When considering the issue of climate change, it’s easy to shirk the blame toward the corporate industries. The iconic image of factory smokestacks funneling black, ozone-depleting chemicals into the atmosphere has been branded only too clearly into our minds. Nonetheless, while it’s true that the industrial and commercial sectors are responsible for a sizeable chunk of our country’s GHG emissions, the onus cannot fall solely on them. There are plenty of methods that the average person can adopt in order to succeed in reducing their personal contribution to global warming.
Incorporating sustainable products and practices into one’s life can go a long way to reducing GHG emissions. Light fixtures are a prime example of this. Incandescent bulbs that show the Energy Star label are far more "eco-friendly" than those that don’t. Better yet, fluorescent bulbs in not only the most commonly-used fixtures, but all of them, can help greatly toward reducing unnecessary emissions. Turning off lights when leaving rooms and using limited lighting are two additional ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On that note, consumers need not limit themselves to Energy Star lights; there are a variety of Energy Star products available for purchase that are beneficial to the environment.
Consumers can help reduce their personal emissions by conserving energy and using it efficiently. One way to do this is to insulate homes. Insulation precludes heat from escaping, thereby reducing one’s heating bill. Furthermore, alternate heating methods can also improve sustainability. These green varieties of power comes from renewable sources such as wind and sun, and can even have economic benefits as well as environmental ones.
One major and important way of reducing carbon emissions is to conserve the amount of fossil fuels consumed. There are a variety of fuel-efficient vehicles on the market, and even ones that employ alternate methods of fuel. Carpooling, public transit, and more environmentally efficient transportation methods (ie. walking, biking, etc.) all help to reduce the amount of time a car spends on the road, and therefore the amount of carbon emitted. Traditional push mowers, unlike gas or electric mowers, consume no fossil fuels and emit no greenhouse gases. Similarly, raking is much more environmentally-friendly than leaf-blowing, as rakes (obviously) do not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
There are many methods that successfully reduce GHG emissions. Many of these, such as recycling or tree-planting, are common sense. It takes less energy to recycle a product than it does to produce one, and trees naturally absorb carbon and serve as a carbon sink. By employing as many of these techniques as possible into our daily lives, we can successfully fight back in the battle against climate change.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Footprints
I determined my own personal ecological footprint today, and it returned results stating how much land I personally use. According to the website, I use 3.3 hectares for food, 0 for mobility, and 0.8 for shelter, giving me a total of 4.9 hectares in total.
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
I then found out my lifestyle footprint.
Everything goes wrong that can go wrong, in this future of risk and paranoia. Total ecological footprint is halved, but for the wrong reasons - economic stagnation and social malaise. The rich consume avariciously while others tighten their belts, amidst a host of problems - climate change, urban unrest, toxic waste, mutant organisms, and international terrorism.
My lifestyle footprint has apparently plunged the world into some sort of Orwellian nightmare. Oops. My attempts to cut economic boom has apparently gone in the other direction, creating stagnation and recession, while the climate appears to be taking a turn for the worse. The best way to curb this would be to invest money in industries that can help raise the country’s GNP and raise it from this social nightmare I accidentally created.
IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 8.8 GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 1.8 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON.
I then found out my lifestyle footprint.
Everything goes wrong that can go wrong, in this future of risk and paranoia. Total ecological footprint is halved, but for the wrong reasons - economic stagnation and social malaise. The rich consume avariciously while others tighten their belts, amidst a host of problems - climate change, urban unrest, toxic waste, mutant organisms, and international terrorism.
My lifestyle footprint has apparently plunged the world into some sort of Orwellian nightmare. Oops. My attempts to cut economic boom has apparently gone in the other direction, creating stagnation and recession, while the climate appears to be taking a turn for the worse. The best way to curb this would be to invest money in industries that can help raise the country’s GNP and raise it from this social nightmare I accidentally created.
