Professional aluminum metallized film manufacturer for over 13 years experience.

question of the week: your e-mails - clear plastic panels

by:Cailong     2019-08-03
question of the week: your e-mails  -  clear plastic panels
Here's CNN.
Com readers comments on the issues raised by the Eco Solutions special report.
Please note that CNN reserves the right to edit comments on grammar, clarity and taste.
Food and fuel issues: how can we make our food chain more eco-friendly? friendly?
Don't eat meat.
According to the UN report entitled "The Shadow of livestock", being vegetarian is the most effective thing we can do for the environment.
Charles Balaam, BC, Canada
I just finished reading your story about the carbon footprint of food production, which of course caught my attention.
Everything I do seems to be harmful to the environment.
My workplace releases carbon into the environment.
All modes of transport, both direct and indirect, produce carbon emissions and release them into the environment.
Now I have been told that the way I eat food produces too much carbon.
What is the solution?
We can turn off all workplaces that produce carbon, refuse to travel, turn off the transportation system, and stop eating food that requires energy for production/transportation.
However, as stated in the previous sentence, the obvious solution is impractical because it will actually push us back to the Stone Age.
For example, we can significantly increase the supply of clean energy (
Nuclear energy, solar energy, fuel cells, wind energy, geothermal energy, tides, etc. . . ).
There has been a lot of discussion among policy makers on this possible solution, but very little action has been taken.
Even if these solutions are implemented, the results are the same because the root cause of the problem is not resolved.
The real reason for our carbon problem is rarely spoken out, and almost never solved due to the sensitivity of the subject.
The core problem is The Population Bomb.
We have more people than the Earth supports;
If we cannot control the world's population, the laws of physics or nature will do the work for us.
I am pessimistic about the possibility of human action before it is too late.
The resources in the world are limited, and we consume them faster than nature can replace them.
Philippine Fisheries Question: What do you think is the biggest threat to marine life today? Men!
We must reduce the number of people as quickly as possible! ! !
This is the most cost-effective thing, in fact, the best result;
The only solution I know is.
When everything is tried, the world society will come to this conclusion (too late).
Political, industrial and religious people hate it.
This is the only way we can restore balance with Earth.
The reduction in quantity is a stable and defined goal that can be achieved within 60 to 70 years.
Climate "skeptics "(Lomborg)
There is a secret hidden in politics and religion, illegal (fat )child;
Too much population.
History has proved that efficiency does not lead to a decrease in consumption, and only birth restrictions can lead to a slow adjustment of the economy without war, hunger and unemployment, let's take care of the elderly, don't fight for the next generation.
Anyway, knowing what we know, when climate and politics get out of control, the risk of a newborn's catastrophic sex life is so high that, as we 've seen, it's even unwise for parents to have children.
Tjerk Bakker, Delft, deforestation in the Netherlands: the government of Guyana is in talks with the British government to "lend" the country's 16 million hectares of rainforest until a regulated carbon trading plan was developed in 2012.
Do you think this is a viable solution to protect the rainforest?
I do want to provide a solution that works faster and more efficiently.
This is a comprehensive plan to increase the protection of the rainforest by thousands of times.
In other words, it can actually work thousands of times faster and more efficiently, and do much more in a few years than ever before.
These improvements will also lead to more media coverage, which will further accelerate the process.
Obviously, the efforts to save the rainforest so far have not been successful, because in addition to the occasional fluctuations, the destruction rate has not increased until now, unless significant changes are made within 10 minutes
15 years or even earlier, the rainforest on this planet will be completely destroyed.
In fact, according to recent research, one of the following two references is cited (
Even in two years or less, we may reach the point where we will not return.
The plan for this improvement includes three main elements: 1.
One of the best
Profit organization, which is based on a complex recursive pyramid scheme model, is able to purchase rainforest lands and protect them through sustainable harvesting, the model:.
Exponential growth in creating projects, B.
By allowing anyone to join to earn some profit just by recruiting more people, additional financial incentives are added. 2.
At the same time, organize large-scale class action against major companies and individuals involved in rainforest destruction
Based on the damage caused by cutting down the forest itself and the damage caused by eating soybeans, soybeans are currently the biggest cause of damage to the tropical rain forest, and are also a nuisance plant that will cause brain damage, this should be done by an emergency lawyer. e.
As explained in the documents mentioned below, the cost of the organization is minimal or zero.
Also, according to an article published in April.
2007 planting soybeans in the rainforest, at least using very dangerous pesticides in certain areas, causing huge environmental pollution and poisoning many people and animals, of course, this should also be included in these huge class suits. 3.
A significantly improved carbon rights trading model solves the problem of the simple model suggested by the World Bank and has aroused strong opposition from environmental organizations.
This improved model works more efficiently and will therefore have a greater impact on saving the rainforest.
The above factors can reverse the profit motive, thus saving the rainforest is more profitable than destroying the rainforest. the governments of the relevant regions, such as Brazil, keeping the rainforest intact will make more money than the peanuts they get now, as they allow some multinationals to destroy them.
In addition, part of the loss that will be extracted from criminals may be an additional important source of income for these governments, which will also be much higher than the peanuts that these governments will receive if they allow destruction to continue.
In addition, such a large class action lawsuit will suddenly make the "business" that destroys the rainforest less attractive, like the existence of a class action against Texaco may make other oil companies more careful in their activities, and may even be simply an act of filing these class actions, coupled with the media reports that will undoubtedly follow, they have been able to make immediate changes.
Also, preferably, the organization will work to educate and/or persuade governments of countries that are destroying the rainforest to improve their laws when needed, and/or, for example, their legal system for class action will be able to more easily prosecute companies and/or individuals who also need to sue in these countries, preferably to explain to these governments, they can get more money from multinationals, such as the losses they have caused so far, rather than the peanuts they have allowed these multinationals to continue to destroy rainforest land.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Cool Earth.
Now, org is working hard on the plan.
There are several ways to protect the rainforest in Yalong Meyer, Jerusalem, Israel.
Yes, providing tropical rainforests to more developed countries is a more viable option.
But is there any guarantee to implement the carbon trading plan by 2012.
