Loading...

To post, comment, or enjoy any of the other features of Einztein, please register.
Already registered? Then log in!

Filter By
  • My Posts
  • Learned Posts
  • My Discussions
  • Joined Discussions
  • Favorite Members
  • Curated Posts
Join Now
Discussions Discussion Student footprints
Mia Sudec, April 30, 2013

Hi! My name is Mia Sudec. I live in Varaždin,Croatia. I’m 17 years old. My class decided to participate in this survey. My carbon footprint is 4726 kg.

My results:
Transportation: 0kg
Home: 2634kg
Food 1794kg
Purchases: 298kg

My country:
Transportation: 874kg
Home: 1956kg
Food 2308kg
Purchases: 597kg

Mia Sudec
Comments (2)
  • Yousra Kandeel Yousra Kandeel May 1, 2013
    This is so cool Mia, your Carbon footprint is so low compared to others in your region. Please share how you can maintain such a low rate. Your carbon footprint is around 1000 kg under the average person in Croatia, thats impressive!
  • Mia Sudec Mia Sudec May 2, 2013
    Hello Yousra! My carbon footprint is low because i dont use any of the public transport vehicles.I only use my bike for my everyday needs:)

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Wants or needs?
Charles Lee, Nov. 13, 2012

Hi my name is Charles, and I study in Dominican International School. I think this topic is not just for teenagers, it can be apply to all ages. Nowadays, people usually change their electric devices frequently, because companies keep making new products, then people will want to buy the new one, whether they want to be cool or just because they want it, but think about it, do we really need so many different kind but same function stuff? I think the answer will be no. Now teenagers will want to buy so many things, I think mostly the reasons is because someone else have it, so want they want to have it too, but they are not necessary need it. So I think when we are buying any stuff not just electric devices, we need to think about it first, do we really need it, or we just want it.

Charles Lee
Comments

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Wants or needs?
Tommy Dao, Nov. 10, 2012

Hi everyone, my name is Tommy Dao, I am a grade 9 student studying at Dominican International School in Taipei, Taiwan. I think the forum question is very interesting. Is having the latest technology a want or a need?
I think having the latest technology is probably a want. The modern technology is developing fast and everyday, a new product is invented. Those electronic product companies change their designs every time so that their products won’t look boring, and say that their newest products are latest technology (For example: Apple’s Iphone 5). People will buy those products just to show that they are modern people, they are not out of date, to show off,… But have those customers ever thought about their old products that can still be use? Why would they want to buy a new phone when their old phone still can be use? It was just a waste of money to buy those kinds of products.
But sometimes, having latest technology can be a need. For example: latest medical technology that can cure cancer (just an example, there is no such machine like that yet), people who have cancer will buy it because they want to cure cancer, that’s a need. Not just the example above, other medical technology machines are important, too.
Technology can be a need or a want depends on different circumstances. If you know what you want or need, you won’t regret for what you bought.

Tommy Dao
Comments

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Is Climate Change Mitigation 100% Beneficial?
Jason Hodin, Oct. 2, 2012

I was asked by Nathan to make this an “official” ISCFC discussion.

While the topic is appropriate, the content is not.

This entire entry below by Nathan was plagiarized from the Wall Street Journal.

No Need to Panic about Global Warming” from January 2012

We at the ISCFC are seeking opinion and discussion, not copy & paste without attribution.

Jason
ISCFC Media & Content

Jason Hodin
Comments (5)
  • Jason Hodin Jason Hodin Oct. 2, 2012
    OK Nathan, I appreciate you writing back.

    It is absolutely crucial to give attribution, not least so that we can evaluate where the information came from and see what a response might be from climate scientists.

    In fact, there was such a response:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html
  • Nathan L-US Nathan L-US Oct. 2, 2012
    I do give credit as in I posted the source to the several different sites as to which the evidence derives from. I did not plagiarize from one article, rather I made a claim and warranted it with the sites which i specified within my discussion. I.E “In accordance to Dailymail.co.uk. If i had missed siting a specific piece of evidence I appologize.
  • Nathan L-US Nathan L-US Oct. 2, 2012
    Sorry did not see pervious post. I apologize once again. If u would like me to link the websites as to were I got all of my information i will do so.
Show All Comments (5)

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Is Climate Change Mitigation 100% Beneficial?
Nathan L-US, Oct. 1, 2012

I feel as though there are several misconceptions as to what Climate Change does and how it directly effects us. What are your positions when it comes to the mitigation of Climate Change, and how would follow through with to have a significant international impact?

