First of all, I have not encountered many difficulties in class due to the essence of engineering study which does not require too much article writing. However, I do have certain assignments and reports which requires certain skills of writing. The most noticeable example would be the design assignment I have done in this semester where we have decided to style the report in a product proposal form.
When I was writing the product proposal, I paid careful attention to my mistakes in grammar usage as I am conscious that such mistakes would give a terrible impression to the upper managements or the customers if this is a real life scenario. After I finished each sentence, I would read the sentence again once or twice to check for its structure or grammar. However, that does not warrant that I would make no mistakes at all in the proposal. Thus, I have my group member check my part of my part of the proposal while I check his to correct any error whether in content, or language usage. This cross checking process proved to be useful as I could learn a lot from others mistakes and it could help minimize the errors in our proposal.
I have interests in novels such as thrillers and mysteries so I have put in some of my time into reading and this have gradually improve my sentence structure in writing as I am exposed to more and more different styles. This would certainly come in handy when I am required to do any assignment involving writing in it as I could have more varieties of structure rather than just repeating and inducing boredom. However, the piles of work on the table have been preventing me from reading much these days but I certainly hope that I could start reading more again soon in the holiday. I believe that reading is crucial in improving language mastery as it would improve my vocabularies, sentence structures, sentence styles and many more. Of course, I would also agree entirely if one says that speaking in a certain language more often would greatly improve its mastery.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Grammar mistakes
Mistakes are inevitable in everything we do. After I have gone through the process of writing the two writing assignment, the various text editing practices and the two graded tests, I could roughly identify some of the weak point of my grammar mastering. First of all, I found that I have trouble identifying grammar errors from the text editing practice articles or test articles in the first place. This does not mean that I do not understand the grammar error or how to correct it but instead; this hinted me that I should and must read the article more carefully in the future. Through the practices and tests, I have found out many errors which I might not have spotted in the first place and this would help me greatly as I would remember them as examples and try my best to spot the errors of the same pattern.
Other then error spotting, I make mistakes sometimes with the need to use base form after certain words such as modals, gerunds or infinitives. Examples would be after the words "could", "does" or "would". I used to have problems with the usage of has, have, had words as I am uncertain when to use the word had. I have a better understanding now after the lecture on that particular topic. Example is that the word "had" should be used when an event happens before another event mentioned in the same sentence. Another simple example would be "I had my breakfast" where it indicates that the event has already taken place and over already.
Other then error spotting, I make mistakes sometimes with the need to use base form after certain words such as modals, gerunds or infinitives. Examples would be after the words "could", "does" or "would". I used to have problems with the usage of has, have, had words as I am uncertain when to use the word had. I have a better understanding now after the lecture on that particular topic. Example is that the word "had" should be used when an event happens before another event mentioned in the same sentence. Another simple example would be "I had my breakfast" where it indicates that the event has already taken place and over already.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Roundtable discussions: Summary
Group 2
Group 2 discussed about the adoption of green chemistry in biodegradable plastic production. The supporting side pointed out that the production process of biodegradable plastic with green chemistry will actually consume less energy and produces much less harmful elements as compared to normal plastic, making them a more efficient and less polluting product. Also, they would not pose any disposal problem in landfills or incinerators since they are biodegradable. The against side argues that it is not viable to manufacture biodegradable plastic at a large scale due to its high cost and doing so will lead to inflation of plastic cost. This cost inflation will make consumers to choose conventional plastic over the biodegradable plastic and hence, defeat the purpose. The supporting side responded by stating that subsidies and supports from government can resolve the above problem and it will determine the potential of biodegradable plastic production in the future.
I believe that the technology in biodegradable plastic production has not reach the final stage yet, as to produce the plastics economically. However, it possess great potential to replace the current plastic which are toxic and non-degradable. More R&D could be done on it to harvest its maximum potential. Also, we should consider also the impact of using new resources to make the plastics. Some technology using food as the ingredient might raise concerns over the rising food prices and the shortages of food worldwide.
Group 3
The third group discussed whether governments and institutions should govern the use of genetic engineering in human reproduction. The supporting side states that the parents have the right to decide what is the best for their son or daughter to be, and that they would definitely choose the best path for them since they would dote on him/her. He also mentioned that genetic engineering can reduce hereditary diseases in many of us to build a healthier population around the globe. The against side argues that it could lead to gender imbalance around the globe and the high cost of genetic engineering would only allow the rich to take part in it, making the gap between the rich and the poor even bigger. Also, they argue that the right of choosing the right path or future does not lie on the parents hand, but instead depends on the baby himself. By utilizing genetic engineering, the parents are stripping the human rights of the baby by choosing what they want, which might not be what the baby wants.