We can make alternative plans to help protect forests in developing or less developed countries.
These forests can be developed as tourist destinations, and developed countries can provide citizens with subsidies to visit these places through cheaper air tickets and other taxes.
India recycling question: what do you think about today's recycling plan?
The best way to deal with "recycling" is to reduce the United Nations
Waste of production.
Usually, the packaging of consumer goods will far exceed the size of the product.
Blister packaging is a good example.
It was a good start in countries where retail stores almost eliminated plastic bags.
But I was surprised by the amount of garbage generated by the General Product packaging (CPP).
From production to garbage, CPP wastes more energy than anything else I can imagine.
Few people talk about it, however.
I realize that if this kind of garbage is eliminated, people who produce this kind of garbage will lose their jobs.
However, which is better to be buried in garbage or engaged in a job that itself is harmful to the health of workers? Neither!
Personally, I prefer a bolt, nuts or nails are not packed, but buy something I don't need and have to sort it out every time I want something.
This actually creates more for landfill than anything else I know.
The infrastructure to eliminate the excess unused items is the "recycling" infrastructure, which I believe will drag all of us into the garbage dump. Fred L.
I live in Lakewood, Ohio, where we have roadside pickers. up.
Our city has reached a point where our recycling system is paying more than for itself and it subsidizes normal garbage p/u
I also belong to a group called freecycle that recycles homes and other items directly from users to users.
I also try to buy items with high recycled content as much as possible.
We are at the beginning of this learning curve.
When it becomes profitable for big companies to join in, they will find a way to improve their efficiency to achieve their bottom line.
Many new recycling plants
They process products that create energy to run other parts of their factory.
Say that all recycling efforts are wasted and therefore should be stopped, that is to throw the baby out with bath water.
Diane Jones, Lakewood, Ohio, USAS.
Recycling needs to be increased (
All plastic, etc. ).
If not, our Earth will be a huge landfill. Chet Mohr, U. S.
I found the latest article "recycling" and was interested in the comments written there.
I would like to use a good example of the Japanese recycling case to illustrate my thoughts on these days.
Do you remember that a Japanese paper maker lied that they had less recycled paper on Japanese official New Year postcards than publicly announced.
The Japanese then had some discussion about the percentage of the composition.
100% of recycled paper is certainly better than less, but no one has come to the conclusion of reducing paper.
It seems that the Japanese think recycling is perfect, just, and the final solution to global warming!
I want to say that, in my opinion, the key to solving global warming is to fundamentally change the way we live.
I mean, in the above case, the most important thing is not to use 100% of recycled paper, but to reduce the use and waste of paper by changing our way of life.
Even if the paper is 100% recycled, do you respect the person who wasted the paper? Me never. 100% or 50%?
It's okay!
I don't deny recycling, but we need to remember that recycling is just an alternative and temporary way before we find a new way of life.
We shouldn't think recycling is perfect.
We should not rely on recycling.
Japanese Chiba Razr Memius religious question: Which religion do you think provides the most guidance on environmental issues?
Christianity has. .
The obvious choice is "spiritual humanism", a religion based on science and reality.
An old or new religion, emphasizing the magnificence of the universe revealed by modern science, may attract a reserve of reverence and awe that traditional beliefs find difficult to dig.
This kind of religion will appear sooner or later. (Carl Sagan)
We can solve social problems with rational religion.
We cannot abandon old traditions and practices, but we can adapt them to our new understanding of the universe.
Religion must be able to adapt to new knowledge about the universe without rejecting deep spiritual ties to the human history and the natural world to which we belong.
All people have an inalienable right and obligation to practice their religious traditions.
Spiritual Humanism allows everyone to integrate their personal religious practice on the basis of scientific humanism inquiry.
We accept people from any religious background and recognize the effectiveness of all peaceful religious practices and acts as necessary to contribute to the development of human spiritual nature.
Ron Mesic does not have any religion to provide any important guidance on environmental protectionism.
Only by abolishing religion can the world environment improve.
I understand that it is a difficult task but must be done).
Religious conflict (
War, military production, reconstruction)
Pollution, environmental damage and depletion of resources around the world (
Water, land, minerals, fuel)
The same is true of the peaceful operation of vehicles and industries.
The future belongs to people who have a firm grasp of rationality.
Kasia Yechimowicz can say that since all three religions claim to have the same heritage, they should have a similar view of the environment.
In Genesis, God created the Earth, called it "good", and gave humanity a great mission to "fill the earth, conquer it, rule it ". . . " it.
No one disagrees that it is a great harm for Christians to do so, and they regard it as a license to vandalize the Earth.
They did so not out of reverence for God, but out of desire for "more.
Add the idea of "apocolypse" to a selfish creative point of view, and of course so. . . you get it.
However, I believe that Christianity offers the most here, starting with what God calls "good.
"My question to my brothers and sisters in Christ is, if God calls it good, why do you think it is OK to treat it badly?
If God thinks it's good, then maybe that's where the Christian understanding needs redemption.
Rule should be understood in the right context, creation is the gift of God, and one of our tasks is to take care of it, not to destroy it.
If you manage a business, "management" means making the right decisions, developing the business, leading the business to prosper in such a way, insisting that the responsibility is approved by the owner, perhaps giving the manager a raise
No boss will hire a manager to break his business.
So, my question. . .
Why are you bad for it?
In the end, there is one more thing God said.
In fact, he said, "very good.
"He said that after he created men and women.
If Christians have the same logic as their understanding of the environment, then they need to actively destroy themselves.
It's just stupid.
My Christian brothers and sisters need to be reminded that the real worship is to see things as God's view of them.
God thinks creation is good. So should we.
Joe Day, Seattle, Washington, United States of AmericaS.
The world view of non-God (
Humanism, ethical culture, etc)
Is the most eco-friendly
Because we realized1)
No God can make everything better2)
We can focus without an afterlife.
Without the expectation of God's intervention, we understand the world around us and we care about it.
We do so without the fear of punishment and without the hope of reward.
Environmental protection is a reward in itself.
It is not surprising that liberal policies such as non-theistic and environmental protectionism are more common than gospel religion and environmental protectionism.
Jason, Boston, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States of AmericaS.
