The statement said:

“We can now choose to pay homage to our ancestors in a modern and environmentally friendly way by worshipping online or donating the money meant for the offerings to charities.”

Taiwan who has vowed to cut its greenhouse gases to 2008 levels by the year 2020, conducted studies which found that the burning of paper money releases a large amount of carbon dioxide, benzene, methylbenzene and ethylbenzene. These chemicals contribute to global warming and can cause cancer and other diseases.

The practice, originating in Taoism, results from the belief that burning paper money, as well as everything from paper cars to paper Viagra ensures their deceased ancestors will be comfortable in the after-life.

Environmental agencies have offered to collect the paper money from households and temples to burn in state incinerators which can treat the exhaust.

This includes renewable energy, greenhouse-gas reduction, energy management, energy storage systems and greening the campus transportation fleet. The university impressively generates 80% of its own electricity.

“The only thing we’re looking at, at the campus, are quantum improvements…It’s not just to install the next incremental step; it’s to put in the next breakthrough. What I’m doing with my colleagues is going to have a global impact…I’m so anxious to put the different pieces of the puzzle together…Learning patience is the only negative part of the job.”
Though born in Maryland, Washom was raised in Hawaii and on the isolated Midway Atoll. His father, a retired naval officer, went into the electric-supply business distributing utility products and his mother worked as an account executive for a newspaper agency.

Living in the middle of the Pacific on a bird and marine sanctuary roughly the size of UC San Diego was for him a firsthand education in sustainability. The 400 residents of the atoll relied on a monthly supply ship, diesel generators and a desalination plant. With only two passenger cars, most people rode on bikes. “Using renewable systems was a way of life…You lived within your means. It was a radically different world.”

Washom, now 60, graduated from Honolulu’s Punahou School in 1967, more than a decade before Barack Obama graduated from the same school. He left for USC just as Hawaii was opening its first freeway. He earned a bachelor’s degree in management and finance (with a minor in oceanography) in 1971, and then an MBA the next year. In 1976, he completed his postgraduate studies in ocean engineering at MIT.

After working on solar energy for Fairchild Stratos Corp., Washom founded Advanco Corp. in 1980. Four years later, Advanco set the world record for the most efficient rate of converting solar energy to electricity, using a technology that NASA later considered using to power the International Space Station.
In 1989, Washom founded the energy and environmental technology consultant firm Spencer Management Associates and served as president for 20 years.

He has also advised the World Bank, the Energy Department and the International Finance Corp.

An avid surfer since childhood, Washom credits this sport for his risk-taking business style:

“That’s when my greatest genius comes out, at the end of the branch of a tree…It’s a culture to me. The element of risk was also combined with the grace and athleticism of surfing a wave, so you were scared and performing at the same time.”

According to the analysis, it would be impossible for the country to stop increasing its emissions altogether. What is possible, instead, is slowing the growth of future emissions. McKinsey has conducted such analyses for more than 20 countries around the world. Israel President Shimon Peres’ speech was in contingency with their respective analysis.

Peres said this during his speech:

“Peace demands of us to demarcate borders. Climate calls for action regardless of borders. The Mediterranean requires a multilateral taskforce comprised of scientists and experts to build environmental cooperation, independent of political disputes…I call upon our neighbors, even those with whom we have not yet reached diplomatic relations, to join hands in an effort to save our region. Political disagreements should not hinder environmental cooperation. Carbon molecules carry no passport. Rivers require no visa. Pollution travels with them…All of us – Jews, Muslims and Christians pray that the Jordan River will flow, fresh and holy. My call is the call of the bible upon Adam, to ‘cultivate and preserve the Garden of Eden…”

He continued:

“Israel outstretches her hand to her neighbors. To nations inside and outside the Mediterranean to partake in our global laboratories and employ Israel as a pilot plant of environmental trials. The government will make proper arrangements to facilitate international participation.”

