Should We Worry About Global Warming? The Benefits of Atmospheric Warming

Should We Worry About Global Warming?

The Benefits of Atmospheric Warming
Resource: http://www.enter.net/~jjfhome/globalwarming.htm


The Problem
"At stake is nothing less than the survival of human civilization and the habitability of the earth for our species."

A. Gore

If you believe today's press, nearly all the world's respectable scientists believe that mankind is causing the atmosphere to warm, and the temperature increase will lead to disastrous consequences for animals and man. Furthermore, only man can "save the planet", by costly methods and by putting man's environment ahead of the interests of man himself. Could it be possible that rising atmospheric temperatures are good for humanity? Over the earth's history, the climate has constantly changed, warming and cooling. At the present time, we are in a slow warming trend. Reason tells us that atmospheric warming is better than atmospheric cooling, because it is easier to adapt to warmer temperatures than to cooler ones. In the light of reason, the quote above from Mr. Gore is absurd.

A review of the planet's history

The earth has been warming for the last 18,000 years since the current interglacial event began. The warming has neither been linear nor monotonic. Within historical times, man has seen the medieval warming period, during which time Greenland and Newfoundland were colonized. George Washington experienced the Little Ice Age while at Valley Forge.

Throughout the history of the earth the climate has often changed but predicting future changes on the time scale of decades or centuries by using numerical models will never work. Just look at numerical weather prediction models. It is hard to predict a week ahead, and these models are particularly weak when they attempt to call a change in the weather. If we cannot reliably call the turn in the weather 48 - 72 hours out, how can we possibly suggest that global climate models could have any validity over centuries. Models are good at one thing--solving equations. Models cannot account for variables not programmed into them. In the case of climate, some variables that cause problems include: clouds, biologic activity, dust, land use, and carbon reservoirs such as: land plants, soil, atmosphere, oceans, & fossil fuels. To repeat myself, models are good for solving equations, period. Whatever you believe about the future of the climate, do not believe model predictions!

What causes climate change

Some causes of climate change include:

Changes in solar activity
Cycles in the earth's obliquity, eccentricity, and wobble
Plate tectonics
Vulcanism
Impact by extraterrestrial body
Changes in greenhouse gases (H2O, CH4, CO2, and others)

Of these gases, water and methane have the most greenhouse effect, but it is not easy to blame mankind for them. Clearly most of the climate change over the last two million years did not result from human activity, but it is likely that man is partially responsible for the current warming. It is not easy to prove either way, but it has become axiomatic in the press that it is man's fault. There is a correlation between CO2 concentration (currently about 385 parts per million) and atmospheric temperature, but although a cause and effect relationship has not been established (cum hoc ergo propter hoc), the relationship could be causal. The concentration has been higher and lower in the past, and given the history of climate change, man's effect is probably not overwhelming. After all, the CO2 concentration is only about 0.01 that of the water vapor concentration. Now let's take a look at politics.

GEO-4

In October 2007, the UN issued a report called Global Environmental Outlook.

In its press release, GEO-4 says, "There are no major issues raised in Our Common Future for which the foreseeable trends are favourable."

However, according to the EPA, "The common view that the environment is deteriorating in almost all respects is not justified. Several important trends are moving favorably as a result of applications of science and technology as well as behavioral and policy shifts in both developing and industrialized countries. For example, energy intensity, the source of major environmental problems when fuels are dirty, is decreasing, and the fuel mix is decarbonizing, signifying a shift to cleaner sources."

Geo-4 says, "Sea-level rise caused by thermal expansion of water and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets will continue for the foreseeable future, with potentially huge consequences." While true as stated, sea level has risen 100' in 18,000 years. Why does GEO-4 imply that this rise is recent?

GEO-4: "The situation on air pollution is mixed, with some successes in both developed and developing countries, but major problems remain...Despite progress in reducing emissions, air pollution still poses risks for both human health and the environment."

Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change: "There is little published evidence that changes in population health status actually have occurred in response to observed trends in climate over recent decades."

The Environment

The word "environment" refers to man's surroundings. Even if used to mean the surroundings of an animal, the word is used only by humans, not by the animal. It should be appropriate then for man to take pleasure in his environment, use its resources, and take care of it. However to some, "environment" and "earth" have taken on the characteristics of a god, and devotion to the environment has become a religion. To those people, man is viewed as evil; whereas, animals, trees, and ice are viewed as good. They seem to think the world would be a better place, if only there were no humans. If the atmosphere is warming, that is good for most people. Those living on low-lying islands or seacoasts seem to be the only exception.

According to the EPA, aggregate emissions from six principal pollutants in the USA has decreased 54% since 1970. From that I conclude man has done a good job in recent years in taking care of his environment.

A review

What have we learned so far? The earth has been warming for a long while, and humans may be contributing some of it now. What is the goal of radical environmentalism? Is it to reverse global warming and produce cooling? That would be a true catastrophe. Is it to stop warming? That is impossible until the next glaciation. Is it to reduce the rate of increase? To what purpose; how low should we reduce it; how will we know when we have done enough? Why is the goal never stated?

When have you heard an environmentalist propose a solution (not goal) that did not hurt people or business? Goals such as clean air and water are good; solutions that hurt people, cost money, resources, and the expenditure of great effort by man should be subjected to a cost/benefit analysis. Note that only CO2 emissions from transportation and electricity generation are addressed.

What about changing our forestry practices to put out more fires, such as cutting out the underbrush?
What about building more nuclear power plants?
What about engineering solutions like adding aerosols to the atmosphere?
What about using less ethanol in gasoline so we do not disturb a major carbon sink, the soil?

On balance ethanol in gasoline puts more carbon in the atmosphere.

The benefits of "Global" Warming

Amid all this despair about anthropogenic global warming, could it be possible that warming is good? First of all, warming is not global. It occurs most in colder places and times such as: northern latitudes, mountains, night, & winter. It occurs least in tropical climates. Let's compare some benefits with drawbacks.

