How can I reduce my carbon footprint?
One step at a time
How can I help to reduce my carbon footprint?
What would you think of if I say 22.000? You might think this is an amount of money, a measurement, a distance. It’s a bit more cumbersome, is the average lifespan of a human being, 22.000 days. With a population that’s growing at a striking pace. How can we give something to planet earth? Humankind needs to be fed, transported and even entertained daily. The demand is rising, but the question is… Are we willing to do something? What can we do? First, let’s find out what carbon footprint really is.
Carbon footprint is the amount of carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds emitted due to the consumption of fossil fuels, they’re able to trap heat, keeping the earth surface warmer than it would be, if they were not present. Those gases are the main cause of the greenhouse effect which create global warming and consequently climate change. Now, we know that the problem lies in the quantity of greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, we need to find the solution to that complicated subject. To achieve that, each one of us should make an effort, we need to dig deep into our lifestyles.
Almost everything you do affects the environment, are you ready to give up your commodities to make a positive change?
Let me scrutinize my daily habits, to see if I can change them to be more environmentally friendly.
At home:
- I need to make sure that all the light bulbs are LED, they consume about 80% less energy than incandescence, besides that, they last longer.
- Change my A.C. thermostat, there are a lot of options available, the new thermostats connect to your smartphone, bringing to the table a new array of options.
- Recycle more efficiently, it is proven that recycling paper, glass and aluminum could save 582 pounds of CO2 per year.
On the road:
- Maximize fuel efficiency, that encapsulates not over-speeding, keep tires inflated, and using cruise control when possible. Keeping a constant speed will make me save fuel In the long run.
- Buying a hybrid or a modern fuel-efficient car.
- Using public transportation more often. Right now I am not using my car so frequently, I got the advantage (even though sometimes I think otherwise) to live/study/work on the same building, I drive mostly during the weekends, my gas consumption is really low right now, which is good for the environment, but bad for my mental health.
At the store:
- Reduce the consumption of packaged drinks.
- Completely avoid junk food.
- Buy more local vegetables, avoid out of season fruits, it takes a lot to produce and distribute.
- Always bring my own bag to pick up groceries, it makes a great difference. Sometimes I left my bag at home, that makes me buy a new bag, always making me spend more.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a vegan or a pescetarian. We need greenhouse gases, without them, the earth surface would be too cold to sustain life. The problem is not the gas, is the amount of greenhouse gases lingering in our atmosphere. If we follow some simple steps, we can help the environment to heal itself. The world needs our thoughtful effort, is not that difficult.
We all need to be aware of what we consume, how we can help, and most important, educate yourself daily on how we can diminish our impact to Planet Earth during our lifespan, it may look like a drop in the ocean, but remember that the ocean is made of drops, each drop is important in the great scheme of things.
Keep in mind, we only live an average of 22.000 days, make each day count for future generations.
About the Creator
Giovanni Profeta
Swimming through life one stroke at a time.
Keep reading
More stories from Giovanni Profeta and writers in Earth and other communities.
The (not so) silent threat of noise pollution
Have you even wonder why sometimes it’s so difficult for you to get some proper sleep? Our over-stimulated senses keep us tossing and turning all night long, making of something as natural as sleeping burdensome. Are we aware of what’s keeping us in a constant state of alert? According to some scholars, one of the main causes is noise pollution. Why don’t we dive head first and find the meaning of this peril to our health?
By Giovanni Profeta4 years ago in Earth
“Greenland Belongs to Its People”: European Leaders Unite Over Trump’s Threats to Annex Territory
When former U.S. President Donald Trump once again floated the idea of the United States taking control of Greenland, the reaction from Europe was swift, unified, and unmistakably firm. European leaders rallied around a simple but powerful message: Greenland belongs to its people. What might sound like a provocative comment or political theater has instead evolved into a serious international debate about sovereignty, international law, and the future of Arctic geopolitics. This moment has revealed not only Europe’s commitment to defending territorial integrity but also the growing strategic importance of Greenland in a rapidly changing world. A Familiar Idea That Refuses to Disappear Trump’s interest in Greenland is not new. In 2019, he publicly suggested that the United States could purchase the island from Denmark, a proposal that was widely ridiculed and swiftly rejected. Yet years later, similar rhetoric has resurfaced, with Trump arguing that U.S. control of Greenland is essential for national and global security. This renewed discussion came at a sensitive time, amid rising global tensions and growing competition in the Arctic. While Trump has framed the issue as a strategic necessity, European leaders interpreted his remarks as a troubling challenge to long-standing principles of sovereignty and self-determination. Europe’s United Front: An Uncommon Consensus One of the most striking aspects of this episode has been Europe’s collective response. Leaders from major European nations — including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Denmark — publicly closed ranks to support Greenland’s autonomy. Their message was unambiguous: borders cannot be changed by pressure, threats, or unilateral ambition. The joint stance emphasized that Greenland’s future is a matter for Greenland and Denmark alone, not external powers. This rare display of unity reflects broader European concerns about preserving the rules-based international order