How Humans Affect the Planet

Sunday, June 17, 2012

What is the best way to produce electricity?

We have gotten used to relying on electricity to always be there. We count on it to power our entire world. Whether its a light bulb or a computer, its hard to imagine life without it. Just think about how you are restricted during a power outage, weather at work or at home. In fact, we rely on it enough for each person on average to consume 2,881 kilowatt hours every year. That`s enough to power over 28,000 average light bulbs for an hour. If you live in a developed country that number is 3 to 10 times greater. There are many ways to produce all that energy and each solution has its own advantages and disadvantages. The main ways we are making electricity right now definitely have the latter.

The electricity industry, because of the ways it produces energy, is by far the largest contributor to human-made greenhouse gasses emissions every year. The pollution from the industry exceeds 10 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. We can`t afford to keep these numbers up without serious consequences to the planet and us as a species. The solution is a greener way to produce electricity. These solutions already exist in the form of renewable energy, we just haven`t fully committed to them yet

Fossil Fuels

Our main source of electricity comes from fossil fuels. This includes coal and natural gas. These fossil fuels are the reason that the electricity industry is the largest polluter in the world. In order to transform these nonrenewable fuels into electricity, you need to commit to a lot of pollution. Also, these resources won`t last very long. It might be decades or centuries before they run out, but when they do, we are going to need another solution. If we continue to pollute like this, that solution might have to be moving to a new planet.

Coal Power Plants

From: solarfeeds.com

Coal is the most used fuel for the generation of power. It is used to make 40% of the world`s total electricity, but the reason that its used is not because its clean. Coal is one of the worst polluters out there. It is responsible for the largest part of human-made increase to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It emits way more pollution than oil, natural gas, and any other resource that you can think of. The main reason that coal is used so often is because it is found almost anywhere. It is mined in over 100 countries on 6 different continents and there still is over 860,000 million recoverable tons of it left. Coal is priced at $60.90 USD per 1 ton.

Natural Gas Power Plants

From: consumerenergyreport.com

Natural gas is a substance that is mainly used for electricity and heating. It can be found underground close to a coal or oil reserves. For it to be able to create electricity, unlike coal, it has to be processed. Processing the gas has many by-products including carbon dioxide. Although it still pollutes, it is a lot cleaner than coal. There is about 180 trillion cubic meters of recoverable gas left underground. The issue is that a lot of it is located in unstable regions unlike coal, which is found mainly in stable places. The cost of natural gas is $2.47 USD per 1 million British thermal units (BTU).

Nuclear

A significant portion of our electricity comes from nuclear power. It is a better solution to producing energy because it doesn`t pollute the air as much as fossil fuels do. There are some downsides to going nuclear though. Nuclear technology produces a very dangerous waste that needs to be sealed and kept in storage. It can be disastrous if it leaks out. Also, reactors, the main part of nuclear power plants, are very dangerous if something goes wrong. Another negative thing about nuclear power is that it can also be used to manufacture weapons that are capable of destroying entire cities.

Nuclear Power Plants

From: wikipedia.org

Nuclear power plants use nuclear fission to produce electricity and heat. They provide between 13 and 14% of the world`s electricity. Nuclear technology is also used to propel ships and rockets sent into space. The fuel for nuclear plants is uranium. There is over 5,000,000 tons of it still left underground at a price of $50.75 USD per pound. A big reason why nuclear power is less polluting is because the uranium it needs has lower processing emissions. There are nuclear power plants in 31 countries across the planet despite the risk of a disaster if something goes wrong. The last time something like that happened was in 2011 at a plant based in Japan. Because of the incident, many countries are banning or reconsidering using nuclear power.

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy is a greener way to produce electricity. The problem is that there is many forms of it available. Some are more reliable than others but they all have something in common. They all significantly reduce greenhouse gasses emissions. The main problem is that they are not constant for very long. For example, the sun doesn`t always shine and wind speeds constantly change. It would be difficult to rely completely on renewable energy but studies show that it is possible if you combine the different types.

