Where did the word sustainability originate from? It came from the field of forestry, where it meant that we should not harm or hack more trees than the number growing. It meant that the hacking rate should always be lower than the growing rate.

Then in the nineteen nineties, came the term Sustainable Development. This term has been recognized worldwide and has gained so much prominence that it is now commonly referred to as SD. Its concepts were born in the report Our Common Future (1987) of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland-Commission). Its original concept has been enlarged since the UN conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (UNCED) in 1992 to cover the Developmental and Environmental policy.

After the Agenda 21 agreement in 1992, a commission was put into being by the UNO to apply the ideals of SD at all levels, be it internationally, nationally or even locally. What made this so much compatible, with all walks of life was its universal appeal, the total betterment of basic living conditions while providing the people with equal opportunities. It aims to provide the current generations with all their demands, while securing and safeguarding the resources for the future.

Thus, one of its elementary principles is the proper execution of the problem of distribution. Distribution has to be done to satiate the present, save for the future, and while simultaneously also taking care of the marginal and oppressed sections of society.

The Wuppertal Institute formulated a graph called the Prism of Sustainable Development. It is a prism with its four apexes representing the four significant social worlds i.e. the institutional, the ecological, the economic and the social dimensions. The sides of the prism indicate the various ways in which these four worlds are interconnected. There is a one is to one interconnection amongst all the nodes of the prism.

The entire concept of SD does not only imply a change in the general standards but rather a change in meaning. The term development is generally used in place of growth and more importance is placed on growth with quality being imperative.
This development does not only include an increase in income but essentially an increase in developmental factors. Then the quality of life and improvement in the standards of living are determined by using commonly accepted standards such as the Human Development Index and the prosperity concept of the World Bank.

SD tries to increase awareness about the growing shortage of resources and the fear of the non renewable ones becoming extinct. This is particularly done in industrialized pockets where the population is dense and the consumption of resources is massive. It encourages people to limit their consumption and to look out for other renewable sources. This is imperative to prevent an ecological collapse.

Nowadays other environmental groups are however raising issues that the concept of SD is generally politically driven and the environmental reforms and tasks undertaken are more often than not economically motivated.

Jay Moncliff
http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/sustainable-development-a-necessity-at-all-levels-123488.html

Economics is often called the dismal science because of an article written by Thomas Carlyle more than 150 years ago. In it he proposed mockingly to reintroduce slavery to control labor markets. During modern times, this moniker proves to be a prophetic choice. Modern economics have, after all, brought us not only free markets and unimaginable monetary rewards for the few chosen ones, but have also produced the great depression of 1931, the world financial crisis of 2008, and 12 recessions in the intervening 75 years.

Just imagine a similar performance record for airplanes, skyscrapers, nuclear power plants, and bridges!

The financial damages inflicted by systemic deficiencies in our economic infrastructure are unbearable and must not be tolerated any longer. These deficiencies are manmade and are caused by regularly failing institutions. Yet, we not only continue to support these institutions, but bail them out without conditional provisions that prevent them from paying irrational bonuses to their management and using the bailout funding for starting the engineering of the next recession, depression, or financial crisis. Crises are the occasions when the chosen cash in.

Obama has committed himself to bring change to our country. He has promised to address the lingering energy crisis during his presidency. It now appears that he too is following the battle cry of the unholy alliance between industry and environmental groups and is demanding the conservation of energy to save the planet. This demand is not based on scientific facts but on belief in dismal science. It also will waste billions of dollars spent for doomed-to-fail conservation efforts.

Energy conservation and Cap and Trade concepts cannot save our planet from overheating, cannot slow sea level rise, cannot prevent climate changes, and cannot save animal and plant species from extinction. However, they will significantly increase profits of energy companies and will assure that energy costs will continue their only occasionally interrupted rise into the sky.

In 1997, a comparably small number of industrialized countries in Europe and across the world signed the Kyoto Protocol. The signatories to this agreement committed themselves to reduce their greenhouse gas discharges and especially their carbon dioxide emissions in future years. Virtually all of these emissions are produced by fossil fuel combustion.

In the years following, the USA, China, India, and many other countries refused to sign because of the glaring deficiencies of the Kyoto provisions. These dissenting countries proved to be right.

The signors of the Kyoto agreements were absolutely correct on one count; the continuation of fossil fuel based carbon dioxide emissions will destroy our Earth. Unfortunately, their understanding of energy science was flawed. They made the same mistake our economists continue to make. Continuing with deficit spending and increasing leverage of financial institutions forever cannot save national economies and prevent financial crises. Similarly, continuing the discharge of fossil fuel emissions forever cannot stop global warming and related damages.

We must face reality. Conservation can at best slow atmospheric accumulation of carbon dioxide. It cannot halt global overheating. The Obama administration will hopefully have at least one qualified, influential scientist, who can debunk the prevailing beliefs in conservation and carbon taxation. Global overheating can only be stopped by ending all fossil fuel combustion permanently!

