advantage of irresponsible production. All those environmental costs that are currently not included in our economic system would be factored in and would increase the price of unsustainably made products.
This, in turn, would make moral dilemmas at the grocery store much easier. Is it more sustainable to buy distant, organic produce or local, non-organic produce? The tax-adjusted pricing should inform my decision. Can I afford the chemical-free shampoo? Yes, because the price of its chemical-laden competitors would be raised through the environmental impact tax and eliminate the cost advantage of choosing that product.
The money raised from the tax could fund its implementation and other sustainable programs such as public transportation (high speed rail, anyone?) and alternative energy. Perhaps it could even make a dent in our gaping budget deficit.
Won’t this cost me money?
You may be thinking, “Sure, that’s a good idea in concept, but that will raise my bills - grocery, clothes, everything.” Well, yes, that’s true. But maybe if we see the true cost of the products we casually consume, we can make a more informed decision about what is really necessary to our lives.
Additionally, programs such as this often have the greatest impact on the poor. But this could be compensated for by using some of the tax revenue for need-based assistance programs.
Regardless, running an economic system on the assumption of infinite resources is fundamentally flawed. Currently, environmental impacts such as air pollution, water pollution, and deforestation are not factored into the cost of a product: they are considered “externalities.”
These costs need to be included in the system in a way that does not punish those who engage in sustainable business practices. By taxing a product’s environmental impact, it levels the playing field for the consumer.
Disclaimer
Of course, I am not an economist or policy guru. I don’t know how to implement such a tax or if it would even be possible (though compared to creating a carbon trading market, perhaps it’s not that difficult). This is only the musing of a concerned, intelligent citizen trying to brainstorm ways to make our economic system fit within the bounds of our ecological constraints.
What do you think? Would such a tax have a beneficial effect on our production system? Join the conversation over at our website!
Jill Mueller is a conservation biologist, avid cyclist, and freelance writer. She has combined forces with a good friend and dietitian to start The Barefoot Badger, a blog promoting healthy, sustainable living. Check us out!
Here is an overview of some of the biggest and best solar energy companies.
Solar Power Panel â?? The Prologue | Lowes Zone
With energy resources dwindling fast and global warming changing climates across the globe, more people look towards renewable energies for reducing their.
Learn How To Build A Solar Panel | Create Solar Power
You can learn how to build a solar panel in the comfort of your home and just use it along side other energy saving equipments you already own. You are sure to.
Avail Solar Power Lights Systems | News Direct Blog
The Vatican Shines a Light on Solar Power…VaticanSolar power lights electricity is beneficial even over the conventional grid system electricity. In the way.
Asian Energy: Cambodia To Develop Solar Power To Meet Domestic Need
The Cambodian government plans to supply electricity throughout the entire country by 2020 by developing renewable energy resources, specifically looking at solar, hydro and biomass- fueled power, Sat Samy said. …
Green Technology Revs
by Solar Guide on Nov.26, 2009, under Learn about Solar
Save the planet! As Earth Day approaches April 22, what are you doing to get ready? Earth day is an event that started to bring attention to our environment. How we handle our garbage reflects our environment. Here are three tips to help save our environment. Education is a goal of Earth Day. Educating everyone from adults to children can get involved. Challenge your kids to come up with projects to bring attention to our environment. When we teach our next generation, we are saving our planet. But first, we must start ourselves. Be a steward of what God gave you. Become energy efficient by recycling and conservation. Our planet is worth it. And now I would like to invite you to join me in learning energy saving tips you can do yourself to decrease your electric bill at http://energyconsciousconsultant.com Energy conservation should be out goal.
Green Technology Revs
Save the Planet by Becoming Energy Efficient
To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?
by Solar Guide on Nov.26, 2009, under Learn about Solar
To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?
Sometimes, simple acts such as going to the grocery store can turn into a moral dilemma. Is it better to choose the piece of organic fruit produced on the other side of the country or the non-organic version grown locally, 50 miles away? Are the benefits of chemical-free shampoo worth an extra 5 bucks a bottle? Will I really be able to enjoy a cheap chocolate bar knowing that the growers of the cocoa beans were likely not fairly compensated?
