Okavango Challenge

Here’s what I have so far:

People can help prevent water pollution by recycling and disposing of their waste safely and properly. Although laws already exist about dumping, they should be more strict and more enforced to prevent people or companies from getting away with it. Water treatments facilities should be available in every area.

I need a paragraph, though - that’s not enough.

Ideas?

Don’t forget agricultural pollution from fertilizers and pesticides. Buffer zones of vegetation can protect bodies of water.

There are also heat pollution, as from cooling water, acid water from mines, and airborne particles that settle out. That should get you a good fat paragraph once you elaborate.

A recent edition of BBC Radio 4’s "Analysis" program started with a interesting angle on the carbon emission / global warming angle: [quote]

————————————————————–
""ROWLATT: A couple of years ago I was given a very
unusual job. I became the BBC’s Ethical Man. My
family and I were asked to spend an entire year
exploring what we could do to tackle global
warming. We gave up the car, stopped flying for a
year, turned down the thermostat - everything we
could think of to cut our carbon emissions. Because I
thought that was what tackling global warming was
all about. But the more time I’ve spent talking to
people in the green movement, the more I’ve come to
suspect that cutting carbon emissions isn’t the top
priority for all green campaigners. What worries me
is that the political objectives of some greens seem to
override their interest in solving global warming.
Solitaire Townsend runs a city PR firm, but one
which specialises in communicating a single issue:
sustainability.

TOWNSEND: I was making a speech to nearly 200
really hard core, deep environmentalists and I played
a little thought game on them. I said imagine I am the
carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand. We can get rid
of all the carbon in the atmosphere, take it down to
two hundred fifty parts per million and I will ensure
with my little magic wand that we do not go above
two degrees of global warming. However, by waving
my magic wand I will be interfering with the laws of
physics not with people – they will be as selfish, they
will be as desiring of status. The cars will get bigger,
the houses will get bigger, the planes will fly all over
the place but there will be no climate change. And I
asked them, would you ask the fairy to wave its
magic wand? And about 2 people of the 200 raised
their hands.

ROWLATT: That is quite shocking. I bet you were
shocked, weren’t you?

TOWNSEND: I was angry. I wasn’t shocked. I was
angry because it really showed that they wanted
more. They didn’t just want to prevent climate
change. They wanted to somehow change people, or
at very least for people to know that they had to
change.""
———————————————————-

So, what would YOU wish for? Ask the carbon fairy to wave her wand or keep going with the religion?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt
.
EDIT @ Paul B -

You really shouldn’t throw out phrases like "strawman argument" when you clearly have no idea what they actually mean.

A "strawman" argument is when you falsely misrepresent someone else’s position and then proceed to attack that misrepresented position instead of the real argument.

In the quote above there is no other argument being made as it is presented as a hypothetical or counter-factual thought-experiment to explore what really motivates people.

Don’t you have a village missing you at the moment?
.

Paul, it’s a thought game, there is no debating it, I’m going to wave my wand and make the atmosphere as perfect as it use to be back in the day before CO2 started destroying the earth, hehe…

The question is would you accept this benevolent gift to solve the problem or would you turn it down because you feel it won’t solve the problem. If scientist came up with a way to suck CO2 out of the air at a super cheap and effective way and we could bring CO2 levels to any level we wanted would you be satisfied that AGW was solved?

Either you are subconsioucly parroting Townsends conclusion or you really feel the problem isn’t CO2 but people that need to be fixed as he suggest.

It is part of a question on an assignment, just wondering if anyone could give me a few points I could include and do some research on
I think you certainly can get your assignment to be done in full by referring to the following articles, particularly to deal with the bio fuels to aid global sustainability.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Biofuel%20and%20its%20sustainability%20in%20the%20future%20for%20cars
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=The%20predicated%20cars%20for%20the%20future
However, the hydrogen cars even more appealing in the future. It is so simple of H2O.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Hydrogen%20molecure%20cars

I have had a goldfish, which lives in a bowl, for about 6 weeks. When I got the goldfish, the clerk at the pet store told me to take out 25% of the water each week, and replace it with clean water that has been treated with water conditioner. I have been doing this, and the water has stayed clear.

