Electric cars are not a new concept as we think, people hve been using them for a long time .In fact in the 1900’s people used more electric cars than cars run on gas.In the 1920’s when the popularity for cars was growing, gas was very costly.Starting a gas run car was also a very tedious process, there was no key to ignite the engine, in fact a rod used to fit into the front of the car which had to be turned round and round to get the car started.

Not only were gas run cars tedious to start , they emitted alot of smoke and were very noisy, as either the mufflers used were not good or there were no mufflers at all. Beleive it or not , at one point of time electric cars were so popular that there were about 50,000 electric cars running on the streets of United States .

As new discoveries were underway to make gasoline cheaper, electric cars started disappearing from the market. The discovery of the electric starter made way for the exit of the crank and the car was started with a key.A car run on gas could travel more distance than the electric car.Thus cars run on gas started getting more pouplar than the electric car.

Now, once again because of the awareness towards protecting the environment and reducing the dangers caused by the emission of the greenhouse gases ” green ” electric cars are once again getting

popularized.

Gasoline is not used to run an electric car, it runs on the energy stored in batteries in the car. 12,14 or more batteries may be needed to run the car.The operation of the electric car is similar to that a remote controlled one since both have an electric motor that turns the wheel and a battery that that runs the motor.

Charging of the batteries can either be done all night or some cars need to be plugged into a standard electric wall.There are some which need a large electric outlet, something like what is used for an electric stove or electric clothes dryer. These are the various ways electricity is stored in the cars.

The batteries used to run the cars have to be either lead acid batteries, similar to those used in torch lights or ni-cad (nickel-cadium) used to run portable viodeo recorders or video games , only much larger in size. A lot of work is going on to upgrade the batteries to hold more energy and last longer. By the time the fifth graders in 2001 are ready to drive we should have electric cars which will be able to travel 150 to 200 miles before needing to get recharged.

Manufacturers of cars and scientists are making constant endeavours to make better cars which will be more eco-friendly. The revival of electric cars and the challenge to make them more attractive is on in a big way and enticing more people to switch over to electric cars.

Heat waves, wildfires, droughts and flash floods are among the weather phenomena that will become more intense and frequent due to global warming. There is more in store, as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, primarily flowing from our tailpipes and smokestacks, build up in the atmosphere.

The consequences of not doing anything about global warming pale in comparison to the costs. It will cost the world less economically, in the long run, to wean itself from fossil fuels. It will prevent costly epidemics, natural disasters and possibly even wars spurred by the migrations of people fleeing climate-ravaged regions.

Potential solutions range from asking industry to reduce pollution, as President Bush did to little effect, to taxing carbon, as only a handful in Congress favor. In between are various strategies to encourage the use of renewable energy and ‘clean coal’,popularize efficient vehicle technology, boost building efficiency, manipulate the market to drive down the level of pollution, and prepare the nation’s infrastructure for the changes to come.

Worldwide, emissions in 2050 must drop below 1990 levels by at least 50% – likely much more. That means the decisions made by the next president will be critically important, since industrialized nations will have to make steeper cuts to meet the goal. Until recently, the United States was the world’s top carbon polluter (China now pollutes more), and it remains the world’s per capita leader and the nation with the longest legacy of pollution.

What is a future president to do? Both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain agree that global warming is real, that humans are largely responsible, that unabated it is likely to have serious consequences and that the federal government should take an active role to reduce the threat. Both support a cap-and-trade regulation that would set nationwide limits on the amount of carbon that could be emitted and allot pollution allowances to individual plants and industries so that those that exceed their limits must buy credits from those that do not.

Here’s where they differ:

Senator Barack Obama’s Position on Global Warming is that he would aim to cut emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, in line with the scientific consensus for avoiding the worst consequences of global warming. His cap-and-trade regulation would also include an auction of all pollution credits (so no polluter retains the right to pollute for free), and he plans to use the money generated to pursue aggressive renewable energy and energy efficiency goals that would also, he says, create millions of new ‘green collar’ jobs.

Senator John McCain’s Position on Global Warming McCain was an early champion of cap-and-trade in the Senate and last supported a 60% cut below 1990 levels of pollution, short of the goal articulated by the world’s scientists. He would allot credits to existing polluters, rather than auctioning them off.

