Renewable energy sources are cleaner ways of getting energy, basically anything but burning fossil fuels. There are many renewable energy sources that we can use to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. For example, here in British Columbia, we use hydro power, which means we get our energy from water. There are many forms of renewable energy such as wind energy, geothermal energy, solar energy, and bio energy. Some well know ways of using these sources of energy are wind turbines, or solar panels. Which turn wind and sun into energy. But what if you don't have control over what energy you use? Write to government officials! Donate to organisations who work to have clean energy! If we can get the majority of the planet using renewable energy, this will lower our greenhouse gas emissions by a lot!!

Pollution is a major environmental issue affecting air, water, and soil. It is primarily caused by human activities like industrial emissions, vehicle exhaust, and improper waste disposal. Pollution harms ecosystems, endangers wildlife, and poses serious health risks to humans. Reducing pollution requires global cooperation and sustainable practices to protect our planet for future generations.

I agree that reducing pollution requires global cooperation. I think many people have a mentality that since other people wont reduce polution they wont either.

I feel very passionate about the fact that for us to calm down pollution, we all have to come together as a whole and change the things we are doing. We also have to think about other people because, in America, most people care about themselves and don't care about the people around them, which causes people to do reckless behavior.

I feel like this is an "obvious" thing to say, but It's definitely true. I think we should ask the question, "How do we convince many people on an international scale to contribute to stopping pollution?"

I like how you mentioned water and soil pollution because people are not very informed on those topics. The most discussed topic on pollution is air pollution but there's much more to it than just that. There's many more contributions to pollution that not a lot of people talk about like pollution caused by agriculture. I think that humans in general should be more educated on pollution and the way it affects so many aspects of the world from food, the ocean/marine life, air quality, health effects, and so much more. We also need to be more informed on the ways we can reduce our impacts on pollution. There's so much more to what we can do than just driving less with gas-run cars and not littering, and also the small things we can do in our daily lives to make a huge impact our how the environment turns out to be.

I want to bring up planes. I think planes are very important for life because they allow you to travel all around the world in just a few hours. I think planes are great but I think we should change something about them. We need to change the fact that planes are major polluters. Planes remain among the most polluting means of transport and something needs to be done. I propose electric planes. I have no idea how one would go about doing this, but this is just a suggestion. I want to bring this up because personally I travel and go on airplanes a lot and in return, I pollute a lot. This year, I calculated my carbon footprint and it said that it was 25,784 kgs of CO2 per year, compared to the average in California; 9,727 kgs of CO2 per year. You might be wondering why my carbon footprint is so high. It is because I travel so much. 18,311 of the 25,784 kgs of CO2 was from transportation. So overall, I think something needs to change about airplanes because I want to keep traveling but I dont want to be a major polluter.

I think create electric plane is a good idea but is almost impossible because autonomy of airplane would be greatly reduce and the weight too much .

the climatic conditions are getting worse and worse, today we should reduce the consumption of non renewable sources, reduce pollution, stop deforestation, recycle, and use renewable sources.

In this world, people are still learning about the problems for combustion engines, and transportation such as cars planes and buses that have on the for the fossil fuels to our atmosphere. All transportation run by combustion engines releases mass amounts of fossil fuels into our atmosphere, which leads to climate change due to greenhouse gasses. Planes especially have a contribution to the fuels, since they are huge and need lots of power to take off and maintain speed while flying. Also, with millions of cars on the streets daily, fossil fuels are also being released at an alarming rate. Even electric vehicles require a lot of energy to produce which causes the release of fossil fuels. There are a few possibilities to where we can fix this problem. For one, taking public transportation is one of the best ways to begin shortening our carbon footprint. Two, buying electric vehicle takes a huge step from combustion engines, which will extremely shorten our carbon footprint. Although they require a lot of energy to produce, if used long enough, they are more efficient than combustion engines. And finally, making commercial electric planes will help reduce the carbon footprint of many travelers.

Degradarea mediului înconjurător este un proces lent, dar sigur. În prezent, poluarea și epuizarea resurselor naturale reprezintă probleme ce afectează o mare parte din populația planetei.
A venit vremea să conștientizăm faptul că resursele naturale NU sunt interminabile și că orice mică acțiune pe care o exercităm asupra mediului înconjurător, cum ar fi simpla aruncare a unui ambalaj pe stradă, va avea consecințe negative.
Iată cum puteți contribui la protejarea mediului înconjurător:
1. Nu mai aruncați gunoaie pe jos!
Pentru început, adoptați un comportament ecologic prin a evita să mai aruncați gunoaiele direct pe stradă. Există recipiente speciale pentru colectarea deșeurilor, amplasate în fiecare oraș. Fiți cetățeni responsabili și încurajați reciclarea materialelor din sticlă, hârtie și plastic, plasând deșeurile în pubelele corespunzătoare.
2. Dacă dețineți o fabrică sau o firmă care poluează mediul prin arderea materiei brute, asigurați-vă că apelați la serviciile companiilor care se ocupă de colectarea și reciclarea deșeurilor industriale, cum ar fi GREENGlobal, pentru a reduce gradul de poluare.
3. Conduceți mai rar!
Mașinile poluează EXTREM de mult prin arderea combustibilului și evacuarea acelui fum negru și toxic, care este atât de nociv pentru mediul înconjurător.

Carbon footprint of students can vary greatly depending on their lifestyle and habits. However, it's crucial for students to be mindful of their environmental impact and strive to reduce their carbon footprint. Simple changes like using public transportation, reducing energy consumption, and adopting sustainable practices can make a significant difference. Moreover, educational institutions should also promote eco-friendly initiatives and provide resources to help students make more environmentally conscious choices. By collectively working towards reducing carbon emissions, students can contribute to a healthier planet for future generations.

i agree with your opinion, but the students are not careful to the Carbon Footprint.

I agree that students should try to reduce their carbon footprint and should be more mindful of their environmental impact. While I agree with that, I disagree that students should use public transportation more. I take a bus 2 miles to the train station then take the train 45 minutes to my house every day after school, this increases my carbon footprint a massive amount. My overall foot print is 25,784 kgs and my transportation carbon footprint was 18,311 kgs, which is about 70% of my overall carbon footprint. So instead of public transportation i propose to use electric cars and carpool with a friend. This will really make a difference in your carbon footprint and help overall sustain a healthy environment.

Of course I agree that reducing carbon footprint is important and I agree that changing your lifestyle can help with that. It is very frustrating for me though because when I took the test, my carbon footprint for transportation was way above average, however I don't know how to reduce it! I live far away from school but I take the bus and I have to go to sports practice everyday. I feel like I can't really reduce my transportation footprint even though I want to because most of where I go is necessary to my daily life. Overall, I want to find a way to dramatically change my carbon footprint but still get where I need to go.

I also agree that students need to be more aware of their impact in order to reduce their carbon footprint. However, I don’t believe that a small lifestyle change is necessary for all students. From my experience, the biggest carbon sink that I had was airplanes/flights as they took up half of my footprint at about 9,300 kgs. So for me, if I wanted to bring my carbon footprint down the best solution would be to fly less and not to switch to public transportation. Also in my case, I already take public transportation so I wouldn’t need to switch to using it. But, It doesn’t mean that people who don’t take public transit shouldn’t stop, only that not everyone needs to make that change as they already might be taking public transit. Depending on the person their carbon footprint may be heavily increased by different influences, therefore I agree that people can change their carbon footprint by changing something, but not everyone can change a small thing and have the same impact.

As an entire population, our world is still learning about the negative effects combustion engines and transportation have on the addition of fossil fuels to our atmosphere. All transportation run by combustion engines emits mass amounts of fossil fuels into our atmosphere, leading to climate change due to greenhouse gasses. Planes especially contribute immense amounts of fossil fuels since they are very big and require a lot of power to take off and maintain speed while flying. Additionally, with the tens of millions of cars on the streets daily, fossil fuels are being emitted at an absurd rate. Even electric vehicles require a lot of energy to produce which causes the emission of tons of fossil fuels. How can we fix this problem? There are a few possibilities... First, carpooling and taking public transportation is one of the best ways to begin minimizing your carbon footprint. For every person who contributes, we will emit less every day. Secondly, buying electric vehicles is a big step up from combustion engines, which will drastically minimize your carbon footprint. Although they require a lot of energy to produce, if used long enough, they are more efficient than combustion engines. Finally, developing commercial electric planes will immensely help reduce the carbon footprint of many travelers. Let's continue to minimize our carbon footprint and make our planet a healthier place.

Do you know why birds are showing up in the most unlikely places? That's because of climate change messing with their migration patterns, in fact warmer temperatures mess up their internal GPS, so they end up flying to different places for food and shelter. These bird migrations might not seem like a big deal, but they mess with ecosystems and can even make some species struggle to survive. So, let's keep an eye on life below our heads and work to protect their habitats.

We need to prioritize clean development by reducing our reliance on non-renewable sources of energy. Instead of burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas, which release harmful emissions into the atmosphere, we should focus on renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power.
By transitioning to renewable energy, we can not only reduce pollution and combat climate change but also create new job opportunities and stimulate economic growth in the clean energy industry. Investing in renewable energy technologies and infrastructure is key to achieving a sustainable future for our planet and future generations.

From factory emissions from fossil fuels burned by automobiles, there are many ways that our world develops. Without development we will have no technological advancements in our world. In which we constantly need to address the many problems we face in our modern world. There needs to be a form of clean energy, one which may be burned through without causing any form of environmental damage. This is true of Electricity in certain cases depending upon how it is generated. If generated via clean means (Water, Wind, Thermal via the Sun), there is no emission which can be traced back to it, nor can impact the environment. It’s one of many clean sources of energy which have no polluted or harmful emissions. These sources of energy need to be used more efficiently and often. Solar could be the most viable, as it is the most efficient and viable but is expensive and only works on a clear sunny day. In my opinion I feel that we could most definitely use more wind energy as it's free, The only problem is that it won't always be windy. So what else could we use? Short answer, all of the different energy sources.
See in my Opinion we could utilize all of them, chances are most companies don't use all of them but some are returning to a more energy efficient way to reduce emissions and keep cost low while not damaging the environment in any way.

Sources - https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings … -mechanism
https://www.energy.gov/eere/renewable-energy

There are multiple different ways that we can keep our environment clean, but one of the biggest ways is simply throwing away or recycling your trash. Many people don’t actually realize how much trash ruins the environment and how much it kills animals. The United States alone produces 268 million tons of waste each year, 140 million of it going into landfills. Each American throws away about 1,200 pounds of organic waste each year, meaning we only recycle about 67.2 million tons of a possible 267.8 million. Animals are also innocent victims affected by litter. Over one million animals die each year just from trash pollution alone. 60% of water pollution is also attributed to litter. At least 100,000 fish and other marine animals die from plastic pollution per year. The American society can set up many clean development systems that the citizens can follow. This will help lower the percentage of the amount of pollution. In having a good system in which the recyclables actually get recycled and disposed of properly, we can save the wildlife and our planet as a whole. Cleaning up the environment is critical, it preserves our biosphere, and helps preserve the earth's natural resources. If you don’t know what we should be recycling; we should always recycle our water bottles, newspapers, mixed paper, magazines, cardboard, plastic drink bottles, plastic product bottles, aluminum cans, and even our clothes. We should also always throw our trash away in the trash bins to keep our planet clean. Using more wind turbines and solar panels to power buildings and using more public transportation and electric trains can also reduce carbon a lot. On this earth we have to take care of eachother and put our own personal wants aside. We all can make an effort to reduce our carbon footprint and make the world a better place.

I Like this application very much you când learn to recycle and more other things???

It's not good to pollute!

One of the biggest contributors to climate change is the fossil fuels that most of us use everyday to heat our homes, power our cars, and to cook our food. This is something that is so important to fix. Something that we can do is to start using alternatives to propane gas. There are lots of alternatives out there for using propane gas, such as biodiesel, electric powered vehicles, natural gas vehicles. To heat your home there are also lots of alternatives such as geothermal power, which is very cost effective and works very well. Solar power is also another alternative to heating homes, that is so much better for the environment then gas. There are so many other solutions to heating your home in a different way, and they are not all exponentially more expensive. We should all be trying to find ways in our lives to find alternatives that will work for us for cars, heating, and all of the other appliances used in our household in our daily lives. It is hard to make an immediate switch from your old gas powered car to a new electric one, but start small. Look at how these alternative solutions will effect you and your carbon footprint. This small switch might seem like it is unnecessary and not doing a lot, but it will  impact so much if we all do our part to try and lower our carbon footprint.

Sustainable aviation fuel or SAF is a fuel made with feedstocks that can go into all commercial planes when blended with traditional jet fuel. Currently we can only blend 50% SAF with conventional jet fuel on commercial flights, but even with that limit, SAF can reduce GHG emissions by 40-47%. One negative of SAF is that it is about 3 times more expensive than conventional jet fuel. I do believe it is a necessary development if we want to save the planet.

High speed rails are an efficient cheep and good for the environment way to transport people quickly across country’s. They run completely off of Electricity and they move at around 200 mph (320 kph). The best part is they would limit the amount of people driving cars and riding on planes which are some of the biggest carbon emitting things on the earth right now. Most countries have high speed rails but if you are not in one of those countries try to bring it up with your parents or you teachers to try to bring it to there attention so hopefully we can install high speed rails in countries that don’t really have them.

if you can use less energy to move more people instead of having them drive themselfs it helps the eviroment so makes perfect sence to me

The clean development mechanism is good for the environment. The clean development mechanism is good for the environment because it causes the carbon emission in countries that need their carbon emission to go down goes down at a high rate. Another reason and way the clean development mechanism works and is good for the environment is it doesn’t always cost money(recycling cans and bottles).

For centuries we have been blessed to be part of a planet that does so much for us, yet we don't do enough for it. An example of this is air pollution. Do you know that 91 percent of the earth's population is breathing in polluted air? In the year 2017,air pollution contributed to 5 million deaths globally. A lot of pollution is a result of the gas emissions from factories. The way to reduce this problem significantly is using less factory made products.  Other ways are making home made items instead of store bought ones, or using less plastic. Another example is littering. Littering is a result of us humans leaving our trash around which ultimately affects marine life. Littering can largely be avoided if we are responsible for our own trash. This means being accountable for the garbage that you have by throwing it away.A lot of the plastic that we used ends up being dumped into the ocean and kills marine animals.A huge way to limit our plastic usage is using metal water bottles as opposed to minimal use plastic ones. My final example is wastage of water in our environment.Did you know that we waste 1.7 gallons of water annually.We can preserve about 10 gallons of water a day if we can just turn off the faucet.2/3 of the water we use comes from showers,so we should all make an effort to limit our time in there.In this earth we have to take care of eachother and put our own needs and desires aside.We all can make efforts to reduce our carbon footprint and make the world a better place.

Sources:
https://earth.org/10-facts-about-air-pollution/
         https://kidadl.com/facts/littering-fact … tonish-you

https://homemindful.com/water-wastage-statistics/

I think I can speak for every one when I say that I want to make the world a better place. Now, don’t get me wrong when I say that. I am aware that some actually don’t want the world to be a better place; however, most of the people do actually want to make the world a better place. They are either just to lazy to or are unable to do anything about it.

I did not know that 91% of Earth’s population breathe polluted air. And 5 million deaths because of it? This is ridiculous! If the situation is this out of hand, are we even going to be able to fix it? Although using factory made products is a solution, maybe there are better alternatives. What if we convert the gas powered factories into electricity powered factories? Would that even be possible? If we are able to figure out how to make cars be powered with electricity, is it so implausible to do the same with factories? Burning fossil fuels is the issue here; factories using those fossil fuels is just something that happened.

About the littering; how exactly could we resolve that? I guess we could put out trash cans everywhere and hope that people throw their garbage into them, but that isn’t foolproof. People could still miss or deliberately throw them on the ground.

The water consumption is something much easier to fix, in my opinion. We just need to use less water. Take shorter showers. Turn off the water when brushing our teeth. Why are we leaving the water running when it isn’t necessary? What are you doing in the bathroom for so long that your taking such long showers?

As you said; we need to put our wants and desires down and put our needs first. We must make the world a better place while we still can…before it’s too late.

Supporting each other through proper housing to live in, and fresh supplies of food is important. However, doing all this can also negatively impact our environment in various ways. When more and more housing and buildings are constructed, this means more natural habitats of animals and forests will be torn down to expand our cities and towns. Many more roads and highways will have to be built as our cities expand farther away from many central parts causing cars to travel a much farther distance. For fresh food supplies that aren't grown locally to be transported from all around the world will increase the amount of greenhouse gasses being released from transportation boats, trucks, and lorries; not to mention the extra amount of refrigeration that needs to be used for the long distances. To reduce this, it's better to purchase locally-grown products as much as possible. Try taking public transit to get around more than cars, especially when the distance isn't too far.

The lack of sustainable infrastructure around Vancouver limits the "green " transportation actions that citizens can take. Although there are some parking spaces that offer electric car chargers, there are limited hydrogen car/truck refilling stations. If the city put more money into "clean" infrastructure, it would be the first step for Vancouver to have a lower impact on the earth.

them shoud recycle good and more

I think that if a large community used wind andsolar, we could reduce carbon emissions. We can convert this to hydrogen, use it to store energy, move transport and heat. Hydrogen has three time energy respect petrol! Every year we spend money using fossil fuels instead of investing in renewables.

I thoroughly agree with your viewpoint. We will gain in the long run if we invest in renewable energy, such as solar or wind power, because we will not only protect the environment, but we will also have the potential to save money. Furthermore, if everyone considered the long-term use of renewable energy, we may have a stable environment and carbon cycle.

I also agree with this perspective, implementing policies and laws that restrict the use of fossil fuels could significantly benefit the environment. This has already begun to be implemented in the law but needs to continue, for example Fossil fuel reductions in federal buildings are required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (according to https://www.npr.org/2023/04/10/11646521 … 20levels.). If we were able to restrict the use of fossil fuels that emit harmful emissions, it would have a greater impact than individual improvement. When this becomes a requirement we will begin to see significant change.

I also agree with your stance on renewable energy. Using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels can be more efficient and better for the environment. The only drawback is that renewable energy sources usually take up more land than fossil fuel sites. However, in the long run, I believe that renewable energy will be able to stabilize the carbon cycle and ultimately help stop global warming.

I agree that wind, solar, and other forms of renewable energy are extremely important to make an impact in the fight against climate change. These solutions are some of greatest tools, because not only do they help the environment, but they can also provide jobs and other economic incentives. Personally, most of the reduction in emissions from my country, America, has been due to the implementation and usage of solar and wind!

Renewable energy is beneficial to the environment and human health. Renewable energy is also known as clean energy. Clean energy has biomass resources that cover increasing biodiversity, storing carbon in the soil, improving water quality and quantity, and controlling erosion. Renewable energy is also cheap and creates jobs. The energy is sourced from the wind, water, underground, etc. Clean energy also helps reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere. It would create a better environment for humans and wildlife. 

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/rai … ble-energy

here are many ways we can have a cleaner development. Starting with trying to reduce what’s been causing a species distribution (SD or SDM). If we reduce human emissions and greenhouse gases, this will cause a cleaner development. We can reduce both human emissions and greenhouse gases, by burning less fossil fuels, reducing CO2 emissions, and cleaner technologies/energy. These are some of the main advances of cleaner development. How can these have a positive impact? Will burning fossil fuels cause less air pollution going into the atmosphere as well as fewer greenhouse gases and human emissions? Reducing CO2 emissions means we will be using more low-carbon sources of energy, renewable energy sources, and renewable technologies. Cleaner technologies can lead to us using more nuclear energy and will help with cleaner and renewable energy. Not to mention how much of a positive impact renewable technologies will have on cleaner development. https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy is a great article about cleaner development.

Renewable energies mean a reduction in CO2 emissions and other environmental impacts, since they avoid the burning of fossil fuels and other polluting activities such as those of the nuclear cycle.
Influencing that energy sources for our domestic uses are cleaner, however, is not easy. For example, in our country there is still no electricity company that offers only "green electricity", that is, electricity from 100% renewable energy. As users we have few options to support production with clean energy, although we can know what percentage of the electricity we pay comes from renewable energy sources, what percentage from nuclear, etc. as this information should appear on the invoice. We could also inform the company of our interest in receiving electricity from renewable energies and try to create a trend.

I think that asking companies for electricity from renewable energy sources is a really good idea. If it did manage to start a trend it would lower the demand for energy from nonrenewable sources and raise demand for energy from renewable sources. This would force companies to use less nonrenewable energy sources.

Small trashes on the street can cause a big problem! When you throw trashes anywhere, you might cause garbage pollution. Garbage pollution arises when the waste collected in dumping sites keeps rotting, spreading odour and cause air pollution in the surrounding areas. (https://infinitylearn.com/surge/english … pollution/) Air pollution is affective which will damage Earth. The temperature will also increase and the ices in North and south Antarctica melts. I don’t think any one of us want that……so the best diction is to clean our environment! We can start with cleaning inside our classroom and our house. Then, we can start not to throw garbages anywhere we want to. Hope we can make it different! I hope you also read mine post!!!!!!!!!

Typo: my

I agree with you, however I think that simply disposing of waste is not the solution, and instead we should work to promote reuse and recycling. First of all, when we remove trash from classrooms and homes, we put it into garbage bins, it does not disappear when this happens. A problem that arises from this is where the trash will eventually end up, which is ultimately landfills. These landfills are terrible for the environment, and have a very negative effect on the people and communities surrounding the dump. I think a better solution is to promote reuse of trash and finding new ways to use old products. While cleaning out trash from our communities is important, I also believe it is paramount we find a way to reuse the dwindling supplies that we depend on.
Source: https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2021/0 … controlled.

I do agree with you but I think recycling would have a better impact. When we pick up trash off the ground we help out the environment but the trash will end up in landfills which also have a negative impact on the environment.

I think that switching to renewable energy would be better for the environment as they can help reduce carbon emissions. However, since fossil fuels are widely used, making a sudden change would not be the best idea, since many people and companies rely on them.  A gradual change would be all it would take to stop global warming. Even so, stopping global warming cannot be done with a small group of people, but the whole human population.

Cleaning and cooking are one of the biggest useful things in the world because cleaning helps with the reduce of sickness and lower the rate of having to skip work or working out.And also Cooking is a big thing because how will you eat without cooking over 90% of the world know hot too cook and it is very hepfull for the populations .

Clean cooking could reduce pollution from burning wood or coal from regular stoves and protect human health if around 43% of families would change from traditional stoves to clean cooking. Billions of people around the world cook by polluting fuels which emit plumes of smoke that cause significant health impacts and premature deaths. Actions that need to be aggressively implemented are clean cooking technologies such as liquid petroleum gas, advanced biomass stoves, stoves that heat with solar energy, ect. Clean stoves reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing thermal efficiency or ventilation. Unfortunately for the economy, carbon dioxide equivalent emissions can be reduced by 31.38–76.34 gigatons at a net first cost of $136.64–302.76 billion. Clean cookstoves raise cooking operating costs by $1.96–4.38 trillion over the stove lifetime because many families collect fuel for free.

When I first learned about climate change as a kid, I watched shows and documentaries from a few years ago that warned me about climate change and how if we did not take drastic action soon, our world would be forever changed. That may still be the case, but we are not too late, we can still fix this issue and come out without too much death. California’s Senate Bill 100, passed in 2018, gave me hope that the wider world was finally taking climate change seriously. If California succeeds in its goal to have 100% of its energy come from renewables by 2045, it would serve as a great example for many countries around the world with similar populations and sizes as California. If we can support more countries to make and meet goals like this, I believe this is the greatest step we can realistically take at this time to significantly reduce the negative effects of climate change.
Here is more information on the California goal:https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and- … by%202045.

There's quite a few ways we can keep our environment clean but some of them would be shortening how much water we use and throwing away or recycling or trash. This obviously may sound like a small step or impossible to control throughout the world but shortening like our showers by a few minutes or turning the water off while your brushing your teeth can make it a long way.

If we stop using water so long, then we will help our planet. We need to take shorter showers and with cold water, because cold showers can help save energy and warm water will use more energy.

While it is true that this is a good step we can take in the direction of stopping climate change, I believe there is much more we can do. To effectively take impactful steps to a better future, we need everyone on board, most importantly big corporations and world leaders. We need the people and corporations in power to recognize the crisis we are in, and we need to get them to make changes that will actually help us. To do this, we need to continue to fight for what we, and our world needs. I believe that the ones contributing most to climate change are the ones to blame. There should be regulations and rules to ensure a more environmentally friendly future. To truly fight climate change, everyone needs to do everything they can, from big to small.

Yes, one way of improving the environment and improving the health of people is clean cooking. Clean cooking could reduce pollution from burning wood or coal from regular stoves and protect human health if around 43% of families would change from traditional stoves to clean cooking. Billions of people around the world cook by polluting fuels which emit plumes of smoke that cause significant health impacts and premature deaths. Actions that need to be aggressively implemented are clean cooking technologies such as liquid petroleum gas, advanced biomass stoves, stoves that heat with solar energy, ect. Clean stoves reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing thermal efficiency or ventilation. Unfortunately for the economy, carbon dioxide equivalent emissions can be reduced by 31.38–76.34 gigatons at a net first cost of $136.64–302.76 billion. Clean cookstoves raise cooking operating costs by $1.96–4.38 trillion over the stove lifetime because many families collect fuel for free.

I will be creating a new, emission-free, clean-and-green cargo transportation ship. In order to have a low carbon output, this modern ship is going to have advanced electrical engines and renewable energy sources including solar panels and wind turbines. With zero emissions , this ship will be able to reduce pollution but also create a more eco-friendly and less carbon-heavy future for sea transportation.

https://medium.com/the-treatise/renewab … 7e8b271ff8
https://www.shipbob.com/blog/eco-friendly-shipping/

It would also be extremely beneficial to use more local products/goods, even within the country since electric vehicles are so common.

The importance of corporate social responsibility is enormous, and it plays a significant role in climate change. 100 energy firms are said to be in charge of 71% of all industrial emissions, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Accordingly, huge corporations—especially when compared to the typical person—have the greatest influence on carbon emissions. In addition, a lot of the things utilized by the typical person that have a harmful influence on the environment are produced by corporations. The NRDC estimates that 630 metric tons of greenhouse gases are produced during the production of food and beverage firms' goods. Making and distributing these products using environmentally sustainable methods could stop this.

One thing we can do to reduce our carbon footprints is using more natural lighting than indoor lighting. Using indoor lighting uses electricity made from burning coals and fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere so opening a window or lifting the blindes is a great way to let sunlight illuminate our homes that helps cut back our carbon footprints. If that's not something you'd prefer, remembering to turn off the lights before leaving and room is also a great way to help. Another thing we can do is accept hand-me-downs and thrift more often. When we buy things new, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere from the factories making them. This can be avoided by buying things that have already been bought and used, so more new things don't need to be made. We can thrift all sorts of things from clothing, household supplies, decorations, and more. Not everyone is able to do large things to contribute to the survival of our environment, so remembering to do little things like these in our everyday lives can help a lot.

For background information, “DAC” or Direct Air Capture system, is a product used to extract excess carbon from the atmosphere. It uses sticky receptors that the carbon dioxide sticks to without attracting any other unneeded gasses. It is able to separate a meaningful amount of carbon dioxide from the air but this process requires a huge amount of air to come in contact with the receptors because sometimes the carbon in the air can be very dilute. This process is efficient but is not cost effective and requires a lot of advanced technology to be developed and huge amounts of space. Currently, there are 18 DAC plants operating worldwide capturing about 0.01MtCO2 per year. And one plant is being developed in the United States that is projected to capture 1MtCO2. In the net zero emission by 2050 scenario DAC is projected to capture about 60MtCO2 per year by 2030. The carbon dioxide captured from the DAC systems can be implanted into the earth’s crust but more importantly, can have a second use to benefit humankind and possibly solve the climate crisis. Compressed CO2 can be used for manufacturing plastics, cement, carbon fiber, oil productions, and improving indoor agricultural yields. It can even be used for beverage carbonation which goes to show how ingrained and helpful extracted CO2 could be in the future. If we can find a way to use compressed CO2 to help with something like oil production which is already a coveted and toll taking matter on the earth to extract. It could speed up the process of cooling down the earth in an efficient amount of time to hopefully be able to save some species that are already suffering from climate change. Not only could DAC extracted carbon hopefully be able to save some endangered species but it could help humankind be more efficient with their carbon dioxide usage and help us rethink the way we produce products. Products that would normally be bad for the earth but if we use DAC extracted carbon a lot of our day to day resources could be better for the earth, which would eventually put an end to climate change.

Source: https://www.iea.org/reports/direct-air-capture

Cleaning up the environment is critical to the survival of life on Earth. It reduces pollution, preserves our biosphere, protects endangered species, and also helps preserve the earth's natural resources

i agree, i think the first step for cleaning up the environment is eliminating plastic, that as we know it is very dangerous for animals too.
do not throw waste in the ground in the next step to breathe clean air and guarantee a better place for wildlife as well as for future generation, in small steps you can change the situation!!!

The best way to develop a clean environment is to stop the production of single use plastics. Single use plastics are incredibly bad for the environment because first of all most of them are just being thrown on the street, which is making cities look un appealing. After that, the wind picks it up and throws it into the ocean which affects sea life substantually.

I agree, if we don't clean up the environment we will have many deficiencies in our ecosystem. Fossil fuels are the leading cause of CO2 emissions. This includes transportation as well as electricity and heat. To reduce transportation emissions , we need to use less gas powered vehicles and use electrical vehicles or bicycles. To cut off gas emissions from electricity and heat is just to simply use less of it. By turning off the sink when not using it, turning off lights when not in that room, or turning off the fan when you don't need it will add up.

I agree, if we don't clean up the environment we will have many deficiencies in our ecosystem. Fossil fuels are the leading cause of CO2 emissions. This includes transportation as well as electricity and heat. To reduce transportation emissions , we need to use less gas powered vehicles and use electrical vehicles or bicycles. To cut off gas emissions from electricity and heat is just to simply use less of it. By turning off the sink when not using it, turning off lights when not in that room, or turning off the fan when you don't need it will add up.

I agree to this idea. We have to make sure, and be responsible of our environment, and the ecosystem. It's not only where we live, buy also other hundreds and millions of other organisms. We shouldn't be selfish, and consider only about ourselves. We should think about how each and every single thing we do affect our whole environment. We are producing more and more waste each day, just for our own good. Plastics, CO2, deforestation, can all be stopped if we take our time, and help the environment. For example, get a cloth-made, recyclable bag for groceries, ride our bike/walk as much as possible, and cutting down our needs for wooden products. All are some good ways to actually do something for our environment. There are too many problems environmentally, and we should solve it step-by-step.

I had fun doing this project and learned how my actions affect the environment. It made me realize that I and others are doing things that hurt the planet every day. I want to change my habits so I can help the Earth.

How many lights stay on in schools all night? Our school is doing an energy’s audit and dealing with automatic lights which never turn off, or teachers and staff leaving lights on when the leave the room.
How can we make this as automatic as washing your hands after going to the bathroom? How can we ensure that people fall into climate healthy habits?
Are lights a very substantial factor in carbon footprints?

Clean development refers to the implementation of sustainable and environmentally friendly practices in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. To start clean development, individuals and organizations can first conduct an audit to identify areas of improvement in their daily activities, such as energy usage, transportation, and waste management. From there, they can implement changes such as using renewable energy sources, reducing single-use plastics, and promoting eco-friendly transportation options. Additionally, governments can create policies and incentives to encourage clean development practices and promote the use of renewable energy sources. By starting with small changes and making a concerted effort towards sustainable practices, we can work towards combatting climate change and creating a more sustainable future.

we can reduce the waste of water for exemple taking an short shower or taking it cold even if outside it is very cold. we need to stop wasting thing like water

I agree. I also think that there are other ways of saving water: when doing dishes or brushing teeth, turn off the water until you need to rinse. Dual-flush toilet systems, or other alternatives to flushing, are also helpful. As a society, we use excessive amounts of water - in the fortunate places - while other places are forced to travel long distances, and sometimes not even to clean water! The ocean is also becoming super polluted, so we need to stop flushing things into it. That includes sewage, plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, as well as lots of other things.

Dear people;

Our environment is very important to us and living things. Please share your thoughts about how you can SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT.
My thoughts: We can clean up our environment. We don't use plastic. We throw trash in the trash can.

Thank you very much

Hi Clara, ok

This is a very good suggestion to do, however this is something that we could do in the short term but in the long term we could start asking are government to put in clean energy sources. Like windmills because we get a lot of wind in Canada and they could power a lot of things. The government could also put in solar panels on new houses so that they don't completely rely on fossil fuels and more on clean energy. They could also give people money to change their  cars to electric because they cost more than normal gas powered cars.

The topic of confronting climate change is a complicated task as there are many options but many politicians and ourselves included are sometimes not committed to the idea of new energy and some fossil fuel companies are actively against change. Despite the resistance of some companies, there has been much progress such as companies and countries changing from fossil fuel to renewable energy such as coal-burning countries laying off or leveling the amount of coal used(Chart of coal usage in countries*). Since countries are laying off on fossil energy, we should also use solar panels and wind energy to help lower the amount of fossil fuel used and use cleaner energy appliances such as electric cars and LED lights. We could also create an organization that mostly concentrates on more renewable and cleaner energy sources and band all countries to petition and support these ideas.
*https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

I definitely agree! Creating an organization that concentrates on renewable energy is definitely a good alternative to fossil fuel usage.

I believe that the countries in the world who want to improve pollution and reduce climate change should come together to band an organization promising to eliminate things like gas-powered machines by 2050. With more resources, it would be easier to implement electric powered machines in multiple countries at a time. In this organization, the companies could lend each other money in order to start organizations that help reduce climate change. The Millennium Development Goals are quite unrealistic and with only one country it would take decades

I have seen a lot of news about new technology that can improve transportation, but most of them are not much better than existing technology that we just aren't using. Los Angeles had a very good electric street car system in 1895 that was probably better than what some cities have today. The only thing stopping us from having efficient transportation everywhere is corporate lobbying and political opposition. Trains and streetcars have existed for over 100 years and there is no reason why any city should not have them.

When people think of carbon neutral energy sources, renewables come to mind, however renewables have downsides that a lot of people do not acknowledge. Solar and Wind energy are often seen as the quintessential renewable energy sources, however most do not acknowledge that solar panels only last for 25 years under optimal conditions (which could be severely shortened by storms and natural disaster), and after they break, it's likely they are not disposed of properly and the heavy metals they contain seep into the environment. Furthermore, Wind farms are very obstructive and pose a major hazard to birds, and can also be destroyed by storms. They also do not provide enough energy for entire cities, and all of these problems can be circumvented by nuclear energy. Nuclear reactors only cause a tiny amount of carbon emissions, but in exchange they provide an unparalleled level of energy. Through the use of Thorium, nuclear reactors eliminate the danger of a major meltdown, and thorium cannot be used in nuclear weapons, which are the two biggest concerns about nuclear. I think a greater emphasis needs to be placed on nuclear energy, since a lot of nuclear reactors were built several decades ago and modern technology could massively improve the efficency of nuclear reactors. Nuclear could be a long term solution to replace fossil fuels, which is a feat renewables likely cannot achieve due to the inconsistency seen in their energy, as solar and wind both heavily depend on the weather and climate to be functional, whereas nuclear would provide a constant stream of energy.

We can help keep the planet from further warming through reduction of water use/waste. For example, taking shorter showers can save gallons of water and taking cold showers can help save energy. Taking hotter showers needs more energy use and increases gas emissions.

