Gaia and The Greens
August 26, 2009 by Doug Kennedy
James Lovelock, the scientist responsible for the Gaia theory, today (Wednesday, August 26) describes environmentalists who campaign on climate change but ignore population growth as irrational, ignorant or “hiding from the truth”.
I rather subscribe to both the Gaia theory and to the idea that humanity will have to control it’s population at some point. The Gaia theory is that the Earth will tend to keep our atmosphere and biosphere constant within narrow limits until a certain point when, if the pressures on it continue, it will change rapidly to a new status which could involve dramatically different conditions across the globe. This would be cataclysmic for today’s life forms and only the most hardy would survive to rebuild.
The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is a pressure on the global system that could push it towards a ‘Gaia shift’, and it’s increase since the industrial revolution has been alarming and is still gathering pace. If you compare it to a chart of population growth, the two are very similar.
The effects of the increase in CO2 include storing more of the sun’s heat in the atmosphere, thus ‘Global Warming’, but we are also seeing an increase in the acidity of our oceans, which means that it is more difficult for organisms to use CO2 to make their shells, and can result in shell materials being dissolved. To put this in context, calcium carbonate shells and reefs built by tiny marine organisms account for all the chalk and limestone on the planet, and there is a great deal more spread through the oceans as living or recently dead organisms. If this material dissolves, it realeases yet more CO2 into the atmosphere and prevents more shells being made. If you think this through, it is a vicious cycle and not the only one we face.
The point is, the more CO2 we release by buring fossil fuels, the more is released from other sources around the planet. And even if humans were not responsible for global warming, even if it were true that we are going through a very rapid ‘natural’ cycle as some believe, then surely it would make sense for us to reduce our global warming gas output so as not to exacerbate a dangerous trend?
We cannot escape the logic that the more people there are, the more CO2 we will release by burning fossil fuels, an effect that will be magnified many fold as they all aspire to be richer and consume more.
There is much that we can, and must, do to mitigate our environmental impact, and this starts with each of us as individuals. According to Jonathan Porritt, the UK Government is very comitted to action on climate change and to helping individuals and communities play their parts whilst the government handles things at a national and international level: let’s hope so!
Internationally, the Copenhagen conference in December will be key in moving things forward; in fact in instigating a step change in the way governments behave.
We must make a start on working out how to control population growth, which does not mean that we put on hold reducing our energy use and environmental footprint: in fact that has to be where we start because it will take effect much more quickly than any population measures.
This all comes back to my “Death to The Environmentalist” blog: we can no longer be ‘greens’ and the rest but must pull together to stabilise the situation now as far as we can. People who believe that there is a problem need to work in concert, bringing their different expertises and energies to bear on its many facets, including global warming, biodiversity, habitat protection, equalisation of resources and population control.
Dr Lovelock is in good companyas Sir David Attenborough, Jane Goodall and Jonathon Porritt have all said that we must address the population issue.
To take a one-sided view and work as if the other stake-holders didn’t have a case is a recipe for disaster in the form of a Gaia shift.
One Environment, One Humanity, One Survival (continued)
August 24, 2009 by Doug Kennedy
Now Athens is burning. It was California earlier in the year, Australia, Spain, CA and Greece last year and Indonesia the year before. These are the forests that give us life. My condolences to those who now have only ashes to look where there were trees, birds and wildflowers before.
The bad news keeps rolling in, be it forests, glaciers, weather, fish, endangered species, or our ability to take action. There are still many global warming deniers, such as Mr Roger Helmer MEP, but I say to them that even if you discount our CO2 emissions as a serious cause of environmnetal degredation, you cannot deny that many species are under threat as a result of human activity, that forests, fish and other natural resources are being plundered or destroyed and that we are bequeathing a legacy of toxic waste and empty oil wells to our children.
Are we worried? Well, it depends. I believe that most people in the UK are, but some typical attitudes include:
A. It’s all part of natural cycles and as individuals there’s no point in changing our behaviour. Anyway, business as usual is too much fun and recycling is a waste of time. And as for those low energy light bulbs, well, just see what the Daily Mail says about them!
B. Well, there may be something in it, but I’m sure the government and/or technology will sort it out. Business as usual. Anyway, at our hotel we’re saving the planet by putting notices in bathrooms to re-use your towels.
C. There are too many people on the planet and there’s not much we can do about it. No point in me acting as anything I do will be countered dozens of times by the Indians and Chinese.
D. I’m really worried as we’re definitely damaging the environment. We really shoudl do something about it, but I’ve got a meeting in Edinburgh today and Brighton tomorrow, and it’s just too busy right now. On hols in a couple of weeks in Phuket where I’m really goin to chill. Could do something on my return. Anyway, we’re recycling our stuff now and I’ve got some of those new bulbs to put in.
