Our Planet's Future - Living Green and Healthy

[Coffeehouse]

Our Planet's Future - Living Green and Healthy



"Let us now say that we give everything collective a serious boost. Walking to the bus station, taking the bus or train more often, and then walking the remainder of the way to your work.. that in itself makes for a very little loss of comfort in comparison with driving the car to work. What do we get?... Less car traffic and some very pleasant side-effects: The air becomes cleaner in your neighbourhood, the noise level drops, there are less accidents, and just think about how much quicker your local bus or tram gets along with all those cars gone from the street" - Ottar Brox, Norwegian political scientist

I dedicate this thread to discussing all things green. In fact, it's not only green.. but also blue, and red, and yellow, and white, and all the other fresh colours nature endows us with free of charge. All it asks in return is that we do not pollute it, ravage it, burn it, destroy it. When we do we forget it and that's a change in mindset that is needed (speaking as an European) in the Western world.

We also forget that developing our urban lives to a healthier shade of green does not neccessarily mean undoing all the pleasant things we've come to enjoy, but on the contrary can provide just the sort of balance that our bodies and minds have been equipped with by nature. American environmentalist Sophie Uliano, and author of 'Gorgeously Green' writes (I've translated from a Norwegian translation in an article): "My mission is to help women understand that living green is absolutely possible for every single woman on this planet. I've found that a green lifestyle does not mean forsaking. Living green involves everything you get: A better figure, a better economy, a better immune system, a better society - the list goes on and on"

---------------

I'm going to try to add a lot more of the things I've read about over the past 6 months or so, from everything to Cormac Cullinan's 'Wild Law' to the forthcoming Copenhagen Climate Negotiations on December 7th to 18th 2009. It will hopefully replace the Kyoto Agreement so that every single nation on the planet comes around to agreeing how we solve the Earth's climate problem.

I hope this thread evolves into lengthy discussions, debates, with points of views from all corners of the world and every idea you ever had about climate problems, a greener world and last but not least... whether we can pull it off in time.

[Coffeehouse]

Our less than green understanding

Four point of views to think about...

"Since so many people are moving into the cities for so many reasons, partly due to lack of food and water, looking for a better life, there is a tendency to become more and more disconnected from why we need the biosphere."

"We are becoming more and more ecological illiterates, about those key processes on which we depend for our well-being. Actually we've gone so far that we almost believe that we are independent of the biosphere. That the whole biosphere, the environment, is just a matter of whether we like it or not.. And that's indeed a tragic view of the future"

"And it has also meant that we've developed a view of the environment as one system and human society as being another. And then we talk about the environmental issues as something we should care about for the sake of the environment. But in my view that's the wrong cut. The right cut is really to say that we are part of the biosphere.. we are depending on it."
- Professor Carl Folke, University of Stockholm, Sweden

"We think amphibians are good indicators. They have very thin skin which they have to breath through, so they will be much more susceptible to chemicals. They also produce eggs which are completely exposed to the outside world, they haven't got a shell. The tadpoles are also very thin-skinned and small. So if there's anything out there you'd expect an amphibian to be affected by it. At the moment we think there are about 5,500 species of amphibians on Earth, and about 1/3 of those are in decline and may be heading for extinction, and indeed some have actually gone extinct. And I think amphibians are telling us something important about what is going on. Where you have habitat destruction then there is no surprise that amphibians are in decline. But there are larger parts in the world which have been established to protect biodiversity, nature reserves like this one, and great national parks, with the idea that in those parts of the world animals and plants would be safe. Yet still the amphibians decline there. And that's being repeated all over the world.. South America, North America, Australia, Africa. So there's something happening to the whole of the world so you can't say that we can have bits of the world for animals and bits of the world for humans. We have to take a global view of the world.. we have to treat the world as one large system."
- Professor Tim Halliday, The Open University, United Kingdom

"There is a very strong agreement among leading biologists right around the world that we are into the opening phase of a mass extinction of species, there is no doubt at all about that. We are the only species in the whole history of the Earth that has the power to drive even one species extinct, and we may well end up driving 5 million species extinct."
- Professor Normann Myers, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

"The mass extinction that is taking place today is absolutely unprecedented in human history. Humanity came onto the scene as a major force when the Earth's diversity of life was at its highest ever, in its entire history, and we're now wiping it out in the lowest point millions of years."
- Professor Gretchen Daily, University of Standford, United States of America

[Coffeehouse]

Here is an extension of remarks by Professor N. Myers, and his assessment, while not definitive, it goes to show just how far off the mark the common awareness we have of the destruction that has been caused to our world. This isn't about saving the world for our grandchildren any longer. It's about saving the world for our kids.. and us.