Drawbacks Benefits
Low-lying areas get flooded Reduced energy use
Loss of biodiversity More land is available for mankind & farming
Arctic ice melts Northwest passage opens
More heat-related deaths Fewer cold-related deaths
More severe storms?? Better conditions for crops and forests

Although the consequences of warming outlined in red in the table are significant and problematical, there are offsetting consequences that are good. On balance, decide for yourself, are energy savings and increased land availability better for mankind than loss of low-lying areas and loss of biodiversity? When have you ever heard anyone cite the advantages of warming? Would you rather cooling or warming?

Conclusions

The earth has been warming since the latest glaciers started to melt. Isn't that better than cooling? Let's all enjoy the energy savings.

Should we worry about global warming? Yes, if you live on a low-lying island or barrier island, otherwise no. We should welcome the warmer temperatures in the polar and temperate climates and accept the trends we cannot control.

J. J. Friel, Ph. D.

CLICKING THAT HELPS

http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/
http://www.thehungersite.com/tpc/THS_linktous
http://www.care2.com/click2donate/

Come on, try checking them out.

IT'S FREE. YOU DO NOT NEED TO DONATE $$ TO HELP.

These site have buttons for you to click LOL

Well, it works like this. The donations use money given by companies that put their advertisement there. When you click, It will shows those advertisement below the buttons. Each click count. And the advertisement's money will go to charity.

Sorry if you don't understand... Check this, it explains better:
The Hunger Site provides a feel-good way to help promote awareness and prevent hunger deaths every day — through easy and quick online activities.

With a simple, daily click of the yellow "Click Here to Give - it's FREE" button at The Hunger Site, visitors help provide food to those in need. Visitors pay nothing. Food is paid for by the site's sponsors and distributed by Mercy Corps worldwide and by Feeding America (formerly America's Second Harvest) to food banks throughout the United States.

Please remember to click every day to give help and hope to those most in need. Every click counts in the life of a hungry person.

Obama left with little time to curb global warming

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer Sun Dec 14, 6:49 pm ET

WASHINGTON – When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.

Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.

"The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over," he said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. "We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."

But there are powerful political and economic realities that must be quickly overcome for Obama to succeed. Despite the urgency he expresses, it's not at all clear that he and Congress will agree on an approach during a worldwide financial crisis in time to meet some of the more crucial deadlines.

Obama is pushing changes in the way Americans use energy, and produce greenhouse gases, as part of what will be a massive economic stimulus. He called it an opportunity "to re-power America."

After years of inaction on global warming, 2009 might be different. Obama replaces a president who opposed mandatory cuts of greenhouse gas pollution and it appears he will have a willing Congress. Also, next year, diplomats will try to agree on a major new international treaty to curb the gases that promote global warming.

"We need to start in January making significant changes," Gore said in a recent telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This year coming up is the most important opportunity the world has ever had to make progress in really solving the climate crisis."

Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding "tipping points."

"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct."

U.S. emissions have increased by 20 percent since 1992. China has more than doubled its carbon dioxide pollution in that time. World carbon dioxide emissions have grown faster than scientists' worst-case scenarios. Methane, the next most potent greenhouse gas, suddenly is on the rise again and scientists fear that vast amounts of the trapped gas will escape from thawing Arctic permafrost.

The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has already pushed past what some scientists say is the safe level.

In the early 1990s, many scientists figured that the world was about a century away from a truly dangerous amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said Mike MacCracken, who was a top climate scientist in the Clinton administration. But as they studied the greenhouse effect further, scientists realized that harmful changes kick in at far lower levels of carbon dioxide than they thought. Now some scientists, but not all, say the safe carbon dioxide level for Earth is about 10 percent below what it is now.

Gore called the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."

Scientists fear that what's happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013, decades earlier than they thought only a few years ago.

In December 2009, diplomats are charged with forging a new treaty replacing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set limits on greenhouse gases, and which the United States didn't ratify. This time European officials have high expectations for the U.S. to take the lead. But many experts don't see Congress passing a climate bill in time because of pressing economic and war issues.

"The reality is, it may take more than the first year to get it all done," Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said recently.

Complicating everything is the worldwide financial meltdown. Frank Maisano, a Washington energy specialist and spokesman who represents coal-fired utilities and refineries, sees the poor economy as "a huge factor" that could stop everything. That's because global warming efforts are aimed at restricting coal power, which is cheap. That would likely mean higher utility bills and more damage to ailing economies that depend on coal production, he said.

Obama is stacking his Cabinet and inner circle with advocates who have pushed for deep mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas pollution and even with government officials who have achieved results at the local level.

The President-elect has said that one of the first things he will do when he gets to Washington is grant California and other states permission to control car tailpipe emissions, something the Bush administration denied.

And though congressional action may take time, the incoming Congress will be more inclined to act on global warming. In the House, liberal California Democrat Henry Waxman's unseating of Michigan Rep. John Dingell — a staunch defender of Detroit automakers — as head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee was a sign that global warming will be on the fast track.

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., vowed to push two global warming bills starting in January: one to promote energy efficiency as an economic stimulus and the other to create a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from utilities. "The time is now," she wrote in a Dec. 8 letter to Obama.

Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government's machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

The average global temperature in 2008 is likely to wind up slightly under 57.9 degrees Fahrenheit, about a tenth of a degree cooler than last year. When Clinton was inaugurated, 57.9 easily would have been the warmest year on record. Now, that temperature would qualify as the ninth warmest year.

___

Associated Press writer Dina Cappiello contributed to this report.

source : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081214/ap_on_sc/global_warming_obama/print

A Forum For Us

http://rainbowsociety.invisionplus.net

It's a forum for us, so register quickly because I am lonely there... It's for everyone, not just the commitee members.

Oh, when you first enter our forum, read the Announcement section first. There's not much there(for now), BUT what's inside are not rubbish. Read it, it's not lagging at all!

Currently, I have no idea what to article/topics should I put into the forum for us to discuss. So if you think you can be the first person to do it, go ahead. I don't care if you are the one to 'First Blood'....What? Well, what do you expect me to say?

The Big C.

Cancer is the big C that strikes fear into most hearts. Almost everyone knows who has died from some form of cancer. In this new millennium, more and more people are getting cancer, and at even younger ages too. The top cancers for men worldwide are cancer of the lung, nasopharynx and colon, whereas for women, it is breast, cervix and colon cancer.

