Global warming is loud – from science labs to Presidential debates, everyone is talking about what to do about it. More than any weapon of war crafted by man, global warming, if unchecked, stands poised to threaten the well being of mankind.
Everything about global warming is controversial – its causes, effects, even whether it actually exists. As such, many are interested in it, and many more are interested in debating it. For an issue that is so well known, its causes are not. Most people would blame oil, others would point to coal, and almost all would say that buying a hybrid car helps. But are these the primary causes of global warming? Does that awesome-looking new Prius really reduce your carbon footprint?
Surprisingly, the answer is no – to both questions. The primary causes of global warming are much more interesting and much more diverse than the simple one-word answers of “coal” or “oil”.
This article identifies ten global warming culprits that are shocking, unusual, and even funny.
Nuclear Energy-say “no” to the “glow”
While some hail nuclear power as the panacea to the energy crisis, nuclear power actually causes more environmental problems than it solves. Nuclear power relies on the mineral uranium – a heavy metal – to facilitate a nuclear reaction. While nuclear power itself is a clean source of energy, the process of producing it is much dirtier.
Uranium processing and milling is a significant source of air pollution, releasing such gases as Nitrogen Oxide and Sulfur Dioxide. Nitrogen Oxide’s effect on greenhouse warming is 296 times greater than Carbon Dioxide, contributing more than all of the cars in the United States combined.
Second is Cows
Going to the Outback Steakhouse is not just delicious, its good for the environment. Methane – the polite name for flatulence given by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization – generates over eighteen percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. For the remainder of us, the technical term is “cow farts”.
But it’s not just the gas that’s problematic - manure from cows also contributes significant amounts of methane into the environment. Methane has an effect that is 25 times greater than Carbon Dioxide.
Third, Farming
When you order the steak, hold the veggies. According to Gabrielle Walker, “Agriculture accounts for about thirteen percent of global greenhouse emissions – approximately the same amount as vehicular transport.” This is because – like cows – the gas methane is produced. Plants process the nutrients they receive through their root systems, and emit methane as a byproduct. The levels of methane can be attributed partly to the fertilizers used; plants that use methane fertilizers emit 49% more methane than non-methane-fertilizer plants.
The amount of methane fertilizers – the scientific name for cow poop – is directly related to the amount of methane fertilizer creators. Perhaps the steak dinner is alright after all.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it still hurt our environment?
The lumber industry does a powerful double harm to the environment.
First, the machinery used to chop down and harvest trees causes harm to the environment; they are largely powered by diesel fuels – which produce extremely dirty fumes – and consume great amounts of these fuels. And on occasion where the goal is development, not lumber harvesting, the trees are simply burned, emitting high levels of greenhouse gasses.
But more significantly, they remove our ability to recover. Trees naturally convert Carbon Dioxide to Oxygen through their own process of respiration. Yet here, the very trees that process Carbon Dioxide and return Oxygen to the atmosphere are now removed.
It is for this that the lumber industry directly accounts for over sixteen percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or about 1,600,000,000,000 pounds of gas.
The not so friendly skies.
How many times do advertisements for the newest hybrid car appear on our television screens? Extended promises about huge gas mileage – with fine print spoken at 800 words per minute at the end of the commercial – create the impression of satisfying environmental savings.
But beyond cars-what about airplanes? Aviation has been growing faster than any other source of greenhouse gases. Between 1990 and 2004, the number of people using airports rose by 120%, and the energy consumed by the planes themselves rose 79%. The resultant Carbon Dioxide emissions increased drastically, to a total of 3,900,500,000 pounds in 2004 – and growing. The aviation industry is expected to triple in passengers over the next 20 years, with emissions mirroring the increasing numbers.
Take off that suit – ties are our sixth cause
Should every day be casual Friday? Most people would say yes – but now they have a reason to do so.
Suits and ties are actually contributory to global warming. This is because they are generally dark colored, and thus absorb significantly higher amounts of heat than other, brighter colored pieces of clothing. This heat is then carried into the office building, which increases the workload – and energy consumption – of the air conditioners.
As funny as this may sound, it has been empirically demonstrated; in 2006, this policy allowed Japan to cut an estimated 7,900,000 lbs of CO2 by reducing its air conditioning workload.
Camouflage is not green - The Military
TEN HUT! The US military is actually one of the least green industries in the United States. The emissions are so severe that the military had to be given a special “national security exemption” from Environmental Protection Agency, to avoid indictment for using such outdated and environmentally harmful machinery.
The Army once considered replacing the mother of all fuel-gorgers, the Abrams tank engine, with a more efficient diesel plant. But the Army leadership then reversed course because it was too expensive. Most recently, the Army canceled a program to produce hybrid-diesel humvees, and has de-prioritized the development of other hybrid trucks in the medium and heavy fleets.
The military’s tanks and vehicles account for extremely high amounts of carbon emissions from the United States, and represent a significant threat to the global environment.
