Close Welcome writers, influencers and dreamers, make the world a greener place
Register here
Forgot password
Forgot password
or
or

Close
Close Inspiration on environmental sustainability, every month.

Currently 5,988 people are getting new inspiration every month from our global sustainability exchange. Do you want to stay informed? Fill in your e-mail address below:

Close For sustainability news hunters! The WhatsOrb newsletter!

Receive monthly the newest updates about sustainability from influencers and fellow writers. Cutting edge innovations and global environmental developments.

Close Reset password
your profile is 33% complete:
33%
Update profile Close
Close WhatsOrb Global Sustainability X-Change

For writers, influencers and dreamers who want to make the world a greener place.

WhatsOrb reaches monthly about 7000 thousand visitors who want - like you - to make the world a greener place. Share your expertise and all can benefit.

Become an influencer and write and share sustainable news and innovations globally
Are you a writer or do you have ideas about sustainability which you want to share? Register and share your green knowledge and news. WhatsOrb offers you global exposure for your article.

If your article meets certain standards, you receive promotional gains like Facebook promotions and Google Ads advertising.



MenuMenu
Environmental Costs Of Lithium Battery Addiction: Worldwide
Lithium batteries. Most of us will be familiar with the term, if only for the way in which airlines nowadays expressly tell you to not put them in your checked luggage. They could explode mid-flight, release toxic fumes and incite electrical fires.   Those who have done a bit more research will know that these commonly house in our personal electronics, including smartphones, tablets and laptops. This makes them a crucial element of today’s world and therefore susceptible to a steady production flow. Yet lithium batteries can also be found in e-bikes and electric cars, which are definitely on the rise.   In short? Lithium batteries power a significant part of our lives and will continue to do so even more in years to come. Environmental costs lithium battery production Unfortunately, they are not exactly helping us in our struggle to replace fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives. The environmental costs of lithium battery production are huge, with entire communities polluted by the toxic metals that make up its core components. Lithium mines are located in some of the world’s poorest regions, making it a particularly harrowing dilemma. Just a couple of years ago, back in 2016, the Ganzizhou Rongda lithium mine, located in China, experienced a toxic chemical leak. As a result, the Liqi river was polluted and ecosystems all the way up to the Tibetan plateau were destroyed. Dead animals floated in the water, both fish and livestock depending on this river for their water supply. Reliance on lithium It was not an isolated incident. In the past few years, there have been numerous instances of lithium mining causing irreversible damage to the environment and those living in it. Ironic, considering how many people are looking at it for its ability to help ‘green up’ the world. Electric cars rely on it, with Tesla averaging 12 kilograms of lithium in their batteries, as do grid storage solutions for renewable energy sources, requiring many times this number for their operations. ( Recommended:  Electric Cars: Truly Green Or A New Kind Of Liability? ) So, it is hardly surprising that demand numbers for lithium have grown pretty much exponentially and will continue to do so in the future. Recent forecasts predict an industry growth of 800% in the next decade, from 100 gigawatt hours in 2017 to 800 gigawatt hours in 2027. All a result of the increasing number of products containing lithium - and their successes. Lithium is a reactive alkali metal known for its durability and power, that can be obtained through hard-rock mining and brine water mining. The latter is responsible for 87% of the world’s lithium supply, mostly found in the salars or brine lakes in South America. The so-called Lithium Triangle, an otherworldly landscape of salt flats, covers Argentina, Bolivia and Chile and is home to over half of the world’s supply of this metal. People filling a truck with salt from the saltflacs in Chile Water issues The main issue here? Water. These lands are notoriously dry, yet significant amounts of water are needed to extract the lithium. It requires up to 500,000 gallons of water for each ton of lithium, a pretty hefty water bill. Chile has dedicated about 65% of its total water supply to the mining activities in the region, effectively robbing their quinoa farmers and llama herders of much sought after water.   In the example of China, on the other hand, the problem is not so much the lack of water, but more the abundance thereof. In order to extract lithium, holes are drilled and filled with water and toxic chemicals, including hydrochloric acid. When these pools leak or overflow, these chemicals infiltrate rivers and other water sources in the region. This also affects regions that use hard-rock mining to obtain lithium, including large areas in Australia and North America. Traditional methods are used to extract the lithium, but even these methods still require the use of damaging chemicals. In Nevada, for instance, lithium mining has led to rivers and streams being polluted and fish inhabiting those bodies of water being impacted - for up to 150 miles downstream.   ( Recommended:  Asia’s Water War: China, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam ) Environmental costs Even experts admit that it is far from green. It leaves behind devastating marks in the landscape, while draining water supplies and polluting wells, streams, ground water and rivers. This is a well-known fact that has led to many furious protests in countries currently engaging in lithium mining activities. As bad as this sounds, it does not even make lithium the most dangerous component of modern batteries. At least the material itself is relatively harmless, when compared to some of its counterparts. Just look at cobalt, for instance, a naturally occurring mineral in central Africa. It is very toxic when pulled from the ground and requires careful handling.   Unsafe and unethical practices As luck would have it, it can mostly be found in one country - one that is not exactly well known for its far-reaching environmental policies and favourable working conditions, the Democratic Republic of Congo. With prices quadrupling in recent years, it is understandable why there has been such a rush to mine the material - the country is relatively poor and could really use this ‘cash cow’.   This has resulted in largely unethical and unsafe mining practices, often involving child workers handling the dangerous material with their bare hands. All to make a quick buck. {youtube} Environmental Costs Of Lithium Battery Addiction: Worldwide. Inside the Congo cobalt mines that exploit children And honestly? We cannot really blame governments and industry leaders in China, Chile and The Congo. They have found a way of lifting some of the burden of poverty that they have historically been suffering from, having quite literally found themselves sitting on a goldmine. As long as the demand is there, they will keep on delivering.   ( Recommended:  Consumerism In ‘The West’: A Society Built On Exploitation ) Search for greener alternatives As such, we need a green alternative to these batteries. Some kind of rechargeable, durable energy source that uses environmentally friendly materials instead. Researchers are already looking at ways of maintaining battery performance while cutting out lithium and cobalt. They key phrase here is ‘maintaining battery performance’: if these ‘greener’ batteries are in any way less effective or durable, chances are that they could eventually be just as bad for the environment. Simply because an electric car with a less effective battery will have a higher environmental footprint. Another solution is the recycling of lithium, through the re-use of unwanted tablets, phones and laptops. This could be a win-win, requiring less mining and reducing pollution from lithium leaking in landfills when lithium-containing products are haphazardly dumped. Yet it has been an uphill struggle so far, due to the lithium’s characteristic of degrading over time and not being able to clearly pinpoint its life stage; as well as the secrecy surrounding the exact contents of each producer’s battery, making it harder to recycle as well. The issue of ‘greening up’ the batteries to power our smart devices, electric cars, and other ‘sustainable’ inventions will hopefully receive plenty of attention over the coming years. Finding ways of saving the world will, after all, require a steady energy source that is already green in its own right.   All about Solar Energy
Lithium batteries. Most of us will be familiar with the term, if only for the way in which airlines nowadays expressly tell you to not put them in your checked luggage. They could explode mid-flight, release toxic fumes and incite electrical fires.   Those who have done a bit more research will know that these commonly house in our personal electronics, including smartphones, tablets and laptops. This makes them a crucial element of today’s world and therefore susceptible to a steady production flow. Yet lithium batteries can also be found in e-bikes and electric cars, which are definitely on the rise.   In short? Lithium batteries power a significant part of our lives and will continue to do so even more in years to come. Environmental costs lithium battery production Unfortunately, they are not exactly helping us in our struggle to replace fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives. The environmental costs of lithium battery production are huge, with entire communities polluted by the toxic metals that make up its core components. Lithium mines are located in some of the world’s poorest regions, making it a particularly harrowing dilemma. Just a couple of years ago, back in 2016, the Ganzizhou Rongda lithium mine, located in China, experienced a toxic chemical leak. As a result, the Liqi river was polluted and ecosystems all the way up to the Tibetan plateau were destroyed. Dead animals floated in the water, both fish and livestock depending on this river for their water supply. Reliance on lithium It was not an isolated incident. In the past few years, there have been numerous instances of lithium mining causing irreversible damage to the environment and those living in it. Ironic, considering how many people are looking at it for its ability to help ‘green up’ the world. Electric cars rely on it, with Tesla averaging 12 kilograms of lithium in their batteries, as do grid storage solutions for renewable energy sources, requiring many times this number for their operations. ( Recommended:  Electric Cars: Truly Green Or A New Kind Of Liability? ) So, it is hardly surprising that demand numbers for lithium have grown pretty much exponentially and will continue to do so in the future. Recent forecasts predict an industry growth of 800% in the next decade, from 100 gigawatt hours in 2017 to 800 gigawatt hours in 2027. All a result of the increasing number of products containing lithium - and their successes. Lithium is a reactive alkali metal known for its durability and power, that can be obtained through hard-rock mining and brine water mining. The latter is responsible for 87% of the world’s lithium supply, mostly found in the salars or brine lakes in South America. The so-called Lithium Triangle, an otherworldly landscape of salt flats, covers Argentina, Bolivia and Chile and is home to over half of the world’s supply of this metal. People filling a truck with salt from the saltflacs in Chile Water issues The main issue here? Water. These lands are notoriously dry, yet significant amounts of water are needed to extract the lithium. It requires up to 500,000 gallons of water for each ton of lithium, a pretty hefty water bill. Chile has dedicated about 65% of its total water supply to the mining activities in the region, effectively robbing their quinoa farmers and llama herders of much sought after water.   In the example of China, on the other hand, the problem is not so much the lack of water, but more the abundance thereof. In order to extract lithium, holes are drilled and filled with water and toxic chemicals, including hydrochloric acid. When these pools leak or overflow, these chemicals infiltrate rivers and other water sources in the region. This also affects regions that use hard-rock mining to obtain lithium, including large areas in Australia and North America. Traditional methods are used to extract the lithium, but even these methods still require the use of damaging chemicals. In Nevada, for instance, lithium mining has led to rivers and streams being polluted and fish inhabiting those bodies of water being impacted - for up to 150 miles downstream.   ( Recommended:  Asia’s Water War: China, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam ) Environmental costs Even experts admit that it is far from green. It leaves behind devastating marks in the landscape, while draining water supplies and polluting wells, streams, ground water and rivers. This is a well-known fact that has led to many furious protests in countries currently engaging in lithium mining activities. As bad as this sounds, it does not even make lithium the most dangerous component of modern batteries. At least the material itself is relatively harmless, when compared to some of its counterparts. Just look at cobalt, for instance, a naturally occurring mineral in central Africa. It is very toxic when pulled from the ground and requires careful handling.   Unsafe and unethical practices As luck would have it, it can mostly be found in one country - one that is not exactly well known for its far-reaching environmental policies and favourable working conditions, the Democratic Republic of Congo. With prices quadrupling in recent years, it is understandable why there has been such a rush to mine the material - the country is relatively poor and could really use this ‘cash cow’.   This has resulted in largely unethical and unsafe mining practices, often involving child workers handling the dangerous material with their bare hands. All to make a quick buck. {youtube} Environmental Costs Of Lithium Battery Addiction: Worldwide. Inside the Congo cobalt mines that exploit children And honestly? We cannot really blame governments and industry leaders in China, Chile and The Congo. They have found a way of lifting some of the burden of poverty that they have historically been suffering from, having quite literally found themselves sitting on a goldmine. As long as the demand is there, they will keep on delivering.   ( Recommended:  Consumerism In ‘The West’: A Society Built On Exploitation ) Search for greener alternatives As such, we need a green alternative to these batteries. Some kind of rechargeable, durable energy source that uses environmentally friendly materials instead. Researchers are already looking at ways of maintaining battery performance while cutting out lithium and cobalt. They key phrase here is ‘maintaining battery performance’: if these ‘greener’ batteries are in any way less effective or durable, chances are that they could eventually be just as bad for the environment. Simply because an electric car with a less effective battery will have a higher environmental footprint. Another solution is the recycling of lithium, through the re-use of unwanted tablets, phones and laptops. This could be a win-win, requiring less mining and reducing pollution from lithium leaking in landfills when lithium-containing products are haphazardly dumped. Yet it has been an uphill struggle so far, due to the lithium’s characteristic of degrading over time and not being able to clearly pinpoint its life stage; as well as the secrecy surrounding the exact contents of each producer’s battery, making it harder to recycle as well. The issue of ‘greening up’ the batteries to power our smart devices, electric cars, and other ‘sustainable’ inventions will hopefully receive plenty of attention over the coming years. Finding ways of saving the world will, after all, require a steady energy source that is already green in its own right.   All about Solar Energy
