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.

James Nash asked:


President George W. Bush once famously declared: “I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best.” But when it comes to environmental issues, especially global warming, Bush often sounds more like the dissembler than the decider.

Throughout his presidency, Bush’s so-called leadership on global climate change has lurched from outright stonewalling in the early years, when he refused to discuss or even acknowledge the issue, to misdirection and political sleight-of-hand.

Speaking recently from the White House Rose Garden to consider new climate change strategies, the president set what he called a “realistic” national goal to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025.

Unfortunately, the president offers no actual plan for achieving the new goal, instead calling on Congress to find some way to make it happen. More to the point, the goal itself falls far short of what many scientists believe must be done to prevent the most catastrophic effects of global warming, which is to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions at least 15-20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, not simply to stop emissions from increasing.

Bush believes that it is possible to protect the environment without hurting the economy, and said any new policies or legislation must strike that balance. Bush thinks advanced technology is the key to solving global warming and recommended incentives that would make it more cost-effective for businesses to adopt new clean-energy technology instead of sticking with old systems that emit more greenhouse gases. Again, he never offered a plan for how to get the job done.

Bush praises his administration for increasing the use of wind and solar power and called for continuing investments in renewable energy and carbon sequestration, but he points to nuclear energy and coal – including so-called “clean coal” – as the keys to America’s “energy and economic security.”

The president says his administration has provided “billions of dollars for next generation nuclear energy technologies” and “in 2009 alone, the government and the private sector plan to dedicate nearly a billion dollars to clean coal research and development.”

Bush criticizes U.S. courts for applying what he considers narrow and outdated laws to a broad issue such as global warming. Specifically, he says “the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate.” He took a slap at the U.S. Supreme Court decision that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

The president believes stretching environment laws “beyond their original intent” could force the federal government to act like a local planning and zoning board and to regulate a wide range of small energy users and producers – from schools and stores to hospitals and apartment buildings – which he says would have “crippling effects on our entire economy.”

In discussing various vague strategies that might help fight global warming, the president rejects tax increases, tariffs, trade barriers, and regulations that might lead to higher costs for businesses. Instead, Bush recommends creation of an international clean technology fund “that will help finance low-emissions energy projects in the developing world” and called on all nations “to help spark a global clean energy revolution by agreeing immediately to eliminate trade barriers on clean energy goods and services.”

Many concerned observers are unimpressed with the president’s new strategy to address the problems of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

“Unfortunately, President Bush retains the mantle of the most anti-environmental president in history,” stated Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, in a telephone interview with The Guardian. Karpinski pointed out that Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign promise to cap global warming pollution from power plants was never honored. “Since that time, all we’ve had is empty words but no serious action.”

“This basically sounds like the same quarterback calling the same play,” said Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, in an interview with the Washington Post. “It’s just another way of Bush saying no.”

President Bush believes that the strategy he has laid out shows faith in the ingenuity and enterprise of the American people – and that’s a resource that will never run out. He is confident that with sensible and balanced policies from Washington, American innovators and entrepreneurs will pioneer a new generation of technology that improves our environment, strengthens our economy, and continues to amaze the world.

Let’s hope so, because the only amazing thing about the president’s strategy for greenhouse gas emissions and global warming is its lack of any real effort to address such serious problems.

James Finch asked:


Bad weather may be heading our way. Many very smart voices have raised their volume over the number of alarming red flags pointing to a worldwide environmental catastrophe coming in a few years or decades hence. One voice, coming from the sharp mind of James Lovelock is resounding across the world’s media nearly every day. His solution: get more nuclear reactors online and sequester the carbon dioxide emissions as fast as possible.

What’s the alternative? Move to the Arctic Circle, where you may someday bask year around with temperatures pleasantly at 74 degrees Fahrenheit. According to findings recently published in the journal Nature. About 55 million years ago, there was something called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). In this PETM phenomenon, the entire Earth was heated up by a gigantic release of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. Lovelock has insisted we may see that kind of hot later this century.

Now, another brainy man, with whom we have many chats this year, has issued a special 56-page report, entitled “Investment Implications of an Abrupt Climate Change.” Co-authored by Market Strategist Kevin Bambrough and Eric Sprott, Chief Executive and Portfolio Manager of the world-famous money management firm which bears his name, they present a compelling argument as to why and how global warming and climate change is going to dramatically impact our financial world. You are well advised to read it.

