From Wiki de Vega
Jump to: navigation, search -


Solutions to Global Warming

1.The car you drive: the most important personal climate decision. When you buy your next car, look for the one with the best fuel economy in its class. Each gallon of gas you use is responsible for 25 pounds of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Better gas mileage not only reduces global warming, but will also save you thousands of dollars at the pump over the life of the vehicle. Compare the fuel economy of the cars you're considering and look for new technologies like hybrid engines.

2.Choose clean power. More than half the electricity in the United States comes from polluting coal-fired power plants. And power plants are the single largest source of heat-trapping gas. None of us can live without electricity, but in some states, you can switch to electricity companies that provide 50 to 100 percent renewable energy. (For more information go to

3.Look for Energy Star. When it comes time to replace appliances, look for the Energy Star label on new appliances (refrigerators, freezers, furnaces, air conditioners, and water heaters use the most energy). These items may cost a bit more initially, but the energy savings will pay back the extra investment within a couple of years. Household energy savings really can make a difference: If each household in the United States replaced its existing appliances with the most efficient models available, we would save $15 billion in energy costs and eliminate 175 million tons of heat-trapping gases.

4.Unplug a freezer. One of the quickest ways to reduce your global warming impact is to unplug the extra refrigerator or freezer you rarely use (except when you need it for holidays and parties). This can reduce the typical family's carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 10 percent.

5.Get a home energy audit. Take advantage of the free home energy audits offered by many utilities. Simple measures, such as installing a programmable thermostat to replace your old dial unit or sealing and insulating heating and cooling ducts, can each reduce a typical family's carbon dioxide emissions by about 5 percent.

6.Light bulbs matter. If every household in the United States replaced one regular light bulb with an energy-saving model, we could reduce global warming pollution by more than 90 billion pounds over the life of the bulbs; the same as taking 6.3 million cars off the road. So, replace your incandescent bulbs with more efficient compact fluorescents, which now come in all shapes and sizes. You'll be doing your share to cut back on heat-trapping pollution and you'll save money on your electric bills and light bulbs.

7.Think before you drive. If you own more than one vehicle, use the less fuel-efficient one only when you can fill it with passengers. Driving a full minivan may be kinder to the environment than two midsize cars. Whenever possible, join a carpool or take mass transit.

8.Buy good wood. When buying wood products, check for labels that indicate the source of the timber. Supporting forests that are managed in a sustainable fashion makes sense for biodiversity, and it may make sense for the climate too. Forests that are well managed are more likely to store carbon effectively because more trees are left standing and carbon-storing soils are less disturbed.

9.Plant a tree. You can also make a difference in your own backyard. Get a group in your neighborhood together and contact your local arborist or urban forester about planting trees on private property and public land. In addition to storing carbon, trees planted in and around urban areas and residences can provide much-needed shade in the summer, reducing energy bills and fossil fuel use.

10.Let policymakers know you are concerned about global warming. Our elected officials and business leaders need to hear from concerned citizens. Sign up for the Union of Concerned Scientists Action Network to ensure that policymakers get the timely, accurate information they need to make informed decisions about global warming solutions.

 Instrumental temperature.png

--Nuria 12:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)nuria


PCC: “Our bad! Global warming not about to melt Himalayas.

 Michael Fumento

January 21, 2010 @ 6:45 pm

“The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, a large number of them may disappear by 2035 because of climate change.” Such was the lede of one of countless articles about how 1.3 billion Asians were in imminent danger of first flooding and then drought. And that’s not to mention the certain extinction of the abominable snowman.

You didn’t need a Cray computer to figure that this was nonsense, that temperatures would have to more or less instantly soar to incredible heights and stay there for this to happen. (As it turns out, 18 degrees Centigrade.) But people wrote it, read it, and believed it. You’d think a magazine with the name Technology Review would know better, yet its latest issue declares: “The Himalayan glaciers that feed rivers in India, China, and other Asian countries could be gone in 25 years.”

Why did they say it? In part, because it was convenient. And in part because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said it in its Fourth Assessment Report (2007). Now the IPCC is saying, “Whoopsie!”

In a statement released on Wednesday, the group admitted “poorly substantiated estimates.” More specifically, it appears to have been based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published in 1999. That story, in turn, was based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist in Delhi. And Hasnain has since admitted his assertion “speculation” unsupported by any formal research.

The IPCC says it will “probably” issue a formal correction. “Probably?”

But admit it guys, wasn’t it fun while it lasted!

--Nuria 12:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)nuria

Global Warming and Wealth: Lessons from Haiti 

by Daren Bakst

January 15, 2010 @ 3:31 pm The tragedy in Haiti can teach us something about the extreme policies of global warming alarmists.

The 1989 San Francisco earthquake measured a 7.1 on the Richter scale and the death toll was 62 people killed.

The recent earthquake in Haiti was measured at 7.0 on the Richter scale and the death toll could reach 50,000-100,00 people killed.