Genetic engineering is a very sensitive issue, which concerns a lot about ethics and human rights. However, I personally think the natural selection has its own way of doing things and we should not impulsively try to change it. Doing so might result in unexpected and possibly disastrous consequences, such as mutation or development of new fatal diseases.
Group 4
Group 4 discussed the viability of using carbon capture & storage technology (CCS) to curb global warming by capturing and storing away the CO2 in the atmosphere. The supporting side explains that CCS allows the civilization to use fossil fuel still to power their power plants and yet, reduce the concentration fo CO2 in the atmosphere, and ultimately lead to a cooler earth. They also shows that there are possible safe storage sites and new technology to ensure no leakage at the storage sites of CO2. The against side debate that the storage site could increase in site indefinitely if CCS is to be implemented and CO2 emission is not limited. They also mentioned the possibility of natural disasters such as earthquake or volcano eruption that might affect the storage site, causing a leak which could lead to the deaths of thousands or more. Also, countries with limited land will have problem with storing the CO2 captured. The for side suggested that pacts can be made between countries to allow storage of CO2 in other countries in return for a certain amount of remuneration or so.
I would say the curbing the root, which is limiting the emission of CO2 is the key to our problem rather than just removing the CO2 emitted without any concerns over the possible future complications. Also, CCS technology is still developing with no promises on its future viability; it might requires certain amount of energy and hence, made it energy inefficient. Rather than letting the problem loose and hoping for an unknown results from the CCS development, we should act now to reduce the emission of CO2, in order to slow down the already serious global warming problem that we are facing.
Group 2 discussed about the adoption of green chemistry in biodegradable plastic production. The supporting side pointed out that the production process of biodegradable plastic with green chemistry will actually consume less energy and produces much less harmful elements as compared to normal plastic, making them a more efficient and less polluting product. Also, they would not pose any disposal problem in landfills or incinerators since they are biodegradable. The against side argues that it is not viable to manufacture biodegradable plastic at a large scale due to its high cost and doing so will lead to inflation of plastic cost. This cost inflation will make consumers to choose conventional plastic over the biodegradable plastic and hence, defeat the purpose. The supporting side responded by stating that subsidies and supports from government can resolve the above problem and it will determine the potential of biodegradable plastic production in the future.
I believe that the technology in biodegradable plastic production has not reach the final stage yet, as to produce the plastics economically. However, it possess great potential to replace the current plastic which are toxic and non-degradable. More R&D could be done on it to harvest its maximum potential. Also, we should consider also the impact of using new resources to make the plastics. Some technology using food as the ingredient might raise concerns over the rising food prices and the shortages of food worldwide.
Group 3
The third group discussed whether governments and institutions should govern the use of genetic engineering in human reproduction. The supporting side states that the parents have the right to decide what is the best for their son or daughter to be, and that they would definitely choose the best path for them since they would dote on him/her. He also mentioned that genetic engineering can reduce hereditary diseases in many of us to build a healthier population around the globe. The against side argues that it could lead to gender imbalance around the globe and the high cost of genetic engineering would only allow the rich to take part in it, making the gap between the rich and the poor even bigger. Also, they argue that the right of choosing the right path or future does not lie on the parents hand, but instead depends on the baby himself. By utilizing genetic engineering, the parents are stripping the human rights of the baby by choosing what they want, which might not be what the baby wants.
Genetic engineering is a very sensitive issue, which concerns a lot about ethics and human rights. However, I personally think the natural selection has its own way of doing things and we should not impulsively try to change it. Doing so might result in unexpected and possibly disastrous consequences, such as mutation or development of new fatal diseases.
Group 4
Group 4 discussed the viability of using carbon capture & storage technology (CCS) to curb global warming by capturing and storing away the CO2 in the atmosphere. The supporting side explains that CCS allows the civilization to use fossil fuel still to power their power plants and yet, reduce the concentration fo CO2 in the atmosphere, and ultimately lead to a cooler earth. They also shows that there are possible safe storage sites and new technology to ensure no leakage at the storage sites of CO2. The against side debate that the storage site could increase in site indefinitely if CCS is to be implemented and CO2 emission is not limited. They also mentioned the possibility of natural disasters such as earthquake or volcano eruption that might affect the storage site, causing a leak which could lead to the deaths of thousands or more. Also, countries with limited land will have problem with storing the CO2 captured. The for side suggested that pacts can be made between countries to allow storage of CO2 in other countries in return for a certain amount of remuneration or so.
