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 Climate Progress
Caroline P. (USA), Oct. 20, 2013

Before I started with this project,was very blindsided to the problems of climate change. I thought things that many Americans thought like, “This temperature change has happened before” or “If it’s really that bad, people would do something about it”. But after reading all of the statistics and learning about how all of this excess CO2 is affecting the world, I realized that people are willing to turn the other cheek because they really just don’t want to give up the luxury they have. They choose to be ignorant. This is why I really love this video, because it debunks all of the typical excuses you hear from people who don’t ‘believe’ in global warming and I think that it is worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9LNuH3IpU
Caroline P. (USA)
Comments (3)
  • Jessica Wendt Jessica Wendt Oct. 22, 2013
    I completely agree with you, I was also completely blindsided by the problems of global warming. I knew what global warming was and I had heard briefly on the news sometimes of how global warming is increasing, but it really never hit me, on how bad it was actually affecting life, until I started the carbon footprint challenge. After doing some research and seeing the things people should give up to decrease global warming, I understand why some people might not want to do it, but I think it's really important that we give up somethings because, it's better to give up things we don't really need and decrease the carbon dioxide emissions, rather then helping it. I also really like this video because it really shows how blindsided people really are and how people don't want to emit that global warming is a real thing, that is affecting us, and also the excuses people make to discard the fact global warming is real.
  • angelo westmacott angelo westmacott Oct. 24, 2013
    This is true people do take advantage of all of the things that we have and over use them way to much.by limiting this we can help the world a lot and leave it better then we found it. By limiting how much co2 we put out we could really help out the world and make it better for everyone to live in. one this that we over use to much is cars and burning the gas which is horrible for the environment and by limiting that it would really help out the world. there are many small changes that we can do to the world and this is a good way to start.
  • Bianca Allen Bianca Allen Oct. 24, 2013
    Hello, I'm Bianca and I'm from California.

    That video made me laugh very much, it was a joy to watch especially for me whose a fan of Hank Green.

    Anyway, moving back to the subject. Global warming is alive and real and frightening. I understand where that blindsided feeling came from because I experienced it when I realised that we could be under water in the next few decades if we don't make a change.

    The climate changes happening are so drastic at times I honestly don't know where to look to see what's going to happen next.

    The amount of carbon humans produce saddens me because we produce it just by breathing. But what saddens me even more is the unwillingness of human to actually accept that this problem isn't a tiny one that people are making up. It's big and real and increasing as the days go by, That's why when I see campaigns for cleaning up beaches and things along that line, my heart soars and I feel there is slight hope.

    So I agree with Hank. Let's all accept that there's a problem on our hands and do what we can to reduce our carbon footprint and make this world a little healthier.

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Climate Progress
Caroline P. (USA), Oct. 20, 2013

Hi everyone my name is Caroline and I’m from Texas. I recently found out that my carbon footprint is well below the average of Texas, but incredibly high compared to the world. My home carbon footprint was the highest, which i think is due to the fact that lights are constantly on in my home, and my family likes to take long showers. It’s also very hot in Texas, especially in the summer, which means we have to use the air conditioner a lot in my house. I think that my family can reduce our carbon footprint by reducing the length of our showers, turning off the lights more often, or getting more energy efficient bulbs. I also think that by turning down the air conditioning in the summer and winter by a couple degrees can reduce my footprint.

Caroline P. (USA)
Comments

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Climate Progress
Alex M-USA, Oct. 11, 2013

Hello!

In an article by the Scientific American, the responsibility for progress in the area of climate change is put on cities. Super Storm Sandy showed America and the world that we need to be able to adapt to change.

Over half of the world’s population live cities and therefore, these areas need to be more energy efficient in order to fight climate change. Because the majority of people live in cities, the level of green house gas emission coming from these concentrated regions is notably high. Energy efficiency now is so important because “we will spend more and build more in the next century than we have in all of human history before this.” The substantial amount of cars and building located in cities wastes large amounts of energy, which calls more efficient means. More and more cities should be implementing solar panels and green roofs for buildings. In the long run, these improvements can save the city money. Also, building efficient railways would cut the demand for cars thus lowering greenhouse gas emission.

