Posts Tagged ‘Acid Rain’
Along with harming human health, air pollution can cause a variety of environmental effects. What, then, are the different air pollution effects on environment?
Click Here To Know More About Carbon Credit Mall Now!
First, acid rain is a form of precipitation that is formed primarily by nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides released into the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned. These acids fall to the earth either as wet precipitation (rain, snow, or fog) or dry precipitation (gas and particulates). In the environment, acid rain damages trees and causes soils and water bodies to acidify. Therefore, it contaminates drinking water and vegetation, and makes the water unsuitable for some fish and other wildlife. Acid rain damages aquatic life. In fact, it has damages Massachussets lakes, ponds, rivers, and soils, leading to damaged wildlife and forests. It also erodes buildings, and speeds the decay of statues and sculptures that are part of our national heritage.
Another effect is ozone depletion. Ozone is a gas that occurs both at ground-level and in the earth’s upper atmosphere, known as the stratosphere. Ozone forms a layer that protects life on earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. However, man-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons and halons deplete the ozone layer, causing increased amounts of UV radiation to reach the earth. A recently discovered result of air pollution are seasonal holes in the ozone layer in the atmosphere above Antarctica and the Arctic, coupled with growing evidence of global ozone depletion. This depletion can damage sensitive crops, such as soybeans, and reduce crop yields. It can also lead to more cases of skin cancer, cataracts, and impaired immune systems.
Finally, air pollution causes global climate change. By burning fossil fuels, we are producing what is known as the greenhouse effect. The earth’s atmosphere appears to be trapping more of the sun’s heat, causing the earth’s average temperature to rise in what we call global warming.
These are three examples of air pollution effects on environment.
Click Here To Know More About Carbon Credit Mall Now!
Incoming search terms:
In these modern times, we can’t deny the fact that technology and science has propelled into probably the highest level of superiority which has indeed made our lives much more comfortable. However, the down side is that it has also caused air pollution, specifically carbon emissions coming from cars, planes, factories, etc. As of now, air pollution is considered to be a big environmental threat in many parts of the world. So how does air pollution affect the environment?
Click Here To Know More On How To Reduce Carbon Today Now!
One of the major contributing factors to climate change is air pollution. Harmful emissions doesn’t just pollute the air we breathe, but are also producing greenhouse effect much more impact, therefore, leading to the increase on the average temperature on our planet. So we can say that more vehicles and more industries would also mean that there would be more negative impact to the global warming problem.
Another major issue on how does air pollution affect the environment is the harmful effect it has in the earth’s ozone layer. Well almost everyone is aware that there are chemicals that shrink our ozone layer, making it thinner and increasing the risk for harmful violet rays that may lead to developing skin cancer.
Acid rain is another negative effect of air pollution. It destroys the habitat of many animals, polluting the water by affecting their acidity and do great damage to the ecosystem as a whole.
Now that we all have the answer on how does air pollution affect the environment, the next logical thing to do is to find a way to reduce, if not totally eliminate the major factors that contributes to air pollution. We can start by using much less of our cars than we used them now and we should also take simple steps to conserve energy.
Click Here To Know More On How To Reduce Carbon Today Now!
Incoming search terms:
- layer acid pollution (25)
Biofuels have become talk of the town these days. These are obtained from biomass and utilize many renewable energy sources. These fuels also use plant matter as the raw material. Solid biomass is known to be the most common types of bio-fuels. The consistent rise in the price of fossil fuel has affected the world economy. The introduction of biofuels has come as a rescue to this problem. In fact, these have acted as a complete replacement for most of our energy requirements. However, prior to completely trusting this renewable energy source, it is important to know about the pros and cons of using biofuels. Stated below are some of the significant biofuels pros and cons.
Biofuels Pros and Cons:
The most obvious pros of using biofuel is the independence it allows from oil that can be bought from outside the United States. The best part is that the emissions coming from direct usage in automobiles is far lesser as compared to those from conventional fuels such as gasoline.
Biofuels are extracted from the plant oils or animals. This facilitates recycling. This in turn, turns the trash into something resourceful.
Biofuels are cost-effective. In fact, these are considered to be the only fuel available at affordable price.