I would say the curbing the root, which is limiting the emission of CO2 is the key to our problem rather than just removing the CO2 emitted without any concerns over the possible future complications. Also, CCS technology is still developing with no promises on its future viability; it might requires certain amount of energy and hence, made it energy inefficient. Rather than letting the problem loose and hoping for an unknown results from the CCS development, we should act now to reduce the emission of CO2, in order to slow down the already serious global warming problem that we are facing.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Roundtable discussion: Group 1 Summary
The roundtable discussion's topic is the adoption potential of biodiesel to replace fossil fuel for use in transportation. Fossil fuel is a non-renewable source of energy which is known for its adverse effects on our environment and health. Biodiesel on the other hand is a new alternative which is believed to have less impact on the environment and our health.
Wenqin and Hazel are in support of the adoption of biodiesel for transportation. According to them, the current diesel engineers can run on biodiesel with little or no modifications at all. In terms of environmental impact, biodiesel contributes significantly less when compared to fossil fuel by emitting much lesser harmful elements such as carbon monoxide and sulfur compounds, which are known as the cause of ozone depletion and acid rain.
In addition, they also mentioned that the lower emission of hydrocarbon and particles from biodiesel are better for human health as they are identified as the potential cause of cancer and breathing problems. It is a renewable and biodegradable source of energy which can be produced from crop and organic waste. They also respond that certain countries have policy on what type of crops are to be grown on a specific piece of land in order to prevent farmers from growing only crops for biodiesel production.
George on the other end raised the issue of biodiesel causing clogs in the filters of engines due to their solvent properties, and also their lower output performance. The lower output performance would mean lower fuel efficiency, which in turns will cost more to the consumers. Biodiesel is also not suitable for use in cold condition as it gels quicker than diesel fuel in cold weather.
Furthermore, George also raised the problem of rising food prices which might get worse if biodiesel is to be mass produced as biodiesel can made out of food crops such as soybean, palm oil and rapeseed. Adoption of biodiesel might also encourage farmers to grow crops for biodiesel instead of food which will eventually lead to shortages of food supply. He also reveals the fact that deforestation is already occurring now due to the demand of crops for biodiesel production and it will only get worse if the adoption occurs.
In general, biodiesel faces many restrictions if it is to replace fossil fuel to power our vehicles. However, many of the problems can be minimized by advancement of technology and suitable regulations. It could be the next generation of fuel for our vehicles and we could focus our research in it to exploit its full potential.
Wenqin and Hazel are in support of the adoption of biodiesel for transportation. According to them, the current diesel engineers can run on biodiesel with little or no modifications at all. In terms of environmental impact, biodiesel contributes significantly less when compared to fossil fuel by emitting much lesser harmful elements such as carbon monoxide and sulfur compounds, which are known as the cause of ozone depletion and acid rain.
In addition, they also mentioned that the lower emission of hydrocarbon and particles from biodiesel are better for human health as they are identified as the potential cause of cancer and breathing problems. It is a renewable and biodegradable source of energy which can be produced from crop and organic waste. They also respond that certain countries have policy on what type of crops are to be grown on a specific piece of land in order to prevent farmers from growing only crops for biodiesel production.
George on the other end raised the issue of biodiesel causing clogs in the filters of engines due to their solvent properties, and also their lower output performance. The lower output performance would mean lower fuel efficiency, which in turns will cost more to the consumers. Biodiesel is also not suitable for use in cold condition as it gels quicker than diesel fuel in cold weather.
Furthermore, George also raised the problem of rising food prices which might get worse if biodiesel is to be mass produced as biodiesel can made out of food crops such as soybean, palm oil and rapeseed. Adoption of biodiesel might also encourage farmers to grow crops for biodiesel instead of food which will eventually lead to shortages of food supply. He also reveals the fact that deforestation is already occurring now due to the demand of crops for biodiesel production and it will only get worse if the adoption occurs.