Environmental Costs Of Lithium Battery Addiction: Worldwide
Environmental Costs Of Lithium Battery Addiction: Worldwide
Green Villa With Living Facade Of Plant Pots The Netherlands
Architecture practice MVRDV has unveiled designs for a residential development in Sint-Michielsgestel, the Netherlands, with green walls formed of shelves of plants. Together with their co-architect Van Boven Architecten, the Dutch practice has developed Green Villa for property developer Stein to sit in a corner site on the southern edge of the town. The three-storey housing block will follow the mansard roof shape of the neighbouring building, but its entire frontage will be covered in giant rows of shelves covered in greenery. Potted plants, bushes and trees will sit upon shelves of varying sizes and depths. Species planned for the living facade include forsythia bushes and jasmine plants, as well as pine and birch trees. Further pots are to be installed on the roof. Green Villa, green dip "This design is a continuation of our research into facade-less buildings and radical greening," said Winy Maas, founding partner of MVRDV. "The idea from the 1990s of city parks as an oasis in the city is too limited. We need a radical 'green dip'," he added, referencing an upcoming book of the same title from think-tank The Why Factory. The Green Dip reports on the project developed by The Why Factory, the University of Technology Sydney and Delft University of Technology examining how nature can be better integrated into the urban fabric of cities. "We should also cover roofs and high-rise facades with greenery," continued Maas, who leads The Why Factory. "Plants and trees can help us to offset CO2 emissions, cool our cities, and promote biodiversity." ( Recommended:  Climate Change Efforts On Reducing CO2 Why Not Recycle It? ) Green Villa's grid of plants will double as a 'three-dimensional arboretum' and 'tree library', with each plant labelled with a nameplate and accompanying information. Stored rainwater will be used to water the plants via a sensor-controlled irrigation system built into their planters to keep them green all year round. ( Recommended:  Solar Canopies Supply Shade Electricity And Filter Rainwater ) "The Green Villa is also a personal project, because I went to school in Sint-Michielsgestel," added Maas. "Just like I did before with the Glass Farm, in my native village of Schijndel, I am returning to the region of my youth." Completed in 2013, Glass Farm is a shop and office complex made of glass but disguised to look like a tradition farmhouse. ( See photo below ) MVRDV has also designed a skyscraper in Shenzhen, China, with rooftop gardens and outdoor parks at various levels. ( See photo below ) Project credits: Architect: MVRDV Founding partner in charge: Winy Maas Partner/director: Gideon Maasland Design team: Gijs Rikken, Karolina Szóstkiewicz, Daan Zandbergen Co-architect: Van Boven Architecten All Visualisations by: Antonio Luca Coco and Pavlos Ventouris All about Green Architecture
Architecture practice MVRDV has unveiled designs for a residential development in Sint-Michielsgestel, the Netherlands, with green walls formed of shelves of plants. Together with their co-architect Van Boven Architecten, the Dutch practice has developed Green Villa for property developer Stein to sit in a corner site on the southern edge of the town. The three-storey housing block will follow the mansard roof shape of the neighbouring building, but its entire frontage will be covered in giant rows of shelves covered in greenery. Potted plants, bushes and trees will sit upon shelves of varying sizes and depths. Species planned for the living facade include forsythia bushes and jasmine plants, as well as pine and birch trees. Further pots are to be installed on the roof. Green Villa, green dip "This design is a continuation of our research into facade-less buildings and radical greening," said Winy Maas, founding partner of MVRDV. "The idea from the 1990s of city parks as an oasis in the city is too limited. We need a radical 'green dip'," he added, referencing an upcoming book of the same title from think-tank The Why Factory. The Green Dip reports on the project developed by The Why Factory, the University of Technology Sydney and Delft University of Technology examining how nature can be better integrated into the urban fabric of cities. "We should also cover roofs and high-rise facades with greenery," continued Maas, who leads The Why Factory. "Plants and trees can help us to offset CO2 emissions, cool our cities, and promote biodiversity." ( Recommended:  Climate Change Efforts On Reducing CO2 Why Not Recycle It? ) Green Villa's grid of plants will double as a 'three-dimensional arboretum' and 'tree library', with each plant labelled with a nameplate and accompanying information. Stored rainwater will be used to water the plants via a sensor-controlled irrigation system built into their planters to keep them green all year round. ( Recommended:  Solar Canopies Supply Shade Electricity And Filter Rainwater ) "The Green Villa is also a personal project, because I went to school in Sint-Michielsgestel," added Maas. "Just like I did before with the Glass Farm, in my native village of Schijndel, I am returning to the region of my youth." Completed in 2013, Glass Farm is a shop and office complex made of glass but disguised to look like a tradition farmhouse. ( See photo below ) MVRDV has also designed a skyscraper in Shenzhen, China, with rooftop gardens and outdoor parks at various levels. ( See photo below ) Project credits: Architect: MVRDV Founding partner in charge: Winy Maas Partner/director: Gideon Maasland Design team: Gijs Rikken, Karolina Szóstkiewicz, Daan Zandbergen Co-architect: Van Boven Architecten All Visualisations by: Antonio Luca Coco and Pavlos Ventouris All about Green Architecture
Green Villa With Living Facade Of Plant Pots The Netherlands
Spider-Woman: Tarantula Staple Food Gets A Snack: Cambodia
One of the most common fears in mankind? Arachnophobia, or an intense and rather unreasonable fear of spiders and spider-like creatures. We get it, these eight-legged creatures are not as cuddly as a run-of-the-mill rabbit or baby goat, with their itch-inciting appearance and fast and unpredictable way of moving around. But the amount of tension that some people experience when faced with this member of the Araneae family is excessive, to say the least. Recent research has found that some of those suffering from arachnophobia would even prefer diving with great white sharks or jumping out of an airplane to being locked up in a room with one of those critters for ten whole minutes. Cultural fears Speaking on an evolutionary level, there is absolutely no way in which we can rationalise this fear, or attribute it to our survival instincts. Instead, evidence points to it being a so-called institutionalised fear, a phobia that develops by exposure to the extreme reaction of others suffering from it.   This makes it a fear that is largely cultural, rather than genetic. Those of us living in the western world are more prone to it, despite us not having any real poisonous types living in our area that we should actually legitimately be afraid of. Other cultures, living together with much more dangerous and sizeable members of the spider family, observe them with mild trepidation at best.   And other cultures simply eat them.   Spiders as a delicacy In countries like Papua New Guinea and Cambodia, spiders are a real delicacy. (Coincidentally, these are also countries that rank very low on the worldwide arachnophobia index - yes, this actually is a thing.) Tourists that visit Asian hotspot-on-the-rise Phnom Penh, capital of the Kingdom of Cambodia, are often amazed at the sight of street vendors selling fried tarantula and similar snacks.   {youtube}                                              Spider-Woman: Tarantula Staple Food Gets A Snack: Cambodia Cooking shows all around the world have already zeroed in on the phenomenon, with world-famous chefs like Gordon Ramsay having sampled it. And although reactions are mixed, most would agree that it is a unique part of Cambodian culture that should be treasured. A part of their national heritage, if you wish. ( Also interesting:  Insects As Food The New Agriculture Is Good For Our Climate ) Deep fried spiders are surely not for everyone, but for those who have grown up with the phenomenon, it is hard to consider the crawly creatures to be anything but absolutely delicious. Scary? Not in their minds. Tasty, that’s more like it. Especially the female tarantulas are treasured, for the tasty, caviar-like eggs that their bellies contain.   Tarantulas as daily source of protein In order to preserve this unique flavour, spiders are not gutted or cut up. Rather, after getting a quick wash in water, they are thrown in the pot and fried with some delicious spices. Alternative preparation methods include grilling them and serving them with a variety of dip sauces. Its taste is best described as crab, although the consistency is strikingly different.   A-Ping, as the locals call it, have been eaten as just your regular source of protein for generations and generations. The dish originates from the farmland that Cambodia is well-known for, with farmers taking home any tarantulas that they find on their land for dinner. Especially during the reign of the Khmer Rouge, the communist party of Cambodia, food was tight - and therefore all possible food sources more than welcome. Even after the communist regime, people still enjoyed their tarantula snack, some even attributing health benefits to it: from aiding lung and heart diseases all the way up to enhancing sexual desire. The wealthiest of this small Asian country enjoy its uniqueness and rarity, while the people on the street just enjoy its flavour - making it a sought-after delicacy.   Threatened by over-hunting and deforestation Unfortunately it is one that is becoming increasingly harder to find. The rising demand has led to over-hunting, while the deforestation of the Cambodian land is drastically reducing the tarantula’s territory. In the last two decades alone, Cambodia has lost more than 2 million hectares of forest - an alarming 23 percent decline. This land has been re-allocated for agricultural purposes, giving way to enormous cashew and rubber plantations.   ( Also interesting:  Deforestation: No! Celebrate National Tree Day With WhatsOrb ) As the tarantulas enjoy the woods, they are finding themselves struggling to stay in their preferred ecosystem. Furthermore, their declining number makes them much harder to find, which means that fewer people are still attempting to. It will be much more profitable to get a job on one of the plantations, instead of hunting for the tarantulas.   Steep decline in population This leaves the job of hunting spiders to the poorest of the poor, who are often ruthless in their methods: over-hunting is commonplace, as is the use of dangerous chemicals, with no regulations whatsoever in place to protect the treasured species in her survival.   All of this has led to a steep decline in the tarantula population, which may soon find itself at risk of extinction. It may mean the end of not just another animal species, but also the end of a treasured piece of local cuisine - as well as threaten the livelihood of those who have turned it into a business. As long as the government remains hesitant to take action to prevent this from happening, the A-Ping might literally find himself in the frying pan. All about Lifestyle
