How to be an Environmental Steward?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Delancy

To All,
The comment about parasites wasn't intended as a cheap shot against people who contribute in a material way to society through whatever function they perform in their occupation, (edit) I also am not a scorekeeper .

Touche' my friend.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Airshac

(...) But seriously the environmental predicament started when greed and ability trumped environmental awareness. (...)

Trumped?

When?

I mean: was there any time when environmental awareness was any higher than it is today?

I believe less developed cultures were/are also less developed in respect of environmental awareness.

At least this is what I have gathered while visiting a couple of pre-postmodern societies.

Human attitude to nature has always been that of consumption. Pollution and destruction are consequences of consumption. The point is, before the population exploded, the resources were plenty while the consumers were few. Nature patched up and recovered. It no longer does.

b.

[Airshac]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Trumped?

When?

I mean: was there any time when environmental awareness was any higher than it is today?

I believe less developed cultures were/are also less developed in respect of environmental awareness.

At least this is what I have gathered while visiting a couple of pre-postmodern societies.

Human attitude to nature has always been that of consumption. Pollution and destruction are consequences of consumption. The point is, before the population exploded, the resources were plenty while the consumers were few. Nature patched up and recovered. It no longer does.

b.

No, I think we are on our way to correcting many environmentally harmful practices. Now we treat our bodies much like we use to treat the environment- very little concern for the long term effects, speaking of the general public, and are on our way towards correcting that also.

I lived in Haiti for a few years and I know that they have zero concern for the long term environment because they are worried about surviving today. But then while their autos are spewing out unregulated amounts of exhaust, most of the country walks, bikes or scooters everywhere they need to go.

[zeehag]

we have gone waaay past environmental awareness--we have gone all the way to environmental sensationalism.

yet there is nothing actually we are each able to do other than what we have been doing since our eyeballs saw light. we each do our bit..

as chicken little once ranted---
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING !!!!! OHMYGOD!!!OMYGOD!!!



so what are YOU going to do --are you going to go uninstall all those parking lots that were so important to have built not so long ago??are you going to reforest the rain forests and provide places for all the people to live and food for all the people to eat or are you all gonna just sit here at a forum and rant uselessly in neverending fashion about stuff you cannot do anything about as you continue to adapt to the changes in the environment you are trying to stop........
we adapt or we die. fact. is observable and recorded.
to what end comes this whining and arguing other than mere arguing and whining---

shadap and come out sailing.

[Lake-Effect]

(Yes I know this thread is just the methadone version of the closed Climate Change thread, so that everyone can get their evangelical/argumentative/trolling fix... but I'm gonna try to take the OP seriously)

Let's start with the concept of "steward". A steward is someone who is responsible for, or takes care of ... something. Like an estate, or property. Or the environment.

This response to Delancy:

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Talk is cheap... what have you actually done? You sure seem to be an expert at telling others what they should do to save the planet.

...

Again, talk is cheap... what have YOU personally done besides expelling lots of hot air and taking up some internet forum space? Planning to do something doesn't count, intending to do something doesn't count... only things you have actually done.

Most of the younger people I meet, have done nothing other than complain.

This is a common fallacy or counter-attack: the assertion that one can't address something or comment on something without being the paragon of the particular behaviour.

Especially with regards to the environment. You may be the greenest guy on your block, but if you were raised normally in one of the first-world countries and are gainfully employed, it's near certain you still have left an environmentally big footprint.

And more important - the environmental problems we face will never be dealt with by just individual action; policy change is required. Minds must be changed. Arguments must be put forward and won. Sh!tting on people and their argument because they haven't donned enough sackcloth and ashes to meet some arbitrary standard of piety is simply being obstructionist.

The "Al Gore" attacks are of course the poster-child of this argument. AGW deniers turn handsprings to paint Gore as some sort of environmental hypocrite because he's a rich guy with a big house, or because he jets around to do his presentations. The truth is - Al Gore is engaging in genuine environmental stewardship, by leveraging his stature and visibility to spread the word about environmental and energy issues.

Also, the deniers miss the simple point that the true environmental footprint of someone like Gore includes all the people and change he's influenced - from the schoolkids who bring awareness home with them, to the companies that Gore has inspired to take positive environmental steps.

I imagine that Gore could have 12 Humvees driving in circles around his mansion 24/7 because he likes the smell, and his net negative effect on the environment would still be less than anyone on this forum.

[barnakiel]

I think one big step towards better, cleaner Earth could be to move all our production from China back to the "developed" world.

Since we have such strict regulations on pollution and emissions, would it not be better for the planet if all our stuff were built here?

As a side dish, we could drive down unemployment levels, drive up entrepreneurial skills and solve the pension plan puzzle.

b.

[Finistere]

Read the following in Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I think one big step towards better, cleaner Earth could be to move all our production from China back to the "developed" world.

Since we have such strict regulations on pollution and emissions, would it not be better for the planet if all our stuff were built here?