Carbon Tax: The Potential to Do Good
In an issue that stands to be as costly as climate change, what with the numerous measures required to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, one would surmise that a carbon tax could be the perfect result. A carbon tax has the potential to solve the problem–only if it was targeted at the industry, and not at the average person. Even though the federal government promises that it would be a revenue-neutral initiative, one that stands only to redirect profits from the tax into other areas, I believe that it is a movement that Canada needs to tailor before it can be implemented.
The carbon tax would be placed on all carbon products, with the heaviest emphasis obviously on fuels and oil operations. As CBC News mentions, however, all provinces of Canada presently have consumer taxes on fuels. This is one of the measures that amounts to the overloaded gas prices that many North Americans are so swift to complain about. A carbon tax wouldn’t remedy this problem; in fact, it would only accelerate it, with heightened gas prices added at the pump to compensate for the increased prices. Of all things, North Americans seem especially sensitive to the price of gas, and to strap that price to a rocket ship of inflation would only sour the population to the concept of a carbon tax. Though a carbon tax stands to impact the price of coal, Canadians likely would not be as receptive to a spike in the price of coal.
Corporate Canada could certainly benefit from a carbon tax, however. Already, the level of greenhouse gas emissions contributed by the manufacturing sector alone is far too high. One website advocates a carbon tax for companies, explaining how companies would feel pressured to invest in more environmentally friendly methods that could potentially help them lower their greenhouse gas emissions and dodge the tax. The probable benefits to the environment far outweigh the costs.
Overall, I believe that a carbon tax would be most effective if it spared the middle class, targeting instead the industry and corporate sector. The costs of the tax would be too burdensome for the average person to easily bear. The corporate sector, however, only has to invest in green technology to avoid falling victim to the tax. As the Vancouver Sun states, “That could enable Canada to reap the full economic and environmental potential of such an innovation and allow the country to make its proper contribution to halting climate change.” It’s about time that something was done.
The carbon tax would be placed on all carbon products, with the heaviest emphasis obviously on fuels and oil operations. As CBC News mentions, however, all provinces of Canada presently have consumer taxes on fuels. This is one of the measures that amounts to the overloaded gas prices that many North Americans are so swift to complain about. A carbon tax wouldn’t remedy this problem; in fact, it would only accelerate it, with heightened gas prices added at the pump to compensate for the increased prices. Of all things, North Americans seem especially sensitive to the price of gas, and to strap that price to a rocket ship of inflation would only sour the population to the concept of a carbon tax. Though a carbon tax stands to impact the price of coal, Canadians likely would not be as receptive to a spike in the price of coal.
Corporate Canada could certainly benefit from a carbon tax, however. Already, the level of greenhouse gas emissions contributed by the manufacturing sector alone is far too high. One website advocates a carbon tax for companies, explaining how companies would feel pressured to invest in more environmentally friendly methods that could potentially help them lower their greenhouse gas emissions and dodge the tax. The probable benefits to the environment far outweigh the costs.
Overall, I believe that a carbon tax would be most effective if it spared the middle class, targeting instead the industry and corporate sector. The costs of the tax would be too burdensome for the average person to easily bear. The corporate sector, however, only has to invest in green technology to avoid falling victim to the tax. As the Vancouver Sun states, “That could enable Canada to reap the full economic and environmental potential of such an innovation and allow the country to make its proper contribution to halting climate change.” It’s about time that something was done.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Global Warming: The Budding Epidemic
After reading this article, I'm really not at all surprised that this past January was the warmest on record. After all, you'd have to be living under a rock not to hear of global warming, especially now that it's become such a colloquially "hot topic" within the media and politics, and even as a standard water-cooler conversation subject. Our carbon emissions result in the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, whereby CO2 emissions gradually cause the Earth's temperature to rise. The article illustrates what, in my opinion, is proof that the greenhouse effect and global warming are not "socialist, money-sucking" myths, as some will claim.
