2001-Making Low probabilities Useful
The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,23:2;103–120,2001
?2001Kluwer Academic Publishers.Manufactured in The Netherlands. Making Low Probabilities Useful?
HOW ARD KUNREUTHER
OPIM Department,Wharton School,University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia,PA
NATHAN NOVEMSKY
School of Management,Yale University,New Haven,CT
DANIEL KAHNEMAN
Department of Psychology and Woodrow Wilson School,Princeton University,Princeton,NJ
Abstract
This paper explores how people process information on low probability-high consequence negative events and what it will take to get individuals to be sensitive to the likelihood of these types of accidents or disasters. In a set of experiments,information is presented to individuals on the likelihood of serious accidents from a chemical https://www.sodocs.net/doc/c815195478.html,parisons are made with other risks,such as fatalities from automobile accidents,to see whether laypersons can determine the relative safety of different plants.We conclude that fairly rich context information must be available for people to be able to judge differences between low probabilities.In particular, it appears that one needs to present comparison scenarios that are located on the probability scale to evoke people’s own feelings of risk.The concept of evaluability recently introduced by Hsee and his colleagues provides a useful explanation of these?ndings.
Keywords:low probabilities,insurance,?eld experiment
JEL Classi?cation:C93,D8,D18
1.Introduction
Disasters,such as the explosion at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal,India in1984, have sensitized the public to the potential dangers from chemical facilities even though the likelihood of such accidents is extremely small.This concern with the impact of major accidental chemical releases can be illustrated by Congressional passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments(CAAA)of1990.In implementing one of the provisions of the CAAA(Section112R),the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)requires chemical facilities to develop and implement risk management programs for preventing the occurrence of such releases and sharing these prevention plans with the public(Er et al.,1998).
?Partial support from NSF Grant#524603is gratefully acknowledged.
104KUNREUTHER,NOVEMSKY AND KAHNEMAN This paper explores whether one can present information to people on the likelihood of serious accidents from a chemical facility so they can determine the relative safety of different plants.One possible way to do this is to vary the probabilities of an accident to see if this makes a difference in people’s risk perception.Another way is to vary the insurance premium that the?rm has to pay to protect itself against the event.One can present this information on just the chemical accident itself or compare this event with others.
If one can provide data in a form that enables people to comprehend the risks they face,then it may be possible to encourage?rms to take preventive action through public pressure.One may also want to utilize economic incentives,such as lower insurance pre-miums to encourage?rms to reduce their risk and/or impose standards through required third party inspections.
Insurance is often available to reduce?nancial losses from low probability-high con-sequence events.Consumers have experience in making decisions on their homeowners coverage as well as their automobile policies.They also face decisions as to whether to adopt protective measures ranging from dead-bolt locks to car alarms to product war-ranties.There is evidence that many people are not able to meaningfully use probability information in these contexts(Hogarth and Kunreuther,1995).By making low probabil-ities meaningful to individuals,they can choose the appropriate level of protection for various risks.
The next section discusses related research in the area of low probability-high conse-quence events.Section3provides evidence from a set of experiments designed to exam-ine risk perceptions regarding the safety of a chemical plant.In these studies changes in the likelihood of an accident are expressed through either differences in probability or insurance premiums.The concluding section discusses the policy implications of these ?ndings and suggests directions for future research.
2.Earlier studies on low probability-high consequence events
Anumber of published studies reveal the dif?culties people have in interpreting low probabilities when faced with personal risks(Camerer and Kunreuther,1989;Magat, Viscusi,and Huber,1987).In fact,there is evidence that people may not even want data on the likelihood of an event occurring.In a recent study of several hypothetical risky managerial decisions,Huber,Wider,and Huber(1997)?nd that when subjects are required to search out their own information,they rarely ask for any data on probabilities. One group was given a minimal description and the opportunity to ask questions.Only 22%of these respondents asked for probability information.Not one of these respon-dents asked for precise probabilities.Another group of respondents was given precise probability information,and less than20%of these respondents mentioned the word “probability”or“likelihood”in their verbal protocols.
Hogarth and Kunreuther(1995)studied the decision process related to the purchase of warranties against the failure of durable consumer products such as stereos,computers, and VCRs.They asked individuals to specify the arguments they utilized to justify their
MAKING LOW PROBABILITIES USEFUL105 choice and found that people rarely list probability that the item needs repair as a reason for purchasing this protection.
Other research has demonstrated that there are ways of reframing the probability of an event occurring that will cause people to use this information in deciding how much to pay for protection.Stone,Yates,and Parker(1994)?nd that people pay considerably more to reduce the risk of some adverse event if the likelihood is depicted as ratios of very small probabilities(e.g.the risk of an event occurring when one is protected is half of what it is when one is not protected)than if people are presented with two small probabilities(e.g..000006probability without protection and.000003with protection). Slovic,Fischhoff,and Lichtenstein(1978)?nd more interest in wearing seatbelts if the chance of an accident is framed over a50year lifetime of driving(.33)rather than as a .00001chance each trip.Arecent study by Weinstein,Kolb,and G oldstein(1996)found that re-framing the probability of death as the time interval during which a single death is expected can affect risk perceptions.
There is also evidence that absolute probabilities seem to be edited to“a very small number”or zero for some individuals.In a laboratory experiment on purchasing insur-ance,McClelland,Schulze,and Coursey(1993)found that many individuals bid zero for coverage.This implies that these respondents viewed the probability of a loss as suf-?ciently small that they were not interested in protecting themselves against it.Studies associated with siting hazardous facilities arrive at a similar conclusion.For example, many homeowners residing in communities that are potential sites for nuclear waste facilities have a tendency to dismiss the risk as negligible(Oberholzer-Gee,1998). The notion of evaluability recently introduced by Hsee and his colleagues(Hsee,1996; Hsee et al.,1999)offers some insight into why so many studies?nd that people have dif?culty interpreting low probabilities.According to the evaluability hypothesis,if an attribute is hard to evaluate independently then a person does not know how good a given value of the attribute is without making comparisons that are meaningful to him or her.
People given low probabilities associated with some event may not know how to eval-uate these likelihoods.It is dif?cult to gauge how concerned one should feel about a1in 100,000probability of death without some comparison points.Most people just do not know whether1in100,000is a large risk or a small risk.As we will show below,indi-viduals are much better able to evaluate probabilities when they are able to use speci?c comparison information.
3.Judging the safety of chemical facilities
We report on?ve studies that were undertaken to determine how people judge the safety of a chemical facility after learning either about the probability of an accident releasing a toxic chemical or the actuarially fair insurance premium for providing coverage to the chemical plant to cover the costs of a chemical release.In Study1,we try to make low probability events more evaluable in two ways.First,we include a comparison point by telling respondents the probability of death from a car accident.Second,we provide
106KUNREUTHER,NOVEMSKY AND KAHNEMAN some respondents with data on insurance premiums instead of probabilities.Our feeling was that people have a lot of experience with insurance premiums and are very familiar with the dollar scale.Therefore,we hypothesized that insurance premiums would be more evaluable than small probabilities.We were mistaken.
Study1
In this study individuals were presented with either a probability or an insurance premium related to the discharge of a hypothetical toxic chemical,Syntox,which had the potential of causing fatalities to individuals living near the plant.The participants in the experiment were then asked a set of questions regarding their perception of the risk posed by the facility.The questionnaire was completed by241adult visitors to the San Francisco Exploratorium in July,1998.
Each respondent saw the following scenario about a chemical plant:
The ABC Chemicals Company is a large?rm that has a plant in a community on the outskirts of an urban center in New Jersey.Achemical labeled Syntox,used in production at the plant,will be regulated under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Act Amendments.Syntox is the only toxic chemical used at the plant.As is required in the regulations,ABC Chemicals has determined that the worst conceivable accident at the plant would occur if its entire inventory of Syntox were accidentally released into the atmosphere in a very short time period.If this did occur,a plume of toxic vapors would form that could cover any home in the community,depending on how the wind blows.This vapor would only affect a few homes in the community.
An insurance company has estimated the probability of a discharge of Syntox caus-ing deaths in the community surrounding the plant.The insurance company made the risk assessment to determine what premium it should charge ABC Chemicals to provide$1million coverage to each resident of the community against death from the discharge of Syntox.Insurance companies charge a higher premium to cover an individual if they believe the risk the individual faces is high;they charge a lower premium if they believe the risk is low.
Half of the respondents then read one of three scenarios as shown by the probability ?gures speci?ed in brackets[]for a discharge of Syntox:
As background for assessing the risks of Syntox,the probability of an individual dying in a car accident is1in6,000per year.
The estimated probability of an individual in the community dying from a discharge of Syntox is[1in1million per year or1in100,000or1in10million].
Aregulatory agency has determined that for both car accidents and Syntox dis-charges,these probability estimates are accurate.
MAKING LOW PROBABILITIES USEFUL107
Table1.Probabilities and insurance premiums for Study1
High Medium Low
Probabilities1in100,0001in1million1in10million
Premiums$15.00$1.5015cents
The other respondents read one of three scenarios as shown by the insurance premium ?gures speci?ed in brackets[]:
As background for assessing the risks of Syntox,a fair premium for providing $1million coverage against each death in a car accident is$245per year.
Apremium of[15cents or$1.50or$15.00]per year for each resident of the com-munity is the fair and appropriate one to charge for providing$1million coverage against each death from a discharge of Syntox.
Aregulatory agency has determined that for both car accidents and Syntox dis-charges,these premiums are fair and appropriate.
Each respondent saw only one value,either a premium or a probability for the chemical plant.Table1summarizes the values for the low,medium and high probabilities and premiums for this study.
Following the scenario subjects were asked a set of questions on how risky the chemical plant appeared to be and its relationship to other risks that individuals face such as car accidents,home?res and food disease.(The questions appear in the Appendix.)Four questions were asked about the perceived risk of the chemical facility:(1)whether the plant posed a serious health and safety risk to those living in the community,(2)whether the plant could operate in a manner that was safe for the community,(3)how serious is the risk of death posed by the plant,and(4)how close to the plant respondents would be willing to live.
Results.Since the responses to these four questions were highly intercorrelated( = 81), they were combined into a single scale.The score for each respondent represents his or her overall perception of the risk of the chemical plant.This score was scaled to range between1(lowest risk)to5(highest risk).Two one-way ANOV As were performed on the scaled scores,one for the three groups of probability responses and a separate anal-ysis for the responses to the three insurance premiums.As shown in Table2neither the means for the three probability conditions nor the means of the insurance premi-ums were signi?cantly different from each other[Probability conditions(F(2,119)=
Table2.Mean perception of risk of chemical plant for
different probabilities and insurance premiums associ-
ated with chemical accident(Study1)
High Medium Low
Probabilities 3.03 2.93 3.01
Premiums 2.81 2.74 3.12
108KUNREUTHER,NOVEMSKY AND KAHNEMAN .153,ns);Insurance premium conditions:(F(2,116)=1.58,ns)].In fact,the premiums are not even monotonic as one would expect them to be.