The body has natural cycles of cell elimination and reproduction- for instance skin cells regenerate themselves in 28 days, while red blood cells are reproduced every four months to replace expired cells. Cancer happens when the body cells proliferate or grow faster than they should.

Scientist are still searching for the answers on why does this things happen – but there is already research that links cancer an\d abnormal cell conditions to family history, environmental pollution, unhealthy lifestyle, high-fat diets and lack of physical activities.

The most alarming part about cancer is that the symptoms usually manifest themselves quite late. By the time there are symptoms, cell proliferation would have been quite substantial, which means the cancer is already in an advanced stage.

Some of the most common signs include an unexplained lump or growth in the breast or neck that does not go away, unusual bleeding from any part of the body, changes to a spot or mole, a sore that does not heal, changes in bladder or bowel habits and difficulty swallowing.

Recent research suggests that the diet plays the major role in cancer risk. Cancer rates are found to be much higher in the western countries with the culture of high-fat diets. As Asia gets increasingly westernized particularly in the dietary habits, the rates of cancer are rising in tandem!

Therefore, what can we do to keep cell activity healthy and normal so as to keep the big C at bay?
Here are some suggestions:

1. Maintain a healthy body weight because obesity has been found to be the cause of many chronic diseases.

2. Stay active physically exercise at least 3 times a week, 30 minutes each time.
3. Reduce fat in your diet and practice using low-fat alternatives in your cooking.
4. Increase foods with high fiber content such as fruits, vegetables and grains to promote intestinal activity.

5. Increase intake of vitamin C found naturally in citrus fruits and vegetables for better absorption of nutrients.

6. Reduce caffeinated beverages and opt for refreshing yet beneficial alternatives such as green tea.

7. Include natural immune booster such as mushrooms, onions, garlic and herbs to keep your immune system balance.

8. Go for regular check-ups instead of visiting a doctor when there is a pain, injury or diseases.


So the most important is the awareness and attitude towards cancer prevention. Remember, cancer cuts across all race and religion. Early detection and treatment will prevent you from becoming a statistic!
By Audrey Lim
13th December, 2008.

Christmas gift

Today has already 10th of December,
Christmas's eve will be left with another 14 days!!!!
Have you bought gifts to your love ones, family and friends???
Expensive and big budget to spend?
NO!
why don't look for something GREEN and eco-friendly????


I found a website just now, look nice and affordable ;)
check it out!

http://www.greenchristmasmarket.blogspot.com/


Maybe you can DIY DO.It.YOURSELF to show your love ones that you CARE and LOVE them!!!

check this :
http://christmasgiftsnow.net/handmade-christmas-gifts.htm




Christmas's cookies always the best serve and homemade gift
http://www.christmas-cookies.com/




posted by : Elly See

ANNOUCEMENT, Labi trip

ANNOUNCEMENT:



RE : LABI TRIP FOR RAINBOW SOCIETY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

1. Date and Venue

a. Date: 27th December 2008, Sunday
b. Venue: Labi, mukim Sg.Liang ,Negara Brunei Darussalam

2. Rules and Regulations

a. This trip is strictly for Rainbow Society Committee Members only. Even if a Committee Member is unable to join the trip, no other people can be invited to join this trip.

b. Committee Members are expected to wear the Rainbow Society T-shirt and may bring an extra t-shirt if they wish to do so.

c. Every Committee Members must ensure that their parents know about this trip, and that their parents give their approval for the committee members to join this trip.

d. All items and belongings that each Committee Members bring are his or her responsibilities. Damage or loss of belongings will not be compensated. Members are also expected to take care of themselves as Rainbow Society will not be responsible for any damage acquired during the trip.

e. Committee Members are expected to make preparations a day before the trip and be ready on time for the transport.

f. Committee members are expected to obey the president and behave as they should for the trip.

3. Things Necessary For Each Committee Members To Bring

a. Respective cutlery, i.e., plates, spoons, forks and so on
b. Respective drinks, if possible, in the form of mineral water
c. An extra t-shirt
d. Mobile phone for contact
e. Ointment like sunblock or sunscreen

Note: Members are allowed to bring other things other than those listed above.

4. Miscellaneous

a. Committee Members must follow the Rules and Regulations stated above.
b. For additional information, please refer to the President.
c. This file is confidential and thus should not be forwarded to anyone else.


***All of the committee participants are expected to bring some info/general facts about GREEN Living/activities during the trip to share with others.
*Collections should be clear at least 1 week before the trip to Pei Fen, RS's treasurer or Ah hao, RS's asst.treasurer.



prepared by : Yee Jien (Jess Sia)
Approved by : Elly See ,president of RS

Chilean glaciers retreating due to global warming: report
SANTIAGO, Dec 7 (AFP) Dec 07, 2008
Chile's glaciers are on the retreat, a sign of global warming but also a threat to fresh water reserves at the southern end of South America, a report has found.
In a November report, the Chilean water utility -- Direccion General de Aguas de Chile (DGA) -- said the Echaurren ice fields, which supply the capital with 70 percent of its water needs, are receding up to 12 meters (39.37 feet) per year.

Twenty of the glaciers studied receded between 1986 and 2007 in Campos de Hielo Sur, the third largest ice reserve in the world after Antarctica and Greenland. At the current rate of decline, Echaurren and other small glaciers close to Santiago could vanish over the next half century.

"The results indicate that the Campos de Hielo Sur glaciers generally tend to recede, which could be due to climate change in the region," the study said.

"The glaciers have receded up to 580 meters (1,900 feet) due to reduced rainfall recorded by weather stations in Patagonia and temperatures rising by about one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the region over the last century."

The Chilean glaciers, located mostly in the remote flatlands of Patagonia, have receded by about 67 meters per year between 1986 and 2001 and by about 45 meters between 2001 and 2007, according to DGA.

The Jorge Montt receded the most of all glaciers studied, by 11 kilometers (6.8 miles) in 21 years, a loss of 40 square kilometers (25 square miles). The San Rafael glacier in southern Chile lost 12 kilometers (7.45 miles) over 136 years.