The best thing about biofuel is that they are safer and can be easily transported from one place to another sans posing any potential risk on the health of consumers.
When using biofuel, there is no peculiar gasoline stench. It is also sulfur-free. Additionally, it aids in eliminating acid rain.
Bio fuel can be used by all vehicle engine types.
Cons of using biofuels:
The traditional petroleum products produce more energy than biofuel. This may result in power loss in engines.
It is true that biofuel can function with most engines but there are just a few specifically designed for this type of fuel.
Incoming search terms:
- pros and cons of biofuels (4)
- pro and cons of biofuels org (3)
- biofuels pros and cons (3)
- pros and cons of biofuels org (2)
- pros and cons of using biofuels (1)
- pros and cons of biofuels org - com (1)
- pros and cons biofuels org (1)
- pros and cons biofuel org (1)
- pro biofuels and air polution (1)
- biofuels liteinet org (1)
The need for tax shifting – lowering income taxes while raising taxes on environmentally destructive activities – in order to get the market to tell the truth has been widely endorsed by economists. The basic idea is to establish a tax that reflects the indirect costs to society of an economic activity. For example, a tax on coal would incorporate the increased health care costs associated with breathing polluted air, the costs of damage from acid rain, and the costs of climate disruption.
Nine countries in Western Europe have already begun the process of tax shifting, known as environmental tax reform. The amount of revenue shifted thus far is small, just a few percent. But enough experience has been gained to know that it works.
Among the activities taxed in Europe are carbon emissions, emissions of heavy metals, and the generation of garbage (so-called landfill taxes). The Nordic countries, led by Sweden, pioneered tax shifting at the beginning of the 1990s. By 1999 a second wave of tax shifting was under way, this one including the larger economies of Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Tax shifting does not change the level of taxes, only their composition. One of the better known changes was a four-year plan adopted in Germany in 1999 to shift taxes from labor to energy. By 2001, this had lowered fuel use by 5 percent. A tax on carbon emissions adopted in Finland in 1990 lowered emissions there 7 percent by 1998.
Environmental tax reform is spreading, with the reform process now under way in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The United States imposed a stiff tax on chlorofluorocarbons to phase them out in accordance with the Montreal Protocol of 1987. At the local level, the city of Victoria, British Columbia, adopted a trash tax of .20 per bag of garbage, reducing its daily trash flow 18 percent within one year.
One of the newer taxes gaining in popularity is the so-called congestion tax. City governments are turning to a tax on vehicles picture of urban traffic entering the city, or at least the inner part of the city where traffic congestion is most serious. In London, where the average speed of an automobile was 9 miles per hour – about the same as a horse-drawn carriage – a congestion tax was adopted in early 2003. The charge on all motorists driving into the center of the city between 7am and 6:30pm immediately reduced the number of vehicles by 24 percent, permitting traffic to flow more freely while cutting pollution and noise.
Environmental tax shifting usually brings a double dividend. In reducing taxes on income – in effect, taxes on labor – labor becomes less costly, creating additional jobs while protecting the environment. This was the principal motivation in the German four-year shift of taxes from income to energy. The shift from fossil fuels to more energy-efficient technologies and to renewable sources of energy reduces carbon emissions and represents a shift to more labor-intensive industries. By lowering the air pollution from smokestacks and tailpipes, it also reduces respiratory illnesses, such as asthma and emphysema, and health care costs – a triple dividend.
When it comes to reflecting the value of nature’s services, ecologists can, for example, calculate the values of services that a forest in a given location provides. Once picture of logging operation these are determined, they can be incorporated into the price of trees as a stumpage tax of the sort that Bulgaria and Lithuania have adopted. Anyone wishing to cut a tree would have to pay a tax equal to the value of the services provided by that tree. The market would then be telling the truth. The effect of this would be to reduce tree cutting, since forest services may be worth several times as much as the timber, and to encourage wood and paper recycling.
Some 2,500 economists, including eight Nobel Prize winners in economics, have endorsed the concept of tax shifts. Former Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw, who was nominated to be Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors in early 2003, wrote in Fortune magazine: “Cutting income taxes while increasing gasoline taxes would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming – all without jeopardizing long-term fiscal solvency. This may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer.” Mankiw could also have added that it would reduce the military expenditures associated with ensuring access to Middle Eastern oil.