Conclusions.The two main?ndings from Study1can be summarized as follows.First, people seem unresponsive to changes in the order of magnitude of a low probability. This occurred despite the comparison point they were given for automobile accidents. One explanation for this insensitivity is that the absolute numbers for the release of Syntox may have been too far from the comparison point for automobile accidents.All conditions used probabilities less than one tenth the value for automobiles,so respondents may have seen the risks from the chemical plant as“much lower than car travel.”The second key?nding is that people do not respond to insurance premiums as a signal for the risk associated with a chemical plant.This is somewhat more surprising since most people are familiar with insurance policies and should know that premiums tend to re?ect risk.Many people are required to purchase automobile insurance and are aware that premiums?uctuate with the age of drivers and with accidents and traf?c tickets. People are also very familiar with the dollar scale.While they may not be able to think meaningfully about what a1in100,000chance of death means,they certainly know what$15.00means.However,the premiums for the chemical plant are all less than one tenth of the premiums given for automobile accidents.People may think that any risk smaller than the risk associated with driving in a car is safe enough,and thus they do not distinguish between small premiums.
Study2
To test whether the values used in Study1are all too small relative to the comparison point,all the values associated with the release of Syntox are increased in Study2.The highest value is now approximately one order of magnitude above the comparison point, the middle value is around the comparison point and the lowest value is an order of magnitude below the comparison point.In other words,some respondents would see the risk of a Syntox release as being more probable than car accidents,others would see the risk as similar to car accidents and a third group would see the risk as less probable than car accidents.Our expectation was that these differences would sensitize respondents to the risk differences associated with the release of Syntox.This study was embedded in a short set of studies completed by175adult visitors to the San Francisco Exploratorium. The values utilized in the study are shown in Table3.There were six different groups, with each respondent seeing only one value for the chemical plant.
Table3.Probabilities and insurance premiums for Study2
Comparison value
High Medium Low for car accidents
Probabilities1in6501in63001in68,0001in6000
Premiums$2170$241$23$245
MAKING LOW PROBABILITIES USEFUL109
Table4.Mean perception of risk of chemical plant for
different probabilities and insurance premiums associ-
ated with chemical accident(Study2)
High Medium Low
Premiums 3.52 3.65 3.05
Probabilities 3.61 3.47 3.07
Results.As in Study1,the four risk questions were combined into a single scale ( = 76).The results are shown in Table4.Two separate one-way ANOV As were performed on the scaled scores,one for responses in the probability conditions and one for responses in the premium conditions.The premium conditions yielded?ndings that to our surprise were similar to those of Study1,with the means not differing signi?-cantly between high,medium and low conditions.(F(2,58)=2.07,ns).Furthermore, these means do not decrease monotonically with the premium.In the probability condi-tions the mean scores decrease monotonically from high to medium to low probabilities but the differences are not statistically signi?cant(F(2,49)=2.82,p=.069).
Conclusions.Study2replicates the insensitivity found in Study1.Clearly respondents are not feeling much safer when they see a probability or insurance premium ten times below the value for car travel than when they see a value ten times higher than car travel. It is possible that people do not think probabilities or premiums are relevant to the risk posed by a chemical plant.Perhaps the fact that someone may die from a Syntox release is the only information that people feel is relevant for evaluating this risk.It appears that no attention is paid to the likelihood of this event occurring whether expressed in terms of probabilities or insurance premiums.
Study3
In the?rst two studies respondents considered one chemical plant with a single prob-ability or premium.Study3gives people the opportunity to compare either the three probabilities or the three insurance premiums.We did this for two reasons:(1)to exam-ine whether respondents think probabilities and/or insurance premiums should affect their risk perception and(2)to make sure people are able to differentiate between the values we are using.Each respondent was presented with either three probabilities or three insurance premiums associated with three different chemical plants and asked to judge the risks for each of the plants.This study was embedded in a short set of studies completed by57adult visitors to the San Francisco Exploratorium. Respondents saw the same scenarios used in Studies1and2,but this time were told that there are three chemical plants that use the Syntox chemical.The communities in which each plant is located are similar to each other.The probabilities and premiums were identical to the ones used in Study2.In other words,the values used in Study3 correspond to those displayed in Table3.1
110KUNREUTHER,NOVEMSKY AND KAHNEMAN
Table5.Mean perception of risk of chemical plant for
different probabilities and insurance premiums associ-
ated with chemical accidents(Study3)
High Medium Low
Probabilities 4.64 3.84 2.78
Premiums 4.50 3.82 2.97
Since respondents were asked questions about all three chemical plants,we only used a subset of our previous questions to limit the length of the questionnaire.More speci?cally,respondents were asked(1)whether the plant posed a serious health and safety risk to those living in the community,(2)how serious is the risk of death posed by the plant,and(3)how close to the plant respondents would be willing to live.
Results.Each set of three questions was combined into a scale,yielding one score for each plant for each respondent.(The reliability( )ranged from.51to.72,for the three plants.)Table5shows the mean scores for each level of probability and premium.A repeated-measures ANOV A reveals that the effect of probability is highly signi?cant (F(2,34)=32.0,p<.001).Aseparate repeated-measures A NOV Arevealed that insur-ance premiums also had a highly signi?cant effect(F(2,62)=42.9,p<.001).
The differences found in this within-respondent sample can be compared to the earlier studies by examining Figure1.The mean differences in Study3dwarf any differences found in Studies1and2.
Figure1.Differences in mean risk score for different probabilities and premiums(Studies1–3).
MAKING LOW PROBABILITIES USEFUL111 Conclusions.The results of Study3con?rm that people?nd both insurance premiums and probabilities relevant to risk evaluations.If people thought these objective measures of likelihood should not matter,they would have responded with similar risk perceptions for all three plants.Study3also shows that the values we chose are suf?ciently different from each other for our scale to measure the resulting differences in risk perception. When faced with a single chemical plant to evaluate,respondents may not have paid any attention to the probabilities and insurance premiums we gave them.Study3high-lights these values by asking each person to evaluate several plants that vary only in this measure of risk.When respondents ask themselves what is the difference between the three plants,their attention is likely to be focused on the numerical value of probability or insurance premium.The results of this study will be treated as an upper bound on the sensitivity that we can expect from evaluations of a single plant.
Study4
One reason that individuals may have a dif?cult time responding to probabilities or insurance premiums in Studies1and2is that the comparison point was not meaningful enough to help respondents map probabilities and premiums onto feelings of riskiness. For example,when respondents are given a single probability(or premium)for the chemical plant that is ten times better than car travel,they may still ask themselves,“How safe is car travel?”Providing people with a comparison point that is easier to interpret may help them evaluate the meaning of the chemical plant value.
Study4was designed to address this issue by giving respondents a single chemical plant to evaluate,and providing a qualitative description to associate with the probability or premium comparison value being considered.Respondents in this study read a few sentences describing driving conditions in Colorado that sound as if the roads were somewhat unsafe.This level of risk is then linked to a probability(or premium,depending on the group).Furthermore,a safer set of driving conditions in Arizona is described and linked to a different probability(or premium)value.After reading this information, respondents should have a better understanding of how probabilities or premiums can signal risk.
Our interest was in seeing whether providing respondents with a description of high and low probability automobile accident scenarios would enable them to distinguish between the risks associated with a Syntox release as one varied either the probability of such a chemical accident or the insurance premiums that the ABC chemicals plant had to pay.This study sampled216adult visitors to the San Francisco Exploratorium. Each respondent saw the same scenario used in Studies1and2.Three probabilities and three premiums were used resulting in six different groups of respondents.The probabilities and premiums are displayed in Table6.One change was made to the auto accident scenario;the single sentence describing the risk of car accidents was replaced with the following paragraph in the probability condition:
For comparison purposes,consider a small town in the mountains of Colorado where there is snow cover for a few months every year and the mountain roads have sharp
112KUNREUTHER,NOVEMSKY AND KAHNEMAN
Table6.Probability and insurance premium values used in Study4
Comparison values
High Medium Low for car accidents
Probabilities1in6501in63001in68,0001in5900,Colorado
1in66,000,Arizona
Premiums$2170$241$23$280,Colorado
$36,Arizona
curves.For a driver in this town,the estimated probability of his or her death from
a car accident is1in5900per year.For a driver in a similar size town in Arizona
where it rarely rains,never snows and the roads have very few sharp curves,the estimated probability of his or her death from a car accident is1in66,000per year. Those in the premium condition saw the same paragraph with probabilities replaced by annual premiums of$280for drivers in Colorado and$36for drivers in Arizona. Results.The four questions measuring risk were again combined into one scale( = 81). The means are shown in Table7.Again,separate one-way ANOV As were performed on the probability and premium conditions.The effects of probability(F(2,101)=26.2, p<.001)and premium(F(2,103)=7.30,p=.001)are highly signi?cant.Looking at Figure2,we can see that the sizes of the differences in this study are only slightly smaller than those found in Study3.
Conclusions.Study4provides evidence that people’s dif?culty in evaluating the prob-ability and premium numbers in Study2lead to the insensitivity to those values.When respondents are shown how qualitative feelings of risk are associated with different numerical values on a quantitative scale,they are willing and able to respond to a spe-ci?c value on that scale.Respondents saw a single probability or a single insurance premium for the chemical plant and were able to associate that number with a measure of perceived risk.
Study5
Study4still leaves one with some ambiguity.Are people more sensitive to the scales simply because we gave them a description that evoked a sense of risk?Or is it because they were shown two comparison points on the scale instead of just one?Hsee et al.
Table7.Mean perception of risk of chemical plant for different probabili-
ties and insurance premiums associated with chemical accidents(Study4)
High Medium Low
Probability 4.19 3.27 2.78
Premium 3.47 3.10 2.75
MAKING LOW PROBABILITIES USEFUL113
Figure2.Differences in mean risk score for different probabilities and premiums(Studies1–4). (1999)suggest that knowing about two points on a scale leads to greater evaluability than knowing just a single point.Is it essential that the two comparison points be similar risks?
Study5examines these issues.Some respondents see a qualitative description for a single comparison point and others see two points with descriptions.The respondents who see two comparison points are further divided.For some respondents the two com-parison points describe similar risks and for other respondents the two comparison points describe dissimilar risks.Respondents in Study5were405students at a large university in the northwest.
The same scenarios used in Study4were used in Study5with new comparison information on the probability of an accident.Study5was a3(probability for plant)×3 (comparison story)design with nine groups corresponding to the cells of Table8.There were3types of comparison information given to three different groups of respondents. One group of respondents saw:
For comparison purposes,consider a small town in the mountains of Colorado where there is snow cover for a few months every year and the mountain roads have sharp
Table8.Design of Study5
Comparison story High probability Medium probability Low probability
1car1in6501in63001in68,000
1car/1?sh1in6501in63001in68,000
2?sh1in6501in63001in68,000
114KUNREUTHER,NOVEMSKY AND KAHNEMAN curves.For a driver in this town,the estimated probability of his or her death from
a car accident is1in5900per year.