"The fact that the glaciers are receding is one of the most dramatic consequences of global warming, because that's where climate change is most obvious," glaciologist Andres Rivera of the Valdivia scientific studies institute (CECS) told AFP.

The melting or collapse of the ice wall formed at a glacier's extremity is not due solely to global warming, according to the scientists who wrote the DGA study. The depth of the lakes or fjords into which they fall also causes the glaciers to crumble.

Loss of glaciers along Chile's Andes mountain range, home to 76 percent of South America's glaciers over a surface of 20,000 square kilometers (12,400 square miles), is threatening the water supply for people and agriculture.

"The glaciers will continue to provide fresh water for at least a hundred years. The cities and crops will expand and a time will come where the glaciers will be the population's water source," the study warned.

But two glaciers bucked the trend. Pie XI, the biggest glacier in Hielo Sur, is also the only one that continues to expand in Chile. Perito Moreno in neighboring Argentina is its only glacier that is still spreading.

"These two examples are anomalies, exceptions in this region where the glaciers are receding and losing mass."






source :http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/081207220535.1tew1335.html

Quake with magnitude of 6.1 hits northern Japan

Quake with magnitude of 6.1 hits northern Japan
1 day ago

TOKYO (AP) — A 6.1-magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of northern Japan on Thursday, the Meteorological Agency said. There were no immediate reports of damage or casualties.

The quake hit Thursday morning off the coast of Miyagi, about 180 miles (290 kilometers) north of Tokyo, the agency said. It struck at a depth of about six miles (10 kilometers).

The agency said there was no danger of a tsunami from the earthquake.

Masakazu Murakami, an official in charge of disaster management in Miyagi, said the quake caused no damage to utilities such as water, electricity, gas and telephone lines.

"I was in the office when the quake hit this morning. But I did not feel any tremors," Murakami said.

A police official in Miyagi said authorities there had not received any reports of damage or casualties. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, citing department policy.

Japan is one of the world's most earthquake-prone countries.

The most recent major quake in Japan killed more than 6,400 people in the western port city of Kobe in January 1995.

Experts believe Tokyo has a 90 percent chance of being hit by a major quake over the next 50 years.

source :
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j2Of-mRPmlnRRq09DW2EVRHLWqnAD94RIKN80

ANNOUCEMENT

ANNOUNCEMENT:

After a few days break, we are back!
Rainbow society members are going to back in their base and starting to plan for more strategy, activities as well as some official work-done here.
For more update, please keep in touch in this blog :D

ELLY SEE
President of RS

Indonesia's Quake Toll Rises To Six, 10,000 Displaced

(RTTNews) - Six persons were killed and over 10,000 others were displaced after a strong earthquake of magnitude 7.5 rattled Indonesia's Sulawesi Island Monday. Health ministry reports said that over 150 persons were injured.

The shallow quake hit Indonesia early Monday with its epicenter 138 km northwest of Gorontalo city. Indonesia's meteorology agency issued a tsunami alert, but the warning was lifted later.

Two more bodies were pulled out from the rubble Tuesday adding to the four already reported dead in Monday's quake. The Health Ministry crisis center reports said that over 1,000 buildings were damaged in the quake and over 10,000 persons had sought safe shelters out of their homes.

Indonesia had just launched a hi-tech tsunami alert system to issue early warnings, but experts said that large parts of the country are still not covered and the system will not be fully operational till 2010.

Meanwhile, a moderate earthquake of magnitude 5.5 rocked eastern Indonesia Tuesday. However, there were no reports of damage or casualties.

by RTT Staff Writer

For comments and feedback: contact editorial@rttnews.com
Source: http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=779460&SMap=1

16 November 2008
Showcases Its Revolutionary Air Purifer; Confernce A Success

The EnviroCities 2008 International Conference that was held at the Bustan Rotana Hotel, was organized by the 'Environmental Centre for Arab Towns', in association with Harvard University- School of Public Health. More than 20 experts from different parts of the world had spoken about the health hazards of pollution and the ways to combat them, such as the use of Plasmacluster Ion Purifier developed by Sharp Corp. The conference was attended by ministers, senior government officials, NGO's, healthcare professionals and other dignified invitees.

This conference had attracted the attention of the world leaders, the conference calls for the immediate government intervention in emission control and the subsequent healthcare. "We are proud to say that Sharp Plasmacluster ion technology can help to provide healthier and comfortable indoor environment. The Plasmacluster ion purifier from Sharp generates positive and negative ions that can inactivate airborne virus, bacteria, odour and allergens." Mr Fred Yamaguchi, the newly on board Managing Director of Sharp Middle East said in his presentation speech in EnviroCities conference.

The effect of the Plasmacluster has proven its effect against more than 17 kinds of airborne and harmful species including bird flu H5N1.It has also been proven that the trigger of allergic asthma can be reduced by the Plasmacluster ions, and Sharp has granted the certificate from Asthma Society of Canada in the year 2004.

More than 25 collaborative researches have been conducted with academic bodies and associations all over the world, including the Asthma association of Canada, as well as the Professors from Harvard School of public health in the US, University of London in the UK, and University of Lubeck in Germany.

Sharp had built stalls around the conference area to demonstrate the Plasmacluster air purifiers, a technology that was verified by harnessing the intellectual power of experts across the globe, in the field of healthcare control.

The conference also emphasized about the active involvement of the government in cutting the carbon and other greenhouse gas emission. It has highlighted about the repercussions that will result if strategies to control all forms of pollution are not implemented immediately. Sharp Corp, the Platinum sponsor of the conference wants to provide the people with clean air to breath, a clean and green earth for the people to live in.

- Ends -

About Sharp Middle East FZE
Sharp Middle East Free Zone Establishment (SMEF) began operations on April 1, 1998, in the Jebel Ali Free Zone (JAFZ) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE). A Dhs30m ($8m) enterprise wholly owned by Sharp Corporation, Japan, SMEF was established as a central base to handle all regional marketing activities, including sales, service and distribution. Not only is SMEF working to expand its sales activities in the Middle East and Africa, but in Pakistan, Iran and Central Asia as well.

