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 Carbon Footprint
charlotte holbrook, Oct. 25, 2013

Hi! I am Charlotte and I’m a student from California. Recently, in my biology class we calculated our carbon footprint and there were a few things that surprised me about mine. A couple things that had a huge impact on my carbon foot print were water usage and the amount of energy i used in my household.
I have never really thought about how much water we use at my house. After i had seen the impact it made on my carbon footprint i began to think about it and the little ways i can reduce this problem. The first thing i did was took short showers since i do take significantly long showers. Another thing i did was put a bucket under the leaky faucet in our bath tub and then used some of that water to water the plants and fill the dogs water bowls.
There is always someone in my house, so leaving fans or lights on is a common bad habit with my family. Even though i did try to remember to turn off the lights when i left a room, now it has become a habit to automatically turn them off throughout my household. When writing how many light bulbs i had and the amount of fluorescent light bulbs there where in my house, i realized that more than have of them were not fluorescent. By changing them all to fluorescent light bulbs its an easy and effective way to same energy.

charlotte holbrook
Comments (2)
  • Christian Duffy Christian Duffy Oct. 25, 2013
    Hello Charlotte I found your post very interesting and quite alike with mine. The amount of water that we use now a days is taken for granted and not used as smart as it can be. For example taking showers for long periods of time is a simple task that can be improved to help global warming. Just by taking shorter showers and turning of sinks when not in use will help climate change and the release of carbon that is being released every day.
  • Tjasa S-Slovenia Tjasa S-Slovenia Feb. 12, 2014
    Hello Charlotte! I think you should take shorter showers, because then you would save more of drinkable water. About the lights.. I had the same problem, but after the carbon footprint calculation i became more aware of it. So I'm doing pretty well for about two weeks now. And I think you should persist on your ideas, they are quite good.

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Food & hunger
Cameron M- United States, Oct. 7, 2013

Something as simple as eating less red meat can actually decrease your carbon footprint. The usual red meat comes from animals like cows or sheep. But these animals emit big amounts of methane, another greenhouse gas that is ultimately a bit worse than CO2. Other meats such as pork and chicken would be a better alternative. Pigs, chickens, and other animals produce far less emissions. According to Brave New Climate’s article “Top 10 ways to reduce your CO2 emissions footprint, “At average levels of consumption, a family’s emissions from beef would easily outweigh the construction and running costs of a large 4WD vehicle in less than 5 years.” Of course this doesn’t mean that we have to cut out red meat entirely, but eating less steak means much less CO2!

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/29/top-10-ways-to-reduce-your-co2-emissions-footprint/
Cameron M- United States
Comments

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Technology solutions for climate change
Tara V-USA, Oct. 5, 2013

Hi everyone! My name is Tara and I’m from California.

While the goal of solely relying on clean, renewable energy resources that lack carbon emissions is a noble one, the reality is that we are not able to derive all of our energy from them at the time being. One technological solution for the vast number of power plants currently burning fossil fuels and emitting a drastic amount of carbon into the air is something called carbon capture and underground storage. To put it simply, carbon capture and underground storage is the process of capturing carbon emissions from factories to send it underground in a pipe for storage in rock formations. The pipes often put the carbon over a half a mile into the ground and routine checks ensure carbon is not leaking back up into the atmosphere. While a lot of controversy surrounds this procedure, I recently read an article where Howard J. Herzog, who has headed MIT’s Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies Program for over twenty years argues it is a vital option for the current world.

