Climate Change

According to, Stephen Leahy (2008) in his article “Climate Change”: What Chemical lobby weakening ozone treaty, the Antarctic ozone hole, observed and measured by U.S National and Space Administration (NASA), is about 27 million square kilometers. Up to one million people are affected by skin cancer every year and up to 10,000 people will die in the U.S.A. The agreement signed as the Montreal Protocol, by about 24 Countries, 20 years ago, lead by Argentina, U.S and Canada avoided damage of the ozone layer and kept away tens of billions of tons carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Nevertheless, they found that ozone-destroying chemicals were mainly greenhouse gases, so the global warming increased more than carbon dioxide in each molecule. “Without the protocol, the ozone layer would be 30 in Washington, instead of today’s of 10” “ A less than three-minute exposure to the sun in Hawaii would have resulted in sunburn. The skin cancers would be at least 650 percent higher” said Paul A. Newman, an atmospheric physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, and co-chair of the Montreal Protocol’s Scientific Assessment Panel. However, the ozone layer is thin, and the emissions of ozone-damaging chemicals have been decreasing since 11 years ago approximately due to substitution of HCFCs and HFCs refrigerants known as hydrochlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons. HCFC’s damage ozone is five percent of the rate of CFCs, and HFC doesn’t damage. Both HCFCs and HFC are strong greenhouse gases. Furthermore, there are other options for refrigerants that can protect the ozone layer for example, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons. The use of hydrocarbons such as iso-butane, propane in machinery such as refrigerantes (green freeze) are perfect refrigerants for ozone, but the U.S. has not used due to special interests of producers. On the contrary, during the economic crisis the governments will find it difficult to process activities in climate change them due to commercial interests. Finally, at the end of 2009 almost 200 countries will discuss solutions for air pollution, deforestation, biodiversity problems and other dangers to the environment, in order to provide health, social, and economic advantages.

The refrigerants HCFC’s damage ozone at five percent the rate of CFCs and HFCs don’t. Both HCFC’s and HFC’s are strong greenhouse gases because these chemicals act as a layer in the atmosphere that traps heat like a greenhouse. This causes warmer temperatures; plants and animals species migrate North and South towards poles, there are several storms and droughts, and sea level rise. Alternative refrigerants are carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons (iso-butane, propane), for refrigerants (greenfreeze) and air conditioners. I don’t agree with the author that refrigerants could be harmful enough for making a new ozone-damaging chemical. The governments should create policies for regulating commerce and manufacturing of refrigerators for producing green devices. New machines should require green combustibles and a maximum amount of pollutant elements.

I totally agree that humans have been contributing to degrading the environment and have caused damage to the ozone layer and changed on global temperature. The consequences of damages caused to the ozone layers has brought problems for human, animals and plants. Some people believe that the use of refrigerants can be another global pollution problem for ozone-damaging chemicals. However, the practical solution for making a safe environment is to create alternative sources of energies instead of a protocol agreement, application of refrigerants that are a no CFCs and reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases.

I totally agree with creation of a protocol agreement among countries as a preventive action for ozone-damaging, reductions in production and consumption of harmful elements. The ozone-destroying has not only been the cause of many human skin problems but also has been the cause of the problems for plants, animals and other species due to the UV radiation. All the countries should join their environmental problems with other countries because the environmental problem is global and they are interconnected worldwide.

The situation of economic crisis definitely makes difficulty progressing activities from the governments for changing the climate. The economic crisis is also a global problem, and all the Nations should work together in order to get a solution. The only way to solve the problem is that investors have to develop new technologies in cars, industries, devices and natural resources for making a friendly environment. Finally, the best solution for saving the environment is to create and develop alternative sources of energies such as biomass, natural gas, wind energy, hydroelectric power, solar energy, hydrogen and nuclear power.

Reference: Leahy, Stephen (2008, Sep.16). Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS). Climate change: chemical lobby weakening ozone treaty.. Retrieved May 18, 2009 from http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=43888

HARMFUL BASIC NEEDS

In reality humans need basics things to help them living comfortably, but not all these things are healthy for themselves or for the planet; for example, cars, air conditioner and freezer are known as basic utilities for human. Cars are the main source of causing carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere. This gas emission is responsible for trapping heating on the planet, resulting in global warming. Furthermore, the effects of global warming bring to the earth many problems such as, increase in sea level rising, storms, acid rains,and drought. So in general, climate change alters and eliminates ecosystems and biodiversity. Air conditioners and refrigerators have the main source for release of chemical pollutants which have been destroyed the ozone layer. The damage of the ozone layer has caused illness such as skin cancer to the population. The skin cancer result from UV radiation comes from the light sun. Even though people know that all the devices are harmful, they still use them. Therefore, it is urgent and necessary to take action for saving people and plant. However, nowadays people are more worried about environmental problems, and they are struggle in order to make a green environment. I believe that people are very conscious of participating in making a clean and healthy environment, creating prevention methods such as renew, reuse and recycle. In conclusion, each one should feel like an environmentalist to protect plants and themselves; also, we should participate to create and develop new sources of energies.