For more Information please contact
Mr. Shaukat
Tel:04 32176200

© Press Release 2008

http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20081116131515/Sharp%27s%20Air%20Purifier%20Draws%20Attention%20at%20EnviroCities%202008

(Corrects funds under management to more than $1.6 billion in last paragraph, instead of more than $150 million)

By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia

GOLD COAST (Reuters) - The world still has the funds and ability to fight climate change and nations should not use the financial crisis to delay policies on tackling global warming, a top carbon expert said on Thursday.

James Cameron, vice-chairman of London-based Climate Change Capital, said the mobilisation of trillions of dollars over recent months had demonstrated the strength and scale of cooperation in tackling a global crisis.

"We run the risk that governments will choose to focus on the near-term crisis and allow themselves the delusion that there is more time available to deal with a crisis coming slowly from afar," he told a major carbon conference in Australia.

"So I accept that there is a danger that climate change could slip in the priority list for governments," he told delegates.

"But we have learned that we are able to cooperate across borders to deal with the financial crisis, and beyond political boundaries, so we can mobilize capital very fast and that we do so in ways that support the continuation of our market systems."

He said if governments combined that same capacity to cooperate with a matching urgency in tackling climate change, then the world could deal with both crises at the same time.

There are concerns the financial crisis has already called on large reserves of public capital and that countries would be reluctant to make near-term climate change commitments that would cost their economies or threaten jobs.

But Cameron, a senior member of one of the world's leading investors in clean-energy projects, said such a short-term focus was unwise.

"If you are making investments that are designed to deliver public good in dealing with a crisis that will undeniably cost our economies substantial amounts over decades to come, it trivialises the issue to do a near-term cost-benefit analysis."

"We are not, despite the recent drastic fall in the value of stock markets, without the capital to invest in solutions to this problem," he added.

Climate Change Capital has more than $1.6 billion in funds under management and focuses on companies and institutions affected by the policy and capital market responses to climate change, the firm says on its website.

from: http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36219820081030?sp=true

News From Times : How to win the war on Global warming

Wednesday, Apr. 16, 2008
How to Win the War on Global Warming
By Bryan Walsh

Americans don't like to lose wars—which makes sense, since we have so little practice with it. Of course, a lot depends on how you define just what a war is. There are shooting wars—the kind that test our mettle and our patriotism and our resourcefulness and our courage—and those are the kind at which we excel. But other struggles test those qualities too. What else was the Great Depression or the space race or the construction of the railroads or the eradication of polio but a massive, often frightening challenge that we decided as a culture we ought to rise up and face? If we indulge in a bit of chest-thumping and flag-waving when the job is done, well, we earned it.

We are now faced with a similarly momentous challenge: global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of our very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing. Indeed, if we're fighting at all—and by most accounts, we're not—we're fighting on the wrong side. The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations ratified the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. While even developing China has boosted its mileage standards to 35�m.p.g., the U.S. remains the land of the Hummer. Oh, there are vague promises of manufacturing fuel from switchgrass or powering cars with hydrogen—someday. But for a country that rightly cites patriotism as one of its core values, we're taking a pass on what might be the most patriotic struggle of all. It's hard to imagine a bigger fight than one for the survival of the country's coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy—and for those of the world at large as well.

The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less consensus on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to naive wish lists that could cripple America's growth. But let's assume that those interested parties and others will always be at the table and will always—sensibly—demand that their voices be heard and that their needs be addressed. What would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like—one that would leave us both environmentally safe and economically sound?

Forget precedents like the Manhattan Project, which developed the atom bomb, or the Apollo program that put men on the moon—single-focus programs both, however hard they were to pull off. Think instead of the overnight conversion of the World War II�era industrial sector into a vast machine capable of churning out 60,000 tanks and 300,000 planes, an effort that not only didn't bankrupt the nation but instead made it rich and powerful beyond its imagining and—oh, yes—won the war in the process.

Halting climate change will be far harder than even that. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem, by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala of Princeton University, calls for a reduction of 25�billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 50 years—the equivalent of erasing nearly four years of global emissions at today's rates. And yet by devising a coherent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with farsighted goals, combines government activism with private-sector enterprise and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of our way of life for future generations. Money will get us part of the way there, but what's needed most is will. "I'm not saying the challenge isn't almost overwhelming," says Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the new book Earth: The Sequel. "But this is America, and America has risen to these challenges before."

No one yet has a comprehensive plan for how we could do so again, but everyone agrees on what the biggest parts of the plan would be. Here's our blueprint for how America can fight—and win—the war on global warming.

First, Price the Sky

The most important part of a blueprint to contain climate change is to put a charge on carbon emissions. As long as the sky is free, renewable energy will never beat fossil fuels. But put a price on carbon, and suddenly the alternatives look a lot better. The most feasible way to do this is through a cap-and-trade system that sets ceilings for carbon output and lets companies that come in under the limit sell credits to those that don't, allowing them to keep polluting—a little. The effect is that overall carbon levels fall, and there is even money to be made by being greener than the next guy. That drives investment and research dollars into renewable energy and efficiency. "Cap and trade changes everything," says Krupp.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was an early attempt at such a system, with the aim of having developed nations reduce their carbon emissions an average of 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. The accords were meant to drive cuts in greenhouse gases and promote investment in clean tech in developing nations through carbon trading. What probably doomed Kyoto was the absence of some key players. Large developing nations like China, India and Indonesia were excused from the treaty, since limiting their emissions was seen as likely to limit their burgeoning economies. The U.S., whose participation was necessary if the treaty was going to succeed, cited this perceived favoritism when it abandoned Kyoto altogether in 2001.

While President George W. Bush has little environmental cred left after seven years of the least green Administration in modern memory, in this case he had a point. Carbon is a global pollutant, meaning that it has the same impact whether it's emitted from an suv in Boston, a factory in Beijing or a burning forest outside Brasília. Dramatic reductions in U.S. emissions won't bring the intended environmental benefits if emissions by other countries increase at the same time. The problem is, if we don't clean up our own mess because developing giants don't have to, what's the incentive for them to clean up theirs? "If we don't act, China and India will simply hide behind America's skirts of inactions and take no steps of their own," says Senator John Warner of Virginia.

