Archive for June, 2011
5 Steps to Living a Greener Life
June 28th, 2011 | 
Author:
5 Steps to Living a Greener Life
Lots of people talk about trying to live a greener life, with some even going so far as to completely change their lifestyle, but most people aren’t sure how to go green because they don’t know exactly what that means. Sure, most people know the basics that scratch the surface such as reusing, recycling and reducing the amount of waste output for their homes but there many other steps you can take to move towards a cleaner, greener environment.
If you’re wondering how you can make your life greener, here are five different tips that are simple and easy to implement and that don’t cost the you anything. All it takes is a little dedication and after a few months, these five little things will become second-nature to you.
1. The next time you go shopping use cloth bags at the grocery store instead of paper or plastic. These cloth bags can be purchased for as little as a few dollars each and they’re much stronger than paper or plastic bags and will last you through years of use.
These bags help reduce waste since most people throw away the plastic and paper bags. The hardest part of using cloth bags is remembering to take them to the store, but once you get in the habit of using them, it becomes unconscious habit.
2. Replace your standard light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. These bulbs use less energy and last for four to five years, almost 15 times longer than traditional bulbs. While the cost of a compact fluorescent bulb is more than your standard bulb, they easily pay for themselves over time requiring less frequent replacement and reduced energy consumption. In fact, studies show that a CF bulb can actually pay for itself within one to two months. One CF bulb also saves about five pounds of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide a month. Replacing every bulb in your home can have a huge impact on the environment and on your wallet.
3. Use public transportation. By car pooling, taking the bus, or using the subway you can cut down on the amount of gas you use and the amount of exhaust your car emits. While it may be an inconvenience in some ways, it is one of the best ways of helping the environment. Even better, walk or ride your bike to work if possible. This not only saves you money and helps the environment but it also keeps you fit and healthy!
4. Adjust your thermostat by a few degrees. By turning your thermostat down by just two degrees in the winter, you can save over 50 pounds of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide per month while lowering your heating bill. Turning it up a few degrees in the summer can likewise save you money and save the environment.
5. Finally, only wash your clothes or run your dish washer when you have a full load. It wastes water and electricity to wash and dry only a few pieces of clothing. In fact, if you can, try to wash your clothes using the cold water cycle as it uses up to 50% less energy than a warm water one.
By just doing these basics not only you can save some serious money but you can rest assured that you’re doing your part for a cleaner, brighter future. To discover more ideas you can use around your home for living green visit http://www.greentipsforyou.com!
GreenTech's News
Posted in 
Can You Be Legal, Clean, and Green?
Can You Be Legal, Clean, and Green?
You may have seen something on the news about Spokane, Washington where there is now a ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates. While this may seem to be an isolated case, there are actually several states (including the rest of the state of Washington) that will make dishwashing soap made with phosphates above a very small level illegal in 2010.
What is phosphate anyway and why is it used in dish washing soap? Phosphate is an inorganic chemical that is a combination of salt and phosphoric acid. Because it can clean things like hard water stains, and grease, phosphates are used in all kinds of things including dish washing soap.
Why all the fuss? Phosphate is a problem when it finds its way to freshwater rivers and lakes. The phosphate encouraged the growth of algae which depletes the oxygen in these rivers and lakes, killing off fish and other wildlife.
While there are green alternatives out there, deleting the phosphates from the dish washing soap can leave one unsatisfied with the resulting product-and a lot of dirty dishes. Plus some of these green alternatives are pricier than their cheaper phosphorous counterparts. This has caused people to travel outside their state to obtain contraband detergent from other states-which, of course, defeats the purpose of the bank in the first place.
What should you look for in a green dish washing soap? Are there green products that work as well? While there is no direct substitute for phosphorous, but there are other substances that can be used. How well they will work depends on a number of factors, perhaps the most important being the hardness of the water used for cleaning.
One ingredient that be used is a surfactants. Surfactants are usually biodegradable and are used to provide cleaning power and increase the ability of the water to separate the soil from the dish. Anionic surfactants work well as detergents, but can be less than effective in hard water. Amphoteric surfactants are used for their foaming power and can often be found with anionic surfactants. There are other substitutes for phosphates, but these can be even more dangerous than the phosphates. They include nitrilotriacatic acid (NTA) and caustic alkaline chemicals (which are particularly dangerous when ingested-as sometimes happens with children).