When one mentions the word global warming, an image of Jeremy Clarkson defending the usage of cars and denying their impact onto the environment comes into mind! The UK alone has become aware of the impending doom of the earth’s temperature rising by five degrees by the end of the century, causing rising sea levels, famine, drought and an increase in unpredictable weather conditions. As much as many believe that this is something of a myth, it is in fact something that is affecting us today.

When people are not aware of the adverse result of global warming the thought of global warming becomes something of an annoyance. However, many people have seen the carbon footprint adverts on TV and will question what this is about. How does one measure their own carbon footprint in their homes and what should one do to improve their carbon management? These are just a couple of questions arising from the doom of global warming, which I intend to answer in the simplest manner.

Businesses, companies, homes, schools and hospitals all contribute to global warming and are all subject to better carbon management. A carbon footprint is the measurement of carbon dioxide released and impacted by human activity. This measures how much humans affect the earth in terms of releasing greenhouse gases. Carbon emissions can be in the form of using your car, keeping lights on in the house unnecessarily, using too much electricity (such as keeping your computer on for prolonged periods of time) and much more.

Steps can be made to reduce the amount of carbon emission in the form of keeping the general everyday usage of things that may emit a higher level of carbon into the atmosphere at low number. The government began steps after the Kyoto Protocol which was aimed at legally binding targets to reduce the amount carbon emissions from main cities and surrounding areas. Working towards reducing the amount of greenhouse emissions is just one step to preventing the effects of global warming.

The media have also played an important role in passing on information about carbon emissions. Often some of the information can be distorted with myths on what can be construed as leaving your carbon footprint. Larger industries and businesses emit the most amount of carbon dioxide, which is much of the carbon management strategies are aimed at reducing carbon emissions in a typical office setting.

The most effective way of reducing carbon emissions is through automating the monitoring process, which will work on monitoring a live emission of carbon throughout the day. This will also enable companies to take control of how much energy they use from their equipment. Reducing carbon emissions from home can be as simple as switching your electricity company to another company which uses renewable sources. Also simple measures such as recycling basic materials such as paper, card, plastic and glass will help. Other instances such using your car less to travel to local areas, keeping your water usage controlled and not wasting water usage.

Want to know about the advantages and disadvantages of solar power? Well, there are a lot of advantages of solar energy. I’m going to first tell you about the advantages of solar energy over that of energy generated from oil.

Advantages Of Solar Power

Solar power is a renewable energy source. Despite the fact that we cannot make use of sun’s power during night, or on days when there is no sunlight available, we can count on the next day being sunny, when there will be sunlight to give us more energy and light. As long as we have the sun we can generate solar energy from it (and it’s a no brainer that when we no longer have sun in existence, we won’t find ourselves alive, either!). When compared to solar energy, oil is non-renewable source of energy. Once it finishes, it is gone forever. We might find a different source of energy but that might finish off one day as well. So its just about time that we start looking for other renewable sources of energy to end the power crisis and the answer is- Solar Power Solar cells are totally silent. They create energy from sun without making any noise. Now think over the noise made by huge drilling machines that pump oil Solar cells/panels need no maintenance (as they do not have any moving parts within them, so there is no wear and tear that need replacement) The most important advantage of solar energy as compared to oil is that the solar energy is non-polluting, whereas oil when burnt releases harmful toxic, greenhouse gases and carcinogens in air. Although the initial setup of solar panel or solar lights might be pricey but in the long run saves us a lot of money, as we will never have to pay the electric bill again! On the other hand we all are aware of the increasing prices of oil and thus the generated electricity worldwide. Solar powered products and lights are very simple and easy to install.

Evidently, there are many advantages of solar power. The advantages of solar power range from benefiting in reducing to completely eliminating the cost of your monthly electric bills to benefiting the environment.

Disadvantages of solar power



Just for the records…..

Solar cells/panels can be expensive at times specially when you order them to be made or buy them. Solar energy can not be created during night.

Evidently when we look at the advantages and disadbvantages of solar power and compare them, its advantages greatly outnumber the disadvantages. Also the current disadvantages are the things that are always worked upon to improve as technology advances

Global warming and climate change are already upon us. Global warming is a large issue with intensely intimate consequences at the personal and community level. What we need to recognize is that choices at the local and community level CAN make differences.