Now, I'm obviously biased in this assessment. After all, I'm anything but an expert on the subject, and scientific opinion concerning climate change is as varied of a topic as one is likely to find, with many researchers pointing in different directions in terms of the culprit of this epidemic. Wikipedia demonstrates sundry opinions on the topic here, with many scientific authorities artfully shirking the blame to other events and processes. Nevertheless, it's tricky to deny the hard, fast evidence of what is provided: global warming has been linear to the historic release of CO2, which, as I see it, is undeniable proof that global warming is a man-made problem. As such, a man-made solution is, at this point, essential.
Once the true cause has been (commonly, if not universally) identified, treatment of the problem can effectively begin. Pro-green measures need to be taken in order to guarantee the health and sustainability of our planet for future generations. The Kyoto Protocol represents one oft-talked about solution to this problem, and many nations, like Canada, are speaking about home-grown remedies to the subject that best suit their own economic and social priorities. Ultimately, as the issue becomes more relevant, as temperature increases in years to come will become markedly uncomfortable to ignore, nations are going to have to put pro-environmental solutions on the fast-track to success. While the economy of any country is a widely valued resource, ultimately, the environment needs to take first priority. I can't see too many doing this until the issue has escalated, which, given the sheltering of part of the Western world (ie. the United States) from the weather concerns raised in the aforementioned article, might take some time indeed.
The NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, an agency devoted to the conditions of the oceans and the atmosphere. Threatening weather and marine resources are two highly important topics to the NOAA.
The Goldilocks effect is an analogy (obviously referring to the namesake fable) that outlines the fact that greenhouse gas conditions on Earth need to be "just right" in order to sustain life. The benchmarks for comparison are Venus and Mars, two planets that don't maintain living organisms because they contain the improper proportion of greenhouse gases; Venus has too high of a level of greenhouse gases, while, on the other end of the spectrum, Mars has too low. Earth is the happy medium, achieving the "just right" levels for life to be properly sustained.
Now, I'm obviously biased in this assessment. After all, I'm anything but an expert on the subject, and scientific opinion concerning climate change is as varied of a topic as one is likely to find, with many researchers pointing in different directions in terms of the culprit of this epidemic. Wikipedia demonstrates sundry opinions on the topic here, with many scientific authorities artfully shirking the blame to other events and processes. Nevertheless, it's tricky to deny the hard, fast evidence of what is provided: global warming has been linear to the historic release of CO2, which, as I see it, is undeniable proof that global warming is a man-made problem. As such, a man-made solution is, at this point, essential.
Once the true cause has been (commonly, if not universally) identified, treatment of the problem can effectively begin. Pro-green measures need to be taken in order to guarantee the health and sustainability of our planet for future generations. The Kyoto Protocol represents one oft-talked about solution to this problem, and many nations, like Canada, are speaking about home-grown remedies to the subject that best suit their own economic and social priorities. Ultimately, as the issue becomes more relevant, as temperature increases in years to come will become markedly uncomfortable to ignore, nations are going to have to put pro-environmental solutions on the fast-track to success. While the economy of any country is a widely valued resource, ultimately, the environment needs to take first priority. I can't see too many doing this until the issue has escalated, which, given the sheltering of part of the Western world (ie. the United States) from the weather concerns raised in the aforementioned article, might take some time indeed.
The NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, an agency devoted to the conditions of the oceans and the atmosphere. Threatening weather and marine resources are two highly important topics to the NOAA.
The Goldilocks effect is an analogy (obviously referring to the namesake fable) that outlines the fact that greenhouse gas conditions on Earth need to be "just right" in order to sustain life. The benchmarks for comparison are Venus and Mars, two planets that don't maintain living organisms because they contain the improper proportion of greenhouse gases; Venus has too high of a level of greenhouse gases, while, on the other end of the spectrum, Mars has too low. Earth is the happy medium, achieving the "just right" levels for life to be properly sustained.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Incentives and Rebates
To combat the problem of over-consumption of our natural resources, the government of Canada has introduced several incentives intended to minimize the unnecessary use of many available commodities. These incentives differ in availability depending on one’s province and city, but can go a long way to provide the necessary motivation to compel Canadians into acting in a very "green" manner.
One of these incentives is the Hawkesbury Hydro ENERGY STAR® rebate. Its intent is to provide a rebate on the purchases of all appliances with the ENERGY STAR trademark, guaranteeing that they are more environmentally-friendly than many of the alternatives. The amount of the rebate and the dollar cap depends on what sort of appliance is being bought, though, fortunately, consumers can gain additional rebates for purchasing multiple products.
I feel that this incentive is particularly effective because one of the most powerful tools in compelling an individual into doing something is money, and this incentive utilizes the power of a dollar in rewarding consumers for purchasing environmentally-friendly appliances. Consumers receive a direct rebate for purchasing the product, and, at the same time, contribute to fighting over-consumption of resources. The value of these rebates is notably high, ensuring that a significant return is ensured to all participating participants.
Another such incentive is the Summer Savings 10/10 program. This program, though difficult for consumers to measure and achieve, provides an additional 10% rebate for consumers willing to cut their energy consumption by 10%. This means that, not only will customers be receiving the deduction on their energy bill for consuming less, but the hydro company will reduce the bill by an additional 10%.
Considering the continually escalating prices of energy bills, especially during months like the summer when the air conditioning in many residences is cranked to ridiculous extremes, many customers stand to receive considerable returns. I feel that this program is effective for the sheer reason that consumers are rewarded for reducing the amount of their energy consumption, not only extending the life expectancy of their appliances, but helping the environment at the same time.
The Retail Sales Tax Rebate for Wind, Micro Hydro-Electric and Geothermal Energy Systems for Residential Premises is an incentive targeted to consumers purchasing or upgrading their energy systems, whether related to wind, hydroelectric, or geothermal power. All customers choosing to align their home with these energy sources stand to receive an 8% PST refund.
I like this program because there is considerable gain to be found in the conversion to more energy-efficient systems. The rebate with this program is not grounded in the price of the product alone, but, rather, the consumer’s general taxes. This way, coming from the consumer’s perspective, the incentive doesn’t just help finance the system itself, but, rather, it helps cover the consumer’s other taxables. This way, it simply seems like there is a greater gain to be found, which is why I believe this program is effective.
Finally, the Hot Savings Rebate grants varying rebates based on the installation of different energy-efficient appliances and systems. One can install a new furnace, programmable thermostat, or an air-conditioning system, and, so long as the product qualifies as energy-efficient based on the incentive’s outlines, one will receive a rebate of either $100, $75, or $500.
This particular program is effective for the reason that it stands to present consumers with money for the installation of appliances that can help the environment. The qualifying products reduce unnecessary energy consumption. Whether or not the consumer is actually interested in helping the environment, he or she can do so in exchange for reduced costs on the appliances themselves.
I like these four programs for the reason that they use the power of the dollar to motivate consumers into battling over-consumption of our natural resources. They provide a direct incentive that would easily motivate Canadians into taking a greater interest in the quality of their environment. So long as these options receive considerable marketing, they will likely succeed in attracting the attention of Canadians eager to save a buck.
One of these incentives is the Hawkesbury Hydro ENERGY STAR® rebate. Its intent is to provide a rebate on the purchases of all appliances with the ENERGY STAR trademark, guaranteeing that they are more environmentally-friendly than many of the alternatives. The amount of the rebate and the dollar cap depends on what sort of appliance is being bought, though, fortunately, consumers can gain additional rebates for purchasing multiple products.
I feel that this incentive is particularly effective because one of the most powerful tools in compelling an individual into doing something is money, and this incentive utilizes the power of a dollar in rewarding consumers for purchasing environmentally-friendly appliances. Consumers receive a direct rebate for purchasing the product, and, at the same time, contribute to fighting over-consumption of resources. The value of these rebates is notably high, ensuring that a significant return is ensured to all participating participants.
