1717troutman.com

Archive for September, 2011

How To Make Major Oil Companies Reduce Their Global Warming Impact

Are you mad about the global warming impact of the major oil companies?

Would you like to help reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmposphere?

Here’s an easy way that you can help prevent global warming from getting worse just by changing one simple purchasing habit:

Every oil company website lists how that particular company is striving to improve its production of oil while reducing its greenhouse gas emissions,but all oil companies are not created equal. Buying your gas from eco-friendly oil and gas companies can help shift the overall business environment in a way that will reduce the amount of CO2 emmissions because your buying behavior will encourage the more polluting oil companies to change their practices in order to get your business.

**Chevron and Exxon Mobil earn D+’s when it comes to global warming**

With a small bit of research you can quickly find a lot of information about which oil companies are contributing the most to global warming and which are contributing the least. In conducting my own mini research project I found a 2003 report released by Oekom Research, a Munich-based firm, that rated the 26 major oil and gas companies on a scale from A+ to D-. D+. However, I also found some other sources, which studied the pollution from American-based oil refineries, which painted ChevronTexaco in a better light.

Also, you might want to note, in June 2005, eight communities in Nigeria sued several large oil companies for gas flaring. Gas flaring is a process that releases a number of global warming causing pollutants, including methane and carbon dioxide, and Exxon, Chevon and Shell were among the defendants.

**Purchase your gas from Citgo, BP, and smaller companies to lend your finanical support to the oil companies doing the most to help minimize global warming.**

Aftering doing my research I came to the conclusion that, while all oil companies put on a public face that they care about the environment, Citgo, BP, and the smaller companies such as Valero and Diamond Shamrock often lead the environmental pack.

So, my recommendation would be to avoid shopping for gasoline at ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco whenever possible and instead pump your gas at Citgo, BP or smaller companies. It will help prevent global warming from getting worse and it can help reduce other environmental degradation as well.

However, you don’t need to just take my word for it. You can do your own research about which oil companies do the most to minimize their global warming impact, but weather you take my word for it, or you do your own research, I want you to understand the importance of your your gas purchasing behavior. If you are mindful of where you spend your money, you can have a significant influence in getting oil companies to be part of the global warming solution!

Sources:

1. Baue, Wiliam. “Report Finds Oil Companies’ Social and Environmental Practices Unsustainable.”‘ Social Funds.com. Found January 14, 2007 at http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/1193.html.

2. Cohen, Jeff. “Buy your gas at Citgo: Join the Buy-cott!”‘ Published Monday, May 16, 2005 by CommonDreams.org.

3. “Gas flaring contributes to climate change.”‘ ClimateLaw.org. Found January 14, 2007 at http://www.climatelaw.org/gas.flaring/report/section6.

4. “Oil refinery rankings.”‘ Environmental Defense.org. Found January 28, 2007 aqt http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/1586_Facility%20Rankings.htm.

5. “Nigerian Communities Sue Oil Companies to Stop Gas Flaring.”‘ ENS-newswire.com. Found Jan. 28, 2007 at http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2005/2005-06-23-02.asp.

Ski holiday resorts all over the world are taking an active interest in the affects of global warming.

This is because global warming will have a direct impact on their business for the worst. Temperatures around the globe are expected to rise an average of 6 degrees Celsius within the next century. It may sound like a small number, but the affects can be devastating to a ski resort business that depends on frigid temperatures to attract visitors.

A few major ski resort tycoons have already begun steps to “go green” by hiring environmental affairs specialists to come up with ways to keep them in business and have their operations run more efficiently. Much of these efforts involve implementing practices of conservation when it comes to water usage and reducing greenhouse emissions. One such resort taking these steps is Aspen in North America. They have also set up consultants who work with other ski resorts to ‘go green.’