Most of the choices we make about how we choose to live are economic and political choices. These are choices about forms of consumption (humans have always been consumers). They are political choices in terms of energy production and transportation choice.

Global Warming is only the most recent case of man inducted troubles for the earth. Rachel Carson’s campaign against DDT caused malaria to re-emerge in Africa, killing hundreds of thousands of human beings.

Greenhouse gases play an important role but are only a contributing factor. It should not come as a surprise that our entire solar system has been warming for the last quarter century, or that the most accurate weather forecasts come from algorithms that concentrate on solar fluctuations and cosmic rays. Greenhouse gases are an air pollution problem, and all air pollution problems of the past have cost significantly less to fix than projected, while declining faster than expected.

This gives cause to hope that greenhouse gases can be controlled reasonably cheaply and without wrenching sacrifices to the global economy. However, recent evidence suggests that changes like the melting of glaciers and of polar icecaps are occurring much faster than expected. A positive feedback loop caused by man man and naturally occurring cyclical trends may have already been established and climate change will progress on an accelerated course no matter what we now do to arrest it.

Greenhouses use a Co2 “poison” level of 1000pmm which is great for plant growth and has not hurt anyone yet, even those who spend a long period of time in such an environment. But the problem is not in inhaling the gas. It is that they cause temperature increases. Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.

Climate prediction relies on other, longer ranging factors. For instance, we might not know if it will be below freezing on a specific December day in New England, but we know from our understanding of the region’s climate that the temperatures during the month will generally be low. Climate change due to human influence, a phenomenon that many commentators seem unwilling or unable to accept, is the result of unsustainable activities.

Since the late-19th century, the industrialized world has been using fossil fuels, both coal and petroleum, to produce our comfortable, energy-intensive lifestyle. Over the next 20 to 50 years climate change, whether caused by natural or human factors, or a combination of both, will likely have a serious impact on huge numbers of the earth’s population.

Scientists emphasize that most of the damage to coral is inflicted by global warming through coral bleaching, the result of higher water temperatures heating the coral. The warming waters stress the coral, which then expels the microscopic plants or algae that give the coral color and nourishes it. Scientists have shown that cave formations could help settle the contentious debate on whether hurricanes are strengthening in intensity due to global warming.

Measuring oxygen isotope variation in stalagmites in Actun Tunichil Muknal cave in central Belize, a team of researchers have identified evidence of rainfall from 11 tropical cyclones over a 23 year period (1978-2001). Scientists believe CO2 levels will rise another 30% during the next 50 years.

Scientists are increasingly worried about emissions from developing countries. China is expected to pass the United States this year or next to become the world’s largest emitter of global warming gases. Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global warming by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. Our fossil fuel use is the main source of these gases.

Scientists made their discovery by comparing the SeaWiFS record of the rise and fall of global ocean plant life to different measures of recent global climate change. The climate records included several factors that directly affect ocean conditions, such as changes in sea surface temperature and surface winds.

Climate change due to human influence, a phenomenon that many commentators seem unwilling or unable to accept, is the result of unsustainable activities. Since the late-19th century, the industrialized world has been using fossil fuels, both coal and petroleum, to produce our comfortable, energy-intensive lifestyle. It is difficult to break away from the use of fossil fuels as so many of the earth’s population depend upon them for energy and economic development.

There are plenty of troubling signs that trouble is on the way. For example, ice breaks away from the Perito Moreno Glacier in Patagonia, Argentina, where the melting rate of ice fields has doubled in recent years. Glaciers around the world are retreating, a sign, scientists say, of global warming. Ice core records show that whenever CO2 has increased in the earth’s past, so has temperature. The recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is 200 times as great as any previous change seen in the ice cores.

All the signs are there for dramatic changes to occur with the earth’s weather over the next few years. In fact, judging from recent drought, hurricane and tornado activity the leading edge of this activity may be upon us. The speed at which climate change is now occurring is surprising the scientists. It may be that it is already too late to escape disaster.

“Green Building” is a broad term used to describe the design and construction of sustainable and environmentally conscious buildings.

The driving force behind this is to lower our negative impact on the environment and, at the same time, make the buildings we live and work in safer and healthier for us.

