1. Peaches Park 2. Fresh Air 3. I love Febreeze. Febreeze in my room, Febreeze on my clothes. It has single-handedly become an integral part of every happy and sweet-smelling American home. Luckily, this article says Febreeze is safe, but that's not the case for all Renuzit or Walgreen's air-fresheners. It boggles my mind that I could have been paying a company to slowly kill me and my family. ________________________________________________ Watch enough TV commercials, and you get the sense that Americans are obsessed with air freshener. Trigger-happy women routinely rush around the house armed with cans of the stuff, gleefully spraying running shoes, embarrassed dogs and cigar-smoke-laden furniture; whole families, it seems, are intoxicated by the fresh scent of Summer Breeze or Berry Burst.
But just how "fresh" is air freshener? A study released last week by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) evaluated 14 air fresheners off the shelf of a local Walgreens and found that 12 contained variable amounts of substances called phthalates (pronounced THAL-ates), a group of chemicals that are used to dissolve and carry fragrances, soften plastics and also as sealants and adhesives. Phthalates are commonly found in a variety of products, including cosmetics, paints, nail polish and children's toys — and have long been at the center of a larger international controversy over their health effects.
Studies involving rat and human subjects have suggested that high exposures to certain kinds of phthalates can cause cancer, developmental and sex-hormone abnormalities (including decreased testosterone and sperm levels and malformed sex organs) in infants, and can affect fertility. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has no regulations on the use of phthalates, does not require the labeling of phthalate content on products and does not consider the quantities to which people are exposed to be harmful. But other countries think otherwise. In 2004, the European Union banned two types of phthalates in cosmetics and also bans the chemical in children's toys, as do 14 other countries. The first state bill to ban phthalates in children's toys in the U.S. is currently sitting on California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk, and he is expected to sign it this week.
Plug-in, spray or stand-alone liquid and gel air fresheners are used in nearly 75% of U.S. households, and the market has doubled since 2003 to $1.72 billion. The NRDC tested products, including those labeled "all-natural" or "unscented," and found a wide range of phthalate content, from zero parts per million (ppm) to 7,300 ppm. Many air fresheners contained a phthalate known as DEP and some also contained DBP, which are listed by the California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as a developmental toxin and female and male reproductive toxin, respectively.
According to the NRDC report, three Walgreens products — Walgreens Scented Bouquet Air Freshener, Walgreens Air Freshener Spray and Walgreens Solid Air Freshener — were among the top four highest in phthalate content (including Ozium Glycolized Air Sanitizer), and Walgreens pulled them from store shelves last Wednesday. The company will submit its house-branded products to an independent lab to confirm the NRDC's findings; one of Walgreens' manufacturers has already decided to make its product phthlate-free, according to Walgreens spokeswoman Carol Hively. The two air fresheners that the NRDC found virtually free of phthalates were Febreze Air Effects Air Refresher and Renuzit Subtle Effects.
While the study looked at which air fresheners contain the chemicals and how much, it did not assess people's exposure to phthalates from these products — the size of the room, the distance from the air freshener and how long a person stays in the room are all factors that would affect potential toxicity. But like phthalates banned from U.K. beauty products, those in air fresheners can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin. "We're not saying that there's any clear-cut evidence here for health effects," says Dr. Gina Solomon of the NRDC. "If consumers want to reduce overall exposure, avoid these products or pick ones with lower levels. We don't know what the cutoff is."
Clearly, there is an active scientific debate about the results of the testing of phthalates. "It's still unresolved," says the NRDC's Solomon. In the meantime, for those who are concerned about phthalates in air fresheners, there are various ways to make the home smell better, au natural. Solomon keeps the house clean and opens the windows — and makes her husband take out the trash. Other common ways to eliminate odors are to keep fresh coffee grounds on the counter (a trick of many a flight attendant); toss baking soda at the bottom of the trash can; and grind up a slice of lemon in the garbage disposal. "Get at the root of the odor," says Solomon. "Fresh air will do wonders." __________________ http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1664954,00.html
1. Min Sook Kim (Choi) 2. An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore 3. Just like the EV, Al Gore's film was received differently to the people with different interests and perspectives. Just like the EV, some people awed to the film and some criticized that it's one-sided. But not like the EV, the State is with them.
"Even the president of the U.S. agrees the debate is over. ... It's very 1980s to debate whether global warming is real. Should we be debating whether smoking causes cancer?" Gore's spokswoman Kreider said in the article.
