Group items tagged

Alarmed that hope was soon be gone on the emphasis on "green" energy, presidents Obama's re-election has put a new optimism in the step of environmentalists restoring hope not just for more aggressive climate-change policy but to continue on the said project despite the unforeseen failure and serial bankruptcies of Solyndra and other green-energy in unison. In 1970's we were at the lowest in terms of energy resources are concerned because hydrocarbon energy such as oil, natural gas and coal were in short supply, expensive and were being imported from unstable regions overseas, we were then left with no choice but endow with renewable energy. The problem with hydrocarbon energy is that it produces eccentric amount of air pollution. As time passes by, technology has found a way to reduce air pollution. It appears that unpredictably, conventional domestic hydrocarbon energy has become abundant again despite unrelenting federal hostility. The global-warming crusade is still hanging onto its dreams of political relevance. Why is this green energy important? Now that we had proven that green energy is the golden road to prosperity was in fact a lie, but somehow the strategy of forcing higher-cost energy sources on consumers and propping them up with taxpayer subsidies is somewhat been blinded from the laws of economics. Meaning we are all paying twice. To be sure, if the government will support financially and authorize any form of economic activity, it will "create jobs." However, as Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, author of Regulating to Disaster, she patiently explains, this kind of reasoning ignores the famous lesson of Frederic Bastiat about what is unseen: "What is seen according to Bastiat, are the jobs directly created by the government, and what is not seen are the workers displaced by the effects of increased taxes, tariffs and government regulation." The idea could have been more believable if we actually got some of the green jobs. In fact, new emp

The economic development of one country is dependent upon the ability of the authorities to set up a highly suitable, competitive and reliable electricity sector. Why is natural gas better than coal boilers? Only when there is extreme environmental pressure or substantial reduction in loads that conversion from coal to 100% natural gas is possible. Not until the 20th century until natural gas was used for production of energy, it was dismissed as a useless byproduct of crude oil production until then. But now natural gas accounts for 23 percent of the world's energy consumption and still growing. The International Energy Agency predicts that the demand for natural gas will grow by approximately 44 percent through 2035. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning conventional fuel not to mention it has been one of the most economical energy sources. It is an environmentally friendly and efficient source of energy. It produces lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than heavier hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Natural gas fuels electric power generators, heats buildings and is used as a raw material in many consumer products, such as those made of traditional plastics. However, natural gas has never been a cheaper fuel than coal. Coal is one of the longest-used and is considered as the most abundant fossil fuels on Earth. Coal mining has been going on since then 17th century. Coal burning boilers have also been around for a long time, and while they may not always be popular, these machines have some definite advantages in terms of costs and simplicity. Because it is the most abundant it is the cheapest form of fossil fuel to burn. But coal boilers on the other hand have harmful effects on the environment and human health. Its emissions contain sulfur combines with air to create the poison gas sulfur oxide. When this gas releases into the atmosphere, it causes polluting rain. Extracting coal from mines further damages soil and water resources, adding to the

The economic development of one country is dependent upon the ability of the authorities to set up a highly suitable, competitive and reliable electricity sector. Why is natural gas better than coal boilers? Only when there is extreme environmental pressure or substantial reduction in loads that conversion from coal to 100% natural gas is possible. Not until the 20th century until natural gas was used for production of energy, it was dismissed as a useless byproduct of crude oil production until then. But now natural gas accounts for 23 percent of the world's energy consumption and still growing. The International Energy Agency predicts that the demand for natural gas will grow by approximately 44 percent through 2035. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning conventional fuel not to mention it has been one of the most economical energy sources. It is an environmentally friendly and efficient source of energy. It produces lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions than heavier hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Natural gas fuels electric power generators, heats buildings and is used as a raw material in many consumer products, such as those made of traditional plastics. However, natural gas has never been a cheaper fuel than coal. Coal is one of the longest-used and is considered as the most abundant fossil fuels on Earth. Coal mining has been going on since then 17th century. Coal burning boilers have also been around for a long time, and while they may not always be popular, these machines have some definite advantages in terms of costs and simplicity. Because it is the most abundant it is the cheapest form of fossil fuel to burn. But coal boilers on the other hand have harmful effects on the environment and human health. Its emissions contain sulfur combines with air to create the poison gas sulfur oxide. When this gas releases into the atmosphere, it causes polluting rain. Extracting coal from mines further damages soil and water resources, adding to the

source: http://blog.crowncapitalmngt.com/watch-60-years-of-climate-change-in-15-seconds/ According to NASA, 2013 was tied (with 2009 and 2006) for seventh warmest year globally on record, dating back to 1880. NASA scientists have played a leading role in climate research in recent decades and the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) this month updated a report analyzing worldwide surface temperatures. "Long-term trends in surface temperatures are unusual and 2013 adds to the evidence for ongoing climate change," GISS climatologist Gavin Schmidt said. "While one year or one season can be affected by random weather events, this analysis shows the necessity for continued, long-term monitoring." The NASA data finds that with the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 134-year record have all come since the latest turn of the century, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the warmest years on record. cliamte Global average temperatures for 2013 (Credit: NASA) To drive the point home, GISS created the below animation that shows the increase in temperatures worldwide over the past 60 years, compiled from data collected by over 1,000 meteorological stations around the globe. A release from NASA makes the case that the increase in temperatures over the long-term is more a social problem than a matter of eons-long natural climate patterns: Driven by increasing man-made emissions, the level of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere presently is higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. This summer, NASA plans to launch the Orbiting Carbon Observatory with the goal of studying both natural and manmade sources of carbon dioxide, one of the gases believed to be largely to blame for climate change.

A world becoming warmer and experiencing more droughts and other climate-connected disasters is apt to bring about a considerable upsurge in fierce conflicts between individuals as well as whole societies, a major study has revealed.An analysis of 61 in-depth cases of violence has shown that personal clashes and wider civil conflicts grow considerably in number with significant changes to weather patterns, such as rising temperature and lack of rain, scientists said.Even fairly modest shifts away from the average lead to noticeable rise in the occurrence of violence, according to the study which theorized that the expected rise of in average world temperatures this century could result in a 50 per cent growth in major violent conflicts such as civil wars. The scientists suggest that climate shifts, especially rising temperatures, are bound to cause more frequent conflicts over progressively declining natural resources, on top of the physiological impact on people due to hotter weather. "We need to be cautious here. We do not mean that it is inevitable that further warming in the future will produce more conflict. We are saying that previous changes in climate -- especially, past temperature increase -- are connected with increasing personal and group disputes," said Marshall Burke of the University of California, Berkeley. "It is certainly possible that future communities will be more able to deal with severe temperatures than we do today; but we believe that it is risky to just presume that this will be so," said Mr. Burke, one of the authors of the study published in the journal Science. The study was based on an investigation of the scholastic literature for historical narratives of violent disputes, from individual aggression, such as murder and assaults to greater conflicts such as riots, racial tensions, civil war and even primary declines of civilisations that existed thousands of years back. Disputes between groups rather than between persons exhibited