According to the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) statistics,`buildings are responsible for all of the following:

39% of US carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

70% of US electricity consumption

15 trillion gallons of water consumption



Even though there is still some controversy over the effect of greenhouse gases on the environment, the last two statistics are very important for those of us living in urban areas experiencing continuous growth, especially the American Southwest. With our population expansion, aging water and electrical infrastructure, and shrinking landfills, designing and constructing green and sustainable buildings makes practical sense from a utilitarian perspective.

In fact, USGBC data shows that green buildings use 36% less energy, require fewer raw materials, and divert less waste to our landfills. Furthermore, the “increased” cost of green building is only one or two percent more expensive than a conventional building. This minute difference exemplifies the tangible and long-term benefits of sustainable design, primarily due to the fact that green buildings conserve water and electricity. Thus, while they are more expensive to build, green structures will save money by conserving more energy over time.

Another push towards the green build movement is by local governments. More and more municipalities

are adopting the USGBC LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) guidelines for new

and renovated buildings. In 2006, at the USGBC Greenbuild expo, the Mayor of Denver challenged other major cities to see who can have the most LEED® certified green buildings. They are accomplishing this by offering tax breaks to private corporations and mandating sustainable construction for city-financed projects.

This has led to a dramatic increase in the number of sustainable projects built by LEED® Certified general contractors. However, this growth has not come without challenges. Currently, the following issues are restricting the number of green projects being built:

Increased demand for green products has lead to long lead times

New and unspecified materials are labeled “green” products which are not necessarily certified

Building officials are struggling with a steep learning curve on how to evaluate these new products and sustainable building techniques



Despite these difficulties, the USGBC, sustainability advocates, and green building construction management firms are meeting to overcome these challenges.

The LEED® process is constantly under review and continues to adopt the latest codes and products. This includes Standard 189, a new minimum standard for green building. The USGBC is currently developing LEED® 3.0 and working with national code writers to include new products and techniques.

The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has even rolled out a new initiative called “Sustainability 2030,” which at its roots, is looking to design all buildings by the year 2030 as carbon neutral. The USGBC has even initiated the Green Advantage Builders Certification for contractors to certify their knowledge in green building

techniques.

So what does green building mean at the end of the day? It’s simple yet profound: Do the right thing for you, the environment, and the next generation. While most companies are concerned with their bottom line, they ought to embrace the idea that energy and water conservation, green building, and the use of “green materials” in construction stands to increase their savings over time while positioning them as a leader in environmental stewardship.

According to the USGBC, we spend 90% of our time indoors. Due to this fact, scientists have identified an increase in allergies, asthma, absenteeism from school, and even work. There have been numerous studies done on post occupancy productivity levels, which have increased within “green” built facilities. Not only does

green adaptation result in less sick days taken, but also shows an increase in productivity, job

satisfaction, and in the case of schools, better grades.

So, as we positively affect the environment around us with sustainable green construction, we eventually create better health for ourselves.

Everyone have become familiar if not in tune with the term carbon footprint and reducing ones carbon footprint. The term has only recently been revealed to people as this is something we are all unaware of doing on a daily basis from the comforts of our home. Carbon solutions have been instigated in the form of guidance for people to follow as a way of reducing ones carbon footprint. However, in order to make this fully effective, the first thing that would need to be put across is letting people know what carbon footprint is.

Carbon solutions are all about climate protection. One leaves their carbon footprint by producing an increased amount of greenhouse gases, which is released into the atmosphere. This is measured by the amount of CO2 emissions, which is the main cause for concern over global warming. Human activity is believed to be the cause of the increasing risk of global warming. One can measure how much carbon footprint they leave behind by measuring how much energy they use in one year.

Each individual uses enough energy, through their normal daily activities, producing a certain of CO2. One can produce plenty of CO2 emissions from travelling by car to work, leaving their computers on, leaving the light on, washing their clothes at forty degrees as opposed to the recommended thirty, or even use aerosol deodorants as opposed pump sprays. This can cause a problem for people looking to reduce their carbon footprint and pose a problem for the solution to this problem.

Climate change has affected many parts of the world, with the people in the UK noticing the difference of weather change. Climate change is a relatively new concept to which even experts are working on ways of find solutions to this problem. With people consuming less energy and partaking in carbon solutions, this may affect the climate change and reduce the risks of global warming. Green electricity is also a new concept, which uses sustainable and reusable energy sources, to produce the amount of electricity.

