The great thing about having a blog is the chance to occasionally write a post about something that just plain bugs me. I have something that is really staring to bug me about the going green movement and the anti-going green movement.
Millions of people understand that we have harmed our world through unchecked use of harmful chemicals, pesticides, hazardous waste, over consumption of non-renewable resources, build up of dangerous levels of greenhouse gases, and much more. We know we must act now to make better choices to help our environment and reduce the chances that our earth will become uninhabitable in just a few decades.
The green movement has become more mainstreamed into our society as the world's media has jumped on the bandwagon. There are hundreds of places to look to find out to become more green, whether you want to start slowly or if you want to tackle the more difficult ways to become green.
It seems that our major corporations have tried to prove that they are green by slapping every product they make with the green label. Greenwashing, the practice of making untrue claims of a product being green, is on the increase as some companies try to prove that they are politically correct and green without really doing what it takes to become so.
The average person tries to take in all of the green claims and green ads out there and probably feels somewhat confused or even overwhelmed. We are bombarded by car companies who state that their cars are green when no car can actually be green. Instead, one car might be greener than another car, but to say a car is green is just slick marketing. I wonder when a cigarette company will claim that their cigarette is green just because it has 2% less tar than the others and will smokers flock to that cigarette in the hope that their habit will be more accepted because they are smoking a "green cigarette"?
But, all of the above ramblings don't even touch the anger I have over this one. A high ranking official of one of the companies chosen as one of the worst 10 companies said "carbon dioxide -- also the gas that humans breathe out -- isn't a contributor to global warming because if it were", he rationalized, "the government would have to ask us all to stop breathing." Nobody is saying that humans should stop breathing. What we are trying to tell people is that we have added higher levels of CO2 through this unchecked and unregulated use of unacceptable methods of building, transporting, and manufacturing. These higher levels of gases have placed our planet into peril and we need to better regulate the way we do these things.
Another anti-green spokesman says that the green living movement wants to do nothing else but force the world to return to the dark ages and that the green movement is our governments way of forcing socialism on us through what he calls eco-fascism. He says "the eco-fascist cult, are at their core very similar. In essence they demand mindless obedience, anti-Western orthodoxies, hatred of freedom and the market, and a commitment to lie, distort, pervert reality and facts. They are also primitive, violent and arrogant."
I will agree that there are some people who are fanatical and would love nothing more than to see the world return to a time unlike any we have seen in hundreds of years. That is no different than the fact that every religion of the world has its fanatical wackos, every company has its fanatical weirdos, and every other organization has people who go to extremes to prove their point. The fact also exists that each of these groups have a much larger group of people who are level headed and as normal as you and I.
The green movement is no different. We just want to see less use of harmful products and more use of methods that will help our environment but we would all love to see our thoroughly modern world continue to exist and get even more technologically advanced. A true green believer wants to do their part and hope that others will do theirs. If it takes legislation to ensure that some of the more polluting companies clean their act up then it is fine but nobody wants to micro-manage these companies. It is possible for these companies to quit damaging the Earth at an alarming rate but they can stay in business. No true green believer wants to see these people lose their livelihood. Only the fanatics would wish that on anyone and I do not consider the fanatics to be true green believers.
This is my belief and you might disagree with it. Fine. If you do, please write a response and send it to bruce@bruzzbuzz.com and I will post it here. I really do believe that both sides need to be heard in order to ensure that we succeed in saving our planet.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Submit Your Content or Your Opinions to You Can Go Green
I want to invite any of you who want to spread the word about going green to write a post for my blog. I have finally started receiving big traffic and now I think it would be great to offer my readers the chance to tell others what they are passionate about in the going green niche.If you have an article or just an opinion that you would like to share with a very large community, just email it to me at bruce@bruzzbuzz.com and I will be happy to post it here if it is about going green.
Make sure to put your link to your blog or webpage if you have one. It will help drive traffic to your site.
Monday, June 29, 2009
What Are the Main Causes of Ocean Pollution?
The ocean is so important to sustaining life on Earth. One of the most searched phrases on the Internet is "what are the main causes of ocean pollution".Jonathon Hilton gives us all a nice little primer on the subject with his article, "The Three Key Causes of Ocean Pollution". This is a good starting place as you attempt to find out what the major causes of ocean pollution are.
Three Key Causes of Ocean Pollution
By Jonathan Hilton
Ocean Pollution is a major problem that directly affects wildlife, ocean habitats and human health. Oil spills, toxic wastes and illegal dumping are some of the many sources. Environmental awareness and education programs play a vital role by sharing knowledge that helps changes behaviors that improve the health of the oceans.
Unfortunately, birds and marine mammals do not avoid oil spills. Oil sticks to the fur, feathers and feet causing serious problems and some fish are attracted to oil because it looks like food. Marine mammals, such as seals and dolphins, swim and feed near oil spills because, like sea birds, they are attracted to the schools of fish who gather below.
Oil poisons the food chain when predators eat large amounts of organisms that have absorbed oil. Oil Pollution interferes with breeding by diminishing capabilities and by reducing egg production. When ingested, oil damages the airways and lungs of mammals and other species resulting in congestion, pneumonia, emphysema and even death. The sticky oil causes hypothermia in birds by destroying their feathers and in seal pups by destroying the insulation of their fur. Birds and marine mammals become easy prey when covered in oil quickly spreading the damaging effects up the food chain.
Toxic waste is the most harmful form of pollution being dumped into our oceans. These poisons get into the seas by run from landfills, dumps, mines, and farms, from factories that spew chemicals and heavy metals from their stacks and drains, and from improper disposal in the private dumps of people who are unaware of the problems. Toxic chemicals and metals such as lead are proven to damage the brain, kidneys, and reproductive system, cause birth defects, slow growth, and cause hearing problems.
Scientists and anglers believe that toxic chemicals are depleting fish population. Illegal dumping of human waste and plastics exasperate the problems of vanishing ocean habitats. Most pollution dumped into the ocean over the last thirty years remains today with garbage dumping often occurring when sewage pipes share their space with storm water drains. Rainfall causes the sewage pipes to overflow into water resources such as a lakes, river and stream that inevitable lead to the ocean.
Small amounts of pollution add up to a major problem. In order to reduce this treat to life, all citizens must participate in the solution. Oil spills, toxic waste and illegal dumping are major contributors to the spread of this disease. Whenever pollution enters the ocean, environmental harm is done. Is it too late? Have the use of harmful products such as chemical pesticides, harsh detergents and cleaning agents, batteries, and plastics ruined our oceans and virtually eliminated the future?
Environmental organizations such as Touch Tanks for Kids, Blue Ocean, Island Dolphin Care and Greenville Eco Family believe that the oceans can be revived if people are motivated to join together and move people to make responsible environmental choices. These groups use interactive activities to motivate students to motivate their communities to take action that improve the health of our oceans.
"With persistence, a positive attitude and an undying passion to improve the awful condition of our oceans, my grandchildren will experience a whale watch instead of reading about them in a history book or through some kind of virtual tour." Mike Martin-Executive Director- Touch Tank for Kids
Are you practicing Responsible Environmental Living? Find out by joining
The Greenville Eco Family.
Mike Martin
http://greenvillecofamily.com/
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jonathan_Hilton
http://EzineArticles.com/?Three-Key-Causes-of-Ocean-Pollution&id=2149293
By Jonathan Hilton
Ocean Pollution is a major problem that directly affects wildlife, ocean habitats and human health. Oil spills, toxic wastes and illegal dumping are some of the many sources. Environmental awareness and education programs play a vital role by sharing knowledge that helps changes behaviors that improve the health of the oceans.
Unfortunately, birds and marine mammals do not avoid oil spills. Oil sticks to the fur, feathers and feet causing serious problems and some fish are attracted to oil because it looks like food. Marine mammals, such as seals and dolphins, swim and feed near oil spills because, like sea birds, they are attracted to the schools of fish who gather below.
Oil poisons the food chain when predators eat large amounts of organisms that have absorbed oil. Oil Pollution interferes with breeding by diminishing capabilities and by reducing egg production. When ingested, oil damages the airways and lungs of mammals and other species resulting in congestion, pneumonia, emphysema and even death. The sticky oil causes hypothermia in birds by destroying their feathers and in seal pups by destroying the insulation of their fur. Birds and marine mammals become easy prey when covered in oil quickly spreading the damaging effects up the food chain.
Toxic waste is the most harmful form of pollution being dumped into our oceans. These poisons get into the seas by run from landfills, dumps, mines, and farms, from factories that spew chemicals and heavy metals from their stacks and drains, and from improper disposal in the private dumps of people who are unaware of the problems. Toxic chemicals and metals such as lead are proven to damage the brain, kidneys, and reproductive system, cause birth defects, slow growth, and cause hearing problems.
Scientists and anglers believe that toxic chemicals are depleting fish population. Illegal dumping of human waste and plastics exasperate the problems of vanishing ocean habitats. Most pollution dumped into the ocean over the last thirty years remains today with garbage dumping often occurring when sewage pipes share their space with storm water drains. Rainfall causes the sewage pipes to overflow into water resources such as a lakes, river and stream that inevitable lead to the ocean.
Small amounts of pollution add up to a major problem. In order to reduce this treat to life, all citizens must participate in the solution. Oil spills, toxic waste and illegal dumping are major contributors to the spread of this disease. Whenever pollution enters the ocean, environmental harm is done. Is it too late? Have the use of harmful products such as chemical pesticides, harsh detergents and cleaning agents, batteries, and plastics ruined our oceans and virtually eliminated the future?
Environmental organizations such as Touch Tanks for Kids, Blue Ocean, Island Dolphin Care and Greenville Eco Family believe that the oceans can be revived if people are motivated to join together and move people to make responsible environmental choices. These groups use interactive activities to motivate students to motivate their communities to take action that improve the health of our oceans.
"With persistence, a positive attitude and an undying passion to improve the awful condition of our oceans, my grandchildren will experience a whale watch instead of reading about them in a history book or through some kind of virtual tour." Mike Martin-Executive Director- Touch Tank for Kids
Are you practicing Responsible Environmental Living? Find out by joining
The Greenville Eco Family.
Mike Martin
http://greenvillecofamily.com/
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jonathan_Hilton
http://EzineArticles.com/?Three-Key-Causes-of-Ocean-Pollution&id=2149293
Get Free Green Stuff and Green Bargains
Author: Paige WolfAs I’ve proved with many of the products showcased on this site, green products don’t have to be extra pricey. However, everyone wants to save money when they can and fortunately there are great resources for finding coupons, bargains, and even giveaways for all things eco-friendly.