I believe that it would be possible if everyone in the world made it their top priority. However, with all of the countries competing for resources and money, it would be difficult to come together and agree on how to get things done. Additionally, governments put large amounts of funding into other fields, like military. It would only be possible to complete so much in 2 years if our entire political structure changed.

We should stop using coal or gas generated electricity. Like in Germany, many houses have solar panels to not use coal and gas generated electricity.

I think one of the problems with solar and wind power is that its only available when its windy or sunny. This is what causes it to not make complete economic sense. However if we could develop a system of giant batteries that could be used as power banks so we could have a storage of power and electricity for when its not windy or sunny. This would make it possible to rely on just wind and solar power and completely cut out fossil fuels

I totally agree with you, it's a great idea to store the electricity producted by a solar or wind system in batteries.

*In addition to this, where I live, the weather is particularly sunny and windy therefore we can collect quite a few electricity. Unfortunately we can't store it.

You dont need 20-30 mins for a shower bestie

I do agree with you. I think people should use cold water instead of hot water, it avoids high electric consumptions and it allows people to bathe in less than 5 mins since it's cold hahaha

I've definitely seen it mentioned in this forum, but electric cars are currently a great option for reducing one's personal carbon footprint. However, currently, there are very few electric vehicle chargers that exist throughout cities. The ones that do exist are usually concentrated in more affluent neighborhoods, meaning that their ease of access is very low for the average person. In the future, we need developments that will promote sustainable lifestyles, such as more electric vehicle chargers sprinkled throughout a city so that people can feel motivated to buy an electric vehicle without the thought nagging in the back of their mind about the annoyances that come along with a sustainable car.

I agree, electric cars are better for the environment and I'm glad to see it making a bigger change on earth. But, it is very unaccessable to the average person. I feel like companies should focus more on electric cars and making them cheaper for the average person to invest in

I agree I feel like Teslas are the most popular electric vehicle and it's what most people think of when you hear electric car and since they are so expensive many people think the idea of an electric car is out of the question. And that goes along with what Sylvan said about placement of EV chargers, you see chargers in neighborhoods where people can afford electric cars which is part of the problem. There are other companies that make electric vehicles for cheaper but they are still most common in bigger cities where more chargers are available. If electric vehicles were more accessible they would have a bigger impact on the environment.

The main problem I see with a Tesla is the charging port. This isn't only a drawback of Teslas but electric cars and manufacturers in general. What we need to do is have a common charger that every car uses, kind of similar to iPhone vs Android. The network would be much denser if we only had one type of charger. That being said adapters do exist and I am aware that Teslas come with a J1772 adapter which is the most common charging port in electric vehicles. It would just be nice if we didn't have to horse around with adapters and could just pull up anywhere and charge without even having that thought.

In the short term, electric cars might seem like the option to go, but overall, the manufacturing process and materials required are much less enviromentally friendly. Most electric cars use a Lithium Ion battery, which is made by taking away water from ponds, rivers, having it to evaporate in the sun, to concentrate the necessary material's in the soil to create the battery. Meaning that creating the batteries essentially destroys natural animal's habitats. In addition, because of the complexity of an electric car, the Union of Concerned Scientist (USC) have found that the carbon footprint of producing an electric car is around 15-68% higher than producing a normal car. In addition, an electric car must be specially recycled to prevent harm to the enviroment, so as the popularity of electric cars increases, I believe recycling and disposing of cars will become a problem in the future. Finally, the average electric car has an average of 3 miles per kWh. Around 60% of electricity is created by fossil fuels, this mean that a electric car actually consumes more fossil fuels than a normal petro engine car. The concepts of an electric car is really smart and theoretically a lot more enviromentally friendly, but we still have a long way to go before this can happen, we definetly need to put more resources in research better ways to create and sustain electrically vechicals.

One thing is more electric cars to reduce the amount of gas and petrol used. Another using more wind turbines and solar panels to power more buildings. Also using more public transportation and electric trains would also reduce carbon a lot.

The higher use of public transportation and electric trains would also increase the flow of traffic since there would be less people on the roads and more people in the trains or other types of transportation.

Population growth is a major problem for the environment, and one that continues to grow. For most of human history our population size was relatively stable, until globalization during the 1950s, when innovation and industrialization, energy, food, water, medical care, and other resources became more available and reliable, causing a surplus. Consequently, the global human population rapidly increased, and continues to do so, with dramatic impacts on global climate and ecosystems. The world population is growing rapidly, far outpacing the ability of our planet to support it. Overpopulation is associated with negative environmental and economic outcomes ranging from the impacts of over-farming, deforestation, and water pollution to global warming. As the population grows and the demand for resources to support it grows as well, negative environmental impacts from production and burning fossil fuels increase enormously, contributing to individual carbon footprints as well as global emissions. This is a very big problem, but not one with a simple solution, so we need to look at ways to decrease carbon emissions but still support the growing population.

As of recently scientists in India and around the world have been finding new and improved ways to try and make more products such as shopping bags, straws, and plastic bags biodegradable.
     Everyone knows about the increasing problem with sea turtles and other ocean life getting plastic straws stuck in their noses as well as intestines. While in some cases, issues like this aren't fatal because the animal gets help or the straw gets unstuck itself naturally, that's not always the case. Often complications such as the ones mentioned aren't only extremally painful but can prove to be fatal for the animal and its environment. However, more and more companies are trying to implement new sustainable practices to cut down on the number of straws they use. https://money.com/starbucks-hyatt-ban-plastic-straws/ For example, more restaurants have quit offering straws all together or they offer paper alternatives. While this is more common for beach front establishments, important companies such as Starbucks, American Airlines, and Disney have claimed that they will be banning the use of plastic straws within the foreseeable future.
     The problem with normal plastic bags is that they can travel extremally far and on top of that, look very similar to sea creatures. Jellyfish predators such as Sea Turtles, Sun fish, and Tuna fish end up mistaking plastic bags for their main food source. As if that wasn’t bad enough, plastic bags have been seen stuck on coral reefs and along the ocean floor. When these plastic bags get stuck on coral, they choke it out and cause it to die back, resulting in habitat loss and destruction. When plastic bags get stuck on the sea floor it can prevent some ocean species from burrowing and making dens in the sea sand, which, also in turn results in habitat loss and destruction. Not only are big name companies banning the use of plastic straws but, scientists have developed a substance very similar to the plastic used for making shopping bags that completely dissolves in water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqE20TFl6cY These bags were originally designed to aid India in its plastic reduction, but environmental advocates are pushing for companies all around the world to adopt this much better alternative.
     Plastic utensils are dangerous to both humans and animals in a variety of ways. When plastic cutlery breaks, it sprays out micro pieces of plastic that dietary tracks can have difficulty processing and, in extreme cases, can cause bleeding. The same thing happens to animals like sea lions and dolphins that chew up plastic and cause it to break and splinter into bigger pieces that get lodged into their throat and stuck in their stomachs. To even further reduce plastic waste Bakeys, a company based in India, has created edible and durable utensils. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/12 … y-utensils  Their products don’t dissolve very easily in liquids and are made from rice, wheat, and sorghum flour. On top of that, the utensils have a shelf life of three years and don’t contain any preservatives. The company’s goals are to eventually eliminate the need for plastic utensils around the world.
     While the environment and the world are suffering from human impact and pollution, all hope is not lost. People are trying to correct mistakes and live more sustainably and on top of that, provide ways for the common consumer to lessen their environmental impact through small and attainable steps.
(Copy and Paste links into internet browsers to read up on these companies products)

Great post!

Add tras can to rivers for plastic, glass and paper

This is a little bit bigger than a trash can, but trash collecting devices have been implemented in a few places! My favorite is Mr. Trash Wheel in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. There are four of them in the harbor there and two more planning to be installed in California, USA and Panama. Currently, the trash collected is being burned for electricity.

The Earth needs to stay clean. There is so much pollution going on now a day that nobody is willing to even care about a cigarette bud on the ground. What most people do not think about is the consequences that are included in every pollution that happens daily. It is sad to see the disrespect that most Americans show to the Earth and then the care that is not given to the Earth.

The American society can set up many clean development systems which the citizens can follow that will help lower the percentage of the amount pollution. In having a good system in which the recycles actually get recycled and then the trash gets disposed of properly. If the mindset of the people in this country changed to them caring about the planet and caring about the future and the Earth, then there would not be such a big problem in the clean development of Earth. Just a simple change in the mindset of people to think about pollution before actually polluting would help out this world tremendously.

Finally, having a good system that will help the pollution in this country and around the world will help all different ecosystems and will benefit the health of this Earth.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 … 326/ab6396

The Earth needs to stay clean. There is so much pollution going on now a day that nobody is willing to even care about a cigarette bud on the ground. What most people do not think about is the consequences that are included in every pollution that happens daily. It is sad to see the disrespect that most Americans show to the Earth and then the care that is not given to the Earth.

The American society can set up many clean development systems which the citizens can follow that will help lower the percentage of the amount pollution. In having a good system in which the recycles actually get recycled and then the trash gets disposed of properly. If the mindset of the people in this country changed to them caring about the planet and caring about the future and the Earth, then there would not be such a big problem in the clean development of Earth. Just a simple change in the mindset of people to think about pollution before actually polluting would help out this world tremendously.

Finally, having a good system that will help the pollution in this country and around the world will help all different ecosystems and will benefit the health of this Earth.

We should always recycle our water bottles, newspapers, mixed paper, magazines, cardboard, paperboard, plastic drink bottles, plastic product bottles, aluminum cans, even our clothes. And we should never litter and always throw our trash away in the trash bins to keep our planet clean.

i agree  we should recycle  )

If we do somethings at home by hand or use electric tools (if possible for you) we can reduce the carbon footprint a lot. Even if we reduce the footprint of what we did at home by a quarter, that would be almost 1000 kgs (2204 pounds) which would leave the average usage around the world to about 8800 kgs per capita.

Littering can lead to an unhealthy environment. When we litter, we are dirtying up our planet and affect other communities around us. Also, a lot of this plastic waste we litter can be consumed by animals because they think it is food. This causes them to die and maybe have a huge decrease in their population. Let's keep our planet healthy.

For years now the word has relied on gas and oil fuel vehicles to bring us transport. Little do people know or care hoe this could be affecting them. The after product of running gas through your car is green house gases and to many green house gases can cause for to little sunlight to get through to earth. We also breath in these toxic fumes damaging or lungs and body.

One of the major contributors to carbon emission is the vehicles we travel around with. Vehicles that use gasoline for fuel releases tons of Co2 into the atmosphere every year. Coming from a MEDCs like Vietnam, our streets are filled with motorbikes and cars that only use gasoline. I know the same applies to many other countries as well. That is why I believe now is the time for the transition of using other eco-friendly alternatives such as electric or vegetable oil. Electric can easily be generated from renewable energy resources from wind farms, solar panels, and tidal power. We have already seen a first glance at the success that electric cars could bring from their recent use in the U.S. Without a doubt, a reformation to sustainable fuel will help us reduce our carbon emissions significantly.

Hi, I agree that cars that use oil are playing a huge part in pollution. Hybrid and electric vehicles can help save our environment by limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that get released into the atmosphere. Converting all the cars from oil to electric would be very difficult and most likely wouldn't happen until the far future, but each conversion would help the environment bit by bit.

I, personally don’t own an Electric Vehicle, but I understand people’s reasoning of owning an electric vehicle. I competed in a competition in which the main goal was to explain the differences between electric vehicles and and gasoline vehicles. I believe that Electric Vehicles are superior in terms of them not emitting as much co2, but they still emit some co2. Opinions below?

I agree, electric powered vehicles don't need motor oil changes and while that still emits some CO2, it is much lower than the emissions from a gas powered vehicle. Because they have not tailpipe, pure electric cars can produce little to no carbon dioxide while driving. Although the production of an electric car tends to be have a higher emission than that of a conventional car, in the long run the carbon emissions of an electric car tends are around 17-30% lower.

In general, I do agree with the fact that electric vehicles are considered to be less environmentally impactful than gasoline vehicles. However, electric vehicles can also cause huge detrimental impacts on the environment. For instance, the magnets found in permanent magnet motors contain rare earth metals in which the mining process requires much energy and can release toxic compounds. Moreover, electric vehicles aren't truly zero emissions in many cases. This is because some electricity provided to electric vehicles comes from the burning of fossil fuels in a distant power plant making their pollution much higher than gasoline vehicles. But, overall, if advanced technology used in the future can solve these related issues, electric vehicles will be much better for the environment than gasoline vehicles.

I think to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we need to have more clean development solutions. An example of this could be to use products that can be recycled to reduce pollution which would help have better clean development. Another example could be to use electric cars to also reduce the amount of pollution on the Earth. Electric cars instead of cars that use gasoline could also help improve clean development on the Earth. A third solution for helping Clean Development could be to travel better and using less energy. Traveling better could be carpooling or taking public transportation or using a bicycle instead of a car.

I do like your point about having more electric cars because of their lesser effect on the environment but I don't think that is a good long-term solution. The process of mining the Lithium required to make car batteries is extremely harmful to the environment and then transporting it to the assembly plant is another way the process creates pollution. I think if we can find a way to recycle the batteries better and reuse them the whole idea would be a lot more effective. I think the most effective thing that you mention would be taking public transportation or carpooling.

To improve and change the world we have to recycle and help the world for example when you rinse you turn off the water so we don't waste it, or when we brush our teeth you stop the water until you need it.

Well done, I like your idea

thats a very good idea i do that in my house

The truth is that I think exactly the same and not only the water but to recycle the products or another very good idea would be instead of using the car so much if you have to move around the city or town use the bicycle and if it is in your own town walking, a personal comment of mine is that, for example, if I have to move around town, I take my electric skateboard, which pollutes less.

I think that all the people must to do in their house.Well done

Hi Javi, I like your ideas, if everyone did the same or followed these tips or other similar ones, the levels of contamination would decrease.

Yes, I agree completly. I am at fault for wasting water when brushing my teeth, and I myself need to imporve. I appreciate you spreading this message, as every little thing helps, and your voice has changed my sets of thoughts.

I completely agree. Those small actions can all add up and help the environment much more than you think.

Yes, Mr. Javier I wholeheartedly agree with your stance on how the environment can be improved, we do need to turn off the water when we are brushing our teeth because wasting water is not good. I will now pay attention to when I have the water on when I am brushing my teeth and kick myself if I do. Thank you for sharing

I strongly agree with your claim, recycling is probably one of the easiest accessible things for us to do to help the environment.

I definitely agree with this post! Recycling our plastic will prevent them ending up in our landfills, killing our marine life, and polluting our water. These small changes in our daily lives, like turning off running water and recycling, will certainly improve and change our world in a positive manner.

I agree. Just small things like turning off the faucet when you brush your teeth may seem insignificant, but over time they add up and will definitely go a long way in ending this problem.

I agree. Even though it seems like a small thing. If everyone does this small thing that that becomes a big thing and helps the environment a lot. Turn off the water until you need it(it does make a difference)!

Hi Javier,
I also agree with your statements. I also think that recycling is a major way to have better clean development on the Earth. Turning off the water when doing things like brushing your teeth is also a good idea because it is an easy way to improve the environment. Another way to have more clean development could be to use more efficient transportation.

I think that an important aspect of lowering carbon emissions is finding a way of clean development. Countries like Nigeria, Niger, and other countries that are in the process of developing need a way to cleanly develop without carbon emissions; Considering the sheer amount of people that they have not being fully developed, a fully developed Nigeria would require tons of carbon emissions to built facilities for all the people that a fully developed Nigeria would have. If nothing is done about clean development then it would lead to an ever larger carbon emission because this second wave of development would dwarf the old development of the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and other long developed countries.

In my opinion, there are many effects to having a huge amount of carbon footprint but,four of the effects that have a huge impacts with humans is people that smoke, using to much plastic when we can reduce the amount of plastic that we use, water, and energy. Water is a major effect when it can effect our life at any time like wasting water or taking to much time showering. This can effect us by having a water shortage and not having water when we need it.

We all should stop using plastic bags as well as non reusable plastic and instead use something that will break down in the nature

This is very agreeable. I see plastic bags everywhere on the street and it pains me that people don't pick up or reuse what they get. This shows that we don't care what we do, just to make our lives easier. The plastic bags that can break-down are a good substitute for normal bags and even if they aren't better, they're better for the environment. This could solve a lot of trash problems that are currently in the ocean.

I agree with this as well, there is no reason other than accessibility why plastic bags and non-reusable plastic should be continued to be used and just left in our environment to harm others. With our modern production capabilities, many substitutes, that are just as good if not better, have been made using way less harmful chemicals and other things that continue to harm our environment.

In my opinion to have a clean development we don't smoke, we reduce the consume of plastic, water and energy.

I agree with you, but I also think that we can do a lot more than that to develop a clean environment. We could use alternative energy to produce products, try to make cheaper and more electric cars, and maybe even ban the use of fossil fuel. The last one is really extreme but I think that if we could do that one day, then the amount of fossil fuel in the air would go away.

I agree with your last statement Trevor, about the banning of fossil fuels. We have other forms of producing energy that may not give us as much as fossil fuels, but are definitely sustainable and are actually better for our earth. Things like Hydroelectric, Harnessing the wind, also maybe even nuclear energy.

Yes, I agree that we do need to stop wasting preciosus resources. Our planet is already strugling to support 7 billion people,and to support more we need to be more consevative.

Yes, I agree, but, I think that this will be hard to do immediately.  Many people are addicted to smoking, and will not change their ways so easily.  And, it will also be hard to convince others to limit their plastic, water, and energy use, because it doesn't technically affect them personally.

I also agree with your last statement, as well. Things such as reduce the amount of materials we use everyday is an easy fix, but for those that are addicted to things such as smoking,you will need some heavy convincing if you wanted worldwide change in smoking habits.

I agree, we should save our resources. Even though stopping old habits is hard, we should do so for our environment.

We all have our wants and needs but, some don't realize that they are harming our environment while doing it. Things like driving, electricity, even cows are contributing to our carbon footprint as a society. We need to use more of the renewable resources that are available at the moment. The problem is that some people can't afford to switch their entire lifestyle to use more renewable resources like using solar panels. To some people, solar panels are a good investment to others they are too expensive. Renewable resources need to be made more accessible to all.

The simple answer is: go electric, save the polar bears. The long answer with evidence and things would be: Everybody should do their part to help prevent the greenhouse gas effect and reduce climate change, and an easy way to do this for the upcoming generation is to purchase electric cars. Cars that use gas for fuel produce exhaust, which contains many greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapor. These type of cars put these greenhouse gases into the air, quickening climate change. It shouldn’t be that hard to find a local electric car dealer near you

I have done some research, and realized that even though electric cars directly don't produce any emissions, the production of electric car batteries and the amount of electricity they use is detrimental to the environment as well. The car itself may not be producing carbon dioxide, but the factories that produce the cars still produce a large amount of greenhouse gases and the materials needed for those cars still require a lot of not recyclable materials. Therefore, cars in general are harmful either way. We should instead use bicycles and walk as much as we can, because they are not as harmful.

Since my family owns electric cars, I thought the same as you before. But after further research, I realized I was wrong.

Carpooling is widely regarded as a good way to cut down on your carbon footprint. Many people in my area do it as it is not only convenient but also saves your family money on gas. However, very few people carpool just for environmental purposes. Overall, carpooling is very beneficial with very few downsides. Carpooling whenever possible is always the better option.

Energy use from unused lights and appliances is very high. Cutting down on energy use, or switching to clean energy sources can help decrease your carbon footprint. Leaving devices plugged in when they are fully charged also takes up a large amount of energy. Unplugging devices when fully charged decreases energy use, and can also help decrease your carbon footprint.

Travelling by plane takes a lot of fuel, and has a much larger effect on the environment that driving or taking public transport. When possible, limit travel to a reasonable level, and try to take energy and fuel efficient vehicles.

Take smaller shower. Use less water. Might be more stinky but you save the earth little stinky people. Using less water means more water for fish. Fish are better then humans anyways, so use less water.

Transportation is a big contributor to CO2 emissions but there aren't many eco-friendly alternatives available. Electric cars for example are very expensive which means most of the public doesn't have access to them. If there were easier or cheaper ways to make electric vehicles they would be able to be sold for cheaper and this could lead to a significant decrease in the amount of pollutants cars emit.

I agree. I think that electric cars should be cheaper. In the next decade if the prices don't lower I think we should go to the city or government and protest. All they want is their money, but they don't think about others and that the world is struggling and it's getting worse. We need to take action before this gets out of our hands.

I agree with your statement. Transportation is a huge contributor to CO2 emissions and electric cars should be way cheaper. In the upcoming years, if car companies, don't decrease the prices of electric cars, we should all come together and protest against the government. The general public needs electric cars if we want to significantly decrease the levels of CO2 emissions.

I 100% agree with your statement. Electric cars for now are selling at a really high price, but for an alternative you can ride a bike or use a bus if possible. Even though buses commit CO2 it's much more eco friendly than cars because buses carries tons of people at a time unlike cars which only carries a certain amount of people. It's only a matter of time before more companies starts making electric cars. Planes on the other hand does not have an alternative. maybe in the future they could make a eco friendly plane.

Nuclear-powered energy plants have been around for decades. The vapor-spewing towers are an unmistakable trademark of clean nuclear power. But what makes these reactors environmentally clean? It's because the nuclear reactors aren't burning anything to generate power, they are utilizing the heat created by radioactive substances. This means no direct emissions from the fuel. The only things coming out of these reactors are water vapor because water is used to cool and control the temperature of the reactors and in many cases, the water vapor that is made is also used to create additional electricity by moving turbines that are built into the chimneys of the reactor. After all those positives, it's no wonder nuclear power accounts for a fifth of America's power every year. But there some cons to the radioactive workhorses of the west. Nuclear reactors are very high maintenance and human error can lead to the meltdown of a plant, rendering the surrounding area inhospitable. Thankfully there are many modern measures in place that make the reactors of today extremely safe and the risk of a meltdown is practically 0. Though real problems arise after the nuclear plant runs its course when the radioactive material is spent. The nuclear waste that is left is extremely hard to dispose of safely. You cant bury it, and you cant dump it, so what happens to the radioactive waste? It is actually stored in select remote facilities, where it will sit until we find a real way to use or truly dispose of the toxic contents. That is a very basic rundown of how nuclear reactors work and their place in the world.

Looking at my footprint I think I need to do better and start thinking of the world and the environmental issues because the change in myself starts with me. Looking back at my home score I see that the home score is the highest score of them all and I feel as people and myself have this mindset of just taking the easy way out of home appliances and not thinking about how the "easy way out" is harming the earth. This has helped me learn that I need to start thinking about how I can make a small change in the earth and using apllince that does not hurt the earth.

From 1990 to 2016 we have lost 502,000 square miles from deforestation. All those trees that were cut down would have taken in carbon dioxide, through photosynthesis which would have slowed down the affects of climate change. One way to help reduce he amount of trees were cutting down or at least help the he forests recover from our massive deforestation would be to plant a tree for every tree we cut or use less paper products so there would less of a demand for paper products and so the rate of deforestation would  decrease.

I agree with what you're saying, but we have to keep in mind that trees can be cut down at a faster rate than planting them, especially since it takes time and extensive care for trees to regrow at their expected height. What would be more worthwhile is to have stricter regulations on cutting down trees and have zones where people are and are not allowed to deforest, so that saplings can be planted and taken care of.

While I certainly agree that reforestation is essential to contributing to global cooling and carbon sequestration, I agree with Johanness that the process of erecting trees is quite slow and that regulations would likely be much more effective. I also think that making urban sprawls sustainable and integrated into the ecosystems which they supplanted will expand the acreage for reforestation.

I certainly agree, and I think we can take it a step further by planting 2 trees for every tree we cut down, since we lost a considerable amount of trees to forest fires and deforestation in just the past 2 years.

I also agree that deforestation is a huge factor in climate change, as the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere grows we are also cutting down the trees that could help filter it into oxygen. Deforestation definitely needs to be regulated, and reforestation is essential as well. However cutting down our use of paper products can be difficult. Often paper is used as a substitute for plastic which also harms the environment and people might go back to using plastic if paper use was cut down. If we could find an alternative to both it would greatly help our goal of stopping climate change.

Hi there, Jesse! I agree with you on the fact that we should cut fewer trees since forests (especially rainforests) are the lungs of our planet. But I don't really see the problem with using paper products. I think paper should replace plastic as much as possible while still maintaining that natural balance and planting more trees. And at the same time, we could create products using sources of other vegetation, such as algae and other quick decomposing substances from the nature.

In January of 2021 congress passed a two year extension of the solar energy investment tax credit. The impact of this extension is expected to be in the range of $1B to the solar energy industry. The ITC extension is applicable to utility scale markets as well as commercial and residential installations. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and the American Clean Power Association (ACP) were key influencers of this legislation.

The extension of the ITC will affect not only jobs and the economy, but have a significant environmental impact. Based on the estimated amount of additional solar installations, a key environmental benefit will be the offset of 100 million metric tons of CO2 emissions. In additional the solar industry could generate enough electricity to power 19 million homes.

Universal education is still a big issue in today's world. It is best to focus on education in rural and poorer areas, especially those with poor or no education at all. We can also build schools in the most environmentally friendly ways. It is also best to train more and more teachers and professors for the future ahead with more schools and educational facilities.

I completely agree that universal education is huge, by providing education to poorer districts it an help level the playing field and provide equal opportunities to everyone. Building schools in environmentally/sustainable ways is super important to. My school uses wind and solar technology to provide energy in a clean way which could be used in other schools too.

That’s true. By building environmentally friendly schools and making them open to everyone we can teach more people about carbon footprint and how to lower it to help the environment. Especially for poorer districts.

Yes I totally agree. The school districts have to start investing in making their facilities greener. My school district passed an agreement to cut all fossil fuels used in the Seattle public school system by 2040 which is pretty cool and I hope other districts do the same. I also agree that we need to have universal education for everyone as well as education on green energy to teachers and students and all new schools built should be fossil fuel free from the start.

While I agree that having greener schools and making sure education is accessible is important, I feel like one of the reasons that some people can't go to school is because the schools they live near are over capacity.  It's hard to fix that problem without making a bunch of new schools closer to a bunch of different types of neighborhoods, not just upper and middle class ones.

Although gender equality has improved greatly, poverty and hunger are still a huge issue especially with the global pandemic. Poverty has increased greatly, ¨Nation's poverty rate has risen at the fastest pace ever this year after aid for the unemployed declined. The U.S. poverty rate has surged over the past five months, with 7.8 million Americans falling into poverty¨(https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/16/poverty-rising/) With the stimulus check around the corner, this might help many american´s back into homes and for families to be able to feed their own families. But some people won´t be able to qualify or be legally capable of getting that check meaning a lot of families will be suffering until they are can get some sort of job.

You make some great points about how many people are struggling especially with the global pandemic happening.  However, do you think we can help people climb out of poverty without making the climate crisis worse?  I think it's possible but only if green or renewable energy companies are willing to give up on some of their profits.  Or even when it comes to food based companies.  I know we have to eat less meat and more organics but eating healthier is often more expensive.  These options are not so easy for families who are just getting by.

I agree too. I hope we as fortunate people open our hearts to support especially in need. If you are looking at my post and you haven't donated at all in your life, take action now.

Having three trashcans for recycling, trash, and compost is very important. Throughout the year I can't imagine how much useful material is thrown into the trash & ends up in a landfill. Although some places around the country implement this, it does not get as much attention as it should. We can replenish & save our soil by reusing products.

This is very true. Having even more bins for sorting plastics into #1s, #2s, and #3-7s makes going to the dump easier. Sorting into boxboard and mixed paper, newspaper and magazines, and cans can streamline the process and make less work for the sorters at the dump. Commercial composting is growing in my area, which is good for people who either don't want to compost or don't have the space. For people who do have the space, composting is a great way to get rid of food scraps.

This idea can be very effective if public figures can enforce and present it enough. My family tries our best to sort out all of our plastics into the correctly numbered bins, and also participates in a local composting organization. It’s easy to get into the habit of recycling and composting, so I think if enough influential people can spread the word about it, the idea could spark into a very effective and widely-used way to reduce carbon emissions.

One way not to pollute when the garbage can bag is full is to take a cloth bag and throw things into each container and at the same time that you don't throw away so many plastic bags you recycle and contribute your grain of sand, come on, we can all.

I think that it is often taught that going vegan or vegetarian is the only way to eat sustainably or make an impact but there are also other ways. Purchasing meat or dairy products that are sustainably raised is also better for the environment. Supporting farms that are free range or have better conditions for the animals os also better ethically. Switching out meat for a meat substitute or milk for a nut milk even just once a week can have a positive impact.

I agree that being vegan is not the only way to eat sustainable because even reducing the amount of meet or animal products would help the environmental a lot. Its is a shame though that the price alone is what turns people from eating buying free range meats and organic foods.

I agree that even making the smallest change can play affect to the larger environmental problem. While people do not have to change to an extremity, making small changes to resort to more sustinable options is also beneficial.

I agree that there are lots of steps to take even if you don’t stop eating meat all together. Such as cutting out certain meats that have the biggest impact, such as beef. But then still consuming chicken, pork, turkey, etc. of which that come from sustainable farms. Also, eating locally can lessen the transport it takes to get a food item from place to place.

I agree there are many ways to sustainably eat. Trying to not eat as much meat is a great way but there are others. For example, sourcing your food locally can reduce the carbon footprint of say a peach form Georgia traveling to Maine. You can also support local farmers markets, by doing so you are supporting small business while buying food responsibly for the environment. Personally I try not to eat much meat because I know it is a small way I can help the environment in my everyday life.

Recently the "trend" of thrifting is very popular which is great because it helps keep clothes out of landfill and our oceans. THrifting is a easy way to try different styles because even if you don't like it you don't feel bad for cutting it up or painting it to something you do like.  Stores like Hollister, American Eagle, H&M, Urban Outfitters and other store need to start a way to recycle their used clothes. I mentioned these stores because these are the most popular with teens like us or Gen Z. If we can find a way to recycle our clothes by not just donating the clothes it might be a bit cheaper. Other than that there are fashion designers who have started using recycled material to make clothes but they are not as widespread as I hoped it is. Are ability to reuse and recycle clothes is the best way to show teens that they can make an easy change and be able to express themselves.

I would agree on the "trend" of thrifting is great for the environment and that are the ability to reuse and recycle clothes is an amazing way to show young people in this generation to make a great change to help the environment but also express themselves at the same time. Personally, as a person in my youth, I would say people my age like buying a lot of clothes because that's how we express ourselves and we are experimenting with fashion too so thrifting is a great way to save money too. Also, some young people like to tie-dye and be creative with art in their fashion so I hope to see thrifting as a more common way of shopping and not just a "trend".

I also posted on the same topic of regarding fast fashion and how thrifting can be a sustainable alternative. Your connection to these popular brands such as H&M and Urban Outfitters to specific generations come to show how the younger generations can make changes for their futures. I agree on the idea to reuse and recycle clothing and fashion items and how thifting is a sustinable trend that people can catch on.

The practice of thrifting has been going on for a while, personally since I was a baby. Im glad we are starting to practice thrifting as a society. It helps the environment to recycle clothes, also helps to stop child labor from big businesses like urban outfitters and h&m

I totally agree that thrifting is a great thing and it is definitely getting popular which is awesome this definitely will help eliminate some of the waste that comes from clothing and throwing it away. It also helps with the chemical pollution that making cloths causes and the amount of water. Cotton takes a lot of water to grow and is liked by pests so the people that grow cotton will use chemicals to keep the pests off of the cotton which then this causes soil acidification.

I’ve been shopping at thrift stores for a long time. It’s great for the environment by keeping clothes out of things like the ocean, and you can find some really nice things for a cheap price. I recommend thrifting to anyone who wants some new clothes to wear or who wants to experience with different styles.

I agree thrifting is a great way of keeping clothes out of landfills and a way to not support fast fashion. The mass production of clothing is a real problem and thrifting is a something one can do if they want to help sustain a healthy environment.

Thrifting is a great way to get the clothes that you want for half the price and is much better for the environment then buying new. Not only does it help waste in the ocean, it also gives you unique clothing, its very likely that no one else will have this item. So its great that thrifting is popular even more so for the environmental side.

Landfills are a huge issue this nation is facing concerning soil and air quality deterioration around those areas. In most cases, the soil the landfills are on are near permanently unusable. Studies showed that in California alone, nearly 40 million tons of waste was thrown in a landfill in 2018, 99% of it still in California and the other 1% exported out of the country. A way to mitigate this is to recycle anything recyclable, compost as much as you can and to find a way to reuse any materials that aren't damaged or lightly used as to mitigate the amount of waste going to our landfills.

I completely agree with your ideas of recycling, composting, and reusing. I would also like to add the idea of using waste as an energy source I believe I heard about that somewhere and it is supposed to be a lot better for the environment.

I agree that landfills are horrible answers to our trash problem. I think as well as introducing more recycling and composting into our world, we also need to find a way to diminish the creation of that trash in the first place. For example, creating better food packaging and item packaging to be more sustainable. Maybe created out of something compostable like rice paper or vegetable starches.

We can all try to cut down on waste we create, making less trash that ends up in landfills each year.

Yes I agree with this. I have a couple ideas on how to do so. First off we can all (if access to it) use laptops, computers, phones,etc to take notes on instead of paper sheets in order to prevent use of papers at school. Also to stop using grocery plastic bags at stores. Instead use reusable bags or even no bags at all. Lastly something small would be to just throw stuff in the recycling bin when done with it:)

I agree with both KG1StanleyJ and tompaul04 and I would also like to add the idea of benefits for those with little to no waste in trash cans each week and only use the recycle and compost bins.

Poverty and hunger is a big issue in today's society. With climate change on the rise, it is best to know what is equitable for all. My idea is to pass legislation requiring the government to give all necessary supplies needed to survive and those especially needed to combat climate change.

The methods we use for farming worldwide is causing mass erosion of soil. It is also polluting our rivers and lakes, as well as causing "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico. Some solutions to this is to use less fertilizers or perhaps switch to more sustainable methods of farming, such as no till.

I completely agree. We could also decrease water usage and pollution by using more efficient irrigation tactics like drip irrigation.

While the circumstances are different in the current time of pandemic, making changes how we use transportation can play a huge role in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. In the case outside of the pandemic, we can resort to walking, carpooling, taking public transportation, biking, etc., as ways to reduce both carbon emissions and traffic congestion. For those willing to make a greater longterm change, purchasing an electric vehicle is a great way to reduce ecological damage.

I totally agree with your take on promoting carbon-efficient forms of transport. That was a major focus of my initial post, as I was quite shocked as to how much carbon I emitted just from getting from place to place. I believe that electric public transportation infrastructure is the way of a sustainable future for sure.

I agree as well! These are excellent practices to reduce one's carbon footprint. The pandemic has taken its toll when it comes to public transportation. But on the positive side, it has also helped decrease the number of people who commuted to work/school every day. Although some people rely on private transportation via cars for their commute, they should try to ride their bike or walk if it is a shorter distance.

Viewing my estimated carbon footprint floored me. I entered my data for what my lifestyle was like before COVID-19, and the amount of Carbon emissions I used to contribute through transportation alone on my daily commute to and from school was shocking. Over quarantine, however, I have begun to walk and bike everywhere, which likely has severely lessened my carbon footprint on that front. Since I am now used to those forms of transport, I will seek to continue those carbon-efficient practices into the post-COVID future.
Additionally, I noticed just how much of an impact my meat-eating has on my carbon footprint. The extent to which my decisions to eat pork and beef spiked my carbon emissions have caused me to consider going vegan seriously. Seeing just what I contribute to something like global warming through wastefulness really inspired me to pursue more efficient practices. I believe that practices of carbon-efficient transportation (when possible), as well as vegetarianism or veganism, really could serve to benefit humanity if they were widely adopted under a general species-wide goal of sustainability.

