Nowadays global warming is a major problem facing mankind; some people see at as a big deal and others don’t really care. global warming means the heating up of the earth’s atmosphere due to the greenhouse emissions. The results of global warming can be destructive; many natural disasters were caused because of global warming.
The documentary film presented by Al Gore shows many statistics and results because of global warming. It showed that the first problem caused by global warming is the heat increase and the melting of glaciers, and generally the increase in temperature of the atmosphere. The second problem is the emission of carbon dioxide which affects the atmosphere. In the class we learned how to find out how to calculate our carbon footprint and how this affects the atmosphere. My carbon footprint was 4.67 which means that I emit carbon dioxide 4.67 times than the amount that I should emit, I need 4.67 earths.
Is there a solution for this issue? Many people think that if we try to emit less carbon dioxide and stop polluting the earth it will help in reducing the affect of global warming. Roger Ebert agreed with Al Gore in many ways and he suggested some ways to help, ways which could be done by each individual. We can do this by switching to alternative energy like solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear if possible. We should change to electrical cars and save energy in our houses. Another critic Tony Medley did not agree with Al Gore when he stated that human actions are responsible for global warming and that humans can stop it. Tony thinks that the movie was scientifically presented and it had some emotional ideas; on the other hand he mentioned that some points were good.
In my opinion I think that this issue has been discussed a lot and many people have argued about it. I think that global warming is overrated and it was given more time than it deserves.
Bibliography:
An Inconvenient Truth.Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Pref. Al Gore. DVD. Paramount Classics,2006.
Roger Ebert,
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/REVIEWS/60517002
Tony Medley, http://www.tonymedley.com/2006/An_Inconvenient_Truth.htm
Wednesday 27 May 2009
Wednesday 6 May 2009
Cool Cities
Since the start of the industrial revolution there have been some problems associated with the economic development such as increase in pollution, increase in energy consumption and increase in CO2 emission. These are liabilities towards the industrial revolutions so we would need something that is not possible, another earth. In order to solve these problems we will need to reduce the emission of CO2 by about 50%. Seattle had reduced the emission of its CO2 by 60% by building green houses and using alternative fuel in vehicles. In Japan during the last 30 years GDP (Gross Domestic Product) has doubled, while energy efficiency has increased by 37% and oil consumption has decreased by 8%. 90% of the CO2 emitted in the air is produced from buildings and transport. A cool city is a friendly green city with a minimal emission of CO2; it is being built by the SDCJ, a group of Japanese companies. The three types of transportation that will be used in the Cool cities are light transit trail/monorail, solar water taxis, hybrid cars and SDCJ are also using heat-reducing techniques like: planting trees, roof top membranes and waterways. There will be three main city zones: Commercial, Cultural and Residential. They are expecting to reduce the percentage of Eco-towers emissions by 50% and the Eco-residence emissions by 30%. The overall expected reduction of CO2 is 60%.
My opinion
I think this a good leap towards solving the problem of global warming and the emission of CO2. The main disadvantage of this project is its price; I am sure that it costs them a fortune. Another problem is who will really care about living in an expensive place, where CO2 emission is at a minimum.
My opinion
I think this a good leap towards solving the problem of global warming and the emission of CO2. The main disadvantage of this project is its price; I am sure that it costs them a fortune. Another problem is who will really care about living in an expensive place, where CO2 emission is at a minimum.
Wednesday 29 April 2009
How Europe can save the world
summary
Recently the European Union has brought up a deal which was the most important since the foundation of the Union 50 years ago. The 27 EU-nations goals are to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 from their 1990 level. The plan is to change the type of energy they are using, to use renewable or alternative sources such as water, air, tidal power and bio-fuels. After 2010 many changes in Europe will be done. They are trying to reduce the carbon emissions by any possible way. Every power station will have a carbon capture and storage technology which eliminates carbon emission virtually. Biofuel will be a great alternative for the energy, and Europeans are planning to grow plants in all idle lands, and this will cover 10% of all petrol by 2020.
The problem is that it is not easy to accomplish all this and there would be many obstacles. The price of the renewable energy is expensive and the production of the energy would cause environmental confusions. Another huge impact would be on the European business field. The main European Economic Community is the Coal and steel Community, which produce high carbon emissions. In order to find a solution each European country will try to find another source that won’t affect the economy. France is depending on nuclear power in a big range, therefore nuclear energy can be a substitute because it does not produce carbon emissions. Finally this future plan is working well, and it is showing in Europe nowadays.
Main point
Europe has started before the entire world in a future scheme to reduce the GHG emissions. Many politicians supported this scheme and the awareness of global warming. Nowadays there is global awareness for governments to prevent climate change.
