The two retail companies picked are Walmart and Costco whose 2017 Financial statement links are provided below: WALMART https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ wmt/financials?query=income- statement COSTCO https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ cost/financials?query=income- statement Both organizations are well known brands and position themselves well with their customer base. Walmart’s value proposition is “We save people money so they can live better”. On the other hand, Costco’s value proposition is “All-in-one convenience and everyday affordability”. Both retailers focus on cost saving for their customers. Looking at their financial statements and by analyzing them a few key areas are evident when comparing the two organization. Looking at the current ratio and quick ratio we can determine the short-term solvency of each organization. The current ratio can be determined by dividing the assets by the liabilities. Walmart’s current ratio sits at 0.86 while Costco’s sits at 0.99. The quick ratio is c
Geo-engineering is subject what is least discussed about. In fact recently when I came across an article on environmental issues where geo-engineering was mentioned; I remotely remembered having heard the term earlier Nothing much I knew about it. As the name suggests; later I came to know it has to do with the climate changing technique or technology with scientific knowhow. Obviously, since it concerns the global climate control, the size and enormity of project is beyond our imagination. Steve Connor of The Independent, London reported the recent proposed activities related to geo-engineering.
Fears that not enough is being done to cut carbon dioxide emissions have caused a lot of concern and scientific community are considering to “to think the unthinkable”. They are toying with an idea to alter global climate artificially with mega-engineering projects. Royal Society, later this year, will launch a study aimed at reviewing the possibility of saving the planet by “geo-engineering” the climate on the grandest scales imaginable. Geo-engineering encompasses schemes such as fertilizing the oceans with iron fillings to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, creating more reflective clouds or eve pumping vast quantities of sulphate particles into the air to simulate volcanic eruptions that cut our sunlight and lower global temperatures.
“ Global emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, so there is inevitably interest in technologies that may be able to provide a ‘fix`, says Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society. “It`s not clear which of these geo-engineering technologies might work, still less what environmental and social impacts they might have, or whether it could ever be prudent or politically acceptable to adopt any of them…. None of these technologies will provide a ‘get out of jail free card’ and they must not divert attention away from international efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases”
The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, published recently, devoted an entire issue to examining ways of altering the climate or interfering with the carbon cycle in a way that could offset the rise in greenhouse gases and the consequent increase in temperatures. Professor Ken Caldeira of Stanford University says it is important to plan now for the possibility of having to use geo-engineering. : Every year carbon dioxide emissions continue to climb” he says. “Reducing carbon dioxide emissions requires individual sacrifice in the here and now for the public good of the distant future. If we start soon, we can phase in climate engineering slowly and cautiously, and back off if something bad happens. The least risky thing to do is to start testing soon”.
Professor Stephen Schineider, a climate scientist at Stanford University who has resisted geo-engineering in the past, says “We are being paced in the precarious position of choosing the lesser of two evils. Potentially dangerous, uncontrolled climate change due to greenhouse gases emissions, or technological fixes involving large scale geo-engineering projects.”
Let us see how the geo-engineering projects work;
High reflection: The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 pumped enough sunlight-reflecting sulphates into the upper atmosphere to cool the earth by 0.5 degree Celsius for up two years. It may be possible to inject sulphates into the stratosphere from aircraft, right, but this would not deal with ocean acidification caused by rising carbon dioxide and might cause acid rain.
Low Reflection : A variation would be to pump water vapor into the air to stimulate cloud formation over the sea, thus raising the earth`s albedo (proportion of light reflected). Seawater cold be atomized to produce tiny water droplets tht would form low-level maritime clouds.
Fertilizing the sea : The limiting factor for growing phytoplankton - tiny marine plants – is the lack of iron salts. Adding iron to ‘dead` areas of the sea leads to blooms which absorb carbon dioxide. But whether the plants will sink, taking the carbon out of circulation or be eaten, returning it eventually to the atmosphere is not clear.
Mixing layers : Giant tubes could be built to carry surface water rich in dissolved carbon dioxide to lower depths where it will be locked under the temperature gradient that keeps deep water layers from surfacing. Critics fear it could instead bring carbon locked in the deep ocean to the surface.
Fears that not enough is being done to cut carbon dioxide emissions have caused a lot of concern and scientific community are considering to “to think the unthinkable”. They are toying with an idea to alter global climate artificially with mega-engineering projects. Royal Society, later this year, will launch a study aimed at reviewing the possibility of saving the planet by “geo-engineering” the climate on the grandest scales imaginable. Geo-engineering encompasses schemes such as fertilizing the oceans with iron fillings to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, creating more reflective clouds or eve pumping vast quantities of sulphate particles into the air to simulate volcanic eruptions that cut our sunlight and lower global temperatures.
“ Global emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, so there is inevitably interest in technologies that may be able to provide a ‘fix`, says Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society. “It`s not clear which of these geo-engineering technologies might work, still less what environmental and social impacts they might have, or whether it could ever be prudent or politically acceptable to adopt any of them…. None of these technologies will provide a ‘get out of jail free card’ and they must not divert attention away from international efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases”
The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, published recently, devoted an entire issue to examining ways of altering the climate or interfering with the carbon cycle in a way that could offset the rise in greenhouse gases and the consequent increase in temperatures. Professor Ken Caldeira of Stanford University says it is important to plan now for the possibility of having to use geo-engineering. : Every year carbon dioxide emissions continue to climb” he says. “Reducing carbon dioxide emissions requires individual sacrifice in the here and now for the public good of the distant future. If we start soon, we can phase in climate engineering slowly and cautiously, and back off if something bad happens. The least risky thing to do is to start testing soon”.
Professor Stephen Schineider, a climate scientist at Stanford University who has resisted geo-engineering in the past, says “We are being paced in the precarious position of choosing the lesser of two evils. Potentially dangerous, uncontrolled climate change due to greenhouse gases emissions, or technological fixes involving large scale geo-engineering projects.”
Let us see how the geo-engineering projects work;
High reflection: The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 pumped enough sunlight-reflecting sulphates into the upper atmosphere to cool the earth by 0.5 degree Celsius for up two years. It may be possible to inject sulphates into the stratosphere from aircraft, right, but this would not deal with ocean acidification caused by rising carbon dioxide and might cause acid rain.
Low Reflection : A variation would be to pump water vapor into the air to stimulate cloud formation over the sea, thus raising the earth`s albedo (proportion of light reflected). Seawater cold be atomized to produce tiny water droplets tht would form low-level maritime clouds.
Fertilizing the sea : The limiting factor for growing phytoplankton - tiny marine plants – is the lack of iron salts. Adding iron to ‘dead` areas of the sea leads to blooms which absorb carbon dioxide. But whether the plants will sink, taking the carbon out of circulation or be eaten, returning it eventually to the atmosphere is not clear.
Mixing layers : Giant tubes could be built to carry surface water rich in dissolved carbon dioxide to lower depths where it will be locked under the temperature gradient that keeps deep water layers from surfacing. Critics fear it could instead bring carbon locked in the deep ocean to the surface.
Comments