As far as Hinduism is concerned, we were taught to worship trees and fauna from an early age and to use them as an integral part of our lives, but as we all know, in terms of our material interests, we turn a blind eye to Mother Earth.
I don't think any religion tells their people that love is the foundation of every ideology in any case. . . .
Therefore, every religion tells us to treat what is provided to us rationally and to use it for the best of the environment and for the best of all of us.
Indian Christian Bharat Kherwa told us that the world has fallen from the good state it was originally created.
People are separated from God, and if they do not agree with God, they cannot do good because they violate God's law (
Think of Ten Commandments).
It's not just action, it's the mind and the mind.
Hatred is the murder of the heart.
Desire is the sexual sin in the heart.
Sin is the root of our problems: crime, exploitation (
Nature and each other).
God allows evil, trouble and even death in the world to show us our need for salvation.
He is angry at sin and will eventually do justice.
Salvation comes from trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the son of God.
The death of Jesus has paid for our sins, making it possible for us to get along properly with God.
When we believe in the salvation of Jesus, we have a new life.
In the end, God will create a new world.
He made everything new.
Edward brebham, United States of AmericaS.
Energy problem: Which alternative energy use do you think is the least adequate?
The most underutilized energy is efficient energy utilization.
To see the disappearance as an energy source;
And it's cheap.
The Brazilian medium and small thermal gradient is the source of TW power.
Manuel Ramos Saint Javier of Murcia, Spain believes that solar energy is the least fully utilized energy source.
This is the most common.
It is the main energy source on which all other energy sources depend, and therefore it is secondary.
Tower and other equipment, thin
The efficiency of thin film solar panels, solar hot water systems and parabolic solar steam generators for steam turbines is constantly improving and should be used more in sunny areas.
There are large desert areas around the world, almost begging for places to be used for these technologies.
Mike Burnett, Dutch car question: What is the future of ecologyfriendly cars?
Remarks about the natural conflict between global warming, clean air in our cities and our vehicle preferences are continuing to escalate.
I think this debate is important and useful because I hope it will enable us to focus and create innovative solutions in the short and long term.
While drivers across the United States are worried about a low one day
Cost Energy will drive vehicles with greater efficiency and efficiency, and we must be able to use the technology available at the moment to help provide R & D time to achieve this goal.
That being said, I believe the new super
Low Sulfur Diesel is the most underused real alternative to gasoline at the moment, as we are looking for the ideal solution for the future of transporting fuel.
The new diesel combined with the new 2007 diesel engine reduced greenhouse gas by nearly 20% per mile
Similar gasoline engine
Anyone who thinks the diesel engine is noisy, smoking, and slow has no chance to drive the nearest turbocharged diesel with Bluetech emissions technology.
Diesel engines have been perfected in Europe in the past 20 years, and today in Europe, more than 50% of new cars are diesel engines.
In addition, in addition to driving longer distances using less fuel, the steam pressure of diesel and biofuels is relatively low
Compared with gasoline or ethanol, diesel fuel reduces emissions by more than half during refueling.
So for the benefit of clean air, energy security, and for us to continue driving the size and type of performance of the vehicle we want, I believe, we must use innovative diesel and diesel hybrid technologies today to pursue all the innovations scientists and engineers can bring in the future.
Jeff Morris, president and CEO of Dallas, Texas, Aaron United States
Friendly cars will face a rise
Hill fought for a while because the main fuel companies bought better prototypes for ridiculous amounts to prevent them from getting on the road.
Mark Henby, Adelaide, Australia, hydrogen is a road.
I believe that the technology of internal combustion engines in the United States is at best 19 th century, 20 th century.
I can't believe the industry has yet to come up with a better solution.
See how small and powerful the phone is in such a short time.
What about computers?
30 years ago, the automotive industry should turn to electric vehicles.
They did not do so and deserve all the enthusiasm.
In the days when oil will become history, local authorities need to make policies. Now.
E-commerce infrastructure, bicycle room, public transport
Cars, less lobbyists.
Big question: go to the auto show and talk to any manufacturer's representative at any Booth.
All the people, all the HPfreaks, 8-
They all dream of owning a Porsche one day.
Instead of opening your own "boring" company Volkswagen/Ford/Subaru.
This is an engineer and an old man-
Old-fashioned rules of thinking
Their claims of "greener" and "cleaner" are at best verbal.
Yes, the future of the car must be electric.
What choice do we have?
If that means smaller, cheaper, and less functional, I totally agree.
Thank you for your speech.
I think our survival as a country depends on the ecological environment.
Convenient transportation.
Separate transport module (i. e. , cars)
For many people, it will continue to be the preferred mode of transportation, especially where the population density is not high enough.
In addition to solving fuel sustainability and pollution problems when running a car, the entire life cycle of the car also requires environmental safety ---
Old cars should be raw materials for new products.
Martinsville, Virginia, United States of AmericaS.
Bali summit on industrialisation: Do you think sustainability and good environmental practices can be aligned with rapid industrialisation?
I think good environmental practices can make our planet 50% safe in the next 20 years or more.
In a way, population growth is the biggest factor on our planet.
We can educate millions of people, but how do we have the money, time and goodwill to educate billions of people?
Vincent Dang question: what achievements do you want to see at the UN climate change summit?
I was shocked by the right nerves and courage of these people.
To "save" us from deadly climate change, 10,000 people fly to remote areas by jet.
CNN should criticize the hypocrisy of these people.
CNN should often point out that the Earth is much warmer before 1000.
CNN should point out and consider that for more than 100 years, mass media has been reporting that our race/Earth/environment is coming to an end, sometimes from ice, sometimes from heat, but always as authoritative facts.
You should report on how Gore's scientific consensus with the scientific community requires him to ask the media and scientists to agree before attending to support the "consensus.
In other words, a consensus is reached by excluding any different evidence or opinion.
James Slippert, U.
I want to see some real goals.
I heard that the United States is still struggling with setting real goals, saying that we still don't know what needs to be done.
I believe the 2030 challenge posed by AIA will be a good start.
It is time for our elected officials to stop delaying and do what the people demand. Change.
