Can you live without your lights for one hour? Then join WWF and your local community and make a statement to show your commitment to climate change and finding a solution. All you need to do is turn out the lights for one hour.
Want to do more? Visit http://www.earthhourus.org/main.php to learn how you can help organize Earth Hour in your community.
I can’t recall if I written about this before or not; guess I should read my past posts. Anyways, my husband found this site a few months ago and I’m intrigued. You simple review environmentally safe products and in return you obtain eco credits (or units) to be used to lower your carbon footprint. I got my first email from them today telling me that they are still developing the program and that it’s coming soon. Please go read about them on their website; www.ecounit.com. If you sign up be sure to enter the promo code TAF259 so that I can receive credit for your support.
Congress approved HR 6 today! I don’t normally follow all the polital stuff that happens up in Washington but lately it’s been really interesting. The new legislation also called the Energy Independance and Security Act of 2007 and it addresses fuel economy, alternative fuels and light bulbs. It sounds kind of strange to bunch all of those topics in one bill but the primary focus is to begin to address the climate change/global warming issue. Here are a few places to read up on the Energy Act: http://www.energy.gov/, http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/071219/19_faq_the_end_of_the_light_bulb_as_we_know_it.html?.v=1&.pf=banking-budgeting, and http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/5388632.html.
In brief the new act will increase the fuel economy of all vehicles over the next several years; work to increase the production and availability of alternative fuels (such as ethanol); and eliminate incandescent light bulbs! The easiest one for us to relate to is the light bulb. We’ve all seen the curly shaped light bulbs (compact fluorescent light bulbs, aka CFLs) at the stores but what do you really know about them? I’ve wrote about them before. They are more energy efficient and last up to 10 times longer than the traditional light bulbs. They also use less energy and produce less heat thus saving in your energy bill. You can go to www.18seconds.org to read more interesting facts on the savings of the CFL.
I really wanted to note the significance of this Energy Act. It was 1975 the last time Congress addressed fuel economy in vehicles. That was shortly after my birth! I know I’m aging myself but it makes me ponder what will be normal for my son in 10 years. He’ll be 15 and won’t have any idea what an incandescent light bulb is. He already knows the difference between them and CFLs, in fact he really likes the CFLs cool shape. What will the vehicles be like when he starts to drive? Will fuel cell vehicles be popular yet? What will be the hot environmental issues when he’s 10? Will we really be that far removed from where we are now? When he’s my age will gasoline powered vehicles be a thing of the past?
Ok…sorry I started to ramble again that’s my cue to sign off for the day. What do you think of the new legislation?
So here is an article that will speak more clearly on the Climate Change debate the the compromise between the US and the European Nations. I’m usually not very in tune with all the political talks but this one I have been paying close attention to. As American’s do you think the majority of people believe in Global Warming/Climate Change? Do you think we are doing everything we can to prevent a major katastrophe in the future? I really believe that we need to be less dependant on oil driven modes of transportation; and really stiving for the use of renewable energies. There are some things in which oil will always be need for but transportation need not be one of them. We have the technology available today to provide us with multiple different types of renewable energy sources for our transportation. However; unless drastic measures are taken in the U.S. we will never see those resources in use to their potential. Do I think E-85 is the answer; not by itself. Do I think Hybrid is the answer; not by itself. There are so many other scientific advances out there; the one I hear the most about is the hydrogen fuel cell; which I’d really like to learn more about. What will it take for the U.S. to break loose from the demands on oil?
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent 1 minute ago
BALI, Indonesia – The U.S. and Europe headed toward a compromise solution Friday at the U.N. climate conference, breaking a deadlock over how ambitious the goal should be in negotiating future cutbacks in global warming gases, the German environment minister said.
“I think the situation is good and the climate in the climate conference is good, and we will have success in the end,” Sigmar Gabriel told reporters, declining to give details of the talks.
The outcome may help determine how high the planet’s temperatures rise for decades to come.
In the final day of the two-week conference, delegates sparred over the wording of a conference final document until 2:30 a.m. Drafters then retired to craft new formulations in contentious passages — notably the European Union’s suggestion of a goal of emissions reductions from 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
Trying to break the deadlock, Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar — the conference president — later proposed revised language dropping those mid-range numbers but still reaffirming that emissions should be reduced at least by half by 2050.
The U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, told reporters the mid-range 25 percent to 40 percent was implicit — “an inevitable stop on that road” — in the 50 percent goal by 2050.
Witoelar’s proposal gave the two sides room to work out the long-expected compromise, producing a relatively vague mandate for two years of negotiations.
