Humans have changed planet earth. One of our accomplishments is to extract and burn much of the fossil fuel deposits on the planet. We have increased the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and are now observing the changes in weather patterns and climate that are a result of our actions.
Greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbon chemicals, and chlorofluorocarbons. These gases act like the glass covering a greenhouse, letting sunlight in but blocking some of the infrared radiation from the earth's surface that carries heat back into space. The gases act like a blanket wherever their concentration increases. Local concentrations increase local heat and increased differences between hotter and colder regions drives weather events into more extreme ranges.
The planet's thermostat had been set at a pleasant average temperature of 59 degrees (F) for the last 10 thousand years or so and is now undergoing a rapid change. Global warming means that the earth retains more of the sun's heat over time. The warming effect of greenhouse gases is reduced by particle pollution and clouds that block incoming infrared radiation. Without particle pollution, ice crystals and water vapor in the atmosphere, global warming would be more rapid.
The attempt to understand complex systems has taken a quantum leap in recent years. We have gone beyond naïve linear models and now appreciate that if complex systems such as the atmosphere, the oceans, and land ecosystems change, they become unstable, climates change and human habitats that once were stable, become unfriendly or, worse, uninhabitable. Extra heat will cause more turbulence and weather patterns will change in unpredictable ways.
The development of a renewed "green movement" in the media suggests that this is a relatively new concern and people who have ignored climate changes during the past 30 years have had legitimate doubts. The fact is that some know what is really going on out there, but most people do not know or know but deny the obvious for selfish reasons.
Carbon dioxide is the most important gas and is produced from the burning of fossil fuels, and the burning of forests. The concentration of CO2 was 280 PPM before the industrial revolution and now is over 350 PPM. The 1990s, the US produced 23% of global CO2 emissions, Western Europe 14%, former Soviet bloc 20 %, India 4% and Japan 5%. High emission countries pump out over 3 metric tons per capita - the US produces 5.2 metric tons per person. In 2007, China matched emissions typical of the US. Low emission countries produce less than 1 metric tone per capita. Most of Africa, South America, and Asia are below 1 metric ton per capita. If you include Brazil, Indonesia and Germany in the industrial heavy-weight polluters, they account for 56 % of the world's population, 59% if its economic output, 58 % of its carbon-dioxide emissions and 53% of its forests.
Methane is less abundant but traps more heat than carbon dioxide. Methane emissions are about 550 million tons per year from biomass decomposition in wetlands, rice farming, ruminant animals and landfills. Methane is "natural gas" and some enters the atmosphere during its commercial distribution and use as a fuel. Large reservoirs of methane also are found in the arctic and in marine sediments, as methane hydrates. Each methane molecule is encased by water ice molecules. There is speculation that large volumes of methane may be released as ocean temperatures rise and accelerate global warming.
Nitrogen oxides, like hydrocarbons, are precursors to the formation of ozone and contribute to acid rain. Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier nitrogen gases, forming nitrous oxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide makes up about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with catalytic converters produced nearly half of that nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide also comes from nitrogen-based fertilizers and manure from farm animals.
Hydrofluorocarbon chemicals (HFCs) Refrigerants designed to protect the ozone layer have become a major contributor to global warming. Hydrofluorocarbon chemicals (HFCs) were developed to phase out ozone-depleting gases but they are more potent than carbon dioxide as greenhouse gases. A study at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency suggested that HFC emissions will have the heat trapping effect up to 8.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually by 2010. (G. J. M. Velders et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA doi:10.1073.pnas.0902817106; 2009).
The reduction in forest biomass and the exposure of ocean plankton to increase UV radiation are also concerns. Ocean phytoplankton supplies up to 70% of the oxygen we breathe.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),a United Nations body won the 2007 Nobel Prize for its efforts to boost understanding of climate change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 consists of four reports, three of them from its working groups.
The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change Key Points are:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years.
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas concentrations.
Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized soon, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century . The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century:
Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in)
There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
More than thirty years ago, Loren Eisely reflected:
Every Civilization, born like an animal body has just so much energy to expend...space and time widen to weariness. In the midst of triumph, disenchantment sets in among the young. It is as though with the growth of cities an implosion took place, a final unseen structure, a spore-bearing structure towering upward toward its final release. I am one of the world-eaters in the time that my species has despoiled the earth and is about to loose its spores into space. When the swarming phase of our existence commences, we struggle both against the remembered enchantment of childhood and the desire to extinguish it under layers of concrete and giant stones. Like some few persons in the days of the final urban concentrations, I am an anachronism, a child of the dying light.""
