Myth #1: Turning lights on and off can use more energy than simply leaving them on. The Truth: Both incandescent lights and fluorescent lights should be turned off whenever they are not in use. Incandescent lights are an obvious case. Due to their inefficiency, turning off these lights is always the best way to conserve energy. Fluorescent bulbs do require a little more energy to get started when they are turned on. However, this is still quite small compared to the energy they emit when lit. In fact, unless a fluorescent bulb is turned on and off within 5 seconds, it is still worthwhile to turn off the lights when they are not in use.

Myth #2: You can save energy by washing your dishes by hand instead of using a dish-washing machine The Truth: Washing dishes by hand uses more hot water than washing dishes using a machine. You can save even more energy by not pre-rinsing your dishes at the sink. This practice does not make your dishes any cleaner and wastes both water and energy.

Myth #3: Turning off appliances when they are not in use is the best way to conserve energy Fact: Many appliances continue to draw power even when they are turned off. This “vampire energy” can be a major source of energy consumption. In fact, vampire energy costs U.S. consumers up to $3 billion per year. Among the worst offenders are plasma televisions, video game consoles, and computers.

Myth #4: Blackle, Google’s custom search engine, genereates significant energy savings by displaying Google with a black background Fact: Blackle clearly saves energy for those using Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) monitors. However, the savings are less clear for LCD monitors, and in some cases may even use more energy than the original Google. Typically, LCD monitors larger than 24 inches use slightly less power with Blackle. However, LCD monitors smaller than 22 inches actually use more energy on average with Blackle.

Myth #5: You can save energy by lighting a room by candlelight and turning off the electric lights Fact: This myth was widely circulated during Earth Hour this past March. In fact, candles also emit carbon dioxide. So whether your candles are more eco-friendly than your light bulbs depends on what type of bulb you’re using and the mix of energy sources used by your utility. In general, candles are always more efficient than incandescent bulbs. But if you use compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, it depends on what part of the country you live in. Roughly speaking, if you live in the Midwest, the Great Plains states or in Texas, switching to candles is a good way to go green. But if you live on the coasts, you may be doing more harm than good next Earth Hour if you eat by candlelight.

By J.D’Abbraccio

The “Green” movement in hospitals has taken finally taken momentum in the United States. More and more hospitals are starting to understand the long term impact of going green. Why is that important? Did you know that the U.S. health care sector accounts for almost one tenth of the country’s carbon-dioxide emissions? A report by University of Chicago researchers published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed that the health care sector accounted for 16% of U.S. gross domestic product. What was most disturbing was that health care contributed to 8 percent of the United States’ total carbon-dioxide output. The analysis found that hospitals were by far the largest contributor of carbon emission. The researchers attributed this to the high energy demands needed for temperature control, ventilation and lighting in large hospital buildings.

What does it mean to for a hospital to be “Green?”  It means a hospital is trying to be environmentally friendly and proactive about leaving a smaller carbon footprint on the planet. It means they are more efficient with energy by utilizing green technology, such as smart efficient heating and cooling systems, high-efficiency glass, solar panels, LED lights, digital thermostats, low-flow faucets, automatic on/off light switches, recycled products and material to name a few. Also, hospitals are focusing their attention on new ways to be more inventive with waste management and recycling. What kind of impact does a green hospital have on its patients?  Green health care design does promote a more healing environment through more natural daylight, outdoor views, landscaping, improved ventilation, better indoor air quality, efficient lighting, low-impact materials and furnishings, and a more relaxed atmosphere.

Why now? Many health care organizations are starting to really understand the long term financial impact of going green. Besides the numerous environmental and health benefits, the combination of affordable new green products, green grants and tax credits, and potential for huge financial savings are really driving this change. Companies like AMSOLAR (www.amsolarcorp.com ) work on innovative models for educational and medical institutions thinking of best practices and solutions on how to maximize investments made by hospitals who decide to go green. Hospitals can spend millions of dollars monthly just for energy. Why wouldn’t a hospital want to save millions by being more efficient? Hospitals are analyzing up-front costs of green technology and are determining that is will usually balance out against long-term savings. Going green may save millions of dollars over the years. Also, the competition for attracting patients plays a big role too. Many patients are looking for clean, efficient, and up to date rooms while recovering from illness. Being green gives the public an enhanced perception that a health care provider is environmental sensitive and cares about the community.