“We are sure we are able to reach an agreement,” said Gabriel. “All parties are ambitious to tackle climate change and to have success and the development of the international climate policy.”
The annual assembly’s main goal was to launch negotiations for a regime of deeper emissions reductions to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which requires 37 industrial nations to cut output of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
The United States is the only major industrial nation to reject Kyoto. The Bush administration instead favors a voluntary approach — each country deciding how it can contribute — over internationally negotiated and legally binding commitments.
For years, the rest of the world has sought to bring the Americans into the framework of international mandates. At this point, however, many seem resigned to waiting for a change in White House leadership after the 2008 U.S. election.
In a series of landmark reports this year, the U.N.’s network of climate scientists warned of severe consequences — from rising seas, droughts, severe weather, species extinction and other effects — without sharp cutbacks in emissions of the industrial, transportation and agricultural gases blamed for warming.
To avoid the worst, emissions should be reduced by 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning panel said.
The Kyoto Protocol nations have accepted that goal, and the numbers were written into early versions of the Bali conference’s final document — not as a binding target, but as a suggestion in the preamble. The text also called for “comparability of efforts” — that is, U.S. cuts comparable to those of other industrial nations.
The U.S. delegation immediately opposed any inclusion of such numbers, complaining they would tend to “drive the negotiations in one direction,” as U.S. negotiator Harlan Watson put it.
In a countermove, the Americans early Friday had submitted amendments that would introduce the idea of voluntary cutback programs.
Environmentalists accused the U.S. of trying to wreck future talks.
“The United States in particular is behaving like passengers in first class in a jumbo jet, thinking a catastrophe in economy class won’t affect them,” said Tony Juniper, a spokesman for a coalition of environmentalists here. “If we go down, we go down together, and the United States needs to realize that very quickly.”
The European Union had threatened to withdraw from separate U.S.-led climate talks if Bali did not endorse the numbers.
President Bush started those talks at the White in September, seeking pledges from 16 other nations to curtail greenhouse gases according to their own formula. The 16 countries are responsible for 80 percent of global emissions.
On Friday morning, Gabriel said the Americans were being constructive on some issues, but Russia was now arguing against the target range. Russia, Japan and Canada have often sided with Washington at these talks.
The draft final document also calls for developing countries to take new steps toward restraining growth in their emissions. The exemption of fast-growing economies like China and India from the Kyoto pact was a major U.S. complaint.
So I’m scheduled to go on a buisness trip next week and I thought it would be a good time to talk about Carbon Offsets. With the increased awareness in climate change and global warming lately the new rage is buying carbon offsets or renewable energy credits to offset your carbon footprint. Travel, especially air travel creates a lot of pollution. My next trip is from Tampa, FL to Washington, D.C. and will produce .374 tons of CO2 pollution. There are now these companies who will donate your money to a ‘good cause’ to balance your pollution; hence why they call it and offset. There are many websites out there (I’ll let you do the homework if you’re interested) that offer you to purchase offsets. Some offer you to contribute to forest rehabilitation, purchase energy credits, and go towards many other charitable type organizations. I’m not so sure this is the answer to solving the climate change/global warming problems but I have to say that it is one way. Some critics out there have noted how Al Gore preaches about climate change all day but does he walk the walk? According to some stories, his carbon footprint is very large and instead of trying to reduce his impact he purchases carbon offsets. So I’m curious to hear your thoughts on the topic. Would you purchase carbon offsets?
WOW! That’s all I can think to say right now. Back in 1992 was the first year I was old enough to vote for President and I still remember today reading Gores, ‘Earth In Balance’ and hoping that someone would finally help face the environmental issues in the White House. I was absolutely in awe and tears when I convinced Chris to watch, ‘An Inconvenient Truth‘ with me. Today I am in awe again as they announce that Gore is sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC (Intergovenmental Panel of Climate Change). I could care less about the potential of him running for President in 2008; but I have to admit that I would be pleased to see his name on the ballet. All I can say is WOW!
If you haven’t made time to watch ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ you owe it to yourself to see it. I know personally it made my family step it up a little in our personal fight to conserve our planet and combat climate change. Since seeing the movie we have personally implemented a recycling program at home, changed our light bulbs to CFLs, conducted an energy audit of our home, purchased ENERGY STAR appliances, and in general become more aware of our choices.
To me this is not a political achievement for Gore; this is an environmental achievement for all of us living on this planet. Not just in the U.S.; but globally we need to fight the battle to stop climate change. We are smart enough to do it; we just need the motivation and the desire to make a change. Are you prepared to do your part?