Asecond group of respondents saw the following comparison:
For comparison purposes,consider a small town in the mountains of Colorado where there is snow cover for a few months every year and the mountain roads have sharp curves.For a driver in this town,the estimated probability of his or her death from
a car accident is1in5900per year.For someone who eats well cooked,but not raw
shell?sh once a week at a reputable restaurant,the estimated probability of death from food poisoning is1in66,000per year.
The third group saw:
For comparison purposes,consider someone in a small?shing town who eats raw shell?sh every week that are purchased directly from small unlicensed?shing boats before the?sh have been inspected.This person’s estimated probability of death from food poisoning is approximately1in5900per year.For someone who eats well cooked,but not raw shell?sh once a week at a reputable restaurant,the estimated probability of death from food poisoning is1in66,000per year.
Results.The means of the perceived risk are displayed in Table9.Three separate one-way ANOV As were performed,one for each comparison story.Respondents who saw the1car comparison story showed a signi?cant effect of probability on perceived risk (F(2,129)=7.48,p=.001).The1car/l?sh comparison produced non-signi?cant effects of probability on perceived risk(F(2,124)=1.74,ns).The2?sh comparison produced the largest effects in this study(F(2,137)=16.0,p<.001).
Conclusions.Table10shows the effects of different comparison points on respondents’ability to use the probability value associated with chemical plant accidents.Respon-dents who saw a comparison point of car travel without any story to induce a feeling of riskiness(Study2)did not appear to use the probability value associated with the chemical plant in judging the risk posed by the plant.Acomparison point in Study5 of car travel with a story that produced a feeling of riskiness in respondents produced a larger response to the probability scale(1Car/Story).
Respondents in Study5who saw two comparison points with risks and stories that were not readily comparable(1Car/1Fish),were not able to get a sense of how to map probability distances onto riskiness.However,when people in Study4were offered two
Table9.Mean perception of risk of chemical plant for different comparison sto-
ries and different probabilities associated with chemical accidents(Study5)
Comparison story High probability Medium probability Low probability
1car 3.75 3.42 3.00
1car/1?sh 3.84 3.57 3.51
2?sh 3.52 3.24 2.64
MAKING LOW PROBABILITIES USEFUL115
Table10.Results for different comparison values
Difference in perceived risk
between high and low
Chemical plant value Comparison probabilities
Study2:One value1Car/No Story 54
Study5:One value1Car/Story 75
Study5:One value1Car1Fish/Story 33
Study5:One value2Fish/Story 88
Study4:One value2Cars/Story1 41
Study3:All three values1Car/No Story1 86
comparison points that have distinctive feelings of risk that can be readily compared to each other(2Cars/Story)their differences in perceived risk between high and low prob-abilities of a chemical accident was almost as large as when respondents were given all three probability values for the three different chemical plants(Study3).These compar-ison points(2Cars/Story)not only gave respondents an anchor point for the scale,but also a sense of how distance on the probability scale maps onto differences in feelings of riskiness.
There are a couple of possible reasons why the2Cars/Story comparisons evoked larger differences in perceived probability of chemical accidents than the2Fish/Story scenario.First,the car accident risk may be easier for respondents to visualize than the ?sh risk.We have lots of images of curvy roads,mangled cars,and people in stretchers next to the highway that we associate with car accidents.For the?sh story it is less clear which images come to mind.Do respondents imagine discolored?sh or a person looking nauseous after eating the?sh?These images seem less accessible and less vivid. Comparison risks that have vivid images that easily come to mind may be the most effective way to sensitize people to varying levels of riskiness.
Another reason why the car comparison may have worked better than the?sh com-parison is the amount of experience respondents have with each type of risk.Most respondents have spent time riding in cars,seeing accidents on the side of the road,and viewing videos of accidents on TV or in a driver education class.Respondents most likely have limited if any experience with the risks associated with poisonous?sh.What makes one comparison risk more effective than another is an important question for future research.
3.1.The psychology of low probability risks
The notion of evaluability recently introduced by Hsee and his colleagues(Hsee et al., 1999;Hsee,1996)provides a theoretical basis for our results.In our experiments respon-dents were asked to use a small probability value as part of a judgment of riskiness. Using Hsee’s framework,we would say that the small probabilities are not readily evalu-able by respondents in the absence of context information.As individuals are provided
116KUNREUTHER,NOVEMSKY AND KAHNEMAN with increasingly useful context information,the probabilities become more and more evaluable.
Consider people trying to evaluate the riskiness of a chemical plant in the absence of any context information.They are given a single low probability value as part of a description and asked to make a risk judgment.If they have no idea whether the prob-ability represents a high or low risk,they will not be able to use that value in forming their risk judgment.Now consider the respondents in Study2who are given information about the probability of death for car travel.They are shown a probability for the chemi-cal plant that is either above or below the probability for car travel.If respondents do not have a well-de?ned feeling of risk for car travel,this context information will not help them evaluate the chemical plant.Respondents will be left thinking,“The chemical plant may be safer than car travel,but exactly how safe is car travel?”The results of Study2, in fact,show little effect of the probability of a chemical accident on its perceived safety when a car travel scenario is introduced.
Now,consider the respondents in Study5who are not only given the probability of death from car travel in Colorado but also a few sentences about driving in Colorado. The image of windy snow-covered roads is more likely to evoke a speci?c feeling of risk than reference to car travel in general.Some respondents see a probability of a chemical plant accident that is higher than the Colorado value and others see a probability that is lower.It is not surprising that these respondents had different feelings about the risk associated with the chemical plant.
While these respondents could judge less safe/more safe,they may not be very sensitive to the size of probability differences.Respondents could readily compare probabilities when given two scenarios,one involving a car accident in Colorado and the other a car accident in Arizona with a few sentences describing each event.This comparison can help them infer how distances along the probability dimension map onto distances along the riskiness scale.The two-car scenarios allow them to deduce that an order of magnitude change in probability corresponds roughly to the difference between driving on windy snowy mountain roads and driving on straight clear roads.When they see a chemical plant that is an order of magnitude less safe than driving in Colorado,they have a sense of how much less safe that really is.This results in even more sensitivity to probability.
The respondents who saw a few sentences about driving in Colorado and a few sen-tences about eating raw shell?sh were given two risky scenarios,but these scenarios were harder to compare with each other.How much more dangerous is driving on snowy roads than eating raw shell?sh in a reputable restaurant?Comparing driving risks to food risks may not leave respondents with a speci?c notion of relative risk.In fact,this comparison can even confuse respondents about how to map probabilities onto the risk scale and may lead to less use of probability information when evaluating the chemical plant. We have seen that context information can have a large effect on people’s ability to use small probabilities in forming risk judgments.We conclude that there needs to be fairly rich context information available for people to be able to judge differences between low probability events.In particular,people need comparison scenarios that are located on the probability scale and evoke people’s own feelings of risk.It is also very useful for
MAKING LOW PROBABILITIES USEFUL117 these contextual scenarios to be comparable to each other for people to get a sense of how differences in probability map onto differences in riskiness.
Finally we were surprised to?nd that insurance premium differentials did not enable respondents to differentiate between chemical accident risks better than differences in probabilities.We initially hypothesized that people’s familiarity with insurance premiums would make it easier for them to differentiate between high and low dollar?gures,so that this information would serve as a signal of the relative safety of the chemical plant. Even when context-scenarios are provided to the respondent as in Study3,people appear to make better distinctions between the riskiness of the chemical plant when probability information is given to them than when insurance premiums are provided.Our results suggest that insurance premiums in isolation may not be the best communicators of risk. The potential role that insurance can play as a signal for safety is an area that needs further research.
4.Implications of?ndings
The studies highlight the need to give individuals enough context to draw on their own experiences and well-developed risk perceptions,if we are to ask them to evaluate an unfamiliar risk which has a small likelihood of occurring.Aprobability or insurance premium scale does not directly convey a feeling of riskiness.The feelings associated with different probabilities may be highly context dependent.In fact,if we had used different comparison points,we might have induced different perceptions of the chemical plant’s risk.
Our?ndings have implications for risk management and policy.In the past,agencies such as the EPAhave relied on command and control procedures for enforcing spe-ci?c safety rules with only mixed success(Davies and Mazurek,1998).More recently there has been an interest in market mechanisms such as third party inspections coupled with insurance as alternatives to these traditional procedures(Orts,1995;Kunreuther, McNulty,and Kang,2001).The fact that safer?rms may be charged less for insurance could be a byproduct of such inspections.Perhaps by providing the public with these rate differentials or probability values in the context of an inspection process,one may be able to improve the risk communication process.As the above studies have shown,if one only gives individuals data on probabilities or insurance premiums this will not do the trick.
Our?ndings also have implications for consumers choosing protective measures for themselves and their property.If individuals are expected to distinguish different levels of risk posed by events with different probabilities of occurrence,they need more than to simply be made aware of the probability value,If perception is to accurately re?ect the probability of relevant risks,the public needs substantial context information to allow appropriate evaluation of this risk.In our studies,this required giving individuals,not simply a comparison point or a dollar scale,but giving them scenarios that elicit their feelings of risk and linking them up with the probability scale.
118KUNREUTHER,NOVEMSKY AND KAHNEMAN Appendix
Please answer the following questions,after reading the scenario:
1.Circle how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: The ABC Chemicals plant poses serious health and safety risks for those cur-rently living in the community.
12345
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
It is possible for the plant to operate at its current location in a manner that is safe for the community.
12345
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
Accidents are inevitable despite the best precautions,and the community just has to accept that some accidents will occur at the plant.
12345
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
2.On a scale of1to5,circle how serious do you think the risk of death is posed by each of the following items.(1=not serious,5=very serious)
Car accidents12345
Food poisoning12345
Accidents on the job12345
Heart disease12345
Homes?res12345
Syntox used at the ABC
Chemicals plant12345
Airplane accidents12345
MAKING LOW PROBABILITIES USEFUL119
3.Circle how close to the ABC Chemicals plant you would be willing to live. Please base your decision solely on the safety of the plant,assuming that the plant is
otherwise an ideal neighbor.
Adjacent to the plant1
Not adjacent,but within1/2mile2
Within1/2to1mile3
Within1to3miles4
Over3miles5
Would not be willing to live in the6
community because of the plant
Acknowledgments
We appreciate useful discussions with Paul Slovic and Chris Hsee and an anonymous ref-eree of an earlier draft of this paper.Linda Bornayesz was helpful in administering earlier versions of the ABC Chemical scenarios.Special appreciation is due to Grace Katagiri and Till von Wachter for administering the surveys at the San Francisco Exploratorium. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the Society for Judgment and Decision-Making annual meeting where helpful comments were received.
