Are Tsunami’s Caused by Global Warming ?

Throughout the history of our planet it has endured a constantly changing climate. It endured an ice age and has also experienced long periods of heat. But over the last two hundred years, give or take, the temperature of our planet has been steadily increasing. This change in the climate on earth is known as global warming, and global warming is the direct result of the industrial revolution.

Because of the industrial revolution, people are constantly burning fossil fuels such as oil and coal. But by burning these fuels dangerous greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) are then released into the earth’s atmosphere. These gases block heat rising from the earth from being able to escape into space. The same basic function that glass panels on greenhouses have, hence the name. Our burning of fossil fuels causes more than three quarters of all carbon dioxide emissions. Power plants and other stationary sources contribute more than half of that amount.

Along with increasing CO2 emissions, deforestation is on the increase as well. This is disastrous, because trees recycle CO2 and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. Because of the rise in deforestation levels the fossil fuels we burn are seriously jeopardizing our planet. We know that global warming is the cause of glaciers getting smaller and for the rise in sea levels. Plants and animals show clear and undeniable signs that they are affected in many different ways. Earth is experiencing longer seasons which results in rivers and lakes freezing later than usual and melting sooner. Without a doubt, global warming causes many changes and affects our planet in many ways but can it also cause a tsunami?

Nobody will ever forget the utter destruction, grief and loss left behind after the huge tsunami that hit parts of Asia on December 26th, 2004. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed, injured and traumatized. The areas it hit were left completely destroyed.

Generally speaking a tsunami is made up of a series of waves. More often than not the first one is the mildest. Prior to the arrival of the first wave, the shoreline recedes dramatically and often leaves the ocean floor exposed. They mostly occur where the water is shallow but they can also occur around coastal areas. In deep water a tsunami appears as a big wave and nothing more. In shallow water this is not the case. The wave can reach as high as one hundred metres, although, in all honesty, this is not at all common.

We know that tsunami’s can be caused by an earthquake, but this is not the only cause. They can also be caused through volcanic eruptions and landslides. Another cause is if a large amount of water is somehow displaced, such as when meteors happen to fall into large bodies of water. Tsunami’s are caused by events that can be, and are, affected by global warming, however global warming itself does not directly trigger the formation of a tsunami. Basically, it is an indirect cause.

One thing is certain, global warming is not a myth as some suggest. The planet is displaying clear signs that we dare not ignore.

For more global warming articles and daily news why not visit http://www.globalwarmingnewsblog.com - a site dedicated to information about climate change: effects, issues, causes, solutions, opinion and more.

It is a Real Threat: Hazardous Waste

For those staying in urban and suburban areas, we enjoy the regular collection of waste and recyclable materials. However, what most of us are not aware is the waste that is brought to dumps is actually many times more toxic than it was 30 years ago.

Hazardous Home Wastes

It is surprising just how toxic our world has become in just a few years. Synthetic chemicals didn’t even exist in any significant numbers before the turn of the 20th century. In the past, home furnishings were made of natural materials, such as carpets, pillows, curtains, bath items and towels. The things that are in the most and close contact with us each day, especially those made before 1980, were made of sustainable and renewable resources.

However, this is no longer true today. Every time when we replace our furnishing, we are trashing away materials that could contain chemicals, such as batteries and electronics. These home wastes are part of the hazardous waste brought to dumps each day.

Hazardous Waste In Overwhelmed landfills

In many countries, the problem of hazardous waste is compounded by the crisis of overwhelmed landfills. The danger from this waste getting loose in the environment is even more serious and precarious than ever. Increased danger of containment systems being breached is very real.

As pressure on forest and agricultural lands mounts, erosion due to major storm events could unleash these toxins into the ecosystems that is already fragile and damaged. Hazardous waste is becoming an acute problem beyond management in many countries.

Ben provides consultancy to real and virtual estate owners. Eco-Renewable Resources is one of Ben’s interest, with particular business focus on Sustainable Development

BBC World News America

What is the Real CO2 Footprint of a Product?

