Green Technology Definition and Examples

Green technology, also known as sustainable technology, takes into account the long- and short-term impact something has on the environment. Green products are by definition, environmentally friendly. Energy efficiency, recycling, health and safety concerns, renewable resources, and more all go into the making of a green product or technology. Go Green or Face Extinction? Since the invention of the steam engine kicked off the Industrial Revolution, our planet has suffered rapid changes in climate that include increasingly severe droughts, increased depletion of groundwater reserves, seawater acidification, rising seawater levels, the rapid spread of diseases and macroparasites, and the extinction of species.  Unless we intervene, these changes may prove irreversible. Green technology offers us the best hope to counteract the effects of climate change and pollution. Why? The world has a fixed amount of natural resources, some of which have already been depleted or ruined. For example, household batteries and electronics often contain dangerous chemicals that pollute soil and groundwater with chemicals that cannot be removed from our drinking water supply and wind up in food crops and livestock grown on contaminated soil. The health risks alone are staggering. Plastic pollutants are another nonsustainable resource thats destroying the ocean habitats of sea creatures around the world—killing off fish, birds, and countless other species. Larger pieces pose choking and strangulation hazards, while the tiny particles of disintegrating plastic are making their way into the bottom of the food chain. As larger fish feed on contaminated krill, they too become contaminated and if those fish are subsequently harvested for human consumption, the contaminants are going to wind up on your plate and in your stomach. Not so appetizing, right? Fast Facts: Principles of Sustainability There are three principles which define sustainability in any type of material, as described by the American ecologist and economist Herman Daly:  Nonrenewable resources should not be depleted at rates higher than the development rate of renewable substitutes.Renewable resources should not be exploited at a rate higher than their regeneration levels.The absorption and regeneration capacity of the natural environment should not be exceeded. Renewable Energy vs. Nonrenewable Energy Nonrenewable energy resources include nuclear, hydrogen, coal, natural gas, and oil. All of these currently fail the definition of sustainability in one way or another but most painfully in the ability of the environment to absorb and regenerate the expenses related to their extraction or production.   One of the best-known examples of green technology is the solar cell, which directly converts energy from natural light into electrical energy via the process of photovoltaics. Generating electricity from solar energy equates to less consumption of fossil fuels, as well as the reduction of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. While some detractors argue that solar panels are expensive and unattractive, new inventions may be just around the corner to offset these concerns. Community solar groups, in which renters will share solar panel products, and new spray-on photovoltaic film using perovskites that have the potential to convert regular window glass to solar collectors are just two possibilities on the horizon that show great promise for the future of solar assets.   Other renewable energy sources include hydro, biomass, wind, and geothermal, but unfortunately, these assets are not currently be exploited at adequate levels to replace nonrenewable sources. Some members of the energy industry are dead set against going green, while others see it as both a challenge and an opportunity.  The bottom line is that while non-renewable energy resources currently comprise 80 percent of the worlds energy requirements, over time, thats simply not going to sustainable.  If we hope to maintain life on our planet, emerging green energy technology must be used alongside existing methods to transition from the unsustainable to the sustainable. The Power of Positive Green Thinking Here a just a few reasons why going green is in everyones best interest: Inventors should know that green inventions and clean technologies are good business. These are fast-growing markets with growing profits.Consumers should know that buying green inventions can reduce energy bills and are often safer and healthier than non-green counterparts.  Even making small changes can have a large-term impact. For instance, consider the waste created by plastic water bottles. Of course, drinking lots of water is a healthy practice but changing out reusable water bottles for disposable ones is health-promoting, eco-friendly, and green. Sources   Cedeà ±o-Laurent, J.G., et al. Building Evidence for Health: Green Buildings, Current Science, and Future Challenges. Annual Review of Public Health 39.1 (2018): 291-308. Print.Hesketh, Robert P. Introduction to Sustainable and Green Engineering: General Principles and Targets. Encyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies. Ed. Abraham, Martin A. Oxford: Elsevier, 2017. 497-507. Print.Oncel, Suphi S. Green Energy Engineering: Opening a Green Way for the Future. Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017): 3095-100. Print.Tonn, B., and P. Carpenter. Technology for Sustainability. Encyclopedia of Ecology. Eds. Jà ¸rgensen, Sven Erik, and Brian D. Fath. Oxford: Academic Press, 2008. 3489-93. Print.Worland, Justin. Inside the New Technology That Could Transform the Solar Power Industry. Time, 2018. Web