Eighth, go country - Cities
Urban Heat Island – no, its not another bad reality show, it’s a cause of global warming. Urban Heat Island occurs when an area becomes very developed. The tall buildings within many urban areas provide multiple surfaces for the reflection and absorption of sunlight, increasing the rate at which urban areas are heated. Another effect of buildings is the blocking of wind, which inhibits cooling. Waste heat from automobiles, air conditioning, industry, and other sources also contributes to the Island.
The Environmental Protection Agency sums up the Island effect: Heat islands form as vegetation is replaced by asphalt and concrete for roads, buildings, and other structures necessary to accommodate growing populations. These surfaces absorb - rather than reflect - the sun’s heat, causing surface temperatures and overall ambient temperatures to rise.
I say we vote heat off the island.
Ninth, Computers; your PC is not PC
Reading this article right now has the same annual carbon footprint of an SUV that gets 15 miles to the gallon? Your computer is actually a significant source of energy consumption. Factors such as extremely high screen resolution combined with high powered graphics lead the computing industry to contribute several percent to Carbon Dioxide emissions. Additionally, many users choose to leave their computer in “idle” or “hibernate” mode, in hopes of reducing energy consumption. Wrong – modes such as idle and hibernate use similar amounts of energy to maintain the programs still running on your computer – they just do it while a screen is black.
Turning off your computer is one of the single-most effective ways to reduce your carbon footprint.
Tenth, cars. No, not that SUV – your new Prius.
Hybrid Cars are extremely counter intuitive. While in one moment being touted by car companies as a way to significantly reduce your carbon footprint, the reality is hybrid cars are “one of the most environmentally damaging processes seen today.” Well, not the car itself; production of the nickel-battery for the car.
The nickel mined and smelted for the Toyota Hybrid, for example, has rendered the area around it a complete dead zone. The main plant for all the nickel used in the Prius’ engine comes from a small town called Sudbury, Ontario. The resultant pollution from the nickel refinery and acid rain caused by the plant has killed off all vegetation surrounding the factory, and has created a complete ecological destruction in a 10-mile radius of the area. Currently, NASA tests out moon and mars rovers in the decrepit landscape. While most of this damage stems from years of pollution, the production of these batteries is still very toxic to the environment.
Once the nickel has been smelted into its final form, it is transported to a special plant in China, which produces “nickel foam” for use in the Prius’ battery-powered engine. The nickel foam is then shipped off to a special plant in Japan to be used in the final production of the battery. To recap: The production of a single battery to be used in the Prius starts from Canada, to China, and finally to Japan. One can simply imagine the amount of fuel that is needed to complete this world-round trip to produce a single battery for the Prius.”
Global warming is caused by many things we take for granted in our daily routines. Anything from nuclear power to your office’s dress code can contribute to the increased carbon dioxide emissions. If we intend to preserve our world for future generations, we must look beyond the coal mine and petroleum refinery for elements of change. The causes of global warming are diverse, unique, and sometimes ironically comical. While it is ok to take the occasional chuckle at the thought of your tie heating our planet, that chuckle must be followed by some effort to help fix our planet as well. Dress down, log out, have a steak.
ermmmmmm how is everybody:)
Very well. Thank you!
As quoted from Wikipedia…
“The ecology of the Sudbury region has recovered dramatically, due both to the regreening program and improved mining practices. In 1992, Sudbury was one of twelve world cities given the Local Government Honours Award at the United Nations Earth Summit to honour the city’s community-based environmental reclamation strategies. More recently, the city has begun to rehabilitate the slag heaps that surround the Copper Cliff smelter area, with the planting of grass and trees.”
The simplistic approach of this “report” doesn’t inspire confidence in its findings. Cows are bad for the environment so you should eat them all up? No, cows are bad for the environment so you should limit your intake of beef. Less demand = less people making a living raising cattle = less cattle.
Cows and the production of cows are very very resource consuming.
this is my first time on this website, i now cant take it seriously. How is any of this useful? surely the author recognises the potentially environmentally friendly use of battery or even hydrogen technologies in cars? You arent going to solve any problems without looking at the complete picture, or being at least a bit positive about progress which has been made.
It’s ok to have a comment.
Excellent post
[...] cut back if not eliminated. Check out this info on how flying effects your carbon footprint (Green Expander): Between 1990 and 2004, the number of people using airports rose by 120%, and the energy consumed [...]
i think web site is great and helpfull and all of you a rude great job
This site is great, it wants to make me kill myself.
There’s a lot of doubt surrounding which methods/products are truly sustainable and which are just green washing. Check out our myth-busting video “What’s Your Big Green Lie?!” which gives a taste of the widespread ignorance of green issues including cloth VS disposable diapers and automobile technology at http://www.biggreenlies.com.
There’s a lot of doubt surrounding which methods/products are truly sustainable and which are just green washing. Check out our myth-busting video “What’s Your Big Green Lie?!” which gives a taste of the widespread ignorance of green issues including cloth VS disposable diapers at http://www.biggreenlies.com.
PrintResponsibly.com launched their website today (Earth Day)…and they’re offering free eco-friendly business cards for a limited time: http://www.printresponsibly.com/web/index.aspx?option=content&id=75
Not my Prius! Am I really contributing to the problem this way? This is a really sobering post. I need to stop and think about this.