Nathan L-US
Comments (10)
  • Jose Pelcastre Jose Pelcastre Oct. 2, 2012
    You know, I think you have a point. Recently I’ve been doing research on global warming and found that it's not actually CO2 that's causing global warming, but methane released by, believe it or not, cow farts. As Noam Mohr, a physicist with degrees from Yale and Penn, says, the most prominent reason for global warming is really methane. An excerpt from one of articles says “By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture. Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane. “
    But I think it’s not just that the costs are too high, as your point shows, rather that it’s possibly too late to do anything at all. Prof. Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Climate Science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of California at San Diego, and Dr Nithya Ramanathan, a Fellow at the Centre of Embedded Networked Sensing at the University of California at Los Angeles and Presiden Nexleaf Analytics, along with the Carnegie Institution for Science Department of Global Ecology say that because CO2 actually stays in the air for very prolonged periods of time. I quote, “carbon dioxide emissions remain in the atmosphere for many centuries, because the ocean and vegetation on land absorb carbon dioxide only slowly over time. As a result, there is a warming effect long after the initial clearing of land… the relatively large amount of carbon dioxide that we are emitting today will continue to have relatively large impacts on the atmosphere and climate for many centuries into the future. “
  • Jose Pelcastre Jose Pelcastre Oct. 2, 2012
    Also, Indean Salehyan, the Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas says that it’s really just bad allocation of resources and that it is often used as an end to some unjustifiable mean. Focusing on climate change in general as a violent threat acts as a diversion to catastrophe-relief and technology, according to a 2007 article. “These claims generally boil down to an argument about resource scarcity. Desertification, sea-level rise, more-frequent severe weather events, an increased geographical range of tropical disease, and shortages of freshwater will lead to violence over scarce necessities. Friction between haves and have-nots will increase, and governments will be hard-pressed to provide even the most basic services. In some scenarios, mass migration will ensue, whether due to desertification, natural disasters, and rising sea levels, or as a consequence of resource wars. Environmental refugees will in turn spark political violence in receiving areas, and countries in the global North will erect ever higher barriers to keep culturally unwelcome and hungry foreigners out. The number of failed states, meanwhile, will increase as governments collapse in the face of resource wars and weakened state capabilities, and transnational terrorists and criminal networks will move in. International wars over depleted water and energy supplies will also intensify. The basic need for survival will supplant nationalism, religion, or ideology as the fundamental root of conflict.¶ Dire scenarios like these may sound convincing, but they are misleading. Even worse, they are irresponsible, for they shift liability for wars and human rights abuses away from oppressive, corrupt governments. Additionally, focusing on climate change as a security threat that requires a military response diverts attention away from prudent adaptation mechanisms and new technologies that can prevent the worst catastrophes.”
    I have a a ton of evidence also that talks about how warming is actually good for biodiversity, but I want to hear what others have to say as well.
  • Jose Pelcastre Jose Pelcastre Oct. 2, 2012
    Owais Safaraz, I feel like the majority of the fight against mitigating climae change isn't done at home, because unless everyone switches to electrical cars, there isn't really a viable way for people to contribute to the fight against global warming. But that's okay, as Nathan Leal pointed to earlier, the government cannot possible, within our current limitations, “fix” climate change.
    However, my research, as mentioned earlier, could provide a solution that people at home could live by. As Mohr wrote, “The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by going vegetarian (or, strictly speaking, vegan), we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.” Of course, that means we have to do something with the cows, so it's almost called upon that we eliminate the cows in order to stop methane emissions at the source. That's not going to happen any time soon.
Show All Comments (10)

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Student footprints
karim barakat, May 5, 2012

Hi everyone my name is Karim barakat, i’am from Egypt, Cairo. I did my footprint survey couple of days ago and i discoverd that my carbon footprint was about four times more then my country’s average carbon footprint. I think that the reason for my high Carbon footprint is becouse i live far from my school so i have to use alot of transportation and also because of the use of alot of air conditioning in the hot summer. I learned in what categories did my carbon consumption exceeded and in which categories should i work on to decrease my carbon footprint. In conclution to my discussion i have came up with a way to decrease my carbon foot print which is to use less air conditioning in the summer and to try a share a car with a friend instead of using a car alone and increasing my carbon footprint.

karim barakat
Comments (1)

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Welcome to Einztein
Vendela R, April 22, 2012

Hi!
when playing around with the calculator, i realized how high my carbon footprint is due to all the flights i make across the globe to visit my family in southern africa. i also realized how drastically the footprint decreased when changing meat quantites.
i would thus like to promote locally produced goods that can be transported within a country with environmental friendly veichles.

By promoting days like Meat Free mondays, which really isnt very hard because you do survive one meet free day per week, its not very much at all, and buying locally produced meat, we can make a huge difference on our co2 emissions!

ofcourse the problem remains that not everything can be produced everywhere at all times, but better start where we can instead of doing nothing! daily life changes is the most important factor in improving our results and reducing our co2 emissions. recycling papers and waste materials, turning off the tap when not using water while brushing our teeth, filling the dishwasher BEFORE turning it on will make a difference. dont wait for them big politicans and environment people to come up with a big fancy solution that will cause a paradyme shift in our society and ways of living, when doing things that should be obvious to us can make a huge difference immediately!

