The fight against global warming is a business scam. Venus attacks
Epigraph: “No matter what they tell you - we're talking about about money" (Todd's principle)
Warning: what the planet Venus has to do with it will become clear closer to the end.
The essence of the business idea: humanity burns hydrocarbon fossil fuels (coal, oil), and saturates the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (CO2). This is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it blocks infrared (heat) rays, preventing them from scattering into space. This leads to the climate of planet Earth becoming warmer. If you don't shorten these greenhouse emissions, then the glaciers will melt, the world ocean will rise, flooding part of the continents, unbearable heat will fall on the remaining land, in short: everyone will die.
Business process: a number of protocols are signed at the international level that limit CO2 emissions with certain quotas and reduction obligations. Those entities that have surplus allowances can (ATTENTION!) sell these allowances to those entities that burn so much that they fall short of their CO2 emission allowances. And is created international fund, funding the fight against CO2 on our planet. In particular (ATTENTION!) allocating grants to scientists - for the relevant science.
(see Kyoto Protocol 1997 and Paris Protocol 2015).
In fact, this business process started in the 2000s.
Cost of issue: Al Gore (Vice President of the United States from 1993 to 2001, a central figure in the fight against CO2, winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for this fight) increased his personal fortune from $2 million to approximately $100 million.
The volume of trade in CO2 quotas reached $120 billion by 2010, and continues to grow rapidly. This is what it truly means to make money out of thin air!
What does science say? Those scientists who receive grants for the fight against CO2, of course, say that the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2, and this is a threat to humanity. Those scientists who do not count on these grants are talking about a pseudoscientific scam.
Andrey Kapitsa and Jonathan Moldavanov: “Global warming and ozone holes are scientific myths”:
"For many years now former president US Academy of Sciences Frederick Seitz drew attention to the fact that all theories of global warming and ozone holes are far-fetched and do not correspond to reality, that these are anti-scientific theories. 17 thousand American scientists signed the petition. They agree with Seitz and believe that the agreement* and the trends behind it are a genuine threat to humanity and a heavy blow to its future.”
*Note: A.P. Kapitsa is referring to the 1997 Kyoto climate agreement.
Alexander Gorodnitsky “The end of the myth about global warming”:
“As a result of a well-organized international political campaign, the leading countries of the world signed the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for reducing emissions of so-called “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere, and above all the main one - carbon dioxide. This protocol is based on the erroneous assumption that these gases supposedly lead to an increase in greenhouse effect and significant warming of the Earth’s climate.”
Both of these materials, and many other materials on climate skepticism (the movement of scientists who refute the doctrine of greenhouse global warming) are available on the Internet, and detailed arguments can be read.
And we will try to objectively understand the matter of climate change and the man-made factor - greenhouse gases (in particular, carbon dioxide - CO2, around which the Kyoto Protocol machine revolves). It’s not Buddhas who burn pots – we can do it.
Let's start with simple question: Is there a greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere, and what gases are it caused by?
Answer: The greenhouse effect exists. It is associated with the property of certain gases, in particular: water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3), to absorb infrared (thermal) radiation emanating from the relatively warm surface of the planet, preventing it from dissipating into relatively cold space.
What greenhouse gases are present in significant quantities in the atmosphere?
Answer: These are H2O (about 1 percent) and CO2 (about 0.04 percent).
So: there is 25 times more water vapor than carbon dioxide.
And no one argues that the greenhouse effect is created mainly by water vapor.
Why then, not H2O, but CO2 became the greenhouse hero of the Kyoto Protocol?
There is no clear physical explanation for this political phenomenon.
But there is a clear economic explanation.
An attempt to declare a global fight against water vapor emissions would look like idiocy, and even propaganda on TV would not help. It is known that about a cubic kilometer of water per minute evaporates from the surface of the world's oceans. That's a billion tons (gigaton). This transfers 2.26*10^12 MJ (mega-joules) of energy in the form of heat of evaporation: 1000 times more than the energy consumption of the entire human civilization in the same minute. An attempt by the climate bench at the UN to regulate H2O emissions would be commented on famous phrase Aesop: “Drink the sea, Xanthus.” A global economic scam with H2O emission quotas would not have worked.