Experts agree that by reducing greenhouse emissions, we could see an increase in snow production. To this end, ski resorts are beginning to install compact fluorescent lights in lieu of high wattage bulbs. They are also using more paperless forms of recordkeeping to reduce the amount of trees being cut down for paper sources. Ski resorts are also encouraging their guests to take part in energy conservation, because they realize that it takes much human power to reduce the affects of global warming.

The Alps in Europe are on-board with energy conservation, as the glaciers are melting too quickly for comfort. It is estimated that if steps to control global warming are not taken immediately, low-lying ski resorts in Europe may have winters where they receive no snow at all. This could be a reality within 15 years.

Some European areas that have ski holidays have already invested much money into snow-making machines, but have come to realize that even these machines only work if temperatures are below freezing. They will do no good in the scenario of global warming, if temperatures are consistently rising.

While the gradual lack of snowfalls weighs heavily on the minds of ski resort owners, so does the fact that global warming will eventually cause massive floods as glaciers continue to melt rapidly. If this is the case, lack of snowfall will not be the biggest issue ski resorts have to face.

In summary, ski resorts all over the world are working together to develop plans of energy conservation and reduction of greenhouse emissions to keep their industry alive in the coming years. If every resort takes steps to help the environment, then the whole world will benefit.

Most of the time, people hear about how global warming is hurtingng the planet. What most people don’t realize, though, is that global warming affects them too, in a very bad way. Global warming does not affect us directly so much as it affects us indirectly. It does this mainly by altering the climate in which we live. Probably the most publicized way that global warming will hurt us is flooding. This will result from the melting of the polar ice caps. Mass flooding will be responsible for a multitude of hazards. First and foremost will be the millions of dollars of damage caused by the floodwaters. many people will starve from lack of food.

The lesser-known health hazard form floods is the mold. For people who suffer from allergic reactions, this mold could be deadly. Most people, when they come in contact with the mold, are mildly turned off from the odor. When someone with allergies encounters the mod, there throat closes up and they have trouble breathing. In addition to the scarcity of food, a scarcity of medicine supplements could also result. An obvious result of global warming will be the heat waves. Heat waves can be fatal for everyone, especially the children and the elderly. Unlike a flood, you cannot escape a heat wave simply by moving to higher ground or a few miles inland. The best thing you can do in the event of a heat wave is go to a commercial building, such as a fishing organizations or a store. The reason being is that their air conditioning systems are much more robust than your home system, which could easily fail in the event of a prolonged heat wave. Here’s another hazard for those with allergies: pollen. How does global warming affect pollen? Well, the increase in average temperature causes a dramatic increase in weeds that produce a high volume of pollen. I cannot emphasize enough to be stocked up on your medical supplies in case of a distaste, especially if you are dependent on them. What about other countries? Many people in third-world countries that rely on developed nations will be severely affected if these nations are hit hard by natural disasters. The most dire situation for these countries will be starvation because they rely heavily on developed nations and their own small ecosystem to provide for themselves. If these two factors are hurt by the warming planet, theses already struggling nations will experience the repercussions much more than us. In spite of this gloomy forecast, all is far from lost! Global warming is still in its infancy, but it is rapidly increasing in its rate. This does not warrant panic, but it is a call for action. By doing some simple things such as conserving energy, recycling, and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, we can ensure ourselves a bright future. Related Articles – global, warming, affects, Email this Article to a Friend!Receive Articles like this one direct to your email box!Subscribe for free today!