Loren Eisely The Invisible Pyramid. 1970
Monday, July 20, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Fear of Public Speaking:
by www.Sedona.com
Speaking in public is easily one of the most common fears facing Americans. Now, a little bit of anxiety before getting up in front of an audience is quite natural (some estimates say that as much as 75 percent of the population does not like speaking in public), but a significant portion of us (estimates say around 30 percent), have a real, sometimes debilitating fear of public speaking.
If you experience feelings of dread, uncontrollable anxiety, or fear, or if you sweat heavily, have trouble breathing, shake, or cannot sleep whenever you have to give a public speech, you may be in this latter category.
Why We Fear Speaking in Public
Why is it that public speaking -- something that most all of us have to do regularly, or at least from time to time -- invokes such feelings of terror in so many of us? Quite simply, because it means being vulnerable.
Public speaking is akin to opening your heart and soul to a roomful (or more) of people. True, you’re not about to share you innermost secrets and desires, but it doesn’t matter. You are about to put yourself on the line, share ideas, information and opinions, and there’s a chance that those you’re speaking to may not approve.
Perhaps they will disagree, laugh when they’re not supposed to, or be utterly bored. Perhaps your job and reputation are at stake. Clearly, these are not easy things to open yourself up to.
Meanwhile, in those with a true phobia, you are not only dealing with the feelings of vulnerability, but also the physical manifestations of them, such as a trembling voice, your face turning red, shortness of breath, butterflies in your stomach, and on and on. It’s enough to make even the most successful want to turn and head for the hills.
Of course, while most of us do not have the option of turning back, there is good news. Whether it be a weekly presentation to your clients, leading your neighborhood book club or giving a speech at your best friend’s wedding, you don’t have to miss another opportunity because of this fear.
Key Tactics to Overcome a Fear of Public Speaking
Being able to express your ideas effectively is vital to your personal success and happiness, and everyone can learn to be a confident speaker -- even if you currently loathe the thought of public speaking.
How? By letting the fear go. This simple premise is the foundation of The Sedona Method, a scientifically proven tool that can show you how to let go of all forms of fear, including the fear of public speaking.
Underlying your public speaking fear are negative emotions, thoughts and behaviors. Perhaps you are worried that if the presentation doesn’t go well, you could lose your job, feel humiliated, or fall behind your colleagues, for instance. But imagine how differently you would perceive public speaking if you had absolutely nothing to worry about.
The Sedona Method is a do-it-yourself system that will show you how to get to this worry-free place, and provide immediate relief whenever you get up in front of a group; instead of fear, you will feel a solid sense of confidence.
Further, the following seven tips can be used along with The Sedona Method to ensure your next public speech is easy, pleasant and stress-free:
Take deep breaths before, during and after your speech.
Find someone in the audience who is smiling and focus on them (not those who look crabby or bored).
Use personal stories and be yourself (it’s more interesting for the audience and for you).
Remember that most people in the audience want you to succeed.
Let your passion about the topic show through.
If someone asks an out-there question, stay in control by focusing your response on the points you want to convey.
Come prepared. Know your topic thoroughly and use visual aids to help you remember what points come next.
Speaking in public is easily one of the most common fears facing Americans. Now, a little bit of anxiety before getting up in front of an audience is quite natural (some estimates say that as much as 75 percent of the population does not like speaking in public), but a significant portion of us (estimates say around 30 percent), have a real, sometimes debilitating fear of public speaking.
If you experience feelings of dread, uncontrollable anxiety, or fear, or if you sweat heavily, have trouble breathing, shake, or cannot sleep whenever you have to give a public speech, you may be in this latter category.
Why We Fear Speaking in Public
Why is it that public speaking -- something that most all of us have to do regularly, or at least from time to time -- invokes such feelings of terror in so many of us? Quite simply, because it means being vulnerable.
Public speaking is akin to opening your heart and soul to a roomful (or more) of people. True, you’re not about to share you innermost secrets and desires, but it doesn’t matter. You are about to put yourself on the line, share ideas, information and opinions, and there’s a chance that those you’re speaking to may not approve.
Perhaps they will disagree, laugh when they’re not supposed to, or be utterly bored. Perhaps your job and reputation are at stake. Clearly, these are not easy things to open yourself up to.
Meanwhile, in those with a true phobia, you are not only dealing with the feelings of vulnerability, but also the physical manifestations of them, such as a trembling voice, your face turning red, shortness of breath, butterflies in your stomach, and on and on. It’s enough to make even the most successful want to turn and head for the hills.