We’ve certainly seen quite a few companies come out and say that their manufacturing facilities have a zero impact on the environment, meaning zero footprint, but indeed, there is much controversy on how to determine what a zero foot print is. It’s almost impossible to get to zero, even if a company goes and plants 10,000 trees over the course of 5-years.

The other day at a Think Tank meeting, we were talking about how to establish a complete CO2 discharge chain of a product, including all its components in the process of making it. From the wrappers, card board box, printing, assembly, energy to do all that, the distance the people traveled to work in what type of cars, etc. I mean really narrowing down the actual discharges.

Not because we are Global Warming alarmists, but because we feel it is not exactly correct for a company to claim Zero Emissions. And that we must have a more realistic view of the total process, Supply chain and all.

Many companies like Dell in Texas have stated that they have finally achieved zero emissions, but they were attacked for stating that, why? Because, everyone has a different concept of what nothing is. In other words we are all out there fighting over nothing and that makes no sense to anyone, no matter how you figure it.

Indeed, we should be applauding Dell for their solar panels, LEEDs certified warehouses and assembly plant and all their hard work and meaningful dedication to do the right thing. And yet, we are not doing that are we? Instead we find people attacking businesses, even those that go out of their way, spending millions of dollars to do the right thing. I ask are we doing the right thing by allowing persnickety environmental complainers to attack America’s greatest companies?

Lance Winslow - Lance Winslow’s Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/.

Clean Landfills

We’ve all read the stories about how municipal water systems in the United States are contaminated with toxins such as  lead, mercury, copper and even bacteria. In some parts of the country, stories of raw sewage leaks into fresh water supplies have made the news. And, people have reacted by drinking expensive bottled water as a supposedly healthier alternative to ordinary, inexpensive tap water.

City Water Supplies Are Safe

Of course, the truth about the safety of the nation’s municipal water supplies has finally come forth - drinking water from household taps virtually anywhere in the country is safe, pure and incredibly inexpensive. And, we’re learning that bottled water isn’t as healthy for us as we first thought. 

Get Off The Bottle

First there’s the plastic container, or bottle itself.  That convenient, plastic water bottle we’ve gotten used to carrying around is made from plastic material that contains cancer-producing toxins called phthalates.  These toxins actually leach into the water in the plastic bottle and accumulate in our bloodstreams.  Studies show that the concentrations of phthalates in our systems are increasing with each generation, mainly as a result of drinking water bottled in toxic plastic containers. 

Plastic is Hardly Boidegradable

These plastic bottles aren’t biodegradable.  Plastic throw-aways now represent at least 25% of the contents of our landfills.  And plastics won’t break down for around 10,000 years - some plastics can take even longer to degrade.  So our healthy-water myth has turned into a big health hazard.  What can people do?

A Nice and Effective Alternative

Fortunately, there are many easy and inexpensive alternatives to our drinking water challenges.You can easily install a simple charcoal-type filter system on your kitchen faucet. These inexpensive filters can remove up to 99.9% of heavy metals and other toxins that may (or mostly may not) be present in your city’s drinking water. And you can now buy a portable water filtration system that’s as convenient as your old plastic sports bottle, but the bottle is not made of toxic materials.

Cheap Filter Removes Most Contaminants

The filters that can be attached to your kitchen faucet are cheap (generally under $50) can be found at most hardware stores, reduce chlorine and heavy metals, and generally make your tap water taste better.  For example, the Brita system costs about $20 - 40 for a starter set, and $20 for each replacement filter.  It will filter about 100 gallons of drinking water and lasts for about 4 months.

Portable Filtration is the “Wave” of The Future

For about the same price, you can now get a 16 ounce portable water filtration system from Back to the Tap, which actually filters as you drink.  It uses a number 4 LDPE plastic bottle, which is the kind of plastic that doesn’t normally leach phthalates.  The filters are replaceable, and you can refill anywhere with plain tap water.  It can be refilled about 300 times, and that’s 300 disposable plastic bottles you’re not throwing into already full landfills.

Going green does take some conscious thought and careful planning, but it’s getting easier every day to go green.  In this case, you will be rewarded with better health and less plastic in landfills - and more money in your wallet.  Remember - bottled water costs MUCH more than gasoline, per gallon. So, save your health and the environment and tons of cash - by drinking water from your own household tap!