More and more hospitals are going green. It seems like the green message to save the planet is becoming clearer and clearer everyday. Reduce waste and your carbon footprints wherever you can. As a potential patient/customer, will the green movement affect where you will go for your healthcare? Do you think this will improve the quality of care being delivered? Have you been in a “green” hospital? If so, please share your experience and thoughts.

ECL

Green is all the rage these days. Get a hybrid car, recycle, don’t waste water.  Make your home more energy-efficient, install solar panels, ride a bike.  Companies are selling products with less packaging, publishing annual reports on sustainability, and working to “green” their value chain.  We hear “save the rainforest”, “protect the sea turtles”, and “pack it in, pack it out“ when you’re hiking. 

“Green” has become undeniably woven into our daily lives, work, and volunteer and leisure time, as well as our financial donations.  But what about when we travel?  We don’t hear a lot about how to be a better, greener tourist.  The ways in which you can be smarter, more eco-friendly tourist aren’t necessarily novel and many are based off of what we consciously do in our daily routines—but it’s easy to forget about them when you travel. I would argue that being a “green” tourist may actually be too narrow, and that that aiming to be a sustainable tourist would offer a better way to maintain (or improve!) the destination environment, culture, and economy.  Here are a few tips worth considering before or during each of your adventures:

• Water bottles. Think about how much water you drink when you’re traveling. Now ask yourself how many plastic water bottles do you buy, guzzle, and promptly throw away? I bet the answer is “a lot”. So how about just taking a Nalgene or Sigg water bottle with you—or refill the plastic bottle you bought when you get to your destination. Easy peasey, you just saved a lot of plastic.   But, you might be concerned with whether the country’s water is potable – a very valid point! Here are two different solutions I have found to be very useful, user-friendly, and relieve my worries. The first one is a water bottle with a carbon filter IN it. You squeeze the water bottle, the water is forced through the filter, and voila, it’s purified and squirting into your mouth:  http://shop.katadyn.com/products/155186/Ultralight_Series_Products. The second one is a UV purifier which plops onto the top of your wide-mouthed Nalgene bottle, making the water safe and potable in under a minute: http://www.steripen.com/travel/products.html.  I found them to both be well worth their cost, as much for peace of mind as for being environmentally responsible. Try one out!

• Learn what NOT to buy. Now this suggestion may seem bizarre, but think about what happens when a resource or material is scarce, like ivory.  Yes, I agree that in many countries the selling of ivory is outlawed, but many destinations have materials which are not—and even if they are illegal, a black market exists. The rare resource normally commands a higher price from tourists– and concurrently destroys both the animals and the ecosystem (in often irreparable ways).  Store owners can be very easily motivated by money and high margins at the expense of preserving the world around them.  If you travel to the Galapagos Islands, for instance, your guides will ask you to please not buy anything made out of black coral bones: “If there are no buyers, they’ll stop selling it.”  Don’t wait to be told what not to buy: ask. Find out what natural resources or materials you should avoid buying when you travel and you will be greener, more sustainable tourist.  You can make an impact and help to neutralize this eco-unfriendly process.

• Don’t use camera flashes on animals in their natural habitat. This has dual sustainability upsides.  First, research shows that camera flashes can actually change the behavior of animals*.  If you can avoid flashes, you’re leaving less of an impact on the animals themselves. This by definition will make you a more sustainable tourist.  Second, the side bonus: your camera battery will last longer and you’ll need to charge it less frequently. If you’re concerned that the animal is moving quickly and that you “need” a flash, you could put your camera on “sport mode”.  Or, if you think it’s too dark, you can probably (even on point-and-shoot cameras these days) adjust the ISO up to 800 or higher.  If you don’t know how to do this, find someone schlepping around a big camera with an expensive lens and ask – they’ll likely be knowledgeable, happy to help, and give you additional tips for the lighting.  Either way you look at it, not flashing the animals will reduce your effects on the eco-system as well as prolong your battery life: a win-win for the environment and you, the sustainable tourist.  