According to the article, the factories and power plants that carbon capture and underground storage targets could almost reduce global carbon emissions in half if they all embraced it. The major argument against carbon capture and underground storage is that it is too expensive. However, according to Herzog and other researchers it is as expensive as other technologies that will likely not have the same effect it could on a large scale. Regardless, most companies will not go along with the technology at this time as building it raises the price of constructing a power plant by around 80 percent. It is a viable option though as carbon can be stored in the same formations from which it was extracted for our fossil fuels. The amount of space available for this storage is even estimated to store one to four trillion tons of carbon in the United States alone! The technology used to capture the carbon, pre-combustion, post-combustion and post-combustion in an oxygen free environment (oxyfuel) all simple in terms of using chemicals to harness the carbon. The only downside is that it decreases energy output of power plants and factories since energy must be used to gather the carbon. I think this technology overall has great potential to allow us to mitigate the speed of global warming until other technologies and solutions allowing a greater reliance on clean, renewable resources are available. Hopefully, advancements will allow the construction of these systems to become more affordable to build. In the long run, it is certainly worth it to look into making carbon capture and underground storage the norm until better solution for a cleaner future are available.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/carbon-capture-and-storage_n_3745522.html
Tara V-USA
Comments (1)
  • Dimitrios Theodoridis Dimitrios Theodoridis Oct. 6, 2013
    Great Analysis, Tara. The above proposition for carbon capture and underground storage i believe is really interesting but only for temporary solution until new technology makes it more cheaper and easy for use. Also, the combination of all new technologies for carbon capture will decrease significantly CO2 emissions.

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Ask to Join
Discussions Discussion Climate Milestone
Monique Raynaud, May 14, 2013

An instrument near the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii has recorded a long-awaited climate milestone: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there has exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 55 years of measurement - and probably more than 3 millions years of Earth’s history.

Monique Raynaud
Comments

To comment on a restricted discussion, you must be a member of that discussion.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Student footprints
Justyna C, May 11, 2013

Hi!
My name is Justyna. I am from Poland. My total footprint is 5359kg of CO₂ per year. My result is less than my class total footprint result( 7677 kg CO₂). My lowest category is “Transport”. I am surprised but I live very close to my school so I don’t need to go to the center too often. My highest category is “Home” probably because I and my family spend a lot of time in home . I very like playing on my computer and watching anime so I spend there too much time. My house is big and we heat months of the year. We use fluorescent bulbs in whole my house so it is not bad :P

Justyna C
Comments (5)
  • Dylan P Dylan P May 14, 2013
    What is your primary mode of transportation that your total for that category is so low? Do you mostly travel by foot or by bike?

    My transportation total is also lower than my class - 1779 kg, with the average being 2443 kg - but I think that the only reason it is like that is because I hardly ever am in the car alone and I use my bike as often as I can for transportation (something very, very uncommon in my area of he US). And yet, it is probably considerably higher than your transportation average.
  • Liliah Andrews Liliah Andrews May 15, 2013
    My transportation was also lower than the majority of my classes score. I don't really go anywhere, but I do ride a bus to school. I love anime! I spend too much time on the computer too! :3
  • Justyna C Justyna C May 20, 2013
    What type anime u like? U have myanimelist.net ?
Show All Comments (5)

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Student footprints
Ewa K-Poland, May 10, 2013

Hello, my name is Ewa. I’m 17 years old and I’m from south Poland. I have calculated my footprint and I found out that the total amount of CO2 I realise is 4757 kg per year. I’m glad because it is much lower than the average one realise in Poland - 6862kg CO2 per year and in the class is similar situation because class result is 7677.
The category which is my lowest one is a purchases -128. It doesn’t suprise me because I buy electrical equipmentl very seldom and when I really need it. The category which is my my highest one is home- 3139. It doesn’t suprise me too because me and my family spend a lot of time in the house. We use electronic equipment many hours a day, bulbs light up most of a day and we burn a lot of coal in the winter and sometimes in another seasons. I know it isn’t good.
I think my family can more ride on bicycle than by car, spend more relaxing time outside than e.g. on the Internet or Tv. We should burn less coal to heating my house but I do not think I persuaded my family to change the method of heating in a more ecological way because my parent thinks that it is more expensive to change it and maintain it.

