Your Questions About Green Living

Chris asks…

Explain how to make a sustainable home that uses less energy and water and increases the amount of recycling?

Explain how to make a sustainable home that uses less energy and water and increases the amount of recycling

please help

The Expert answers:

Be aware of the site, seasonal weather conditions, and which way is north, etc. Use unshaded windows facing south/ west for heat gain, the opposite to maintain coolness. Consider plantings for shade and wind blocking. Capture rainwater from the roof. Etc., etc.

Sandy asks…

How much does a sustainable energy home cost to build?

I am contemplating buying/building a house, for the first time, with no deadline. I haven’t selected a site yet (I know that changes things) but I want to know what I can expect. How does the intial cost of a sustainable energy home typically compare with a less green option?

The Expert answers:

This of course depends on a lot of different factors. But… For the most part it really doesn’t cost as much as many people think. Since you are building a home instead of trying to remodel a home it makes things much less expensive. Many people think that to be “sustainable” everything needs to be run entirely off of solar and will cost a fortune. This is very wrong.

First you need to figure out where most of the energy in your home is going to be used.
1. Heating/cooling
2. Water heating
3. Major appliances
4. Lighting & smaller appliances

So if you can reduce the energy needed by the largest energy users you can almost elminate your energy bill.

Solutions…

Like the first person answered, GEOTHERMAL heating/cooling system. This is something that anyone building a new home that has enough yard to bury some pipes should get. My sister just built a house with one of these systems and it only cost them $3000 more than a traditional system and they will have twice the heating/cooling power. And the system will have paid for itself after 3 years.

The department of energy’s page about Geothermal heat pumps
http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index.cfm/mytopic=12640

2nd… Heating your water. This is another huge energy use in the home. This can also be done using some Geothermal systems or you can go solar. Using solar Thermal collectors is a great way to heat your water. This method has been used for a long time and is also used in industrial situations for hotels and outdoor swimming pools. A new system for residential can cost around $5000.

Http://www.solarroofs.com/purchase/index.html#C

Check out this company just for kicks, they build some of the biggest solar heating systems in the world for resorts and Olympic pools.
Http://www.heliocol.com/commercial/commercial1.html

Spending more on better isulation, windows, and doors is another way to save on energy. People don’t realize how much of a difference that can make. You save maybe $20-50 on a cheaper window but in the long run you would be saving a LOT more by getting the better one.

You can add energy generating devices to your home for a lot less than you might think. And by using the solutions above the remaining energy needs should be significantly reduced. A grid-tied windmill that can supply 1000+ KWH a month is only about $5000.

Places like this offer packages for all types.
Http://www.wholesalesolar.com/complete-systems.html

Most of the places I listed here offer assistance or install by professionals but you can also do a lot of it yourself without having to go to school to know how.

Maria asks…

How do we ethically reduce the population to a sustainable level?

The world presently has 6.5 billion inhabitants, a number that far outstretches the capability of this planet to provide resources for so many people. We are headed for a malthusian catastrophe which will lead to great suffering in many regions of the world. How do you think we can ethically reduce the population to a sustainable level?

The Expert answers:

Freely available birth control. Sexual attitudes have to move beyond the Dark Ages.

Thomas asks…

How have the policies relating to sustainable development evolved?

Writing an essay and need to write about how policies relating to sustainable development are changing in the UK. Or can anyone tell me where I can find polices? I have the government aims, but not polices.

Many thanks

The Expert answers:

Poorly. It’s a stupid idea

Helen asks…

How would you engage the local community in the benefits of sustainable transport?

There are obvious benefits to sustainable travel such as walking and cycling: it’s healthy, it’s eco-friendly, it’s quick (no traffic jams) and it’s free!
Its important to engage the local community – BUT HOW?

The Expert answers:

U can make a site on it at – www.freewebs.com
u can stick posters up poles
u can put it on bebo, my space, face book and so on…
U can make a video about it and put it on youtube…

So many ways

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Green Living

Maria asks…

environmental movement a set up?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071214/ts_nm/bali_friday_dc

“They fear curbs would cramp economic growth.”

that exactly is the point behind the environmental movement. to cramp growth in China and India and leave natural resources to be consumed by the US and few others.

the illuminati has a plan to cut 80% of the world population, and this movement is the primary key, in addition to wars, such as that of iraq and afghanistan, orchestrated after the 9-11 controlled demolition events.

isn’t it interesting that the maniacs who started two world wars, the wars in korea, somalia, vietnam, and many others and destroyed the world in the process (just look at the destruction of the environment in hiroshima and nakazaki), want to “save” the world environment? isnt it a joke?

the illuminati is facing severe competition from China and iNdia and others, the illuminati is in serious panic. they use legitimate issues – such as the environment – to attain their selfish devilish ends.
“Uhh. Okay. Sure. Put the tinfoil fez back on, wouldn’t want CIA deathrays to getcha.”

unless you come up with another one, i’d assume that that is your BEST argument (which u use every time an idea takes u beyond your mind set).

The Expert answers:

Uhh. Okay. Sure. Put the tinfoil fez back on, wouldn’t want CIA deathrays to getcha.

David asks…

Is China doing well in their effort to destroy the Serengeti?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nQ5u79DOir4/TQBfR1hgaVI/AAAAAAAAABE/1ndPs48STDY/s1600/serengeti-map.jpg
http://www.savetheserengeti.org/issues/stop-the-serengeti-highway/#axzz1A4QcvIl7
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825103824.htm
http://mtwarakumekucha.blogspot.com/2010/09/serengeti-road-threatens-environmental.html
http://sites.google.com/site/zvezdaraforest/home/news-2
http://www.phoneforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2021
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art30936.asp
Let’s see now, how does this work?
Toss a few million at Tanzanian officials to authorize a “more efficient route for transporting heavy metals from the Lake Victoria region” through the Serengeti, when another less-destructive route is available.
Compensate the Tanzanians by offering low paying slave labor jobs in Chinese run mines where they are shot if they complain about working conditions.
Extract the natural resources (heavy metals) for China‘s own economic benefit in manufacturing unauthorized pirated versions of Western-designed cellphones so they can flood the market with them.
Make sure the new highway works towards decimating Tanzania’s #1 industry, Tourism, by assisting in destroying the natural migration of animals through the Serengeti Wildlife Preserve, which is not only a major tourist attraction, but also one of the top-10 natural wonders of the world.
Make Tanzania even more economically dependent upon the whims of the CCP, to hold them hostage in any future negotiations.

When is the world (read UN) going to wake up to the worldwide criminal behavior of CCP-led China and the mass-devastation to which it will lead?

Small countries may think they are getting a “piece of China‘s pie,” but all they are getting in the end is an empty plate.

The USA/West can live without a bunch of cheap cellphones on the market… can the world live without its wildlife?

Stop buying products Made in China!
Anyone who does so is promoting environmental destruction.
http://environment.change.org/blog/view/proposed_serengeti_highway_an_environmental_disaster_of_choice
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7313/full/467272a.html

The Expert answers:

Well from your links it does seem that China is causing more natural devastation around the world after successfully destroying millions of acres of some the world’s most fertile farmland and centuries old landmarks, and dislocating hundreds of thousands of people after building the 3 gorges damn. Now they have turned their environmental blind-eye to the African continent.

However, at the same time with out a major change in how goods are made, and who makes them this kind of thing is going to continue. Maybe it is better to shift jobs to India, and out of China. This should be the new global migration.