Regardless of Gore's revealed agenda (Nobel Prize) or the claimed errors, the Al Gore's film would contribute to the deceleration of the treadmill of the production in any way, I believe. It was interesting to know Mark did not believe the treadmill of the production existed. ---------------------------
An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore
British Court Ruling on Errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth' Resurrects Global Warming Debate By MARCUS BARAM
Oct. 11, 2007 —
The verdict couldn't have come at a less convenient time for Al Gore. On the same day a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," was "broadly accurate" but contained nine significant errors, it was revealed that Gore is a favorite to win this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
Ruling on a challenge from a school official who did not want to show the film to students, High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."
Burton found that screening the film in British secondary schools violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom. But he allowed the film to be shown on the condition that it is accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" views, saying that the film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change.
The claim was filed by truck driver Stewart Dimmock, whose two children have not yet seen the film. "I got finished watching the documentary and felt I had watched a science fiction film," he told ABC News' Joseph J. Simonetti. "The court ruled nine inaccuracies. How many more exist?" Dimmock criticized the British government's use of the film in schools, saying, "It was about time someone got off their backside and say, 'Oh, you're wrong.'" Yet he admitted, "I'm not an expert on global warming, then or now. I'm just a lorry driver."
The ruling resurrected the heated debate over the film's arguments between Gore's supporters and climate change skeptics. His spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said that Gore was "deeply gratified that the court upheld the fundamental thesis of the film" and "affirmed it as a valid educational tool." As for the errors, Kreider said, "Of the thousands of facts, the judge seemingly only took issue with a handful. We've got peer review studies that back up those facts. There were a couple of cases where we feel the film wasn't quoted accurately."
Climate change skeptics felt vindicated by the ruling. "A lot of people have been criticizing the science in 'An Inconvenient Truth' but they've been dismissed as not credible or put forward by fronts for the oil industry," said Joseph Bast, the president of the Heartland Institute, which has spent more than $700,000 in recent months to place ads challenging Gore to a debate on climate change. "Now we have the British High Court identifying 11 specific errors. Some of the media articles squeezed three of those errors into one." The British claim was not the first time that the film's use in schools has been criticized. Earlier this year, parents in Federal Way, Wash., complained to the local school board about plans to show the film in schools and eventually pressured it to impose a ban on screenings for two weeks.
Frosty E. Hardison, a computer consultant and evangelical Christian, was outraged when he learned that the film would be shown in his daughter's seventh-grade science class. He sent an e-mail to the school board, declaring, "No, you will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation -- the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet -- for global warming." Other parents in the community were just as outraged -- that the school board would even consider banning the film. "The general consensus was that most people were upset for even questioning the issue of climate change as a serious scientific issue," said Chris Carrel, whose daughter's seventh-grade class was planning to see the film. "The superintendent did his review and reported back to the school board that most of the film was scientifically well-supported, but in areas of controversy, in terms of the proper policy response, the teachers needed to present different viewpoints." Climate change skeptics wish that such a debate would take place. In addition to challenging Gore to a debate with Chris Horner, the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" and a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, some critics have offered $125,000 to anyone who can prove global warming.
"We've received lots of inquiries but no serious entries so far," said Steven J. Milloy, who runs the Web site junkscience.com and started a mutual fund that seeks to counterbalance the work of ethical investment funds. So far, Gore has not responded to calls for a debate. "Our strong feeling is that the debate about whether global warming is real is over," said Kreider. "Even the president of the U.S. agrees the debate is over. ... It's very 1980s to debate whether global warming is real. Should we be debating whether smoking causes cancer?" ------- http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3719791&page=3
wooops. i did that article before. 1. Peaches Park 2. Electricity 3. This little video includes several very famous actresses in the United States. This bulb will light your house, and will reverse the effects of global warming, reduce your electricity bill AND light your house. This one bulb in your house is the equivalent of taking 1 million cars off the road in the course of one entire year!!! I thought it was a cute video....and my mom uses those lightbulbs! _________________________________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvOBHMb6Cqc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ethefashionspot%2Ecom%2Fforums%2Ff50%2Fchlo%2Dsevigny%2D1037%2D116%2Ehtml
1. SuJung,Kim 2. Gore shares Nobel win with U.N. climate panel 3. Do you remember my last comment? Because of that, I felt like I should post the article about its result(Who won the Nobel Peace Prize).