As much as I’d like to say that I always buy the product that is environmentally safe and sustainably produced, in reality, that’s not always the case. First, the sheer amount of information required to be able to distinguish between products is staggering. You need facts regarding environmental impact, transportation costs, and fair trade practices, to name just a few. And there are plenty of misinformation and greenwashing campaigns out there to steer you in the wrong direction.
Second, of course, there are times when the high cost of an ethically made product turns me off from buying it. Even consumers with the best of intentions have their breaking points.
The thing is, companies who go out of their way to implement sustainable practices endure a greater cost of production. Sure, they can sometimes capitalize on this by marketing to conscientious consumers who are willing to pay a bit more, but the fact remains that in today’s system, environmentally minded production is punished.
On the other hand, companies who move their factories (and jobs) to developing countries with lax environmental standards and cheap labor are able to make products at a fraction of the cost and undercut their competitors (while shipping materials and finished goods all around the world and adding to our greenhouse gas problems).
The way it’s set up, high environmental standards in one country drive companies to relocate in places where it’s permissible to pollute in order to compete in the marketplace. Chaco, the Colorado-based athletic sandal company, is a prime example of even a well-intentioned company being forced to follow suit to maintain competitive pricing on their products. In fact, 95% of all footwear in the world is produced in China, whose poor environmental regulation and sometimes dangerous environmental problems are well known.
With current talk about cap and trade emissions programs, this phenomenon may only get worse.
So how do we even the playing field and reward companies for good business practices?
When I think about this problem, I keep coming back to an idea I encountered in a casual conversation with a stranger while traveling. I can’t remember his face or his name, but his idea has stuck with me and festered in my mind for the better part of a year. His take was that putting the financial burden of environmental responsibility on the companies just doesn’t make sense for the reasons I’ve given above. In a global marketplace, it renders companies less competitive than those that operate free of environmental and labor regulations.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to put an “environmental impact” or “ecological footprint” tax on the product itself?
Ugh, a tax?
Initially, I didn’t warm to the idea either. But think about it: adding a tax proportionate to a product’s ecological and social footprint eliminates the cost advantage of irresponsible production. All those environmental costs that are currently not included in our economic system would be factored in and would increase the price of unsustainably made products.
This, in turn, would make moral dilemmas at the grocery store much easier. Is it more sustainable to buy distant, organic produce or local, non-organic produce? The tax-adjusted pricing should inform my decision. Can I afford the chemical-free shampoo? Yes, because the price of its chemical-laden competitors would be raised through the environmental impact tax and eliminate the cost advantage of choosing that product.
The money raised from the tax could fund its implementation and other sustainable programs such as public transportation (high speed rail, anyone?) and alternative energy. Perhaps it could even make a dent in our gaping budget deficit.
Won’t this cost me money?
You may be thinking, “Sure, that’s a good idea in concept, but that will raise my bills - grocery, clothes, everything.” Well, yes, that’s true. But maybe if we see the true cost of the products we casually consume, we can make a more informed decision about what is really necessary to our lives.
Additionally, programs such as this often have the greatest impact on the poor. But this could be compensated for by using some of the tax revenue for need-based assistance programs.
Regardless, running an economic system on the assumption of infinite resources is fundamentally flawed. Currently, environmental impacts such as air pollution, water pollution, and deforestation are not factored into the cost of a product: they are considered “externalities.”
These costs need to be included in the system in a way that does not punish those who engage in sustainable business practices. By taxing a product’s environmental impact, it levels the playing field for the consumer.
Disclaimer
Of course, I am not an economist or policy guru. I don’t know how to implement such a tax or if it would even be possible (though compared to creating a carbon trading market, perhaps it’s not that difficult). This is only the musing of a concerned, intelligent citizen trying to brainstorm ways to make our economic system fit within the bounds of our ecological constraints.
What do you think? Would such a tax have a beneficial effect on our production system? Join the conversation over at our website!
