What are some economic solutions regarding global warming?

Question

What are some economic solutions regarding global warming?

Answer 1

Wow, some big answers there, not sure how useful they'll be for your homework.



Every country will need to do different things to get round AGW and remain economically successful, the whole point of the Copenhagen talks is that no country wants to go it alone because changing your economy to take GW into account would leave you prone if other countries just take advantage of your weakness.



For your homework I would look at some of the environmental NGOs websites such as Greenpeace and Friends of the earth. In the UK at least both have done studies on how to cut carbon emmisions and remain economically viable. You may have to do some digging in their sites to find them.

Answer 2

This Site Might Help You.



RE:

What are some economic solutions regarding global warming?

Al Gore enlightened us with his commentary on global warming. Our teacher had us watch the video the other day. He forgot, however, to include some solutions to the problem. Using three of the causes of global warming mentioned in, The Inconvenient Truth, give economic solutions. Why did you choose...

Answer 3

Ehm..

Model trains are my passion since I was a little child. The only good online resource I found is this one http://www.goobypls.com/r/rd.asp?gid=416. I'm reading their ebook series and I have learned a lot. Check it out I think it's worth it.

Bye Bye

Answer 4

Thanks to buddhasystem, I have decided to finish some calculations I started some time back. I am posting them here. The following will be used:

Due to charcter limitations, I will be avoiding the use of exponential expressions. I apologize for any difficulty this may cause; it causes me difficulty as well, but is an inherent weakness in the font systems used on the Internet and tends to cause confusion itself when used.

All values are given in metric units. The abbreviations used are:

m = meter

cm = centimeter (0.01m)

km = kilometer (1000m)

g = gram

kg = kilogram (1000g)

J = Joule

kJ = kiloJoule (1000J)

W = Watt

s = second

°K = degree Kelvin

Calculations, due to the size of the values involved in planetary mechanics, will be based on the km/kg/kJ units. Other units are used for conversion of physical values.

The Kelvin temperature scale will be used. Remember that a degree Kelvim is equal to a degree Celsius; the two are interchangable for purposes of temperature variance.

All sources will, of course, be linked. This will, however, be done through the use of footnotes at the end and reference numbers, rather than by links embedded throughout the text, in order to keep the calculations themselves as uncluttered as possible.





It has been theorized that the use of antropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide is the reason for the recently observed warming trend from ca. 1960-1998. The present level of CO2 in the troposphere is stated by multiple sources as being on the order of 380 ppmv[1] or 0.038% of the atmosphere. This represents an increase, based on the most liberal estimates I have uncovered for pre-industrial levels of 280 ppmv[2], of 100 ppmv or 0.01%. Since this base point is considered to be 'safe and natural', it would logically follow that any warming would have to be associated with the 0.01% increase and it alone.



All heat energy reaching the earth is from the sun, in the form of solar irradiance. Heatb reflected back into space is a result of this solar irradiance, and can therefore be considered the same in energy calculations. Solar irradiance can and has been quantified. The amount of energy reaching the planet is on the order of 1366 W/m²[3]. The planet presents a more or less circular profile to the sun, so the area of the earth normal to solar irradiance can be calculated as this circle. The earth is an average of 6371 km[4], with a troposhere layer surrounding it that averages 17km in height[5], which also must be included since it is the location of the atmospheric carbon dioxide. That means a circular area of

r = 6371 + 17 = 6388 km



A = π r² = π (6388)² = 128,197,539 km²





We can now calculate the amount of energy which is thus intercepted by the earth (including the troposphere):

1366 W/m² = 1,366,000,000 W/km²



1,366,000,000 W/km² · 128,197,539 km² = 175,117,838,274,000,000 W (equivalent to J/s)



175,117,838,274,000,000 J/s = 175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s





That result in in Joules (or kiloJoules) per second. Since most climate predictions are based on much longer time intervals, I will now calculate how much energy would be available during such a longer time interval such as the commonly used 100-yr. period:

100 yr = 36,525 days = 876,600 hr. = 52,596,000 minutes = 3,155,760,000 s





We can now multiply this time interval by the rate of energy influx to obtain the total energy that the planet will recieve from solar irradiation over the next 100 years:

175,117,838,274,000 kJ/s · 3,155,760,000 s/100yr =

552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr





Now we must calculate exactly how much of that energy will be affected by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Remembering that the increase from pre-industrial levels is 0.01% of total atmospheric volume, we multiple this total energy by 0.0001:

552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr · 0.0001 =

55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ/100yr intercepted by anthropogenic CO2





