PMU199 Course Blog

Ozone layer takes a role to prevent ultraviolet rays, which protects humans from being excessively exposed to the sun. It is also essential to realize that every living thing on the earth relies on the solar energy to continue with their lives. Nevertheless, there has been a component released from the sun that can be extremely harmful to the living things. It has been considered as ultraviolet rays coming out of the ozone layer, located in the Stratosphere.

Scientists have discovered that harmful emissions account for much of the damage in the atmosphere and that the ozone layer is being increasingly thinned by human activity. This has led to harmful ultraviolet radiation and the evidence of a large ozone hole which was discovered above the continent of Antarctica in 1985. This ozone hole has been remarkably growing larger and deeper over time due to two major ozone depleting chemicals.

First off, there is significant evidence that chemicals and emissions of chlorofluorocarbon gas (CFCs) have been causing a significant destruction of ozone in the Stratosphere. It is widely known that chlorofluorocarbon gas contributes to the main cause that continuously destroys the ozone layer. This is mainly released from a refrigerator, an air conditioner, and a hair spray. Once chlorofluorocarbon gas is released, it will eventually destruct the ozone layer by making holes. As a result, the ultraviolet ray comes through the holes, melts a glacier and the surface of the water will soar. 

Secondly, Halon gas also ruins the ozone layer and any objects that emits Halon gas is restricted in today’s society. Halon gas consists of similar elements as CFC gas, but it contains bromine instead of chlorine. It can be seen that the relationship between bromine and Halon gas equals to the relationship between chlorine and CFC gas.

Due to these two major ozone depleting chemicals known as CFCs and Halon gas, ultraviolet rays coming through the holes from the ozone layer will ultimately cause skin cancer as well as environmental deterioration. Furthermore, the destruction of ozone layer affects all of us, because in the end, the environment where people cannot live will be formed while an ecosystem is being destroyed.

In order to address this problem, Canada made an important contribution to the environmental health. Canada has been involved in many international treaties, including the Montreal Protocol.

An international agreement, the Montreal Protocol, was implemented in 1987 to protect the ozone layer from further depletion. It eventually helped humans to prevent getting skin cancer and preserved the environment by protecting the ozone layer surrounding the Earth. The amount of CFCs and harmful substances are remarkably decreased by promoting the Montreal Protocol. After all, the Montreal Protocol successfully phased out most CFCs. It seems that Canada has taken a significant role in promoting positive global change, particularly in improving global health and wellness.

I think that in order to effectively address ozone layer depletion, Canada as well as other countries of influence and relative affluence all over the world must join together and take responsibility for the global environment for the future of the earth.

Above all, it clearly reveals that we will not be able to live without the ozone layer that is located in the Stratosphere. If it happens to disappear, every living thing will be gone or mutate into the species that can even survive even if they receive ultraviolet rays. In order to maintain our lives, CFCs or Halon gas must be strongly restricted and at the same time, we should spend all strength in developing a replaceable substance. 

Hence, each one of us must act now to avoid further damage by reducing products that contain either CFC gas or Halon gas, removing an atom of chlorine or bromine that can damage an ozone layer. We should also use a fan instead of an air conditioner and use a hair gel instead of a hair spray.

Climate change is a very important topic that should be observed greatly and taken seriously. Why you may ask? I will tell you why. If people don’t start paying more attention to the damage that they are causing the environment, then bad things are going to happen. In fact, they have already started to happen. Think about Hurricane Katrina, if you don’t know what Hurricane Katrina is-click here! One of those bad things is the climate changing. We don’t want that happening because to be frank, if it changes too much we’ll end up dead. So now you must be wondering, is there anything that I can do to possibly prevent this from getting out of hand? I will answer this with a yes! Yes, there are things you can do to be environmentally friendly so that one day we do not all end up dead. Next, you are probably wondering, is there anything I can go by so that I can have an idea how much/how little damage I am causing to the environment? Again, good news because I will answer that with another YES! That ladies and gentlemen leads up to my exciting topic today about…………drum roll please…………………………………….   Carbon Footprints-what they are, and what can done to reduce them. I hope you enjoy! =)

What is a carbon footprint?  A carbon footprint is a unit of measurement that determines how much human activities impact the environment and how they may possibly influence climate change. It focuses on the amount of greenhouse gases that each person individually produces and the units of Kg/tonnes equivalent.