Viewing my estimated carbon footprint floored me. I entered my data for what my lifestyle was like before COVID-19, and the amount of Carbon emissions I used to contribute through transportation alone on my daily commute to and from school was shocking. Over quarantine, however, I have begun to walk and bike everywhere, which likely has severely lessened my carbon footprint on that front. Since I am now used to those forms of transport, I will seek to continue those carbon-efficient practices into the post-COVID future.
Additionally, I noticed just how much of an impact my meat-eating has on my carbon footprint. The extent to which my decisions to eat pork and beef spiked my carbon emissions has caused me to consider going vegan seriously. Seeing just what I contribute to something like global warming through wastefulness really inspired me to pursue more efficient practices.

Sustainable fashion is a movement and process of fostering change to fashion products and the fashion system towards greater ecological integrity & social justice. It is important moving foward to do the best we can avoiding fast fashion & shops/ brands that mass-produce. Replacing one fiber type for something less environmentally harmful can make a big change. Fabrics from eco-friendly resources or recyled material can also make a difference. Enviromentally conscious clothing can mean shopping at thrift stores, or any second hand shops (depop, ebay, poshmark, etc.). Even something as simple as donating your old clothes can create change.

Though everyone wants to make a difference on healthy farming the best I feel like you can do it teach younger kids how to grow crops or teach them about sustainable farming. We and them are the future of our world and if we don't teach them at a young age what they can do for our plant we are doing something wrong. Kids should to grow up like me and only learn about sustainability at almost 18. The more you expose kids of agricultural jobs and environmentally helping jobs the more likely they will go into those fields. Show girls they can go into these fields and helps our earth.

Since the invention of the first automobile in 1886 and its' rapid marketization, the United States had gained the nickname "The country on wheels", which meant that the common man was buying an automobile for him or herself. Having at least 1 car per family with typically having only one person in them has been a large contributor to the addition of CO2 in our atmosphere. This could be circumvented by encouraging carpooling, public transport, and electric vehicles. Electric Vehicles can come a long way in terms of prevention of the release of CO2 in the atmosphere, and we should push to make them cheaper and easier to maintain.

Ocean acidification is an extreme problem. It is causing bleaching of our coral reefs as well as killing creatures with shells. The bleaching of coral reefs is an extreme problem because our coral reefs supply a lot of clean air for us. It is caused by the massive amounts of  CO2 being released into our atmosphere and then taken up into our ocean.

Its really sad that because of ocean acidification were losing such a beautiful ecosystem and a lot of people are unaware of this issue too. What do you think would be some ways for average people to help reduce  or slow down the ocean acidification?

According to U.S energy information administration 80% of the power produced and of that consumed comes from fossil fuels. When we burn fossil fuel for power it emits a lot of Carbon dioxide since it is one of the most carbon intensive fuels. Not only does burning of fossil fuels contribute to climate change but the way we obtain coal also has negative affects on the ecosystems. One way to reduce the usage of fossil fuels would be to switch to more renewable resources such as solar and wind.

Ocean acidification is a large problem in today's society because as the pH of the ocean lowers, the marine life is put at danger. Currently coral bleaching and shell erosion is a large problem. Many shellfish are at risk because the acidification breaks down their shells over time. Coral bleaching is a massive issue because coral provides shelter for many marine animals and without it the ocean will change extensively.

I appreciate your chance to spread awareness. I feel as if the marine isn't getting enough attention as its suppose to and little do people know that the marine life is slowly dying off! Over time, we're going to lose all of this which is so important to our earth and cycle.

Without the shellfish in our ocean it would be detrimental. And without our coral reefs we would lose such and important and beautiful part of our ocean, I would love to learn more about what we can do to prevent it.

This is such a sad problem to tackle because most people are unaware of the importance of our oceans. Especially with agriculture becoming increasingly unsustainable, having a good seafood source needs to be another option for food security.

Our current agricultural system is flawed and is causing the erosion of soil the pollution of rivers and streams. If we continue down this path we won't be able to farm anymore because all the nutrients will be stripped from our soil. The solution to this is aquafarming it is a solution to the overfishing problem and the sol problem.

One of the ways we can confront the climate crisis in a realistic way, is to avoid buying fast fashion. The manufacturing from fast fashion results in a large use of fossil fuels as many popular companies require shipping overseas. 
Roughly ten percent of annual global emissions are from fast fashion and it takes second in being the largest consumer of worlds water supply. Majority of the clothes are discarded annually, ending up in landfills or being burned. The environmental impacts can be avoided if consumers choose to avoid investing in such companies and resort to more sustainable options, such as shopping for vintage and recycled fashion items. We can also choose to wear clothing that has good, long-lasting materials that release less carbon emissions. We can learn to mend and repair, and use ways to make clothes last longer. Supporting sustainable fashion companies and donating are additional ways we can play a role in reducing our carbon footprint.

This is a great point. There are so many great alternatives to fast fashion there aren't necessarily more expensive. Thrifting, buying from small businesses, and making your own clothes are all great options which are not only better for the environment, but can also have benefits like finding original and unique pieces.

As a new and developing nation, often the government and its people lack the money to immediately begin implementing more sustainable energy, vehicles, etc. All countries go through this phase where they must do whatever is necessary in order to improve themselves and take their place as a modern country of the world. On important step is getting electricity to everyone, and this is not a cheap endeavor. If already modernized countries could then step in and donate money and send experts to help establish green energy solutions from the beginning, then it would create a country that will give back to the world by being sustainable from the start. It will also ensure that other countries see that transitioning to green energy, or getting help from the outside will be rewarding. We will all need to help each other out and work out what the best sustainable energy production methods will be, and how to properly implement them.

I agree, from how almost everyone in life will need help from another to succeed, and same goes with helping a country become sustainable. This passage paints that picture perfectly by giving a description of how a country will first become "modern", and then talking about how countries that have already become "modern" can help others to do so as well. I would suggest showing real world examples to help the audience understand, but overall I think the passage was great.

I agree that if we are ever going to tackle our worldwide environmental problems, that every single country regardless of size or wealth will have to be on board. That will not be possible without the help of more developed countries, so if we want to save the world I agree that we will all have to band together to lend a helping hand to the nations that need it.

I completely agree that change needs to be made on a global scale, if we want to make significant progress in cleaning our planet. I hadn't thought to much before about how we can overall help each other, but your ideas about developed countries helping developing countries is a great idea. If we can reduce the footprint of developing nations from the start, our world would be much more sustainable.

I completely agree.  It's both an ethical and a practical imperative for wealthier countries to literally pay poorer countries to develop sustainably. If we are serious that we want to end global poverty (and every major country signed the Millenium Development Goals to that effect), then we need to ensue that as poorer countries economies expand that they do so without worsening the climate.  It's too much to ask these countries to do so on their own. 

The same goes for prservation of wild habitats.  A country like Madagascar which is a biodiversity marvel is also one of the poorest countries on the planet.  We need to pay them to maintain their wild lands, and engage with them to battle political corruption. Doing so throughout the tropics will also preserve the lungs of the planet.

These are all part of one solution - they are not separate goals.

The air around us, has probably been one of the most affected by humans. It's crazy to think how everything we need to survive such as Oxygen we have had so many negative affects on it. For example, climate change has caused temperature and weathers to alarmingly decrease or increase. We have polluted the atmosphere with carbon monoxide, lead, transportation emission, greenhouse gas emission, and that's only to name a few. The point that I am trying to get to is how come the majority of people know that our current actions are harming us and the planet, yet we continue to do it. We know it's not easy to solve this problem, however we also know that we need to start making changes before it's too late and our air quality is ruined to an unimaginable way.

I think this is a really good point about people's attitudes towards climate change. It seems like people hear about it or learn about it and then immediately cast the information that they've acquired aside in favor of ease of access or convenience. Although it's hard to say who knows what, I assume that more developed countries have more knowledge about waste and pollution, yet the developed countries produce easily the most waste. It really does seem like people are educated about this and just don't care, so we need to find a solution to get those people to act on their knowledge and live more sustainably.

Everywhere we go, we see signs, ads, commercials, etc. on how to save the plant and be more environmentally friendly. However, I have noticed that this doesn't apply to every country in the world. Maybe it's the fact that they are all aware of the problems going on and are making a difference to try and minimize these results. But in developing countries, these most likely aren't there main focus or goals. I've heard from my family in Latin America, that most haven't even heard/ thought of global warming or there being too much plastic in the ocean. Some even believed that is all a joke. So I wonder how can we help and spread the word and make a difference not only in our communities but in other countries as well.

I agree with your perspective that we need to see beyond our own communities in order to benefit the world. That how can a person in a city on one side of the world help convince someone else in a different city that helping the environment is an issue and should be discussed and taken seriously.

I agree. If only some countries are working to solve a problem, it will never get solved. I think we need to start expanding who knows about global warming and educating more countries that if we don't start counteracting the effects, then Earth will no longer provide for us.

One of the key focuses of helping the environment right now should be focused on reimbursing our soil with the nutrients it needs to thrive generations, not just to produce as much as we can now. In the USA if we worked toward restoring our soil, it could possibly sequester just as much CO2 as we produce, effectively balancing the CO2 emissions of the second largest producer in the world.

I agree that we should be looking for a more permanent solution and not just a solution to simply help us now. If we don't we might cause more problems for future generations and might never resolve them.

After being in an environmental science class I finally learned just how twisted the environmental narrative that's fed to society is. Why is it that the government engraves in the general populous to make changes like taking shorter showers or carpooling, when we could reduce emissions significantly by holding corporations and agricultural industries accountable (who account for the majority of emissions)? If you want to be environmentally friendly you should practice ethical habits like recycling, buying food from sustainable farms, and trying to drive only when necessary, and that's great, but we are not the problem. That being said, we have the power to change the way of thinking and help encourage our governments to fix the problem.

I've recently been thinking about this too, how the media or news portrays in order to make a difference in saving the plant we need to take shorter showers or turn on the lights every time you leave a room. While this is all true, these changes made are not comparable with the impact industries and corporation would have if they became more environmentally friendly. My guess as to why this is happening, is either simplicity or money. Over all I think the government found it easier to tell people to reduce their plastic use rather then educating them on non sustainable agricultural practices. This saves them time and can make them even more money, by turning it into merchandise.

I agree that reducing fossil fuels would be done much more efficiently if the government encouraged big businesses to use renewable energy sources and more environmentally beneficial ways of production, but I do think that it is important that we each do our part in small ecofriendly tasks like shorter showers and carpooling. Even though, they might not have a large impact on improving the health of our planet, they do help and keep people thinking about the environment. But yes, we definitely should focus on getting the government to create change and new policies, in terms of larger industries, as that would significantly help the environment.

Everyday, millions of miles are travelled, and that is a huge contributor to global pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. While this is a well known fact, not nearly enough is being done to reduce the amount of emissions. People need to start committing to better ways of transportation. Walking and biking are great ways to get around when it comes to shorter distances, but often people are too lazy, so they drive instead even if it's only a couple minutes. Of course there's longer trips where walking and biking aren't as practical, so we should emphasize the benefits of carpooling, eco-driving techniques, and electric cars. Electric cars can be expensive, but they greatly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. My mom has one, and she loves it, except for the fact that it can be difficult to find places to charge her car, besides at home. I think that the government should add more free charging stations to encourage the growth of electric cars.

I would completely agree that when it comes to transportation, people need to be more self aware of the damage they are causing to the environment. I have noticed from other adults discussions, for the reason of not having a more environmental friendly car, electric cars is that there aren't many places available for charging the car. How do you think we can convince the government to add more charging station, and not just in the United States.

what do you think about plastic?

It is really bad for the environment it we should not be using it so much.

It is very harmful to the environment. It affects lots of wildlife and is made of petroleum in giant factories which doesn't help us with climate change. We need to move to more reusable and biodegradable materials soon.

plastic is not good for the environment especially for the ocean there are many other ways to package a product like i heard of this type of cardboard that has these plant seeds in it so once you get your product you plant the cardboard and after watering it for a while it should grow into something and for liquids you can also use cardboard or metal tins like cans and reduse the amount of plastic being used

I think theres so many actions that we can take towards eliminating/reducing our use of plastic. In a lot of stores you see candy that is double wrapped in plastic or kids toys that different pieces are separated by plastic bags and such. It's really sad to see how much we overuse it and how that effects the environment around us. We can substitute this for paper or instead reuse recycled materials so we don't keep producing more plastic and expanding on this issue.

I think theres so many actions that we can take towards eliminating/reducing our use of plastic. In a lot of stores you see candy that is double wrapped in plastic or kids toys that different pieces are separated by plastic bags and such. It's really sad to see how much we overuse it and how that effects the environment around us. We can substitute this for paper or instead reuse recycled materials so we don't keep producing more plastic and expanding on this issue.

Below is a link to an article that gives eco friendly substitutes to plastic packaging.
https://www.ennomotive.com/eco-friendly … packaging/

I mean its bad for the environment but then again we use it everyday and we could reduce that use by maybe reusing a water bottle or recycle the plastic. We also could just go around your town or where ever you live and pick up trash such as plastic. it would help the environment a little every piece we pick up

Plastic as much as it is helpful it has such a destructive side effects. So I believe that we can use more recyclable plastics than just a one time use plastic that you throw away often.

We use plastic for its convenience. It's a whole lot easier for us to grab a drink from somewhere in a plastic cup than to make our own. That being said, we need to try and cut down on the use of plastic as much as possible. It hurts our communities, wildlife, and our environment as a whole.

it would better to not use plastic and use paper

Yes, plastic alternatives would be a good idea. Plastic bad, plastic hurt Earth, plastic kill plant and animal.

Plastic hurt monkey, monkey sad, monkey lose wife, monkey hate plastic

Reusing it or recycling could help those. We should not litter because the plastic could hurt animals. We should also find other alternatives to plastic.

My opinion of plastic is that we use it too much (at least in the USA). I heard that in some places in Europe that in markets a lot of things like produce don't come in plastic packaging and shoppers are encouraged to bring their own reusable shopping bag. I like this implementation because plastic seems so unnecessary a lot of the time, and is only used because it is cheap. I agree that we should turn toward more sustainable products and be avid about recycling plastic if/when it is necessary.

One of the key focuses of helping the environment right now should be focused on reimbursing our soil with the nutrients it needs to thrive for generations, not just to produce as much as we can now. In the USA if we worked toward restoring our soil, it could possibly sequester just as much CO2 as we produce, effectively balancing the CO2 emissions of the second largest producer in the world.

On this planet the main way to tackle both climate change and other major conditions is to change the processes we carry out and which ones we use. You may be confused by the statement, but I have examples to help with that. For processes we carry out, these would be the processes we help and cause to happen, such as how we cause eutrophication by using fertilizers and causing runoff with certain irrigation systems. This leads to more carbon secretion which will lead to increased climate depending on the intensity of the eutrophication. There is also how we release more carbon into the air by tilling the soil and which forms of transportation we use. But processes we use are ones that we use because of their efficiency and we have yet to find an alternative method. These ones would include transportation due to how there are many forms of transportation we can't find an alternative to without decreasing efficiency or carbon output. Mainly flying, because if you drove a car across a country instead of flying there is the chance that the same amount of carbon will be emitted. Then there is the way we process meat, where the process to make the meat and what methods we use are ones we stick to since they are ones we have followed for more efficiency. But by using alternative methods we can decrease the carbon out put and the temperature. Such as taking the bus and using different methods of farming. Concluding how the processes we use are one of the main reasons we have the problem of climate change and how they are the solution.

I think that it is important to try to create a sustainable planet for the generations ahead. The world does change a lot, and I think that there is a way to get ideas out there without harming the Earth, maybe we just haven't found it yet.

I think getting "clean development" is complicated because we have a lot of bad habits. On the other hand, it makes sense that by first beginning to sort our garbage, eating fewer or teaching young people to behave better than adults, each of us can strengthen this and offer them a positive example.

I believe a considerable option to reduce carbon emissions, and increase energy efficiency, is to incorporate more nuclear power into the total energy production. Nuclear power plants release less radiation, and carbon into the atmosphere, and the largest downside asides from the fear of having a nuclear reactor meltdown, is the proper disposal of waste, which has been made technologically possible. Nuclear Power Energy Solution

I agree with this idea, because not only does nuclear energy production create almost no waste, it actually makes more fuel. With how nuclear energy is produced, and how radioactive elements break down, the so called radioactive waste left over can be used as fuel and actually makes more fuel than actually needed. This is also is improved because the way of getting nuclear energy has improved greatly, from having almost no carbon nor radiation output, and the risk of a meltdown is actually very low in everyday conditions. Also new nuclear plant ideas like Small Modular Reactors make the improvement of nuclear energy easier. Overall, a major way either the US or energy businesses can decrease emissions is by investing in nuclear.

Nuclear power is a great way of creating a lot of energy with less negative environmental effects. It shows less pollution than coal and oil, but it is also a very expensive and finite resource. We have around 230 years supply left of Uranium, but unless we start investing in renewable resources like solar and wind energy, we won't see the end of the supply of Uranium, or we will run out.

I kind of agree, but I don't think of nuclear power as a long-term solution for the fossil fuel-based energy problem. I believe it's more of a short-term answer to our energy needs until we have the technology and infrastructure to produce all our energy needs through clean, 0 emission means. Though most people are concerned about accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima and because of them, only see nuclear energy as a negative thing. This has led to governments shutting down multiple plants to appease the public but in their place, establishing "temporary" coal and oil mines to fulfill their energy needs. Though these accidents are devastating, the results of emissions produced by fossil fuel magnitudes worse than these incredibly rare occurances.

I agree with Justethan, I think nuclear power would be a temporary solution because, yes it does release less carbon and yes it does last a lot longer, but nuclear reactor meltdowns have had a devastating effect on the local population in the past. I think we should invest more into fusion reactors. a fusion reactor simulates a reaction that the sun makes every day, with no radiation and almost limitless energy. also, if we extract the right materials and fund the right amount of money, fusion energy will be completely environmentally friendly, and a leak in the containment chamber would only result in a loss of power and have no deadly side effects.

Clean development is not just one thing. Some people may think that it's the shaping the future, and some people may think its cleaning up our past mistakes, but actually it's both. To move forward, while cleaning up and learning from our pasts. On Earth humans have made many mistakes, and if we do not fix these it will be very difficult to move forward.  This would include finding a way to stop relying on fossil fuels and switching to clean and sustainable energy. Unfortunately some things we have gone so far that for a few generations we(the human population) will have to spend our time fixing the mistakes that we made in the past.

I like how you mentioned that it is both creating a future and cleaning up our past mistakes. We should spread information about all the consequences and solutions to global warming will have. Just recently did I start learning in-depth things such as ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc. Although I am very grateful for having a chance to learn about these things now, it would have been better if I had started learning these things at a younger age. I think all schools should have lessons regarding global warming and climate change. With this information I am sure some students will make small changes to their lifestyle, making a big difference altogether.

if we save our planet and Co2 emissions lower, how do we know it wont happen again? i understand that it took us a while to mess up our planet this bad, but will our future generations be safe from this happening again, or even something worse?

Yes and no. If we do save our selves then hopefully people and scientists will be finding different ways to advance the system that we created. If we pass down our knowledge to other generations they will probably think of other things that can better our future

I think that the real problem of saving our future is us, human. If we are able to change our habits and be really respectfull of the environnement we will make our planet clean again.

To me, it's an obligation to act for our future, but as you said we have no guarentee that the future generation will do the same. I think that thanks to information, next generation will know how to act, and why to act, and they will hopefully not do the same mistake as us.

We know it wouldn't happen again if we did save our planet to the capacity that we can, and keep CO2 emissions low. This is not easy at the rate we're going because some damage is irreversible, but there is still so much the human race can do to save the planet, we just everyone to be on board, especially high producing companies and cattle industries. Big companies like these need to start using more sustainable methods and producing at a slower rate. I know that is a lot to change especially in the commercialized and consumerism society we live in. These are changes and sacrifices we all need to make for a thriving future.

I think that it is important to try to create a sustainable planet for the generations ahead. The world does change a lot, and I think that there is a way to get ideas out there without harming the Earth, maybe we just haven't found it yet.

I think it's hard to have "clean development" because we've got a lot of bad habits. On the other hand, it makes sense that each of us can improve this by first starting to sort our waste, consume less or by educating young people to act differently than adults and show them a good example.

In Paris, there's a lot of cans, paper etc.. on the streets and sometimes, the garbage collectors in France do strikes, so it actually STINKS in the city. So what I suggest is to do with family or friends a walk in the city and put all the stuff on the roads in the bin. One time, with friends, we did the same thing, but on the beach : we took garbage bags and did a race, but in the bags. We used some waste that was on the beach as obstacles, and at the end of the day, we put the waste used as obstacles in the garbage bag. So that's my idea : do you think the same as me ? Tell me what you think by clicking on "click to reply". Have a good day !

I live in a small town in New Mexico called Carlsbad. Trash here can be a really big problem also, especially in the neighborhood that I live in. I totally agree with you about cleaning with family and friends. It makes it more fun, and it would definitely help the environment a lot. I hope you have a good day!

the trash waste is ridiculous  because walking around my town i see a lot of trash. it just is stupid how people can just throw out trash where ever they want because it not their job to clean up after them and people need to stop being lazy and just pick up after yourselves and recycle more.

I think it's very good that we all help each other by keeping our environment clean. It would be best if all of us would just throw trash in the bins instead of on the beach, which is ridiculous. It's no problem walking to the next bin. For example, we use so much of our time on our phones we could take 10 seconds out of that time to recycle.

I live in Tahiti, a pacific island of French Polynesia. I think education is the basis of clean development. When I run, I see a lot of trash on the beach. We see association who clean it, but it still dirty. The comportement of the population is the main problem, don't get the problem. It can be explain by the numbers oh inhabitant... . I'm agree with kristinhuld, but in some district recycle is not possible. So government have to invest in recycling.

I live out in the country so I don't see as much trash as there would be in the city nor is the smell half as bad, but I love your idea of making a fun way to clean the beach and help keep Earth clean. I think it would be super beneficial if everyone just picked up one piece of trash every time they left their house; It doesn't have to be an all day chore if every person pitched in even a small amount of effort. As my mom always says, "many hands make light work."

move away from the fossil fuels
use more of the LED light bulbs
encourage better use of natural resources
promoting public transportation and carpooling

I think we should find a way to dissolve plastic because its a big problem

I know there are some biodegradable plastics but I have not seen them widely used. I think having more would change our problem of waste a lot.

just use your hands

I think we should try to recycle as much plastic as we can and then dissolve the rest because making more plastic is not good and we should stop that.

Plastic is a real problem and we should find a way to dissolve it. The plastic is ruining our planet and killing animals in the sea.

Plastic is a really big problem in the community. We need to stop this because it´s killing some animals.

i believe that a company is working on a product or device that will help get rid of plastic in a way that it will not harm the sea life or life on land and making it where if it was never there like dissolving it or disintegrating it

I believe we should pick up any plastic we see on our beaches so they won't be able to reach our oceans so we can protect our animals in our sea

Since the corona virus outbreak it seems more people start using more tissues and germax it is honestly dumb it took them this long to use these appliances to stay healthy but when it wasnt a big deal no one really even touched these appliances.

Yeah, I think the hoarding of toilet paper of all things is really stupid because normally when you need to stay clean the first thing that comes to mind is soap, hand sanitizer, disinfectant spray, etc.

I agree that the amount of people stocking up on bathroom essentials is not the best items to be purchasing to deal with the corona virus

What can we do to stop global warming?

we can drive less, buy less and plant more trees.

we can recycle, youse electronic cars and stop throwing waste in the ocean.

we have to stop using plastic and cotton

the global warming is not as big as every one things.

do not use plastic for the rest of your life.

cykle or walk or take public transport rather then driving alone in a car

We can stop using plastic and resicle our garbige that is resiclable

we can walk or cykle more and don't use plastic everytime.

stop using so much plastic and use public transport or walk.

We can decrease plastic use and try to drive less

According to Nasa, it is no too late to stop climate change. There are two ways Nasa recommends minimizing the impact of climate change. One is reducing our carbon footprint. We can do this by driving more efficient vehicles or recycling our waste. The other way the impact of climate change can be mitigated is by adapting to the effects of it.  This includes being more aware of high fire-risk areas or areas that are likely to be flooded due to sea-level rise, and try to either provide the necessary infrastructure to those areas or avoid building non-temporary owns or cities there.

I think it is solar panels, and wind power and clean energy is important to reduce our carbon footprint.Other activities we could do to reduce our carbon footprint is recycling and reduce how much you waste you throw away.

To slow down global warming we can do many things. One big thing is to drive less. When you get the chance you should bike or walk. Also, be mindful of how long you leave your lights on or how long you are in the shower. Another thing is to recycle as much as you can. According to Nasa, it is not too late to avoid some of the harsh side affects of global warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-t … te-change/

we could use less plastic for our packages and use more plant based cardboard to stop plastic from getting to the ocean and to try to keep the towns cleaner

we can recycle items that need to be recycled and use any type of public transportation like buses,trains,and other transportations

There is a crisis going on and if we dont take action our world will not survive we were left to take care of it and we're not doing a good job. A lot of our world’s problem is that not a lot of people are doing anything to even help preserve our earth. In order to help our planet, everyone has to do their part. It doesn’t have to be anything super big, it can be just being cautious of where you throw your trash away and put it in the correct bins. People could also bring reusable bags when grocery shopping and use reusable water bottles instead of getting a new plastic one everyday, then throwing it out. People could also bring reusable bags when grocery shopping and use reusable water bottles instead of getting a new plastic one everyday, then throwing it out. We can also carpool with people and this will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted into the air.

Does using these chemicals affect our environment?

Many household cleaning solutions are made of very harsh chemicals. When we use these cleaning supplies, they often end up down the drain and the chemicals can make their way to rivers and lakes. Over time, with many of these harsh chemicals contaminating wildlife, it can negative effects. Spray cans like disinfectant, odorizer, etc can have an effect on ozone levels, meaning that they can contribute to climate change. It's important that we pay attention to the ingredients in our cleaning supplies and as always, make sure to recycle the containers when possible.

https://blueandgreentomorrow.com/enviro … vironment/

We can make nuclear reactors that don't produce (radioactive) waste as any element that that is above iron produces energy when broken apart using fission so you can break apart many different types of non-radioactive materials to make energy. On the other hand we can use Fusion to fuse elements up to Iron and produce energy with (nearly) no waste.

-You cannot use iron as it doesn't make energy when you fuse or spilt it

my evidence for this statement: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-re … ustainable

Home steading is an amazing lifestyle that many people take part in, It basically is living in a complete off the grid setting where you grow your own food,Make your own furniture, build your own home and use zero electricity and fossil fuel (they mostly use solar). It takes alot of effort to do but its one of the most eco friendly lifestyles that exists !

It would be great if everyone would do that but I am afraid that only small amount of people are ready to start living like that. But we could begin with smaller things like only owing the things we need, eating less meat and only buy foods made in our home country.

we need to do better of the earth may not even be here in 40 years.

I think we need to do better on earth to because there is a lot of sicknesses going around because of the bacteria we probably make our selves by not keeping it at least decent.

just go off the grid and be bear grylls or a hippie.

Durante la ultima década gracias a la globalizacion los seres humanos se han vuelto mas consumistas, esta situación afecta el medio ambiente y secundariamente a cada ser que habita en la tierra, una alternativa para combatir esta situación es crear un pensamiento de desarrollo sostenible aplicado y especifico de cada individuo.

The way we should keep the environment clean stop the pollution and ban everything that is plastic which is a big problem for the environment.

I think that being conscious about your intake and use of non recyclable things is a good start to a solution as well. What other solutions can we think of to help start to prevent climate change worsening?

Wich should cut down on plastic

In order to reduce the carbon footprint of many people we could use other renewable resources like, solar energy, wind energy, etc.. Using these could reduce the carbon footprint rapidly. It may cost a bit to do so, but it is possible to take and at some point have more people using these types of energy.

https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/ … where.html

I Agree with using renewable energy/ resources to reduce the carbon footprint. using solar, wind, etc energy is a great way to reduce the use of non-renewable energy and reduce the large emissions of carbon, however, "unreliable weather can affect the energy supply" solar pannel or others that rely on weather will be affected, e.g "Wind turbines need wind to turn their blades." another problem that renewable energy face is it couldn't produce the same amount of energy as normal non-renewable energy
https://www.solarschools.net/knowledge- … advantages

I agree that using renewable energy sources like solar energy and wind energy will help reduce our carbon footprint; but most of these new energy sources are very expensive. To make these energy sources more available to everyone we need to lower the cost.

My neighbors are at a conference right now discussing using environmentally clean materials for their business, which is industrial flowering for schools, gyms, etc. Some companies use materials that use a lot to f energy to make, and they are at the conference to find ways to reduce their carbon footprint when producing the flooring that they will sell.

i think the city of sequim could get a better recycling the apartments sea-breeze apartment only allows cardboard to be recycled.

yeah

No i am not worried because the world's ready clean.

The way we should keep the environment clean stop the pollution and ban everything that is plastic which is a big problem for the environment. How is also causes climate change and is affected by the pollution.

The way we should keep the environment clean stop the pollution and ban everything that is plastic which is a big problem for the environment.

Solar energy benefits the environment by creating renewable power that is clean. I believe that it is good to promote more of the use of solar and wind power. These forms of energy production are not always reliable because global weather can change, but it does not burn fossil fuels, therefore does not harm the atmosphere with CO2. I think the main issue that is holding people back from alternating energy sources is the cost of the equipment and as said, the reliability of the solar and wind. 1 solar panel can nearly cost around 11,000 dollars. If the price reduces, the use of it will increase therefore saving our planet.

I think there is a way to do this with out causing to much harm to any one group. And it is a carbon tax. If we tax the emission of carbon for big compony and power plants we create an envierment were producing less carbon is easer to active because of economic enishitive. In places that have a carbon tax like California that have seen a significant decrease in the amount of co2 there state produces.

I agree that it is extremely important to tax the emissions of carbon as that will make it less appealing to bigger companies who want to use fossil fuels to pump out new products.  The money gained from the taxes could go to a climate change organization.  This could make an extreme difference as the big companies using fossil fuels and dumping carbon into the atmosphere are the bigger problem.  That's not to say you shouldn't limit your own use of the electricity and heating but the bigger problem is with the big companies using fossil fuels and also the deforestation going on throughout the world.

There are many steps that we could take individually and as a whole to help reduce climate change.  We hear some about not using plastic water bottles or straws, and getting solar panels. However a lot of the time people cannot afford to buy solar panels because they are too expensive or they don't buy reusable bottles because they are not as easy to get. When trying to tackle community problems such as affordable housing many times the cheapest way is not sustainable. For example, there is a serious affordable housing shortage here in San Francisco and the bay area in general. When trying to increase the number of houses instead of trying to save money right away, city planners could put solar panels on these homes or apartments. Yes, solar panels are pretty expensive so that could drive up the price of the home and make it  not affordable. But many home owners are hesitant to install them because of the initial investment, so if they were installed previously this would be solved. The landlord would have to make an investment at the start but all the occupants would be  saving money for themselves and the landlord in the long run. Also we could make reusable water bottles available in cheaper way by reusing old materials to make them so more people will go out and get them for themselves.

I agree. This would solve problems with affordable energy, and would reduce the carbon footprint of the country.

If the entire world became as developed and greedy as the United States,  our planet could never support all of us. If we want to develop the world as much as possible while still maintaining the environment, the already developed nations will need to use less resources so that way the developing nations can safely use more. We will also need renewable energy throughout the world if we want to sustainably end poverty. We need solar or wind energy. In order to solve hunger, we need developments such as greenhouses to ensure that anyone can grow any food anywhere in the world. The greenhouses will stop us from taking up land when we farm. They will also be far more efficient and clean. We will also need to share technology. We will need to ensure that all countries have access to green energy resources and technologies. Limiting our usage of, and equally distributing our resources is the only way that we can end poverty while saving the environment.

I actually find it crazy how much people in the US consume. It is almost 8 planets worth of consumption, in comparison to other countries the only consume 3 planets. You also have to consider that when developing countries transition to developed, they as well are going to be using more resources. So, like your next solution, we need to use renewable energy in order to continue to have a planet to live on. Solar energy is a great option, something that we will always have. Yes, it is dependent on the day, but this is a possible solution that we need to consider. But I would agree that people need to be more considerate of how many resources they consume, and we all need to make a better effort to reduce our uses.

Sami, 15
North Carolina

What is your yearly output of carbon?

It is almost 8 planets worth of consumption, in comparison to other countries the only consume 3 planets.>

I agree

I think that we can’t develop more without making the planet warmer. But I also think that we should because if we do we can stop it in the long tern. IF we continue to build more sustainable buildings there will be high emissions from the building of the buildings but if could find some way to lower the carbon footprint from building there would be very few downsides.

If there was a large field of solar panels in the middle of a desert how much would a project like this cost and how much energy would it generate. Would it hurt the environment?

I believe this depends on the set up of the project. If you were to install panels through Solar City, it would cost 12-20 thousand dollars per house. therefore for a whole area of the desert, it would cost over 100 thousand dollars. There would be environmental damage because the project would be taking up an area where some life form lives.

It wouldn't effect the environment, as much as it would be an inconvenience, and expensive. If you were to put solar panels in the middle of a desert, it would be very expensive to have power lines run all the way to a city/ town. Building those power lines would cost a lot. It would also be an inconvenience to have all those power lines. In the end, this situation would not make sense. It would be better to have solar panels on every home.

Solar panels are great investment! My family bought it before 5 years, they are not so cheap but if you use it for heating your water or home your bills will get a lot lower. Renewable energy is great way to save money and protect our planet in same time!

Solar Pannels would be super expensive but other than that I think this project would be less damage to the planet getting warmer.

Maybe we can't implement reusable energy to fuel all of our energy needs because it will be very expensive, but even most of them who has the money to buy solar panels can help to reduce pollution and decrease global warming.

I think it it possible that we can start to shift our planet toward renewable energies like solar and wind. I would cause a lot less carbon dioxide then burning fossil fuels. There are already parts of our planet that our switching to solar and wind so what's stopping the rest of the world . Well I think that burning fossil fuels cost a lot less then replacing everybody's energy into renewable energies. It is 100% possible in the next few decades as the world becomes more technology based and more educated on the challenges that we would face if Climate change really won over the world

I agree with this idea of using solar energy. It will make our planet greener and it will help stop global warming and pollution. Fossil Fuels are bad for our planet and everyday more and more of it is being used. Also people wouldn't have to pay more money using fossil fuels because you will be using solar energy.

Also, burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (21.3 gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. This is another reason why we should switch to solar and wind.

Solar Energy being used in a widespread formation would most definitely reduce our Carbon Footprint and give way to a cleaner source of energy (which is underused) to become something of a more common nature.

I think the idea of using solar energy is great for the planet and will eventually benefit most, if not all people living on the planet. Since it's renewable and the sun is up somewhere in the world at any time in the day, solar panels and other forms of devices that collect solar energy will benefit. Also, solar energy technology is constantly improving, making it more affordable for people.