What are the available options? Fossil fuel reserves with the exception of petroleum are still plentiful. However, petroleum is getting scarce, consumption of petroleum is accelerating, and petroleum reserves will run out during the next fifty to seventy years. As long as we burn petroleum products we add to accumulated carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Burning all our remaining petroleum reserves will double or triple past global warming.

Fortunately, we have access to two energy sources that can provide plentiful, affordable, emission-free energy for centuries. These energy resources are sun radiation and nuclear fuels. Sun energy does not produce any pollutants or wastes. Sun energy is inexhaustible. Nuclear fuels will last at least for another century, are still inexpensive, but produce radioactive waste. This waste must and can be managed. There is one unmatched advantage to these two energies; they will stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions and will end global warming.

There is one major drawback to these energy sources, too. Both energies must be converted into energy forms that world economies are accustomed to use. Nuclear fuel can be converted into electricity. Sun energy can be converted into electricity and into irreplaceable liquid fuels.

Why are we not installing facilities for converting these savior energies and stop burning fossil fuels?

The reasons are economical, political, financial, and cultural. A few explanations may be helpful.

Installing a nuclear power plant is expensive and may last ten years. Additionally, political and cultural forces in society are trying to prevent the proliferation of nuclear technologies.

Conversion of sun energy into electricity is technically not as far advanced as nuclear energy conversion. Well managed efforts for closing technology gaps can produce needed results in less than a decade. Developmental technologies like wind power conversion and direct conversion of sun energy into electricity can be installed immediately. Electricity produced with commercially available conversion equipment will at first be considerably more expensive than presently generated electricity. A reasonably large number of facilities must be subsidized initially to further advance technologies and reduce equipment costs. Continuing installation activities will also encourage development and demonstration of energy storage.

Converting sun energy into liquid fuels is still in its infancy. Only proper management and funding can develop needed technologies in ten to fifteen years. Initial evaluations indicate that liquid fuels converted from sun energy can be produced for about fifty dollars per barrel.

Why has this technology not been developed earlier? This question is difficult to answer. The question falls into the same dismal category as inquiries into the causes for the periodic recurrence of depressions and financial crises.

Answers are by definition irrational.

Klaus H Hemsath
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/obama-energy-policy-and-dismal-energy-science-686573.html

Dieting is a principal health topic in the U.S. and rightfully so. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, almost two thirds of American adults (age 20 years and older) qualify as overweight. That’s slightly over 127 million people, sixty million of whom qualify as obese, or seriously overweight. It’s a major problem for our population – and therefore, naturally, a major topic on the Internet.

There are dozens of sites that are more or less informative on the issues of weight loss and dieting and dozens more that pitch one diet program or another, or provide commercial content on several diets. There’s lots of money being devoted to web advertising to steer you to one diet or another, many of which have become names familiar in most households.

Of the informative sources, perhaps the most thorough on the issue of weight is the American Obesity Association (www.aoa.org) which treats the affliction as a disease and has extensive educational material available. Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org) does an excellent job discussing the basics of dieting. Their material addresses types of diets (as opposed to brands); the relationship of exercise and dieting; how calories are counted and how they work; and some of the dangers inherent in misguided attempts at dieting.

Diets are also the core of a major American industry. Millions are spent annually on specialty diet programs – on books, prepared food programs, and hands-on therapy that involve both diet and exercise. If you’re looking for an analysis of the online resources for dieting, there’s a fairly extensive body of material at www.freedieting.com. The title itself illustrates the mercenary nature of most diet web sites; however it’s a place to start if you want to learn about the more popular online diet programs.

Freedieting.com provides recommendations on programs, rankings based on popularity, and lots of content on the ancillary items such as workout plans and calorie counters. It is unclear, however, what criteria their recommendations are based on: it could be advertising, or it could be truly objective analysis. Given the title of the site, it may be a combination of the two.

An openly commercial site that provides comparisons of fourteen online diet programs can be found at http://www.diet-plan-offers.com. While it’s clear that the programs found there paid for positioning, it provides you with an opportunity for some quick comparisons of diet program models.

In November the Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with the FDA, announced two online tools to assist consumers in dieting. The tools are Make Your Calories Count, a Web-based learning program, and a new Nutrition Facts Label brochure. These tools combine an online diet program with a detailed explanation of how to use the nutritional facts posted on every food item sold publicly. It is the government’s attempt at countering the rising tide of obesity in this country and it is possibly the only truly cost-free program you’ll find online. You can find the details at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01508.html.

For an overall look at the health issues and diet programs, there is a good list of specific sites found at http://www.medsurfer.com/library/diet.htm. This page contains a list of web sites that are mostly products of government agencies or non-profit organizations. The sites address particular issues such as types of fats; nutrition guides and includes archival resources on dietary management.

