Hello I am Alex. I think it is strange how there was a massive drought this summer in the mid-United States. This hasn’t occurred for many years, and I believe it is definitely a sign that our climate is changing, wether it’s from Carbon Dioxide emissions, or from global pollution. We’ll have to wait and see if the drought worsens in the next few years, and if it does, we will have to take steps in order to preserve the climate of that region and to maintain the numerous crops that we depend on in order to survive.
Discussions
Tagged "fossil fuel"
Posts tagged "fossil fuel"
Filter By
- My Posts
- Learned Posts
- My Discussions
- Joined Discussions
- Favorite Members
- Curated Posts
Trends
Alex A, Nov. 13, 2012
Christine Chen, Nov. 6, 2012
Greetings everyone! I’m Christine Chen, a 8th grader from Taiwan. I believe that global warming has a lot to do with our carbon emission. From what I had researched on, I’ve noticed a intersting relationship between the rising temperature and carbon usage. In 1900,the carbon emission in Taiwan was about 30 tons and the avearge land temperature was about 22.5 Celcius , in 2009 the carbon emission was about 75066 tons and the average land temperature was about 24 Celcius. From this you can notice that as the carbon emission increases, the temperature increses. In 1900 Taiwan’s technology was still not advance enough to have cars and other equipments that make our lives easier, so we produce less carbon, a hundred more years later, Taiwan has become more prosperous and there are more cars and factories so we produce more carbon. As we produce more carbon, the average temperature increases by 1.5 Celcius. This doesn’t sound much, but if the whole world’s average temperature rises, as it already had, it will cause the glaciers to melt, which would result in coastal flooding.
Please register or log in to post a comment.
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?
-
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 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 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.
Please register or log in to post a comment.
Samantha Rowling, March 1, 2012
Chicago Quits Coal Burning Power Plants!
Midwest Generation, a subsidiary of Edison International, will retire its Fisk and Crawford coal plants (Chicago), two of the oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the nation.
Please register or log in to post a comment.
Nina Dumas, Nov. 26, 2011
EU Air Pollution Costs Exceed $134 Billion — COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — Air pollution isn’t just harmful — it’s expensive, resulting in health care and environmental costs of more than €100 billion ($130 billion) in 2009, the European Union’s environment agency said Thursday.
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/24/eu_agency_air_pollution_costs_exceed_134_billion/
The energy sector had the highest pollution costs, followed by manufacturing and production processes, according to the report by the European Environment Agency. The findings underscore the environmental and health impacts of fossil fuel-based power generation
Please register or log in to post a comment.
Billy Sumner, Nov. 4, 2011
Still on board the Los Angeles bullet train - California is expected to add 17 million people by 2040. The state has little choice but to build transportation infrastructure to meet the growing demand; the only question is whether it should invest in freeways and airports, thus increasing our reliance on vehicles powered by fossil fuels and subject to traffic gridlock, or in clean, speedy trains on dedicated tracks that don’t get jammed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-train-20111104,0,7045793.story
Moreover, unlike freeways that require continual government expenditures to maintain, the train would be self-sustaining. Under even the most conservative assumptions considered in the business plan, the line is expected to turn a profit. But there are many many barriers that stand in front of this project.
Please register or log in to post a comment.
Please register or log in to post a comment.