Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

"Human Thirst Makes Earth Quake - Crown Capital Eco Management Renewable Energy Scam Human Thirst Makes Earth Quake http://crowncapitalmngt.com/blogpdf/Human_Thirst_Makes_Earth_Quake.pdf As we all know earthquake is a catastrophic natural disaster. Most earthquake-related deaths are caused by the collapse of structures and the construction practices play a tremendous role in the death toll of an earthquake. In southern Italy in 1909 more than 100,000 people perished in an earthquake that struck the region. Almost half of the people living in the region of Messina were killed due to the easily collapsible structures that dominated the villages of the region. Though there are some ways to prevent this from happening, it can never be considered as risk avoidance. A larger earthquake that struck San Francisco three years earlier had killed fewer people (about 700) because building construction practices were different type (predominantly wood). Survival rates in the San Francisco earthquake was about 98%, that in the Messina earthquake was between 33% and 45%) (Zebrowski, 1997). Even a moderate rupture beneath a city with structures unprepared for shaking can produce tens of thousands of casualties. Due to this fact, Crown Eco Managementdetermined that safety measures for this could not be compared to fraud prevention. Although probably the most important that we should know, direct shaking effects are not the only hazard associated with earthquakes, other effects such as landslides, liquefaction, and tsunamis have also played important part in destruction produced by earthquakes. According to the Crown researchers, some earthquakes are not natural. Human beings can actually cause them. That's the case with an earthquake in Lorca, Spain, last May. The quake measured 5.1 on the Richter scale and killed nine people. According to an analysis published in Crown Eco Management, the Lorca quake was caused by the extraction of groundwater from an aquifer near the faul

"The Commission The Commission by environmental campaigners forecast 3 trillion euros would generate by 2050 on their green revolution campaign- to make EU energy almost totally carbon free. Read more With emerging renewable energy alternatives today, it is highly important that they be given enough attention even early on their developmental stages. Such technologies might not be ready for commercial uses yet but their potential should be amply tested and funded. Society's modern lifestyle is in serious need of energy that can be generated and consumed and yet, not compromise the future state for generations to come; to have no anxiety that it would cause damage to the environment. The energy shift The energy shift would already create around half a million extra jobs by 2020, Crown researchersfrom German aerospace center DLR, which also specializes in energy and transport, found. It has legislated to ensure that 20 percent of the energy mix is green by the said year, as part of a set of three main environmental goals. But it has yet to achieve agreement on binding targets beyond 2020, even though non-binding roadmaps have laid out the need for a virtually carbon-free electricity mix by 2050. Commissioned by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), the 2012 Energy evolution report lays out risk avoidance towards almost carbon-free energy. They include curbing energy demand through greater efficiency, increasing investment in wind and solar power and phasing out subsidies for carbon-intensive energy, such as coal. To bring about the energy transformation, it sees a need to invest about 99 billion euros between now and 2050 or else this will be added on the list of renewable energy scam, but it says the financial gains are much greater. Renewable energy has no fuel costs; the fuel cost savings in the energy evolution scenario reach a total of 3, 010 billion euros up to 2050, or 75 billion per year. Another benefit is job-creation, one of the

"It seems strange that Mr. Coleman does apparently little to no research prior to making statements. In this article he relies mainly on insinuation, inference and emotional arguments to claim the science of global warming is wrong. Within the scope of his arguments he makes clearly obtuse errors that are sometimes even comical."