Image:
When a word becomes so popular you begin hearing it everywhere, in all sorts of marginally related or even unrelated contexts, it means one of two things. Either the word has devolved into a meaningless cliché, or it has real conceptual heft. “Green” (or, even worse, “going green”) falls squarely into the first category. But “sustainable,” which at first conjures up a similarly vague sense of environmental virtue, actually belongs in the second. True, you hear it applied to everything from cars to agriculture to economics. But that’s because the concept of sustainability is at its heart so simple that it legitimately applies to all these areas and more.
Despite its simplicity, however, sustainability is a concept people have a hard time wrapping their minds around. To help, Scientific American Earth 3.0 has consulted with several experts on the topic to find out what kinds of misconceptions they most often encounter. The result is this take on the top 10 myths about sustainability. And after this introduction, it’s clear which myth has to come first....
This article was originally published with the title Top 10 Myths about Sustainability.
See what we're tweeting about
120 Comments
Add CommentHere are Some myths about Solar Energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://solar.mridkash.com/2009/02/solar-myths/
Nothing is sustainable in the long run if you focus narrowly. In the natural world, systems merge and evolve into something else. It does not mean that the earlier iteration was unsuccessful. Among the phenomenally successful things that are no longer with us are dinosaurs in the natural world and the Roman Empire in human terms. Both had very long runs, in their own terms; both have left legacies and both are gone/extinct, i.e. they were not sustainable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea that “in the words of countless kindergarten teachers, ‘don’t take more than your share,’” Indicates a kind of kindergarten mentality when it comes to the environment. It is too simple. It implies that there is a static amount and that everybody who takes out takes away from someone else, either now or in the future. This is wrong. In the long run there is no share to take or be given. All human wealth is defined and created by humans. Oil is of no value to a Stone Age hunter and flint for arrow heads is not much use to a modern office worker. By human action, is possible to increase or decrease the wealth available.
I have a forestry operation, which is a close to sustainable as is possible in this world. With our methods, we could grow trees on the same land essentially forever. We can even help make other parts of the economy more sustainable by absorbing pollution. Smart forestry (human decision) produces more wood, cleaner water, fresher air and gives wildlife a place to live. Dumb forestry reduces all these things. What “share” is justified by the decisions we make?
Humans will not be around forever. Nothing is because nothing is sustainable. The good news is that we can live on this planet for a long time. The U.S. is already much cleaner than it was when I was growing up 50 years ago. Like all species, we have to adapt to our environment. We humans have a special challenge in that we create our environment too.
Nuclear is not sustainable. If anything, it is a short term solution to coal and a way to bring extremely cheap energy to energy-hungry populations as we transcend our fossil fuel addiction. Furthermore, the USA imports 92% of its uranium, which makes us further attached to nations that we might not want to be married to for the sake of fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPart of sustainability is SELF-SUSTAINABILITY; using the resources in our immediate environment to power our way of life.
A combination of offshore wind farms, mid-western wind farms (in the so-called "wind belt") and solar farming in the southwest can produce many times more energy, and for far cheaper, than a reliance on foreign, dwindling energy supplies ever will.
Myth 11 : Electricity is eco-friendly? Less than 1% of primary energy consumed by a power plant is converted into light by a bulb. The rest is dissipated as heat. If we were really concerned by durable energy efficiency, we would light our homes using gas! The only advantage of electricity is to centralise the production of greenhouse gases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBig limits to solar and wind power are storage since they vary in time and transmission since they vary in place. Couple to hydropower, the true renewable energy they could work by pumping water uphill in low consumption times called pumped storage, an old idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order to dispel your 10 myths of sustainability, you constantly refer to another myth, that putting CO2 into the atmosphere is bad. CO2 is not a pollutant, and should never be regarded as such. It is a life sustaining molecule, which in greater quantities, will produce more abundant life. It is a source of atmospheric oxygen, as well as the source of carbon that produces all carbohydrates. Carbon is the food that we eat and the wood, that we build our shelters with. Warming temperatures, of air and sea, produce the CO2, not the other way around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the geological past, we had many times the current CO2 levels and life was more abundant and diverse than now. In fact modern times can be regarded as CO2 deficient or depleted. Humans do not breathe very well at these low CO2 levels. This manifests itself as chronic breathing difficulties, such as sleep apnea and infant sudden death syndrome. Treatment involves raising the CO2 levels to 6,000 to 10,000 ppm of CO2. This restores the CO2 triggered breathing reflex.