Regulating CO2 emissions is a different matter. The carbon cycle in nature is not as widely covered in textbooks and popular science literature as the water cycle. And therefore, it is possible to feed pseudoscientific arguments to a mass audience. Something like this:
- Industry burns coal and hydrocarbon fossil fuels, and emits combustion products into the atmosphere - already 30 billion tons of CO2 per year.
Original source: https://alex-rozoff.livejournal.com/45102.html
- Due to these emissions, CO2 concentration increased from 0.02 to 0.04 percent.
- This increased the greenhouse effect. As a result, the average temperature of the Earth has increased by 0.74 degrees Celsius since the beginning of the 20th century (i.e., from the beginning intensive combustion fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas).
- If CO2 emissions (carbon emissions) are not reduced, the temperature may rise by about 6 degrees by end of XXI century.
- Next - see thrillers about a thermal apocalypse with floods and fires.
Let's look at this and ask the question: before our civilization, why did global warming occur after the ice ages that occurred on planet Earth with some regularity over a billion years? And a more local question: why did small warmings occur after minor glaciations in an already historical period, but before machine civilization. A well-known example: In the 10th century, the Vikings, traveling from Iceland to the west, discovered Greenland and Newfoundland. These were territories with a temperate-warm climate, and grapes even grew in Newfoundland. Currently, both there and there are tundra and glaciers. But the 10th century was marked by warming (historians call it the “medieval climatic optimum”). And the warming did not occur without industrial CO2 emissions.
The conclusion is obvious, but the question of the role of CO2 requires additional remark. Although all prehistoric warmings occurred without human intervention, CO2 concentrations then increased. This is evidenced by geological samples. And there is a completely justified reason for this scientific theory, according to which the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is not a cause, but a consequence of warming (we will return to the mechanism of this increase a little later). The warming itself is caused by completely different factors.
There is a powerful regular factor: the flow of radiant energy from the Sun. He, in a complicated way periodic law depends on:
1) Solar activity (long-period fluctuations in the intensity of the glow), of which we can name the Gleisberg, Suess, and Hallstat cycles (the duration of which, respectively: approximately 100, approximately 200, and approximately 2300 years).
2) The orbital position of the Earth - periodic changes in the distance between the Sun and the Earth, and changes in illumination angles due to Lunar-Solar precession (Milankovitch cycles with periods of 10 thousand years, 26 thousand years, and 93 thousand years).
There are irregular factors - eruptions of super-volcanoes and falls of large asteroids. They cause emissions of fine dust, which remain for a long time in the upper layers of the atmosphere and shield sunlight. This mechanism, on a relatively small time scale, worked in 1816 (the so-called year without summer) after the Tambora eruption. Calculations of the possible depth of cooling are known by the so-called. "nuclear winter models".
These factors actually determine the Earth's climate, in particular the average temperature. Now let's figure out what happens to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here you can resort to a simple experiment physical model. We will need:
1) Ice bucket (or refrigerator).
2) Bucket with hot water(moderately hot, no extreme).
3) Two bottles of sparkling water (you can use Borzhom, Fanta, Cola, and even champagne).
Place the first bottle in the cold and the second in the heat.
We're waiting for an hour.
Next, open both bottles and visually evaluate the difference.
CO2 bubbles will lazily emerge from the first bottle, and a foam fountain will likely emerge from the second.
Explanation: The solubility of a gas (including CO2) is inversely proportional to temperature.
The world's oceans are a kind of bottle containing 1.35 billion cubic kilometers of mineralized water (or, in mass units: 1.35 billion gigatons). A number of gases are dissolved in water.
In particular, the mass of CO2 dissolved in the ocean exceeds 100 thousand gigatons.
The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 2 thousand gigatons (50 - 60 times less than in the ocean).
During periods of constant average temperature on the planet, an equilibrium is established between atmospheric CO2 and CO2 dissolved in the ocean.
With global cooling, the equilibrium shifts towards dissolved CO2.
With global warming, the equilibrium shifts towards atmospheric CO2.