"The mass extinction that is taking place right now amounts to something of a bothic holocaust. Not only because of the sheer number of species that we are driving extinct, but because of the impoverishment for the planetary ecosystem. These species provide us with an awful lot of what you might call environmental services.. Now, if we lose half of all mammals and birds, it would be a great shame, but we could probably get by. But if we lose half of all insects we shall be in a lot of trouble."

Professor Normann Myers, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

My view is that we have to take this in on ourselves now. Politicians need to understand that going green now can't be a campaign promise, but a neccessity. It's not if we need it, it's not when we need, it's.. we need to 'go green'.. Here I can find nothing better to say but quote an African saying: "The best time to plant a tree was years ago".

[brownjenkins]

The only real effective step has nothing to do with green and everything to do with population control.

Personally, I think we'd be better off planning for a future that is inevitably going to be much less "green" than today and making the best of it. Prioritize what we can save instead of pretending that we can save it all.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The only real effective step has nothing to do with green and everything to do with population control.

Personally, I think we'd be better off planning for a future that is inevitably going to be much less "green" than today and making the best of it. Prioritize what we can save instead of pretending that we can save it all.

Population control won't solve the problems we're currently facing. Even if the world's population stopped growing by even one child at this very instant there would be no stopping the spiralling degradation of the environment that we're currently seeing. It has everything to do with going green.

It's also a lot more complicated than 'prioritize what we can save', because we don't know what we should save and what we can leave hanging up dry. Indeed the entire problem we're facing is that the biosphere is a massively linked chain, and we have absolutely no idea what parts of the chain that we can afford losing and which ones that could cause real problems..

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

CH, my friend, you are SO theoretical. Any chance you'll talk about what you're actually DOING for the environemnt, other than surfing the web?

For example, I maintain a bit of habitat, replacing invasive non-native plants with native species. I heat water for bathing mostly with wood fallen in the yard. I've been a vegetarian for...well, quite a while. I'm micro-farming, and teach sustainable methods for the food cycle. I've reconfigured the south side of the house to increase our solar use, and this spring I'm building solar collectors for more hot water. I've reduced our gas usage by 10% this year over last, despite it being a colder year.

I live in a community that was designed on the garden-cities concept, and prioritizes walking. We're looking at ways, as a community, to reduce our carbon footprint. I spend a lot of time pre-purposing items that would otherwise be junked. We donate all our hand-me downs to the local clothing bank.

So. Let's share what we are doing, rather than debate the importance again. We have a thread for that.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

CH, my friend, you are SO theoretical. Any chance you'll talk about what you're actually DOING for the environemnt, other than surfing the web?

For example, I maintain a bit of habitat, replacing invasive non-native plants with native species. I heat water for bathing mostly with wood fallen in the yard. I've been a vegetarian for...well, quite a while. I'm micro-farming, and teach sustainable methods for the food cycle. I've reconfigured the south side of the house to increase our solar use, and this spring I'm building solar collectors for more hot water. I've reduced our gas usage by 10% this year over last, despite it being a colder year.

I live in a community that was designed on the garden-cities concept, and prioritizes walking. We're looking at ways, as a community, to reduce our carbon footprint. I spend a lot of time pre-purposing items that would otherwise be junked. We donate all our hand-me downs to the local clothing bank.

So. Let's share what we are doing, rather than debate the importance again. We have a thread for that.