 While there are a million little “green” travel tips that could be thrown your way, don’t get overwhelmed with them all.  Start with the three quick-win easy ones above:  carry your own water bottle, buy responsibly, and take pictures without flash. You got it now. You can do it—it’ll make a difference and you’ll feel good about it.

 Happy green and sustainable traveling!

By: Jessica

flickr

Over the course of time, humanity has chosen to label many things with color, a way of categorizing and organizing the world through our eyes. White has always symbolized purity, and the chance for a clean slate. Green has become the embodiment of the earth, and a symbol of mankind’ s desire to keep it that way. With the palette of color describing a plethora of life, has come the words that wash those colors clean. As whitewashing has been used to describe the masking of the ills of governments and corporations through a white veil, greenwashing has risen as the moniker of choice to label the abuse of the green movement. Greenwashing is the corporate manipulation of minutiae or PR spin to make certain actions appear to have a benefit the environment. A 2007 report by TerraChoice estimated that of the 2219 consumer products labeled green, 98% were guilty of some abuse of greenwashing*.

How is all this greenwashing possible? The main reason is that Federal Trade Commission does not have an explicit definition of “green.” If I label my products green, how can they not be? I say they are green and who are you to say they are not, or more specifically who is going to regulate it? At the moment the FTC is working on a plan to begin regulation of corporations claiming to have green initiatives, but in the meantime we can all be green filling our 4 ton SUV with gasoline to drive alone to the local coffeshop and buy supposed shade grown coffee.

The greenwashing movement has become so prolific that Greenpeace has established a website entitled www.stopgreenwash.org. In fact many more websites have begun popping up as well to track the abuse like www.greenwashingindex.com, where users actually help track and rate products and services as to their level of greenness. Corpwatch.org actually gives out a greenwashing award to those corporations who spend more money on ad and PR campaigns then on actually being green.

This marketing quagmire is vaguely reminiscent of the organic label on food products, which still suffer from more spin than anything else. I propose that we as consumers demand more from our products than merely crossing our fingers and hoping that an overburdened government agency can enforce a non-descript criteria. And we certainly can’t allow these industries to self-regulate, as that phrase seems to be an oxymoron. Consumers need to get educated and do what we do best, vote with our wallets for change.

*http://www.terrachoice.com/files/MacLeans%20Magazine%20-%20October%207%202007%20-%20The%20Eco-Sell.pdf

By: David

Hichem Omezzine

Mobile usage has increased substantially over the last decade. Phones are no more simple communication devices. Mobile gaming and online browsing have rapidly invaded our cell-phones since devices’ memory capacity has increased and their graphic technology has improved. Despite this increased usage, mobile entrepreneurs have found it challenging to make money out of it. In describing the challenges of monetization, mobile veterans used a cynical saying “Mobile is the future, and always will be”. The recent $750mm sale of Admob, a mobile advertising platform, to Google is a game changer. In the words of Omar Hamoui – who founded Admob while he was a first year MBA student at Wharton three years ago – this deal “will bring even more players into the space and accelerate all the innovation that is already taking place”. There is clearly no shortage of ideas on alternative uses of mobile phones. Gartner has included Mobile apps in its top 10 technology trends. For once this is not just a developed market trend but also an emerging market one. ICF’s World Bank recent IT initiative is a good example of how institutions are trying to capitalize on the reach of mobile phones. According to Computerworlduk.com, the institution IT staff “has been working to bring the Washington-based IFC’s core business applications either to cell phones or to deliver the applications, such as SAP’s, to the phones”.

These new trends will drive fundamental changes in the mobile industry. Mobile phone producers will need to optimize their devices to be more app friendly. Users will need to factor a whole range of new parameters in their mobile purchase decisions. Mobile phones are the ultimate companion of several users and will capture an increasing share of their times. An obvious implication of this increased usage is the energy impact. People will need to charge their mobile more often or optimize their energy use to benefit from all the functionalities their devices offer. It is the usual battle between hardware and software all over again. In the long run hardware tends to win. However, while hardware engineers are working hard on increasing the battery life, mobile fans can only turn to software developers to help them optimize their energy use.

