Q1.

The 11th Hour: Detailed description of why and how a human activity is
harmful?

Ans. As you may intuit from its title, The 11th Hour warns us that we're at that last
moment when change can be made to avoid global environmental disaster. Life was
formed 40 million years ago through a tiny particle known as a cell. That was the key
to every single life form on the earth today. Humanity means humans and nature
living on earth together. Nowadays we are causing devastation to the earth –our
mother planet, which is the very foundation of our life system that has given birth. If
we destroy nature we destroy ourselves.

Leonardo DiCaprio focus the public's attention on current environmental issues,

climate related events and recent calamities. Global Warming is the increase in the
world’s average temperature believed to result from the release of carbon dioxide and
other gases into the atmosphere by the burning of the fossil fuels.

The demand for, and use of, the world’s resources continues to grow at an
increasingly rapid rate. The biggest cause of the earth’s bad health is economic
development as more countries try to develop industrially and economically. And
population growth as the world’s population continues to increase. At one point Paul
Hawken says "What a great time to be born! What a great time to be alive! Because
this generation gets to completely change this world."

In the mid-1990s when industrial revolution took place so steam engines and fossil
fuel era was introduced, this harmed the nature as from thereon non-renewable
resources began to be used abundantly and widely. This is mainly due to this
discovery of, coal, oil and natural gas which accounts for 87.8% of the worlds
commercially produced energy. These are forms of stored solar energy produced by
photosynthesis in plants over thousands years. As these three types of energy, referred
to as fossil fuels, take so long to form and be replaced, they are regarded as non-
renewable. Each year the world (in reality mainly the developed countries), consumes
an amount of fossil fuel that took nature some 1 million years to provide-a rate far in
excess of their replacement. Fossil fuels have, in the past, been relatively easy to
obtain and cheap to use, but they have become major polluters of the environment.
Two other non-renewable sources of energy should be noted. Nuclear energy uses
uranium and so is not a fossil fuel. Fuelwood is a non-commercial source of energy. If
included with the other forms of energy, it provides an estimated 14% of the worlds
and 35% of the developing countries energy requirements.

The main contributors to global warming are carbon dioxide and other pollutants
released into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the most important single factor in
global warming. It is produced by road vehicles and by burning fossil fuels in power
stations, in factories & in the home. Since the economically more developed countries
consume three-quarters of the world’s energy, they are largely responsible for global
warming. A secondary source of carbon dioxide is deforestation and the burning of
the tropical rainforests. CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) from aerosols, air conditioners,
foam packaging and refrigerators are the most damaging of the greenhouse gases.
Methane is released from decaying organic matter such as peat bogs, swamps, waste
dumps, animal dung and farms (e.g. rice fields in south-east Asia). Nitrous oxide is
emitted from car exhausts, power stations and agricultural fertilizer.
The major consequences of global warming are the predicted world changes in
climate and sea-levels. Scientists are suggesting that as the air temperatures increase:
Sea temperature will also rise. As the sea gets warmer it will expand causing its level
to rise by between 0.25 and 1.5 metres. Ice caps and glaciers, especially in polar
areas, will melt. The release of water at present held in storage as ice and snow in the
hydrological cycle could raise the world’s sea-level by another 5 metres. Even a rise
of 1 metre could flood 25% of Bangladesh, 30% of Egypt’s arable land and totally
submerge several low-lying islands in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans (e.g. Maldives).
The distribution of precipitation will alter, with some places becoming wetter and
stormier, others becoming drier and with less reliable rainfall. The ecologist Brock
Dolman explains, “When we started feeding off the fossil fuel cycle, we began living
with a death-based cycle.”

According to the filmmakers, the heart of the problem is our disconnect from nature,
the idea that we are somehow removed from our natural environment. This lack of
understanding of the Earth's interdependent systems has created a convergence of
crises, wherein deforestation, soil degradation, the pollution of the air and the ill
health of the oceans all bode poorly. Due to corporate economic globalization people
are mainly focused on money. Depleting the environment for economic gain (for
human well being) ie. to get material needs.