Wind Farms

From: renewablepowernews.com

A wind farm uses the natural power of the wind to rotate giant blades attached to wind turbines to generate electricity. A wind farm is typically a large area with hundreds of turbines connected together. Each turbine costs about $3.5 million. The space between the turbines is usually used for agriculture but wind farms can also be built offshore where no real space is taken up. The great thing about this technology is that no greenhouse gasses are emitted during operation. Wind farms sound like a great alternative to fossil fuels but the downside to them is that they are not very reliable short term because of the wind always changing.

Solar Power Plants

From: wikipedia.org

Solar power plants use hundreds or sometimes thousands of solar panels that capture and convert the sun`s energy into electricity. They are a good option because most power plants use panels that can rotate and track the sun`s movement to produce electricity all day. The largest of these plants are in the US and Spain. Many individuals also use solar panels on a smaller scale to power their own homes. The main benefit of solar power is that it doesn`t produce greenhouse gasses. The only setback is that this technology is not as reliable as fossil fuel and nuclear plants because the sun`s energy is not constant. Also, you can`t use solar power to generate electricity at night.

Geothermal Power Plants

From: esmap.org

Although there are many different kinds of geothermal power plants, they all use the natural heat found under the Earth`s crust to generate electricity or heat. They are usually built where the crust is thinner for easier access to the heat. Geothermal electricity is used in 24 countries on 6 different continents. A big benefit of this technology is very low carbon dioxide emissions. Geothermal plants produce only about 1/8th of the CO2 that coal power plants produce.

Hydro Power Plants

From: cairiconstruction.com

Hydro power is the most common form of renewable energy. It generates 16% of the world's total electricity. There are many different types of hydro power plants including dams and underground complexes but they all generate power using the force of falling or flowing water. The amount of electricity produced at a hydro plant is flexible. The energy produced also comes at a low cost and produces no direct greenhouse gasses. These are the reasons that hydro power plants exist in over 150 countries worldwide. The only obvious downside to hydro technology is that it requires structures like dams which have the potential to harm ecosystems.

If you look at the chart above, you can see that renewable energy is a realistic option. It is economically justified and in most cases even better than other options. Power plants fueled by renewable energy do cost more to build than plants fueled by fossil fuels, but are fossil fuels a good idea? I think that the pollution they put out every year is way too much for the cost of the electricity that they produce. We should turn away from these sources of power and towards either nuclear or renewable energy.

There are some issues with going nuclear though. Nuclear power plants cost a lot more to build and the cost for the electricity that they produce is higher. Also, they might not directly pollute the air but that doesn't mean that they are a good option for the environment. Unlike renewable energy, nuclear power plants require fuel to produce electricity. The uranium that they need has to be mined and transported to the plants which produces a lot of pollution. Nuclear plants also produce a very dangerous waste that is hard to dispose of and has to be stored with the risk of a disastrous leak.

Renewable energy has to be the best way to produce electricity. The concept is relatively new and is already competing with proven ways of producing power like coal and natural gas. The competition is going to get even fiercer over time as research and improvements to renewable energy will inevitably come. The cost of building and producing green energy have been declining and the emissions from it have stayed at zero. If this keeps happening, hopefully renewable energy will eventually be responsible for 100% of the electricity that we produce and consume.

If you would like to see what professionals in the field think, you should watch the video below. It features Stewart Brand and Mark Z. Jacobson debating about if what the world needs is nuclear power or renewable energy.

