D.I.Y Planet Cooling

[Michaelangelica]

Turn off a light?

Now?

 

Whatatop - Top pictures

[freeztar]

Though I didn’t originate the idea, fertilizing phytoplankton with additional nutrients (particularly iron, particularly in the far-south Pacific) strikes me as a promising approach. The carbon-sequestering capacity of these plants is huge, and largely constrained by their nutrient supply. Though it’s kinda a brute-force, engineering-style solution, it’s a straight-forward one, and doesn’t depend on convincing millions of people just getting accustom to a first world lifestyle that they should scale back, or convincing long-time first worlders to give up their wide-screen plasma TVs.

 

Well, here's some sad news on that front:

 

Commercial Ocean Fertilization Project Halted - Dot Earth - Climate Change and Sustainability - New York Times Blog

 

Planktos, the California company trying to turn a profit by fertilizing the ocean with iron dust, pulled the plug on planned field tests on Wednesday, citing a lack of funds. At the company’s Web site, planktos.com, a simple notice blamed the shutdown on a “highly effective disinformation campaign waged by anti-offset crusaders.”

 

The business plan had been to sell “carbon offset” credits earned by triggering blooms of phytoplankton that, in theory, would absorb a predictable amount of the climate-warming gas carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and then sink to the seabed. The credits would be sold to companies or individuals trying to compensate for unavoidable emissions of carbon dioxide (from driving, flying, and the like).

[Mike C]

To All:

 

I did not read the entire thread but I would like to add my opinion.

 

TREES!

They are our 'natural' air conditioners.

Besides purifying the air with oxygen, they also contribute to cooling the planet.

They absorb tremendous amounts of the Suns energy and transform it into growth.

 

What we need to do is STOP the destruction of the forests and also promote tree planting in out local environments .

 

Mike C

[james0101]

We do need to stop using so much energy...

...or we need to do away with gasoline engines. :confused:

An article on CNN.com notes that scientists predict a 2-6 degree C increase in global temperature by 2100!

We need to do something right away.

 

I agree. Sometimes it seems that America as a whole is asleep. Being more concerned with the style and color of a car, than 'will this car, or will that car hurt the earth less?'. Needless to say, if either car is burning gasoline they both will damage our environment. Automobiles are not our only problem, but it is something we can readily recognize as a problem area, and I will add, can change.

 

I have followed some of the hydrogen work done by Dr. Roger Billings, who as far as I know was the first to use a hydrogen fuel cell to power a car. I am convinced that gasoline and diesel engines should be replaced by hydrogen fuel cells, which are incredibly efficient and the exhaust is clean water. Just as when you split water [H2O] into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity, the fuel cell does the exact opposite. You supply oxygen and hydrogen to the fuel cell, and you get electricity and water out. The electricity powers a motor which turns the wheels, and water is the only exhaust -- nothing else.

 

This website pertaining to hydrogen research done by Dr. Billings, or Dr. Hydrogen, as he is referred to by Time Magazine, explains it much better than I could: billingsenergy.com/Research.html

 

Bottom line, I think many of us don't realize the power we have as individuals. If we would unite and focus on one thing at a time i.e. getting our cars to burn other than gasoline; not looking for the government to do it for us but taking the initiative ourselves. I think we can make a difference sooner than we think, than we expect. I am very glad that some of the car manufacturers and finally doing this.

[Michaelangelica]

To All:

 

I did not read the entire thread but I would like to add my opinion.

 

TREES!

They are our 'natural' air conditioners.

Besides purifying the air with oxygen, they also contribute to cooling the planet.

They absorb tremendous amounts of the Suns energy and transform it into growth.

 

What we need to do is STOP the destruction of the forests and also promote tree planting in out local environments .

 

Mike C

 

There is some argument about whether trees sequester carbon

SEE

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/9998-planting-trees-good-thing-bad-thing.html

Tropical forests certainly do.

Is the research in on other areas of the planet though?

