Enviro Saver asked:


A common mistake made by people who have a limited understanding about global warming will often loosely refer to the problem as either climate change or global warming. While the two have much to do with each other, they are two separate things that are related to the same cause, which is carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by human activity. Global warming is referring to the rise in the average global temperature. It is this rise in temperature that causes the climate changes being seen around the world.

It may seem like it isn’t a big deal, but this really is something people should be concerned about. Global warming has been proven to be greatly caused by the greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide that people are putting into the air through their daily activities. These emissions are caused by cars, airplanes, factories, businesses, or anything else that burns fossil fuels. While there are other greenhouse gases put into the air, carbon is what makes up the largest contributor from human activities. Many don’t realize that global warming affects everyone, perhaps not in the most obvious way every day, but it does affect everyone. Global warming is what is causing the earth to warm, which, as mentioned before, causes the major climate changes that are being seen. What are some of these major climate changes and what does this have to do with people? Floods, severe hurricanes, odd weather patterns such as abnormally cold or warm winters; all of these are products of global warming.
Food and resources come from the natural world and if global warming causes severe drought (which it is in many places around the world), the crop yield will be much lower and money is lost. Not to mention that it’s less food available to people. Global warming is also what is warming the polar ice caps and drying up other fresh water resources. Life needs fresh water and without it, life tends to die.

It is something that people can change if they can take responsibility over it. It is possible to slow and stop the global warming, making the world a healthier place with the necessary resources available. It means that the burning of fossil fuels has to stop. Using energy sources that don’t require the burning of fossil fuels is what is needed. The sun and wind are both excellent examples of the tireless sources of energy available to humans. Saving water and producing less waste is also needed to reduce the carbon emissions. As more people turn to alternatives instead of burning fossil fuels, global warming could be stopped, which in turn would stop causing the major climate changes that have been the cause of such devastation in recent years.

Steve Evans asked:


th high moisture content or which receive artificial irrigation, rainwater, surface or groundwater infiltration produce leachate and methane gas at a high rate. It has been shown, from one study that once a dump is saturated, annual precipitation of 36 inches per year which exists in certain parts of the world can percolate 1 million gallons of contaminated water per acre annually.

This is a lot of contaminated water – also known as leachate or garbage juice! This contaminated water is ten to 1,000 times more contaminated and damaging to the local surface and groundwater than sewage, although it contains few human disease organisms (pathogens) and much fewer than sewage.

All nations also produce huge quantities of scrap tires. Waste scrap tires present landfill problems. They are hard to compact, may rise to the surface over time in poorly compacted waste and provide dangerous breeding grounds for mosquitoes and rats, in the water which collects in them. They also unfortunately do not disintegrate to reduce their volume in stockpiling.

Also if industrial hazardous wastes are landfilled the waste materials that will often be found in the site will be such that the sites will later be classed as contaminated land and do not meet the contaminated soil criteria. This is to be expected where regulatory control is poor but the cost to the community is hugely greater than paying for good regulation in the first place.

It is not realized by many in the community at large that waste prevention and recycling are critical to reducing or stopping climate change. Waste-to-energy (WTE) plants create heat and electricity from burning mixed solid waste. Because of high corrosion in the boilers, the steam temperature in WTE plants may end up being less than 400 degrees Celsius. This has to be avoided because at these temperatures of combustion many hazardous by-products of incomplete combustion will be present which are very harmful to the local environment and the health of future occupants, if not cleaned up.

But, the adoption of large scale waste prevention and recycling will help address global climate change by decreasing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and saving energy (US Environmental Protection Agency).

The fact is that global warming, also known as the greenhouse gas effect, remains controversial in many quarters. Many still question the basis of the prediction of climate change. However, Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the United States agreed in principle to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases to somewhat below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012.

In 1997 global cooling was a big environmental worry and an issue back then, but few paid attention to that either, and the concerns were soon found to be unfounded. The perspective in global cooling is similar to the way people view global warming now.

Landfill methane is an excellent and frequently untapped resource. Most times gases are simply flared or burned in the atmosphere, which is much less contributory to the greenhouse gas build-up which worries us all, than just letting the methane (landfill gas) escape without flaring. Landfill methane is typically flared in the developed nations, and almost never flared in the developing world\’s nations.

Opinions about landfill gas as an emissions problem, and even the producer of significant greenhouse gas emissions vary across the US. We have been made aware that state regulators consider methane to be a minor problem in New Mexico, due to the dry climate. However, Albuquerque is treating at least one serious methane problem with a high priority. State-by-state analyses nevertheless, do show a large and untapped potential for biomass-fired electricity generation. A very separate question, of course, is how much of this potential makes financial, environmental, or political sense.

