Witness to a Plastic Invasion - StumbleUpon

Witness to a Plastic Invasion - StumbleUpon:



'via Blog this'

Climate Change Debate

The Climate Change Debate: A major debate regarding climate change is whether it isnatural  in the Earth’s cycles or whether anthropogenic (man-made) factors  are leading to a changing climate. Problems arise when people pick and choose which facts to publicize along with silencing the other side of the debate. This practice occurs on both sides of the political spectrum and is often tied in with big businesses that financially benefit from certain national policies.

We will hear former Vice President Al Gore talk about the “effects of global warming,” but some people feel he ignores the other side of the debate or even silences scientists that propose counter theories. In 1994, Al Gore contacted CBS News’ program 60 minutes in an effort to discredit a respected scientist who disagreed with some of his claims. Gore argued that “only raving ideologues and corporate mouthpieces could challenge his green gospel.”²His strategy failed, and he was criticized for his politicization of the issues. Ted Koppel said at the time, “'There is some irony in the fact that Vice President Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men to sit in the White House in this century, that he is resorting to political means to achieve what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis.” ³

Another example is the Bush Administration in 2007 falsely claiming that the United States was doing better than Europe in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.⁴ The claim is only true if one looks at a single greenhouse gas over a narrow timeframe. As soon as more gasses are analyzed over a greater period, the trend completely reverses. Similarly, the Bush administration was also accused of “attempting to control which climate scientists could speak with reporters, as well as editing scientists' congressional testimony on climate science and key legal opinions,” according to a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform report.⁵

More recently we can look to Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty (who is said to be considering running for President in 2012 under the Republican ticket), to blatantly ignore facts in favor of politics. Before considering a Presidential campaign, Pawlenty was by many metrics a very “green” Governor, who not only recognized climate change but wanted to fight it: “He called for Minnesota to lead on enacting a cap and trade system, so that other states and the US government might follow… He pioneered clean energy and green jobs programs.”⁶ Now he says he is unsure of what causes climate change and feels that national cap and trade programs would be “a disaster.”⁷ Dr. Joseph Romm, the Editor of the online publication of the nonprofit organization Center for American Progress Action Fund, went as far as to give Pawlenty the “gold medal for climate flip-flopping.”⁸ To see a strong Republican Presidential contender rescind his support of cap and trade and anthropogenic climate change is disheartening. 

Global warming may cause higher loss of biodiversity than previously thought

Global warming may cause higher loss of biodiversity than previously thought:



'via Blog this'

Custom Search

Blogger Buzz: Blogger integrates with Amazon Associates

Blogger Buzz: Blogger integrates with Amazon Associates

Our population is rising at an unsustainable rate....

Bigger, better, more! More people, more jobs, more money, more cities, more consumers. We live in a world that thinks all growth is good. But is it?
At the end of each day, the world has over 200,000 more mouths to feed than it had the day before; at the end of every week, 1.5 million more; at the close of each year, nearly 80 million more. Humans, who numbered 4.5 billion in the 1980’s, are now over 6 billion, and will probably exceed nine billion by 2050. Most of that increase will come in the poorer countries of the earth, exacerbating all of the consequent problems, among them shortages of food and water, depletion of energy supplies, deterioration of the environment, incitement to local and regional conflicts, and breakdown of the social order. Clearly, the continued increase in populations will produce a bleak future for all the earth’s inhabitants.

The need to reduce our rapid rate of growth, indeed to reduce the current and projected size of the human population, is urgent. Complicating the task of reducing populations are those who for various reasons advocate a continued increase and those who object to practical methods of population limitation, such as birth control and abortion, as well as those who simply turn their backs on the problem, refusing even to recognize the obvious. One legitimate function of education is the clearly enunciated recognition of social problems and the enlightened advocacy of social solutions. - By Philip Appleman

Climate Refugees Trailer

the kioto protokol document

kyoto protokol document

Activism Al Gore American culture Barack Obama Blogging buddhism carbon emissions carbon footprint climate change climate crisis climate fight consciousness consumerism eco-psychology eco-sins ecological footprint ecopsychology environment environmental footprint environmental policy environmental psychology food crisis French culture Global warming green green blogs green living Green Marketing green politics Green Psychology green solutions human behavior inconvenient truth nature No Impact Man plastic bags recycling reusable bags shopping social networks society sustainability Twitter waste

The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.
The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialised countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so.
Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”


The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh in 2001, and are called the “Marrakesh Accords

Climate Change

Climate is not the same as weather. It is long term, whereas weather is short term, like today, or this week.

Climate is a large, complex system which, like any system, can be affected by different things. By pushing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and so trapping heat which would otherwise escape into space, by doing this, we are pushing more energy into the system, and our climate produces weather patterns according to how much energy is in the system. This disturbs weather patterns, meaning we get hotter, drier, wetter, windier weather in different places at different times to usual.

The more greenhouse gases, the more the climate and the weather are affected. Human systems rely on the stability of natural systems in order for civilisation to function. To grow food, for one thing. When we disturb the climate and the weather, we risk disturbing our ability to eat.

Greenhouse gases can be both natural and man-made, and include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, water vapour and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). They can be released in various ways, either through industrial or natural processes.

Land-use change, such as deforestation, is a big contributor because trees are essentially ‘wet sticks of carbon’, and so burning them both releases CO2 and prevents the trees from absorbing CO2 through photosynthesis, their method of turning sunlight, nutrients and water into energy to grow.

Burning fossil fuels for energy – coal, oil and gas – is a major contributor, as is industrial agriculture, from use of carbon-based pesticides and fertilisers, and fuel for tractors etc. These inputs are avoided in organic agriculture.

So, many human processes increase the amount of greenhouse gases discharged into the atmosphere, and many others remove the earth’s natural ability to absorb them.

This double process is further increased and accelerated by ‘positive feedbacks’ in nature, such as in the Arctic. Here, the loss of ice and snow also removes its ability to reflect heat. Absorbing heat means more melting, which means more heat is absorbed and so on. There are many more examples of this, from deforestation in the tropics especially, to the release of methane in peat bogs. All of these things are happening today, and accelerating.

The solution is to increase the earth’s capacity to absorb and store carbon. This is called biological carbon sequestration, or biosequestration. It can be done through forest protection, reforestation and use of biochar on land, and enhancement of carbon-absorbing plants such as seagrasses in marine ecosystems.

Arguments over climate change being man-made or otherwise are not as complex as they seem.

Those who wish there to be no change to the way humans do things (fossil fuel industry especially) are usually those who would lose out financially, and also happen to be wealthy and politically influential.

Therefore, they employ FUD – fear, uncertainty and doubt, the same tactics that the cigarette industry always used. They famously said “doubt is our product.”