My family has solar panels on our house and it does help reduce our carbon footprint. However, like Arin said, solar panels is still a form of technology that is only starting to become more affordable to people. It is becoming more popular and less expensive, but I still think we need to work harder to put solar panels wherever we can and make it available to more people. Doing this will ultimately solve this issue.

This is a great idea, and may I point out that a lot of people are thinking the same exact thing. Yes, solar and wind power will end up doing great things for the environment, but I also think it should be more affordable. I researched this topic and found that solar panels are more costly than you think. Sure, they cost less in the long run, but If we want to make solar panels and wind farms more common, we should start at cost for installation. Maybe, there are millions of Americans who wish they could have solar panels but don't get them because of how costly the installation is. I read that solar panels can cost up to $20,000! Perhaps to make this idea a reality, the solar panel makers can lower the cost since, as you said, technology is becoming more advanced and therefore these materials are less valuable. Here is an article I read from a solar panel company regarding how costly they are: https://news.energysage.com/how-much-do … n-the-u-s/

My family actually attempted to get solar panels for our house, however upon talking to an expert we realized that, due to a neighbor's tree and the sheer cost of it the solar panels would not pay themselves off for a long, long time and it would have frankly defeated the purpose of putting them in in the first place as they would not have been very efficient in terms benefitting the environment because there would have been trees blocking them for most of the day. Usually, however these solar panels are quite efficient and will pay themselves off within a matter of 10 years.

This is a good idea to try to use these resources to our benefit but the fact of the matter is that to try to afford to build these are very costly.

To go off the idea of costly solar panels I know that if you purchase one it must be the right location with enough sun radiation able to get to it. Even though this is effective, renewable, clean development $20,000 is a lot of money to pay for solar panels when 70% of the world is middle class. Middle class in 2018 is decreasing and merging with the lower class, from wage cuts and being underpaid. This affects certain peoples access to cleaner costly things. This is unaffordable especially if you are not planning to stay in the same household or plan to move out. Wind farms are a great idea though, using natural, renewable resources provides electricity as it produces no toxic pollution or global warming emissions. Lastly, To put this into context, wind turbines estimates of life-cycle global warming emissions for natural gas generated electricity are between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour and estimates for coal-generated electri city are 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour. This proves you are helping the earth with these clean developments.

For wind power we could use high altitude wind power generators. It generates more energy and are less noisy and space consuming than normal wind power.

It's important to start switching to renewable energy because fossil fuels will run out and the planet will be very polluted. Solar and wind are great sources of energy that should be more affordable.

I agree, for a lot of people this could be an easy change and renewable energy makes a really big difference. It's important that people learn about things like this and do something to stop climate change.

Last summer I spent my holidays in Portugal, here I saw lots of wind turbines. These turbines are placed in many hills or in the ocean. This country produce 97% of is energy with hydroelettric dams and wind power. Like Portugal there are also other nations that produce a great deal of their energy with renewable methods, like Scotland, Swedish, Norway,.... The biggest problem lies in countries like USA, China,... they use a lot of energy per person, but they usually use fossil fuels, that  release big quantities of carbon dioxide. if we want change and improve our world we will have to use most better our resourches ( sun, wind, water,...) to produce renewable energy and clean the atmosphere.

I agree with you. I think it is a good idea to promote more solar and wind power. The good thing about it is that it does not burn fossil fuels, so you do not put CO2 into the atmosphere. The bad thing about it is that the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. So, these forms of energy production are not entirely reliable. I just read where battery technology is getting really efficient. You can create energy when the wind is blowing, store the energy when the wind stops.  The problem is that batteries exist, but they are costly to build. Fortunately, I read that scientists are working hard to solve this problem, and now the cost of batteries are starting to come down. Maybe in a few years, batteries will be so cheap that the issue of intermittency will not matter anymore.

Sources Cited:
https://www.wired.com/story/better-batt … on-pontin/

I agree, I think that switching to alternate energy sources, such as solar and wind power would be a great idea to decrease global warming. I think the main issue holding us back from achieving this goal is the initial cost of installing the equipment required to harness this type of energy. Another problem is the fear that solar and wind alone could potentially not be able to fuel all of our energy needs. However, I believe that even if alternate energy sources such as solar, wind hydroelectric, natural gas, etc., covered even a partial amount of our energy demands it would still reduce the combustion of fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases.

Okay so let me just say that most of the discussion on this board is mainly about large things like solar panels, and wind energy. Let me say something that we can all do though. Reusable water bottles for instance. They are very inexpensive and can greatly reduce the amount of plastic waste. I personally think that everyone should use a reusable water bottle to save the environment.

that is so true

I agree, by using reusable water bottles, we are saving the environment. We are putting less plastic not only into the world and the streets, but also into the ocean. Using a reusable water saves the environment one step at a time. Less plastic in the oceans, means more turtles are being saved, as well as animals such as Jellyfish who get caught in it, and Whales who consume it.

I totally agree with this, doing something so small could really make an impact on our environment. Some people don't understand that one plastic water bottle DOES make a difference in our oceans and streets. If these large companies stopped the production of plastic water bottles, who knows what our world would look like today. Also, our communities could increase the amount of water filling stations around us too. Reusable water bottles are so underrated and should be used everywhere. We could really save our oceans and marine life by doing this.

I agree 100% it's just the matter of being consistent with using it even when you feel like just grabbing a plastic water bottle.

I always see videos of people laughing at how many plastic water bottles are in their room, and it's so frustrating! I don't think people should treat this as a joke, it's a real problem with an achievable solution. It's an achievable solution that should be treated as one.

I completely agree. Lots of people don't even realize there is a massive pile of plastic and trash about the size of Texas, drifting in the Pacific Ocean and is increasing in size every year. Using more reusable bottles and other containers can have a huge improvement on our environment. Big things have small beginnings and I think that most people don't believe that trying to help clean your environment one step at a time could actually work.

I also agree. By using reusable water bottles, we save the environment. There are always ways you can help pitch in to help. People need to understand how important this is and do something about it.

i'm agree with you.  i always use reusable water bottles. i think we must start with little things and then we can talk about big problems.

I agree. I think we can do lots for the environment

I agree that everyone should try to use reusable water bottles. However, I can see why some people may not want to. Speaking from personal experience, I am constantly forgetting my water bottle in various locations. So, although it is environmentally inconsiderate, I can see how one might enjoy buying a cheap plastic water bottle then tossing it.

I agree that using a reusable water bottle is something that everyone who is able to buy one should do. They save loads of trash and plastic from filling up our oceans and streets, and are more efficient in the long run. Furthermore, most places have water fountains or water re fillers where you can easily re fill them which adds to the convenience. My family has always enforced using reusable water bottles, and I think that this is something we should all do.

I agree, plastic water bottles are an extreme example of the amount of waste in our world today. If everyone used reusable bottles, this amount of waste would decrease dramatically. This would cause millions of plastic bottles to not be left to float in the ocean and kill all of the animals. This leads to a greater earth and a great decrease of CO2 in our environment.

I definitely agree. In almost every place that you can buy a plastic water bottle, there is also a place to fill up a reusable one so buying more plastic really isn't more convenient. It is such an easy way to take a step to save our environment and it really makes a difference. Same with using other reusables like containers instead of plastic bags or metal straws instead of plastic ones. All of these things are easy ways to make a big impact.

I agree with this because people can do just little things in their daily lives to help our carbon footprint. By using a reusable water bottle which can be easily done can help reduce our plastic waste and help conserve the amount of carbon released. It is an easily done task and can be very effective if everyone starts to do it. This can greatly impact our environment in a positive way.

I totally agree with this! Plastic water bottles are entirely unnecessary in my opinion. If you need water while out, some fast food restaurants will give you a cup for free, you can buy your own water bottle at a store, or you can drink at a water fountain. It's much less work to buy a reusable water bottle now than to have to repair the remnants of our destroyed Earth later.

I agree with you and in addition to using reusable bottles try not to use plastic bags, it would be a very easy option to put it into practice and we would help reduce the climate change.

I agree but I feel like on top of trying to recycle our water bottles, we should start walking around and picking up any water bottles we see on the ground. Once you are finished with a water bottle, instead of buying another, we should refill it with drinking water at a water fountain. Try to find a way to reuse your water bottles.

I strongly agree with this because plastic water bottles are wasteful unnecessary.  The way to fix this problem is to use reusable bottles or to just simply drink from a water fountain. Reusing a water bottle keeps our planet cleaner, but not only do we need to use reusable bottles, but we also need to clean up the non-reusable bottles that already have trashed the earth and clean up our mess before we start to change it.

I agree we should reusable bottles is a good way to keep the world clean. It decreases the amount of plastic bottles that are made. It also helps with pollution in the ocean as well. A lot of the oceans have plastic in them. The animals believe it is food and they eat it. That hurts the life in the ocean.

I totally agree. All the plastic bottles that are in the ocean, add up and is harming the animals in the ocean. Some animals think its food and can cause many problems for them. If we use reusable water bottles and clean up the plastic bottles that are in the ocean, the animals wouldn't have to worry about it.

I agree with you, I think we should use glass bottles for water. and we can go to the water dispenser, (in my city there's one), or maybe we can go to a fountain. It's easier and cheaper than buying plastic water bottles every week. This is a point for us, inhabitants of the World, and a good point for our World,  that it must be protected and saved, it deserves respect from all of us!

I agree and i consider that reusable water bottels is a good method to reduce the amount of plastic rubish . Also reusable  coffe mugs is also a step we can do to help planet.  We can do it!

My agreement to reusable water bottles is strong because why buy a plastic bottle of water at school when there is a water fountain or if you have a water bottle? Plastic water bottles also have an expiration date and so if you do not drink the water before then (or leave it in the sun), chemicals from the bottle will get absorbed by the water. This can then make you sick and also add to the amount of plastic.

That is a great point.  It might seem small and ineffective but little things go a long way.  If everyone gets an inexpensive reusable water bottle, we could see a drastic change in our environment.  I think most people are hesitant to make small steps like these is because they believe their actions have no effect.  There is between 4.8 and 12.7 million tonnes of plastic in the oceans right now.  I everyone slowly starts to decrease their use of plastic and makes an effort to clean up our oceans, I think we could see a change in our environment for the better.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/quick-que … ocean.html

I also agree that people should use reusable water. It's cheaper to use one water bottle over and over then opposed to buying plastic water bottles. Plus it helps the environment. By using a reusable water bottle it helps reduce the count of plastic bottles that end up polluting our environment. If more people start using reusable water bottles it could really help out the environment.

I agree, just helping a little can go a long way. Cleaning up plastic bottles a little at a time will help a lot but if we clean up often, like walking around for a couple hours and just picking them up would be more efficient. We all need to be aware of how we can not pollute our environment with plastic bottles.

I totally agree with your suggestion. It's easy and inexpensive, yet can have a huge impact on the Earth. It is important for people to understand that whatever they do to help the Earth is not insignificant, and has a positive result. An example of this tiny but important change to a reusable bottle in my life, is pushing my soccer teammates to bring sustainable water bottles to games and practices, instead of bringing a bunch of plastic bottles.

I agree that even if you switch from a plastic water bottle to a reusable one it can make an impact.  Plastic water bottles are cheap but buying a new one every day adds up fast, so it would be cheaper to buy a reusable water bottle and stick to using it. Plastic water bottles are made using fossil fuels then being shipped all around the world. First of all, drilling fossil fuels are very bad for the environment as they emit a lot of CO2 into the air. Second of all, the water bottles are shipped all around the world usually by cargo ships causing a huge amount of C02 into the water and the air. And lastly, plastic water bottles take thousands of years to decompose.
Link: https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-11193/7 … again.html

I agree. Buying a reusable water bottle is not that much of a hassle. In the end, it helps the environment and it also saves you money because buying a plastic water bottle every time can get expensive.

Ways we can do this are to replace fossil fuel use with renewable energy sources and here is why.  Fossil fuels release various gases with the main one being carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that generally warms the Earth and is bad for us humans.  Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, warming the Earth.  If renewable energy sources are used such as solar, wind, hydroelectric and more powers are used, you don't have to worry about emitting gases into the air.  Cutting down the use of energy is a good way to get this done without making the planet warmer, because the majority of the energy used is eventually lost as heat, which warms our planet.  So yes, this can be done without making the planet warmer/

By using renewable energy sources it won't affect the temperatures. Coal being burned and other fossil fuels are releasing greenhouse gases.

I'm all for clean energy, and I want to build a sustainable future. But I have very mixed opinions about electric cars. I feel that electric cars are a good idea and it's a step in the right direction, but personally I think that people are spending SO much money to buy a Tesla, and driving it whenever they  could when in my opinion, the focus should be on reducing the amount you consume. Considering the amount of resources put into the amount of cars being made we should not think that this is the best option. This is a better alternative to cars that use gas, but this is not the solution. Currently, walking is the best solution.

I agree, electric cars currently have one, glaring flaw. Most of our Electricity is made with fossil fuels. I feel that electric cars could be a good future but they are held back by current limitations such as the short amount of time they have been researched compared to gasoline cars and non-renewable energy.

Hi Im Matthew from Mooresville NC. One of the main ways to get clean development is to take some of the CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is a main part because the CO2 is one of the main greenhouse gases. Some other ways is to find some new fuel sources that are more renewable.

I think that with future development, and the rise of urbanization in the world, we need to start thinking about making urban areas more green. If humans continue pumping CO2 and other green house gases into the atmosphere as we are now, then we are going to be in serious trouble. One way to help mitigate, and slow this down is by increasing the amount of CO2 that drawn back into the earth with the carbon cycle. If we stopped deforestation, and started having urban garden and planted things all over all the cities of the world then there would be much more CO2 being pulled back into the earth, helping us in our fight with global warming, and would make urban areas prettier and more sustainable as we could grow plants on them. What do you think?

I wholeheartedly agree to this idea. Cities should be able to create rooftop gardens even when there is no more room on the ground. This way, if all the roof tops are covered with green, we are basically moving the plants that were originally there  a couple hundred feet up. On top of that, to solve more problems, due to invasive species, these rooftop gardens should only include fauna that is natural to the area. This can help the dying number of bees and monarch butterflies.

I agree with your statement. We need to make our cities a lot greener. This isn't a very hard task either. If we groups groups of people from their own community to plant more plants and tree, it could help the world a lot. We should also plant trees that produce food. So we are helping out the Earth and gaining more resources for food.

Clean development is not anything new. Everyone knows about windmills or solar panels. It isn't hard to set up or hard to use. Its the cost of building them that is making people to not buy them. 1 solar panel is about $11,000 dollars to buy and install it. And it may not even power your home! If there is a way to make these clean replacements cheap, it will benefit the future.

Cars are a huge part of pollution in the world. But we need cars and other vehicles to get around the world. They are many ways of reducing the amount of gas that is being produced in the air from a car. One of the easiest is to take a bike instead of a car on shorter trips. Another way but a little harder and more expensive is to use an electric car instead.

I believe that renewable energy should be something we all strive towards. It is able to provide energy, without wasting any precious resources, and with minimal co2 output. I think this could be very beneficial, to not only Vancouver, but to larger polluters, such as China, and the USA.

I agree. I think a good example of renewable energy would be wind turbines. It results in no carbon emissions. Other countries such as Denmark have 40% of their power produced from wind and are set to be 100% wind powered by 2050. Based on this I think we are 100% capable of switching to 100% clean energy in the next 75 years.

This would be a great solution to countries that huge polluters, such as the U.S. and China. Instead of using fossil fuels, we could use water power, wind power, solar power, or make a biodegradable alternative made from algae. All of these alternative would make a difference in the amount of energy used and CO2 that is put in the atmosphere that these two countries could improve on.

Definitely, if governments as well would be able to implement changes such as less coal-burning factories and things that produce large amounts of carbon, and replace them with renewable energy sources such as solar, global warming effects would go down drastically. Additionally, the ocean will benefit, because the pH will begin to neutralize again and some species will be able to live in a better environment. Many places currently are experiencing these changes to renewable energy sources and at my home itself we are implementing solar panels and our own power grid to fuel our home.

I agree with you, If we reduce our use of pollutants such as the use of fossil fuels than we can make a dramatic positive impact on our environment. Choosing alternatives such as solar panels or wind farms with help to use our natural resources that are able to be replenished to our advantage without destroying our planet.

I agree because those resources (ex. oil and gas) are limited and we have to find a way to satisfy our needs in terms of electricity, for example. Also, driving cars which use electricity as a power source, instead of petrol which pollutes our ozone layer greatly.

I agree with your statement. Some examples of renewable energy sources are solar energy, wind energy, hydropower, geothermal energy, and biomass energy. These types of energy sources are different from fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.

I fully agree with all your posts. In addition, I would like to say, that I’m convinced that today we already have the necessary knowledge and technology to produce enough clean energy in order to supply our current energy needs. Renewable energy like solar power, wind power, geothermal energy, hydroelectric power, has the potential to reduce pollution, slow global warming, create new industries and jobs, and move the world toward a cleaner, healthier energy future. The only problem is that we need time to switch from the use of fossil fuels like coal, petroleum and natural gas into a full use of renewable energy. Unfortunately it is not so easy, first of all we have to boost the utilization of renewable energies through an adequate incentives and price policies, then we have to increase the education and the sensibility across all generations and last but not least all the Government around the world have to pursue the same goals about the use and development of renewable energies.

Renewable energy is a very good idea because we can stop damaging the atmosphere and the polluting the earth by keeping the waste from energy production out of the equation.

I agree that we should start using more renewable energy. Renewable energy is the best solution to help protect our environment. Fossil fuels which are our main sources of energy are bad for our environment and one day we will run out. This is why we should start using renewable energy. Also with renewable energy their are many different types from solar panels to geothermal energy. Renewable energy is a great step to a healthier environment.

Renewable energy should be something we all strive for. Natural resources will not last us forever. They are also releasing gases into our atmosphere. In this day and age, we have created ways to stop the use of natural gas and oils. The next step is to find a way for renewable energy to reach people. People in places they don't have the energy, to begin with. In the vast or near future you should be able to get your hands on renewable energy the size of a cell phone.

The future main renewable energy is probably the Hydrogen because you can find it anywhere and it's an amazing source of power. As soon as we will know how to stock it and reduce the risk of explosion, it will be possible to use it as the new way to produce electricity all around the world.

We are using natural resources to fast and this is creating a huge problem for supporting our population. Our earth cannot support our growing population for an extended period of time. Also, we are creating CO2 emissions at a rate of 44 percent faster than what nature can regenerate and reabsorb. This amount can be greatly reduced if we use more renewable materials.

Renewable energy should always be a goal that we strive for but sometimes it can be hard to accomplish that goal. Often renewable energy can be more expensive than traditional energy such as fossil fuels. Also sometimes the places that need these renewable sources of energy cant afford to buy or build them. so once again renewable energy is something that we should strive for but unfortunately it is not always possible.

Packages,bottles,smoked cigarettes-this is what pollutes the environment the most. Of course,you can also add exhaust gases,waste from plants that pollute the air and water basins. But I think we can change everything.Gradually,but still we can. I would suggest using not celefan bags,but possibly linen ones,which would be eco-friendly ,and istead of plastic bottles,you can use glass,but of course,not disposable.With factories and plants it is more difficult. After all,various products are produced and waste must go somewhere. But I think that over time,factories and mills will be able to produce less waste and there will not be much pollution. We ourselves create our future!

During my last stay in London, I saw a fantastic idea to contribute to the waste reduction.
The hotel where I was staying, provided daily a complementary bottle of water.
Instead of using every time a new plastic bottle, they re-used a glass bottle, and filled it with normal water.
This way, they were able to not only reduce the usage of plastic, but also eliminate the transport with all it connected negative effects.
In addition, they also added a fee of 5 £ in case the bottle would disappear.
They took this decision to make sure that nobody would take the bottle and throw it away in a non-friendly environment way.

That is really Eco friendly of the hotel. It really helps reduce the use of plastic  bottles. Also is saves money for the company since they don't have to spend money buying plastic water bottles.

This was a really good decision of the hotel because they are not only making less pollution and garbage but also saving money at the same time. I think every hotel should do this because this would be better for the environment and also better for the hotels. If more hotels start doing this it would most likely reduce the plastic that makes its way to ecosystems and it will reduce the amount of garbage that's in animals habitats.

This is great because they are not wasting plastic and throwing it away. Who wouldn't want to use a nice glass bottle, and the environment will surely appreciate it. Just spending a little extra time washing these will make a big impact on the environment. I think more hotels and places should do this instead of handing out or selling plastic water bottles.

Solar Panels help the environment because solar reduces air pollution: Harmful carbon dioxide and methane emissions from fossil fuels, our traditional energy source, are leading contributors to global warming and decreased air quality. But generating electricity with solar panels produces no greenhouse gasses whatsoever.

I agree completely but solar panels can not be used in all places for example Seattle, WA where it rains there all the time. So as beneficial as they can be we cant always use them for every place.

I like your idea with solar panels.

I completely agree with you but you can't use these solar panels everywhere. like in some places where it rains or is cloudy all the time. As good of a energy source that they are we can't use solar panels all the time and everywhere.

I agree that Solar Panels help the environment because they would reduce air pollution but also agree with the fact that solar panels can't be used everywhere.  I think that there should be some renewable energy sources that doesn't hurt the environment and is available to everyone.  According to (https://phys.org/news/2009-05-feasible- … urces.html) 5 Feasible Renewable Energy Sources is Wind is becoming recognized as new reusable energy resource that is cheap.  They have some other suggestions but they have drawbacks.

I agree with this comment and think that solar panels will help a lot. We as a society need to use less fossil fuels and solar panels can help with this problem

I agree that solar panels will help and reduce air pollution, but solar panels are expensive. Also, there are places that don't get a lot of sun like Seattle. So, solar panels may not be the best option for renewable energy

Solar panels are great and although it is not always sunny in Seattle you do see some homes with solar panels.

Yes, renewable energy is good, but not all of them work rain or shine as stated above. Which is why nuclear energy is the best green energy and the second main energy source of the U.S.

To erase poverty, one must stop it at its source. Which is, for the majority, unemployment, and the inability to make ends meet. So what should we do? We must create jobs. So what if there was a company that seeks out those with unemployment and gives them a job? The product whatever it is should be able to profit, and to help things along, slap a sticker that says "This product supports the end of poverty."

Make the apple sauce and sauce containers in cafeteria be made of paper not plastic, like milk cartons

This is really smart

I think that we could use recycled and compost able products more

After reading various articles and after using the carbon footprint calculator, it is clear to me that it is imperative for our world to rely on cleaner energy sources. However, due to lack of sufficient scientific development and to public opinion, often times the clean energy we need can not be used in the    quantity the world needs. As such, the smartest way to make our world run on Clean Energy is to slowly phase clean energy into our society. As an example, examine the rise of hybrid and electric cars. Electric cars have actually exists since the 19th century, but were not the car of choice because gas vehicles were more cost efficient and drove longer. This remained the case until Toyota unveiled their Toyota Prius, which uses fossil fuels and electricity. This was a much cleaner vehicle than sole fossil fuel cars, and was practical. The Prius, along with many other hybrid cars are exceedingly common on the road these days. Even fully electric cars are quit e common nowadays. I believe that this slow development will be beneficial to other areas of clean energy developments.

I agree that gradual change is important. If we attempt to make changes too fast without proper support structures in place, policies can have harmful consequences. In China, to combat extreme pollution, the Chinese government decided to ban the burning of coal for heating. However, because this was so sudden and many poor households had no other way of keeping warm, people almost froze to death through subzero temperatures. Change must be gradually implanted through education, technological research, and incentive subsidies. Also, I think incentives like carpool access for clean air vehicles are a great idea because they cost the city nothing yet help support clean vehicles.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42266768

I definitely agree. I feel like several people are aware of the fact that climate change is real and happening right now and they keep saying do something; this and this and this have to be done right now or in the next couple years... and so on. But things have to change slowly. Climate change is not going to disappear in just one day, week, month are even a year- even if everyone really tries. If everyone did try to reduce the amount of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere, by the end of the year our carbon footprints would have gone way down but climate change would still happen and would still be a problem.

The first step to a cleaner environment begins with education. If people do not know about their carbon footprint and what effects it, then they will not know how to improve it. There are many people who are not educated on the subject of climate change and what we are doing to perpetuate it. But if they researched, or were taught in school, we could help this problem. I have grown up and always been taught about my effect on the environment. This has come from my school and family. This has made me very conscious of what I can do to limit and shrink my carbon footprint. But not everyone has this same opportunity to learn. The link below is a good, reliable source for families to learn about their footprints and how they can be reduced.
https://www.climate.gov/teaching/resour … -footprint

I agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Like you said if people don't even know what a carbon footprint is how can they help reduce it. Although there are public schools I don't know if they address this problem. To help this problem of education people should try to spread the word about carbon footprints and could try to plan fun activities for towns about ways to help reduce their footprints. For example, they can have the three trash bins and sort out the trash or they could bike to an ice cream parlor because biking does not emit CO2.  That link is full of information and provides simple ways to help reduce people's carbon footprint.

I agree but it is hard to do this. First of all according to the National Center for Education Statistics, "In fall 2017, about 50.7 million students will attend public elementary and secondary schools. [...] An additional 5.2 million students are expected to attend private elementary and secondary schools," this means that roughly 91% of non-college students in the US go to public school. As you may know the government is in charge of funding and providing a curriculum to public schools, but the government does not have a financial incentive to provide more complex science education. This means that until the government is provided with a carrot to improve its science education, it will not. The US used to really push its science education as said by the New York Times "In 1983, a bipartisan federal commission warned in the report “A Nation at Risk” that the country was engulfed in a 'rising tide of mediocrity,” citing particularly a “steady decline in science achievement.' [...]Both of these documents, like other reports and expert recommendations, called for more scho larships for would-be scientists, higher teacher salaries and other efforts to halt a national erosion of technical proficiency. But none of them produced the widespread ferment and public engagement of Sputnik. [...] The end of the cold war further diminished the national urge “to do anything spectacular in science education,” said Charles H. Holbrow, who abandoned an almost-complete doctorate in history and switched to physics after Sputnik," now because are government is no longer pushing for science Bill Gates said in an interview with some Harvard students  that "It's the anti-science that's a problem," he said. "We need to push back. Right now we're sort of in a dip in terms of science being an argument for good policies." And he has spent hundreds of millions on education in the US.

Nicely said Ciara i agree that when there is a problem
first thing we should do is inform the public and tell the
people what they have to do to help that problem
because if they don't know they wont do anythif about it
We should also inform about what will happend if we
don't do something about that problem. And then when
people know they can start reducing their carbon
footprint. And i think that every school should adress this
topic and that there should be atleast 1 hour a week
when teachers tell students and educate them about
climate hange because it's not to late we just need to
spread the word

Since I live a modern and age of technology we tend to forget about our CO2 emissions. We as next generation need to think of ways to help prevent what has happened to the Earth. We need to use the technology we have to create new forms of energy production and cleaner power. There are certain companies that have started to support electric cars and adding charging cables into their parking lots. And even if electricity does still create CO2, well in the production of its machines it will buy time for the Earth to recover and give us more time to solve the problem.

Many of our everyday items or normal sightings are producing deadly amounts of CO2. Things like our cars that we drive everyday to get to school are actually producing CO2. Now many people may be think that their one car can't make a difference. Well their right, but if they haven't noticed the traffic their constantly stuck then thats another problem. See the huge population in just America uses is absurd and when taking in all people and places the number is bearable. As a community we needed to make changes on how we drive and we to choose driving their own our own or taking public transit. Or even just taking a few others who were planning on going anyways is one of the many ways to help the environment even in the smallest way.

I agree with this post completely. You can't make a difference yourself you need to start a change and get other people to work on climate change with you. If it is culturally acceptable to throw away perfectly good food then everyone will do it and that is not ok. Same with cars if people think it is ok to use fossil fuels over alternative fuels there is no motivation to change. You need to change how people think about climate change.

I also agree with this posts. People will not follow a movement about climate change unless they see the true effects or an example of the effects themselves. People need to be shown that it is better to use public transportation and use alternative fuels over fossil fuels like Cole said. Also composting has grown as an overall trend throughout many peoples homes but a lot of people in urban cities don't take much action to do it. By exposing and demonstrating the effects of climate change you can create a larger movement.

I agree with your post on cars. Cars make a huge impact on our atmosphere and as yous aid, many people think their one car won't make a difference but all the people thinking this just adds to the amount of CO2 emitted into the air. If we all started to use our cars less such as taking public transportation, riding a bike to close enough destinations and carpooling with people going to the same location, we could really help the atmosphere.

I agree this makes a huge impact on the world and it shows how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere. If we start to reduce how much we use our cars this could help with the problem. It is better to carpool, walk, or bike to wherever you are going because it is helping to save the earth.

I agree with you, Robert. Cars have lots of carbon emissions. If people didn't use cars for one whole day the air would be less polluted. The only good things that cars can provide is some vehicles are electric which is a helpful way to get around. People can also bike, walk, or public transportation. Only if people work far and need a car think about purchasing an electric vehicle which saves you gas and saves the environment.

There are many ways that you can help the earth. When you do things that help reduce the amount of CO2 it does help the earth even if you don't think so. When you use solar panels that helps with energy because it creates clean and renewable energy from the sun and this helps the environment. Also when you recycle your trash and compost your food this helps keep the earth greener and cleaner because you are reusing the materials and compost helps hold the CO2.

A lot of people forget how much recycling is important to our environment. There are so many advantages there are for doing it, not only does help cut down on air  pollution but also saves energy. Compost helps with plant diseases, it also reduces methane

Yes that is a good point everyone should compost and recycle. I do at my house and not only does compost cut down on waste but it is free fertilizer for a garden/flower patch.

I agree with both of you. Composting and recycling is very important for the planet.  As you said , it improves many things that are really benefiting for humans. Although this is just a small thing we can do, it really helps.

I think your point is very valid and I agree about what compost helps with, but how can people be reminded to compost? I think that people could be reminded to compost by in all parks, streets, cities, they should have a compost bin to put the compost in, instead of trashcans.

Composting is a very sustainable and smart thing for our Earth. Something that has not been brought up yet is that it helps reduce Greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute the Earth warming. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overvi … ouse-gases

This is a good  topic. Recycling can dramatically reduce your carbon footprint. I recycle at my house and it reduces our carbon footprint by quite a bit. My family brings our bottles to a bottle redemption center and we get paid for doing so. This is just one way to recycle and it's very lucrative.

The world is running low on energy sources. British Petroleum predicts we will run out of oil in 53.3 years. And ecotricity.com says that there will be no coal by 2088. Two cons to these sources are that they will run out and contribute to global warming by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. This is we should start developing clean and renewable energy. Solar Panels can produce electricity by harnessing power from the sun and according to theconversation.com, the sun will not die for 5 billion years. If we use solar energy, the world will be cleaner and more efficient with us using electric cars, solar home heating, and many more ways of energy. We will also slow down global warming because solar energy produces no greenhouse gases. What can be done to contribute to the whole world using solar energy?

I agree that the energy sources we use are detrimental to our environment. However, solar panels are not a financially stable solution.  Solar panels are costly and not very efficient because they rely on the sun.  With more advancements in technology, they will hopefully be ideal in the future.

That is true that solar panels are not a financially stable solution at the moment. But the more people use solar panels, the cost will go down because it is an everyday thing and its value will be less. What I am saying is if more people use solar panels they will cost less. I do agree the solar panels are inefficient. northwestern.edu says that less than 14% of solar panel energy is converted into electricity. But that is something we can work on in the future.

There are many jobs that can be created in fields such as sustainable food and energy. For example, installing solar panels could create jobs while decreasing greenhouse gases from other energy resources. By further developing these not-yet-matured fields, we could create jobs and help eradicate poverty while improving the environment.

There are a lot of alternatives to fossil fuels, oil, and gas as a power source. Solar power, collecting the sun's rays, which can be collected by solar panels and glass. Wind power, using wind turbines to use the wind's energy. Wave power, using the waves from oceans, seas, and lakes. Many different options.
One big problem with clean development is that it is treated as a luxury, as in "only people who are rich can use this" when in fact it can be used anywhere in the world. And new ways of collecting power are being created each day.
Another thing that we might be able to control, but not likely, is population. Humans breathe out CO2 all the time, and for every person that dies, ten more people are born, so we are very overpopulated. I'm not saying we should kill a whole bunch of people, because that would be horrible, and the world is horrible enough already. The main cause of this is poverty, so maybe the big companies should pay more than minimum wage to their workers and stop exploiting people, but I don't think these companies are going to change anytime soon.

I think that one way we can reduce our carbon footprints is to replace many of the automobiles we have on today's roads with cleaner, self-driving electric cars. Although it is a large investment, especially for the lower-class, an electric car can pay for itself after approximately 14-16 years. Electric vehicles have been shown to have higher efficiency than traditional, gas-powered vehicles. The EPA has calculated that some electric vehicles can have up to 100MPGe---nearly four times the MPG of the average non-electric car. In addition to being having electric cars on the streets, I believe that self-driving cars should also be put on the streets once given a higher safety approval rating because an article from Time reports that self-driving automobiles can reduce energy consumption in transportation by up to 90%. However, it also says that having easily-accessible self-driving cars could make people want to travel more and increase the energy consumption by 200%! Therefore, I think that we need to be smarter in the ways that reduce our energy consumption. I feel like  carpooling with others in self-driving electric cars can really help reduce our carbon footprints. Often, the problem with Uber, Lyft, and other taxi-like companies is that the drivers spend time and energy driving around waiting to give a ride. Self-driving cars should be able to park near charging stations until needed.
https://www.energysage.com/electric-veh … al-impact/
http://time.com/4476614/self-driving-cars-environment/

Global warming is very real and prominent within our society, and it is happening because of humans and our carbon dioxide emissions. We need to find a way to counteract it, and I propose using renewable energy sources, such as solar panels, and wind turbines. Burning fossil fuels is one of the main contributors to the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. If we can replace fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and gas, with renewable energy sources, we can cut down our CO2 emissions.
   Many people believe that it will be too expensive to replace coal and other nonrenewable energy sources with greener, renewable energy sources. According to greenpeace.org, this is a complete myth. In fact, the coal plants cost 6 cents to make per kilowatt per hour, while a unit of electricity from the wind costs 4 cents, which may not seem like much now, but it certainly adds up.
   Using renewable energy is certainly a quick and relatively easy way to reduce your carbon footprint and  help reduce global warming.
   
Source:
http://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/cam … rgy-myths/

I agree, renewable resources are the way to go. However there is also the question of jobs. According to Energy in Depth, it is estimated that 3.8 million permanent jobs would be lost with a net loss of 1.2 million jobs. I think that this is the main reason that the US has not put more energy into the search and research of renewable energy.

Source:
https://energyindepth.org/national/clim … enewables/

Yes, the loss of employment is also one of the main reasons we have not switched to renewable energy. But, according to Peak Oil, oil resources will only last 190 more years. Think of all the carbon dioxide that will be emitted!
Another thing to consider: What happens when that oil runs out? What jobs will there be then? Renewable energy will create niche jobs to counteract that employment concern.

Source:
http://peakoil.com/consumption/how-long … fuels-last

This is very true. I believe that scientists, researchers, and the government need to spread more information on climate change and the debilitating effects that it will have on our planet and society. According to ucsusa.org the aggregate national economic impact associated with these health impacts of fossil fuels is between $361.7 and $886.5 billion, or between 2.5 percent and 6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Which means that the economy would benefit from switching to renewable energy would increase despite the loss of jobs. This information needs to be spread through the United States if any headway is to be made because at this point in time people care more about the economy than the environment and the long-term effects of global warming.