References:

Friday, April 13, 2012

Greener Olympics

In February 2010 Canada hosted the world's biggest winter event. The Winter Olympics. The monstrous job was given to Canada's third largest city, Vancouver and the VANOC organizing committee. Winter is a giant part of Canadian culture and tourism. It is estimated that Canada's winter tourism industry makes 5 billion dollars every year. Currently, winter and its activities are only possible because of the temperature. If we don't make some drastic changes, with in the next 50 years the global average temperature is estimated to rise by 2°C. With this very high temperature we can expect the winter season too be a lot shorter and the activities that come with it to start disappearing. This will affect Canada's tourism but it will affect the people and animals inhabiting Canada and the world even more.

When the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) found out that the Winter Olympics will be held in Canada, they saw it as a great way to push everyone to reduce their emissions and ultimately become carbon neutral. The DSF contacted VANOC, the Vancouver Winter Olympics and Paralympics organizing committee, and pushed them to set themselves goals (emissions, public awareness, etc). The DSF also received help from over 70 Winter Olympic athletes who were also learning how to reduce their carbon footprint in order to protect the sports they dedicate a large part of their lives to. Thousands of Canadians also signed a petition to make the games greener for the environment.

VANOC responded to the challenge that would affect the way the games and the hosts would be remembered in the future by setting themselves goals and targets like they were pushed to by the DSF and many other individuals. They aimed to be as close to zero emissions as possible. Also, they planned to offset the emissions that they couldn't avoid by investing in renewable energy and energy efficient projects in order to balance their total Olympic related emissions at zero. Another big thing that VANOC said they would do is try to increase public awareness about global warming and VANOC's efforts to reduce emissions.

About a week before the games officially started, after all the planning was complete, the DSF released an official report on how well VANOC did to make the games environmentally friendly. The DSF gave them "Bronze" for their overall performance. They did alright considering that if the DSF scored all the Olympics in the last ten years, none of them would of been awarded gold, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. Here are the main points of the report:

Positive:

reduced total Olympic and Paralympic related emissions by 15%
achieved goal of diverting 85% of Olympic and Paralympic related waste
committed to offsetting 118 000 tonnes of emissions
built and renovated energy efficient venues
used renewable and green energy at venues
saved 15% or more of energy costs at many venues
encouraged public transit
tracked Olympic and Paralympic related emissions for over 7 years

Negative:

didn't reach 0 or close to 0 in Olympic and Paralympic related emissions
public education/awareness programs wern't very effective
increased emissions from transportation due to widening highway between Vancouver and Whistler at a cost of 600 million dollars in order to accommodate spectators
committed to offsetting less than half of their emissions
no long term transportation system will exist after the games are over
didn't publicly announce their emissions target

I think that VANOC showed a lot of effort to make the games greener but no where near enough. The main thing that Olympic organizing committees can do in the future to be more successful is reducing their total emissions even more and offsetting 100% of the emissions that they do have. Another big thing that could be improved is public awareness. Many millions of people watch the Olympics. I think that in the future there should be more effort made to inform viewers about global warming and the effect it has on sports. Something long term could be establishing a transportation system that will last long after the games are over to reduce the number of cars in the area. I hope to see all of these things and more implemented in the fast approaching London 2012 Summer Olympics.

References:

David Suzuki Foundation

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Alberta Oil Sands

One of the largest crisis's concerning the environment right now is the very debatable Alberta oil/tar sands. The extraction of the oil buried with in the sands has been polluting our water, air, and cutting down forests since 1967. Although the environmental devastation is huge, the oil sands' positive factor is that it produces a lot of income and jobs for Canadians.

The companies extracting oil from the sands are still operating because they receive a lot of support from the provincial and federal government. The government believes that the income and jobs generated outweighs the damage that is being done to the surrounding environment. In my opinion, the regulations that the government has set up that allow this to continue are a joke.

About 4% of Alberta's population is employed by the oil sands. This includes Engineers, construction workers, and anybody else who directly or indirectly works for a company associated with the oil sands. This is a significant number, but not high enough to say that Alberta's economy would crash if the oil sands were removed from the picture. The reason that everyone wants to extract the oil is because of the profit. If the price of oil continues to stay where it is right now, over 100 million dollars worth of oil will be extracted every single day.