However, interest in the use of landfill gas to fuel electricity generation is growing. Landfill methane is collected at a growing number of landfill sites and burned for energy production which mitigates the global warming effect of the methane as well as producing electricity and/or heat.

Clint Jhonson asked:


The constant climate change is a fact that we just can’t disregard anymore. As unreal as it may sound, the world may soon end and we have some fault whereas these changes are concerned. Global warming is something that can’t be controlled as easily as one might think, having a dreadful effect all over the world. The catastrophic results reflect on the biodiversity of the planet and its eco-systems.

In order to attract people’s attention, many “festivals of life” and other similar campaigns have been organized in order to save Mother Earth. But campaigns, commercials, experiments… they are all useless when it comes to climate change. Responsible for this situation are indirectly greenhouse gases and directly the human race. In order to remediate this problem, the Kyoto protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan on 11 December 1997. The international agreement was signed by several countries (with well-developed industries), all agreeing on the importance of reducing greenhouse gases that have led to climate change.

All this trouble could have been avoided if the emissions of these gases would have been interdicted since their first appearance, but people are greedy and they always put money before ecology, not realizing that as rich as you may be, it means nothing… if the air that surrounds us is not breathable.

Although it is quite late, the solution remains the same and could still be put in practice in order to save what is left of nature, and that is: stopping the emission of greenhouse gases. But what are people constantly thinking about? Ecology? Of course not! Economy! Are they thinking that with the daily burning of new fossil fuels, the Amazon forest that sustains life on Earth is dying a little bit more and more? It’s hardly likely!

Global warming is a real problem and one that should be tackled with more seriousness. What we have seen in movies like “Armageddon”, “The Apocalypse”, “The end of the days”, “The core”, etc, is becoming more and more a possibility. Maybe it won’t happen now, but in 20-25 years or something… who knows?

In their attempt to stop climate change, a lot of scientists have repeatedly said that it is a “must” to develop forests, as many and as big as possible. This is the only way of reconstructing the ozone “blanket”. We all know that this gas – the ozone – is one of the most important gases that exist in the Earth’s atmosphere. The ozone has the very difficult task of blocking the harmful ultraviolet rays from reaching the Earth’s surface and it also helps the temperature of the Earth’s surface to stay warm enough.       

Global warming is the single most destructive force hurting our planet. The industrial revolution of the past two centuries has taken a toll on our planet’s wild life and environmental infrastructure due to mankind’s destructive behavior. Global climate change is obvious in all corners of the Globe, from melting polar ice caps to ozone depletion. The theory behind this phenomenon is that the Earth receives heat from the Sun; the Sun gives off the heat in the form of radiation in which the Earth absorbs 70%, which warms the surface and the oceans, while the remaining 30% is reflected into space.

Mike Hirn asked:

The amount of land dedicated to forests, particularly old growth forests, could significantly reduce global warming. Forests are an important use of land in most countries, and in modern times they take on a new, environmental significance. Plant life scrubs carbon dioxide from the air. Carbon dioxide is a main cause of global warming and can be eliminated just by being in the vicinity of certain plants.

Trees are the best carbon dioxide scrubbers found in nature. Old growth trees are especially good at removing carbon dioxide from the air and storing it within their cells. For this reason, old growth trees need to be preserved. The lumber trade argues that the old growth trees can be easily replaced by new trees, but this is simply not the case. New trees do not possess the abilities that old trees have of preventing global warming by trapping carbon dioxide. Some proponents of cutting suggest that certain new trees are capable of trapping more greenhouse gases than the old trees. This is not true when you compare the new special trees to trees that have many decades of growth.

Several studies have been done to estimate the potential impact on global warming caused by deforestation of tropical rainforests. Loggers do not just take out mature trees for lumber. People who want to clear a place to live, work, or farm in the jungle do so by cutting and burning large portions of rainforest land.

Deforestation increases other greenhouse gases, including methane and nitrous oxide. Global warming is a foreseeable reality when the rainforest and other forests are destroyed.

Preventing global warming should first focus on cutting greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. However, deforestation comes in a close second as a cause and should also be part of conservation efforts.

When people learn that forests are important in stopping global warming, they can help preserve them by refusing to use lumber that comes from old growth forests and rainforests. Laws have been proposed to curtail logging as a way to prevent global warming. Bans on clear-cutting, a practice that destroys acres upon acres of old growth trees, have also been suggested.

It is easy and tempting to continue to blame the deforestation problem on “those people” clearing land in the rainforests. The truth is that a tree in your neighborhood is as valuable as one in the rainforest when it comes to removing carbon dioxide. It is important to think and strategize on a global scale but it is important to also act on a local scale. We may well have more impact on the actions of those in our sphere of influence than those half a globe away. Look in your backyard, is there room for a few more trees? If so go plant some.

