The Biochar Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Carbon’

As the world makes progress, our environment also regresses. Why is this so? It is because with industrialization booming, air pollution also progresses badly. It has been a problem that our world has ever since.  Is there a solution to air pollution? Indeed there is.

Click Here For Carbon Revolt Instant Access!

Air pollution can be lessened, it can be avoided and surely it can be solved. We do not have to wait for other people to take action; we need to start on our own. Making smart and environment friendly choices can help much in reducing air pollution. Industries contribute much to air pollution, they thrive because there is a demand to produce products, and mostly they are made of paper and plastics.

That is why in order to address the growing demand for industries to produce; we have to make people aware of the importance of the 3Rs. That is to reduce the use of electricity, gasoline and even energy. We also have to make sure to reuse items which we can still use. Take for example boxes, bottles, glass and many other things that we can make use of and produce into another useful item. We also need to recycle. Paper products as well as plastic ones are on top of the list.

Car as we all know is second to industries which contribute to air pollution. Try to use your cars only when it is really needed. You can save on gas as well as other bills if you try to walk a short distance or use a bike while enjoying the scenery.

We need to have strong laws for getting rid of air pollution. We should have stronger and firmer laws. See to it that you abide by the laws and in this way step by step you will do your part in giving a solution to air pollution.

Click Here For Carbon Revolt Instant Access!

Along with positive ideas come those scammers who are out to make a buck. Even though trading in carbon credits is still in its infancy, there are those who are already taking advantage of what may be a very beneficial environmental program. To first understand how to avoid being taken advantage of, it is important to understand exactly what carbon credits are.

Carbon credits are part of national and international attempts to stop the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. One carbon credit is equal to one ton of carbon. Many individuals are now taking an interest in their carbon footprints, trying to lower their usage, as well as trying different ways to offset their usage. Carbon credits are part of an approach to emissions trading. With a certain amount of greenhouse gas allotted to markets, each individual group is given the opportunity to decide how much of a limited amount can be designated to each area. This allows for industries to control the amount of greenhouse gases they are using. This also allows industrial and commercial processes to market in the direction of lower emissions, or utilize approaches that are designed to not emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This helps to finance carbon reduction schemes.

Many companies sell carbon credits. These carbon credits are sold to companies who voluntarily desire to lower their carbon footprint. Carbon credits are purchased from investment funds or carbon development companies. Many of these companies have saved these credits from other individual products and offset themselves and the buyers by selling them. The quality of the credits is based on the validation process, the type of fund, and the development company. The price is also affected by these things. Voluntary units typically have less value than the units sold through the rigorously-validated Clean Development Mechanism.

There are two distinct types of Carbon Credits: Carbon Offset Credits (COCs) and Carbon Reduction Credits (CRCs). Carbon Offset Credits consist of clean forms of energy production, wind, solar, hydro and biofuels. Carbon Reduction Credits consists of the collection and storage of Carbon from the earth’s atmosphere through reforestation, forestation, ocean and soil collection and storage efforts. Both ways are valid and positively recognized, each used in different situations.

Whether or not you decide that the use of carbon credits are for you, it is important to know how to avoid being scammed.

• First and foremost, do your research on the company you are thinking of buying credit from. It is necessary to see if the industrial companies are actually implementing reductions in carbon use and greenhouse emissions or if they are really doing very little.

• They need to have verification. A shortage of verification makes it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits. Reliable third party verification is critical.

• Be careful of companies or individuals that are over-pricing their carbon credits. Why are their credits more expensive? What is their value? Have their prices increased or decreased due to changes in their emissions reductions?

Do the research before purchasing carbon credits. It is important to find if the organization has any history of selling worthless credits which do not yield reductions. There is no point in purchasing carbon credits if they do not benefit you or the environment.

Incoming search terms:

• carbon storage
• carbon footprint

One of the fastest growing fields of investment these days is green investing. Since everyone is always looking for the next big thing this article will focus on what I think is going to be one of the best investment opportunities to look at in a long time: carbon offset credits.

It can be very confusing and certainly requires a good deal of time to sift through the various information that you can readily collect on the internet in regard to carbon offset investments. Do you have either the time or desire to do this? The question to one or both of these questions is probably no. But if you don’t do research, like you would with any other investment, then you’re taking a gamble. So what do you do? Let’s take a quick look at what the whole field is about.