If the U.S. breaks the logjam and adopts a national cap-and-trade program, it may be Warner who will deserve much of the credit. Last December, a bill that the veteran Republican co-sponsored with independent Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut passed out of the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works, giving it the best opportunity of any of the many proposed cap-and-trade bills to become law. Lieberman-Warner, as it's known, calls for cutting carbon from most sources to 2005 levels by 2012 and then 70% below 2005 levels by 2050. Environmentalists would like to see it strengthened, with less wiggle room for polluting industries, but with little else on the table, an attainable good bill may be a lot more attractive than an unattainable perfect one. "The sooner we can get something, the better," says Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Lieberman-Warner hasn't yet gone to a full vote in the Senate, although it may reach the floor by late spring. It will face opposition from the White House, as well as from many Republicans and some Democrats from coal-dependent states. The principal rap against cap-and-trade proposals is that they would be a drag on the economy. A new study by the National Association of Manufacturers, an industry trade group, estimates that Lieberman-Warner would cost the U.S. up to 4�million jobs by 2030 while eroding gdp by up to $669 billion per year. "The environmental community would have you believe that you can make these changes and not only will there not be negative consequences, there'll be positive consequences," says Republican Representative Joe Barton, ranking minority member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

It's true that there will be costs associated with any carbon-pricing plan; ending climate change won't be free. "You want a clean environment, you have to pay for it," says Peter Fusaro, founder of the green investment group Global Change Associates. But just how high will the tab be? An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study found that gdp would grow just 1% less from 2010 to 2030 under Lieberman-Warner than without it—and that doesn't take into account the potential economic benefits. In an April study, the International Monetary Fund concluded that smart carbon-cutting policies could contain climate change without seriously harming the global economy. And while the U.S. business community will fight hard over the details of any cap-and-trade plan, a growing number of companies are now begging for the certainty that will come from what many see as inevitable legislation. "I believe it will be a challenge, but it's doable," says Peter Darbee, CEO of the West Coast utility PG&E.

Of course, such a challenge is easier for a major utility to face than it is for some consumers. Any carbon cap with teeth will boost electricity and gas prices in the short term, before carbon-free alternatives can be scaled to market, and that will hurt those already struggling to heat their homes and fill their tanks. Here's a solution, courtesy of Peter Barnes, a pioneering green entrepreneur: a cap-and-dividend system that returns the revenue raised by a cap-and-trade system to citizens through a flat rebate, similar to the way Alaskans receive oil-industry dividends from the state government.

Though a federal cap-and-trade system for carbon would largely be a foray into the unknown, we can examine how the idea is working in the states, many of which are far ahead of Washington. At the New York City headquarters of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), organization president Frances Beinecke shows a map that identifies in green those states that have committed to or are considering mandatory carbon caps. A year ago, the map was mostly white, but now it's less than half. Not only are states coming aboard one at a time, but some are joining in groups, as in the West and Northeast, where regional greenhouse-gas trading blocs are being launched. "The momentum that has built up in the states is unbelievable," says Beinecke.

To see why a serious cap-and-trade system doesn't have to come at the expense of economic growth, take a look at California. In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the most aggressive carbon regulation in the country: California has now implemented law AB�32, which mandates that the state's greenhouse-gas emissions be cut to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of about 25%. "There are so many states in the U.S. that have signed on to [carbon cuts]," says Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has bucked the White House and led the way on global warming.

Schwarzenegger's plans have plenty of critics. Cathy Reheis-Boyd, the chief operating officer at the Western States Petroleum Association, worries that if California gets out too far ahead of the rest of the country, local businesses will flee to unregulated states, a phenomenon called "leakage"—which is another reason a national cap is so important. "I think our industry could be effectively pushed out of�California," says Jim Repman, CEO of the California Portland Cement Co.

Past predictions that environmental laws like the Clean Air Act would decimate California's economy, however, proved false, and AB�32 could be no different. A 2006 report by the University of California, Berkeley, concluded that the law would actually boost the state's gdp by $60�billion and create 17,000 jobs by 2020 as the state's entrepreneurial tech culture churns out new companies to meet the need for energy efficiency. While energy-intensive industries like cement-making may indeed be driven out, they could be replaced by clean-tech start-ups like Solarcity, which has become in a couple of years the state's fastest-growing solar installer, employing more than 200 people. Nationwide, the American Solar Energy Society estimates, there are already 8.5�million jobs in the clean-tech sector, which it projects could grow to 40�million by 2030 with the right policies.

Energy by the Sip

The next big piece of a global-warming-control plan involves learning to be more efficient with the fossil fuels we continue to burn. America has long been astoundingly wasteful about energy use, but for years, that mattered little because power and fuel were so cheap. "Until recently, using more energy was a way to get more productive," says Kevin Surace, CEO of Serious Materials, a green building company. "That doesn't change until energy costs go substantially up."

Surace has a point. There are a lot of reasons Western Europe and Japan are so far ahead of the U.S. on energy efficiency, but one is that their higher energy costs simply forced their hand. With oil now well over $100 per bbl., that crisis moment may have arrived for the U.S. too. The answer is an "efficiency surge," a crash improvement that can help offset the steady increase in energy prices and so buy time for the development of carbon-free alternatives. "We need to create breathing room," says Rick Duke, director of NRDC's Center for Market Innovation. "But an unguided market won't take care of that alone."

A coherent plan could. Recent research from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) shows that we could slash the projected growth in the world's energy demand by at least half by 2020 just by taking advantage of existing opportunities to cut waste. Think of simple, costless changes like turning off the lights in offices at night—that's "money on the table," in the words of efficiency guru Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. MGI says annual industry-wide investments of $170�billion per year in efficiency improvements like green buildings and higher-mileage cars could yield an additional $900�billion per year in savings by 2020. More important, the emissions cuts resulting from better efficiency could deliver up to half the carbon reductions needed to keep warming at no more than 2�C hotter than the present—considered to be an upper safe level. "There's so much water pouring out of the bottom of the bucket that it's insane to put more water into it," says Adam Grosser, a partner with Foundation Capital, which has invested heavily in energy-efficiency companies.