Mandy asks…

Is China doing well in its attempt to destroy the Serengeti?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nQ5u79DOir4/TQBfR1hgaVI/AAAAAAAAABE/1ndPs48STDY/s1600/serengeti-map.jpg
http://www.savetheserengeti.org/issues/stop-the-serengeti-highway/#axzz1A4QcvIl7
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825103824.htm
http://mtwarakumekucha.blogspot.com/2010/09/serengeti-road-threatens-environmental.html
http://sites.google.com/site/zvezdaraforest/home/news-2
http://www.phoneforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2021
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art30936.asp
Let’s see now, how does this work?
Toss a few million at Tanzanian officials to authorize a “more efficient route for transporting heavy metals from the Lake Victoria region” through the Serengeti, when another less-destructive route is available.
Compensate the Tanzanians by offering low paying slave labor jobs in Chinese run mines where they are shot if they complain about working conditions.
Extract the natural resources (heavy metals) for China‘s own economic benefit in manufacturing unauthorized pirated versions of Western-designed cellphones so they can flood the market with them.
Make sure the new highway works towards decimating Tanzania’s #1 industry, Tourism, by assisting in destroying the natural migration of animals through the Serengeti Wildlife Preserve, which is not only a major tourist attraction, but also one of the top-10 natural wonders of the world.
Make Tanzania even more economically dependent upon the whims of the CCP, to hold them hostage in any future negotiations.

When is the world (read UN) going to wake up to the worldwide criminal behavior of CCP-led China and the mass-devastation to which it will lead?

Small countries may think they are getting a “piece of China‘s pie,” but all they are getting in the end is an empty plate.

The USA/West can live without a bunch of cheap cellphones on the market… can the world live without its wildlife?

Stop buying products Made in China!
Anyone who does so is promoting environmental destruction.
http://environment.change.org/blog/view/proposed_serengeti_highway_an_environmental_disaster_of_choice
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7313/full/467272a.html

The Expert answers:

Nice. The Chinese aren’t just destroying their own country, they are doing it to others?
No more Chinese products for me. Thanks.

Joseph asks…

In what order are the issues that concern you the most in this election?

Here is the list of the issues that I see that the each candidate has different views on (in no particular order):

War On Terror / Afghanistan
Iraq
Homeland Security/Natural Disaster Preparedness
Other Foreign Policy (China, Russia, Israel, Iran, etc.)
Tax Policy
Financial Markets/Banking/Regulation
Trade Policy
Immigration Policy
Energy Policy (Oil, Natural Gas, Coal, Alternative Energy)
Environmental Policy
Health Care Policy/Regulation
Education
2nd Amendment Rights/Gun Control
Abortion
Definition of Marriage
Media Regulation (i.e. Fairness Doctrine)
Tort Law Policy
Infrastructure/Transportation Development
Social Security/Medicare Policy
Ethics/Lobbyist Reform

If I have forgotten any, please list…

The Expert answers:

War in Iraq
Economy
Health Care
Environment
Energy
Standing in the world (I’d like to be the ‘good guy’ again)

Robert asks…

Should abortion be used to prevent global warming?

Apparently, this idiot believes so…and you should not have more than 2 kids, if you do, you are irresponsible.

Question: What do you make of these comments? Is the left, attempting to make us into a China?

COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.

“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”

The Optimum Population Trust, a campaign group of which Porritt is a patron, says each baby born in Britain will, during his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland – an area the size of Trafalgar Square.

The British population, now 61m, will pass 70m by 2028, the Office for National Statistics says. The fertility rate for women born outside Britain is estimated to be 2.5, compared with 1.7 for those born here. The global population of 6.7 billion is expected to rise to 9.2 billion by 2050.

Porritt, who has two children, intends to persuade environmental pressure groups to make population a focus of campaigning.

“Many organisations think it is not part of their business. My mission with the Friends of the Earth and the Greenpeaces of this world is to say: ‘You are betraying the interests of your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial,” he said.

Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.

He said: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.
ORCA, it seems you are the idiot.

Look at all the statistical facts regarding record number of snow falls.

(Saudi Arabia getting first snow and coldest winter in 20 years),

(in 07, South America had its coldest winter in 90 years)

NASA denying global warming as well.

Not to mention the ice levels are the same as it was in 1979.

The Expert answers:

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Green Living

Linda asks…

If you where asked to invent an alternative energy company and create a corporate id for it. What would you do?

I am doing this for school, I have a rough idea of what I want to do, I want to hear any other ideas, thanks.
Hi thanks for the answer, but I was thinking more along the lines of actual renewable energy methods I agree that you have to wade though the information [excusey the pun] But I do think overall the movement is good, sometimes you need extreme action or radicalism to change minds.

Ive decided to model my company on Iberdola, they are the 5 largest energy producer in the europe and they just do renewable! Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal that works and actually provide millions with cleaner energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberdrola

The Expert answers:

My company would be called the Take Care of Your Own Self company. It would teach people reasonable ways to grow food for themselves so they had a healthier stamina to run around, re-use their own water to grow the food that gave their bodies energy, better structure their home so they didn’t need much energy to begin with. It would charge no money. It would be free like such information should be. So that for once people can know what is worth knowing, without driving their cars around to work and taco bell and back to save up the dough to learn a tiny bit of wisdom that is encapsulated in a wad of political BS.

Look, kid, if this assignment doesn’t show you how much of money making scam this “green” movement is, I don’t know if anything will. Should “saving the planet” through “alternative energy” cost a ton of money? Putting everyone further into debt so that they are desperate and incredibly wasteful? Think about it.

Donald asks…

Alternative Energy?

I would like to know if I can use a generator or car batteries or any other energy to light my small earthbag home other than solar or wind energy. Solar and wind energy is to expensive are there any other low cost ways to power my home? It has to be off-grid meaning not connected to a utility company.
gggsbaby – what are you talking about?

The Expert answers:

Problem with generators is that you have to fuel them with SOMEthing. IF you can solve that one, great. Batteries are all well and good, but again, how do you plan to charge them?

Thin film solar is getting really cheap. Look into it. And if there’s a reasonable amount of wind in your area, you can make your own windmill for under $100. Google the tv program American Invention for details.

Mary asks…

Why is President Bush trying to increase oil production instead of alternative energy?

Drilling off all of our coastline? A thinking leader should consider alternative options. I see nothing but greed in this plan. As our communities are destroyed, oil prices won’t decrease in price. The oil companies will keep getting richer.

He really scares me.

The Expert answers:

I think you are already know that his family is aligned with the oil industry. His administration has people connected to both the oil and military industries. It is a scary situation. What’s even more alarming are some of the opinions being expressed here.

Of course alternative energy is currently more expensive – its just starting. The fossil fuel industry had a 100 year head start to streamline their processes and make the whole world dependent on it. It will be a painful and costly shift to another energy source, that’s why governments have to step in and create incentives.

The option to do nothing is not an option. Even those who believe that “global warming” is a leftist conspiracy, must acknowledge the coming of “peak oil”. When peak oil is announced, it will send shockwaves of panic throughout the world.

No matter which part of the political spectrum you belong to, the issues related to CO2 emissions and the finite supply of oil is inevitable and will affect everyone. The people who still believe that the earth is flat and that global warming is fake has to look at the evidence and join the rest of us in pressuring governments to act.

James asks…

Are you interested in wind and solar energy for your home and what do you think of loan companies for?

homeowners who want to install small wind turbines and solar panels on their home?

