Climate Change: Your carbon footprint explained – BBC News
Tackling climate change is a big task, but there are clear ways of cutting your contribution to carbon emissions, also known as your carbon footprint.
This is how changing three aspects of your life can make a difference.
#CarbonFootprint #ClimateChange #BBCNews
Please subscribe HERE http://bit.ly/1rbfUog
Awesome and succinct explanation about carbon footprint. We hope this video enlightened everyone, encouraging them to be more conscious of their carbon footprints. We will add your video to our playlists to inspire climate solutions. – Team Planet Cents
How does the person in DRC only emit .03 tonnes of CO2 per year when human respiration alone emits .365 tonnes per person annually ?
"Carbon footprint" is pure malarky from those back to nature luddite environmentalists since they ignore how work goes to entropic heat so are they going ban work or exile humanity into space?
What they going to do micromanage someone for burning garbage or try telling coal regions to convert lignite peat bituminous anthracite into diamonds?
Bbc explains lmfao really whats next green gas?
Bunch of controlling and money crabbing morons.
Literally CO2 is essential for all life on Earth, and we are currently in a shortage of this trace gas.
But think of the money that can be made from it.
Charging tax on products based on carbon footprint. The skies the limit.
Anthropogenic co2 is just 12ppm of all co2 emissions.
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect: Basic Physics
There's a common belief that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere leads to more global warming.
However, this idea is challenged by some scientists and the basic laws of physics: Beer's – Lambert’s Law. A study of this by H. Hug from about 50 years ago using FTIR spectroscopy supports this view. Michel van Biezen also has a series of 4-minute YouTube lectures, Astronomy and the Atmosphere, that provide easily understandable information on this topic.
The absorption of infrared heat from the Earth’s surface by CO2 is most effective at a specific wavelength (14.97 micrometers). This absorption reaches a maximum, or becomes saturated, at relatively low CO2 levels (less than 100 parts per million) just meters from the earth’s surface. Beyond this concentration, adding more CO2 doesn’t significantly increase heat absorption because all the infrared (IR) radiation that CO2 can absorb is already being fully absorbed close to the Earth’s surface. This accounts for about 10 degrees Celsius of basic Greenhouse warming.
The speculation that CO2 can re-emit absorbed IR radiation into the upper atmosphere and cause further warming from CO2 conflicts with Beer’s – Lambert’s Law and with the spectroscopy data that confirms the end point to absorption. Virtually all of the heat that CO2 can absorb is already accomplished. Other wavelengths of CO2 absorption, near 2, 3, and 4 micrometers, and even in the proposed wider band of 14.8 to 16 micrometers, excluding 14.97 of course, contribute very little to overall absorption.
Given these points, the focus on increasing CO2 levels and their catastrophic potential is greatly overemphasized. Instead, redirecting efforts to other effects CO2 might have, and investing in nuclear energy development would be a more effective use of resources.
Sincerely, Don Kloos, Chemist.
BBC proaganda nonsense – please research who, or more precisely, what company coined the term 'carbon footprint' and why.
When you've done this, have a peak at 'The First Law Of Thermodynamics'…..
Don't fall for this crap.
Well done 'BBC'. Glad I don't need a 'tv licence' anymore.
Thanks a lot for this video. I really want to do my part and understand it well. I'll certainly implement strategies to reduce it from my side. I know that the large corporations can do more than I can but this does not stop me from working on myself. When we change ourselves we help people around us to change too.
The carbon footprint was invented by BP to put the blame on us and away from themselves.
This is common knowledge now.
Its a scam.
Joe, you ain’t too bright. Read what the left thinks about farting cows. After reading his article, consider whether or not people need to be eliminated. There are over our billion of us on earth, many more than there are cows!
METHANE EMISSIONS
Cows next on climate change hit list
By Stephen Moore
Enjoy your cheeseburgers and steaks when you fire up the grill this summer, because they may not be available much longer.
That’s because the climate fanatics have declared war on livestock. Turns out the biggest planet killers are apparently cows. That’s the only logical takeaway from a recent CNN headline that informs us that the “World’s first carbon tax on livestock will cost farmers $100 per cow.”
I don’t usually pay too much attention to looney-tune ideas from across the Atlantic, but this is the kind of craziness that migrates across the ocean to these shores.
Denmark’s $96-a-cow tax is to be imposed “for the planet-heating emissions they generate.”
If you are wondering why cows are suddenly supervillains, you aren’t paying attention to the extremists running the environmental movement. You see, every time a cow burps or passes gas (methane, to be exact), the planet gets warmer. The fiends!
So now we have the first nation to impose a tax on livestock — and pigs and goats may be next. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen boasts that “we are investing billions” in this transition to a carbon-free society. The cows are collateral damage in this crusade to save the planet from heat waves.
CNN says the global food system contributes one-third of the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
PBS says it’s worse than that. It finds that “cows and other livestock animals are responsible for about 40% of methane emissions — a potent greenhouse gas. In digesting their high fiber diet, cows emit methane as a byproduct, making them one of the least climate friendly sources of food on the planet.”
Off with their heads.
My prediction is that within the next 18 months, some members of Congress (AOC?) will propose a similar tax on Bessie here.
I suppose I should take some consolation that at least we finally have liberals admitting that if you tax something, you will get less of it. More taxes on cows means fewer cattle. That’s the idea here.
So why do we tax work, saving and investment? Do we want less of those too?
What is sadly ironic about this taxing scheme is that this is the same movement that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to save elephants, polar bears, pandas, tigers, dolphins and other “endangered species.” But apparently cows we can live without. They aren’t cute and cuddly enough. So much for “biodiversity.”
Where is this all headed? The species apparently responsible for almost all the carbon emissions is human beings. We are the real scoundrels here. We burn coal, wood, oil and gas to bring light and heat and cooling and factories and hospitals and schools.
Maybe we need a birth tax on humans to save the planet.
Stephen Moore is a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a senior economic advisor to Donald Trump. His latest book is: “Govzilla: How the Relentless Growth of Government Is Devouring Our Economy.”
The only thing the BBC are good at is this thing they now call "Gaslighting".
Why not teach citizens in China and India?? Those 2 countries are the most polluted countries on the planet