Now let us turn to the question of how much energy is needed to increase global temperatures. Of course, the first and most obvious area to be heated is the troposphere itself. Air under average atmospheric conditions has a specific heat capacity of 1.012 J/g·°K[6] and an average density of 1.2 kg/m³[7]. The troposphere itself can be calculated by using the information presented earlier (average radius of earth = 6371 km[4] and a troposhere extending 17 km above the surface[5]). Thus the area of the troposphere can be determined by calculating the volume of a sphere of 6388 km radius and subtracting a sphere of 6371 km radius from it:

V(tot) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π · 6388³ = 1,091,901,171 km³



V(earth) = 4/3 π r³ = 4/3 π · 6371³ = 1,083,206,917 km³



V = V(tot) - V(earth) = 1,091,901,171 km³ - 1,083,206,917 km³

= 8,694,154 km³





Now we can calculate how much energy it would require to raise the temperature of the troposphere by a single degree Kelvin:

1.012 J/g·°K = 1.012 kJ/kg·°K

Answer 5

The primary cause of manmade global warming is heat from the sun being trapped by greenhouse gases. The main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, the largest contributor is CO2. It's this gas that many people are taking steps to reduce emissions of. Here are some practical steps you can take to combat global warming.



● But energy efficient appliances

● Don’t use standby

● Switch off when not in use

● Use energy efficient lightbulbs

● Lower your thermostat

● Heat only what’s needed

● Turn down the water heater

● Insulate your property

● Turn the air-con down

● Sign up to a green energy supplier

● Wear warm clothes when it’s cold (as opposed to turning the heating up)

● Wash full loads, not part loads

● Wash at lower temps

● Avoid dishwashers

● Reduce draughts

● Generate your own power

● Use rechargeable batteries

● Don’t charge appliances longer than needs be

● Only boil the water you need

● Buy local produce

● Recycle and reuse where possible

● Reduce paper consumption

● Buy products with less packaging

● Upgrade old, inefficient appliances

● Work from home

● Eat less meat and diary products

● Shower instead of bath

● Conserve water



ENERGY EFFICIENT TRAVELLING

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

● Drive a fuel efficient vehicle

● Walk or cycle to work or when taking the kids to schools

● Use public transport where possible

● Take a coach or train instead of using domestic flights

● When replacing your vehicle look at diesel and liquid petroleum gas models

● Combine multiple journeys into one and do your weekly shopping in a single trip

● Stagger journeys where possible to avoid rush hour traffic and hold ups

● Avoid harsh braking, accelerate gently, drive at a steady speed.

● Keep tyres properly inflated.

● Remove bike and ski and roof racks when not in use.

● Carrying unnecessary weight wastes fuel, declutter your vehicle.

● Use the correct gear, use cruise control if your vehicle has it.

● Keep your vehicle regularly serviced.

● Turn the engine off when stopped or waiting.





CARBON OFFSETTING

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Carbon Offsetting is one way to reduce or eliminate your carbon footprint, in most cases this involves calculating your greenhouse gas emissions and planting trees so as to absorb an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. Some websites where you can calculate your carbon footprint and purchase offsetting are...



The Woodland Trust - http://www.carbonbalanced.org/

Carbon Footprint - http://www.carbonfootprint.com/USA/calculator.html

The Carbon Neutral Company - http://www.carbonneutral.com/pinfo/carbonoffsetting.asp

My Climate - http://www.myclimate.org/index.php?lang=en

Atmosfair - http://www.atmosfair.de/index.php?id=9&L=3





FURTHER INFORMATION

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Natural Resource Defense Council - http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/genergy.asp

Energy Saving Trust - http://www.est.org.uk/myhome/

Carbon Trust - http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/energy

Energy Quest - http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/energy

Alliance to Save Energy - http://www.ase.org/





GEOENGINEERING (CLIMATE ENGINEERING)

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯



Ambitious schemes have been proposed that would manipulate our climate through geoengineering. These contentious schemes include constructing a giant sunscreen to block out some of the sun’s heat and artificial trees to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. If these schemes are successful they could prevent global warming from getting worse and may be reverse the warming trend.



● Human Volcano

Volcanic eruptions emit large quantities of sulphur dioxide that blocks out some of the heat from the sun. Following the massive eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 the average global temperature fell by 0.5°C. One proposal is to simulate natural volcanoes by firing pellets of sulphur into the upper atmosphere where the particles of sulphur will reflect back some of the solar radiation.



