abuse our environment comes from operations which can not be sustained by
nature. For example, if three trees felled to make way for the new
house, then nature has lost three trees and any offspring forever. This is not
sustainable.
If, after felling three trees, are four new trees planted in
another place where growth and reproduction prospects are the same as in
in the first page, then this is sustainable. Four each tree, you may ask?
Two reasons: one, because not all saplings survive due, 2. add
for the delay before the new trees reach the age of those
place. This is a simple example to illustrate the team. in
reality, the calculation of the replacement tree plantings involves many aspects and
is considerably complicated
power – Special case
Another example: if the plant is to be environmentally friendly it is
should either ensure that no pollution or excess carbon dioxide is pumped into
environment or take other actions that will restore quality
environment. Historically, we know this has not been achieved. If the cost of
in the power environmentally sustainable was reasonable then we
have done it a long time. The fact that this is widely known problem has led to
major misunderstanding of the community's environmental costs money.
This is simply not the case. Modern power plants are generally far kinder to
environment than older. They still pollute the environment, but not
nearly as much as they did earlier. To translate power plant experience
to other areas of life, and industry in particular, is a mistake.
Pollution Production
contaminants are unwanted bi-products. They have been produced and this
production has cost money. Rubbish that goes into landfill sites is a bi-product of
products we want. This debris is made up mainly of packaging. Someone went
struggling to make packaging, using valuable energy and probably
emitting any pollution in the process. Someone else was in trouble
buy this packaging – then, at the end of his life it is dumped. The same principle can be
applied all pollution. It has been produced and paid for. To say that
reduce pollution costs money is illogical.
Improving power
Let & # 39; s apply this logic to power
stations, almost all power stations around the world are pumping out
particles in the air as a bi-product. Older plants (particularly coal-fired
ones) are pumping out relatively large particles compared to modern stations.
These large particles are responsible for seeding rain clouds and change
climate. If all these particles, large and small, were added and
weighed, can you imagine that they would add up to thousands of tons per day, which
are pumped up – and eventually fall back down again. This is like
rent 100 & # 39; s airliners every day to take off loaded with a ton of carbon
particles and then let them free in the atmosphere. Old plants
were built in this way, when pollution and waste was not a primary consideration.
Most countries around the world have brought in legislation to reduce these
release, along with sulfur, mercury and other harmful substances and materials
are improving all the time. I would contend, however, that in time, this would
have happened through market forces. For example, another bi-product of coal
fired power plants – fly ash – is now routinely done in bricks to build
building and is also used in road construction. Modern power plants also
recycle much of the heat produced in emissions as a way to improve
efficiency. Many also heat local homes and businesses, including the power of
itself, using this heat output. As I said, however, the power
special case, and their efforts to be environmentally friendly has led to
mistaken belief that environmentally friendly measures are expensive.
Conservation
To recycle, and even better, to re-use is indeed preferable to constant
cycle dumping old and buy new. An even better way is summed up in the old-fashioned term:
conservation. This is not only the most environmentally friendly way to proceed, it
is also the most cost effective. By turning down your thermostat a notch or two,
or by walking instead of driving times; by turning off the lights when you
leave an empty room: These may seem small measures, but when multiplied
around the world, would make a real difference to the environment. Take travel
why we travel so much? Can not some work from home and avoid the
Rush Hour and have a better quality of life? Schools and homes to be closer to
to each other? Maybe it should be more / less schools and instead of smaller / larger? In fact, more or less all may not be a bad idea when
consider travel reduction. Maybe it's time to consider a steep rise in fuel prices
price?
environmental footprint
Most manufacturing operations and increasingly most of our daily work
have called around "footprint". This footprint is
measure of the effect of action on the environment. When we take out those are
should give back. Just as new trees are planted to replace those that have been
felled, so we should make amends when we pollute our environment. Better yet,
however, is the idea that we make no footprint in the first place. The question
is why the trees were felled in the first place?