Edward Wansing, director of sustainability, Gould Turner Group, Nashville, Tennessee, USAS.
These guys just want to meet, go crap and win some publicity for themselves.
The fact is that no one wants to take any action on gas emissions because no one wants to lose revenue from gas emissions!
We know they make a lot of money.
Chennai, India, India
Waste question: what do you think needs to be done to improve e-commerce
Global Waste Recovery?
Countries exporting electronic waste in the first world and those importing electronic waste in the third world need to take action.
First World or OECD countries: 1)
Electronic waste from landfill sites
Establishment and implementation of national regulations on electronic waste
The signing and implementation of the Basel Convention in Third World countries: 1)
Implementation of the Basel treaty import provisions and national laws prohibiting the import of hazardous wastes without official permission
Through the efforts of the United Nations or other world agencies to obtain funding to establish an electronic waste disposal infrastructure that provides safe employment opportunities while extracting the required raw materials. The Basel treaty is already dealing with global electronic waste, but the provisions of the Treaty have not been implemented, although the United States, as the main source of electronic waste, has not even signed a treaty ---
Afghanistan is the only country without a signature!
The desire for expensive metals and other valuable raw materials in electronic waste has pushed up the price of these materials worldwide, and in fact, corrupt officials will allow electronic waste to pass through third world ports, enter unregulated and unsafe electronic waste processors that cheaply extract valuable without considering toxic substances
The high price paid for resources that are concentrated within e-waste also guarantees that the first world is happy to export responsibility for the disposal of e-waste and relatively high costs to the lowest-cost suppliers.
China, as the main producer of consumer electronics and the main consumer of electronic waste, the United States, as the main consumer of electronic products and the main producer of electronic waste, needs to provide leadership if it is to move forward.
It is commendable that the EU has passed the WEEE directive, but again, lax enforcement and high metal prices still push Europe to dump e-waste in India and Africa.
Solutions are relatively easy, and action is very difficult in the current climate, if not impossible ---
See global warming"
"Authorized manufacturer of Sam Trautman accepts-
Export is prohibited except as raw material for manufacturing processing.
Rob d. arcy, project manager, hazardous waste recycling and disposal, Department of Environmental Health, Santa Clara County, California, USAS.
To be honest, we don't know anything (the Chinese)
Protect the environment and reduce the use of garbage.
Although the Chinese government has been calling on us to save resources.
Gewentes geothermal problem in Beijing, China: Do you think geothermal energy is promising as a leading alternative energy source in the future?
As the executive director of the Geothermal Resources Council, it would be helpful if the production tax credit was extended to more than 12/31/08 years.
Also, it would be great if the US Department of Energy was supported by a comprehensive energy policy, including working with the geothermal industry to invest in R & D. g.
Help subsidize well exploration.
Capital markets are beginning to show considerable interest in this clean, sustainable form of basic energy.
Goldman Sachs conservatively estimates that only about 12% of such resources have been developed in North America and 38,000 megawatts can be developed.
There are only about 6 for the world.
So far, 5% of these resources have been developed.
Geothermal energy is still a very young industry.
Curt Robinson, PhD, executive director, Geothermal Resources Commission, United States of AmericaS.
Alternative energy issues: Send us your thoughts on the types of alternative energy you think are most promising.
I think the exposure of the spains mirrors mirror to the boiler on the tower to generate steam power is one of the most direct ways to generate a large amount of absolutely clean power without having harmful effects.
Instead of direct solar energy-
Like the electrical conversion panel in my home, the efficiency is only about 12%.
There is a thermal generator invented in the United States that uses heat on P & N silicon to directly convert heat to low voltage and then reverse to a high current electron stream with available power.
The person who invented it uses gas to heat his device, but any heat source, including the spains mirror, can also work.
Ray Abbott, an electronics and solar engineer in Queensland, Australia, asked: in order to develop alternative energy sources to reach the level of competition with fossil fuels, what kind of support is needed?
In order for alternative sources of energy to compete with other sources of fuel, there needs to be a greater shift in public awareness.
From how we consume energy in our daily lives to how we reduce the carbon footprint of individuals and families.
I don't think direct subsidy companies are the answer because it doesn't encourage companies to use their money in the most competitive way.
People should be encouraged to buy energy through local alternative suppliers, and they should get some form or full tax credit because they pay higher premiums than local conventional energy.
People who can't afford insurance are only worried about electricity.
Middle class and upper class are most likely to buy premium
Expensive alternative energy sources will have the incentive to consider alternative energy sources.
In this way, we allow the free market to award well-run, highly competitive businesses, which will only help the industry itself in the process of the industry's efforts to innovate and improve efficiency.
As industry profits increase, the government will see more taxes, and the extra monetary burden will be for those who can afford and want to help the country and the environment.
Ryan Rhodes, Ohio, USAS.
What about the fact that governments around the world provide adequate subsidies to make alternative energy competitive?
In any case, given global warming, we will have to turn to them soon.
Another option to wait for a disaster predicted by scientists is terrible. (
The government's subsidy will be to give money to alternative energy suppliers to cover part of their energy production costs and allow them to give consumers a very competitive price.
Additional government subsidies can also be provided for research on how to produce alternative energy sources at a lower cost;
However, given the imminent impact of global warming and the unpredictable nature of research breakthroughs, such subsidies are not recommended until alternative energy is highly competitive.
In fact, when alternative energy companies dominate the industry, they will also fund research on how to reduce costs so they can get a bigger market share.
In addition, in a country where alternative energy is already very competitive, any additional subsidy from the government for research, in other countries where alternative energy competition is not very fierce, it would be better to pay part of the cost of alternative energy production --
Because global warming is not a problem for a country, it is a problem for all countries.
In short, subsidies dominate the market for alternative energy
So there will be no terrible global warming disaster.
Later, after avoiding the terrible global warming disaster and death, think about how to reduce the financial cost of alternative energy so that we can live with nature in a more cost-effective way. I. e.
The first priority is to avoid global warming;
Priority 2 is to reduce production costs for alternative energy sources.
If we focus on priority 2 and do not succeed on Priority 1, it will cost a lot of manpower. )
Finally, it should be noted that it will take time for our emissions reduction to take effect.