So: the currently observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is a consequence (not a cause) of global warming. We can say that this addition of CO2 will enhance the greenhouse effect, creating a secondary factor of global warming. But such a contribution is very insignificant compared to the primary factor (the increase in the flow of radiant energy from the Sun). If we discuss the secondary factor of the greenhouse effect, then we must consider the contribution not of CO2, but of H2O, the predominant greenhouse gas (see above). As temperature rises, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere increases, which means it traps a larger share of thermal radiation from the Earth's surface. The “water” greenhouse process has a downside, but more on that later.
Now let's return to CO2 and evaluate the scale of the technogenic (anthropogenic) factor in the cycle of this gas.
So: the atmosphere now contains 2000 gigatons of CO2, and this amount completes the cycle in about 4 years. 500 gigatons of CO2 per year enter the atmosphere through the processes of release from the ocean and the processes of decomposition of organic matter in the biosphere. The same amount - 500 gigatons of CO2 per year - is bound in the process of photosynthesis.
Industry (as mentioned) emits 30 gigatons of CO2 per year.
When these 30 gigatons are indicated after 500 gigatons of the biological cycle, this “contribution of the “anthropogenic factor to carbon emissions” no longer looks impressive.
However, as stated above, CO2 is not the cause of global warming in any case.
Like this: it somehow turns out boring. The CO2 greenhouse theme has shrunk, and there is no intrigue.
Let's have some fun. Let's imagine that humanity will uncontrollably burn carbon and hydrocarbon fuels, and will quickly burn all its fossil reserves. Moreover, against the backdrop of global warming caused by the primary (solar) factor. If you add fuel to the fire in this way, what will happen to the climate? Is it possible to know the result without delving deeply into numerical climate models?
It turns out that it is possible, since there was a period in the history of the Earth when almost all of the CO2 was in the atmosphere, which is now accumulated in fossil fuels. Welcome to the Carboniferous Period of the Paleozoic Era. Then, approximately 330 million years ago, after a long ice age it has arrived global warming. The average temperature of the Earth has risen to 20 Celsius (5 degrees higher than today). As in the soda bottle experiment, CO2 began to flow from the ocean into the atmosphere, and its concentration increased from 0.02 percent to 0.4 percent (10 times higher than today). Due to increased evaporation from the surface of the oceans, the concentration of “greenhouse” H2O in the atmosphere has increased. Stripe tropical climate expanded. Plants, due to high temperature and humidity, and high concentrations of CO2, quickly produced biomass through photosynthesis. This is how CO2 was utilized, which then, during geological processes, transformed from biomass to coal, oil and natural gas. By the way: many classes of plants and animals (in particular land animals) that exist now developed precisely then. In short: a celebration of life spanning 30 million years or so. None global flood or thermal apocalypse. Then, due to a change in the solar factor, a new glaciation came.
But what if the solar factor hadn't changed in the end Carboniferous period? Maybe, in this case, the greenhouse effect from H2O and CO2 would still lead to a climate catastrophe?
Answer: no. 30 million years is more than enough time for a catastrophe to occur, if it were even possible under the greenhouse scenario. Let us note that apologists for the idea of the Kyoto Protocol threaten disaster by the end of the 21st century (!). What millions of years?
The impossibility of such a disaster scenario is due to the previously noted feature of the “water” greenhouse process. It has a downside. Although in the lower atmosphere H2O acts as a warming greenhouse gas, in the upper atmosphere (particularly the very cold stratosphere) its role changes. Water vapor forms clouds of small ice crystals that are highly reflective. These clouds screen sunlight more effectively even than microparticles volcanic ash(see Tambora eruption, “year without sun”). At a high concentration of H2O in the lower layers of the atmosphere, there is a transfer to the upper layers, and the area of such clouds - screens that reduce the light flux to the surface - increases. A kind of natural climate control with negative feedback, characteristic of our planet.
In general: even if humanity, against the backdrop of warming, quickly burns all available reserves of fossil fuels, and the CO2 content in the atmosphere rises to the late Paleozoic level, this will still not lead to a disaster. So the theory on which the Kyoto Protocol is based is pseudoscientific from all sides.