Note
1.We did not vary the order of presentation of the three chemical plants in presenting the scenarios to
individuals.We do not anticipate that order had any effect,since respondents were answering each question for plant1then plant2then plant3before moving on to the next question.In the questionnaire layout,we expect that individuals had all three plants in mind each time they provided a response.
References
Camerer,Colin and Howard Kunreuther.(1989).“Decision Processes for Low Probability Events:Policy Impli-cations,”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management8,565–592.
Davies,Clarence and Jan Mazurek.(1998).Pollution Control in the United States.Washington,DC:Resources for the Future.
Er,Jwee Ping,Howard Kunreuther,and Isadore Rosenthal.(1998).“Utilizing Third Party Inspections for Preventing Major Chemical Accidents,”Risk Analysis18,145–154.
Hogarth,Robin and Howard Kunreuther.(1995).“Decision Making Under Ignorance:Arguing with Yourself,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty10,15–36.
Hsee,Chris.(1996).“The Evaluability Hypothesis:An Explanation of Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes46,247–257. Hsee,Chris,Sally Blount,George Loewenstein,and Max Bazerman.(1999).“Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options:AReview and Theoretical A nalysis,”Psychological Review125, 576–590.
120KUNREUTHER,NOVEMSKY AND KAHNEMAN
Huber,O.,R.Wider,and O.Huber.(1997).“Active Information Search and Complete Information Presentation in Naturalistic Risky Decision Tasks,”Acta Psychologica95,15–29.
Kunreuther,Howard,Patrick McNulty,and Yong Kang.(2001).“Third Party Inspection as an Alternative to Command and Control Regulation.”In Kurt Deketelaere and Eric W.Orts(eds.),Environmental Contracts: Comparative Approaches to Regulatory Innovation in the United States and Europe.The Hague:Kluwer Law International.
Magat,Wes,Kip Viscusi,and Joel Huber.(1987)“Risk-Dollar Tradeoffs,Risk Perceptions,and Consumer Behavior.”In W.Viscusi and W.Magat(eds.),Learning About Risk,p.83–97.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.
McClelland,Gary,William Schulze,and Don Coursey.(1993).“Insurance for Low-Probability Hazards: ABimodal Response to Unlikely Events,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty7,95–116.
Oberholzer-Gee,Felix.(1998).“Learning to Bear the Unbearable:Towards an Explanation of Risk Ignorance,”mimeo,Wharton School,University of Pennsylvania.
Orts,Eric.(1995).“Re?exive Environmental Law,”Northwestern University Law Review89.
Slovic,Paul,Baruch Fischhoff,and Sara Lichtenstein.(1978).“Accident Probabilities and Seat Belt Usage: APsychological Perspective,”Accident Analysis and Prevention10,281–285.
Stone,E.,F.Yates,and A.Parker.(1994).“Risk Communication:Absolute versus Relative Expressions of Low-Probability Risks,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes60,387–408. Weinstein,N.,K.Kolb,and B.Goldstein.(1996).“Using Time Intervals between Expected Events to Com-municate Risk Magnitudes,”Risk Analysis16,305–398.
爱护环境低碳生活演讲稿范文5篇
爱护环境低碳生活演讲稿范文5篇 篇一 亲爱的老师、同学们： 大家好! 同学们，你们是否想生活在这样的环境里：在蔚蓝的天空中，小鸟正在自由自在的飞翔;在茂密的森林中，小动物们正在快乐地嬉闹;大片大片绿油油的草地，是小虫子们的乐园;在清澈见底的小河里，鱼儿们开心地游来游去;在漂亮的花园里，美丽的蝴蝶上下翻飞，空气里流动着鲜花的芳香……但是，这一切，都离现实太远太远了。现在，洪水、泥石流、地震、森林火灾、海啸、龙卷风、沙尘暴等自然灾害屡屡骚扰着人类，对人类造成威胁。那么，是谁使我们的地球母亲变成这个样子了呢?就是我们人类。由于人类不保护环境，大量土地被占用，大量树木被砍伐，空气、河水被污染……你是不是觉得，我们人类是一群只为自己生活得舒服，而不为我们生活的地球着想的可恶物种?还好，现在人们已经意识到了这一点，已经开始大力提倡“环保低碳生活”。 什么是“环保低碳生活”呢?就是就是指生活作息时所
耗用的能量要尽力减少，从而减低碳，特别是二氧化碳的排放量，从而减少对大气的污染，进而减少资源的浪费，最终减少对环境的破坏。那么，如何做到环保低碳生活呢?比如说，不浪费粮食;多吃素食，少吃肉食，为大自然节约能量;每天的淘米水可以用来洗手、擦家具、浇花，干净卫生，自然滋润;出门购物，自己带环保袋;出门自带喝水杯，减少使用一次性杯子;不乱丢垃圾;爱护花草，喜欢的话就养些窗台植物，能绿化的地方就别闲着，也会是一点贡献;少用汽车和空调;在家随手关灯;出门前提前几分钟关空调;合理使用电风扇;用纸时要节约;少用一次性筷子、一次性塑料袋;食用绿色食品;远离白色垃圾! 有人说，这不是很容易吗?对，环保低碳确实不难，但贵在坚持。就让我们从点点滴滴做起，让大地拥抱绿色，让低碳拥抱地球! 爱护环境低碳生活演讲稿篇二 亲爱的老师、同学们： 大家好! 低碳，顾名思义，就是较低的温室气体排放，而温室气体以二氧化碳为主。所以，较低的温室气体排放说得通俗点
倡导低碳生活的意义
倡导低碳生活的意义 低碳经济是以低能耗、低污染、低排放为基础的经济模式，是人类社会继农业文明、工业文明之后的又一次重大进步。低碳经济实质是能源高效利用、清洁能源开发、追求绿色GDP的问题，核心是能源技术和减排技术创新、产业结构和制度创新以及人类生存发展观念的根本性转变。 减碳经济产业体系包括火电减排、新能源汽车、建筑节能、工业节能和循环经济、资源回收、环保设备和节能材料等。 低碳经济是一种正在兴起的经济形态和发展模式,包含低碳产业、低碳技术、低碳城市、低碳生活等一系列新内容。它通过大幅度提高能源利用效率,大规模使用可再生能源与低碳能源,大范围研发温室气体减排技术,建设低碳社会,维护生态平衡。发展低碳经济既是一场涉及生产方式、生活方式、价值观念、国家权益和人类命运的全球性革命,又是全球经济不得不从高碳能源转向低碳能源的一个必然选择。 一是我国人均能源资源拥有量不高,探明量仅相当于世界人均水平的51%。这种先天不足再加上后天的粗放利用,客观上要求我们发展低碳经济。 二是碳排放总量突出。按照联合国通用的公式计算,碳排放总量实际上是4个因素的乘积:人口数量、人均GDP、单位GDP的能耗量(能源强度)、单位能耗产生的碳排放(碳强度)。我国人口众多,经济增长快速,能源消耗巨大,碳排放总量不可避免地逐年增大,其中还包含着出口产品的大量"内涵能源"。我们靠高碳路径生产廉价产品出口,却背上了碳排放总量大的"黑锅"。在一些发达国家将气候变化当作一个政治问题之后,我国发展低碳经济意义尤为重大。 三是"锁定效应"的影响。在事物发展过程中,人们对初始路径和规则的选择具有依赖性,一旦作出选择,就很难改弦易辙,以至在演进过程中进入一种类似于"锁定"的状态,这种现象简称"锁定效应"。工业革命以来,各国经济社会发展形成了对化石能源技术的严重依赖,其程度也随各国的能源消费政策而异。发达国家在后工业化时期,一些重化工等高碳产业和技术不断通过国际投资贸易渠道向发展中国家转移。中国倘若继续沿用传统技术,发展高碳产业,未来需要承诺温室气体定量减排或限排义务时,就可能被这些高碳产业设施所"锁定"。因此,我国在现代化建设的过程中,需要认清形势,及早筹划,把握好碳预算,避免高碳产业和消费的锁定,努力使整个社会的生产消费系统摆脱对化石能源的过度依赖。 四是生产的边际成本不断提高。碳减排客观上存在着边际成本与减排难度随减排量增加而增加的趋势。1980-1999年的19年间,我国能源强度年均降低了5.22%;而1980-2006年的26年间,能源强度年均降低率为3.9%。两者之差,隐含着边际成本日趋提高的事实。另外,单纯节能减排也有一定的范围所限。因此,必须从全球低碳经济发展大趋势着眼,通过转变经济增长方式和调整产业结构,把宝贵的资金及早有序地投入到未来有竞争力的低碳经济方面。 五是碳排放空间不大。发达国家历史上人均千余吨的二氧化碳排放量,大大挤压了发展中国家当今的排放空间。我们完全有理由根据"共同但有区别的责任"原则,要求发达国家履行公约规定的义务,率先减排。2006年,我国的人均用电量为2060度,低于世界平均水平,只有经合组织国家的1/4左右,不到美国的1/6。但一次性能源用量占世界的16%以上,二氧化碳排放总量超过了世界的20%,同世界人均排放量相等。这表明,我国在工业化和城市化进程中,碳排放强度偏高,而能源用量还将继续增长,碳排放空间不会很大,应该积极发展低碳经济。