Why did Haiti suffer so many more lost lives than San Francisco? The answer is the country doesn’t possess the wealth necessary to build better infrastructure.

Yet, the alarmists want to push policies, such as cap and trade, which would drastically reduce our wealth. They want countries like Haiti and other developing countries to take steps to reduce carbon emissions at the expense of their national well-being, including their health and infrastructure.

If we want to best survive the impact of natural disasters, wealth generation is the best means to do so. Ask Haitians if they would have preferred to be in Port-Au-Prince or San Francisco when the earthquakes hit.

Assuming (for the sake of it) that global warming will lead to natural disasters, building better infrastructure and adapting to any changes is a far wiser choice than pushing policies that will have no measurable impact on global temperature while undermining any chance countries like Haiti would have to protect themselves from such disasters.

Pushing damaging policies that undermine wealth generation and having the arrogance to impose those policies on nations like Haiti is unethical, to say the least. If developing countries have to give up what we as Americans already enjoy, such as good infrastructure, the death toll for what should be relatively minor earthquakes will remain astronomical.

--Nuria 12:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)nuria


Los biocombustibles pueden reemplazar parcialmente a los combustibles fósiles. En comparación con otras energías alternativas, el reemplazo de combustibles fósiles por biocombustibles en el sector de transporte carretero puede ser mucho menos costoso, debido a que no requieren grandes cambios en la tecnología , ni tampoco en el sistema de distribución. Utilizar otro tipo de energía, como la obtenida a través del hidrógeno, que requeriría grandes cambios en el stock de capital. Esto no implica que se deban descartar nuevas fuentes de energía, sino que los biocombustibles serán los que tendrán más crecimiento en el corto plazo.

Recientemente ha surgido un gran interés por los biocombustibles, debido a que los gobiernos pretenden disminuir su dependencia de los combustibles fósiles y así lograr mayor seguridad energética. Además, se mencionan muchas mas ventajas de los biocombustibles con respecto a otras energías, como: menos contaminación ambiental, sustentabilidad de los mismos y oportunidades para sectores rurales.

Tanto los combustibles fósiles como los biocombustibles, tienen origen biológico. Toda sustancia susceptible de ser oxidada puede otorgar energía. Si esta sustancia procede de plantas, al ser quemada devuelve a la atmósfera dióxido de carbono que la planta tomó del aire anteriormente. Las plantas, fijan energía solar y dióxido de carbono en moléculas orgánicas. El petróleo es energía proveniente de fotosíntesis realizada hace millones de años concentrada. Al provenir de plantas de hace millones de años, su cantidad es limitada. En el caso de los biocombustibles, la sustancia a ser quemada proviene de fotosíntesis reciente, por eso se afirma que la utilización de biocombustibles no tiene impacto neto en la cantidad de dióxido de carbono que hay en la atmósfera. Algunos la consideran energía renovable en el sentido que el ciclo de plantación y cosecha se podría repetir indefinidamente, teniendo en cuenta que no se agoten los suelos ni se contaminen los campos de cultivo.

Clases de biocombustibles

Hay varias clases de biocombustibles entre ellas:

- La biomasa tradicional: es utilizada en países subdesarrollados, principalmente en zonas rurales. Esta energía es neutra en emisiones de CO2 , pero tiene elevados costos ambientales, sanitarios y económicos.

- la biomasa: es para generar electricidad, este sistema es utilizado en países industrializados con elevados recursos forestales, que utilizan madera para generar electricidad.

- Los biocombustibles líquidos: proporcionan actualmente aproximadamente la energía equivalente a 20 millones de toneladas de petróleo (lo que equivale al 1% del combustible utilizado mundialmente para transporte por carretera) [Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial 2007].

Los biocombustibles que mas se utilizan son el etanol y el biodiesel.

El etanol puede ser utilizado en motores que utilizan nafta,

el biodiesel puede ser utilizado en motores que utilizan gasoil.

El etanol: es un biocombustible a base de alcohol, el cual se obtiene directamente del azúcar. Ciertos cultivos permiten la extracción directa de azúcar, como la caña azucarera, la remolacha o el maíz . Sin embargo, prácticamente cualquier residuo vegetal puede ser transformado en azúcar, lo que implica que otros cultivos también pueden ser utilizados para obtener alcohol. Aunque este último proceso es muy costoso, se pronostica que ocurran las llamadas tecnologías de segunda generación.

En el caso de los motores diesel, se pueden utilizar biocombustibles obtenidos a partir de aceites o grasas. Ciertas plantas como la soja o el girasol, son las que mas eficientemente producen aceites que pueden ser utilizados como biocombustibles directamente, o pueden ser procesados para obtener un biocombustible mas refinado. La utilización directa de aceites vegetales es posible, pero requiere de modificaciones en el motor. El sistema mas habitual es la transformación de los aceites mediante un proceso químico que permite la utilización del biocombustible en un motor diesel sin modificar.