Therefore to conclude, at present it is necessary to live in an environment were there

is sustainable development. This can be done by educating consumers, usage of such
type of products which do not harm the environment (renewable sources). Experts
admire existing technologies and projects as attainable solutions. Progressive designs
such as a carbon-neutral city and self-sustaining buildings already offer ideas for a
new direction. By mimicking nature's own blueprints, it is possible to create a system
of living that heals rather than depletes the Earth.

At one point, architect William MacDonough suggests that we must rise to a new
level of sophistication in the design of the built world:

"If we think about the tree as a design, it's something that makes oxygen, sequesters
carbon, fixes nitrogen, distills water, provides a habitat for hundreds of species,
accrues solar energy, makes complex sugars and food, creates micro-climates, self-
replicates. So, what would it be like to design a building like a tree? What would it be
like to design a city like a forest? So what would a building be like if it were
photosynthetic? What if it took solar energy and converted it to productive and
delightful use?"

'The 11th Hour' shows environmental damage beyond global warming. But it ends
with action and hope.
Q2. Ground level ozone and its precursors. How does gasoline harm the
environment?

Ans. Chemicals present in vehicle emissions combine to affect changes in both

humans and plants. Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but rather
is formed by gases called oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds
(VOC), which in the presence of heat and sunlight, react to form ozone. Ground-level
ozone forms readily in the atmosphere, usually during hot weather. As a result, it is
known as a "summer-time" air pollutant. For example – reactions occurring to
combine nitrogen containing compounds with oxygen to form ground level ozone.
This product is often known as photochemical smog. This smog contributes to human
health problems. It also causes change in the growth pattern of the crop species and
native plants. Repeated exposure to ozone pollution for several months may cause
permanent structural damage to the lungs. Because ozone pollution usually forms in
hot weather, anyone who spends time outdoors in the summer is at risk, particularly
children, moderate exercisers, and outdoor workers.
Even when inhaled at very low levels, ground-level ozone triggers a variety of health
problems including aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and increased
susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and bronchitis.

Therefore it is necessary to reduce the ozone levels and in order to reduce the ground
level ozone, changes have been made in gasoline content to decrease levels of ozone
precursors in motor vehicle exhaust.

As gasoline contributes to majority of the air pollution it is important to understand

how. This is usually through the process of combustion, were oxygen and gasoline are
ignited to release carbon dioxide, water and energy. But in the absence of sufficient
oxygen other compounds such as carbon monoxide and nitric oxides are produced as
by products causing pollutants. Such chemicals when released into the atmosphere
which causes severe air pollution.

Also the pollutants enter the air as a result of the evaporative emissions and leaks
within the fuel lines.

Thus, efficiency of combustion and fuel volatility directly influence levels of ozone
precursors within an area and are the main focus of effort to reduce its levels.

Q3. Detailed knowledge of six conventional pollutants in Kyoto Protocol?

Ans. Under the Kyoto Protocol, there are six gases that count towards an emissions
reduction target. They are CO2, CH4, N2O, HFC, PFc and SF6. These last three are
human-made gases, sometimes called 'potent industrial greenhouse gases' (PIGGs) or
'fluorinated greenhouse gases' (f-gases).

HFCs, PFCs and SF6 have extremely high global warming potentials and are being
emitted at a rapidly increasing rate - predictions indicate emissions could rise 150%
between 1995 and 2010. Fortunately they are largely replaceable by commercially
available natural compounds like hydrocarbons, ammonia and CO2, or by alternative
technologies and practices.
One of the major greenhouse gas, is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide makes up a small
but growing component of the atmosphere. Its current concentration is 0.038 per cent,
or 380 parts per million (ppm). Two hundred years ago, its concentration was only
about 280 ppm.

At very small concentrations, carbon dioxide is a natural and essential part of the
atmosphere, and is required for the photosynthesis of all plants.