低碳基本知识
“低碳生活”(low-carbonlife)，就是指生活作息时所耗用的能量要尽力减少，从而减低碳，特别是二氧化碳的排放量，从而减少对大气的污染，减缓生态恶化，主要是从节电节气和回收三个环节来改变生活细节。 基本概念 所谓“低碳生活（low-carbon life）”。就是把生活作息时间所耗用的能量要尽量减少，从而减低二氧化碳的排放量。低碳生活，对于我们这些普通人来说是一种生活态度。也成为人们推进潮流的新方式。它给我们提出的是一个愿不愿意和大家共创造低碳生活的问题。我们应该积极提倡并去实践低碳生活，要注意节电、节气、熄灯一小时……从这些点滴做起。除了植树，还有人买运输里程很短的商品，有人坚持爬楼梯，形形色色，有的很有趣，有的不免有些麻烦 二氧化碳 但关心全球气候变暖的人们却把减少二氧化碳实实在在地带入了生活转向低碳生活方式的重要途径之一，是戒除以高耗能源为代价的“便利消费”嗜好。“便利”是现代商业营销和消费生活中流行的价值观。不少便利消费方式在人们不经意中浪费着巨大的能源。比如，据制冷技术专家估算，超市电耗70%用于冷柜，而敞开式冷柜电耗比玻璃门冰柜高出20%。由此推算，一家中型超市敞开式冷柜一年多耗约4.8万度电，相当于多耗约19吨标煤，多排放约48吨二氧化碳，多耗约19万升净水。上海约有大中型超市近800家，超市便利店6000家。如果大中型超市普遍采用玻璃门冰柜，顾客购物时只需举手之劳，一年可节电约4521万度，相当于节省约1.8万吨标煤，减排约4.5万吨二氧化碳。在中国，年人均CO2排放量2.7吨，但一个城市白领即便只有40平居住面积，开1.6L车上下班，一年乘飞机12次，碳排放量也会在2611千克。由此看来，节能减排势在必行。如果说保护环境、保护动物、节约能源这些环保理念已成行为准则，低碳生活则更是我们急需建立的绿色生活方式。“低碳生活”虽然是新概念，但提出的却是世界可持续发展的老问题，它反映了人类因气候变化而对未来产生的担忧，世界对此问题的共识日益增多。全球变暖等气候问题致使人类不得不考量目前的生态环境。 个人意识 人类意识到生产和消费过程中出现的过量碳排放是形成气候问题的重要因素之一，因而要减少碳排放就要相应优化和约束某些消费和生产活动。尽管仍有学者对气候变化原因有不同的看法，但由于“低碳生活”理念至少顺应了人类“未雨绸缪”的谨慎原则和追求完美的心理与理想，因此“宁可信其有，不愿信其无”，“低碳生活”理念也就渐渐被世界各国所接受。低碳生活的出现不仅告诉人们，你可以为减碳做些什么，还告诉人们，你可以怎么做。在这种生活方式逐渐兴起的时候，大家开始关心，我今天有没有为减碳做些什么呢？在北京的八达岭，一个碳汇林林场已经成形。 林业碳汇 如果你想抵消掉自己的碳排放，可以来这里购买碳汇林或种树。林业碳汇是通过实施造林和森林经营管理、植被恢复等活动，植物叶片中的叶绿体通过光合作用吸收水，土里的无机盐和水分，释放氧气通过筛管把制造的有机物再运送到土里，土里的真菌和细菌再把有机物分解，从而产生物质循环，对于低碳方面来说起到减少空气中二氧化碳的作用。比起少开车、少开空调，购买碳汇林的主意，受到更多人的欢迎。目前，减缓气候变暖的主要措施是
绿色出行低碳生活从我做起
绿色出行低碳生活从我做起 古往今来，地球妈妈用甘甜的乳汁哺育了无数代子孙。几千年来，善良的人们把她装饰得楚楚动人。可是，现在人类为了自身的利益，将她折磨得天昏地暗。人人都知道，我们只有一个地球；而地球是人类与所有生命共同的地球。生命的延续，人类的生存，一刻也离不开自然资源。地球正面临着严峻的环境危机。“救救地球”已成为世界各国人民最强烈的呼声。 通过看电视、查资料，我明白了什么是“绿色出行、低碳生活”。“绿色出行、低碳生活”已逐渐成了人们生活中很时尚的话题。就是让我们每个公民都能自觉地履行保护环境的义务和职责。作为小学生的我，该做些什么呢？对了，我们应该从节水、节电、节油、节气做起，从点滴做起、从我做起、从家里做起。 首先，我跟爸爸妈妈开了个“绿色出行、低碳生活”的家庭会议，让他们知道：国家提倡“绿色出行、低碳生活”，并呼吁人们节能减排，保护环境。明白我们一家也应该积极响应号召。从节水、节电、节油、节气做起，从家庭做起。从而提高了爸爸妈妈“绿色出行、低碳生活”的意识。 平时，为了节省汽油，减少废气排放的污染，我不再让爸爸开车接送我上学放学，我和弟弟自己步行上学放学了。我还从节水节电做起，我每次洗完东西，就都把水龙头拧得紧紧地，不让水白白的流失掉，在洗手时下面放一个盆子接住用过的水，进行二次利用，并告诉爸爸妈妈洗完手别忘记关紧水龙头；把洗脸用过的水和洗米用过的水用来浇花，把洗菜用过的水用来拖地；洗衣服要尽量不用洗衣机，用手洗，把洗衣服用过的水用来冲厕所。这一项监督和搬水工作就由我来做了。 暑假的一天中午，太阳像个大火炉炙热地烤着大地，知了在树上叫个不停，热得人们不敢出门，这时，爸爸手拿着购物袋对我说：“妞，和爸爸一起去市场买点东西。”“好吧！”我高兴地说。只见爸爸推着自行车，不是推摩托车，就
低碳环保珍惜资源演讲稿五篇
低碳环保珍惜资源演讲稿五篇 导读：本文是关于低碳环保珍惜资源演讲稿五篇，希望能帮助到您！ 低碳环保珍惜资源演讲稿篇一 亲爱的老师、同学们： 大家好! 地球是我们共同的家园，如今，地球环境日益恶化，乱砍伐树木，乱扔垃圾，乱开采资源，随地吐痰的现象随处可见。地球妈妈向我们大声的呼唤：“低碳生活人人有责。” 今年的夏天，天气非常炎热，我和爸爸经常“躲”在家里看电视，突然有一天爸爸悄悄地离开沙发，走到空调下，拿起遥控“嘀嘀”地按了几下之后，又悄悄地回到了沙发上，又看精彩的电视节目。看了一会我们两个便是热的汗流浃背，我疑惑的问爸爸：“没停电怎么这么热，是空调坏了吗?”爸爸说：“没坏，我刚才把空调关了。”我生气的问：“为什么?”爸爸告诉我空调开一会屋里凉快了，我们就要把空调关上，这样可以减少排碳量，而且还节约用电，地球已经被人类破坏的不像样啦，我们也要注意尽量节约能源，降低排碳量。 平时我们可以用淘米水，洗衣服的水冲厕所，夜间把手机关掉，随时拔下插座，生活中的一些不经意的举动就可以做到低碳环保。 低碳生活是一种态度，我们应该从节电、节水、节碳、借由、节气这种小事做起，低碳生活是我们要建立的绿色生活方式，把生活中的一些小节做好就做到了基本的低碳生活。 “低碳，让世界更美好。”已经名副其实了，让大地少一些垃圾，让大
地多一些宽容。 低碳环保珍惜资源演讲稿篇二 亲爱的老师、同学们： 大家好! 地球是我们人类的家园，地球上生活着无数的生命，如果我们每个人为了个人利益，蓄意无止尽的破坏地球的生态平衡，那我们就会失去緑色的家园，所以日常生活中我们要学会低碳环保节能。 平时我们洗手时不要把水龙头开的太大，洗完手应该马上把水龙头关掉。到商场买东西时不要用一次性塑料袋，多用环保袋。平时节约用电做到人走关灯。尽量少开空调。电视机不要人睡了还开着。做到废物利用，比如鞋盒可以用来装东西，每天尽量步行骑车，少开汽车，因为汽车会排放大量的二氧化碳。 少用一次性纸巾，多用手帕，少用一次性筷子，因为这些东西都是树木做出来的，长期下去树木会越来越来少的，甚至绝灭，我们应该多植树少砍树。工厂少排放污染的空气和污水，还地球新鲜的空气和清澈的河水。我们不要往河里倒垃圾，平时去市场买菜提菜篮子，少用塑料袋，少一些白色污染，我相信以上几点我们大家一定能做到。 只要我们大家共同努力齐心协力节水省电，节能环保从身边的的点滴小事做起来保护我们的地球，人类就会少一次灾难，多一份幸福。低碳生活。只需要我们举手之劳。为了那一片蓝天永远蔚蓝，为了使森林永远茂盛，为了使河水永远清澈明净，为了使地球永远美丽，让我们共同努力吧。 低碳环保珍惜资源演讲稿篇三 亲爱的老师、同学们： 大家好!
低碳生活小窍门100招
低碳生活小窍门100招 节电 1.使用节能灯，随手关灯、拔插头。 2.少用空调多开窗。 3.尽量把工作放在白天做，可以省电。 4.微波炉使用“高档”更省电。 5.煮饭提前淘米，并浸泡10分钟，节电约10%。 6.热水器保温一天所用的电，比一箱凉水烧到相同温度还要低。 7.电视机屏幕调成中等亮度，既能省电又能保护视力。 8.及时清理吸尘器，否则会降低吸尘效率，增加耗电量。 9.洗衣机开强档比开弱档更省电，还能延长机器寿命。 10.饮水机等电器闲置时关掉电源。 11.使用太阳能，省电又省气。每个家庭安装2平方米的太阳能热水器，就可以满足全年70%的生活热水。 12.发条闹钟代替电子闹钟，可节约电池。 13.电池重复利用，大件电器上用过的电池可以放在小件电器上继续使用。耗电量比较大的用电器使用充电电池。 14.关掉不用的电脑程序，减少硬盘工作量，既省电也维护电脑。 15.短时间不用电脑，就转为睡眠模式；长时间不用，就关机。 16.空调选变频的，比普通空调耗电量低。 17.定期清洗空调，既健康又省电。 18.空调调高一度，节电7%，夏季空调不低于26℃。
19.空调开启几小时后关闭，马上开电风扇，省电近50%。 20.电扇放在通风处，可降低耗电量。 21.启动电扇时要选择高速挡，等风扇转上几分钟后，再调整到合适的挡位。 22.选用大小适中的冰箱，存放食物量以占容积的80%为宜，放得过多、过少都费电。 23.摆放冰箱时两侧及背部要留有适当的空间，通风良好，远离热源，避免直射。 24.食物放凉后再放入电冰箱。 25.尽量减少打开冰箱门的次数。 26.冰箱保持清洁，及时除霜。 27.夏季制作冰块和冷饮应安排在晚间，晚间气温较低，有利于冷凝器散热； 28.恰当选择箱温度，如鲜肉、鲜鱼的冷藏温度是-1℃左右，鸡蛋、牛奶的冷藏温度是3℃左右，蔬菜、水果的冷藏温度是5℃左右。 29.解冻食品，可先转移到冷藏室逐渐融化，以便使冷量转移入冷藏室，可省电。 节水 30.使用节水型洁具，循环用水。 31.温水洗衣自然晾晒。用30℃左右的温水洗衣服可以少用洗衣粉，同时少几道漂洗的程序，省水同时也更环保。 32.用洗菜、洗米水浇花。 33.洗手的时候先打湿手，然后关掉水龙头，再打肥皂，再打开龙头冲洗，水龙头的水不要开得太大。 34.下面条的热水或淘米水可用来洗碗，不用放洗洁精，洗得干净又环保。 35.隔夜的凉开水可以刷牙，洗脸，洗完之后还可以冲厕所。 36.清洗衣服的水用来洗抹布，擦洗地板。 37.雨水可以用来洗手、洗脚、浇花、拖地和冲厕所。