It may take some trial and error to come up with the phosphate substitute that works best in your water. It is unlikely that the ban on phosphates is going away, so it is better to start exploring the options now. In the meantime, the soap manufacturers continue work on the perfect phosphate substitute, but there are some excellent alternatives out there.
“Dr. Robin”, the well known MLM Radio personality is and has built his “honorary” doctorate in the Network Marketing world and has had experience in numerous other network marketing companies. He is a nationally recognized expert in the network marketing business.Dr. Robin is the current host of his radio show, “Networking with the Blindguy” with up to 4.7 million listeners daily. http://drblindguy.com
Also time to help you with going GREEN. http://gobewisenow.com DR Robin will help you with going green with products that do work and are safe.
Convertor Of Solar
In my four-article series on water use (The Resource Matrix), I took you on a journey to reveal the layers of The Resource Matrix in order to help you understand how water will be a highly contested commodity tomorrow, possibly as much as oil is fought over today. You learned about your water footprint and a website where you can calculate it, virtual water and virtual water transfers, whereby choices here affect water availability elsewhere, to the point of some people not having enough water to drink in order to produce inexpensive dyed cotton, along with insane choices such as growing crops in the desert. You learned that on average it takes 1854 to 3000 gallons to produce one pound of beef. Yep, it’s it’s been a great journey through the sidetrip city of the Resource Matrix. Today, we’ve found the on-ramp to the Green Lighting Interstate and are driving to take a look at water use in generating electricity. For a simple reason. It takes a lot of water to produce electricity. How much? 5% of all US water? 10%? Can’t be as high as 25%? Electricity and water? I thought the issue was fossil fuels and greenhouse gases The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated water use in the United States in 2000. Their grand total: 408 billion gallons per day withdrawn for all uses. The number 1 spot, weighing in at 48%, was thermoelectric power. Irrigation earned the runner-up prize at 34%. The 195 billion gallons need to come from somewhere, and actions have consequences. Environmental ones, as in 40 million fish in the Great Lakes killed each year due to being trapped against water intake devices. That’s a lot of Friday night fish dinners. How much water is used in generating electricity? Large fossil fuel and nuclear plants require incredible quantities of water for cooling and ongoing maintenance. Water for thermoelectric power is used in generating electricity with steam-driven turbine generators. It uses 48% of all water in the US. According to the Pace Energy and Climate Center, the amount of water used for power plant cooling varies by each specific power plant’s electricity generating technology and size. Nuclear reactors require the most water for cooling, and baseload fossil fuel power plants come in second. The Salem Nuclear Generating Station alone takes 3 billion gallons a day from the Delaware Bay, according to the Pace Energy and Climate Center. Nationally: These numbers are starting to sound like the same ones the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Bank use. Imagine watching your favorite science program where astronomers explain that the universe is 78 billion light-years wide (78 billion units of 5,878,630,000,000 miles). There is absolutely nothing in our experience to help us wrap our mind around it. How much is 3 billion gallons per day? The Delaware Bay feeds Salem Nuclear Generating Station 3 billion gallons a day. Imagine this rectangle: a football field with end zones (360 feet long x 160 feet wide). Then add to it walls on each side of the rectangle to create a container to hold the 3 billion gallons you pour into it. How high do you need to make those walls to contain 3 billion gallons? 6915 feet high. Or 1.3 miles. Maybe 6915 feet high is still hard to imagine. So how deep do you cover the field in order to feed the Salem plant every minute? Answer: 5 feet deep. Every minute. 48% of all water use: We’re Number One! How much is 195 billion gallons per day? Using the USGS figure for 2000, thermoelectric power nationwide used 195 billion gallons a day, or 48% of all water used in the US. My guess is the water use has grown since then. How high are the walls on our football field now? 449,475 feet or 85 miles high. We’re back to US Treasury and astronomy numbers again. So, let’s get a higher-level view to help us. Lake Erie holds 116 cubic miles of water. Nationally, thermoelectric power uses 195 billion gallons a day – or 64.2 cubic miles a year. We drain Lake Erie every 22 months. But the water used is returned to its source. So what’s the issue about water use? Power generation returns 98% of the water back to its source (bay, lake, river, ocean). It’s the environmental consequences. The Pace Energy and Climate Center explains it neatly: Withdrawal of large volumes of surface water for either power