Thursday, July 9, 2009
Oregon Scientific Eco weather station ditches batteries
Oregon Scientific has announced the release of the +ECO Clima Control weather station, a new weather station that runs on solar power. Coming with a built-in solar panel, the new weather station gadget allows its users to monitor the current temperature and humidity in up to four locations within the home and outdoors. To do this, it uses remote wireless temperature and humidity sensors for up to 3 months from a single 8-hour charge. The new device, which is available in the US from this month, will be joined by two further eco-friendly devices in September, says the company. The +ECO Solar Weather Station promises to monitor current indoor and outdoor weather temperatures, humidity and shows an iconic future weather forecast, as well as Atomic time while the +ECO Solar Weather Clock will monitor the current indoor and outdoor weather temperatures and humidity, as well the Atomic time. Both products are equipped with detachable solar panels and remote wireless temperature and humidity sensors like the Clima Control offering. .
Japan considers adding noise to hybrid cars
It's been talked up before, but the transport ministry in Japan is currently seriously considering forcing car manufacturers of near-silent hybrid vehicles to add sound to their motors. "We have received opinions from automobile users and visually-impaired people that they feel hybrid vehicles are dangerous", a transport ministry official told the AP. "Blind people depend on sounds when they walk, but there are no engine sounds from hybrid vehicles when running at low speed". A panel of experts including the police and groups representing the visually-impaired have met to discuss the matter and, after the first meeting, decided that a "sound-making function" should be introduced. This would mean hybrid cars, such as the Toyota Prius, would be manufactured to create noise when in electric mode.
eco facts
Ice caps are white, and reflect sunlight, much of which is reflected back into space, in turn cooling Earth; but with the ice caps melting, the only reflector is the ocean. Darker colors absorb sunlight, further warming the Earth.
Scientists blame global warming for the declining penguin population, as warmer waters and smaller ice floes force the birds to travel further to find food.
Stressed by cyanide fishing, harbor dredging, coral mining, deforestation, coastal development, agricultural runoff, careless divers, and now global warming, there is a devastating loss of coral across the world.
With accelerated global warming, and the ice covering melting, the earth would be absorbing more sunlight, and is on its way to becoming hotter than before.
Due to global warming the polar ice cap in the Arctic region is shrinking and rupturing; if this continues, summers in the Arctic would become ice-free by the end of this century.
Everytime we burn oil, coal and gas to generate electricity and power, we produce the heat trapping gases that cause global warming.
Deforestation is one of the main causes of atmospheric carbon dioxide; burning and cutting millions of acres of trees each year, it is responsible for 20-25 per cent of all carbon emissions.
Water vapor is the most prevalent and most powerful greenhouse gas on the planet; it holds onto two-thirds of the heat trapped by all the greenhouse gases.
Every week about 20 species of plants and animals become extinct!
Rainforests are being cut down at the rate of 100 acres per minute!
One-third of the water used in most homes is flushed down the toilet.
A single quart of motor oil, if disposed of improperly, can contaminate up to 2,000,000 gallons of fresh water.
Plastic bags and other plastic garbage thrown into the ocean kill as many as 1,000,000 sea creatures every year.
A modern glass bottle would take 4000 years or more to decompose -- and even longer if it's in the landfill.
Recycling one glass bottle saves enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for four hours
Energy-saving lightbulbs last around ten times longer than ordinary lightbulbs- over 10,000 hours.
A laptop is more environment friendly than a desktop. It consumes five times less electricity.
An aluminum can that is thrown away will still be a can 500 years from now!
A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Shade provided by trees can also reduce your air conditioning bill by 10 to 15 per cent.
Tissue paper is a major source of waste. It takes 60,00,000 trees to make 1 year's worth of tissues for the world.
A ton of recycled paper equals or saves 17 trees in paper production.
A plant on your desk acts as a natural filter, absorbing airborne pollutants and computer radiation while replenishing oxygen levels.
Lawns only need watering once a week, post rain only after two weeks. Do watering early morning for minimal evaporation and water conservation.
Crawling traffic contributes eight times as much air pollution as traffic moving at regular highway speed.
Avoiding just 10 miles of driving every week would eliminate about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year!