At last, Al Gore and the U.N. climate panel won the Nobel Peace Prize for their action against global warming.
This case, it is significant in terms of that it was the first Nobel Peace Prize to climate cmapaigners.
The scope of prize has expanded over the decdes form its roots in peacemaking and disarmament to human rights from the 1960s, to work for the environment and the fight against poverty.
I think and I hope it could be a huge start point to awaken people to concentrate on environmental problem mroe than before.
---------------------------- OSLO (Reuters) - Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N. climate panel won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their part in galvanizing international action against global warming before it "moves beyond man's control".
Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) won "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change", the Norwegian Nobel Committee said.
They were chosen to share the $1.5 million prize from a field of 181 candidates.
"He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted," the committee said of Gore.
"The IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming," it said.
"Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man's control," the citation said of rising temperatures that could bring more droughts, floods, rising seas.
It was the second prize to a leading Democrat during the presidency of Republican George W. Bush.
The 2002 prize went to former President Jimmy Carter, which the Nobel committee head at the time called a "kick in the legs" to the U.S. administration over preparations to invade Iraq.
But chairman Ole Danbolt Mjoes said the prize to Gore was not meant as criticism of Bush. "A peace price is never criticism of anyone, a peace price is a positive message and support to all fighting for peace in the world."
Since leaving office in 2001 Gore has lectured extensively on the threat of global warming and last year starred in his own Oscar-winning documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" to warn of the dangers of climate change and urge action against it.
It was the first Nobel Peace Prize to climate campaigners, though the 2004 prize went to Kenya's Wangari Maathai for her work to get women across Africa to plant trees -- an earlier expansion of the concept of peace to environmental work.
OVERWHELMED
Gore, age 59, said he was deeply honored to win and said he would donate his share of the prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization.
"This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the world's preeminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis -- a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years."
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said he was overwhelmed.
"I can't believe it, overwhelmed, stunned," Pachauri told reporters and co-workers after receiving the news on the phone at his office in New Delhi.
"I feel privileged sharing it with someone as distinguished as him," he added, referring to Gore.
The IPCC groups 2,500 researchers from more than 130 nations and issued reports this year blaming human activities for climate changes ranging from more heat waves to floods. It was set up in 1988 by the United Nations to help guide governments.
In the run-up to the announcement, speculation that Gore could win the Nobel prize prompted questions about whether it could lead Gore to join the 2008 race for the White House.
Monica Friedlander, founder of the group www.draftgore.com seeking to get Gore to run, said it would now "be very difficult for him to say no".
"He's in a position to make a big difference," she said.
The scope of the prize established by the 1895 will of Swedish philanthropist and inventor of dynamite Alfred Nobel has expanded over the decades from its roots in peacemaking and disarmament to human rights from the 1960s, to work for the environment and the fight against poverty.
Congratulations poured in from U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barros, U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner, environmental groups and others.
The Nobel prize is worth 10 million Swedish crowns ($1.54 million) and will be handed out in Oslo on December 10.
1. YingQi Fan 2. Magic Show! 3. One cutting-edge printer ink is said to help to save paper, because it will disappear from the paper after 24 hours and paper can be used again. What’s more inspiring is that the amount of energy will be saved to print a single page by a factor of 200. Moreover, it almost costs the same as a regular paper while it can be used up to 30 times. Sustainable technology is always welcomed. Despite the fact that government or treadmill corporations are reactionary to the environment-friendly changes, some changes are lucky enough to survive in the battle, for they have little to deal with the interests of treadmill productions. So our society is developing toward the good direction. Hard work should pay off, since so many people are devoted to it.