Source: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our- … -u8XygrK00

This information does need to be spread, I agree, if we are going to convince anybody to switch to renewable energy sources. People might argue against the cost of implementing solar panels, for example. According to solarpowerauthority.com, installing a 5 kilowatt system in an average American house would cost about $25,000, which may seem like a lot, but it would pay for itself in the long run.  I believe that we also need to educate people on the detrimental effects of nonrenewable energy resources in order to help them learn to care more about the environment than the economy, as you said.

Source:
https://www.solarpowerauthority.com/how … -us-house/

Yes, I agree that we need to replace fossil fuels. Most of the energy that we use comes from fossil fuels. In fact it is the reason for more than 80% of greenhouse gas emissions, and these gases are trapping heat which is what’s causing climate change. Several of the primary energy sources that we use daily are coal, oil, and natural gas. We use them for transportation, generation of electricity, agriculture, and many other things. Sources such as coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium are nonrenewable, and when they are burned “nitrous oxides causes photo chemical pollution, sulfur dioxide creates acid rain, and greenhouse gases are emitted.” That is why it is important to use renewable energy sources such as sunlight, wind, moving water, and geothermal energy.
    To reduce the amount of greenhouse gases, we need to make changes to our everyday lives. Families, businesses, and schools need to start replacing their old electricity sources with solar panels. Solar panels are clean for the environment since it is considered a renewable energy source. Also, coal is considered th e dirtiest energy source because it releases the most pollutants than any other source. Coal plants should be shut down and replaced with things such as wind turbines which use wind, also a renewable source. All in all, humans should be switching over to cleaner energy sources, that do not cause as much harm to our planet, helping us avoid making any climate change matters worse.

"Energy Impacts." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
<https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/energy.html>
Scheid, Jean. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Non Renewable Energy."LovetoKnow. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2016. <Advantages and Disadvantages of Non Renewable
Energy>"Clean Energy."
Union of Concerned Scientists. Union of Concerned Scientists, n.d. Web. 29
Sept. 2016. <http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy#.V-1f_vkrIdV>

Replacing fossil fuels to biofuel may sound like a good idea to many people, however this comes with many great disadvantages than advantages. Biofuels which are created from biomass come from plants and sometimes food reduce carbon emissions greatly, and reduces a country’s dependency on fossil fuels. However, fossil fuels create jobs and may determine a country’s economy.

    Fossil fuels are a major cause of global warming and scientists are looking for a way to replace fossil fuels, and they did so by creating biofuel. Biofuel reduces carbon emissions however it doesn’t completely remove a car’s/airplane’s/boat’s carbon emission. Engine’s burn biomass which in turn creates carbon emissions, however greatly reduced because biofuel is made from biomass which is derived from renewable sources. Realistically, the world will never give up fossil fuels because if we do, it could create massive economic damages to countries that are distributors of fossil fuels. To put this in perspective, removing fossil fuels completely from the United States we would lose 25% of the power  o utput of the country. Not only that but Middle Eastern Countries, Russia, and other countries who export fossil fuels as a source of income, would collapse. Not only would they collapse but poverty would be widespread across these countries.

    Realistically, we cannot replace fossil fuels at this time. Although biofuels help reduce climate change the economy of the world would be greatly damaged if fossil fuels were taken out of the economy. Until new discoveries on renewable energy which are efficient and able to produce jobs in countries who depend on fossil fuel exports.

Sources:
http://www.alternative-energy-news.info … sil-fuels/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/07/ … tommorrow/
https://www.quora.com/What-will-happen- … ative-fuel

I agree that replacing fossil fuel is inevitable in the future, but it will take time. According to your source, renewable energy is cheaper. It seems like there's no reason why people would not switch from fossil fuel to renewable energy. But actually renewable energy is hard to be generated on a large scale and it is not a continuous source to supply electricity use. Plus, big oil companies have large influence on policy making and of course they don't want to see fossil fuel being replaced. And I think that's why renewable energy  is not able to be produced to completely replace fossil fuel. p.s.: I think our next energy source after fossil fuel will be nuclear energy generated by thorium.

Renewable energy will probably not be the only source used as an alternative to fossil fuels, I agree. It hopefully will be one of the major sources, however.
You mentioned that the next energy source used might be nuclear energy. Why might that happen? Especially in comparison to solar, geothermal, or hydroelectric power. What makes it more likely to be used than the other possible sources?

I agree that replacing fossil fuels will really help with the issue of global warming. Global warming is a very harmful and prominent issue in our environment and needs to be addressed. Clean energy is a big way to reduce our effect on the environment, especially because much of our modern day society needs energy. There are many possibilities for clean energy including wind power, hydropower, solar panels, and many more. I also think more human generated energy could be possible, as I've seen stationary bikes power blenders. It would be cool if we could find a way to make treadmills in gyms generate energy and even sidewalks.

I agree with all of you, replacing fossil fuels is in motion as we speak people all over the world are trying to replace fossil fuels for things like solar and eletric. The Car company Tesla has already made eletric cars.  the only problem with the two sources of energy is that they are both expensive. There are other sources of energy like hydroeletric, using dams, Geothermal,using the heat of the earth to power things, and wind, using wind turbines to ceate energy. they all have there flaws, but they are way better than burning fossil fuels. Climate change is becoming a large problem in the world using sources of energy, other than fossil fuels could greatly reduce the productio of CO2.
link:  http://www.scienceclarified.com/Al-As/A … urces.html

I agree that replacing fossil fuels would create a big impact on global warming.  Global warming is affecting our planet and it is becoming worse everyday. I agree with the idea of switching to electric cars because it will lower the rate  of global warming. There are many other things we could do to help our planet like using clean energy. We could use wind power, hydro-power or solar panels.

I agree with all of you, however right now it is impractical and difficult to complety eradicate the use of CO2. The alternative energy sources such as wind turbines, solar panles and geothermal are sometimes too expensive and sometimes are not effective enough for major companys to be willing to switch too,  and they would prefer to use fossil fuels. In order, to encourage these major companies to switch we  need to change our mentality.  The U.S., under the leadership, of Obama has taken some major steps to find more alternative solutions with the national climate action plan, however this mentality needs to be taken on by more people especially those in positions of power.
https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global- … uJt-9PwYWo

We have gotten to the point in which renewable energy is affordable and plausible, however, our broken system believes that corporate interests supercede those of the people. Renewable energy cannot truly be implemented unless puppets such as Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump are defeated and ousted. All of America's problems today can be traced back to our own ignorance.

I only agree partially. I will try to keep this short. Renewable energy would take forever to implement properly. Even if it's "cheap," the material demand is MUCH higher. It requires rare or hard to make materials to create solar panels. Nuclear energy supplies most of the country as well as coal and other natural sources. Nuclear energy supplies more power and if we were to suddenly shut down every coal and nuclear plant, it would put thousands of people out of jobs, not including those having to mine or create the fuel needed. We would also be in a huge power deficit and empty buildings would have to be torn down. Gradually, it could work, but an attempt at switching ALL power consumption to solar and wind would be too drastic and would plummet the US into a state of shock.

Clean Development
    If I could create the most eco friendly dream home, I would live in Hawaii. Hawaii has the perfect amount of rain and water. I would have solar panels which would be great because Hawaii has lots of sun. I could even have a boathouse that has a sail instead of a motor. I would use the ocean water for my toilet. I would receive my food from my nearby farmland that grows fresh gmo free and no pesticides needed. The animals that I eat would would be grass fed. Last but not least I would use LED lights to power and light up my whole house.

The best way to prevent further emissions of CO2 into our atmosphere is to use clean, reusable energy sources. If you stop using energy sources like coal, gas, and oil, it cuts down CO2 emissions by a huge amount. To replace these energy sources, you can use clean energy sources like wind, water, and solar. While these energy sources are more expensive than fossil fuel powered energy sources, in the long run it will have a huge positive impact on the world. It will reduce global warming by a huge amount and slow down an eventual disaster. To even further reduce pollution, car manufacturers would only manufacture electric cars. All of these steps would lead to a cleaner and longer future.

Are electric cars really a long-term solution? But what will we do with the scrap batteries? They are really dangerous waste. And electric cars are also more expensive than other cars. What do you think about that?

I agree with you that scrap batteries are dangerous waste , but I'm pretty sure that scientists will come up with something to do with those batteries so they won't be so dangerous.... I also agree about their price but again more of them will be made so they will probably become a lot cheaper

My family owns a electric car and I think it is a sustainable way to drive. Not only does it not need gas refills ever, bu they also don't emit any carbon or pollution. Yes, the scrap batteries can be quite harmful, but if you weigh out all the emissions that come from cars and how many scrap batteries there would be, the pollution from car emissions would damage the environment way more. Also, there are many cars that are way more expensive than electric cars and they do even more damage to the environment. For example, big tricks and sports cars emit a lot of carbon and are very expensive vehicles. If only electric cars were produced, there would be more advances and less expensive ways to create them that would be discovered. Overall I think switching to all electric cars could drastically help the environment.

I am living in a family that has recently transferred from a diesel to an electric car. During this process I learned a lot about how bad scrap batteries were for the environment. We found that is very useful to recycle the batteries. Looking at the cons of a scrap battery to the car emissions the car emissions are much worse for the environment. I agree with the fact that electric cars will completely and drastically help our environment. Changing to an electric car will greatly impact our would for the better.

I am living in a family that has recently transferred from a diesel to an electric car. During this process I learned a lot about how bad scrap batteries were for the environment. We found that is very useful to recycle the batteries. Looking at the cons of a scrap battery to the car emissions the car emissions are much worse for the environment. I agree with the fact that electric cars will completely and drastically help our environment. Changing to an electric car will greatly impact our world for the better.

While scrap batteries are definitely a concern for electric cars, we will most likely find a better way to power such cars. Even if it still remains as batteries, they will just continue to be even more efficient, decreasing the waste. Getting rid of batteries will be very difficult, but even with batteries as waste, the carbon footprint it leaves will be less than what we currently have.

What they can do as the next step is to use part solar power and part electricity so that energy won’t be entirely dependent on battery. In addition, another type of alternative energy is to use grass as biofuel in place of petroleum.

I have wondered this a lot too. It seems like electric cars would be much better since they don't use fossil fuels but I know that there is a problem with getting rid of old batteries. I heard that Tesla is working on a better way to recycle their batteries but almost no one can afford a Tesla and I don't know if the technology will work for recycling other electric car batteries. Either way it would be good to know the environmental impact of electric cars, including battery disposal and fuel efficient regular cars.

Electric cars are a great solution short and long term.  According to https://sustainablog.org/2015/07/batter … landfills/  we can and should recycling all old car batteries because they contain a tremendous amount of lithium and we can use that for many other things like phone and computer rechargeable batteries.  Also we could reuse all the nickel and cobalt in the batteries which are both expensive metals.

electric cars right now seem like a short term solution because these cars aren't affordable for low income families or for those who just don't have enough money for the car.

I agree with shivam67. The electric cars are way too expensive. Many families (not only low income) around the world could not afford it including mine. So, it's almost impossible for us to change ours to the electric one.

Out of the various renewable energy sources, geothermal energy is one of the few sources that is actually stable and environment friendly compared to fossil fuels. Renewable energy sources such as solar energy, wind energy, and hydroelectric energy are all unstable since they rely on the environment. For example, clouds will decrease the amount of energy produced by solar panels and a drought will decrease the energy output of hydroelectric dams. Geothermal energy, however, uses the underground reservoirs of steam and hot water, which will be used to turn a secondary liquid into steam, to drive a turbine. This is much more stable than the other sources since there are no other environmental factors that will effect it.
Geothermal Energy also has a relatively smaller impact on the environment than sources such as fossil fuels, biomass, and wood. It releases low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and some other geothermal fluids. Yet, these are much smaller than the emissions of fossil fuels and is much safer than the nuclear wastes of nuclear power plants.
Geothermal ener gy may be a reliable and clean energy source as a replacement to fossil fuels in the future.
References:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/envir … al-energy/

I completely agree that geothermal energy is a good alternative to fossil fuels for energy however as you stated there are some draw backs that we must take into account. Like you said at geothermal energy sites sulfur dioxide and silica emissions can be released which continues to add to our air pollution problems. Another negative factor is that good geothermal energy reservoirs are hard to find so are location specific. This poses a question about how we will transport the energy made to homes that need it. Lastly, Geothermal energy can actually affect the land  by creating earth quakes and making the land less stable. Both Germany and New Zealand have earthquakes due to hydraulic fracturing, an effect of geothermal energy sites.
I believe that geothermal energy definitely has potential to be a great alternative to fossil fuels however first we need to find ways to fix the problems that geothermal energy creates.

I really think that geothermal energy could be something. However, as geothermal energy and all other kinds of energy sources prove, there is always a problem with each energy solution. Geothermal energy releases air pollution and causes earthquakes. Wind turbines kill birds. Solar energy doesn't work on cloudy days. Even though this is the case, geothermal energy seems to be the closest to the "perfect" renewable energy method. However, there are problems that are caused by humans trying to figure out a new energy method. As soon as those issues are addressed and solved, geothermal energy could be the future of energy on this earth.

We can see that the cost of renewable energy has become more affordable, and it has created so many new jobs. Would you be in favor of requiring all new building to use alternative energy sources?

I agree because Iceland get a quarter of it's energy from hot springs for heating, and because of this it has one of the highest percentage of renewable energy used in the world.

In 2015, bladeless wind turbines were invented. Instead of the blades moving to generate energy, these large poles vibrate in the wind. These turbines require less material to make and produce the same amount of energy.
Source: https://www.wired.com/2015/05/future-wi … no-blades/

In the automotive industry there is a lot of waste that comes from painting cars. All of the paint is broken down and clumped together by a chemical in order to get rid of the waste. The problem with this is that the chemical used is called melamine formaldehyde, and it can be very harmful to the environment. A company called Ecolab came up with another, more green chemical as an alternate solution. The chemical is called Apex and it helps to decrease chemical use, solid waste, water use, and the cost of the whole painting process. Apex is made of 99% renewable sources, it reduces the chemical use by 80%, and it reduces waste by about 50%. This product will help to get rid of the extra waste effectively and safely. Elimination of the harmful waste will reduce air pollution. Air pollution is known to affect climate change. As the population grows, the demand for cars grows. Apex will decrease the amounts of harmful waste produced from the cars in production. 

Sou rce: http://www.ecolab.com/stories/innovatin … paint-shop
Ecolab was named one of the Global 100 most sustainable Companies in 2016.

In order to better our environment and to attempt to lessen or at least prevent the effects of climate change each person will have to make changes to their homes, businesses, communities and lifestyles. There are many small things that each person can do to lessen their footprint, however, I think in order to really make a difference we will need to make major changes in the ways we produce and use our power. For one, we need to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. Currently the cost of solar paneling is decreasing rapidly, for many families, unfortunately, this is still not an option.  I feel that for many families it would be a good idea, instead of going on a vacation, to put that money aside in order to save up for solar power. Where I live in Oakland, California, according to project sunroof, the average family can save 17,000 on electricity bills from solar energy. Not only will solar energy help to save bills on electricity for many people, but it can also open up job opportunities for thousands of people such as solar engineers.

I agree, but I also think that the government plays a big role in this. They must set an example by making their buildings energy efficient and put into legislation bills that will force people to regulate their carbon emissions, thus regulating their carbon footprint. This is not just a problem for the citizens, but all people. We need to save our earth and take that rescue mission more seriously.

According to an article on ScienceDaily, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 125154.htm researchers at Columbia University conducted the first evaluation of evaporation as a renewable energy source and found that the U.S. lakes and reservoirs could generate 325 gigawatts of power. This surmounts to about 70 percent of what the U.S. currently produces. Here's how it works: An "Evaporation Engine" controls humidity with a shutter that opens and closes. As a result, bacterial spores expand and contract. The spores' contractions are then transferred to a generator that makes electricity. Evaporation as a source of energy could overcome the problems that come with solar and wind energy. For example, solar and wind power require batteries to supply power even when the sun isn't shining and wind does not blowing. Additionally, batteries are expensive and require toxic materials to manufacture. Contrastingly, evaporation could be generated only when needed, reducing the amount of batteries needed, therefore lessening the amount of hazardous waste produced. Furthe rmore, evaporation technology can also save water. Columbia researchers estimate that half of the water that evaporates from lakes and reservoirs during the natural cycle of water between land and air could be saved during the energy-harvesting process for evaporation. Their model shows that the process could save 25 trillion gallons a year, equating to about 1/5 of the water Americans consume. As a California resident, these findings are extremely intriguing to me because the state is drought-prone. Researches state that states with increasing populations and sunnier weather can best capitalize on evaporation's capacity to generate power and reduce water waste.

No single energy source is going to solve all of our energy needs. However, I believe moving towards a greater use of solar and wind energy would be the most effective in lowering environmental impact. Active solar technologies have initial costs, but can potentially supply large amounts of energy without emitting pollution. One way of harnessing solar energy is through photovoltaic cells; my high school Bishop O’Dowd, for example, installed 198 solar panels on the roof of the classroom building that produces one-third of the total electricity demand for our Center for Environmental Studies building. Wind is another clean, nondepletable energy resource that uses virtually no water and does not emit greenhouse gases or pollutants. Disadvantages of wind power, however, would be the lack of consistency in when wind will move the turbines/produce energy, and the remote locations of good wind sites that are far from areas of high electricity demand.

I agree, renewable sources are a must in our growing community. While fossil fuels are being overused, solar and wind energy are being forgotten. Although my school is not yet using solar or wind energy, I hope changes are made to better help the world.

I agree that we should look to renewable resources to support our energy needs. My family has made a step towards reducing our use of fossil fuels by having solar panels installed on the roof of our house. My dad was reluctant to do it at first because our energy bill is consistently low, meaning it would take many years for the solar panels to pay for themselves. Like you said, solar technologies have initial costs that can be a turn off to people. People probably worry about finances before they worry about the environment. Although we know the benefits of renewable energy sources, if may be difficult to get others on board.

Thats awesome  that your high school put solar on the school to lower the electric bill it takes a lot of panels to run 100% off solar. But if i would use solar i would use both thermal and photovoltaic (pv) to run the house or business I own because heating water is a third of your electric bill.

Solar energy definitely has a lot of potential. I think the idea of using both thermal and photo-voltaic energy is a really good one. I also recently learned about a third way that the sun is being utilized for energy that is very similar to thermal, that uses the sun to heat salt, creating large amounts of molten salt used to store energy. The main arguments for molten salt solar are its ability to provide reliable base load power, and its relatively cheap plant production cost compared to battery farms. Molten salt power plants, being base load power plants (basically power plants that generate continuous electrical power year round) are a good alternative to fossil fuels, and could help solve the problem of inconsistency with wind, and other solar energy solutions. Also, using this in tandem with other solar and wind solutions, could prove to be a very successful way to provide mass scale renewable energy.

Here is an article that includes information on molten  salt solar solutions: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/06/beyo … -reliable/

I agree in the need to find new sources of nodepletable energy. My neighbors have around six solar panels on their roofing and i could just imagine the amount of carbon burning they've reduced. having lived in Germany, windmills are such a popular soruce of energy. Its truly amazing to see how much they care for their envrionment. Wish our country could put a bit more effort into it as well!

While I do agree with the move towards wind and solar energy, there still some disadvantages to them. Wind energy is not particularly beloved by the residents of the area a windmill is placed, as they produce loud noises, and in addition, like  Maria G stated, they can be ineffective if placed in an area that doesn't have consistent wind to move the windmills. In addition, windmills effect the ecosystem in a negative way. Birds, bats, and etc. are also affected by the noise, and sometimes, they become trapped in the wind turbine's blades, often getting killed. Solar energy is also very good; however, solar energy still emits some carbon. In the production of solar panels, greenhouse gases are emitted and waste is still produced. National Geographic states that, "Fabricating the panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. These problems could undercut solar's ability to fight climate change and reduce environmental  toxics." In addition, for solar energy to be effective, an area must receive a substantial amount of sunlight. For example, solar energy would not be effective in a place with many clouds, as the panels would not be able to generate much energy. Like many of you say, the type of energy source depends on the climate and topography of a place. So for certain areas, an energy source may be deemed efficient or not.

For more information:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … y-ranking/
and
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com … bat-lungs/

Water pollution is one of the famous and one of the largest problems in our world. People in Africa cannot drink clean water; their children die because a big part of our water has been polluted. Children in Kenya often have to go many kilometers to collect drinking water. At all over 2 million people don't have clean water. And we do not know how it will be in future.

But the pollute water killed animals and plants too. There is no ocean or sea, which is not used as a dump. Many seas are used for dumping industrial and nuclear waste.

Many rivers and lakes are poisoned too. Fish and reptiles cannot live in them. There is not enough oxygen in the water. In such places all the birds leave their habitats and many plants die. If people drink this water they can die too. It happens so because factories produce a lot of waste and pour it into rivers. So they poison water.

But we MUST keep our planet and water of our planet clean. If we want to live, we should guard  our clean water and do not pollute them because we could live without food about a month but without water we could die in 4-5 days. Let's keep our water clean!

I agree water pollution is a big problem. Millions of people around the world do not have access to clean drinking water and hundreds of thousands of children die each year because of that. We are lucky to have the privilege of living in a country that has the ability to provide with clean water sources. What is the point of having clean water sources if we keep polluting it them with trash and toxic waste. Think of the water crisis in Flint, Michigan. They were switching to a new water source to save money but that water source has been polluted with toxic waste from the car companies that used to be there. The city politicians said that the water was safe for them to drink but they now have led poisoning because of what the people working at the companies did. We do not want anything like that to happen in our water sources so we must stop polluting the water in order for us to live.

Water pollution is an increasing and very severe problem in our world today, people in Flint Michigan haven't had clean drinking water since 2014. This is a huge and detrimental issue going on in our own country, as well as other countries that continuously have no clean drinking water due to contamination .

I agree that water pollution is one of the largest problems in our world today, especially the water crisis that is happening in Flint, Michigan. Last year, I went to a lecture at my school given by Khalid Kadir, a professor at UC Berkeley. We discussed the issue of the lead and paint being in the pipes in Flint, and we discussed possible solutions to this issue. All of the solutions we could think of, including ideas such as new pipes and new filters, kept coming back to the same major issue, which was money. Flint is a city faced with economic problems and the people living there have little representation within their government. Flint is not the only city facing issues with water pollution, or other climate issues. The people and places most effected by these climate issues are communities that live in poverty, which are most often made up of people of color. This idea can also relate to the people in Africa, who are people of color living in poverty, that do not have clean water to drink.

I believe that wind power could be the 'next big thing.' Wind power has been used ever since 5000 BC when people used sails to navigate the Nile River. The Persians used windmills for 400 years by 900 AD in order to pump water and grind grain. The cost of wind has dropped 15% and has produced 16 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. That is enough energy to serve over 5 cites that are the size of Miami (according to the American Wind Energy Association). That might not seem like a lot right now, but it is predicated that wind power could be one of our main sources of electricity. Wind energy is now more affordable, more available, and pollution-free.
SOURCE: http://www.altenergy.org/

http://www.mobileranger.com/blog/altamo … windmills/

Wind power has definitely shown a lot of promise as a source for electricity. Close to where I live are the Altamont Pass Wind Farm which, according to the article I linked, is "the oldest wind farm in the United States and once produced half of the world’s wind-generated electricity." There are three major wind resources in California including this one, and today they together produce 95% of the state's commercial wind-powered electricity. As of 2012, five percent of California's power came from wind, and there's a goal to raise that number to 33 percent by 2020. Large use of wind power over other less sustainable sources of power will surely benefit the environment.

However, the article does mention one problem with the wind turbines -- they killed a lot of birds, specifically raptors on their migration route. A company has decided to redesign the old wind turbines and create new ones that are less of a hazard to the wildlife. For me, that raises the question, how expensive would  it be to constantly maintain, repair, and replace these wind turbines? Would that cost be a major obstacle to setting up more wind turbines and wind farms around the world?

Wind power is a great alternative for fuels! Another great method is solar energy/pannels.
   According to Direct Energy Source: ming. Approximately 67% of electricity in the U.S. is generated by burning fossil fuels, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Fossil fuels are the leading cause of climate change. Generating electric power causes over a third of all green house gas emissions in the United States (source: Environmental Protection Agency). Reducing the electricity we draw from the grid means reducing carbon emissions. That means cleaner air, water and soil for your family, community, and generations to come.
   Thus, our society needs to acknowledge and implement programs that bring awareness to alternative methods (wind power, solar energy) that help reduce carbon emission.

Wind power is a great alternative fuel, however for many it can't be an option because they can't afford it or live in a populated area or in a place that doesn't generate much wind power. I feel like solar energy is a great alternative in addition to wind power, since Earth is always being exposed to sun! Although solar panels can also be expensive compared to fossil fuels, however they end up saving you money in the long run. In addition, solar panels can be used in populous places as well. In one collection of data a family went from using 325 gallons of fuel oils to using no oils at all. (source: New Yorker)

I agree with you about the wind power being a great alternative source for fuel.

I agree that It could be used as an alternative, however, we could never be fully dependent on natural energy like wind or solar because these resources fluctuate.
In Germany, they used completely natural resources, and there were blackouts in much of the country until they backed up the system with a geo-nuclear system

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … ble-energy

Wind Power is an amazing alternative for fuel, and I definitely agree that wind power is better than using coal for fuel. There are multiple pros to using wind power, but there can be a few cons as well. According to Climate Central, across North America, average wind speeds have decreased slightly over the past 40 years. Because of global warming, wind speeds have been affected. This proves to be a problem as tapping into wind power can prove to be a problem in the future with global warming increasing with its current pace. Also, wind power may not be able to be provided in all parts of America, especially in areas that receive little to no wind. Wind power is better than current sources which contribute to pollution, but it may only temporary.
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/cli … ind-energy

I agree, wind power is a natural resource and we should use it to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use. Do you think solar power would be just as successful?

the combination of solar and wind is a good one, because it generally is either windy or sunny (or both), and wind power works at night as well

Yes! Wind power is superb! It has even been proven to be successful. In Denmark, power usage can often gather 100% from wind power. This might just be because Denmark is windy enough to propel the wind turbines, but this isn't the case in all countries. So how can everyone get renewable energy? If there are regions that aren't windy enough to turn their wind turbines, this is probably because they are closer to the equator, where gasses in the atmosphere increase speed, create friction, expand, and rise. But if those regions are closer to the equator, they have more exposure to sun radiation, which can be harnessed with solar panels. Regions that don't have enough wind can use solar panels and regions that don't have enough exposure to sun radiation can use wind power. Regions in the middle can use a mix of the two. Germany uses solar and wind power. In fact Germany runs on 30% solar power and they are closer to the poles than they are to the equator (51 degrees North, 45 is in the middle).

I agree, that wind power is a good resource to try and use other than gas or coal but you mite want to do some research the amount of land and wind turbines you will need to run a small city. Also you mite want to think of how much land you would need to clear to have theses in use.

I agree that wind technology is a great alternative to fossil fuels, but it does have some shortcomings. As Chaney said above, some parts of the world have less, or inconsistent wind, that could make it harder to utilize wind as a major energy source. However, energy storage solutions are improving, so storing energy from windy days, to make up for less windy days is becoming more feasible. Large scale battery farms are able to reach upwards of 80% energy retention for longer periods of time, and if the energy is not able to be stored, it can be put towards other forms of renewable energy, such as pumped hydro, which requires initial energy, but has a better energy retention rate than battery farms, at up to 88%. While that still doesn't make wind power the perfect solution, especially for areas that almost never get enough wind to power a wind farm, it can still be used along with other renewable energy sources to replace as much of the energy generated from fossil fuels as possible, like what was mentioned above with solar energy.

The best way to prevent further emissions of CO2 into our atmosphere is to use clean, reusable energy sources. If you stop using energy sources like coal, gas, and oil, it cuts down CO2 emissions by a huge amount. To replace these energy sources, you can use clean energy sources like wind, water, and solar. While these energy sources are more expensive than fossil fuel powered energy sources, in the long run it will have a huge positive impact on the world. It will reduce global warming by a huge amount and slow down an eventual disaster. To even further reduce pollution, car manufacturers would only manufacture electric cars. All of these steps would lead to a cleaner and longer future.

I agree with most of your points, however we have to address the problem that electric cars are not able to travel far distances without needing a recharge. The bill it will cost to install charging stations throughout America would be an insane amount.

Most of these would lower the carbon footprint by a lot but,it could be quite expensive. Like if there was only electric cars 1. It would be a crazy amount of money to replace gas stations with charging stations. 2. many people that can't afford to buy a new car wouldn't have fast transportation. There would also be a problem with pricing your "charge".

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines is one of many airlines now turning to biofuel to power their airliners. I personally think that biofuel is just one way we can go, but truly, instead of more forms of energy, we need to look at more forms of construction. This takes into account all structures, especially buildings. We could use massive solar arrays to power large neighborhoods, but you are still causing damage by expanding lengthwise, when you have to expand upwards. As for planes, there are many efficient plane designs we could use that require less fuel and can fly longer and faster for more time.

Throughout the day, humans across the world exert energy in commuting to different locations and moving our bodies, yet all the energy dissipates in the form of exhaust like carbon dioxide, heat, and entropy. Jacques and Pierre Curie discovered piezoelectricity, with the Greek word piezo meaning push, in 1880. In the study of piezoelectricity, physicists explore the concept of energy  being consistent and equal in each form (according to the Law of Conservation of Energy) by converting mechanical stress into electricity. With piezomaterials like ferroelectrics and crystals, scientists, manipulating the direct piezoelectric effect, can use two oppositely charged ions to create an external electric field when any mechanical stress, or pressure, is applied to the materials. From the inverse piezoelectric effect, any external electric fields can compress the ions to generate mechanical stress, or pressure on the materials. During World War II, ferromagnetic materials, or materials that align electrons into parallel positions in certain domains, exposed to the Curie temperatu re, or temperature that causes changes within a magnetic field, were discovered to contain higher piezoelectric properties than crytals like quartz, expanidng the research into piezoelectricity as a source for local electricity. Although scientists use the research of piezoelectricty for the development of instruments that can sense atomic resolution and electronic frequency generation, people can apply piezoelectric ceramics to any places with huge sources of wasted physical energy like the sidewalks or highways to conduct astounding amounts of electricity with little to no carbon emissions. On April 20, 2017, California instituted a project, funded by the Public Utilities Commission with $2 million to install piezoelectric ceramics on highways for the utilization of traffic and movement cars as a source of sustainable energy. Despite its infancy, piezoelectricty has the potential to generate electricity through day-to-day activities and provide the world a sustainable energy source that relies on physcial movement and activity.
http://www.nanomotion.com/piezo-ceramic … ic-effect/
https://www.piceramic.com/en/piezo-tech … damentals/
http://www.govtech.com/fs/California-to … ource.html

Wind power and Solar power have always been separated and used almost as competition against each other; When its sunny you use solar power, and when its cold and windy, you use wind power. I believe that we can combine them together to make a product that helps create cleaner air and better energy sources. I would like to build a windmill out of solar panels. Although it might sound absurd, imagine a long base that is covered in solar panels and the propellors around the top also covered in solar panels. If the day was windy and not sunny, it sound still power your house and if the day was beautiful and sunny with no wind there would still be power. This could be the beginning of a new type of energy source... Solar Wind power.

According to [sciencealert.com](https://www.sciencealert.com/the-uk-has … on-reactor), Tokamak Energy is currently able to create plasma (electrically-charged gas) in its fusion reactor. The company is still working enhance the reactor and make the plasma hotter and able to sustain longer. Fusion is based on the reaction of hydrogen atoms fusing into helium, which produces large amounts of energy. This is the same way that our sun produces its energy.
Probably, we could harvest this energy and make it the next nuclear energy (but much cleaner). Similar to nuclear energy, we could generate plasma to heat up steam and use it to turn a turbine.
The only waste of nuclear fusion is helium, which is produced during fusion of hydrogen atoms. Helium, however, does not have a huge environmental impact, making nuclear fusion a clean energy source.
Similar to almost all other energy sources, there are possible health risks: Helium can cause health issues when it is breathed in. Nonetheless, we use helium to cook everyday and if handled carefull y, there wouldn't be such health issues.
Reference:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-uk-has … on-reactor

Do you notice how much polluted is the air nowadays? Everywhere there is the exhaust of gas. And where are they? Of course we have many factories and enterprises discharging pollutants into the atmosphere, but many of them are treatment facilities. But the point is, I think, in the transport. Everywhere there are cars, cars and cars. They pollute the air very much. So why do not we use a bicycle?

that is a very good idea for local transportation, but unfortunately for long distances a bike simply wont work because it is too slow and will take to long

That is a great idea in some cases like if you were only going to school and it were pretty close to your home but what about if you are going out of the state or out of the country. Maybe if there was technology to limit gasoline usage to therefore limit pollution.

Hello Zack

If you are a healthy sportive person you can record long distances in a bike. If that isn't your case buy an electric bike. However for going from one city to another, hybird cars will always be a good idea. Toyota hybrid cars are cheap and magnificly good.

I live in a very small town but I moved here from New York City. I think air pollution is most heavily based on transportation and depending on where you live, you can limit the amount of CO2 you emit by commuting. In a city there are many opportunities to utilize the public transport system. New York has subway systems and busses and passes to them are well worth the investment. As other people have mentioned, in a small town, walking and biking are great options if possible. More people bike and walk in my small town, and the difference in air quality in the city is astounding.

Many countries are encouraging electric cars and some are giving incentives to buy electric cars

I think bikes are a good idea but it is also challenging to ride a bike far distances. Maybe using public transportation would result in less pollution because many people use it at once

Bikes certainly would be doable over short distances and if getting somewhere on time wasn't an issue. This summer I had the pleasure of journeying to Barcelona for a month. There, in Spain, hardly anyone has a car. I have friends who live there and they use public transportation for getting anywhere over long distances such as buses, and the subway system. In Barcelona, people also walk everywhere and ride bikes. But while being there, I had noticed that they aren't so worried about getting to a certain place on time. It is very relaxed and no smog to be seen. So in a scenery such as this one, bikes are a suitable solution.

Bikes are a great way to help stop air pollution and lower your footprint.

One solution that I implement for this problem is attempting to ride a bike to a public transportation train everyday for my commute to school. This decreases my annual carbon footprint by roughly 207 pounds, or about 94 kilograms according to a calculator by Stanford University.

https://transportation-forms.stanford.e … esults.php

Another way I hope to be able to travel long distances is with a maglev (magnetic levitation) train that many are working on in the United States, such as General Atomics. While other countries such as South Korea and China have these type of energy efficient trains, the U.S. is sadly lacking. For this reason, I believe that many people are unable to use bikes because of the time that is wasted and the lack of sustainable options available. (at least in the U.S.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev

As it is, car companies are going to be moving towards electric fueled cars. This is because the increasing prices in oil, gas, etc. as we use up more and more of it. The big problem with this is having people who do use gas-fueled vehicles to switch, and having it be a mutual agreement among the world. We can't simply enforce a global change so quickly, but we can help along it by choosing the alternatives.

Dear Dasha,
Yes biking is a great way to help cut down carbon emissions and sustain the environment, but it can be difficult to get to work or school everyday without a car, this is the difficulty of environmental safe transportations.