Jill Mueller is a conservation biologist, avid cyclist, and freelance writer. She has combined forces with a good friend and dietitian to start The Barefoot Badger, a blog promoting healthy, sustainable living. Check us out!
Showcase » Blog Archive » Solar-power-your-home Visit Site : http://solar-power-your-home.com/. Submited on : November 26th, 2009. Theme : Simplesite. Tags : Rating : 1 Star 2 Stars 3 Stars 4 Stars 5 Stars (No Ratings Yet). Loading … 05. Thanks for your help in getting my site … Photovoltaic Panels For Solar Power The most important part of any solar power system is the solar panel, the part that actually handles the conversion of sunlight to electricity. Solar panels are an incredible invention that give average homeowners the ability to produce … Single largest solar power system installed « Bangladesh Economic News Energy experts hailed the initiative saying installation of a solar power system at the PMO is indicative of the government’s seriousness about increasing power generation through renewable sources, at a time when conventional energy … Solar Power Gadgets For Cell Phones And Tech Toys Just in time for the hard to buy for people in your family who crave cool gifts, solar power gadgets have landed in a big way in the cell phone industry. When you need to power up your cell phone and are not near a power supply, … Implement a Solar Power Home | News Direct Blog Solar Power LightsA solar power home system is one of the most viable options for you when you are thinking about converting your home energy system from.TheGrahamBaileyShow Episode 3 in Going Green
The Canada Pine Beetle
by Solar Guide on Nov.25, 2009, under Learn about Solar
The Canada Pine Beetle
For some time now, the extremely destructive Pine Beetle ( Dendroctonus ponderosae ) is ravaging huge areas of Canada’s forestlands and its destruction is so virulent, that it is leaving massive and easily visible scars across otherwise green foliage landscapes. In numerous areas where the pine beetle is active, various solutions for its eradication have been tried and some of these in themselves, are so toxic in nature that they would normally be classed as being a larger risk than the beetle they are attempting to destroy.
These beetles have an average life span of about one year and generally, their eggs are laid through the bark of a tree where they develop into larvae that stay under the bark all through the winter months. During the spring the larvae continue to feed under the bark and then they will change into pupae during the months of June and July. During the rest of the summer and into fall, the new adult pine beetles leave the infested tree through emergence holes they create and after drying themselves in the warm sunshine, they take off to mate and commence a new cycle by laying the next generation’s eggs under the bark of new trees.
During the time they remain under the bark of a tree, they are known to transmit a fungus type substance that stains the sapwood of the tree a blue colour. Other than discoloration, this blue colouring appears to have no adverse affects on the actual structural integrity of the tree. However, we must not forget that the damage has already been done and like a rolling snowball, it gather momentum and range of spread with each summer that comes. These beetles prefer mature trees such as lodge pole pines which are considered mature after eighty years of growth and in the Province of British Columbia, current statistics show that there are three times more mature lodge pole pines than they had over ninety years ago. Hot and dry summers make the trees more stressed and thus more susceptible to attack and infestation by this ravenous little creature. Trees which have been attacked will turn red roughly one year after the infestation and then, between one and two years later the affected trees will turn grey and all of their needles will fall off.
Another interesting fact about these little guys is they do not like it too cold! Their eggs, larvae and pupae are very susceptible to very cold temperatures and if these temperatures remain below minus 35 Celsius for a prolonged period of maybe a week, then this will kill off the eggs, larvae, pupae and generally sizeable portions of the beetle population in that area of cold weather. This being said, unless we suddenly enter the start of a new ice age all across Canada, these sporadic cold spells are unfortunately not enough to rid us of this continually spreading plague of destruction. Yes, there are action plans prepared and in place and yes, the Canadian Ministry of Forests and Range are really trying to get to grips with finding a solution to this costly problem but to date, the efforts and methodology being used has had little or no effect on the overall problem.