In general, biodiesel faces many restrictions if it is to replace fossil fuel to power our vehicles. However, many of the problems can be minimized by advancement of technology and suitable regulations. It could be the next generation of fuel for our vehicles and we could focus our research in it to exploit its full potential.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Summary - Biodiesel
Many Americans are aware of the environmental and economical benefits of biodiesel. Biodiesel from soy bean reduces CO2 emissions by 78% compared to diesel fuel and it is an efficient source of energy as it provides 3.2 units of fuel energy with every unit of fossil fuel energy consumed in its production. Palm seed produces about 13 times the amount of biodiesel from soy bean using the same area of land and this leads to deforestation in countries within the tropical region for palm growing. However, 100 years of biodiesel production is required to prevent the same amount of C)2 emission to the amount removed by the rain forest.
Such practice is highly unsustainable and will adversely affect the the environment; therefore, it is important for consumers to ensure that their biodiesel is produced sustainably. One way of doing so is to label biodiesel produced sustainably for easy identification by the consumers. Biodiesel can be made sustainably to replace the use of petrol diesel and it depends on us to regulate its production practices. (Murphy, 2007)
Recent study shows that an obstacle to adoption of biodiesel is that lack of a cheap and high quality source for biodiesel production. The study states that spent coffee grounds contain about 11 to 20 percents oil by weight, which is roughly half the conventional sources such as soybean, palm and rapeseed. More than 16 million pounds of coffee are grown each year and their grounds are normally disposed or used for soil conditioning. However, that same amount of coffee grounds is estimated to be able to produce 340 million gallons of biodiesel.
An inexpensive experiment is conducted to verify the idea by extracting 100 percent of the oil from coffee grounds collected to produce biodiesel. The coffee-based fuel produced is more stable than traditional biodiesel attributed to coffee's high anti-oxidant content. Also, the remaining solids, from the experiment can be used to produce ethanol and profits are expected from the process. Use of biodiesel is increasing and it can be produced from any food crops, non-food crops and organic wastes. It can be used by itself or by blending it with petrol diesel for diesel engine. (American Chemical Society, 2008)
The first article raised the issue on sustainable production of biodiesel; biodiesel produced from unrestricted deforestation can only do more harm to our environment and thus, we must regulate the production of biodiesel to ensure its sustainability. The second article suggests an alternative source to produce biodiesel other than food crop, which will lead to increase in food prices and lack of food supply across the globe. These articles pointed out the problems faced by biodiesel and suggested a solution or an approach to the problem. Efforts must be done if we are to rely on biodiesel in the future instead of diesel fuel.
References
Murphy, M (2007, Feb 13) Sustainable Biodiesel: The Ecological Cost of Fuel. Retrieved March 7, 2009 from http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/02/sustainable-biodiesel-the-ecological-cost-of-fuel-47421
American Chemical Society (2008, December 15). Waste Coffee Grounds Offer New Source Of Biodiesel Fuel. ScienceDaily. retrieved March 7, 2009 from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081210171900.htm
Sustainable
-maintaining ecological balance: exploiting natural resources without destroying the ecological balance of an area.
Feedstock
-raw material: a raw material used in the industrial manufacture of a product.
Spent
-consumed: used or used up.
Conditioner
-something that conditions: a substance that makes something such as soil easier to manage.
Compost
-decayed plant matter: a mixture of decayed plants and other organic matter used by gardeners for enriching soil.
Retrieved from Microsoft Encarta 2008 Dictionaries
Such practice is highly unsustainable and will adversely affect the the environment; therefore, it is important for consumers to ensure that their biodiesel is produced sustainably. One way of doing so is to label biodiesel produced sustainably for easy identification by the consumers. Biodiesel can be made sustainably to replace the use of petrol diesel and it depends on us to regulate its production practices. (Murphy, 2007)
Recent study shows that an obstacle to adoption of biodiesel is that lack of a cheap and high quality source for biodiesel production. The study states that spent coffee grounds contain about 11 to 20 percents oil by weight, which is roughly half the conventional sources such as soybean, palm and rapeseed. More than 16 million pounds of coffee are grown each year and their grounds are normally disposed or used for soil conditioning. However, that same amount of coffee grounds is estimated to be able to produce 340 million gallons of biodiesel.