Of course, while most of us do not have the option of turning back, there is good news. Whether it be a weekly presentation to your clients, leading your neighborhood book club or giving a speech at your best friend’s wedding, you don’t have to miss another opportunity because of this fear.
Key Tactics to Overcome a Fear of Public Speaking
Being able to express your ideas effectively is vital to your personal success and happiness, and everyone can learn to be a confident speaker -- even if you currently loathe the thought of public speaking.
How? By letting the fear go. This simple premise is the foundation of The Sedona Method, a scientifically proven tool that can show you how to let go of all forms of fear, including the fear of public speaking.
Underlying your public speaking fear are negative emotions, thoughts and behaviors. Perhaps you are worried that if the presentation doesn’t go well, you could lose your job, feel humiliated, or fall behind your colleagues, for instance. But imagine how differently you would perceive public speaking if you had absolutely nothing to worry about.
The Sedona Method is a do-it-yourself system that will show you how to get to this worry-free place, and provide immediate relief whenever you get up in front of a group; instead of fear, you will feel a solid sense of confidence.
Further, the following seven tips can be used along with The Sedona Method to ensure your next public speech is easy, pleasant and stress-free:
Take deep breaths before, during and after your speech.
Find someone in the audience who is smiling and focus on them (not those who look crabby or bored).
Use personal stories and be yourself (it’s more interesting for the audience and for you).
Remember that most people in the audience want you to succeed.
Let your passion about the topic show through.
If someone asks an out-there question, stay in control by focusing your response on the points you want to convey.
Come prepared. Know your topic thoroughly and use visual aids to help you remember what points come next.
War: Effects of War on the Economy
The most persistent and perhaps most important question relating to the effects of America's wars and their related costs on the U.S. economy is whether military expenditures have been a prop or a burden for economic growth. This question has continued relevance because the United States in the 1990s spent a larger part of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense (3.8% in 1995) than any other G7 industrial nation, almost four times Japan's expenditure and nearly twice as much as Germany's—America's two most important economic competitors. The fact that Russia in the 1990s spent almost three times more of its GDP on defense—and was in economic chaos—only strengthened this concern.
Historians and economists have waxed and waned with regard to the effect of military expenditures on the U.S. economy. Charles and Mary Beard in The Rise of American Civilization (1927) and Louis Hacker in The Triumph of American Capitalism (1940) argued that the Civil War destroyed not only slavery but also the Southern slaveocracy, thus allowing the balance of political power to shift to Northern industrialists and hence spurring American economic growth. Prior to these accounts, the classical economists (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Thomas Malthus) were concerned with the effects of war on aggregate demand. The eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries saw very high levels of military expenditures in Britain, for example, which these economists believed had a negative impact on industrial growth. The national debts resulting from war, Smith believed, “enfeebled every state … enriching in most cases the idle and profuse debtor at the expense of the industrious and frugal creditor.”
Critics of the capitalist system in more recent years have argued that capitalist societies are prone to periodic stagnation, and that only wars of the magnitude of World War II are capable of curing massive unemployment. Alternatively, liberal economists argue that war, and particularly World War II, was the strongest influence establishing Keynesian economics as a guideline and a justification for U.S. government fiscal policies for the postwar era—policies that led to widespread employment, high earnings, and a modest measure of income redistribution. Even some strong opponents of the Vietnam War began to argue in the mid‐1990s that full employment was only possible in the late 1960s because of that war.
Paul Kennedy, in his widely read Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987), is perhaps the best known historian for the view that persistent and high military expenditures have played an important role in the relative economic decline of major nations since 1500. In this and subsequent works, he argues that the United States now runs the risk of “imperial overstretch”; that America's global commitments are greater than its capacity to fund them. For him, war is not only a burden, but continuous high levels of defense spending can and generally have turned major nations into minor ones. Although his is a popular view, he had yet to persuade the experts that the United States was well down the road to relative economic decline.
The most sophisticated studies on the prop v. burden issue—whether defense spending contributes to economic growth and well‐being by stimulating the economy, or whether defense spending uses up scarce resources or diverts resources into less productive channels—tend to emphasize that growth in the GDP has been rather constant, with little lasting impact from the nine major wars America has fought since independence. Wars temporarily reduce long‐run productive capacity by reducing the growth of population and the inflow of immigrants; but the general burden of any given war falls largely on the current generation, according to Chester Wright in a seminal study on the more enduring economic consequences of American wars to 1940. More recently, Todd Sandler and Keith Hartley demonstrated that defense spending generally inhibits economic growth in developed countries by crowding out public and private investment, and siphoning off of R & D resources. Indeed, since the late 1980s, world military expenditures as a percentage of GDP have decreased dramatically without any evidence of harmful effects on the world economy. In truth, the overall economic burden of America's wars is less significant than the inequitable manner in which so much of that burden has been placed upon the working class and those with modest education, while others largely escape or even profit from such wars.