Lol no.. this isn't about being theoretical or not (if you'd read the first post you'd see I began with practical ways). This thread's purpose is to discuss the entire range, and so including expert opinions on the scale of the problem is very relevant. In any case I started this thread on the smaller things everyday people can do in their cities (which is the place where most Westerns live), and there's more to come.. In any case surfing the web is one way to get updated, and in case you missed it, Entmoot's is on the web. I also try to educate myself through my University. This Saturday f.ex. I'm attending a 5-hour lecture on opposition to plans for oil drilling in the north of Norway with representatives from the oil industry, the government, the University and environmental org's like the WWF.

All the things you do are great ways to improve the environment, and like I quoted earlier, it doesn't have to be a downside.. quite the opposite.

For my own sake, I don't have a car and I have never driven a car.. ever (except in my dreams) Why? Because I have never taken the drivers licence, and there's never been a reason to. Unlike many my age I don't need to empty my wallet driving a few meters or polluting the 2 km between my apartment and the University. Instead I use public transport and my bicycle. I intend to wait with a driver's licence until I am finished with my education.. and that first car of mine will be electric

[inked]

Interesting what this man did for the planet.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...676924044.html

[katya]

I am somewhat skeptical about whether the little things I can do for the environment (riding bike, etc.) will make any difference. I feel like we need to massively change things in a more fundamental way if we have any hope. I have no idea how it would happen though, unless we really end up making things bad enough that we have no choice. I would really like to see people become less dependent on technology, live more simply, give back more to the environment (Sis sounds like a great role model! I would really love to come visit you some day!). When I was reading TTT the other day, I was sad for a while at how we are collectively being more like industrial, Saruman culture rather than working with nature like the elves or living simply as hobbits. the hard part is that it's just hard to change everything at once. I really don't have a solution myself....

For my part, I would love to live in the country somewhere, being self-sustaining as much as possible, simplifying. I think that even if it doesn't change the world's problems, it's the best for the individual too. If people's attitudes were different, maybe, if they were more aware of what things will and will not make them happy, maybe things would be different. I feel that doing the lazy thing, while it is always tempting, directly causes unhappiness, not because of the results you get, but because you know you are being lazy or interested in instant gratification, and I think that the cheap good feelings you can get from it are unfulfilling. Take drinking, for example. I find that when I drink, which is very infrequently nowadays, I have some fun, and I am tempted to do it, but I also feel a sort of guilt, because I know that what I'm going is bad for my body and my wallet, and that it contributes to poor decision-making. I find that staying home, doing the dishes by hand, doing some exercise, or doing something that is good for me and my surroundings, is much more "fun" than going out drinking.

I think that doing what is best for the environment is the same way. I think that living simply and living harmoniously with nature is rewarding, to the soul. I think that a lot of people feel like they have to make "sacrifices" to be green, but it shouldn't be something you do because you feel like you should. It's a way to reward yourself, rather. Maybe if people's attitudes changed along these lines, it would be different. But, I have no idea how to bring that about and I'm not sure it's possible.

Population is another, of course, vital part of the situation. Personally, I think it's irresponsible to have more than two children (zero population growth), but I won't tell you that you're a bad person if you have more than two kids. Population problems are harder to solve because there really isn't a good solution. Either you would have to severely restrict reproduction, like in China, which feels wrong somehow, or just kill off a lot of people, which is, of course, also not the greatest idea. I'm really not sure what to do about it.

If you're wondering what I do for the environment, it's not much, because of my doubts as to the effectiveness of it, but I do make an effort to consume very little (I don't buy clothes and things, I buy a lot of things second-hand), waste little, recycle, use little energy, ride bike or walk frequently, eat very little meat. Like I said, someday I would like to do more, but first I have to get to the point where I can stand on my own feet and not be ridiculously broke all the time.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by katya

Population is another, of course, vital part of the situation. Personally, I think it's irresponsible to have more than two children (zero population growth), but I won't tell you that you're a bad person if you have more than two kids. Population problems are harder to solve because there really isn't a good solution. Either you would have to severely restrict reproduction, like in China, which feels wrong somehow, or just kill off a lot of people, which is, of course, also not the greatest idea. I'm really not sure what to do about it.

Well, I've got three

And actually, no, you don't. Population growth drops for two reasons- prosperity, and the empowerment of women. If countries reach a certain level of growth where people feel secure about their future they start to voluntarily restrict the number of children they have because they don't need to rely on children to provide for their old age and they start investing n education for a smaller number of progeny.