Carbon dioxide enters and leaves the atmosphere from a number of natural sources
and sinks at the earth’s surface. In the absence of human influences, the fluxes of
carbon dioxide into and out of the atmosphere were largely in balance,. The burning
of carbon-containing fuels (coal, oil and gas) has considerably increased the
concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Scientists can directly measure the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; they can also determine
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the past by, for example, measuring the
gas in tiny air bubbles trapped for many thousands of years in deep layers of polar ice.

Large amounts of carbon dioxide are transferred between the atmosphere, oceans and
land vegetation in the natural global carbon cycle. Anthropogenic emissions are
adding to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and causing changes in the amount
taken up by the oceans and vegetation.

There are other gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. Many of these are
produced or augmented by human activity. Two important examples are the gases
METHANE and NITROUS OXIDE.

Methane was once called 'marsh gas' and is the main constituent of the gas which can
cause explosions in coal mines. Methane is the principle component of the 'natural
gas' that is used as a fuel (when combusted, the carbon in methane is oxidised to
produce carbon dioxide as a waste product; however, there are also significant
fugitive or unintentional emissions of methane involved in the extraction, transport
and processing of natural gas); it is manufactured as 'biogas' from the decomposition
of organic matter; and is also produced by the processes of digestion in ruminant
animals, including cattle and sheep.

Nitrous oxide is a powerful greenhouse gas that is produced naturally by microbes in

the soil and ocean, and is a by-product of agricultural activity involving nitrogen
fertilisers and animal wastes. It is also given off in small quantities by the burning of
fossil fuels including oil and coal.

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFCs), HYDROCHLOROFLUOROCARBONS

(HCFCs) and other carbon compounds containing chlorine and bromine are strong
greenhouse gases. Emissions of these gases have been curtailed due to regulation
under the Montreal Protocol, but together they have been responsible for about 12 per
cent of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Most of the contribution has been from CFCs.
4.Dr. Andrew Morriss's arguments.

The argument’s subject specifically states that should rich developed countries grant
aid to developing countries in order to reverse climate change.

However, Morriss has laid down his opinions and opposes the proposal of China to
contribute a mere 1% for a totally of $300 billion a year, and its idea of innovating an
International mechanism to transfer technology to under-developed nations in order to
lower emission. In addition, to the transferring of a fixed percentage of gross domestic
products to grant help to developing states, in hope to work to reduce green house
emission would in fact have an opposite effect according to Morriss. Because,
Government based foreign aid would harm those countries that receive it.

As, Money is the main source of making developing nations still under developed.
Hence, transferring $ 300 billion would just be another element for the “Likes” to fill
up their pockets.

In order, to solve pollution problems the domestic entrepreneurs must be made free
form, chocking bands of corruption, bureaucracy and economic regulations that keeps
them binded to the poorer conditions according to his opinion.

Moreover, he specifies that expecting the immoral tyrants to spend the transferred
grants on reducing pollution levels is ludicrous. As a famous Kenyan economist
Shikwati identified that how aid-fuels corrupt government; hollows local economy
and local market.

However, the reason of him being against the subject of the argument can be clearly
depicted. That, transferring aid would just end up in corrupting government, rather
than protecting environment.

Therefore, according to Deontological Ethics, If anyone has a duty towards a

particular (task) nation should do so. Keeping irrespective of the economies benefit
and safety.

In order , to solve pollution problems and save precious lives of people from the ill-
effects of the high emission levels. In any ‘likes” is given an opportunity, has a duty
to rightfully work and serve for the nations both environmental conditions and
economic development, through the appropriate usage of foreign aid.

However, investments in modern technologies e.g. household bio-digesters would

reduce the levels of green house gas emissions for as little as $50 per family. And
work way efficiently than older machinery.

Hence, these advantages of the usage of modern technologies would result in

benefiting the greatest no: through the greatest good (utilizing the transferred grants
for better environmental conditions) according to the teleological ethics.
Q5. Dr. Daniel Benjamin's arguments and facts.

