To reduce GHG emissions in your community there are many simple and easy steps:
1. Drive less, and when you do drive, drive moderately. If you are traveling to school, work, or the store, walk or bike instead of driving. If you have to drive, use gradual accelerations and decelerations to reduce fuel and emissions.
2. Use less lighting. If it is a bright day out, open the curtains and utilize what nature has to offer! There is no need for wasting energy.
3. Lower your thermostat in your house. By decreasing your thermostat from, let’s say, 25 degrees Celsius to 23, you can save a great deal of energy (and money!).
(http://envirorentals.com/Topic_of_month/reduceemissions.html)
4. Wash your dishes by hand. Personally, I do this as my household does not have a dishwasher, and it doesn’t take that much time, yet it saves a great deal of energy!
5. Buy Energy Star appliances.
6. Turn off the lights when you leave the room
7. Replace incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent light bulbs, which are much more efficient.
8. If you are considering buying a new vehicle, consider a hybrid one.
9. Combine multiple trips into one; if doing errands, do all of them at once, rather than making several trips.
10. Buy local produce as less fuel is required to transport the goods.
11. Plant trees. Trees serve as a carbon sink and use this carbon in photosynthesis, which yields oxygen for us to breathe.
12. Rake your leaves instead of using a leaf blower.
13. Recycle!! It requires much less energy to recycle a product than to create one from scratch.
(http://www.wikihow.com/Reduce-Your-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions)
Friday, March 30, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
My Footprint
My results from www.myfootprint.org showed that I needed the following hectares for each area of my life: 3.3 hectares for food, 0.2 hectares for mobility, 1.7 hectares for shelter, 2.0 hectares for goods and services. This results in 7.2 hectares being needed. If each person were to require this amount, 4 planets would be needed to provide us with enough land. The average for a Canadian is 8.8 hectares, and so I require quite a bit less than the average Canadian, which is pleasing.
On my “lifestyle” footprint (http://www.takingstock.org/lifestyle.asp), it was determined that I am a F4: Factor 4. The website states the following about F4: “As people reinvent a new kind of quality of life in local communities, true wealth spreads more evenly. The ecological footprint is reduced overall by a factor of four, by combining increased efficiency, better distribution, and zero-waste closed cycle production and consumption”.
I believe I could reduce my ecological footprint by walking more frequently when weather permits. I actually enjoy walking around town when running errands, and so, this will be more environmentally-friendly, and will keep me active. Furthermore, I can put more energy-efficient techniques to use in my home. We have already converted to using fluorescent light bulbs, and I always make sure I turn off the light when I leave the room. Furthermore, we do not own a dishwasher, and so we wash dishes my hand. More techniques to reducing my footprint could be to carpool more, and to run many errands in one trip.
On my “lifestyle” footprint (http://www.takingstock.org/lifestyle.asp), it was determined that I am a F4: Factor 4. The website states the following about F4: “As people reinvent a new kind of quality of life in local communities, true wealth spreads more evenly. The ecological footprint is reduced overall by a factor of four, by combining increased efficiency, better distribution, and zero-waste closed cycle production and consumption”.
I believe I could reduce my ecological footprint by walking more frequently when weather permits. I actually enjoy walking around town when running errands, and so, this will be more environmentally-friendly, and will keep me active. Furthermore, I can put more energy-efficient techniques to use in my home. We have already converted to using fluorescent light bulbs, and I always make sure I turn off the light when I leave the room. Furthermore, we do not own a dishwasher, and so we wash dishes my hand. More techniques to reducing my footprint could be to carpool more, and to run many errands in one trip.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Canadian Carbon Tax
I believe this carbon tax proposal is a magnificent idea. It is my belief that companies and individuals pollute far too much, and there are no consequences for such actions. In addition, some individuals may not recognize how much they pollute. To be quite honest, I would find it fascinating to see how much I personally pollute compared to others.
According to one website, “compliance-based markets” are often run by a third party, such as the government (http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/cl11179). This is essential, especially in the carbon tax proposal because GHG emissions must be monitored and regulated by an unbiased party. For example, the state of California has passed legislation that required the reduction in GHG emissions by law.
