Publié mercredi 9 avril 2008 à 10h25
par
martina 
dans Sauvons notre planète (vu 1675 fois et 2 commentaires)
Climate neutrality, or, in scientific terms 'CO2 neutrality',
describes processes by which the global CO2 balance remains
constant (source: Wikipedia).
In my opinion this CO2 balance no longer exists – we need to
bring back this balance before we can actually maintain it. In a
time of increased environmental awareness, this worthy goal can
nevertheless produce unusual ideas.
Our lifestyles are often careless: jetting off to remote
countries, taking the car to go to the bakery around the corner,
using the tumble dryer and all the other small things which makes
life easy. These actions need no longer give us a guilty
conscience. By spending a bit of money you can compensate for
your polluting sins. For example, take a look at Atmosfair,
Greenmiles, The Climate Company or My Climate. There are probably
more such projects, especially outside Germany. Yet a study from
Tufts
University in Boston revealed that only three of thirteen
such ‘compensation agencies’, including Atmosfair and My Climate,
are actually recommended service providers.
When travelling by plane, Atmosfair can help you obtain a cleaner conscience.
You can pay when you book, but also calculate and compensate for
your CO2 emissions later. When...
Tags: blogueur de la semaine, changement climatique, CO2, CO2, électricité, electricity, énergie, energy, environnement, green-IT
Dossier:
IT_climate_DE.pdf
Publié lundi 10 mars 2008 à 10h12
par
frederic.vareillas
dans Sauvons notre planète (vu 909 fois et 3 commentaires)
Publié vendredi 29 février 2008 à 15h44
par
frederic.vareillas
dans Sauvons notre planète (vu 1016 fois et 4 commentaires)
All right, my friend,
You are concerned about the waste. So, all I can tell you is: What do you suggest we do?
We have two years left before oil and gas cost ten times more
than today; solar energy and wind turbines can supply maximum 7
percent of our total consumption of energy; oceans are littered
with plastic bags, wrappings, and are 80 percent DEAD; the sun is
getting hotter; we are killing the great forests to get wood to
burn (and transform into paper); Earth's temperature is rising 2
degrees Celsius (which is huge) due to CO2 and methane.
What would you say if we could recycle and reutilize nuke waste
and nuke plants?
Think again: We have two years in front of us before the great
depression.
What do you suggest we do?
Friendly,
Fred
Publié mardi 26 février 2008 à 10h16
par
frederic.vareillas
dans Sauvons notre planète (vu 887 fois et 2 commentaires)
Chers amis,
Suite aux réactions concernant mon article sur Jim Lovelock et
"La revanche de Gaïa", je précise que je n'ai pas souvenir,
depuis ma naissance, du moindre accident nucléaire civil en
France. Quant aux déchets, ils sont retraités ou stockés de façon
sûre (7 grammes par habitant seulement).
Souvenons-nous des guerres du pétrole, des coups de grisou dans
les mines de charbon, des explosions de gaz etc...
CO2 , méthane et soufre, serait-ce là l'avenir de l'Europe qui se réchauffe de plus en plus ? Voulons-nous rester à la merci de la Russie ? de la Lybie ? Je ne dis pas que l'énergie nucléaire serait LA solution définitive mais , qui a mieux à proposer pour les vingt-cinq ans à venir ?
Le risque zero n'existe pas.
Alors, allons vers une Europe autonome, relativement propre, sûre
et respirable. Les éoliennes et les panneaux solaires ne
fourniront au mieux que cinq à sept % de notre énergie.
J'ai deux autres lecture à soumettre à votre réflexion:
Premièrement : Le numéro 24 ,Oct-Dec 2007, de "L'Ecologiste", au sujet du scandale des bio-carburants et de la nécessité de réduire notre vitesse en voiture à 50 km / heure + mort de 80 % des oceans de la Terre par invasion de...
Lire la suitePublié lundi 25 février 2008 à 17h22
par
frederic.vareillas
dans Sauvons notre planète (vu 1052 fois et 2 commentaires)
Dear friends,
I have read your remarks about my
post.
True. Nuclear power is not 100 percent safe but which energy is?
Coalmines ? Gas? Forget it: To many deaths. And oil is the
poison, our lethal addiction. I remember Chernobyl but, compared
to a French reactor, Chernobyl 3 was a poor piece of junk. Risk
zero doesn't exist.
Do we really have a choice? For the generation to come (25
years), nuclear power is the only possible choice unless we want
to be in a new dark age (back to middle ages). Do you want this
regression? Again, do we have a choice? We should have changed
and adapted 25 years ago when the oil prices quadrupled. We
didn't. Europe needs power - Europe needs electricity to avoid
wars and to keep civilized.
As to the disposal of nuclear WASTE I recommend again you read
Sir Jim Lovelock's book "Revenge of Gaia". This book is
a project to save civilization from the dark age. While you're at
it, you should also read "Vers un monde de ressources
rares" by Eric Orsenna and Le Cercle des Economistes" (2007,
paperback).
Then you'll understand the urgency of the present Europe's (and
Earth's) situation. Good luck, keep it up!
Yours friend,
Frederic (Paris)
Chargement...