One of the most common fears in mankind? Arachnophobia, or an intense and rather unreasonable fear of spiders and spider-like creatures. We get it, these eight-legged creatures are not as cuddly as a run-of-the-mill rabbit or baby goat, with their itch-inciting appearance and fast and unpredictable way of moving around. But the amount of tension that some people experience when faced with this member of the Araneae family is excessive, to say the least. Recent research has found that some of those suffering from arachnophobia would even prefer diving with great white sharks or jumping out of an airplane to being locked up in a room with one of those critters for ten whole minutes. Cultural fears Speaking on an evolutionary level, there is absolutely no way in which we can rationalise this fear, or attribute it to our survival instincts. Instead, evidence points to it being a so-called institutionalised fear, a phobia that develops by exposure to the extreme reaction of others suffering from it.   This makes it a fear that is largely cultural, rather than genetic. Those of us living in the western world are more prone to it, despite us not having any real poisonous types living in our area that we should actually legitimately be afraid of. Other cultures, living together with much more dangerous and sizeable members of the spider family, observe them with mild trepidation at best.   And other cultures simply eat them.   Spiders as a delicacy In countries like Papua New Guinea and Cambodia, spiders are a real delicacy. (Coincidentally, these are also countries that rank very low on the worldwide arachnophobia index - yes, this actually is a thing.) Tourists that visit Asian hotspot-on-the-rise Phnom Penh, capital of the Kingdom of Cambodia, are often amazed at the sight of street vendors selling fried tarantula and similar snacks.   {youtube}                                              Spider-Woman: Tarantula Staple Food Gets A Snack: Cambodia Cooking shows all around the world have already zeroed in on the phenomenon, with world-famous chefs like Gordon Ramsay having sampled it. And although reactions are mixed, most would agree that it is a unique part of Cambodian culture that should be treasured. A part of their national heritage, if you wish. ( Also interesting:  Insects As Food The New Agriculture Is Good For Our Climate ) Deep fried spiders are surely not for everyone, but for those who have grown up with the phenomenon, it is hard to consider the crawly creatures to be anything but absolutely delicious. Scary? Not in their minds. Tasty, that’s more like it. Especially the female tarantulas are treasured, for the tasty, caviar-like eggs that their bellies contain.   Tarantulas as daily source of protein In order to preserve this unique flavour, spiders are not gutted or cut up. Rather, after getting a quick wash in water, they are thrown in the pot and fried with some delicious spices. Alternative preparation methods include grilling them and serving them with a variety of dip sauces. Its taste is best described as crab, although the consistency is strikingly different.   A-Ping, as the locals call it, have been eaten as just your regular source of protein for generations and generations. The dish originates from the farmland that Cambodia is well-known for, with farmers taking home any tarantulas that they find on their land for dinner. Especially during the reign of the Khmer Rouge, the communist party of Cambodia, food was tight - and therefore all possible food sources more than welcome. Even after the communist regime, people still enjoyed their tarantula snack, some even attributing health benefits to it: from aiding lung and heart diseases all the way up to enhancing sexual desire. The wealthiest of this small Asian country enjoy its uniqueness and rarity, while the people on the street just enjoy its flavour - making it a sought-after delicacy.   Threatened by over-hunting and deforestation Unfortunately it is one that is becoming increasingly harder to find. The rising demand has led to over-hunting, while the deforestation of the Cambodian land is drastically reducing the tarantula’s territory. In the last two decades alone, Cambodia has lost more than 2 million hectares of forest - an alarming 23 percent decline. This land has been re-allocated for agricultural purposes, giving way to enormous cashew and rubber plantations.   ( Also interesting:  Deforestation: No! Celebrate National Tree Day With WhatsOrb ) As the tarantulas enjoy the woods, they are finding themselves struggling to stay in their preferred ecosystem. Furthermore, their declining number makes them much harder to find, which means that fewer people are still attempting to. It will be much more profitable to get a job on one of the plantations, instead of hunting for the tarantulas.   Steep decline in population This leaves the job of hunting spiders to the poorest of the poor, who are often ruthless in their methods: over-hunting is commonplace, as is the use of dangerous chemicals, with no regulations whatsoever in place to protect the treasured species in her survival.   All of this has led to a steep decline in the tarantula population, which may soon find itself at risk of extinction. It may mean the end of not just another animal species, but also the end of a treasured piece of local cuisine - as well as threaten the livelihood of those who have turned it into a business. As long as the government remains hesitant to take action to prevent this from happening, the A-Ping might literally find himself in the frying pan. All about Lifestyle
Spider-Woman: Tarantula Staple Food Gets A Snack: Cambodia
Spider-Woman: Tarantula Staple Food Gets A Snack: Cambodia
Hydrogen Powered Car That Emits Water No CO2: The Rasa
It’s been a long road for fuel cell cars to get to where they are now, a possible option. It all started back in the 1980s when fuel-cells themselves had to be physically shrunk to fit into a normal car, not the back of a van. Then they had to make them affordable and the fuel able to be widely available. All of these obstacles have been overcome yet fuel cell cars still have not been mass adopted. That is because they were not found to be very efficient. To produce the gas, compress it, and transport it is costly. However, there is a special little fuel cell car called Rasa that is drastically more economical and its creator has come up with a more efficient hydrogen distribution system too. The car and the system around are both part of a grand plan by the company Riversimple, founded by Hugo Spowers, former motor racer and mechanical engineer of race cars. Photo by: Simon Thompson Hydrogen powered vehicles: the Rasa 15 years ago Spowers stopped working with internal combustion engines when he had the idea of building a hydrogen-powered vehicle. He was determined to find a fundamental solution to the problems associated with carbon emissions and so he hand-built an aerodynamic car which weighs only 580 kilos, 40 kilos more than the battery of a Tesla Model S car. ( Also interesting:  Tesla Model S Got Hesla By Adding A Hydrogen Installation ) The Rasa is novel and sophisticated in engineering terms. A fuel cell provides electrical energy when hydrogen is combined with oxygen. That electrical energy powers the motors while emitting only water. The Rasa has a motor in each of its four wheels which provide drive and braking. Ultra-capacitors are used to store recovered energy from braking. A carbon tub keeps weight down, while a honed design cuts drag. The Rasa's reach It can drive about 482 km (300 miles) on a tank of just 1.5kg of hydrogen. The best part is, the hydrogen is compressed to 350bar, not the 700bar the industry majors use. This uses less energy and makes for much cheaper filling stations, hence a more economical system. If that’s not good enough, the Rasa is so green that its well-to-wheel CO2 emissions (even if the hydrogen is synthesized from natural gas) are about 40g/km. That CO2 figure is a lot better than any electric car that uses the UK’s mix of electricity generation. ( Also interesting:  Climate Change Efforts On Reducing CO2 Why Not Recycle It? ) {youtube}                                         Hydrogen Powered Car That Emits Water No CoO2: The Rasa   Pollution & Resources Spowers gave up being a motor racer because he wants to save the world and started developing the Rasa. Everything in the Riversimple’s business plan aligns to that aim. Spowers has to change everything about the traditional system and an incremental change wouldn’t do. Each of the changes demands that other things be changed. The whole system must change, in one leap. 'You can’t cross a canyon in two jumps'. Photo by: Riversimple Rasa rentals So what does this mean? The company will never sell a Rasa. Riversimple’s drivers will pay a monthly rental fee, to include depreciation, maintenance and, crucially, fuel. Done this way, said Spowers, everything points to a car that pollutes less and depletes fewer resources. Photo by: Simon Tompson The next step is to build charging stations for users and therefore make the product more attractive to consumers. Hydrogen cars can work alongside battery-powered electric vehicles in the future – a sustainable, greener world to come – to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide. By: RiversimpleCredit: Riversimple All about Hydrogen Transport
It’s been a long road for fuel cell cars to get to where they are now, a possible option. It all started back in the 1980s when fuel-cells themselves had to be physically shrunk to fit into a normal car, not the back of a van. Then they had to make them affordable and the fuel able to be widely available. All of these obstacles have been overcome yet fuel cell cars still have not been mass adopted. That is because they were not found to be very efficient. To produce the gas, compress it, and transport it is costly. However, there is a special little fuel cell car called Rasa that is drastically more economical and its creator has come up with a more efficient hydrogen distribution system too. The car and the system around are both part of a grand plan by the company Riversimple, founded by Hugo Spowers, former motor racer and mechanical engineer of race cars. Photo by: Simon Thompson Hydrogen powered vehicles: the Rasa 15 years ago Spowers stopped working with internal combustion engines when he had the idea of building a hydrogen-powered vehicle. He was determined to find a fundamental solution to the problems associated with carbon emissions and so he hand-built an aerodynamic car which weighs only 580 kilos, 40 kilos more than the battery of a Tesla Model S car. ( Also interesting:  Tesla Model S Got Hesla By Adding A Hydrogen Installation ) The Rasa is novel and sophisticated in engineering terms. A fuel cell provides electrical energy when hydrogen is combined with oxygen. That electrical energy powers the motors while emitting only water. The Rasa has a motor in each of its four wheels which provide drive and braking. Ultra-capacitors are used to store recovered energy from braking. A carbon tub keeps weight down, while a honed design cuts drag. The Rasa's reach It can drive about 482 km (300 miles) on a tank of just 1.5kg of hydrogen. The best part is, the hydrogen is compressed to 350bar, not the 700bar the industry majors use. This uses less energy and makes for much cheaper filling stations, hence a more economical system. If that’s not good enough, the Rasa is so green that its well-to-wheel CO2 emissions (even if the hydrogen is synthesized from natural gas) are about 40g/km. That CO2 figure is a lot better than any electric car that uses the UK’s mix of electricity generation. ( Also interesting:  Climate Change Efforts On Reducing CO2 Why Not Recycle It? ) {youtube}                                         Hydrogen Powered Car That Emits Water No CoO2: The Rasa   Pollution & Resources Spowers gave up being a motor racer because he wants to save the world and started developing the Rasa. Everything in the Riversimple’s business plan aligns to that aim. Spowers has to change everything about the traditional system and an incremental change wouldn’t do. Each of the changes demands that other things be changed. The whole system must change, in one leap. 'You can’t cross a canyon in two jumps'. Photo by: Riversimple Rasa rentals So what does this mean? The company will never sell a Rasa. Riversimple’s drivers will pay a monthly rental fee, to include depreciation, maintenance and, crucially, fuel. Done this way, said Spowers, everything points to a car that pollutes less and depletes fewer resources. Photo by: Simon Tompson The next step is to build charging stations for users and therefore make the product more attractive to consumers. Hydrogen cars can work alongside battery-powered electric vehicles in the future – a sustainable, greener world to come – to reduce CO2 emissions worldwide. By: RiversimpleCredit: Riversimple All about Hydrogen Transport
Hydrogen Powered Car That Emits Water No CO2: The Rasa
Hydrogen Powered Car That Emits Water No CO2: The Rasa
Nuclear Floating Power Plants: A Floating Chernobyl: Russia
The only nuclear floating power plant in the world has gone up the sea for the first time. The Russian Akademik Lomonosov left St. Petersburg, where it was built. It is towed through the Baltic Sea, around the northern tip of Norway to Murmansk, where the reactors are filled with nuclear fuel. The Akademik Lomonosov was built in nine years and will be operational this year 2019 off the coast of Chukotka in the far east of Russia. There, the power plant must provide energy to remote factories, port cities and oil platforms. It will replace two nuclear reactors which, according to the Russian nuclear power company Rosatom, are technologically outdated. Russian nuclear floating power plant makes its maiden voyage Shocking The project is heavily criticized by environmentalists. Greenpeace calls it a floating Chernobyl. "Nuclear reactors that float in the Arctic Ocean are a shockingly obvious threat to a fragile environment that is already under enormous pressure from climate change," says Jan Haverkamp, ​​nuclear expert at the environmental club. Nuclear floating power plant is not safe at all The atomic lobby deliberately omits the enormous risks of nuclear power plants, says Els de Groen, writer, journalist and former MEP for the Greens / European Free Alliance. Now that coal, oil and gas consumption is warming up or shaking the earth, the call for nuclear energy is getting louder. Complete with the old mantra: major accidents, small opportunities. Hydropower, particulate matter and natural gas production are all much more dangerous than nuclear energy ... Chernobyl was the fault of the Russians and Fukushima was hit by a tsunami, and the numbers of victims are based on speculation. It is time to put an end to the demagoguery of nuclear lobbyists as emeritus professor Jan Goudriaan. The expertise they carry out does not sink in anything that they conceal. Never do they mention the waste problem and the long-term consequences. During uranium extraction, during reprocessing and decommissioning, large quantities of waste occur that remain highly radioactive for hundreds of years (cesium) to tens of thousands of years (plutonium) and even billions of years (uranium). On that scale we are one-day flies, although it is with a footprint that no dinosaur can match. ( Recommended:  Nuclear Power: Will It Destroy Or Save The World? ) Experts never tell us that the calculation of 'safe' doses is always based on an average person. The four to ten times greater radiation sensitivity of women, children and unborn babies is not taken into account. For the Netherlands this means that three-fifths of the population may be exposed to unacceptable radiation levels. The annual dose of 1 millisievert experiences a fetus as 10 millisievert or half the annual dose of a radiological worker! Moreover, the sensitivity of tissues and organs, expressed as a percentage, is cast into a system that does not allow any correction. If we discover tomorrow that our lungs are more sensitive than has always been assumed, then we must lower the sensitivity of another organ, because the sensitivity of all organs must remain 100%. However, this inadequate system is used to calculate the permissible burden on, for example, the bladder and then to decide whether or not to send workers an infected space or to evacuate members of the population or not. Last year, all Dutch people received a iodine tablet in a radius of 100 km. If saturated in time, the thyroid gland, causing the radioactive iodine-131 is no longer absorbed. What experts do not tell you is that there is more to it: strontium, for example, that accumulates in our bones, or plutonium that seeks out the red bone marrow. There are no pills against that. The sensitivity of the thyroid is only a fraction of the total sensitivity. Nuclear energy stations are in 30 years gone. In Doel, Tihange and Borssele there are power stations of forty years old. There are thousands of cracks in various reactor vessels, so-called hydrogen flakes. This leads to a dilemma: the fuel rods have to be cooled permanently, but the cracks force us to drastically increase the temperature of the emergency cooling water. Nevertheless, the power stations remain open. There is no budget for demolition, no premium was paid for accident insurance or the costs of evacuations. There is not one insurance company that dares to run the risks. If a nuclear power plant had four wheels, it would be taken directly from the road. ( Recommended:  Nuclear Waste Storage An Example For The World: Finland ) Why does not that happen? I would like to quote Einstein: "The unchained atomic force has changed everything, except our way of thinking ... The solution of that problem lies in the heart of the people. Had I known that, then I would have become a watchmaker. Not everything we discover is good, but apparently it takes courage to admit mistakes". By: Els de Groen. Cover photo Фото: greenpeace.org/russia All about Energy