ECL

Sustainable tourism is tourism which “meets the needs of the present tourists and host regions while protecting and enhancing the opportunity for the future. It is envisaged as leading to management of all resources in such a way that economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled, while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems.“

With that in mind, when is the last time you thought about “sustainable tourism” while travelling? More importantly, did you think about it before you left home? Perhaps when picking a destination? Or when choosing a tour company? Or when selecting a hotel? It is possible though, that you did not think about sustainable tourism at all.

It is time to start. You, the tourist, must drive this process.

Tourism always has an impact—on communities, the environment, culture, history, the landscape, economies and more. It is undeniable. And with the number of international tourists expected to more than double to over 1.6 billion by 2020 , sustainable tourism cannot be left to eco-conscious travelers and tree-huggers alone.

We grew up hearing “Save the Rainforest”—and this is one area (jungles, rainforests, forests in general) where travel agents say they do hear tourists asking about sustainable practices. But for other areas, tourists do not often demonstrate as much interest – if any—in sustainability. This needs to change. While there are often both legal and ethical incentives for tour companies and operators to create a sustainable value chain, one which promotes the local economies and communities as much as the environment, it can often be expensive and time consuming. It is true that some tour companies are extremely reputable and their core company value is sustainability – doing good and doing right for the communities and environment with which they interact. But, many companies can get away with doing less and being less sustainable because their customers are not demanding it. Companies can cut corners, maintain higher margins, and do the bare minimum to pass any standards/laws required of them. This is where YOU, the tourists, must become an active agent for change.

Here is how:

The first step is awareness: You are now aware. “Save the rainforest” in your mind can be replaced with “Support the economic, environmental, and cultural sustainability of your travel destination”. You recognize that there can be a sustainable component to basically any trip you take: from something as small as carbon offsets, to staying in local village homes, to employing local workers or guides, to taking local transportation, or eating local foods, to recycling, to taking small tour groups on nature adventures instead of larger ones, etc.

The next step is probing: Know that it is your right as a tourist to inquire about whether the tour company has sustainable practices. Do it, ask! “What do you do that’s sustainable?” “How do you contribute to the local economy?” “Do you use local guides?” “Do you give back to the community or are you involved with it at all?” “Do you recycle water or have alternative energy sources at your jungle lodge(for example)? Force the tour companies to clearly understand that the answers to these questions are important to you and will impact your decision on whether or not to book with them.

Be willing to walk away: If their answers to your questions do not satisfy your standards, you must be willing to walk away. When tour companies hear customers asking about sustainability, and then booking a trip, it signifies 1) that the customer is satisfied with the level of sustainability, or 2) that sustainability is a lower priority to the customer – one on which the customer is willing to compromise. Neither of those is what you want the company to think if you are truly displeased with their sustainability efforts. Do not book with a company that you do not believe is striving for sustainable tourism practices.

Be willing to pay slightly more: Sustainable tourism does often cost more—but your world and its preservation are worth it. Support the tour operators who are, out of their own ethical beliefs and values, working to promote the local communities, economies, and the environment. These companies will help to make the future better for everyone, and being part of their vision in turn supports their efforts. Another side bonus is that you may very well get warm-and-fuzzies knowing that you are doing the right thing.

Growth of sustainable tourism is a positive feedback cycle. The more you as tourists push and demand sustainable tourism practices, the more companies will join the sustainable bandwagon. The companies’ reasons may vary – it could be from a pure competitive standpoint (“everyone’s doing it, so we need to too”) or out of the fact that they can now be both profitable and sustainable (customers are willing to pay for sustainability because it is a high priority) or simply because of the realization that customer’s values are shifting and the company wants to align themselves with these new ethical standards. But regardless of the reason, if tour companies become more sustainable, it is a definitely a step in the right direction for our world. You, as the tourist, must help us get there. You know it, and now you’re empowered to do it.