Mike Hirn asked:


When you think of global warming, you might envision dramatic scenes like melting glaciers and flooded coastlines. Agriculture is yet another area that will be seriously affected by climatic changes. Farming challenges may become even more intense. Today it is even more likely that a farmer will face droughts, floods, heat waves, and hurricanes. These types of weather events that are so traumatic for farming will certainly be less rare.

In regions that are already warm, global warming will cause the plants to languish in the heat. Soil evaporation rates will be very high, leaving parched earth and burned plants. Often rain will come down hard when it does come, leading to greater than usual soil erosion.

Some studies show that the news of global warming is not all bad for farming, at least not in the short run.

An increase in temperature has some temporary benefits. For a while, it will simply mean more time for crops to mature because of a longer growing season. This is especially true of regions where the spring and fall were once quite cool.

Strangely enough, all the extra carbon dioxide in the air also has a fertilizing affect on crops. This type of fertilization is most helpful for crops such as wheat, soybeans, and rice. Carbon dioxide fertilization is a beneficial by-product of global warming. However, this benefit may all be in vain. When global warming pushes ground level ozone to higher stages, the carbon dioxide fertilization is voided out by tropospheric ozone. These ozone levels are influenced by both emissions and temperature. When the temperature rises, the ground ozone levels will rise as well.

The overall predictions for farming in North America are neither all bad nor all good. Crops are expected to benefit from the effects of global warming in many regions for a short period of time. Crops will suffer in some places due to regional variations. The Great Plains are now more susceptible to drought. However, Canada will probably benefit from the added heat, causing farming of some crops to shift north.

Right now, and in the near future, global warming does not seem to pose a serious risk for North American farmers in general. There may even be some positive outcomes. However, in the long run, nothing will be able to mitigate the damage to agriculture that will occur if global warming is not slowed or stopped.

James Nash asked:


A recent poll of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed 34.7 percent of interviewees endorsed the notion that a substantial part of the current global warming trend – which might see temperatures rise by a degree or two, on average, by century’s end – is caused by man’s industrial activities: driving cars and the like.

More than a fifth – 20.5 percent – rejected this “anthropogenic hypothesis.” Half were undecided. The skeptics now include the 85 climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration; the 4,000 scientists from around the world (including 70 Nobel laureates) who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, and the 17,000 American scientists who signed the Oregon Petition.

Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, who bought the sky-is-falling scenario until he bothered to check some of the numbers, which led him to do his own research, at which point he wrote the book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and became the Man The Greens Love to Hate, reminded the folks at Tech Central Atation last November that most economists believe the projected level of warming would either have no effect or be beneficial.

Cold weather kills people, Lomborg reminded us. “It is estimated that climate change by about 2050 will mean about 800,000 fewer deaths.” And that’s before we even get around to increased food production. (If you want a real climate catastrophe, let’s talk about the next Ice Age, which is due relatively soon.)

What’s more, scientists at Ohio State University announced Feb. 12 that Antarctic “temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.” In fact, they went down. So why would one get the sense from the daily barrage of electronic news that “all experts now agree” the earth is heating catastrophically, and that mankind’s use of fossil fuels is at fault?

First, pay attention to the wording. Just as many who want American taxpayers to provide welfare schooling and welfare health care for everyone who can walk here from Mexico and points south blithely lie and say their opponents “oppose immigration” – rather than acknowledging the debate is about “illegal immigration” – so are those who aim to cripple the industrial economies of the Western world careful to ridicule those who “deny global warming,” instead of acknowledging that most skeptics agree there is indeed some minor warming going on, only objecting to the notion that this is a crisis and that mankind’s activities are primarily “at fault” – along with the corollary nutty prescription that destroying every power plant and automobile in America and Western Europe would make much difference.

As demonstrated in the book “Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years,” by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, based on the climate cycle discovered by Dansgaar, Oeschger, and Lorius (who received the Tyler Prize – the “environmental Nobel” – in 1996), those who attribute the bulk of the warming cycle to man’s modern technology willfully ignore the similar fluctuations known to history as the medieval warming period (when Greenland supported Viking farms), the Roman warming period, and the Holocene Climatic Optimum, when SUVs and coal-fired electric plants were notably thin on the ground.

But the second reason a casual viewer could conclude the skeptics have disappeared is that “Spreading the global warming gospel with unified voice are 12,000 environmental groups controlling about $20 billion in assets,” the Tucson-based Doctors for Disaster Preparedness reported last month. In comparison, “Truth seekers have at most a few million, lack the support of the press or Hollywood, and are generally shut out of government-funded schools and universities.”

Which is where the foulest and most inexcusable abuses occur, of course. In direct contravention of the First Amendment guarantee that our tax dollars will never be spent to impose any “establishment of religion,” our children are in fact being spoon-fed the Green doctrine of global warming – memory bytes in doggerel and song – when they’re far too young to bring any critical faculties to bear on this hypothesis.