It is obvious that the amount of oil extracted from the oil sands comes with a ton of negative impact to the environment. This is why the world is against the oil sands. There are an infinite amount of writers, environmentalists, and every day people who know that what we are doing is killing our planet one barrel at a time. Not only does it take a very large amount of water, space, and pollution to get the oil out of the ground, transporting it all over the world also produces pollution. And even worse, once it is made into gas the vehicles that consume it pollute the air even more. There is a seemingly endless chain of environmental destruction associated with the oil sands.

If you want proof here are some facts about the oil sands:

the Alberta oil sands are responsible for 6.5% of Canadian green house gasses emissions
The oil sands contributed 25% to the total increase of green house gasses emissions in Canada from 1990 to 2009
worst of all, these numbers are growing

Read over these facts and do some research and see what others are saying so you can decide for yourself if it is worth it to continue extracting oil from the oil sands. In my opinion, the sooner we stop polluting, the sooner we can work on reversing global warming.

In the 2 minutes that it has taken you to read this, over 1800 barrels of oil have been extracted from the oil sands. That is enough to last an average car over 4 years but the question you have to ask yourself is if it is worth it.

References:

Wikipedia
Government of Alberta

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Poll Results

Thank you to everyone that participated in the last poll (Which country recycles the largest % of their waste?).

Here are the results:

Japan	2 votes (25%)
Germany	4 votes (50%)
Canada	1 vote (12.5%)
Switzerland	1 vote (12.5%)

The correct answer was Switzerland. According to aneki.com, they recycle an astonishing 52% of their waste. Hopefully other countries step up and follow their path.

Here is a table including the top 7 countries in order:

	Country	Percentage of Waste Recycled

1	Switzerland	52%
2	Austria	49.7%
3	Germany	48%
4	Netherlands	46%
5	Norway	40%
6	Sweden	34%
7	United States	31.5%

As you can see it was dominated by European countries. I hope to see Canada in the list next year.

I will have another poll started in a few days. I'll try to make a new one on the first day of every month so keep checking back.

References:
http://www.aneki.com/recycling_countries.html

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Why Are People Ignoring Climate Change?

In the modern world that exists today, people's views are often dominated by media. Some might wonder how people can tune out what they hear on TV almost every day. Virtually everyone is aware of climate change and global warming but very few tend to act on the numerous warnings that they receive. I'm sure that there are many reasons for this but at the same time I'm sure that if the worst of global warming were to happen their reasons will seem like nothing.

The reason that many people tend to ignore global warming is that taking significant action would harm their daily lives and possibly the economy affecting everyone. They would have to lower their pollution and maybe even have to buy an electric car in the future. People would have to turn to cleaner sources of energy. They would have to change their lifestyles and recreational activities to something more friendly to the planet. You wouldn't see any more Ferrari's and Lamborghini's and air travel would change drastically. And worst of all, because of all these major changes, many large companies would go bankrupt and the result would be millions of lost jobs and entire countries losing there main source of income. Some industries that would be severely affected are mining, automobile manufacturing, the food industry because many would turn to locally grown things instead, and many other very large sources of jobs and income. All of this might be avoided if we acted soon and stopped denying global warming. Even if it can't be avoided we would eventually recover a lot easier than if the worst of global warming were to hit us.

You don't have to be a genius to figure all of this out. Many people already know this, so what allows them to keep a blind eye to global warming? The single largest reason if you ask me is hoping that the issue will be resolved by others. That they will let others sacrifice large parts of their lives and just watch on the sidelines. If a single person did this it wouldn't have much impact at all. The problem is that every human being has to get over the fact that sitting back will only lead to failure because many others will do the same. Power comes in numbers. We won't change anything unless the entire world agrees to do their part because the first word of global warming is global, not local, not national, not anything else. If the world instead turned a blind eye to the skeptics and deniers, they would catch on too.

