Tag Archives: environment

3- SOLVING WORLD PROBLEMS

THE SOLUTION TO SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT

Leave a comment

The biggest threat to the environment is rarely talked about and easy to fix but unless it’s addressed soon, nothing else we do will keep us from destroying the planet.

The damage we do to the Earth is simple math. The size of the average persons carbon foot print, times the number of people on the planet. Since 1970 the worlds population has doubled. At the present rate kindergarten students today will see it double again in their lifetime, doubling the damage we’re currently doing to the planet. If left unchecked a generation later will see the Earths population double again making are carbon foot print 4 times what it is today, and so on. Just look around and you can see how fast cities and towns are expanding.

As we sit on the tipping point of catastrophic disaster even if the population stopped increasing today we would be lucky not to loose this game of Jenga we are playing with the worlds ecosystem. Left unchecked we will soon realize all the science, carbon taxes and government policies in the word won’t put a dent in fixing the damage done by this rapid population growth.

Even skeptics of climate change can’t ignore the logistics of providing enough food and energy for a world population multiple times larger then todays not to mention dealing with the waste. The more the worlds populations grow the greater the threat of conflict between nations over resources.

Having children is one of the most fulfilling and important parts of being human and no one has to give that up to save the planet. If every couple had an average of 2 children the worlds population would stop growing and become neutral, that combined with current programs and scientific advances might give us a chance at survival.

There is no time to waste. “World population” needs to be at the top of the list for combating climate change. The people of the world need to understand that controlling population growth is the only thing that will save us. Only then will governments be able to to make it work by phasing in policies like eliminating child tax breaks for large families. Changing current values will not be easy and it will take brave politicians with our support to implement the policy’s necessary.

A slowing growth in population will also effect many other issues. Although it would solve some problems like easing the housing crisis and transit problems it will also most likely have a negative effect on the stock market and countries with deficit based pyramid type economy’s.

We can no longer foolishly believe electric cars, carbon taxes, recycling, bicycling, and renewable energy will save the planet. Until population growth is brought under control, nothing else we do matters. Effects of biblical proportion from are actions are no longer generations in the future but will be felt within your or your children’s lifetime. After reading this, It is now up to you to do your part to help save the planet by getting the word out about population growth, through friends, school, work, social media, political lobbing or simply passing on this post. People are already beginning to focus on the science behind climate change but it is much more important to focus on the math.

Dave Lister

listerlogic.com

6- INVENTIONS

WHY ARE WE PAYING TO COOL OUR HOUSE IN WINTER?

Leave a comment

hydro metre

It’s minus 5 degrees outside but inside the house it’s warm and comfortable.  If your like most people, as the furnace is running to warm your house the hydro metre is running extra fast powering compressors to keep the inside of the fridge and freezer cold.  In climates that are often below the freezing mark 4-5 months out of the year why not use the outside elements for cooling?

IMG_0417

By installing a temperature exchange unit similar to a car radiator outside (photo above)  and a smaller one inside the fridge it should be possible on cold days to use a very low energy water pump to circulate plumbing antifreeze through insulated pipes between the two.  The circulating water pump would use a small fraction of the energy of the fridges compressor and if used 4 months out of the year should not only save money on energy but also extend the life of the appliance by 33%.

updated fridge3

When the outside thermostat registers -5 degrees or colder a signal is sent to the control module inside the fridge and a relay disconnects the fridges compressor.  Instead of the fridges thermostat activating the compressor when it becomes too warm the pump is activated instead and cold plumbing antifreeze from the “outside temperature exchange unit” is brought through insulated pipes to the “fridge temperature exchange unit” and cools the fridge.  When the fridge is cold again the control module shuts off the pump.

On a commercial level such as in a supermarket with rows of freezers, using the outside cold from the winter has a much bigger benefit.  Cooling tubes mounted in the freezer during manufacturing could be used in winter to circulate cold plumbing antifreeze from outside storage reservoirs.   Conventional cooling compressors would still be used for summer time or warm winter days.

Another possibility is on cold winter days would be to use cold air instead of cold liquid.

A thermostat in the food cooler from a grocery store would activate a roof vent fan.  Cold outside air would be blown down through insulated ducts to the inside walls of the food cooler.

correct FINISHED DIAGRAM 1

In winter, the insulation from the inside walls of the food cooler would be automatically retracted creating a channel for cold outside air to be blown through.