Ecobunga! is a comprehensive directory of giveaways and deals on green products and services, including sweepstakes, contests, coupons, rebates, sales, free shipping, and bulk discounts.
GreenBabyBargains.com features bargains for moms, dads, and children. This is a great place to find deals for new baby and shower gift shopping.
Green Shopaholic.com offers the best deals on eco-friendly products and services and features articles on new products from environmentally-conscious companies.
The Green Deals section offers frequently updated green bargains No matter what you’re shopping for, always log on to Ebates.com first to get up to 15% back on your purchases. This no-strings-attached site has gotten me $700 in cash back over the years! Also, don’t forget to do an online search for coupon codes. I recently saved more than 30% on Nimli.com, one of my favorite green shopping sites!
And, of course, subscribe to the Philadelphia Eco-Living Examiner and The Paige Turner e-newsletter for regular green giveaways and special discounts!
Author: Paige Wolf
Paige Wolf is an Examiner from Philadelphia. You can see Paige's articles on Paige's Home Page.
My Bio
Subscribe to Email
Add Paige to Favorite Examiners
Paige Wolf is an Examiner from Philadelphia. You can see Paige's articles on Paige's Home Page.
My Bio
Subscribe to Email
Add Paige to Favorite Examiners
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The Truth About Green Jobs
The media has really jumped on the green bandwagon. It seems almost every commercial and public service announcement has some sort of green message. We hear a lot about green jobs and it seems like these jobs must be in great demand, but are they really? Following is a remark from a man who owns a green business. It is the best description of green jobs' prospects that we have read so we present it to you here:"The reality of "green jobs" is that they make up only a minuscule portion of the job market and the availability varies greatly based on geography. The media attention is much greater than the public demand for "green" in general. This has been true for years. When we hear of the dramatic increase in demand for green we are kidding ourselves. If you sold one green widget last year, and two green widgets this year you have a 100% increase. Sounds great, but you still only sold 2 widgets! I own a green company, and fully support the movement's importance. But, we can't kid ourselves that this is "sweeping America". The changes are going to be slow, require an incredible amount of effort, and will likely not make noticeable changes for decades."
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree? Why don't you leave a comment and let us know what you think.
Green Funerals
You can go green all the way to your grave. This newscast features a Florida funeral home that will allow you to literally go ashes to ashes and dust to dust and make sure that your death does not hurt the environment. Interesting but there will be a 10 second commercial at the first of it.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Environment Friendly DVD Cases: The Greening of Music and Film
DVD cases in the landfills is a huge problem. It might not seem like it is that big a deal when you look at a single case, but millions of them make their way to the world's landfills and that is not good. Brackley Industries seems to have a solution. Read about this eco-friendly solution to the DVD case:Although many people obtain their favorite music and movies electronically through online music stores and channels, DVDs are still enjoying brisk sales. But in case you're worried about what happens to old DVD cases or are concerned about what the manufacturing process does to the environment, you'll be glad to know that now, environment friendly DVD cases are available. They're as good as the older versions but are considered a better alternative because they do not require additional resources to produce. In short, they are a sound solution to the problem of waste that results from the manufacture and use of most consumer products.
The problem with DVDs
Older DVD cases are made from synthetic materials, primarily plastics. Unfortunately, majority of plastics are derived from fossil fuels including coal, natural gas and oil. Environmentalists frown on this because of the demands it imposes on the earth's resources. Although one DVD casing may not amount to a lot of plastic, imagine having millions of them produced each year. Sadly, many of these get discarded and thrown in the trash, ending up in landfills and potentially causing pollution and buildup. As is common with most fuel-based materials, plastic DVD cases also do not break down.
Environment friendly DVD cases, on the other hand, use renewable and biodegradable materials. Lately, major music and film producers have supported the use of recycled DVD cases for their products. Sleeves are usually made from cardboard, a paper-based material that is sturdy enough to hold its shape and protect the disc. Cardboard is environment friendly because it can be recycled and it will decompose in a landfill. The advantage to this type of packaging is obvious -- not only does it provide a green solution to the problem of waste and pollution, it also helps minimize bulk in terms of storage.
Environment friendly DVD cases also reduce the total amount of shipment. Because they're made from materials such as paper and are considerably lighter, they can also result to reduced costs, which is a boon to end users.How environment friendly is your DVD case?
It's good to note that this type of packaging varies in its component. Some cases are made of only 20% recycled material while others are 100% recycled. When checking out environment friendly products such as DVD cases, you might want to consider the percentage of recycled material used to keep informed.
Environment friendly DVD cases are relatively new, however, which explains why it is still limited to a few manufacturers and distributors. However, the demand for such products is expected to rise, thanks to its increasing popularity with manufacturers and consumers alike. As the drive toward a greener alternative to the most common consumer products intensifies, there might even come a time when every DVD case you'll ever buy will be 100% recycled.
Brackley Industries is the home of lockable DVD cases and a wide range of retail security products including safers, electronic line alarms and powered and secured product displays.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Top 10 Reason to Avoid Bottled Water
With almost 9 billion bottles of drinking water sold each year, the environment takes a pretty good hit. Most of these bottles end up in landfills but there are other reasons that bottled water is a bad idea. Click the link below to read all the reasons to avoid bottled water.
TOP TEN REASONS TO AVOID BOTTLED WATER
Shared via AddThis
TOP TEN REASONS TO AVOID BOTTLED WATER
Shared via AddThis
9 Ways to a Greener Kitchen | lindsay's Green Living Blog | Green Living
The lowdown on green pans, bamboo accessories and other kitchen tools.
Making the effort to cook most of your own meals at home is an effective strategy for reducing your environmental impact or your own personal “cookprint” (the environmental impact of cooking a meal, or the total amount of energy (from farm to fuel to fork) used in creating a meal). Read the entire article at the link below:
9 Ways to a Greener Kitchen lindsay's Green Living Blog Green Living
Shared via AddThis
Making the effort to cook most of your own meals at home is an effective strategy for reducing your environmental impact or your own personal “cookprint” (the environmental impact of cooking a meal, or the total amount of energy (from farm to fuel to fork) used in creating a meal). Read the entire article at the link below:
9 Ways to a Greener Kitchen lindsay's Green Living Blog Green Living
Shared via AddThis
Going Green and Your Baby's Cleaning Products: Living Free of Phthalates and Parabens
Green Baby Clean: Living Free of Phthalates and Parabens
Author: Qiana & Cooper Watson
Our babies are our most precious possession and the need to keep them safe is the most important thing we can do for them. Sometimes we do not know that we might be putting them in harm's way and that is what this article is about:
The first time we washed our son in a basin he became very upset, though his cries pierced our young parental ears, it was still a wonderful experience to go through because it was a way of being able to nurture him; a way of bonding with him. We had all of his bathing supplies laid out for the occasion. They included a bottle of scented liquid body soap, baby shampoo, baby powder, baby lotion, and a little yellow baby towel. Many of the products we cleaned him with worked just fine and they were products put on the market for babies so we believed that they were completely safe as well.
Unfortunately, there is one important thing that we did not know about the products we use to clean our baby. A lot of these products contain Phthalates (pronounced th-al-ates) and Parabens (pronounced par-ah-bens); the former is a synthetic chemical used to make plastics flexible and stabalize fragrances in many consumer products (i.e. cosmetics) and the latter is a chemical preservative used in skin care products (i.e.shampoos, shaving and cleansing gels, lotions, topical pharmaceuticals and lubricants).
Phthalates have been shown to cause birth defects in animals. In an article published in the February 2008 edition of the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the authors stated that "young infants are more vulnerable to the potential adverse effects of phthalates given their...metabolic capabilities, and developing endocrine and reproductive systems.
Parabens have been found to mimic the hormone estrogen and might contribute to the development of breast cancers. In an article published in the July 2002 edition of the Archives of Toxicology it was stated that when newborn male mammals are exposed to butyl paraben (an anti-fungal preservative in cosmetics), it “adversely affects the secretion of testosterone and the function of the male reproductive system.”
There are many health concerns associated with phthalates and parabens. There is no reason to risk exposing your baby to these chemicals when there are alternative products on the market. It is important that we find organic products that not only meet our babies cleaning needs but are safe for them as well.
When choosing your organic products make sure that you read the labels very carefully. Just because a product states that it is natural does not mean it is necessarily phthalate and paraben free. Here are some ways to determine whether a product contains these chemicals:
1) The first and most obvious is to look for products that say phthalate free (please note that not many products are labeled this way).
2) Identify phthalates in products by their abbreviations or chemical names such as DBP (di-n-butyl phthalate)DEP (diethyl phthalate), and BzBP (benzylbutyl phthalate).
3) Identify parabens in labels by the terms methyl paraben, propyl paraben, butyl paraben and ethyl paraben.
4) If it says "fragrance" then it might have phthalamates. If is says "unscented" or "fragrance-free" there is still a possibility that the product is made using synthetic chemicals so as to cover the odor.
5) Contact companies to inquire about the ingredients in the products you are interested in.
6) Find out if companies have ingredient lists for their products that are either accessible on their websites or can be sent to you if requested.
Qiana & Cooper Watson are a writing team that focus on baby nursery ideas and tips. Their eco-friendly baby articles appear on http://www.nurseryartist.com/
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/babies-articles/green-baby-clean-living-free-of-phthalates-and-parabens-699873.html
Eco Friendly Shower Heads Provide Both Health and Cosmetic Benefits
Eco Friendly Shower Heads Provide Both Health and Cosmetic BenefitsBy Terry Johnston
The booming business in both bottle water and filtration systems for home tap water reveals the general public is aware that tap water is not 100% healthy to drink.
What many people don't realize, however, is that showering in tap water can be worse for your health then drinking the water.
When water is turned into a spray some toxic chemicals aerosolize and are more easily absorbed by the skin and enter the human body as we breath in the water vapor.
Once folks become aware of this, they tend to purchase and install eco friendly shower heads that filter out dangerous chemicals from their shower water.
Why Do I Need Eco Friendly Shower Heads?
There are two main reasons: cosmetic and medical. Both reasons are related to chlorine.
Anyone who has gone swimming in a chlorinated swimming pool (and all public pools are chlorinated) may have noticed that pool water tends to suck the moisture out of your skins and hair. This is due to all the chlorine added to the swimming pool water.