Before the Conservatives go rambling on about government subsidies, this is something that’s happening in the private sector. The deals being offered allow homeowners (who can show that they are in good standing with their payments and not in an underwater mortgage) to take out loans (interest rates are similar to what you’d get for a car loan) for the installation of wind and solar panels on their homes. In order to qualify the homeowners have to purchase units that are pre-approved (durability issues – the loan issuers don’t want people purchasing equipment that’s cheaply made and likely to break) so there’s a preferred list of equipment providers whose items you can get the loans for. The reason this is happening is that with energy companies trying to bleed the country dry and continuously raising rates, and with the cost of components for residential wind and solar installations falling rapidly, we are reaching the point where a home wind turbine or solar panel installation can pay for itself in less than 7 years-which is the maximum term available for one of these loans.

Do you have a personal interest in alternative energy and if you could get a $7000 loan at 5.5% interest on a 7 year term to install a wind turbine or solar panels on your property would you consider that deal?
@ Vanessa – explain to me how you think a residential wind turbine is “terrible for the environment”. They’re popping up all over where I live – the ones that are on 30 to 40 foot towers with a blade-span of six to eight feet. People put those plastic owls on them just like they do with large picture windows to prevent bird strikes.

Small wind turbines do not damage the environment.
@ Barry – wind in the North, Solar in the South.

The Expert answers:

Sounds like a good idea

Laura asks…

I am looking for an Australian company that is involved in the field of alternative energy?

The company needs to be registered in Australia and has a share value of approximately $Au10 cents or under.

The Expert answers:

Here are some possibilities, in order from smallest share price to greatest:

Solco Limited
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=soo:AU
$.17 AUD

EnviroMission http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=evm:AU
$.18 AUD

Environmental Clean Technologies
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=esi:AU
$.20 AUD

Linc Energy Ltd
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=lnc:AU
$.285 AUD

Agri Energy
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=aae:AU
$.38 AUD

Hope this helps!

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Green Living

George asks…

Is Obama using scare tactics to try to get the stimulus bill passed?

Obama has said that we are going to have a catastrophe if we do not pass this pork laden stimulus bill. Why is he using scare tactics?

Obama was one to complain about Bush’s spending, but look at the pork in this bill. The items include:

List of all the projects we need or else we will never recover!

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$198 million for Filipino World War 2 vets and their families
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons
$90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
$15 billion for business-loss carry-backs
$145 billion for “Making Work Pay” tax credits
$83 billion for the earned income credit
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
$500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of Health facilities
$44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters
$350 million for Agriculture Department computers
$88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building
$448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters
$600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
$450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”)
$600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”)
$1 billion for the Census Bureau
$89 billion for Medicaid
$30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$20 billion for food stamps
$4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
$850 million for Amtrak
$87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
$1.7 billion for the National Park System
$55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
$7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”
$150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases
$150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish”
$2 billion for renewableenergy research ($400 million for global-warming research)
$2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants
$3.4 billion for the State Energy Program
$200 million for state and local electric-transport projects
$300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs
$400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments
$1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries
$1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees
$8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$4.5 billion for electricity grid
$79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund

Do we really need a $87 Million polar ice breaker? How is that going to stimulate the economy? I thought we were having global warming and the polar ice caps are melting. Is this just scare tactics or what?
FU – How is this a false list? This was posted on a web site by one of our press reporters. I cut and pasted.

The Expert answers:

Yeah, Instead of sitting down with the moderates and hammering out an agreeable “Spending Bill,” he’s out there campaigning fear and division. It’s for the reasons you post that many do not support this bill as is. Too much self serving special interest, earmarks and pork.

Mandy asks…

Can you think of a better reason to spend 3 minutes contacting Ur Representative NOW?

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$198 million for Filipino World War 2 vets and their families
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants (ACORN)
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons
$90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
$15 billion for business-loss carry-backs
$145 billion for “Making Work Pay” tax credits
$83 billion for the earned income credit
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
$500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of Health facilities
$44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters
$350 million for Agriculture Department computers
$88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building
$448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters
$600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
$450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”)
$600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”)
$1 billion for the Census Bureau
$89 billion for Medicaid
$30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$20 billion for food stamps
$4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
$850 million for Amtrak
$87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
$1.7 billion for the National Park System
$55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
$7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”
$150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases
$150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish”
$2 billion for renewableenergy research ($400 million for global-warming research)
$2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants
$3.4 billion for the State Energy Program
$200 million for state and local electric-transport projects
$300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs
$400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments
$1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries
$1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees
$8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$4.5 billion for electricity grid
$79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund

The Expert answers:

Great summary.

Why is the federal government sticking its nose in everything these days? History shows that federal “help” is more of a hinderance than a help.

Butt out, Big Brother!

Donald asks…

Admitting now that corn ethanol was/is a mistake, will Al Gore also fess up on catastrophic global warming?

“U.S. corn ethanol “was not a good policy”-Gore”

Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:24am EST

* U.S. ethanol consumes about 40 pct corn crop
* Impact on food prices “real”

By Gerard Wynn

“ATHENS, Nov 22 (Reuters) – Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said support for corn-based ethanol in the United States was “not a good policy”, weeks before tax credits are up for renewal.
U.S. blending tax breaks for ethanol make it profitable for refiners to use the fuel even when it is more expensive than gasoline. The credits are up for renewal on Dec. 31.

Total U.S. ethanol subsidies reached $7.7 billion last year according to the International Energy Industry, which said biofuels worldwide received more subsidies than any other form of renewable energy.

“It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol,” said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank.

“First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.

“It’s hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.”

He explained his own support for the original programme on his presidential ambitions.

“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”

A food-versus-fuel debate erupted in 2008, in the wake of record food prices, where the biofuel industry was criticised for helping stoke food prices.

Gore said a range of factors had contributed to that food price crisis, including drought in Australia, but said there was no doubt biofuels have an effect.

“The size, the percentage of corn particularly, which is now being (used for) first generation ethanol definitely has an impact on food prices.

“The competition with food prices is real.””

(Reporting by Gerard Wynn; editing by Keiron Henderson)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFLDE6AL0YT20101122?sp=true
Slug Rock….. you might try enrolling in a comprehensive reading class. You’re coming off as a Moonie.

The Expert answers:

You provide an article that references Gore and you still have alarmists that want to blame Bush. It seems to me that Gore isn’t really admitting to a mistake. He is calling it first generation ethanol. I am sure he will push for 2nd generation and is simply dismissing the past failures to first generation. The implementation wasn’t his fault. He was just the messenger. The man is clearly deranged with a Messiah Complex. Their government mandates led to corruption failure and wasted money. Why is that leftists only solution to excessive government is more.

Sandra asks…

Why should voters put up with even 2 more years of this nonsense?

Wind, solar energy built on temporary tax breaks

WASHINGTON – Congress is putting the short-term future of renewable energy companies in jeopardy even as the presidential candidates and most lawmakers hail windmills, solar panels and biofuels as long-term solutions to high gasoline prices and global warming.

Some $500 million in investment and production tax credits will expire Dec. 31 unless Congress renews them. Without that help, solar and wind power companies say they will reverse planned expansions and, in many cases, cut payrolls and capital investment.

Schott Solar has visions of quadrupling its operation in Albuquerque, N.M., to reach 1,500 jobs and $500 million in investment. But the investment tax credit, company spokesman Brian Lynch said, is what makes solar power cost-competitive. Without it, expansion plans must be reconsidered

And Nancy Pelosi and Harold Ried think calling back congress to vote on a bipartisan energy bill that both good Democrats and Republicans have worked on is not important.