The good news is that an answer to this massive problem does exist and better still, it is an answer, which consists of no chemicals, no toxins, no poisons and no danger to either the forest or to the people who would apply the solution. This answer can be found right now in the form of a golden all natural organic fluid formulated around a cedar oil base. This fluid can totally eradicate the pine beetle and a few other nasty insects at the same time. It is not cheap but then again it is not as expensive as some of the other treatment that have been tried. It is non hazardous and will not harm the environment in any way and it is here and available right now. Unfortunately, for now it appears that here it must stay as the Ministry of Forests and Range are continuing their quest with what they feel they know best. Maybe someday, hopefully soon, they will realize that we can defeat this natural pest by using a totally natural substance.
Bob Littlejohn MBA BSc
Considering Solar Power for Your Home | Best Syndication
BSN Stock Photo Due to the ever rising cost of electricity and because of environmental issues, many householders are seeking information on the alternatives, particularly solar power generators. This is not a new idea; however, …
Solar Power For Your Homelearn How To Generate Solar Power For …
To get them accurately installed solar modules are to be army on a animate anatomy and positioned on your roof top. Power produced by the solar modules is adapted from Direct Current (DC) to Alternating Current (AC) through a inverter. …
Solar Power For Homes â?? Take Advantage Of The Growing Trend …
Solar power for homes is becoming a major alternative to fossil fuels as costs go down in solar technology and up in traditional fuel sources. Fossil fuels are.
Reflections Upon The DIY Solar Power. | Go Solar Power For Homes
Is solar power a viable option for you and your home or is it just a marketing plan to get you to buy a product that isn’t practical and doesn’t perform the way.
Solar power program yields mixed results in Tibet | FSRN - Free …
The Chinese government has been pushing to advance solar energy in the region since the 1980s. But its efforts came in fits and starts. And, as FSRN’S Yanmei Xie reports, the spread of solar panels has its environmental problems as well …
An Earth Day Lesson on Where Have All the Forests Gone?
by Solar Guide on Nov.24, 2009, under Learn about Solar
An Earth Day Lesson on Where Have All the Forests Gone?
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
Solar Power, Inc. Welcomes New Board Member | Eco Friendly Mag Solar Power, Inc. Welcomes New Board Member ROSEVILLE, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Solar Power, Inc. (â??SPIâ?) (OTCBB: SOPW) announced today that. I am going to become a solar power tech! - Work and finding a Job I did some research and found that Sacramento, where I live, is #10 on the list of cities with most green jobs, AND that American River College just a few miles from me has a solar power technician certification program! … Cash In On The Benefits Of Solar Power Homes » Submit Articles … In today’s struggling economy, saving even a few dollars has become important. While people are not putting a halt on their spending, they are requiring something in return. More and more. Start Benefiting From The Advantages Of Residential Solar Energy Everyone can benefit from the advantages of residential solar energy, but the tricky part is taking the time and understanding where to get started. Since the sun doesn’t run out of fuel, at least not any faster no matter how much of it … New Jersey announces new solar power incentives | Cooler Planet News Late last week, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities said that it would commence a new incentive program for New Jersey-sourced solar power projects.Green technology
Antarctic Peninsula Climate - A Change in Krill Ecosystem
by Solar Guide on Nov.24, 2009, under Learn about Solar
Antarctic Peninsula Climate - A Change in Krill Ecosystem
Antarctic Peninsula has been experiencing warming trends for over 40 years with an increase of 2-3 C, thus correlating with lower sea ice conditions in the Amundsen Sea and Bellinghausen Sea. Warming temperatures around the Antarctic Peninsula is changing the dynamics of the ecosystem. The rise in atmospheric temperature is causing increasing in melting of freshwater glaciers and ice shelves. Fresh water emerging into the sea counteracts the salinity within a regional area. Changes identified are;
• Decrease in sea water salinity up to 60 miles offshore
• Lower sea ice
• Decreased krill population
• Increased salp (open ocean tunicate that is reminiscent of a jelly-fish) population
• Increase in cryptophytes (single cell phytoplankton algae)
• Decrease in diatom phytoplankton
• Increase in carbon sequestering in deep ocean sinks
• Decrease in carbon availability in the food chain
The Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba), a small shrimp like crustacean is the most important zooplankton species associated with the sea ice and plays a crucial role in the Antarctic food web. On a regional basis the amount of krill appear to be declining in the southern ocean. There are definitely lower trends in krill population during lower sea ice years around Antarctica. Part of the rational for the population decline is that ice algae rely on the sea ice for protection and growth. The krill need the sea ice in order to feed on the algae and phytoplankton.