If the effect of military spending during the war years is the most obvious point of impact on the economy, the most lasting one has to do with veterans' benefits paid after the war to veterans and their dependents. Veterans' benefits have been paid for every war since the American Revolution. They amounted to about two‐thirds of the total dollar cost of the Revolutionary War; more than half the cost of the War of 1812; and 3.7 times the cost of mobilizing the Union forces in the Civil War. Surprisingly, these benefits continued to rise for about forty to sixty years after the end of each of these wars and did not cease until well over a century later. Benefits for Civil War veterans and spouses ceased only in the 1980s; World War II benefits will be paid until sometime after 2070. To date, World War II veteran's benefits have amounted to more than $300 billion, only somewhat less than the original cost of that war in current dollars. Clearly, veterans' benefits have been a major infusion of funds into the economy, and were the major direct federal subsidy to families prior to the welfare state. Compared to other countries, American soldiers and their dependents received benefits much earlier (since 1783) and in more generous amounts than elsewhere. The average payment to a still‐living World War I veteran, for example, was $6,500 in 1992. Confederate soldiers, of course, received no federal veterans benefits, although some southern states sought to add them.
The most troubling problem concerning the impact of war on the economy has to do with rapidly rising public debt. Large but temporary public debts have occurred in all of America's wars; all were paid off in time until the 1970s, when U.S. public debt rose dramatically owing to large defense increases and major tax cuts under President Ronald Reagan. In the 1990s, U.S. net public debt (most of which is war‐related) was at an unprecedented peacetime level. High public debt levels—a problem in all G7 nations—boost real interest rates, retard the accumulation of private capital, and limit gains in living standards, according to the International Monetary Fund. Reducing this unsustainable public debt, the most significant legacy of recent American wars, will be one of the United States's greatest challenges in the twenty‐first century.
Bibliography
Charles and Mary Beard, The Rise of American Civilization, 1927.
Louis Hacker, The Triumph of American Capitalism, 1940.
Chester W. Wright, The More Enduring Economic Consequences of America's Wars, in the Journal of Economic History (1943).
James L. Clayton, ed., The Economic Impact of the Cold War, 1970.
Steven Rosen, ed., Testing the Theory of the Military‐Industrial Complex, 1973.
Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, 1987.
Paul Kennedy, Preparing for the Twenty‐First Century, 1993, esp. chaps. 13 and 14.
Todd Sandler and Keith Hartley, The Economics of Defense, 1995.
International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook May 1996, “Focus on Fiscal Policy,” 1996
Historians and economists have waxed and waned with regard to the effect of military expenditures on the U.S. economy. Charles and Mary Beard in The Rise of American Civilization (1927) and Louis Hacker in The Triumph of American Capitalism (1940) argued that the Civil War destroyed not only slavery but also the Southern slaveocracy, thus allowing the balance of political power to shift to Northern industrialists and hence spurring American economic growth. Prior to these accounts, the classical economists (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Thomas Malthus) were concerned with the effects of war on aggregate demand. The eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries saw very high levels of military expenditures in Britain, for example, which these economists believed had a negative impact on industrial growth. The national debts resulting from war, Smith believed, “enfeebled every state … enriching in most cases the idle and profuse debtor at the expense of the industrious and frugal creditor.”
Critics of the capitalist system in more recent years have argued that capitalist societies are prone to periodic stagnation, and that only wars of the magnitude of World War II are capable of curing massive unemployment. Alternatively, liberal economists argue that war, and particularly World War II, was the strongest influence establishing Keynesian economics as a guideline and a justification for U.S. government fiscal policies for the postwar era—policies that led to widespread employment, high earnings, and a modest measure of income redistribution. Even some strong opponents of the Vietnam War began to argue in the mid‐1990s that full employment was only possible in the late 1960s because of that war.
Paul Kennedy, in his widely read Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987), is perhaps the best known historian for the view that persistent and high military expenditures have played an important role in the relative economic decline of major nations since 1500. In this and subsequent works, he argues that the United States now runs the risk of “imperial overstretch”; that America's global commitments are greater than its capacity to fund them. For him, war is not only a burden, but continuous high levels of defense spending can and generally have turned major nations into minor ones. Although his is a popular view, he had yet to persuade the experts that the United States was well down the road to relative economic decline.