The only nuclear floating power plant in the world has gone up the sea for the first time. The Russian Akademik Lomonosov left St. Petersburg, where it was built. It is towed through the Baltic Sea, around the northern tip of Norway to Murmansk, where the reactors are filled with nuclear fuel. The Akademik Lomonosov was built in nine years and will be operational this year 2019 off the coast of Chukotka in the far east of Russia. There, the power plant must provide energy to remote factories, port cities and oil platforms. It will replace two nuclear reactors which, according to the Russian nuclear power company Rosatom, are technologically outdated. Russian nuclear floating power plant makes its maiden voyage Shocking The project is heavily criticized by environmentalists. Greenpeace calls it a floating Chernobyl. "Nuclear reactors that float in the Arctic Ocean are a shockingly obvious threat to a fragile environment that is already under enormous pressure from climate change," says Jan Haverkamp, ​​nuclear expert at the environmental club. Nuclear floating power plant is not safe at all The atomic lobby deliberately omits the enormous risks of nuclear power plants, says Els de Groen, writer, journalist and former MEP for the Greens / European Free Alliance. Now that coal, oil and gas consumption is warming up or shaking the earth, the call for nuclear energy is getting louder. Complete with the old mantra: major accidents, small opportunities. Hydropower, particulate matter and natural gas production are all much more dangerous than nuclear energy ... Chernobyl was the fault of the Russians and Fukushima was hit by a tsunami, and the numbers of victims are based on speculation. It is time to put an end to the demagoguery of nuclear lobbyists as emeritus professor Jan Goudriaan. The expertise they carry out does not sink in anything that they conceal. Never do they mention the waste problem and the long-term consequences. During uranium extraction, during reprocessing and decommissioning, large quantities of waste occur that remain highly radioactive for hundreds of years (cesium) to tens of thousands of years (plutonium) and even billions of years (uranium). On that scale we are one-day flies, although it is with a footprint that no dinosaur can match. ( Recommended:  Nuclear Power: Will It Destroy Or Save The World? ) Experts never tell us that the calculation of 'safe' doses is always based on an average person. The four to ten times greater radiation sensitivity of women, children and unborn babies is not taken into account. For the Netherlands this means that three-fifths of the population may be exposed to unacceptable radiation levels. The annual dose of 1 millisievert experiences a fetus as 10 millisievert or half the annual dose of a radiological worker! Moreover, the sensitivity of tissues and organs, expressed as a percentage, is cast into a system that does not allow any correction. If we discover tomorrow that our lungs are more sensitive than has always been assumed, then we must lower the sensitivity of another organ, because the sensitivity of all organs must remain 100%. However, this inadequate system is used to calculate the permissible burden on, for example, the bladder and then to decide whether or not to send workers an infected space or to evacuate members of the population or not. Last year, all Dutch people received a iodine tablet in a radius of 100 km. If saturated in time, the thyroid gland, causing the radioactive iodine-131 is no longer absorbed. What experts do not tell you is that there is more to it: strontium, for example, that accumulates in our bones, or plutonium that seeks out the red bone marrow. There are no pills against that. The sensitivity of the thyroid is only a fraction of the total sensitivity. Nuclear energy stations are in 30 years gone. In Doel, Tihange and Borssele there are power stations of forty years old. There are thousands of cracks in various reactor vessels, so-called hydrogen flakes. This leads to a dilemma: the fuel rods have to be cooled permanently, but the cracks force us to drastically increase the temperature of the emergency cooling water. Nevertheless, the power stations remain open. There is no budget for demolition, no premium was paid for accident insurance or the costs of evacuations. There is not one insurance company that dares to run the risks. If a nuclear power plant had four wheels, it would be taken directly from the road. ( Recommended:  Nuclear Waste Storage An Example For The World: Finland ) Why does not that happen? I would like to quote Einstein: "The unchained atomic force has changed everything, except our way of thinking ... The solution of that problem lies in the heart of the people. Had I known that, then I would have become a watchmaker. Not everything we discover is good, but apparently it takes courage to admit mistakes". By: Els de Groen. Cover photo Фото: greenpeace.org/russia All about Energy
Nuclear Floating Power Plants: A Floating Chernobyl: Russia
Nuclear Floating Power Plants: A Floating Chernobyl: Russia
Delay Climate Change With Submarines Which Produce Icebergs
This ice-making submarine would pop out bergs to help fight climate change. A team of designers led by Faris Rajak Kotahatuhaha proposes re-freezing sea water in the Arctic to create miniature modular icebergs using a submarine-like vessel, in a bid to combat climate change. The Indonesian designer worked on the prototype with collaborators Denny Lesmana Budi and Fiera Alifa for an international competition organised by the Association of Siamese Architects. The team was awarded second prize in the contest for its geoengineering proposal to re-freeze the Arctic and transform sea water into new ice fields.  T he designers propose to delay climate change with submarines which produce icebergs Artic ecosystem need to be restored Kotahatuhaha's team set out to create a prototype for the 're-iceberg-isation' of parts of the Arctic by freezing seawater into hexagonal blocks of ice that nest together to form new ice floes. Delay Climate Change With Submarines Which Produce Icebergs The main goal of this idea is to restore the polar ecosystem, which has a direct effect on the balance of the global climate. The concept is a proactive response to issues related to the melting of the earth's polar ice. The designers felt that too much emphasis is currently being placed on protecting cities from rising sea-levels rather than tackling the problem at its source and delay climate change with submarines which produce icebergs.  The artificial icebergs wil increase the Albedo effect. ( Also interesting:  China Will Make It Rain In Tibet: Space Technology ) Albedo Effect Albedo is a measure of the reflectivity of a surface. The albedo effect when applied to the Earth is a measure of how much of the Sun's energy is reflected back into space. Overall, the Earth's albedo has a cooling effect. (The term ‘albedo’ is derived from the Latin for ‘whiteness’). The basic principle is analogous to strategies employed by people who live in hot places. Building are finished with white exteriors to keep them cool, because white surfaces reflect the sun’s energy. Black surfaces reflect much less. People wear light colours in summer rather than dark ones for the same reason. The Earth’s surface is a vast patchwork of colours, ranging from the dazzling white of ice and snow, to the dark surfaces of oceans and forests. Each surface has a specific effect on the Earth’s temperature. Snow and ice reflect a lot of the sun’s energy back into space. The darker oceans absorb energy, which warms the water. Oceans help keep the Earth warm because they absorb a lot of heat (approximately 90%). This warming increases water vapour, which acts as a greenhouse gas and helps to keep temperatures within ranges humans have largely taken for granted for millennia. ( Recommended for you:  Manmade Antarctic Snowstorm: Save Cities From Rising Seas ) Submarines Which Produce Icebergs {youtube}                                   Iceberg-making submarine aims to tackle global warming by re-freezing the Arctic The submarine-like vessel would submerge to collect sea water in a central hexagonal tank. Turbines would then be used to blast the tank with cold air and accelerate the freezing process. During this process, the vessel would return to the surface of the sea and the tank would be covered to protect it from sunlight. A system of reverse osmosis would be used to filter some of the salt from the water in order to speed up the process. Once the water is frozen, the vessel would submerge again, leaving behind an "ice baby" with a volume of 2,027 cubic-metres. These miniature icebergs would then cluster together in a honeycomb pattern to form a larger ice floe. All about climate change
This ice-making submarine would pop out bergs to help fight climate change. A team of designers led by Faris Rajak Kotahatuhaha proposes re-freezing sea water in the Arctic to create miniature modular icebergs using a submarine-like vessel, in a bid to combat climate change. The Indonesian designer worked on the prototype with collaborators Denny Lesmana Budi and Fiera Alifa for an international competition organised by the Association of Siamese Architects. The team was awarded second prize in the contest for its geoengineering proposal to re-freeze the Arctic and transform sea water into new ice fields.  T he designers propose to delay climate change with submarines which produce icebergs Artic ecosystem need to be restored Kotahatuhaha's team set out to create a prototype for the 're-iceberg-isation' of parts of the Arctic by freezing seawater into hexagonal blocks of ice that nest together to form new ice floes. Delay Climate Change With Submarines Which Produce Icebergs The main goal of this idea is to restore the polar ecosystem, which has a direct effect on the balance of the global climate. The concept is a proactive response to issues related to the melting of the earth's polar ice. The designers felt that too much emphasis is currently being placed on protecting cities from rising sea-levels rather than tackling the problem at its source and delay climate change with submarines which produce icebergs.  The artificial icebergs wil increase the Albedo effect. ( Also interesting:  China Will Make It Rain In Tibet: Space Technology ) Albedo Effect Albedo is a measure of the reflectivity of a surface. The albedo effect when applied to the Earth is a measure of how much of the Sun's energy is reflected back into space. Overall, the Earth's albedo has a cooling effect. (The term ‘albedo’ is derived from the Latin for ‘whiteness’). The basic principle is analogous to strategies employed by people who live in hot places. Building are finished with white exteriors to keep them cool, because white surfaces reflect the sun’s energy. Black surfaces reflect much less. People wear light colours in summer rather than dark ones for the same reason. The Earth’s surface is a vast patchwork of colours, ranging from the dazzling white of ice and snow, to the dark surfaces of oceans and forests. Each surface has a specific effect on the Earth’s temperature. Snow and ice reflect a lot of the sun’s energy back into space. The darker oceans absorb energy, which warms the water. Oceans help keep the Earth warm because they absorb a lot of heat (approximately 90%). This warming increases water vapour, which acts as a greenhouse gas and helps to keep temperatures within ranges humans have largely taken for granted for millennia. ( Recommended for you:  Manmade Antarctic Snowstorm: Save Cities From Rising Seas ) Submarines Which Produce Icebergs {youtube}                                   Iceberg-making submarine aims to tackle global warming by re-freezing the Arctic The submarine-like vessel would submerge to collect sea water in a central hexagonal tank. Turbines would then be used to blast the tank with cold air and accelerate the freezing process. During this process, the vessel would return to the surface of the sea and the tank would be covered to protect it from sunlight. A system of reverse osmosis would be used to filter some of the salt from the water in order to speed up the process. Once the water is frozen, the vessel would submerge again, leaving behind an "ice baby" with a volume of 2,027 cubic-metres. These miniature icebergs would then cluster together in a honeycomb pattern to form a larger ice floe. All about climate change
Delay Climate Change With Submarines Which Produce Icebergs
Farmers Using Flowers Instead Of Chemicals To Tackle Pests