If we wait for us, personally, in a serious straight line, it may be too late, because there is a time difference between our actions and the impact of our actions.
It's like seeing a dictator come to power and do nothing.
Then see that the dictator took the life of a minority, and then took the life of another minority, because one is not a minority.
Finally, when you see the dictator coming to an event the next day, you will call a senior official of a friend to help.
A person leaves a message, but the officer is not there and will not check his message within 3 daystoo late.
We need to act now to save ourselves, save our fellow human beings, save other species, save our environment, and save our planet.
We have to focus on the above priority 1 by helping to pay part of the cost of energy production for alternative energy companies, so that alternative energy companies become very competitive because if we focus on priority 2, even if we succeed
There is no guarantee.
Implementation of new power generation methods to achieve priorities 1-it may be too late
Avoid global warming.
In fact, the global warming disaster has begun to occur (
Bigger on the horizon).
Jeffrey Kagel cold turkey-
We have completely revised our energy policy, completely ignoring the unemployment of the traditional energy sector.
New and softer industries will create more alternative jobs.
The federal government needs support, including some $300 billion in military budget cuts.
Stephen picchuk from the United StatesS.
Fossil fuel tax (evening prices)
Invest income in research and produce alt.
New infrastructure. Phill Maus 1)
The state needs to be told the truth about what is short-term and long-term in terms of technological progress and the feasibility of monetary investment and efforts.
The truth I'm talking about is not what the PACs or lobbyists in the environment, politics, transportation and energy industries say, but what scientists and business leaders say they can do.
There are a lot of groups pushing their own agenda and dreams. 2)
A very large amount of money and effort is needed.
It's like a Manhattan-style project funded by government and industry.
Funding by imposing special federal taxes on all individuals not affected by the politician's pork program or transferring to other agencies/programs.
Heavy tax on highly polluting energy industries and inefficient energy users.
Start reducing over-packaged products.
In my experience, enforcement is effective, however, the most important thing is probably the significant tax incentives that drive the industry in the right direction. 3)
The Western civilization nuclear power is safe and clean, built and built.
Use the latest technology and the best design. 4)
Over and over again explain to people with Ross Perro-style visuals and facts.
Keep it simple, but for those who like details, it's easy to get detailed information. 5)
People support this and are willing to bite the bullet if we get information, transparency, financial responsiveness, and a strong, honest leader and support to lead it and us. 6)
We fund people who want to kill us and destroy our country, we suck in pollutants every day to hurt ourselves, we pollute the land we live in, we are wasting and draining a lot of resources on Earth and reducing the species/food/Life Chain on Earth. 7)
The discussion must begin with population growth.
It is hard to believe that the Earth can continue to support more humans and meet all their needs.
Bob Kruger, Valencia, California, USAS.
Household luxury question: Tell us which household luxury items will you sacrifice in order to reduce energy use? 1.
Double Door refrigerator with one door. 2.
Very noisy air conditioning3.
External water heater. 4.
High-watt decorative lights around the house and the roof. 5.
Electric Grill. 6.
Electric water heater. Eng. K. C.
Veeranna Setty, P6R & "waste walk back" expert worm compost question: Do you have any other examples of low weight
Technical environment solutions?
Try to bio-repair toxic waste and other waste with mushrooms.
Paul Stamets has a book on the subject, "Silk run-
How mushrooms save the world.
Vin Lava, Manila, Philippines
Mandatory use of fluorescent bulbs;
Don't charge them sales tax.
Get rid of the shackles of driving 3)
Make car lighters with more aluminum
No tolls or parking fees for Robert Harley motorcycles (N-Superior)
Genetically modified food problem: what do you think about using genetic modification technology to improve rice resilience?
The problem with all the genetically modified organisms in the wild is that it is completely unconcerned * the principle of prevention.
* While genetically modified organisms may one day reach the level of hype in the press release and prove to be safe, neither has been the case so far.
Even if preliminary tests show potential serious problems, there is no adequate test of the safety of genetically modified organisms.
Many companies involved in the development of the technology have long had a track record of cheating, evil and outright illegal business practices.
Joe Naftel of Springfield, Oregon believes that the most important consideration for genetically modified crops should be if their consumption has no negative impact on humans. . .
If the result is Yes, I am disappointed with the GM crop!
If not, it is not;
So, the focus of scientists should be on how to ensure its safety before they begin to consider the choice of using it widely for human consumption. . .
I don't think the taste should be a big problem. . .
First of all, your work sounds like the genetic engineering of rice is considered by all scientists.
Or any other plant-is necessary.
That's not true.
The scientific community has debated a lot about the need, accessibility and ability to achieve the various features that the GE industry has been promising for more than a decade.
There are other high-tech ways to increase the elasticity of rice.
These methods, such as marker-assisted selection, are not only more likely to work, but will not pose a risk to the GE crop as we know it now, nor will they bring public resistance to GE, with no sign of weakening.
Australia, we don't need genetically modified organisms from Monsantos.
For more than 5,000 years, Rice has not been doing some cross-border patching at the genetic level, and there is no other incentive other than profit.
Landfill Canada question: how do you think national and local communities can improve their recycling practices?
Humans, especially those who live in towns, are producing a lot of rubbish.
Waste dumped mainly as landfill sites.
This garbage contains a large amount of heavy metals and other toxic products.
No one can foresee how these products will poison the Earth and groundwater in the future.
Part of this waste can be burned as an energy source, but producing carbon dioxide is another danger.
Of course, other better systems will be found in the future to remove these mountains of garbage.
I propose during this period:)
Compress it into a hard block: B)
Wrap the blocks with permanent materials that can withstand rain and sunshine. . . c)
Use them to build pyramids and foresee open spaces in them that can be used to store other late-night products waiting to be recycled in the future ,(Nuclear waste f. i. )
Or for other useful storage. (
For example, a cluster bomb was dismantled. i. )
These pyramids are placed in a large number of downstream deserts where solar energy and electricity can be used to produce poor countries and drinkable desalination oceans --
Water in areas lacking water.
Rather than spending billions of dollars killing people on this small planet and increasing the gap between the rich and the poor, these pirates will be a clear sign of the real global civilized action that our generation can achieve in this century.