Don't forget, when you declare CO2 as a pollutant, you are declaring oxygen (the biggest part of CO2) as a pollutant. Our atmosphere has not yet normalized from our current ice age. We (and the biosphere) will all breathe easier when it does. Currently (past 10yrs) global temperatures have plateaued and have decreased, for the last two. This alone, falsifies the hypothesis that climate is CO2 driven. Cooling is a much worse threat. If you need to panic, then hysterical actions to prevent cooling would make more sense.
"[Nuclear] is a short term solution ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many thousands of years does something have to last to be more than short-term?
"Furthermore, the USA imports 92% of its uranium, which makes us further attached to nations that we might not want to be married to for the sake of fuel."
Canada and Australia?! Anyway, recent estimates have the US #6 in uranium resources, and #2 in thorium, so we could be self-sufficient if we had to be.
This is misleading. I highly recommend you check out David Fleming's book "The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy." He has made it available for free.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://transitionculture.org/2007/12/07/david-flemings-new-book-provides-death-knell-for-nuclear-power/
"In order to dispel your 10 myths of sustainability, you constantly refer to another myth, that putting CO2 into the atmosphere is bad. CO2 is not a pollutant, and should never be regarded as such..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's interesting that I knew exactly what you were going to say based on your first two sentences. The weak anti-climate change rhetoric pilfered from the 70's, back when there actually was fear of climate cooling, has been thoroughly debunked. The only cliche missing from your argument is that scientists, because they are receiving Federal dollars, have a vested interest in fooling everybody into believing that CO2 contributes to global warming and that human-made climate change is an issue we need to address.
You also blatantly distort the evidence:
"Currently (past 10yrs) global temperatures have plateaued and have decreased, for the last two." This simply is not true. Where did you read this? Are you referring to Antarctic temperature samples?
re: Fleming. Wow, I don't even need to read the book. To take the most obvious points, Disposing of nuclear waste will take more than a tiny fraction of the energy released by fission? And <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride">uranium hexafluoride</a> is a greenhouse gas?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: Jonah Gruber at 05:32 PM on 03/09/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGee... You act like this is the first time you have heard that temperatures have not been increasing for 10 yrs. What planet have you been living on?? Have you not noticed how cold it has been most places. Maybe, you are confusing temperatures with CO2 concentrations, which HAS been rising, for the last 10 yrs.
In any event, here are the global average temperatures, as reported by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) . The good folks at "whats up with that", have nicely graphed the data, so that even you, can figure it out.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ncdc-december-2008.png
I have no idea what you are referring to in the 1970s. Has it got something to do with the fact that we have cooled, for the last two years?
This article seems to be all over the place. It claims that sustainability being all about the environment is Myth 2, but then goes on to demonstrate that it's not a myth, unless, by "environment", one simply means climate and air quality. In Myth 3, the article says that nuclear power could be described as sustainable ("calling it sustainable is much less of one [a stretch]") which implies that sustainability has degrees, a clearly absurd idea; something is sustainable or it isn't. Nuclear power is not sustainable because is consumes finite resources, apart from the waste issue. Myth 6 is not a myth at all. Economic growth is not sustainable (since it, at least, consumes finite resources and at increasing rates. So, if one measures standard of living by possessions or monetary wealth, then living sustainably most certainly means reducing living standards. We're back on track, with myths 9 and 10. Population growth exacerbates the problems and with estimates showing increasing growth in recent years, contrary to UN projections, this will likely cause huge problems in the very near future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe term "more sustainable" was used a few times, in the article, but is a meaningless term. Something is either sustainable or it isn't. So actions that are intended to make something more sustainable simply delay the ultimate problem of living unsustainably - which is collapse.