The most sophisticated studies on the prop v. burden issue—whether defense spending contributes to economic growth and well‐being by stimulating the economy, or whether defense spending uses up scarce resources or diverts resources into less productive channels—tend to emphasize that growth in the GDP has been rather constant, with little lasting impact from the nine major wars America has fought since independence. Wars temporarily reduce long‐run productive capacity by reducing the growth of population and the inflow of immigrants; but the general burden of any given war falls largely on the current generation, according to Chester Wright in a seminal study on the more enduring economic consequences of American wars to 1940. More recently, Todd Sandler and Keith Hartley demonstrated that defense spending generally inhibits economic growth in developed countries by crowding out public and private investment, and siphoning off of R & D resources. Indeed, since the late 1980s, world military expenditures as a percentage of GDP have decreased dramatically without any evidence of harmful effects on the world economy. In truth, the overall economic burden of America's wars is less significant than the inequitable manner in which so much of that burden has been placed upon the working class and those with modest education, while others largely escape or even profit from such wars.
If the effect of military spending during the war years is the most obvious point of impact on the economy, the most lasting one has to do with veterans' benefits paid after the war to veterans and their dependents. Veterans' benefits have been paid for every war since the American Revolution. They amounted to about two‐thirds of the total dollar cost of the Revolutionary War; more than half the cost of the War of 1812; and 3.7 times the cost of mobilizing the Union forces in the Civil War. Surprisingly, these benefits continued to rise for about forty to sixty years after the end of each of these wars and did not cease until well over a century later. Benefits for Civil War veterans and spouses ceased only in the 1980s; World War II benefits will be paid until sometime after 2070. To date, World War II veteran's benefits have amounted to more than $300 billion, only somewhat less than the original cost of that war in current dollars. Clearly, veterans' benefits have been a major infusion of funds into the economy, and were the major direct federal subsidy to families prior to the welfare state. Compared to other countries, American soldiers and their dependents received benefits much earlier (since 1783) and in more generous amounts than elsewhere. The average payment to a still‐living World War I veteran, for example, was $6,500 in 1992. Confederate soldiers, of course, received no federal veterans benefits, although some southern states sought to add them.
The most troubling problem concerning the impact of war on the economy has to do with rapidly rising public debt. Large but temporary public debts have occurred in all of America's wars; all were paid off in time until the 1970s, when U.S. public debt rose dramatically owing to large defense increases and major tax cuts under President Ronald Reagan. In the 1990s, U.S. net public debt (most of which is war‐related) was at an unprecedented peacetime level. High public debt levels—a problem in all G7 nations—boost real interest rates, retard the accumulation of private capital, and limit gains in living standards, according to the International Monetary Fund. Reducing this unsustainable public debt, the most significant legacy of recent American wars, will be one of the United States's greatest challenges in the twenty‐first century.
Bibliography
Charles and Mary Beard, The Rise of American Civilization, 1927.
Louis Hacker, The Triumph of American Capitalism, 1940.
Chester W. Wright, The More Enduring Economic Consequences of America's Wars, in the Journal of Economic History (1943).
James L. Clayton, ed., The Economic Impact of the Cold War, 1970.
Steven Rosen, ed., Testing the Theory of the Military‐Industrial Complex, 1973.
Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, 1987.
Paul Kennedy, Preparing for the Twenty‐First Century, 1993, esp. chaps. 13 and 14.
Todd Sandler and Keith Hartley, The Economics of Defense, 1995.
International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook May 1996, “Focus on Fiscal Policy,” 1996
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Clean Up The World
Thursday September 14, 2006
What do the Nile River, Copacabana Beach and Sydney Harbor have in common? All three have been targeted for clean up, along with hundreds of other sites worldwide, when 35 million volunteers from 122 countries take part in this year’s Clean Up the World Weekend—celebrated globally every September—which is part of the ongoing Clean Up the World campaign.
The campaign, held in conjunction with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has grown steadily since it first began in 1993. Activities range from cleaning up small villages to overhauling entire countries. Many communities also implement recycling and educational programs, or initiate water and energy conservation projects.
Since the start of the campaign, Clean Up the World members worldwide have collected an estimated 3,574,991 tons of trash—enough to fill 5,710 Olympic-size swimming pools. Plastic, glass, metal and cigarette butts are among the most commonly found items every year.