More energy efficient cities are the gateway to a greener future where greenhouse gas emission is limited.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cities-as-solutions-to-climate-change
Alex M-USA
Comments

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Sustainable city
Julia C-US, Oct. 9, 2013

Did you know that fossil fuels make up 40% of man-made carbon admission? Coal releases 2,249 lbs of carbon dioxide per megawatt of coal burned, this number does not include the mining, cleaning, and transportation of the coal. Oil produces 1,672 pounds of carbon per megawatt, and again this does not include the equipment needed to collect the oil, the transportation, or the production. (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html) Think about how much carbon is released into the environment every year from theses fossil fuels. Why are we still using these fuels when there are alternative sources that can work just as well? Wind energy is a negligible energy source because it burn no fuel, and releases no carbon into the atmosphere. Wind energy makes green electricity. Wind is a never ending source, whereas fossil fuels will run out some point. It may be a big change for our community, but it is something that is bound to happen so why not make this positive change now?

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/wind-power
Julia C-US
Comments (3)
  • Veronica C-USA Veronica C-USA Oct. 9, 2013
    You know, another thing that can reduce the amount of fossil fuels used dramatically is the usage of hybrid cars. hybrid cars on average get double the mileage of a gasoline only car the same size and omit half the CO2. Its the best of both worlds, great mileage and less carbon monoxide, and they cost about as much as a gasoline only car as well. Though Hybrid cars do need to be charged, the wind energy in your suggestion would correspond perfectly with this kind of suggestion.
  • Ryan P-USA Ryan P-USA Oct. 9, 2013
    These are stunning numbers that you have presented in this post. The amount a carbon humans are emitting in the air is simply tremendous, and it makes sense why the planet is warming up as it is. Alternatives to energy production need to be found before it is carbon concentrations become to high. Veronica's suggestion was great; hybrid cars are definitely one way to lower the use of fossil fuels. Another way is finding other energy sources, such as wind and sunlight. However, I think the problem is not in finding other alternatives; there are many alternatives already functioning right now. I think the problems are the companies who generate fossil fuels. They are resistant to change and to a switch from fossil fuels to other energy generation methods because they want to stay in business. It makes sense, though. The people whose job it is to produce and refine fossil fuels need money to raise families and do other things. Is there a way to perhaps convince them to leave the fossil fuel business? Do you think they could be offered another job with the same pay as their original occupation? If so, what kind of job would it be?
  • Julia C-US Julia C-US Oct. 10, 2013
    Thank you both for your wonderful comments! Veronica, I think that hybrid cars are such a great idea for helping reduce our carbon footprint. Electric cars are exactly the kind of inventive, modern, and new technology that we need to be using. Ryan, you raise very strong points and questions. I do believe that companies that produce fossil fuel know the detrimental effects it is having on the environment, but they keep supporting the company to keep their jobs. I believe that sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the greater good for the world. There needs to be a revolution of green energy, and sustainable living to save our world. My father is a director of development for a wind company, and they employ hundreds of thousands of workers. Wind farms need managers, manual worker, scientists, and the list goes on. There are an equal amount job opportunities in the green energy business, but it may not seem like this because the number of fossil fuel companies outweigh the amount of green energy companies. Ryan you asked a few questions that I do pretend to have the perfect answer to, but I think green energy is something that is doable.

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion The Heat is Online - Global Warming
Marco Buschini, Oct. 8, 2013

How do you think the world can cut the use of carbon due to the pollution and it causing the ocean to heat?

Marco Buschini
Comments

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Climate Progress
Alex A, Nov. 13, 2012

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.

Alex A
Comments (2)
  • Cisandra Yent Cisandra Yent May 6, 2013
    I totally agree with you, and your opinion about taking steps to preserve the climate. But what kind of steps could we take in order to preserve the climate and how would we get everyone invlolved?
  • Mai VB Mai VB May 13, 2013
    I agree with you, this as a result of climate change. But it is also a result of our actions, we should not wait until another drought happens, we have to take action now. Is better to start acting now instead of regretting it. We should think of our future but also about our children or grandsons.

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion The Heat is Online - Global Warming
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.

Christine Chen
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 Clean development
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.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0U-hZjIfUVU
Samantha Rowling
Comments

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Join Now
Discussions Discussion Health & Environment
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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGxnH5ejFfc
Nina Dumas
Comments

Please register or log in to post a comment.

Are you sure?