Take Your Pick: Nuclear Energy or Cheap Arctic Land

Aside from optioning to buy vast tracts of land near the Arctic Circle, as Dr. Lovelock’s conclusions force us to briefly consider, what can we do to protect our finances? Global warming, climate change and an apocalypse soon to dawn on the horizon are probably too much reality for the here and now. But, what will you do ten to thirty years from now? This past week, we interviewed Julian Steyn, author of A Brighter Tomorrow, which he co-wrote with U.S. Senator Pete Domenici. A conservative and rational man, even he admitted in an email, “I am afraid I do agree with his (Lovelock’s) concerns.”

If one finds logic within the statistical analysis presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a rational mind would want to start protecting his finances today in order to ensure future survival for his family and lineage. Esteemed scientists have picked their way through mountains of statistics, charts and projections about what is happening with melting glaciers, rising temperatures, higher sea levels and so forth. They do not like what they see, they are not alone, and the better minds are not endorsing wind farms or solar panels as “the solution.” They see nuclear fission reactors as mandatory, and the faster these go online, the less we will later have to sweat (literally).

Eric Sprott and Kevin Bambrough have laid out a possible solution, a cogent thesis as to why we must stop fooling around now. They didn’t write the report to alarm and cajole you to lynch the next environmentalist or anti-nuke whom you come across. Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough provided a blueprint of what must be done by governments and decision-makers. More importantly, they have given us extremely provocative advice on HOW to protect our finances during the brewing crisis.

Remember, it won’t just be some meteor hitting the earth (although that might happen, too). Global warming is tantamount to boiling water on your stove. First, it gets warm, then warmer and warmer. Eventually, it gets hot. Then, the water boils. In other words, the catastrophe will brew for a while, causing political and economic instability, and a host of other ills, probably better described in biblical terms. Most of us, unfortunately, will wait until the next Hurricane Katrina is a few miles down the road before waking up.

Through the first half of the report, the authors cover global warming and climate change, in just about every way imaginable. Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough found nooks and crannies which may alarm you. Did you know the world’s largest aquifer, the Ogallala aquifer in the United States, is drying up because the glaciers, which created this aquifer, are receding? Fresh water is already in short supply for one-third of the world’s population. We may be surrounded by water, but could lack a glass of fresh water to drink. Ask the Saudis why they are building desalination plants as fast they can. Imagine if those arid conditions prevailed across more than 90 percent of the landmass of earth.

What happens as the earth’s temperature goes up? Increased urbanization, growing GDPs and demand for all the niceties that come with “civilization” have a price: more CO2 emissions. Deadly CO2 emissions, which raise the earth’s temperature, poison our air and kill our plants (and us), are very likely going to turn this earth into a potboiler before the century ends.

Nuclear Expansion Needs More Uranium

“This IS the perfect storm,” Kevin Bambrough warned, not as the abused cliché the term has become, but as an angry voice demanding decision-makers take to heart the gravity of CO2 emissions. “We need more nuclear reactors now,” he told us. He directed us to environmentalist Patrick Moore’s contention that the U.S. should reverse its energy source mix from an 80-percent dependence upon fossil fuels, relying instead upon nuclear energy for 60-percent of our electrical power supply.

Under the former Greenpeace co-founder’s scenario, Bambrough extrapolated the World Nuclear Association (WNA) projections for 2030. Nuclear power demand is then expected to soar from the current 368 Gw, produced by the world’s 441 nuclear reactors. He computed, using Moore’s premise of a 60-percent nuclear-reliance, that nuclear reactors would produce 18,900 Twh of the total power demand in 2030, which the WNA estimates might reach 31,500 Twh. To produce that much electricity, Bambrough calculated that by 2030, nearly 2700 nuclear reactors will be required across the planet. Envisioning the “potential” of a 600-percent increase in nuclear reactors online, about 25 years from now, Bambrough also calculated how much uranium would be required to fuel those reactors.

According to Bambrough, current global uranium mining production rests at about the 100 million-pound level. By 2030, if nuclear energy expands as Moore insists it should, then the world’s utilities will require on the order of about 1.3 billion pounds every year. With regards to a planetary build-up of nuclear energy, Bambrough wrote, “The supply of uranium may well be the most limiting factor.”