Clara Lee
Mrs. Laws
Biology- P5
28 September 2016
   In order for the environment to get better, it is necessary for people to be aware of what’s happening around them. A big problem that's happening right now is the political controversy regarding climate change. There are arguments occurring in the political world about how global warming will actually be beneficial or how global warming and climate change is just a big lie scientists made up even though there have been multiple studies conducted on this topic. There are different things we can do prevent global warming from getting worse.
   An increase in CO2 in our atmosphere is not only affecting us, but it’s also affecting other aspects of our environment. About half of the carbon dioxide humans produce go into the ocean, land, and is absorbed by plants, but in the ocean, it becomes a type of acid that’s harmful for life underwater. Right now, we are already facing some of the consequences of global warming. Even though there’s only 4% more moisture in the atmosphere, extreme weather phenomenons  has already began  occurring that usually only happens in rare occasions. For example, now there is an increase in floods, storms, fire outbreaks, and droughts. Climate change is already taking place.
   We can prevent climate change from getting worse by taking action now. A way to stop rising temperatures is to educate the public and  raise awareness of what’s actually happening. It's common for statements to be broadcasted on TV that falsely inform what climate change really is and how global warming isn’t a big concern when it really is affecting the whole planet and should be treated as a priority. People must be informed so that climate change won't be taking as an opinion or a political topic and instead treat it as a threat. People should also be educated so they won’t be fooled by large companies who make false accusations on climate change so their work won’t be perceived negatively. Another step we can take to stop this is to switch to clean energy. Clean energy is now very convenient and is easily accessible. It’s also unlimited, so investing, supporting, and switching to clean energy will benefit the environment and even the economy since it will increase job opportunities. Stopping global warming instantly is not possible; however, we can stop the controversies and arguments about this topic and start coming up with ideas on how to solve this issue to begin the journey to abolish this problem. The only way any solution will work is if everyone work together. We need to start working now to prevent our planet from being in danger!

Source:
@kqedlowdown. "Eight Great Multimedia Resources for            Teaching about Climate Change." The Lowdown. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
(Link: https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2015/11/30 … resources/)

In order for our environment to improve, or at least not get any worse than it’s current state, people need to understand and be aware of what is happening around them. At this very second, climate change and global warming are taking over the planet and not enough people are doing anything about it. Both of these things are being caused by greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere on a massive scale. Part of the reason that an effort has not been taken by a large amount of people in our world, is that many are unaware of the consequences and effects that global warming has on the earth, and even them individually. According to https://ncse.com/library-resource/climate-change-101, little things that the average person might not notice or hear about like the fact that plant and animal species are having to adapt and change to new area because of the temperature shift. They might not know, that as species are moving around, they are bringing foreign diseases with them to their new homes. This alone will eventually snow ball into a massive almost unfixable problem. Ano ther thing is, the heating of the globe is causing the polar ice caps to melt, which is raising sea levels, which puts coastal places at high risk for floods and storms. This world wide heat wave is also heightening the risk of drought and wildfires (such as the happenings in California happening right now). I feel that if knowledgeable people can raise awareness and tell others what they can do to help, we will go a long way to either stopping the impending threat of Global Warming, or at the least, slow it down.
To add to the ISCFC climate change forum post “Clean Development; Ways to Stop and Prevent Climate Change,” I would like to point out, that what many need to realize, is that the average person doesn’t need to do much to help. By slightly lowering their own carbon footprint, they are making a world of a difference. For example, what if every time a person walked out of a room in their house they turned off the light, all they have to do is flip the switch. Now imagine that every person in a city did that, a state even. What about a country? By just taking a few seconds a day to complete this simple task, people as a whole could save millions of hours of electricity, and they could lower their own carbon footprint drastically. According to http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/th … etting-cro
wded-video- “Drivers log an average of 13,476 miles per year, or 37 miles a day…. 210 million [Americans with drivers licences] in 2010.” This indicates that if every person with an American drivers licence cut down their daily miles by maybe 5 miles. That would save a total of 1 billion 50 million miles, just in one day! Imagine what we could do for the earth if we did that for just a week, just a month, maybe even for the rest of the year. People need to realize that it is the little things in our daily lives and routines that make all the difference. There is no need for someone to give up electricity or their car to make an impact, all you have to do is walk to school once a week, carpool to soccer practice. It can be anything! When you really look at the big picture, that’s what makes all the difference.

Sources:
By Itself-But It Needs to Be Part of the Solution. "Global Warming." Confronting the Realities of
Climate Change. Union of Concerned Scientists, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming>.
"Climate Change 101." Climate Change 101. National Center for Science Education Inc., n.d. Web.
29 Sept. 2016. <https://ncse.com/library-resource/climate-change-101>.
By. "The Asphalt's Getting Crowded." Face the Facts USA. George Washington University, 25 Jan.
2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
<http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/th … ed-video->.

I definitely agree with this, and believe this should be advertised in many areas in big cities and towns. A lot of people do not understand how our everyday routines greatly affect the environment and our future lives. I think many big companies should switch to clean energy to power their factories, and advertise why they switched. Possibly, customers may stop buying from competing companies that do not use clean energy which can help encourage industries to switch to clean energy. Not everyone is aware of the serious environmental issues caused by global warming, and big companies can help raise awareness if they switch to clean energy

My school is very well off (I thought I should mention that right off). We have a wind turbine near our track field and solar panels on our roofs. A few weeks ago, they even made an announcement in the middle of the day to say that we were running 100% on solar and wind power at that moment! It was really cool. It saves our school money, and it helps the environment too, but I also know that we only have these energy sources in the first place because we have the money to do so. In the long run, running on sustainable energy like solar wind, or hydro (depending on where's you live) will eventually save you money, but not a lot of people are doing it because of the initial cost. Any thoughts on a potential solution? (Especially for schools)

I feel like we should use more nuclear energy to power are world. There are manny advantages to using nuclear energy: One of witch it can be vary clean when the right fuel is used. The second is it provides lots of relatively clean energy because  it is a closed system, which means that no CO2 is produces lessing the effect of global worming. There also are some disadvantages such as nuclear wast. One misconception about nuclear wast is that it is the spent nuclear rods form the reactor, but thats just a small part of it. It really mostly is the equipment used to be around the reactor, like clothing tools and the water that is used to run it. The second disadvantage is the risk of a melt down, which is the main reason why we have not used them that much. With proper R&D nuclear energy can revolutionize the way we make energy, and will help with global worming.

This would be a great way for a solution to carbon emissions. I agree that this would be an ideal solution. However, nuclear waste does more harm than good. In the last decade, there have been about 11 nuclear meltdowns. These meltdowns are mostly caused by earthquakes that have hit the area or just poor management or design of the reactors. These meltdowns can cause allot of radioactive waste to enter the oceans and destroy the marine life living in it. These meltdowns can also affect us because the marine life that we eat carries the radioactive waste. This radioactive waste can cause mutations in the body and most times lead to cancer.

This solution would be a great idea to get rid of CO2 emissions. But first, we need to design a way to manage the radioactive waste that is coming from these reactors. This would be the next step to creating a cleaner world.

I agree that we should try to use more nuclear energy for power. However, the method you are suggesting is called fission; which takes larger elements such as uranium atoms and splits them into smaller elements, creating mass energy. Although it is efficient in creating lots of energy without CO2 pollution it creates large amounts of radioactive waste that we still don’t know how to get rid of (accept for storing it in secluded places, which will grow larger over time). If we were to use a type of nuclear power as an energy source it would be best to use the type called fusion power. Fusion power is energy created by fusing smaller elements together to created larger, denser elements. It is a much cleaner way of creating energy than fission, since fusion doesn’t create the large amounts of radioactivity. However, the only down side to fusion power is that it is still hard to control the mass energy that is being produced. Although, we are starting to get better at it and will hopefully be able to store and use fusion energy sometime in the future.

I agree with you but there is still that risk of it blowing up, and that risks much more than a regular energy plant. I think places should be using it more but it should be used with caution and maybe only a few plants. If we start using it as major energy all at once there's the risk of hurting people and places because we still don't know all the risks.

That is true, there is always a risk of something going wrong and the potential danger of explosions. However it is still better than a regular energy plant which could also have a melt down and create large amounts of nuclear waste. Also, this type of energy is not going to be installed as a major energy source for a long time from now, since they are still creating safer ways to contain the energy.

I see your point. I understand that using nuclear energy can be a way to avoid CO2 pollution, but I don't think this is a good idea. Nuclear plants are very dangerous and have disastrous effects when they melt down. During a nuclear meltdown, radioactivity contaminates all the surrounding plants, animals, and humans. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_r … ted_States), 56 nuclear power plant incidents have occurred from 1952 to 2009 in the US alone. We cannot risk this happening again in the future. So, instead of using nuclear energy, we should keep using solar and wind energy. These energy sources have no risk of melting down or causing deadly effects to the environment. Instead, they help it.

I agree with you in that I think we need to use more nuclear energy, and I think with proper safety precautions, they have the potential to provide large amounts of energy with little environmental degradation. A lot of concern is expressed about the risk of nuclear accidents and fallout, but nuclear energy, despite its shortcomings, is still the best option. Nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima are extremely publicized events that show a graphic side to nuclear energy, but the only conventional alternative to nuclear energy is fossil fuel, which causes even more problems. The American Lung Association and the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) claim that 13,000 people die each year from coal pollution, and coal ash, the main by-product of coal generators, contains large amounts of arsenic and other toxic chemicals. What should also be noted are the different types of nuclear reactors and their trade-offs: not all reactors are equal in terms of risk. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are a type of reactor that use thorium as fissile material and liquid fluoride as a co olant. One major and relevant advantage to these types of reactors is their operating pressure. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors operate at a low pressure, which means that in the event of a core failure, the containment building won't expand enough to blow up. This means that there are never any violent pressure changes, like what happened in Fukushima. Another advantage to liquid fluoride thorium reactors is the waste they produce. A lot of people cite concerns over dangerous and abundant nuclear waste, but this is not a very big problem for liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which produce cesium-137 and strontium-90 as a waste product. Cesium-137 has the longer half life out of the two, and it is only 30.17 years. By comparison, the waste product of a normal light-water uranium reactor is plutonim-239, with a radioactive half-life of 24,000 years. The amount of waste produced is also significantly less for liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which produce only 15 kg per GWe-year. Compare this to the 300kg of nuclear waste created in a conventional reactor. Among these two major safety advantages, thorium is also very hard to turn into a weapon, as opposed to uranium or plutonium. This means that thorium reactors can be applied on a scale that conventional reactors cannot, and still be safe. There are many more reasons why liquid fluoride reactors are better than both conventional nuclear reactors and conventional energy production, but the main idea is this: not all nuclear reactors are made equal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fl … um_reactor
http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/the-coal-hard-facts

nuclear energy is a cool concept, but like other people have mentioned, it is good on paper but controversial when it is put to use. Along with the accidents, (Chernobyl, Fukushima Daichi, Three Mile Island, etc.), there is also the cost. Some of these plants can range from 800 million dollars all the way to 10 billion. Including the cost, these can take anywhere from 5 to 10 years to build to completion. Nuclear waste and the need for a water source to cool it also poses a risk to marine wildlife and other ecosystems that live in the area. I am totally for the use nuclear energy, I think it is a great way to clean energy, but the need to look at cost efficiency as well as time allotment to really see if it is worth it when we could be looking at solar and wind energy that is least costly, less byproduct, and less time to manufacture and operate.

I agree that we need to use more nuclear energy. If we can consume this energy in a safer way than we can provide much more energy with little environmental destruction. Still there is always accidents occurring. Also to keep this nuclear energy cool we use water from the ocean to keep it cool which can hurt wild life.

I agree with the idea that we need to do more to invest in nuclear energy. I believe that the us federal government should look at research and investment into liquid floruim throide reactors nuclear reactors. These reactors use florioruim instead of uranium and are safe reliable and cheap. This would get rid of most of the nuclear waste; however, it will be expensive to replace our current nuclear facilities. Currently countries like Denmark, India, China, and Australia have all used Thorium reactors with varying levels of success. The United States does not  have one implemented but has done some research into the accessibility of these reactors.
I agree with the idea that we need to do more to invest in nuclear energy. I believe that the us federal government should look at research and investment into liquid floruim throide reactors nuclear reactors. These reactors use florioruim instead of uranium and are safe reliable and cheap. This would get rid of most of the nuclear waste; however, it will be expensive to replace our current nuclear facilities. Currently countr ies like Denmark, India, China, and Australia have all used Thorium reactors with varying levels of success. The United States does not  have one implemented but has done some research into the accessibility of these reactors.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampen … 8adc0146c2

Humans are emitting harmful and poisonous substances into our atmosphere and as an overall result of this, we have pollution. As many people try to solve this problem, it only seems to keep growing bigger and bigger. If we want this problem to stop before it is to late, we must act upon it now. Instead of driving a car and emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, ride a bike, get some exercise! No fossil Fuels.  There are many ways that us humans could do to help so that we can keep our atmosphere clean.

I agree Makana! I think that humans are the main cause of the pollution that is taking over our atmosphere. Some may say that the solution is to drive electric cars, but I agree with what you said, for those who can't afford it, a bike or walking is a great solution! That way, humans can stay healthy and the we can keep the world around us healthy.

I also think that other ways we can help the pollution is to teach children how to recycle and compost. There is a lot of trash that is polluting the planet and if we educate the public about how to handle their trash, we can reduce it. Also by getting rid of things like plastic bags and other unnecessary plastic products will significantly reduce the pollution on Earth.

I also agree, We are putting way to many harmful substances into our environment. And to a result of that we have the green house gases that are harming our planet. If we want to stop it we should cut down on many thing like, using fossil fuels, factories, and many other things. We can also use a bikes, trains buses, and walking instead of driving everywhere.

I agree with Makana, and I would like to add on the her discussion post because I think this topic really important. One way you can reduce your carbon footprint at home, is by switching to led lighting because it doesn’t contain any harmful substances and it affordable. Another way is when you buy new appliances, do some research to see what appliances are bad and which ones are good, because the will reduce a good amount of your carbon footprint.

Factories, oil refineries, burning coal, and fossil fuels are creating pollution in our atmosphere. We are the cause of this. We create harmful gases and substances, which creates pollution. We are causing harm to animals and our own bodies. If we want to prevent creating smog and pollution, we must make a change now. Create cleaner air! We can drive electric vehicles, ride bikes to school, avoid burning coal and turn solar! We can change our world and pass on the ideas to the next generation and continue to keep Earth clean. Make a difference for our atmosphere and world!

I definitely agree with the fact we need to create a cleaner atmosphere, by turning solar and riding bikes to school. China is already experiencing problems from lack of clean air, as thick smog blankets their capital. The poor air quality in Beijing has closed schools and even caused farmers in the region to panic over the lack of sunlight. This pollution does come from many sources, but burning coal has been linked to the largest number of air pollution deaths in China, causing 366,000 premature deaths in 2013. This is because in the winter more families turn on their heaters, and most of the energy used to run them comes from coal-fired power plants that send tiny particles of charred dust into the air. China has been making changes to stop and reverse the pollution, and we all need to contribute towards creating cleaner air.
http://www.popsci.com/why-is-smog-in-china-so-bad

Recently President Trump has made budget cuts to the EPA and the energy agency all while promoting the idea of using coal. The Trump administration, as they proposed during the election, want to bring back coal as a main contender in energy while tearing down clean energy. In his eyes, green energy will hurt business, the coal business in particular, these are the reasons why he is wrong. Ever since scientists noticed climate change in the 19th century, they have thought about ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. One of these ways was through clean energy such as solar, wind, hydro, etc. Trump doesn’t believe there is a market in renewable clean energy and that coal is the only way to go because it already has an established market. Little does he know that the price of producing this energy is super low compared to coal. A 500MW power plant would cost $2.6 billion and $1.8 billion for a solar plant. Just building a solar plant alone saves money not to mention all the jobs that would need to be filled to help maintain, run, and manage the solar plant. In my opini on President Trump is uneducated about global warming and does not understand the benefits of clean energy, but the rest of the world, with or without his administrations help.

I definitely agree. Coal creates the highest carbon content of all the fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide emissions from coal were 24.5 % of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2012. This is a significant amount because coal only counts for 8 % of all energy consumed. Other clean alternatives need to be adopted. Like you said, solar, hydro, and wind energy needs to be a primary topic of keeping our planet clean. Another way to stop these carbon emissions from coal is to develop potential climate policies such as low-emission technologies like carbon capture or other pollution control devices. These tools will be the key to reducing the impact of continued to coal use.

I think that this is a fascinating topic because of how currently relevant it is. Donald Trump wants to make a lot of changes that will stop our countries development towards cleaner energy. I also know that he wants to cut funds for the EPA making it harder for new technology and solutions to climate change to be developed. I wish that everyone in the United States understood the long term effects of using non-clean energy, like coal. Ways to prevent climate change and increase the use of clean energy such as wind power and solar energy have been recently improving hastily, but Trump wants to take steps backwards on these new technologies and solutions. Many people such as Trump think coal is the cheaper solution, but in both the short term and certainly the long term coal is much more expensive. It is also an unsustainable system so Trump needs to at least think about what we will do if we run out of coal. Because of his defunding of the EPA, the people that hav e been innovating on solutions will be slowed down. People need to realize all the consequences that will come from non-clean energy, and that Trump is taking a step back from our growth to a cleaner country.

There are so many cleaner options available such as solar, wind, and hydro electric. Even nuclear power may be a better bet than burning coal. The idea of bringing back coal and doing away with renewable energy is absolutely absurd!

Hello from Slovenia. My carbon footprint is 56,826. The most of my final footprint amount is transport. Everyday I go to school 36km by local train. Last year I have made more than 24.000km with a car, bus or a plane. That is half way around the world. I really feel bad about it, but on the other hand I really like exploring the world.
Do you have any good idea how to travel the world in nature-friendly way? Do you know anything about developing planes that work on renewable resources?

I am from California, USA. My Carbon Footprint is 15,389. This may seem low compared to your footprint, but the flights I am taking in the near future weren't entered into the carbon footprint calculator because I wanted to know my current footprint. Over half of my carbon footprint was from my transportation. I too love to travel the world and visit new places and experience new views other than the one I see everyday. In an experiment done by Michael Sivak, flying is actually better for the environment and your carbon footprint than cars are. This study, which began in 1970, first came up with the conclusion that cars are better and flying, but as the research continued, by 2010 the research team concluded that flying is better than driving. With this information I would recommend cutting down on how much you are driving around rather than how much you are flying.

I think if we tried to get rid of hunger and poverty this planet will get warmer because, the materials used would cause CO2 levels to rise. What I mean is we would use more wood to make houses and money, so we would have to cut down many trees which would cause CO2 levels to rise. To stop global warming we could make it so we could use only electric cars. Another way is we could stop letting CO2 into the air and instead we could reuse the CO2. This would be a win-win situation.

Through the process of photosynthesis, trees take carbon from the atmosphere and convert it into the energy they need to survive. This helps to mitigate the harmful effects of carbon emission caused by humans. One large contributor to global warming is deforestation. Not only does it eliminate trees, which are taking carbon emitted by humans out of the atmosphere, but the machines used also emit huge amounts of carbon. All of this is extremely detrimental to the environment, but it could be fixed with a little effort from humanity.
source:   https://www.theguardian.com/environment … ate-change

I believe that our world can be powered by green energy. This means that earth can be powered by using solar pannels, wind meals, and hydroplants. This will decrease our levels of polution and make our world greener.

Even if we could power the world with green energy there are some people that would refuse to use technology and continue to use coal and other forms of unsustainable energy

I agree with how all those things could create a more sustainable and greener world, but before we could do any of that, some places and areas have to figure out how to afford those things.  Those things will make a big difference, but there a smaller things we could do, while someones figures out money, building, and installing those things.

Romeo I completely agree with you. We need to find a way to make energy in a much more cleaner, greener way.
Climate change is being affected by the way we make our energy. The old unhealthy habits of burning fossil fuels should cease and we should turn towards a new step in producing energy. A much cleaner and greener way. The irresponsible use of fossil fuels resulted in major carbon dioxide emissions making the environment more hostile. Making electricity to power things is the category that releases the most carbon dioxide which is 37% of all the carbon dioxide we emit. in the US according to EPA (US Environmental Protection Energy) . If we alternate to other ways we can reduce that percentage.This happens when we burn coal and fossil fuels.
In order to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that is being released into the air is by resorting to renewable energy sources. Some of these options include solar energy, wind turbines, and hydraulics. These options may be more expensive, but since we will run out of fossil fuels soon we should make the change while we can. A  way that everybody can take part in is to reduce the amount of electricity that we use. For example, don't use the heater and air conditioner unless it is completely necessary, take shorter showers, unplug electronic devices when they aren't necessary. If we all take part in this we can create a cleaner, healthier, safer, and greener environment. We can reduce the change in climate. Make a difference in global warming. It is never too late to join for the good cause.

Here are my sources:
"Overview of Greenhouse Gases." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overvi … ouse-gases

I think this is a very nice thought about developing clean energy. However, harnessing solar, wind, hydro-, and even thermal energy is not really viable economically, since burning fossil fuel is way more cost-efficient (cheaper for more energy, in other words). But on the other hand, the damage to our environment by using fossil fuel definitely cost us more than green energy.

In the status quo, there are many different types of green alternatives: the popular options being solar energy or wind energy, and the less popular options being algae biofuel, OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion), and even floating nuclear plants. However as appealing these green alternatives seem on face level, there are many complications to each of these green alternatives that force policymakers to stick to the energy source that is most comfortable for running the country-- burning coal or using fossil fuels.

California, as well as other states of both the coasts (east and west), has been a mass proponent of exploring with the potentials of both onshore, and now, offshore wind. In 2014, the Department of Energy has allocated $227 million dollars into offshore wind projects, with the hopes of finding a system that can power cities without dependence on fossil fuels. However, many of those projects have failed and left abandoned, as there are many wind farms abandoned off the west coast. A main reason why offshore wind (and onshore wind) is not effective is becau se wind patterns are not consistent. Offshore wind requires a backup generator (which is usually coal-powered) to keep the electricity flowing to prevent grid failure, which can devastatingly impact the local economy as well as living quality of local communities. Wind energy is also extremely expensive and most of the time inaccessible to many communities.  Although wind technology must be improved to prevent inconsistencies and guarantee a steady current powering the grid, there can be a potential solution to the price of expensive green energy of all types, not just wind energy.  I propose the idea of decentralization, which is the community/local ownership of wind farms rather than government or corporate owned wind farms. Not only will the community regulate wind power and how it is allocated in local communities, the regulation and maintenance of the wind farm opens up many local job opportunities, which can overall enhance the economy. An island off the coast of Denmark called Samso has implemented decentralized offshore wind and has proved that running on 100% electricity is possible. (Although, an island is much smaller than the entire country of the United States, but steps towards sustainability must be made). Additionally, decentralization of green energy can deconstruct the capitalist approach that commodifies nature for profit. Using the green business to maximize profit will overlook the structural consequences of green energy.

In regards to smaller green energy alternatives, the same strategy should be implemented. Local involvement in such projects will not only spur support from local communities, but offer the room for creativity and innovation that will allow small green alternative projects be scaled nationwide. A system like OTEC, which was quite recently developed and is being tested in Hawaii, should look to community involvement as much as possible to not only make green energy affordable but also try to find community solutions to distribution of energy.

Although simple, local involvement can solve a lot of the problems posed by green energy alternatives. Although the oil and fossil fuel industry seem appealing to most because of quick money, the dependency on such fossil is short-term. Thus, despite green energy being a gradual adaptation, we must focus all our energy into trying to use as much green energy when possible, even if fossil fuels presents itself more "convenient".

Water pollution occurs mostly, when people overload the water environment such as streams, lakes, underground water, bays or seas with wastes or substances harmful to living beings.
Water is necessary for life. All organisms contain it, some drink it and some live in it. Plants and animals require water that is moderately pure, and they cannot survive, if water contains toxic chemicals or harmful microorganisms. Water pollution kills large quantity of fish, birds, and other animals, in some cases killing everything in an affected area.
Pollution makes streams, lakes, and coastal waters unpleasant to swim in or to have a rest. Fish and shellfish harvested from polluted waters may be unsafe to eat. People who polluted water can become ill, if they drink polluted water for a long time, it may develop cancer or hurt their future children.
The major water pollutants are chemical, biological, and physical materials that lessen the water quality.

I agree that humans pollute the water with trash and chemical waste, but in addition our carbon emissions also contribute to worse water quality by acidifying the water according to the National Resources Defensive Council (https://www.nrdc.org/issues/reduce-ocean-acidification). Ocean acidification occurs by our excessive carbon in the atmosphere and the increased acid in the oceans can disallow organisms to draw molecules from the ocean to form its shell, so the organisms energy would focus more on shell formation rather than finding food or a mate, which would end in their life. If the water acidity is high enough, then organism shells disintegrate. This is another reason why we should be cleaner in our carbon footprint.

Just like education, equality, and ending poverty and hunger, preventing climate change is a very realistic goal for our planet. Just like these other major issues, climate change has increasingly became more prominent and serious within the last few years. Some ways that we could work together to help stop climate change involves the use of solar electricity and reusing and recycling goods. However, the most important thing to do is to spread the word and teach everyone about the dangers of our actions and how they are affecting the planet. If people understand the consequences of their actions, they are more likely to be willing to change their behavior. In order to learn more about preventing global warming, I came across an article called, "Benefits of Solar Energy" from http://www.greenoughsolarfarm.com. This article claimed that solar energy is useful because it is a renewable resource, and it produces zero emissions. Reusing and recycling is also very important because it decreases the amount of waste we produce, which requires a lot of energy to get rid of. These  are both very easy tasks, and they will produce a great positive change in our environment if we focus on them.

Ever since the Industrial Revolution occurred in the 18th century, humans have used technology that gets more advanced as the years go by, and make life more simple, and entertaining. The burning of fossil fuels is what humans do to produce electricity and energy, fuel vehicles, heat our homes, and pretty much everything. Humans have been very reliant on these fossil fuels for centuries, but never look at the consequences. With the burning of fossil fuels come pollution, climate change, and global warming, which are not a healthy factors for anything on this planet. The burning of fossil fuels is also the number one cause of global warming. We as a society cannot stop global warming from happening, but we can’t reduce it.

    Reducing the burning of fossil fuels will help benefit everything on Earth. One way people can do to be more eco-friendly is buying products for your home that are more energy efficient, and simply turn off every appliance and technology when it is not needed. If people get these products that use less energy, than that’s less fossil fuels that po wer plants have to burn. Also, turning off technology instead of leaving it in standby mode will also cut down on energy consumption. These simple and easy things that everyone can do make a big difference, especially in the environment.

    Another way to help reduce the burning of fossil fuels is to cut back on using cars, trains, boats, and planes. The amount of cars in the world is over 1 billion. That means that 1/7th of the world’s human population owns a car. The amount of fossil fuels that are burnt to fuel those cars and manufacture them is mind blowing. Most people in the U.S. own a car, in which they use to drive to different cities/states. If people cut back on car usage and transportation in general, then the ecosystem would be much healthier. Sure, we can’t completely abolish the burning of fossil fuels, but we can make a difference. It all starts with you.

West Environmental Issues Expert, Larry. "10 Things You Can Do to Slow Climate Change." About.com News & Issues. N.p., 1 Sept. 2016. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.

Water pollution occurs mostly, when people overload the water environment such as streams, lakes, underground water, bays or seas with wastes or substances harmful to living beings.I believe that our world can be powered by green energy. This means that earth can be powered by using solar panels, wind meals, and hydroplants. This will decrease our levels of pollution and make our world greener.

Zoe Snortum-Phelps
Ms. Laws
Biology- 6th period
29 Sept. 2016
         It is true that we need to find better, greener ways to fuel our world. As we see climate change happening in the world around us, we need to find proactive solutions in order to stop the warming of the Earth. Each person can have a great positive impact if they take small steps to reduce their carbon footprint. But the bigger problem cannot be ignored; cities and federal governments need to find ways to reduce the overall effects of carbon emissions, including retrofitting buildings to be more energy efficient and installing more energy-efficient ways of generating power, such as windmills and solar panels (Responses). This won’t be easy, but the benefit is clean and healthy future.
    The biggest cause of carbon emissions is electricity, which accounted for 30% of US-produced greenhouse gases in 2014 (Sources), so the first thing we as global citizens should do is reduce our use of electricity. The solution to this can be obvious, such as turning off lights when you leave a room. But this is only a s mall part of a person’s electrical footprint. The bigger things include air conditioning and heating, which account for half of most Americans’ electricity bills. There are many ways to reduce heating and cooling energy besides just turning them up or down, such as regularly maintaining them and insulating your house to prevent heat or cold from escaping. Other easy things to do to reduce your carbon footprint include walking, biking, or carpooling instead of driving and reducing, reusing, and recycling as much as possible.
    Not only do individuals need to reduce their footprint, but the larger community needs to work towards a cleaner future. Renewable energy is already becoming more widely used, but some sources, such as solar energy, are not always available in specific locations. Therefore, new technology, such as grids that reroute power from other sources when sunlight is not available, (Responses) must be created and used to maximize the efficiency of renewable resources. Entire buildings can be retrofitted to increase energy efficiency, such as the Empire State Building in New York recently was, reducing the expected energy use by 38% (Responses). In addition to solar and wind power, new sources of fuel, other than fossil fuels which generate most of our electricity (Sources), must be found. Scientists are attempting to create a biofuel from plant material such as algae, but the potential drawbacks are still being considered (Responses). We, as global citizens, must do everything we can to be a part of the big solutions, such as new fuel sources, and the small ones, like walking to and from school.

Works Cited

“Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” United States Environmental Protection
         Agency, USA EPA, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/source … house-gas-
         emissions.
“Responses to Climate Change.” Koshland Science Museum, National Academy of
         Sciences, https://koshland-science-museum.org/exp … nce/earth-
         lab/responses.

One thing that needs to happen so that global warming isn’t a problem is that people need to be educated, and they have to want to be educated. Education is a powerful tool which will make people more aware of their actions, and then the newly educated people can spread the word to others. A few key things that people need to be educated on is: how much our activities affect climate change, how climate change will affect our society, and lastly people need to be educated about green energy, and the things we can do to stop global warming.
It has been proven that humans are the main reason for climate change. How and Why? It is because we release a lot of CO2 when we burn gasoline, burn coal, drive cars, fly, and do other things. Climate change has many different effects on our society and earth. Animals are moving to new places because of this, and they are bringing new diseases. Many animals are going extinct, this messes with ecosystems. Wildfires are becoming more common, and glaciers are melting, the melting glaciers are very dangerous for polar bears.
There are ma ny things we can do to help and prevent the worsening of climate change. We can educate ourselves and others, but we can also start using green energy more, and bettering our everyday habits. Some forms of green energy are solar power, wind power, bioenergy, and many other types of energy. We can also do little things every day to reduce our CO2 emissions;  we can stop using ziplock bags, always use a reusable water bottle, walk or bike when we are able to, recycle, compost, not leave the water on when we are brushing our teeth, and do much more. The list goes on and on! It's time to educate ourselves and make a change.
Source; "Climate Change 101." Home. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Link: https://ncse.com/library-resource/climate-change-101

The majority of CO2 emissions is located in developed countries. After the industrialization period, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted skyrocketed. We have built a country that thrives off of technology advancements, but yet we still use the same way of getting energy. There have been huge advancements in technology, but we are still burning coal to get energy. By using solar, wind, and tidal energy more often, we can discover new, more effective, less expensive ways to get the energy.

Its good to keep clean so others can have a clean earth

Sadly the countries that use the most energy still use the same means in order to power their bulidlings, factories and machines. These all cause a great damage to our environment but as long as a new and more effective means of energy is invented, humanity will still continue to use the same methods implemented today.

Large cities with thousands of smoky industrial enterprises appear all over the world today. The by-products of their activity pollute the air we breathe, the water we drink, the land we grow grain and vegetables on.Every year world industry pollutes the atmosphere with about 1000 million tons of dust and other harmful substances. Many cities suffer from smog. Vast forests are cut and burn in fire. As a result some rare species of animals, birds, fish and plants disappear forever, a number of rivers and lakes dry up.
Environmental protection is of a universal concern. That is why serious measures to create a system of ecological security should be taken.But these are only the initial steps and they must be carried onward to protect nature, to save life on the planet not only for the sake of the present but also for the future generations.

I agree with the previous statements. While climate change is a natural process that occurs over a prolonged period of time, humans have greatly increased its pace and severity. It is caused by the emission of fossil fuels used for energy like coal, natural gasses, and oil. Carbon dioxide is reduced through a chemical process known as photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is a natural phenomenon occurring in plants in which carbon dioxide is taken in from its environment and oxygen is produced. Deforestation has become increasingly popular as industrialization spreads. As forests are cut down, the amount of photosynthesis occurring is decreased. In fact according to http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/so … yeN5MrKRs, deforestation accounts for around ten percent of global warming emissions. This can be reversed with the planting of public gardens in communities. The installation of local gardens across the country has the potential to undo damage caused by humans. In addition, gardens add an element  of beauty and a source for food for the homeless to communities.
Another major contributor to global climate change is the energy used at home. These homes run on energies such as electricity, which is largely provided by fossil fuels. These fossil fuels are the cause of greenhouse gasses which deplete our ozone (which filters out rays of the sun) and traps heat in our atmosphere. On a personal level, one can make a point to conserve energy by turning off lights when not in use, and unplugging unused appliances and cords. On a national level, governments can implement solar panels over parking lots and garages. This would create an environmentally-friendly source of energy, and shade. The government or companies can give incentives for the purchasing of solar panels on your property. These plans have the potential to combat this global crisis, and work toward a better tomorrow, today.

We have 14 years left to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Achieving these standards without making the planet warmer should be a priority and can be done. Look towards India who at last year’s Paris Climate Conference announced a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33-35% through the expansion of its solar and wind power programs. Further, they have pledged to create a carbon sink of 2.5-3 billion tonnes of CO2 by creating forest and trees. The development of green energy with India is expected to bring 1 million jobs by 2022, which will lift people out of poverty. Further, as a country industrializes it moves more towards creating gender equality and starts to prioritize education in order to sustain their economy.
    As an influential hegemon and major polluter in the world, it is the United State’s duty to incite a major policy shift towards green energy. Although the government has invested billions into renewable energy, the movement faces opposition as Obama’s Clean Power Plan is being challenged in court. Still, the United States can  do more to support other countries make this shift by supporting China’s One Belt One Road Initiative, an infrastructure project that connects various parts of the world from South and Southeast Asia to East Africa. A major portion of this plan is energy development. The United States should guide the discussion towards creating cleaner sources of energy, rather than supporting the construction of pipelines. The project will connect 65 countries which will increase trade. If this goal can be achieved using sustainable methods, and the U.S. makes green energy a major part of the discussion, then we can lift people out of poverty while reducing our impact on the environment.

Polluting the air

Disposal of waste - this is one of the most important problems in the world. i think, it is very dangerous for our planet and everyone must to think about it. In the past, people didnt think about it, but now it become very important. People started to incinerate waste, but it is bad for nature, so people started to sort the waste. Paper, bits of iron must be separate. It is the first problem. The second problem is conveyance of waste. There are many problems of disposal of waste, but we must to find decision for this.

A human being is able not only to create but also to destroy. Especially our earth suffers badly from pernicious actions of man. This applies to both people’s neglectful attitude to the nature – dropping of cigarette ends, rubbish on the earth – and industrial factories and natural appearances (e.g. acid rains).

A person destroys not only environment, plants, animals, but also himself. Faster and faster man’s health starts worsening; children of weak immune system are being given birth. Forests are being cut down, and animals from the Red Book are gradually dying out. What will be next in our world of progressive technology remains undecided.