Okay, so now that you know what a carbon footprint is, you may be wondering what is a good size to keep your carbon footprint at. Obviously, the smaller the better, but I’m going to try to offer you a more helpful guideline. That is coming up next:)

The ideal size for a carbon footprint is………….1 tonne per person per year. Wow, you may think that is sure a lot of carbon! Although, you may be surprised to know that in the United Kingdom the average size of a carbon footprint is 9.4 tonnes per year. That sure does make the ideal size of 1 tonne per year seem pretty small. But don’t worry; I’m going to give you some helpful tips on reducing your carbon footprint, so that hopefully we could reach our goal of 1 tonne per year. Good luck everybody!

Click here – Tips on Reducing your Carbon Footprint =). I figured clicking on this link would be much more efficient than me just retyping everything, but I still plan on offering some insight into this topic.

Quick summary if you really don’t want to read the link. LESS IS MORE. Yah sure, you’ve probably heard that before but let me explain how true this statement is and how much it really does make sense! The less carbon that you omit, the more that you are helping save the planet. See, less is in fact more :). Just small changes in your lifestyle could make a big impact on helping the planet if everybody decided to take part. For example, a very simple thing to do would be to stop purchasing bottled water. Often times, plastic is not biodegradable, and also the amount of emissions required to ship the plastic water bottles is too great. A smarter idea would be to purchase a water filter so that you can filter the water from your tap (if you don’t like the taste of tap water). Also, you would be saving money by not buying bottled water which is always a bonus!!!! =)

Anyway, I hope my blog gave you all some useful insight on Carbon Footprints, and remember LESS IS MORE! See ya soon!

Global warming is a fairly recent phenomenon that affects us all.  Due to the rising population of the planet, humans are producing an increasing amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) which in turn is emitted into the atmosphere creating the greenhouse effect. According to the World Health Organization, global warming currently contributes to more than 150,000 deaths in low income countries each year, and, in urban areas, air pollution causes about 1.2 million deaths every year.  Climate change creates an rise in infectious diseases and illnesses due to air pollution and rising temperatures.  In addition, climate change has an impact on world hunger.

Global warming is harmful to human health.  In fact, it affects the rates of malnutrition in the world, it causes diarrhea, malaria and dengue fever (due to an increase in rainfall and temperature which allows the mosquitos that transmit malaria to complete their life cycle), and Hanta virus as well as similar diseases in the West.  It also causes deaths due to natural disasters (floods, hurricanes, etc), and cardiovascular deaths due to the fluctuations of temperature (heat waves). Deaths due to the cold as well as the heat are most frequent in infants and elderly people because of their inability to sweat efficiently, to take care of themselves, and to control their environment.  Deaths caused by temperature are avoidable and therefore need to be taken seriously in order to prevent them.

Furthermore, due to high levels of ground-level ozone and traffic pollution, there is more smog in the air which causes harm to people’s respiratory systems.  Air pollution impacts mostly poor countries where there are the highest rates of starvation, death, and disease.  It’s unfortunate that global warming has its biggest impact on the countries that contribute to it the least.  For example, the countries that pollute the most barely see the impacts of global warming while those who pollute significantly less are the ones who suffer the most consequences.  According to the Nature Report on climate change, those regions, which are at highest risk for disease due to increased heat and climate change, are the countries bordering the coastline of the Pacific and Indian oceans as well as Sub-Saharan Africa.

Another way to look at the ways global warming and climate change affect human health is to look at the ways in which it is related to obesity. In November 2010, representatives from countries around the world met in Cancún, Mexico, at the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference.  It is ironic that the meeting took place there because Mexico is the second country with the most obese population after the United States.  North American populations have an unlimited availability to unhealthy food therefore causing an increased rate of diabetes, heart disease, strokes and cancer.  Also, Mexico city is one of most populated cities in the world and has a large impact on global warming because of the large amount of unchecked cars (cars that release large amounts of CO2) and a rapidly growing population.

Mexico as well as the rest of North America, has an increased use of motor vehicle activity which is caused by people being less physically active.  Fossil fuel energy being released into the world’s atmosphere is the cause of both the planet getting hotter and the population getting fatter.