There are signs that those who run away (if any) will quote us as "great vandals" if no action is taken ".
Three major solutions for Marcel Shure, Belgium: 1)
Reduce the amount of waste first.
Strict multinational requirements are formulated, packaging is strictly restricted, and packaging and products that are not easy to recycle are prohibited.
Unnecessary and wasteful packaging is the largest component of consumer waste logistics and a large part of industrial and commercial waste logistics.
It is obscene to buy a pound of 3 ounces of goods that are not easy to recycle.
Packaging should also be subject to high taxes and labels should disclose the product cost portion that pays for packaging.
If consumers know that they pay a high cost for packaging, they will change their buying habits. 2)
Make recycling easy.
All retailers are required to have easy access recycling bins in their stores so that consumers can store unwanted packaging and used products in bins at the place of purchase.
All consumers and businesses are required to have a recycling station where recyclable waste can be stored.
Promote recycling more!
Prizes are offered for consumers and businesses that do not put recyclable items into the bin. 3)
Follow the footsteps of Europe.
All products are required to be completely and easily recycled.
Philip BloomE.
California Toxic Substances Control solar energy problem: why do you think solar energy accounts for such a small proportion of our energy use?
Because there is no money to earn.
In addition to selling hardware (panels, etc)
What are the benefits of energy companies?
People are in trouble for their own good, not for the greater good of mankind.
Unfortunately, it's all for money.
One of the reasons Nathan mcgaretti solar in Plymouth, Indiana, doesn't have enough research funding to allocate to it is political.
The current big powers have no political will to move from where they invest in fossil fuels.
They will hurt their wallets by changing their direction.
Moreover, anyone on earth can benefit from the power of the sun.
There will be a huge shift in such an economy.
If solar energy becomes the main form of energy used in the world, it is called the Third World country.
People will no longer be able to be conquered because of the resources under their land (colonized).
The balance of power will change irrevocably, and those in the current position of power want far less than they can think.
Imagine, as John Lennon said. . . a world where. . . .
Many of us are waiting to see how technology is developing.
It has come a long way since it was first put into use.
The glass panel has been rolled-
Plastic panel--
It is much cheaper to produce and use.
Big businesses have yet to come up with a way to use it.
Gillette doesn't make money selling razors, making money selling razors-BLADES.
The same is true for other businesses.
But they can't think of a way to make money for something like solar.
B Morgan, because the government, politicians, big companies don't know how to supply milk to the American people yet.
Jackie Howard, I think it's because our weather conditions are so changeable that we can't control it very well.
Perhaps Africa or South America has the advantage of developing solar technology, but there is little government support.
Global warming is getting worse and worse.
If we can make good use of solar technology, we can solve the problem of global warming.
But I know that every solar device is expensive and people can't afford it.
Over the years, people have relied too much on oil, which has actually caused many problems that have destroyed the Earth.
The excess carbon dioxide produced by burrs is the most serious damage to the Earth.
However, many people continue to buy oil for daily use, and even many countries will start war on oil. Why?
I think this is because oil is more effective than the sun.
Solar technology is not stable, and people rarely think about how much profit solar technology will bring to them.
Maybe people think that the oil can be touched and seen, so it is very convenient to use.
Of course, the government's attitude is part of the reason why solar technology can be used or supported.
I suggest that the United Nations may invite not only members of the United Nations, but also other non-members of the United Nations.
The members of the United Nations will have a meeting to discuss this issue, as each country has a responsibility to protect our planet and save energy.
Mary, Taiwan, solar energy is only a small part of common sense
Too expensive!
The cost of solar panels has increased many times over the past few years, with very few tax credits.
In my backyard, getting my roof covered with solar panels and high voltage transformers also has practical limits on getting my kids electrocuted.
Solar technology is easily 50 years behind.
Joseph Stevens Katie, Texas, I believe that the reason why solar continues to be underutilized is that the cost of photovoltaic cells still provides an adverse return on investment.
Joseph Rowan, I think the reason why solar energy accounts for such a small proportion of energy use is because the fossil fuel sector has received huge financial subsidies from governments.
Cost is the most important factor for almost all users.
If the current subsidy is removed from fossil fuels and placed in the renewable energy sector, the price of solar energy will be attractive to the public.
In the United States, the cost of military intervention is not included in the actual cost of foreign energy.
If so, the cost of oil would be much higher, making solar energy still more attractive, or, conversely, less attractive for fossil fuels.
Only when there is enough public pressure and political will to change the status quo can this model be divorced.
In California and Ontario, the government is working on legislation to encourage the renewable energy sector to slowly reverse support for fossil fuels.
There will certainly be more jurisdictions.
Doug rata solar in Canada accounts for a very small proportion of our energy use because of the real cost of coal
Its price does not reflect the energy derived: the destroyed mountains and streams;
The lives of coal mine residents were destroyed;
Destroy the habitat of wild animals;
Destruction of the ecosystem;
Life and Health of coal minerscarbon dioxide; acid rain;
Pollution of Mercury.
Another factor is the contribution of the coal company to the candidate's campaign Income (
You have to give me some points for the rhyme! ).
Vickie, South Charleston, West Virginia, United States of AmericaS.
I taught science in the seventh grade in 31 years.
There is a man in the suburbs of Coatesville (
I think it's Sudbury.
Two very cheap solar "traps" were built and almost nothing heated his house well.
The story appeared in the local daily West Chester. , years ago.
I mentioned this concept to my wife. Her comment?
"I don't want the ugly equipment behind our house.
So solar equipment can "destroy" the appearance of the house, which may be a reason, but may not be the most important one.
But I think the most important reason is because developers want too much money.
Why are they so much?
Because of the old greed--
How much will the economy bear. . .
Third, the government gives tax cuts to people with common sense, but I don't think they do that anymore.
Finally, I will tell you that I told my seventh grade students that we should get rid of our dependence on Middle School
As early as the 1960s s and early 1970s s, American farmers began working to develop a mixture of alcohol/gasoline.
I'm earlier than I am, right? . . .
Just as I told the first President Bush to stop immigrants from crossing the southern border. . . way back . . . T.