The Economist has recognized the advantage of environmental tax shifting and endorses it strongly: “On environmental grounds, never mind energy security, America taxes gasoline too lightly. Better than a one-off increase, a politically more feasible idea, and desirable in its own terms, would be a long-term plan to shift taxes from incomes to emissions of carbon.” In Europe and the United States, polls indicate that at least 70 percent of voters support environmental tax reform once it is explained to them.
Subsidies, which are essentially “negative taxes,” also must be reformed. Each year the world’s taxpayers underwrite 0 billion of subsidies for environmentally destructive activities, picture of oil rig such as burning fossil fuels, over-pumping aquifers, clear-cutting forests, and overfishing. A 1997 Earth Council study, Subsidizing Unsustainable Development, observes that “there is something unbelievable about the world spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually to subsidize its own destruction.”
Subsidies are not inherently bad. Many technologies and industries were born of government subsidies. Jet aircraft were developed with military R&D expenditures, leading to modern commercial airliners. The Internet was a result of publicly funded efforts to establish links between computers in government laboratories and research institutes. And the combination of the federal tax incentive and a robust state tax incentive in California gave birth to the modern wind power industry.
But just as there is a need for tax shifting, there is also a need for subsidy shifting. A world facing the prospect of economically disruptive climate change, for example, can no longer justify subsidies to expand the burning of coal and oil. Shifting these subsidies to the development of climate – benign energy sources such as wind power, solar power, and geothermal power is the key to stabilizing the earth’s climate. Shifting subsidies from road construction to rail construction could increase mobility in many situations while reducing carbon emissions.
In a troubled world economy facing fiscal deficits at all levels of government, exploiting tax and subsidy shifts with their double and triple dividends can help balance the books and save the environment. Tax and subsidy shifting promise both gains in economic efficiency and reductions in environmental destruction, a win-win situation.
History judges political leaders by whether they respond to the great issues of their time. For today’s leaders, that issue is how to deflate the world’s bubble economy before it bursts. This bubble threatens the future of everyone, rich and poor alike. It challenges us to restructure the global economy, to build an eco-economy.
The choice is ours – yours and mine. We can stay with business as usual and preside over a global bubble economy that keeps expanding until it bursts, leading to economic decline. Or we can adopt Plan B and be the generation that stabilizes population, eradicates poverty, and stabilizes climate. Historians will record the choice, but it is ours to make
Air pollution simply is releasing of harmful substances into the air through various human activities. It is very common and dangerous. It is a general awareness among the people that air pollution is just smog, acid rain, CFC’s, and other forms of outdoor air pollution. But air pollution also can exist insidehomes and buildings. The health of people is affected by chemical substances present in the air within buildings. Due to very rapid air pollution, holes are caused in the ozone layer of the earth thereby affecting the balance of nature. People should be aware of eco-friendly products.
Air pollution is caused by various number of reasons. Smoke emitted out of factories and chemical plants, crackers, cars, burning the wastes and garbage etc. There are many sources of indoor air pollution. Tobacco smoke, cooking and heating appliances, and vapors from building materials, paints, furniture, etc. which causes indoor pollution in the homes.
Air pollution causes many diseases. These can be for short term and long term. People suffer from various health problems such as asthma, heart and lung diseases. Long term effects can include chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, heart disease, and even damage to the brain, nerves, liver, or kidneys more when the air is polluted.
Air pollution should really be reduced for a bright future. For the prevention of air pollution cutting of trees should be prohibited, littering of waste and garbage should be stopped, burning of crackers should be reduced. Eco-friendly products will be the key to a healthy nature.
Ecovillage products can be a great help for prevention of air pollution. Ecovillage products are eco-friendly products. One of the products is an eco-friendly non biodegradable umbrella. The fabric of this umbrella is made from recycled plastic which helps in reducing air pollution and is made without poisonous toxins. Another Ecovillage product is a natural paint That Cleans the air And Combats Mold and Mildew. This is also eco-friendly. As the air will be cleaned then it will ensure fresh air inside the house. Ecovillage offers eco- friendly handy non-toxic air freshener so that the air around is good and not like the ordinary one’s which makes the air more polluted.