Turn off the tap when brushing your teeth and soaping your hands. This can save around 16 litres a day. That's 11,000 litre of water per person per year.
A dripping tap can waste over 20,000 litres of water every year.
Scientists blame global warming for the declining penguin population, as warmer waters and smaller ice floes force the birds to travel further to find food.
Stressed by cyanide fishing, harbor dredging, coral mining, deforestation, coastal development, agricultural runoff, careless divers, and now global warming, there is a devastating loss of coral across the world.
With accelerated global warming, and the ice covering melting, the earth would be absorbing more sunlight, and is on its way to becoming hotter than before.
Due to global warming the polar ice cap in the Arctic region is shrinking and rupturing; if this continues, summers in the Arctic would become ice-free by the end of this century.
Everytime we burn oil, coal and gas to generate electricity and power, we produce the heat trapping gases that cause global warming.
Deforestation is one of the main causes of atmospheric carbon dioxide; burning and cutting millions of acres of trees each year, it is responsible for 20-25 per cent of all carbon emissions.
Water vapor is the most prevalent and most powerful greenhouse gas on the planet; it holds onto two-thirds of the heat trapped by all the greenhouse gases.
Every week about 20 species of plants and animals become extinct!
Rainforests are being cut down at the rate of 100 acres per minute!
One-third of the water used in most homes is flushed down the toilet.
A single quart of motor oil, if disposed of improperly, can contaminate up to 2,000,000 gallons of fresh water.
Plastic bags and other plastic garbage thrown into the ocean kill as many as 1,000,000 sea creatures every year.
A modern glass bottle would take 4000 years or more to decompose -- and even longer if it's in the landfill.
Recycling one glass bottle saves enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for four hours
Energy-saving lightbulbs last around ten times longer than ordinary lightbulbs- over 10,000 hours.
A laptop is more environment friendly than a desktop. It consumes five times less electricity.
An aluminum can that is thrown away will still be a can 500 years from now!
A single tree will absorb one ton of carbon dioxide over its lifetime. Shade provided by trees can also reduce your air conditioning bill by 10 to 15 per cent.
Tissue paper is a major source of waste. It takes 60,00,000 trees to make 1 year's worth of tissues for the world.
A ton of recycled paper equals or saves 17 trees in paper production.
A plant on your desk acts as a natural filter, absorbing airborne pollutants and computer radiation while replenishing oxygen levels.
Lawns only need watering once a week, post rain only after two weeks. Do watering early morning for minimal evaporation and water conservation.
Crawling traffic contributes eight times as much air pollution as traffic moving at regular highway speed.
Avoiding just 10 miles of driving every week would eliminate about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year!
Turn off the tap when brushing your teeth and soaping your hands. This can save around 16 litres a day. That's 11,000 litre of water per person per year.
A dripping tap can waste over 20,000 litres of water every year.
Greenathon Impact: Solar lamps for students
In the shadow of the centuries-old fort of Pratapgarh, lies this village Guwada gujran which seems to be stuck in time. It's never known electricity.
Nights here would be spent in darkness or in the light of kerosene lamps and their toxic fumes.
But in the last two months, solar power lamps have changed the lives of the hundred-odd families in this village.
Guwada Gujran is one of the first villages taken up by TERI's Lighting a Billion Lives initiative - thanks to the money raised during the NDTV TOYOTA Greenathon, a 24 hour telethon for the environment held in February this year.
Giriraj Prasad, an entrepreneur, had heard about TERI's solar lamps from neighbouring villages where the project was implemented and had asked the NGO to come to his village as well. As the only person from Guwada attending college, he wants a better deal for the next generation.
"Children don't manage to study in the day as they have to work in the fields. People here don't understand what studying is. They think just going to school is enough. Now children can study a lot better," says Giriraj.
The lamps cost just 2 rupees a night to hire - much cheaper than kerosene.
Earlier Suman and Suresh would not be able to study at night as it was just too expensive for their families. But now, that's no longer a problem.
Nights here would be spent in darkness or in the light of kerosene lamps and their toxic fumes.
But in the last two months, solar power lamps have changed the lives of the hundred-odd families in this village.
Guwada Gujran is one of the first villages taken up by TERI's Lighting a Billion Lives initiative - thanks to the money raised during the NDTV TOYOTA Greenathon, a 24 hour telethon for the environment held in February this year.