STEP UP FOR A LOWER CARBON FOOTPRINT

In Western Daily Press (2008, Jan 21) in the article, “ Step Up For a Lower Carbon Footprint” the author mentioned three ways everyone can calculate personal carbon footprint spend in a year through sites on the internet. The author considered that although climate has changed progressively, British people are more concerned about losing weight rather than saving the planet. Each person can calculate his carbon footprint through the internet and each site has different measures, questions and results. The author used 3 different sites: First, www.carbonfootprint.com , where asked for which aked for which country you lived in, how many flights I’d taken, car mileage, heating and light from home, train transport, how much gas, electricity, oil, coal or propane gas; it included products bought, whether I buy organic, recycle, go to restaurants, bars or films and use livestock farming by year. She spent 0.038 tons of CO2 or £332 on gas, £232.78 or 0.179 tons of CO2 from electricity, and she drove 10.499 miles, equivalent to 3.026 CO2, air travel 2, 1.9, rail transport 1,000 miles equal 0.097 tones of CO2. The total of the personal carbon footprint was 8.672 tones of CO2, lower compared to the UK average of 9.8 tons; and the worldwide average carbon footprint is 4 tons per person. In order to struggle with carbon we must decrease to two tons, says Western Daily. Second, they connected to http://actonco2.direct.gov.u.k. on this site it asked for more details about property and lifestyle, such as (how old one’s house is, how many bathrooms it has, how many energy-saving lightbulbs she uses, and how much water she needs to boil a cup of tea, how many times she uses a washing machine, how many times she uses tyre pressure. The total carbon footprint was 8.62 tones compared to the UK average, which was -4.47 tons approximately twice the carbon emission. Third, the author linked to http://footprint.wwf.org.uk, where the average is 12.23 tons of CO2 per year, and the goal for reducing carbon is 2.59 tones of CO2 per person. This site, known as WWF, is confined to more facts on lifestyle such as how many times a week she eats meat and commutes, and how much she spends on jewellery and bath products instead asking for how much gas she uses. Finally, the three methods used for providing personal footprint are different, but they have the purpose of reducing personal carbon footprint.

Many people think that environmental pollution is not their responsibility, and there are people who know that environment is a concern nowadays, but they simply ignore it. Did you think about this worry? Did you think how much have you contributed to damaging the environment? Did you decide to save the planet by yourself? This is what we need to think about. However, although the environment pollution is a global problem, not only does the governments have to take care of it, but each of us should be responsible for managing our carbon footprint because we are a part of society. Household calculation is the good method for people to controlling how much carbon footprint they produce to minimize environment pollution. I agree with author because we can manage our carbon emission through an internet site such as www.carbonfootprint.com and http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk.where where we became a household calculator, protector and conservator of nature, but the author was not precise in the third site, http://footprint.wwf.org.uk.

The author has a good point when he said that we can control the quantity of carbon emission produced by ourselves using the first internet site; for example, on this site, www.carbonfootprint.com , the carbon calculation requires questions like where you live, how much you spend or use gas, electricity, coal or propane, and flight, car, rail and bus miles, and it gives us the total of the carbon footprint that we contributed for damaging the environment. According to this site, the UK average carbon footprint is 9.8 tons per year. Moreover, this calculation involves all things you buy; for instance, if we buy products made in China, we have to include carbon emission of transportation from China to U.S. This is a good and efficient method of controlling pollution because the population is growing quickly and the government cannot control pollution adequately. It is necessary to increase human comprehension by explaining causes and effects of environmental destruction. Everyone has to feel like an environmental activist.

The second method to calculate individual carbon footprint is more concise due to the fact that if involves more detailed information about property, lifestyle, washing machine and more. Also, the UK average for carbon emission is 4.25 tons of CO2 per year. Here the average permitted per person each year is low, consequently fewer polluting emission. This site http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk helps people to compile, analyze and interpret the data in order to know whether their carbon emission has exceeded the limit. Furthermore, current pollution problems are addressed more and more, so the governments should legislate and maximize the total amount of the pollution that each person should spend during a year. The less the average carbon footprint per person, the better the health of the environment that is created.

On the contrary, the third method to calculate carbon footprint, http://footprint.wwarf.org.uk., is inappropriate and illogical, because the average of pollution permitted per person is 12.23 tons of CO2 per year. In addition, the questions used to calculate the quantity of pollutant elements are not precise; for example, the site doesn’t ask how much gas is used or spent. The high number 12.23 tons of CO2 permitted per person doesn’t make sense if we want to reduce or eliminate the environment problems. The reason for household calculation is to make the lower number possible of CO2 per person in order to preserve and protect the environment. Environmental problems depend on public education for understanding the issue. Environmental education is necessarily critical for appropriate conscious decision making and saving the universe. In conclusion, environmental problem is a global issue; therefore, everyone should consciously control their carbon footprint and make the environment sustainable for saving planet.

Reference:

Western Daily Press. (2008, Jan 21). “Step up for a lower Carbon Footprint.” Retrieved May 22, 2009, from Lexis Nexis database.