Additionally, this protocol appears to rely on fake measurement data. So:
“Climategate” is a hacker discovery by some guys who hacked into the server of the Climate Research Center at the University of East Anglia, and discovered the most interesting correspondence from the director of the Climate Research Unit, CRU. She showed that the rationale for the Kyoto Protocol contained climate falsifications going back about 20 years.
Here we could put the word END and a period. But then there will be an unsolved mystery: where did the theoretical part of this pseudoscientific scam come from? Where did the “greenhouse” terminology and the mathematical model that describes the rise in temperature due to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere come from? Let's try to figure this out.
Let's roll back 50 years into the past, into the “golden decades of astronautics.”
When the unmanned Mariner 5 spacecraft explored the atmosphere of Venus in 1967, scientists were very surprised high temperature and pressure.
Venus in the sense of planetology is the sister of the Earth (close in size, similar in mass), but its orbit is a quarter closer to the Sun.
This means that Venus receives twice as much heat from the Sun.
If we assume that Venus is in thermal equilibrium, then it should radiate into space the same amount of heat as it receives from the Sun. Thermal radiation of a body (and in particular a planet) is proportional to absolute temperature to the fourth power.
From this, the temperature on Venus could be roughly estimated at 343 degrees Kelvin, or 70 Celsius (55 degrees higher than the average on Earth).
But Mariner 5 discovered a temperature of 460 Celsius on Venus and a pressure of 90 atmospheres.
A theory soon emerged to explain how this happened. 4 billion years ago, Venus was not particularly different from the Earth at the same time (Archean Era), but the temperature on Venus was about 55 degrees higher. This difference was enough to prevent the oceans from forming during a certain period of geological history, and all the CO2 contained in the primary atmosphere remained in it. Under these conditions, the greenhouse effect worked, which catastrophically heated the surface of Venus.
CO2- carbon dioxide, the main product during the combustion of any mineral fuel, turned out to be the culprit in turning Venus into a red-hot hell!
And, after a mathematical interpretation of the results of the Mariner 5 flight, in 1975, an article by Wallace Broecker, “Climate Change: Are We on the Verge of Sharp Global Warming?” appears in the journal Science, in which for the first time, in the spirit of alarmism, the dangerous technogenic impact on the climate of our planet.
An excellent horror story to intimidate public opinion, and to build a scam for trading quotas for greenhouse gas emissions, raising funds, etc. An important role is played by the distribution of grants - in order to obtain “confirmation in the name of science.” This is how it works, and will continue to work, apparently, for a long time. Public opinion so intimidated that the recent refusal of the US administration from the Paris Protocol caused a storm of mass protests, demonstrations, rallies, pickets, and thrillers in the media.
Of course, such an indignant public did not delve into the calculations and did not notice that the propagandists of the fight against the greenhouse effect were using mathematical model, built not for the Earth (on which we live), but for Venus, (which receives twice as much solar heat and light as the Earth, and on which it was not formed water ocean, which makes a catastrophic greenhouse effect possible).
This pseudo-scientific detective story with a model substitution of the Earth - Venus might seem like an absurd conspiracy theory. But scientific popularizers of the fight against the greenhouse effect on Earth themselves point out as the strongest argument the well-known and impressive result of the greenhouse effect on Venus.
...Reading the Daily Mail for January 10, 2018
Or a presentation in Russian - from the network source Liga.net for January 11, 2018
"Famous scientist Stephen Hawking warned that the Earth would become "hot as hell" as a result of global warming. The Daily Mail reports this.
The theoretical physicist suggested that the Earth will become like Venus: the average temperature on our planet will reach 460 degrees Celsius if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced. According to NASA experts, 4 billion years ago, Venus, like the Earth, had an atmosphere, but due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, the planet’s atmosphere “burned out.”
"The next time you meet someone who denies climate change, tell them to go to Venus. I'll pay the fare," Hawking concluded.
I would like to invite some scientists (and scientific journalists) to make a return trip: from an imaginary Venus to the real Earth. By the way, travel is free.