Global warming therefore has an impact on the transport sector. By meeting the greenhouse gas emission targets in that sector, there will be an augmentation in the rates of walking and cycling by reducing the use of motor vehicles.  By cycling or walking instead of using cars, the rates of chronic disease will be drastically reduced, with an approximate reduction of 10-20% in ischaemic heart disease and strokes, a 12% reduction in breast cancer, 8% reduction in dementia, and a 6% reduction in depression, simply by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases!  Those statistics do not, however, include the positive impact on mental health by improving urban greening, reducing community separation, reducing obesity and lowering noise level in the city.

The project suggested at the meeting in Mexico considered many ways to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases and also considered reducing the production of livestock to lower the amount of cattle.  Cattle releases methane into the atmosphere, which contributes to global warming.  By reducing the production of livestock, not only would there be less methane released into the atmosphere, but there would be a reduction in ischaemic heart disease and colon and rectum cancer, because there is a lot of saturated fat in red meat.  By reducing the consumption of saturated fats and by doing more physical activity, the population would be a lot healthier and physically fit.

The way livestock is fed also affects the world’s health.  Since animals in the food industry are fed grains, there is less food available for humans to eat, and in the world we live in, there are millions of people going hungry. Therefore by reducing the amount of animals we consume, more people in the world could eat the grains.

Surprisingly the impact of motor vehicle use on the planet and world starvation are linked together. By reducing the use of cars, food prices would go down and less people would go hungry.  Car use brings up food prices because oil is a key agricultural input.  Therefore, reducing car use helps to prevent starvation.

The Climate and Health Council is making a collective effort to combat the causes of climate change and is trying to ascertain that human health is put first in the negotiations of climate change.  Human health is the most important consequence of global warming so must be taken seriously.

I’ve had this idea for a couple years now that it would be necessary for any building over a certain amount of stories to have a roof top garden to help clean the air hopefully reducing the amount of smog that high traffic areas receive. I was wondering if this is cost effective, how much of an impact it would have and how I would go about trying to put it into action.

“One idea can change the world.” (tumblr.com) What’s the first thing you see in this work of art? The green scheme perhaps? The text and the message? It’s clearly promoting the awareness of global warming and the green colour scheme incredibly supports the concept. But when we think outside the box, isn’t it ironic that somebody would be promoting climate change awareness through using aerosol spray cans (spray cans are aerosol, contribute to the metaphorical ‘blanket’ that is enhancing the effect of global warming and climate change)? Though it is evidently a piece of artwork and it obviously communicates an artist’s intention, it’s debatable to whether this method of promotion/advertising is effective or ideal. What was your initial response?

Of course, many expect more intellectual posts on this blog about subtopics relating to climate change; and yeah, probably many of us are going to use statistics to suffocate us, telling us about how bad global warming is; but I want to talk about something different – it’s Art.

We live in a world of constantly evolving art; from Greek Art to periods such as Neoclassicism, from Romanticism to Pop Art and culture, the products and outcomes are infinite. I was browsing a couple of blogs one day and something struck me: it was a light switch sticker promoting the prevention of intensive climate change. Essentially, the sticker is an add-on to an already existing light switch, with creative designs to promote the awareness of climate change.

I think that the sticker speaks for itself and is self-explanatory – turning on the light switch leads to electricity use, leading to factories burning more fossil fuels, and in turn more carbon dioxide emissions and the enhanced global warming and climate change. The purpose of the sticker would be always remind the user of climate change every time he/she uses electricity, also allowing the user to have second thoughts about the necessity of turning it on. Here’s a link [www.hu2.com] to more stickers if you want to check them out, I must say they’re pretty cool and they’re for sale as well! There are many designs (10-15+) in total and all of them are well designed. Another one is attached below; the hamster is running to supply you with electricity!

Advertising is everywhere. Adverts are constantly shoved in your face when flyers are given, when they’re on big billboards, and they’re what make us purchase their product, which in turn makes the world function as it is.  It’s just as important as the others because it revolves around us, just like business, economics and the life sciences driving the world. It seems that people need to be reminded of concepts and products, which leads to the subject of advertising as well. I found a website with a blog post that is named “The most creative climate change ads you’ll see”. In all honesty, all of them are quite effective, and also reminded me to be eco-friendly as well. Some of the more striking ones are posted just below:

“I’m sorry. We could have stopped catastrophic climate change… we didn’t.” (creativebits.org) This ad works with a more universal approach, where it looks into the future and foreshadows (to the target market) the effects of global climate change. The aim of this advertisement is to make people become more aware of the future and the potential dangers it may have on us, reminding us of the importance of our planet.