低碳生活心得体会两篇
低碳生活心得体会两篇 篇一：低碳生活的心得体会 “低碳生活”(low-carbonlife)，是指生活作息时所耗用的能量要尽力减少，从而减低碳，特别是二氧化碳的排放量，从而减少对大气的污染，减缓生态恶化，主要是从节电节气和回收三个环节来改变生活细节。 低碳生活，对于我们普通人来说，是一种态度，而不是能力，我们应该积极提倡并去实践低碳生活，注意节电、节油、节气，从点滴做起。 在中国，年人均二氧化碳排放量2.7吨，但一个城市白领即便只有40平方居住面积，开1.6L车上下班，一年乘飞机12次，碳排放量也会在2611吨。节能减排势在必行。现在我们国家对全世界公开承诺减排指标，决定到2020年温室气体排放比xx年下降40﹪—50﹪。低碳时代已经如约而至，正在改变着我们的生活。 如果说保护环境，保护动物，节约能源这些环保理念已成行为准则，低碳生活则更是我们急需建立的绿色生活方式。 低碳生活体现在一些良好的生活习惯上： 开短会也是一种节约，照明、空调、扩音用电都能省下来；即将过期的香水，可喷洒在塞入枕头的干燥花里、洗衣服的水中和拖过的地板上； 任何电器一旦不用立即拔掉插头；每张纸都双面打印，相当于保留下半片原本将被砍掉的森林；尽量选用公共交通，开车出门购物
要有购物计划，尽可能一次购足。多步行，骑自行车，坐轻轨地铁，少开车；开车节能，避免冷车启动，减少怠速时间，避免突然变速，选择合适挡位避免低档跑高速，定期更换机油，高速莫开窗，轮胎气压要适当；植树，通过植树造林等工作可以减少二氧化碳的排放量；每天的淘米水可以用来洗手擦家具，干净卫生，自然滋润；将废旧报纸铺垫在衣橱的最底层，不仅可以吸潮，还能吸收衣柜中的异味；用过的面膜纸也不要扔掉，用它来擦首饰、擦家具的表面或者擦皮带，不仅擦得亮还能留下面膜纸的香气；喝过的茶叶渣，把它晒干，做一个茶叶枕头，又舒适，还能帮助改善睡眠；出门尽量带上自己的必需品，少使用一次性牙刷、一次性塑料袋、一次性水杯等。 为了保护环境，减少碳的排放，我由此联想到我们生活的衣食住行。 衣：少买不必要的衣服。一件普通的衣服从原料到成衣再到最终被遗弃，都在排放二氧化碳。少买一件不必要的衣服可以减少25千克二氧化碳的排放。另外，棉质也是低碳生活的一部分。 食：多食素。产生1千克牛肉排放365千克二氧化碳。而果蔬所排放的二氧化碳量仅为该数值的1∕9。另外本地的果蔬和水也比外地运输来的二氧化碳量小。 住：选择小户型，不过度装修，减少1千克装修钢材，可减排二氧化碳1—9克。 行：少开车，选小排量车，如果出行选择公共交通工具或自行车，二氧化碳排放量将会更少。
爱护环境低碳生活的演讲稿
爱护环境低碳生活的演讲稿 爱护环境低碳生活的演讲稿 “低碳生活”的倡导，是我们当今提高生活质量和经济、社会可持续发展的迫切需要.近二百多年来，工业化的推进，在给人类生活提供更多便利和福祉的同时，也带来大量二氧化碳的排放，从而导致地球的生态环境日渐恶化。这里给大家分享一些关于爱护环境低碳生活的演讲稿，供大家参考。 爱护环境低碳生活的演讲稿1 低碳生活是指把生活作息时间所耗用的能量减少，减低二氧化碳的排放量。现在，我们居住的地球面对的一个严峻问题就是怎样有效地控制二氧化碳的排放量。的确，现实生活中工厂任意排放的废气，汽车和摩托车越来越多，人们大量砍伐树木、使用一次性用品等等。人类的各种行为正在不断污染着地球的臭氧层。如果再任其发展下去，在不久的将来，地球肯定会不堪重负的。据一些科学家预测，照此速度发展，地球可能只有200年的生命了。 为了我们碧水蓝天的家园，同学们，我们一定要行动起来，努力弥补。 我们每个人都是地球的主人，积极实践低碳生活，做保护地球的卫士是每个人的责任。亲爱的同学们，新学期，节约能源，低碳生活，你们准备好了吗?下面老师给大家提几个建议： 一、为新书穿上环保的新衣 新学期到来，同学们拿到新书，以往都是买塑料书皮，或者买漂亮的包装纸包书皮。全校几千名学生，每个人平均新书六七本，要花费多少钱啊！更重要的是，这些塑料书皮和漂亮包装纸制作要浪费能源，塑料书皮使用后还会产生白色垃圾。不妨用旧挂历、海报、牛皮纸等材料包书皮，既利于环保，还可以跟着爸爸妈妈学习，学会自己包，锻炼动手能力。 二、把没有用完的本子整合起来 新学期，新气象，文具换新的，本子买新的，书包里焕然一新。前一学期好多没用完的本子也自然被淘汰了。据资料显示，生产一吨文化纸要用20多棵树龄在20至40年的树木，需要消耗水100吨、电600度、煤1.2吨、化工原料
低碳生活倡议书(15篇)
低碳生活倡议书第1篇： 全体少先队员们: 绿色生命的基调，绿色礼貌的组成部分。过低碳生活，创造绿色家园，我们要行动起来。为此，**学校少先大队向全体队员发出如下倡议: 1.购买简单包装的商品，选购绿色产品、绿色食物，倡导绿色消费。 2.少用一次性制品(木筷、纸杯、纸巾等)。 3.使用节能电器，电器使用后完全关掉电源，节俭用电。 4.多骑自行车、多坐公交车，为节能减排出力。 5.重复使用纸张，双面打印，多发电子贺卡、电子邮件，保护森林。 6.对垃圾进行分类，回收资源。 7.进取向家人和周围的人宣传低碳生活的重要意义。 亲爱的队员们，过低碳生活，做绿色公民，我们一齐行动吧! 低碳生活倡议书第2篇： 环境发展的基础，发展依靠于环境，仅有转变发展方式，人类才能拥有未来。在认识环境，了解环境的同时，我们更应当审视我们的过去，思索我们的未来。保护环境的关键在于你、我、他的共同参与，在于我们每个人保护环境的职责感和使命感。我们倡议： 一、在社区及公共场所宣传环保知识，提高广大公众的环保意识，参与社区的环保实践和监督。 二、从我做起，从此刻做起，从身边的小事做起，提倡绿色生活，节俭资源，减少污染，绿色消费，支持环保。 三、进取认真搞好居住社区、公共场所的绿化、美化、净化，清除或有效控制日常生活中产生的污染，对环境少一分破坏，多一份关爱，共建绿色家园。 四、全面提高环境与发展意识，树立正确的环境价值观和环境道德风尚。负起环境职责，促进社会、经济和环境的可持续发展。 五、认真贯彻国家方针政策，法律、法规，进取从事和广泛参与环保工作，为改善人类居住环境作出实质性贡献。
六、为了我们自我，为了我们的子孙后代，为了我们共有的家园，保护环境应当成为我们每个人的自觉行动。让我们把绿色奉为梦想，把梦想化为行动，用热情和努力奏响追求绿色与和谐梦想的乐章，从此刻起，从身边做起，共创繁荣、礼貌、和谐的辛集。 低碳生活倡议书第3篇： 同志们、朋友们： 你们好! 当我们看到祖国的北疆面临严重的冰冻雪灾时，当我们听到我国西南部分地区遭遇百年不遇的大旱时，当我们从T恤直接过渡到羽绒服时，当我们偶尔抬头发现天空已经不那么湛蓝时，我们不都在不约而同的问一个问题：我们的地球到底怎样了 随着气候变暖成为全球共同关注的问题，低碳生活也成为当今社会最流行、最时尚的词汇。低碳生活，对于我们普通人来说，既一种态度，更一种职责，我们应进取提倡并从点滴做起，注意节水、节电、节油、节气、节煤。倡导低碳生活、建设生态绿色新家园我们每个人的职责，在此向开发区管委会的广大干部、职工发出倡议： 一、树立“节能减排”意识，提升环保理念，做低碳生活的引领者 牢固树立健康生活、绿色生活理念，将科学使用资源、保护地球家园、节能降耗的低碳生活方式自觉贯穿到日常生活中去。坚持学习低碳生活知识，养成低碳生活习惯，构成低碳生活共识，做“低碳生活”的引领者。进取主动参加低碳活动，把低碳生活落到实处。 二、学习“节能减排”知识、倡导绿色生活，做低碳生活的宣传者 自觉学习运用生活领域中的节能环保新技术，推广使用新能源、新材料，使用并开发有效的节电、节油、节气、节煤、节水和资源回收及废物利用的方法，进取探寻和总结低碳生活小窍门，征集应用低碳生活金点子，把学习到的节能减碳的好点子、好方法带生活中。再将好经验推广给大家，进取宣传低碳生活理念，带头推广低碳生活行为，做到低碳生活“1+2”甚至“1+更多”，以点带面，争做节能减碳的宣传者。 三、应用“节能减排”技巧，践行低碳生活方式，做低碳生活的实践者 改变传统的消费陋习和消费模式，戒除“便利消费”，摒弃“面子消费”、“奢侈消费”，减少生活中的碳排放，努力推进人与资源环境、人与社会的可持续发展;从生活中的每一天、每一件小事做起;从此刻做起，从自身做起，从节俭“一滴水、一度电、一粒米、一克油、一张纸”做起，进取践行低碳生活方式，努力使自我成为“低碳一族”。 为此，开发区发起成立了低碳俱乐部，开通了低碳QQ群，旨在为大家供给一个交流活动的平台。开发区低碳俱乐部倡导低碳生活方式、关注生态、保护环境。我们的理念：低碳生活、从我做起，我们的口号：今日你低碳了吗低碳俱乐部秉承自愿的方式加入，欢迎爱好低碳生活的朋友进取参与，共同携手建设完美的绿色家园，还未来一个清凉的世界。
节能低碳演讲稿3篇
节能低碳演讲稿3篇 ----WORD文档，下载后可编辑修改---- 下面是小编收集整理的范本，欢迎您借鉴参考阅读和下载，侵删。您的努力学习是为了更美好的未来！ 节能低碳演讲稿篇一 尊敬的各位老师、亲爱的同学们： 大家早上好!今天我的国旗下讲话的主题是：践行节能低碳，建设美丽家园。相信大家知道，长久以来，人们为了谋求经济利益，不择手段的破坏已经使我们生活的地球伤痕累累，环境问题日益突出。废气，污水，白色垃圾正笼罩着我们居住的地球，如果继续任其发展下去，我们世世代代赖以生存的地球就会在宇宙中消失。因此，我们国家为了宣传节能低碳，在全社会树立和普及生态文明理念，努力建设美丽中国，为实现中国梦贡献力量。国家决定，今年6月15日至21日为全国节能宣传周，6月17日为第一个“全国低碳日”。那我们怎么才能做到节能低碳，为建设美丽的家园出力呢? 1、节约每一滴水：洗手时调小水量，随手关闭水龙头，杜绝长流水，提高水的利用率。 2、节约每一升油：实行“135”出行方案(也就是说一公里内步行，三公里内骑自行车，五公里内乘坐交通工具。公务出行尽量采用拼车形式，实现绿色低碳出行。 3、节约每一度电：办公区域停开一天空调;有两台以上电梯的少开一台;停开门厅、走廊、楼梯等公共场所照明灯，做到人走灯灭，随手关灯、关闭电源开关，提倡“能用一盏不开多盏”，提倡在光线充足时不开灯。 4、节约每一张纸：在满足要求的前提下，注意打印格式尽量少用纸，提倡打印纸双面用;在进行普通复印时，复印机调到省墨状态，提倡双面复印;作业本、笔记本、教案本、粉笔等坚持用完;提倡无纸化办公。 “践行节能低碳，建设美丽家园”是一种承诺，是一份责任，更是一个理想。老师们、同学们，践行节能低碳的好方法还有很多，让我们携起手来，从现在做起，从点点滴滴的小事做起，共同宣传，共同努力，为建设更加美丽、富饶的家园做出自己的贡献。
低碳生活手抄报资料：低碳生活的意义.doc