Ans. Recycling is not always the environmentally correct choice. Many items we
recycle come from abundant raw materials and are inert and harmless when dumped.
It costs more to recycle these than to bury the used and manufacture the new from
scratch. Glass is a perfect example; plastic runs a close second. If throwing away glass
and plastic causes us to ever run out of sand and oil byproducts we can mine the
landfills and recycle them all at once - it would be cheaper and easier than perpetual
recycling. There's plenty of land for landfills, there's very little hazard remaining in
modern landfills, and the economics and the environment often favor using them. Few
of the myths diccussed by Daniel K. Benjamin are as follow:

MYTH 1: OUR GARBAGE WILL BURY US

Since the 1980s, people repeatedly have claimed that the United States faces a landfill
crisis. Former Vice President Al gore, for example, asserted we are "running out of
ways to dispose of our waste in a manner that keeps it out of either sight or mind."

This claim originated in the 1980s, when the waste disposal industry moved to using
fewer but much larger landfills. The Environmental Protection Agency, the press, and
other commentators focused on the falling number of landfills, rather than on their
growing overall capacity, and concluded that we were running out of space. The EPA
also underestimated the prospects for creating additional capacity.

In fact, the United States today has more landfill capacity than ever before. In 2001,
the nation's landfills could accommodate 18 years' worth of rubbish, an amount 25%
greater than a decade before. To be sure, there are a few places where capacity has
shrunk. But the uneven distribution of available landfill space is no more important
than is the uneven distribution of auto manufacturing: Trash is an interstate business,
with 47 states exporting the stuff and 45 importing it. Indeed, the total land area
needed to hold all of America's garbage for the next century would be only about 10
miles square.

MYTH 2: OUR GARBAGE WILL POISON US

The claim that our trash might poison us is impossible to completely refute, because
almost anything might pose a threat. But the EPA itself acknowledges that the risks to
humans (and presumably plants and animals) from modern landfills are virtually
nonexistent: According to the EPA's own estimates, modern landfills can be expected
to cause 5.7 cancer-related deaths over the next 300 years - just one death every 50
years. To put this in perspective, cancer kills over 560,000 people every year in the
United States.

Older landfills do possess a potential for harm to the ecosystem and to humans,
especially when built on wetlands or swamps, because pollutants can leach from
them. When located on dry land, however, even old-style landfills generally pose
minimal danger, in part because remarkably little biodegradation takes place in them.
Modern landfills eliminate essentially any potential for problems. Siting occurs away
from groundwater supplies, and the landfills are built on a foundation of several feet
of dense clay, covered with thick plastic liners. This layer is covered by several feet of
gravel or sand. Any leachate is drained out via collection pipes and sent to municipal
wastewater plants for treatment. Methane gas produced by biodegradation is drawn
off by wells on site and burned or purified and sold.

MYTH 3: PACKAGING IS THE PROBLEM

Contrary to current wisdom, packaging can reduce total rubbish produced. The
average household in the united States generates one-third less trash each year than
does the average household in Mexico, partly because packaging reduces breakage
and food waste. Turning a live chicken into a meal creates food waste. When
chickens are processed commerically, the waste goes into waste. When chickens are
processed commercially, the waste goes into marketable products (such as pet food),
instead of into a landfill. Commercial processing of 1,000 chickens requires about 17
pounds of packaging, but it also recycles at least 2,000 pounds of by-products.

The gains from packaging have been growing over time, because companies have
been reducing the weight of the packages they use. During the late 1970s and 1980s,
although the number of packages entering landfills rose substantially, the total weight
of those discards declined by 40 percent. Over the past 25 years the weights of
individual packages have been reduced by amounts ranging from 30 percent (2-liter
soft drink bottles) to 70 percent (plastic grocery sacks and trash bags). Even
aluminum beverage cans weigh 40 percent less than they used to.

