Fatih Birol is a name unfamiliar to many, but this chief economist at the International Energy Agency has issued a stark warning that so many fossil-fuelled power stations and other environmentally unfriendly buildings are liable to appear over the next five years that the last chance of affecting climate change in any way will be forever lost.

In the most thorough world energy infrastructure analysis to date, it has become clear that such expansion will be the single factor producing an irreversible effect on climate change, with potentially disastrous results.

Scientists maintain that the safe maximum limit of 2C of warming is only sustainable with CO2 emissions of at most 450 parts per million in the atmosphere.

Since the current levels are already at 390, humanity has an ever-narrowing window of opportunity for getting the global economy as a whole on to a low-carbon footing. As things stand, with countries like India and China becoming ever more affluent, consumer demands are making such ambitions highly unrealistic.

At current trends by 2017, that danger figure of ceiling of 450 will have been reached or breached, and the door to genuinely being able to impact on climatic catastrophe will be closed forever. In spite of this imminent disaster, world governments are about to postpone negotiations about a successor to the 1997 Kyoto protocol, which expires in 2012.

Many countries apparently now favour postponing talks until 2018, including the UK, Japan and Russia. Not that the problem is particular to the developing world, because throughout the developed world there are plans for fossil-fuelled power stations contributing significantly to future global emissions.

These have risen a record amount in 2010, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, 1.6Gt higher on the previous year, and new building of energy and industrial infrastructure will cause even = higher emissions for the foreseeable future.

Increasing emissions are certain to result from the abandonment of nuclear energy, the Fukushima disaster in Japan making governments nervous. Turning away from nuclear energy will doubtless result in much higher emissions globally. China is the world’s biggest emitter, and by 2035 will be outpacing the rest of the world combined.

Urgently needed direction change is in evidence in global energy trends is under way, but whether it is too little, too late remains to be seen. It is clear that  decisions made today risk passing a carbon debt to the next generation so massive that they pay a very heavy price for it.

Governments meet again soon in Durban for the next round of global climate talks, but since the two biggest culprits, China and the USA, are intractable about their respective positions on this issue, chances are that the future generations of the human race will be forever resentful of our lack of action.  Mother nature is far older than man, and she always has the last word.

They didn’t really think of its effect as it would cause health problems to individual in inhaling those chemical compund released by these machines..

The Reality

Science tells us that due to increasing amounts of Greenhouse Gases less heat is being allowed to escape from the earth due to radiation caused by the Sun. This should lead to a gradual heating up of our earth and yet we seem to be seeing a large amount of very cold weather this Winter in places such as US east coast, United Kingdom, India etc… This is an increase on last year and as I’m sure you will remember last year wasn’t great either. With people getting stuck and airports closing everything goes into chaos. 

So the question I ask you is.. should we prepare for colder or warmer weather in the next few years?

Global warming effects everyone and is a serious issue that must be dealt with whether it is warming or cooling doesn’t deny the fact that we must stop polluting our rich environmental resources and try to clean up after ourselves. 

In my view I think that the places that have been experiencing severe weather this year is to prepare for worse in the years to come. 

OR YOU CAN MOVE SOMEWHERE NICE AND WARM!! If that’s what you would prefer. For example Dubai its the middle of winter and a cool 25 degrees celsius.

Thanks for reading. I would love to hear your opinions or comments on this. 

Most people are aware of the deforestation which occurs in order to breed livestock, and much of the blame is often shifted onto large corporations such as McDonalds.   

The true extent of deforestation may be unknown to many, though – scientists at the Smithsonian Institute in the USA estimate that the equivalent area of seven football fields is destroyed every minute. 40% of the rainforest in Central America has been destroyed in the last 40 years which, in turn, means the decline in numerous animal and plant species. The reason for the use of such large masses of land is to build grazing pastures and to use land for the growing of the crops needed to feed livestock.

However, deforestation is far from being the meat industry’s only contribution to the destruction of the environment. The whole process of meat production has a huge impact on the world in a variety of ways.

The level of greenhouse gases – natural gases which exist to balance the Earth’s climate – has been affected by human activity. Many scientists believe that global warming is caused primarily by the greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans, and often mention sources such as transport as being a significant contributor to the problem. However, a 2006 survey by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization confirmed that “the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent—18 percent—than transport.” Furthermore, while the greenhouse gas that is most frequently emitted through human activity is carbon dioxide, statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency show that animal agriculture is the leading source of methane production in the USA – methane being 23 times more powerful in causing global warming than carbon dioxide. Even more worryingly, the meat industry is responsible for 65% of the emissions of another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the power of carbon dioxide to cause global warming. These gases are produced by the excrement of livestock, from the production of the grain to feed the animals, from the fossil fuel used in making fertilisers, and so on.