Party politics as usual and to he** with the voters

The Expert answers:

I hope that you aren’t blaming the Democrats for the lack of legislation to help renewable power. The Republicans have done nothing although they have been in a position to do so for the majority of the last 8 years. Then, after doing nothing or prohibiting the Democrats from doing anything, they make a grandstand play trying to make it look like the Dems fault for going on a 5 week recess. Once again the Republicans think that the American people are stupid and will fall for their B.S. Wait a minute maybe they have a point after all there is a track record of the American people falling for their “bull”( Think G.W. Bush). Maybe that is why they think they can do it again

Chris asks…

What do you think of Obama’s voting history as a Senator as opposed to what he’s saying now?

Why on the BIG issues that were put before him in office, did he choose NOT TO VOTE. But he voted and pushed for little meaningless things like “Congratulating the White sox on winning the World Series??”

Examples:

2/28/08 Vote 35: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R.3221; New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act and the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 : NOT VOTING

2/26/08 Vote 33: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. 2633; A bill to provide for the safe redeployment of United States troops from Iraq. NOT VOTING

2/7/08 Vote 10: H R 5140: H.R. 5140 As Amended; Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008 : NOT VOTING

4/10/08 Vote 95: H R 3221: Ensign Amdt. No. 4419; To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the limited continuation of clean energy production incentives and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a lapse in the tax law. NOT VOTING

4/4/08 Vote 91: H R 3221: Voinovich Amdt. No. 4406 As Modified; To protect families most vulnerable to foreclosure due to a sudden loss of income by extending the depreciation incentive to loss companies that have accumulated alternative minimum tax and research and development tax credits. NOT VOTING

4/3/08 Vote 87: S RES 501: S. Res. 501; A resolution honoring the sacrifice of the members of the United States Armed Forces who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. NOT VOTING

Yet he did vote in between all those votes for things like:

3/14/08 Vote 82: S CON RES 70: DeMint Amdt. No. 4339; To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund for providing an above the line Federal income tax deduction for individuals purchasing health insurance outside the workplace. VOTED NO

3/13/08 Vote 77: S CON RES 70: Kyl Amdt. No. 4372; To protect small businesses, family ranches and farms from the Death Tax by providing a $5 million exemption, a low rate for smaller estates and a maximum rate no higher than 35% VOTED NO

Im confused, if he is so for or against these like he says, why didnt he vote? And if he is for small business and families and those needing insurance, why did he vote against them?? Any help ??

The Expert answers:

Because he is a liar. I did a speech comparing John Mccain and Barrak Obama for a speech class and I looked into the bills passed by both senators. Mccain has a good history of voting for indian reservation land rights, millitary aid for veterans and such and quite a bit of other items, not many really controversial issues. Obama has passed like two bills, one was for summer learning day ?? And he co signed and helped write a few others that gave financial assistance to college minorities, but none of them passed in both houses. So in other words Obama hasnt really done anything besides creating a summer learning day and voting no on iraq.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Green Living

Sharon asks…

How much money is enought for me to retire?

Objective: retirement with enough money sustainable for food, house, travelling and a quiet life. My wife works, and we have no kids. We live in Beijing with two houses–one we live and one we rent to other people.

The Expert answers:

The simple answer?

(1) Figure out your current monthly expenses, including taxes and extras.

(2) Multiple by 12

(3) Multiple by an estimate of your remaining life. There are actuarial tables for this purpose, although they tend to under-estimate the long lived and add too much to the short lived.

The only real problem with this number is that it tends to ignore two different but important concepts:

(a) The added costs of growing old. These include general care as well as health care. It also includes the point in time when you can no longer work. If, for example, you loose your rental house at the age of 65, you could more than likely go back to work earning a decent living. At 85, that option would be much less likely.

(b) Inflation. The tendency of the cost of things to go up as time goes on. The plague of the middle class…if you live more than two decades in retirement, it is entirely possible that it will cost you twice as much for the same thing (you have now). If you don’t plan for this, you may come up short.

Daniel asks…

How do we create a sustainable, advanced economy for the future?

Today’s industrial economy is based upon explointing labor, natural resources, and the environment as a whole. Today’s farming is based upon degrading the land and water for high yields. Neither industry nor farming have much regard for whether their methods can be sustained long-term. The future is at stake.

Clearly, we must re-focus our efforts toward a more-responsible economy and lifestyle, but this re-focusing will cost plenty. Volunteering to give up the wasteful methods that produce cheap goods and cheap food won’t be an easy pill to swallow for the American populace, where bigger has always been considered better. It’s counter to our sense of “progress.”

How do we convince our populace that this must be done or risk our long-term survival as a nation and people of this smaller-and-smaller earth?

How do we convince others to make the same sacrifices, especially those such as India and China just on the cusp of traditional economic wealth?

The Expert answers:

I don’t know if you can convince someone… It takes longer (and more money) to do something the right way… More money equals higher taxes… It seems like most people don’t care about the “right way” to do things.. Only the cheap way…

I just hope the earth is more resilient than we think…

Steven asks…

What kind of food do you mostly take-out from restaurants or cafe? (Ex. salad, soup, hamburger, etc)?

I’m going to create a sustainable take-away packaging (boxes, cups, bags). I’d like to hear what popular take-out dishes are, and create three different kind of packaging which fit to quantity or form of food. (Pizza requires a spacious box, and soup contains in special container for liquid food.)
And when you think about take-out packaging, what is the most considerable thing?

The Expert answers:

Pizza subs and salads

Jenny asks…

Discuss the possible implications (positive and negative) of the sustainable agriculture/locally grown food.?

Discuss the possible implications (positive and negative) of the sustainable agriculture/locally grown foods movement on American agriculture

The Expert answers:

Local food can be sustainable because it reduces food miles; that is, it reduces the distance food has to travel from the farms to reach us, the consumers. Because food miles are reduced, less fuel (usually from fossil fuel sources) would be reduced. Hence, this leads to lesser CO2 emission and less detrimental global warming. One more way local food can be sustainable is it provide jobs.

However, some food items are best imported rather than grown locally. This is because America cannot possibly grow all its food. Limitations by weather, soil, or infrastructure make production of some local food more expensive and more environmentally detrimental than if the food were to be brought in from another country.

So, in short, it is best America grows what it grows best (locally) and imports those which are best grown elsewhere.

Lisa asks…

Will Sustainable Agriculture be able to feed the world’s population in 50 years?

I need specific data that will support the idea that SA will be able to feed the world in 50 years. I had my choice of Genetically Modified foods, or Sustainable Agriculture, and due to moral reasons I chose Sustainable Agriculture. Now I can’t find data to support my choice. Help! This is a VERY casual paper…we are able to plagiarize as much as we’d like…the instructor would just like us to be able to supply him with data.

The Expert answers:

As you have decided the use of GMO is immoral, I question your personal morality, obviously honesty has precious little use in it.

To answer your question: While the incorporation of Sustainable techniques will increase in usage, to date no properly conducted and analyzed scientific study has shown that these techniques will increase yield (most indicate a 10-25% lower yield compared to conventional agriculture). However, the subject has not be adequately researched to prove either method provides the superior yield consistently.

If you review the literature and conduct some of the research, a few things that do become apparent.

Conventional agriculture is ‘leaky’ meaning some of the compounds used do move and are found in areas outside of the application area

The use of conventional agriculture tends to put producers (farmers, etc) on the “technology treadmill”. This means once you get on board, the producer has to constantly be learning, adapting and responding to the economic pressure of excessively low prices due to increased supply without increased demand.

Use of only Sustainable agriculture techniques is unwieldy. Once locked into this group of techniques and markets, change is difficult. This leads to an industry ill prepared for an uncertain future. Flexibility has always been required for a business to adapt to an every changing world.