Ewa K-Poland
Comments (2)
  • Wioletta W-Poland Wioletta W-Poland May 11, 2013
    It's great that you think about protect our environment! Talk to your parents about your thoughts. Maybe they will change their mind;)
  • Ewa K-Poland Ewa K-Poland May 11, 2013
    I will be trying!
    ;)

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Is climate change real? Is it mostly human …
Mia S-USA, Nov. 25, 2012

It really bothers me when someone begins to talk about how global warming isn’t real or it isn’t our fault. Many times these people will use the defense that our winters the last couple years have been very cold. The second they say that I know they have no idea what they are talking about. Climate change does not happen over a couple years it happens over hundreds of years. The people that normally say that global warming is fake are normally the ones that have a large carbon footprint. They refuse to believe it is real because they are afraid of what could happen and they are afraid of change. I don’t think that we started global warming but we defiantly sped it up with our CO2 emissions. Now we need to keep it from speeding up even faster. We need to work individually on reducing our carbon footprints and not be afraid of change.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-real/
Mia S-USA
Comments (3)
  • Tara V-USA Tara V-USA Oct. 5, 2013
    This is a great article that contains a lot of evidence. I agree with you that it is very frustrating when people try to assert that climate change doesn't exist despite all of the information out there that proves it does. This article specifically referencing the rising average temperature over the last 150 years as well as the information that is available through the rings of trees. I hadn't realized that tree rings were thicker when developed in times of higher carbon concentrations, but that is a really interesting point. I wonder if people can create technology to somehow see the rings inside of trees without having to cut them down. It seems a little counterproductive to learn about climate change by cutting down trees. Although I suppose a few trees is worth proving the existence of this issue. Certainly tree rings combined with the sediments on the ocean floor combined with the information gathered from air bubbles in the polar ice sheets prove climate change is being exacerbated by humans. Those who do not accept it are simply in denial as while Earth's temperature does naturally fluctuate, evidence proves we are not undergoing a natural fluctuation.
  • Tara V-USA Tara V-USA Oct. 5, 2013
    This is a great article that contains a lot of evidence. I agree with you that it is very frustrating when people try to assert that climate change doesn't exist despite all of the information out there that proves it does. This article specifically referencing the rising average temperature over the last 150 years as well as the information that is available through the rings of trees. I hadn't realized that tree rings were thicker when developed in times of higher carbon concentrations, but that is a really interesting point. I wonder if people can create technology to somehow see the rings inside of trees without having to cut them down. It seems a little counterproductive to learn about climate change by cutting down trees. Although I suppose a few trees is worth proving the existence of this issue. Certainly tree rings combined with the sediments on the ocean floor combined with the information gathered from air bubbles in the polar ice sheets prove climate change is being exacerbated by humans. Those who do not accept it are simply in denial as while Earth's temperature does naturally fluctuate, evidence proves we are not undergoing a natural fluctuation.
  • Tara V-USA Tara V-USA Oct. 5, 2013
    This is a great article that contains a lot of evidence. I agree with you that it is very frustrating when people try to assert that climate change doesn't exist despite all of the information out there that proves it does. This article specifically referencing the rising average temperature over the last 150 years as well as the information that is available through the rings of trees. I hadn't realized that tree rings were thicker when developed in times of higher carbon concentrations, but that is a really interesting point. I wonder if people can create technology to somehow see the rings inside of trees without having to cut them down. It seems a little counterproductive to learn about climate change by cutting down trees. Although I suppose a few trees is worth proving the existence of this issue. Certainly tree rings combined with the sediments on the ocean floor combined with the information gathered from air bubbles in the polar ice sheets prove climate change is being exacerbated by humans. Those who do not accept it are simply in denial as while Earth's temperature does naturally fluctuate, evidence proves we are not undergoing a natural fluctuation.

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion My Carbon Footprint
Juan Maquilon, Oct. 9, 2012

For transportation, my average was about 366 kg and the average in my region for transportation was 3447 kg. For home my average was 4000 kg and the average in my region for home usage is 5065 kg. For food my average is 4213 kg, the average in my region for food is 2996 kg. My average was 850 kg,the average in my region is 1606 kg.

Juan Maquilon
Comments

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 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.

Are you sure?