There’s no reason to poison your family and spend thousands of dollars just to have a clean home. Clean your house with simple and pure natural cleaners - and save enough money for a really nice vacation! Want to find out how to go green, save money and save Planet Earth? Click HERE to find out how being green can save you green!

Green Tech

Plasma Gasification Plant Benefits For Municipal Waste Management

Plasma Gasification Plant (PGP) projects are being developed by at least five gas plasma technology companies, and there are real benefits to be obtained from this technology for the destruction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW).

There is some debate still whether the process has been demonstrated to be a vaible technology which can be reliably operated by our waste management companies at reasonable cost and in compliance with all emissions regulations. However, the consensus seems to be largely in acceptance now that the technology is largely proven and inherently cleaner than incineration.

Although, gasification is used as a power generating technology, and gas plasma plants do provide a power feed-in to the local power grid, it should be realised by all that the purpose of selecting plasma gasification is currently that of achieving maximum waste mass destruction. The intent of the PGP is primarily to provide an efficent and clean method of dispoing of large quantities of residual MSW. Plasma gasification, although it does produce energy from waste is not primarliy an Energy from Waste (EfW) or Waste to Energy technology. There are other better proven, more efficient, and potentially always also cheaper ways to produce Energy from Waste, such as incineration.

PGPs suffer a high sacrificial load from the use of power at the electrodes to generate the plasma, and energy is also expended before the MSW reaches the plasma zone in the gasifier in chopping up and ensuring that the particle size of the waste is quite small. For this reason they do expend a large proportion of the power generated just in maintaining their own internal power demand.

However, as a waste destruction method producing an inert residue without creating at the same time high levels of toxic gaseous emissions the gas plasma process excels according to reports made to date. It has every reason to be cleaner as well because the reactions which take place in the plasma state take place so quickly and completely that the toxic organic chemicals produced in other combustion processes simply don’t get a change to be produced.

For a waste management process PGP therefore holds a very good prospect of adoption, as it is a process which is very efficient at diverting waste away from landfill, and thus scores highly among local authority waste disposal engineers who are constantly seeking to comply with regulations to reduce the amount of organic waste sent to landfill.

The PGP process however, also holds another merit and that is that it is being viewed more favourably by the public than incineration, and one main reason for that would be its clean emissions record when compared with incinerators historically.

Throughout Europe the requirement for BMW to be reduced by ever larger percentages necessitates the use of new technology to achieve this high rate of waste diversion, even after high recycling has also been achieved.

Look out for a plasma gasification plant appearing in a district near you soon, and look favourably upon it!

Steve has built a great web site where there are a lot more facts about gasification. This is a hot subject indeed for this technology which has become an essential read for all those who appreciate renewable energy issues and are interested in taking action to reduce the impact of climate change.Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Steve_D_Evans

Flashlight by Good Green Technologies

City of Oxnard CA - Mobile Car Wash Rules Slated

The City of Oxnard, California is concerned with the quality of its storm water and rightfully so, as it has made great strides over the years. Oxnard CA is also home to the gateway to the channel islands with some incredible beaches and nice resort style living, and all that storm water leads to the ocean and those beautiful beaches. Thus, the city has chosen to start cracking down on mobile car washes.

This should not come as any surprise to anyone, as the city had previously implemented many programs to help clean the storm water runoff. They had developed a nearly bullet proof NPDES plan to insure clean water. The beaches never looked so good and this recent ruling to finish that job nearly a decade and a half later has come all the way down to washing of cars.

Our company had dealt with this issue in the late 80s and early 90s and helped write all the NPDES BMPs for several counties near there. The devices used are fairly easy to buy, and it really doesn’t take much, further it is my contention that all mobile car washes ought to follow the rules to protect the environment and there ought to be no excuses on that.

Indeed, over the years, we’ve worked with many cities on this, in fact, one thing we did was join the committees to help write the original BMPs for surface cleaners in Ventura County, CA where the City of Oxnard is located. A mobile car wash operator should not only follow the rules but be part of the solution. Think on that.