There are many people who believe that we have a real problem; many regard themselves as environmentalists and many work for NGOs and/or spend much of their spare time doing voluntary work. There are also environmentalists who only focus on their own behaviour, lifestyle and footprint and others who work hard to change others’ behaviours. But their efforts are very unfocused – each NGO has it’s own priorities for action and needs to maintain it’s unique profile and message: as with any corporation, others in the same field are competition. Thus the efforts of the thousands of activists around the country are diffused and often conflicting.
There are many in government who believe we have a real problem, and Ed Milliband (Department for Environment and Climate Change) is one of those. He has produced and interesting white paper which is worth looking at (The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan available to read at www.DECC.gov) but whilst the same Government is subsidising the coal industry at far higher rates than the renewable energy industry, and insisting that we need new coal fired power stations (albeit on the proviso that ‘Carbon Capture and Storage’, a technology that doesn’t actually exist yet, is incorporated), he has a fight on his hands to get it implemented.
Much depends upon the Copenhagen summit in December when heads of government are meeting to work out our next steps in combating climate change.
So, if we are worried, (which I believe we should be), what can we do? Based upon the still valid premise, ‘Think Globally, Act Locally:
1. Tell your MP that you are worried about global warming and ask what he/she is doing about the environment. Can they lobby for action and leadership at national level and for a real result at copenhagen
2. Tell your local politicians that you are worried about the environment, and for action on reducing energy wastage in housing, better planning rules relating to renewable energy sources (solar panels etc), local sources of food such as markets.
3. Act on your own environmental footprint – carbon emissions and domestic energy (see Energy Savings Trust and Zapcarbon.com), sources of food, amount of waste, use and abuse of local countryside.
4. The Big One – what is the impact of a human population that is growing exponentially? Do we want to live in World with half-again as many people as today? What is your, and your family’s part in that?
Above all, let us us act together for a better World for us and our children – there is no longer time or value in separating into environmentalists and normal people – we need to harness all of our expertise and energy to the tasks.
Death to The Environmentalist! One Environment, One Humanity, One Survival.
August 17, 2009 by Doug Kennedy
We are all in this together: ‘environmentalists’ were campaigners who believed they saw a problem and tried to persuade people. Now the reality of environmental destruction is right in our faces and people who understand the pickle we are in can only help us to cope with an increasingly unpredictable climate.
We ALL have a choice -
A. Wake up and smell the coffee and work out how we can modify and improve our lifestyles so that we have a less negative impact on the environment that sustains us or
B. Let it all hang, take chance on it all being OK and bequeath our kids whatever remains.
If you are in Group A, congratulations! There’s lots of advice and information available, or you may be able to get out there and help others.
If you are in Group B, imagine WHAT IF the International Panel On Climate Change (thousands of scientists) and almost all of the World Governments are right and climate change and habitat destruction IS a reality?
Technology cannot solve the problem on its own – it can’t put the oil and coal back under the ground as a resource or restore extinct species and ecosystems. Nor can it prevent the sea levels rising during the coming decades.
Can you actually take that risk? Isn’t it time to think about how you can contribute to a future for yourself, the children and their children?
And let’s face it, if you consume less and waste less and destroy less, you will save money and your world will be a nicer place. You’ll even come to feel good about it!
One Environment, One Humanity, One Survival.
We can’t go on like this!
August 11, 2009 by Doug Kennedy
Hilary Benn, (Dept of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or DEFRA) is now looking again for technology (eg GM crops) to provide answers to the problem of feeding a growing population. As I pointed out the other day, technology has a part to play in maximising yields from the land used WHILST NOT DAMAGING LOCAL ECOSYSTEMS FURTHER, but it cannot be the cornerstone for even the medium term.
The big argument that is wheeled out time and again is that we cannot feed 9 billion humans without GM crops and further advances in intensifying agriculture. But I believe that the Government has got it’s priorities very wrong on this one.
Crowding is not the biggest problem, but would you like to live in a World with 9 billion humans? 50% more than today: can you imagine how crowded that would be?
For example, we hear in the news today that an entire town in China was devastated by a huge mudslide and four entire apartment blocks of about 100 flats each collapsed. Why did the mud slide? Because there has been too much development in the area and the trees have been removed from the hillsides. The immediate cause is the huge storm battering the Pacific coast of China and Taiwan. Disasters involving flood, fire and famine are increasing all over the World as storms are getting worse because of global warming.
This is one example of the results of our current overpopulation which will be repeated countless times on a bigger and bigger scale if we let World population continue to grow.
So whilst technology has a part to play in producing suffiicient food to feed the human population, the more urgent and important factors are:
1. Reduce waste now – over a third of all the food we buy in the UK is wasted.
2. Share resources across the World better so that fewer children are born to slavery or starvation in ‘developing’ countries.
3. THE BIG ONE – Start focusing internationally on limiting population growth.
4. Use technology to help produce the right quantity of the right crop in the right location, whilst protecting surrounding ecosystems.