Flowers are colorful. They smell nice and brighten up many homes and gardens. But flowers have another crucial advantage: they attract insects. Pesticides are causing major problems: they are polluting drinking water, for example, and killing bees. That is why more and more farmers are now using flowers instead of these chemicals to tackle pests on their land. To ensure more beneficial bugs visit their fields to feed on pests, some farmers are planting ‘flower strips’ in and around their crops. This kind of biological pest control seems to be an excellent way of contributing to the ecological intensification of agriculture. ( Recommended:  Vegetables, Fruit, Edible Flowers, But Also Bees In Cities Urban Farming ) Flowers instead of chemicals to tackle pests With mounting evidence about the problems caused by pesticides, many of the insect-killers have been taken off the market in the UK and Europe. However, others are still frequently used; and that frequent use makes them less effective, as pests become resistant to the chemicals. Fortunately, there is a biological way to combat pests on land. The so-called flower strips can encourage natural opponents of agricultural pests. As a result, the damage to agricultural crops is less, and there is hardly any need to use polluting plant protection products. The natural enemies of pests in arable crops will do the job. Experimenting with farmers using flowers, ‘a highway for bugs’ This kind of biological pest control is nothing new. Cultivating an environment where natural pest predators can live by growing flowers between other crops is already a common practice for promoting biodiversity. For example, farmers already know that aphids (a common pest for multiple crops) don't stand a chance if they must share their home with parasitic wasps. They will eat the lice in their larval state. But now, agriculturalists are experimenting with strips of flowers within their crops, creating a highway for bugs to travel farther and cover more ground for pest control. It may be a strange sight: strips of land that generally should have one color, but now have all kinds of vividly colored flowers in the middle. Due to a new study, fourteen sites will look like this. The study tests how well the wildflowers attract pest-eating bugs, and how well they can help replace commercial – and polluting - pesticides. ( Recommended :  Regenerative Agriculture: Its Full Potential (Part 3) ) Pesticides will be the last line of defense on farms The study includes borders of wildflowers around each field - something that some farmers have used over the past two decades in the area to promote general biodiversity, not specifically for pest control. Also, there are strips of flowers placed in the middle of fields. Small insects cannot travel far, but with these flower strips, they can enter the entire land. A similar study was done in Switzerland, where one of the results was that the leaf damage was reduced by 61%. The researchers estimated that choosing the right mix of flowers could increase yield 10%, making it economically self-sustaining or even profitable to keep planting flowers. The research shows that the use of aggressive pesticides can probably not be eliminated entirely, but that this natural method will make a big difference in the necessary quantity. If this biological approach is combined with other techniques, such as using technology to diagnose vermin, pesticide use could be dramatically reduced, and serve as a last line of defense on farms, rather than the first thing farmers reach for. {youtube}                                                       7 Simple Strategies to Prevent Garden Pests Biological method: farmers using flowers and herbs You can also apply this organic method of pest control at home. By strategically placing insect repellent plants in your house or garden, you can keep annoying pests at bay. Curious about which flowers, plants, and herbs you should purchase as a natural bug repellent? According to the American company Aerex Pest Control, these are the best ways to keep those fleas, mosquitoes, and flies out. Please note that these plants, herbs, and flowers will not exterminate complete pests. This way of biological pest control can be beneficial when combined with other forms of proactive pest control in and around your home. Basil: repels mosquitoes and flies (and tastes great) Aerex Pest Control says that basil is a ‘great solution for repelling mosquitoes and flies’. These annoying insects don’t like the smell of this herb. Basil grows best with lots of sun and water. You can buy basil in a container in almost every supermarket and plant it in your garden. Easy does it! An additional advantage: basil tastes excellent with some mozzarella and tomato. Citronella: keeps the mosquitos away Citronella is known for its mosquito repelling odor: it had essential oils in it that these insects hate. You can buy citronella candles or a spray, but you can also strategically place this plant with strongly lemon-scented leaves in your home or garden. “It does well in a pot, or in the ground in a sunny and well-drained location,” according to Aerex Pest Control. Lavender: great for pest control The sweet smell of lavender is great for a good night’s sleep, but also to help repel flies, fleas, and mosquitoes. Thereby, it is a fantastic plant for pest control. The beautiful purple flowers will not look out of place in a colorful garden. “This plant is easy to maintain since it can basically survive all weather conditions.” Marigolds: repels and provide pops of color Marigolds will repel mosquitoes and aphids since they dislike the scent of this beautiful plant. “Plant them in sunny areas of your garden. If you have a vegetable garden, you can plant these throughout your garden to provide pops of color. Chrysanthemum: the greatest insect repeller among flowers Chrysanthemum helps to repel a lot of pests, including spider mites, ticks, roaches, lice, and fleas aphids, according to Aerex. The special ingredient: pyrethrum. You can find this in numerous insect-repelling sprays, as well as pet shampoos. This beautiful flower will look great both indoors and outdoors. ( Recommended:  New Foodscape Alternatives Gets Attention In The Netherlands )
Flowers are colorful. They smell nice and brighten up many homes and gardens. But flowers have another crucial advantage: they attract insects. Pesticides are causing major problems: they are polluting drinking water, for example, and killing bees. That is why more and more farmers are now using flowers instead of these chemicals to tackle pests on their land. To ensure more beneficial bugs visit their fields to feed on pests, some farmers are planting ‘flower strips’ in and around their crops. This kind of biological pest control seems to be an excellent way of contributing to the ecological intensification of agriculture. ( Recommended:  Vegetables, Fruit, Edible Flowers, But Also Bees In Cities Urban Farming ) Flowers instead of chemicals to tackle pests With mounting evidence about the problems caused by pesticides, many of the insect-killers have been taken off the market in the UK and Europe. However, others are still frequently used; and that frequent use makes them less effective, as pests become resistant to the chemicals. Fortunately, there is a biological way to combat pests on land. The so-called flower strips can encourage natural opponents of agricultural pests. As a result, the damage to agricultural crops is less, and there is hardly any need to use polluting plant protection products. The natural enemies of pests in arable crops will do the job. Experimenting with farmers using flowers, ‘a highway for bugs’ This kind of biological pest control is nothing new. Cultivating an environment where natural pest predators can live by growing flowers between other crops is already a common practice for promoting biodiversity. For example, farmers already know that aphids (a common pest for multiple crops) don't stand a chance if they must share their home with parasitic wasps. They will eat the lice in their larval state. But now, agriculturalists are experimenting with strips of flowers within their crops, creating a highway for bugs to travel farther and cover more ground for pest control. It may be a strange sight: strips of land that generally should have one color, but now have all kinds of vividly colored flowers in the middle. Due to a new study, fourteen sites will look like this. The study tests how well the wildflowers attract pest-eating bugs, and how well they can help replace commercial – and polluting - pesticides. ( Recommended :  Regenerative Agriculture: Its Full Potential (Part 3) ) Pesticides will be the last line of defense on farms The study includes borders of wildflowers around each field - something that some farmers have used over the past two decades in the area to promote general biodiversity, not specifically for pest control. Also, there are strips of flowers placed in the middle of fields. Small insects cannot travel far, but with these flower strips, they can enter the entire land. A similar study was done in Switzerland, where one of the results was that the leaf damage was reduced by 61%. The researchers estimated that choosing the right mix of flowers could increase yield 10%, making it economically self-sustaining or even profitable to keep planting flowers. The research shows that the use of aggressive pesticides can probably not be eliminated entirely, but that this natural method will make a big difference in the necessary quantity. If this biological approach is combined with other techniques, such as using technology to diagnose vermin, pesticide use could be dramatically reduced, and serve as a last line of defense on farms, rather than the first thing farmers reach for. {youtube}                                                       7 Simple Strategies to Prevent Garden Pests Biological method: farmers using flowers and herbs You can also apply this organic method of pest control at home. By strategically placing insect repellent plants in your house or garden, you can keep annoying pests at bay. Curious about which flowers, plants, and herbs you should purchase as a natural bug repellent? According to the American company Aerex Pest Control, these are the best ways to keep those fleas, mosquitoes, and flies out. Please note that these plants, herbs, and flowers will not exterminate complete pests. This way of biological pest control can be beneficial when combined with other forms of proactive pest control in and around your home. Basil: repels mosquitoes and flies (and tastes great) Aerex Pest Control says that basil is a ‘great solution for repelling mosquitoes and flies’. These annoying insects don’t like the smell of this herb. Basil grows best with lots of sun and water. You can buy basil in a container in almost every supermarket and plant it in your garden. Easy does it! An additional advantage: basil tastes excellent with some mozzarella and tomato. Citronella: keeps the mosquitos away Citronella is known for its mosquito repelling odor: it had essential oils in it that these insects hate. You can buy citronella candles or a spray, but you can also strategically place this plant with strongly lemon-scented leaves in your home or garden. “It does well in a pot, or in the ground in a sunny and well-drained location,” according to Aerex Pest Control. Lavender: great for pest control The sweet smell of lavender is great for a good night’s sleep, but also to help repel flies, fleas, and mosquitoes. Thereby, it is a fantastic plant for pest control. The beautiful purple flowers will not look out of place in a colorful garden. “This plant is easy to maintain since it can basically survive all weather conditions.” Marigolds: repels and provide pops of color Marigolds will repel mosquitoes and aphids since they dislike the scent of this beautiful plant. “Plant them in sunny areas of your garden. If you have a vegetable garden, you can plant these throughout your garden to provide pops of color. Chrysanthemum: the greatest insect repeller among flowers Chrysanthemum helps to repel a lot of pests, including spider mites, ticks, roaches, lice, and fleas aphids, according to Aerex. The special ingredient: pyrethrum. You can find this in numerous insect-repelling sprays, as well as pet shampoos. This beautiful flower will look great both indoors and outdoors. ( Recommended:  New Foodscape Alternatives Gets Attention In The Netherlands )
Farmers Using Flowers Instead Of Chemicals To Tackle Pests
Farmers Using Flowers Instead Of Chemicals To Tackle Pests
The Illusions Of Renewables. Solar And Wind Will Not Save Our Climate
Far too often, the debate on climate change shifts to one of fossil fuels versus renewable energy. If we were to completely let go of the ‘wasteful’ and switch to energy generated by natural elements such as wind, solar or waves, it would - or so it is alleged - save our planet. This thought has been at the center of the climate debate for more than 30 years, setting in motion large-scale renewable energy projects. However, looking at today’s landscape, we see that there isn’t a single nation that has completely shifted its energy needs to renewable sources. Some Scandinavian countries are well underway to realising a near-zero carbon electricity supply, but what stands out here, is the fact that renewables like solar and wind only make up a small percentage of this. It is a well-documented fact that the number of solar panels or wind turbines required to even come close to the amount of energy generated by ‘regular’ producers is massive. At the same time, these enormous grids required will lead to higher costs of generating electricity, huge amounts of energy required for its production, and leave behind a large environmental footprint. Additionally, it is a rather unreliable source of energy.   In short, solar and wind energy are not just falling short of what they ought to be producing in order to be an adequate replacement, they are also largely unnecessary when looking at the bigger picture. Which will, eventually, really be a good thing. Renewables history When listening to a regular climate change debate, one will be quick to conclude that renewable energy - in particular solar and wind energy - is a relatively new invention. Wind turbines have, after all, not been recorded in modern history as a common sight until recently. Yet the reality is that wind and sunlight are some of the oldest sources of energy that we have. Already back in 1833, a man named John Etzler was involved in a proposal that sought to construct solar power plants. These would employ mirrors to concentrate sunlight on boilers. Solar panels that are capable of generating electricity have even been mentioned in literature back in the late 1800s. The schools of thought were there, waiting to be picked up - but unfortunately being overrun by the power of coal and other fossil fuels. Yet renewables were never far from our mind, as there have been numerous mentions of solar energy in publications throughout the 20th century - pointing at it as the next ‘big thing’ in power generation. This started in 1891, with The New York Times reporting that solar energy is not yet economical in an article titled “ Solar Energy: What the Sun's Rays Can Do and May Yet Be Able to Do ”, in which it concluded "… the day is not unlikely to arrive before long… ”. Solar and wind energy revolution! Did it arrive? That day did arrive, yet it never really ‘caught on’, despite the hype being attributed to it by journalists and experts alike. In 1931, another journalist of The New York Times had discovered this ‘hidden treasure’, writing about “ the evolution of civilization similar to that which followed the invention by James Watt of the steam engine ”. In the following decades, renewables slowly got more attention and found themselves at the center of scientific and political debate, with subsidies, tax cuts and grants being thrown at it. Especially around the turn of the century, it seemed as if the ‘big breakthrough’ was waiting to happen - only waiting on that last bit of funding. A massive $2 trillion was spent on wind and solar energy combined between 2007 and 2016, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, with governments spending up to 100 times more on its subsidies than it did for nuclear and fossil fuels.   