plant cooling or hydropower generation can kill fish, larvae and other organisms trapped against intake structures (impinged), or swept up (entrained) in the flow through the different sections of a power plant. Examples include: The diversion of water out of the river removes water for healthy in-stream ecosystems: The cleanest kilowatt is the one never used: Back to those compact fluorescent lamps and LEDs PowerScorecard.org explains the solution: By re-directing electricity dollars to support environmentally benign energy resources, consumers are empowered, in states that offer supply choice, to influence the existing generating resources that are deployed to meet demand. They can also support the construction of new and cleaner electricity resources that will be built to meet overall growth in demand in the future. By supporting these power options, consumers can minimize many water use and consumption impacts. Still, directing your dollars to cleaner power products in no way helps remediate damages that already have occurred. Consumers can stop the construction of new hydropower facilities or alter conditions of siting and operation, but they cannot undo previous environmental degradation that occurred at existing hydropower facilities. In short, reduce your use of electricity. More Info: We used several sources for this article, including the PowerScorecard.org website, which is produced by the Pace Energy and Climate Center, which is part of the Pace University School of Law’s Center for Environmental Legal Studies, Pace University, White Plains, New York. On PowerScorecard, you can get: Thanks for letting us keep you updated . . . To your green, brighter future, Cinnamon Alvarez, A19 And now I would like to offer you free access to powerful info on energy efficiency that’s easy to read and cuts through all this “green” information clutter — so you can literally start making positive changes today. You can access it now by going to: http://www.a19.com/pub/articles/ From Cinnamon Alvarez: Founder, A19 — woman-owned green manufacturer of hand-made ceramic lighting fixtures
Convertor Of Solar
Water Efficiency
Is Making Biodiesel at Home Safe
Is Making Biodiesel at Home Safe
The flammability point of biodiesel.
I’ve mentioned that it’s biodegradable that it’s safe to use blah, blah, blah, all these different things, but I want to show you how safe this is. This biodiesel, I’ve made from canola oil, so I’m going to pour a little bit in here, and now it’s time to play with fire. We’re going to come down here. Light up our torch, notice I have my fire extinguisher people.
We now have a nice blow torch going. Notice I’ve got some nice biodiesel on the ground here. I want to show you that biodiesel is very, very safe to have around. I can’t light it on fire. This torch is a really hot torch. I’m actually using map gas. Map gas actually has a higher flame temperature. So I’m just trying to light this sucker on fire, and you know what, she’s not going. That’s because biodiesel isn’t actually that flammable. It has a much higher flash point than normal diesel, and I’ve just proven it.
And that’s one of the reasons people like biodiesel is because it’s so safe to use. In fact, if this stuff spills on the ground the MSDS and things that it calls for is get a garden hose and wash it off. It’s not going to light up. It’s as safe to have around as vegetable oil. No I have to cavy up that this biodiesel has been cleaned. We have got all the methanol out of it, and we’ll talk a little bit about that later, but I just want to show you that it’s very clean and it just doesn’t burn. That’s that little fun experiment. We want to show you that biodiesel will burn though. When it’s under pressure it does burn quite well. For this experiment I’m just going to start a fire, and I’m going to spray it into it. As you can see it will burn, so when it’s in your diesel and it becomes injected, it will burn beautifully. That’s biodiesel burning.
The DR Performance Diesel Products & Edge Diesel Products are both fully compatible with biodiesel- Nathan Young
Your Green Life Segment Of Sun Light
Can Paper Bags Substitute Plastic Bags?
Can Paper Bags Substitute Plastic Bags?
Bags hold an important place in our lives. They are sometimes referred to as the best personal carriers. They are made of various stuffs like cotton, synthetic, leather and so. But when it comes to general usage like for shopping, the names of two types of bags viz. plastic made and paper made bags come to our intellect. Both are fine, but the question is, which one is the best suited to our requirements. Lets discuss the peculiarities related with the two.
You might be thinking that paper bags are not as durable as those made of plastic. Also, we see that the latter are more commonly used than the former one. But, do you know plastic is a stuff which is really hazardous to the environment. It takes thousands of year to decompose. If burnt, it emits poisonous gases which again pollutes the environment. If buried in the ground, it makes the soil infertile. If thrown in the sea, it pollutes the sea water and proves to be a threat for the life of the sea creatures. One can imagine, how hazardous is plastic to our planet.