This article describes how a bracelet can help you fight global warming by increasing your awareness as well as by helping others learn how we can stop global warming.
While doing a little web research, I came across something that you might be interested in: Stop Global Warming bracelets. At first, I was put off by the connection to the popular plastic bracelet fad (with a color for every cause), remembering a couple of kids I had seen with bracelets up and down their arms, producing a fa’ade of benevolent support. Thankfully, this particular fundraising item stood out because it stands on a stronger ethic. Instead of being made from cheap plastic-the same plastic created from the oil that is so responsible for the current climate change situation-these global warming bracelets are made from 100% recycled scrap leather, a material so sustainable that even a vegan could feel justified donning this adornment. Seeing that the producers and benefactors of the global warming bracelet are as committed to stopping global warming with even the smaller aspects of the campaign, I read on.
Does this Bracelet Really Have an Impact?
You will be pleased to hear that the proceeds from the sales of the bracelets are donated to the grassroots nonprofit organization Stop Global Warming Fund. You will be thrilled to learn that Roots, the company selling the bracelets (www.roots.com) has an excellent track record of producing and providing products that are environmentally sustainable. You can even have the bracelet shipped to you without guilt because Roots will purchase a carbon offset to balance the emissions created during shipping.
Reduce Your Carbon Footprint in Shipping
A great way to make the shipping miles more worthwhile is to get others on board and compile your orders, and maybe even buy some extra global warming bracelets to sell at fundraising and activism events. I am going to purchase some extra global warming bracelets to sell at events on my college campus. The environmental impact of shipping seems negligible when you consider the possibilities for informing others.
A Reminder to Help Stop Global Warming
While a strap of leather around your wrist is not going to literally stop global warming, it can serve as a figurative catalyst for change. For your individual behavior, the bracelet’s constant presence can serve as a push in the right direction when you are debating whether to walk to the grocery store or drive, or as a reminder to bring your cloth bags instead of using the plastic ones at the store. The unique bracelet is bound to attract attention and present ample opportunities to inform strangers about global warming and grassroots action. Many people are concerned about global warming but have no direction as to what actions to take – something a simple piece of jewelry can provide.
This unisex bracelet, available in several color combinations, is a great way to have a tangible reminder when making the small decisions in your daily life that will affect global warming and also to identify yourself as someone who is working towards solutions to this all-encompassing climate change challenge.

Article Tags:
Global Warm

The atmosphere within the evangelical community has been heating up since the Evangelical Climate Initiativewas introduced in early February.
The statement, which is endorsed by more than 80 prominent evangelical leaders, asserts that climate change is an urgent problem and that the Christian faith mandates a strong response to global warming. Evangelicals have been reluctant to embrace environmental activism because of its connections with liberal agendas. The group as a whole has had a general tendency to prioritize spiritual rather than social and physical concerns. As scientific data increasingly supports observations of human-induced climate change, however, many are now taking action.
“It is a very appropriate move in terms of a biblical basis and, in fact, long overdue,” said Fred Van Dyke, who teaches environmental ethics at Wheaton College. “The evangelical community has long associated the environmental agenda with a liberal agenda, but they are getting over it.”
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former senior climate scientist with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, said he is concerned that the initiative focuses too strongly on activism and not enough on science. He helped the Interfaith Stewardship Alliancedraft a 19-page monograph on global warming called “An Examination of the Scientific, Ethical and Theological Implications of Climate Change Policy.”
The alliance is a coalition of religious leaders, scientists, academics and policy experts committed to applying a biblical view of stewardship to environmental issues. In the monograph, the alliance said that climate change science remains inconclusive.
“We cannot say for certain how much the planet may be warming, how much is due to human activities versus natural cycles, or whether these changes in global temperature would be mostly good or mostly bad for the majority of people,” Spencer wrote in the monograph.
Other prominent evangelical figures — such as Focus on the Family chairman James Dobson, and Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries — have also said they are concerned about the Evangelical Climate Initiative’s stance on environmental policy.
The media, in particular, has misrepresented the effort as the majority opinion among evangelicals, said Cal Beisner, an associate professor of historical theology and social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary and an adviser for the initiative. Because of this, he worked hard to discourage the 30-million member National Association of Evangelicals — which has refrained from establishing an official statement on climate change — from endorsing the initiative.
“What I would caution against is equating fidelity to the gospel of Jesus Christ with endorsement of a particular environmental scenario or policy response to it,” said Beisner. “I am concerned that the ECI’s call to action hazards crossing the line in that regard.”
Despite their differences, ECI and the alliance both state that global warming is a problem that must be addressed, and both are motivated by a concern for those living in poverty. The tension is over the appropriate policy response. ECI urges preventative action and argues mandatory emissions reduction policy is necessary to combat the progress of global warming, which will have the most impact on the poor living in low-lying coastal regions.
The alliance argues it is more prudent to invest in technology that will allow humanity to cope with a changed global climate. It also says mandatory emissions reduction policy will force a general increase in the prices of all goods and services that depend on energy as a production factor – therefore, having the largest negative impact on the world’s poor
“Right now we have a government that has done nothing effective about global warming and doesn’t listen to people like me — scientists,” said Mark Cane, professor of earth and climate science, and academic board member of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. “They do listen to evangelicals, however, so [the Evangelical Climate Initiative] plays an important saving role.”