Some of that hole-plugging has already begun. Last year's federal energy bill raised corporate average fuel economy (cafe) standards for the first time in three decades, to 35�m.p.g. for cars by 2020. That's not world-beating compared with Europe's average of 40�m.p.g., but it's a good start. Efficiency standards could be put in place for household appliances and lighting as well. Japan's smart Top Runner program takes the best model in the marketplace and sets its performance as the industry requirement. Similar rules could be applied to architecture. Since nearly half of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions channel through buildings, there's a sizable opportunity for savings if we mandate green design rather than simply depend on architects and builders to adopt it voluntarily. And if utilities were able to institute variable pricing—charging customers more for power during periods of peak demand and less during off periods—you'd see enormous efficiency improvements.

California—again the leader—has implemented a pilot program for just such a variable-pricing plan. It uses what are known as smart meters, which provide real-time information about customer energy use and make billing more precise and savings more predictable. Since the project began, energy demand has fallen 13%, giving a taste of the wider savings that could be captured with a more comprehensive, permanent plan. Other efficiency programs have managed to keep per capita energy use in California—already the lowest in the country—essentially flat for the past three decades, even as energy use per person in the U.S. overall jumped 50%. California's pleasant clime plays a role, but efficiency still matters. Darbee of PG&E estimates that the state's green policies have eliminated the need for 24 power plants over the past 30 years—a process called "demand destruction," or cutting carbon before it's even born.

Invent, Invent, Invent

Even an epic surge in efficiency, though, won't by itself solve our energy woes, because demand in the booming developing world will outpace the best productivity measures. Hence the need for the final and most difficult step in the blueprint: the creation of a new energy system, one that doesn't depend on carbon. There's a chasm between where we are and where we need to be—and our current strategy for bridging it is murky at best. "What we need to do over the next 10 to 20 years is redesign our relationship with nature and energy," says Nicholas Parker, chairman of the Cleantech Group, a green research organization.

No problem, right? But the good news is that there are already thousands of very smart people working on alternative energy in what Daniel Yergin, chairman of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, calls "the great bubbling." Venture-capital funding in the clean-tech sector hit $5.18�billion in 2007, up 44% from the year before. And no surprise, the biggest bubbling is happening in California, specifically Silicon Valley, where a combination of the state's progressive environmental measures, unmatched scientific talent and entrepreneurial culture is giving birth to dozens of start-ups.

Among the new companies is Amyris Biotechnologies in the Bay Area, where Jack Newman and his team are developing ways to genetically modify bacteria to make better biofuels, sidestepping the food-vs.-energy debate that has long dogged the field. With nearly $100�million in venture backing, Amyris is trying to engineer yeast or bacteria that can metabolize biofuel feedstocks like wood chips and dramatically increase the amount of biofuel that can be extracted from them. "There are staggering things that technology can do," says Newman. "But we need to make this happen in as short a time as possible."

That's where government can help. There may be nothing like free enterprise to unleash innovation, but there's nothing like government to put a whip hand to the process. A firm carbon price will accelerate creativity by making alternatives that much more economical. If Washington better allocated its own research-and-development dollars—as it did in the storied Apollo days—it could accelerate things even more. Currently, the Federal Government budgets about $5�billion per year for research and tax incentives for renewables and energy efficiency. With a federal budget of $2.9�trillion in 2008 and the Iraq war alone burning through an estimated $12�billion per month, there is clearly money to be spent if we decide to reprioritize. A plan floated by Democrats to eliminate $18�billion worth of tax breaks for the oil industry and use the money to support research into renewable fuels would be a smart place to start.

There's no shortage of ways to spend whatever money is made available. Photovoltaic solar panels have made significant improvements, but they are still five to 10 years away from achieving economic parity with fossil fuels—at least at current rates of development. More promising are solar thermal power plants, like the one inaugurated this spring in the deserts of Nevada by Spanish clean-energy giant Acciona. The installation—a 300-acre array of 182,000 mirrors, each aligned to catch and concentrate the sun's energy—heats a synthetic oil that runs in a pipeline and produces steam, which drives turbines to generate electricity. Mirrors and turbines are comparatively cheap, and they're hardly the stuff of high technology. The trick is scaling up and pricing down.

Wind power, the most mature renewable technology, is growing fast, but we need to find a way to store electricity when the breeze isn't blowing. Then there are more fringe alternatives like tidal power, geothermal energy and even nuclear fusion—any of which could take off with enough luck and money.

While Washington should flood the zone with research funding, it should refrain from trying to pick a winner. The great biofuel scam—in which government support for corn ethanol choked the market with a fuel that simply creates other problems, such as deforestation and food price spikes—shows that straightforward subsidies can easily be perverted for political reasons. But a national renewable portfolio standard, which would mandate that a certain percentage of the nation's electricity supply must come from renewable sources, can force utilities to adopt alternatives on a wider scale, going with the technologies that are producing the best results. For that to happen, though, the government has to stop providing the fossil-fuel industry with billions of dollars in subsidies, which boost the sector's built-in advantage even more. "How can the oil industry need a dollar in the days of $100 crude oil?" says John Berger, CEO of Standard Renewable Energy.

Finally, there are micropolicies, like tax credits, that can make solar power and green building more economical on a house-by-house basis. Such credits have helped the wind and solar industries grow out of infancy, but the laws establishing them periodically expire if they're not renewed. The solar investment credit, which was part of the 2005 energy bill, provides a 30% tax credit for the purchase of solar power but will cease to exist at the end of the year if it can't move out of the legislative gridlock that is blocking its renewal. Fortunately, Congress seems ready to extend it. "If it expires, it will take out all the good work that's been done on the state and commercial level," says Julie Blunden, vice president of public policy at SunPower, a leading solar manufacturer and installer. "We could watch our business essentially evaporate by the end of the year."

