Now I will tell you why the forest is not green lungs of the planet, who benefits from stories about global warming, and why not work to save the planet, saving water in the toilet.
It is important in the development of oxygen forests?
In fact, land plants during photosynthesis produce oxygen about as much as then consume themselves. A large part of the O2 produced by microscopic marine algae — phytoplankton, which produces ten times more oxygen than you need him. Another source is the dissociation of water molecules under the action of solar radiation. So even if all the forests disappear from the surface of the earth, the oxygen content in the atmosphere is not affected. After all, once the forests on Earth had oxygen, even more than now.
The forest is very important for air purification from dust, its saturation with volatile substances with antimicrobial action. Forests provide shelter and food to many animals and birds, give people aesthetic pleasure. But to call them the “green light” at least illiterate.
I am absolutely not against planting trees: no matter how useless this is the case across the planet, but it is noble and at the local level actually improves the environment. But this is nothing more than a good deed. Planting trees will not help against carbon emissions because trees absorb all the gas is returned to the atmosphere in autumn, with the decay of leaves and fallen branches, and then, after the death of a tree — with the oxidation of the main trunk. That is, planting trees in the best case leave the content of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere unchanged. Or, on the contrary, will increase the amount of CO2 it depends on what species and in which climatic zones the plant.
Benefit resource savings and recycling of materials?
Here there is a conflict: for whom the society saves water, electricity and fossil fuels, if the excess charge of the Executive and the Corporation? After all, we have saved resources and public utilities, the nature has not become easier, except that our bill for housing has decreased. Reduced consumption of tap water, allowed the developers to put another house. Because before the water supply network could not pull it out, but the tenants were pogulis. Energy saving techniques also will not entail a reduction in the production of electricity, but it is a real contribution to environmental protection. Half of the electricity supplies the Leningrad nuclear power station. I think it will close if the queries will be reduced? Rather, the next set “for consumption of excess energy an aluminum plant.
How much paper we’ve passed, deforestation is reduced. And the trees will go if not on paper, as pellets. Same with recycling plastic: we do not reduce the production of plastic primary. They do not replace each other and are used to produce different products. Perhaps the only metals recycling truly serves the cause of nature protection by reducing primary extraction of ore.
Do electric cars cause less damage to the environment?
This is absolutely not true. At the stage of production of one electric car consumes as much electricity as produced by burning 10 million liters of gasoline. This amount of fuel a car consumes the middle class in my entire life. Further, batteries for electric cars is expensive and poisonous, most of them can not serve more than five years. Of course, you can recycle, but it is a dubious pleasure.
Yes, the electric car does not emit CO2, but do thermal power stations that supply electric cars with energy. Turns out electric cars run on the same energy from the burning of fossil fuels, that familiar car. So electric cars do become “clean”, they must obtain energy from “clean” sources. At the current stage of development of science and technology is definitely impossible.
If it is difficult to find alternative sources of energy?
Today as an alternative heating source in the world widely used heat pumps use the natural heat of the earth’s interior. This is a good solution for a detached house, which has electricity. If you need to heat a whole village, you can use deeper layers of the Earth for the extraction of heat.
For the Leningrad region as a potential source of energy is growing here Hogweed, the processing of which the Russian scientists have received a patent. The plant contains, on average, 24% sugars, which is comparable to sugar cane, which has long been used in Brazil for the manufacture of motor fuel.
For boiler, excluding peat, can come and fuel chips, and pellets from wood, however, they are quite expensive. Now in the Kingisepp district of the Leningrad region, created installations for the production of biochar from forest residues and cow parsnip. Solar and wind energy in our region are already used for lighting the bus stops.
One of the most promising sources of energy can become biogas from the decomposition of solid waste. In contrast to technologies of burning of solid waste, obtaining and use of biogas is an environmentally safe technology.
What is actually environmental damage from vehicles?
It is believed that cars are guilty of air pollution in big cities at least by 80%. But these figures are completely wrong. The statistics do not include the emissions from household sources such as kitchen gas stoves, responsible for the emission of 21% carbon monoxide and 3% of nitrogen oxides. Ignored and carbon dioxide emissions from “biological sources” of man, his domestic animals, of trees.
Besides, we forget that mankind is responsible for only 25% of air pollution. The remaining 75% are due to natural causes such as volcanoes, dust storms, forest fires, dust, cosmic origin, etc. Thus, exhaust gases of cars — not the biggest threat to the atmosphere.
If there is global warming and how to blame people?
Some researchers came to the conclusion that in a few decades it will be the Kingdom of ice. Warming periods on the Earth naturally followed by periods of cooling ten times longer. And the current period of warming, contrary to popular stereotype, already on the wane.
The planet’s climate is changing, but man isn’t involved. The so-called scientific basis of the theory of global warming does not stand the test of common sense. Accused in alleged ongoing emissions of carbon dioxide from sources created by man. But the annual emission of carbon dioxide from the oceans 100 times greater than anthropogenic.
Who benefits from the spread of myths about the “anthropogenic causes of warming”? I think those who have these myths to help keep the power. Those who thus inspires the masses the idea that their governments can control everything. After all, if climate disaster caused by humans — that means, in their power to prevent it. But in reality, all our attempts to change habits on the planet look pathetic and futile.
Yes, fight the inevitable is foolish, and save the planet, saving water in the toilet will not work. But there are plenty of things we can do based on their understanding about good behavior. You can plant a tree in your garden or work in a shelter for homeless animals, to feed winter birds in the Park. It is impossible to rectify the situation in a global sense and tells us to act according to conscience. In addition, no more than we do.