The Christmas is possibly one of the worst periods for energy consumption due to the amount of lighting put up for decoration, high consumption of food, gift purchases and paper wastage, higher usage of travelling vehicles and more electricity used in the home. This produces up to 650kg of CO2 emissions; the government aim to reduce to just 250kg. This is a difficult solution to instigate, however, this is possible with people practising the concept of recycling and learning to use energy saving equipment.

James Finch asked:


Bad weather may be heading our way. Many very smart voices have raised their volume over the number of alarming red flags pointing to a worldwide environmental catastrophe coming in a few years or decades hence. One voice, coming from the sharp mind of James Lovelock is resounding across the world’s media nearly every day. His solution: get more nuclear reactors online and sequester the carbon dioxide emissions as fast as possible.

What’s the alternative? Move to the Arctic Circle, where you may someday bask year around with temperatures pleasantly at 74 degrees Fahrenheit. According to findings recently published in the journal Nature. About 55 million years ago, there was something called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). In this PETM phenomenon, the entire Earth was heated up by a gigantic release of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. Lovelock has insisted we may see that kind of hot later this century.

Now, another brainy man, with whom we have many chats this year, has issued a special 56-page report, entitled “Investment Implications of an Abrupt Climate Change.” Co-authored by Market Strategist Kevin Bambrough and Eric Sprott, Chief Executive and Portfolio Manager of the world-famous money management firm which bears his name, they present a compelling argument as to why and how global warming and climate change is going to dramatically impact our financial world. You are well advised to read it.

Take Your Pick: Nuclear Energy or Cheap Arctic Land

Aside from optioning to buy vast tracts of land near the Arctic Circle, as Dr. Lovelock’s conclusions force us to briefly consider, what can we do to protect our finances? Global warming, climate change and an apocalypse soon to dawn on the horizon are probably too much reality for the here and now. But, what will you do ten to thirty years from now? This past week, we interviewed Julian Steyn, author of A Brighter Tomorrow, which he co-wrote with U.S. Senator Pete Domenici. A conservative and rational man, even he admitted in an email, “I am afraid I do agree with his (Lovelock’s) concerns.”

If one finds logic within the statistical analysis presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a rational mind would want to start protecting his finances today in order to ensure future survival for his family and lineage. Esteemed scientists have picked their way through mountains of statistics, charts and projections about what is happening with melting glaciers, rising temperatures, higher sea levels and so forth. They do not like what they see, they are not alone, and the better minds are not endorsing wind farms or solar panels as “the solution.” They see nuclear fission reactors as mandatory, and the faster these go online, the less we will later have to sweat (literally).

Eric Sprott and Kevin Bambrough have laid out a possible solution, a cogent thesis as to why we must stop fooling around now. They didn’t write the report to alarm and cajole you to lynch the next environmentalist or anti-nuke whom you come across. Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough provided a blueprint of what must be done by governments and decision-makers. More importantly, they have given us extremely provocative advice on HOW to protect our finances during the brewing crisis.

Remember, it won’t just be some meteor hitting the earth (although that might happen, too). Global warming is tantamount to boiling water on your stove. First, it gets warm, then warmer and warmer. Eventually, it gets hot. Then, the water boils. In other words, the catastrophe will brew for a while, causing political and economic instability, and a host of other ills, probably better described in biblical terms. Most of us, unfortunately, will wait until the next Hurricane Katrina is a few miles down the road before waking up.

Through the first half of the report, the authors cover global warming and climate change, in just about every way imaginable. Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough found nooks and crannies which may alarm you. Did you know the world’s largest aquifer, the Ogallala aquifer in the United States, is drying up because the glaciers, which created this aquifer, are receding? Fresh water is already in short supply for one-third of the world’s population. We may be surrounded by water, but could lack a glass of fresh water to drink. Ask the Saudis why they are building desalination plants as fast they can. Imagine if those arid conditions prevailed across more than 90 percent of the landmass of earth.

What happens as the earth’s temperature goes up? Increased urbanization, growing GDPs and demand for all the niceties that come with “civilization” have a price: more CO2 emissions. Deadly CO2 emissions, which raise the earth’s temperature, poison our air and kill our plants (and us), are very likely going to turn this earth into a potboiler before the century ends.