Planting trees is a deceptively nice, green-sounding option like turning off city lights for an hour. I want it to work cause I like trees. My lakeside neighbours often cut theirs down because they prefer to look at water rather than trees (the swine).

Many companies want you to give them money to plant trees.

But does planting trees work?

 

Turning off lights for an hour doesn't

See also

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/11569-we-need-trillion-more-indoor-plants-10.html#post208545

:confused: :rant: :)

This artistic website is visually amazing and scary at the same time. (Broadband is preferred) Especially if you double it for Europe and double it for China, India and Asia and in 25 years (?) time double it for China and India again.

current work

 

Back to DIY

I have discovered that I cannot tun off my printer if it is out of paper (the swine).:( (three days after I thought I turned it off);)

[Mike C]

Angelica

 

What is this about 'sequester-ing carbon?

This is the 1st time I am aware of this carbon problem?

 

Mike C

[Michaelangelica]

Angelica

 

What is this about 'sequester-ing carbon?

This is the 1st time I am aware of this carbon problem?

 

Mike C

 

As I understand it to 'sequester' is to 'put away' ,or in carbon terms retire it or take it out of the equation

 

Here are some better explanations

se·ques·ter (s-kwstr)

v. se·ques·tered, se·ques·ter·ing, se·ques·ters

v.tr.

1. To cause to withdraw into seclusion.

2. To remove or set apart; segregate. See Synonyms at isolate.

3. Law

a. To take temporary possession of (property) as security against legal claims.

b. To requisition and confiscate (enemy property).

v.intr. Chemistry

To undergo sequestration.

[Middle English sequestren, from Old French, from Latin sequestrre, to give up for safekeeping, from Latin sequester, depositary, trustee; see sekw-1 in Indo-European roots.]

sequester - definition of sequester by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

se·ques·ter /sɪˈkwɛstər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-kwes-ter] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object)

1. to remove or withdraw into solitude or retirement; seclude.

2. to remove or separate.

3. Law. to remove (property) temporarily from the possession of the owner; seize and hold, as the property and income of a debtor, until legal claims are satisfied.

4. International Law. to requisition, hold, and control (enemy property).

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME sequestren < L sequestrāre to put in hands of a trustee, deriv. of sequester trustee, depositary]

 

—Related forms

se·ques·tra·ble, adjective

 

—Synonyms 1, 2. isolate.

sequester - Definitions from Dictionary.com

 

Sequestration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

 

The term sequestration can have different meanings according to the context.

 

* Sequestration (law), the act of seizing property from the owner under process of law for the benefit of creditors or the state

 

[edit] Biochemistry

 

In biochemistry, the term "sequestration" is used to indicate that a compound or metabolite is locked away so as to not to be readily available. The inhibition or prevention of normal ion behavior by combination with added materials, especially the prevention of metallic ion precipitation from solution by formation of a coordination compound with a tree/to leave or isolate form.

 

[edit] Climate change

Main article: CO2 sequestration

 

With regards to climate change, the term "sequestration" denotes a technique for the permanent storage of Carbon Dioxide or other IR active compounds so they will not be released to the atmosphere where they would contribute to the greenhouse gas effect.

Sequestration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope this helps.

[Mike C]

Angelica

 

That last post from the Wikipedia(?) mentions that sequestering as applied to Global Warming is to store the CO2 to prevent its effects in the upper atmosphere.

 

Well, all plants will do a good job of sequestering the CO2 since they breath it in opposition to what the animals do.

 

So trees are the best solution for doing this.

 

Mike C

[Michaelangelica]

Angelica

 

That last post from the Wikipedia(?) mentions that sequestering as applied to Global Warming is to store the CO2 to prevent its effects in the upper atmosphere.

 

Well, all plants will do a good job of sequestering the CO2 since they breath it in opposition to what the animals do.

 

So trees are the best solution for doing this.

 

Mike C

This is true Mike to a point.

The question is how long do they sequester the CO2?