Water, while being in such desperately short supply in many countries, is utilised to an astounding degree by the meat industry: almost half of the water supply in the United States goes to the meat industry alone, and animal agriculture accounts for over 8% of the global human water supply. A huge amount of water is required in the process of providing water for the animals, growing the crops they are fed with being just the tip of the iceberg – in fact, 5000 gallons of water are required to produce just 1 pound of meat. According to “The Food Revolution” by John Robbins, more water is saved by not eating a pound of meat than not showering for a year. A large water consumption is not the only threat the meat industry poses to the world’s water supply – it is also a leading cause of water pollution. The runoff from factory farms, which contains substances such as animal excrement and fertiliser, often spills into surrounding bodies of water causing great damage to not only the water but the plants and creatures which live in it.

The consumption of fossil fuels by the meat industry is yet another environmental concern. Natural gases, coal and oil are resources which are in limited supply, yet are used on a huge scale in the production of meat. The process of creating synthetic fertilisers, operating the feed mills and factory farms, and transporting the various materials and meats to their required locations consumes an enormous quantity of fossil fuels.

While the new craze for recycling and making everyday objects more environmentally-friendly is a positive step towards saving the planet, people may want to consider the harm that their diets are causing – not only to themselves, but to the world. By switching to a vegetarian or even vegan diet, each person can save approximately one acre of rainforest per year, over 2000 gallons of water per day, and lessen their carbon footprint while reducing their risk of cancer and heart disease.

The reason for the true extent of the damage the meat industry causes the environment being so widely ignored is undoubtedly due to the large revenue it creates. However, perhaps it is time for people to consider that the economy would be of considerably less importance if the planet ceased to exist.

Image by Frankie Roberto via Flickr

            April 22nd 2010, was the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, does anyone really know why it started forty years ago. In addition to society wanting clean streets and air to breathe, the earth was about to go into another ice age. We were burning a hole in the ozone, therefore the planet was beginning to cool, and we had to stop that from happening. We began taking aerosol cans off the shelf, deodorant and hair spray had to be removed from the supermarket shelves, and replace with environmental safe product.

Why? The answer then was the ice age. Now we have global warming, that hole in the ozone layer was not release the heat from our planet; it is now our doing that is creating a hole. Well if that is the case, can someone tell me what the green house affect is?

            The green house affect from my understanding, is keeping all the hot air in our atmosphere. So we have gone from the ice age to global warming, at the expense of?

At the expense of you and I, in taxes and our purchases of new gadgets to protect the earth, and our atmosphere.

            I feel Earth Day, like many holidays was designed to make money! While I agree that planting a tree is very important, it cleans the air we breath while at the same time providing us with the air we need; oxygen.

            To me earth day is taking care of the planet that I live on, protecting the city I live in, and making an attempt to keep my environment clean and safe from toxics, pollutions and littering.

            Don’t let the government and large companies fool you; we don’t have to spend money to save our planet; just become conscious of your activities and habits.

            Don’t litter

            Walk instead of driving if the place is close by

            Use public transportation if it is convenient

            Recycle

            Create a compost pile

These little things were and are what Earth Day is all about.

The whole earth was like that but now we have to pay to the tours to visit such places which can be counted on fingers. Science, technology, so called progress and human civilization, and the urge to remain superior to other living beings have led man to cause havoc. As a result they have for the first time seriously got together in Copenhagen to endeavor to find the measures to save this beautiful planet.

This predicament is the result of our collective rationality. Had we really tried to find out the cause of environmental disaster, we would have come back to ourselves, I mean the population. Everyone is trying to have his or her say in the big assembly hall in Copenhagen and trying to suggest means to prevent further damage to our environment, but I think they are already digressed from the most vital point-population growth.

Had we thought a few decades ago to educate the masses all over the world right from schools and colleges, not through slogans and conferences, to foresee the dire consequences of the rapid population growth, the things would have been different. We, my wife and I, have added only two to the whole in this world. So I can fairly declare that I thought rationally and did play my part intelligently. Though the near and dear ones often complained that there must be a son but I am more than pleased with my two sweet and loving daughters.

Why we need more land for human habitat is known to all. Had there been some serious efforts by the leaders of the world, to some extent, we would have been successful to save our earth.