Nuclear Expansion Needs More Uranium

“This IS the perfect storm,” Kevin Bambrough warned, not as the abused cliché the term has become, but as an angry voice demanding decision-makers take to heart the gravity of CO2 emissions. “We need more nuclear reactors now,” he told us. He directed us to environmentalist Patrick Moore’s contention that the U.S. should reverse its energy source mix from an 80-percent dependence upon fossil fuels, relying instead upon nuclear energy for 60-percent of our electrical power supply.

Under the former Greenpeace co-founder’s scenario, Bambrough extrapolated the World Nuclear Association (WNA) projections for 2030. Nuclear power demand is then expected to soar from the current 368 Gw, produced by the world’s 441 nuclear reactors. He computed, using Moore’s premise of a 60-percent nuclear-reliance, that nuclear reactors would produce 18,900 Twh of the total power demand in 2030, which the WNA estimates might reach 31,500 Twh. To produce that much electricity, Bambrough calculated that by 2030, nearly 2700 nuclear reactors will be required across the planet. Envisioning the “potential” of a 600-percent increase in nuclear reactors online, about 25 years from now, Bambrough also calculated how much uranium would be required to fuel those reactors.

According to Bambrough, current global uranium mining production rests at about the 100 million-pound level. By 2030, if nuclear energy expands as Moore insists it should, then the world’s utilities will require on the order of about 1.3 billion pounds every year. With regards to a planetary build-up of nuclear energy, Bambrough wrote, “The supply of uranium may well be the most limiting factor.”

This may become the new case for a sustained rally in the spot uranium price. Bambrough wrote, “Much higher uranium prices will be required to attract enough investment capital to meet the growth in demand.” This has already begun, as uranium prices have skyrocketed for the past six years. Long-term uranium recently traded as high as $46/pound, exponentially higher than the spot price of $6.40/pound in late 2000. Bambrough is correct in his conclusion. Building an underground uranium mine costs far more than it did in the glory days of uranium in the 1950s. Environmental regulations force miners to spend more and take longer in constructing any uranium-producing facility, including an ISL operation.

“Marginal mines will become price setters,” wrote Bambrough. This helps explain why the Sprott Asset Management funds have invested heavily in companies such as Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM; Other OTC: STHJF), Energy Metals (TSX: EMC) and others. When we first interviewed Strathmore Minerals Chief Executive, Dev Randhawa, in June 2004, he told us his strategy was to capitalize upon a sustained rally in the uranium price by acquiring properties which were uneconomic at the sub-$20/level. His strategy has rewarded shareholders and continued to do so with each uptick in the spot uranium price. If Bambrough’s conclusion is accurate, the junior uranium developers could very well become the Internet high-fliers. That conclusion was reached by newsletter writer James Dines, this past November, and repeated numerous times in multiple reports by others.

“Large low-cost producers may be able to reap Middle East-like oil profits for decades,” wrote Bambrough. If the spread between production costs and spot uranium keeps widening, the smaller uranium companies are going to hit it big. Those companies, which postponed uranium mining, will be selling their uranium production at the kind of profits-to-production spread ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco now enjoy.

Rising uranium prices are probably more of an irritation for fuel traders than the utilities, who worry about construction costs. The actual fuel cost to operate a nuclear power plant borders on the absurd. Bambrough wrote in his report, “Fuel costs (for nuclear) are merely 4.5 percent of total costs, even with uranium at $40 per lb. If uranium rises to $100 per lb (a further 150 percent increase), the cost of nuclear power would only rise by approximately 6.75 percent.” Fuel costs for coal and gas are 35 and 73 percent, respectively. And they release massive doses of CO2 into the air.

What else can be done aside from a worldwide, unanimous endorsement of nuclear energy? There may still be difficulties ahead. Lovelock told us the CO2 emissions problem should have been addressed 50 years ago. It takes between 50 and 100 years for the atmosphere to cycle through those emissions.

The Sprott report co-authors concluded there will be supply problems for food, water and energy. They envision problems with national security, soaring grain prices, and greater investments needed to provide water and energy to those who aren’t buried ten feet deep in their indebtedness. They foresee a currency collapse as central banks flood the money system to provide liquidity. And, of course, gold will resume the role it has always held during times of overpowering economic calamity.