It remains to make two final remarks.
1. Adherents of the Kyoto Protocol themselves do not believe in their CO2 greenhouse theory.
If they really believed in the power of the greenhouse demon called CO2, then they would obviously call for not releasing this dangerous creature from the bowels of the Earth.
- Seal the mouths of oil and gas wells.
- Concrete the broken shale layers.
- Close all coal mines and peat quarries.
- And globally switch to nuclear energy, which does not emit CO2.
By the way, it’s a completely realistic project.
At the end of the 20th century, the prosperous French economy was 80 percent self-sufficient in energy from nuclear power plants…
...But we do not hear or see the calls “Long live the peaceful atom” from the commissions working on the Kyoto-Paris theme of combating the greenhouse effect.
On the contrary, from international environmental organizations There are calls to phase out nuclear power. It’s illogical, on the one hand. On the other hand, this means that it is not a matter of the CO2 threat (which does not exist), but a monetary-fund effect (which exists).
And it is likely that the sponsors of the anti-CO2 project, just like the sponsors of the anti-nuclear project, are those super-corporations that produce hydrocarbon fuels.
2. Of course, there are man-made environmental problems on Earth. The fact that this particular CO2 problem is fictitious does not negate the real problems. For example:
- Pollution of the world's oceans with petroleum products and plastic waste.
- Local pollution of mineral extraction regions.
- Destruction of local ecosystems during logging and soil cultivation.
- Environmentally hazardous methods of mass production of seafood.
...Etc.
But apparently on High International level it is more profitable to fight fictitious problems based on pseudoscientific theories and fake data. Such things...
How to stop global warming, which threatens earthlings with serious cataclysms? They will try to agree on this at the UN World Climate Conference opening in Paris. Leaders of many countries will take part in it, and Russian President Vladimir Putin is also expected to visit. This forum is already being called historical. It should become a milestone in the development of our civilization.
And, it would seem, we are talking about just one number, but it can largely decide the fate of humanity. If the average increase in temperature on Earth exceeds +2 degrees Celsius over several decades, then we are all facing disaster. This is the verdict of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their scenarios include melting ice, droughts, and epidemics of dangerous diseases. And most importantly, the flooding of the ocean coasts, and above all of many of the world's largest cities, such as Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, St. Petersburg, Buenos Aires, etc.
Scientists estimate that throughout history we have been allocated to emit 3,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We have already “spent” about 2000 billion, 1000 billion remain. With current emissions of 50 billion tons per year, earthlings have only 20 years left to stop warming.
In a word, time is approaching. And we need to take action now. Humanity needs to unite in the face of the climate threat and manage life on the planet wisely. But to do this, earthlings must agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050. The goals are quite noble. But the devil is in the details. For example, who will pay for a favorable climate? But the amounts are huge. For example, when the United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it estimated the required investments at trillions of dollars. Now the price for a favorable climate is not named, but it is obvious to everyone that it will be a huge amount of money.
By the way, not only the United States, but also a number of countries, the main polluters of the atmosphere, have not signed the Kyoto Protocol. An attempt to solve climate problems at the UN conference in Copenhagen in 2009 also ended in failure. And now a new attempt will be made in Paris. The leaders of 195 countries who will gather in the French capital must make their commitments to reduce emissions. Experts are already saying that reaching an agreement will be very difficult. After all, each country has its own problems and interests.
But, on the other hand, it is significant that already before the start of the forum a number of leading countries announced such intentions. For example, the United States promises to reduce emissions by 26-28 percent by 2025 compared to 2005 levels. For the first time, China has set a specific date for when it will begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions - 2030. In addition, he intends to increase the share of “green energy” to 20 percent and significantly reduce the consumption of coal, the main source of harmful emissions. And Europe is already fighting emissions not in words, but in deeds: between 1994 and 2014 they decreased by 23 percent. By 2050, Europe promises a halving, and the clear leader, France, is aiming for a 4-fold reduction.
What contribution can Russia make to the fight against global warming? By the way, climate change is happening more strongly in our country than in other countries. Individual regions - and this is the entire Arctic, areas of mountain ranges, the entire Far East- are very, very vulnerable to processes associated with global warming.