BA Mei Bosville, Pennsylvania, USAS.
Solar power accounts for a small proportion of the total power used in the world, as complete fossil fuel technology is heavily subsidized and politically supported by established companies in the oil, gas and coal industries, which are very large.
The average price of solar energy is $2.
Subsidies have reached 5 billion in the past 20 years.
Reception of fossil fuel industry and nuclear industry (
Direct and indirect)
About $500 billion a year.
It's not hard to understand why an industry (
Fossil fuels and nuclear energy)
250 times the support of another industry (solar)
Will be dominant.
According to Peter Lynch, an investment banker, this is because no big energy company will support it.
This is because once the system is in place, there is no remaining income to make a profit from solar energy.
Cars use gasoline or ethanol, and conventional electricity requires turbines to run.
Solar didn't make anyone rich.
Robert Kraft, USAS.
I majored in environmental science in college.
I remember a lesson where we watched a documentary about fossil fuels.
There was a similar problem in that movie. -
When the sun is free, the amount of all fossil fuels is limited.
The answer is simple.
For us humans, everything on this planet is free.
We only pay for it.
For now, collecting oil is cheaper than collecting sunlight, so we collect fossil fuels.
Zhu Shengyong, Shanghai, China, why does solar energy account for so little in the world?
The answer is simple: $.
The world revolves around big businesses, and oil is now the biggest.
People like to drive cars and operate machines and we need to burn fuel in order to do this.
This is the fastest and cheapest, relatively speaking (
Nuclear power, etc)
The safest way to produce energy.
Here, the gold rules apply: people who own gold make rules.
If other alternative fuel companies start eating into their revenues, the oil business will disappear.
There are too many tidal, wind, geothermal, solar, biofuels, piezoelectric materials to calculate.
They are all ways to fuel our cars and watch TV.
However, they will never pass because oil companies will no longer exist if they do.
A large number of workers will be fired and power will be changed.
Of course, big companies cannot let this happen.
Large oil companies continue to operate and pollute the Earth through propaganda and political means.
Slowly, however, but for sure, people will begin to see the beauty of the leisurely rotation of wind turbines in the breeze, and the completely useful nature of turning that terrible summer sun into a cool air conditioner
Things will change slowly, but certainly.
That is hope, at least.
If things don't change gradually, things will be forced to change suddenly when the Earth runs out of gas.
All in all, it will be disastrous.
Mark Mercier I think the proportion of solar energy in the market is so small because it represents a huge paradigm shift in our current energy platform.
Humans have a tendency to resist change and feel comfortable with certain lifestyles.
Unfortunately, we are complacent about technologies that undermine the environment, pollute air and water, and create political turmoil on the global stage.
In my opinion, the only way we can reach a more realistic level of PV use is if 1)
This is the federal government's mandate to keep us honest with ourselves, and this will never happen. Or 2)
The investment and maintenance costs of alternative resources to generate electricity make the price of typical fossil fuels higher.
We are close to this turning point, but to "open the eyes of ordinary citizens", there is also a big and/or catastrophic event, such as a massive shortage of gasoline, let them "want" to use alternative energy.
I think the biggest obstacle to overcome is the lack of reliable and just information.
My comment is based on a personal point of view --
Home solar photovoltaic system.
Consumers know a lot about solar energy, but which solar panel is the best choice?
Based on initial cost, maintenance, etc.
Do I really need to have my panel track the sun?
Is there a big difference depending on my location?
What about the charging controller, deep-
Cycle Battery and inverter?
What is the best system and who can I trust to help me design and buy the best alternative for my needs?
Initial fee is non
Trivial, consumers are uncertain on the best path. Brian E.
Indiana, West, United States of AmericaS.
The curse of solar energy is the capitalist system.
Fundamentally, no one has the power to invest in the necessary R & D to develop a system so they don't have the money.
That's why the industry is promoting sources of biodiesel and ethanol fuel.
They still create ongoing demand for consumers.
Still, I'm still a fan of green capitalism
As a young man, organic food is almost impossible to find, and today, due to supply and demand, I can find organic tofu in the 24-hour grocery store around the corner.
I vote with my dollars, buy what I approve of and try not to pay for what I don't approve (
Even though I still pay for war by tax).
In Winston Churchill's words, capitalism is the worst system in the world, except for all the others. . . .
At present, the main problem of solar energy is that the efficiency of solar cells is very low (about 15%)
Bad storage.
In order to produce efficient solar cells and heavy battery storage, we have to do more research and development.
Malaysian leftovers question: what do you think is the most effective way for us to reduce our waste of food?
Let's start with the kitchen where we prepare our food and control the amount of food needed for the number of people.
This is a simple food management problem.
If we are asked to be responsible for our waste, it should not be a difficult task at all.
It is sad that in the United States and other developed countries, food waste is a daily phenomenon in our daily life.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my views on this issue. Abdul Yusif, U. S.
I live in the German Navy. we divide the garbage into three piles.
Plastic and foil
Packaging, paper products and "creatures" such as food waste ".
The garbage truck picks up all the garbage, but the compost is sent to a special center where it is made into fertilizer and then sold (
I'm not sure.
For farmers and local gardeners
It is also easy to keep food residue and compost in the kitchen or in the garden.
Only a closed container is required.
Some people like to break down the old food with red worms.
The other thing is not to eat so much!
If people want more food, smaller portions and plates will allow them to make a choice.
Less waste!
In the US, I think because restaurants throw away so much food every day, they will be a good first example.
There should be a municipal or locally operated compost center, which can be sold or provided to residents or farmers as a cheaper, greener fertilizer than manufactured.
Andi O'Rourke, Germany, an effective method
The rest of the food cycle is to redesign the garbage disposal unit to handle all biodegradable foods, and perhaps the avocado pit is attached to a separate container that collects the covering, except for the avocado pit.
The collected materials are then prepared to be transported to a facility that will convert the covered food waste into the form of energy available
Fertilizer or fuel.
By removing food waste from the drainage/sewage system, water treatment requires less energy!
If I have to point out a way in the US to limit food waste, I would say to have diners in restaurants reduce the amount of food they throw away.