------------------------------ How 'disappearing ink' can cut waste paper Scientists have unveiled a new kind of 'ink' that disappears from a page 24 hours after printing, allowing paper to be re-used Jonathan Richards in Grenoble Mission Impossible-style self-destructing messages may soon cross from the realm of fiction into the wilds of the nine-to-five office, according to scientists who have developed printer ink that vanishes after 24 hours. When a document is printed on the reusable paper, the text initially appears similar to normal printed text – only in a shade of dark purple, rather than black. Eight hours later, however, the image is a shadow of its former self and after a day – much like the McFly family photograph in Back to the Future – it is gone completely. The blank page can then be put back in the printer. It is hoped that the technique will reduce the trillion pages put in the recycling bin – or worse, thrown out – soon after being printed each year. The 'disappearing ink' is not ink at all, but a temporary discolouration of light-sensitive molecules known as photochromes. The paper is coated with these molecules, which change colour when they are exposed to ultraviolet light. As soon as the printing is finished, the molecules begin reacting to the warmth in the surrounding air and gradually return to their natural state. Sheets of paper can be re-used before the ink has completely disappeared because the high temperatures inside a printer erase any remaining traces. As long as the paper is not creased, it can be used as many as 30 times. The unit which emits the ultraviolet light could feasibly be incorporated in an existing printer, the developers said, allowing computer users to select a special tray for ‘short lifespan’ documents. "Our studies were showing us that 45 per cent of all office printing is for 'one-time use', like reading an e-mail," Paul Smith, a lab researcher at Xerox, who was demonstrating the technology in Grenoble, France, said. "Sometimes it can be a matter of minutes, then it goes straight in the recycling bin," he said. The technology, which will not be commercially available for several years, will reduce the amount of energy required to print a single page by a factor of 200 – from just over 200kJ (which would power a 75W light bulb for an hour) to 1kJ (which would power the bulb for just 18 seconds), Mr Smith said. A recycled page uses about 110kJ of energy. The paper itself is no more expensive than a regular page, costing about 0.5p per sheet. Despite the proliferation of devices which display text on electronic screens, the market for printers is growing at 6 per cent per year, according to analysts, driving the likes of Xerox to make printing more cost-effective – and more green – for offices. Sophie Vandebroek, the company's chief technology officer, said: “Green technologies are increasingly important, and re-usable paper, while it requires conscious participation from the user, is one way of reducing the impact of printed documents on the environment.” Sharon McNee, an analyst in Gartner’s printing group, said that despite being in its infancy, the technology had obvious commercial potential, but warned that there would be significant costs associated with switching over printers and paper supplies. A spokeswoman for Waste Watch, the environmental charity, said: "There is enormous potential for innovative new technology to reduce the amount we generate at work, as so many office documents are only used for a short time. We welcome any sustainable printing option." ----------- http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article2588489.ece
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
5 comments:
1. Peaches Park
2. Fresh Air
3. I love Febreeze. Febreeze in my room, Febreeze on my clothes. It has single-handedly become an integral part of every happy and sweet-smelling American home. Luckily, this article says Febreeze is safe, but that's not the case for all Renuzit or Walgreen's air-fresheners. It boggles my mind that I could have been paying a company to slowly kill me and my family.
________________________________________________
Watch enough TV commercials, and you get the sense that Americans are obsessed with air freshener. Trigger-happy women routinely rush around the house armed with cans of the stuff, gleefully spraying running shoes, embarrassed dogs and cigar-smoke-laden furniture; whole families, it seems, are intoxicated by the fresh scent of Summer Breeze or Berry Burst.
But just how "fresh" is air freshener? A study released last week by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) evaluated 14 air fresheners off the shelf of a local Walgreens and found that 12 contained variable amounts of substances called phthalates (pronounced THAL-ates), a group of chemicals that are used to dissolve and carry fragrances, soften plastics and also as sealants and adhesives. Phthalates are commonly found in a variety of products, including cosmetics, paints, nail polish and children's toys — and have long been at the center of a larger international controversy over their health effects.
Studies involving rat and human subjects have suggested that high exposures to certain kinds of phthalates can cause cancer, developmental and sex-hormone abnormalities (including decreased testosterone and sperm levels and malformed sex organs) in infants, and can affect fertility. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has no regulations on the use of phthalates, does not require the labeling of phthalate content on products and does not consider the quantities to which people are exposed to be harmful. But other countries think otherwise. In 2004, the European Union banned two types of phthalates in cosmetics and also bans the chemical in children's toys, as do 14 other countries. The first state bill to ban phthalates in children's toys in the U.S. is currently sitting on California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk, and he is expected to sign it this week.
Plug-in, spray or stand-alone liquid and gel air fresheners are used in nearly 75% of U.S. households, and the market has doubled since 2003 to $1.72 billion. The NRDC tested products, including those labeled "all-natural" or "unscented," and found a wide range of phthalate content, from zero parts per million (ppm) to 7,300 ppm. Many air fresheners contained a phthalate known as DEP and some also contained DBP, which are listed by the California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as a developmental toxin and female and male reproductive toxin, respectively.