Considering Europe was covered in Forest 2,000 years ago, and the rapid deforestation of Tropical areas in the last 100 years, we have along way to go.

I think people are concerned that Fly-by-Night carbon sequestration companies promising to plant tree so you can have guilt-free consumerism

1. encourage more consumerism

2 may not be around for the long hall to care for and protect the tree plantations in 25-50 years time.

3 many plantations encourage monoculture: some clearing native forest to do this.

 

While saying this, personally I have been propagating white and red Mulberry trees to give to the the local kids as it a favourite tree of kids and they look after them.:hihi:

[Michaelangelica]

i just came accross this show which illustrates just how hard it is being green

(radio show/ trnascript. this is abit of what they had to say about trees.

Rachel Carbonell: One of the issues the ACCC is looking out for is when companies contract out their carbon offsetting, which they often do.

 

Companies may do this in good faith and get taken for a ride by the offset company, and get bad publicity as a result.

 

In Europe, one of the most outspoken groups on this issue is Carbon Trade Watch. It's part of the Transnational Institute, which describes itself as a European think-tank. It's produced a report called the Carbon Neutral Myth, which attempts to debunk carbon offsetting as an effective or valuable method of tackling climate change. And it's very much at the extreme green end of this debate.

 

Kevin Smith.

 

Kevin Smith: Telling people to plant trees to deal with the problem of climate change is like telling people to drink glasses of water to deal with rising sea levels. It's not going to work, because what you're doing here is appealing to people's notion of planting trees as being inherently a good thing, and associating it with climate change.

 

Rachel Carbonell: That's Kevin Smith, a researcher with Carbon Trade Watch, speaking to Background Briefing from London. He says carbon offsetting is essentially the rich paying for a licence to continue polluting, and he compares it to the Catholic church's selling of indulgences in the Middle Ages.

. . .

Kevin Smith: What you're essentially doing when you do any offset project in a southern country or a developing world country, is you're taking that country's ability to reduce emissions cheaply, and turning it into a resource which you can then extract and make a profit on, and thus it's creating a new commodity to be profitably used by the first world country, and in this way it's a new form of carbon colonialism.

. . .

Michael Raupach: Tree planting is like borrowing or investing money on the most wildly fluctuating financial market that there is. We can gain or lose many times more money in a single year than we invest, in this form of sequestration. So it might take us ten years, for example, to build up a stock of carbon, and that stock of carbon can be completely removed by fire, or by widespread drought in a single year or two.

Background Briefing - 10 February 2008 - Greenwashing

[Michaelangelica]

And yet another article.

Mr Ahmed suggested the following actions:

 

* Minimum use of electrical appliances

 

* Turning off the equipment when not in use

 

* Using recycled goods , reusing items till their optimum life

 

* Switching to energy efficient household technologies such as low flow showerheads, fluorescent lights, energy efficient appliances, ventilators, and high efficiency natural gas furnaces while, promoting these at the workplace

 

* Wearing sweaters in winter and using fans in summer to minimise use of heaters and ACs

 

* Buying locally grown food and material to cut down on un-necessary imports and shipping

 

* Walking, riding the bike, using public transportation or car-pooling

 

* Conserving water, fuel and energy

 

* Using environmental friendly cleaning agents

 

and insecticides

 

* Avoiding using extra paper

</title> </head> <body topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" rightmargin="0" bottommargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0"> <div align="left"> <table border="0" width="1000" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" id="table1"> <tr> <td valign=top> <div align="lef

[Michaelangelica]

The argument FOR Trees

Greenhouse gas offsets from biosequestration

 

Bio-sequestration projects have been criticised for their vulnerability, particularly the risk of greenhouse gas reentering the atmosphere as a result of fires or drought-induced tree death. As some parts of Australia enter their 11th year of drought, and scientists warn of higher risks of bushfires in coming decades, it is hard to see how bio-sequestration projects can guarantee carbon storage.