If you're still not convinced take a look at this video and forward it to others. Even if one person has their opinion changed or influenced it will make a difference.

Like you just heard, you can't be certain whether global warming is real or not, you can only choose how to act. The best thing that anyone can do to make a difference is to convince others to lower their emissions and change their lifestyle for the benefit of the world. For significant action to happen, you can't sit back and hope for the best. If you are serious about wanting change you can write to the government and start your own blog to research this issue further.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Kyoto Agreement

In December 1997, the first of many meetings took place in the city of Kyoto, Japan. Most of the world's leaders were drawn there to discuss the environmental crisis. Their aim was to reduce and stabilize greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. Over a span of about ten years, 192 countries and one major company agreed to do their part.

The meetings at Kyoto were very complex but the one thing almost everyone agreed on was that we were causing global warming through our pollution. Out of the 193 countries that eventually took part, 37 of them were set legally binding goals for future greenhouse gasses emissions. Some (mainly developing countries) were allowed to increase their emissions, but most countries, especially developed, were given goals to decrease by 2012. The difference with the other 156 parties was that they were only encouraged to be greener. All 37 countries that participated in the protocol where officially monitored to see if they were within the boundaries of their own set goal.

Below is a chart highlighting the greenhouse gasses emissions expectations and actual numbers of 35 out of the 37 countries that were given targets.


Image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

As you can see, the goals can be considered anything but similar. They range from +10% to -8%. The counties that were granted an increase are Iceland, Norway, and Australia. There are also countries outside of this list that didn't agree to accepting a set target, or even agree to trying to decrease their emissions. These countries are considered undecided.

Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, as of December 2010

Image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Green = Countries that have signed and ratified the treaty
(countries with set targets are in dark green)
Grey = Countries that have not yet decided

Brown = No intention to ratify at this stage.

It is clear that the majority of the world is in favour of Kyoto, as you can see by the map above. But, you might be asking "Why is the United States showed in brown?". Well, it is because they have publicly announced that they have no intention of fulfilling their duty. This is very surprising to most people because you would assume that a modern country like the US, filled to the brim with environmentalists, would actually care about an issue as indescribably huge as this one. It gets worse. As of August 2011, Canada is officially in the same position.

As a Canadian myself, I find it disgraceful that the Harper government would agree to this. You might call me harsh, by looking at the chart you could see that Canada wasn't headed in the right direction from the start. And the conference in Durban was also only 2 months away. Most would consider it a temporary move, but coming from a country that has always strived for efficiency and reducing pollution, it is still hard to take.

This leads me to my next point, has the Canadian government actually done anything worth mentioning to reduce greenhouse gasses? Well, if it's not already clear, the answer is no. Take a look at this diagram.

Map of Canada showing the increases in GHG emissions by province/territory in 2008, compared to the 1990 base year

Image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Kyoto_Protocol

50%+ increase

30%–50% increase

20%–30% increase

10%–20% increase

0%–10% increase

0%–10% decrease

Each square represents 2 tonnes CO₂ eq. per capita

Congratulations Quebec and PEI, as you the only provinces in Canada that reduced your greenhouse gasses emissions. As for Canada as a whole, in 2006 it was 29% higher then it should of been according to Kyoto.

I'm sure Canada had a very good reason(s) to abort the set target. Even I believe that Kyoto wasn't completely fair. Forcing a country to lower their pollution is a major thing. It affects jobs, and the economy in general for the simple reason that to get money from mining (Canada's main source of income), you have to pollute. Allowing Australia to increase emissions by 10% will still hurt their economy. The reason that they are allowed to increase is because they are the biggest polluter in the world. Australia would love to double their emissions if they could. Their target is still reasonable but it just won't hurt them as bad as, for example, Canada. Another unfair aspect of Kyoto is that 81% of counties that participated basically got of with a warning. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't make an effort. It just means that they won't stress about damaging their economy as much as someone who agreed to lowering their emissions by 8% in order to be fair to the world. Although, I think it's safe to say that you wouldn't have much of an economy if you don't have a habitable planet to put it on.