Another such incentive is the Summer Savings 10/10 program. This program, though difficult for consumers to measure and achieve, provides an additional 10% rebate for consumers willing to cut their energy consumption by 10%. This means that, not only will customers be receiving the deduction on their energy bill for consuming less, but the hydro company will reduce the bill by an additional 10%.
Considering the continually escalating prices of energy bills, especially during months like the summer when the air conditioning in many residences is cranked to ridiculous extremes, many customers stand to receive considerable returns. I feel that this program is effective for the sheer reason that consumers are rewarded for reducing the amount of their energy consumption, not only extending the life expectancy of their appliances, but helping the environment at the same time.
The Retail Sales Tax Rebate for Wind, Micro Hydro-Electric and Geothermal Energy Systems for Residential Premises is an incentive targeted to consumers purchasing or upgrading their energy systems, whether related to wind, hydroelectric, or geothermal power. All customers choosing to align their home with these energy sources stand to receive an 8% PST refund.
I like this program because there is considerable gain to be found in the conversion to more energy-efficient systems. The rebate with this program is not grounded in the price of the product alone, but, rather, the consumer’s general taxes. This way, coming from the consumer’s perspective, the incentive doesn’t just help finance the system itself, but, rather, it helps cover the consumer’s other taxables. This way, it simply seems like there is a greater gain to be found, which is why I believe this program is effective.
Finally, the Hot Savings Rebate grants varying rebates based on the installation of different energy-efficient appliances and systems. One can install a new furnace, programmable thermostat, or an air-conditioning system, and, so long as the product qualifies as energy-efficient based on the incentive’s outlines, one will receive a rebate of either $100, $75, or $500.
This particular program is effective for the reason that it stands to present consumers with money for the installation of appliances that can help the environment. The qualifying products reduce unnecessary energy consumption. Whether or not the consumer is actually interested in helping the environment, he or she can do so in exchange for reduced costs on the appliances themselves.
I like these four programs for the reason that they use the power of the dollar to motivate consumers into battling over-consumption of our natural resources. They provide a direct incentive that would easily motivate Canadians into taking a greater interest in the quality of their environment. So long as these options receive considerable marketing, they will likely succeed in attracting the attention of Canadians eager to save a buck.
Monday, February 5, 2007
The reason I'm taking this course . . .
The main reason I chose to take Environment and Resource Management is for my interest in the topic. Personally, I could see myself somewhere down the road pursuing a career directly tied to the course content. I’ve been considering chasing after a degree in Law for some time, and a specialty in Environmental Law greatly appeals to me. As I was choosing my courses last spring, any class linked to geography or geology and whatnot appeal to me, and Environment and Resource Management was no exception.
I hope to learn something more about the environment through this class. I would like to explore the course content from both a social and political perspective, learning how the issue directly impacts people as well as governments on a whole. Examining the topic from the viewpoint of a social scientist as opposed to, say, that of a biologist appeals to me as well, as I think there is so much that can be garnered from the subject when contrasted and compared to real life issues.
After passing references in various other classes, I’m especially interested in the content of the Kyoto Protocol. Between Challenge and Change and Law, I’ve begun to really delve into what carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions really signify, and exactly how they impact our lives. If I had to name a concern, I would definitely reference Kyoto, saying how it will impact the looming threat of global warming.
I hope to learn something more about the environment through this class. I would like to explore the course content from both a social and political perspective, learning how the issue directly impacts people as well as governments on a whole. Examining the topic from the viewpoint of a social scientist as opposed to, say, that of a biologist appeals to me as well, as I think there is so much that can be garnered from the subject when contrasted and compared to real life issues.
After passing references in various other classes, I’m especially interested in the content of the Kyoto Protocol. Between Challenge and Change and Law, I’ve begun to really delve into what carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions really signify, and exactly how they impact our lives. If I had to name a concern, I would definitely reference Kyoto, saying how it will impact the looming threat of global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)