What are carbon credits? That takes a bit of explaining but we’ll make it brief. Carbon credits are what many companies throughout the world are buying to offset their own carbon emissions. These are companies that are in countries that signed the Kyoto protocol a number of years ago. Countries that did not sign the protocol include the U.S., China and India although the Obama administration does want to require U.S. companies to abide by the protocol’s requirements soon. For now, in the U.S. there are voluntary requirements.

A unit of carbon credit is basically a unit of some type of project that consumes one ton of carbon dioxide most typically, although there are other greenhouse gases which are included, and in doing so creates oxygen. The most common way that this happens in nature is when plants and trees take in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen. So nature does this on its own and there are also a number of ways that man has devised to offset carbon admissions as well.

So what is a simple example of utilizing a carbon credit? You can buy the rights to the oxygen that is emitted by a certain amount of land in a rainforest and use this credit to offset the carbon that your company or even your household is emitting. There are simple ways to calculate the amount of carbon you or your company are responsible for emitting each year and once you calculate the amount you then know how much you have to purchase in the way of carbon credits to make your “carbon footprint” neutral.

How does all this work? This is quite easy, actually. There are many organizations, private and government, that have created many projects around the world that sustain rain forests and other natural areas that create oxygen and consume carbon dioxide. For the most part these projects are regulated by a number of organizations including the World Bank and various carbon exchanges. Do not deal with any project that is not regulated and/or endorsed by a respected international organization.

So all you have to do is purchase carbon credits from a regulated and approved project and your company or household can then become carbon neutral. You have paid to help control global warming and the general welfare of the planet on a very basic level. In many countries this is mandatory but in the countries mentioned above it is not. Still, even in these countries, many individuals and companies are purchasing carbon credits – companies, to proclaim their commitment to helping the environment, among other things, and individuals out of a sense of responsibility to help the environment. What is in the process of being created, therefore, is a huge market for carbon credit purchasing and trading.

And if there is a trading market there is a way to make money. Ever heard of “buy low, sell high.” In the second part of this article we’ll talk more specifically about why this market is taking off and who some of the major players are.

Incoming search terms:

• biochar offset protocol
• offset carbons

You can achieve effective carbon management when you use carbon software to do the job.  Carbon software will allow you to actually keep track of your carbon emissions and regulate them, through the use of the carbon software, so that you have effective carbon management.  This is necessary for companies that need to comply with federal, state and local laws and regulations. 

There is an increasing amount of outcry coming from consumer and advocate groups when it comes to carbon management from companies.  Larger companies know that they have to be compliant when it comes to their carbon management and take steps towards doing this, often using carbon software that will generate reports as well as signal when the company is using too much energy in one or more particular area.  This type of carbon management also measures the amount of emissions that are generated by the use of energy.  Everyone knows that energy use of all kinds emits carbon footprints.  In order to generate less carbon footprints that are harmful to the environment as well as quell the carbon emissions, it is necessary for companies to practice good carbon management. 

Even smaller companies can benefit from the use of carbon software.  Carbon software can be used for a variety of different companies to help them measure the emissions that they are generating.  These can come from any type of energy source, including computer servers.  As the laws are becoming more strict when it comes to carbon management, an increasing number of companies are seeking ways to reduce their emissions.  They can do this when they use effective carbon software that will give them accurate reports on emissions as well as be able to generate reports so that they can make sure that they stay in compliance.  Any company that is interested in carbon management can use carbon software for this purpose.  

The carbon software is easy to use and will pretty much run itself once you install it.  It will be able to tell you the amount of carbon emissions you are generating as well as give you insight as to how you can reduce these emissions in certain sectors of your company.  This can make a great deal of difference not only to your company, but to the environment as well.  If your company has pledged to go green, then you need to use carbon software in order to help you attain that goal. 

In order to avoid being out of compliance with legislation as well as to better the environment, a company today needs to practice carbon management.  Using a reliable and easy to use carbon software is the best way to approach this problem and solve any excessive emissions that are being generated from your company.  If you are looking for carbon software, you can find various types that will help your company stay compliant with all laws as well as become greener and cleaner.  Your company can practice carbon management easily and effectively when using a reliable and up to date carbon software product. 

Incoming search terms:

• effective carbon management

Being light and looking slick are two of the most notable things about carbon fiber hoods. The rigidness of carbon fiber car hoods is yet another reason to install one. This performance addition is normally overlooked. Carbon hood manufacturers like DG Motorsports, VIS, Vfiber, Carbon Creations, JSP, and the Seibon carbon fiber hood company have mastered the art of weaving together the stretched out strands of carbon fiber to make carbon fiber hoods that are stronger than steel, but much lighter.