 

However, the key point to make is that reafforestation and revegetation projects are enormously important in helping to preserve biodiversity and restore habitat. It is significant that national ‘icon’ organisations such as Greening Australia – which has over 20 years’ experience in working with more than 10 000 Australian farmers – are now entering the greenhouse gas offset market with greenhouse gas offset products that also promise to restore biodiversity to the Australian landscape.

 

These same organisations are making efforts to minimise the risk of bushfire and drought impacts on their bio-sequestration projects. Also worth noting is that timber products and paper from sustainable plantations can store greenhouse gas for over 1000 years, as shown by recent research from the ANU and CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, reported in an earlier issue of Ecos.15

What to look for when purchasing carbon credits (ScienceAlert)

[Mike C]

This is true Mike to a point.

The question is how long do they sequester the CO2?

Considering Europe was covered in Forest 2,000 years ago, and the rapid deforestation of Tropical areas in the last 100 years, we have along way to go.

I think people are concerned that Fly-by-Night carbon sequestration companies promising to plant tree so you can have guilt-free consumerism

1. encourage more consumerism

2 may not be around for the long hall to care for and protect the tree plantations in 25-50 years time.

3 many plantations encourage monoculture: some clearing native forest to do this.

 

While saying this, personally I have been propagating white and red Mulberry trees to give to the the local kids as it a favourite tree of kids and they look after them.:rolleyes:

 

Those mulberry fruits are delicious but kind of messy to eat.

And they readily stain your hands.

 

But a tree of any sort is good to have. Especially when it bears fruit.

 

Mike C

[Michaelangelica]

A great little web-site page with lots of suggestions I have not seen before

EG

# Set up a bulletin board for memos instead of sending a copy to each employee.

# Use e-mail instead of paper correspondence.

# Use recycled paper.

# Use discarded paper for scrap paper.

# Encourage your school and/or company to print documents with soy-based inks, which are less toxic.

# Use a ceramic coffee mug instead of a disposable cup.

100 Ways to Save the Environment

It might be worth printing out for that notice board?

[Michaelangelica]

Act to slow Climate Change!

 

1. Adopt a Vegetarian Diet

2. Eat Less Meat

3. Ride a bike

4. Install Solar Hot water

5. Embrace energy efficiency

6. Buy Renewable Electricity

7. Reduce & offset car emissions

8. Invest ethically

9. Promote sustainable living

10. Car pool

 

from

Sustainable living, your guide to a sustainable life! — Natural Strategies

links and explanations of each change/activity are on the site.

No one seems to mention walking any more.

[Michaelangelica]

Here are some good ones from the ABC, (some we have had before) that don't involve a major change in lifestyle, little simple things that everyone can do.

 

It also estimates how much GHG you will save with each change.

 

At the site they also have an "Ask the Guru" section on questions about the benefits, or not, of various changes. Something we could have here?

 

ABC - Green at Work - Green your Work - QUICK FIXES

• 
  Do this for a week and save this much CO2
  
• Turn off the lights at end of the day 5.4 kg for every fluoro
  
• Catch public transport, walk or ride to work instead of driving. 50 kg (for 15 km commute)
  
• Turn off the vending machine overnight 38 kg
  
• Turn off your computer when you leave work 15 kg
  
• Turn off the printer at end of the day 6.5 kg
  
• Take the stairs instead of the lift 3kg (0.1kg per trip)
  
• Use tap water instead of the water cooler 1.1 kg
  
• If you make your cuppa in a kettle, only boil as much water as you need to 0.5 kg
   
  Do this from now on and save this much waste
  
• Take a coffee mug to the café instead of using disposables. You won't save energy but … you'll only produce 1/30 of the volume of waste you would with disposables over the years
  
• Set your printer default to print double-sided and … cut your office paper consumption by up to 50%
  

[Michaelangelica]

Why Bother?

The Green Issue - Climate Change - Environment - Energy Efficiency - Consumption - New York Times

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-domains-t.html?_r=1&oref=login