at a time when it feels increasingly fragile. For many European governments, allowing even the suggestion of territorial acquisition to go unchallenged would set a dangerous precedent. Denmark’s Position: Firm, Calm, and Clear Denmark, which governs Greenland as an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, responded with particular clarity. Danish officials reiterated that Greenland is not for sale and never has been. Denmark’s leadership stressed that Greenland already enjoys extensive self-governance and that any future decisions — including full independence — belong to the Greenlandic people. From Copenhagen’s perspective, the U.S. already benefits from strategic cooperation in the region through NATO and existing defense agreements, making the idea of annexation both unnecessary and inappropriate. The Most Important Voice: Greenland Itself While global powers debated Greenland’s strategic value, Greenlandic leaders were quick to assert their own agency. Greenland’s government firmly rejected Trump’s remarks, describing them as unacceptable and dismissive of the island’s democratic rights. Greenland’s population, numbering just under 60,000, has long navigated the complexities of autonomy, identity, and post-colonial history. Although there is internal debate about eventual independence from Denmark, there is little appetite for becoming part of another foreign power. For Greenlanders, the issue is not just about geopolitics — it is about dignity, self-determination, and respect. Why Greenland Matters More Than Ever Greenland’s rising prominence on the world stage is not accidental. As climate change accelerates Arctic ice melt, the region is becoming more accessible and economically attractive. Greenland is believed to hold vast reserves of rare earth minerals, oil, and gas — resources critical for modern technology and the global energy transition. Strategically, Greenland occupies a vital position between North America and Europe. It plays a key role in missile defense systems, Arctic surveillance, and emerging shipping routes. As competition intensifies between the United States, Russia, and China in the Arctic, Greenland has become a focal point of strategic calculations. Yet European leaders argue that strategic value does not override international norms. In their view, security cooperation must be based on partnership, not ownership. A Test for NATO and Western Alliances Trump’s comments have also sparked uncomfortable conversations within NATO. Denmark and the United States are long-standing allies, and Greenland already hosts important U.S. military facilities. The idea that one NATO member could publicly entertain annexing territory associated with another ally has raised questions about trust and cohesion within the alliance. For Europe, defending Denmark and Greenland is not only about geography — it is about ensuring that alliances are built on respect rather than coercion. What This Moment Really Represents At its core, the Greenland controversy is about more than one island. It reflects the broader struggle between power politics and principles. Europe’s response signals that, despite internal differences, it remains committed to defending sovereignty, democratic choice, and international law. In a world increasingly shaped by competition over resources and strategic positions, this episode serves as a reminder that smaller nations and territories cannot be treated as bargaining chips. Final Thoughts By standing firm and declaring that “Greenland belongs to its people,” European leaders have sent a message that resonates far beyond the Arctic. It is a statement about values, about history, and about the kind of global order Europe wants to defend. As geopolitical tensions continue to rise, the Greenland debate may prove to be a defining moment — one that shows whether the principles of sovereignty and self-determination still hold weight in an era of strategic rivalry. For now, Europe’s answer is clear: Greenland’s future will be decided in Greenland, not Washington.
By Muhammad Hassan7 days ago in Earth
US Balks as UK and France Pledge Troops to Postwar Ukraine
As the war in Ukraine grinds on with no clear end in sight, the debate over what comes after the fighting has taken a sharper turn. The United States has signalled reluctance about committing troops to Ukraine once the war ends, even as the United Kingdom and France openly pledge to consider deploying forces in a postwar security role. The divergence has exposed differing strategic priorities among Western allies and raised new questions about how Ukraine’s future security will be guaranteed. While all three nations remain united in their support for Kyiv during the war, the emerging split over postwar troop commitments highlights the complexity of planning for peace in a conflict that continues to reshape Europe’s security landscape. What the UK and France Are Proposing British and French leaders have increasingly spoken about the need for long-term security arrangements for Ukraine once active hostilities end. Their position reflects a growing concern that any ceasefire or peace agreement could be fragile, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression. The idea under discussion is not a combat deployment in an active war zone, but rather a stabilisation or reassurance force. Such troops could help train Ukrainian forces, protect critical infrastructure, and serve as a visible deterrent against future attacks. Supporters argue that a limited but credible international presence would help ensure that any peace settlement is respected. For London and Paris, this approach fits within a broader European push to take more responsibility for continental security. Both governments see Ukraine not only as a partner but as a frontline state whose stability directly affects Europe as a whole. Why Washington Is Hesitant The United States, while remaining Ukraine’s most significant military backer during the war, has taken a more cautious stance on postwar troop deployments. American officials have stressed that there are no plans to send US forces into Ukraine, even after a potential peace agreement. This hesitation is rooted in several factors. First, Washington remains wary of any move that could risk a direct confrontation with Russia. Even in a postwar scenario, the presence of US troops on