The faith of the world is resting in the hands of a few politicians gathered in Africa right now. The first term of the Kyoto "treaty" is going to end in 2012 and the world gathered to try to come to a new agreement. Whatever they decide on I just hope that it will be fair and that it will last a lot longer the the previous agreement. Just don't get too excited, since the conference is running out of time and leaders are scheduled to return to their home country, it will almost certainly be put off for a minimum of another precious year that we don't have. Maybe it will be enough time for them to realize that if they don't come to a consensus soon, it will be too late.

Sources:

http://www.kyotoprotocol.com/
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
http://unfccc.int/2860.php

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Canadian Immigration History

This is a brief timeline highlighting what I think are the 10 most important events in Canadian immigration history.

Sources:

Canadian Council for Refugees
Wikipedia

Pictures:

Head Tax - wthellokitty.tumblr.com
War Measures Act - grantsmilitaria.com
Asiatic Immigrantion Discontinued - topnews.net.nz
Pier 21 Opens - flickr.com/photos/jennyrotten
Jew Exclusion - flickr.com/photos/amyleonard
Japanese Detention Camps - webpages.scu.edu
Canadian Citizenship Act - people.exeter.ac.uk/nkjdatta
Ten Millionth Immigrant - riskconferenceimaginecanada.ca
Nansen Medal - wikipedia.org
Illegal Boats Arrive in BC - abc.net

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Influential Environmental Activists

Influential Environmentalists Around the Globe

Over the past one hundred years there have been many brave men and women that risked their lives and careers in the name of the environment. From the poor to the richest of politicians, people did and continue to stand up for what's right. Environmentalists come from different parts of the world but they all agree on one thing. To put an end to people who ignore the environment and to convince them to help make a difference. In the following paragraphs you will read about some of the most famous and influential environmentalists.

     David Suzuki

David Takayoshi Suzuki is arguably the most famous environmentalist of all time. He is the founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. It is an organization that deals with issues like climate change and oceans.

David Suzuki was born in Vancouver, Canada on March 24, 1936. He has always been fascinated with science. He used to be know for his T.V. shows about science and the environment. David is most famous for "The Nature of Things", a documentary series that first aired in 40 countries worldwide. It is still on T.V. today. Today, David Suzuki is better know for his environmental activism. He has been a driving force behind climate change and other global issues. He strives to convince skeptics that climate change and global warming is real. He also organizes opportunities to take action.

     Al Gore

Albert Arnold Gore Junior, or Al Gore, is an American politician that strongly believes in the human role in global warming. He has wrote numerous books and founded many non-profit organizations aimed at the environment.

Al Gore's hometown is Washington D.C. He was born on March 31, 1948. Al's political career was a very successful one. He served as the 45th vice-president of the United States from 1993 to 2001. He also ran for president in 2000. Al lost the election by very close margins to George W. Bush. Many believe that the world would be a very different place if he had won instead. Al Gore continues to raise awareness about global warming by the thousands of presentations he has made. In 2006, he succeeded at an entirely new level. In that year the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was released. The award winning film was about a Power Point presentation Al made. A year later, Al Gore was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts on global warming.

     Chico Mendes

Unless you live in Brazil, you probably never heard about Chico Mendes. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a fantastic story. He risked everything to save the Brazilian rainforest. Chico is a national hero.