“You can’t afford to be slow in an emergency. Act now for the planet.” – WWF. (creativebits.org). This advertisement works in a way where it targets you and refers to your actions contributing to the world. In “Psychological Science” by Michael Gazzaniga (Gazzaniga et al, 2007), an article is written and is titled “Culture and Advertising” (pg. 695-696). The article highlights the differences between East Asian advertising and advertising in America, where it reads:

North American ads frequently emphasize independence, personal benefits, personal goals and freedom… North American ads were more likely to provide information cues and logical arguments.

This quote reinforces the two previous ads, regarding “logical arguments” because of the thinking process involved in interpreting the ad correctly as intended, and emphasizing “independence” in figuring out that “you can’t afford to be slow in an emergency” is advising you as an individual to act and to take initiative in protecting the planet.

This is probably one of my favourite advertisements from some related sites:

“World’s drinkable water supplies are running out. Stop global warming.” (graphicdesignjunction.com)
Of course, advertising still has its good and bad, and people certainly have different opinions about it. For example, a user from the site (creativebits.org) commented on the blog post, saying:

I’m so over the whole “shame on you” approach most of these organizations are using. Instead of saying “you’re destroying the planet!!” how about providing the public with positive messages on how they can do better for the world? Images of people using reusable bags, using mass transit instead of their own cars, buying local produce and products, planting gardens and trees, helping in animal shelters – hype up the positive actions you wish the world to take instead of bombarding them with doom and gloom.

Perhaps the user has a point, saying that the cliché of the “shame on you” approach has had its time already and maybe must move on to promote the awareness of climate change through a more positive note. Any comments?

BBC posted an article that was titled “Climate change ‘exaggerated’ in government adverts“, it talked about a video that exaggerated the effects of climate change (“Please help stop climate change, Act on CO2” Television Advertisement – YouTube). Aside from this, the article also mentioned that two posters were put next to each other, with one saying “Rub a dub, three men in a tub, a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change”, and the other with “Jack and Jill could not fetch a pail of water because extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought”. Advertising clearly works by common connections with the content portrayed and hopefully through a common culture and understanding; from the basis of that observation, these statements or play on familiar nursery rhymes should be a shared experience, therefore making it effective. But indeed, from another point of view, there is the counterargument that “the text accompanying the rhymes should have used more tentative language in both instances” as written in the article. The nursery rhymes, although familiar, are modified to become seemingly vague in its intention where there is no concrete evidence or claim of the supposedly drastic effects of the enhanced greenhouse effect as well as climate change. This perhaps reflects back to the ‘style’ of American thinking where logical reasoning and cues are used, and in these three examples (the video and the two posters), are maybe used a little ambiguously.

However, no matter how much time and effort is put in to advertising the awareness, it doesn’t necessarily motivate people to become more eco-friendly. There is always the one person who is still golfing on a course that “sucks away 15,000m³ of water” (graphicdesignjunction.com) in its lifetime, the few factory workers who need to do ‘dirty jobs’ for money to support their family, and the many business people who debate between their personal wealth and the welfare of our planet. Nevertheless, the advertisements shown on creativebits.org (also featured on other websites) are arguably incredibly creative and motivational.

What are your views on this type of art or advertising? Are you thinking “hmm, this is working for me”, or are you agreeing with the user’s comments about how the “shame on your approach” is simply getting old and isn’t working? What do you think about the effectiveness of advertising using logical reasoning? And more importantly, are companies and the government trying hard enough to sell their ideas and push forward the fact that we are currently undergoing intensive climate change?

Here is a master list of the direct links to the website I referenced before, some references, and a list of many other websites with creative eco-related art products!

• http://adsoftheworld.com/media/dm/tbwa_carbon_neutral_challenge_bags?size=_original – Creative reusable bags by TBWA, Philippines.
• http://creativebits.org/inspiration/climate_change_advertising_revisited – The most creative climate change ads you’ll see, by creativebits.org
• http://graphicdesignjunction.com/2010/07/40-most-creative-wwf-global-climate-change-ads/ – 40 most creative WWF global climate change ads.
• http://hypemuch.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/eco-friendly-light-switch-stickers/ – The creative light switch design ideas!
• http://www.hu2.com/store/eco-reminders.html – Light switch eco-friendly stickers and more eco-friendly reminders for sale! By hu2.com
• Gazzaniga, M. (2007). Psychological Science. New York, USA: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8571353.stm – Climate change ‘exaggerates’ government advertisements – BBC article.
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD2WTK94c1U – Television advertisement “Please help stop climate change, Act on CO2” – Youtube.