In terms of weight, carbon fiber hoods weigh much less than their factory installed counterparts. Since steel is what primarily comprises OEM hoods, they are very heavy. By installing a carbon fiber car hood, 40 to 50 pounds can potentially be taken off the total weight of the car. When a carbon hood is installed, acceleration times will definitely be faster!

Another benefit of carbon fiber hoods is improved handling. Although very light, a hood made of carbon fiber will still boast great strength and rigidness due to reduced weight in the front of the vehicle near the tires. The effect is better balance; which makes driving easier.

Further looks and performance boasts can be achieved with a custom carbon fiber hood. Aggressive vent design and placement can increased air to the intake or intercooler. Aerodynamics can be augmented with creative body designs and curvature.

When looking at carbon fiber hoods, definitely pay attention to whether or not a layer of UV protection is built in or not. The grade of the carbon fiber used is also important in the quality of the carbon fiber hood produced. Definitely ensure that the carbon fiber used is of grade A quality strands, weaving, and composites.

Several options are available for a custom carbon fiber hood. One option is to go with an EVO style hood that has vents and aggressive styling additions that surpass the OEM factory hood. Color is another feature that can be customized. Two of the most popular colors are a red carbon fiber hood and a silver carbon fiber hood. Vents or a carbon fiber hood scoop are other popular additions. Carbon fiber hood pins are yet another detail that can be added!

Carbon fiber car hoods are definitely not cheap – custom carbon fiber hoods, included. Cheap carbon fiber car hoods CAN be found though, like for the Scion TC or Integra by Acura. The import scene most likely saw the first carbon hood on an Acura in the form of an Integra carbon fiber hood.

Also, the fact that carbon fiber hoods are manufactured with CARBON FIBER is great, as well. The sleek, texture definitely adds that extra element of style to any car. If you want to get the show car look or actually want to benefits of lighter weight, better aerodynamics and handling, carbon fiber hoods are where it’s at. 

Incoming search terms:

• Carbon Fibre Hood on the 2011 Scion Tc

Being a very low weight material and looking cool is what people associate with carbon fiber hoods. The rigidness of carbon fiber car hoods is yet another reason to install one. This fact is often overlooked by car enthusiasts. Masters of the carbon fiber hood process are DG Motorsports, VIS, Vfiber, Carbon Creations, JSP, and the Seibon carbon fiber hood company. They know exactly what it takes to weave strands of carbon fiber to produce the best carbon fiber hoods in the world.

When considering weight, carbon fiber hoods definitely weigh less the stock OEM hoods. Often times, made of mostly steel, factory car hoods are not lightweight. Adding a carbon fiber car hood will decrease around forty to fifty pounds off a car. One can expect relatively faster start times with the installation of a carbon hood.

Something else to consider is the added handling improvement that will be gained from having carbon fiber hoods. Because of the lighter weight of the carbon fiber material while maintaining strength and rigidity, weight is reduced in the front portion of the car; more specifically the front wheels. This increases the car’s balance and enables an easy drive experience.

Custom carbon fiber hoods can be designed to take the car to another level of styling and performance. Vents can be added to carbon fiber car hoods to increase air flow to the engine, intake, or intercooler. Added curves and details can heighten aerodynamics as well.

When looking at carbon fiber hoods, definitely pay attention to whether or not a layer of UV protection is built in or not. Another important detail is the type and grade of carbon fiber that has been used to manufacture the carbon fiber hood you are looking at. You want only grade A carbon fiber strands and the best carbon fiber weaving and composites to make up your hood.

Several options are available for a custom carbon fiber hood. An EVO style hood is a popular way to add a unique look to any car. Another option is color. A red carbon fiber hood and a silver carbon fiber hood are the most requested colors of carbon hoods. Other things that can be added are vents or a carbon fiber hood scoop. Carbon fiber hood pins are yet another detail that can be added!

Custom carbon fiber hoods or even just any carbon fiber car hoods can be costly. Cheap carbon fiber car hoods CAN be found though, like for the Scion TC or Integra by Acura. The import scene most likely saw the first carbon hood on an Acura in the form of an Integra carbon fiber hood.

Also, the fact that carbon fiber hoods are manufactured with CARBON FIBER is great, as well. The sleek, texture definitely adds that extra element of style to any car. For the enthusiast looking for more style or the racer seeking less weight, carbon fiber hoods will definitely fit the bill.