Andy Greene
Green Living Tips for Rednecks
In our world today, everything about global warming is controversial. Its causes & effects to humanity adds up. Most people would blame oil, others would point to coal, and almost all would say that buying a hybrid car helps. That is why most of us got some agricultural machineries for us to go green. Helping the mother earth seemed to be our greatest and ultimate goal.
I’m surprised that cows were responsible for so much. This post touched on alot of things that I did not know about.
Actually, one piece of advice on this list makes no sense. It is correct in that cows are a significant contributor to global warming, not only because of the methane gas, but also because of the energy expense to raise them. However, the article seems to suggest that eating more cows will somehow get rid of them (unless i am grossly misreading this). However, the way to reduce the number of cows being raised is not to eat more beef, but to eat less beef. By purchasing beef and creating a demand for beef products one is only encouraging the production of more beef. The laws of economics state that if people arent purchasing cows, a farmer redirect their resources to a ‘product’ that people are purchasing, which is almost guaranteed to be more environmentally friendly than cows.
It’s amazing to know how even these littlest of non-pollutants can actually impact the environment.
Luna@Baby Monitor Security’s last blog post..Baby Heart Rate Monitors – Pros and Cons
like many others on this comment board, I am stunned your suggestion to eat more cows. I kept re-reading it to see if I was missing the joke (am I?). As Hayden pointed out, market principles state that eating cows creates a demand for cows and therefore more farming of cows. This has been a common point of enviro discussions for years, and has gained considerable traction in recent months. How can you expect to have any environmental credibility when encouraging the consumption of beef?
Thanks for your other points, there is definetely some ‘food’ for thought there…
Humidifiers on Sale
Shop our Complete Line of Major Brand Dehumidifiers - On Sale Now!
Two things ‘environmental’ campaigners should be aware of. Firstly the average world temperature hasn’t gone up since 1998, and secondly man only produces 0.001% of CO2 emissions. therefore even if man stopped everything it does today, it would hardly register on the overall climate, and yet billions of £’s and hours are being wasted on something that will make no difference at all.
These are the drawbacks of creating many of the luxuries that we all enjoy, unfortunately.
So it all boils down to the fact that there are too many humans on the planet. All we need to do is kill off 50% of the people and we will instantly reduce the CO2 by 50%. Oh and I never knew plants put out methane. Maybe when they rot, but they don’t rot when you eat them.
[...] article identifies ten global warming culprits that are shocking, unusual, and even funny. via Silent Carbon Footprint: Top Ten Sources You’d Never Expect | Green Expander. Share and [...]
Ninth, Computers: Just not true. “Hibernate” means the computer will use exactly as much energy as it would if you turned it off (but left it plugged in), i.e. very little. “Idle” (standby?) mode uses a little bit more energy to maintain memory, but still a lot less than it would if left fully powered on (roughly 3 to 4 watts in standby mode, compared to 40 watts or more if left on).
Hard to have much faith in your other facts when this one is so misinformed.
i wish if we just take cear of our enviroment as well!
Oh wow, that is really fascinating and definitely unexpected and surprising. All that being said, this only should remind us how important it is for each individual to be working their hardest to reduce their carbon footprint. It is so so so important. Thanks for posting.
I find the article very informative and alarming. While it’s easy to sit back and criticize the author of this post pointing fingers gets us no where and does nothing but add to hostility regarding the issue. Global warming is a multi-faceted issue requiring numerous solutions.Division never conqures we need to join together create,decide and implement continuous solutions to the problem. One solution, is not the answer to this”no-end” in sight issue. We broke it, we can fix it. We just need to re-adjust our thinking and get off our butts and do it!!!1 enough talk already…
Lianne (who’s no doubt long moved on, but that’s Google): “The simplistic approach of this “report” doesn’t inspire confidence in its findings. Cows are bad for the environment so you should eat them all up? No, cows are bad for the environment so you should limit your intake of beef. Less demand = less people making a living raising cattle = less cattle.”
I think her irony meter was out of whack. I think the essay mostly pointed out that evironmental issues are a bit more complicated than media sound-bites make it seem.
“many users choose to leave their computer in “idle” or “hibernate” mode, in hopes of reducing energy consumption. Wrong – modes such as idle and hibernate use similar amounts of energy to maintain the programs still running on your computer – they just do it while a screen is black.”
Idle mode doesn’t do much, but putting a PC in Stand By or Hibernate is only slightly worse than turning it off (so slight as to make essentially no difference).
Sie sind Idioten! Die Mädchen sehen das Menetekel an der Wand, die ist, dass die Jungs gehen, um sie einer nach dem anderen stimmen, weil sie glaube, es ist für eine stärkere Team. Die Männer selbst denken halten Gimpy Rupert ist eine stärkere Entscheidung dann halten ein Weibchen. Was ich nicht verstehe, ist, warum die Frauen nicht zusammen mit einem Mann-Band und drehen den Spieß um alle. Es wäre genial. Niemand hätte zu sehen, die kommen. Idioten!!