In class there was recently a poll held in which we were asked about our opinions on climate change. One of the options was “Other” (I hope I’m remembering this correctly; for the sake of the article I’ll use this). Not to be arrogant, but I think a number of people (not in the class specifically: I’m extending this to people in general) claiming to be concerned about climate change fall into the “Other” category in actuality without even knowing it.  The “Other” in this blog post is intended to mean the type of person that doesn’t really care about climate change, but likes others thinking they do. In other words, the “Other” is a pretense.

In the recent years of television’s satirical South Park, the subject matter has become increasingly political. Creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker have certainly made it much easier to defend the show’s underlying intelligence and deeper meaning! Some of the contentious topics covered in the last seasons include; censorship, abortion, drugs, same-sex marriage, religion, and of course climate change.

A number of episodes on environmentalism have been aired, but for this blog post’s “Other hypothesis”, if you will, I’m only referring to one episode in particular. Specifically, I’m citing the episode “Smug Alert!” as a huge example. In this episode, the idea of the “Other” person is explored when Gerald, the father of one of the main characters, Kyle, purchases a hybrid car.

After buying it, his behaviour becomes progressively worse. At first he just uses the car to receive attention. Then his voice changes. Then he distances himself from his friends because he feels superior. Eventually this superiority gets the better of him, and he moves to San Francisco with his family, leaving South Park altogether. One of the outlandish things Gerald says in the episode is also very telling in terms of the “Other” idea. He claims that everyone in South Park is “backward and unsophisticated,” and says everyone should feel the same way about the environment.

Everyone should feel the same way. This is absurd, but it’s what South Park does: exaggerates real life to make a point. While it is clearly important to care about climate change, we should not lose sight of who we are. “Smug” is just of an important issue as “smog”. What price do we pay for caring about climate change too much? The pollution of how we carry ourselves?

If anyone is interested, I can make “Smug Alert!” available, as well as the other climate change inspired episodes.

I was recently reading an online blog titled, “Canada’s Hypocritical Role on Climate Change”, which outlined reasons for why the Kyoto Protocol was an impossible endeavour for Canada and suggested solutions for the future. Criticism of Canada’s role on this global issue has been vocalized both from delegates, such as the UN climate chief, Yvon de Boer, all the way to concerned facebook users all around the world. I have to admit, being relatively ignorant to the debate on climate change, I was shocked to discover that despite ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Canada (amongst other nations) could not meet its national quota.

For those readers who may not be familiar with the Kyoto Protocol, it is a protocol in an international treaty amongst thirty seven countries, signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. The approach of the Kyoto Protocol is simple: designate national quotas for greenhouse gas emissions in an attempt to control the combined strain greenhouse gases are having on the environment.

While its approach sounds simple enough, the protocol itself is actually quite complex. The reason being is that on an international platform, the range of national economic infrastructures is vast. Not only that, but through time, the economic and political developments of these countries is bound to flux. Consequently, delegating static national quotas to these dynamic nations is a difficult process. In addition, the effort to establish “fair” national quotas is another debate altogether. In the development of the treaty, each country came in with its own interests in regards to the method used to evaluate the emission quota for each nation. Finding a balance was indeed a laborious and complicated process.

Despite all these efforts however, the Kyoto Protocol has been labelled (by some) as a complete failure. Whether this is or is not the case is another issue altogether. The debate of whether the Kyoto Protocol is indeed a failure will not be addressed in this blog. However, one can conclusively state that despite the Kyoto Protocol, countries like Canada and China are presently hopelessly over their emission quotas, which can be viewed as a failure on their independent national platforms (not necessarily on the international platform).

What interested me was the opinion of Michael Cleland in the blog mentioned above. He did not identify Canada’s failure to abide to the Kyoto Protocol as a hypocritical move, but rather, he labelled Canada’s signing and ratification of the treaty itself as the root of its hypocrisy. He argues that the signing of the treaty was made in light of blatant clues signalling the impossibility of the environmental endeavour the protocol attempted to make. He, along with many others such as Al Gore, has made appeals, outlining reasons for the problems surrounding the Kyoto Protocol.