What a lot of people don't realize, however, is that there is just as much chlorine in tap water-sometimes even more-as there is in pool water. Chlorine is added to our drinking water in the water treatment plants for the same reasons it is added to swimming pools: as a disinfectant.
Chlorine effectively kills any germs or bacteria in the water, and prevents new bacteria from forming. In this respect, public water treatment technology has not really advanced much from the Victorian Era-they just strain out visible particles and add bleach.
Using eco friendly shower heads that filter chlorine out of your bathing water results in softer skin and healthier hair. Many people who install such shower heads can feel the difference in about a week-and some say they notice a difference after only a day.
The second reason you need eco friendly shower heads is medical. You may remember as a child your parents warning you not to drink swimming pool water, knowing the pool attendants added chemicals to it.
Had they only known there were just as many chemicals in drinking water, they may have been more concerned about the water in their homes.
We know that people can absorb chemicals through their skin-the nicotine patch is a great example. During a warm shower, the pores of your skin open up, increasing the skin absorption of chemicals in shower water, including chlorine and various other dangerous synthetic chemicals.
Moreover, during a hot shower, you tend to inhale quite a bit of water vapor, or steam. Unfortunately, chlorine and other volatile chemicals vaporize at a lower temperature and faster rate than water does. Consequently, chlorine and other chemicals tend to concentrate in the water vapor in your shower, where you inhale them.
In fact, your body takes in more chemicals through inhalation during a ten-minute shower than it would by drinking a gallon of the same water. Worse, when these chemicals are inhaled, they enter directly into your blood stream. When you drink tap water, on the other hand, you liver and kidneys filter out at least some of the harmful chemicals.
Inhaling chlorine and other harmful vaporized chemicals in tap water irritates the lung tissue, leading to asthma and bronchitis. The various chemicals found in tap water, including trace amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, weed killers, and prescription pharmaceuticals, have been linked to various types of cancer, including breast cancer.
The easiest and simplest way to prevent to harmful effects of bathing in tap water is to install eco friendly shower heads. These shower heads contain a double filter that removes chlorine and other harmful synthetics chemicals from the shower water.
Although you might not find these shower heads in your local department store, a quick search of the internet should provide you with many options to choose from.
Terry Johnston -- the baby boomer who researches the market for great products that will help other baby boomers maintain their health and wellness.
For more information about fresh clean water. Click here ==> http://www.healthy-clear-water-site.com/
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Terry_Johnston
http://EzineArticles.com/?Are-You-Using-Eco-Friendly-Shower-Heads?-They-Provide-Both-Health-and-Cosmetic-Benefits&id=2519327
Make a Rain Storage System for Less than $11
Make a Rain Bucket in 3 Easy Steps ByRain buckets or rain-barrels are becoming more popular as the threat of global warming and droughts hit the headlines. They have been around for centuries as man has always tried to capture water from the sky for his crops.
Rain harvesting is something that every person should be doing as they begin their backyard gardens. During the Spring, rain is plentiful and not many people think about the impending summer months where rainfall becomes more scarce.
Rain harvesting is something that every person should be doing as they begin their backyard gardens. During the Spring, rain is plentiful and not many people think about the impending summer months where rainfall becomes more scarce.
Making a simple rain bucket is easy to do, inexpensive and can be accomplished in less than an hour. The 3 fundamental areas of a rain harvesting system are: Collection, Storage and Distribution. Rain buckets will provide the water storage until it is distributed to your crops. There are many rain barrel designs that you can choose from to fit your needs. Some people will spend a hundred dollars for one from their local hardware store, others will make their own with a few simple tools and a basic level of carpentry skills.
Finding a suitable rain bucket is fairly easy to do. Many community organizations sponsor free rain barrel programs or will provide at minimum costs. You can also find sources of low cost rain barrels through the popular Craigslist or food manufacturers or bottling companies. Some will provide for free or a nominal cost. The type discussed in this article was a vinyl trash can from the local department store.
Tools and Materials:
1 - 32 Gallon Vinyl Trash can with Lid
1 - 1" PVC Male Hose Adapter
Drill with 1" Spade Bit
White Caulking
Plumbers tape
Step 1. Finding a suitable location for your rain bucket is fairly simple. Most will rest underneath one or more of the downspouts coming from your roof. Since the roof has the largest surface area, it is common practice to place your rain bucket near the house or shed where the downspouts channel the water from the house. Once you have found a preferred location, measure and cut the downspout above or near the top end of the rain bucket. Typically, this is done by cutting off part of the down spout so that the end sits a bit higher than the bucket itself. Cut a hole in the shape of the downspout near the top end of the rain bucket. You must also cut and overflow hole about the same height on the other side. This will allow excess water to escape when the barrel is full.
Step 2. Next, drill a 1" hole about 3-4 inches from the bottom of the rain barrel. Using some common plumbers tape, wrap the threads of the adapter to keep water from leaking through the hole. Screw adapter from the inside so the threads are exposed to the outside of the Rain.
Step 3. Putting the pieces together. Insert the downspout pipe from the roof into the rain bucket and attach the overflow to the other side. Attach a garden hose to the bottom adapter and caulk around the gaps to ensure the unit is sealed. This is important as mosquitoes would love to nest in your rain barrel. Once everything is connected, fill with water and test. The pressure from the amount of water contained inside the rain bucket will allow you to water your plants without much difficulty.
In summary, you can make a Rain Bucket for the cost of a vinyl trashcan, a hose adapter and some caulk. It is an easy way to begin conserving water to provide your garden with water when rainfall has become less available in the summer months. Since the water had been collected and stored from the previous rainstorms, you will not have to worry about the bill.
See Step by Step Pictures of my $10.32 Rain Bucket It provides water to my bucket garden during when rain is scarce. Rain harvesting should be part of your gardening strategy.
See more ways to make life easier at GravityGarden.com
See more ways to make life easier at GravityGarden.com
GravityGarden.com
Follow me on Twitter - gravitygardener
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Robert_Owens http://EzineArticles.com/?Make-a-Rain-Bucket-in-3-Easy-Steps&id=2441701
Follow me on Twitter - gravitygardener
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Robert_Owens http://EzineArticles.com/?Make-a-Rain-Bucket-in-3-Easy-Steps&id=2441701
The Eco-Cult Controversy - Global Warming Fantasies and the Eco-Cult of True Believers!
I found this article which pretty much attacks the green movement and calls it the eco-left and green believers as eco-fascists and living in an eco-fantasy. Read it and tell me what you think. I do believe in giving both sides the opportunity to present their arguments and this one is a pretty well thought out and well organized argument. I do not agree with it but that does not mean I should not present it here and let you decide.Global warming fantasies and the eco-cult of true believers!
by Stew Mayers
Hot off the UN presses – we will all die from a natural gas called Co2! Global Warming fantasies that the earth is becoming one giant microwave heated up by man’s pernicious and insatiable industrial development is of course ridiculous. The only consensus that exists on climate change is that if you believe anything the UN or Al Gore says, you are probably a moron and should exile yourself to the nearest forest to tree hugging duty. Al Gore and the UN on almost any topic, have the credibility level of Hugo Chavez when he opines on his socialist-democracy experiment.
Climate cycles are natural; they are complex with 1 million or so variables making up the climate and they exist independent of human activity. Even if you wiped out mankind you would only erase 4 % of the CO2 that makes up the supposedly scary ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions that will fry us all! Most of the so-called greenhouse gases are water vapor and are part of the earth’s naturally occurring cycle of heat transmission, conductivity and then cooling.
Asking Al Gore and the UN to model climate patterns is about as intelligent as asking a pre-schooler to build a car.
That utter gibberish such as man-made climate change is even called news says a lot about the mentality of our socialist-liberal culture. It gets really tiring trying to talk sense to eco-fascist pagans that are blinded by hate for modernity; can’t stand the thought of market based economics; and faint at the mention of the words ‘freedom’; ‘individuality’; ‘technological progress’; and tear out their hair if you tell them that our environment in all areas excepting the oceans, is in better shape and cleaner than at any time in history. The eco-fascists and Al Gore-lovers want nothing more than to manage the world; micro-manage society; destroy the modern industrial and technological processes that ensure a cleaner environment; and increase tax, regulation and bureaucratic hiring. None of these options is intelligent or necessary.
So after receiving some rather angry letters from the eco-left I decided to post a quick index of information on why the Globaloney Warming scam is malicious; ignorant and dangerous.
Hot off the UN presses – we will all die from a natural gas called Co2! Global Warming fantasies that the earth is becoming one giant microwave heated up by man’s pernicious and insatiable industrial development is of course ridiculous. The only consensus that exists on climate change is that if you believe anything the UN or Al Gore says, you are probably a moron and should exile yourself to the nearest forest to tree hugging duty. Al Gore and the UN on almost any topic, have the credibility level of Hugo Chavez when he opines on his socialist-democracy experiment.
Climate cycles are natural; they are complex with 1 million or so variables making up the climate and they exist independent of human activity. Even if you wiped out mankind you would only erase 4 % of the CO2 that makes up the supposedly scary ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions that will fry us all! Most of the so-called greenhouse gases are water vapor and are part of the earth’s naturally occurring cycle of heat transmission, conductivity and then cooling.
Asking Al Gore and the UN to model climate patterns is about as intelligent as asking a pre-schooler to build a car.
That utter gibberish such as man-made climate change is even called news says a lot about the mentality of our socialist-liberal culture. It gets really tiring trying to talk sense to eco-fascist pagans that are blinded by hate for modernity; can’t stand the thought of market based economics; and faint at the mention of the words ‘freedom’; ‘individuality’; ‘technological progress’; and tear out their hair if you tell them that our environment in all areas excepting the oceans, is in better shape and cleaner than at any time in history. The eco-fascists and Al Gore-lovers want nothing more than to manage the world; micro-manage society; destroy the modern industrial and technological processes that ensure a cleaner environment; and increase tax, regulation and bureaucratic hiring. None of these options is intelligent or necessary.
So after receiving some rather angry letters from the eco-left I decided to post a quick index of information on why the Globaloney Warming scam is malicious; ignorant and dangerous.
Destroying our modern world so politicians can engage in children’s exercises of ‘trading emissions credits’; transfer billions of dollars hither and yon; and create a massive socialist state complex that will impose itself on civilization is sheer insanity. Pagan cults are utopias. Islam, Hitlersim, Stalinism, Marxism in its various disgusting varieties, and now the eco-fascist cult, are at their core very similiar. In essence they demand mindless obedience, anti-Western orthodoxies, hatred of freedom and the market, and a commitment to lie, distort, pervert reality and facts. They are also primitive, violent and arrogant.