Writer:  Darren Ng

Research Paper

Global Warming Crisis

Global warming is one, if not the most discussed concerns of our contemporary society. In fact, it has engendered protracted debates between and among our top scientists, whose differing theories seek to unravel not only the real causes but also certain viable solutions which can be framed to address it. If only to cite, two schools of thought emerge from these heated discussions. On the one side of the spectrum, one group of scientist-thinkers claims that the rapid increase of carbon dioxide emission, owing much from the exponential growth of industries of the post war era, is the chief cause of the present global warming crisis. By contrast, another group that which strongly disagrees with the aforesaid stance maintains that global warming is not really attributable to an increased carbon dioxide emission as it is to due to the inevitability of the earth’s natural processes of cyclic heating and cooling within a given span of time.

Thus, while it is agreed that the globe is in fact warming, I believe carbon dioxide is not the underlying reason behind it. This paper makes a case for the necessity of continuing studies as regards to the matter, as I am more inclined to believe that, based on my readings, carbon dioxide emission does not constitute the real cause of global warming, if by ‘cause’ we take to mean that the increased production of carbon dioxide acts as the sufficient explanation of global warming, let alone its sole mitigating factor. The stance which this paper takes is a somewhat critical to the more popular understanding of global warming crisis; i.e. this paper is specifically critical to Al Gore, along with some 2,500 scientist who work at the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and roughly about 86% of American citizens, who summarily hold that global warming is a problem brought about by human doing. This paper seeks to underscore the incurable ambiguities which mark the contention that global warming is entirely due to the increased incidence of greenhouse concentrations, which in itself is nothing but the consequential result of the perceived increase of carbon dioxide emissions.

Carbon Dioxide Emission as Causative Ingredient to Global Warming?

As previously mentioned, there are many scientists who claim that the current state of the industrial societies is a key determining factor that aggravates the noticeable increase of world atmospheric and marine temperatures. Crucial to this is to cite that world economies’ heavy dependence on fossil fuels, which in turn leads to excessive carbon dioxide emission, is responsible for the increased incidence of greenhouse effect being experienced the world over.  For instance, Homer-Dixon, the author of the book The upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization he cites that “concentration of greenhouse gases are increasing fast and the earth is getting hotter” (Homer-Dixon 162). And it, in fact, is not hard to establish that there is a direct correlation existing between the increasing world temperature and the equally rapid increase of carbon dioxide emission recorded in as many years. One only needs to show that many studies, such as the one published by the Environmental Protection Agency, rely on arguing the fact that carbon dioxide discharge and the world’s atmospheric temperatures have risen “by over 35% since the rise of Industrialization” so to make a convenient conclusion that it is the primary cause of global warming(Carbon Dioxide, 2008).

The EPA’s argument is relevant in the discussion since it brings into the fore the tendency of many organizations to take carbon dioxide and global warming under the lenses of cause-effect model. In many respects, this is likewise the crux of the arguments espoused by the Kyoto Protocol – an international environmental accord sanctioned by the United Nations, aimed at decreasing world production of greenhouse gases. According to the agreement, world governments acceding to such an accord must ensure that steps are undertaken to cut their respective carbon dioxide emissions “below the range” which can be devastating to nature (Kyoto Protocol). This, moreover, is also the assumption of those who are advocating the use of nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. According to Max Schulz who is the writer of the article Nuclear Power, explains that the world needs to discover viable sources of energy through “clean technology”… “without pollution or greenhouse gas emissions (Schulz 90).  Herein, it would be necessary to note that the reasoned premise of the Kyoto Protocol and arguments for nuclear power rests on the plain assumption that there exists a direct cause-and-effect correlation between carbon dioxide production and rapid increase of world atmospheric temperatures. Which is why, these arguments tend to regard global warming as anthropogenic in essence – i.e., it is a phenomenon brought about by human doing.

That having said, there are still reasons to think that no one can really stop the continued warming of the world. Not even the Kyoto Protocol – an already massive initiative, to say the least, taken by humanity to address the problem – dares to dream of averting the rise of world temperatures all together. As indeed, our optimum technologies nowadays have yet to frame adequate solutions to curb the rate of global warming. If this perceived helplessness in respect to global warming speaks of anything about our present situation, it merely proves that there is more into the problem than merely attributing it to human doing. This is because if global warming is really a problem constituted by human fault, then it is with human initiatives that such problem can and must be remedied. Apparently however, human progress cannot be blamed for the recent rising trends of global temperatures. 