However they try now, in a decade or two there will be imminent natural calamities, and wars waged by humans, and as a result, perhaps, man will realize what he has done, if a few are left after that.

No one talks about controlling population, they are only talking about decreasing emissions and using echo friendly materials but if they think seriously, they will realize that we need more production when there are more people.

Think and act accordingly now. I am finished with my efforts, for I have no plans  to add to the human numbers. God bless you all!

http://rajasir.com

Image via Wikipedia

Imagine being a cow that is growing on a filthy factory farm in Northern Ontario, with a typical day’s diet of drugs to grow larger and faster. Now imagine waking up each morning counting for the day you will be inhumanely killed by the farmer for his own immoral selfishness. In Canada, a nation of just thirty four million people, 650 million animals are killed for food every year (Global National Network Canada, 2005). Humans are just an organism who shares the earth with other living organisms. It is ethically wrong for humans to treat other animals cruelly. Vegetarianism is a positive movement that can benefit the environment. It can reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and preserve resources.

Firstly, the livestock industry heavily contributes to climate change; it is responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions worldwide. The main GHGs that are emitted by the animals are methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). On average, a dairy cow produces about 265 liters of methane each day (Ashford Molika, 2008). These GHGs are far more powerful and damaging to the atmosphere than the pollutants emitted by automobiles (Christopher Matthews, 2006). In fact, methane is 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide while nitrous acid is 298 times more powerful (Engel and Liang, 2009). As the population of the world increases, the demand for beef and pork will also increase. This will force farmers worldwide to breed more cows, increasing the methane levels in the atmosphere. Just in the past two centuries, methane levels have risen by 250 percent due to increased human activity (Monastersky Richard, 1988). The obvious way to reduce the methane levels in the atmosphere is by reducing the consumption of cows and pigs.

On the contrary one might say that livestock is a large sector of the rural economies and that vegetarianism would lose many jobs in this multibillion dollar industry. Some will definitely lose their job but more jobs will be created in the crops component of agriculture. Vegetarianism has other economic benefits for consumers; it can potentially halve the average consumer’s grocery expense. It will decrease the levels of cholesterol and obesity in North America. It will also reduce many other health problems, ultimately reducing Canada’s healthcare budget.

Lastly, growing an animal uses up far more resources compared to crops. With the limited amount of land and fresh water on Earth, humans cannot afford to rely on animals for food energy. The animals feed on grains and crops, which need to be watered. Furthermore, the livestock industry wastes large areas of land resources. In fact, pasturable land takes up 70% of the world’s entire agricultural land (Pinner Annette, 2006). Vegetarianism will conserve large amounts of water and lands that can be used for other harmless purposes. This land can be efficiently used for crops and provide income for the same rural area.

In conclusion, the livestock sector is one of the most damaging industrial sectors on Earth due to the greenhouse gases that are emitted, the health diseases it causes and the inadequate land and water resources. Therefore, vegetarianism is the ideal solution for the good of the planet.

Image via Wikipedia

Layers of the atmosphere via Wikipedia

Oxygen making up 21 percent of the air we breathe the right proportion, much oxygen becomes toxic if breathed too long, if there were too much oxygen in the atmosphere combustible materials would become highly flammable, fires would easily burst forth and would be difficult to control.

Other of these gases is Nitrogen, making up 78 percent of the air we breathe. Oxygen is diluted with Nitrogen, but Nitrogen is much more that just a dilutant, during thunderstorms and lightning causes some Nitrogen to combine with oxygen, the compounds produced are carried to the Earth by rain, and plants make use of them as fertilizer.

Other of those gases that our atmosphere contains is Carbon Dioxide, makes up less than one percent. Without it, plant life would die, plants need to take in, giving off Oxygen in return. A decreasing percentage of Carbon Dioxide could not support plant life, an increase percentage of carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere would to be harmful to humans and animals, that small amount of less than one percent of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is that plants and animals need to exist.

In addition the atmosphere shields the Earth from bombardment by meteors. Most meteors never reach the ground because they burn up in their descent through the atmosphere. Our atmosphere serves as a protective shell, a thin layer of Ozone gas filters out harmful radiation from the sun, about 15 miles above the ground. Without this Ozone layer, such radiation could destroy life on Earth. In conclusion the atmosphere is of great importance to protect our existence in our planet Earth.

The protocol hopes to cut down on the following green house gases which have affected our atmosphere the most and are causing the most damage to our environment. The greenhouse gases which are to be cut down include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and Hydro fluorocarbons.

