Group items tagged

When the dramatic discovery of the ozone hole in 1986 forced the banning of chlorofluorocarbons  (CFCs), the refrigeration industry switched to hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HCFC¹s are also ozone depleting substances but less so than CFCs. Meanwhile, both HCFCs and HFCs are potent greenhouse gasses.

Greenfreeze uses hydrocarbons as the blowing agent for the insulation foam and for the refrigerant. Hydrocarbons are completely ozone friendly, and used in refrigeration have minimal global warming impact.Hydrocarbon technology is not dependent on patented foaming agents and refrigerants. The operating costs are lower, and the maintenance is easier than with HCFC or HFC technology.

If we were to use global dimming pollutants to stave off the effects of global warming, we would still face many problems, such as:Human health problems from the soot/smogEnvironmental problems such as acid rainEcological problems such as changes in rainfall patterns (as the Ethiopian famine example above reminds us) which can kill millions, if not billions.Climatologists are stressing that the roots of both global dimming causing pollutants and global warming causing greenhouse gases have to be dealt with together and soon.

The death toll that global dimming may have already caused is thought to be massive.Climatologists studying this phenomenon believe that the reflection of heat have made waters in the northern hemisphere cooler. As a result, less rain has formed in key areas and crucial rainfall has failed to arrive over the Sahel in Northern Africa.In the 1970s and 1980s, massive famines were caused by failed rains which climatologists had never quite understood why they had failed.The answers that global dimming models seemed to provide, the documentary noted, has led to a chilling conclusion: “what came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations [from Europe and North America] contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more” with hunger and starvation.

Industrialised nations are responsible for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions - both today and historically. In the past, economic progress was linked directly to carbon dioxide emissions (via the burning of oil, coal and gas to generate energy). Renewable energy sources change this, but only a small number of nations have begun to implement them in earnest.

Two billion people – one third of the world's population – have no access to electricity for basic needs such as lighting or cooking. Getting people the clean and reliable energy necessary for essential needs such as clean water, health care facilities, heating and lighting is one of the most pressing problems facing humanity today.

Industrialised nations have the capital, resources and expertise to jump-start their renewable energy industries. Obviously, countries with advanced space programs, established higher educational systems and abundant cash for investment are better positioned to implement these new energy technologies then countries still struggling with basic energy needs.

Population and Climate ChangeA “Malthusian” theory about the relationship between population growth and the environment suggests that as populations grow, they will strip their resources leading to famine, hunger and environmental degradation.As detailed further in this site’s section on population, that is an oversimplification and has largely shown not to be true. Instead, it has been factors such as politics and economics (i.e. how we use our resources and for what purpose) that has determined environmental degradation or sustainability.For example, the world’s wealthiest 20% (i.e. the rich countries) consume approximately 80% of the world’s resources, while the rest of humanity shares the other 20% of resource consumed, as noted in the consumption section of this web site.In regards to climate change, countries with large populations such as China and India have not been the countries contributing greenhouse gases for the decades that has been required to trigger climate change, as noted further above.While in total amounts their emissions might be high (China is second largest emitter after the United States, for example), per person, their emissions are significantly smaller as noted earlier.

as countries such as China, India and Brazil grow in prosperity, there will be large populations with purchasing power, consuming more goods and services, thus making more demands on the planet.Indeed, many environmentalists have constantly noted that if such countries were to follow the style of development that the rich countries used and emulate them, then our planet may not be able to cope much longer.

researchers have found that depending on what variables you factor in, the planet can support an extremely large population, or an extremely small one. These ranges are ridiculously wide: from 2 billion to 147 billion people! Why such variance? It depends on how efficiently resources are used and for what purpose (i.e. economics).

In 1992, a report was published by the United Nations, which proposes that if CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions continue with present trends (which is the case), the coastal plains of Bangladesh and the Netherlands will flood by the year 2100. Furthermore, the islands of the Maldives would completely disappear.