According to the NRDC report, three Walgreens products — Walgreens Scented Bouquet Air Freshener, Walgreens Air Freshener Spray and Walgreens Solid Air Freshener — were among the top four highest in phthalate content (including Ozium Glycolized Air Sanitizer), and Walgreens pulled them from store shelves last Wednesday. The company will submit its house-branded products to an independent lab to confirm the NRDC's findings; one of Walgreens' manufacturers has already decided to make its product phthlate-free, according to Walgreens spokeswoman Carol Hively. The two air fresheners that the NRDC found virtually free of phthalates were Febreze Air Effects Air Refresher and Renuzit Subtle Effects.
While the study looked at which air fresheners contain the chemicals and how much, it did not assess people's exposure to phthalates from these products — the size of the room, the distance from the air freshener and how long a person stays in the room are all factors that would affect potential toxicity. But like phthalates banned from U.K. beauty products, those in air fresheners can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin. "We're not saying that there's any clear-cut evidence here for health effects," says Dr. Gina Solomon of the NRDC. "If consumers want to reduce overall exposure, avoid these products or pick ones with lower levels. We don't know what the cutoff is."
Clearly, there is an active scientific debate about the results of the testing of phthalates. "It's still unresolved," says the NRDC's Solomon. In the meantime, for those who are concerned about phthalates in air fresheners, there are various ways to make the home smell better, au natural. Solomon keeps the house clean and opens the windows — and makes her husband take out the trash. Other common ways to eliminate odors are to keep fresh coffee grounds on the counter (a trick of many a flight attendant); toss baking soda at the bottom of the trash can; and grind up a slice of lemon in the garbage disposal. "Get at the root of the odor," says Solomon. "Fresh air will do wonders."
__________________
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1664954,00.html
1. Min Sook Kim (Choi)
2. An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore
3. Just like the EV, Al Gore's film was received differently to the people with different interests and perspectives. Just like the EV, some people awed to the film and some criticized that it's one-sided. But not like the EV, the State is with them.
"Even the president of the U.S. agrees the debate is over. ... It's very 1980s to debate whether global warming is real. Should we be debating whether smoking causes cancer?" Gore's spokswoman Kreider said in the article.
Regardless of Gore's revealed agenda (Nobel Prize) or the claimed errors, the Al Gore's film would contribute to the deceleration of the treadmill of the production in any way, I believe. It was interesting to know Mark did not believe the treadmill of the production existed.
---------------------------
An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore
British Court Ruling on Errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth' Resurrects Global Warming Debate
By MARCUS BARAM
Oct. 11, 2007 —
The verdict couldn't have come at a less convenient time for Al Gore.
On the same day a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," was "broadly accurate" but contained nine significant errors, it was revealed that Gore is a favorite to win this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
Ruling on a challenge from a school official who did not want to show the film to students, High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."
Burton found that screening the film in British secondary schools violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom. But he allowed the film to be shown on the condition that it is accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" views, saying that the film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change.
The claim was filed by truck driver Stewart Dimmock, whose two children have not yet seen the film.
"I got finished watching the documentary and felt I had watched a science fiction film," he told ABC News' Joseph J. Simonetti. "The court ruled nine inaccuracies. How many more exist?"
Dimmock criticized the British government's use of the film in schools, saying, "It was about time someone got off their backside and say, 'Oh, you're wrong.'" Yet he admitted, "I'm not an expert on global warming, then or now. I'm just a lorry driver."
The ruling resurrected the heated debate over the film's arguments between Gore's supporters and climate change skeptics.
His spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said that Gore was "deeply gratified that the court upheld the fundamental thesis of the film" and "affirmed it as a valid educational tool."
As for the errors, Kreider said, "Of the thousands of facts, the judge seemingly only took issue with a handful. We've got peer review studies that back up those facts. There were a couple of cases where we feel the film wasn't quoted accurately."
Climate change skeptics felt vindicated by the ruling.
"A lot of people have been criticizing the science in 'An Inconvenient Truth' but they've been dismissed as not credible or put forward by fronts for the oil industry," said Joseph Bast, the president of the Heartland Institute, which has spent more than $700,000 in recent months to place ads challenging Gore to a debate on climate change. "Now we have the British High Court identifying 11 specific errors. Some of the media articles squeezed three of those errors into one."