Assuming the Kyoto Protocol was a failure, my question is, how can an international group of some of the most intelligent people in the world set such unrealistic goals for themselves? Were they simply being optimistic? Or were their far-fetched goals simply a reaction to the extremity of the need for greenhouse gas emission reductions?

Labelling the treaty as a “failure” in 2011 is one thing, but coming to that conclusion in 1997 requires two very different degrees of insight. One man who prematurely voiced the ineffectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol is Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Studies, at the University of Virginia. By 1998, he had concluded that the Kyoto protocol “has no benefit at an enormous cost.” Unfortunately, it took other people substantially more time to come to this conclusion. Perhaps the “blindingly obvious evidence” wasn’t so blindingly obvious after all.

In a chaotic system, one can distinguish the parameters of predicted outcomes, but cannot predict what will happen within these parameters. This introduces the concepts of weather and climate.

Climate refers to the long-term, generalized conditions expected in a large geographical area. It is the parameters of the chaotic system. Climate can be predicted centuries in advance.

Weather refers to short-term local conditions. This is what is expected to happen within the parameters of the chaotic system. It is highly variable and can only be accurately predicted a maximum of two weeks in advance (due to the increasing divergence of the outcomes in the chaotic model, as the number of time steps increase).

Global climate change is a rising issue amongst the world at the moment and every living thing on this planet is affected. For human beings, this impact is much greater than simply affecting our personal, it affects the society, affects the economy, and one thing that relates to our basic survival – it affects agriculture.

The traditional method of open-field farming was an excellent method of farming up until the point global climate change started to affect agriculture. With unstable weather patterns exposed to the farms, crop yields are greatly affected by the event, and therefore taking an enormous hit onto the lives of farmers. Economic damages to their lives and basically affecting their way of surviving in this world. More and more farmers are now searching for an energy- and cost-efficient model that can help save their own business.

Of course, many farmers consider using greenhouses as a method of sustainable agriculture, however this is no longer the case. Traditional greenhouses may use the glass as walls to collect heat from the outside and storing them inside to keep the greenhouse at a relatively warm temperature. Global climate change presenting the unstable weather patterns will affect this setup. First of all, with frequent-changing temperatures, the greenhouses cannot store heat efficiently because of fluctuating temperatures on a near-daily basis. Second of all, traditional greenhouses aren’t excellent heat-storing devices.

The saviour of agriculture in this time would be known as solar greenhouses. Ever since the concept of “global warming” was introduced to mankind, most people turned towards solar energy to be more energy-efficient, and it is quite useful. Introducing the concept of solar energy to agriculture can greatly help the farmers.

Of course, there are different types of solar greenhouses: Passive or active. Passive solar greenhouses (the two greenhouses on the left of the diagram above) are ones that uses the building itself as the heat-storing device, therefore it is a very cost-efficient method of agriculture for it is cheaper. The active solar greenhouses (on the right of the diagram) are the ones who depends on an external device to store heat. This way it is much more expensive, but the farmer can control the heat much better than any other types of greenhouses. Most of the food that we are all eating today are known as high-value crops, meaning they are crops with high demand on them, for example, strawberries or potatoes. These high-value crops are usually grown in active solar greenhouses because they can be better grown inside a greenhouse where the temperature is much more controlled and can be kept at an optimum level.

Greenhouse Canada wrote an article regarding the effectiveness of solar greenhouses: “The Solar Solution”

Since active solar greenhouses can produce high-value crops at a high quality, the demand for these crops will eventually increase, with more output, the farmers are bound to increase their profit.

It sounds very easy I know, but if everything was this easy then we wouldn’t have any problems within the world. A book stated that “there is relatively little evidence that farmers have responded to recent changes in climate by changing their farming practice, or that they have much knowledge of potential future climate change.” The problem is that farmers are not aware of the situation, also that they are not willing to sacrifice a large amount of money for solar greenhouses in order to save their business. To most farmers, that process is just wasting money, but what they don’t understand is that active solar greenhouses is a long-term profit-making method of agriculture.

Of course, this is only one fraction of what agriculture really is, there are several other issues, for example, food security, health issues, and food mileage, etc. “The food… is it organic?” A question that pops up a lot recently, people consider organic foods “safer” foods compared to conventional ones, which is true. But what most people don’t understand is that organic foods are brought to you by plane from other countries in which the environment was polluted on the way:

With that question asked within the comic above, it makes people wonder… what is right?