The problem is that there is a bunch of fish poop at the bottom of the bowl. It looks really gross.

I want to change all of the water in the bowl, but I am afraid that it will hurt the fish. The clerk at the pet store told me that the fish needs the bacteria in the water and I should not change all of the water at once. What do you think? Does anyone change all of the water regulary? Does it have any negative affects on the fish?

If you plan to do this, reserve a small amount of the original water to add to the clean, new water, this way you don’t lose the valuable bacteria that your fish relies on. The new water should also sit out for at least 24 hours if it is from the tap so all chemical impurities can evaporate. Additionally, use your water treatment, it’s most likely a product called "Start Right" and is excellent. Your fish should be fine.

Hi, I am doing a project in Geography and I need help on this part of the report section.

Supporting Park Expansion: Present arguments in support of continued conservation and park expansion. Think, why is this park valuable? Be sure to include the ideas of sustainability and stewardship in your response.

PLEASE HELP ME ANSWER THAT WHOLE PARAGRAPH THERE FOR MY NATIONAL PARK.

THE NATIONAL PARK IS "GLACIER NATIONAL PARK" in British Columbia, Canada.

dgfg

A report released today by the UK Government’s Sustainable Development Commission calls for around-the-clock monitoring of driver’s speed to force them to slow down and help cut down their emissions of Co2 in the battle against global warming.

It calls for taking control of the car’s speed away from the driver and having it controlled by the government via satellite.

Is that alright with you?

The report said: [quote]

———————————————————–
""The UK Sustainable Development Commission yesterday released a report recommending the use of average speed cameras for round-the-clock tracking of motorist journeys nationwide. The government advisory body said that widespread deployment of average speed cameras was required to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide by automobiles, a factor that some believe is linked to global changes in temperature. The report made a number of recommendations affecting the driving public.

"The business models associated with private motoring are not aligned with sustainability," the report explained

The report also called for a "clear timetable" for the introduction of Intelligent Speed Adaptation technology that would use global positioning satellites to take away control of vehicle speed from the driver, making it impossible for a car to exceed the limit on a given road. The same information communications technology (ICT) infrastructure could be used for congestion pricing, tolling of every journey and charging for insurance by the number of miles driven. The commission explained that such systems would require a substantial and ongoing financial investment.""
—————————————————————

It also said that such a system could be a big step towards road-pricing where every journey would be taxed appropriately.

Of course, this is just the UK, but once the technology is in place and shown to work, no doubt there will be calls by international bodies to roll it out worldwide to help fight global warming.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3031.asp
The full report is available here: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/
EDIT - @ Vampire Muffin Man.

Well said. For commercial vehicles it many be worth looking at as an industry standard. But not private vehicles, that as you say is fascistic.

There are a few problems with this:
1) It assumes gasoline powered cars. Spending ANY money on gasoline powered infrastructure, beyond maintenance, is just plain stupid.
2) Taxing someone for travel is one thing that I would say is grounds for revolution. Property taxes, sales taxes (fuel) and registration taxes are one thing, but taxing someone for going to the store or to a friend’s house is seriously fcuked up.
3) Going fast isn’t the most significant destroyer of mileage in modern cars. It’s acceleration and poor maintenance. My car gets basically the same mileage (~35 MPG) whether I’m going 55 MPH or 70 MPH. In town, when I average 30 MPH, though, I can vary my mileage by as much as 5 MPG just by *how* I’m driving and how my car is running and if I’m running the AC. (I always keep track of my mileage as it’s an excellent indicator of how my car is running.)
4) The obvious potential for abuse. Considering that the very idea is abusive, I don’t think I really have to explain here.

Here’s an idea, only implement this system on commercial vehicles… I don’t think that you’d hear much complaining from companies, especially if they could use the system to keep track of their vehicles, drivers, freight, etc. One thing with this, though, is that many large trucks can get *better* mileage by speeding down hills and then slowing (or rather not maintaining) as they climb the next, so that makes the system pointless in that case.