The results? Far from as impressive: in 2016, solar and wind generated energy only made up 1.3 and 3.9 percent of the earth’s total, respectively. ( Recommended :  Vortex Wind Turbine: Energy Generator Without Blades ) Denmark and Germany as role model? Of course, these numbers above are merely an average. Some countries, like Denmark, show more promising numbers for its decarbonisation process: where wind energy in particular is thriving, making up 48 percent of the total electricity in the country. Does this make them the role model for renewables that we need to create a blueprint for other countries as well? Well, it is important to understand the specific reasons why this tiny Scandinavian country was able to achieve this. Firstly, it is small. Really small. It has fewer than 6 million inhabitants, occupies a piece of land that can be crossed in only a few hours, and is a minor player on the world’s economic stage.   While small, it is located in a favourable region, with many European neighbours willing to import the excess wind energy generated, lowering the risk of a costly surplus. Regardless, Denmark’s electricity prices are still amongst the highest in the world. And while this is justified by claiming that the industry is one of its most important export products, it is still striking.   Areas that are deploying solar energy on a large scale have seen similar uptakes in electricity price. Denmark’s neighbour Germany has long boasted a status as the poster child of renewables, but is facing similar issues. Their electricity is the second most expensive in Europe, after Denmark, while emissions are not declining as much as they would like.   Danish Tax Minister Karsten Lauritzen said that the Government should rethink the level of tax on electricity consumption, which is currently the highest in Europe. According to the Tax Ministry, approximately 40 percent of a household electricity bill is tax but these revenues were and are nessecarry in Denmmark to subsidize the development of renewable energy. Carbon emissions least production: France and Sweden Therefore, measuring the share of solar and wind based energy sources in the total energy production will paint a somewhat misleading image - and show the inefficiency of solar and wind. A much better benchmark can be found when looking at the amount of carbon emissions per capita. Here, France and Sweden are ranking high. The surprising thing? While those countries have successfully cut their carbon emissions, they have done so by employing only limited wind and solar sources. Sweden is deriving 95 percent of its electricity from zero-carbon sources, and France 88 percent. What these sources are? Nuclear and hydroelectric power. Other countries, including Norway, Brazil and Costa Rica, have harnessed hydroelectric power in a similar fashion, effectively decarbonising their economies. Nuclear is slightly more scalable and reliable, compared to hydroelectricity’s relatively large environmental impact. Hydroelectricity, as demonstrated by Brazil and California, is inherently unreliable and will not let itself be steered, meaning that countries will have to fall back on fossil fuels if production unexpectedly falls short. Thus, nuclear energy appears to be the only zero-carbon source that is capable of saving our planet - it is scalable, reliable, and efficient. Renewables not necessary to save the climate   Good news, so far: we do not need renewables to solve climate change. Renewables require a lot of land and specific wasteful ‘ingredients’ like concrete, steel and glass for its production - nuclear plants only need a fraction of this.   {youtube}                                              The Illusions Of Renewables. Solar And Wind Will Not Save Our Climate To demonstrate this: solar panels have been shown to rake up to 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear energy. And even after having been produced in a wasteful manner, they still harm the environment by occupying large areas of land, threatening the local ecosystem - all in exchange for a relatively minor share of electricity. ( Recommended :  Solar Farms In Space: Next Step In Renewable Energy ) Are we headed for a solar waste crisis? While people are up in arms about nuclear waste, only very few really seem to be concerned about the concept of solar waste. And solar waste there is: most countries do not have an adequate plan for safely disposing this often toxic waste, while its pile is growing steadily. Nuclear waste makes all the alarm bells in our heads go off, while solar waste seems to be regarded with something akin to indifference. Solar waste versus nuclear   Let’s start with some cold, hard facts. Every unit of energy generated by solar creates 3000 times more toxic waste than a unit of energy generated by nuclear energy. To put it in a perspective that hits home: Environmental Progress calculated that, if all waste generated over the next 25 years would be stacked on a football field, the pile of nuclear waste would be about the same height as the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste pile would be as high as two Mt. Everests (16 km). Developing countries, on the other hand, are facing similar issues. China, India and Ghana are dealing with those living in communities near waste dumps. Here, waste is often burned in an attempt to salvage copper wires, which are consequently resold. This process requires the burning of surrounding plastics, meaning that the smoke that is released is very harmful and straight-up toxic to human health. Nuclear waste, on the other hand, is carefully stored and managed. Using the highest levels of caution and safety, waste is contained in cement-filled drums and stored in secured facilities for decades or even centuries on end. When comparing this to the lacklustre way in which solar waste is simply ‘dumped atop the pile’ of electronic waste, it is not hard to see where we are doing something wrong. Solar panels contain a large number of dangerous materials, including lead, chromium and cadmium - not just harmful on direct impact, but also potentially capable of infiltrating drinking water supplies.   Actual dangers versus perceived dangers The dilemma is not as tough when carefully observing those facts. The share of nuclear energy in the world’s electricity market is larger, yet created using ‘less’. Less waste, less land area, less of an ecological and environmental footprint. While we are keen on implementing more solar and wind, the reality is that these energy sources are often showing far from rosy numbers below the line.   We would do well to move beyond this illusion of renewables and explore other zero-carbon sources of energy, in particular nuclear energy. There are relatively few drawbacks to this stable and secure source of energy, that has remained at the center of societal scrutiny since its earlier days. Nuclear energy is one way of tackling climate change in a meaningful manner - something that unfortunately cannot be said about wind or solar. It is time to make decisions based on facts rather than on dreams of renewables. Recomended: Man-Made Climate Change
Far too often, the debate on climate change shifts to one of fossil fuels versus renewable energy. If we were to completely let go of the ‘wasteful’ and switch to energy generated by natural elements such as wind, solar or waves, it would - or so it is alleged - save our planet. This thought has been at the center of the climate debate for more than 30 years, setting in motion large-scale renewable energy projects. However, looking at today’s landscape, we see that there isn’t a single nation that has completely shifted its energy needs to renewable sources. Some Scandinavian countries are well underway to realising a near-zero carbon electricity supply, but what stands out here, is the fact that renewables like solar and wind only make up a small percentage of this. It is a well-documented fact that the number of solar panels or wind turbines required to even come close to the amount of energy generated by ‘regular’ producers is massive. At the same time, these enormous grids required will lead to higher costs of generating electricity, huge amounts of energy required for its production, and leave behind a large environmental footprint. Additionally, it is a rather unreliable source of energy.   In short, solar and wind energy are not just falling short of what they ought to be producing in order to be an adequate replacement, they are also largely unnecessary when looking at the bigger picture. Which will, eventually, really be a good thing. Renewables history When listening to a regular climate change debate, one will be quick to conclude that renewable energy - in particular solar and wind energy - is a relatively new invention. Wind turbines have, after all, not been recorded in modern history as a common sight until recently. Yet the reality is that wind and sunlight are some of the oldest sources of energy that we have. Already back in 1833, a man named John Etzler was involved in a proposal that sought to construct solar power plants. These would employ mirrors to concentrate sunlight on boilers. Solar panels that are capable of generating electricity have even been mentioned in literature back in the late 1800s. The schools of thought were there, waiting to be picked up - but unfortunately being overrun by the power of coal and other fossil fuels. Yet renewables were never far from our mind, as there have been numerous mentions of solar energy in publications throughout the 20th century - pointing at it as the next ‘big thing’ in power generation. This started in 1891, with The New York Times reporting that solar energy is not yet economical in an article titled “ Solar Energy: What the Sun's Rays Can Do and May Yet Be Able to Do ”, in which it concluded "… the day is not unlikely to arrive before long… ”. Solar and wind energy revolution! Did it arrive? That day did arrive, yet it never really ‘caught on’, despite the hype being attributed to it by journalists and experts alike. In 1931, another journalist of The New York Times had discovered this ‘hidden treasure’, writing about “ the evolution of civilization similar to that which followed the invention by James Watt of the steam engine ”. In the following decades, renewables slowly got more attention and found themselves at the center of scientific and political debate, with subsidies, tax cuts and grants being thrown at it. Especially around the turn of the century, it seemed as if the ‘big breakthrough’ was waiting to happen - only waiting on that last bit of funding. A massive $2 trillion was spent on wind and solar energy combined between 2007 and 2016, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, with governments spending up to 100 times more on its subsidies than it did for nuclear and fossil fuels.   The results? Far from as impressive: in 2016, solar and wind generated energy only made up 1.3 and 3.9 percent of the earth’s total, respectively. ( Recommended :  Vortex Wind Turbine: Energy Generator Without Blades ) Denmark and Germany as role model? Of course, these numbers above are merely an average. Some countries, like Denmark, show more promising numbers for its decarbonisation process: where wind energy in particular is thriving, making up 48 percent of the total electricity in the country. Does this make them the role model for renewables that we need to create a blueprint for other countries as well? Well, it is important to understand the specific reasons why this tiny Scandinavian country was able to achieve this. Firstly, it is small. Really small. It has fewer than 6 million inhabitants, occupies a piece of land that can be crossed in only a few hours, and is a minor player on the world’s economic stage.   While small, it is located in a favourable region, with many European neighbours willing to import the excess wind energy generated, lowering the risk of a costly surplus. Regardless, Denmark’s electricity prices are still amongst the highest in the world. And while this is justified by claiming that the industry is one of its most important export products, it is still striking.   Areas that are deploying solar energy on a large scale have seen similar uptakes in electricity price. Denmark’s neighbour Germany has long boasted a status as the poster child of renewables, but is facing similar issues. Their electricity is the second most expensive in Europe, after Denmark, while emissions are not declining as much as they would like.   Danish Tax Minister Karsten Lauritzen said that the Government should rethink the level of tax on electricity consumption, which is currently the highest in Europe. According to the Tax Ministry, approximately 40 percent of a household electricity bill is tax but these revenues were and are nessecarry in Denmmark to subsidize the development of renewable energy. Carbon emissions least production: France and Sweden Therefore, measuring the share of solar and wind based energy sources in the total energy production will paint a somewhat misleading image - and show the inefficiency of solar and wind. A much better benchmark can be found when looking at the amount of carbon emissions per capita. Here, France and Sweden are ranking high. The surprising thing? While those countries have successfully cut their carbon emissions, they have done so by employing only limited wind and solar sources. Sweden is deriving 95 percent of its electricity from zero-carbon sources, and France 88 percent. What these sources are? Nuclear and hydroelectric power. Other countries, including Norway, Brazil and Costa Rica, have harnessed hydroelectric power in a similar fashion, effectively decarbonising their economies. Nuclear is slightly more scalable and reliable, compared to hydroelectricity’s relatively large environmental impact. Hydroelectricity, as demonstrated by Brazil and California, is inherently unreliable and will not let itself be steered, meaning that countries will have to fall back on fossil fuels if production unexpectedly falls short. Thus, nuclear energy appears to be the only zero-carbon source that is capable of saving our planet - it is scalable, reliable, and efficient. Renewables not necessary to save the climate   Good news, so far: we do not need renewables to solve climate change. Renewables require a lot of land and specific wasteful ‘ingredients’ like concrete, steel and glass for its production - nuclear plants only need a fraction of this.   {youtube}                                              The Illusions Of Renewables. Solar And Wind Will Not Save Our Climate To demonstrate this: solar panels have been shown to rake up to 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear energy. And even after having been produced in a wasteful manner, they still harm the environment by occupying large areas of land, threatening the local ecosystem - all in exchange for a relatively minor share of electricity. ( Recommended :  Solar Farms In Space: Next Step In Renewable Energy ) Are we headed for a solar waste crisis? While people are up in arms about nuclear waste, only very few really seem to be concerned about the concept of solar waste. And solar waste there is: most countries do not have an adequate plan for safely disposing this often toxic waste, while its pile is growing steadily. Nuclear waste makes all the alarm bells in our heads go off, while solar waste seems to be regarded with something akin to indifference. Solar waste versus nuclear   Let’s start with some cold, hard facts. Every unit of energy generated by solar creates 3000 times more toxic waste than a unit of energy generated by nuclear energy. To put it in a perspective that hits home: Environmental Progress calculated that, if all waste generated over the next 25 years would be stacked on a football field, the pile of nuclear waste would be about the same height as the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste pile would be as high as two Mt. Everests (16 km). Developing countries, on the other hand, are facing similar issues. China, India and Ghana are dealing with those living in communities near waste dumps. Here, waste is often burned in an attempt to salvage copper wires, which are consequently resold. This process requires the burning of surrounding plastics, meaning that the smoke that is released is very harmful and straight-up toxic to human health. Nuclear waste, on the other hand, is carefully stored and managed. Using the highest levels of caution and safety, waste is contained in cement-filled drums and stored in secured facilities for decades or even centuries on end. When comparing this to the lacklustre way in which solar waste is simply ‘dumped atop the pile’ of electronic waste, it is not hard to see where we are doing something wrong. Solar panels contain a large number of dangerous materials, including lead, chromium and cadmium - not just harmful on direct impact, but also potentially capable of infiltrating drinking water supplies.   Actual dangers versus perceived dangers The dilemma is not as tough when carefully observing those facts. The share of nuclear energy in the world’s electricity market is larger, yet created using ‘less’. Less waste, less land area, less of an ecological and environmental footprint. While we are keen on implementing more solar and wind, the reality is that these energy sources are often showing far from rosy numbers below the line.   We would do well to move beyond this illusion of renewables and explore other zero-carbon sources of energy, in particular nuclear energy. There are relatively few drawbacks to this stable and secure source of energy, that has remained at the center of societal scrutiny since its earlier days. Nuclear energy is one way of tackling climate change in a meaningful manner - something that unfortunately cannot be said about wind or solar. It is time to make decisions based on facts rather than on dreams of renewables. Recomended: Man-Made Climate Change
The Illusions Of Renewables. Solar And Wind Will Not Save Our Climate
The Illusions Of Renewables. Solar And Wind Will Not Save Our Climate
Earth Overshoot Day 2019 Earlier Than Ever: Using 1.75 Orbs
Earth Overshoot Day 2019 is earlier than it ever has been before. Today, 29th of July 2019, humans will have exhausted the allowance of the planet's natural resources for the entire year. July 29 marks Earth Overshoot Day (EOD), and for the rest of 2019 all the energy humanity uses is unsustainable in the long term. It is the earliest that EOD has ever fallen, and means humans are using nature 1.75 times faster than Earth's ecosystems can regenerate. Earth Overshoot Day. What you need to know! Falling on July 29 means humanity is currently using nature 1.75 times faster than our planet's ecosystems can regenerate. It means humans currently consume 1.75 Earths every year. Last year EOD fell on August 1 while the year before that it was on August 3. It has been calculated that by 1973, when human consumption began outstripping what the planet could produce, EOD fell in early December. Before the 1970s, the Earth was able to renew all of its resources spent by humans every year. Earth Overshoot Day? What is it? Humanity would need 2.7 Earths if the world's population lived like the UK (Global Footprint Network) EOD is an annual campaign by the Global Footprint Network (GFP) designed to draw attention to Earth's limited natural resources. Mathis Wackernagel, co-inventor of Ecological Footprint accounting and founder of Global Footprint Network, said: "We have only got one Earth – this is the ultimately defining context for human existence. We can’t use 1.75 without destructive consequences." The day marks the point when the amount of energy and resources humanity is using exceeds the amount Earth can replace in that year ( Recommended : Earth Day: Colonialisme, Overexploiting Of Natural Resources ). It means that in just seven months, humans have exhausted the amount of water, soil, clean air and other resources that the planet can generate in 2019, meaning from now until December all the energy we use is unsustainable in the long-term. The extra waste we now produce cannot be absorbed and will cause harm, and we are using too many other natural resources - like eating fish, plant-based food and meat - too quickly. The date of Earth Overshoot Day is calculated by comparing the amount of ecological resources the Earth can generate that year, by humanity’s demand for that year. According to GPD, overshoot is possible because we are depleting our natural capital. The costs are becoming increasingly evident in the form of deforestation, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, or the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. MoveTheDay is a campaign within a campaign - that is, an initiative to push back EOD by five days each year "allow humanity to reach one-planet compatibility before 2050". GFP says opportunities to move the day can be found in five areas: cities, energy, food, population and the planet. For instance, cutting CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels by 50% would move the day by 93 days Other ways humanity could MoveTheDate involve looking at the ways we design and manage cities and moving from sprawling, segregated cities to compact, integrated ones Local, plant-based diets are favoured over industrial animal-based ones since food production currently uses more than half of our planet's biocapability Protecting nature through conservation, reforestation and regenerative farming will also be key in helping sustainability. The GFP also recommends empowering women "leads to smaller, healthier and better educated families" {youtube}                                                Earth Overshoot Day 2019 Earlier Than Ever: Using 1.75 Orbs Sustainability how to improve it? ( Recommended :  Smart Sustainable Lifestyle Changing Tips & Tricks For 2019 ) There are a number of things you can do to help the move towards global sustainability. Recycle Cut energy use at home Minimise waste Grow your own fruit, veg and herbs Instal energy efficient appliances at home Compost Car pool and use public transport Go plastic free Buy from charity shops Cut down on meat consumption ( Recommended: All About Society )
Earth Overshoot Day 2019 is earlier than it ever has been before. Today, 29th of July 2019, humans will have exhausted the allowance of the planet's natural resources for the entire year. July 29 marks Earth Overshoot Day (EOD), and for the rest of 2019 all the energy humanity uses is unsustainable in the long term. It is the earliest that EOD has ever fallen, and means humans are using nature 1.75 times faster than Earth's ecosystems can regenerate. Earth Overshoot Day. What you need to know! Falling on July 29 means humanity is currently using nature 1.75 times faster than our planet's ecosystems can regenerate. It means humans currently consume 1.75 Earths every year. Last year EOD fell on August 1 while the year before that it was on August 3. It has been calculated that by 1973, when human consumption began outstripping what the planet could produce, EOD fell in early December. Before the 1970s, the Earth was able to renew all of its resources spent by humans every year. Earth Overshoot Day? What is it? Humanity would need 2.7 Earths if the world's population lived like the UK (Global Footprint Network) EOD is an annual campaign by the Global Footprint Network (GFP) designed to draw attention to Earth's limited natural resources. Mathis Wackernagel, co-inventor of Ecological Footprint accounting and founder of Global Footprint Network, said: "We have only got one Earth – this is the ultimately defining context for human existence. We can’t use 1.75 without destructive consequences." The day marks the point when the amount of energy and resources humanity is using exceeds the amount Earth can replace in that year ( Recommended : Earth Day: Colonialisme, Overexploiting Of Natural Resources ). It means that in just seven months, humans have exhausted the amount of water, soil, clean air and other resources that the planet can generate in 2019, meaning from now until December all the energy we use is unsustainable in the long-term. The extra waste we now produce cannot be absorbed and will cause harm, and we are using too many other natural resources - like eating fish, plant-based food and meat - too quickly. The date of Earth Overshoot Day is calculated by comparing the amount of ecological resources the Earth can generate that year, by humanity’s demand for that year. According to GPD, overshoot is possible because we are depleting our natural capital. The costs are becoming increasingly evident in the form of deforestation, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, or the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. MoveTheDay is a campaign within a campaign - that is, an initiative to push back EOD by five days each year "allow humanity to reach one-planet compatibility before 2050". GFP says opportunities to move the day can be found in five areas: cities, energy, food, population and the planet. For instance, cutting CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels by 50% would move the day by 93 days Other ways humanity could MoveTheDate involve looking at the ways we design and manage cities and moving from sprawling, segregated cities to compact, integrated ones Local, plant-based diets are favoured over industrial animal-based ones since food production currently uses more than half of our planet's biocapability Protecting nature through conservation, reforestation and regenerative farming will also be key in helping sustainability. The GFP also recommends empowering women "leads to smaller, healthier and better educated families" {youtube}                                                Earth Overshoot Day 2019 Earlier Than Ever: Using 1.75 Orbs Sustainability how to improve it? ( Recommended :  Smart Sustainable Lifestyle Changing Tips & Tricks For 2019 ) There are a number of things you can do to help the move towards global sustainability. Recycle Cut energy use at home Minimise waste Grow your own fruit, veg and herbs Instal energy efficient appliances at home Compost Car pool and use public transport Go plastic free Buy from charity shops Cut down on meat consumption ( Recommended: All About Society )
Earth Overshoot Day 2019 Earlier Than Ever: Using 1.75 Orbs
Manmade Antarctic Snowstorm: Save Cities From Rising Seas
Whether we stop burning fossil fuels or not, emissions pumped into the atmosphere so far may already have doomed the west Antarctic ice sheet. The fast loss of ice from the region could not be stopped by emissions cuts anymore. Major cities across the world, like New York, will be left below sea level because the oceans will rise by at least three meters in the coming centuries. According to a new Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research study, spraying trillions of tons of snow over west Antarctica could halt the ice sheet’s collapse and save coastal cities across the world from sea level rise. Antarctica!  Slow the pace of ice loss The idea of this large geoengineering project is to slow the pace of ice loss and lower sea levels. By pulling ice-cold water from the sea and spraying it back over Antarctica, the water will turn into snow. It will replace the lost ice and push Antarctica’s ice sheets to the ground so it can stabilize. This project is an idea with tremendous disastrous and budgetary implications. According to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research study, the enormous project would need energy from at least 12.000 wind turbines ( Recommended : Vortex Wind Turbine: Energy Generator Without Blades ) to power giant pumps for the sea water and snow cannons to ice up the ice sheets, and would destroy a unique natural reserve. Wind turbines, thousands! If will take a lot of financial effort to complete this massive geoengineering project. According to the research, 7.4tn tons, or about seven cubic kilometers of sea water, over ten years would be necessary to achieve the stabilization of Antarctica’s ice sheets. The area covered would be two-thirds the size of Scotland. As we said earlier, at least 12.000 wind turbines would be needed, as well as extra power to stop the water from freezing in the pipes. There are no exact costs for this geoengineering project, as these numbers are proof of concept rather than a precise estimation. Just imagine this: the largest pump in the world, in New Orleans, cost about 600 million dollars, and the Antarctic project would need about 90. A lot of money but the cost would be less than abandoning even one coastal city like New York. ( Recommended :  Climate Change: Antarctica Is Melting Says NASA ) {youtube}                                               Manmade Antarctic Snowstorm: Save Cities From Rising Seas 'Paris Agreement' includes 5 meter sea level rise The loss of ice from west Antarctica is caused by the warming ocean water. This warmer water melts the bottom of the ice sheet on the coast. This ice loss will eventually mean that certain coastal cities will fall below sea level. The fact that the Antarctic ice sheet will completely collapse is not yet defined, according to the scientists. In the past it used to be two degrees warmer on earth, and in that time, sea level was many times higher than today. ( Recommended :  Climate Agreement Paris And The Denial Of President Trump ) Why isn’t this project happening yet? One thing is sure: it is unlikely that reducing carbon emissions to zero will save the ice caps in Antarctica. The above geoengineering project will therefore only be a (costly) way to buy time. But even if we keep the Paris agreement target, we will have to deal with at least five meters of sea level rise. That leaves us some difficult choices for the future: either we abandon coastal cities, or we have to make a colossal effort to buy us time. The final verdict of the scientists: bolstering the ice sheet with artificial snow would be in vain unless rising temperatures were checked. The new study did not include future global heating of the ocean and atmosphere. Humankind might have to make an unprecedented effort ‘The scientists are not advocating for such a project, but said its apparent ‘absurdity’ reflects the extraordinary scale of threat from rising sea level’. Scientists are investigating various climate solutions to be able to advise accurately. Whether they are in favor or against, they play an important role in challenging different solutions. ‘Scientists feel it is their duty to inform society about every potential option to counter the problems ahead. As unbelievable as the proposal might seem, in order to prevent an unprecedented risk, humankind might have to make an unprecedented effort.’ ( Recommended: All about the Climate )