The protocol also hopes to bring into the world emission trading which allows countries to buy and sell their agreed allowances of greenhouse gases emissions. Therefore countries which highly pollute will be able to buy unused credits from other countries and the other way round for countries which pollute less can sell their credits to highly polluting countries. Countries can also gain credits for actions and activity which help reduce emissions which can include tree planting, and other things by the country.

However not included in the protocol include the US (36.1%) pulled out of Kyoto in March 2001, saying it is against US economic interests, should include developing nations and America are not sure the climate change exists. Australia (the world’s biggest exporter of coal) pulled out in June 2002, saying it would cost jobs and damages their industry, and is pointless without the US taking part; however in 2007 Australia’s new government elected signed the protocol and declared full participation in the protocol.

Russia also signed the protocol in 2004; even though they feared it may effect their economic growth. Russia believes that they could now actually make money out of the protocol, by later in the future when emission trading gets under way by selling credits. Also the requirements for Russia is to meet emission levels in 1990, since Russia’s economy collapsed after 1990, they do not have to decrease their emissions at all, since their output of greenhouse gases has shrunk by nearly 40%, they already meet requirements.

Major emitting countries included in the protocol include:

• Romania – was the first country to ratify in March 2001
• EU (All fifth teen) – ratified May 2002
• Japan – ratified May 2002
• China – ratified September 2002
• India – ratified August 2002

After four years of the protocol being in place, Germany and England are the only countries to date that have met their agreements. Unlike in September 1992 the ozone hole (caused by CFCs and other pollutants) above the Antarctic was nearly the size of North America – by 2001 the ozone hole was three times larger than North America which shows it is becoming more and more necessary to begin cutting down on emissions. Developing countries however were not included in the protocol due to economic issues they already face.

So far like mentioned only Germany and England have met their voluntary agreements, with countries like Spain and Portugal who have increased emissions by more than 40% since 1990. Whilst it has had some affect only countries and greenhouse gases emissions, little so far has actually been done and it looks very unlikely that if countries don’t begin shortly, it will be almost impossible to meet green house gases emissions by 2012, only three years away from now.

In conclusion to whether the agreement is sensible, and whether there is chance that the proposed targets will be met, look slightly unlikely. First the treaty suffered a massive blow in 2001 when the US, responsible for about quarter of the world’s emissions, pulled out. There is not even any certainty that the 15 countries that were members of the EU in 1997 will meet their collective target of an 8% reduction on 1990 levels. France, Sweden and the UK have begun decreasing their emissions, but others – such as Spain, Portugal and Ireland – have made no progress at all. Therefore we cannot guarantee that when emission trading gets under way, that this will be taken seriously and that all countries will take part.

German vengeance weapons, also called V weapons, were made to attack London from France as a last ditch effort to destroy London and turn the tide of the war. The first attack using one of the V weapons was a week after D-Day. There were three types of V weapons. The V1 was the first to be developed, but did not do enough damage and could easily be shot down. The V2 was another bomb that went at the speed of sound and did a large amount of damage. The V2 could not be stopped once in flight (V2). The V3 was the third and final weapon of the V weapons that was capable of hitting London with a bomb every 12 seconds, but only two smaller scales were made and fired only a few rounds (“German Vengeance Weapons”). They were the final attempt and may have changed the war if they started to make them earlier in the war.

The V1 was the first made V Weapon and the first fired was a week after D-Day. The V1 was nicknamed “Cherry Bombs” by Hitler. The V1 reached a height of 300 feet and a speed of 400 mph. There were 8564 V1 rockets recorded that were launched, but only 50% made it to London. On June 13th, 1944, 100 v1 rockets hit London every hour for about 80 days. At the end of the 80 days more than 6000 people were killed and left 17000 wounded. The British needed to defend the attacks so they placed most of their anti-aircraft guns and set-up 800 barrage balloons. The British also sent pilots in the air to knock the rockets off course, but many people were still killed or wounded from the rockets (Trueman). The V1 rocket was the first of the V1 series and was also called the A4 rocket.

The V2 was the second vengeance weapon used in WW2. The rocket was mainly used against London and, unlike the V1, the majority hit London. London civilians did not know about the V2 rocket until the first one hit. The V2 could travel at the speed of sound and could not be stopped or seen once in flight. The rocket weighed 13 tons and stood 46 feet tall. It took the rocket 30 seconds from launch to hit the speed of sound and flew 30 to 60 miles high (Trueman). The V2 rocket was a scientific breakthrough and was the first liquid hydrogen bomb made.