This may become the new case for a sustained rally in the spot uranium price. Bambrough wrote, “Much higher uranium prices will be required to attract enough investment capital to meet the growth in demand.” This has already begun, as uranium prices have skyrocketed for the past six years. Long-term uranium recently traded as high as $46/pound, exponentially higher than the spot price of $6.40/pound in late 2000. Bambrough is correct in his conclusion. Building an underground uranium mine costs far more than it did in the glory days of uranium in the 1950s. Environmental regulations force miners to spend more and take longer in constructing any uranium-producing facility, including an ISL operation.

“Marginal mines will become price setters,” wrote Bambrough. This helps explain why the Sprott Asset Management funds have invested heavily in companies such as Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM; Other OTC: STHJF), Energy Metals (TSX: EMC) and others. When we first interviewed Strathmore Minerals Chief Executive, Dev Randhawa, in June 2004, he told us his strategy was to capitalize upon a sustained rally in the uranium price by acquiring properties which were uneconomic at the sub-$20/level. His strategy has rewarded shareholders and continued to do so with each uptick in the spot uranium price. If Bambrough’s conclusion is accurate, the junior uranium developers could very well become the Internet high-fliers. That conclusion was reached by newsletter writer James Dines, this past November, and repeated numerous times in multiple reports by others.

“Large low-cost producers may be able to reap Middle East-like oil profits for decades,” wrote Bambrough. If the spread between production costs and spot uranium keeps widening, the smaller uranium companies are going to hit it big. Those companies, which postponed uranium mining, will be selling their uranium production at the kind of profits-to-production spread ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco now enjoy.

Rising uranium prices are probably more of an irritation for fuel traders than the utilities, who worry about construction costs. The actual fuel cost to operate a nuclear power plant borders on the absurd. Bambrough wrote in his report, “Fuel costs (for nuclear) are merely 4.5 percent of total costs, even with uranium at $40 per lb. If uranium rises to $100 per lb (a further 150 percent increase), the cost of nuclear power would only rise by approximately 6.75 percent.” Fuel costs for coal and gas are 35 and 73 percent, respectively. And they release massive doses of CO2 into the air.

What else can be done aside from a worldwide, unanimous endorsement of nuclear energy? There may still be difficulties ahead. Lovelock told us the CO2 emissions problem should have been addressed 50 years ago. It takes between 50 and 100 years for the atmosphere to cycle through those emissions.

The Sprott report co-authors concluded there will be supply problems for food, water and energy. They envision problems with national security, soaring grain prices, and greater investments needed to provide water and energy to those who aren’t buried ten feet deep in their indebtedness. They foresee a currency collapse as central banks flood the money system to provide liquidity. And, of course, gold will resume the role it has always held during times of overpowering economic calamity.

Is this too much reality for you? Should we just wait a while and see what transpires? We might not be so lucky. Some experts, such as the Chief Claims Strategist for Swiss Re, wrote in a March 2006 CERES report, “Global warming has accelerated from a problem that might affect our grandchildren, to one that could significantly disturb the social and economic conditions of our lifetime.”

In other words, Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough are correct in their assumptions and conclusions. The time to get moving is today, not thirty years from now.

For a second opinion, before completing this column, we forwarded the Sprott report to David Miller. He wears many hats, including a consultancy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, third-term Wyoming legislator, president of Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM) and a walking encyclopedia on uranium, geology, nuclear power and politics. He responded quite bluntly, “The fuel of the 19th century was coal. The fuel of the 20th century was oil. Both have run their economic course. Uranium is on its way to becoming the energy fuel of the 21st century. The crescendo of countries clamoring for nuclear energy has been growing louder in each year of this new millennium.” Perhaps, we may yet see Moore’s energy mix come to pass, or at least dramatic growth in the nuclear sector to more closely approach his targeted percentage level.

One key question remains unanswered, during our two-year investigation into uranium and nuclear energy. Sure, we’ve gotten a lot of answers, but we remain unconvinced. No one has satisfactorily answered this question: “Will there be sufficient supplies of ‘already mined uranium’ and current mining production available to the world’s nuclear reactors to meet the anticipated global demand for electricity?” The make-break word in the above question is “available.” Uranium is nearly everywhere. There are about 1.7 billion pounds of ‘already mined uranium’ in the world’s inventories. But will there be enough uranium made available to the utilities when the time comes?