Now Russia accounts for only 4 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, we rank 5th after China, the USA, India, and the EU. Our country, in accordance with the decree of President Vladimir Putin, has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a level of no more than 75 percent of 1990 levels by 2020. How to fulfill these obligations? The head of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources, Sergei Donskoy, spoke about this at the International Conference “Global Climate Challenge: Dialogue of State, Society and Business” that just ended in Moscow.
First of all, the country has changed legislative framework, he said. - For example, a law on a rationing system was adopted negative impact on the environment, based on the principles of the best available technologies. This will ensure by 2030 a more than 2-fold reduction per unit of GDP in harmful emissions from stationary sources. There will be 3 times fewer cities with high and very high level air pollution.
According to Donskoy, in the first decade of this century, Russia actually became the world leader in the rate of decline in GDP energy intensity - it decreased by 42 percent. The decisive role was played by the growth of the share of natural gas in the electric power industry and its replacement of coal, the “dirtiest” fuel. In general, over the period 1990-2011, the reduction in emissions in Russia was greater than the total contribution of greenhouse gases from all developed countries - members of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. According to Bloomberg, Russia has taken second place in the world in the use of investment mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol.
But the country is setting new ambitious goals: to reduce the specific energy intensity of GDP by 25 percent by 2025, electrical intensity by 12 percent, and annual savings through energy conservation by 2035 should be about 200 million tons of standard fuel. According to Sergei Donskoy, Russia is ready to discuss a fundamental issue for reducing emissions - the introduction of a carbon price. The minister especially emphasized that at the conference in Paris, all countries without exception should undertake obligations to reduce emissions, clearly fixing this in the new climate agreement. Russia not only takes on such a commitment, but also insists that its interests be taken into account. The fact is that our country accounts for more than 70 percent of boreal forests and about 25 percent of the world's forest resources, which absorb greenhouse gases.
We will insist that the contribution of our forests be taken into account on the same principles that apply today for tropical forests, says Sergei Donskoy. - Our forests are globally important for mitigating climate change, protecting water resources, preventing soil erosion and preserving biodiversity on the planet.
Meanwhile
The Earth needs to prepare for a 30-year cooling cycle, said the chairman of the Tyumen scientific center SB RAS academician Vladimir Melnikov. He predicts that the average temperature on the planet will fall by 1.5-2 degrees Celsius. American scientists agree with this opinion. True, they believe that it is happening against the backdrop of global warming. That is, it will continue.
For the second year in a row, Russian weather forecasters predict harsh winters. According to the head of Roshydromet, Alexander Frolov, the main cold fronts will pass over the Urals and southern Siberia. “There will be periods of prolonged cooling and periods of thaw,” he noted.
Infographics: RG / Leonid Kuleshov / Yuri Medvedev
CO 2 (carbon dioxide), according to scientists, is main reason of all the misfortunes on earth: global warming, due to which the number of droughts is increasing, forest fires, floods and tsunamis, permafrost and glaciers are melting. The main “producers” of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases are industry, energy production by burning oil and petroleum products, coal and gas, deforestation of tropical and general forests, industrial livestock farming and... you and me.
Working at our computers, driving a car, and simply turning on the lights, we consume electricity (and therefore the Earth's resources) and add CO 2 emissions into the atmosphere.
In December 2009, in just a few months, the UN conference will convene in Copenhagen, at which a new agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be adopted. But it seems that you and I will not go there - we will have to save the planet with our own hands. If you make a mess, clean it up yourself.
Electricity
Problem: The rapid “reproduction” of personal computers, phones, players, game consoles and other gadgets is a rapidly growing segment of energy consumption in the world . If in 1980 there were an average of 3 electrical appliances in a home, today there are 25. Home appliances already consume 15% of all global electricity, and in 20 years, With The International Energy Agency forecasts this figure will triple. In equivalent terms, this would require building an additional 560 coal-fired power plants or 230 nuclear power plants.