Whether we stop burning fossil fuels or not, emissions pumped into the atmosphere so far may already have doomed the west Antarctic ice sheet. The fast loss of ice from the region could not be stopped by emissions cuts anymore. Major cities across the world, like New York, will be left below sea level because the oceans will rise by at least three meters in the coming centuries. According to a new Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research study, spraying trillions of tons of snow over west Antarctica could halt the ice sheet’s collapse and save coastal cities across the world from sea level rise. Antarctica!  Slow the pace of ice loss The idea of this large geoengineering project is to slow the pace of ice loss and lower sea levels. By pulling ice-cold water from the sea and spraying it back over Antarctica, the water will turn into snow. It will replace the lost ice and push Antarctica’s ice sheets to the ground so it can stabilize. This project is an idea with tremendous disastrous and budgetary implications. According to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research study, the enormous project would need energy from at least 12.000 wind turbines ( Recommended : Vortex Wind Turbine: Energy Generator Without Blades ) to power giant pumps for the sea water and snow cannons to ice up the ice sheets, and would destroy a unique natural reserve. Wind turbines, thousands! If will take a lot of financial effort to complete this massive geoengineering project. According to the research, 7.4tn tons, or about seven cubic kilometers of sea water, over ten years would be necessary to achieve the stabilization of Antarctica’s ice sheets. The area covered would be two-thirds the size of Scotland. As we said earlier, at least 12.000 wind turbines would be needed, as well as extra power to stop the water from freezing in the pipes. There are no exact costs for this geoengineering project, as these numbers are proof of concept rather than a precise estimation. Just imagine this: the largest pump in the world, in New Orleans, cost about 600 million dollars, and the Antarctic project would need about 90. A lot of money but the cost would be less than abandoning even one coastal city like New York. ( Recommended :  Climate Change: Antarctica Is Melting Says NASA ) {youtube}                                               Manmade Antarctic Snowstorm: Save Cities From Rising Seas 'Paris Agreement' includes 5 meter sea level rise The loss of ice from west Antarctica is caused by the warming ocean water. This warmer water melts the bottom of the ice sheet on the coast. This ice loss will eventually mean that certain coastal cities will fall below sea level. The fact that the Antarctic ice sheet will completely collapse is not yet defined, according to the scientists. In the past it used to be two degrees warmer on earth, and in that time, sea level was many times higher than today. ( Recommended :  Climate Agreement Paris And The Denial Of President Trump ) Why isn’t this project happening yet? One thing is sure: it is unlikely that reducing carbon emissions to zero will save the ice caps in Antarctica. The above geoengineering project will therefore only be a (costly) way to buy time. But even if we keep the Paris agreement target, we will have to deal with at least five meters of sea level rise. That leaves us some difficult choices for the future: either we abandon coastal cities, or we have to make a colossal effort to buy us time. The final verdict of the scientists: bolstering the ice sheet with artificial snow would be in vain unless rising temperatures were checked. The new study did not include future global heating of the ocean and atmosphere. Humankind might have to make an unprecedented effort ‘The scientists are not advocating for such a project, but said its apparent ‘absurdity’ reflects the extraordinary scale of threat from rising sea level’. Scientists are investigating various climate solutions to be able to advise accurately. Whether they are in favor or against, they play an important role in challenging different solutions. ‘Scientists feel it is their duty to inform society about every potential option to counter the problems ahead. As unbelievable as the proposal might seem, in order to prevent an unprecedented risk, humankind might have to make an unprecedented effort.’ ( Recommended: All about the Climate )
Manmade Antarctic Snowstorm: Save Cities From Rising Seas
Manmade Antarctic Snowstorm: Save Cities From Rising Seas
Solar Farms In Space: Next Step In Renewable Energy
The green energy revolution continues to accelerate - solar parks are a familiar sight all over the world. But China wants to take solar energy to a whole new level. The nation’s ambition is to put a solar power station in orbit by 2050. With this power station, China will have access to the most reliable source of renewable energy, since the sun always shines in space. If this difficult and costly plan will work, it will make China the first nation to harness the sun’s energy in space and beam it to Earth. Are solar farms in spaces the answer to our prayers or a mission impossible? Solar energy: the inexhaustible source It seems to be a great idea: space-based solar power as an inexhaustible source of energy. "You don’t have to deal with the day and night cycle, and you don’t have to deal with clouds or seasons, so you end up having eight to nine times more power available to you," said Ali Hajimiri, a professor of electrical engineering at the California Institute of Technology and director of the university’s Space Solar Power Project for solar farms in space. ( Recommended: Solar Energy Turned Into Liquid Fuel Can Be Stored For 18 Years ) Energy demands So why haven’t anyone thought of this before? Well, the thought of using solar farms in space is nothing new. The idea was very vivid in the 1970s. The research stalled largely because the technological demands of a solar power station in space were thought to be too complex. But nowadays, there is a huge progression in technology compared to a few years ago. The improvements in the design and efficiency of photovoltaic cells and advances in wireless transmission are making it possible to pick up where researchers left off. How much of a difference will these improvements make? Asked John Mankins, a physicist who led the agency’s efforts in the field in the 1990s before NASA abandoned the investigating. “We’re seeing a bit of a resurgence now, and it’s probably because the ability to make solar farms in space is there, thanks to new technologies."   According to Mankins, there is another factor driving the revived interest in this kind of renewable power. The world’s population is growing – it’s expected to swell to 9 billion by 2050. Space-based solar power can become essential to meet the energy demands of people in parts of the world that aren’t particularly sunny. “If you look at the next 50 years, the demand for energy is stupendous. If you can harvest sunlight with solar farms in space where the sun is always shining and deliver it with essentially no interruptions to Earth — and you can do all that at an affordable price, you win." {youtube}                                                                       Solar Farms In Space: Next Step In Renewable Energy                                                                                Mission impossible? Details of China’s plan remain a secret. According to Mankins, the nation can 'launch tens of thousands of 'solar satellites' that would link up to form an enormous cone-shaped structure that orbits about 22,000 miles above Earth. They would be covered with photovoltaic panels to convert sunlight into energy, which would be beamed wirelessly to ground-based receivers. Such a solar facility could generate a steady flow of 2,000 gigawatts of power.’ There are still some hurdles to overcome, like the weight of the solar panels. ( Recommended: Waste In Space Will Be Fetched By The Cubesail carbage Truck ) It will also cost billions of dollars to make these solar farms in space happen. The research, the tests and the solar satellites itself (price tag: about ten billion each) will make this a very expensive project – to say the least. China hasn’t revealed how much it’s spending to develop its solar power stations, but the China Daily reported that the nation is already building a test facility in the southwestern city of Chongqing. It doesn’t seem like a mission impossible. China is taking a key position in the development of solar farms in space. According to John Mankins, a solar power station in space is a wonderful thing. “For a lot of locations, rooftop solar is fabulous, but a lot of the world is not like Arizona (or other sunny places). Millions of people live where large, ground-based solar arrays are not economical,” he said. Mankins hailed recent developments in the field and said he is keen to follow China’s new initiative. What do you think - is this next step in renewable energy? ( Recommended: All About Solar Energy )
The green energy revolution continues to accelerate - solar parks are a familiar sight all over the world. But China wants to take solar energy to a whole new level. The nation’s ambition is to put a solar power station in orbit by 2050. With this power station, China will have access to the most reliable source of renewable energy, since the sun always shines in space. If this difficult and costly plan will work, it will make China the first nation to harness the sun’s energy in space and beam it to Earth. Are solar farms in spaces the answer to our prayers or a mission impossible? Solar energy: the inexhaustible source It seems to be a great idea: space-based solar power as an inexhaustible source of energy. "You don’t have to deal with the day and night cycle, and you don’t have to deal with clouds or seasons, so you end up having eight to nine times more power available to you," said Ali Hajimiri, a professor of electrical engineering at the California Institute of Technology and director of the university’s Space Solar Power Project for solar farms in space. ( Recommended: Solar Energy Turned Into Liquid Fuel Can Be Stored For 18 Years ) Energy demands So why haven’t anyone thought of this before? Well, the thought of using solar farms in space is nothing new. The idea was very vivid in the 1970s. The research stalled largely because the technological demands of a solar power station in space were thought to be too complex. But nowadays, there is a huge progression in technology compared to a few years ago. The improvements in the design and efficiency of photovoltaic cells and advances in wireless transmission are making it possible to pick up where researchers left off. How much of a difference will these improvements make? Asked John Mankins, a physicist who led the agency’s efforts in the field in the 1990s before NASA abandoned the investigating. “We’re seeing a bit of a resurgence now, and it’s probably because the ability to make solar farms in space is there, thanks to new technologies."   According to Mankins, there is another factor driving the revived interest in this kind of renewable power. The world’s population is growing – it’s expected to swell to 9 billion by 2050. Space-based solar power can become essential to meet the energy demands of people in parts of the world that aren’t particularly sunny. “If you look at the next 50 years, the demand for energy is stupendous. If you can harvest sunlight with solar farms in space where the sun is always shining and deliver it with essentially no interruptions to Earth — and you can do all that at an affordable price, you win." {youtube}                                                                       Solar Farms In Space: Next Step In Renewable Energy                                                                                Mission impossible? Details of China’s plan remain a secret. According to Mankins, the nation can 'launch tens of thousands of 'solar satellites' that would link up to form an enormous cone-shaped structure that orbits about 22,000 miles above Earth. They would be covered with photovoltaic panels to convert sunlight into energy, which would be beamed wirelessly to ground-based receivers. Such a solar facility could generate a steady flow of 2,000 gigawatts of power.’ There are still some hurdles to overcome, like the weight of the solar panels. ( Recommended: Waste In Space Will Be Fetched By The Cubesail carbage Truck ) It will also cost billions of dollars to make these solar farms in space happen. The research, the tests and the solar satellites itself (price tag: about ten billion each) will make this a very expensive project – to say the least. China hasn’t revealed how much it’s spending to develop its solar power stations, but the China Daily reported that the nation is already building a test facility in the southwestern city of Chongqing. It doesn’t seem like a mission impossible. China is taking a key position in the development of solar farms in space. According to John Mankins, a solar power station in space is a wonderful thing. “For a lot of locations, rooftop solar is fabulous, but a lot of the world is not like Arizona (or other sunny places). Millions of people live where large, ground-based solar arrays are not economical,” he said. Mankins hailed recent developments in the field and said he is keen to follow China’s new initiative. What do you think - is this next step in renewable energy? ( Recommended: All About Solar Energy )
Solar Farms In Space: Next Step In Renewable Energy
Solar Farms In Space: Next Step In Renewable Energy
Get updates on environmental sustainability in your mailbox every month.