It would be better to put the little eco-fascists in their own sandbox with some plastic toys and let them play there; instead of allowing them to play with the modern world.
What follows is a quick index of sources countering the eco-fascist claim of man-made global warming. It only offends the eco-blind; the eco-deranged and the eco-fanatics who want to destroy civilization and create a pre-modern utopia.
=========
Bad Climate Science Yields Worse Economics, by Peter Malloy, October 26, 2006 in Friends of Science magazine.
A critical commentary on the "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change"
Climate modelers pile guess upon guess to arrive at an answer that is rendered invalid by the historical temperature record. Recent research shows:
(1) Cosmic rays impact global climate.
(2) Carbon dioxide has limited physical capability to impact global temperature.
(3) Greenhouse myths are propogated by climate alarmists.
The Climate Change Debate, Professor S. Fred Singer
Stern Critque: The Climate Change Debate is far from Over, World Economics, Vol. 7, No. 3, July-September 2006
Dr. Singer poses three fundamental questions, then answers them:
(1) Is there evidence for or against an appreciable human contribution to climate warming?
There is a lot of evidence for past variation in climate with no human contribution at all. There is some evidence that human contributions may have a minor effect on climate warming. There is no overwhelming evidence of an appreciable contribution to global warming.
(2) Would a warmer climate be better or worse than the present one?
We know from voluminous records that the human condition was better in 1100 AD during the Medieval Warm Period than during the following Little Ice Age. We know that things are better now than during the 1970 recent cold period. We also know that the reason for improvement since 1970 was due to technological advances, not a warmer climate, and that is exactly the point: Technological advances and the mobilization of capital far outweigh any climate factor one can think of in promoting prosperity.
Most agree that a colder climate would damage the economy. Would that be true for a slightly warmer climate? Is our current climate the optimum, and would any change to either warmer or colder be damaging?
(3) Realistically speaking, can we really do something about climate? Is it possible to influence the climate by policy actions in an effective way?
The Kyoto Protocol fully realized yields a calculated reduction of one-twentieth of a degree. At what cost? Further, would the enormous costs required to reduce emissions by the 60 to 80 percent required to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide be worth the effort, particularly if the result of warming was beneficial?
Global Warming or Global Cooling? An excerpt, from The Times of India:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms
Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.
A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!
In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.
Bob Carter: British report the last hurrah of warmaholics in The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20690289-7583,00.html
The Stern warning could join Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth in the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded.
An accomplished cost-benefit analysis of climate change would require two things: a clear, quantitative understanding of the natural climate system and a dispassionate, accurate consideration of all the costs and benefits of warming as well as cooling.
Unfortunately, the Stern review is not a cost-benefit but a risk analysis, and of warming only.
Falsehoods in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html
Errors include:
* Misleading links between weather events and climate change
Climate is the average of weather conditions over long time periods; because the climate system is inherently variable, individual weather events are not indicative of trends. Nonetheless, Gore overwhelms the reader with many individual events, claiming this is global warming in action.
* Misrepresentation of data
Gore presents one graph, said to be temperature data derived from ice cores, to support the controversial claim of one research group--Mann et al.--that current temperatures are higher than anytime in the last 1,000 years. The graph is not the ice core data, however, but the Mann et al. data derived from tree rings and other proxies.
* Exaggerations about sea level rise
Gore claims that potential melting of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctic will force the "evacuation" of millions of people to escape sea level rise of 6 meters (20 feet). This flatly contradicts even the worst-case scenarios described by the scientific community.
* Misleading claims about effects of climate change
Gore claims that the emergence of new diseases is related to global warming, but most of the diseases he lists have little or no relationship to climate.
* Reliance on worst-case scenarios
Much of the claims about the consequences of future global warming rely on climate models that Gore calls "evermore accurate", but significant questions about the reliability of these models remain, and the effects cited by Gore presume that the worse-case predictions of these models are the correct ones.
* False claims about scientific views on global warming
Despite the abundance of scientific research contradicting his position, Gore instead concentrates on refuting a handful of skeptical claims from outside the scientific community--and can't even get the facts right on those.
* Misleading claims about the responsibility of the United States
(Gore) criticizes the U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without acknowledging the ways in which the Protocol disproportionately targeted the U.S. economy. Or that the Senate unanimously rejected Kyoto during the Clinton/Gore Administration.
* Conceptual errors
Gore's explanation of several topics, including the greenhouse effect, the relationship of carbon dioxide and global temperature, decline in Arctic Ocean pack ice, structure of the Greenland ice sheet, and ozone depletion, contain conceptual errors.
Al Gore's "science" is pretty sloppy, but of course, Al is not a scientist.
It shows.
Gorey Truths: 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore, by Iain Murray
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=
Murray lists 25 areas in which Gore is dead wrong. He could have listed 2500 but I guess he had better things to do then to educate another dumb politician.
Changes in Sea Level
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm
Projected sea level changes from 1990 to 2100: Including thawing of permafrost, deposition of sediment, and the ongoing contributions from ice sheets as a result of climate change since the Last Glacial Maximum, we obtain a range of global-average sea level rise from 0.11 to 0.77 m. This range reflects systematic uncertainties in modelling.
Will Sea Levels Rise 20 Feet As Gore Predicts?
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Will-Sea-Levels-Rise
"(T)he world’s warming in the past 150 years has produced a change in Antarctica. The huge East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains nearly 90 percent of the world’s ice, has been thickening. European satellites measured the ice sheet’s thickness 347 million times between 1992 and 2003, and found it is gaining about 45 billion tons of water per year because the planet has warmed enough for snow to fall at the coldest place on earth.
"Thickening ice in the Antarctic, in fact, is just about offsetting the meltwater being released from the edges of the Greenland ice sheet—which has also been thickening in its center. This leaves us with a global warming sea level gain of about 1.8 millimeters per year—or 4 inches per century. The rise has remained constant during the 20th century despite the moderate 0.6 degree C warming of the planet."
The Real 'Inconvenient Truth', by Junkscience.com
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
An excerpt:
"There seem to be a few things that your informant forgot to tell you -- like carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web. Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population. … CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into "natural" wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity. If it's "pollution," then it's pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit. Doesn't sound too bad to us.
Greenlanders Like Global Warming
http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/forums/travel-to-greenland-vt13.html
Original article in the Wall Street Journal
An Excerpt:
For Greenlanders, adapting to the effects of climate change is nothing new. Oxygen isotope samples taken from Greenland's ice core reveal that temperatures around 1100, during the height of the Norse farming colonies, were similar to those prevailing today. The higher temperatures were part of a warming trend that lasted until the 14th century.
Near the end of the 14th century, the Norse vanished from Greenland. While researchers don't know for sure, many believe an increasingly cold climate made eking out a living here all but impossible as grasses and trees declined. Farming faded away from the 17th century to the 19th century, a period known as the Little Ice Age. Farming didn't return to Greenland in force until the early 1900s, when Inuit farmers began re-learning Norse techniques and applying them to modern conditions. A sharp cooling trend from around 1950 to 1975 stalled the agricultural expansion.
Behavior of the Greenland Ice Sheet
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N2/EDIT.jsp
From the point of view of Global Warming True Believers, Greenland has been behaving rather badly. An excerpt:
... Greenland's thermal history has been incredibly volatile over the past century, with its mean near-surface air temperature rising between 2 and 4°C in less than ten years during the Great Greenland Warming of the 1920s (Chylek et al., 2004), which occurred over a period when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by a grand total of only 3 or 4 ppm. And when Greenland temperatures began to fall in the 1940s, the air's CO2 content significantly accelerated its upward climb [my emphasis]. In addition, the most recent warming on Greenland - which climate alarmists describe as being unprecedented and driven by an even more unprecedented increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration - has resulted in coastal temperatures that Chylek et al. report are still "about 1°C below their 1940 values," which peak temperatures prevailed when the air's CO2 content was far less than it is today.
Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climatic Change, by James S. Aber
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm
Some excerpts that illuminate Global Warming that occurred over 1,000 years ago, and that caused higher temperatures and as great or greater glacier and ice retreat than has occurred to date or is credibly forecasted.
* 800-1000s: Aletsch and Grindelwald glaciers (Switzerland) were much smaller than today.
* 874: Settlement of Iceland began; Viking immigration from Norway, England, Ireland, Faeroes, etc. Glaciers of Iceland much smaller than today.
* 880-1140: Radiocarbon dates on trees that grew in Canada far north of modern timberline.
* 1000-1200: Rapid population growth in Estonia based on cereal grains--barley, rye, wheat. Northernmost region for crop tillage as the primary means of subsistence. Population by early 13th century at least 150,000 people (Tannberg et al. 2000).
* 1020-1200: Minimal sea-ice cover around Iceland.
The Medieval Warm Period was followed by a period of glaciation that engulfed settled areas throughout Europe, Iceland, and Greenland.
Glacier retreat started again at the end of the Little Ice Age.
* 1855: Signs of moderate retreats by Chamonix glaciers.
* 1860-80s: Evidence of pronounced glacier withdrawal all over continental Europe; many Alpine glaciers retreated >1 km by beginning of this century. Icelandic glaciers remained in advanced positions, however.
* early 1900s: Rapid retreat by glaciers on Mt. Kenya, Africa.
* 1920: Marked decrease in sea ice in coastal waters of Iceland.
* 1920-30s: Glaciers declined rapidly everywhere, except Antarctica; end of Little Ice Ages.
=====
These are a few of the many examples of global warming and cooling during the past 1200 years that were not caused or even influenced by the activities of man.
But please don’t alarm the eco-fascists and the wailing Marxists by trying to have a rational discourse and point out some obvious flaws in the man-made global warming theory.
Just strut and march along with the others, arm outstretched in the fuehrer salute eyes fixed upon Al Gore and the UN…….clutching your little eco-fantasy bible in your other hand.
After working for a few large IT firms Read born in 1966, is currently an entrepreneur and Venture Capital Advisor and Managing Consultant for Wireless and Mobile technologies [including the internet] and in particular, in software applications for the Wireless or Mobile Industry.
http://www.craigread.com/
RESOURCE:
http://www.craigread.com/displayArticle.aspx?contentID=504&subgroupID=14
Article Source: Sustainable Living Articles
It would be better to put the little eco-fascists in their own sandbox with some plastic toys and let them play there; instead of allowing them to play with the modern world.