Solution: Saving electricity allows you to: 1) reduce consumption natural resources, 2) reduce emissions of harmful substances into the atmosphere, 3) keep water bodies clean and preserve the forest. Each of us can save electricity. Each of us can contribute to preserving the planet.
Fridge
Plate
Light
Problem: A light bulb burning aimlessly means the construction of new hydro and nuclear power plants that are destroying the ecosystem of the area. In addition, as we have recently seen, such stations not only destroy life around them, but also take lives: according to the latest data, as a result of the accident at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station, 74 people died, and another is listed as missing.
Solution: transition to alternative, environmentally friendly and renewable energy sources: wind, water, sun and biomass of the Earth. What can you and I do? The easiest way is to save light and heat.
Replacing 1 incandescent lamp with 1 energy-saving lamp can:
Water
Warm. Even warmer
Problem: Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the average temperature on Earth has increased by 0.8°;;; C. According to scientists, if the Earth's temperature rises by more than 2°;;;C, irreversible changes will begin, followed by scenes from the movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”
Solution: The saga called “heating season” will begin on October 1 at the earliest. 40% of heat loss occurs through windows. Additional insulation can increase the room temperature by 4-5°C and reduce the load on the heating system.
Problem: CO 2 is the main cause of global warming, leading to climate disasters. How do you and I influence CO 2 emissions? For example, using an SUV to get around the city. It emits 1.3 tons of CO 2 when traveling less than 3,000 km. This is the same amount of CO 2 produced by a family in Bangladesh in a whole year. The same amount of CO 2 in terms of each passenger is produced by one plane flight over a distance of 2500 km (Moscow - London, for example). You produce the same amount of CO 2 in normal life per year. By consuming meat every day, we stimulate industrial animal agriculture. 1 kg of meat is 3 - 4 kg of greenhouse gases in terms of CO 2, 20 liters of water and several trees.
Solution: The demand for meat, furs, animal skins, ergonomic cars and an environmentally friendly lifestyle depends on each of us.
Paper
Solution:
Household waste
Problem: Glass takes 1000 years to decompose, polyethylene and plastic - 200 years, tin cans - 90 years, paper and cardboard - 2 years. For example, a juice bag - an invention of the Swedish company Tetrapak, consisting of 75% paper, 20% polyethylene and 5% aluminum foil - practically does not decompose.
Solution: Bangladesh, Singapore, Taiwan have completely abandoned plastic bags. If moving to cellophane-free countries is not possible, then below are some tips on how to change the world within your own habitat.
Cellophane
Good consumer habits
Glass
Batteries
Eco planetary life
In the future we will live in eco-houses, energy-saving, economical and environmentally friendly, independent of power grids and other heat sources. There is already such a house in Sochi! And in Shanghai and the UAE they are building whole new eco-cities! The energy in this eco-paradise is exclusively from alternative sources, mainly from wind power plants, and most of the waste will be reused or composted for fertilizer.
What else can I do?
Tell your friends and colleagues about how to live environmentally and economically! You don't have to be Superman to save the planet... What do they say? Raise a child, build an eco-house and PLANT A TREE!
When writing this article, materials from the website GreenPeace.org were used
Found a typo? Select the text and press Ctrl + Enter
Burning fossil fuels to generate energy increases the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which inevitably leads to climate change. We use gasoline engines and power plants operating on natural gas and coal. Of course, global warming and problems associated with climate change are pressing issues today in all international environmental forums. How can we use energy more wisely and slow down carbon emissions? Here are some simple tips.
Reuse, recycling
Now you can make your contribution to protecting the environment. Opt for reusable products instead of disposable ones. For example, replace plastic bottles with water per glass. Buy products in small packages, this will save space in your trash container, and reducing waste will benefit the economy.
If your area has a recycling program, participate in it. Thus, you can not throw away, but put paper, glass containers, aluminum cans, and plastic back into circulation. Well, food waste can be recycled in your garden.
Save heat and regulate your air conditioning system
Insulating walls, insulating the attic, and eliminating cracks in windows and doors will help solve the issue of saving heating in the house. Reducing the amount of energy needed to heat a room can reduce your costs by 25 percent. Keep the air temperature moderate or lower it at night. It is estimated that if everyone lowered the temperature of their home thermostat by 2 degrees, this would reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere by more than 900 liters annually.