Lance Winslow - Lance Winslow’s Bio. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/.

To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?

Sometimes, simple acts such as going to the grocery store can turn into a moral dilemma. Is it better to choose the piece of organic fruit produced on the other side of the country or the non-organic version grown locally, 50 miles away? Are the benefits of chemical-free shampoo worth an extra 5 bucks a bottle? Will I really be able to enjoy a cheap chocolate bar knowing that the growers of the cocoa beans were likely not fairly compensated?

As much as I’d like to say that I always buy the product that is environmentally safe and sustainably produced, in reality, that’s not always the case. First, the sheer amount of information required to be able to distinguish between products is staggering. You need facts regarding environmental impact, transportation costs, and fair trade practices, to name just a few. And there are plenty of misinformation and greenwashing campaigns out there to steer you in the wrong direction.

Second, of course, there are times when the high cost of an ethically made product turns me off from buying it. Even consumers with the best of intentions have their breaking points.

The thing is, companies who go out of their way to implement sustainable practices endure a greater cost of production. Sure, they can sometimes capitalize on this by marketing to conscientious consumers who are willing to pay a bit more, but the fact remains that in today’s system, environmentally minded production is punished.

On the other hand, companies who move their factories (and jobs) to developing countries with lax environmental standards and cheap labor are able to make products at a fraction of the cost and undercut their competitors (while shipping materials and finished goods all around the world and adding to our greenhouse gas problems).

The way it’s set up, high environmental standards in one country drive companies to relocate in places where it’s permissible to pollute in order to compete in the marketplace. Chaco, the Colorado-based athletic sandal company, is a prime example of even a well-intentioned company being forced to follow suit to maintain competitive pricing on their products. In fact, 95% of all footwear in the world is produced in China, whose poor environmental regulation and sometimes dangerous environmental problems are well known.

With current talk about cap and trade emissions programs, this phenomenon may only get worse.

So how do we even the playing field and reward companies for good business practices?

When I think about this problem, I keep coming back to an idea I encountered in a casual conversation with a stranger while traveling. I can’t remember his face or his name, but his idea has stuck with me and festered in my mind for the better part of a year. His take was that putting the financial burden of environmental responsibility on the companies just doesn’t make sense for the reasons I’ve given above. In a global marketplace, it renders companies less competitive than those that operate free of environmental and labor regulations.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to put an “environmental impact” or “ecological footprint” tax on the product itself?

Ugh, a tax?

Initially, I didn’t warm to the idea either. But think about it: adding a tax proportionate to a product’s ecological and social footprint eliminates the cost advantage of irresponsible production. All those environmental costs that are currently not included in our economic system would be factored in and would increase the price of unsustainably made products.

This, in turn, would make moral dilemmas at the grocery store much easier. Is it more sustainable to buy distant, organic produce or local, non-organic produce? The tax-adjusted pricing should inform my decision. Can I afford the chemical-free shampoo? Yes, because the price of its chemical-laden competitors would be raised through the environmental impact tax and eliminate the cost advantage of choosing that product.

The money raised from the tax could fund its implementation and other sustainable programs such as public transportation (high speed rail, anyone?) and alternative energy. Perhaps it could even make a dent in our gaping budget deficit.

Won’t this cost me money?

You may be thinking, “Sure, that’s a good idea in concept, but that will raise my bills - grocery, clothes, everything.” Well, yes, that’s true. But maybe if we see the true cost of the products we casually consume, we can make a more informed decision about what is really necessary to our lives.

Additionally, programs such as this often have the greatest impact on the poor. But this could be compensated for by using some of the tax revenue for need-based assistance programs.

Regardless, running an economic system on the assumption of infinite resources is fundamentally flawed. Currently, environmental impacts such as air pollution, water pollution, and deforestation are not factored into the cost of a product: they are considered “externalities.”

These costs need to be included in the system in a way that does not punish those who engage in sustainable business practices. By taxing a product’s environmental impact, it levels the playing field for the consumer.

Disclaimer

Of course, I am not an economist or policy guru. I don’t know how to implement such a tax or if it would even be possible (though compared to creating a carbon trading market, perhaps it’s not that difficult). This is only the musing of a concerned, intelligent citizen trying to brainstorm ways to make our economic system fit within the bounds of our ecological constraints.