The British claim was not the first time that the film's use in schools has been criticized. Earlier this year, parents in Federal Way, Wash., complained to the local school board about plans to show the film in schools and eventually pressured it to impose a ban on screenings for two weeks.
Frosty E. Hardison, a computer consultant and evangelical Christian, was outraged when he learned that the film would be shown in his daughter's seventh-grade science class. He sent an e-mail to the school board, declaring, "No, you will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation -- the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet -- for global warming."
Other parents in the community were just as outraged -- that the school board would even consider banning the film.
"The general consensus was that most people were upset for even questioning the issue of climate change as a serious scientific issue," said Chris Carrel, whose daughter's seventh-grade class was planning to see the film. "The superintendent did his review and reported back to the school board that most of the film was scientifically well-supported, but in areas of controversy, in terms of the proper policy response, the teachers needed to present different viewpoints."
Climate change skeptics wish that such a debate would take place. In addition to challenging Gore to a debate with Chris Horner, the author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" and a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, some critics have offered $125,000 to anyone who can prove global warming.
"We've received lots of inquiries but no serious entries so far," said Steven J. Milloy, who runs the Web site junkscience.com and started a mutual fund that seeks to counterbalance the work of ethical investment funds.
So far, Gore has not responded to calls for a debate.
"Our strong feeling is that the debate about whether global warming is real is over," said Kreider. "Even the president of the U.S. agrees the debate is over. ... It's very 1980s to debate whether global warming is real. Should we be debating whether smoking causes cancer?"
-------
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3719791&page=3
wooops. i did that article before.
1. Peaches Park
2. Electricity
3. This little video includes several very famous actresses in the United States. This bulb will light your house, and will reverse the effects of global warming, reduce your electricity bill AND light your house. This one bulb in your house is the equivalent of taking 1 million cars off the road in the course of one entire year!!! I thought it was a cute video....and my mom uses those lightbulbs!
_________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvOBHMb6Cqc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ethefashionspot%2Ecom%2Fforums%2Ff50%2Fchlo%2Dsevigny%2D1037%2D116%2Ehtml
1. SuJung,Kim
2. Gore shares Nobel win with U.N. climate panel
3. Do you remember my last comment? Because of that, I felt like I should post the article about its result(Who won the Nobel Peace Prize).
At last, Al Gore and the U.N. climate panel won the Nobel Peace Prize for their action against global warming.
This case, it is significant in terms of that it was the first Nobel Peace Prize to climate cmapaigners.
The scope of prize has expanded over the decdes form its roots in peacemaking and disarmament to human rights from the 1960s, to work for the environment and the fight against poverty.
I think and I hope it could be a huge start point to awaken people to concentrate on environmental problem mroe than before.
----------------------------
OSLO (Reuters) - Former Vice President Al Gore and the U.N. climate panel won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their part in galvanizing international action against global warming before it "moves beyond man's control".
Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) won "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change", the Norwegian Nobel Committee said.
They were chosen to share the $1.5 million prize from a field of 181 candidates.
"He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted," the committee said of Gore.
"The IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming," it said.
"Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man's control," the citation said of rising temperatures that could bring more droughts, floods, rising seas.
It was the second prize to a leading Democrat during the presidency of Republican George W. Bush.
The 2002 prize went to former President Jimmy Carter, which the Nobel committee head at the time called a "kick in the legs" to the U.S. administration over preparations to invade Iraq.
But chairman Ole Danbolt Mjoes said the prize to Gore was not meant as criticism of Bush. "A peace price is never criticism of anyone, a peace price is a positive message and support to all fighting for peace in the world."
Since leaving office in 2001 Gore has lectured extensively on the threat of global warming and last year starred in his own Oscar-winning documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" to warn of the dangers of climate change and urge action against it.
It was the first Nobel Peace Prize to climate campaigners, though the 2004 prize went to Kenya's Wangari Maathai for her work to get women across Africa to plant trees -- an earlier expansion of the concept of peace to environmental work.
OVERWHELMED
Gore, age 59, said he was deeply honored to win and said he would donate his share of the prize money to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization.
"This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the world's preeminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis -- a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years."
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said he was overwhelmed.
"I can't believe it, overwhelmed, stunned," Pachauri told reporters and co-workers after receiving the news on the phone at his office in New Delhi.
"I feel privileged sharing it with someone as distinguished as him," he added, referring to Gore.