The V3 was the last V weapon to be made. The weapon was massive and could fire a barrage of rocket shells with one hitting London every 12 seconds. They attempted to make 30 of these weapons were, but only 2 smaller versions were made in the end (Trueman, Chris). It was capable of firing 300 rockets an hour at a speed of 1500 meters. The weapon overall failed because of two reasons. First, the firing of the blast that pushed each rocket through was too hard to calculate and often fired too early. second, the pressure of the blast that was used to push the rocket through broke in 3 detonations. The project was soon abandoned as the Allied Powers pushed through France and destroyed the bases as they found them. Only two of the V3 weapons were ever made, but they were made to a smaller scale and only fired a few rockets before the barrels broke and the Allies destroyed the base (“German Vengeance Weapons” ). If this was ever completed on a full scale, it would have been the largest gun ever built and could have turned the tide of the war.

The flamethrower was another new weapon developed for WWII. The Germans would use the Model 42 flamethrower and only had their engineers carry it. Very few of the people seen carrying a flamethrower would be taken prisoner because of the fear factor. The Germans designed most of the type of the flamethrowers like the model 32 that was used by the Italians (Lone sentry: Germany). The Italians used the flamethrowers in small squads of six. They mainly used it in close quarter combat like in caves, pill boxes, and trenches. Each of the flamethrowers carried enough fuel for 20 seconds of continuous firing but took 30 minutes to refuel. The Italians were the first to mount a flamethrower on a tank. They were put in replace of the two machine guns mounted on the tank. The tank carried a trailer the carried enough fuel for three minutes of constant use. It used mainly for the anti-infantry advantage (Lone Sentry flamethrowers: Italian). Flamethrowers were greatly feared and had the ability to kill infantry quickly but very painfully.

There were three types of gases that were used in WWII. One type of gas was choking gases. Choking gases would cause respiratory problems and stop the victim from breathing, killing them. Nerve gases were another type that would go through skin and block enzymes in your body. After it blocked the enzymes, the body would shut down and cause the victim to die. Blistering gases would also go through a victims clothing creating large blisters on their skin. The blisters would cause great pain and take a soldier out of the battlefield (Trueman, Chris). These were the main type of gases and were very effective on the battlefield. The gases, when used, would force the enemy to spread out and make the fight easier it would also force them to protect themselves making them open targets.

            Four types of gases developed in WWII were very deadly. Cyanogens, Carbon Monoxide, Cyanide, and Sarin were the four deadliest gases of WWII. The chemicals would enter the blood stream causing the body to shut down (Trueman, Chris). Sarin was the deadliest of all and could kill a victim in two minutes on average.

            Napalm was another type of chemical used in WWII. Napalm was a gooey substance that would stick to things and burn furiously. It was mainly used against people in trenches and many soldiers would be completely set on fire when it was used. Phosphorous was also used like napalm. Phosphorous bombs were made to drop on buildings to set them on fire to tell other bombers to attack it. Phosphorous grenades were made for soldiers to carry around on the battlefield. Phosphorous grenades would explode, scattering white pieces of phosphorous all over the battlefield. Any soldier that was hit by it would be burned terribly from it and it would cause enough pain to take them off the battlefield (Trueman). The two chemicals were not considered poison gases, so they were still allowed to be used without extreme retaliation.

            Germany and Australia had large amounts of stored gases ready for use. Germany had 70,000 tons of sarin. That was enough gas to kill all of the citizens in Paris 30 times. The U.S. used Australia to store their poison gases incase the Japanese invaded. Australia had thousands of tons of mustard gas hidden. They also had thousands of artillery shells and 53,000 of them were phosgene artillery shells (Trueman, Chris). The war could have been much more deadly if these gases were put to use.

           The Geneva Convention, held in 1925, enforced the banning of the use of chemical weapons. The document was ratified by all major countries except Japan and the U.S. Germany would have broken the rules in the document signed at the Geneva Convention, but they were afraid of retaliation from the Allied Powers. If they attacked an opposing country using chemical weapons, the casualty rate would have been much higher (Trueman, Chris). The Germans did still use poisonous gases but it was used in concentration camps and wasn’t considered fighting as much as it was slaughter.

Overall, flamethrowers, poison gases, and the German V weapons changed the war and caused more deaths than the regular weapons. First, flamethrowers could easily clear out trenches and kill the enemies hiding in them. Next, poisonous gases could kill quicker than other weapons. Lastly, the V weapons were scientific breakthroughs and were capable of destroying many buildings and killing many people from a distance. All in all, the weapons were unique to the basic weapons and gave an edge to the user.