Global Warming as the Earth’s Natural Way of Being

While it may be easy to establish the correlation between the amounts of carbon dioxide emitted in the last 50 years and the rise of world temperatures, it is nevertheless difficult to construe a necessary cause-and-effect connection between them.  For say that carbon dioxide alone is the sufficient explanation to global warming means that we are reducing the problem into a single cause; and this must not be so. In Homer-Dixon’s book he cites a quote from Michel Jarraud who is the secretary general of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization.  Michael Jarraud contends,

“You cannot attribute (global warming) to a single cause. It’s about the very complex interaction between all the elements that make up the very complex machine that is the Earth…But global warming is likely to lead to more frequent extraordinary events and greater intensity of these events” (Homer-Dixon 162).

In the first place, global warming should be seen as a natural process or occurrence, or a phenomenon not generated by human activities. In fact, global warming happens periodically; as this was proven by Petr Chylek who is the Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science. For instance, in his report, he maintains that during the 1920’s, Greenland’s temperature was recorded higher than it was during many instances 2005. With such telling evidence, he concludes that, “the Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise” (Chylek). The same may be said of the trend which shows that during the period of 1900-1940, the temperatures were rising even when industrialization was not as massive compare to what we have now. After this era, the Post-War economic boom was to commence. Ironically, this was the period when the temperature dropped and did not begin to rise until four decades later. Besides, one must also note with care that the past 150 years have seen a very minute increase in world temperature – only half a degree Celsius. If with the massive production of carbon dioxide the rate of world temperature increase does not appear to be so drastic, then it is evident that carbon dioxide is not the sole cause of global warming.

Secondly, where carbon dioxide is in question, it is certainly insightful to note that human activities do not really generate as much carbon dioxide emission as does nature itself, when it produces the carbon dioxide in manner being more significant, if not undeniably massive. This is certainly an interesting angle to look at; for while we agree to a certain respect that carbon dioxide is a heat-generating compound in the atmosphere, it nevertheless is just one of the many gaseous compounds comprising greenhouse gases. As such, carbon dioxide comprises a meager 0.97% of the total greenhouse gasses present in the air (USA TODAY). Moreover, human activities are not to sole progenitor of carbon dioxide. The earth’s land surface, it must be noted, emits carbon dioxide as well. For instance, when a volcanic eruption occurs, the earth produces more carbon dioxide than the amount produced by industrial factories around the world, and certainly more than the amount of the same emitted by human beings. This is to speak only of the earth’s terrestrial surface, which is roughly about 30% of the world’s surface area. The largest emitter of carbon dioxide is by the larger marine surface, as it makes up the remaining 70% of our world’s geographical composition. Thus, humanity must not be the one to be blamed for the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now. Besides, on account of the fact that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is insignificant, there is a truth in saying that carbon is not the sole reason that explains global warming.

Thirdly, not only must people start to realize that global warming is a phenomenon that happens on a natural basis, they too must take into careful account the significant role which solar radiation plays in ushering the world into another phase of warmer temperatures. In other words, the warming of the earth is in fact believed to be caused by the sun. This is exactly the contention leveled by Jeffrey Gordon in his book called Solar Energy: The State of the Art. He contends that solar energy acts as the major contributor to the warming of the earth. This is because he believes that “urban temperature and the sky view” manifest a direct correlation (Gordon 14). To briefly explain, Gordon believes that cloud formation in the sky is influenced by the amount of solar radiation being emitted by the sun. Ordinarily, we speak of cloud formation as a phenomenon explicable by the rate of evaporation and condensation of water vapor transpiring in the earth’s atmosphere (The World Book Encyclopedia 111). But, Gordon believes that cosmic rays are the actual reason behind the formation of clouds – i.e., sun rays play a role in the formation of clouds. Therefore, if clouds are generated by cosmic rays, and that they absorb and reflect solar radiation, which in turn make the earth’s surface cool or warm according to the cloud density, then it is with good reasons to claim that global warming is indeed caused by natural processes and not by human doing.

