How Can Individuals Address Climate Change?

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
December 12, 2009
COP-15 Main Meeting Center in Copenhagen

Climate Change is one of the greatest threats facing our planet. No nation can solve this crisis on its own. Climate change is a global challenge that demands a global solution. The United States is committed to forging an international response and achieving a successful outcome at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP-15) in Copenhagen, December 7-18.

How can individuals address climate change?

Comments

Comments

Nitin J.
|
India
December 13, 2009

Nitin in India writes:

Independent Individual's like me can give the services for:

1.0 Monitoring of the Land use pattern with the help of satellite imageries in the 'Project' area.

2.0 Framing broad framework for Environmentally efficient and doable guidelines irrespective of cost for Transportation modes like Rail,Road and waterways of cities for the funding agency or alternatively verify the same.

3.0 SWOT analysis with respect to climate change parameters and economical viability of subprojects.

4.0 Prepare or verify the parameters of a Check List for monitoring the Climate Change parameters in the Project Area.

Regards,
Nitin J.
Consulting Civil Engineer

Donald
|
Virginia, USA
December 13, 2009

Donald in Virginia writes:

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEARS TO EVERYONE!

1. We all want to have cheaper electrical rates, not more expensive power rates, the biggest problem the world faces is we always take the cart before the horse.

2. First suggestion look at systems that work, like Disney Land which uses a system that saves the park money. Under the park there burning trash and other fuels which bring power to the rides at a cost savings. Hospitals, Schools and even prisons could take the hint on using this style of energy conservation to help save the planet.

Joe---not p.
|
Tennessee, USA
December 27, 2009

Joe in Tenessee writes:

You may want to read this: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2009-226-20.cfm

But there is a widespread opinion among the Russian ruling elites that global warming could be beneficial to Russia. Thus, the aforementioned Roshydromet's report lists such factors as displacement of comfortable habitation northward, increase in farming potential in regions with sufficient water resources and favorable influence on ice conditions in the Arctic seas, enhancing the potential for sea transportation and development projects on the Arctic shelf.

Admittedly, addressing the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference the Russian representatives are bound to make statements of how critical the global warming problem is and that resolute moves are needed to address it. Practically, however, Russia is hardly going to make a significant and constructive contribution to the debate and decision making.

I know it is obvious, but it is in print, which makes a difference...or used to. By the way who is: Steve Pieczenik and is Terry B. still there?

Ron
|
New York, USA
December 14, 2009

Ron in New York writes:

Link people into the New-Green-Grid.....

Incentivize individuals for getting with the New Millennium.

Make public/private partnerships...Do well and good.

Highlight innovations and replicate them regionally, Globally....

Credits for recycling....if $38 per year is the surcharge per person in USA for Climate Goals....make $40 in savings per person a year the norm....then eco-bank the extra $2.

PS: Asking about individuals doesn't deal with the issue of Nations.

John
|
Greece
December 14, 2009

John in Greece writes:

@ Donald in VA -- MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR my good friend. I am wishing to read even more from you in 2010. I have an eco-tech query.

How come burning trash helps the environment? I mean, is it wrong that "burning" in general hurts the ozone? (I am not a scientist. I am just asking...)

[You reminded me of the greatest trip I ever did. Disneyland/Calif+Universal Studios -- Anaheim, if I remember correctly -- Everybody from all over the world must visit Disneyland and Universal. GREAT PLACE guys!) However, the eco-tech question remains (Chuckle)].

Best regards Sir.

Masood
|
California, USA
December 14, 2009

Masood in California writes:

Individals can address climate change first by realizing it as a problem! Than take steps at individal level to correct it!

Susan
|
Florida, USA
December 14, 2009

Susan in Florida writes:

Although climate change is a global threat, and we must partner with other nations to find solutions, it really comes down to the individual to take seriously his/her responsibility to make changes in habits that are harmful to the environment. Recycle, use less electricity (turn off the lights when not in a room!), use less gasoline, get green bags and say no to plastic, the list goes on. The problem is we have become "consumers" and the just "throw it away" mentality has been encouraged for decades. We need to educate ourselves to the effects of the everyday things we do and discipline ourselves to change those things that cause the most damage. It takes time to change and it takes effort, and here may be the problem. We are use to the fast and easy. So, are we up to the tasks of changing our habits and attitudes? It seems to me that it is essential that we do just that.

Lynn
|
Georgia
December 15, 2009

Lynn in Georgia writes:

The only way to make broad sweeping change is by the people! 300 million people in America make one change and the effect are felt worldwide. What we can't have though is a dramatic change in one hemisphere being offset by an opposite change an another hemisphere. Global change is achieved by humanity acting in unison to alter the climate In a positive way by taking several consistant small individual steps. Drastic changes are not sustainable but small the small steps that we take today with our children are reflected in larger magnitude with our childrens habits and that will reverse the destruction that our fathers and grandfathers started. The journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.

Zharkov
|
United States
December 15, 2009

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Some scientists advocate an increase in CO2 levels as beneficial to plants and crops, and to prevent the onset of a new Ice Age.

The majority of scientists (32,000 of them) tell us that the current "climate change" is a normal fluctuation and not a matter of concern.

The pathetically few scientists who promoted a minority opinion that "climate change" is a threat to humanity, were caught lying about temperature measurements, which in reality showed a falling global temperature, not rising.

Governments, accordingly had to switch from the "Ice Age" they tried to promote in the 1970's and "Global Warming" of the 1980's to the new symbolism of "Climate Change".

Do you not "get it" by now? Climate threat is a hoax, and it always has been. The ocean levels remain the same no matter how many speeches Al Gore makes.

What can be done is to clean up the pollution and create more energy efficient machines, and cleaner industrial processes, and stop the lethal discharge of chemicals into the earth's rivers and oceans. An agreement on clean technology is definitely beneficial.