What follows is a quick index of sources countering the eco-fascist claim of man-made global warming. It only offends the eco-blind; the eco-deranged and the eco-fanatics who want to destroy civilization and create a pre-modern utopia.
=========
Bad Climate Science Yields Worse Economics, by Peter Malloy, October 26, 2006 in Friends of Science magazine.
A critical commentary on the "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change"
Climate modelers pile guess upon guess to arrive at an answer that is rendered invalid by the historical temperature record. Recent research shows:
(1) Cosmic rays impact global climate.
(2) Carbon dioxide has limited physical capability to impact global temperature.
(3) Greenhouse myths are propogated by climate alarmists.
The Climate Change Debate, Professor S. Fred Singer
Stern Critque: The Climate Change Debate is far from Over, World Economics, Vol. 7, No. 3, July-September 2006
Dr. Singer poses three fundamental questions, then answers them:
(1) Is there evidence for or against an appreciable human contribution to climate warming?
There is a lot of evidence for past variation in climate with no human contribution at all. There is some evidence that human contributions may have a minor effect on climate warming. There is no overwhelming evidence of an appreciable contribution to global warming.
(2) Would a warmer climate be better or worse than the present one?
We know from voluminous records that the human condition was better in 1100 AD during the Medieval Warm Period than during the following Little Ice Age. We know that things are better now than during the 1970 recent cold period. We also know that the reason for improvement since 1970 was due to technological advances, not a warmer climate, and that is exactly the point: Technological advances and the mobilization of capital far outweigh any climate factor one can think of in promoting prosperity.
Most agree that a colder climate would damage the economy. Would that be true for a slightly warmer climate? Is our current climate the optimum, and would any change to either warmer or colder be damaging?
(3) Realistically speaking, can we really do something about climate? Is it possible to influence the climate by policy actions in an effective way?
The Kyoto Protocol fully realized yields a calculated reduction of one-twentieth of a degree. At what cost? Further, would the enormous costs required to reduce emissions by the 60 to 80 percent required to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide be worth the effort, particularly if the result of warming was beneficial?
Global Warming or Global Cooling? An excerpt, from The Times of India:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms
Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.
A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!
In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.
Bob Carter: British report the last hurrah of warmaholics in The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20690289-7583,00.html
The Stern warning could join Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth in the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded.
An accomplished cost-benefit analysis of climate change would require two things: a clear, quantitative understanding of the natural climate system and a dispassionate, accurate consideration of all the costs and benefits of warming as well as cooling.
Unfortunately, the Stern review is not a cost-benefit but a risk analysis, and of warming only.
Falsehoods in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html
Errors include:
* Misleading links between weather events and climate change
Climate is the average of weather conditions over long time periods; because the climate system is inherently variable, individual weather events are not indicative of trends. Nonetheless, Gore overwhelms the reader with many individual events, claiming this is global warming in action.
* Misrepresentation of data
Gore presents one graph, said to be temperature data derived from ice cores, to support the controversial claim of one research group--Mann et al.--that current temperatures are higher than anytime in the last 1,000 years. The graph is not the ice core data, however, but the Mann et al. data derived from tree rings and other proxies.
* Exaggerations about sea level rise
Gore claims that potential melting of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctic will force the "evacuation" of millions of people to escape sea level rise of 6 meters (20 feet). This flatly contradicts even the worst-case scenarios described by the scientific community.
* Misleading claims about effects of climate change
Gore claims that the emergence of new diseases is related to global warming, but most of the diseases he lists have little or no relationship to climate.
* Reliance on worst-case scenarios
Much of the claims about the consequences of future global warming rely on climate models that Gore calls "evermore accurate", but significant questions about the reliability of these models remain, and the effects cited by Gore presume that the worse-case predictions of these models are the correct ones.
* False claims about scientific views on global warming
Despite the abundance of scientific research contradicting his position, Gore instead concentrates on refuting a handful of skeptical claims from outside the scientific community--and can't even get the facts right on those.
* Misleading claims about the responsibility of the United States
(Gore) criticizes the U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without acknowledging the ways in which the Protocol disproportionately targeted the U.S. economy. Or that the Senate unanimously rejected Kyoto during the Clinton/Gore Administration.
* Conceptual errors
Gore's explanation of several topics, including the greenhouse effect, the relationship of carbon dioxide and global temperature, decline in Arctic Ocean pack ice, structure of the Greenland ice sheet, and ozone depletion, contain conceptual errors.
Al Gore's "science" is pretty sloppy, but of course, Al is not a scientist.
It shows.
Gorey Truths: 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore, by Iain Murray
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=
Murray lists 25 areas in which Gore is dead wrong. He could have listed 2500 but I guess he had better things to do then to educate another dumb politician.
Changes in Sea Level
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm
Projected sea level changes from 1990 to 2100: Including thawing of permafrost, deposition of sediment, and the ongoing contributions from ice sheets as a result of climate change since the Last Glacial Maximum, we obtain a range of global-average sea level rise from 0.11 to 0.77 m. This range reflects systematic uncertainties in modelling.
Will Sea Levels Rise 20 Feet As Gore Predicts?
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/Will-Sea-Levels-Rise
"(T)he world’s warming in the past 150 years has produced a change in Antarctica. The huge East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains nearly 90 percent of the world’s ice, has been thickening. European satellites measured the ice sheet’s thickness 347 million times between 1992 and 2003, and found it is gaining about 45 billion tons of water per year because the planet has warmed enough for snow to fall at the coldest place on earth.
"Thickening ice in the Antarctic, in fact, is just about offsetting the meltwater being released from the edges of the Greenland ice sheet—which has also been thickening in its center. This leaves us with a global warming sea level gain of about 1.8 millimeters per year—or 4 inches per century. The rise has remained constant during the 20th century despite the moderate 0.6 degree C warming of the planet."
The Real 'Inconvenient Truth', by Junkscience.com
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
An excerpt:
"There seem to be a few things that your informant forgot to tell you -- like carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web. Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population. … CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into "natural" wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity. If it's "pollution," then it's pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit. Doesn't sound too bad to us.
Greenlanders Like Global Warming
http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/forums/travel-to-greenland-vt13.html
Original article in the Wall Street Journal
An Excerpt:
For Greenlanders, adapting to the effects of climate change is nothing new. Oxygen isotope samples taken from Greenland's ice core reveal that temperatures around 1100, during the height of the Norse farming colonies, were similar to those prevailing today. The higher temperatures were part of a warming trend that lasted until the 14th century.
Near the end of the 14th century, the Norse vanished from Greenland. While researchers don't know for sure, many believe an increasingly cold climate made eking out a living here all but impossible as grasses and trees declined. Farming faded away from the 17th century to the 19th century, a period known as the Little Ice Age. Farming didn't return to Greenland in force until the early 1900s, when Inuit farmers began re-learning Norse techniques and applying them to modern conditions. A sharp cooling trend from around 1950 to 1975 stalled the agricultural expansion.
Behavior of the Greenland Ice Sheet
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N2/EDIT.jsp
From the point of view of Global Warming True Believers, Greenland has been behaving rather badly. An excerpt:
... Greenland's thermal history has been incredibly volatile over the past century, with its mean near-surface air temperature rising between 2 and 4°C in less than ten years during the Great Greenland Warming of the 1920s (Chylek et al., 2004), which occurred over a period when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by a grand total of only 3 or 4 ppm. And when Greenland temperatures began to fall in the 1940s, the air's CO2 content significantly accelerated its upward climb [my emphasis]. In addition, the most recent warming on Greenland - which climate alarmists describe as being unprecedented and driven by an even more unprecedented increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration - has resulted in coastal temperatures that Chylek et al. report are still "about 1°C below their 1940 values," which peak temperatures prevailed when the air's CO2 content was far less than it is today.
Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climatic Change, by James S. Aber
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm
Some excerpts that illuminate Global Warming that occurred over 1,000 years ago, and that caused higher temperatures and as great or greater glacier and ice retreat than has occurred to date or is credibly forecasted.
* 800-1000s: Aletsch and Grindelwald glaciers (Switzerland) were much smaller than today.
* 874: Settlement of Iceland began; Viking immigration from Norway, England, Ireland, Faeroes, etc. Glaciers of Iceland much smaller than today.
* 880-1140: Radiocarbon dates on trees that grew in Canada far north of modern timberline.
* 1000-1200: Rapid population growth in Estonia based on cereal grains--barley, rye, wheat. Northernmost region for crop tillage as the primary means of subsistence. Population by early 13th century at least 150,000 people (Tannberg et al. 2000).
* 1020-1200: Minimal sea-ice cover around Iceland.
The Medieval Warm Period was followed by a period of glaciation that engulfed settled areas throughout Europe, Iceland, and Greenland.
Glacier retreat started again at the end of the Little Ice Age.
* 1855: Signs of moderate retreats by Chamonix glaciers.
* 1860-80s: Evidence of pronounced glacier withdrawal all over continental Europe; many Alpine glaciers retreated >1 km by beginning of this century. Icelandic glaciers remained in advanced positions, however.
* early 1900s: Rapid retreat by glaciers on Mt. Kenya, Africa.
* 1920: Marked decrease in sea ice in coastal waters of Iceland.
* 1920-30s: Glaciers declined rapidly everywhere, except Antarctica; end of Little Ice Ages.
=====
These are a few of the many examples of global warming and cooling during the past 1200 years that were not caused or even influenced by the activities of man.
But please don’t alarm the eco-fascists and the wailing Marxists by trying to have a rational discourse and point out some obvious flaws in the man-made global warming theory.
Just strut and march along with the others, arm outstretched in the fuehrer salute eyes fixed upon Al Gore and the UN…….clutching your little eco-fantasy bible in your other hand.
After working for a few large IT firms Read born in 1966, is currently an entrepreneur and Venture Capital Advisor and Managing Consultant for Wireless and Mobile technologies [including the internet] and in particular, in software applications for the Wireless or Mobile Industry.
http://www.craigread.com/
RESOURCE:
http://www.craigread.com/displayArticle.aspx?contentID=504&subgroupID=14
Article Source: Sustainable Living Articles
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Is Your Shampoo Poisoning the Environment?