“From the world’s iconic sites to the sites of significance to remote local communities, Clean Up the World campaign brings people together in a meaningful activity that changes their lives and environment for the better,” said campaign Chairman and Founder Ian Kiernan, Recipient of the Order of Australia, in a press release.
How It All Began
The Clean Up the World campaign started in 1989 when Kiernan, an Australian solo-yachtsman and builder was appalled by the amount of garbage he came across while sailing. He organized a clean up of the Sydney Harbor, during which some 40,000 volunteers removed rusted car bodies, plastic, glass bottles and cigarette butts from the water.
The campaign went global in 1993, with Sydney becoming the headquarters for the Clean Up the World campaign. Today, the organization brings together hundreds of members from around the world, ranging from local community groups to national campaigns, that carry out environmental projects throughout the year. The Clean Up the World Weekend, held in September each year, has the highest participation of all of the organization’s activities.
“Clean Up the World mobilizes people around a powerful idea—taking the challenge of environment and sustainable development to our front doors, our backyards, and everywhere else around the globe,” said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner in a press release. “It comes with another idea that UNEP strongly believes in: that what we consider waste and rubbish today could become a resource for tomorrow.”
A Global Effort
Clean Up the World is truly a global campaign. Of 624 Clean Up the World members in 2006, 207 come from Africa; 171 from Asia-Pacific; 82 from Europe; 138 from Latin America and the Caribbean; 11 from North America; and 16 from West Asia.
The countries with the highest participation in the Clean Up the World campaign this year are India, Nigeria, Argentina and Kenya. The countries participating in the Clean Up the World campaign for the first time in 2006 are Afghanistan, Albania, Guyana and Latvia.
The following are just a sample of Clean Up the World activities that are taking place this weekend:
· Volunteers from fourteen countries across the Mediterranean Sea will engage in a wide range of activities, from underwater clean ups to environmental parades, in a joint effort to promote greener living in the region.
· In Egypt, the Arab Office for Youth and the Environment is focusing on the Clean Up the Nile initiative with 17 cities participating. The campaign seeks to highlight the importance of the Nile River for agriculture and development in a region prone to desertification.
· School children, divers, snorkellers and community volunteers will be cleaning up the world-famous Copacabana beach in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This clean up event is coordinated by Brazil’s popular TV show “Programa Na Praia” (“On the Beach”), which raises environmental awareness across the country.
· On the island of Newfoundland, off Canada’s Atlantic coast, Ocean Net volunteers will celebrate the 1000th marine clean up conducted since the group’s establishment in 1997 with underwater and beach clean ups at Topsail Beach.
· In the Chinese City of Shaoxing, situated in the Yangtze River delta, about 100 cycling enthusiasts will collect roadside rubbish during a bike ride on Clean Up the World weekend, targeting plastic bags and drink containers in particular.
· In Australia, where the Clean Up the World campaign started, volunteers will remove rubbish from the Sydney Harbor and Lane Cove National Park. Dozens more Australian volunteers will work with overseas communities as far as Ghana, the Philippines and the Kingdom of Tonga to help improve local environment and livelihoods, promoting this Australia-based campaign across the world.
“Many communities across the globe have faced uncertainty over the past year,” Kiernan said. “Clean Up the World is an opportunity to break down geographical and political barriers by working together to look after our shared environment. I encourage more groups to join us in creating greener cities and communities across the world.”
Larry's Environmental Issues Blog
By Larry West, About.com Guide to Environmental Issues since 2005
What do the Nile River, Copacabana Beach and Sydney Harbor have in common? All three have been targeted for clean up, along with hundreds of other sites worldwide, when 35 million volunteers from 122 countries take part in this year’s Clean Up the World Weekend—celebrated globally every September—which is part of the ongoing Clean Up the World campaign.
The campaign, held in conjunction with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has grown steadily since it first began in 1993. Activities range from cleaning up small villages to overhauling entire countries. Many communities also implement recycling and educational programs, or initiate water and energy conservation projects.
Since the start of the campaign, Clean Up the World members worldwide have collected an estimated 3,574,991 tons of trash—enough to fill 5,710 Olympic-size swimming pools. Plastic, glass, metal and cigarette butts are among the most commonly found items every year.
“From the world’s iconic sites to the sites of significance to remote local communities, Clean Up the World campaign brings people together in a meaningful activity that changes their lives and environment for the better,” said campaign Chairman and Founder Ian Kiernan, Recipient of the Order of Australia, in a press release.
How It All Began
The Clean Up the World campaign started in 1989 when Kiernan, an Australian solo-yachtsman and builder was appalled by the amount of garbage he came across while sailing. He organized a clean up of the Sydney Harbor, during which some 40,000 volunteers removed rusted car bodies, plastic, glass bottles and cigarette butts from the water.