To do this, restaurants should reduce the usual amount of food. Also, the all-you-can-
Eating buffet is another hot spot of waste.
This model has developed to allyou-can-
Waste because there is no consequence of eating too much food.
In contrast, there will be much less waste when payingby-weight buffet.
Is there enough personal action? No.
From Farm to Fork, there is waste in the whole food chain.
While individuals can certainly reduce the waste of our Americans, we also need cooperation from farmers, wholesalers, food processors, retailers and restaurants.
Jonathan BloomWastedFood.
When I watch a show about food waste issues in Hong Kong and other cities, I would like to share what happened in my village (in Bulgaria).
In the village of Bulgaria, there are people living in almost every house.
Chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, etc.
In my house people have a bucket called "pig" where we put all the food leftovers, vegetables and fruit leftovers (like peels etc. ).
As people produce most of the food they eat and there is no leftovers from the trash can, the garbage truck enters the village once a month and the trash can is usually half empty.
Also, a friend of mine opened a restaurant.
He reached an agreement with a meat producer to give him all the leftovers in the restaurant, and the farmer gave him a good meat discount.
When we use grain more for living things, we see a grain shortage
Fuel and worse harvests due to a shortage of climate change.
I am sure that all the energy put into the food will be produced, transported, cooked, supplied, etc, when we feed the pig and help the pig not eat oxygen and produce more co2, can save at least part.
I don't think my proposal will have any impact on global waste politics, but imagine what mitigation would be if we cut 1 out of 3 urban waste.
The topic of food waste has been bothering me for many years.
At 1992 when I moved to France, I was surprised by the amount of French bread (
Pain and French baguette)
It was produced.
I would like to know what the whereabouts of these leftovers are as French as they always have to have fresh bread.
As an animal lover, I found a manager friend in a restaurant and if he left me the rest of the bread in the restaurant, I killed him.
Two days later, I picked up a large bag of French baguette and a bag of cut pieces.
I did feed the ducks, birds, and even my dogs and chickens in the pond with these leftovers.
After seeing the quantity of a restaurant, I asked why this bread could not be collected and piled up into boxes or bags, and in any case it was loaded onto planes that always flew to distant countries, and give hungry people who seem to exist in every country.
I passed on my thoughts to the late Audrey Hepburn, who was the ambassador to UNICEF and didn't know she was about to die.
So my idea is not realized.
I still think this is a good idea as bread in this form is not moldy (
Unless wrapped in plastic)
It is very light, can be stacked when sold, there is no outer packaging.
Even if it becomes hard, it can be replenished with water, milk, or other liquids.
The plane can always find a little space in a few bags and distribute it from the airport.
In this modern era of flying, I think many products, we think "waste" can be distributed to poor and hungry people in the world.
It takes some effort, some care volunteers, and maybe some money that is currently being spent on stupid war efforts. What say you?
Angela Blondeau in France asked consumers to pay for what they could not consume.
I suggest that in hotels or restaurants consumers should tax their leftovers ---
They pay a 75% tax on the meal they buy.
The owner of the hotel/restaurant should also be taxed.
In the family, the landlord/tenant should also be taxed.
I think the best way to do this is to have the restaurant or any food packaging company offer the service in a different size including the small size.
Most of the time they will be big if we go to a restaurant or buy a package (
The smallest will be medium). Some people (
Say who is controlling weight/diet, or for any other reason)
I really don't need that size.
They only want a small one.
But most restaurants are large or medium.
What happens next? . . leftover.
Somehow, these restaurants make the big ones sound cheaper.
Eric Siregar hybrid transport question: how can we get hybrid technology for all?
I am a strong opponent of hybrid cars.
This is for a variety of reasons.
These cars weigh a lot more than ordinary cars of their size.
This is caused by the battery pack located in the vehicle and the "double" engine, motor and internal combustion engine.
The battery is very bad for the production environment, and even worse is the decomposition, which is impossible at all.
In my research, I worked with Hyundai Motor recycling, and they all replied that they don't bring hybrids because they can't take them apart for their employees in a safe way.
This means that in the next few years, a huge environmental disaster will occur when more and more hybrid cars are scrapped.
In addition, the so-called low emissions are not much lower than modern diesel engines of the same size and power output.
Even without the use of particle filters, the most advanced engines achieve less emissions.
For example, Toyota Prius produces 104 grams of carbon dioxide/km and Volkswagen Polo Bluemotion produces 102 grams of carbon dioxide/km.
The public does not use exclusive or state-of-the-art technology entirely.
In addition, the use of fuel is not entirely Special in all hybrid models here.
My own car, 11 years-
The old Suzuki Alto, which is highly outdated in technology, is growing by 50%! ! !
If it is not clear to most people now, these vehicles are mainly used as promotional tools.
It has created very good sales and good promotion for Toyota, Honda and many other companies.
Greenpeace, even CNN and others have made a profit.
Through this discussion, the number of viewers increases).
Since I am currently learning all the technical details about it from the teachers working in this industry, I can provide you
Deep pictures and technical details if you like.
Maybe it would be interesting to show the public that it's all a big scam in a project.
If you like, you can get my cooperation on this issue, including everything I can, such as advanced car equipment in the Netherlands.
Sjoerd Reverda, a student in automotive engineering at the University of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, I found the obsession with hybrid cars rather confusing.
The number of projects and the number of vehicles entering them is amazing for very few people, especially if we compare them with other non-
A hybrid eco-friendly car.
Example: Gasoline--------
Toyota Prius 1497 (cc)104CO2(g/km)65. 7mpg -
Toyota Aygo 998 (Hybrid)cc)109CO2(g/km)61. 4mpg -
Non-hybrid diesel--------
Toyota Aiguo 1398 (cc)109CO2(g/km)68. 9mpg -
Citroen C1 1398 non-hybrid (cc)109CO2(g/km)68. 9mpg -
Non-hybrids agree that CO2 production has increased slightly, but certainly not much different.
Secondly, there is a waste disposal problem with mixed batteries.
Yes, there are factories that can handle this, but do we really need to make more waste?
I don't think so.
Custom message
Chat Online
Chat Online
Chat Online inputting...
Sign in with: