What is the most important thing we can do to reduce the impact of future disasters in coastal areas around the world?

I would like inform you that a brazilian researcher developed at Unicamp ( State University of Campinas) a car whose thecnology is building to use hydrogen. The most important is it( hydrogen) can be obtained from "trash" which represents an important solution for a big problem in the world.Therefore it also represents two important technologies that avoid pollution.

Hi All,

I have read some of the rather insightful comments above and felt unusually compelled to add a few thoughts of my own....while I agree that through a consolidated and concerted effort we can counter the environmental threats our planet faces, I do feel rather bleakly about the consumerist state of society in general... in my opinion, society is in a pathological state of consumerism, and it is precisely this illness that undermines every environmental effort made.... we cant win this battle for mother earth unless individuals break the cycle of constant consumption... and yet from a sociological point of view, the ability to consume, is for many, a fundamental component of their identity... if you accept this premise, then how can one reasonably expect people to abandon consumerism in favour of a less materialistic, more sustainable way of life... when a pathological activity is so normalised by society, it becomes some sort of insidious cancer, eating away at our life-force...

Science, trade and Policy, in their efforts to operate objectively, neglect a fundamental idiom that is necessary to motivate all people toward fixing global warming. They lack an ethical foundation that promotes compassion for life - human or otherwise. If a sense of compassion permeated our dominant social institutions we would cease to allow the systematic destruction of life support systems. Compassion is not easy for a male dominated world. Perhaps it is time to reinstate WOMAN. Time to think outside the square.

Thanks,
Craig

Dominic Jermano CEO {Charcoal Ethanol Organization}
www.sugarcitycane.com

Please see my website. I am creating what will be the largest company in the world. We produce Ethanol and grow the sugarcane on the Ocean. We are located dead on the equator. No hurricanes, typhoons, or cyclones ever cross the equator. In fact it is safer to live on the equator in a houseboat than on coastal regions in the United States.

I am creating an Italy's Venice called SugarCityCane on the Ocean. I will create millions of jobs, and I will stop the greenhouse effect.

You can visit at http://www.sugarcitycane.com

It is a world international effort.

Hope to provide everyone with clean, safe, abundant, renewable energy. Oil is becoming extinct. Like the bald eagle except it is a resource...we must preserve oil of what we have left on the earth. It's value is becoming more prized than using it in an ICE. Internal Combustion Engine.

Critics claim that there is not enough space to grow enough sugarcrops to fulfill our energy needs in producing ethanol. My plan on the Ocean provides more space than we can ever imagine.

Looking forward to its progress and excited citizens of the world who will support its development.

Thanks.. DJ

Every scientific article ever written on the Greenhouse Effect states or mentions that sufficient reforestation will end the greenhouse effect.
The Kyoto Protocol lists the development of alternate energy sources in first place. In second and third place are reforestation (of formerly forested areas) and afforestation (establishing new forests) respectively - in recognition of the scientific consensus that sufficient reforestation and afforestation will terminate the greenhouse effect.
Reduction of carbon emissions does not show up until sixth place in the Kyoto Protocol, yet is it the only thing everyone talks about.
Reforestation and afforestation is relatively quick and easily accomplished, and bears no economical penalties. Indeed, it will yield many vitally important economical benefits, such as the husbanding of water, climate stabilization, food, shelter, and myriad forest products.
Reducing emissions exacts severe even drastic economical penalties and would not work in the first place. As long as we insist on cutting down what remains of our decimated forests, the carbon dioxide will accumulate in our biosphere, as the oceans are saturated with carbon dioxide already. Ultimately, we would have to stop exhaling carbon dioxide in order to reduce carbon emissions.

The key to reforestation and afforestation is that it does not matter where in the world the new forests are. There are vast semi arid and arid areas which can easily be reforested or afforested. The Sahara desert was green and harboured trees and hippopotamuses as little as 6.000 years ago, for instance. And greening the Sahara desert would substantially reduce the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere - and be an immense environmental and economic benefit. The same applies to other semi arid, arid and desert areas.

This can be done readily with suitable plant material - weeds to start with - and with sewerage for water and nutrients - which would solve another huge problem.

If this is addressed starting tomorrow, we can end the greenhouse effect in 50 years.