Krill occur in groups or large swarms. They are less than 3 inches in size and feed primarily on phytoplankton and sea ice algae. Krill filter diatom phytoplankton out of the water column and scrape algae from the sea ice. Apart from frequenting the sea ice to feed, krill in particular juveniles, seek protection from predators in the many nooks and crannies formed by the deformed sea ice floes. Krill is the staple food of many fish, birds and mammals in the Southern Ocean. The biomass of Antarctic krill is considered to be larger than that of the earth’s human population.
Sea- ice algae utilizes atmospheric carbon dioxide for its energy source, the same as plants do on land. Krill diet of the sea-ice algae and phytoplankton is essential for converting the carbon for use in higher animals such as fish, birds, and whales. This carbon conversion is a very critical role in predatory nutrition. Additionally krill do eliminate some of the silica from the diatom shells and carbon in sticky balls that sinks nearly two miles into the deep ocean. These cold, deep waters are able to contain carbon dioxide and prevent the gas from rising to the surface, thus immobilizing carbon that is not passed into the food chain.
In recent years there have been increases in algae phytoplankton called cryptophytes. Mark Moline, California Polytechnic State University, states that the cryptophyte population correlates with warmer temperatures and lower salinity waters that are produced by the melting of the freshwater glacier. Cryptophytes measure around 2 mm, while other plankton in the Antarctic waters are much larger and measure 15 to 270 mm. Along with the increase in cryptophyte population an increase in salp, a pelagic tunicate, population has also occurred. There are differences between salps and krill. Salps feeding efficiency is capable of grazing on smaller food sources less than 4mm, whereas, the Antarctic Krill efficiency declines on any food less than 20 mm. The salps compete with krill for the phytoplankton and thus decrease the krill population. Additionally the salps feed on krill larvae, which also cause a decline in krill numbers.
The warming trend in the Antarctic Peninsula is showing a pattern of increasing cryptophytes over other phytoplankton and the increase in the salp. This influence is due to the low sea ice and the lowering of the salinity in the seawater. Salps and cryptophytes do better in the lower salinity, while the krill and other plankton are unable to tolerate the increased freshwater regime from the glacier ice melts. This selectivity gives preference to the salps as the dominant species while decreasing krill abundance. During lower sea ice seasons the density of krill declines while the salp population increases.
Carbon sequestering into the deep ocean from the algae and phytoplankton occur by both the salp and krill. Both species eliminate the atmospheric carbon received from the primary producing algae by producing fecal pellets by the salps and sticky balls by the krill, thereby, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The salps though sequester more carbon into the cold deep ocean than the krill. However, the krill provides the most efficient pathway for carbon transfer up into the food chain. The cryptophyte dominated waters are less efficient in the food chain due to increased feeding by salps and the difficulty of the krill to utilize the cryptophytes as a food source. Migration patterns by penguins are changing, in part due to the changing krill population. Krill is a mainstay diet for penguins, and if the krill population changes, many other ecological changes occur with it.
Steve Bynum has worked at Palmer Station along the Antarctic Peninsula. He not only enjoyed the ecosystem along the Bellinghausen Sea but he has also witnessed the changing climate conditions.
Join Steve at http://www.climatechangenewsletters.com as we take a journey to discover the warming and cooling effects of our planet.