It's really very simple. Sustainability means consuming resources at or below their renewal rates and not damaging our eco-system. It's incredible how the word has been misused and misunderstood - even in SciAm articles.
A point about nuclear:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 1950s nuclear testing increased C14 levels 900%.
C14 forms when Nitrogen is struck by a neutron and a proton is expelled.
Do you think they can exclude Nitrogen from nuclear reactors?
What is responsible for the current cancer epidemic?
Homo sapien is very sensitive to radiation, normally causes cancers.
I think the list touches on some truth. When I encounter #1, I may be able to believe that people know what sustainability means, but I don't think they know how it is done. Even the easy measures to make a more efficient lifestyle have yet to really seep fully into our society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI may even take #8 to a further extreme saying at the end of the day, when it comes to truly being sustainable technology is seldom the answer. Too many people see sustainability (or environmental consciousness, noting your differing between the two) as a feature. Their view goes to hybrids, wind turbines and CFLs and if they employ enough gadgets it can offset their lifestyle. In reality, sustainability is a practice. For most it requires a lifestyle/cultural change. It's not only making a more energy efficient house, it's living in a well-design 3000 square foot house instead of a 4000 square foot house. It's biking to the train station, not a hybrid car.
I think the list it touches on some truth. When I encounter #1, I may be able to believe that people know what sustainability means, but I don't think they know how it is done. Even the easy measures to make a more efficient lifestyle have yet to really seep fully into our society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI may even take #8 to a further extreme saying at the end of the day, when it comes to truly being sustainable technology is seldom the answer. Too many people see sustainability (or environmental consciousness, noting your differing between the two) as a feature. Their view goes to hybrids, wind turbines and CFLs and if they employ enough gadgets it can offset their lifestyle. In reality, sustainability is a practice. For most it requires a lifestyle/cultural change. It's not only making a more energy efficient house, it's living in a well-design 3000 square foot house instead of a 4000 square foot house. It's riding a bike to the train station, not buying a hybrid.
While I am here stomping on myths, I might as well stomp on one more. Nuclear waste does not refer to the fuel. Nor is the fuel "spent". The longer fuel stays in the reactor, the more neutron absorbing fission products, build up. It merely reaches a point where these "neutron poisons" reach a level where they cancel out the fissile material or "fuel". This fuel is then removed from the reactor. This so called "spent fuel" is still very valuable. This fuel can be reprocessed, removing the "poisons" and voila, fresh fuel again. Presently, the operators of nuclear reactors find it cheaper, just to replace "spent" fuel with fresh fuel. However, when we begin to run out of new fuel, we will begin reprocessing this valuable resource. Btw, this is how we currently obtain our plutonium. Some people's waste is another's gold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, those are some pretty good myths there!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRT
www.Privacy-Center.net
I am very disappointed that Scientific American would print such jibberish. The "logic" of Myth 9 is that, since we can't control population in any meaningful way without upsetting someone, it isn't a problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe nuclear industry is a heavilly subsidised industry, that as far as I'm concerned once all the costs of reprocessing , ongoing storage costs, security, and at the point of mining and refinement etc. can actually cause the real cost of nuclear to sky rocket...!, not to mention if we start to look at the environment as an economical asset which is happening more and more, which I'm pleased to see., digging holes all over the country side to bury the waste is not fair on future generations, in many ways.... Also I'm not sure how true this is but I watched a documentry about a town in france somewhere that had a local nuclear plant, and the local precipitation in the area had unusual amounts of radiation in it, from as they put it the steam coming from the cooling towers...?, realising that this was a doco probably by the anti nuclear lobby, I approach that oppinion cautiously though nevertheless....?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience with an agenda is not science. Thankfully, people who are being piped the kinds of drivel you are spitting on this board are far, far out of power, and will most likely never be back.