What you can do to teach global warming for kids is to lead by example. The best way for kids to learn is through following a role model. Kids grow up learning primarily by example.

If you were to teach your kids how turning off the lights in their room when they are out is important. Explain to them that electricity actually uses a lot of energy and makes the Earth hot. Remember to use simple words as I have here and not overcomplicated words so that they can understand. The next part in helping to teach global warming for kids is to help remind them what a difference they are making by turning off their lights in their room and how you are doing it too.

Remember to repeat your teaching, best by example, as repeated teaching makes memory and good habits are base on memory. So what they remember, they will practice and do. I believe this method of teaching global warming for kids to be productive and fruitful.

The next thing you can teach them as was with lights can be on the other appliances in the house. You could start with refrigerator. It should be simple enough to explain to them how refrigerator also uses electricity in their light bulbs. Then you could go on to explain how electricity is used in refrigerator to keep it cold. So leaving the light bulbs on when the fridge is open causes the refrigerator to become less cold and for it to be colder the refrigerator will expand more electricity for this. Thus like the explanation on how light uses electricity, it is the same for refrigerator. As electricity takes up a lot of energy this makes the Earth hot. Remember when teaching global warming for kids to understand, you have to use simple words they already know.

Another helpful topic on teaching global warming for kids by example would be about water usage. Teach them how turning off the tap water while brushing their teeth helps save water. Explain to them how it takes up a lot of energy to bring in water into the house as energy is used to make the water clean and warm. The increase of energy usage will makes the Earth hotter. You should do the same for yourself by turning off the water when brushing your teeth as you want to be a role model for the kids.

Other household related habit that is suitable for teaching global warming for kids can is learning about recycling. Try to teach your kids to recycle all the tin cans, glass bottles and paper waste that are no longer needed. Explain to them how recycling actually helps save energy and this helps make Earth cooler.

If you are interested in teaching global warming for kids to help make Earth cooler, there is still another thing or two you could teach them that they could do. If you have the time, place and you understand gardening, you could plant some trees. Then you could teach them how to do it too and have them help plant trees as well. It is possible for them to find this exciting and enjoyable especially if they are not strongly rooted in any hobby yet. You may then explain to them how trees help eat up all the stinky and black smokes that make our mother Earth hot.

If it is practical, have them walk or ride a bike if they are headed to a destination nearby. If you happen to be wanting to go to a place close by, you could walk or ride your bike with them there instead of taking your family car. Remember, cars puff out smokes that make the Earth hotter. You may also like to teach your kids how taking buses and trains help reduce the contribution of smokes that makes Earth hot.