And some critical perspective sure is needed. Spiralling energy costs fueled by green hysteria “have caused the loss of 100,000 jobs in the UK over 18 months,” report Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, again citing Tech Central Station. Al Gore’s anti-global warming plan would leave the average person 30 percent poorer by 2100, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The Singer & Avery book points out that scrapping every car, truck and SUV in America would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only about 2 percent. Meantime, merely extinguishing all the coal deposit fires that continue to burn unchecked around the world would reduce those emissions by 2 to 3 percent. Which is a more sensible thing to try?

Clearly, those who want to cripple our industrial economy have some other motive. And maybe that explains how shrill they can get in their attempt to silence the hated “climate deniers,” who they now liken to “Holocaust deniers.”

According to U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe’s own Web site, she and Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, sent a letter to ExxonMobil chairman Rex Tillerson in October of last year, demanding the firm stop funding “a small cadre of scientists” who question global warming dogma, instead insisting the heavily regulated oil company “publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it.”

ExxonMobil, whose executives presumably know where gas taxes and offshore oil leases come from, cut off its funding for the Competitive Enterprise Institute last year.

Viscount Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, in a Dec. 11 letter to the senators protested this heavy-handed attempt to silence critics, lauding the courage of the “free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently – despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken a preconceived position; the **** mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretense to uphold or cherish academic freedom.”

But when it comes to intimidating the opposition, the senators are pikers.

The British foreign secretary “has said that skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and denied access to the media,” Doctors for Disaster Preparedness report in their January newsletter. George Monbiot wrote in England’s “Guardian” that “Every time someone drowns as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.”

Grist magazine has called for Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for those who deny the internal combustion engine is about to cause a global climate disaster. Heidi Cullen, host of the weekly global warming TV show “Climate Code,” has called for the American Meteorological Society to strip its certification from any weatherman (or gal) who publicly questions anthropogenic global warming.

Meantime, European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas tells the BBC that people should view the battle against climate change as a war – accepting the privations of a wartime economy and expecting millions of casualties.

And we were wondering why we only seem to hear one side of the story, these days? Isn’t that kind of like asking why no one ever stood up in church in early 16th century Europe and started explaining how unlikely it was that these witches were really flying around at night, causing other people’s cows to go dry?

Martin G. Apple asked:


All the way back in January 2004 Sir David A. King, the Government’s then chief scientific adviser, described global warming, and the climate change that it drives, as a greater threat to the world than international terrorism. King, who caused quite a stir with his comments, said that industrialized countries had a commitment to place a serious effort into developing sustainable energy production and carbon capture technologies.

Now, over four years on, the momentum that King called for has not materialized anywhere but in the showboating embroidery from our politicians and in the cynical green-washing from our captains of industry. The Kyoto agreement – which was widely seen as a last ditch attempt to press against the greed and stupidity that drive climate change just as much as the skybound pollutants themselves – failed. Bush decided that further research into climate change was needed before carbon taxes could be introduced. Thus, 4% of the world’s population – America – continued to account for over one fifth of the world’s carbon emissions.

A successor to Kyoto is due to be thrashed out in 2009 amidst the lushly upholstered suites and complimentary coffee lined tables of Copenhagen’s most suitable venue: the greenhouse-like Copenhagen Congress Centre. The centre will, in a completely non-symbolic gesture, be powered by its very own wind turbine. So this time, you know they mean business.

The reassurance of a windmill and some serious political hyperbole and media speculation have not been enough to persuade the UN Secretary, General Ban Ki-moon, to let the international community rest upon their…well, success would be too strong a word, but the little bit that they have managed to achieve, until the Copenhagen climate deal.

General Ban Ki-moon, talking to the diplomats gathered to celebrate the anniversary of the UN climate panel, said that the politicians should aim to make some serious headway before then this December in Poznan, Poland.

The Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012, has been largely seen as a complete failure in terms of reducing carbon emissions. 37 countries, all developed, signed the protocol, but there are some rather serious holes in the thing in terms of it getting everyone singing from the same sheet. For one, America and China failed to impose any limits under the agreement. For two, the carbon balance sheets ignore certain, little things. Like shipping and air travel. Whoops.

The fear caused by the knowledge that climate change is already affecting us has resulting in an increased impetus in the battle between action and continued inaction. The one hundred months campaign (www.onehundredmonths.org) for example, reckons that “We have 100 months to save the planet”, because after that we “could be beyond the climate’s ‘tipping point, the point of no return.’

Talking to Reuters, Ban Ki-moon suggested that the Poland meeting should serve as a “very successful bridge” for the later meetings in Copenhagen. It is encouraging that climate change has stopped being seen as a long term issue, and hopefully the immediacy of its effects will bring about a mature, effectual political response to the problem.