Crown Capital Eco Management Green Energy

With emerging renewable energy alternatives today, it is highly important that they be given enough attention even early on their developmental stages. Such technologies might not be ready for commercial uses yet but their potential should be amply tested and funded. Society’s modern lifestyle is in serious need of energy that can be generated and consumed and yet, not compromise the future state for generations to come; to have no anxiety that it would cause damage to the environment.

Green energy could come from such sources available in our environment that are naturally replenished and efficient like tides, wind, sunlight and geothermal heat. It is very different from low-carbon energy as the former does not add to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at all, thus, coming with minimal environmental harm and greenhouse gas.

Concerns in climate change and increasing oil prices are some of the contributing factors in drawing the spotlight to renewable energy and its potential for commercialization. Green energy can effectively replace our conventional fuel of today in all its main uses, which are in heating, vehicle fuel and electricity generation sectors. In fact, 19% of the electricity generated around the world today comes from renewable sources. Furthermore, since the emergence of biofuels in the United States 6 years ago, consumption of conventional oil has decreased significantly.

For a green energy resource or technology to be sustainable, it has to give the maximum environmental advantage while still serving its purpose.


This entry was posted in Business and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Crown Capital Eco Management Green Energy

  1. wayneknit says:

    Climate-Change Response Demands Urgency

    JUST HOW much will the Earth heat up over the next 100 or 200 years? Climate scientists are not able to predict with high certainty. They have estimated that average global temperatures will increase by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius — 2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit — given a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That range of estimates for “climate sensitivity” would mean the difference between relatively small effects and significant consequences for human welfare.

    There are skeptics — not out-and-out climate-change deniers — who accept the physics that human-produced greenhouse gases will have some influence on climate but point to the lower estimates to argue that the issue is not urgent. A new paper in the journal Nature suggests they are wrong — that the consequences of climate change are likely to be toward the middle or higher end of the predicted temperature range. “This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates,” said University of New South Wales’s Steven Sherwood, author of the report. “Meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3 degrees Celsius to 5 degrees Celsius with a doubling of carbon dioxide.” That translates into a rise of 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100 and perhaps 8 degrees Celsius by 2200, barring a reduction in carbon dioxide output.

    The research relies on insights into the effects of clouds on climate. In finely tuned climate models, much depends on figuring out how evaporated water behaves. As high-level clouds, some will exert a net warming effect by absorbing heat. As low-level clouds, some will exert a net cooling effect by reflecting sunlight back into space. And even lower to the ground, some may prevent low-level clouds from developing by dehydrating the cloud-forming layer. One way or another, cloud activity will feed back into the climate-change process.

    The study’s authors compared various models to real-world observations and found that the models that matched the observations predict more upward pressure on temperature. Their results offer one more argument against assuming a relatively benign climate future. That doesn’t mean the future can be forecast, even now, with certainty. It does mean that to take no action, on the hope that nothing too bad is in store, is to place a foolish bet with humanity’s future. It would be much more prudent to spend something now to head off the risks, even if they aren’t known exactly.

    Next year, international negotiators will gather in Paris in another attempt to create a working international anti-carbon system. It’s important to invest diplomatic capital in that effort. But leaders cannot rely on that forum to produce the action the world needs. The United States needs to lead the way with a smarter climate policy and then encourage a global response.

    Read more:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s