Nowadays major changes in climate are taking place. They are closely connected with the greenhouse effect and global warming. The greenhouse effect is the absorption of energy radiated from the Earth’s surface by carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere, causing it to become warmer. So due to the greenhouse effect the temperature on the Earth is rising and this creates lots of problems that will begin to take place in the coming decades.
In conclusion, I’d like to say that it’s very important to start doing something now, so that our future and our planet will be safe.

Water pollution occurs mostly, when people overload the water environment such as streams, lakes, underground water, bays or seas with wastes or substances harmful to living beings. Water is necessary for life. All organisms contain it, some drink it and some live in it. Plants and animals require water that is moderately pure, and they cannot survive, if water contains toxic chemicals or harmful microorganisms. Water pollution kills large quantity of fish, birds, and other animals, in some cases killing everything in an affected area.

Sweden is known for being cleanest country in the world, stemming from their early investments in renewable energy following the oil crisis of the 1970s. Although the average energy consumption per capita is one of the highest in the world, Sweden has been able to decrease their greenhouse gas emissions to around half of their developed country counterparts through utilizing hydrologic, wind, and nuclear power. Much of the market’s stimulation was jumpstarted by the Swedish government, pushing for green research and the implementation of green technologies on a national level.
That being said, the United States and Germany have some of the highest rates of CO2 emissions in the world—something that is concerning considering that they are some of the biggest geopolitical powerhouses on Earth. In essence, if the leaders of all nations cannot pioneer the path toward renewable energy usage, who will? If the major countries (with extremely high populations) do not make  shifts toward green energy, how adversely impacted will the whole human population be impacted?
https://sweden.se/society/energy-use-in-sweden/

When people say that making things eco-friendly is profitable, it is not as simple as it seems to be. For example cars powered by electricity. Car companies profit alot more money from gas-powered cars than electric cars. The cost to produce these cars is much more than the profit they get from selling them and even if we all start driving electric cars, there will more demand for electricity and therefore more powerplants and genertors will be created. The result will have devestating effects on wildlife and nature.

yes

Hello

While driving more electric cars will cause for an increase in the use of electricity, this is much better for the environment than the current amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. This is the most CO2 in our environment in the history of humanity and this is largely caused by car emissions. Electric cars are actually a smart step in the direction of becoming more eco-friendly. In regards to the profit off of electric cars, in this scenario environmental benefits should outweigh cost benefits. Also, for the owner of an electric car they are actually saving money but not needing to buy gas which is an incentive to purchase an electric car.

The more we try to use eco-friendly products, the faster we can advance them to be more effective and cheaper. It is possible to have affordable clean energy. We just have to start and put in the effort to find ways to make them more effective. An electric car is a great example. The more people switch over to these cars, the more that the companies can work ways to make it more energy efficient.

I believe with the previous statements. Currently, human actions are causing a release of CO2 emissions at a higher rate than has ever been seen before; this has created changing conditions (increased temperatures, ocean acidification, shifts in climate) that have made evolving extremely difficult for organisms. Today we are in the sixth animal extinction and, if we do not make rash changes in human habits, we threaten the future of the entire planet. That being said, currently ecofriendly cars do have many flaws—such as small lifespan, requiring constant charging, and often running off of fossil fuel based power. However, to dismiss this technology as irrelevant would be to digress on all the technological improvements toward sustainability. While gas-powered cars do continue stimulating the economy, electric cars could possibly do the same thing in upcoming years as the human population shifts from fossil fuels. While I understand what the original author is say ing, ultimately if the energy being utilized in electric cars is renewable the shift toward electric cars would cause nothing but beneficial environmental impacts.

We can create parks for endangered species. If we don't do something now , our planet will become impossible to live in.
My congratulations to Earth Day !)

With the right conditions this could seriously lower the amount of negative human impact on endangered species. I like the idea!

We attempt to do this with national parks, yet there are so many species that are non-land species that this idea can never really cover all species (including the fact that humans have little intelligence about deep sea life).

Like Julian said there have been attempts to save the species but in order for these attempts to be effective  we also have to help by being responsible enough to respect the land and the people trying to help

Costa Rica has done a great job of becoming an eco-conscious country, and plans to be completely carbon-neutral by the year 2021.  With beautiful rainforests and tourism, deforestation is a major issue facing the country.  There are laws put in place that prevent people from negatively impacting their environment.  For example, if a tree falls in your backyard, you have to have an official come and tell you if it is safe to move it or not.  Although it's extreme, that is how the Costa Ricans will accomplish their mission.  To achieve full carbon neutrality, more trees are being planted and less carbon is being used.  Hopefully there will be a domino effect, so that other countries will also achieve this goal.

I agree that this is a great approach to Carbon Neutrality. If soon there is somewhat of a "domino effect" I think it will be a large step towards creating a legitimately sustainable planet  for ourselves. Costa Rica has it right.

If achieving carbon-neutrality will lead to protecting more rainforests, this will help the magnitude of species found in the country. Costa Rica is a tiny country in terms of landmass, but it has 6% of the world's biodiversity (http://www.costarica-embassy.org/?q=node/12), which means that it's essential that the country's ecosystem is protected. This is a really important goal that they're moving towards and hopefully other countries will follow them.

The need for food will likely cause spikes in carbon due to increased food production. If we were to make food production more local to areas in need, rather than importing, we can plant healthy, nutritious, and sustainable crops. One such crop is soy beans which can be used for many different food products which can be found here; http://ncsoy.org/media-resources/uses-of-soybeans/ . With the amount of food you can produce with soy beans, and their ability to grow almost anywhere, we can create local production. Which will not only affect the amount of carbon used, but further produce jobs in areas in need.

My congratulations to Earth Day.
We can plant trees and adopt animals. All we need  to do is open  our eyes and act immediately. Together we can save our planet!

YAY, FINALLY THE DAY TO CELEBRATE OUR HOME WE CALL EARTH!
Today, learn to carpool, plant trees, etc. Don't be oblivious to harmful causes to our atmosphere such as the gases we produce.

I don't think universal education, eradication of poverty and hunger, and gender equality will negatively affect our environment. I think the energy used to accomplish this may cause a small dent in pollution, but overall it would be positive, not negative.

I agree. I think that many people have been advocating to take these actions for a while, but have been nervous about the pollution rising. According to a National Geographic article, we will just have to create more sustainable ways to lower our carbon footprints in order to maintain our resources for future generations.

For one, we need to eradicate all fossil fuel companies, so that we can prevent our planet from getting warmer. To stop world hunger, we should probably start establishing more shelters for the homeless or the poor. Another we to lower the price of food in local groceries stores.

This is very drastic, because these companies have so many jobs and they provide many resources, it would be hard to shut them down.

clean development seems a little easier to implement in our personal lives yet may be harder than we may think. So many things we use come from factories or things thrashing the environment with pollution. If we plant 100 trees sure we are making oxygen but where did you get the shovel from? Where did you get the gloves from? Where did the supply store get them from? Development lies not only in us but at the source in which we receive our items.

That is very interesting Sean. According to the La Times, there are over 3 trillion trees on the planet, but many are being cut down each year.

Also, as these trees are being cut down, they release large amounts of Carbon Dioxide into the air which can further pollute the environment.

I never really thought of that. It can be seen though, that in terms of trees and plant life, the number is constantly decreasing. Part of it is due to global warming, but the main  reason is due to deforestation. In just the Amazon, in the last 40 years, over 20% of it has been cut down, and it still is being cut down today, right no even as we read these posts. And it is true that just cutting them down results in pollution, so it is a double loss. In my own experience, I will notice land with some plants on it that is being cut down in order to sell the land, but it does not get bought for many years, and is a total loss to the environment. However, i do think that clean development is possible. 

http://environment.nationalgeographic.c … of-amazon/

This post has given me a new perspective on how the world operates. People may feel as if they are doing a good deed for the community, but they don't realize that the supplies they use to complete this task oppose their goal. Thank you for revealing to me and many others the dangers posed as work is done.

So, there are many ways of making our world and community to be cleaner. People have to first take initiative and responsibility for the waste that they put out into the world. We just have reduce, reuse, recycle. Take things and put different purposes to them so we have a cleaner environment.

One of the first things that comes to mind when I think of carbon emission, is trees. They are probably the most effective way of reducing your carbon footprint. Trees are what take in the nasty carbon dioxide in the air and cause global warming. Sure, there are many others ways to lessen our footprint on the planet, but why not erase it completely? As the population of the planet increases, more homes, buildings, and apartments are built. Acres of trees get wiped out in the process. Planting trees can be rewarding in many ways. The shade acquired by planting trees near your house, can lower your air conditioning bill. Also, you are helping the future generations of the world by making the earth a greener, healthier place.
http://greenblizzard.com/2010/09/15/why … nt-a-tree/

Kristin F,

I completely agree with your theory, but what we may not realize is how intricate this situation actually is. Planting more trees won't automatically save our environment because the real problem is the harm being done. Everyday essentials such as shampoo, rubber, and paper are made from trees all around the world. What many don't realize is how greatly this impacts our earth, considering it is the root of the problem. If we continue down this path, there is no point in simply planting more trees. Sure, it will buy us time, but it won't solve anything. In order for us to truly help the situation, we must find better alternatives that don't involve the death of one of our key resources.

One example of an alternative resource is Hemp, which comes from high-growing varieties of the Cannabis plant. Although Hemp is also a plant, its fibers can be used to make large quantities with little being taken. Its quick growth provides twice as much fiber as an acr e of pine trees. Many products can be produced from hemp fibers, but one of the most major is paper. Although we can still continue improving, alternatives such as this are a great start.

[Tree Carbon Intake](//res.cloudinary.com/moot/image/upload/t_d3-gallery-s3/v1414281787/:footprint:FL8Y:treecarbonintake.jpg.jpg) Planting trees may not automatically save our environment, but they do absorb a lot of CO2 (carbon dioxide) in our atmosphere. In the picture I have supplied info from a book called _The Visual Miscellaneum_ by David McCandless. As you can see in the picture, trees absorb 120 gigatons (g) of carbon dioxide! This is biggest factor (and the only factor) that absorbs this green house gas. If we increase the number of trees planted, and decrease the amount of trees cut down, then we can slowly raise the number of gigatons of absorbed carbon dioxide. Are there other ways that can carbon dioxide be absorbed? The reply above mentions hemp as an alternative source for making paper. Are there any challenges presented when using hemp to make paper?

This is a great way to look at the issue. Rather than just targeting man made emissions, the idea of planting trees presents a whole new and simpler addition to the solution as a whole. We should also attempt to preserve the already existing trees and turn to different sources for construction, paper...etc. I think with the combined forces of cutting human carbon emissions and planting trees to absorb up the CO2, we will greatly reduce the rising carbon levels worldwide.  Good thinking!

Hi Kristin! My name is Paulina ! I'm totally agree, we should plant trees to lower carbon footprint and also to take care of nature. We need to take care of the Forrest we have because it can became new houses some day
Nature gave us  a nature tool to help lower carbon footprint, so why we don't use it?

I totally agree with you. Trees can definitely reduce the carbon footprint. Deforestation has a significant environmental impact. Many studies suggest that it is a contributor to global warming; it impacts the water cycle by reducing the amount of water in the soil and air; it contributes to soil loss; and it results in a decline in biodiversity. A helpful idea would be building the buildings on abandoned parking lots or places that don't harm the environment instead of building them on forests. Also, the trees could be incorporated as a part of the new structures. Rather doing nothing about the deforestation, these are creative ideas that can reduce the world's carbon footprint.

Yeah! Deforestation is an upfront problem in virtually every country. As we use up the resources in our areas, we try to expand outward by clearing out land to make room for businesses, neighborhoods, and other buildings. Like you said, we use trees to absorb a lot of the CO2 in the air. I really think we should start organizations within our schools that plant trees in parks or neighborhoods on weekends. Also, we can support companies that are planting a few trees for every product of theirs bought. One example is the Crayola company. They're known for their prominence among school supplies, but the company is breaking barriers in resource conservation. For every tree that is cut down making Crayola colored pencils, another one is grown in their controlled forest. What a great idea!
Check it out: http://www.americasgreatestbrands.com/v … rayola.pdf

I agree that planting trees can reduce carbon emissions. And I think it's the most simple and easy way to improve our environment. Everyone can have enough power to join this activity. When you plant trees, you don't just make your property or your community nicer. You also directly reduce your carbon footprint. To a large extent, trees eat carbon dioxide. When you plant trees, you are directly cleaning the air. As a tree matures, it can consume 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year as it turns that CO2 into parts of itself. It also releases enough oxygen to supply your needs for two years. These two effects help to give the earth a healthier climate.

Hi Kristin, I'm Anson Kong from Guangzhou, China. I saw a lot of posts, but your post made me rather unforgettable,  I think plant trees is a good choice and good way to reduce the carbon footprint. Planting trees not only a way to reduce the carbon footprint, but also it can help out to clean the air, In other word，planting trees improve our living environment.

I agree with Kristin. Planting trees is a simple and broadly effective way to solve a few problems. 1) It reduces the level of carbon dioxide in the air which is a major contributor to climate change (warming). 2) Trees produce oxygen which we all need in order to live. 3) Having more trees is a good for people to see in their daily life. There are studies that show walking in the woods (even in a city park with trees) can make people happier.

You have to think abut the amount of space that this will take. If we start planting trees everywhere, then we will likely either A intrude into biospheres not used to trees and forestation, or B force farmland to destroy ecosystems to provide food. It is a question if we have enough room to plant enough trees to support the carbon emissions we are pumping out.

@henry strasburger

Planting trees wouldn't take substiantal amount of area; for the past 40 years we have cut down 20% of the Amazon Rain Forest, and that's about 5 million km² or 3x bigger than Alaska. The real problem is we are cutting more trees down then we can replant. Corporations and business must cut down on the amount of trees they collect, and start replant the trees.

I think it would be great for cites to open and make more public parks. Because one its great of the community and it will help reduce the carbon in the air by taking up the plots that could possibly be for factories and other componys

Planting trees is great but also you can reduce more and more forest getting cut down year by year. this will majorly effect the cargo in the air and in the long run

Planting trees will help, but tress also get cut down all the time, so will it really make a significant difference?

> @Samantha G (USA)

If we could plant more trees than we could cut then we could possibly make a difference.
More trees = Less C02 in the atmosphere and
Less C02 in the atmosphere = Reversing climate change and
Reversing climate change = More trees.

Not only that but if we weren't planting more trees to counter the cutting down of trees then the CO2 would pile up even worse then we could stop. It makes all the difference with every tree we plant because every three that we plant is one more tree helping us keep one more step away from a worse state then we have already put ourselves into.

How could we plant trees on a much larger scale?  And how can we stop the out of control burning of forests?

I agree. Planting trees is an effective way to reduce the amount of CO2. it is important to plant trees because many forests are being cut down in order to build furniture and other things. So by planting trees more oxygen would be released and the amount of CO2 would decrease.

We do need trees but I think it would be a better use of our time to create more nature preserves than planting more trees that can be cut down In the future.

Planting trees are good because they help us breath

We should spend less time cutting down trees and take more time planting and caring for them.

I totally agree, if we cut down trees faster than we grow them than we will run out of trees and it will take a long time to regrow them.

So the answer is to stop cutting down trees in the first place.

Trees take a while to grow, and a lot of resources like water, but algae/sugar canes actually consume more CO2 so growing trees doesn't seem like it would have a major impact.

I agree that planting trees is a good way to make a small impact on the environment, but if carbon dioxide is at the root of all issues, why not decrease carbon dioxide by riding a bike around or carpool. Trees are very important and planting them could maybe make an impact; however, there are more sustainable options in addition to planting trees.

I think converting to renewable energy would be beneficial to reducing our carbon footprint. In my opinion, geothermal energy is the most effective. There are practically no negative impacts of geothermal energy and it relies on the internal heat of the Earth, so it will always be constant, unlike wind or solar energy. Also, geothermal heat pumps have about a 25-year life span, so there will be virtually no extra spending after installation.  One downfall of geothermal heat pumps is that they require the usage of a lot of water, but if we cut back on shower time, dishwashing, and use the famous, “If it’s yellow, let it mellow”, we could overall cut back on our water consumption and reduce our carbon footprint.

Hi!!! My name is Paulina!!
I live on Mexico City, one of the things that we buy a lot are water bottles, everyday we use a different one so imagine the trash we create during a year. I think the best option would be to start using reusable plastic bottles so we can wash it and it's perfect for reusing it. also another thing we spend a lot is paper, the main problem is that for creating it they cut trees, if we continue cutting trees for paper and new houses, there won't be a Forrest on the feature. We should take care of our world, and make the best effort to achieve our goals.

Hi, nice to meet you. I am Julie from China. I really like you idea bout using reusable plastic bottles. This phenomenon usually happens in Chian too. Too many water bottles as well as plastic bags are used by people, but not in a green way. Also doing some paper recycle is also important. I wonder if we could build some events to encourage people doing water bottles recycle action. It may change our situation about cutting too many trees and wasting so much plastic. For reaching the carbon green.

This is a great idea. It is also an easy way, and we all love easy. According to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, http://pacinst.org/publication/bottled- … ct-sheet/, " Americans bought a total of 31.2 billion liters of water in 2006, sold in bottles ranging from the 8-ounce aqua pods popular in school lunches to the multi-gallon bottles found in family refrigerators and office water coolers. Most of this water was sold in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, requiring nearly 900,000 tons of the plastic. PET is produced from fossil fuels – typically natural gas and petroleum." Reusable containers are a great solution. Teenagers use water bottles everyday for lunch. Teenagers these days are not paying attention to whether they put their bottles in a trash can or a recycling bin. Let's make it even easier and just use reusable containers.

This is really interesting because I have only ever used reusable water bottles. At my house, we have plenty reusable water bottles and whenever we go someplace we use them. At my school, we have water fountains specifically for filling up reusable water bottles. Growing up it was always made clear to me that a large percent of water bottles and, in general,  plastic ends up in our world's ocean. We were always taught about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch that is growing (when I first learned about it, it was about the size of Texas now I believe it has doubled in size.) Everywhere I go there are both recycling and garbage cans. I find it very interesting that this doesn't extend everywhere, like where you guys live. It would probably greatly decrease the amount of waste and plastic in our oceans if the amount of plastic was reduced or, like was said above, if there was a reusable plastic.

http://time.com/3707112/plastic-in-the-ocean/
http://education.nationalgeographic.org … age-patch/

people should just use yetis or something

Solar panels are a great way to preserve energy especially if you live in a city that gets a lot of sun. They also reduce the cost of energy and power bills. My family and school use solar panels and you don't even notice them unless you are trying to see them. They are a great environmentally friendly way of getting energy.

I agree that it is a good way to save money and the environment at the same time!

I agree that they can be well hidden and that they reduce the cost of energy cost.

I agree they are a very effective way of energy, but the problem is they are simply too expensive for people to want them, plus unless you install a lot of them they dont give a lot of energy. also the effectiveness of solar panels can depend entirely on what climate you live in

We're reaching the point in technological development where solar is getting cheaper. My apartment complex is currently looking at installing solar panels; we've been wanting to do so for some time now, but only recently have they become more affordable. Additionally, I think that panels are getting more efficient: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/06/tec … el-prices/

I didn't know that solar was getting cheaper, Sofia. There shouldn't be very many excuses for not having solar panels if the prices are dropping.

Solar panels have dropped in price. In fact, solar is actually cheaper than coal at this point in time.(http://www.sciencealert.com/india-says- … -than-coal)

re use your water bottle
take your own bag to the supermarket

Along with reusing a water bottle, and taking your own bag to a super market, try to get carpools or take the bus. Taking the bus or carpooling reduces pollution because less car exhaust is being released into the air. The less car exhaust, the better and cleaner our air is. Also, having the cars that are electric is good too, because they release less exhaust into our air.

Amazing students from Clover, SC worked with their town to evaluate the walkability of the town and look for ways to make it more pedestrian-friendly.

Amazing is right!

RT!!! It was a phenomenal experience! Making the world a better place one RALA at a time.

How long did it take you?

it was a wonderful experience

i loved it did anyone else?&quest;?&quest;?>?&quest;?&quest;?&quest;"?&quest;?&quest;?&quest;

sustainability

If the warm gets warmer, it won't get colder in the future. A former UN representative said that the environment getting warmer serves as a warner or a warning for the future. If we use technology to create non biodegradable and non pesticide including antibiotics and other forms of methane or other biodegradable sources, it can be done.

There is a possibility to do this, but even if the pollution is low the possibility for the planet to get warmer is still existant.

Walking would be considered a clean development. I tend to walk almost every were because I live close to my school and work. If I need to go to the store,  I do periodically have someone take me or I take the bus but I do not use them other than to get food.

According to the scientific survey, every adult need to drink 2000ml water per day. I always see people buy the drinks which use the plastic water bottle in the store. They always drink it and throw the plastic water bottle so I think it isn’t sustainability. It is waste the resource. To change this state, I think we prepare a reusable water bottle before you go out. It is the best way because reusable water bottle can cycle many times as you want and it use the same resource compare to the plastic water bottle but it can cycle and hygienism. It’s ok if you buy the drink with the plastic water bottle but you need to exert it such as use it to create a brush pot, a pen container and throw in the circulate ash-bin though isn’t a good way. Totally, I think bring a reusable water bottle is the best way.

I think too that reusable bottles are a good idea, because you don't have to throw away everytime a new plastic bottle. At home I have two big reusable bottles,which I fill with tap water everytime they're empty. It's a good way to save material.
The plastic bottles which we buy, we can recycle them and use them for something else. Last year I did some boxes with PET as Christmas gifts and they were very easy to do.

Reusable water bottles are a great idea and everyone should use them instead of buying plastic water bottles!

Also getting one of those big gallon of water instead of the usual ones that come in a size of like a milk gallon helps. It saves plastic and it will last longer in the house you won't have to make frequent trips to the grocery store.

Bringing a reusable water bottle around with you is a super easy way to reduce your carbon footprint. Although you have to buy it one time it's much cheaper in the long run then buying a lot of plastic water bottles that you just throw away

My family never buys the plastic water bottles at stores because we have a ton of reusable ones. They are really helpful for sports games or other activities. I think that they are a great way to reduce your carbon footprint.

Something that stores & companies can do is, selling drinks like soda and juices etc, in hard plastic reusable water bottles, so you can have your drink, but now you have a water bottle. This can reduce a lot of waste.

Stores can also sell drinks in gallon sizes, so people can take their water bottles and put those drinks in them, instead of buying a single serve drinks.

I think having many reusable water bottles at home would be very useful especially since they wont get gross and unusable after a single use, and not only that but the creation of one water bottle compared to the amount of uses you use a nonreusable bottle is less total CO2 being released into the air for creation of said bottles. Same goes for the usefulness of thermos.

I agree with Amanda if you just have reusable water bottles at your house it makes it much easer on the environment in the long run

Also having a home water bottle is great because you don't need to go buy a bottle and then through it away when your done. You can just keep on reusing it in the environment.

I agree with the top 3 comments above because if everyone used a water bottle than we could have less plastic bottles wasted.

I think this is great, and will help the carbon emission problem. We should transition to a more reusable material, like glass, because plastic is harder to dispose of and is more carbon inefficient to produce. This would help, and the water bottles would likely last longer and be a longer lasting solution.

I agree with everyone else who is saying that reusable water bottles are the way to go. They reduce the plastic waste produced, they save people money, and they are  typically even healthier to drink from. Reusable water bottles are very common, and lets face it, we all have them stashed somewhere at home. They are cheap to buy and there is no limit on how many times you can refill it, just make sure it gets washed once and a while to prevent germs or bacteria from getting on it. They usually also say PABA free, which means that they will not cause us harm from drinking from them. All of these are good reasons to use reusable water bottles instead of the cheap flimsy plastic ones!

Evryone talks about electric vehicles and how great they are for the enviroment but are they really that great?

It depends on the source of electricity powering the cars. For example, if the electricity used to power the car comes from burning coal, it is not very efficient. However, if the electricity comes from wind, dams, or solar power sources then it is very efficient.

I agree with that but I also think it's also about the long term impact. If you're using a rechargeable battery and you don't use gas in your electric car, that will save you so much money and I will be greener for the earth because you're not imputting co2 emissions. So in the long term yes. It can have a great impact. But it has to be constant to work

There are so many ways to reduce your carbon footprint around the house. Buying a programmable thermostat can save a lot of energy by automatically setting the times so it turns down the air conditioning when it is not in use. Weatherstripping is also a great way to insulate your home. Putting weatherstrips in places where drafts come in can reduce the amount of energy spent using your AC. According to http://carbonfund.org/reduce, using compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) have that cool curly shape and save more than 2/3rds of the energy of a regular incandescent.  Each bulb can save $40 or more over its lifetime. You can reduce water and heating costs, even in your bathroom. To save even more water, turn the faucet off when brushing or shaving. These simple changes and steps can save many thousands of gallons of water annually. Another way to minimize your carbon footprint is to turn off the lights when you walk out of any room, when brushing your teeth or washing the dishes, etc., turn off the water when you are not using it, take shorter showers, wash full loads o f laundry or wash laundry less times per week, turn off or power down your computers when you are not using them, etc. There are numerous ways to reduce your carbon footprint by just slightly changing your behaviors at home.

These are all great ideas. I never realized all the times I leave the water running when I brush my teeth or forget to turn alight off before I leave the house. These small things can add up overtime yet they're so easy to fix. I think if we were all more cautious about even these small things, we can all reduce our carbon footprint.

These are good ideas and leaving the lights on is definitely a big factor for my family as one light has to be on all night for my mom in order to watch my 11 month old sister. But I wish we had some other light source that would reduce the energy and save money

It would be a lie to say that gas emissions weren’t a large part of the increase in global warming. Burning fossil fuels permeates almost all areas of our life. We burn fossil fuels to help produce and transport food, to manufacture goods, to create electricity, and to help start our cars. There’s so many uses for that “golden” oil, but there’s a lot of bad outcomes from overusing it as we are now. To counteract this, solar panels were invented to harness the immense power of the sun. It is an efficient way of creating clean electricity without the increase in pollution. It also saves A LOT of money. The estimated 20-year savings for Americans who switched to solar energy was a little over $20,000. In more crowded states like New York or California, savings were over $30,000. Another attractive feature of solar energy is its reliability. Sunlight is something that is available to every person. No one company or group owns it meaning there’s a surplus amount of peo ple who can access its flow of clean energy with solar panels. Why don’t you talk to your families about switching to solar?

I agree; solar power is very reliable, however, it would be nearly useless to countries with irregular day or sun patterns. There's actually a slight negativity to using solar panels. The installation of solar panels affect the albedo, or surface reflection of the Earth. Solar panels, albeit helpful, have a low albedo to absorb more light rather than reflect it. People argue that this overall increases the temperature of the Earth's surface; however, compared to burning fossil fuels, solar panels have a lower amount of CO2 emissions, consequently making solar energy's pros outweigh its cons.

Resources:
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewe … 3&hid=4208

Kayla has an interesting point about solar panels and but a country like Germany, which has irregular day or sun patterns, is now generating 50% of its energy from solar. I think the technology has improved considerably and will only get better so we can certainly make a huge positive impact by going solar.

Reference: https://theweek.com/speedreads/451299/g … first-time

Everything starts at home. There are so many things we can do to help our environment right in our homes. Simple things like turning off the faucet or a light can really make a difference not only in our bills but also to Mother Earth! Recycling and picking up trash and planting trees also really help. More ways would be to use a reusable water bottle or cut back on the amount of plastic bags used in lunches. A simple alternative would be a reusable container; it works just the same, and it's easy and compact. And of course, carpooling. It can save the environment, and it can make our days more exciting when carpooling with a friend!

Hi Emma. I agree with your idea" Everything starts at home." Just like you said "Simple things like turning off the faucet or a light can really make a difference", I am a person who will keep table lamp on when I'm sleeping sometime. And that's bad for me always make carbon emission high. If I turn my lamp down when I'm sleep, then my carbon footprint won't be this high.

I'm a bit of a hypocrite since I do leave on unnecessary lights and running water, but over the years, I've learned the wrongs of doing so and stopped or at least reduced the amount of times.

Fifteen billion batteries are manufactured and sold yearly. We can cut down this number greatly by using rechargeable batteries. Regular batteries use up 23 times more natural and non-renewable resources than rechargeable batteries. Although are more expensive than regular batteries, they will save you money in the long run.  Rechargeable batteries are a great way to slow global warming, reduce air pollution, and reduce water pollution! See http://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle … er-choice/ for the advantages and disadvantages of rechargeable batteries.

I had never thought of the environmental benefits to using rechargeable batteries. It makes total sense though. I also think it would be easy to promote this idea. Stores would simply need to stock the shelves with less regular batteries and more rechargeable batteries. This easy change could prevent LOTS of batteries ending up in landfills.

It's impossible to clean all the wold but it's possible to clean one part of this.  You don't have to take a broom.  If you see a garbage in the floor you can grab and put it in the garbage can, and this goings to help more than you think.

When I see trash I usually try to pick it up in public because I agree with you. We all lead by example and if people see that we are picking up a piece of trash then they may also. Anything good starts with one person!

We are Fátima Suárez, Alex Guerrero and Julio López, students of the high school I.E.S. de Sar, and we are going to talk about the contamination and how we can reduce it with simple things.
We think that we can reduce contamination if we use public transport instead our cars, because we reduced the CO2. When we go in a public transport, we go more people at the same time that we would go in our cars. We save money because the public transport is cheaper that the car, you only have to pay one time but if you go by car you are spending on the gasoline wherever you go.
In the other hand, we think the best way to don’t contaminate is walk. When you walk you don’t spend money in the transport and you do exercise, free too. Evidently, if you have to go far you have to use any kind of transport like train, plain, your own car or bus.
The goal is reduce the pollution in the big cities, for achieve a better environment in our streets, and for the end of the most common problems like the global warming and its effects.
Another way to get a better environment is recycle. It’s som ething that everybody can take part. You only have to divide the diferent types of garbage
(like plastic, organic, glass, paper and paperboard), and then put it in the correct place.
The silence is very important for have a good life, because the noise pollution produces stress and others psychological discomforts.

In summary: use the public transport if you can, because it reduces your contamination. Recycle, it’s easy. Don’t make too much noise, for a better quality of your life and for the entire world’s life.

Hi, I am Valerie, I am totally agree with you. Now, the air pollution is one of the most serious problem that people need to think. More and more people are buying a private cars because of the convenience and fast to the destination. The air is becoming worse and worse. The high part of my footprint also is the transportation. I encourage people to by more bus and public transportation and less private cars. Actually, walk is a good way to transport also good for your body. If we do not reduce the pollution, global warm will become more and more serious and destroy the earth. Recycling could improve the environment and save the resources. Moreover, I hope people could use bicycles as their main transportation.

Electricity is made by generators that burn coal for energy. Therefore, you are still releasing carbon into the atmosphere.

yes but you are using much less since it isnt burning gas it is only using it a little bit to charge.  So the gas cars are burning gas when you drive and to "charge."

we could us nuckular reacters to charg them

I believe that is a great way to save the planet. My only concern is that they still use gas and energy to power the car. We need to find a way to reduce energy when charging the cars and to make the cars only battery operated.

Hey Sarah, what do you mean making cars only battery operated? Wouldn't you need some sort of input of energy? I also think that electric cars are a good solution to the excessive amounts of Carbon Dioxide emissions, but they will be even better if they get their electricity from clean energy sources. It is true that some places generate their electricity by burning coal, or gas as Thomas said, but other places get electricity from geothermal energy, wind, solar, or hydroelectric generators. With clean sources of electricity, we can definitely help to reduce the Carbon Dioxide emissions.

Hey I mean that electric cars  wouldn't be using gas along with the option of having the car battery powered. It was just simply be battery operated. Yeah you would but I was saying we would need to come up with a way to charge the car without it using a lot of energy. Yeah I totally agree with you. Yeah exactly I couldn't have said it better. One of those sources could replace how we charge our electric  cars.

If the electricity isn't produced in a way that helps the environment in electric cars how would we be saving the environment

To manufacture anything gives off emissions into the atmosphere but electric cars reduce the emissions given of after the industrial cycle.  Gas powered cars are in our everyday lives and many many people use them, so if a smaller number of people drive in electric powdered cars that would help a lot.
   Electric cars use batteries and all this stuff that is terrible for the environment to make but they are also way better for the environment than gas powered vehicles.  Also the amount of electric cars being used is rising greatly.  Cars aren't the only thing releasing carbon dioxide into he atmosphere so taking the steps to get an electric car will help and it is help that the world needs.

I think electric cars are a good idea but if they use energy created by wind, sun or water. If it consume the nuclear energy we are going to still hurting and creating carbon dioxide. We are young we can find a solution to create a sustainable car that lowers our footprint.

Hi paulinazac. There are some false information in your post.

Firstly, the most obvious, energy cannot be created: it's clearly stated by the First law of thermodynamics.
Secondly, nuclear power plants do not emit CO2 in the process of nuclear fission that happens inside the core of the reactor. The big cloud you can see escaping from the cooling tower is just steam, because "water" (I'm not entering the distinction between various isotopes) is mostly used as the transporter of thermal energy or as a cooling part of the system.
Finally, the fact that "we" (I suppose the students here) are young doesn't systematically mean that we surely can find better solutions. We might find something, but that's not guarantee.

That said, I'm totally OK about electric cars, but you can imagine why their development is or will be slowed in the future: just think about lobbies and lawsuits about intellectual properties. A way to speed up the innovation, and so the research of "the solution", would be fixing these problems.

References if you are curious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F irst_law_of_thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy

Wind energy has a much lower carbon footprint than conventional fossil fuel energy. However, we can only place so many wind turbines on the ground before running into other problems such as endangering certain species, and polluting the landscape and scenery. A start-up group in Boston has designed a way to harness extremely strong winds, 2,000 feet up, and change it into energy. Not only does this help solve the problem of space for the turbines, but the winds at high altitudes are also so much more powerful. These winds are strong enough to power the entire planet.
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/q … -2000-feet

I like the idea of having clean energy and saving these species from dieting but one problem I have with this is how it will affect the transportation of planes and maintenance. I think putting these on top of skyscrapers and mountains would be much more efficient instead of in farms.

I think the idea of harnessing the wind energy at 2,000 feet is a wonderful idea! The average jet plane flies at around 39,000 ft, so as long as these turbines are enough distance  from airports and clearly visible to planes (lights, beacons, etc) then I see little reason for them to interfere with flight patterns. Also, these turbines could be positioned above no fly zones to further decrease the chances of them causing any airplane related issues. Here is some additional information on the altitudes at which different airplanes fly: http://traveltips.usatoday.com/altitude … 00359.html

Wind turbines at 2,000 feet sounds like a great idea. As you said the wind at this altitude is much stronger and therefore can provide more energy for everyone. Like the above comment says planes fly much higher than this altitude, so it shouldn't be a problem for them. If we just make them clearly visible there should be no problem with them being so high. One problem is building them this tall and them being strong enough to withstand the winds, they will have to be very strong and have large bases more than likely.

I think this is a fantastic idea! Now, all environmentalists are so concerned about using fossil fuels that it's great somebody came up with such an innovative idea. I think that when the world finally runs out of fossil fuels, they will have this to fall back on. This is so great because it's all natural and you don't run out of wind!