Be smart -Save the planet ^^

Vendela R
Comments (5)
  • bryan metz bryan metz April 24, 2012
    i agree 112% with everything you said.
  • brandon bailey brandon bailey April 24, 2012
    i agree. everyone should be able to not eat meat aleast one day of the week .
  • abdelhamid derawi abdelhamid derawi May 5, 2012
    I strongly agree we should decrease the percentage of meat eaten daily. But then we should also decrease the amount of trees cut down every day.
Show All Comments (5)

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Wants or needs?
Ana- Maria S- Romania, Feb. 29, 2012

I think most people are crazy about technology and often forget how dangerous it could be for our enviroment. I’m ashamed of the fact that I’m becoming increasingly dependent on my phone day by day. After I calculate my footprint , I realize that my problem is pretty serious. For now, I’m going to change my behaviour.

Ana- Maria S- Romania
Comments (3)
  • Ignat E-Romania Ignat E-Romania Feb. 29, 2012
    I agree with what you say because I find myself in your words. I think that apart from using the telephone, the computer consumes more energy although often we do not really need it. It's about us! We use it increasingly reckless. If we are strong enought, we will be able to chenge our behavior!
  • Maja S - Sweden Maja S - Sweden April 20, 2012
    I agree with you that the problem partly lies in the attitude among people, and that we aren't as dependent of technology as we might think, and that some people might overuse it.

    But we must also consider the fact that we can't just stop using computers, and phones because we must also respect the economical effects that it would cause to stop using technology. There are many people that depend on the western world to buy electronics that they produce. The technology business is enormous.

    None the less, we have to change the way we reason around technology. But it might be better for the world right now to try to figure out how to make products that wont damage the eniviroment as badly as the ones that are presently manufactured.
  • Kit B. Seattle, U.S.A Kit B. Seattle, U.S.A May 1, 2012
    I agree. Everyone should limit the time they spend on their electronics each day.

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Sustainable city
srini n, Feb. 22, 2012

A recent poll from Ipsos/Reuters shows the extent of workplace evolution as well as the fallout of globalization. Nearly 1 in 5 (17%) of the over 11,000 users from 24 countries polled online indicated that they work exclusively and/or consistently from home. Telecommuting is most popular in regions with emerging markets, such as Asia-Pacific (24%), the Middle East and Africa (27%), and Latin America (25%), while North America and Europe (both at 9%) lag significantly behind.

But the winner is India with 82% telecommuting at least once a week and 57% working remotely on a routine basis. Compare this to the U.S. where 26% are working remotely at least once a week with only 10% respondents doing so consistently.”

http://singularityhub.com/2012/02/21/u-s-being-left-in-the-dust-of-the-global-telecommuting-revolution/?utm_source=Singularity Hub Daily Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5cbc49a775-RSS_EMAIL_C
srini n
Comments

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Sustainable city
srini n, Feb. 18, 2012

Why buy local? - Justified!

http://www.elocal.com/infographics/why-buy-local.html
srini n
Comments (7)
  • Felicia Fahlin Felicia Fahlin April 25, 2012
    I have never been sure if locally produced is always the best alternative to reduce carbon emissions. Is it really better to buy locally produced goods if these goods are harder to produce in that specific place. For example, in Sweden, where I live, if you want to grow tomatoes here you have to do it in a greenhouse, because it's, you know, really cold and dark here most of the time. Isn't better to buy the tomatoes from Italy then, even if they had to be transported? You both seem really knowledgeable about this topic, I would really love to hear what you think!
  • Felicia Fahlin Felicia Fahlin April 25, 2012
    I've also though about that if things are produced locally the you might not be able to do so in as large scale, and isn't for example large scale agriculture more energy efficient?
  • Jason Hodin Jason Hodin April 26, 2012
    yes, Felicia, you are correct about “local” not always being the lowest footprint, and your example of the greenhouse is spot on- greenhouse tomatoes here in Seattle (grown nearby outside of Vancouver Canada) have a much higher footprint than tomatoes shipped by train or truck from Mexico. Transport costs are -despite what many think- a relatively small part of the footprint of food. An exception to this is food shipped by air, which is a very very high footprint. But food shipped by boat (such as bananas or avocados from the tropics) does not have a particularly high footprint.

    Of course, carbon footprint is not the only consideration. There are other reasons to buy local other than saving in carbon emissions.

    As for large scale versus small scale production, that is a very complex question, and there is no straight-forward simple answer. There is some energy savings with specialization and scale, but large farms tend to use tons of fertilizers (which produce massive greenhouse gas emissions as well as other pollution), water and farm equipment. So these operations are not notably green.

    However, the studies I've seen suggest that pasture raised cows produce more greenhouse emissions than a factory farmed cow. There are plenty of good reasons to consider pasture raised meat if you eat meat, but reducing greenhouse emissions is apparently not one of them.
Show All Comments (7)

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Are you sure?