Check out the actual growth rates of various countries- countries like Turkey, Iran, Algeria, the South American countries- they all have plummeting birthrates.

Empowerment of women means many things, from valuing education for girls to giving women more economic freedom to giving them control over their own reproductive systems- and they all work to bring down population growth.

[katya]

Very interesting. I hadn't thought of / heard of that. I'm glad to hear it, though. Oh, and also, you seem like a smart guy, and so it's probably alright if you have more than two children, as long as you raise them properly. It can't hurt to have a higher ratio of decent people in the world. That said, I'm not having any, so maybe I'm irresponsible, too.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by inked

Interesting what this man did for the planet.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...676924044.html

Wow!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by katya

Very interesting. I hadn't thought of / heard of that. I'm glad to hear it, though. Oh, and also, you seem like a smart guy, and so it's probably alright if you have more than two children, as long as you raise them properly. It can't hurt to have a higher ratio of decent people in the world. That said, I'm not having any, so maybe I'm irresponsible, too.

And the fact that many (and, it seems, ever more and more) people, like you, plan not to have any children is why restricting reproduction to two per pair would seriously diminish the number of people who are around in the future. Of course, a fair amount of diminution would doubtless be a good thing, but we should be careful. There is, of course, also the fact that a number of people will die before reaching adulthood to be considered.
Further, if the number of births is dramatically below the population, the average age will be getting older rather quickly, which brings up a whole new range of issues and problems.

For example, I maintain a bit of habitat, replacing invasive non-native plants with native species. I heat water for bathing mostly with wood fallen in the yard. I've been a vegetarian for...well, quite a while. I'm micro-farming, and teach sustainable methods for the food cycle. I've reconfigured the south side of the house to increase our solar use, and this spring I'm building solar collectors for more hot water. I've reduced our gas usage by 10% this year over last, despite it being a colder year.

Is a garden city related to new urbanism or new pedestrianism? If so, tres cool.

[Jonathan]

GrayMouser and Gwaimir have made excellent points. Indeed, the apocalyptic population explosion that was feared only a few years back, kind of dissipated. As GrayMouser explained very well, such things as health, prosperity and family planning all go hand in hand. And as the standard of living is improving rapidly all over the world, the global population is not increasing as fast anymore.

Connecting to what Gwaimir said about restricted reproduction - it is becoming a big problem in western Europe and Japan. The standard of living is the highest in the world, the men and women are careerists and few new babies are born. Meanwhile the workforce just gets older. And with fewer new young people to replace the retiring folks, the countries are heading for some cruel financial difficulties. About 20% of Japan's population is older than 65 years of age. One question is, how will the diminishing proportion of young working people be able to support the growing elderly population?

Thus from a socio-political point of view, a balance is necessary when it comes to reproduction and population growth. If the populace is having too many kids, that is bad, but too few kids is not recommendable either.

[inked]

Jonathan, the population explosion did occur. It was met with expanding agriculture. We are still increasing the population but food production is not going to keep up with current agricultural areas in production. The ocean's being depleted. And all that body heat has to contribute to elevating temperatures, too.

Or is the move from 2 billion to 3 billion in 50 years not an increase?

[Jonathan]

Inked, the population curve is not following a steadily increasing J-formed curve as was initially predicted by the UN and others. Instead the global population growth curve has started levelling out, forming an S-shaped curve.

All is relative of course, but the population explosion I'm referring to (one with a growth rate that's constantly picking up pace) is not occurring.

[inked]

Thanks, Jonathan. That makes sense to me now.

[Earniel]

[mod-note: The last three posts specifically concerning global warming have been moved to the Global Warming Debate thread.]

[inked]

Jonathan, thought you'd find this interesting:

http://www.economist.com/printeditio...ry_ID=14744915

Population is headed to a max ~9 billion and then decline!

All that global warming though.....................

[Jonathan]

Yes, I remember seeing the number 9 billion before.

There is a strong connection between standard of living and family size. And indeed, life in so-called developing countries are improving rapidly, even faster than life was improving in the West during the industrialization. Consequently family sizes globally will become just smaller, eventually leading to a future population decline.