Are you honestly using that graph as an ad argumentum logicam to refute climate change? Really? I think we're done here.
"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre: Fleming. Wow, I don't even need to read the book. To take the most obvious points, Disposing of nuclear waste will take more than a tiny fraction of the energy released by fission? And <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride">uranium hexafluoride</a> is a greenhouse gas?!"
Could you be more specific? Hydrogen fluoride is a well known, potent greenhouse gas, and is a side effect of exposing uranium hexafluoride to air. However this is the least of the concerns that Lean posits; of particular interest were his studies on actual uranium supplies (they will not last, as you state for hundreds of years, or a thousand years). This is why it is a short term solution. Becoming too enamored by nuclear is a bad move, but it could play a valuable part if it were worked into a permanently sustainable source like farms of 1mw far offshore wind-powered generators and solar farms, then slowly phased out by the end of this century.
The entire sustainability question can be summed up with population. The human pest has grown out of control. Humans have become a pest in every definition of the word pest. We have overgrown out share of the environment, and are crowding out everything else. Problem has to be tackled head on. At least make it politically incorrect to have more than 3 children in a family.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. Population may not be a short term response to our current problems, but it is the single biggest factor leading us to them. Even if we can get our use of resources to be more effective (and we certainly should), the simple fact is that in the near past we grew mindlessly until we painted ourselves into this corner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny long-term solution must take into account the need for our numbers to drop so that we no longer smother the system that sustains us. We should never forget that Nature cares very little about individual rights, social justice, resource distribution, cultural grievances and other problems that sometimes blind us to the obvious. It will simply cull those who get in its way, with cold efficiency (Darfur, Rwanda, the Indian Ocean tsunami, droughts, malaria, I could go on...). Its laws are non-negotiable and you cant take it to court or demonstrate against it.
Right now, mankind strikes me as a boat crew drifting towards Niagara Falls, with most people onboard bickering about seating arrangements or arguing about who should row and steer. If we don't wake up soon enough, the falls will get us all to agree, whether we want to or not.
Most of the recent economic debate centers on what is a positive economic stimulus and what isn't. I think I have a way to frame the problem to come up with more definitive answers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver-consumption at all levels has led to the current economic correction. Too many people have spent money on things they don't need. I have begun to view all human activities through my definition of "What is Evolution?" Evolution is "information building on information". Based on this definition most people's activities are trivial and repetitive.
Profits alone are not a healthy criteria to support information building on information. What is a healthy criteria is whether or not the activity provides something novel that creates an integrated complexity.
The American Dream or any dream of power or comfort is an irrelevant goal because is does not necessarily pursue innovation. Most people are not directing their lives towards information building on information. Instead they're growing fat and domesticated on sugars and saturated fats.
It turns out that my idea of framing issues in terms of evolution is catching on. See page 32 of Scientific American Jan 2009.
Below are two examples of positive evolution and integrated complexity.
The tree removal in this national park is a surprising example of positive evolution and integrated complexity
New birth of Gettysburg 2008
... Nowhere is this tree removal more dramatic than at Devil's Den. Standing on the pile of giant boulders today, visitors can see pretty much what Union soldiers saw July 2, 1863...
Information builds complexity over a hierarchal network. The abolishment of slavery is an example of a human network expanding to include a larger integration of human insight. Preserving these lessons of the past is an example of an integrated complexity. Human knowledge marches on. Critical junctures are preserved. Natural diversity is preserved elsewhere and or adjacent to Gettysburg National Park. Both cultural and natural progressions can expand concurrently and integrated.