Go forth and go sustainably!

By: Jessica

flickr

There’s a popular belief that batteries are best preserved through constant cycling. Essentially, this logic holds that battery life can be conserved through a practice of fully draining a battery, followed by full recharge. The theory holds that by failing to fully discharge before you recharge, you “fool” your battery into thinking that it has less capacity than it actually does.

But in reality, lithium ion batteries, which are the batteries used in the vast majority of laptops today, don’t act like this.

Lithium ion batteries typically are capable of between 300 and 500 full charging cycles. Discharging a battery by 15% would only count as a partial discharge in this equation. Therefore, full discharges do not conserve battery life.

So how can you preserve your battery’s lifespan? Here are some best practices that will help your laptop battery keep going and going and going…

Charging Your Battery
• Whenever possible, connect your laptop to a power source if the laptop is in use. The laptop will bypass the battery as a power source, thus avoiding the need to use up valuable charging cycles.
• Do not fully drain your battery. These full discharges can strain the battery unnecessarily.
• Remove the battery from the laptop when connected to a power source. This will protect the battery from excess heat, which contributes more to decreased battery life than the number of charging cycles. In fact, a battery can lose 20-40% of its capacity in the first year alone from overheating. However, be careful not to allow moisture or dust particles into the battery compartment.
• Don’t leave your battery fully discharged for a long period of time (even several days is too much), which can leave the battery unusable.

Calibration
A battery’s fuel gauge can occasionally become unsynchronized, which will cause it to improperly read the level of a battery’s charge. However, a full discharge and subsequent recharge every 30 charging cycles can correct this problem.

Storage
• The most important issue when storing a battery is to keep it at an appropriate temperature. A cool location is ideal, and avoid excessive heat (such as a hot car) or cold (as in, don’t freeze your battery).
• Batteries are best stored at 40% charge. Storing a battery at full charges can put unnecessary strain on it.

Disposal
• Before disposing of a battery, you might want to consider refurbishing it. Between 80 and 90% of batteries can be returned to working condition after refurbishment.
• Don’t bother purchasing spare batteries if you’re not going to use them. Batteries only have a shelf-life of 2-3 years—regardless of whether they’re used. So you’re better off holding off on battery purchases until necessary.

Stick to these guidelines, and you’re battery will last longer and hold more charge. And you’ll be helping the environment by conserving the number of batteries you consume.

Jason Semine

flickr

The tragedy of the commons is an academic theory first proposed by Garrett Hardin in the Journal of Science in 1968. The story illustrates a dilemma faced by all people when a good or resource is free to the public and therefore no individual has any incentive to maintain or properly manage its use. The story is based on an article by William Forster Lloyd which describes public land use for sheepherding in which the farmers allow their sheep to graze on the commons. While each farmer individually understands that overuse of the public commons will result in tragedy for all, no one in particular is willing to stop because they fear the economic disadvantage if they alone cease action. The tragedy of the commons is widely considered a prime example of the dilemma that we as citizens of the planet face today when dealing with the impact that the human species has on the earth.

In the 19th century the solution to the tragedy of the commons was to create increased personal property rights, and therefore making the individual responsible for their own land. The debate has raged on in the United States and many other countries as to how to resolve CO2 emission, and no credible plan has been developed, but we must begin with the attitude of personal ownership of the planet.
If citizens of the United States were to have value assigned to their carbon emissions much in the same way the government has been trying to do the same for industries perhaps we as individuals would begin to take ownership of our collective problem.
According to the U.N. the U.S. emits the most carbon per capita of any country. One of the largest carbon emitting segments outside of electricity generation (60%) is the use of motor gasoline . Motor gasoline comprises 1.2 million metric tons per year in the United States, which is roughly 21% of all carbon emissions in the United States. The average fuel economy of the American fleet still stands at roughly 25mpg while Europe’s by contrast is 45mpg. We can lament the tragedies of the American auto industry and discuss the American right to freedom of choice, but if we are to make an impact as citizens we need to be more drastic in creating change. The trouble is while the trendiness of “going green” has been pushed in myriad television advertising campaigns and billboards from petroleum companies, like BP to insert major corporations here, people still do not act without economic incentive.