I used to be a hair products sort of guy back in the day. Expensive shampoos, conditioners, gel, mousse everything. After all, having longish tipped and streaked hair at the time (and ok, I admit it - a mullet of sorts; with an additional rat-tail thrown in for good measure), one had to look after it with these products - or so I believed.Fast forward to this decade and I didn't need artificial streaking any more as my hair was going "ash blonde".. umm.. grey without it. Somehow it's not quite the same, but anyhow :). And yes, I lost the mullet and rat-tail too.So, all I was left with was shampoo. Good for me, I was doing my bit for the environment and saving cash to boot. But I took a close look at my bottle of shampoo one day and my hair stood on end before I even washed it. The front label stated "Vitamin E Moisture Rich Shampoo - Professional performance formula", but what I read on the back made me wonder about the volume of potential poisons I've been washing into the environment over the last 3 decades plus, simply through washing my hair.
Having a blackwater system at the time for recycling our household waste water also made me a little more conscious about this kind of thing. If we had put chemicals down our drains that upset the good bacteria, they couldn't do their job properly in chewing up all the nasties. Throw it out of balance, and restoring the balance can take a long while.
Here were the ingredients of my shampoo and what I discovered about them:
Sodium Laureth Sulfate - used in clinical testing as a primary skin irritant. Tests on lab animals indicate material may cause mutagenic effects.
Cocamidopropyl Betaine - potential irritant and potentially contaminated with or breaking down into chemicals linked to cancer,
Ammonium Chloride - Harmful if swallowed. May be harmful by inhalation. Skin, eye and respiratory irritant
Tocopheryl Acetate - Vitamin E
Camellia Sensis Leaf Extract - OK depending on extraction process
Fennel - OK depending on extraction process
Fruit Extract - Hrm.. depending on extraction process
Epilobium Angustifolium Extract - OK depending on extraction process
Sunflower Extract - OK depending on extraction process
Hazel leaf Extract - OK depending on extraction process
Sweet Almond fruit extract - OK depending on extraction process
Panthenol - Vitamin B5
Cocodimonium Hydroxypropyl Hydrolized wheat protein - not sure
Quaternium-22 - May contain harmful impurities or form toxic breakdown products
Butylene Glycol - not assessed for safety by Cosmetics Ingredient Review board
Propylene Glycol - allows other chemicals to penetrate into the skin, suspected Respiratory, Skin or sense organ, Immunotoxicity and Neurotoxicity hazards
Polyquaternium-10 - a mildly irritating toxic polymer
Sodium Chloride - common salt
Tetrasodium EDTA - allows other chemicals to penetrate into the skin
Citric Acid - OK depending on extraction processHexylene Glycol - neurotoxin, sensitizer and irritant
Triethanolomine - may contain residual levels of nitrosamines, a carcinogen
Methylchloroisothiazolinone -immune system toxin, lung sensitizer,
Geraniol - not assessed for safety by Cosmetics Ingredient Review board
Butylphenyl Methylpropional - not assessed for safety by Cosmetics Ingredient Review board
Linalool - not assessed for safety by Cosmetics Ingredient Review board
Hexyl Cinnamal - not assessed for safety by Cosmetics Ingredient Review board
Limonene - a hydrocarbon that poses potential risks to wildlife and the environment through water contamination. Carcinogen to some animals
Fragrance (I hate to think)
Cocamidopropyl Betaine - potential irritant and potentially contaminated with or breaking down into chemicals linked to cancer,
Ammonium Chloride - Harmful if swallowed. May be harmful by inhalation. Skin, eye and respiratory irritant
Tocopheryl Acetate - Vitamin E
Camellia Sensis Leaf Extract - OK depending on extraction process
Fennel - OK depending on extraction process
Fruit Extract - Hrm.. depending on extraction process
Epilobium Angustifolium Extract - OK depending on extraction process
Sunflower Extract - OK depending on extraction process
Hazel leaf Extract - OK depending on extraction process
Sweet Almond fruit extract - OK depending on extraction process
Panthenol - Vitamin B5
Cocodimonium Hydroxypropyl Hydrolized wheat protein - not sure
Quaternium-22 - May contain harmful impurities or form toxic breakdown products
Butylene Glycol - not assessed for safety by Cosmetics Ingredient Review board
Propylene Glycol - allows other chemicals to penetrate into the skin, suspected Respiratory, Skin or sense organ, Immunotoxicity and Neurotoxicity hazards
Polyquaternium-10 - a mildly irritating toxic polymer
Sodium Chloride - common salt
Tetrasodium EDTA - allows other chemicals to penetrate into the skin
Citric Acid - OK depending on extraction processHexylene Glycol - neurotoxin, sensitizer and irritant
Triethanolomine - may contain residual levels of nitrosamines, a carcinogen
Methylchloroisothiazolinone -immune system toxin, lung sensitizer,
Geraniol - not assessed for safety by Cosmetics Ingredient Review board
Butylphenyl Methylpropional - not assessed for safety by Cosmetics Ingredient Review board
Linalool - not assessed for safety by Cosmetics Ingredient Review board
Hexyl Cinnamal - not assessed for safety by Cosmetics Ingredient Review board
Limonene - a hydrocarbon that poses potential risks to wildlife and the environment through water contamination. Carcinogen to some animals
Fragrance (I hate to think)
OK, so before I start sounding overly paranoid, I'm well aware that everything is made up of chemicals - even natural ingredients; and "natural" doesn't necessarily mean non-toxic. 2 potentially nasty chemicals can also combine to make something quite safe and useful - e.g.; sodium + chloride = salt. The type and level of chemical hazard does also greatly depend on quantity and manufacturing - but the point is, they are being manufactured; in bulk - and that in itself requires huge energy inputs and poses risks for the environment. Nature may produce similar chemicals, but it's a natural process in harmony with the planet and environment.
And here's a real kicker - like so many other products in our modern lives, many chemicals used in shampoos have their origins as derivatives of crude oil.So, did I really need the above chemical shampoo cocktail to wash my hair? No. After all that, I made a switch to vegetable based bar soap and more recently to a simple liquid castile soap. I can't comment on "body and bounce" as my hair is short these days, but I haven't lost any hair and it feels soft and looks clean. The wonderful thing about liquid castile soap is that it has far more uses than just a hair and body wash!
What does your shampoo bottle say? Could you be unwittingly poisoning yourself and the environment? Research the ingredients listed on your shampoo bottle.
Author
Michael Bloch
Michael Bloch
Green Living Tips is an online resource powered by renewable energy offering a wide variety of earth friendly tips, green guides, advice and environment related news to help consumers and business reduce costs, consumption and environmental impact .
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
What Companies are the Worst Greenwashers?
According to Shireen Dean of the Valley Advocate, there are 10 companies who are the worst offenders of making claims to be green when they are not close. She says that greenwashing is what corporations do when they try to make themselves look more environmentally friendly than they really are.Every year for the past decade, the watchdog group Earth Day Resources for Living Green has released a report called "Don't Be Fooled." The report calls attention to the year's 10 worst greenwashers, the 10 companies that have made the most misleading claims about the environmental benefits of their products and industries. This year, http://www.ecopledge.com/, a coalition of environmental organizations that uses boycotts to put pressure on environment-abusing companies, has joined Earth Day Resources in putting out the report (available online at http://www.earthdayresources.org/.)
Here are the 10 companies according to the report who are the worst greenwashers:
1. Kraft's Post Selects Cereals, for falsely promoting its cereals as having "natural ingredients" when, in fact, the corn used in the cereal is genetically engineered -- made in a lab, not by nature.
2. The Council for Biotechnology Information, for promoting genetically engineered foods and even preaching to children -- through books aimed at kids -- about the benefits of biotechnology without disclosing any of the risks to human health or the environment.
3. Tyson Chicken, for promoting its products as "all natural," even though the company treats its chickens with antibiotics.
4. The Audubon Nature Institute -- not to be confused with the National Audubon Society -- for falsely claiming to support the protection of natural habitats as a way to preserve animal species, while also belonging to the National Wetlands Coalition, which lobbies to weaken the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. The National Wetlands Coalition is made up of such corporate giants as the American Mining Congress, Chevron, Exxon and the National Association of Homebuilders.
5. Comanche Trace, a commercial developer, for false advertising. Comanche Trace bills its golf courses as "great habitats," even though golf courses deplete natural habitats and use pesticides that poison groundwater.
6. Clairol, for false advertising. The company claims to offer a "truly organic experience" with its Herbal Essences line of shampoos but, according to the report, uses chemicals such as sodium lauryl sulfate, propylene glycol and D&C red no. 33, which are not organic. (The report notes that Clairol does use some organic ingredients, does not test on animals and uses 25 percent post-reasons … . c recycled plastic in its bottles.)
7. American Electric Power, for falsely advertising itself as environmentally friendly and concerned about animal habitats, even though it is a major polluter. Its harmful emissions contribute to air pollution, acid rain, global warming and mercury poisoning, according to the report.
8. Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, for falsely promoting coal as a "clean fuel," even though carbon dioxide, one of the byproducts of coal burning, is the primary greenhouse gas responsible for global warning. Continued global warming will result in rising temperatures, rising sea levels, increased rates of diseases such as malaria and continued water pollution.
In a recent interview with the Advocate, Joe Lucas, ABEC's vice president of communications, said carbon dioxide -- also the gas that humans breathe out -- isn't a contributor to global warming because if it were, he rationalized, "the government would have to ask us all to stop breathing."
9. General Motors, for falsely promoting its cars as environmentally friendly, with ads that place GM SUVs in natural habitats as if they were as natural as the birds. In fact, SUVs get very few miles to the gallon and are far more harmful to the environment than most other automobiles. General Motors is a member of the Coalition for Vehicle Choice, an organization that opposes clean air legislation and laws directed at reducing auto emissions.
10. ExxonMobil, for falsely advertising that the air we breathe is getting better, not worse. Along with the rest of the oil and gas industry, ExxonMobil helped to kill the Kyoto Protocol, an international initiative that called for tougher emissions standards.
2. The Council for Biotechnology Information, for promoting genetically engineered foods and even preaching to children -- through books aimed at kids -- about the benefits of biotechnology without disclosing any of the risks to human health or the environment.
3. Tyson Chicken, for promoting its products as "all natural," even though the company treats its chickens with antibiotics.
4. The Audubon Nature Institute -- not to be confused with the National Audubon Society -- for falsely claiming to support the protection of natural habitats as a way to preserve animal species, while also belonging to the National Wetlands Coalition, which lobbies to weaken the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. The National Wetlands Coalition is made up of such corporate giants as the American Mining Congress, Chevron, Exxon and the National Association of Homebuilders.
5. Comanche Trace, a commercial developer, for false advertising. Comanche Trace bills its golf courses as "great habitats," even though golf courses deplete natural habitats and use pesticides that poison groundwater.