低碳生活手抄报资料：低碳生活的意义 低碳生活的意义是什么?如果每一个人都行动起来，地球将会更美好。"低碳生活"(low-carbonlife)，就是指生活作息时所耗用的能量要尽力减少，从而减低碳，特别是二氧化碳的排放量，从而减少对大气的污染，减缓生生态恶化，主要是从节电节气和回收三个环节来改变生活细节。我国一直提倡节能减排，提倡可持续发展，坚持科学发展观。而低碳生活的提出，很好地响应了国家的号召，作为一种生活的理念，它所产生的影响应该首先从个人的生活开始，毕竟每个人是社会的一个细胞，而正是这千千万万的细胞构成了一个完整的社会。低碳生活能够为个人带来健康的生活方式，毕竟健康一直以来都是人们所关注的主题，没有了健康的身体，其它任何工作都无法正常开展。而低碳生活正迎合了人们对健康生活的要求，为人们能够生活得更加健康，更加时尚，更加幸福注入了一股清流，开阔了人们的视野，原来人是可以这样生活的，既能够使自己的身体很健康，又能够为国家的节能减排贡献自身的力量。我们可以深刻感受到低碳生活不仅仅只是国家的问题，它是涉及到每一个人的身心健康，涉及到每一个人的幸福生活的问题。对于个人而言，低碳生活是现今时代的一种时尚，它吹响了健康的号角，让人们追求健康不再成为一种奢侈，而是一种习惯，一种真正符合现代要求的生活。每一个人都接受了低碳生活的理念，那么，
人们就会自觉行动起来，真正节约资源，拒绝过渡饮食。倘若低碳生活的理念能够在社会开展开来，社会普遍接受了低碳生活的概念，真正用实际行动来体现低碳生活。通过低碳生活，节约能源，减少对不可再生资源的依赖，真正做到资源的循环再用。让低碳生活成为社会所提倡的主流，用实际行动落实节能减排的政策，真正做到可持续的发展。我们要学会用长远的眼光看问题，低碳生活对于我们国家的长远发展具有深远的影响。低碳生活的流行，势必形成一股潮流，在社会中蔓延开来，为国家谋发展促发展提供了更好的策略。 低碳生活的意义是什么?如果每一个人都行动起来，地球将会更美好。"低碳生活"(low-carbonlife)，就是指生活作息时所耗用的能量要尽力减少，从而减低碳，特别是二氧化碳的排放量，从而减少对大气的污染，减缓生生态恶化，主要是从节电节气和回收三个环节来改变生活细节。我国一直提倡节能减排，提倡可持续发展，坚持科学发展观。而低碳生活的提出，很好地响应了国家的号召，作为一种生活的理念，它所产生的影响应该首先从个人的生活开始，毕竟每个人是社会的一个细胞，而正是这千千万万的细胞构成了一个完整的社会。低碳生活能够为个人带来健康的生活方式，毕竟健康一直以来都是人们所关注的主题，没有了健康的身体，其它任何工作都无法正常开展。而低碳生活正迎合了人们对健康生活的要求，为人们能
低碳、节能小知识汇总
节能小知识 节能灯是人们在家庭中经常使用的节能产品,那么究竟应该如何正确使用节能灯,使其达到最佳节能效果呢记者日前从国家发展和改革委员会了解到,正确使用节能灯需注意以下五点： 1.注意灯上标注的使用电压,如果低电压钠灯在高电压电源下使用,灯就会烧毁。 2.用户应使用质量合格的品牌,警惕和拒绝使用劣质品。 3.注意选择和正确使用灯功率。节能灯的光效一般比白炽灯高5倍。原来使用60瓦白炽灯的地方,现只使用13瓦的节能灯就够了。 4.尽量减少灯的开关次数。每开关一次,灯的使用寿命大约降低3小时左右。 5.灯在使用一段时间以后,光通量就会大幅度下降,灯会越来越暗,这时要注意及时更换新灯。正确使用燃气做饭需注意以下六点 一、天然气燃烧时火焰呈红黄色说明缺氧,产生“脱火”现象则说明空气过多,此时可适当调整灶具风门,待火焰呈紫蓝色时,表示燃烧充分。 二、做饭时,应先把要做的食物准备好再点火,避免烧“空灶”;若是烧汤,炖东西,先用大火烧开,关小火只要保持锅内滚开而又不溢出就行。 三、做饭时,火的大小可根据锅的大小来决定,火焰分布的面积与锅底相平为最佳。 四、做饭时最好不要用蒸的方法,蒸饭时间是焖饭时间的3倍。 五、应先把锅、壶表面的水渍抹干再放到火上去,这样能使热能尽快传进锅内,节约用气。 六、若有风把火焰吹得摇摆不定,可用薄铁皮做一个“挡风罩”,这样能保证火力集中。避免家电待机 很多人为图方便，看完电视后用遥控器关掉就万事大吉，殊不知这样只是使电视处于待机状态，仍要耗费不少电能。记者从河北省发改委资源处了解到，各种家电长时间处于待机状态，会积少成多地消耗大量电能。 以电视机为例，平均每台电视每天待机2小时，待机耗电0.02度（千瓦时），我国电视机保有量3.5亿台，一年的待机耗电量高达25.55亿度，相当于几个大型火力发电厂一年的发电总额。 通俗地说，待机指的是关闭遥控器而不关闭电器开关或电源。现在的家电大多有待机功能，每台家电在待机状态耗电一般为其开机功率的10％左右，约5瓦－15瓦。城镇居民一般家庭拥有的电视、空调、音响、微波炉等的待机能耗加在一起，相当于开一只30瓦－50瓦的长明灯。经统计测算，家电普及率较高的城镇居民每户每月家电待机耗电达20度－40度。可以说，在日常生活中，一时方便的背后，造成了浪费。因此，大家应尽量不要使家电处于待机状态，而要关掉电器开关，或者彻底关掉电源。 生活中的污染 现代生活在带给我们享受的同时，也在制造危害健康的污染。许多人在享受现代生活的时候常常会忘掉这一点，忽略各种危险的污染源。在此我们列举贴近日常生活中的几类，提醒人们注意和重视。 污染之一：餐巾纸 人们使用餐巾纸原是出于卫生的考虑，但是如果餐巾纸本身不可靠，那就事与愿违了。 专家指出，由于农作物在种植过程中难免使用农药，因此诸如稻草、麦秆等纸原料中往往带
低碳生活,从我做起
“低碳生活，从我做起”活动方案 一、课题研究的背景 世界气候变化异常恶劣，环境污染日益严重，这已经深深地影响到了人们的生产和生活。如何降低碳排放成为人们关注的话题，对于普通百姓来说，从自身做起，从日常生活的点滴做起，从小事做起，做“低碳生活”的践行者，是延缓全球气候变暖的迫切需要。学生受各方面的影响，经常会向老师、家长询问相关问题。于是，我们决定以“低碳生活，从我做起”为活动主题，开展一次综合实践活动。 所谓“低碳生活”，就是指生活作息时所耗用的能量要尽力减少，从而降低二氧化碳的排放量。低碳生活，对于我们普通人来说是一种有责任的生活态度，而不是能力，我们应该积极提倡并去实践低碳生活，注意节电、节水、节油、节气，从这些点滴做起。通过“低碳生活从我做起”综合实践活动让同学们在低碳消费的过程中更多地了解低碳，从而让低碳理念融入同学们的生活之中，使其从日常生活中的每一小件事做起，真正走向低碳生活，建设美丽生态家园。 二、活动目标 1.知识与能力 通过实践体验活动，让学生了解什么是低碳生活，自己的日常生活离低碳还有多远，了解长期高碳生活将带来如何严重的后果。 2.过程与方法 （1）通过选择自己喜欢的内容，提出问题，找到有效解决问题的方法与途径。培养同学们多渠道搜集信息的能力。 （2）通过调查、考察、访问、汇报等多种途径，培养学生之间的合作交往能力，社会活动能力，信息处理能力以及科学探究精神。 3.情感、态度与价值观 （1）感受活动过程中合作交流的乐趣，对获得的成果有喜悦感、成就感。
（2）让学生明白环保节能的低碳生活与我们息息相关，也人人有责。引导学生从现在起逐步养成绿色生活方式和生活习惯，并做好环保小卫士和低碳生活的宣传者。 三、活动人员：七、八年级的全体学生 四、活动准备 1．教师准备：查阅有关资料（文字与影像）；制订方案与要点。 2．学生准备：分组、小组初步分工；准备实践活动所需要的相机、活动记录表…… 五、活动内容： 1.编写学校地低碳环保宣传活动策划及方案； 2.整理低碳资料，设计制作“低碳环保”宣传展板（诗歌、低碳环保小知识、环保小制作、小发明等）及横幅（低碳生活，从我做起）； 3.策划低碳环保游戏，组织同学们在课余时间进行； 4.给同学们分发低碳生活问卷调查表，收集相关数据，汇集同学们好的做法； 5.开展演讲比赛； 6.展示“低碳生活家庭日记”，评出优秀奖5名； 7.展示“变废为宝”创意设计比赛的优秀作品。 六、研究方法、手段、途径等 1、文献法我们通过互联网，书籍，报纸，杂志等各种渠道查询相关知识，了解低碳的现实意义。 2、调查问卷法 七、活动方式：写倡议书、开展校园节能活动、动手制作、实地考察写调查、上网收集资料等。 八、成果展示：图片、调查报告、绘画、手抄报、手工制作、节能金点子、节能日记等。 九、活动步阶段
过低碳生活演讲稿五篇
过低碳生活演讲稿五篇 过低碳生活演讲稿篇一 亲爱的老师、同学们： 大家好! 地球是我们共同的家园，如今，地球环境日益恶化，乱砍伐树木，乱扔垃圾，乱开采 资源，随地吐痰的现象随处可见。地球妈妈向我们大声的呼唤：“低碳生活人人有责。” 今年的夏天，天气非常炎热，我和爸爸经常“躲”在家里看电视，突然有一天爸爸悄 悄地离开沙发，走到空调下，拿起遥控“嘀嘀”地按了几下之后，又悄悄地回到了沙发上，又看精彩的电视节目。一会我们两个便是热的汗流浃背，我疑惑的问爸爸：“没停电怎么 这么热，是空调坏了吗?”爸爸说：“没坏，我刚才把空调关了。”我生气的问：“为什么?”爸爸告诉我空调开一会屋里凉快了，我们就要把空调关上，这样可以减少排碳量， 而且还节约用电，地球已经被人类破坏的不像样啦，我们也要注意尽量节约能源，降低排 碳量。 平时我们可以用淘米水，洗衣服的水冲厕所，夜间把手机关掉，随时拔下插座，生活 中的一些不经意的举动就可以做到低碳环保。 低碳生活是一种态度，我们应该从节电、节水、节碳、借由、节气这种小事做起，低 碳生活是我们要建立的绿色生活方式，把生活中的一些小节做好就做到了基本的低碳生活。 “低碳，让世界更美好。”已经名副其实了，让大地少一些垃圾，让大地多一些宽容。 过低碳生活演讲稿篇二 亲爱的老师、同学们： 大家好! 地球是我们人类的家园，地球上生活着无数的生命，如果我们每个人为了个人利益， 蓄意无止尽的破坏地球的生态平衡，那我们就会失去緑色的家园，所以日常生活中我们要 学会低碳环保节能。 平时我们洗手时不要把水龙头开的太大，洗完手应该马上把水龙头关掉。到商场买 东西时不要用一次性塑料袋，多用环保袋。平时节约用电做到人走关灯。尽量少开空调。 电视机不要人睡了还开着。做到废物利用，比如鞋盒可以用来装东西，每天尽量步行骑车，少开汽车，因为汽车会排放大量的二氧化碳。 少用一次性纸巾，多用手帕，少用一次性筷子，因为这些东西都是树木做出来的， 长期下去树木会越来越来少的，甚至绝灭，我们应该多植树少砍树。工厂少排放污染的空
低碳环保生活的含义
低碳环保生活的含义： 就是指生活作息时所耗用的能量要尽力减少，从而减低碳，特别是二氧化碳的排放量，从而减少对大气的污染，减缓生态恶化，主要是从节电节气和回收三个环节来改变生活细节。 温室效应的弊端： 温室气体让地球发高烧。200多年来，随着工业化进程的深入与发展，大量温室气体，尤其是二氧化碳的排出，导致全球气温升高、气候发生变化，这已是不争的事实。12月8日，世界气象组织提前公布的“2011 出，近1010 12月 ”，随着全球气温上升，生物形体在缩小，这从 2050年， 220万人。 感染。 活，已成为人类急需建立的生活方式。 1. 2. 得亮还能留下面膜纸的香气。 3. 4. 5.出门自带喝水杯，减少使用一次性杯子。 6.多用永久性的筷子、饭盒，尽量避免使用一次性的餐具。 7.养成随手关闭电器电源的习惯，避免浪费用电。 8.尽量少使用冰箱、空调，热时可用电扇或扇子。 9.每天使用传统的发条闹钟，取代电子闹钟。 10. 11. 12. 45分钟锻炼； 13.用节能灯替换45 14. 15. 16.