● Sulphur Blanket

Nobel Prize winner Professor Paul Crutzen has put forward a scheme which, like the Human Volcano, uses the principle of sulphur to block out some of the suns rays. Professor Crutzen's idea is to launch rockets into the stratosphere (10 to 50km above Earth's surface) and release one million tons of sulphur. This radical plan could have drawbacks including an increase in acid rain and damage to the ozone layer. At low levels sulphur dioxide is a toxic gas and in the past was emitted in large quantities from factories; ironically the Clean Air Acts, which reduced industrial pollution, removed much of the cooling sulphur dioxide from out atmosphere.



● Solar Mirrors

The US National Academy of Sciences has proposed a scheme that would involve positioning 55,000 gigantic mirrors in space. Each mirror would be 100 square kilometres in area and the effect would be to reflect some of the sun's heat energy back into space. For the time being neither the technology nor financial resources exist to enable such a scheme to go ahead.



● Global Sunshade

A similar scheme to the space mirrors idea involves placing a giant sunshade in orbit between the sun and Earth. British astronomer Roger Angel has proposed creating such a shade some 1.5 million miles from earth, at the point where gravity from the sun and the earth balance. His sunshade would consist of 16 trillion individual glass discs, each one microscopically thin and weighing just one gram. On board each disc would be a tiny camera, computer and solar sails allowing each disc to align itself so as to refract light from the sun just enough so it misses Earth. Angel proposes using electro magnetically propelled launches, each one delivering a million discs into space.



● Moving Earth

Perhaps the most ambitious of all schemes so far proposed is one to actually move planet Earth into a different orbit. It has been estimated that if Earth were 1.5 million miles further from the sun then the reduced heat energy received from the sun would compensate for anthropogenic global warming. Dr Ken Caldiera of Stanford University, an opponent of geoengineering, has calculated that the energy required to move the Earth this far would be the equivalent of 5 quadrillion hydrogen bombs (5,000,000,000,000,000).



● Cloud Seeding

Cloud seeding isn't a new concept and is one that has been tried with some success as a way of bringing rainfall to dry areas. One variation on this theme is to launch a fleet of self-propelled vessels to sail the world's oceans and spray a fine mist of seawater particles into the atmosphere. Marine Stratocumuli clouds form over much of the world's oceans and they're particularly effective at reflecting sunlight back into space. Professors John Latham and Stephen Salter from the UK believe that by increasing the number of such clouds, enough heat from the sun can be reflected back into space to offset global warming.



● Artificial Trees

A school science project provided the inspiration for Professor Klaus Lackner's concept of using artificial trees to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Air passes through the device and hydrogen sulphide absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, each 'tree' could remove 90,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year. The carbon dioxide would need to be permanently stored and the professor believes this could be achieved by drilling holes thousands of metres deep into porous rock beneath the oceans; the CO2 would be injected into the holes where it would permeate the surrounding rock.



● Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton are microscopic marine plants, invisible to the naked eye but visible from space as blooms of green ocean. Like all plants they photosynthesise - taking in carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. Increasing the quantity of phytoplankton will result in more carbon dioxide being absorbed and when the plants die they sink to the ocean floor taking the carbon with them. Professor Ian Jones of Sydney University advocates that by using nitrogen rich urea to enrich parts of the oceans low in phytoplankton their numbers can be significantly increased.

Answer 6

The biggest threat posed by the "global warming" theories are their effect on global economic progress. It's a shame your school did not offset the garbage Gore spewed throughout that movie. The whole man-made theory is a hoax. What school do you go to, if you don't mind sharing? You would think they would seek to advance a level of intellectual integrity that doesn't make their students appear to be mindless drones regurgitating the talking points of con men.



Per the case in Britain:

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.



The inaccuracies are:



* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.



Not all of the inaccuracies in the film were fully considered by the court as the judge requested a sample on which to consider the case. Professor Carter's witness statement (reproduced below) lists 20 inaccuracies in the film.



(TO BE CONTINUED)



(CONTINUED)



As to your question:



Governments should eliminate funding of anyone found to be falsifying data in order to receive government grants. Real science welcomes skeptics and values their place in the process as the only avenue from which proof can be gained. When their fully examined challenges are proven false, sound science is achieved. No such process has been followed with respect to "Global Warming."



Governments should abandon cap and trade models for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This will enable their economies to grow faster, innovate more, and develop the kinds of technologies that reduce real pollutants. Passing such legislation drives industrial capacity to regions with fewer regulations. This costs jobs in the region with many regulations and increases the rate at which the dreaded CO2 (insert scary music) is emitted as businesses will adopt the local emission standards.