What do you think? Would such a tax have a beneficial effect on our production system? Join the conversation over at our website!

Jill Mueller is a conservation biologist, avid cyclist, and freelance writer. She has combined forces with a good friend and dietitian to start The Barefoot Badger, a blog promoting healthy, sustainable living. Check us out!

NEW WORLD SAVIOUR

Yahoo Vs Google - Who’s Greener?

Silicon Valley is known for both innovation and hype. Recently, this pool of innovation has extended beyond bandwidth to the protection the environment. Google and Yahoo, the search engine giants, are both headquartered in the Valley and have been making headlines by greening their offices, reducing energy consumption, and carbon trading. The PR motivations are obvious, but are the green benefits really there? To set apart the hype from reality, we have analyzed the green value of both Google and Yahoo’s headquarter facilities.

We looked at the ecological services provided by green landscape features such as trees and open space (i.e. grass). Grass and trees are pervious surfaces, meaning they allow water to permeate into the ground. Roofs, sidewalks, patios, and asphalt parking lots are examples of impervious surfaces, where rainwater drains into the public storm drains. Heavy metals, oil, and other pollutants are carried off parking lots in rainwater, which often lead directly to open water habitats, where fish, birds, and reptiles live.

In terms of ecological services, trees and grass have been proven to:

1.      Remove and store carbon from the atmosphere,

2.      Remove certain airborne pollutants,

3.      Permits rainwater to seep into the ground as opposed to draining into the stormdrains, and

4.      Remove certain waterborne pollutants.

Here is a look at how green Google and Yahoo really are and how the measure up against each other.

Google Green Report
Google’s headquarters, the Googleplex, covers 44 acres, nearly 50% of which is grass or tree canopy. This is an impressive paved to open space ratio. The grass and trees on the Googleplex remove roughly 2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.04 tons per year per acre. In addition, 530 lbs. of air pollution are removed per year (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter), or 12 lbs. per year per acre. It was assumed that the parking lot of the Googleplex is asphalt, and not a type of porous pavement, so the cost of managing rainfall runoff from the Googleplex is $4,474 per year, or $103 per year per acre. The abundance of grass and tree canopy on the Googleplex go a long way to offset the water quality impacts of the paved surfaces (mainly the parking lot). On average, the grass and trees reduce water pollution by 6%, as opposed to the entire property being paved.

Yahoo Green Report
The Yahoo headquarters, Yahooplex, covers 28 acres, a third of which is grass or tree canopy. This is a classic ratio of paved to open space for large office complexes in California. So far, par for the course. The Yahooplex removes 0.36 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.01 tons per year per acre. 114 lbs. of air pollutants are removed per year, or 4 lbs. per year per acre. In terms of rainfall, the cost associated with runoff is $9,219 per year, or $331 per year per acre. The grass and tree canopy help offset the paved areas with a 2.3% reduction in water pollution as opposed to the entire property being paved.

The final green analysis?

Google kicks Yahoo’s butt, largely due to the forethought, or luxury, of the Googleplex having 50% of its property surface providing green services. The good news for both Google and Yahoo is that over time, as trees grow, so will the tree’s canopy and mass, thus storing more carbon and removing more air pollutants.

Green next steps for both Google and Yahoo is to:
 

1. Install porous parking surfaces, allowing up to 80% of rainwater to seep into the ground,
2. Install green roofs, absorbing rainwater while reducing cooling costs and energy consumption, and
3. Planting larger trees on the south and west sides of the buildings to reduce cooling costs and energy consumption.

While we crunched the hard numbers to settle the Google vs. Yahoo green debate, this report illuminates the great opportunity that awaits these two Silicon Valley giants to harness the ecological services of green surfaces.

Chris Erichsen is a GIS Mapping consultant with the Erichsen Group, GIS and Mapping in northern California. He has over 10 yrs of GIS experience and helps many industries around the world apply GIS mapping technology. Learn more examples of GIS mapping capabilities.

2008- Granny Arrested/Greenest car