Most sincerely,
Peter H. Weis
www.truehealth.org

petweis

I think we miss the basic point always. Its we, the general public should take the responsibility. We must reduce unneccessary consumption. Our hyper consumerism is the root of most of the environmental desasters. True, part of the blame should go to greedy entrepreneurs - be it MNEs or small manufacturers. But if we, the common civil society members keep away from anything beyond average or basic needs, there won't be a market for all these short lasting plastic gizmos or junk oily food etc., - companies will perish in no time and lots of resources will stay for more generations to come.

But its not going to happen soon. We get magnatized to ads and goes on a super race to the checkout with a load full of stuff. Stop buying fancy things, re & re use always (why buy bottled table water everyday? - just fill your bottle before you leave home) etc. will help a lot - if at least quarter of the OECD population do it.

Re- saving the coast, more damage is done by shipping than anything else. Its not only disasters of mega oil spillages but goes to general ship residual disposals on a daily basis. Again, if we reduce junk consumption - very few ships would transit including supertankers!

Let us think more rationally!
Cheers,
Thilal

To meet the challenge of human security fron adverse climate changes and Global warming, one has to first change the behaviour individually, so that we act as a conscientous being from cradle to grave.We have to look at the roots of the problem and act locally so that it becomes a global effort together.
We talk of global warming.... any global is local first.. we have to understand.I remember one day....enjoing a party..lavish party... with booze around.... soft drinks, packaged , processed foods all around, and many things altogether! suddenly, i started feeling hot in fine weather.I mean it was local warming happening there first, fuelled by our consumerist society and unsustainable ,unsupportive standard of living.
There has to be a common understanding.Our system of calculating and assessing energy uses is outdated today, and we count energy as the first culprit.
Its great energy production and uses has to be localised....The leaders around the world have to start thinking and prepare the propaganda.
Trilochan pandey,
New Delhi
Views welcome at gremind@gmail.com

For any correction in the present (both physical and socio-economic) environmental trend to to take place, several things have to occur:

* popuplation reduction
* decentralization of government
* public ownership of all natural resources

Unfortunately, none of these items are realistically attainable without some calamitous natural or man-made event or a less-rapid deterioration of resources, which will eventually lead to the attainmanet of the first item, a somewhat 'self-leveling' model.

At this point, it's doubtful in the extreme that the belated efforts to curb the trend will have a positive effect, governments are held in place by market interests and market interests are sigularly aggressive in their agendas.

Consequently, the general population's ability to achieve change will continue to be no more than nominal unless there is a significant 'awakening' among the people.

I was just doing some research and happen to come across this site, I really had no idea how bad of shape we were in until I took this Science class on our Environment. I just can't belive the damage that we as humans do to our earth on an everyday basis, does no one care for our future?

What is going to happen when we run out of water? When our crops are all scientifically manufactur and all our food is made by scientist are they also going to know how to make water when we finally urn out?

It is really scary but I am glad that my teacher has brought this to my attention...

I am not sure why we humans feel that we are invincible, but for some far stretching imagination of an unreasonable, idiotic idea we feel that we have the power over the planet to build on the coasts of our world. This must stop. It is just plain logic. Some of us that live near the coast remember our school trips to the ocean or sitting in the classroom talking about how the ocean used to be a few hundred miles out farther then it is now. OR just the opposite, that where we where sitting 100,000 year ago was 400 feet under water! The coast is a vast landscape that has one of the fastest turnover rates know to man. Building a home or a business on the coast only means on thing, you are going to loose it. We can slow the movement of the ocean from claming the land, but we will not stop it. Addressing global warming will help, but even without global warming the building is doomed. Mother nature will either make it a pointless destination by moving the ocean out a mile or just eat it up, causing untold harm to the environment from the chemicals and waste that is in the building at the time of its death. It just is common sense. Build on the coast and you will eventually loose your investment. If you build on the coast, you deserve what you get. Avoiding future development along the coastal areas will save lives, make the ocean a place that is welcome to all (just say no to private beaches) and help keep the beaches of the world clean.

as far as i am concerned i feel the mineral resources are going to extinct in a few years from now which may lead to more wars to have control of fuel and also to be eco friendly i think the need for fuel is very important particularly for countries like like india where in cse there is a hike in fuel u have got rise in all the basic needs(food) with minimum concern and there is always a shortage of power which can be overcomed using biodiesel

some channel i have seen that there is a process invented by some guy who collected waste oils from restaurants and process them and convert to diesel

i beleive this is best in all cases as food is basic need for every humanbeing which includes some oil consumption in one way or other in case the oil gets thicker we pour them in drains

instead of pouring in drains if it is used to converted to diesel its both eco and environmental friendly