Still, there is a need to further underscore the fact that many doomsday prophecies in respect to the true state of the earth appear to be patently exaggerated, if not wholly unfounded as well. A glaring example would be to cite how scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with analyses and reports accentuating the correlation between the earth’s temperatures on the one hand and the levels of carbon dioxide on the other hand. This, we might as well be reminded, is in itself an indication of correlation but not of necessary connection, as argued hereinabove. Unfortunately, these scientists argued that, using the temperature-carbon dioxide correlation, the warming globe would be a precursor to a significant rise in sea levels within the next one hundred years. And by further claiming that sea levels are expected to rise at least twenty feet above the present level, these scientist warn of extensive flooding, reduction of earth’s land surface, and all sorts of natural disasters.

We need to point out, however, that this claim is at the very least preposterous. This is for the plain reason that, according to the recent studies shown in a BBC documentary called ‘The Global Warming Swindle’, it would take another 1000 years to have our sea level to rise dramatically by twenty feet, or less (Scott). Hardly over, another example pertinent to some scientists’ tendency to proffer unfounded studies comes through research by Thomas Knutson of the NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. According to him, “a greenhouse gas-induced warming may lead to a gradually increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms” (Knutson 16). Another scientist from the IPCC agrees with Knutson, and even further researched on this case and concluded that we are on the way to another ice age. Once again, the extremities palpable in their conclusions make their claims highly dubitable. At the very least, we need to inquire why scientists arrive at differing conclusions – i.e., one speaks of catastrophic hurricanes, yet another prophesies a looming ice-age – using the same climate model as evidence. We have reasons to believe that these scientists have deliberately pushed their interpretation beyond what their evidences imply. And reason behind this, we might as well surmise, lies in the need to attract the public attention at the expense of portraying the truth of the matter regarding the state of our nature.

Providing evidence for this case, the authors J. Timmons Roberts and Bradley C. Parks in their book, ‘A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy’ would most likely support my case. Roberts and Parks cite that, “Though it would be impossible to say that any single hurricane was caused by global warming, the increase in air and water temperatures has undoubtedly increased the evaporation and energy in the climate system.”  This phrase is so significant because it disproves that global warming is the trigger towards storms.  It also shows that the increasing carbon dioxide has no correlation towards rising temperature, inasmuch as it is mainly evaporation and energy that affect climate.

Finally, it is imperative to note that many scientists’ tendency to lopsidedly zero in on construing doomsday leaves no room for appreciating the positive ramifications of global warming. During the course of my research, I realized that there are those who say that a warmer globe does not necessarily spell doom for humanity. On the contrary, it may even be beneficial for us. Bruce E. Johansen in his book The Global Warming: Desk Reference for instance contends, “a slight rise in temperatures and carbon dioxide levels would stimulate the growth of many plants” (Johansen 105). This is because the plants will more largely absorb carbon dioxide when there is more of it. Moreover, this proves that the earth’s natural cycle is on course, and that there is no need to unnecessarily incite panic from among the greater public. The earth will learn and adapt to climate changes as much as humans, and every other animal, would.

With the evidence from many studies from authors such as John Christian, Roy Spencer and many listed above, I confidently believe that carbon dioxide is not the reason behind global warming.  Maybe our media is so influenced by our political leaders today that many of us follow behind them into believing that carbon dioxide is causing the warming of the earth.  Why do they want us to believe this?  My theory is when politics wants to be involved in any issue; their main concern is to search for benefits.  So what is the solution behind global warming?  There may seem like there is no solution but ultimately the solution is for the selfish to become unselfish for the selfish reason.  If carbon dioxide is the real cause of global warming, our governments should use more of their money to create better ways of transportation rather than gain income from the warming.  Transportation infrastructure includes more biking routes, bus stops, underground trains etc.  This is proven to work as European countries implement it into their infrastructure.  Thus, if global warming is a natural cycle, then we cannot do anything but to use more of the governments’ income to invest in other ways of living as global warming comes closer each day. 

By way of conclusion, I wish to end with a thought which affirms the central roadmap and chief contention of this paper – i.e., the debate about global warming cannot be laid to rest, so long as the entire truth about the matter is not fully unraveled. Right now, the world is fed with much-publicized but too-often-pessimistic views about the ill-effects of global warming. And much too often, these supposed scientific studies pin the blame on human beings and their otherwise magnificent activities and achievements. This, I believe, is rather unfair. In the discussions that were developed, it was seen that there is more into global warming than merely attributing it to carbon dioxide emissions of the last few decades, and the increased concentration of greenhouse gasses observed in the present times. In the final analysis, we have to admit that the earth’s climate has always been changing. And as we have been through cold and warm periods, we must appreciate the fact that nearly all living species have found, in ways more than one, their respective ways of surviving. Certainly, the debate is far from being over.