LAUGH OR CRY TV
Environmentally Friendly Technology
by Solar Guide on Nov.22, 2009, under Learn about Solar
Green and Clean Computing Little thought may be given to the energy consumption of computers, but as more and more computers are purchased each year, it is not just the number of computers that forces increased energy consumption but the way in which computers are being used that adds to the building energy burden. Research has shown that most computer desktops are not being used a great deal of the time they are running and are left on for long periods of time. As with other forms of energy consumption, electricity is wasted when it is not being used and this burns fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide into the air and cause smog, acid rain and other detrimental environmental side effects. The typical desktop computer consists of a system unit which houses the central processing unit (CPU), a monitor and a printer. The CPU may require 100 watts of electrical power; the monitor, which may be 15 to 17 inches, may require another 50-100 watts; a laser printer can use as much as 100 watts or more while ink printers use as little as 12 watts while printing. The cost for operating a 200 watt system all day and night, everyday, would be $125 annually, while the cost of operation for normal business hours of 40 hours per week would range around $30 annually. Considering the tremendous benefits derived from using computers, this figure may not appear extensive, but when multiplied by the many computers used on a daily basis in this country, the total grows phenomenally. There are many ways to reduce personal computer energy consumption. Computers, printers and monitors can be turned off when not in use. Many years ago, it was considered harmful to the computer if it were turned on and off periodically during the course of a day. However, the internal circuitry of personal computers is designed to be protected from power damages that might result from on and off switching. Doing so will not substantially affect the computer’s useful life. The use of screen savers wastes energy and should not be used. They go back to the days when, if not used, images would be ingrained on screens if they remained on too long, but updates in technology have long made the use of screen savers unnecessary. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has also developed technology for computers and monitors that can be programmed to automatically power down to a lower power state when not in use. This “sleep mode” can reduce energy consumption by 60% to 70% and these “Energy Star” computers serve to gain efficiency without any loss in computing performance. Green computing extends beyond the personal computer to the use of related devices and materials. For example, paper waste can be reduced by printing as little as possible and only when necessary, recycling waster paper, using electronic mail instead of faxing to eliminate the need to produce a hard copy, and trying to print on both sides of the page when possible. In addition, printer and toner cartridges can be recycled. Although this is a practice that has been discouraged in the past by printer and toner cartridge manufacturers, such recycled cartridges save resources and reduce pollution and solid waste. Disposing of electronics as well can be done through recycling agencies to reduce waste and provide for recycling of functional equipment. Finally, green computing also means not buying new equipment unless there is a real need for it. Close investigations can be made regarding upgrading hardware or software before purchasing a new computer. However, if the determination is made that a new computer system should be purchased, there are “Energy Star” computers, monitors and printers on the market. In addition, ink jet printers use 80% to 90% less energy than laser printers and soon, even “Green Computers” will reach the marketplace for sale. Visit http://www.OCRuggedLaptops.com for more information about the rugged laptop industry.
Environmentally Friendly Technology
Clean Green Computing
stove demo in Phuket
by Solar Guide on Nov.16, 2009, under Learn about Solar
Landfill in the UK is becoming a huge problem. With the drop in the price of recycled products, the issue is what to do with all of the waste that we produce. The breakdown of waste in landfill sites creates huge amounts of the greenhouse gas methane. There are also many products that will not breakdown and will remain in the environment for ever with the potential to contaminate water supplies. Traid, a charity specializing in the recycling of textiles reports that 900,000 tons of shoes and clothing are thrown away each year in the UK. Only 200,000 tons per year are recycled and the rest is dumped in landfill. The government estimates that similar amounts of between 550,000 and 900,000 tons of textiles are thrown away each year. In addition to the problems of waste and landfill in the UK, there is also the consideration of the energy used and waste generated by the manufacture and distribution of clothing and textiles. Growth of cotton uses a huge amount of chemical pesticides and environmentally damaging cultivation methods. The manufacture of man made fabrics also has a huge environmental impact with. Demand for polyester the most widely used synthetic fabric has almost doubled in the last 15 years. The manufacture of polyester uses large amounts of crude oil and an energy-intensive process. It releases emissions including volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride, all of which can cause health problems for workers by causing or aggravating respiratory disease. Second hand clothing is becoming more popular as people begin to recognise the real costs of fast fashion. Consumers are becoming more aware of their buying choices and ways that they can help the environment. Finally, there is one more great reason to recycle second hand clothing. Just because you are fed up with a piece of clothing or it does not fit you nay more, it does not mean that it has no worth. You can make sure that the worth of your second hand clothing is realized by swapping it at a swishing party on a clothes swapping website, selling it or donating it to your favorite charity. This article was written by Ceri Heathcote for posh-swaps.com, a website for swapping, buying and selling second hand and vintage clothing. Clothes swapping and buying and selling second hand clothes is a great way to reduce the impact of fashion on the environment and to save money.