The Long War

If we took all the steps outlined here—a national cap-and-trade system with teeth, coupled with tougher energy-efficiency mandates and significant new public and private investment in green technologies—where would that get us? We'd be a little poorer—a sustained battle against climate change will hit our wallets hard, absorbing perhaps 2% to 3% of gdp a year for some time, according to energy expert Henry Lee at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, though unchecked warming could end global prosperity. But think of it as an investment: that money, if matched by action internationally, can reduce emissions radically over the next half-century, contain warming and lead us to a postcarbon world.

Ultimately, global warming is not a battle that will be fought fiscal year by fiscal year; it's a fight that will occupy us for generations. Our policies have to operate on the same time frame, even if our politics run on election cycles. We've learned from think tanks and war colleges that the outcome of any crisis is usually determined by one dominant global player that has the innovators who can churn out the technology, the financiers who can back it and the diplomatic clout to pull the rest of the planet along. That player, of course, exists, and it is, of course, us. The U.S. has enjoyed an awfully good run since the middle of the 20th century, a sudden ascendancy that no nation before or since has matched. We could give it up in the early years of the 21st, or we could recognize—as we have before—when a leader is needed and step into that breach ourselves. Going green: What could be redder, whiter and bluer than that?

—with reporting by Kristin Kloberdanz/Modesto, Calif., and Massimo Calabresi, Mark Thompson and Adam Zagorin/Washington


Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731363,00.html

A cool video

green salad

How to make a GREEN salad?
A healthy recipe has been shared by a member of Rainbow society!
Try it out!!!
GREEN salad~
Healthy chill~


INGREDIENTS:
4 tablespoons olive oil
2 tablespoons white wine vinegar
1 tablespoon Dijon mustard
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon ground black pepper
1 pinch white sugar 1 teaspoon chopped fresh parsley
1 teaspoon fresh lemon juice
2 cloves garlic, chopped
1 avocados - peeled, pitted, and cubed
4 cups mixed salad greens
1/2 cup sliced almonds

2 ounces feta cheese, crumbled

DIRECTIONS:
1. In a large bowl, whisk together the olive oil, white wine vinegar, mustard, salt, pepper, sugar, parsley, lemon juice and garlic. Add the avocado, and stir to coat with the dressing.
2. Just before serving, add the salad greens, and toss to coat with dressing. Sprinkle sliced almonds and feta cheese over the top.

Something I found while surfing the Internet. While this is (through my understanding, which may be wrong) mostly directed at U.S.A, I think other people from other countries from other continents from the other side of the Earth may benefit something from this article. i do not dare to change anything for fear it may change the originals meanings.

“

IT'S TIME TO STOP AMERICA'S ADDICTION TO FOREIGN OIL
America is in a hole and it's getting deeper every day. We import 70% of our oil at a cost of $700 billion a year - four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.

I've been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of. But if we create a new renewable energy network, we can break our addiction to foreign oil.

Al Gore's challenge tackles the most critical source of greenhouse gas emissions. But directly alongside the threat of global warming is the impending peak of global oil production. In the near future we will launch a plan for replacing oil with solar energy for routine travel without resorting to the tragedy of trashing our soils and water reserves for the sake of hopelessly inadequate biofuels production.

from : Interactive Oil Depletion Atlas from David Strahan, whose new book, The Last Oil Shock, was released in April 2007 and can be obtained in the Americas from Amazon Canada.

"There are currently 98 oil producing countries in the world, of which 64 are thought to have passed their geologically imposed production peak, and of those 60 are in terminal production decline."

New GAO Peak Oil Report Provides Urgent Call to Action: U.S. Vulnerable and the Government Unprepared for Unacceptably High Risks of Oil Supply Shock, by Congressmen Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Tom Udall (D-NM), co-chairmen of the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus [2007 March 29]

"This GAO peak oil report is a clarion call for leadership at the highest level of our country to avert an energy crisis unlike any the world has ever before experienced and one that we know could happen at any time. Only the President can rally the country to take the urgent steps necessary. Potential alternatives to oil are extremely limited. Technology won't save us without time and money to develop and scale them up."

GAO Peak Oil Report (Complete), Highlights

"... [B]y 2015 these technologies could displace only the equivalent of 4 percent of projected U.S. annual consumption. Under these circumstances, an imminent peak and sharp decline in oil production could have severe consequences, including a worldwide recession. If the peak comes later, however, these technologies have a greater potential to mitigate the consequences."

Within the energy profession there are groups (e.g., ASPO, ASPO-USA) grappling with the challenge of "Peak Oil." While the efforts of Al Gore and others have raised awareness of the threat of global warming, society is not in any way prepared for the imminent decline in global oil production.

In the near term, declining production will impact certain countries more than others. Cantarell, the largest field in the western hemisphere, is declining rapidly. Over the next couple of years, Mexico's economy will be hard-hit.

Without imports, the USA's domestic oil reserves would be exhausted in three years at the current rate of consumption. The Oil War option is losing favor. Technological breakthroughs will be too slow and voluntary conservation will be too shallow to avert widespread disruption of economic activity, especially transportation and consequently food. Lacking the political will to make conscious, rapid, drastic changes, Americans will be subjected to Mother Nature's adjustments; She did not negotiate with the Mayor of New Orleans; nor will She negotiate the American Way of Life when Saudi Arabia's Ghawar field collapses of its own accord.

Liquid fuel substitutes (tar sands, coal-to-liquids, oil shale, surprisingly even ethanol and biodiesel) are carbon intensive and will only exacerbate global warming. Plus they cannot be scaled up on a timely basis.

It would take one new nuclear power plant every week until 2050 to fill the oil gap. Minor detail, uranium shortages would emerge long before 2050, unless as yet unproven breeder reactors come on line soon.

While it will take time, direct conversion of solar radiation to electricity (photovoltaics and concentrating solar power) can be scaled up. One viable sustainable alternative also exists for repetitive travel (e.g., commuting -- more than half of all urban transport). It is the rapid build-out of solar powered electric vehicles on fixed guideways (the "podcar"). A continuous solar array, well within the width of the guideway, is sufficient to provide 100% of the power required for this efficient form of high capacity transit.

”

From: http://www.energycrisis.org/

Oh dear, if this goes on, i won’t even have a future where i can help people. that could be a good excuse to slack off in my study, no? :P

by: en