WINTER POSITION MONK REDUCED

In summer time the insulation is automatically moved up against the inside walls of the food cooler. A traditional compressor is used with evaporator coils.

PIC MONK SUMMER POSITION FINAL REDUCED

Its hard to believe that in todays day and age we still waste so much energy and money creating a cold area for food when in the winter time our house is surrounded by it.

Dave Lister

listerlogic.com

Note: This is an original idea by me but there may be similar products or patents already.  I am not an expert, if you attempt to build or use always consult with an expert and check with all local code and laws.  Build and use at your own risk.  I take no responsibility for injury, death or damage to property.

 

3- SOLVING WORLD PROBLEMS

DOES EARTH HAVE CANCER? / SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT

Leave a comment

edited credit photo courtesy of NASA - Copy.jpgCancer can not survive without a host.  In small numbers it goes basically undetected but as its numbers increase the effects begin to break down various systems of the host.  Eventually the cancer becomes so large in numbers the host can no longer survive and dies, and with it so does the cancer.

Are we the cancer of the Earth?

In the last 50 years the world population has more then doubled from 3.3 billion to 7.3 billion people.  At our current population the environment is already noticeably stressed.  Estimates show that the world population could reach 9 billion by 2050.  Even with breakthroughs in science how many people can the earth support?   10 billion?  15 billion?  500 billion?  At what point will we realize we cannot go on the way we are and how badly damaged will the environment be by then?  Will it be too late?

Cancer Cells have no idea that there ever increasing numbers will eventually kill there host, along with them.

Are we smarter then a cancer cell?

Evidence of how fast the population is growing is not hard to find. In Toronto Canada there are so many new condos going up it’s not uncommon to find 3 construction cranes close together. Solutions to Toronto Traffic Part 2.jpgDoes Earth have cancer 2.jpg

The city of Bradford 65km to the north of Toronto has seen hundreds of acres of new housing built over the last 10 years, the edge of which can be seen in the distance of this photo. In the next 2 years housing will cover all of the empty field shown.Does Earth have cancer 4.jpg

Tapping the brakes on world population

Raising a child is one of the greatest and most fulfilling basic things in life and no one should be denied the experience, however our current mind set that large families our enviable has to change and changing our mind set and values takes time.  If the average family had only 1 or 2 children the world population would begin to decline. Even if the average amount of children per family were 2,  the population would no longer increase.  No one should be told how many children they are allowed to have but through education and government incentives on a national and global level people need to be encouraged to have smaller families.  Our increasing population is by far the single greatest threat to ourselves and the environment, it is also the easiest thing to fix.

Currently in Canada the government is still encouraging large families and offers thousands of dollars in tax savings for every child you have, in effect paying Canadians to have more children. What would happen if the government announced over the next ten years these tax savings would not change for the first child, be reduced by one half for the second child and nothing for any additional children? Would Canadians reconsider how many children they are going to have?  If not, what if the money the government saved from this was given as a form of tax credit to the families that just had one child or no children?  It’s hard to say right now what and how much it would take in government incentives to get the average family size down to a sustainable level and no doubt incentives would vary between countries.  Could there be other benefits to this kind of government policy?  Would financial incentives to have less children also possible reduce the number of unwanted or abused children?  Would having less children result in better care for the ones we have?   The sooner we start, the more time we have to learn and adjust and the easier the transition will be.

Governments also need to do more when it comes to contraception. Young people need to be educated before the age they become sexually active.  Affordable methods of contraception need to be made available to everyone and more research into new reliable methods needs to be done. The number of unplanned or unwanted pregnancies needs to be reduced as close to 0 as possible.

Not only do we need time to adjust to the idea of smaller families, what about the economy? How would a slowing population growth effect the economy?  Doe’s  our current economy rely on the pyramid system requiring more and more people every year to keep going?  By a slow and gradual reduction in population growth we can hopefully avoid any major economic disasters.

We can no longer think that we can sit back and as long as we recycle, conserve energy, use green products and green companies that everything will be  fine.  The fact is unless we can start to control our population now all other efforts are for nothing.  In the 5 minutes  it took you to read this article there are over 700 more people on earth. By this time tomorrow there will be another 200,000.

Dave Lister

listerlogic.com

(photo of Earth courtesy of NASA)