My opinion
It is not easy to reduce the carbon emissions around the world. It would take years because of the world economy, the use of fossil fuels that are dominant and the high expenses of the renewable fuel. After all I think that this problem can be solved if everyone cared and contributed to reduce their carbon footprints.
Recently the European Union has brought up a deal which was the most important since the foundation of the Union 50 years ago. The 27 EU-nations goals are to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 from their 1990 level. The plan is to change the type of energy they are using, to use renewable or alternative sources such as water, air, tidal power and bio-fuels. After 2010 many changes in Europe will be done. They are trying to reduce the carbon emissions by any possible way. Every power station will have a carbon capture and storage technology which eliminates carbon emission virtually. Biofuel will be a great alternative for the energy, and Europeans are planning to grow plants in all idle lands, and this will cover 10% of all petrol by 2020.
The problem is that it is not easy to accomplish all this and there would be many obstacles. The price of the renewable energy is expensive and the production of the energy would cause environmental confusions. Another huge impact would be on the European business field. The main European Economic Community is the Coal and steel Community, which produce high carbon emissions. In order to find a solution each European country will try to find another source that won’t affect the economy. France is depending on nuclear power in a big range, therefore nuclear energy can be a substitute because it does not produce carbon emissions. Finally this future plan is working well, and it is showing in Europe nowadays.
Main point
Europe has started before the entire world in a future scheme to reduce the GHG emissions. Many politicians supported this scheme and the awareness of global warming. Nowadays there is global awareness for governments to prevent climate change.
My opinion
It is not easy to reduce the carbon emissions around the world. It would take years because of the world economy, the use of fossil fuels that are dominant and the high expenses of the renewable fuel. After all I think that this problem can be solved if everyone cared and contributed to reduce their carbon footprints.
Wednesday 22 April 2009
My Carbon footprints
Carbon footprint: A carbon footprint is the amount of green house gases produced by an individual, organization or a product. Other words which means carbon footprint are ecological footprint, indirect carbon emission, life cycle analysis.
I measured my carbon footprint from this website http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/. And it was 4.67, which means that I am living as if we have 4.67 plants of Earth. The process of measuring our carbon footprint was simple; we had to answer some questions that reflect our life. Whether we live a healthy life or a unhealthy life we still produce carbon. The questions included the type of food we eat, the way we travel and how we live and types of our houses. What I understood is that if we are living a life where we don’t travel and we don’t eat meat and we live in houses that are small we would produce less carbon; in my point of view it does not make sense. After all the students finished the test that gave us our carbon footprint I found myself to be the 4th highest emitter of carbon between the students; the average indirect carbon emission of our class was 3.67 and my carbon footprint is higher so I am ranked to be above average. The average of indirect carbon emission of my country is ranked to be the highest in the world, so this means that my carbon emission is one of the highest emissions through the whole world.
In order to decrease my carbon emission I should change some points in my life. The thing that I do which I think increases my carbon emission is driving, I usually drive a lot, and it is like a hobby. Other than that I would not stop eating meat and use a bus for the rest of my life. I think it is absurd.
Wednesday 15 April 2009
Review
Positive Review
In this review Roger Ebert agrees with Al Gore and his documentary. He says that it is caused by human activities which Al Gore mentioned. And if the world governments start doing something about it might reverse. This point was mentioned by both with agreement. Roger Ebert does not only agree with Al Gore but he says that he is a concerned man and that the speech was developed six years ago. Roger Ebert is a critic who usually criticizes movies but he says that in his career he never wrote as good a review as this for a movie. After watching the movie he suggested some points we can do in order to help. Switch to alternative energy like solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear if possible. We should change to electrical cars and save energy in our houses.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/REVIEWS/60517002
Negative Review
In this review Tony Medley does not agree with Al Gore; he is making fun of him in a way. Al Gore is telling us that we are in a period of global warming and Tony says that everyone knows that it’s like saying that grass is green. Tony does not believe that human activities are responsible for this tragedy. Tony literally said that the movie is junk science which has gone mad and is the baby of its co-creator. Tony says Al Gore’s ways are not scientific and that he showed everything in a simple way which is not what it seems to be. Global warming is occurring since 4billion years ago and global warming is not caused by humans, Tony says. Finally Tony compared Al Gore’s opinion to another scientist which he agrees with; he mentioned that the movie had some good points only.
http://www.tonymedley.com/2006/An_Inconvenient_Truth.htm
My Opinion
In my opinion I agree with Roger Ebert; I think he has a point and that global warming is caused by humans. Tony Medley really hit Al Gore in the core; he said that his movie was junk and this is an offensive criticism and that’s why I don’t agree with him completely, but his point about Al Gore not being a scientist is true. Scientists are well educated about global warming and some scientists have another point of view than Al Gore. Al Gore really tried his best in this movie and he made some people think in a different way and that’s why I think his documentary is great.