An inexpensive experiment is conducted to verify the idea by extracting 100 percent of the oil from coffee grounds collected to produce biodiesel. The coffee-based fuel produced is more stable than traditional biodiesel attributed to coffee's high anti-oxidant content. Also, the remaining solids, from the experiment can be used to produce ethanol and profits are expected from the process. Use of biodiesel is increasing and it can be produced from any food crops, non-food crops and organic wastes. It can be used by itself or by blending it with petrol diesel for diesel engine. (American Chemical Society, 2008)
The first article raised the issue on sustainable production of biodiesel; biodiesel produced from unrestricted deforestation can only do more harm to our environment and thus, we must regulate the production of biodiesel to ensure its sustainability. The second article suggests an alternative source to produce biodiesel other than food crop, which will lead to increase in food prices and lack of food supply across the globe. These articles pointed out the problems faced by biodiesel and suggested a solution or an approach to the problem. Efforts must be done if we are to rely on biodiesel in the future instead of diesel fuel.
References
Murphy, M (2007, Feb 13) Sustainable Biodiesel: The Ecological Cost of Fuel. Retrieved March 7, 2009 from http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/02/sustainable-biodiesel-the-ecological-cost-of-fuel-47421
American Chemical Society (2008, December 15). Waste Coffee Grounds Offer New Source Of Biodiesel Fuel. ScienceDaily. retrieved March 7, 2009 from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081210171900.htm
Sustainable
-maintaining ecological balance: exploiting natural resources without destroying the ecological balance of an area.
Feedstock
-raw material: a raw material used in the industrial manufacture of a product.
Spent
-consumed: used or used up.
Conditioner
-something that conditions: a substance that makes something such as soil easier to manage.
Compost
-decayed plant matter: a mixture of decayed plants and other organic matter used by gardeners for enriching soil.
Retrieved from Microsoft Encarta 2008 Dictionaries
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Global Warming: Technology or Determination
The seminar revolved around the topic climate change especially in global warming due to recent years' sharp increase of carbon dioxide gas (CO2). The speeches addressed feasible technology solutions to global warming and climate change, society associated obstacles in adopting them and lastly, the assessment and mitigation of climate change.
Various evidences were shown on the detrimental impact global warming had on earth which suggests severe consequences to the future generations of the problem is not tackled seriously in the near future. Comprehensive mathematical models to predict future earth's temperature which is proportional to greenhouse gas in the atmosphere was introduced.
Effects of enhanced global warming, factors affecting the earth's temperature and many more approaches to deal with it at individual, organization or international level and their respective obstacles were discussed. Climate change was repeatedly stressed as a global problem, which complicates the process of formulating a consensual solution due to dissimilar interest.
Technologies to capture and store CO2 or to block sun's radiation are technically feasible to curb global warming if utilized at certain minimum scale. However, due to political circumstances and perceived priorities, such technologies were not considered. If any results is to be expected from an effort, co-operation and selfless contribution from all parties are essential.
The reason why technologies exist but were not utilized might not lies on its technical issues but can be attributed to social acceptance or the environment. Technologies invented but not accepted by society or not practical in certain environment is worthless. This concludes that no system is self sustaining and interdisciplinary compromises are required for their adoption.
The speech by Dr Benjamin K. Sovacool on "Using STS to address Energy Problem" gave me a deep impression. Historical case studies proved that technical superiority does not equate to success, instead striking a balance in social, technical and environmental need is the key. This does not only apply to energy problems but to all happening issues.
Dr Sovacool's speech pointed out to us what we might have already known but have yet to realize. It is crucial to be socially and environmentally accepted if we are to propose a system or solution. To conclude, we could curb global warming in terms of technology, but not in the will and determination of oneself if they do not recognize the crisis and the need of an action.
Various evidences were shown on the detrimental impact global warming had on earth which suggests severe consequences to the future generations of the problem is not tackled seriously in the near future. Comprehensive mathematical models to predict future earth's temperature which is proportional to greenhouse gas in the atmosphere was introduced.
Effects of enhanced global warming, factors affecting the earth's temperature and many more approaches to deal with it at individual, organization or international level and their respective obstacles were discussed. Climate change was repeatedly stressed as a global problem, which complicates the process of formulating a consensual solution due to dissimilar interest.
Technologies to capture and store CO2 or to block sun's radiation are technically feasible to curb global warming if utilized at certain minimum scale. However, due to political circumstances and perceived priorities, such technologies were not considered. If any results is to be expected from an effort, co-operation and selfless contribution from all parties are essential.
The reason why technologies exist but were not utilized might not lies on its technical issues but can be attributed to social acceptance or the environment. Technologies invented but not accepted by society or not practical in certain environment is worthless. This concludes that no system is self sustaining and interdisciplinary compromises are required for their adoption.