6. Clairol, for false advertising. The company claims to offer a "truly organic experience" with its Herbal Essences line of shampoos but, according to the report, uses chemicals such as sodium lauryl sulfate, propylene glycol and D&C red no. 33, which are not organic. (The report notes that Clairol does use some organic ingredients, does not test on animals and uses 25 percent post-reasons … . c recycled plastic in its bottles.)
7. American Electric Power, for falsely advertising itself as environmentally friendly and concerned about animal habitats, even though it is a major polluter. Its harmful emissions contribute to air pollution, acid rain, global warming and mercury poisoning, according to the report.
8. Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, for falsely promoting coal as a "clean fuel," even though carbon dioxide, one of the byproducts of coal burning, is the primary greenhouse gas responsible for global warning. Continued global warming will result in rising temperatures, rising sea levels, increased rates of diseases such as malaria and continued water pollution.
In a recent interview with the Advocate, Joe Lucas, ABEC's vice president of communications, said carbon dioxide -- also the gas that humans breathe out -- isn't a contributor to global warming because if it were, he rationalized, "the government would have to ask us all to stop breathing."
9. General Motors, for falsely promoting its cars as environmentally friendly, with ads that place GM SUVs in natural habitats as if they were as natural as the birds. In fact, SUVs get very few miles to the gallon and are far more harmful to the environment than most other automobiles. General Motors is a member of the Coalition for Vehicle Choice, an organization that opposes clean air legislation and laws directed at reducing auto emissions.
10. ExxonMobil, for falsely advertising that the air we breathe is getting better, not worse. Along with the rest of the oil and gas industry, ExxonMobil helped to kill the Kyoto Protocol, an international initiative that called for tougher emissions standards.
Dean further asserts that the mainstream media did not pick up on this story therefore leaving most politicians to ignore the warnings. if the public does not put pressure on the politicians, the politicians will continue to be ignorant of or unconcerned and this practice of greenwashing will merely continue.
What is Greenwashing?
A lot has been said lately about greenwashing. Just what is it and why should you be concerned with it? Greenwashing is actually the practice by a company to portray their products or company's efforts as green when they are not.Following is a definition of greenwashing as found at Wikipedia: Greenwash (a portmanteau of green and whitewash) is a term used to describe the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly, such as by presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of resources. It is a deceptive use of green PR or green marketing. The term green sheen has similarly been used to describe organizations that attempt to show that they are adopting practices beneficial to the environment.
The term is often used when significantly more money or time has been spent advertising being green (that is, operating with consideration for the environment), rather than spending resources on environmentally sound practices. This is often portrayed by changing the name or label of a product, to give the feeling of nature, for example putting an image of a forest on a bottle containing harmful chemicals. Environmentalists often use greenwashing to describe the actions of energy companies, which are traditionally the largest polluters.
Several activities designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be considered merely symbolic greenwash. For example, Earth Hour encourages consumers to switch off electric appliances for 1 hour. This may make people feel good about a minor inconvenience without creating any sustained reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Similarly, introduction of a Carbon Emission Trading Scheme may feel good, but may be counterproductive if the cost of carbon is priced too low, or if large emitters are given 'free credits'. For example, Bank of America subsidiary MBNA offers an Eco-Logique MasterCard for Canadian consumers that rewards customers with carbon offsets as they continue using the card. Customers may feel that they are nullifying their carbon footprint by purchasing polluting goods with the card. However, only 0.5 percent of purchase price goes into purchasing carbon offsets, while the rest of the interchange fee still goes to the bank.
Environmental marketing company TerraChoice released a study called "The Six Sins of Greenwashing," in December 2007. The study found that 99% of 1,018 common consumer products randomly surveyed for the study were guilty of greenwashing. According to the study, the 6 sins of greenwashing are:
• Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: e.g. “energy-efficient” electronics that contain hazardous materials. 998 products and 57% of all environmental claims committed this Sin.
• Sin of No Proof: e.g. shampoos claiming to be “certified organic,” but with no verifiable certification. 454 products and 26% of environmental claims committed this Sin.
• Sin of Vagueness: e.g. products claiming to be 100% natural when many naturally-occurring substances are hazardous, like arsenic and formaldehyde. This occurred in 196 products or 11% of environmental claims.
• Sin of Irrelevance: e.g. products claiming to be CFC-free, even though CFCs were banned 20 years ago. This Sin was seen in 78 products and 4% of environmental claims.
• Sin of Fibbing: e.g. products falsely claiming to be certified by an internationally recognized environmental standard like EcoLogo, Energy Star or Green Seal. This occurred in 10 products or less than 1% of environmental claims.
• Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: e.g. organic cigarettes or “environmentally friendly” pesticides, this occurred in 17 products or 1% of environmental claims.
There are a couple of programs trying to do something to instill confidence in consumers when they purchase products that claim to be green. Here they are:
EcoLogo Program
EcoLogo was founded by the Canadian government in 1988 and is North America’s most widely recognized and respected certification of environmental leadership. By setting standards and certifying products in more than 120 categories, EcoLogo helps you identify, trust, buy, and sell environmentally preferable (“green”) goods and services. On this website, you’ll find more than 7,000 EcoLogo-certified products from hundreds of manufacturers.
EcoLogo was founded by the Canadian government in 1988 and is North America’s most widely recognized and respected certification of environmental leadership. By setting standards and certifying products in more than 120 categories, EcoLogo helps you identify, trust, buy, and sell environmentally preferable (“green”) goods and services. On this website, you’ll find more than 7,000 EcoLogo-certified products from hundreds of manufacturers.
Founded in 1989, Green Seal provides science-based environmental certification standards that are credible, transparent, and essential in an increasingly educated and competitive marketplace. Our industry knowledge and standards help manufacturers, purchasers, and end users alike make responsible choices that positively impact business behavior and improve quality of life. You will want to check out this website as it tells you what to look for when you go to the market to buy green products.
Other Trustworthy Places to Look
Look for the federal government's Energy Star designation on appliances and electronics; the USDA organic seal on food and cosmetics. Sites like Consumer Reports' GreenerChoices.org, Greenercars.org and the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) can help you make sense of manufacturers' claims on big-ticket items; the Environmental Working Group and Responsible Purchasing Network have helpful information on smaller items like cosmetics, cleaners and food.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Anti-Green People - A Criticism of Cutting CO2 Emissions
There are always going to be critics to the green movement. I posted a story about cutting down on the excess amount of CO2 and how people are going about cutting down their own personal CO2 emissions. Below is a comment that I received from an angry person who seems to fear a New World Order. This is very typical of the anti-green people. They always seem to turn the issue back into one of fear and some sort government conspiracy.Hold your breath for a few years. You should if you believe that CO2 is a pollutant. You keep turning perfectly good oxygen into CO2.
Plants Require CO2 in order to grow. sooo!!!! lets stop giving them what they need, Riiiight? Hell, plants are just a nuisance anyway. There aren't enough deserts.
If the government told you that you were a cancer on the earth would you help them by committing suicide? Excuse my sarcasm but the subject deserves it.
It's all about creating a huge new CO2 tax ( Cap and Trade ) in order to pay for world government. The kind of world government where you get no say in anything at all and no chance to change anything in any way.
Plants Require CO2 in order to grow. sooo!!!! lets stop giving them what they need, Riiiight? Hell, plants are just a nuisance anyway. There aren't enough deserts.
If the government told you that you were a cancer on the earth would you help them by committing suicide? Excuse my sarcasm but the subject deserves it.
It's all about creating a huge new CO2 tax ( Cap and Trade ) in order to pay for world government. The kind of world government where you get no say in anything at all and no chance to change anything in any way.
I have to tell you, the majority of the world understands that we need to do something to keep the world from becoming overheated and uninhabitable within a short time. I guess each of the green movement believers will just have to do a little bit more to make up for the ones like the guy above.
Umbra Fisk of Grist Gives Advice on Commuting by Bike Video
This is a really good video on the basics of commuting by bicycle. This video is made by Umbra Fisk who is an advice columnist for Grist.org.
Cameron Diaz Makes Documentary to Save the World
Cameron Diaz has created a documentary aimed at increasing awareness about the perils of ignoring improving our relationship with the Earth. In it, she travels the country talking to average everyday people about the air they breathe and the water they drink and what they are doing about it.Diaz has always felt a call to environmentalism but it wasn't until she attended a TED Conference that she decided to do more. What is a TED Conference? TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design and this is what TED claims it is all about: "We believe passionately in the power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and ultimately, the world. So we're building here a clearinghouse that offers free knowledge and inspiration from the world's most inspired thinkers, and also a community of curious souls to engage with ideas and each other."
Here is a link to short video about her journey:
http://www.marieclaire.com/video/#v25046315001
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Texas Tech - What Are You Thinking? Wasting Water
I live in Lubbock, Texas which is where Texas Tech University is located. I ride a bicycle almost evey day and I commute through the Tech campus because of cross bridges that go over the freeway. As I rode, I noticed numerous areas on campus where the sprinklers were on and a huge excess of water was running out into the streets and down the gutters. That got me to wondering if Tech had a green policy.I did a short search and here is what I found about Tech as reported by the College Sustainability Report Card.
What is the College Sustainability Report Card?
The College Sustainability Report Card is the only comparative evaluation of campus and endowment sustainability activities at colleges and universities in the United States and in Canada. In contrast to an academic focus on sustainability in research and teaching, the Report Card examines colleges and universities, as institutions, through the lens of sustainability.
The Report Card is designed to identify colleges and universities that are leaders in sustainability. The aim is to provide accessible information for schools to learn from each other's experiences and establish more effective sustainability practices.
The College Sustainability Report Card has the highest participation rate of any sustainability ranking or rating, with 290 of 300 schools (97 percent) responding to at least one Report Card survey.
The College Sustainability Report Card is the only comparative evaluation of campus and endowment sustainability activities at colleges and universities in the United States and in Canada. In contrast to an academic focus on sustainability in research and teaching, the Report Card examines colleges and universities, as institutions, through the lens of sustainability.
The Report Card is designed to identify colleges and universities that are leaders in sustainability. The aim is to provide accessible information for schools to learn from each other's experiences and establish more effective sustainability practices.
The College Sustainability Report Card has the highest participation rate of any sustainability ranking or rating, with 290 of 300 schools (97 percent) responding to at least one Report Card survey.