MYTH 4: WE MUST ACHIEVE "TRASH INDEPENDENCE"

Numerous commentators contend that each state should achieve "trash independence"
by disposing within its borders all of its rubbish. But, as with all voluntary trade,
interstate trade in trash raises our wealth as a nation, perhaps by as much as $4 billion.
Most of the increased wealth accrues to the citizens of areas importing trash.

Not only is the potential threat posed by modern landfills negligible, but transporting
rubbish across state lines has no effect on the environmental impact of its disposal.
Moving a ton of trash by truck is no more hazardous than moving a ton of any other
commodity.

MYTH 5: WE SQUANDER IRREPLACEABLE RESOURCES WHEN WE

DON'T RECYCLE

In fact, available stocks of most natural resources are growing rather than shrinking,
but the reason is not recycling. Market prices are the best measure of natural resource
scarcity. Rising prices imply that a resources is getting more scarce. Falling prices
imply that it is becoming more plentiful. Applying this measure to oil, we find that
over the past 125 years, oil has become no more scarce, despite our growing use of it.
Reserves of other fossil fuels as well as other natural resources are also growing.

Thanks to innovation, we now produce about twice as much output per unit of energy
as we did 50 years ago and five times as much as we did 200 years ago. Optical fiber
carries 625 times more calls than the copper wire of 20 years ago, bridges are built
with less steel, and automobile and truck engines consume less fuel per unit of work
performed. The list goes on and on. Human innovation continues to increase the
amount of resources at our command.

MYTH 6: RECYCLING ALWAYS PROTECTS THE ENVIRONMENT

Recycling is a manufacturing process with environmental impacts. Viewed across a

wide spectrum of goods, recycling sometimes cuts pollution, but not always. The EPA
has examined both virgin paper processing and recycled paper processing for toxic
substances and found that toxins often are more prevalent in the recycling process.

Often the pollution associated with recycling shows up in unexpected ways. Curbside
recycling, for example, requires that more trucks be used to collect the same amount
of waste materials. Thus, Los Angeles has 800 rubbish trucks rather than 400, because
of its curb-side recycling. This means more iron ore and coal mining, steel and rubber
manufacturing, petroleum extraction and refining - and of course extra air pollution in
the Los Angeles basin.

MYTH 7: RECYCLING SAVES RESOURCES

It is widely claimed that recycling "saves resources." Proponants usually focus on

savings of a specific resource, or they single out particularly successful examples such
as the recycling of aluminum cans.

But using less of one resource generally means using more of other resources.
Franklin Associates, a firm that consults on behalf of the EPA, has compared the costs
per ton of handling rubbish through three methods: disposal into landfills (but with a
voluntary drop-off or buy-back program, and an extensive curbside recycling
program.

On average, extensive recycling is 35 percent more costly than conventional disposal,

and basic curbside recycling is 55 percent more costly than conventional disposal.
That is, curbside recycling uses far more resources. As one expert puts it, adding
curbside recycling is "like moving from once-a-week garbage collection to twice a
week."

MYTH 8: WITHOUT FORCED RECYCLING MANDATES, THERE

WOULDN'T BE RECYCLING

This view reflects ignorance about the extent of recycling in the private sector, which
is as old as trash itself. Scavenging may, in fact, be the oldest profession. In the 19th
century, people bid for the right to scavenge New York City's rubbish, and Winslow
Homer's 1859 etching, Scene on the Back Bay Lands, reveals adults and children
digging through the detritus of the Boston city dump. Rag dealers were a constant of
American life until driven out of business by the federal Wool Products Labeling Act
of 1939, which stigmatized products made of recycled wool and cotton. And long
before state or local governments had even contemplated the word recycling, makers
of steel, aluminum, and many other products were recycling manufacturing scraps,
and some were even operating post-consumer drop-off centers.
Recycling is a long-practiced, productive, indeed essential, element of the maret
system. Informed, voluntary recycling conserves resources and raises our wealth. In
sharp contrast, misleading educational programs encourage the waste of resources
when they overstate the benefits of recycling. And mandatory recycling programs, in
which people are compelled to do what they know is not sensible, routinely make
society worse off. Market prices are sufficient to induce the trashman to come, and to
make his burden bearable, and neither he no we can hope for any better than that.