This perilous nature of plastic had forced the governments of many cities of the world to put a ban on the use of poly-bags, which are a major source of plastic pollution. Few cities of the world in which these polythene carriers are either completely or partially banned include San Francisco, New York, Texas, Germany, Dhaka, China, Kenya and Ireland to name a few. Even the government of Delhi had issued guidelines against the use of polythene. However, later on the government changed its decision to completely ban the polythene, due to some reasons. Government suggested the manufacturers to set up the recycling units on the basis of “polluter pays principles”. But the government has not completely given up the plan to ban these polythene carriers, it is in the pipeline.
In this context, paper bags are the best option. No doubt, they are unconventional, but they are eco-friendly and easy to recycle. Nowadays, there are various types of paper made bags available in the market. They are not only good looking, but also have ample of space to carry goods and are quite durable. The handmade paper bags available nowadays are designed to suit specific requirements which include carrying gifts, carrying wine, shopping etc. There is a separate bag to serve each purpose. Although, multipurpose bags are also made from paper. They are proving to be the best substitute for plastic or polythene carriers in the modern context.
Now, as we have told you every significant fact related to plastic and paper bags, It’s upon you which one to choose. The hazardous and non-disposable polythene, or the environment friendly and elegant paper bags.
For more information on paper bags, paper baskets, miscellaneous paper products and other handicraft items, you may visit the following sites:
http://www.handmade-paper-products.com/
http://online-handicrafts-center.blogspot.com/
Green technology
Australia’s Emission Trading System
Australia’s Emission Trading System
In Australia the government are introducing an emission trading or cap and trade scheme. There are major concerns about the level of reduction the government wants to sign up to and also whether it will actually work.
As Australians we do need to take action about carbon reduction. We are both the most vulnerable continent for feeling the effects of global warming and also we are the worst greenhouse emitters per head than any other country on the planet. We emit even more than the USA and Canada who are our nearest competitors for this wooden spoon. This is at least in part due to our huge coal industry.
The head of the Australia Institute’s Think Tank says that the Federal Government’s emissions trading scheme will have too many permits and will not reduce carbon emissions.
The Australia Institute’s executive director, Dr Richard Denniss, said the scheme’s flaws related to the 5 to 15 per cent emissions reduction targets, which he described as ”ridiculously low”, and he said there would be too many permits. Dr Dennis said that “We won’t achieve the policy goal, which is to reduce emissions.”
Dr Denniss told the Senate that ”[If] we pass this legislation, we’ve got it for the next 10 years. And anyone that’s got a good idea a year later, it’s not going to help. This legislation is designed to not be tinkered with.”
Professor Clive Hamilton, from the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, said the proposed scheme had damaged Australia’s reputation. A reduction target of at least 25 per cent needed to be set if the Government wanted credibility on the world stage. Australia would be better off taking no policy than the proposed model to the December climate change talks in Copenhagen, he said.
”It not only lowers the ambition of the world community but also excludes Australia from being a forceful player in negotiating … a strong international agreement.”
It is hard to see how exempting large emitters ignoring the 1.9 million small to medium businesses is going to help us reduce our carbon footprint. These same small businesses are currently suffering from financial stress, the business owners and managers are overworked and simply don’t feel able to handle anything new. Many don’t really understand what global warming is about or why it matters.
We urgently need unambiguous communication so that small to medium businesses accept the reality of the need for change and also how easy it can be to make significant reductions with minimal time input and save money at the same time.
We also need to help low income households reduce their carbon footprint with more efficient heating and cooling and effective public transport. We should NOT be giving them even more cash hand outs as “compensation” as currently promised by the government. All households need to come on board and stop wasting power.
We need a clear message that going green applies to all of us, is easy and saves money – just “go for a grumpy walk and just turn it off”. If every small business and householder just went around each office and home and did this it would be relatively easy for every one to reduce their carbon emissions and their power bill by 15-20%. At present we are told it will be difficult and it only applies to big business. Such a wrong message – we all need to pull together.
A Brief given to the Victorian Government advises that the state should only bother with green measures if they are more cost-effective than alternatives. They have been told to rethink programs such as subsidies for solar farms and hybrid car fleets because these will not contribute to any additional emission cuts under the federal scheme.