Incoming search terms:

• water climate

The article is available at http://probebusiness.blogspot.com/2009/12/india-on-reducing-carbon-emissions.html

In the run up for Copenhagen Climate Conference to be scheduled from 7-Dec-09, India has become the center stage for the key negotiations between developed and developing nations for its stance on reducing Carbon emissions. India has expressed concerns over sacrificing its ‘development and objectives of eradicating poverty’ at the expense of ‘costs for reducing greenhouse emissions’. The main obstacle India sees is its spending costs on reducing Carbon emissions that would have a significant negative impact on it’s objectives of development and poverty eradication.

In this article I have tried to analyze the concerns of India by evaluating the costs of reducing Carbon emissions and the costs of not reducing Carbon emissions, and base my conclusions on the differential costs between the two. To reiterate I am considering the following costs:
1. Costs incurred for Not reducing Carbon emissions – CN
2. Costs incurred for Reducing Carbon emissions till 350 ppm – CR
Comparing the above two costs If CN > CR Then reducing Carbon emissions would have a negative impact on India’s Objectives of development and eradicating poverty
Else If CN < CR Then reducing Carbon emissions will have a positive impact on India’s objectives and India should aim at reducing Carbon emissions.

1.Costs incurred for not reducing Carbon emissions – CN

According to a study released by the group Economics of Climate Adaptation – ECA [Swiss Re, Mckinsey & Company, ClimateWorks, the European Commission, Rockefeller Foundation and Standard Chartered Bank make up the ECA working group] under climate change scenarios, the climate related disasters can result in 9-13 percent of loss of India’s GDP by 2010 and 19% loss of India’s GDP by 2030. Accordingly the Costs for not reducing Carbon emissions till 2030 i.e, CN is 19%. However there is a potential for this loss to be increased as the long term effects of climate related disasters are serious on the economy.

To examine how much loss a natural disaster may cause, let’s take a case study of the floods that recently hit North Karnataka in October 2009, and examine the losses incurred as a result of the disaster. This would give us an idea of the approximate losses that would incur if a natural disaster of similar severity happens due to the climate changes resulting from not reducing Carbon emissions, which could have been avoided otherwise.
Following are some of the significant losses caused by the floods: >> 194 people died
>> 10 million homeless. This means that the Govt had created 10 million poverty people at an instant by letting the disaster happen.
>> Losses totaled to 18,000 crore, according to the State government estimates
>> State govt sought 9,000 crore flood relief from the Central govt.
>> State demanded for the release of 1.5 lakh metric tonne food grains under BPL rates for the affected people
>> 25 lakh hectares of crop area affected. This amount of land would not be productive for a few months which is a Loss. The investments in terms of labor, resources, subsidy provided by the govt on fertilizers from citizen’s taxes are totally wasted, A  very big loss again.
>> Supply chain disruption. Industries, Businesses, Prices, Markets in other areas which  were reliant on the flood hit area are affected. The standstill region wouldn’t be able to supply any goods or services which it was supposed to, to other businesses.
>> Inflation figures during this period.
Vegetable prices up 50%, potatoes up 81%, sugar up 44% and rice up 19%. Food prices were more broadly up by 16% compared to the previous year. Although floods weren’t the only reason, they were significant in contributing for rising Inflation.This is a serious impact. Higher inflation would reduce the buying power of people and would create more poverty
>> The state’s machinery and resources are dedicated for flood relief works which would  have otherwise been dedicated for other Productive works
>> Chances of spreading of epidemics are very high. More spending on health.
>> Affects both the physical and mental health of the people in the flood affected region. The implications of this are very serious.
>> Job losses
>> The list runs

All the above effects which would be caused because of ignoring the climate change disasters have eventually resulted in hampering development and creating more poverty which would have been avoided otherwise.

2. Costs incurred with spending on Reducing Carbon emissions – CR

There will be some significant costs associated with spending (or rather investing) on reducing Carbon emissions. The following are the areas where the government has to chiefly spend if it makes a commitment for Carbon emission reduction.

1. Spending on newer energy resources
India should start spending (investing) in newer energy resources which are more energy efficient so as to reduce it’s over dependence on burning of fossil fuels like coal which is less energy efficient and results in more Carbon emission.