I propose the government of the United States needs to do what the governments of Europe have been doing for decades, and tax gasoline at a level commensurate with the value of that resource. Motor gasoline for the American consumer is too cheap. In the U.S., which varies by state, 15-20 % of the cost of gasoline is comprised of taxes whereas in Europe in countries like France that figure is closer to 70%. Why are we as Americans incapable of making the same effective use of natural resources? The U.S. Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue commission proposed increasing the tax by 218% to ~$0.40 a gallon and then indexing it to inflation, which is still not enough. Now I do not believe that this is something that can happen overnight, but the U.S. government should seriously consider implementing a stepped increase in the tax on gasoline, which will have a three-fold impact. It will prevent people from overconsumption of natural resources, force car companies to produce vehicles that are more fuel efficient and in line with the impending shift in consumer demands, and it will alleviate the pressure that price fluctuation in crude oil have on the economy.
The government’s inability to effect change through CAFÉ standards which have remained unchanged since 1990 shows the ineffectiveness of that policy. In fact, previous governmental policy encouraged the consumption of gas guzzling SUV’s and light trucks. The best way to create a responsible use of gasoline is to make it economically beneficial for consumers to switch, and the government can use the increased tax revenue to build public transportation to give many consumers viable alternatives for commuting.
1 DOE
2 EIA

Flickr: babaghan

by Hichem Omezzine

A recent publication by McAfee suggests that an estimated 62 trillion spam emails were sent worldwide in 2008.  The paper argues that this volume of spam requires an energy use of 33 billion kilo-watt hours which is equivalent to:

• The electricity used in 2.4million homes in the US
• GHG emissions of 3.1 million passenger cars
• Use of 2 billion US gallons of gasoline

A single spam email emission is associated to an average of 0.3 gram of carbon dioxide emissions. This means that worldwide spam email is equivalent to 18.6 billion kg of CO₂ emissions. That’s like driving around the earth 1.6 million times.

A more puzzling statistics is the fact that a fifth of a typical medium-size business email energy use is associated with spam emails. Until very recently spamming was very concentrated. The shutdown of web hosting firm McColo in late 2008 – accused of facilitating a major volume spam activity – is estimated to equate the take off 2.2 million cars of the road from an environmental perspective. The global spam volume dropped 70% overnight the day the firm was taken offline.

The MacAfee publication used an ICF International study which attributes the large share of spam’s GHG emissions to energy used in the process of processing and deleting a spam or searching for a legitimate email erroneously labeled as spam (“false positives”). The remaining share of GHG emissions is attributed to the process of creating the spam, internet, message storage… Manually viewing and deleting spam emails as well as searching for the so called “false positives” seems to be the major source of GHG emission associated with spam and uses almost 18 billion KWh or 52% of total spam-related energy use.

In terms of country activity, the US tops the league table with 3.8 billion kg of CO₂ emissions associated with spam. China and India come second and third with a respective total CO₂ emission spam of 2.8 and 1.3 billion kg. The study found that countries with better internet connectivity and therefore more email users tend to use more energy per email. It also suggests that countries with higher spam email proportion tend to consume more energy per email. The US is close to topping the list in terms of percent of email received that is spam.

Source: McAfee; ICF International

Photo Courtesy Of NASA

With so much at stake, corporate interests, bias media, revolving door politicians, and those who follow them are flooding the airwaves with false truths, and flat out propaganda to mislead and confuse the average person. And with almost unlimited funding via large corporate donors, they have made a relentless push to stop environmental action in its tracks. Here are a list of the the most common propaganda talking points they are throwing around these days, and the real truths you can use to counter them.