Is this too much reality for you? Should we just wait a while and see what transpires? We might not be so lucky. Some experts, such as the Chief Claims Strategist for Swiss Re, wrote in a March 2006 CERES report, “Global warming has accelerated from a problem that might affect our grandchildren, to one that could significantly disturb the social and economic conditions of our lifetime.”

In other words, Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough are correct in their assumptions and conclusions. The time to get moving is today, not thirty years from now.

For a second opinion, before completing this column, we forwarded the Sprott report to David Miller. He wears many hats, including a consultancy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, third-term Wyoming legislator, president of Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM) and a walking encyclopedia on uranium, geology, nuclear power and politics. He responded quite bluntly, “The fuel of the 19th century was coal. The fuel of the 20th century was oil. Both have run their economic course. Uranium is on its way to becoming the energy fuel of the 21st century. The crescendo of countries clamoring for nuclear energy has been growing louder in each year of this new millennium.” Perhaps, we may yet see Moore’s energy mix come to pass, or at least dramatic growth in the nuclear sector to more closely approach his targeted percentage level.

One key question remains unanswered, during our two-year investigation into uranium and nuclear energy. Sure, we’ve gotten a lot of answers, but we remain unconvinced. No one has satisfactorily answered this question: “Will there be sufficient supplies of ‘already mined uranium’ and current mining production available to the world’s nuclear reactors to meet the anticipated global demand for electricity?” The make-break word in the above question is “available.” Uranium is nearly everywhere. There are about 1.7 billion pounds of ‘already mined uranium’ in the world’s inventories. But will there be enough uranium made available to the utilities when the time comes?

If there is not, today’s spot uranium price could look comparable to gasoline prices, circa 1965, at some future point.

Andrew Regan asked:


In this day and age, the various modes of public transportation are staggering. It was only decades ago that having one car per household seemed like a luxury and air travel was restricted to those who could easily afford to fly. Nowadays, with so many budget airlines offering mega deals and super saving packages, it’s no wonder the number of people going abroad is on the increase and the volume of domestic flights keeps on rising.

This piece of information may seem unimportant and trivial at best. After all, what’s the point in knowing that more people went on holiday by plane this year than last year? It all boils down to two words: carbon footprint.

SafeClimate defines the term ‘carbon footprint’ as ” a representation of the effect you, or your organization, have on the climate in terms of the total amount of greenhouse gases you produce (measured in units of carbon dioxide).” Essentially, a carbon footprint is made up of two parts: the direct/primary footprint and the indirect/secondary footprint. The first, or primary footprint is a measure of our direct emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, including domestic energy consumption and transportation (e.g. car and plane), whereas the secondary footprint is a measure of the indirect CO2 emissions from the whole lifecycle of products we use – from the products’ manufacture through to its usage and eventual breakdown.

However, it’s possible to reduce your carbon footprint in several ways. One method is to alter the way you would normally travel when going on a holiday or business trip. If the flight was domestic, could another mode of transportation be used? Transport by car, ferry or train is often cheaper and won’t take that much longer. If you’re going on a business trip, does the meeting really require to be conducted in person? Or can a video conference call be just as sufficient?

When travelling by road, various factors can be used to justify the use: distance driven, fuel (whether you use petrol or diesel), fuel efficiency and number of passengers per vehicle. If you’re travelling solo, why not consider carpooling with friends or colleagues? Alternatively, ditch the car altogether and opt for coach travel. With several companies offering a multitude of routes between towns and cities, coach travel can prove to be more economical and efficient, as well as stress-free as you won’t be needed to do the driving! But, if eliminating the car isn’t an option, then why not create or sign up to a car scheme in your area?

Or, if you’re in the possession of a bicycle, why not use that more often instead? Cycling to work or to any other location not only lowers your carbon footprint, it also counts as an active form of exercise. So not only will you improving your own well-being, you’ll also be contributing to the well-being of the planet.

Jess Ray asked:


mmon misconception that living green is more expensive than not. But, if you look at it from a different perspective you can see that you can do so with out too much effort of with out spending a lot of money.

I have found 5 simple tips to help contribute to reducing your carbon footprint without lightening your wallet…

1. USE COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS – This is an item that is a little pricey but if you attempt it bit by bit or room by room its not as hard on the wallet. Focus on rooms that get the most use : living room, kitchen, family room or office.