Ukrainian soil could be portrayed by Moscow as a provocation, escalating tensions rather than reducing them. Second, domestic considerations play a major role. After years of overseas military engagements, there is limited appetite among the American public and political class for new long-term deployments abroad, particularly in a region where risks remain high and outcomes uncertain. Finally, US strategy has increasingly emphasised supporting allies through funding, training, and equipment rather than large-scale troop commitments. From Washington’s perspective, enabling Ukraine to defend itself may be preferable to stationing American forces on the ground. A Question of Deterrence At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: what will actually deter future aggression against Ukraine? The UK and France appear to believe that a physical presence, however limited, would send a powerful signal of commitment. Troops on the ground would demonstrate that Ukraine’s security is directly tied to that of major European powers, raising the cost of any future attack. The US, by contrast, seems to place greater faith in alternative mechanisms such as long-term military aid, security guarantees, and sanctions frameworks. American officials argue that deterrence does not necessarily require boots on the ground, especially if Ukraine emerges from the war better armed and more integrated with Western institutions. This difference reflects broader strategic cultures. European powers, facing the immediate proximity of the conflict, may feel a stronger need for visible reassurance measures, while the US assesses risks from a more global perspective. Implications for NATO Unity Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, the discussion has clear implications for the alliance. Any deployment of UK or French troops would be closely scrutinised for what it means for NATO’s role and credibility. NATO operates on consensus, and the absence of US support for a postwar troop presence could complicate coordination. Even if London and Paris act independently or as part of a smaller coalition, questions would remain about command structures, rules of engagement, and the political backing required for such a mission. At the same time, the situation underscores a broader shift within NATO, with European members increasingly expected to shoulder more responsibility. If the UK and France proceed with their plans, it could mark a significant step toward a more autonomous European security posture. Ukraine’s Perspective For Kyiv, the debate is both encouraging and frustrating. On one hand, the willingness of major European powers to consider troop deployments signals long-term commitment and recognition of Ukraine’s security concerns. On the other hand, uncertainty from the US—Ukraine’s most powerful ally—adds another layer of unpredictability. Ukrainian leaders have consistently argued that security guarantees must be concrete, not symbolic. From their perspective, any postwar arrangement must ensure that Russia cannot simply regroup and strike again. Whether this is achieved through foreign troops, binding treaties, or accelerated integration with Western institutions remains an open question. What is clear is that Ukraine wants assurances that go beyond promises and declarations. The Risk of Mixed Signals One potential danger of the current divergence is the message it sends to Moscow. Differing positions among Western allies could be interpreted as hesitation or lack of unity, potentially weakening deterrence rather than strengthening it. At the same time, open debate is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Allies often disagree on tactics while remaining aligned on broader goals. The challenge will be ensuring that these differences do not undermine the core objective of securing a stable and sovereign Ukraine. Diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic are likely to continue working behind the scenes to narrow the gap, even if public statements suggest a clear divide. Looking Ahead The question of postwar Ukraine remains largely theoretical while fighting continues. Yet the discussion itself reveals how seriously Western governments are taking the long-term consequences of the conflict. The UK and France’s willingness to pledge troops reflects a belief that peace must be actively protected. The US reluctance highlights concerns about escalation, sustainability, and domestic support. Reconciling these approaches will be one of the most important diplomatic challenges once the guns eventually fall silent. For now, the disagreement does not signal a breakdown in alliance unity, but it does expose the difficult choices ahead. As the war continues, planning for peace is proving almost as complex—and politically sensitive—as managing the conflict itself.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in Earth
'20/20'
"Do It Again" the track that would ultimately open the Beach Boys final album on Capitol Records which was released on February 10th 1969 had originally been released as a single in August of 1968. The track was the first of many post-Pet Sounds era throwbacks to the early Beach Boys sound which would become continually more cliched and eventually lead the Beach Boys to the level of self-parody they would eventually succumb to in the 1980s while their closest contemporaries The Beatles nearing the end of their run in 1969 would go on to be viewed as the most influential band of all time. However, the song itself is not bad on its surface, and it opens with a futuristic sounding (for 1969) drumbeat captured by then-Beach Boys engineer Stephen Desper using tape delays on the drums performed by Dennis Wilson and John Guerin. The song has been re-recorded numerous times over the years on various Beach Boys-related projects most notably the 2011 re-recording at Capitol studios featuring the five surviving Beach Boys at the time backed instrumentally by various members of both the Brian Wilson Band and Mike Loves touring "Beach Boys" to promote the then upcoming Beach Boys 50th Anniversary reunion tour in 2012. The hammering and power drill sound at the end of the song was an excerpt from a track called "Workshop" that was to be a part of the uncompleted "SMiLE" album.
By Sean Callaghan7 days ago in Beat
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.