(thz answers is copied frm da papers whch he gave….soo just read it 4 to 5 times n
thn write in ur own words)

Q6 .Kyoto Protocol details.

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol
is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European
community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG-Green Houses Gases) emissions
.These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year
period 2008-2012.

The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the
Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the
Protocol commits them to do so.

Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high
levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of
industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under
the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered
into force on 16 February 2005. 184 Parties of the Convention have ratified its
Protocol to date. The detailed rules for the implementation of the Protocol were
adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh in 2001, and are called the “Marrakesh Accords.”

The Kyoto mechanisms

Under the Treaty, countries must meet their targets primarily through national
measures. However, the Kyoto Protocol offers them an additional means of meeting
their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms.

The Kyoto mechanisms are:

• Emissions trading – known as “the carbon market"

• Clean development mechanism (CDM)
• Joint implementation (JI).

The mechanisms help stimulate green investment and help Parties meet their
emission targets in a cost-effective way.
Monitoring emission targets

Under the Protocol, countries’ actual emissions have to be monitored and precise
records have to be kept of the trades carried out.

Registry systems track and record transactions by Parties under the mechanisms.
The UN Climate Change Secretariat, based in Bonn, Germany, keeps an
international transaction log to verify that transactions are consistent with the
rules of the Protocol.

Reporting is done by Parties by way of submitting annual emission inventories and

national reports under the Protocol at regular intervals.

A compliance system ensures that Parties are meeting their commitments and helps
them to meet their commitments if they have problems doing so.

Adaptation
The Kyoto Protocol, like the Convention, is also designed to assist countries in
adapting to the adverse effects of climate change. It facilitates the development and
deployment of techniques that can help increase resilience to the impacts of climate
change.

The Adaptation Fund was established to finance adaptation projects and programs
in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Fund is financed
mainly with a share of proceeds from CDM project activities.

The road ahead

The Kyoto Protocol is generally seen as an important first step towards a truly
global emission reduction regime that will stabilize GHG emissions, and provides
the essential architecture for any future international agreement on climate change.

By the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012, a new
international framework needs to have been negotiated and ratified that can deliver
the stringent emission reductions the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) has clearly indicated are needed.

Q7. Greed the ultimate source of environmental problems.

Greed is an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or
deserves. Greed is a sin and not a virtue but it can be confused and conflated with one
of the capitalism’s moral claim. Greed is a very important source of environmental
problems. No matter how big the population is, there will always be people wanting to
exploit the environment and the people for personal gain. Its human nature to be
greedy and selfish. Influenced by greed, we are never content.

Greed is a powerful motivator. The poisons of greed are a by-product of ignorance—

ignorance of our true nature, the awakened heart of wisdom and compassion. Global
conflict and warfare, as well as the destruction of our precious environment are
obvious symptoms of our corporate and political greed. Companies want to make
more money than their competitors, and as a result they avoid expenses not directly
related to their bottom line, such as justifying global warming. Greed is one thing that
we should be very careful about, it is central of destruction of humanity, a foundation
on which corruption is built. It is important to cultivate culture to avoid lavishness,
contentment and maintain balance as much as we can in everything that we do in our
life. A simple similarity on greed is like over -watering field of crops that leads to
damages.

Thus we say, greed has been a constant source of discussion around the latest crisis in
capitalism, with many people seeking to blame greed as the cause of the problem. Our
greed, craving, and thirst affect each of us on a personal and global level. Our greed is
an endless and harmful cycle that only brings suffering and unhappiness in its wake.
To eliminate greed we must first learn to recognize them when they first appear.
Being mindful and aware, we can then differentiate how the deep-seated greed
influence our everyday thoughts, feelings, speech, and actions.