The Israeli President also highlighted some of Israel’s achievements – reusing 75% of waste water, installing an electric car infrastructure, irrigation and agricultural advances, and Israeli solar thermal companies’ achievements in California.

The EU environment spokesman Andreas Carlgren says informal talks at Copenhagen resolved the impasse. The European Union says poor countries have stopped their boycott of climate change negotiations at Copenhagen and have found a solution to their dispute with rich nations.

=============================================================================================
China, India and other developing nations boycotted U.N. climate talks on Monday, actually bringing the negotiations to a halt. Their demand was that wealthy countries discuss much deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.

Until the issue gets resolved, 135 nations are refusing to participate at the 192-nation summit. The African-led movement is a large setback for the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference proceedings – and the discussions were already beginning to limp on faulty relations between rich and poor nations.

Poor countries, supported by China, had raised suspicion that the conference was likely to kill the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which limited carbon emissions by wealthy countries and imposed penalties for failing to meet those targets.

The poorer nations want to extend that treaty because it commits rich nations to emissions cuts and imposes penalties if they fall short. The United States withdrew from Kyoto over concerns that it would harm the U.S. economy and that China, India and other major greenhouse gas emitters were not required to step in line.

An African delegate said developing countries decided to block the negotiations at another meeting, hours before the conference was to resume. He was speaking on condition of anonymity because the meeting was held behind closed doors. He said applause broke out every time China, India or another country supported the proposal to stall the talks.

The president says that he will take part in the conference on Dec. 9, before heading to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.

Obama will lay out his ideas for reducing the United State’s carbon dioxide emissions; therein he pledges to cut heat-trapping pollution by about 17% from 2005 levels by 2020.

The European Union has urged the U.S. and China, to deliver greenhouse gas emission targets, saying their delays were hindering global efforts to curb climate change. Obama’s goals for slashing heat-trapping pollution, has already been presented to Capitol Hill in the form of a bill and is awaiting legislature.

The conference originally sought to produce a new global climate change treaty on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases that would replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

“You can have a really fuel-efficient, dirty vehicle and a really clean, not-so-fuel-efficient vehicle,” says Karl Simon, a director of compliance and innovation for the EPA‘s Office of Transportation and Air Quality. “It really is pretty wide open from a technical perspective.”

So-called fuel economy indeed is linked to emissions; however it is not the only factor. The amount that a car causes pollution also has to do with what kind of fuel is used and the condition and age of the engine. So just because a car which is known to be a huge gas guzzler, this does not necessarily mean that it is the worst for the environment.
The most environmentally dangerous cars on the market feature a combined poor gas mileage with a high level of tailpipe and greenhouse gas emissions.

Recently the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency used air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions data to put together a list of the worst cars on the market for the environment. The cars are rated on a 1 to 10 scale. A car which scores a 10 would be the healthiest for the air.

Have a look:

Dodge Durango
Air Pollution Score: 6/10, Greenhouse Gas Score: 1/10
City MPG: 9, Highway MPG: 12
Transmission: Automatic 5-speed 4WD (ethanol fuel option)

Dodge Ram 1500
Air Pollution Score: 6/10, Greenhouse Gas Score: 1/10
City MPG: 9, Highway MPG: 12
Transmission: Automatic 5-speed 4WD (ethanol fuel option)

Chrysler Aspen
Air Pollution Score: 6/10, Greenhouse Gas Score: 1/10
City MPG: 9, Highway MPG: 12

Mercedes-Benz S600
Air Pollution Score: 6/10, Greenhouse Gas Score: 0/10
City MPG: 11, Highway MPG: 17
Transmission: Automatic 5-speed 2WD

Chevrolet Trailblazer
Air Pollution Score: 6/10, Greenhouse Gas Score: 0/10
City MPG: 12, Highway MPG: 16
Transmission: Automatic 4-speed 4WD