If we don’t limit the human population then the outcomes have to be:
* More CO2 so more global warming, which means
* Worse climate chaos resulting in fire, flood and famine (as in China today).
* More pressure on available land, which results in further damage to waterways, more forest removal and land degradation and so worse floods and land slips, and further loss of biodiversity. In other words, and ugly, dangerous planet.
* The lack of available good land will also result in bigger migratory pressure on the richer countries as well as wars and famine.
It is a vicious circle, and the key is human population.
The Optimum Population Trust is the leading UK think tank researching the impact of population growth on our environment. You can check them out at www.optimumpopulation.org.
What is a ‘Savings Account’?
August 8, 2009 by Doug Kennedy
On a completely different topic from normal, here’s a grumpy-old-git rant.
SAVINGS…. What are ‘Savings’? Savings are assets kept aside for the future, normally money. This is usually kept in a ‘Savings account’. Keeping it in a secret place used to be the norm, but it’s a bit risky with so little trust left in the World.
Banks don’t normally actually steal our money: just make sure you read their Terms Of Business carefully or else, beware.
So, the principal is that we give our money to a bank that opens a ‘Savings account’ for us to ring-fence it. The bank invests that money and, normally, makes themselves a profit. They give you a slice of that profit, which is called ‘Interest’.
Now, a ‘Savings account’ is a place to hold your SAVINGS: remind yourself what SAVINGS are – money held for the long term, right? That could be a year, but is usually a lot longer. Maybe a whole long lifetime.
When you save money in a bank, the interest you earn is usually taxed which reduces it by between 20 and 40 percent. This usually means that you are actually just about keeping place with inflation but could be loosing money if the interest rate less tax is below the rate of inflation in the economy. Ideally, your interest would keep your savings just above the inflation rate.
If banks did this, it would be A Good Thing for most savers. But do they?
All the banks compete for customers, so they advertise big generous rates if you open a ‘Savings account’ with them. Remember that a ‘Savings account’ is long term. So you open a new ‘Savings account’ with the Bigfat Bank PLC, and for about a year enjoy the excellent interest rate of, say, 5%. This keeps you nicely just ahead of inflation, so you aren’t losing money.
BUT, here’s the rub….
You happen to check your ‘Savings account’ balance and find that, instead of getting £100 interest this month, you have only received £30. You call the bank…. The interest rate has been dropped for existing customers only. But you can open a new savings account at 4% interest rates if you like!!!
So you go off in a huff and open a new account with Biggerfatter Bank. And a year later it all happens all over again.
This is a rip-off and an expensive pain in the neck. I have opened and closed about 10 so-called ”Savings accounts’ in the past 3 years because of this.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea if banks were banned from calling a product a ‘Savings account’ if the interest rate wasn’t going to be maintained at a competitive level?
Perhaps we should take our banks to the Trade Description people on the grounds that what they call ‘Savings account’ are not that at all, but are marketing devices to get people sucked in, that become a great profit generator when they drop the interest rate a year or so later.
Why Bother With Organic Food?
August 4, 2009 by Doug Kennedy
The Observer Science Editor, Robert McKie wrote an article in this week’s edition entitled “It’s wrong to believe that nature is always best”. You can read it all at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/02/organics-food. The gist is that a recent report again tells us that there is little if any taste difference or nutritional benefit to be gained from eating organicly produced food. He goes on to say that we should use all the technology at our disposal to feed the growing human population. Here is my answer:
Our landscape has changed with enormous speed over the past 100 years, the old woods have been removed and there is a sameness about agricultural land wherever you are: believe me, I’ve just walked its length. We read that the remaining woods are losing biodiversity and the length of the RSPB endangered list lengthens whilst agricultural run-off does odd things to our waterways. Buying organic food is not just about seeking better taste: retailers have learned that people do like their food to taste nice so the thrust of technology is focused more widely now than just looks and shelf-life.
It is about being concerned with looking after THE LAND (a term first used in this context by Aldo Leopold in 1949); that is, the landscape and biosphere which we love and upon which we depend. To take a purely utilitarian, scientific view of The Land is to ignore that dependence, which I believe we do at our peril: melting glaciers are not the only warning sign that we are placing too much load on our planet.
Mr McKie states that we need modern technological agriculture to feed a growing population, but I have two problems with this. Firstly, we waste a great proportion of what we are currently producing and could reduce the pressure on the land by using food more efficiently. Secondly, we should be taking steps to limit human population growth as we can’t have it all ways: we can feed some of 9 billion all the time (the rich), you can feed all of 9 billion people some of the time, but you can’t feed all 9 billion people all of the time. (With apologies to Lydgate). Technology offers a great deal, but we MUST also channel our ingenuity into ways of living more in harmony with the land through using less land, wasting less food and chemicals and controlling our population explosion. The last is, of course, the real biggy because the cure could be worse than the disease.