In the beginning, pay attention for a day or two to find which room you spend the most time in and change those blubs. Then try to find the second most used room and when you can afford it change out those bulbs.

Its all about small steps that in time can be very effective. Here are some statistics I gathered from the Energy Star website:

If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars. ENERGY STAR qualified bulbs use about 75 percent less energy than standard incandescent bulbs and last up to 10 times longer. Save about $30 or more in electricity costs over each bulb’s lifetime. CFL’s Produce about 75 percent less heat, so they’re safer to operate and can cut energy costs associated with home cooling.

2. UNPLUG ELECTRONICS WHEN NOT IN USE – This tip is a great way to save energy usage that essentially costs you no more than a bit of time.

I’m sure we all have some appliances that are plugged in and are drawing electricity even though we are not using them.

Do you shut your computer down every night? Do you have a clock in every room? Do you have a VCR or DVD player with a clock and memory to maintain?

Did you know that even if your TV is off it is still drawing electricity to power a memory device? Coffee makers are another culprit.

A good rule or thumb is to ask yourself what appliances need to be re-set after a power outage. These are items you need to address. If you’re not sure if an appliance is an energy sucker, just unplug it. If its not plugged in, it can’t draw electricity.

3.USE CLOTH SHOPPING BAGS – This is one of the easiest tips I have for you. You would be astonished at how many folks don’t do it.

My suggestion is to buy a few and keep them in the car (I have a knack for forgetting them). Most supermarkets have displays of them for $1.99 with a lower price if you buy more than 3 or 5.

Not a big investment and I have to say it makes unloading the groceries much easier. It is so nice to have 2 nice strong bags instead of a dozen flimsy plastic ones and you can get everything into the house that much faster.

Here are some great facts I found about plastic shopping bags:

* Hundreds of thousands of sea turtles, whales and other marine mammals die every year from eating discarded plastic bags mistaken for food. * Plastic bags don’t biodegrade, they photo-degrade – breaking down into smaller and smaller toxic bits contaminating soil and waterways.

* As a part of Clean up Australia Day, in one day nearly 500,000 plastic bags were collected.

* Windblown plastic bags are so prevalent in Africa that a cottage industry has developed using the harvested bags to weave hats and bags. According to the BBC, one group harvests 30,000 per month.

* Plastic bags are among the top 12 items of debris most often found in coastal cleanups, according to the nonprofit Center for Marine Conservation

4. USE NATURAL CLEANING PRODUCTS – Now don’t go and throw out all of your cleaning products, that would defeat what we are trying to do. Use up what you have and before you run out, go through this list, stock up and prepare your solutions so you’ll be ready to go.

I would advise to purchase some new plastic spray bottles rather than try to reuse the old ones from the other cleaners, there will be some residue left behind that would require a lot of rinsing to remove.

I don’t use everything on this list but I do use a lot of white vinegar and baking soda as well as some commercial enviro-friendly products that I purchase from a reputable company.

Baking Soda – Baking soda is a great all-purpose, non-toxic cleaner. It cleans, deodorizes, scours, polishes and removes stains. (Note – There’s a great article on this site about baking soda, “The Manifold Magic of Baking Soda”)

Borax – It deodorizes, removes stains and boosts the cleaning power of soap. It prevents odors and mold too. Great alternative for those who do not want to use bleach.

Cornstarch – cleans and deodorizes carpets and rugs, and can be used in place of baby powder.

Ketchup -cleans copper.

Lemon juice – great for whitening items and removing grease and stains on aluminum and porcelain.

Pure Soap – cleans almost anything and is mild.

Salt – regular table salt makes an abrasive, but gentle, scouring powder.

Washing Soda – A great disinfectant and cuts grease well too.

White Vinegar -great for whitening, cleaning hard surfaces and windows, and shining metal surfaces. Also removes mildew, stains, grease and wax build up

For even more helpful and natural cleaning products go to www.frugalfun.com/cleansers.html

5.STOP USING PAPER TOWELS – This is a tough one when you have little ones, I know, but I found some great alternatives.

Cloth napkins are one way to at least cut back on paper towel use and if you bargain shop you can usually find some decent ones for less than .50 a piece.

Another great product is those chamois style towels that suck up so much liquid. I have a bunch and love them, they wash up easily and hold up well too.