stove demo in Phuket
Your Second Hand Clothes: Recycle
Gasification Sees a New Dawn
by Solar Guide on Nov.16, 2009, under Learn about Solar
Gasification Sees a New Dawn
If you search for gasification and terms like “wood stove†on video sharing sites these days you will see demonstrations of wood being burnt in little stoves which seem to something almost miraculous and quite different from our idea of wood as a fuel. These little boilers light rapidly, produce no detectable smoke after the initial lighting and firing, and burn very hot.
So what is the technique which is being used, and how might it help us all in weaning society off fossil fuels?
What you have seen is a method of gasification. It differs from combustion in that it uses just 20% to 30% of the air or oxygen necessary for complete fuel combustion. During gasification, the amount of air supplied to the gasifier is carefully controlled with the effect that only a small part of the fuel burns completely. Trials of this process have illustrated that up to 70% of the energy value of the fue used can be recovered as what is known as synthesis gas, or syngas. This producer gas can also be used for various applications similar to natural gas.
This is a part of the magic, and not one really shown in the YouTube type videos, but it makes this method even more useful. This is due to the fact that syngas can be put to useful work, in both drying the feed fuel prior to gasification and after collection and storage it can be used as a fossil fuel replacement, and renewable energy source. When a gasification plant also includes Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and/or electricity export from the site, the gains are even more impressive.
Gasification in addition promises to be the most efficient long-term solution for capturing carbon while utilizing these valuable feedstocks, and storing the CO2 for very long priods, to reduce or halt global warming.
Gasification of wood and wood-type residues and waste in fixed bed or fluidised bed gasifiers with subsequent burning of the gas for heat production is has become state of the art with designers of thes systems working hard to gain the absolute maximum efficiency out of these systems.
These wood gasifiers which are located primarily in the Scandinavian countries are used almost entirely for space heating heat generation. Gasification of biomass is the renewable fuel system preferred by many, and can be defined as the thermal conversion of solid biomass to gaseous fuel.
Gasification has been around for over a hundred years, but the benefits of biochar are only now being discovered. Furthermore, it is still a wide-open field.
Before electric lighting was available in cities there were street lamps fuelled by gasified coal. It is easy to forget that the process has been reliably used on a commercial scale worldwide for more than 50 years in the refining, fertilizer, and chemical industries, and for more than 35 years in the electric power industry. More than 75 companies involved in the development, licensing, and use of these technologies as well as engineering, construction, equipment manufacturing and production of synthesis gas by gasification from coal, petroleum coke, heavy oils and other hydrocarbons.
Gasification has been proven to be a viable technology for CO2 capture and reducing SOx, NOx, particulate matter, and mercury emissions from coal and petcoke-fired power plants, synthetic fuels production, and chemical facilities.
Plants in this category have been capturing carbon dioxide for several decades in chemical plants in China and the United States. It also has potential contributions to make to both transportation and electrical power energy markets. With ongoing concerns about the price and availability of oil, populous countries like the U.S. gasification has proven to be in high demand and quite successful. However, it can also be used in conjunction with gas engines and gas turbines to obtain a higher conversion efficiency than conventional fossil-fuel electric power generation. Gasification can help meet renewable energy targets, address concerns about global warming, and contribute to meeting global environmental targets.
Steve has built a great web site where there is a lot more information about gasification. This is a hot subject indeed for this technology which has become an essential read for all those in alternative energy and interested in taking action to reduce the impact of climate change.
Start your gardens for Green Tech News