The campaign went global in 1993, with Sydney becoming the headquarters for the Clean Up the World campaign. Today, the organization brings together hundreds of members from around the world, ranging from local community groups to national campaigns, that carry out environmental projects throughout the year. The Clean Up the World Weekend, held in September each year, has the highest participation of all of the organization’s activities.
“Clean Up the World mobilizes people around a powerful idea—taking the challenge of environment and sustainable development to our front doors, our backyards, and everywhere else around the globe,” said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner in a press release. “It comes with another idea that UNEP strongly believes in: that what we consider waste and rubbish today could become a resource for tomorrow.”
A Global Effort
Clean Up the World is truly a global campaign. Of 624 Clean Up the World members in 2006, 207 come from Africa; 171 from Asia-Pacific; 82 from Europe; 138 from Latin America and the Caribbean; 11 from North America; and 16 from West Asia.
The countries with the highest participation in the Clean Up the World campaign this year are India, Nigeria, Argentina and Kenya. The countries participating in the Clean Up the World campaign for the first time in 2006 are Afghanistan, Albania, Guyana and Latvia.
The following are just a sample of Clean Up the World activities that are taking place this weekend:
· Volunteers from fourteen countries across the Mediterranean Sea will engage in a wide range of activities, from underwater clean ups to environmental parades, in a joint effort to promote greener living in the region.
· In Egypt, the Arab Office for Youth and the Environment is focusing on the Clean Up the Nile initiative with 17 cities participating. The campaign seeks to highlight the importance of the Nile River for agriculture and development in a region prone to desertification.
· School children, divers, snorkellers and community volunteers will be cleaning up the world-famous Copacabana beach in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This clean up event is coordinated by Brazil’s popular TV show “Programa Na Praia” (“On the Beach”), which raises environmental awareness across the country.
· On the island of Newfoundland, off Canada’s Atlantic coast, Ocean Net volunteers will celebrate the 1000th marine clean up conducted since the group’s establishment in 1997 with underwater and beach clean ups at Topsail Beach.
· In the Chinese City of Shaoxing, situated in the Yangtze River delta, about 100 cycling enthusiasts will collect roadside rubbish during a bike ride on Clean Up the World weekend, targeting plastic bags and drink containers in particular.
· In Australia, where the Clean Up the World campaign started, volunteers will remove rubbish from the Sydney Harbor and Lane Cove National Park. Dozens more Australian volunteers will work with overseas communities as far as Ghana, the Philippines and the Kingdom of Tonga to help improve local environment and livelihoods, promoting this Australia-based campaign across the world.
“Many communities across the globe have faced uncertainty over the past year,” Kiernan said. “Clean Up the World is an opportunity to break down geographical and political barriers by working together to look after our shared environment. I encourage more groups to join us in creating greener cities and communities across the world.”
Larry's Environmental Issues Blog
By Larry West, About.com Guide to Environmental Issues since 2005
RECYCLING FACTS AND BENEFITS
Everyone today has heard of how important it is to recycle and most cities offer a recycling program, but what exactly is recycling and how beneficial is it really to us and the environment?
What are the recycling facts and benefits?
Recycling is the process of turning one products useful parts into a new product; this is done to conserve on the consumption of resources, energy and space used in landfills.
By recycling 1 plastic bottle not only saves anywhere from 100 to 1000 years in the landfill but also saves the environment from the emissions in producing new bottles as well as the oil used to produce that bottle.
For every 1 ton of plastic that is recycled we save the equivalent of 2 people’s energy use for 1 year, the amount of water used by 1 person in 2 month’s time and almost 2000 pounds of oil.
Approximately 60% of our rubbish thrown away today could be recycled. A survey was done and 9 out of 10 people surveyed said they would recycle more if it was easier.
Odd as it seems there are many people who do not realize that plastic bottles our water comes in is made out of oil. This is the same oil that is used to make gasoline. It's the same oil that is in such high demand and is not an unlimited resource.
Today the most common products in cities recycling programs are paper products, cardboard, plastic, glass and aluminum.
Taking just a moment to put your newspaper, soda can and glass spaghetti jar in the recycling bin will save everyone years in environmental harm from production of new materials, over crowded landfills and the depletion of our natural resources.
4000 Years
When we do not recycle at least our glass or aluminum we cost the earth in power usage, water and oil usage and landfill usage; glass takes up to 4000 years to decompose in a landfill yet can be recycled indefinitely.