Giriraj Prasad, an entrepreneur, had heard about TERI's solar lamps from neighbouring villages where the project was implemented and had asked the NGO to come to his village as well. As the only person from Guwada attending college, he wants a better deal for the next generation.
"Children don't manage to study in the day as they have to work in the fields. People here don't understand what studying is. They think just going to school is enough. Now children can study a lot better," says Giriraj.
The lamps cost just 2 rupees a night to hire - much cheaper than kerosene.
Earlier Suman and Suresh would not be able to study at night as it was just too expensive for their families. But now, that's no longer a problem.
Greenathon impact: Lighting up 50 villages
The NDTV Toyota Greenathon is lighting up lives. Villages that would be plunged into darkness at nightfall are now riding on solar power which has replaced expensive and toxic kerosene lamps.
Guwada Gujran in Rajasthan is one of the first three villages to get solar power after the Greenathon through TERI's Light a Billion Lives initiative. And here's a look at the other villages that will soon be solar powered. Thanks to the Greenathon.
Fifty villages will soon benefit from solar technology. While most of them are in north India, villages in the south are also being identified.
NDTV's campaign raised 2 crore rupees in February and now work is on to spread the light. Lighting up each village takes about two months. Village communities, local NGOs and companies that make the solar lamps are all working together.
"The way the whole program works, there are three important stakeholders, bottom up - the community - someone needs to come forward and become the charging station operator. Second is the NGO partner because TERI is not present everywhere. And the third important stakeholder is the industry partner."
It's a slow process; but it is one that will surely light up lives for years to com
Guwada Gujran in Rajasthan is one of the first three villages to get solar power after the Greenathon through TERI's Light a Billion Lives initiative. And here's a look at the other villages that will soon be solar powered. Thanks to the Greenathon.
Fifty villages will soon benefit from solar technology. While most of them are in north India, villages in the south are also being identified.
NDTV's campaign raised 2 crore rupees in February and now work is on to spread the light. Lighting up each village takes about two months. Village communities, local NGOs and companies that make the solar lamps are all working together.
"The way the whole program works, there are three important stakeholders, bottom up - the community - someone needs to come forward and become the charging station operator. Second is the NGO partner because TERI is not present everywhere. And the third important stakeholder is the industry partner."
It's a slow process; but it is one that will surely light up lives for years to com
How Much Should Poor Countries be paid to fight climatic changes
What will it take to get developing nations to sign up to a global climate agreement?
A critical part of the answer, it seems,A critical part of the answer, it seems, is cold, hard cash.
Wealthy nations are considering just how much poor countries should be paid to help combat global warming.
Countries in poorer parts of the world like China and India are demanding that wealthier regions like the European Union and North America finance their efforts at developing clean energy technologies and help them adapt to the effects of climate change caused largely by accumulated emissions from the industrialized West.
Money to finance these efforts is seen as a precondition for reaching an agreement at United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen in December, when nations gather to hammer out a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.
European finance ministers meeting over lunch in Luxembourg on Tuesday are expected to discuss the thorny question of what would represent a fair amount, according to diplomats.
Even though the Copenhagen summit is just six months away, there are few signs that European Union ministers are in a position to reach an agreement this week. Poland, for example, opposes using the principle of past responsibility for emissions to calculate the amount richer countries should pay poorer countries.
Indeed, some of the numbers on the table are substantial. In one of the possibilities that is expected to be discussed by European ministers on Tuesday, more affluent countries would pay developing countries more than $140 billion each year.
Does giving such amounts of money seem a fair deal for helping poorer nations transform their energy systems — a critical step, experts say, in keeping global climate change at bay? And if so, what conditions should be put on countries like China and India that receive disbursements of climate funds? Let us know your thoughts. is cold, hard cash.
A critical part of the answer, it seems,A critical part of the answer, it seems, is cold, hard cash.
Wealthy nations are considering just how much poor countries should be paid to help combat global warming.
Countries in poorer parts of the world like China and India are demanding that wealthier regions like the European Union and North America finance their efforts at developing clean energy technologies and help them adapt to the effects of climate change caused largely by accumulated emissions from the industrialized West.