BMW M6 Sedan/Convertible
Air Pollution Score: 6/10, Greenhouse Gas Score: 0/10
City MPG: 11, Highway MPG: 17
Transmission: Manual 6-speed 2WD, select 7-speed 2WD

Jeep Grand Cherokee
Air Pollution Score: 3/10, Greenhouse Gas Score: 1/10
City MPG: 9, Highway MPG: 13
Transmission: Automatic 5-speed 2WD (with ethanol fuel)

The icky pond scum known as algae grows remarkably fast and is full of fat; for these reasons scientists have cause to believe that it has a huge potential as a renewable energy source. The objective will be to find a COST-EFFECTIVE way to convert the lipids found in algae ponds into fuel. Then the fuel may be pumped into cars, trucks and jets. Pretty cool!

Algae is remarkable for its ability to quickly devour carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas caused by the burning of fossil-fuels. Also it grows in places that are not used for growing food crops, for example, dirty pools and waste water.

Taking Action

Last summer ExxonMobil declared that it would invest 600 million dollars into algae research, in a partnership with a California biotechnology company. A chemical engineer named George Philippidis, director of applied research at Florida International University in Miami said:

“I think it’s very realistic. I don’t think it’s going to take 20 years. It’s going to take a few years…we could hook up to the exhaust of polluting industries…we could capture it and feed it to algae and prevent that CO2 from contributing to further climate change.”

Sapphire Energy, a smart California company, fueled a cross-country road trip with, get this, algae-tinged gasoline. So while still in its formative stages, we at least know that the idea will work. Sapphire Energy’s cross country journey was meant to raise awareness, and it prompted the headline, “Coast to Coast on Slime.” A different California company is looking for a way to fatten fish on algae and then process the fish for oil. Poor fish, lucky Earth.

The Hurdle
Of course the process of converting algae into usable fuel will not be simple. There is a small stumbling-block which is not unique, and that would be the $$$ factor. Although the stuff grows incredibly fast, currently it costs $100 to make a gallon of algae fuel. This is by no means a savings.

Roy Swiger, a molecular geneticist and director of the Florida division of the non-profit Midwest Research Institute said,

“It would not make sense to spend five dollars of electricity to run a centrifuge to dry out algae, that in turn would only produce one dollar of fuel.”

Enter the Obama Administration’s new “Carbon Tax” or “Green Energy” tax bill which is supposed to discourage Americans against using excessive amounts of carbon based energy, i.e. energy powered by carbon based fossil fuels, in order to encourage them to begin switching over to alternative and renewable energy sources, such as solar power, hydrogen gas, and other similar fuels.

The main problem in doing this, according to opponents of the bill, which includes virtually all Republican Congressmen and women and Senators (as well as many Democrats) is that Americans are simply not ready to switch to these new fuels – as they simply aren’t available yet. And the costs to American tax payers for increased fuel prices and higher overall taxes is estimated to run to more than $150 billion over the next ten years, or an average of about $3,100 per household.

The new bill is planned in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the year 2050. Energy companies using carbon based fuels will have to obtain a special permit from the U.S. government in order to produce electricity by using carbon based fuels.

Proponents of the new bill, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, claim that the gradual switch over to clean technology and carbon less fuels will create millions of new jobs. There might be some truth in that claim, and it will also mean that the switch over to new energy sources will result in millions of Americans losing their jobs as well. The proposed bill is also said by many to be reminiscent of the Clinton administration’s BTU Energy Bill in 1993 when Democrats passed a bill, advocated by then Vice President Al Gore, that would have taxed the amount of energy used by measuring British Thermal Units, or BTUs in both homes and industries. This would have resulted in taxes on energy used going up considerably, and as a result was defeated by Congress. The new bill is even being called by many opponents as the BTU II Bill.

While there is little doubt that Americana must rely less on fossil fuels, much of which is imported from the Middle East, those opposed to the new bill say that the process must be done gradually, and especially not during an economic crises like the one Americans are currently going through. It will take a long time before most Americans will be traveling about in total electric cars, or ones fueled by hydrogen or by water (which every chemistry student knows is composed of 2 atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen).