The speech by Dr Benjamin K. Sovacool on "Using STS to address Energy Problem" gave me a deep impression. Historical case studies proved that technical superiority does not equate to success, instead striking a balance in social, technical and environmental need is the key. This does not only apply to energy problems but to all happening issues.
Dr Sovacool's speech pointed out to us what we might have already known but have yet to realize. It is crucial to be socially and environmentally accepted if we are to propose a system or solution. To conclude, we could curb global warming in terms of technology, but not in the will and determination of oneself if they do not recognize the crisis and the need of an action.
Global Warming: Goverment Policies
Global warming is a threat to existence of mankind on the earth's crust. Nevertheless, it is no longer an unsolvable crisis which used to be, and still is the thought of many. Human technologies have advanced tremendously allowing us to curb global warming, yet none of them are utilized, at least to a significant scale. The reason lies on the will of people and their perceived priorities, whether politically, socially or individually.
Many policies were made based on the best interest to the country's economic growth, development and security without considering the bigger picture, the Earth. People knows about global warming, not all treats it as a crisis, and if one is to put their country's advancement on a scale in comparison to the seriousness of global warming, it would most probably turn out to be a one-sided win away from the crisis.
Many disregard, misinterpreted or were misguided by false information regarding global warming especially in developing countries such as mine, Malaysia. One's determination is the biggest asset in this context, and through proper education we could instill the awareness into our next generations. The Malaysia government should make it obligatory that our children go through such education.
A developing country should not rely too much on conventional coal energy due to its low cost. One might argue that developed countries should take the initiative but they are just evading the shared responsibilities. By encouraging renewable energy industry, Malaysia could utilize many of its advantageous landscapes such as high flow rivers to generate hydro-electricity. This would provide plenty of job opportunities, boosting the economy as well as fulfilling its energy consumption need.
To gradually abolish dirty energy in Malaysia in order to minimize the impact of changes, policies can be made to enforce carbon taxes, limiting a cap total of carbon emissions from industries and also regulate carbon dioxide gas (CO2) as a pollutant. An increase in petrol and coal tax would reduce dependency on them for energy generation.
Other than on the industrial level, the government could implement policies regulating the energy efficiency standards of automotive, heating and cooling devices, insulation of home or offices and also general home appliances such as lighting. Natural habitats should be conserved and policies should be made to enforce restricted deforestation and encourage forestry or vegetation growing as they help to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.
Everyone plays a role but government takes on a bigger role in influencing its citizens' attitude towards the crisis. People must understand the severe consequences of global warming and their roles in the crisis then embrace the determination and take initiatives to curb the danger which is cultivating.
Many policies were made based on the best interest to the country's economic growth, development and security without considering the bigger picture, the Earth. People knows about global warming, not all treats it as a crisis, and if one is to put their country's advancement on a scale in comparison to the seriousness of global warming, it would most probably turn out to be a one-sided win away from the crisis.
Many disregard, misinterpreted or were misguided by false information regarding global warming especially in developing countries such as mine, Malaysia. One's determination is the biggest asset in this context, and through proper education we could instill the awareness into our next generations. The Malaysia government should make it obligatory that our children go through such education.
A developing country should not rely too much on conventional coal energy due to its low cost. One might argue that developed countries should take the initiative but they are just evading the shared responsibilities. By encouraging renewable energy industry, Malaysia could utilize many of its advantageous landscapes such as high flow rivers to generate hydro-electricity. This would provide plenty of job opportunities, boosting the economy as well as fulfilling its energy consumption need.
To gradually abolish dirty energy in Malaysia in order to minimize the impact of changes, policies can be made to enforce carbon taxes, limiting a cap total of carbon emissions from industries and also regulate carbon dioxide gas (CO2) as a pollutant. An increase in petrol and coal tax would reduce dependency on them for energy generation.
Other than on the industrial level, the government could implement policies regulating the energy efficiency standards of automotive, heating and cooling devices, insulation of home or offices and also general home appliances such as lighting. Natural habitats should be conserved and policies should be made to enforce restricted deforestation and encourage forestry or vegetation growing as they help to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.
Everyone plays a role but government takes on a bigger role in influencing its citizens' attitude towards the crisis. People must understand the severe consequences of global warming and their roles in the crisis then embrace the determination and take initiatives to curb the danger which is cultivating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)