Most of the Global Warming Swindle Hypothesis seems to be a misinterpretation of scientific data but discussion on details between Global Warming Scientists is still going on.
In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in their Fourth Assessment Report that human actions are “very likely” (i.e. with 90% or greater probability) the cause of global warming, indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years. This statement is the result of very tough discussions on a worldwide scale between thousands of climate researchers whether human activity is the main cause of global warming. The results of this discussion were presented to the public in many publications, for instance in Martin Durkins documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, presented in March 2007 at UKs Channel 4. The main message of this production was that man-made global warming is “a lie” and “the biggest scam of modern times.” Martin Durkin and coworkers argue that the scientific consensus on climate change is the product of “a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding and propped up by complicit politicians and the media”. The documentary showcases scientists, politicians, economists, writers, and others who are sceptical of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming. Some of the scientists, opposing the main stream of greenhouse gas theories, simply argue that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming or if there are other natural variations responsible for this phenomenon like increased solar activity, cosmic rays or variations in natural climatic cycles. There is also a series of scientists questioning the temperature records used in the databases as temperature differences attributed to the greenhouse effect are reasonable small (fractions of a C). The so-called urban heat island effect leads to a local warming in more populated areas, showing slightly higher temperatures due to to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise. Anyhow, this argument was confuted by the IPPC, indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0.05C (0.09F) degrees through 1990.
Other facts presented by the film were shown to be incorrect or misinterpreted. The film asserts for instance that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then. Anyhow, it is well recognized that this cooling was driven mostly by aerosols (i.e. pollution) in the atmosphere. There is nothing contradictory about this cooling when all sources of radiation changes are considered. A second argument that easily can be invalidated is the impact of the so-called solar variation theory on global warming. According to the authors, solar activity (and involving cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation) is currently at an extremely high level and directly linked to changes in global temperature. The film argues that solar activity is far more influential on global warming than any other anthropogenic or natural activity on Earth. What the film does not mention is that solar activity has declined over the last 30 years – at the same time as the major spike in global temperature.
But there are some statements related to the influence of the oceanic mass and water vapour on climate change which are more difficult to confute. Water vapour makes up about 98% of the greenhouse gases by volume and provides something between 40 to 80 percent of the natural greenhouse effect. It probably has the largest impact on the planet’s temperature and climatic conditions, much larger than CO2. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming. This argument probably is correct and it is well recognized that water vapor is responsible for the natural warming up of the surface temperature to approximately 30-35C. Anthropogenic greenhouse effect, according to the films argumentation, is only about 2% of the total natural greenhouse effect, which corresponds to a 0.6-0.7 C increase in temperature. This estimate is somewhat smaller compared to the results of much more sophisticated simulations (0.9 – 2.7C), but there is undoubtedly an anthropogenic effect of CO2 increasing the average surface temperature.
One example of the complexity of climatic simulations is the prediction of future storm events considering global warming effects. According to a recently published study, published online by research meteorologist Tom Knutson in the journal Nature Geoscience and resumed in the New York Times (May 18, 2008), global warming isn’t to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic. The study predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent. In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic. And Knutson is not alone with this view. Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, also say there is no link between global warming and hurricane frequency. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle. According to the prediction, the number of hurricanes touching land in the US and its neighbors will drop by about 30 percent because of wind factors. However, the biggest storms, those with winds of more than 110 mph, would only decrease in frequency by 8 percent. The biggest decrease is forecasted for storms with winds between 39 and 73 mph (normal tropical storms), who would decrease by 27 percent.
It’s not all good news from Knutson’s study, however. His computer model also forecasts that hurricanes and tropical storms will be wetter and fiercer. Rainfall within 30 miles of a hurricane should jump by 37 percent and wind strength should increase by about 2 percent, Knutson’s study says.
There are already critical reactions on this new publication. MIT hurricane meteorologist Kerry Emanuel claims that the computer model used by Knutson is not adequate enough to look at storms and according to Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist from the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., Knutson’s computer model is poor at assessing tropical weather and ”fail to replicate storms with any kind of fidelity.” It also does not considering well enough the intensity, duration and size of the storm events, as not only the number of hurricanes is important to evaluate.
Positive feedback comes from NOAA hurricane meteorologist Chris Landsea , who wasn’t part of this study, praised Knutson’s work as ”very consistent with what’s being said all along. I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn tiny,” Landsea said.

Article Tags:
Great Global Warming, Great Global, Global Warming, Climate Change, Global Temperature, Solar Activity, Computer Model