Replace the light bulbs
Replace regular light bulbs in your home with LED ones. They are more economical than compact fluorescent ones and have a longer service life. 
Use your car less often
If people use cars less, there will be less gasoline emissions in the atmosphere. Don't forget that alternative transportation by walking or cycling brings huge bonuses to your physical health.
Shop smart
When it comes time to buy a new car, look for models that are fuel-efficient and have energy-efficient components. 
Use less hot water
Set the water heater to a temperature not exceeding 50 degrees. If there is no need to disinfect linen and towels, use a 30 degree mode when washing. This will reduce the amount of energy required to produce hot water. Thus, each household will prevent more than 200 liters of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. You can also use energy saving settings in your dishwasher, and dry the dishes in the open air. 
Plant a tree
The more green spaces there are around, the better for the atmosphere. During photosynthesis, trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide, converting it into oxygen. Know that your one tree will absorb a whole ton of carbon dioxide over its life.
At the moment, official methods of combating global warming have several directions. The main method involves reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide and thereby eliminating the greenhouse effect. First of all, according to many climate experts, the temperature should be reduced as much as possible. This can be achieved by limiting the flow of solar energy that is directed to the earth's surface. In the 90s, the idea was put forward of launching many mirrors into space that could reflect solar radiation back. The same result can be achieved by increasing the albedo, that is, the reflection coefficient of the Earth itself. It is worth noting that theorists, in the fight against global warming, have recently developed a technology for brightening clouds, which may be possible by spraying sea water in a turbulent layer air masses. It has been proven that spraying sulfur compounds into the stratosphere can also achieve a similar effect.
The next direction, which, according to scientists, should be taken as a basis in the fight against global warming, is the burial of carbon dioxide. In the early 90s, a proposal was put forward to condense carbon dioxide and pump it into underground tanks. Thus, under significant pressure and required temperatures, gas can be stored for a long time.
A little later, experts developed this idea to bury the gas at the bottom of the ocean, because all the necessary conditions created by nature itself are provided here - pressure and cold.
Other scientists have put forward proposals to absorb carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere using purification towers filled with adsorbent.
US scientists have come to different conclusions. They discovered that biochar, which the Amazon Indians often used to increase the fertility of their soil, could help in the fight against global warming. When mass produced, biochar can help with carbon sequestration and burial. During the production of biochar, which is obtained by heating organic material, there is no oxygen. In addition, the high temperature during production results in the release of gas, which can be collected and used for energy.
Other US scientists have proposed a method for absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They proposed the use of 300 meter underwater pipes that would pump nutrients from the depths of the ocean to the surface. This would lead to the growth of algae, which quite actively absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Of course, when choosing a particular strategy, its effectiveness should be re-evaluated in our time. Most of the methods that have been proposed during the entire warming period are largely concepts that do not carry a historical precedent, therefore, when introducing them, it is necessary to reduce as much as possible possible risk for humanity.
If it’s not possible to fight changes in climate conditions, then a proposal has been received/you need to come to terms with it and take off as much clothing as possible and stay practically in what “your mother gave birth in”/as they say, “in just shorts, because it’s hot in two.”
Thus, it was decided to develop a pret-a-porter de lux collection for resorts. The developed collection is intended for those areas of the Earth where there is an increase in the average temperature of the air and the World Ocean.
Related articles
The best amulets against the evil eye and damage Amulet against the evil eye with hands for children
How to read the Psalter correctly
Delicious dishes with sausages
A glimpse of Bella. Romantic chronicle. A glimpse of genius. Messerer about Akhmadulina Boris Messerer glimpse of Bella romantic chronicle
I dreamed that I was sailing on a boat on the river
How to cook beef entrecote in a frying pan
About the company Foreign language courses at Moscow State University
Which city and why became the main one in Ancient Mesopotamia?
Why Bukhsoft Online is better than a regular accounting program!
Which year is a leap year and how to calculate it