Basically, though, I’m sure everyone can agree that this idea is fascist and shouldn’t be allowed to even come close to being implemented.
The way to solve the problem with automotive emissions is through making better cars (hybrids and electrics) and improving infrastructure, not taking away freedom.

Edit: Let me explain why I believe that it’s fascist. Being monitored to ensure you aren’t breaking the law… So will you allow all your phone conversations to be monitored to ensure that you aren’t conspiring to commit a crime? (Oh, wait…) Will you now allow cameras in your home to ensure that you aren’t abusing your family members? Will you now allow audio monitors everywhere to ensure that you aren’t speaking out against your now totally fascist government? Will you agree to be ‘chipped’ so that your whereabouts can be monitored 24/7 to ensure that you aren’t assembling with others where you can’t be directly monitored?
Exactly where should the line be drawn?
It may seem like a small step, but with modern technology, your near the edge of el Capitan here, so…you may want to watch it.

Continual monitoring your driving is on the edge of being search[and seizure] which requires some reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. Continuing to weaken that legal tenant is an extremely bad idea if you enjoy freedom. If it’s allowed, it will absolutely, 100% without a doubt be abused and lead to more eroding of freedoms. Therefor, it must not be allowed to happen.

If you want to limit speeds, then simply limit the speed that a vehicle can go. Or perhaps have an internal chip that only allows the vehicle to achieve the maximum allowed speed on whatever section of road it’s traveling on (though it should allow for some acceleration beyond that as there are instances where going faster can help avoid an accident). There should not be ANY external monitoring of a private conveyance…

_

Hi,

I am doing a presentation on why it is important in business to use renewable energy. I really need some facts and figures, maybe sustainability reports etc, for companies that are taking measures to reduce their carbon footprint by using renewable energy (such as Tesco) and those companies which are not, and have a large carbon footprint (eg Shell).

Does anybody have any ideas?

Thanks

tesco are greenwashing, see all that heating, fridges, trucks…. they only generate a tiny fraction of what they use, made no moves yet to rationalise their distribution network, put doors on the fridges etc.
better to compare smaller genuinely greening company like the body shop or the co-operative with smaller ‘greenwashing’ company like morrisons or ford u.k..

you can get a lot of information from their own sites, all reputable businesses publish financial reports etc.

I am doing an event on water conservation and wanted to see where the public interest is, what are some questions you have? Concerns? Things you would like to know more about. Thanks

I would pose the following questions

1) How effective is home water conservation and should it be required?
1a) Should municipalities be able to mandate how much green area you have during times of water shortages?
2) How effective is water conservation in restaurants and should it be mandated?
3) In drought prone areas, should farmers be encouraged to grow drought resistant crops in lieu of traditional crops that might otherwise be grown there?
4) Should municipalities install more public drinking fountains thereby discouraging the ue of bottled water, thereby reducing the plastic waste?

I hope this helps. I live in an area of frequent drought conditions and we are very aware of the need for the conservation of water, both for urban and agricultural concerns.

I need solutions to water pollution to my natural resources project for geography!
FINAL PROJECT for this semester!!!

Please help!!!

Thanks!
Look up Lake Erie and the solutions to the pollution there. I remember when the lake caught fire because of all the pollution. Nowadays it is the number one walleye and smallmouth bass capitol of the world. A true victory for sportsmen.

What can teens (a group of 10 teens between the ages of 12 - 16)do to help out with water conservation ?

Big things not just turning off the water while brushing your teeth and taking shorter showers.

Also what can we do to spread the word ???

There are many things your group can do, but each depends upon where you live. I live in a semi-rural area, so I can do things like re-direct the output of my family’s clothes washer to water the garden and the lawn. Also, depending how industrious and capable your group is, you could buy a coil of soft copper pipe, connect it to the cold water supply, place the coil in a large barrel which will eventually be filled with the hot water output of someone taking a shower. The cold water in the coil will be somewhat heated up by the hot water from the shower drain, thus requiring less energy to heat the hot water supply that will go to the shower in the future. In retrospect, this is probably beyond the abilities of your group.