The second example
Sons of Kenyan Village Build First Clinic'
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/PersonOfWeek/comments?type=story&id=6763156
This story is a good example that supports my theory that many, if not all, social issues can be evaluated in terms of, "What is evolution?" My definition of evolution is that it is information building on information which yields an integrated complexity. We must make our decisions on how to act based on this premise.
Picture evolution as a "tree" of ever expanding information building on information that is constantly branching and growing.
The village was compelled to give what little they had to help the two students. They did so willingly to expand towards the leading edge of information and networking. The village is the trunk of the tree. The two students are then propelled up to the highest branches of this every expanding tree of information. The integrated complexity is the acknowledgment and return of resources to the village. Just as the upper branches of the tree nourish the lower structures that support it.
The problem we often have in most social systems is that many people, especially republicans, view evolution as a pruned tree in which they are the surviving fittest. It's very likely the Wall Street Executives who take billions, while the middle class economy that supports them are going bankrupt, think they are the fittest.
This pruned tree model is not what we see naturally occurring around us. What we see are hierarchal information processing systems "trees" that are continually growing not pruned. There is plenty of genetic evidence to support that mutations and novelty outpace the pruning of natural selection. Furthermore the problematic social systems ignore the support of the lower structures which I call the integrated complexity.
I think Obama intuitively or (in-secret) intellectually understands what I have just put forth. If he is keeping his philosophy unsaid it is likely so as not to alienate a massive population of ignorant and or greedy citizens.
Evolution is information building of information which yields an integrated complexity. Evolution is not a pruned tree. It is the tree that keeps on growing.
Good article, but you are totally wrong about overpopulation. Firstly, each person in richer countries consumes as much as twenty to fifty times that of a person in one of the pooer nations. So if WE choose to have fewer children, it makes a very significant difference. Secondly, the more we spend on helping those in the poorer countries access better education and health services, the birth rate will significantly drop, as you hinted. The reason we have such severe environmental problems is basically that there are too many people consuming too much. To just focus on the consumerism and wasteful part of the equation is short-sighted, defeatist and irrational. We need much more open discussion on overpopulation, it is starting, but we need to go much further. Charles Budd. charliebudd@hotmail.co.uk
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon Offset. I hate this cynical advertising gimmick also loved by politicians to lull us asleep and make us feel good about our wasteful consumerism. It is the new "green". What a shameful dirty lie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: Jonah Gruber at 01:47 AM on 03/10/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe graph (indicating a flattening and cooling of global temperatures) was not posted to refute climate change. It only confirmed my statement that increasing temperatures had paused and actually decreased for the last two years. You challenged that statement, I responded. Obviously, when you say climate change, you really mean climate warming. If you can't say what you mean, then we must assume you do not mean what you say. Personally, I hope warming resumes because the "other" climate change (cooling) will cause real starvation (decreased crop yields). In words you can understand... Cooling sucks!
I have no agenda, nor do I hold to any politics. Since you have not responded with any science what-so-ever, I am sure everyone is wondering, what is your agenda , as your politics are obvious? Now, we are done! (for future reference, actually read a comment before attacking it)
I suggest you lead by example and promptly off yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reply to the earlier post on overpopulation: political correctness only exists for a minority of wet liberals. For the rest it is annoying and laughable. And even if it were seen as 'politically incorrect' to have more than three children, the human population would still increase! What is needed to tackle overpopulation is increased education and healthcare for people in poorer countries; and for those in the richer countries to see the combined personal, societal, economic and environmental benefits of having two children or less.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts good to see more people are accepting the demographic crisis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama and all developed countries should spend billions urgently to feed the world, especially its old people. In all developed countires, when old people were fed, families reduced to an average of two children, and women had them much later in life. Reduce ressource competition and you reduce wars. So then there is more money to go green and clean up excess CO2.