However, pretending to agree to change the "climate" by ending life-sustaining Carbon Dioxide is a cruel joke on the naive among us who still believe government is to be worshipped like some occult entity. You may as well make water illegal too, because water vapor is the primary "greenhouse gas" that warms the planet.

We need both CO2 and water. Restricting either of these will eventually kill us.

So why not agree to do a cleanup which can be done by each nation on their own, and forget your global government fantasies?

Peter
|
Texas, USA
December 15, 2009

Peter in Texas writes:

Individuals can affect the progression of climate change by lowering their emissons and reducing their carbon footprint. This is not a problem which can be solved by any one person, or indeed any one government, acting alone. If we all contribute a little bit, that will accumulate into a way out of this mess we've got ourselves into.

ilia
|
Puerto Rico
December 16, 2009

Ilia in Puerto Rico writes:

There is a problem of what is man-made and caused by nature. It has always been there, it is that now is worst,noticeable and worrisome. About twenty five years ago, atmosphere pollutants raised concerns about acid rain. Now it is climate change. Global warming.

In the 1970's,the state of Wisconsin was a leader and pioneer in addressing air quality issues. The acid rain problem in the Great Lakes. It was damaging fish, forest, crops and even monuments. It was the global warming of that time. There were research, programs and regulations requiring reductions in smoke emissions from electric utilities and industries. And then, the 1990 Clean Act Amendment of United States. Wisconsin"s initiative in seeking solutions to the 1970's enviromental problems should be a role model for now. Lessons were learned.

Since global warming is already upon us, we must deal with it. I believe countries can learn from each other. For example, Germany and Denmark with its air pollution control and renewable energy technology grownth in windmills. Every country has a responsibility in addressing its people about regional, national and global air quality issues and in laws, regulations and local ordinances. Outreach programs that educate about climate change awareness such as a network of weather service professionals, doctors,teachers.
How carbon dioxide, ozone layer and other factors affect health. How global warming disturbs agriculture, it brings drought, flooding, sea levels, loss of species, fauna, flora
and lake chemistry and biology. Stop and look around examining the enviroment and being more concious about our planet. There must be cooperation to protect it.

There should be a serious concern about water management. To protect, conserve, regulate and restore this precious liquid which is indispensable as oxygen. It is life itself. Let's foresee the future. Water.

Kathryn M.
|
Alabama, USA
December 17, 2009

Kathryn M. in Alabama writes:

Good morning! I have searched your page and not found any other method of contacting individually. I would like to ask why our country is still participating in the Copenhagen Summit following the speaches given lambasting our way of life and the standing ovation they received. If other countries find our capitalism so awful, they should be utilizing THEIR methods of gaining income to cover their needs. I understand the health needs of truly under-developed countries need to be met, but I'll be darned if I understand why we are still participating in something where the other participants can't stand our way of life and relish in stating that publically. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Jim A.
|
United Kingdom
December 17, 2009

Jim A. in the United Kingdom writes:

Spending $100B on a questionable theory of man-made climate change accomplishes nothing other than spending money that could be much better spent elsewhere. Why support despotic regimes in Venezuela, the Sudan, Zimbabwe, and even to some extent China? Our money allows them the excuse not to act, and will most likely fund more extremism to fund the next round of global PR and fundamentalism. Instead, fund schools, clean water, and reduced taxation, and tell the rest of the world that is condemning our freedom and economic success to take action to fix their problems. We'll help those that attempt to help themselves, rather than extort our money in the name of fraudulent science.

Willow/SycamoreFigures
December 18, 2009

Willow writes:

Is there an unbrella that is suited for an Amazonian, Ukranian, nuclear power head location?

Donald
|
Virginia, USA
December 22, 2009

Donald in Virginia writes:

@ John in Greece, @ DipNote Bloggers -- Merry Christmas and Happy New Years John in Greece, and everyone on Dipnote.

joe
|
Tennessee, USA
December 22, 2009

Joe in Tennessee writes:

If you go to: http://www.iris.edu/seismon/, you can easily see the alterations taking place on a daily basis within the tectonic plates and its relationship to the increased activity of earthquakes in both number and intensity. The earth is in transition.

I fear there is little we have control over beyond what is being addressed, which is the quality of air and pollution control. If everyone is not on board, it will simply look like an exercise in political graft for preferred corporate allies here in the U.S. and Internationally.

The unfortunate part is going green requires changes that use more energy or develop more pollution in the processing. An example would be the use of Rare Earth elements, mostly manufactured in China. Over ninety percent of all rare earth comes from China…which is something not mentioned in any of the discussions noted. We use iridium in everything from computers to the new batteries in green energy vehicles and it takes tons of ore to refine ounces of the product.

As individuals, we need to be more cognizant of our everyday activities as much as possible: recycling should be mandated in all communities with a population of over two thousand it seems. Here in the community I reside, there is no pick up of recyclables in a community of thirty thousand. What I amass just as an individual amazes me. If even fifty percent of the recyclables were used, it would seem to benefit everyone from the creation of new jobs onward. We all need to contribute from individuals to a small community basis, networking to a major impute function. Our water consumption needs addressing as well. Imagine, the average American uses more water to wash plates from one meal than a many people have available to drink for a family in one day.

I believe, in general, most civilized societies of the world, regardless of political structure, have had so much for so long, or developed so rapidly, we all neglected to realize the extent of problems our consumption was creating. Rather much makes a case for Khrushchev’s argument long ago to some degree and the words of Jacque Y. Cousteau: If we go on the way we have, the fault is our greed and if we are not willing to change, we will disappear from the face of the globe, to be replaced by the insect.

.

Latest Stories

Pages