In this review Roger Ebert agrees with Al Gore and his documentary. He says that it is caused by human activities which Al Gore mentioned. And if the world governments start doing something about it might reverse. This point was mentioned by both with agreement. Roger Ebert does not only agree with Al Gore but he says that he is a concerned man and that the speech was developed six years ago. Roger Ebert is a critic who usually criticizes movies but he says that in his career he never wrote as good a review as this for a movie. After watching the movie he suggested some points we can do in order to help. Switch to alternative energy like solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear if possible. We should change to electrical cars and save energy in our houses.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/REVIEWS/60517002
Negative Review
In this review Tony Medley does not agree with Al Gore; he is making fun of him in a way. Al Gore is telling us that we are in a period of global warming and Tony says that everyone knows that it’s like saying that grass is green. Tony does not believe that human activities are responsible for this tragedy. Tony literally said that the movie is junk science which has gone mad and is the baby of its co-creator. Tony says Al Gore’s ways are not scientific and that he showed everything in a simple way which is not what it seems to be. Global warming is occurring since 4billion years ago and global warming is not caused by humans, Tony says. Finally Tony compared Al Gore’s opinion to another scientist which he agrees with; he mentioned that the movie had some good points only.
http://www.tonymedley.com/2006/An_Inconvenient_Truth.htm
My Opinion
In my opinion I agree with Roger Ebert; I think he has a point and that global warming is caused by humans. Tony Medley really hit Al Gore in the core; he said that his movie was junk and this is an offensive criticism and that’s why I don’t agree with him completely, but his point about Al Gore not being a scientist is true. Scientists are well educated about global warming and some scientists have another point of view than Al Gore. Al Gore really tried his best in this movie and he made some people think in a different way and that’s why I think his documentary is great.
Wednesday 8 April 2009
An Inconvenient Truth
An inconvenient truth is a documentary is about al Gore a former United States vice-president and it’s about global warming. It is mostly about global warming and Al Gore tires to change people point of view towards global warming and how it affects the world. The atmosphere of the earth is a very thick layer that protects and harms the earth. This is because the main purpose of the atmosphere is to protect the earth from the sun rays. In the documentary Al Gore shows a cartoon that explains how the atmosphere works. Then Al Gore shows some pictures of the Volcano Kilimanjaro and has it changed through time and some Glaciers that have been affected because of the hot weather and how they are melting. There were lots of statistics shown in the documentary too.
The next part of the documentary we saw how we can solve some of the problems that cause the high rise of CO2. Al Gore stated the ways to reduce the CO2 level. He said we can plant more plants in order to consume the CO2 and give us oxygen instead; another way is to use another type of energy instead of chemical energy which might reduce the CO2 emissions. Al Gore showed how the sea level might increase in the next 20years if we don’t start doing something about the global warming. Finally there was a personal part on the documentary Al Gore mentioned the death of his sister by lung cancer and the accident that killed his son.
At the end this documentary was very good it had really creative graphics and short movies that explained global warming in a friendly way which was simple enough for everyone to understand.
Wednesday 25 March 2009
Wanted: Natural Residents
In Sweden, Malmo Western Harbor a corporation is developing a new compounded city that has the measure to provide biodiversity along with the industrial development. They are trying to make a balanced environment that people and animals can live in without any problems.
1300 newly occupied apartments were planed from the outset to showcase “green” where the people living there would live in a green environment. Renewable energy and sustainable transport and waste management were introduced; at the same time the developers wanted to promote biodiversity, by keeping the animals living in this place and providing them with a better environment where bats, birds and many other animals can nest and settle. Annika Kruuse was monitoring this phase which was called Bo01. Her monitoring showed that some species have already moved in. This shows good results for the first phase. As a result of the first phase developers are using the results to start the next two phases, Flagghusen Bo02 and Fullriggaren Bo03. The results they want to get are to have a new generation of children who will be living in houses designed to promote biodiversity. They development that will be made in Bo02 and Bo03 will be designed as green as possible and on roof tops biotopes will be included as well as three types of boxes for other types of animals.
The Bo01 phase is the first step towards incorporating biodiversity as standard in town planning. This is a new idea and a step that was not made anywhere else; the development of the green life and the biodiversity can change the environment were living in to a healthier, safer place.
Main Idea
Western Harbor is a corporation that started a green project in Sweden Malmo. A project was started and after the results were found two more projects are studied and will be developed as the best biodiversity environment.
Opinion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