The IPCC groups 2,500 researchers from more than 130 nations and issued reports this year blaming human activities for climate changes ranging from more heat waves to floods. It was set up in 1988 by the United Nations to help guide governments.
In the run-up to the announcement, speculation that Gore could win the Nobel prize prompted questions about whether it could lead Gore to join the 2008 race for the White House.
Monica Friedlander, founder of the group www.draftgore.com seeking to get Gore to run, said it would now "be very difficult for him to say no".
"He's in a position to make a big difference," she said.
The scope of the prize established by the 1895 will of Swedish philanthropist and inventor of dynamite Alfred Nobel has expanded over the decades from its roots in peacemaking and disarmament to human rights from the 1960s, to work for the environment and the fight against poverty.
Congratulations poured in from U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barros, U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner, environmental groups and others.
The Nobel prize is worth 10 million Swedish crowns ($1.54 million) and will be handed out in Oslo on December 10.
--------
http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/23815
1. YingQi Fan
2. Magic Show!
3. One cutting-edge printer ink is said to help to save paper, because it will disappear from the paper after 24 hours and paper can be used again. What’s more inspiring is that the amount of energy will be saved to print a single page by a factor of 200. Moreover, it almost costs the same as a regular paper while it can be used up to 30 times. Sustainable technology is always welcomed. Despite the fact that government or treadmill corporations are reactionary to the environment-friendly changes, some changes are lucky enough to survive in the battle, for they have little to deal with the interests of treadmill productions. So our society is developing toward the good direction. Hard work should pay off, since so many people are devoted to it.
------------------------------
How 'disappearing ink' can cut waste paper
Scientists have unveiled a new kind of 'ink' that disappears from a page 24 hours after printing, allowing paper to be re-used
Jonathan Richards in Grenoble
Mission Impossible-style self-destructing messages may soon cross from the realm of fiction into the wilds of the nine-to-five office, according to scientists who have developed printer ink that vanishes after 24 hours.
When a document is printed on the reusable paper, the text initially appears similar to normal printed text – only in a shade of dark purple, rather than black.
Eight hours later, however, the image is a shadow of its former self and after a day – much like the McFly family photograph in Back to the Future – it is gone completely.
The blank page can then be put back in the printer.
It is hoped that the technique will reduce the trillion pages put in the recycling bin – or worse, thrown out – soon after being printed each year.
The 'disappearing ink' is not ink at all, but a temporary discolouration of light-sensitive molecules known as photochromes. The paper is coated with these molecules, which change colour when they are exposed to ultraviolet light. As soon as the printing is finished, the molecules begin reacting to the warmth in the surrounding air and gradually return to their natural state.
Sheets of paper can be re-used before the ink has completely disappeared because the high temperatures inside a printer erase any remaining traces. As long as the paper is not creased, it can be used as many as 30 times.
The unit which emits the ultraviolet light could feasibly be incorporated in an existing printer, the developers said, allowing computer users to select a special tray for ‘short lifespan’ documents.
"Our studies were showing us that 45 per cent of all office printing is for 'one-time use', like reading an e-mail," Paul Smith, a lab researcher at Xerox, who was demonstrating the technology in Grenoble, France, said. "Sometimes it can be a matter of minutes, then it goes straight in the recycling bin," he said.
The technology, which will not be commercially available for several years, will reduce the amount of energy required to print a single page by a factor of 200 – from just over 200kJ (which would power a 75W light bulb for an hour) to 1kJ (which would power the bulb for just 18 seconds), Mr Smith said. A recycled page uses about 110kJ of energy.
The paper itself is no more expensive than a regular page, costing about 0.5p per sheet.
Despite the proliferation of devices which display text on electronic screens, the market for printers is growing at 6 per cent per year, according to analysts, driving the likes of Xerox to make printing more cost-effective – and more green – for offices.
Sophie Vandebroek, the company's chief technology officer, said: “Green technologies are increasingly important, and re-usable paper, while it requires conscious participation from the user, is one way of reducing the impact of printed documents on the environment.”
Sharon McNee, an analyst in Gartner’s printing group, said that despite being in its infancy, the technology had obvious commercial potential, but warned that there would be significant costs associated with switching over printers and paper supplies.
A spokeswoman for Waste Watch, the environmental charity, said: "There is enormous potential for innovative new technology to reduce the amount we generate at work, as so many office documents are only used for a short time. We welcome any sustainable printing option."
-----------
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article2588489.ece
Post a Comment