If there is not, today’s spot uranium price could look comparable to gasoline prices, circa 1965, at some future point.

Louis Merz asked:

Global warming research is becoming increasingly important in modern day times. Studying statistics of the changes happening around the world compared to historical times is commonplace. Many scientists around the world are beginning to come up with answers to global warming based on hard data.

The arctic has been a main area of research with scientists studying global warming. Thinning sea ice near the northern reaches of Alaska has been noticed. Since 1979 the sea ice has been tracked and recently in 2007, scientists participating in the Woods Hole Oceangraphic Institution’s Gyre Exploration Project began taking notice of the effects.

While aboard the Canadian Coast Gaurd’s ship, the icebreaker, they noticed the ship easily broke through the ice that years ago would have been to thick to cross through. They also noticed the ice was disintegrating in other areas and new ice was rapidly melting.

Scientists are also noticing polar bears are literally drowning because they are unable to swim the longer distances caused by land and receding ice. In 2007 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have put polar bears on the list of threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Not only the polar bears in danger because of the melting ice, they are also in danger because the oil and gas companies threaten their habitats. Increased energy consumption produces more greenhouse gases thus increasing the global warming problem and destroying the environment because of the need to drill for oil in protected areas.

There are many ways people all around the world can help alleviate the effects of global warming. In your home you can start by changing your light bulbs to fluorescent or energy efficient bulbs.

You can also make sure you home is well insulated and sealed from the weather. An energy auditor can run tests on your home and help you to determine the efficiency of your home. Any time you buy a product try to buy it with energy efficiency in mind. The Energy Star rating system is helpful in determing how efficient certain products are for your home.

Recycling is also another great way to help reduce the harmful effects of global warming. Keep a seperate trash receptacle for your aluminum cans, and you can make money by turning them in to a recycling center.

Simply maintaining your car and keeping your tires properly inflated will increase your gas mileage, reducing energy consumption. You might also want to look into buying a hybrid vehicle to save on gas and have a more environmentally friendly form of transportation.

Glenn Freiboth asked:


If you watch the History channel and watch the top 10 disasters that will befall the world, the number one prediction that is actual happening today is Global Warming.

We begin this article with a brief explanation of Global Warming and it’s impact on life on earth and then move on to the worlds first and only command and control system that will help first responders help save lives when disaster strikes.

Global warming is the increase in the earth’s average temperature due to the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities.

Global climate changes were due to many factors, including massive volcanic eruptions, which increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; changes in the intensity of energy emitted by the Sun; and variations in Earth’s position relative to the Sun, both in its orbit and in the inclination of its spin axis. Global Warming: Early Warning Signs Illustrates observed consequences, as indicated by periods of unusually warm weather, coastal flooding, and changes in glaciers and polar regions.

If there is coastal flooding in coming years due to melting ice caps, it won’t happen suddenly and give you a tidal wave effect.

Scientists all over the world are making predictions about the ill effects of Global warming and connecting some of the events that have taken place in the pat few decades as an alarm of global warming.

They also report of extreme weather events, long-term droughts, and rising sea levels. Warmer temperatures will alter weather patterns, making it likely that there will be more intense droughts and more intense rain events. Most scientists also agree extreme weather events like Hurricane Katrina or Los Angeles’ July record 119-degree Fahrenheit temperature are directly attributed to global warming.

Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.

And the science tells us that human activity has made enormous impacts to our planet that affect our well-being and even our survival as a species. Many are agreed that climate change may be one of the greatest threats facing the planet.

Scientists have linked even this amount of warming to numerous changes taking place around the world, including melting mountain glaciers and polar ice, rising sea level, more intense and longer droughts, more intense storms, more frequent heat waves, and changes in the life cycles of many plants and animals.

Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.

In the next few years we will see great disasters happening right before our eyes in every corner of the world as man made gases continue to be spewed into the atmosphere causing death and pestilence.

Mankind however will not be extinct. People will survive only if there are systems in place that will aid the successful rescue and evacuation of people on a global scale.