Why Dexter Is A Serial Killer - 2413 Words

First of all, if you do not know Dexter is a television show about a man named Dexter who is a serial killer that lives a unique life. He works for Miami Metro Police Department and lives a pretty normal life, except for the fact that he is a killer. He has a wife, Rita and three kids, however his wife ends up getting brutally murdered. Later in the show he gets a girlfriend, Hannah, who plays a huge role. He lived the perfect cover life for his killings. But between seasons one through eight many events partake changing the way he has to go about killing. Even with the given circumstances one thing that never changes is the code. The code is a set of rules about how, when, and why to kill. The code states to only kill who deserves to be†¦show more content†¦Even moral people usually can agree that someone who has killed multiple people need to be killed also. If the hijackers somehow would have lived after crashing the planes nobody would want them to live after the 2,996 d eaths they caused. If given the chance most people would have killed the terrorists before the attacks. So Dexter’s one hundred thirty kills could have saved countless lives and people understand that. Even though Dexter suggests morality doesn’t mean he has morals. Later on Donnelly starts to talk about popular culture and its influences on the show. She says, â€Å"Popular culture thrives on explanation as a way of abating fears of violence and fears of Otherness† (Donnelly 21) which season seven and eight are all about. Dexter searches constantly for a real reason to explain why he is the way he is. He wants a better understanding of himself to make himself fit in. Morals have been developed to single out the abnormal and throughout his whole life Dexter was singled out. The consumers of the show can identify a killer as a monster, making the person less than human in our minds. Therefore if Dexter thought the same as us; killing a killer is the same as squis hing a bug because both are lesser than humans and their lives do not make an impact on ours. Dexter realizes in season eight that he is an even worse monster that he believed himself to be. It is also talked about how Dexter has no feelings so

Is testing on animals for medical research acceptable free essay sample

Over the years, animal testing has been an argumentative and sensitive subject. With the increased importance of science and medicine over the last century or so, the use of animals in testing and research has increased proportionally, increased awareness of this issue has come about with the advancement into new technology. This has led to much debate both for and against testing expressed in both moderate and more extreme ways. Although there is some evidence to suggest that animal testing is successful in treating medical conditions in humans, it is equally disputed that testing on animals for medical purposes can be cruel and inconclusive. Too often emotion is allowed to overshadow facts and in this essay I will present a balanced argument and give a reliable and considered case for both sides to allow you, the reader to draw your own opinion. The most common arguments for and against will typically discuss the efficiency of testing along with the moral and ethical implications and the available options to using whole animals for research. Thanks to the internet age where information is readily available and easy to share, and improvements in computer simulation software, the number of animals required for testing can in theory be kept to a minimum. It would mean scientists using computer models based on previously documented test results, predicting laboratory test results using known data. According to Max Planck institute of Biological Cybernetics (2013: online) no computer modeling is an effective substitute to a live subject. It is said that no type of computer modeling is able to replicate even a small neural population, let alone a complete brain. Due to the nature of their research they do not look at a very broad range of tests, they specifically focus in one area. Various other simulations do exist and are acceptable models in the research of many different fields, for example drug absorption, diabetes and asthma. Despite the success of finding new medicines from this method it is still used in conjunction with, rather than a substitute to live testing and any results found still need to be validated via other methods. Similarly, it has been suggested that lab testing could be an alternative to a certain degree. However this also in practice is an inadequate substitute but can be used effectively along side live testing on the subject. Although against the principle of animal testing the Royal Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSCPA) (2013: online) are fairly realistic in the way they approach the issue. While the organisation would like to completely stop animal testing they understand that this is somewhat unachievable. Instead they believe that increased regulation should contribute positively towards animal welfare by implementing the â€Å"3R’s†. The 3Rs aim to improve animal welfare in a number of ways. Firstly they look at replacement methods that avoid the use of animals where possible. They also want to minimise the amount of animals used for studies and lastly reevaluate existing procedures along side any further factors affecting the animals’ lives, such as the conditions they are kept in. The Animal (Scientific Procedure) Act 1986 (2013: online) confirms that â€Å"Project licence holders must ensure their programme of work does not involve any regulated procedures for which there is a scientifically satisfactory alternative method or testing strategy that does not entail the use of a protected animal†. This again goes back to the method of the 3Rs. When considering the benefits; The Guardian, Tooke, et al (2013: online), offers some support for medical research using animals, as the most effective treatment for Parkinson’s was developed using rabbits. In addition to this the Guardian also argues that without animal testing â€Å"we would not have discovered antibiotics, chemotherapy or medical procedures including the use of deep brain stimulation.† This shows that animal testing has been beneficial in treating potentially fatal conditions; therefore it could be argued that animal testing can be acceptable in certain circumstances. On the other hand the organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) (2013: online), a charity which prides itself on the welfare of animals in many ethical issues, hold a contrasting argument. They stated that testing on animals has â€Å"delayed medical progress and even dangerously derailed our understanding of diseases.† (PETA 2013) To support they say â€Å"many studies have shown that animal tests fail to predict reactions in humans accurately, and they sometimes get it right less than 25 per cent of the time† citing â€Å"polio transmission, heart disease, and diabetes† as examples. They argue that by testing on animals, research has been inconclusive, as testing on animals cannot be generalised to humans. The Royal Society is a good source of clear facts. One of their case studies on kidney dialysis states (The Royal society 2004) â€Å"Of the 5000 people who develop kidney failure every year in the UK, one in three would die without a kidney transplant or regular dialysis on a kidney machine†. It says that these techniques were tested via the use of rabbits and dogs as they have similar respiratory and cardiovascular systems to humans, therefore are sufficient models for experimentation. Due to this â€Å"Each year about 2000 patients in the UK receive a life saving kidney transplant†¦Ã¢â‚¬  this information clearly shows that whole animal testing can be effective. In conclusion to the evidence and research referenced, it has become evident that testing on animals is beneficial in various fields. The relationship between animals and humans are not identical, however this will evolve under the influence of the technology and previous scientific findings, enabling testers to understand animal cognition and suffering. Nevertheless, changes are necessary to support the requirements of science and the welfare of all animals. There are clear arguments on both sides but with the evidence available it is apparent that at this point in time there are no ways to cease animal testing entirely. This leaves the debate unresolved as there are different parties weighing up the possible suffering of animals against the potential improvement of human health.