Such a carbon credit system would operate very similar to that of the Kyoto Protocol. It would function as a cap-and-trade system; however, there is one exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol). In Canada’s carbon credit system, companies would only be allowed to buy and sale credits with fellow Canadian companies, as to not allow Canadian revenue to go over seas. I believe this system would function very effectively in our country, or in any country for that matter. If a particular company feels the need to excessively pollute, then they must buy credits from other companies; this serves as a great disincentive. On the other side of the spectrum, those companies would pollute less can sell their credits to other companies and make a substantial profit; this serves as a great incentive.
“Under the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism was created as a way of helping industrialized countries, such as Canada, meet their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, while helping developing countries at the same time. Forestry projects known as ‘sinks’ absorb greenhouse gas emissions and if properly designed and implemented, could promote sustainable development in developing countries. Those projects will be able to qualify for carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which investors can earn and use towards their Kyoto targets” (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Campaigns_and_Programs/Climate_Change/News_Releases/newsclimatechange11260302.asp).
Once again, it is my belief that this carbon tax proposal could effectively reduce Canada’s GHG emissions. This would be an excellent idea only if the revenue made from such a system would be redirected to act as an incentive for those who are environmentally friendly; otherwise, it will be yet another tax among many others. This carbon tax system would work very similar to that of North Middlesex’s garbage tag system. For each garbage bag, you must buy a sticker that costs a few dollars; this is a small amount of money, but such a cost is a great disincentive. To meet Canada’s obligation to the Kyoto Protocol, this system would be of great help.
According to one website, “compliance-based markets” are often run by a third party, such as the government (http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/cl11179). This is essential, especially in the carbon tax proposal because GHG emissions must be monitored and regulated by an unbiased party. For example, the state of California has passed legislation that required the reduction in GHG emissions by law.
Such a carbon credit system would operate very similar to that of the Kyoto Protocol. It would function as a cap-and-trade system; however, there is one exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol). In Canada’s carbon credit system, companies would only be allowed to buy and sale credits with fellow Canadian companies, as to not allow Canadian revenue to go over seas. I believe this system would function very effectively in our country, or in any country for that matter. If a particular company feels the need to excessively pollute, then they must buy credits from other companies; this serves as a great disincentive. On the other side of the spectrum, those companies would pollute less can sell their credits to other companies and make a substantial profit; this serves as a great incentive.
“Under the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism was created as a way of helping industrialized countries, such as Canada, meet their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, while helping developing countries at the same time. Forestry projects known as ‘sinks’ absorb greenhouse gas emissions and if properly designed and implemented, could promote sustainable development in developing countries. Those projects will be able to qualify for carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which investors can earn and use towards their Kyoto targets” (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Campaigns_and_Programs/Climate_Change/News_Releases/newsclimatechange11260302.asp).
Once again, it is my belief that this carbon tax proposal could effectively reduce Canada’s GHG emissions. This would be an excellent idea only if the revenue made from such a system would be redirected to act as an incentive for those who are environmentally friendly; otherwise, it will be yet another tax among many others. This carbon tax system would work very similar to that of North Middlesex’s garbage tag system. For each garbage bag, you must buy a sticker that costs a few dollars; this is a small amount of money, but such a cost is a great disincentive. To meet Canada’s obligation to the Kyoto Protocol, this system would be of great help.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
A Little TOO "Inconvenient"?
After seeing An Inconvenient Truth, I am now aware of how much our world has changed over the last century – whether it was natural or anthropogenic. Nonetheless, our world has increased in both temperature and carbon dioxide emissions. I concur with Al Gore that an immediate resolve must be met to ensure Earth’s survival, and therefore, human kind’s survival. The overall message is very important and everyone should hear it, as it affects everyone on Earth; however, there were a few parts I did not necessarily agree with. Some of the predictions presented in the movie seemed to be too drastic, and it would be impossible to see (with the naked eye) differences in atmospheric gases in the ice cores over a mere couple of years. Nevertheless, I agree with Al Gore that global warming is an imminent threat to our world and that we must set plans in motion to alleviate the effects of the last century of significant pollution. Whether the increase in temperature and carbon dioxide is nature or anthropogenic, reducing green house gas emissions leads to beneficial results.