A company called Ordia Solutions that had just released a Mobile Tactical Collaboration System (MCTS) interoperability / communication solution for law enforcement, fire/EMS, and search and rescue agencies. The MTCS is the first of a new generation of intuitive, easy-to-use browser-based solutions that addresses improved interoperability for first responders. The MTCS can be securely hosted inside an agency’s firewall and can be delivered to desktop PCs and laptops, and requires no client installation.

Ordia Solutions MTCS is built around the concept of shared workspaces. Multiple authorized user’s can simultaneously browse to a shared workspace to access the same dynamic operating picture. Each user sees identical data displayed on the map, including incident reports, infrastructure, operations, photographs, drawings, and streamed videos.

Any change to the operating picture by a user with editing access is immediately reflected on every other user’s display. Unlike traditional collaboration tools, MTCS facilitates seamless scaling of the user base during multi-agency operations. Because the system is entirely web browser-based, new task force members can be integrated quickly and begin collaborating by simply sharing a secure hyperlink.

The MTSC system use GPS Tracking called AdvanTraq GPS through a collaboration with GLC Enterprises, Inc. This uses an advanced tracking solutions for personnel, vehicle, K9, and cargo that operate as standalone solutions or integrated with and traceable through a Mobile Tactical Collaboration System workspace. Applications range from tactical operations and border/perimeter security to coordinating multi-jurisdictional and multidisciplinary critical incident response.

The MTCS system allows for real time GPS Tracking with shared workspaces to allow first responders to save lives during the upcoming disasters caused by Global Warming. The system is currently in trials with many governmental agencies including the FBI!

All trials to date have exceeded expectations and will be deployed throughout the world in the coming months.

The bad news is that the impacts from Global Warming cannot be stopped! It’s already a runaway train.

Massive disasters and death will continue to take the toll on the human race. How rescue personnel and first responders respond to the upcoming disasters will no doubt determine how many people can be saved now and in the future.

Christophe Catesson asked:

Global Warming Prevention

Global warming is something that we all have to take part in learning how to prevent, not only in the USA but throughout the entire world. We all play a part in contributing to global warming and the only way to help prevent the devastating affects is to work together. Each of the governments throughout the world are striving to develop a prevention plan that can help reduce the amount of emissions they are creating in the atmosphere and enhance what they are doing to contribute to the solution instead of the problem.

A U.S Climate Policy has been created to help citizens of the USA understand global warming and that there are actions which can be taken in order to make a difference. This policy consists of 3 different parts:

* Slowing the growth of emissions

* Strengthening the development of science and research studies

* Enhancing international cooperation

If we can take these policies and principles and put them into action we can begin to see results. This policy is only the beginning of what the government can and should be doing but it is a great start. The politicians within our government are working hard to stick to this policy and evaluate the industrial areas of our country to make sure they meet the requirements of the U.S Climate Policy.

Since the future generations are depending on us to make the choices to rectify this devastating situation, every little effort counts. Our individual efforts are especially significant in countries like the US and Canada, where individuals release 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per person every year. The largest source of greenhouse gases is electric power generation. The average home actually contributes more to global warming than the average car. This is because much of the energy we use in our homes comes from power plants which burn fossil fuel to power our electric products.

The United States has agreed in principle to work with more than 180 other nations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to bring about the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system. California, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington have all enacted laws or established policies setting global warming pollution reduction targets, while states in both the Northeast and West have signed agreements to achieve regional targets. Now the U.S. Congress is considering several bills that propose a variety of global warming emissions reduction targets.

The cost of the Kyoto Protocol is estimated to cost each of the developed countries involved billions of dollars. This is a financial responsibility each government should be willing to take in order to do what they can for the environment. Just when you go to the grocery store and find that organic foods are much more expensive than the regular foods; governments are finding that the cost to reduce greenhouse gases is far more than increasing them.

This one of the major problems our world as been having; it is far easier to create these gases than it is to reduce them and this is exactly what we have been doing for centuries. It is reassuring to see that the governments throughout the world are taking action but it is not nearly enough in order to stop the effects of global warming before they become devastating. Environmentalists and scientists are constantly working with government officials in order to come up with new, cost effective bills and legalities to reduce what they can of greenhouse gases.

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.

Eva Torriente Diaz asked:

Global Warming: Is The Bush II Government Pursuing A Policy Of Genocide By Proxy

Forestry and Global Warming: How Can Our Forests Effect Climate Change?

Next Page »