Money to finance these efforts is seen as a precondition for reaching an agreement at United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen in December, when nations gather to hammer out a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.
European finance ministers meeting over lunch in Luxembourg on Tuesday are expected to discuss the thorny question of what would represent a fair amount, according to diplomats.
Even though the Copenhagen summit is just six months away, there are few signs that European Union ministers are in a position to reach an agreement this week. Poland, for example, opposes using the principle of past responsibility for emissions to calculate the amount richer countries should pay poorer countries.
Indeed, some of the numbers on the table are substantial. In one of the possibilities that is expected to be discussed by European ministers on Tuesday, more affluent countries would pay developing countries more than $140 billion each year.
Does giving such amounts of money seem a fair deal for helping poorer nations transform their energy systems — a critical step, experts say, in keeping global climate change at bay? And if so, what conditions should be put on countries like China and India that receive disbursements of climate funds? Let us know your thoughts. is cold, hard cash.
Forest fires vs. forest carbon
Should forests be thinned to reduce fires, or should they be tended to store the maximum amount of carbon in their trees to prevent global warming?
It is not a simple question, as researchers at Oregon State University explain in a new study in Ecological Applications, a professional journal.
Stephen R. Mitchell, an OSU researcher now at Duke University, and other scientists studied the Coast Range and the west side of the Cascade Mountains and found that salvage logging, understory removal, prescribed fire and other techniques can reduce fire severity. But these same techniques will almost always reduce carbon storage even if the woody products that are removed are then used to produce electricity or make cellulosic ethanol, they found.
"It had been thought for some time that if you used biofuel treatments to produce energy, you could offset the carbon emissions from this process," said Mark Harmon, an OSU professor of forest ecosystems and society and a co-author of the study. "But when you actually go through the data, it doesn't work."Harmon said that policymakers should consider using forests on the west side of the Cascades, the wetter side, for carbon sequestration, and focus fuel-reduction efforts near people, towns and infrastructure.
However, the Oregon State findings may not be applicable to other forests. "It is a fertile debate," said Andrea Tuttle, former head of the California Department of Forestry and an authority on forest carbon regulation. "But be careful what forest type you are talking about." Studies of other forests have produced different results, she explained, citing a UC Berkeley study of warmer, drier Sierran forests that found that measures to increase fire resistance were also applicable to long-term carbon sequestration.
The study comes at a time when state governments and the U.S. Congress, as well as other nations, are looking to forests to offset emissions from automobiles, power plants and other sources of carbon dioxide, which, scientists say, is heating the planet to dangerous levels. Trees suck carbon out of the atmosphere and store it for long periods. California recently enacted strict rules to govern the use of offsets for carbon sequestration in forests.
It is not a simple question, as researchers at Oregon State University explain in a new study in Ecological Applications, a professional journal.
Stephen R. Mitchell, an OSU researcher now at Duke University, and other scientists studied the Coast Range and the west side of the Cascade Mountains and found that salvage logging, understory removal, prescribed fire and other techniques can reduce fire severity. But these same techniques will almost always reduce carbon storage even if the woody products that are removed are then used to produce electricity or make cellulosic ethanol, they found.
"It had been thought for some time that if you used biofuel treatments to produce energy, you could offset the carbon emissions from this process," said Mark Harmon, an OSU professor of forest ecosystems and society and a co-author of the study. "But when you actually go through the data, it doesn't work."Harmon said that policymakers should consider using forests on the west side of the Cascades, the wetter side, for carbon sequestration, and focus fuel-reduction efforts near people, towns and infrastructure.
However, the Oregon State findings may not be applicable to other forests. "It is a fertile debate," said Andrea Tuttle, former head of the California Department of Forestry and an authority on forest carbon regulation. "But be careful what forest type you are talking about." Studies of other forests have produced different results, she explained, citing a UC Berkeley study of warmer, drier Sierran forests that found that measures to increase fire resistance were also applicable to long-term carbon sequestration.
The study comes at a time when state governments and the U.S. Congress, as well as other nations, are looking to forests to offset emissions from automobiles, power plants and other sources of carbon dioxide, which, scientists say, is heating the planet to dangerous levels. Trees suck carbon out of the atmosphere and store it for long periods. California recently enacted strict rules to govern the use of offsets for carbon sequestration in forests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)