Texas Tech received a score of "D" overall but received a high number of "F"s. The area I was most concerned with is this one:
In the area of Climate Change & Energy Texas Tech received an "F". Here is the explanation of this category:
The university has not made public any steps taken to address carbon emissions, energy efficiency or conservation, or the utilization of renewable energy.
The university has not made public any steps taken to address carbon emissions, energy efficiency or conservation, or the utilization of renewable energy.
Here is the link to the report card on Texas Tech.
I sure hope that Texas Tech is doing more to address going green than this report card says.
Nissan to Make Electric Cars in U.S.
From: ReutersPublished June 20, 2009 06:13 AM
Nissan to make electric cars in U.S.
Nissan to make electric cars in U.S.
Nissan Motor Co plans to launch production of electric vehicles and their batteries in the United States to tap low-interest loans for green vehicles, the Nikkei business daily said. The overall investment is estimated at 50 billion yen ($516.4 million) and may rise to 100 billion yen, it said.
Under the plan, the new electric-car assembly lines are to be built at a plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, where Nissan North America Inc is based, the paper said.
The facility, capable of making 50,000 to 100,000 eco-friendly vehicles a year by 2012, is expected to first produce a small passenger car, it said.
Nissan also intends to construct a production facility for high-capacity lithium ion batteries at the Smyrna site with NEC Corp.
The company has applied for funding from the U.S. government under a low-interest-loan program to support the automobile industry.
Nissan will soon receive approval for a loan of more than 100 billion yen, the paper said, citing a source familiar with the matter.
Nissan intends to assemble up to 50,000 electric cars a year in Japan starting in fall 2010, the paper said.
($1=96.83 Yen)
(Reporting by Jennifer Robin Raj in Bangalore; Editing by Gopakumar Warrier
Water Conservation Basics
Water Conservation BasicsBy Jessi Moyle
The average U.S. household consumes around 146-thousand gallons of water every year, mostly within the home. Scientists predict water shortages in thirty-six states by the year 2013. Analysts however say that all is not bleak, and there is much the nation can do to save around 3-trillion gallons of water every year.
A few simple changes in water consumption within the home can make a vast contribution to water conservation. The payoff for consumers is they will reap significant savings in energy costs. Saving water means saving money, in lower water bills plus the cost of heating that water.
10 Ways for Homeowners to Save Water & Money
Stop Leaks -- Studies have shown that leaking household devices and systems account for ten-percent of water consumption in the average house. Check appliances, plumbing devices and irrigation systems for leaks. Test for leaks by turning off all fixtures and read your water meter. Keep all water off for one hour and check again. The reading should not have changed. If it has, it means you have a leak. You can test your toilet by putting a few drops of food color in the tank, and waiting ten minutes. Check the water in the bowl; if the coloring has entered the bowl, your toilet is leaking and needs repair. The typical household pays about 250-dollars annually for leaking water.
Install Low-Flow Showerheads -- Pre-1992 shower heads deliver water at 8 gallons per minute (GPM). Newest models of low-flow shower heads use 1.6 to 1.85 GPM and save in two ways -- 45-thousand gallons of water less per family of four each year, plus the cost of energy to heat the water, calculates roughly to an annual saving of 92-dollars.
Replace Old Toilets -- Toilets manufactured before 1994 use at least 3.5 gallons of water per flush (GPF). Newer, ultra low-flush toilets use 1.6 GPF, which is the current federal standard for all new toilet installations. Prices start at 100-dollars and these toilets usually pay for themselves within four years. Homeowners save an estimated 28-dollars per year with a low-flush toilet.
Replace Old Clothes Washer -- New Watersense and Energy Star-rated washing machines use an average of 40% less water than traditional washers. If you limit your laundry to two full loads a week, you'll save more than 6,400 gallons of water annually.
Turn Off Faucets -- When you brush your teeth for two minutes and leave the water running, you're using two gallons of water, morning and night -- more during shaving. The average household wastes more than 16-thousand gallons of water a year this way.
Use a Car-Wash -- Up to ten gallons of water a minute is wasted every time you wash your car with a hose. Washing your car at a commercial car wash saves nearly 10-thousand gallons of water a year, plus the water at these stations is recycled.
Sprinkle Less -- Rain sensors and sprinkler clocks cut water use by about 15-percent. Most water is wasted just before and after the rainy season when intermittent rains occur and sprinkling systems work steadily. Shut-off devices save thousands of gallons of water per month in every household. An irrigation controller also saves water by only watering plants when they need it. If you water manually, placing sprinklers around your yard, set a timer to remind you to turn off sprinklers and not waste while over watering.
Sweep More, Hose Less -- Using a broom for ten minutes before you rely on water pressure from a hose or power-washer to clean driveways, walks, patios and decks saves 1-thousand gallons of water every week.
Chill -- Kitchen faucets flow at a rate of more than a gallon a minute while you're waiting for water to get cold enough to drink. Keeping a pitcher of water in the refrigerator eliminates this waste, saving at least one thousand gallons of water per year for each person in your house.
Go Native -- Plants native to your area use less water and are less prone to disease. Drought-resistant shrubs are beautiful replacements for flowering perennial bushes which require large amounts of water. Become familiar with the principles of "Xeriscape," a government program which shows how to create a beautiful landscape with a low-maintenance, drought-resistant garden plan.
Water conservation is a frame of mind, a way of thinking about our lives and our homes. It only take a little effort to make a big difference, reap savings, and earn the satisfaction that we are making 'every drop count.'
For more information on [http://www.homefacts.com]Home Maintenance visit [http://www.homefacts.com]HomeFacts.com.
Sources:
California Urban Water Conservation Council, San Diego, California
Energy Star Qualified Products, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Washington DC
Watersense, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Washington, DC
"Xeriscape" Colorado Program, Colorado WaterWise Council (CWWC), Denver, CO
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jessi_Moyle http://EzineArticles.com/?Water-Conservation-Basics&id=2478903
Sources:
California Urban Water Conservation Council, San Diego, California
Energy Star Qualified Products, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Washington DC
Watersense, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Washington, DC
"Xeriscape" Colorado Program, Colorado WaterWise Council (CWWC), Denver, CO
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jessi_Moyle http://EzineArticles.com/?Water-Conservation-Basics&id=2478903
Portland Begins "Green Box" Bicycle Focused Infrasture Plan
Portland is the first large American city to plan for a committed bike-focused infrastructure. The city of 500,000 has begun a “Green Box” pilot program within nine intersections, creating a road map that directs cars away from bike lanes and traditional areas of bike congestion.“Portland is at least ten years ahead of all other large American cities,” Shier confides. The City of Roses has also become the hub of American bike manufacturing, generating $68 million in revenue last year.
“Portland was a streetcar city,” says Tom Miller, chief of staff for Portland City Councilman (and mayoral candidate) Sam Adams. “We still have the footprint of the dense, walkable and thus bikable city.” Adams leads the city’s advocacy for cycling and, not coincidentally, is leading the polls for mayor. “You can’t win an election here without the support of the bicycle community,” adds Miller.
“Portlanders maintain a definite focus on bicycle advocacy, whether for locals or visitors’” Miller continues. “Many hotels offer free bikes for guests, the city is changing one-car parking spaces to bike corrals that accommodate twelve bikes, and there are plenty of great tours like the 18- to 40-mile Sauvy Island tour or the Waterfront Tour, one of the great urban greenways… You can even ride along trails all the way from the airport to downtown, 12 miles away."
This post is from a larger article from Forbes Magazine regarding North America's Most Bike-Friendly Cities. It can be found here.
What Are You Doing to Reduce the Amount of CO2 in Our Environment?
There is a huge push by the media to get the average person to understand that making eco-friendly changes in the way we live can reduce the amount of CO2 that is trapped in our environment. I wonder what you are doing to help the Earth and really hope that you will leave a comment at the end of this post telling everybody exactly what your contributions are. Read some of the contributions of other people below:Morgan writes: I walk a lot more to places or bike to my friends instead of getting a drive...I recycle at my house a lot ....I go around the house shutting off lights when no ones using them and stuff like that. I'm only 14.
Jonathan Leger says: No car, I use less energy at home, lots of recycling (even the things you'd think are not recyclable might be) and I ask for no plastic bags when offered in stores or convenience stores or Subways, for example.Plus, I spread the word anytime I can, online and in real life.Plus, I have this group with information, links, suggestions, photos/images, etc. So far, I'm like the only one posting stuff... more active users would be welcome to diversify it all.Here's my group's link: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2310657517
Yves wrote: I gave away my car to someone who needed it more than me! That was 4 years ago now..since then I have been walking or taken transit. I am also recycling and being a more conscious consumer..I wont buy products that are promoting over packaging, wastefulness, and a use and throw away mentality.
As a consumer I have decided recently that buying bottled water isn't the best solution..although I recycled the bottles I also learned that plastic seeps chemicals into the water from sitting in the plastic and isn't healthy so I bought and installed a water filter system for my sink and a filter system for my shower that uses less water.
I also felt it was a good idea to use less energy in my home, so I am more aware about turning off lights, heat and other things to conserve the energy.
I also stay away from gassy foods, like beans, and spicy foods that cause severe flatulence.. to help cut down the amount of methane I release into the atmosphere. ... lol (im kidding)
I eat less fast food and prepackaged foods and eat more fresh goods. I try to buy my food from stores that buy products from local farmers. Hence cutting down the amount of energy required for the transportation of the food before it gets in my belly.
Brian says: I've switched most incandescent light bulbs in my house to CFL's and continue to do so. I recycle as much as I can at home. I bring materials (paper/plastic) home from work to recycle them since recycling is not available at my work. I try to encourage others to recycle and be more conscious of their environmental impact.
Jessica says: I'm a vegetarian, I live down town have a kick ass 1960's Schwinn cherry red so I ride that or I take public transit. I wear vintage clothing as clothing production and meat production are the number 1 polluters! I use a metal thermos for my coffee. and florescent light bulbs (tho I don't know how much better those are? they are all plastic and chemicals) I recycle adamantly and compost I also recently found biodegradable garbage bags...wow my favorite new thing! I'm also a contributor to the Nature conservancy of Canada http://www.natureconservancy.ca/site/PageServer. Saving nature and cleaning our atmosphere are synonymous!!! I also subscribe to David Suzuki on line he is a genius so many ideas on reversing global warming . read Good news for a change how everyday people are changing the world a plethora of ideas and also how developing nations are far ahead of us in fighting global warming...unlike what our conservative governments would have us believe!
There are hundreds of others doing little things to make our world a cleaner one. What are you doing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)