There is a vast amount of information online about nutrition and dieting. There are also vast numbers of online diet programs, of various designs, that are paid services. If you are interested in an online diet and exercise program, choosing among them is the second biggest challenge you will face. The number one challenge, of course, will be mustering up the discipline to follow it.

Madison Lockwood
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/top-internet-dieting-resources-90618.html

Duration : 0:4:0

Please rate, comment, share, and subscribe.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Duration : 0:7:12

Accumulated debt can lead to a financial crisis. However, there are several solutions available to help you recover from debt, the debt settlement solution program can help define some of those strategies in order to reduce your monthly payment, here are some:

- Securing a loan to consolidate your bills can create one low interest monthly payment.

- The debt settlement solution company can also help you reduce your debt and interest rates. – A credit counselor can also help you create personalized financial plans and strategies.

Debt settlement solution, also called debt negotiation, is a form of debt consolidation that shortens your total debt, sometimes over 50 percent, with lower monthly payments that fits your monthly income, this way you do not get choked with those payments. Debt settlement solution programs typically run around three years, it all depends in the total amount of debt and the type of debt, secured, unsecured and credit cards. It is important to keep in mind, however, that during the life of your debt settlement solution program, you are NOT paying your creditors. This means that a debt settlement solution of online debt consolidation will negatively impact your credit rating. Your credit rating will not be good, at a minimum, for the term of your debt settlement solution program. However, debt settlement solution is usually the fastest and cheapest way towards debt freedom, with a low monthly payment, while avoiding Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. The trade-off here is a negative credit rating versus saving money.

- A good debt settlement solution will reduce your interest rates and monthly installments -

Consolidating your debts into one loan can help you reduce your rates and payment amounts. Home equity or personal loans have much lower rates than credit cards. With lower rates, you can pay off more of your balance. You can also choose to reduce your payment amount with a longer loan term, but be aware that you will pay more interest this way, the important thing here is to define a method that can adjust to your financial capacity.

Pay extra attention to the details of the monthly payments because the debt settlement solution program is very strict on the amount you have to pay. This amount is settled by your settlement company, based on your current financial status or funds set aside to pay off that debt. Therefore, the larger the amount of the payment is, the fewer time it takes you to pay off that particular debt.

- Personalized payment plan with the debt settlement solution program -

A credit counselor from the debt settlement solution program creates a confidential, personalized budget with you. They present debt payment strategies, which can include consolidation, debt management, or negotiation. Certified counselors can also help you plan for long term financial goals, such as retirement or home buying.

Everyday people are taking action to recover from financial difficulties. While no company can erase your past credit problems, they can help you build a solid future credit score. Eliminating debt, frees you from the stress of bills and limits on your credit choices.

Everybody thinks that filing for bankruptcy is the best and more accurate solution for becoming a debt free person, but they are wrong, bankruptcy will degrade your social status, and all possible options to settle something will disappear, you will get stressed out; even, some operating cost can not be fixed by applying for bankruptcy, so be careful when making this important decision, our debt settlement solution program can help you avoid this, bankruptcy, just let our counselors guide you and see that there are always alternatives.

Bankruptcy is known for being a momentary way out of your debt problems, on the other hand, debt settlement solution is an everlasting solution that will surely make you debt free.

We have different articles of interesting topics and current and former clients’ experiences with our programs. Take a look at the different Debt Settlement Solution situations on debt related topics that people can fall into and how to keep yourself a debt free person.

Richard Glen
http://www.articlesbase.com/debt-consolidation-articles/debt-settlement-solution-avoiding-a-financial-crisis-121353.html

Duration : 0:6:10

As late as June 2008, mainstream consensus held that the U.S. was heading for a “soft landing” and would avoid recession. Several months later, the slump was acknowledged to have started in January 2008, but we were supposed to see renewed growth by mid-2009, with unemployment peaking in the eight-to-nine percent range. A quick “shovel-ready” stimulus bag was supposed to set us back on the road to prosperity.

In January, recovery projections were pushed forward to late 2009. Today, the consensus is for a mid-2010 recovery, with unemployment peaking at just over 10 percent. Clearly, the mainstream has struggled to catch up to reality for well over one year. What are the chances that they finally have it right this time?

Moreover, the mainstream continues to see what is going on as a plain-vanilla recession that will be quelled with some on-the-fly monetary and fiscal tinkering. Washington, we are told, will pull us out of this slump—as soon as the masses can be enticed back to the shopping malls. Then things will return to how they were before. But what if the experts and politicians are wrong not only on their ever-changing recovery timeline, but also on the nature—nay, the very existence—of a recovery?

almost,however,lots of the public is waking up.only time will tell…..

Duration : 0:24:40