The Greens have concerns about the cost of emission permits being reduced by the actions of households, councils and governments, hence reducing industry’s incentive to cut emissions. This is more than simply an economic debate. Individuals and households should also be reducing their emissions. Achieving sustainability is a grassroots exercise that involves the entire community, and Australians are becoming aware of the need to remake the economy and society. The momentum must not be lost.
An additional concern is whether the legislation and also the international agreements reached in Copenhagen will be flexible enough to take account of emerging technology. At present this does not appear to be the case. Senator Wong, the Minister for Climate Change, rejected spending on biochar, a form of carbon capture in soil research because that is not listed in the protocol. Thankfully some soil carbon storage research will now be funded in the agriculture budget but that begs the requirement for the legislation to be flexible and allow for new and future technology.
If the ETS cannot deliver real carbon reductions it is really a form of “greenwash” saying we signed Kyoto and have done something before the next election. The big problem is that the government looks ahead 3 years to the next election, Big Biz CEO’s also look to the short term of their contracts and bonuses. Who looks ahead for our children?
Jean Cannon is an energy management and sustainable business consultant. If you would like more information about how to go green in your home or business and increase your business profits why don’t you go to http://www.itiseasytobegreen.com and download a chapter of my book of almost the same name and find out how to reduce your carbon footprint.
MTV News Of MPSystem in Hungary
The Plastic Bag: Ban Or Save?
The Plastic Bag: Ban Or Save?
As part of the conservation and environmental movement worldwide there are several campaigns aimed at banning the plastic bag. These fit in perfectly with going green at home and with our longer term life styles.
A quick search on the web will take you to the San Francisco Bay Area, “Bay vs Bag”, to the Daily Mail’s (UK) “Banish the Bags” as well as similar situations in Canada, Holland, China, elsewhere in the US and even Zanzibar.
A lot of the focus is based on the damage done to wild life, including sea mammals and birds; the effects on waste and the average number of bags used per person in different countries. In one of the lists I saw, Singapore was topping the list at 625 bags.
One of the targets is to reduce by 10% the yearly consumption of these bags.
On the other hand there are also “Save the Plastic Bag” campaigns, with the plastic industry behind it. Their main focus is highlighting what they call misinformation. Their points are based on “exaggerations” on the damage done to wild life; errors in how plastic bags are made (from ethane gas that would otherwise be burnt and not petroleum); effects of co2 vs methane; potential job losses and so on.
On the banning side of the argument, there can be exaggerations as well as questionable scientific data – questionable as in anybody can question it, after all to have an argument you must always have at least two points of view.
From the “saving” the industry point of view, there can be many counter arguments to the data that is presented. And this is quite understandable, after all their industry could be hit very badly. (This just reminds me that all businesses have a life time curve that goes from birth, to growth, to maturity and finally to demise. The time scale can be as short as a year to as long as a hundred years or more, but the end result is that it is replaced by something else).
Some of the arguments are saying that nets and not plastic bags are causing marine life casualties, that paper bags are a worse alternative (side stepping the plastic bag issue) and basically attacking the “plastic bag misinformation campaign”.
Very probably both sides are looking to make their points by reducing or ridiculing their opponents point of view. But the overall issue is still there – are plastic bags affecting our environment?
To get back to the plastic bag banning situation, where paper bags have the negative effect of more trees cut, the information that is being retrieved is very important. But it must also be as objective as possible. Having said that, we know that it takes literally centuries for plastic to degrade and this should be the foremost argument.
Just to expand a little on the paper bag argument, which is totally reasonable, the option is not to cut more trees. The options are to recycle and use bio-degradable alternatives.
In the old days, when plastic bags hadn’t been invented but grocery shops had, natural fiber bags were used and the customers were the ones who brought their own to the shop.
With just a little effort on the individual front, these campaigns wouldn’t be necessary.