I really appreciated your post because wind energy can be forgotten in discussions about renewable sources of energy because people often just focus on solar energy. I was drawn to your post because I do not know much about wind energy, and it seems like it has so much potential to help the environment. The different new technologies for capturing power from the wind that the article describes are very interesting. However, they each seem very expensive to make, which may be one of the reasons that wind energy is not as common as solar energy. With solar energy, anyone can install solar panels to their roof, but it appears that these new technologies for wind energy will be much less accessible. However, wind power can be made accessible to households with Trident Winds LLC’s new project. In September of this year, the San Luis Obispo Tribune described how the wind company hopes to install 100 floating turbines in Morro Bay, California. These turbines would be able to power 150,000 homes. I think this proposal is especially interesting because it involves turbines in the  ocean, and the wind energy that you mentioned would be in the air. The fact that harnessing wind can be possible on land, in the air, and at sea demonstrates the great potential and wide range of options  for converting wind energy into power.

Hi Elaine! My name is Paulina !
I love the idea of using the wind to create energy, I think is really helpful to lower or footprint, by deciding the use of wind as energy producer you don't need to create nuclear energy that can harm people and affect our world. Unfortunately for making this type of machine You need to buy the system but it's price is higher. The good thing is that governments have been building this type of machines over the rural area. If we ask for something by a group we can help the world.

Solar Panels are a great way to help the environment and reduce your carbon footprint, but many people feel that they are too expensive and look tacky.  In reality solar panels are becoming less expensive every year, with the average 5,000 watt solar panel system costing around 15,000 dollars to install. This seems expensive and unrealistic for many Americans, with the average household income being around 55,000 dollars. But actually, the price per kWh for residential solar power is now less than the price normal utility companies charge. Some energy companies will even pay part of your installation cost and continue to pay you money afterwards for supplying them with extra electricity. As for the concern about solar panels being tacky, new options such as photovoltaic slates lie flat on your roof and look more like normal slate roofing. These new solar panel slates cost about the same in price as conventional slate roofing. These innovations in the solar panel industry are making it much easier for the average American to have solar panels and reduce their impact on th e environment.
   http://solar-power-now.com/cost-of-solar/
   http://www.hgtv.com/remodel/mechanical- … olar-power

Hi my name is Bryce from the United States, I think solar panels can be very beneficial but they are also expensive. Many people can not afford these costs because they would rather spend their money on gas and other things rather than spending their money on trying to reduce their footprint. On the topic of them looking tacky people need to realize that we need to save the environment and realize what can be causes of our carbon footprint

Jessica, I found your post very informative, as you addressed and explained two of the main reasons why we do not see more people in America buying solar panels--cost and appearance. I read more about these topics on the website for Solar World, which is the United States' largest solar manufacturer (http://www.solarworld-usa.com/solar-for … lar-energy). Another reason why solar panels are worthwhile in relationship to their cost is that installing solar panels creates extra electricity; therefore, people can save considerable amounts of money on their electric bill or even eliminate it all together. Even if they are expensive, I agree with you that solar panels are an advantageous investment. Some people may think they look tacky, but the design of solar panels can actually provide extra benefits, like the solar panels installed at my high school. The newly installed panels shade classrooms that normally receive direct sunlight, decreasing the temperatures in these classrooms, which results in a better learning environment for us students. Regardless  of the cost or appearance, I believe the main reason why solar panels are essential is that they substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus slow the detrimental process of climate change. Solar panels are definitely a great way to reduce carbon footprints and positively impact the environment.

Hi Jessica! My name is Paulina !
I live on Mexico City, since I was a little girl I was surprised that we can use solar panels for creating energy, the bad thing is that they are expensive. I think government and the light industries should make a deal that if someone wants to have solar panels on her or his house they can help with a portion of the money. I think it would be like a business that they help you to buy it and you pay the light that you use to the company.
I also think that one day the prices will be lower but we don't know when and if we wait the planet will be on that time completely affected.

After looking at the significant impact plane flights had on my carbon footprint, I began to talk with my mom about different ways we could possibly make planes more efficient. What if we could continue to use gas to get up in the air, but someone harness the energy of the wind against the plane self sustain itself in flight? I understand that there are many physics questions of how we might convert the wind into energy without providing resistance against the plane that would hinder its progress more than the energy provided would help it. Do you think it might be possible to find a way where planes could be more energy efficient and possibly create their own energy? Could solar powered planes function, would their relative closer proximity to the sun allow them a high enough intensity of solar power to help propel the plane?

Smog emissions have proven to be a problem not only in urbanized industrial areas, but also throughout the rest of the world (although I'm focusing on the United States). Under the Bush administration, smog-emission regulations fell far short of the national standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Now, however, the Obama administration has unveiled a major new regulation on smog-causing emissions that spew from smokestacks and tailpipes. Although more stringent than before, public health advocates and environmentalists still say that the regulations are not to the standard that they had hoped. Smog has been linked to asthma, heart and lung disease, and premature death and thus it is very important to regulate its emission to protect public safety. These new regulations fall under the Obama administration's Clean Air Act, which garnered great refute from the coal-supporting Republicans. To take action into our own hands, we can limit our driving, fire burning, etc.

My source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/us/po … earth&_r=0

In order to ensure the continual development of clean and sufficient energy, the best method is collaboration from across the community. Recently my mother's agency was recognized by the White House with an award for the Champion of Change. Her work used crowd funding to fund the purchase and installation of solar panels that provide sufficient energy for her entire agency. Interestingly, she did not earn the award for the installation of the solar panels, any company can independently fund an investment for this. What the award was for was the idea of using crowd funding. Crowd funding is the idea that large groups of people agree to invest some small sum of money into a venture, if enough people invest that it is funded than the venture proceeds, if not everyone who invested gets their money back. What makes the situation unique is that it was completely enacted through the community, the project raised awareness and promoted the idea of green energy across the congregation of investment. It's a progression of society towards the improvement rather than an individual.  If we work together it is incredible what we can get done. It is best to continue the development of clean energy as a community.

I agree with your statement that working together is the best way to approach clean energy development. If we want to make a change in our world, universal compliance and contribution is necessary; however, this is much easier said than done. I’ve found that as a community, we are very resistant to change, especially if this means any inconvenience or significant effort on the part of the individual. Unless everyone is able to fully understand the importance of our rising climate crisis, people will feel unmotivated to make change. Additionally, as a community we tend to ignore any issues that seem “bigger than life.” Many people acknowledge our climate problems, but insist that climate change won’t directly affect them, and thus they have no responsibility to fix the problem. I think that before we can reach unity, we must better educate the world on the significance of climate change and express to them the importance in making changes to fix our planet.

When reading about solar energy I found this site. It talks about how solar energy works and how it is a renewable resource. Good read!

I did a lot of research and according to http://thewaterproject.org/bottled_water_wasteful the United States is overpopulated with plastic water bottles. The website mentions that it takes about 1000 years for these products to bio-degrade, only about 1 in 5 bottles are recycled, and landfills are overfilling with this waste. After looking at further sources, I realized how big of a difference we can make if we start using reusable water bottles. Schools should have students bring their own refillable bottles to class so that they can eventually throw out the vending machines filled with plastic. A way to raise awareness to this issue is to fund raise money to make more water bottle fillers. The amount of CO2 we can reduce by taking this action is dramatic. Not only is the bio-degrading releasing a large amount of CO2, but the shipment involved with this purchase causes a lot of transportation across the country. As you may have seen, an increase in transportation is brutal to the environment.What are some of your ideas to limit the plastic bottles sold?

Katia S, I agree that we should limit the amount of plastic water bottles we use as well as use reusable water bottles to lower the amount of waste. To answer your question, I did some local research to how San Franciscans are cutting down on their plastic water bottle use... In  buildings, airports, and parks they are installing water fountains and bottle-filling taps so people can conveniently refill their bottles. Perhaps this will promote other cities in the future (if they haven't already) to install these eco-friendly systems too.

A way to reduce water bottle waste that's already been implemented in South Australia is the bottle refund scheme. http://plasticwastesolutions.com/plastic-litter/ With the system, the bottle recycle rate there is 80%. It's not stopping people from using disposable water bottles, but it does encourage more recycling. Setting the bottle refund scheme will be more feasible than stopping the use of disposable bottles entirely. If the bottle refund scheme was run along with the incentives stated by Kira, we would be more effective in lowering the overall CO2 produced from these bottles.

I agree with you. I use my reusable water bottle everyday and it has been a great convenience. Tap water is cost-efficient and can be filtered at home. The production of plastic water bottles release toxins and fossil fuels into the air. Plastic water bottles also contain a substance called polyethylene terephthalate which is dangerous to humans. Using a refillable water bottle can also decrease your carbon footprint. Here are some other reasons to use reusable water bottles. http://www.banthebottle.net/articles/th … led-water/

Reusable water bottles are great! Specifically, biodegradable and stainless steel bottles are the best for our environment. I bring my reusable bottle to school everyday. I like it better then the disposable bottles as I can refill it whenever I need to.Often when drinking from plastic water bottles, we don't finish them for reasons such as forgetting which bottle is ours. About 2.5 million water bottles are thrown away by Americans every hour. That's 60 million water bottles a year and an impressive 21,900 bottles a year. Of these bottles, less than 30% are recycles. This means a great majority (about 70%) of our plastic water bottles end up in the trash. They will continue to build up in landfills as we continue to carelessly throw them out.  Plastic disposable water bottles are impacting our environment in a negative way which needs to change. http://www.greenbenefits.org/post/2011/ … ttles.aspx

Wow I did not know that when I recycle my water bottles that only 1 in 5 actually gets recycled and it takes that long to bio-degrade. I personally think to promote drinking water from reusable water bottles in school is that they could be given out at the beginning of the year and have water bottle refill stations around the school. Yes the water bill would go up but it would help the environment and keep kids hydrated and healthy.

I completely agree.  Plastic water bottles are extremely overused and most people are oblivious to the fact that they are really bad for the earth.  And the thing that makes it even worse is that most people dont even put them in the recycling bins so that they can at least be recycled.  Instead, they are just thrown into regular trash cans.  It would be very challenging for a school to completely shift from plastic to reusable water bottles.  I do agree with your theory however, but i feel that schools should not only encourage reusable water bottles, but also encourage recycling the plastic ones that students use.

I agree with this entirely. I would have never thought that less than 30% of plastic water bottles are recycled, that's shocking to me! Most schools and organizations just encourage for you to recycle plastic water bottles instead of maybe reusing that water bottle or buying a reusable water bottle that you could use for a long time and use for many different things!

With today's technology we have the ability to make machines that can contribute to a brighter future of our planet. There are always some new "eco" projects in the making but they never seem to become a reality, such as the Ocean Cleanup Array developed by a 19-year old student Boyan Slat. The array is basically a solar powered boat that sails around the world and collects human garbage that ended up in oceans and seas. This is the kind of technology we are able to use, and yet we still don't! It is very important that more and more people get educated about projects like "The Ocean Cleanup Array" so they can help fund it and make it happen! I personally think technology is the only thing that can help us avoid the  horrible effects of climate change.

It would be great if anyone of us contributed to this unique project. Personally I think that more kinds of this projects should be induced, this only shows how great the minds of our generations are, nevertheless if they only have 19 years. Also, more of this stuff should be mentioned in schools, citizens should be informated and aware of this ingenuinity that surounds us but we aren't conscious about it. So, there is a "donate" button on their page. It would be much appreciated if we could help Boyan on his great journey.

This sounds like a great idea and it would contribute to reducing the pollution on a global scale.It is shameful that projects like this don't get the proper funding and don't become reallity.This planet needs more people like Boyan Slat and it definitely needs more projects like Ocean cleanup.

The idea of Ocean cleanup sounds very interesting, but it definetly needs someone to fund it.
I agree with Ivan Ilic that projects like this one don't get appropriate attention or funds and as a result don't become reality.

Recently I started to read about the possible effects of climate change. What I have found so far has been looking quite grim. The only possible scenario that things will get better in the near future would be drastic cuts in industrial emissions, but for now it just looks like things will either get a little worse or a lot worse.
Some people might say that people in 1st world countries will not see major effects on their personal life style, but that is false. Even if people in these countries don't starve, climate change will damage global and local economies. Already, California (America's "bread basket") has seen a decline in crop quantity as well as crop quality due to climate change. This has already damaged the national economy. For these reasons I believe everyone should step up and help make a difference, because no one will be left unaffected.

I think these facts are major things to know! I didn't truly know that climate change will effect global and local economies. The fact that it has already effected my national economy is crazy!

I think everyone should be aware of how a subtle change in a degree could effect the climate and how climate change (in the long run) will effect every single one of us. The effects of change and the causes of climate change are topics we had recently covered in my Environmental Earth and Science class. Some of the causes were natural like volcanic eruptions and ocean circulation but there was also man made causes like the burning of fossil fuels. All which result in the heating of the Earth. The effects of climate change included things like sea level rising from the melting ice caps and an increase energy demand. However it my concern to you, climate change IS a big deal! More awareness and efforts can help slow the process of the Earth heating up but not stop it.

I do believe that climate change would put a huge impact on what how live today. I have watch some movies that shows what could occur. I don't want to be melted by the heat of the sun or frozen like a popsicle.

I definitely agree with you that global climate change will effect all countries. Recently we have been learning about this in class, and we've been look at all of the results that climate change has on things around the world. A one degree change in temperature can make a species go extinct. There are a lot of things that we can do to help with the changes like try to reduce using natural resources.

I completely agree that even small changes will help offset the effect of climate change. Even small changes to help our climate will drastically change our lifestyle and create and more healthy earth for everyone. Even a change as small as one degree could kill off many fish in the ocean as they react drastically to small changes in temperature. All of this means that climate change is a really big deal and should be looked at. More efforts need to be started if we want to save the health of our earth depleting drastically.

I 100% agree with this. We don't realize that although we may not see these changes in our lifetime, the generations to come will. We all need to work together to save what we have left. We need to limit using our natural resources, because eventually they will run out. We need to change what we do. If everyone was a little more careful with how they used their resources, we could reduce the contamination by quite a bit, and possibly slow the process down.

I agree it is a big deal, but also it would take some time to slow it down. Unless we take drastic measures, it won't change over night.

You have a very good point bringing up a first world country, because when people talk about helping the environment, they often think about third world countries instead of their own, which shouldn't make a difference. Helping the environment should be done daily!

One of the points people like to note is that electric cars are still releasing CO2 through the energy production to charge the vehicles. However, while gas cars must use fuel to run, and thus releasing carbon dioxide into the air every time they're in use, electric vehicles aren't limited to one source of energy. In my family, we own a fully electric car, and my carbon footprint is considered quite low, because every time we drive we hardly contribute any CO2. Also, electric vehicle owners have the choice to get their energy from different sources. Energy doesn't have to come only from fossil fuels. My family gets the energy to charge our car and run our household needs from wind farms. Another choice is solar energy. Even in the cases when people still choose to use conventional fossil fuel energy, the fossil fuels burned to create the energy will still amount to less CO2 emission than a car who produces large amounts of carbon dioxide every time it runs.

These are great points, but have you factored in the amount of carbon used to manufacture electric or hybrid cars compared to gas cars? It has been said that it takes more carbon to manufacture lithium- ion batteries, and that they are bad for the environment. It has also been shown that lithium is highly flammable and cobalt, also used in lithium- ion batteries, can be poisonous, and this can have a bad effect on the biosphere. While cars with petrol engines also emit a lot of carbon while being manufactured, it has been speculated that electric vehicles may emit even more.

Points! Yes, some solid arguments.  You seem to assume that the expected lifespan of the lithium ion cells used in the manufacturing of electric cars ends when the useful life of the car is exhausted or when the battery of the car no longer holds a charge sufficient for it's owner.  However, lithium-ion cells are able to be used for other activities such as storing energy from solar arrays.  The usable lifespan of these cells is greatly increased as more uses for them are realized. Also, even from an energy density standpoint, the amount of fossil fuels we use to run gas powered automobiles is grossly inefficient. Even though gasoline is a high density form of energy storage, conventional cars are only able to harvest 10-15% of the energy stored in gasoline.  This means that while manufacturing lithium-ion cells for electric cars may require an upfront expenditure in carbon, the perpetual waste of energy in our inefficient method of burning gasoline mean that in the long run, more carbon is still expended in a conventional gas car.

There are so many alternative energy sources out there, and sometimes we only focus on if something is renewable or not. Efficiency, how long a type of energy will last, and many other factors should also be considered. In the picture I have provided, it is shown that solar energy is very clean, but it is not so efficient. Our best energy source for both efficiency and cleanliness is geothermal. The energy will last us infinitely, it is at the top of the graph for efficiency, and it is at the right of the graph for cleanliness. Feel free to comment about the other sources of energy listed on the page, or others that are not mentioned.  [Alternative Energy Resources](//res.cloudinary.com/moot/image/upload/t_d3-gallery-s3/v1414349451/:footprint:nKbA:alternativeenergyresources.jpg.jpg) Credit to _The Visual Miscellaneum_ by David McCandless

By carefully selecting which varieties of food crops to cultivate, much of Europe and North America could be cooled by up to 1°C (2°F) during the summer growing season, say researchers from the University of Bristol, England. This is equivalent to an annual global cooling of over 0.1°C (2°F), almost 20% of the total global temperature increase since the Industrial Revolution.

The growing of crops already produces a cooling of the climate because they reflect more sunlight back into space, compared with natural vegetation. Different varieties of the same crop vary significantly in their solar reflectivity (called albedo), so selecting varieties that are more reflective will enhance this cooling effect. Since arable agriculture is a global industry, such cooling could be extensive.

According to a recent report in Current Biology, Dr. Andy Ridgwell and colleagues at the University of Bristol argue that we should select crop varieties in order to exert a control on the climate, in the same way that we currently cultivate specific varieties to maximize and fine-tune food pr oduction.

We have evaluated the effect of our approach in a global climate model,” Dr. Ridgwell said. “By choosing from among current crop varieties, our best estimate for how much reflectivity might be increased leads us to predict that summer-time temperatures could be reduced by more than 1°C [2°F] throughout much of central North America and mid-latitude Eurasia. Ultimately, further regional cooling of the climate could be made through selective breeding or genetic modification to optimize crop plant albedo.

Dr. Ridgwell and his research team emphasized that unlike growing bio-fuels, such a plan could be achieved without disrupting food production, either in terms of yield or the types of crops grown. “We propose choosing between different varieties of the same crop species in order to maximize solar reflectivity rather than changing crop type, although the latter could also produce climatic benefits, explained Ridgwell.

Over the next hundred years, making these kinds of decisions would be equivalent to averting the carbon footprint of 195 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Farmers could be encouraged to grow such crops by issuing them with carbon credits. Ridgwell has calculated that if such a mechanism were in place farmers might expect to earn in the region of 23 euros per hectare per year for the warming averted. Bio-fuels currently earn 45 euros per hectare per year, but take up valuable agricultural land needed for growing crops.

Plants differ in their albedo because of differences in the properties of the leafs surface and how the leaves are arranged (called canopy morphology). The team therefore propose that the varieties grown should be chosen for their reflective properties alongside other considerations already made when planting crops, such as the food processing characteristics of a grain.

Since society has so far remained unwilling to make the drastic reductions in fossil fuel use needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions, simple alternatives such as growing more reflective crops are a realistic way of helping reduce the severity of heat waves and droughts in these regions. Results could be achieved very quickly and at very little cost.

There is a clear need for more research into characterizing the variability in albedo that currently exists between the different variants and strains of common crop plants, commented Ridgwell. We are applying for funding that will enable us to better quantify what is possible now, what variability there is for future selective breeding, and whether there is a need for genetic modification in the future.

(University of Bristol. Ecology Global Network. Eric McLamb.)

According to a recent article published by the New Scientist, wood-derived materials such as cross-laminated timber could be the materials holding up our future buildings. In relation to "Clean Development", wood produces little waste, is renewable if harvested the right way, and would produce only around 25-40% of the carbon emissions produced by buildings made of materials such as concrete.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 … EBhlvldWSo

The thing about wood, however, is that even though it is considered renewable, it is rapidly being used up. Forests are being cut down to help build houses, make paper, or make room for development. We need these forests to produce oxygen so we can breathe. Not only that, but having more trees would eventually help slow down, stop, and reverse global warming as plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. If these wood derived materials begin to rot or catch fire, the carbon dioxide stored within the wood would be released. Therefore, I'm worried that using these materials may be counterproductive to global warming.
http://www.fao.org/forestry/energy/en/

While the idea of using wood as a modern building material that will lower carbon dioxide emissions sounds good there are lots of downsides to this. Wood is flammable meaning that during building fires the building's structure will burn down much quicker than with a steel structure. Lastly wood becomes very brittle at a certain bending point and can snap in natural disasters like tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes which brings safety down greatly. Builders have strayed away from wood as a main building material throughout history for some of these reasons and bringing them back may have many negative effects.
   Not to mention that wood is only an unlimited if harvested correctly and in moderation which large companies usually have trouble monitoring these things without government officials over seeing them. Also the treatment of the wood such as illuminating it would add pollution and CO2 into the air which goes against the original idea of a cleaner buildin g material. Using wood in the production of new buildings may lower pollution in the short run, but long term could have many negative effects.

Burning natural gas reduces acid rain and smog, and results in very low emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide and virtually no emissions of mercury. This makes it among the cleanest ways to generate electricity. Natural gas power plants produce about half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal-fired plants. Not only is burning natural gas cleaner, but it is also more economical. Nowadays, everyone, including my family, is trying to find ways to make their bills cost less. It would cost about 40 percent less than the equivalent amount of new wind generation. Producing electricity from natural gas requires smaller, less costly pieces of equipment. Also, natural gas does not require the capital equipment and operating costs to reduce air emissions. Natural gas is the fastest and most economical path to significantly reducing U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide from power generation. What's better than having healthier air, a reduced carbon footprint, and cheaper  bills to pay?
For more information: http://www.powerincooperation.com/EN/Pa … YiT9M.dpbs

My name is Jason To, and I am an Oakland High School student. I am concerned with the amount of energy we use in everyday uses. These energy we come from are sources of electricity. Carbon is one form of what this energy turn into today. Because we use so much carbon, it flows into the atmosphere creating carbon dioxide a.k.a. CO2. Carbon Dioxide influence the world's climate today. Carbon dioxide causes climate change because it is causing global warming.

Many of these issues do not necessarily require major effects to the climate crisis. Hunger and poverty can be helped locally rather than joining a worldwide effort to stop these issues. If most communities help each other within a community, it not only is a much less formidable task, but it can even achieve a more in-depth solution to this problem, with much less carbon emissions. The building of schools to assist in universal education may cause short-term carbon emissions, but it can prove to benefit the world in the long-term. With proper education, habits that are horrible for the atmosphere can be recognized and prevented. Gender equality goes hand-in-hand with education. If the culture evolves and children are educated at an early age that everyone is equal (this would also stop discrimination for race, religion, etc.), then this problem would surely be solved. Last is the health improvements, the most likely to cause carbon emissions. However, new technology used to help our health does not necessarily hurt the atmosphere. It could be a change for the better, wi th a more energy efficient way for humans to go about things as a possibility. These daunting tasks can be achieved with little climate change, if we keep the issue in the back of our mind as we attempt to stop them.

I think one of the main reasons we struggle to achieve these goals without making the planet warmer is because we often choose the faster, easier route. For example, decreasing the amount of undernourished and malnourished people in the world could start locally by buying locally grown foods and less meat. However, it is much easier to grab an overly-packaged food item from the grocery store, rather than starting your own garden or going to a local farmer's market. Additionally, because the of the large class stratification present in our society, many people cannot afford to buy the organic, but often more expensive, food.

To combat these issues while also being environmentally friendly, I believe we should start by acting locally and then expanding globally. By this, I mean that we should all try to do our part in reducing our carbon footprint, and by not buying as much food that has been shipped over long distances. Globally, we could raise funds and advocate  for more universal education. Finally, I believe that spreading awareness to the general public, and to those who hold the majority of the wealth, could raise money to help end these issues.

I completely agree that a major reason that people aren’t more environmentally conscience is laziness. It is much easier to buy packaged/processed foods for Safeway, and then it is to cook food that is locally grown. It is easier to throw everything in the trash, rather then taking a few minutes to sort things into recycling and compost. Many people also prefer to save a few dollars and buy consumer goods that are made across the planet; instead of looking for slightly more expensive locally made products. I think the solution is to spread awareness about how to EASILY make our planet more sustainable as well as doing your part to reduce your carbon footprint anyway you can.

I think you made some excellent points, Alyssa.  I strongly agree with your statement how we tend to take the easy way out and receive that instant gratification.  Food packaging is a convenience to us and convinces us to buy the product simply because it is faster/easier.  In addition, I too have noticed organic foods are more expensive; attracting only wealthier audiences.  Although it is understandable that locally grown foods or organic foods are more expensive, I still believe there should be an option of a healthy food selection for those who cannot necessarily afford it.

In terms of your solutions, I really liked how you wanted to solve the problems by starting off small and then working larger.  I think the best way to even decrease our carbon footprint is by simply becoming aware of our personal impacts.  Once we gain awareness, our choices can then be made based on what we have learned from our mistakes.  As we begin to solve our personal contributions,  we can then transition and help others globally.  Your idea of raising money to fund education is an important aspect because it is a way to make those who are ignorant become aware of the issue.

You make very good points. Humans naturally want to take the easy way out, no matter the consequences. If you extend your idea, you can possibly permanently solve some global issues. As for the world hunger problem, if you simply give donations of food to the community from all over the world, you will create lots of carbon emissions for a short-term solution. However, if you teach the community how to properly grow a sustainable food source and educate them on their carbon footprint, then they can work together to make their own community, and possibly other communities, better. As the saying goes, "If you give a man a fish, he has food for one day. If you teach a man how to fish, then he has food for a lifetime."

I agree with the original post that people's laziness affects how much they contribute to global warming. The more people think and contribute to environmental awareness causes the less lazier they are. If people could just care about things outside of their community (which is seemingly perfect) and look around at how the threat of global warming is already affecting the world and reading about what global warming will cause, then the world would be better off.

Eradicating poverty and hunger, educating everyone, empowering women, and improving the health of the world all sound like extremely difficult tasks. Keeping the planet from getting warmer while also achieving these goals seems altogether impossible. I do think it is possible to complete all these goals without making the planet warmer, but it will take a lot of minds working together.

Hunger and poverty may not be completely eradicated, but from according to the Food and Agriculture Organization from 1990-1992 to 2010-2012, hunger and poverty in the world has actually fallen by 36%. There were still 870 million undernourished people in 2010-2012, but progress has been achieved in that area. I believe that if we continue to support agricultural development in developing countries, the poverty and hunger rates will continue to decrease because these countries will become more self-sufficient and more food will be available.

Education and gender equality are also important, but I believe that these factors will not have a great effect on global warming. Specific educati on about climate change, our carbon footprint, and the general impact of humans on our environment could definitely create more awareness, especially if people push companies and governments for policies supporting “green” initiatives like a better waste recycling system.

The things I am unsure we can achieve without making the planet warmer are major health improvements. Health improvements are beneficial to the human race, but they also negatively impact the globe because health improvements mean that more people will live. If more people live, then the population might increase, creating a higher demand for food, water, and other natural resources while also creating more wastes. Another thing that could happen is better health and fewer diseases could facilitate the development of a stable economy in developing countries. A stable economy might allow for citizens of these countries to have fewer children because there would be less of a need for many children to earn money. Thus, the solution of this problem could go either way.

It certainly is possible for society to achieve all these high goals with little to no climate change.
Hunger and poverty may take a long time to be completely eradicated, but fixing the hunger issue definitely can be done without any major carbon emissions. Countries that have major hunger problems should educate the citizens on how to properly grow sustainable crops. By growing more crops, they would actually help the carbon emissions since plants create oxygen from the carbon dioxide. Poverty is a much harder thing to prevent. The world's wealth is finite and if money is given to the poor, then someone else's money is lost. Even if this somehow is fixed, it does not have to create any new carbon emissions.

I agree on your education and gender equality points. It would not have a great effect on global warming. If anything, education will create a larger awareness of people's carbon footprint.

Major health improvements most likely will create a larger footprint, due to the new technology created to get and use the new information. It is true that more people will  live, but saving lives are the whole reason we are worried about the world's condition; the medical improvements would be short-term and saving the Earth's atmosphere is long-term. Lives are important, and the biggest thing at stake. Good health does not always generate a great economy, however. It may make it better, but it is not the only factor in the economy.

For my carbon footprint challenge I received a total of 11341 kg of CO per year. For transportation I received 2225 kg, home was 5185 kg, food was 3531 kg and purchases was a total of 400 kg. I believe we can help the planet from becoming warmer by not using  cars and taking a bike to work and walking if you can.

I plan to stop using a car for a transportation source and instead using a bike or walk when close to home.

Overall, we as humans release a staggering 26 gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide per year. Alternitively, we also use forms of clean energy such as solar, hydroelectirc, and geothermal. Though we can't use any one of these alternative energy sources alone, a combination of many could reduce the Carbon Dioxide emmisions annually.

but we need gas to power the crans and back hoes can not run on electricty

I hope one day I can make my home run on solar power.

Alex how would we be able to  change that.  Using examples

carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere

which causes the o zone layer to decrease which greatly causing the green house effect

thank for adding that matthew

thanks*

Sardine fishing is a large market that provides many communities with the tiny fish. Uses for these fish can be from pizza topping to bait and all in between, but what are the down sides to fishes the little guys from the oceans. One down side is the slowly decreasing amount of Blue-footed Boobies on the Galapagos Islands. These birds main supply of food is the sardines and without them they have less energy and less to eat. These birds are having lots of problems already such as; low breeding, less young adults, and complex mating dances that are often rejected. One problem with less sardines is that the birds have less energy and it is harder to breed and make more eggs and stronger children. Even if the babies are made, the low food amount causes many to die. When the rate of death by old age for the birds is 10%, the birds aren’t making enough kids to take their place. This causes a loss of the magnificent birds and all because we want a few more fish in a can. This is not good because these gorgeous birds are part of the ecosystem of the Galapagos and it is very imp ortant to keep these animals safe and out of harm’s way to prevent them from dying out. What do you think is it more important to save the birds or supply jobs and food for others?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 … DICFY3u0cB

I don't think it is possible to attempt to eradicate hunger without having an effect on the climate. One way or another, everything that uses technology these days adds to making the climate warmer. In order to eradicate hunger and poverty, certain donations will have to be made and of course, these donations aren't going magically appear in front of the people who suffer from poverty and hunger. We need to transport the goods, and with that we need the use of technology such as planes, cars boats etc. On that note, we can confirm in order to help the society from hunger and poverty, there is a fair share of technology being used which would add to the increase of the climate hence answering the question "Can we do this without making the plant warmer?"

what about promoting local agriculture instead of shipping food?  yes, every activity uses some carbon, but the key, I think, is to consider the carbon impact as an integral part of the planning.

You are somewhat correct in the basis that you state "everything that uses technology these days adds to making the climate warmer." However, there are new ways of creating and using technology that don't have a negative effect on the environment, like wind-powered machines and solar panels. Solar panels increase the financial efficiency of where they are used, and return the money you invest in them. They also cause little to no pollution, so people who use them for their companies or homes do not have to be as pessimistic as others who's places do not contain such panels.

Furthermore, wind-powered machines have been overlooked for generations, and are actually quite a useful energy source. Wind can be used to propel watercraft, and create energy by windmills. Wind-powered machinery has had a huge impact on our growing society since the early times. So, in a sense, wind-powered machines are not necessarily new, but they have been used less and less as time passes by, and overlooked as useless with the inventions of fossil fuel and electric machines. As someone else in  a different discussion has stated, most electric cars can cause more pollution than other cars in their entire lifespan. However, what if these electric cars were being powered by electricity generated by wind-powered machinery? Then the cars would cause little or no pollution, and transportation without corruption would no longer be a problem.

These two methods of creating energy would allow many people to rise in their average economic income per year, which would be able to further eliminate poverty, allowing more and more people to buy or trade for food, also erasing common hunger.

i partially afree with you taha. i agree with you because yes we would have to fly food over to places who need food. and we would need to use machines to harvest the food. this would add lots of warmth to our enviroment because we would be using lots of machinery to get it over there.
      the reason i dont agree with you is that we could use a little bit of energy by getting seeds and plants to those places. once this stuff is at those places then thay can start planting by hand. they could even use some tools they make themselves. doing this technique would only use a little bit of energy at the very beginning but it would be so little for how long these crops could last .

@Jason: Promoting agriculture could potentially lead to a decrease in carbon emissions, but agriculture can also have negative effects on biodiversity. Should we disregard the effects of agriculture on biodiversity in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions?

when I talk about promoting local agriculture, it is small scale local production I am referencing as opposed to giant farms making massive surplus and then shipping it overseas. So when there is a famine situation, there is no local supply to deal with that. Most of US food aid is in the form of paying US farmers to grow extra, but it is more efficient to promote sustainable agriculture practice abroad. I would guess that the large farms are having a greater impact on biodiversity than the small local ones, but I don't have a link/reference for that to show.

Hi! My name is Minh and currently a senior at Oakland High School. Whenever I pick up a piece of trash at school people would say I'm such a nice guy or why would would i do it if it's not my job. I think of it as a duty that everybody must take on in order to reduce the pollution of trash on earth.

That is Wonderful Minh! Picking up trash around school, work, or in your neighborhood is important to reduce pollution. I agree it is our duty to improve our world by reducing pollution and thank you for the encouragement to simply clean up!

trash off the ground like its nobody's business I'm like a superhero or something! one trash bag at a time. join me brethren's.

Well put! I totally agree with you if the world didn't have people who do what you do the world be one big dump so thank you!

Agreed. I hate seeing all those bits and pieces of trash on the ground that includes sides of highways and even parks. Well said!

We can definitely make a difference in the live of those living in hunger by establishing thought out, local agricultural plantations. Many 3rd world countries do not have the basic necessities, but one thing they could be able to support themselves with is crops and gardens. Cultivating one's own food can save a lot of time and energy to ship imports to their location. Not only time and energy but money and the risk of increasing our planet's warmth. To get such a program started, a group of volunteers could ask locals in their area or organizations to contribute a variety of seeds and plants to start the cultivation process. Volunteers would travel to poverty stricken populations to educate and begin plowing the land by hand with the necessary tools that don't require fuel/machinery. They would be able to set the basis of a sustainable garden/plantation for locals to set up a system where they are able to cultivate their own foods and not have to pay the extensive amount of money to ship food to them putting themselves further into poverty. The volunteers that would ad venture out to these different areas all over the world would be using an airplane, car, or train to reach their destination but they are saving a ton more energy in the long run. Some people do not fully trust or believe in such a theory could be possible but if Cuba is able to depend on their imports for only 16% of its food, anything can be possible. These organizations are not limited to only 3rd world countries, but all over the world they are needed. People in the U.S. should begin growing their own gardens in their backyard or locating themselves in walking/biking distances to local markets and grocery stores.  This will help limit the unnecessary amount of gases we release into the atmosphere through our use of transportation by machinery.

Definitely a great idea Sophia. This would definitely help us accomplish these goals in a much safer way.  I wish this could be the case for everything but instead I definitely find soceity using easier, cheaper tactics to help poverty, hunger, and education.  I think that great ideas like yours take time, money, and resources which I unfortunately think many people will do.  I would love to see a program like this running and helping everyone thrive so we can not only help with social justice problems but also save the environment at the same time.  Definitely a great idea!  Hopefully more people will begin to think like this and help people without making the temperature warmer.

Stanford researchers realize that the water needed to clean solar panels can be used to grow agave and other drought-tolerant plants.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/apri … 40914.html