Recent revelations that massive ice shelves are melting at both the extreme northern hemispheres, which would result in rising sea levels and eventual widespread ecological damage to world coastal areas, have caused some scientists to believe that the solution would be for the world to actually cool down by several degrees – even if this might result in severe winter weather to many areas and possibly even a “mini ice age” to countries such as Canada, Russia and others.

While the idea might possible work, at least from a temperature reduction standpoint, the long term effects of such an idea might prove even more damaging to life on earth than global warming itself. Professor Holdren believes that such an idea would reduce the amount of CO2 emissions that the present phenomenon of global warming is causing, creating the so-called “greenhouse effect”. But by blocking out the sun’s rays to kill some of the algae and other micro-organisms the contribute to this CO2 gas, it would also severely reduce the benefit of the sun’s life-giving warmth and light necessary for the survival of life itself – resulting in a nuclear winter effect as has been predicted to be the outcome of a nuclear war.

A number of climate theorists and paleontologists (those who study the earth’s earlier life forms) believe that the extinction of earlier life forms such as the dinosaurs were caused by severe nuclear winter-like atmospheric conditions caused by either a large asteroid striking the earth or by a number of large volcanoes erupting within a short period of time; thus preventing the sun’s rays from reaching the earth, and causing massive starvation to the creatures inhabiting the planet. A similar fate could be in store for us if we are deprived of the sun’s energy which gives life to all living things.

In order to raise cattle, large sections of forests are being burned or cut down in order to turn these areas into grasslands suitable for grazing cattle. Brazil has the world’s largest cattle populations and has become the largest beef exporter, even surpassing countries like the U.S.A. and Argentina. But being the largest beef producer and exporter on the planet comes at a price; and that price is a rapid depletion of the rain forests, attributed to supplying close to 20% of the world’s oxygen supply, as swell as being the 4th largest contributor of greenhouse gasses, after China, the U.S.A., and Indonesia. Farmers are burning down the forests so quickly, that a large area in Mato Grosso state (the country’s second largest province) was literally turned into a massive cattle producing factory, complete with huge slaughterhouses for processing all that beef from a cattle population now numbering more than 65 million!

In a ten year period, 1996-2006, an area the size of Portugal, Brazil’s founder country, has been turned into grassland to feed a cattle herd that has grown by more than 20 million animals in a four year period alone.

The Amazon basin, where the world’s largest tropical rain forest is still located, now has more than 15 million cattle. Cattle themselves are responsible for creating a good part of the world’s greenhouse gases, and studies have shown that it takes 13 times the resources to raise cattle over chicken, and 75 more resources than is required for raising crops like potatoes. Clearing forest for cattle raising is not the only environmental problem that Brazil is facing as large tracks of forestland is also being cleared to grow crops like sugar cane and sorghum that are used in the production of ethanol, used as a “bio-fuel” in automobiles and other equipment. Besides contributing so much to world’s oxygen supply the Amazon rainforests, containing one or the most unique eco-systems on the planet. This vast “green region” also helps regulate the world’s rainfall and climate, as well as being the home for some of the most exotic plants and animals on earth. And this region is also “home” for millions of Native Brazilians or Indian tribes who live entirely off the plant and animal life found in the rain forests. When the Amazon is turned more and more into land for growing cattle and bio-fuel crops, it affects the indigenous people living there as well.

It is estimated that 75% of Brazil’s total greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation alone.

Brazil’s cattle industry is not likely to decrease any time soon; and agronomists are now looking for ways to grow cattle by more intensive farming methods that would require less land. But even so, every time one of those 65+million bovines chews it’s cud, it naturally releases a certain quantity of greenhouse gas that adds to the overall amount of greenhouse in the atmosphere and intensifies the world’s global warming problem.

It is estimated that 75% of Brazil’s total greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation alone.