Sustainable agriculture will have lower input costs, but tends to have a higher cost per unit of production. Without the ability to increase yield, price per unit of production must increase along with inflation, else the business becomes unprofitable. Prices for agricultural produce (the goods produced by the farmer) have not kept up with inflation over the past century. This price is highly correlated with demand and supply. Organic or Sustainable foods tend to bring greater prices per unit (almost 2x conventional) but currently face little in the way of production competition. Once the supply increases, prices will decrease.

The future of agriculture is very positive. Sustainable practices, especially those involving soil microbiology will increase the efficiency of chemical applications (fertilizer, pests, use of GMO’s), however they will not replace the extremely efficient and cost effective programs of conventional agriculture. Unless, of course, the religious zealots of the environmental movement idiotically make it illegal to farm conventionally. (If so, get ready for a dramatic increase in food costs to the general public, including you).

So the short answer, when incorporated with current conventional agricultural techniques, Sustainable agriculture will help feed the world, but as currently envisioned by some, no.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Green Living

James asks…

Are the “Simple” brand shoes made in the USA?

I know they are ecofriendly and all, but I would be really grateful if they were made in America. I can’t find anything on their website, but they are really expensive for being mostly recycled materials, so I was just wondering if they were made here. =]
Never mind. I looked at the label under the tongue of the shoe and it said “made in China” like ashley said. This just shattered my entire universe. =[

The Expert answers:

No they are not they are made in China.

Richard asks…

SWEATSHOP-FREE SHOES!?

I’m planning on getting some new shoes tomorrow. I’m probably just going to Kohl’s (parents’ decision).

What common brands are child labor and sweatshop free and possibly ecofriendly?

The Expert answers:

Pretty much everything is made in chinese sweatshops now a days unfortunately

Susan asks…

vegan toddler shoes in nz?

anywhere to buy vegan toddler shoes in NZ – I’d prefer an NZ manufacturer, all I can find online is eco friendly leather or uk/usa companies. Also I know warehouse etc sell some vegan shoes but I’m looking for a somewhat more ethical approach….

btw yes I do know that toddlers should go barefoot 99% of the time but there are always those situations esp in sunny dry chch where that is not always possible
thanks – was basing on one going out pair (mary janes ish) and 2 play pairs for the public park and playgroup etc where shoes are compulsory as they can get wet or trashed in the mud. I hadn’t considered 2nd hand for shoes – I’ll check out trade me

The Expert answers:

From my experience with my children, you can get by with one good pair at a time. Mine wore canvas shoes and plastic/rubber sandals and thongs (jandals), occasionally a second hand pair of full shoes from family or the op-shop. They really do out-grow shoes before they wear them out, so second hand is a good option which can fit in with vegan philosophy.

I’ve just done a quick search and limited it to Australian pages only, with these results http://www.google.com.au/search?q=vegan+toddler+shoes&hl=en&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&biw=1252&bih=546&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&ei=TvXCTr-LG6-fmQWY9v2WCw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=1&ved=0CDAQ_AUoAA#q=vegan+toddler+shoes&hl=en&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=imvns&source=lnt&tbs=ctr:countryAU&cr=countryAU&sa=X&ei=UfXCTr2aO-aQiAfRlrn_DQ&ved=0CCsQpwUoAQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=b3a1a4d7a24d3c64&biw=1252&bih=546 – some of them seem a bit pricey.

Whatever you do, don’t let yourself get sucked in to all the talk about toddler shoes, designed to play on parents’ worries about their kids’ feet. As long as your children are in bare feet (or socks with soft soles) whenever possible, their feet will grow as nature intended.

Joseph asks…

Looking for a great pair of VEGAN winter boots?

I live in Winnipeg, where it gets super-cold. I’ve tried Simple shoes, Mooshoes, and Vegan chic, with mixed results. The TOEst and PesTOE get mixed reviews, so I’m still looking. Any vegan/ecofriendly recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

The Expert answers:

These sites are awesome for vegan boots
enjoy XD

http://ragazzivegan.com/products.php?catID=0006.0005.0000.0000

http://www.alternativeoutfitters.com/clothing/vegan/womens-boots.aspx

Chris asks…

What is a catchy slogan for a Hover shoe?

i need a catchy slogan for a hover shoe. it is a high-top sneaker that can hover and move up to 10 mph. it can hover over mud, water, dog poo what ever u dont want to step in. easy way to get a student to class faster. it runs on solar energy as well. so its ecofriendly
any sort of slogan idea is great

The Expert answers:

The shoe that is good for the air and lighter than air. 🙂
[doesn’t pollute with bateries or exhaust and hoovers]

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Green Living

David asks…

What are some of China’s current environmental issues?

I need to find some to write about for a paper. I’d find them myself, but I’ve been doing homework literally all day and I just want to finish this paper and get some sleep. And, if you know any, it’d be nice if you could give me some future environmental issues, too.

The Expert answers:

They have too many people, they burn too much fossil fuel,

Richard asks…

What are environmental issues for the canadian sheild?

What are environmental issues of the canadian shield region of canada???? I need this for a geography I.S.U. Thanks in advance. 🙂

The Expert answers:

The lakes in the Canadian Shield are located where the rocks are igneous. This means that they will have little capacity to neutralize acid rain generated by coal fired power plants and some ore processing plants. The acid rain slowly increase the acidity of the lakes to levels that fish can not tolerate. In many other locations lakes are located in basins that have carbonate rocks that supply the chemical bicarbonate to the water. It is this chemical that has the capacity to neutralize acid rain and make these lakes much less susceptible to acid rain

Linda asks…

Environmental ISSUES?

Why does RESPONSIBILITY belong to corparate America and the leaders of a Capitalistic Society and their Disciples??

The Expert answers:

In the warped liberal mindset, it’s because “Corporate America” has “all the money.”

Conversely, liberals feel it’s their responsibility to tell you what to do with your (their) money. They are useless. Above all else, they desire power. They don’t give a damn about America or their constituents.

Charles asks…

What are environmental issues in Ontario?

Im doing a history project and I was wondering what are some/most of the environmental issues the affect Canada and Ontario directly?

The Expert answers:

Current issues- environment
air pollution and resulting acid rain severely affecting lakes and damaging forests; metal smelting, coal-burning utilities, and vehicle emissions impacting on agricultural and forest productivity; ocean waters becoming contaminated due to agricultural, industrial, mining, and forestry activities

this is for the country of canada

Susan asks…

How should we analyze environmental issues?

I would be good to hear from environmentalist or anyone who has been in an environmental controversy . Would like to hear how you would approach the analysis or what analysis techniques would you use to in environmental controversies.

For example analyzing and assessing scientific information put forwards by certain stakeholders within the issue.

The Expert answers:

I’m involved with property development. We always have to provide environmental studies regarding not only the immediate property, but also the extent to which the community-at-large may be impacted by the development.

The main body of the report is called an EIR (Environmental Impact Report). When it finds that the development will not adversely impact the property or community, this is referred to as “A Negative Declaration.”

Usually, we have to hire experts to analyze the specific environmental impacts, generally being:

Traffic
Seismic
Biological
Acoustical
Habitat
Archaeological
Soils

When a particular issue is discovered, the property is not usually rendered undevelopable. Usually, the owner of the property can deal with the issue using something called “Mitigation”, which is just a fancy way of saying that the environmental issue is allowed to exist within the development substantially unaffected.

When approvals are eventually given to move forward, it is only under certain “Conditions.” These are called “Conditions of Approval.”