Wedges Gamble Essays - X-wing, Star Wars X-wing, Rogue Squadron

Wedge's Gamble Book Report: Star Wars: X-Wing: Wedge's Gamble Author: Michael A. Stackpole Characters: Lieutenant Corran Horn: The main character of the book. He's an ex-security man (a police force called CorSec) from the planet Corellia. Finally after going through the galaxy under aliases he joins Rogue Squadron to fight the Empire. He fights for freedom, but his main vendetta is more personal. He went into CorSec because his father did before him. An Imperial Intelligence Officer was also stationed there that had authority over that CorSec office. When he and his father were in a cantina in Corellia, his father was shot and killed before his very eyes. Corran hunted the murderers down and apprehended them. However the Imperial Intelligence Officer in charge, Kirtan Loor, freed them. Since then Corran had no respect for the Empire. He is the best pilot in the squadron, except for Wedge Antilles and Tycho Celchu. He proves to be resourceful and an excellent fighter pilot. He's got a resourceful R2 droid, nicknamed Whistler, too. Commander Wedge Antilles: The leader of Rogue Squadron. He formed the squadron with Luke Skywalker after the first Death Star was destroyed, since he and Luke were the only X-wing pilots left after the battle. He proves to be a strong leader knowing how to treat his squadron. Since Rogue Squadron is known to be a threat to the Empire so he has to train his pilots to be the very best. He's highly charismic. Sometimes has a rough time with a few of his superiors. He is the best pilot in the squadron. He has survived countless battles and entanglements with Imperial ships and fighters. He had to reform the squadron because only 4 of the original pilots remained since Luke and Wedge formed the squadron. Luke went to start reforming the Jedi. The other two went to go train other squadrons. Wedge is now faced with the problem of liberating Coruscant. He forges a commando-undercover type operation to infiltrate and liberate Coruscant. Ysanne Isard, Director of Imperial Intelligence: She controls what's left of the Empire. Some Admirals proclaimed themselves warlords and took their local planets. Isard has all the rest. She rests upon Coruscant, Imperial Center. A planet that is purely made up of a city. Her nickname is Iceheart because one of her eyes is icy blue and the other is molten red. She got her position as head of Intelligence by turning her own father in as a rebel sympathizer. Rumor had that she was a mistress to Emperor Palpatine. She is ruthless and unforgiving. She has a plan that will hopefully bring down Rogue Squadron and the rest of the Rebel Alliance's New Republic. Her plans now are to let the capital of the Empire, Coruscant, fall to the New Republic. The catch is though she will unleash a virus that only effects non-humans. This will weaken the trust of humans and non-humans, hurting the New Republic. Also the virus can be cured by a substance known as bacta, but only in large quantities. Thi s will greatly cause economic and social stress for the price of bacta is high and is only manufactured on a certain planet. Kirtan Loor, Intelligence Agent: The bad guy who has a vendetta against Corran Horn. He's smart and witty but his ego about his smarts is a weak point and that makes him turn out to be stupid. Isard's number one agent. He helps prepare the virus and makes sure Rogue Squadron does not liberate until the production of the virus is complete. He also has a spy in the squadron that is feeding him info to help retard the capturing the planet. The identity of the spy is not known. Settings: Mostly takes place on Coruscant, which is like a planet that is almost entirely a city. Slums, and more high-class buildings are within the scenery. Plot: Now that the New Republic has liberated Borleias, a planet very close to Coruscant, they aim to somehow liberate it. They go through plans and ideas of trying to take it. They come up with a plan that will cause the least bloodshed. They make Rogue Squadron go as a in undercover to somehow find a plan to take