Chico Mendes was born in a small Brazilian village named Santa Fe on December 15, 1944. He worked as a local rubber tapper for a large part of his life. He spent most of his time in the rainforest. Like many others, he learned to love it. When he heard that the government was planning to cut it down, he and many others were outraged. The government said they needed the land for cattle grazing. After Chico failed to convince the government that it was wrong, he explained that rubber tapping generated more income than cattle. Although he was right, the government didn't budge. Chico than organized a protest. He and his supporters stood still in front of incoming bulldozers and workers until they won. Long after Chico's celebrations, he was shot and killed in his own home. He was the 19th activist killed in Brazil that year. Thanks to the work of Chico, Brazil started dedicating some of their rainforest as a national park.

     Wangari Maathai

Wangari Maathai is one of few black women that are considered environmental activists. She is known for starting the Green Belt Movement after a lifetime of being ignored and abused in her own country.

Wangari was born on April 1, 1940 in Kenya, Africa. She aimed for changing Kenya. She got an opportunity when she received a scholarship to study in the US. She later traveled to Germany to build on her studies and became the first ever East African women to get a Ph. D. She returned to Kenya and started her activism career. Among other things, Wangari protested against the government and climate change. She was called crazy, beat by the police, and thrown in jail. After being released she was more determined than ever. Wangari founded the Green Belt Movement in Kenya. It was an organization that encouraged people to plant trees. In just 34 years, the GBM planted over 45 million trees in Kenya. In 2004, Wangari Maathai's effort were recognized. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Wangari died very recently on September 25, 2011 from a struggle with cancer. Her legacy lives on with the Green Belt Movement.

I don't think there are many people more influential than the ones discussed above. They each made a big push towards a better world and got others to push with them. David Suzuki influenced the world by making his voice heard using technology and his organization. Al did the same by using his power, background, and supporters. Chico influenced many by risking his own life to stand up for what many others were to afraid to on their own. Wangari also risked a lot to make a difference. All of these people experienced criticism or worse but none of them gave up. They each carved a path for their lives and brought others with them. It's a nearly impossible task to pick the most influential.

After thinking about it, I believe David Suzuki has an edge over everyone else. Chico and Wangari sacrificed a lot but they only influenced the region they lived in. The problem with Al Gore is that he is better known for his political career than his environmental career. David Suzuki is a clear winner to me because protecting the environment and stopping climate change is the only thing he does. He influenced way to many people to not be considered number one. Climate change can't be stopped by one person, it takes the entire world, but when we have a global leader like Suzuki, you know we'll get where we want to be.

"In the coarse of history, there comes a time when humanity is

called to shift to a new level of consciousness, to reach a

higher moral ground. A time when we have to shed our fear

give hope to each other. That time is now."

- Wangari Maathai

References:

Information about Chico Mendes and Wangari Maathai from: about.com
Information about David Suzuki and Al Gore from: wikipedia.org
Pictures on map from: David Suzuki - lordofchaos115.edu.glogster.com
Al Gore - wikipedia.org
                                    Gaylor Nelson - wikipedia.org
                                    Chico Mendes -thewrittenone.wordpress.com
                                    Wangari Maathai - greenbeltmovement.org

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Great Website

If you haven't already done so, make sure you visit the David Suzuki Foundation website. It has a lot of interesting information about environmental issues and how you can make a difference.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Blog point

For the next year I will be blogging about how humans affect and change the planet.

I will commit some of my time to learning about issues related to my topic. These issues will include technology, global warming, climate change, natural disasters, pollution, and animal decline. I will than communicate my research using this blog. It will be mostly writing but once in a while I will do something different. Also, occasionally I will post a school project.

I aim to connect with others interested in this topic through other websites. To do this I will need to think about this topic a lot. I intend to show some of my thinking and inferring on this blog.

My main reason for creating this blog is to change the world. I want to join the many people trying raise awareness of global warming, but also, I want to explore some less poular topics such as how humans influence natural disasters.

I hope that one day all of these issues will be solved. I intend to help as much as I can.

Friday, October 21, 2011

If It Were My Home

If It Were My Home

View another webinar from jimmybartha

This is a short slide show about ten countries. Number one is the best overal country to live in within the list. Enjoy!