One typical Condition is that, upon discovery of any archeological remains while digging, the development process will be suspended while a team of environmental experts is dispatched to study the findings.

As you can see, here in California environmental issues reign supreme.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Green Living

Lisa asks…

What do you think about Sarah Palin’s energy ‘expertise’?

A lot of conservatives are trying to portray Sarah Palin as some sort of energy expert. Here are some Palin quotes.

She thinks it’s God’s will that a natural gas pipeline be built through Alaska.

“I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

She seems to share McCain’s disdain for renewable energy.

alternativeenergy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop.”

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/aug/16/alaska_gov_wants_tap_oil_resources51051/

She thinks oil can solve our energy problems.

“I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem”

http://www.omgili.com/newsgroups/talk/environment/C49F02AA10FDCleonard78spprimusca.html

Do you think the portrayal of Sarah Palin as an energy expert is justified?

http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/03/note-to-media-pork-queen-palin-is-earmark-expert-not-energy-expert/
regarding renewables being unproven, how about PG&E signing contracts for up to 900 MW of solar thermal:
http://www.pge.com/about/news/mediarelations/newsreleases/q2_2008/080401.shtml

800 MW of solar photovoltaic:
http://www.pge.com/about/news/mediarelations/newsreleases/q3_2008/080814.shtml

Not to mention all the wind energy already in use, particularly in Texas, just as a few examples to the contrary.

Plus Pickens believes that we can get 20% of our energy from wind power alone in 10 years, and the Bush Department of Energy believes 20% in 20 years (and that’s just wind!)

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/12/must-read-bush-doe-says-wind-can-be-20-of-us-power-by-2030-with-no-breakthroughs/
gcnp – no, but I just read a plot summary. Interesting parallels indeed.

The Expert answers:

Not at all. We cannot keep relying on non renewable sources of energy to power our country. While I agree that natural gas is a better alternative than oil it is still not the answer, we only hold approx 3% of the total natural gas reserves in the world so it seems to reason that we should explore other avenues. I believe that she says what she says about Alaska because she is theGovernorr of that state and the primary roll of a governor is (arguably) to build up the economy of their given state. She has no background in science or domestic energy policy on a nation wide scale; she just knows that it will bring more money to her state. And the fact that she brings God into the equation is very insulting. Idon’tt recall God saying anything about supporting a capitalist society that helps make the rich richer and the poor poorer.Statisticallyy and historically speaking economies that rely on the extraction of natural resources are very fragile and don’t do very good jobs of sharing the wealth (ex. People that work in the oil/gas industry in Alaska make a lot of money but peopel working in unrelated fields do not). I dont think the portrayal of her as being an energy expert is, by any strech of the imagination, accurate. Her (as well as McCain) view on energy policy is to make more and drive prices down. I think these people have forgotten that oil/nat gas are both finite resources; the price of each increases as supply decreases (each will run out one day and prices will increse until that point is reached). We as americans must now demand the use and development of cleaner and more renewable sources of energy (it should have began years ago). The bottom line is this; people who have no real experience but call themselves experts usually have no idea what the hell they are talkin about. It is time for a change in our domestic energy policy, and the only person that will likely deliver this is Obama and Biden (I say this even though I have historically voted republican, but not this time)

Michael asks…

has President Bush gone completely energy nuts?

here President Bush goes again — pandering to the alternative energy crowd. [see story at link] has he gone completely off the deep end?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/bush_ethanol/index.htm

or only partly off it?

***
my hypothesis:

America needs to drill in ANWR, drill offshore, mine that clean cloal in Utah [world’s largest deposits are just sitting there], AND build at least 15 nuclear reactors per decade.

Meanwhile President Bush makes nice noises at the alternative energy conference and acknowledges that ethanol is driving up food prices — BUT he doesn’t say beans about reversing the present policy that is hitting us all at the grocery store. NOR has he any quantifiable program.

Is he as bad as the Socialist Duo? [Sen. Pied Piper and Sen. Shrew].
comment for D Rocker: hydrogen makes a fine fuel for cars IF you can produce it at home. That’s fairly easily done by electrolysis of ordinary water. This allows you to move the energy production location to the power plant, which can burn uranium or coal or oil/gas.

While this visionary technology doesn’t yet exist, the fuel cells and electrolysis units to make it possible aren’t that far away — certainly less than 10 years if oil prices continue to soar.

but it can’t be done if America isn’t willing to produce significantly larger quantities of energy here at home … and that’ll take all available types of power plants, not just the greeen dreams of the eco-friendly.

The Expert answers:

Just as the president, D Rocker has also been drinking the ethanol Koolaid.

Just recently it was reported that the production of ethanol fuels (corn, sugar cane, ect) increases the greenhouse gas build up faster then crude oil does. As the price of these products increases, the farmland to grow them also becomes more valuable. This will then cause farmers to clear non-farm land for the growing of these products. These products are much less efficient at removing CO2. Combine this with the fact that ethanol fuels create more pollution to produce then crude oil, any argument about their benefit is ignorant.

As for ANWR. Between Alaska and Canada, we have enough oil for who knows how long. They have predicted that these reserves could produce larger quantities of oil then the middle east. We are stupid not to drill it. Every other country that has oil is drilling it. We unfortunately have people like D Rocker who have their heads to far up their green *sses to see the truth regarding global warming and oil production. Worse yet is that the nuetered republican party feels that need to side with these morons.

As for food. The simple increase in food prices could have DRASTIC effects on our economy. D Rocker seems to think that this is just fine. Well fine, then he can pay the difference in my grociery bill because he is not educated enough to understand how the fuel industry works.

This has me sooooooooooooooooooooooo p*ssed off!!!!

GO CRUDE!!!

Mark asks…

environmental issues in the news?

I need to find a current article/news in one of these categories
~alternative energies
(wind solar hydroelectric, etc.)
~living green
(examples of communities, people, etc. that are lessening impacts on the environment)
~human impacts
population impacts, pollutions, comsumption, etc.
~conservation efforts

The Expert answers:

In the “Human Impacts” category, you would be able to find information on how the contamination of groundwater has effected the health of certain communities. See the Erin Brokovich case and reference other similar events.

Steven asks…

Why are the Chinese so aggressively pursuing Alternative ENERGY such as wind and solar power?

Moving away from dependence on oil is a major priority for the Chinese.

Are they doing this because they are a bunch of Tree Hugging Hippies or do they understand what the United States does not, that we have a dwindling supply oil oil?

Don’t the Chinese believe Fox News when they assure us that we have hundreds of years worth of oil left?

The Expert answers:

They aren’t moving away from oil. They are just gearing up to sell the crap to us.

Do you think they don’t read the news and see that 0bama is forcing this down our throats?

The US is the biggest market in the world and China knows how to take advantage of it.

Sandra asks…

What do you think an Energy Catalyzer (Ecat) would mean to the climate issue?

I was just reading some interesting stuff on alternative energy sources. I came across a concept call Ecat which appears to be a spin off of cold fusion which is more accurately called “low level nuclear reaction”. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-10/06/e-cat-cold-fusion?page=all

It’s hard to tell just how credible any of this is. But it does put the possibility of a CO2 emission free source of energy on the market which would likely start as heating devices and possibly fuel-free cars before be adapted to mass energy sources.

What are your thoughts on this? (Other than I’ll wait and see. Please feel free to assume this is true and speculate on what it might mean).

The Expert answers:

For those that had a quick look but couldn’t find anything about how it works…. This is the closest I got.

“The E-Cat is a device in which hydrogen gas, powdered nickel metal, and an undisclosed catalyst are combined to produce a large amount of heat through a little understood low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) process inside a specially designed chamber. The inner workings of the reactor are covered by a trade secret which Rossi consistently refuses to discuss.