2. Spending on building more energy efficient products
This would apply to a wide range of products from almost every sector.India needs to build Energy efficient engines, Energy efficient commercial and residential buildings, Energy efficient transportation of all forms, Machines and Technologies that enable energy efficiency.

3. There would be costs incurred due to reduced economic development taking into consideration the reduced economic development taking into consideration the factors such as unemployment, Industries spending on equipments, technologies for reducing Carbon emissions, policies, administrative and legislative costs and more

So what would be the likely total cost for accomplishing all the above stated spending at reducing Carbon emission?
Unfortunately as of now [5-Dec-09] I have not been able to find any data released by Indian govt about the costs estimates for reducing its Carbon emissions. I urge the Govt of India to release its estimates for costs associated with reducing Carbon emission at a particular target.Had this been released our work would have been easier. But that shouldn’t stop us from continuing further as the cost estimates on reducing Carbon emissions are available from many other sources. Various academic and research groups like Economics for Equity and Environment network (E3), groups from European universities have tried to estimate the costs for attaining emission reduction till 350ppm. One group starts from the (realistic) assumption of high unemployment, and finds that long-run employment and economic growth would be increased by a program of public investment in green technology and emissions reduction that leads to 350 ppm. The other three groups adopt the common assumption that short-run unemployment can be ignored in long-run models. They generally find that the needed emissions reductions will cost an average of 1 to 3 percent of world economic output, for some years to come. Studies from other groups such as Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have arrived at more optimistic estimates where the savings from fuels would be more compared to the spending. They assume high oil prices at 140$ per barrel (Greenpeace). Now considering Mckinsey’s estimates (Non conservative and pessimistic compared to the estimates of Greenpeace and UCS), it would cost 2.3% of India’s GDP to halve the Carbon emission growth by 2030. Hence the Costs for Reducing the Carbon Emission – CR would be 2.3% of India’s GDP.

Comparison of the Costs between reducing and not reducing Carbon emissions

As already reasoned before, the value of CN is 19% of GDP and the value of CR is 2.3% GDP. The Difference Costs of CN and CR = 19 – 2.3 = 16.7 % of GDP
India would actually save 16.7 % of GDP subjected to the reasons presented above if it aims at reducing Carbon emissions. These savings can eventually be used for economic development and reducing poverty. The earlier reasons from Indian govt that reducing Carbon emissions would reduce economic development and increase poverty would hence needs to be strongly suspected.

According to the 2006 military data released by Central Intelligence Agency [CIA, US], India’s military expenditures cost 2.5 % GDP annually. These military expenditures are effectively the safety needs of the country to protect the citizens from deaths and losses.If the climate changes are allowed by not reducing the Carbon emissions, the resulting climate change disasters would eventually lead to more deaths and homeless people. This is indeed a basic safety and physiological need for the country. The costs for mitigating this is spending on reduction of Carbon emission [ CR ] which is 2.3 % of GDP. Comparing the Annual 2.5 % GDP costs on military expenditures with 2.3 % GDP costs till 2030 for the safety needs of similar importance, the spending on Carbon emissions looks very meager. Again India need not bear all the costs [ 2.3% of GDP ] for reducing Carbon emissions alone. India can actually make a case for contributions from other developed nations. India has now started pressing the developed nations for contributing 0.5 % of GDP to fund its costs.

Based on the reasons presented in the article, I conclude that India should target for reducing Carbon emissions so as to pursue with its objectives of economic development and eradication of poverty.India should focus on building newer energy sources and energy efficient products towards its pursuit for greener world. I hope to see a positive move from India towards this end in the Copenhagen Climate Conference.

Global warming Skepticism
With the leaking of emails and the documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the university of East Anglia, UK the skeptics of Global warming who are arguing that climate change is not man-made have found new reason to support their claim. What if the skeptics were right? Should India be not bothered at all about reducing carbon emissions? Watch out in the next post.

Appendix
For the Case study of Floods in Karnataka
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8289975.stm ]
[http://www.hindu.com/2009/10/24/stories/2009102450360100.htm ]
[http://sify.com/news/Karnataka-demands-Rs-9-000-crore-flood-relief-package-from-Centre-news-jkuv4ecfabd.html ]
[http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/10/08/stories/2009100851841700.htm ]
All the links presented in the argument were accessed by latest on 5-Dec-09

Incoming search terms:

• Agua e Vida OR Sierra club OR Amnesty International OR Greenpeace
• copenhagen climate
• effects of economic development
• india economic development and carbon emissions
• McKinseys
• total oil energy efficiency