穿着皮草类衣物。 17.减少外出购物，如果必需购买，可选择上网购买。 18.在饮食上，应以素食为主，这并不是由于宗教信仰，而是畜牧业需要消耗更多的能源，相比之下果蔬要少得多。联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）主席暨2007年诺贝尔奖得主帕乔里博士(Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri) 表示: “不吃肉、骑脚踏车、少消费，就可以协助遏止全球暖化”。他在2008年1月的巴黎记者会上指出，他们去年公布的报告强调「改变生活方式的重要性」。 减碳生活窍门： 1.冰箱内存放食物的量以占容积的60%为宜，放得过多或过少，都费电。食品之间、食品与冰箱之间应留有约1厘米以上的空隙。用数个塑料盒盛水，在冷冻室制成冰后放入冷藏室，这样能延长停机时间、减少开机时间。 2.空调启动瞬间电流较大，频繁开关相当费电，且易损坏压缩机。将风扇放在空调内机下方，利用风扇风力提高制冷效果。空调开启后马上开电风扇。晚上可以不用整夜开空调，省电近90%。将空调设置在除湿模式工作，此时即使室温稍高也能令人感觉凉爽，且比制冷模式省电。 3.洗衣机在同样长的洗涤时间里，弱档工作时，电动机启动次数较多，也就是说，使用强档其实比弱档省电，且可延长洗衣机的寿命。按转速1680转/分（只适用涡轮式）脱水1分钟计算，脱水率可达55%。一般脱水不超过3分钟。再延长脱水时间则意义不大。 4.微波炉加热较干的食品加水后搅拌均匀，加热前用聚乙烯保鲜膜覆盖，或使用有盖的耐热的玻璃器皿加热。每次加热或烹调的食品以不超过0.5千克为宜，最好切成小块，量多时应分时段加热，中间加以搅拌。尽可能使用“高火”。为减少解冻食品时开关微波炉的次数，可预先将食品从冰箱冷冻室移入冷藏室，慢慢解冻，并充分利用冷冻食品中的“冷能”。 5.短时间不用电脑时，启用电脑的“睡眠”以下；关掉不 降低显示器的亮度。尽量不使用 式：需要立即恢复时采用“待机”、电池运用选“关机”；电池运用时，在WindowsXP/VISTA下，通过SpeedStep技术，CPU自动降频，功耗可降低40%。 6.煮蒸等用水去给食物加热做饭时，水沸腾后，要将火适当调小，只要不让水的温度下降就行（水的最高温度只能是100℃，无论用大火还是小火，只要不让水温降低，水的温度是不变的） ） 中脂肪、胆固醇等物质的过量摄入，患高血压等疾病的人也越来越多，而维生素的摄入却很缺乏。联合国于2006年发表的报告指出，畜牧养殖业的温室气体排放量比全球所有交通工具，包括飞机、火车、汽车、摩托车的总排放量还多。9、如果堵车的队伍太长，还是先熄了火，安心等会儿
低碳生活小窍门 低碳的生活方式
低碳生活小窍门低碳的生活方式，就是在生活的细节上注重节能减耗。除了做作业必须开灯之外，其余的事情都靠窗外的照明灯来相助。因为我们的客厅大，窗外的照明灯照进来都可以醒目地看到室内的一切，吃饭时，真像一桌“烛光晚餐”，这真是一大盏“天然的灯啊！” 只要我洗好手，就都把水龙头拧的紧紧地，不让水“逃”出来，这样，我就可以安心了。但我又担忧爸爸妈妈会不会做好，每次看见爸爸妈妈进洗手间洗手并顺其自然的把水龙头关紧，我十分高兴，我希望“低碳家庭”会做的更好。 冰箱里放着乱七八糟的东西，妈妈说很浪费电，我灵机一动，想出了妙招：于是，我就拿起以前堆积如山的硬纸板，把它做成一个个大小不一的盒子，上面贴上了各种分类的标志，然后，按分类去整理，不一会儿，冰箱变得又干净又整洁，焕然一新，一眼就目睹摆放整整齐齐的东西。这样，既帮助了我们，又节省了电。原来，电器开着，就连小小的手机电池在插座上插着时都会排放出可怕的二氧化碳，只要充完电就应该将电池立刻取下。我本来以为，二氧化碳只有汽车尾气、煤炭燃烧这些会排放，没想到生活中处处都有微弱的“碳”在侵害着我们大家的生活和地球。 每当我看见妈妈要把洗衣粉的桶扔掉时，我会上前去阻止。我会把它做成一个小垃圾桶，有的像个洋娃娃，粉嘟嘟的脸，可爱极了！有的又的像只小动物，活灵活现的，真像一道美丽的“风景”！当夜幕降临，晚饭过后，路边的霓虹灯为夜晚增添了一份光彩，老爸总是把家里所有的灯都关掉，只剩下一片伸手不见五指的黑暗中，然后，趴在窗户上，一边欣赏路边的风景，一边唱着一首歌：“月亮代表我的心……”真是五音不全，一塌糊涂。 养花是妈妈的爱好。家里的吊兰、常春藤一年四季都是绿意盎然。在每个炎炎的夏日，妈妈总会把花搬进家里来，大家看着那些绿色，允吸这那些绿色，心中顿时感觉丝丝的凉意，有了好空气又养眼，真是一举两得啊！这么好的家居环境，并且充满了创意的小欢乐。 有效降低碳排放量，不仅仅是国际和国家的事情，为了我们的生存环境不在加速恶化，我们每一个地方、每一个部门、每一个人都应该积极行动起来，想尽一切办法减少碳排放量。 长期以来的高碳排放，破坏了大气，破坏了自然生态系统，我们的生存环境已经受到威胁。要想想我们的子孙后代将来怎么生活。 我并非杞人忧天，我只觉得我们应该为减少碳排放，实实在在地做点事。所以，我要倡议大家： 1、减少开大会开长会，提倡少开会、开短会。这也是一种节约，照明、空调、扩音用电都能省下来；参加会议的人少了，车辆行动量也会减少，会议服务人员也会减少。 2、全面实行无纸化办公，多用电邮、MSN等即时通讯工具，最好不用用传真机和打印机；各级各部门取消纸质文件，只下发电子文档。 3、改革会议形式，尽量减少或者取消聚集式会议，大力提倡视频会议。 4、领导讲话稿也要改革，取消空洞的言语和大量的理论说教，只保留实质性的工作安排和具体要求。一般来说，过去一篇讲话稿四五千字，去除空话之后，不会超过1500字。 5、尽量节约用电，任何电器一旦不用立即拔掉插头；热水饮水机平时把电源关掉，喝水时再开起电源。要知道一台饮水机每天常开可耗电1.4度。 6、家庭做饭尽量取消煤火炉。 7、如果太阳能发电设备能大幅度降价，个机关、家庭最好使用太阳电能。 8、尽量选用公共交通，开车出门购物要有购物计划，尽可能一次购足，多步行、骑自行车、少开车。 9、开车时，避免冷车启动，减少怠速时间，避免突然变速，选择合适挡位避免低挡跑高速，定期更换机油，高速莫开窗，轮胎气压要适当。 低碳减碳生活小习惯 少搭乘1次电梯，就减少0.218kg的碳排放量 少开冷气1小时，就减少0.621kg的碳排放量 少吹电扇1小时，就减少0.045kg的碳排放量 少看电视1小时，就减少0.096kg的碳排放量 少用灯泡1小时，就减少0.041kg的碳排放量 少开车1公里，就减少0.22kg的碳排放量 少吃1次快餐，就减少0.48kg的碳排放量 少烧1kg纸钱，就减少1.46kg的碳排放量 少丢1kg垃圾，就减少2.06kg的碳排放量 少吃1kg牛肉，就减少13kg的碳排放量 省一度电，就减少0.638kg的碳排放量