The first website that supports An Inconvenient Truth is RealClimate at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/. There are eleven climate scientists that maintain this website. It provides a well-balanced critique of An Inconvenient Truth. They believe it is a very effective and well-researched movie, while noting a few small errors as well. They try to be unbiased on their website, and I believe they are successful in doing so. They appear to be up-to-date on their knowledge and educated in the field. The author collaborates his ideas with his colleagues to get a wider view from the scientific community.
The second website is Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth. Wikipedia provides an overview of An Inconvenient Truth, as well as scientific research from external sources, such as the first website RealClimate. In addition to scientific proof, Wikipedia also provides clarification on some unclear points in the movie, such as the confusion between the drastic increase in ocean levels due to glacier’s breaking off and the less drastic increase in ocean levels due to gradual melting.
The first website that criticizes An Inconvenient Truth is http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=. This website uses documents like the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to support his criticism. It is apparent that this Panel came to less drastic predictions of the expected increase in ocean levels. Furthermore, the author also uses a piece of literature to provide support that the Arctic’s recent acceleration in ice loss has been reversed.
The second website that criticizes the movie is http://blog.nam.org/archives/2006/05/an_inconvenient.php. It provides references to other scientific research that has refuted Gore’s predictions. They also refer to other websites, such as blogs, where it is evident that not everybody agrees with Gore’s claims. The website agrees with some of the facts that Gore uses, but claim these facts do not support his claims, as some these facts are irrelevant to his claims.
I believe that the “docuganda” line is a very thin one. I believe that this movie is a very educational and well-researched movie, and it provides scientific proof to support Gore’s claims, and is therefore a documentary. However, in some ways An Inconvenient Truth is a docuganda because the impression one gets from watching Gore talk is that you are either in agreement with him or look like a fool to some degree because of the “proof” he provides. It is my belief that this movie is indeed a docuganda to some degree because of some of the unsupported and misrepresented claims. However! I believe it is a very beneficial and educational docuganda. Even if it is a docuganda, does that make it so bad? I believe that this movie conveys the message that Gore wanted to send and at the same time grabs the attention of the viewer to invoke change. Therefore, if this movie is a docuganda to some degree, it is well warranted.
The first website that supports An Inconvenient Truth is RealClimate at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/. There are eleven climate scientists that maintain this website. It provides a well-balanced critique of An Inconvenient Truth. They believe it is a very effective and well-researched movie, while noting a few small errors as well. They try to be unbiased on their website, and I believe they are successful in doing so. They appear to be up-to-date on their knowledge and educated in the field. The author collaborates his ideas with his colleagues to get a wider view from the scientific community.
The second website is Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth. Wikipedia provides an overview of An Inconvenient Truth, as well as scientific research from external sources, such as the first website RealClimate. In addition to scientific proof, Wikipedia also provides clarification on some unclear points in the movie, such as the confusion between the drastic increase in ocean levels due to glacier’s breaking off and the less drastic increase in ocean levels due to gradual melting.
The first website that criticizes An Inconvenient Truth is http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjI4NTc0YWMzNTA3ZjRmYmJiMDRjNmI5MGEwZTFhM2E=. This website uses documents like the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to support his criticism. It is apparent that this Panel came to less drastic predictions of the expected increase in ocean levels. Furthermore, the author also uses a piece of literature to provide support that the Arctic’s recent acceleration in ice loss has been reversed.
The second website that criticizes the movie is http://blog.nam.org/archives/2006/05/an_inconvenient.php. It provides references to other scientific research that has refuted Gore’s predictions. They also refer to other websites, such as blogs, where it is evident that not everybody agrees with Gore’s claims. The website agrees with some of the facts that Gore uses, but claim these facts do not support his claims, as some these facts are irrelevant to his claims.
I believe that the “docuganda” line is a very thin one. I believe that this movie is a very educational and well-researched movie, and it provides scientific proof to support Gore’s claims, and is therefore a documentary. However, in some ways An Inconvenient Truth is a docuganda because the impression one gets from watching Gore talk is that you are either in agreement with him or look like a fool to some degree because of the “proof” he provides. It is my belief that this movie is indeed a docuganda to some degree because of some of the unsupported and misrepresented claims. However! I believe it is a very beneficial and educational docuganda. Even if it is a docuganda, does that make it so bad? I believe that this movie conveys the message that Gore wanted to send and at the same time grabs the attention of the viewer to invoke change. Therefore, if this movie is a docuganda to some degree, it is well warranted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