In this process, when an external heat source is applied (Electric or fossil) it is claimed that the nucleus of a hydrogen atom, a proton, penetrates a nickel nucleus and in doing so a nickel atom becomes a copper atom, and releases a large amount of thermal energy.”

Can he really change nickel to copper at room temperature? A great trick if if works… No nuclear waste, no hazzardous materials, no extreme temperatures or pressures, no exotic infrastructure, can be done at small and large scale etc etc.

It all sounds a bit too good to be true.

Edit:
We don’t have to wait long to find out…
“Andrea Rossi has announced that the first commercial E-Cat plant will be a 1 MW thermal power plant which is scheduled to be launched in an unannounced location on October 28th, 2011 with worldwide commercial rollout of the technology to follow in November”

I also found this…
“Its a typical cold fusion scam. They are just running 3% hydrogen peroxide solution like you have at home through the plumbing. The nickel catalyst causes it to break down into oxygen, which no one notices, water, and lots and lots of heat.

Ask them the drink the water that goes in it”

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Green Living

Susan asks…

what percentage of the worlds energy supply comes from renewable resources? 1-19-52 or 85?

biology

The Expert answers:

Biology?!?!

Your in the Earth Science & Geology section

Sharon asks…

Renewable Energy and Global Warming? Are Solar and wind helping?

Where I am coming from:: GW / Climate change is undeniable and Man Made.

I’m looking for thoughts from people who are knowledgeable in areas like Physics, Meteorology and Earth Sciences or generally know how the Earth and Nature work.

Solar and Wind energy seem to be the only two renewable sources that take energy directly out of the air. What makes me wonder is that I think they may be benefiting the environment more than we realize.

In addition to being clean energy sources they may be removing a lot more energy out of the environment then we realize, as they have been put in by the world on a massive scale. I tend to think wind turbines and solar panels probably dissipate nearly 100% of the energy that hits them. If the CO2 and pollution that we pump in the air is somewhat the same amount of energy as what we take out, we might have already found a way to compensate?

What do you think?

By the way renewable energy output has gotten to be almost even with nuclear energy output at 9%, much to the chagrin of the energy monopolies.
Ok Qaiser lets try to make this simpler, and Greg but the thing is if we can still convert it to energy then the energy existed. Energy is energy and if we’re saying there’s extra energy in the atmosphere I think getting rid of it or using it is a little less energy in the environment, nomatter if its at ground level or not.

We say our problem is that the CO2 mixed with the pollution we pump into the atmosphere heats up the atmosphere.

Ok that energy is already in the atmosphere. Now since solar and wind take whatever forms of energy they are and convert them into energy we use.

Now energy is energy. The physics law of conservation of energy has to apply here. In other words you dissipate some at the ground level and you’ve dissipated the total energy in the atmosphere, at the time, by that amount.

You can actually see it with wind turbines in water where fog develops because you actually cooled the surrounding air. You’ve also created a down draft that could be bringing some CO2 d
I meant to say the downdrafts created by turbines might bring CO2 down to ground level where it can be absorbed by plants trees or oceans.

P.S. You jokesters are real funny.

There’re solutions for bird and bat problems. Change the color of turbines, for instance.

No renewable energies can be developed by any company and any country thats what you’re all afraid of losing your monopolies, but forget it there future is written. Good luck getting nuclear plants running again, they take to much collaboration, effort and money to bring. Plus we haven’t built any of them in 30 years. Where do ya think we’ll get the nuclear experts?

Mtrstude, thanks but one thing you’re saying it ultimately gets released back but thats true for everything, ultimately it will go back but what if the next time it does its CO2 free which is our ultimate goal. Maybe we can continue with our reduction in energy usage so it won’t go back so quickly.

Pindar, well they must be helping somewhere cause we’re putting them up everywhere and we’ve stabilized our CO2 output in the last 3 years and Global CO2 output was down 1.3% in 2008 could be that it was due to the global recession. But still there’s more amunition to fight the folks that say GW is not due to humans.

But I can’t believe CO2 is all at ground level. Even if it is heavy the wind can still fling it around like it was nothing. That goes agains everything including NASA which has the atmospheric CO2 at 331 PPM. http://climate.nasa.gov/
You know whats really strange is that the people that are right are getting the thumbs downs and the people that haven’t a clue are getting the thumbs ups? Whats up with that? Well then to all the people getting the thumbs down, I commend you! You struck a cord with the denialists, great job!
Pindar I’m not talking about the UK if thats what you’re talking about. Where did you get that figure?
Here’s the EIA’s figure. Winds contribution in the U.S. may be small but its not 0, more like around 0.8% in the U.S.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/rea_prereport.html
The only brainwashing being done is by the money flows. Pindar I don’t join anybody for the purposes of joining them. If I happen to be on the same stance as them its because they and I both see the obvious.

Show me the evidence, but thats the problem isn’t it! The GW / Climate change denialists have no evidence to show and no way to disprove the facts and true observations.
Lalu are you talking about the 9% figure Lalu? Why don’t you check the graph on the EIA link I posted. That has renewables at 8% vs 9% for nuclear and that was for 2009.
“Worldwide wind energy production at the end of 2009 was 340 TWh, which is about 2% of worldwide electricity usage.”
http://energy-statistics.blogspot.com/2010/09/global-wind-energy-statistics.html

The Expert answers:

The short answer is ‘no’, they aren’t taking energy out of the air in the long run because whilst wind absorbs energy that was already in the atmosphere it is then used up as electricity, which is ultimately given out as heat and returned to the atmosphere. The net effect is zero.

Renewable energies emit less CO2, even once you include building and maintaining them. This slows global warming.

In terms of absorbing heat, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Power stations burn fuel and cause a bit of global warming that way: usually 2-3 units of heat for each unit of electricity (including the electricity which eventually heats the atmosphere).

The effect of solar panels depends on where you put them and their efficiency. If they are 10% efficient and you put them on shiny 90% reflective ice, then they actually mean you absorb 9 units of heat for every unit of electricity you make and they increase global warming – the ratio is 3 times worse than a fossil fuel or nuclear power station. But on the plus side, the carbon savings are a much, much bigger effect.

If you put a solar panel on a dark asphalt surface and you don’t change the reflectivity of the surface, then you’re getting power for ‘free’ in heat terms – you’re not absorbing any more and your ratio is 1 unit of electricity for 0 units of extra heating…

(I did a physics masters in solar cells and I’m now doing a PhD in climate science – I did the maths already for a solar power system’s effect on global warming, e-mail me if you want it)

George Orwell is spreading his ignorance once again. Atmospheric temperatures here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-global-warming-stop-in-1998-1995-2002-2007-2010.html
Of course, the atmosphere isn’t the only part of the globe. Trillions of tons of ice have melted since 2000 and sea levels have continued to rise as more heat goes into the oceans. In George Orwell’s world, more energy in the climate system isn’t global warming though.

Mary asks…

Is Denmark disproving the myth that a carbon cap and renewable energy investment is bad for the economy?

According to Forbes magazine, the “best country for business in the world” — for two years running — is uber-green Denmark
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/18/best-countries-for-business-bizcountries09-business-washington-best-countries.html

Denmark has one of the strongest cap-and-trade commitments in the world — 20% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. And it has a requirement that 20 percent of its overall energy mix be renewable by the end of 2011. And its efficiency measures are such that Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard said last year, “In 2025, (Denmark’s) total energy consumption will not have risen in 50 years.”
http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/16/forbes-global-warming-denmark/

And apparently it’s the best country for business in the world. Does this shatter the myth that a carbon cap and renewable energy investment is bad for the economy?