Want to know about environment and natural living? Information, news and facts can be found at: http://natural-living-tips.com/
The News for Green Vehicle Team (segment 3)
The Classroom of Mobile Technology
I few weeks ago I came across an article about the deforestation situation of all the tropical rainforests. It talked about the main causes this beautiful places, origin to thousands of different life forms, are being damaged by people in so many different ways, among others: subsistence agriculture, colonization, tourism, and civilization development (savetherainforest). This latter caught my attention the most, because last week I went to my teak farm, and I got to see with my own eyes how a highway development affects our rainforest and trees so badly. My teak farm is located about 1 hour drive from Panama City, it is located in the Colon province, home of Colon City (second biggest city in our country, Panama). Last year the government decided to build a long overdue highway connecting both cities (of course I am all for improving the quality of life of my countrymen) but I can not agree with the amount of deforestation that took place in order to build this highway. Hundred of acres deforested in order to make way for four lanes that will bring better days to a lot of people, no doubt; but also brought a lot of disorder and chaos to a well established eco system that has being here long before us, and will continue to be here for (hopefully) thousands or millions of years after every single one of us has left this world. Since development of cities is inevitable, specially today where commerce since to grow exponentially, cities expand rapidly, and the whole world seems to be at everybody s fingertips, we need better way of transport and communication, but could we also be more interested in both preserving and saving tropical rainforests and trees? The answer is a big OF COURSE! I would have loved to see our government promoting the planting of trees in different areas of our country in order to make up for the ones lost during the development of this highway, or during the construction of so many other infrastructures around the country. Also having more people come forward and speak up as energetic and belligerent they are about so many other problems we have on this planet. Maybe all we need are more ways to let people know about this, get them involved. Since so much rainforest is lost every year, roughly about twice the size of the state of FLORIDA, this has become a problem for every single one of us earthlings, I think we need to get the word out, raise awareness and get people involved! Tropical Rainforest account for only 2% of land surface but through photosynthesis of trees they take massive amounts of CO2 emissions and make air clean and breathable again for every one of us. SO WE ALL NEED OUR RAINFOREST AND MORE TREES!! Pax Sanchez
The Classroom of Mobile Technology
Tropical Rainforest Vs Development
isachosan@gmail.com
Climate and Biodiversity For Common Good
Climate and Biodiversity For Common Good
Concerns about dangerous climate change and large biodiversity loss are visible throughout the world: unprecedented rates of temperature increases and species extinctions are a reality. In 1999 Dr. Peter Raven, president of the International Botanical Congress, published a paper in which he states that “current extinction rate is now approaching 1,000 times the background rate and may climb to 10,000 times the background rate during the next century, if present trends continue. At this rate, one-third to two-thirds of all species of plants, animals, and other organisms would be lost during the second half of the 21st century, a loss that would easily equal those of past extinctions”. He then outlined seven “Points to Slow the Extinction of Plants”, including financial and capacity building instruments to help developing countries protect 80% of the world’s biodiversity they host. As far as climate change is concerned, the responsibility of developed countries is high in providing the most threatened regions in the world with good instruments to cope with this challenge (or at least examples of them to implement autonomously).
Climate change plays a significant role in this human-induced mass extinction because it is increasing the already large biodiversity losses caused by habitat destruction and fragmentation, water and air pollution, introduction of invasive species. Marine ecosystems will be affected by an increase in sea temperature, but also by ocean acidification, because of the higher concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide (carbonic acid): in fact this reduces the shell formation ability in many organisms. Polar (and mountain) ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change, with effects such as thawing permafrost, decreased snow cover, losses from ice sheets and changes in ocean temperatures. Large impacts on Arctic biodiversity are already evident, pictures of polar bears wandering lost on small icebergs being a scary and sad symbol of the era we live in (even former U.S. President Bush, at the end of his mandate, recalled this image to show his fellow citizens he cared about climate change …)
In this rapidly changing environment it is therefore extremely important that conservation plans include adaption measures for ecosystems accordingly to the predicted regional climate patterns (but models need still to be improved a lot at this scale): dynamic approaches are needed to set good options for future ecosystems and landscapes. It will be necessary to facilitate the movement of species to new geographical locations, as they follow the shifting habitats.
The public concern is growing: in Africa last 28 February young people organized a march from impoverished urban areas to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro to raise awareness on climate change, together with the Kilimanjaro Initiative and the UN’s global UNite to Combat Climate Change campaign. It seems though that the global attention on climate change doesn’t fully consider implications for biodiversity yet: while the negotiations and speeches on climate issues are very popular (and the Nobel Prize was awarded to the entire IPCC together with Al Gore in 2007) the meetings and decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (http://www.cbd.int/) don’t raise comparable interest. Is it because the anthropocentrism is (still) the prevailing philosophy and animals and plants are mainly seen by people as beautiful “supporting actors” on the planet we live on? Right when we are losing control of the global situation it is probably time to reflect on our role of dominant species and acknowledge the fundamental contribution of other organisms to our livelihoods, despite many of us live in the so called Technosphere.