As a side dish, we could drive down unemployment levels, drive up entrepreneurial skills and solve the pension plan puzzle.

b.

Agreed!

Of course that means our Walmart and Canadian Tire crap would cost more, and corporate profits which feed our stock market returns would decline. People talk about what they would be willing to do. Shop at local shops, even if the price is higher. Move your money out of big banks and put it into local credit unions. Invest in companies that are operating sustainably, and don't push for short-term profits over long-term stability.

Most of all, learn to live with less, not more.

[Blue Crab]

This is getting interesting. Lake-Effect stated exactly what I'm talking about and provided us all with the Al Gore example. I've run down Gore a lot but he is really walking the walk.

And Barney offered a solution! I'm OK with higher prices if it means we open up jobs and save our fricken country! I wouldn't mind stiffing the Chinese for what we owe them. Or, say, half of it. We know where that money came from.

What I see missing is leadership at all levels. People who want to be politicians should be disqualified automatically. Same with police officers. Ditto armed services. Ditto government services.

These are jobs that perhaps could be assigned like a jury pool or a draft.
Citizens working and going home like the founding fathers imagined. No pensions, etc.

So how do we make that happen?

[zeehag]

we outsourced the manufacturing because it was not cost effective to maintain that level of production in usa any more.
wesent steel manufacturing out because we didnt have the ability to convert to new safety regulations and maintain reasonable production costs.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by F51

Too many people. 6+billion on a blue marble that can comfortably support what--1 billion? The first time I ever heard a figure for world population it was 2.3 billion. Just in my lifetime the rate of increase has skyrocketed. It took mankind what--500 thousand years?--to reach that 1 billion figure in the 1840s. If there is not a massive natural die-off, the pressure will result in wars and man-made catastrophes that will forcibly reduce the population. I hope I don't live to see it, but I think it is approaching. Our children will suffer--perhaps horribly.

Unfortunately I think you are quite correct. I've done a small bit of reading on this and come to a similar number. A very simplistic way to think about it is this...assuming fossil fuel is used up or not available....the population depends upon the available renewable energy and the amount of energy we each consume. The more we use, the less the population. There is only so much energy available. Burning fossile fuel is like living off your capital, great while it lasts. Growth is a myth, itself only sustainable while no renewable sources flow.

HOW we depopulate is open to question and debate.

How to survive the bottleneck is the real question.

Good post F51.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

17. Prevent spread of invasive species

EXACTLY! STAY AT HOME!!!

b.

Crack me up! barnakiel, you've just rewritten one of my lectures.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

I suggested shooting the bad guys but Nimble Jack seemed to not recognize that as joking sarcasm.

Can't we just shoot at their wave runners?

[Lake-Effect]

"Too many people" is not the central problem. It's fairly well established that as societies achieve higher quality of life, the birth-rate falls.

The real problem is reliance on economic systems that depend on everyone consuming at ever-increasing levels. The developing nations WILL develop. The question is: will they follow the same path and make the same errors as we have, or can we provide them with a more sustainable path to achieve their goals?

As the ones currently on the top of the heap, it is our moral duty to atone for our own thoughtless use of energy and environmental neglect by developing new sustainable, less-polluting and more efficient technologies that can be given to the developing countries.

I'm having trouble coming up with solid numbers for how much plastic is used daily just once in fast-food containers, and discarded. But my gut feeling is that it's as if every day they make hundreds of 30 ft fiberglass sailboats, sail them once, then chainsaw'em.

[mbianka]

Originally Posted by jgbrown

Doesn't fukushima present a better argument for more modern, safer nuclear plants that minimize risks, reduce the amount of waste they produce, reuse the end product to make for a less hazardous waste?

The kind of plant that is regularly prevented, resulting in outdated unsafe reactors being run longer?

I don't think so. I remember being at hearings with the scientist from BNL labs, the engineers telling the plants could never explode. First Three Mile Island happened and things lucked out that the containment was not breached but, you still had a dead Nuclear plant. Then Chernobyl happened and their tune was well our plants are not that design etc... Fukushima put an end to that myth. Also not talked about much in the wake of 9/11 is that another plan of Al Qaeda was to disable a nuclear plant. I will not discuss here how that could be done suffice it to say I'm glad that Shoreham did not go online.

As for new plants I don't see much change happening. Your home owners insurance policy will still have the nuclear exclusion rider in it. Because the insurance companies deem the plants too risky to insure your home. It will still be the most expensive and complex way to boil water and nuclear plants have a much larger down time than conventional power plants even without an accident occurring. Capacity factors in the 70's compared to other plants in the high 80's to 90's. I remember one plant was shut for repairs for 2 1/2 years. Even new plants will have extensive down time for routine maintenance like refueling. As I find out from living on my boat one does not need centralized power to live comfortably. More and more people are finding that too and even power companies are starting to embrace alternative technologies like solar panels they do not own feeding the grid. That's a good thing which I think will continue. I am heading toward my own energy independence plan. My experience on the boat is leading the way.