1. ‘Volcanoes release more Co2 than humans do each year’

This is one of the lamest and easiest to disprove pieces of propaganda that climate change deniers have been using to downplay man’s part in global Co2 emissions. According to the USGS, volcanoes, both above and below the sea release a total of 200 million tonnes of CO2 on average per year. And while that may sound like a huge amount, The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that in 2003, the man made global emissions of Co2 were at 26.8 billion tonnes. That’s right, we spew out over one hundred times as much Co2 per year as all the worlds volcanoes combined. If you want to really blow a deniers mind, after they say that its Volcanoes to blame, make them confirm that they believe volcanoes are able to alter global climate. When they agree that they believe in that, inform them of that fact that they represent less than 1% of man made Co2. Then ask them if they still believe that humans can’t be responsible for global warming if they produce 100 times as much carbon dioxide as the volcanoes.

2. ‘They call it pollution. We call it life’

This talking point about Co2 was used in a series of commercials and op-eds funded by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2006 and has become a favorite of climate change deniers ever since. While the CEI may be right in that without Co2, life on our planet would cease to exist. They leave out the fact that carbon dioxide is only good for life at certain levels. Once it goes above a certain ppm, it becomes toxic. If our current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was increased by 100%, it would result in a constant feeling of drowsiness in those who breathed it. Doubling that again, would result in a narcotic effect on those exposed. And at a concentration of 5-8% it starts to create difficulty breathing, headaches, vision and hearing problems, loss of consciousness, and even death.

3. ‘Scientists predicted global cooling in the 70’s, why should we trust them now?’

The myth that just won’t die. For years now those with their heads buried in the sand have been using this one to try and discredit the current scientific consensus. And much like all the other propaganda, this one holds no water when you look at it closely. While it is true that during the 1970’s there was some talk of global cooling, but it was by no means a consensus. In fact all of it came from a very small number of scientists speculating about possible cooling. They never gave a cause, they never did any major studies, and there was never more than a few dozen reputable scientists who gave it a second thought. The reason this small speculative rumor gained so much attention back then, and still does today is that the media latched onto it like it was the 1970’s version of Y2K.

4. ‘There was record cold temps in _______ this week/year’

The drudge report loves using this one on an almost weekly basis to rile up their followers. Anytime it snows early, or a new record low temperature is recorded, the global warming deniers latch onto it and milk it for all it is worth. Little do they know how uneducated and ignorant they make themselves look to those with even a rudimentary understanding of how weather and global climate differ. And that is the truth of this situation. localized single event weather instances have no relation to long term global temperatures. If they did, Seattle wouldn’t of broken it’s records for both high and low temps over the last twelve months. On the flip side, this also means that a record high temp for one city, state or country also does not equate to proof of global warming either. Frankly, the entire subject needs to die off from both ends of the debate, as it does neither side any good.

5. ‘What about the cooling that took place in the early part of the 20th Century’

Get ready for it deniers, that period of cooling was the result of man made pollution as well. Before the introduction of the clean air act, we released so much particle pollution into the air that we literally were blocking out the suns rays to such a high degree that we lowered the earths temperature 0.2°C. Once we lessened and or banned these forms of pollution, temperatures went back to normal, and also gave us insight into how much our Co2 pollution was warming the planet now that the particle pollution wasn’t masking it.

6. ‘Global Warming Peaked in 1998, It’s Been Cooling Ever Since’

While 1998 was a record year, it was due to multiple factors with an unusually strong El Niño being the main culprit.  On top of that, according to NASA 2005 overtook 1998 as the hottest global temperature, with 2003, 2004, and 2005 trailing right behind 1998. So the trend has in fact kept going, and the notion that 1998 was the end of global warming is entirely a myth propagated by those trying to mislead the general public.

7. ‘NASA lied, 1934 Is Actually The Hottest Year’

As of last year, many global warming deniers started to throw around the year 1934 as the hottest on record. And claim that NASA screwed up their data, or even go as far as to call it a conspiracy. The truth of that is that yes, NASA did screw up, but the 1934 data now claimed as proof that global warming is a scam, is only a half truth. What they fail to mention when they bring up 1934, is that the record temperature was for the lower 48 states only. Meaning that figure represents only 2% of the entire planet. When you look at 1934 globally, it still fits the same time line that the deniers are trying to discredit with this false ‘proof’.

By Mark Johnson