Policies to protect the climate avoiding irreversible effects on the ecosystems need to be strongly interconnected with conservation strategies: preserving natural areas while helping them adapt to the changing climate means hopefully to leave better, or not as compromised, ecosystems to future generations. Climate and biodiversity, though ever changing and evolving, are common goods and they need common policies: if we reduce the human Ecological Footprint both the atmosphere and the biosphere will be better off (and our children and grandchildren living in them).
Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding to Climate Change.
For further information on Climate Change please visit the Responding to Climate Change website – http://www.rtcc.org
The Ecological Footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth’s ecosystems. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. For 2005, humanity’s total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.3 planet Earths – in other words, humanity uses ecological services 1.3 times faster than Earths can renew them. See also: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/
EPA's Science Green Technology
GreenTech’s News
The environment, which its current emphasis on ‘Global Warming’ and ‘Climate Change’ important though it is, is not the most vital matter facing humanity. During recent speaking and teaching visits to Uganda and Kenya, and hearing something of the actual situation, I have become angry and occasionally tearful at the gross injustice, greed and corruption which is rife. Our world has become so unstable over these past months in a way totally unpredictable by man. If I had written prophetically, 15 months ago, about what we are presently experiencing in the area of finance, you would have said I was off my head and just daft! The Carbon Footprint issue might be causing some environmental damage although is being question by many, but the financial greed and mismanagement footprint is hurting millions as people loose income, jobs, houses and basic security. When I was in Kenya last November, I was informed that the economic problems hitting America and Europe would hit Africa in three months time, and visiting schools and orphanages in the various slum areas I was very much aware of how a little extra resources could help so many more people with very little effort. The structures are in place to utilise and distribute AID in a responsible manner. I have seen the projects designed to help those whose lives are confronted with unnecessary suffering, one example of this in Methere in Nairobi and the River of Life School in Manyatta, Kisumu. Now, there are other projects and schemes in various other nations and by investing in these immediately, the environment would improve slightly within a few months, but for the people who live there the improvement would be immense. I write this as the G20 Summit is meeting in London. The money spent on that alone could feed the poor in Kenya (or some other nation) for months. It is just that I know a little about Kenya. Earthquakes, floods and droughts will continue, and these will undoubtedly increase, with environmental disaster and tragedy resulting, but what concerns me is the area where substantial and significant improvements could be made, if only leaders would make sensible wise decisions. You see, I write as a committed disciple of Jesus Christ, and I am not given the option of being quiet on these issues. One sentence really challenged me this week. If you were reading the Sermon on the Mount for the first time, in Matthew’s Gospel, Chapters five to seven, how would you change your life? How might this motivate us in the areas of fresh water and sewers, immunisation and basic health services, and feeding programmes and education for those who genuinely want to study and contribute positively towards the welfare and well-being of their nation. To make these environmental improvements, strong, radical leadership will be required, but it is often in times of real darkness that the risen and living Lord Jesus Christ chooses, redeems, and raises up a leader or leaders to shepherd people out of their predicament. Sandy Shaw Sandy Shaw is Pastor of Nairn Christian Fellowship, Chaplain at Inverness Prison, and Nairn Academy, and serves on The Children’s Panel in Scotland, and has travelled extensively over these past years teaching, speaking, in America, Canada, South Africa, Australia, making 12 visits to Israel conducting Tours and Pilgrimages, and most recently in Uganda and Kenya, ministering at Pastors and Leaders Seminars, in the poor areas surrounding Kampala, Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu. He broadcasts regularly on WSHO radio out of New Orleans, and writes a weekly commentary at http://www.studylight.org entitled “Word from Scotland” on various biblical themes, as well as a weekly newspaper column. His M.A. and B.D. degrees are from The University of Edinburgh, and he continues to run and exercise regularly to maintain a level of physical fitness. Sandy Shaw
GreenTech's News
Strong Radical Anointed Leadership is Greatly Needed When it Comes to Environmental Improvements
sandyshaw63@yahoo.com