The Expert answers:

It would appear to at least be an example of a country where carbon cap/renewable energy is not a barrier, however the foundations for this were laid by Denmark society many years ago. Denmark has a culture where cooperative social responsibilty is very highly valued, this has helped them make and take tough decisions which are then generally accepted by all classes and all political parties.

One reason that illustrates how this came to be is the example, of the growth in membership of the Nature Preservation Organization (DN). In 1975, the organisation had some 50,000 members. From 1978, the organisation intensified the recruitment of new members via telephone calls to all Danish households. At the same time, it shifted attention from nature preservation to environmental problems in general. This strategy proved extremely successful. By 1980, membership had doubled, and by 1983, the threshold of 200,000 members was passed. By 1988, the organization had 280,000 members. This not only made DN the largest nature preservation organisation in Europe; it also meant that it had more members than all Danish political parties put together.

This is an incredible lobbying force and one that put influence on decisions that were way ahead of any other country at this time and shaped the way Denmark did business, run its institutions and educated its population.

The results are that infrastructure and the general business, social frameworks are pro environmental investment of all types it is now part of their DNA and Connie Hedegaards statement is not political hot air, it is a confident and highly realistic prediction.

Daniel asks…

How about a crash govt program to develop fusion energy ala the Manhattan project? Elim dep on fossil fuels?

Fusion energy is an almost endlessly renewable energy source that is non polluting and produces no radioactive byproducts like nuclear. The oceans of the world have a virtually endles supply of fuel (duterium). Progress has been slow but with unlimited govt backing maybe a breakthrough could be made.

The Expert answers:

Funding is not the major problem for developing fusion reactors. There is simply a lack of knowledge, especially when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of the plasmas in such a way that they can be controlled in a fusion reactor. Theres also plenty of rather contradictory engineering problems one must get by such as containing a reactor as hot as the core of a sun within a room inside a metal caseing that would be vaporized upon contact with the core. We have a good idea on how to do that but then you gotta look at how exactly do you turn this amazingly hot plasma into steam? Well you have to think up solutions for that. We have some solutions but they sure aren’t great. Other fuel sources are wonderfully simple in their creation of energy…. Compared to fusion.

I suppose you could accelerate it by maybe forcing people into physics, ha! Unfortunately, our culture glorifies people who can get their faces on TV and complain about problems instead of the people in the labs working to fix the problem. It’s a personal pet peeve of mine to see so many shy away from actually contributing to the solution in meaningful ways.

James asks…

Renewable energy, All UK Pub toilets, distilled pee, to recover all Uk alchohol for recycling or petrol?

And all world alchohol too. Alchohol is not absorbed by the body, all of it comes out in the pee, thats why you get dehydration and hangovers, apparently. So why not connect all the towns pub pee toilets up and distill it to recoup the alchohol, put it back into the drinks, to save all that energy brewing/distilling it in the first place! or just process it to run as alchohol petrol replacement in vehicle engines. Or football grounds and hotels, and events provide their own heating. etc. If anyone patents this idea, we’ll go 1/3rds, ie you, yahoo, and me.

The Expert answers:

Definitely badly informed.
Alcohol is very much converted in the body – it contains a lot of calories and hence you get the famous beer belly if you overdo consumption. The energy you propose to waste in collecting and “recovering” what little alcohol does pass through would be better spent elsewhere.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Green Living

Sharon asks…

How is WTO (World trade organization) related to sustainable development and why is it important?

The Expert answers:

It is not in general.

“The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international body whose purpose is to promote free trade by persuading countries to abolish import tariffs and other barriers. As such, it has become closely associated with globalisation.”
“The WTO is the only international agency overseeing the rules of international trade. It polices free trade agreements, settles trade disputes between governments and organises trade negotiations.”

The World Bank though is more interested in sustainable development.

I hope you find the two links below of use.

Nancy asks…

Has anyone seen the new sustainable development city outlined in the newest issue of Scientific American?

They have one in San Fran, one in Shanghai and one in Abu Dhabi. What did you think of all of them?

The Expert answers:

Very nice

Betty asks…

What are the dimensions of sustainable development?

The Expert answers:

•Population
•Natural resources
•Livable habitat (and livestock)
•Communications
•War/Peace
•Pollution

Chris asks…

What are the recent books on the issue of sustainable development?

strategic planning, experience from cities around the globe.

The Expert answers:

1.Leading Change Toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society by Bob Doppelt
2.The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait Of A Paradigm Shift
by Andres R. Edwards, David W. Orr
3.The Nature of Sustainable Development
by Sharon Beder
4.The Practice of Sustainable Development (Paperback)
by Douglas R. Porter (Author), Rutherford H. Platt (Author), Urban Land Institute (Corporate Author)
5.Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management by Bryan Norton
While many disciplines contribute to environmental conservation, there is little successful integration of science and social values. Arguing that the central problem in conservation is a lack of effective communication, Bryan Norton shows in Sustainability how current linguistic resources discourage any shared, multidisciplinary public deliberation over environmental goals and policy. In response, Norton develops a new, interdisciplinary approach to defining sustainability—the cornerstone of environmental policy—using philosophical and linguistic analyses to create a nonideological vocabulary that can accommodate scientific and evaluative environmental discourse. Emphasizing cooperation and adaptation through social learning, Norton provides a practical framework that encourages an experimental approach to language clarification and problem formulation, as well as an interdisciplinary approach to creating solutions. By moving beyond the scientific arena to acknowledge the importance of public discourse, Sustainability offers an entirely novel approach to environmentalism.
6. Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change by Susanne Moser and Lisa Dilling
The need for effective communication, public outreach, and education to increase support for policy, collective action and behavior change is ever present, and is perhaps most pressing in the context of anthropogenic climate change. This book is the first to take a comprehensive look at communication and social change specifically targeted to climate change. It is a unique collection of ideas examining the challenges associated with communicating climate change in order to facilitate societal response. It offers well-founded, practical suggestions on how to communicate climate change and how to approach related social change more effectively. The contributors of this book come from a diverse range of backgrounds, from government and academia to non-governmental and civic sectors of society. The two editors are Susanne Moser and Lisa Dilling. The book is accessibly written, and any specialized terminology is explained. It will be of great interest to academic researchers and professionals in climate change, environmental policy, science communication, psychology, sociology, and geography.
7. Harvard Business Review on Green Business Strategy (Harvard Business Review Paperback Series) (Harvard Business Review Paperback Series) by Hbsp (Paperback – Nov 1, 2007)
8. State of the World 2007: Our Urban Future (State of the World) by Worldwatch Institute (Paperback – Jan 15, 2007)
9. Megatrends 2010: The Rise of Conscious Capitalism by Patricia Aburdene (Paperback – May 2007)
10. Vital Signs 2007-2008: The Trends that Are Shaping Our Future (Vital Signs) by The Worldwatch Institute (Paperback – Sep 13, 2007)
11.The Business Guide to Sustainability: Practical Strategies and Tools for Organizations by Darcy Hitchcock and Marsha Willard (Paperback – Aug 2006)
visit amazon. Com and target.com to get more books.

David asks…

For an underdeveloped country, what should the biggest priority be in providing sustainable development?

Interested in opinions. Perhaps infrastructure? This is assuming the country would be granted a couple billions of dollars.

The Expert answers:

I’m thinking electricity. You can do so much more when you jump on the grid. Nuclear Pebblebed Technology looks promising! 😀

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Translate »