Earn Money
Recycling can be done at home as well as in conjunction with city programs. Many scrap yards pay for scrap metal including the soda cans and soup cans we use every day.
Be Creative
Many useful items can be made from our everyday trash; the cardboard tubes left over from paper towel and toilet paper can make useful storage containers for our extra extension cords and prevents a tangled mess in the Christmas lights. If your going to throw these out don't just throw it in the rubbish bin, put it the recycling bin.
Baby jars can become snow globes the kids can make and give as gifts, old Christmas cards can become new hand made cards and a glass or plastic bottle along with some clear oil and food coloring and a few other common household items can become a groovy lava lamp!
The possibilities are endless and instructions can be found in books and on the internet.
Start Today
Recycling is a very environmentally green activity; however, there are ways that you can make it greener as well as building a strong beginning if you do not currently recycle.
Many people beginning a recycling program look around and wonder what they can put in the recycling bin; there is so much information available on this site, so don't panic.
By reusing your recycled storage containers you save on the environmental impact as well. Paper and plastic bags are good for recycling storage; however, a plastic reusable bin is even better.
Spread The Word
Share what you know. If you notice abundant trash in your neighborhood start spreading the word and your experience with recycling and if there isn’t already one in place strive to get a city recycling pick up program started.
The fact is many of our resources as well as our Earth is not renewable and we have to start taking control of our selves beginning with the world we live in.
Global warming is no longer viewed as a theory by scientists and has sadly become a fact. The change needed must be in your actions today in order to ensure a bright (not too hot) tomorrow.
Environment-Green.com
http://www.environment-green.com
What are the recycling facts and benefits?
Recycling is the process of turning one products useful parts into a new product; this is done to conserve on the consumption of resources, energy and space used in landfills.
By recycling 1 plastic bottle not only saves anywhere from 100 to 1000 years in the landfill but also saves the environment from the emissions in producing new bottles as well as the oil used to produce that bottle.
For every 1 ton of plastic that is recycled we save the equivalent of 2 people’s energy use for 1 year, the amount of water used by 1 person in 2 month’s time and almost 2000 pounds of oil.
Approximately 60% of our rubbish thrown away today could be recycled. A survey was done and 9 out of 10 people surveyed said they would recycle more if it was easier.
Odd as it seems there are many people who do not realize that plastic bottles our water comes in is made out of oil. This is the same oil that is used to make gasoline. It's the same oil that is in such high demand and is not an unlimited resource.
Today the most common products in cities recycling programs are paper products, cardboard, plastic, glass and aluminum.
Taking just a moment to put your newspaper, soda can and glass spaghetti jar in the recycling bin will save everyone years in environmental harm from production of new materials, over crowded landfills and the depletion of our natural resources.
4000 Years
When we do not recycle at least our glass or aluminum we cost the earth in power usage, water and oil usage and landfill usage; glass takes up to 4000 years to decompose in a landfill yet can be recycled indefinitely.
Earn Money
Recycling can be done at home as well as in conjunction with city programs. Many scrap yards pay for scrap metal including the soda cans and soup cans we use every day.
Be Creative
Many useful items can be made from our everyday trash; the cardboard tubes left over from paper towel and toilet paper can make useful storage containers for our extra extension cords and prevents a tangled mess in the Christmas lights. If your going to throw these out don't just throw it in the rubbish bin, put it the recycling bin.
Baby jars can become snow globes the kids can make and give as gifts, old Christmas cards can become new hand made cards and a glass or plastic bottle along with some clear oil and food coloring and a few other common household items can become a groovy lava lamp!
The possibilities are endless and instructions can be found in books and on the internet.
Start Today
Recycling is a very environmentally green activity; however, there are ways that you can make it greener as well as building a strong beginning if you do not currently recycle.
Many people beginning a recycling program look around and wonder what they can put in the recycling bin; there is so much information available on this site, so don't panic.
By reusing your recycled storage containers you save on the environmental impact as well. Paper and plastic bags are good for recycling storage; however, a plastic reusable bin is even better.
Spread The Word
Share what you know. If you notice abundant trash in your neighborhood start spreading the word and your experience with recycling and if there isn’t already one in place strive to get a city recycling pick up program started.
The fact is many of our resources as well as our Earth is not renewable and we have to start taking control of our selves beginning with the world we live in.
Global warming is no longer viewed as a theory by scientists and has sadly become a fact. The change needed must be in your actions today in order to ensure a bright (not too hot) tomorrow.
Environment-Green.com
http://www.environment-green.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)