1. Sustainability entered the lexicon in the late 1920s, with the publication of the North American Energy Survey by the Technical Alliance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Sustainability itself began with the Technocrats, including M. King Hubbert, who realized oil was limited, who created the term Peak Oil and realized that our resources were finite and only a sustainable form of society could permanently support human existence on earth.
5. Expensive assumes continuance of capitalistic governance. Capitalism can be mathematically demonstrated to be guaranteed to fail eventually. A non-monetary based society (a society that has moved passed such primative notions as trade) is one requirement for actual sustainability.
6. Sustainability is possible, once ineffeciencies are eliminated, at the current level of technology while allowing a MUCH HIGHER standard of living for ALL. This is possible with four day work weeks, working as little as 4 hours a day (per person of working age and without disabilities).
7. Neither Grass-roots nor government will result in sustainability. Grass-roots organizations tend to be too democratic or socialistic in nature to create a unified will and definitive plan, while both politicians and large corporations would LOSE power and wealth by implementing truly sustainable methodologies, therefore the current government and our capitalistic society can not provide real change toward sustainability.
8. True. The technology required for complete sustainability existed as early as the 1930s.
Listen, when I said the 1970's, you should have known immediately that it was during this time that climate researchers were at odds with one another about the direction of climate change (cooling, warming). In fact, there was a great deal of paranoia circulating in the media about the "Next Ice Age." Decades later, scientists are almost entirely convinced that we are experiencing man-made warming, not cooling, and that the rapid change of the biosphere is something that could very adversely effect human beings and our way of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis does not stop the anti-climate change and anti-global warming camp, mainly on the far right side of the political spectrum, from using sources from the 80's, 70's, even earlier, to back up their arguments. Even Bjørn Lomborg, the scientist the right has been parading around as the fly in the ointment, has admitted that global warming is a problem, albeit he says "it's a hundred year problem, not a ten year problem." Whatever that means.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=2&q=http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf&ei=AqS2Sa_DHpaitgewwcmuCQ&sig2=EE8KZXSi8GZw6lLJn7jKJw&usg=AFQjCNHLQtuGLfMkiXodaHwPI4MDRPPDdQ
Obviously temperatures vary due to short-term climate processes. In fact, climatologists have predicted lower temperatures in various parts of the world for the next decade, but increased temperatures in others. Ultimately, however, the trend is progressively warming.
Instead of Corn we need to use HEMP! It has 12 Categories of uses: Textiles(clothing, string, cloth, etc.), Moulded Plastics, Paper Products, Food, Medicines, Essential Oils, Livestock Feed, Livestock Bedding, Construction, Nutritional Supplements, Body Care Products, and Spirituality. So if we grow hemp to use for this then there will be no more need to be cutting down trees, or using petrolium products, which will probably put Dupont out of business but I think it is our only option at this point. If you are interested further go to www.jackherer.com , www.usahempmuseum.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMyth 9. Over -population is the fundamental problem and clearly humans are in plague proportions. It is almost certain that within 100 years we will have as least 4C of global warming making some of the most densely populated areas drought stricken and incapable of supporting high populations. Northern Canada and Siberia may open up but it is unlikely that climate refugees from China, India and Africa will be welcomed peacefully. If the world population reaches 9 billion as projected is likely that such a population could be supported, particularly through times of mass population movements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo how do we control population? Basically we can increase the death rate (war, pestilence and starvation) or reduce the birth rate. The latter is much preferable and I think China should be commended for the most humane approach of any country to this problem.
Not forever, but as long as possible or till a giant meteor do us all!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we do not start thinking with new and breakthrough ideas our planet is doomed. I recently saw 2 new ideas that I think offered some hope!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read a great article on Digg about harnessing the power of stars here on earth. Plus I have also been flowing cold fusion as an energy source. I discovered a company called Energetics Technologies. They have a process called SuperWaveFusion, which could be a possible breakthrough in cold fusion. I am trying to learn more about this process and would like to hear from others about what they think.
Myth One - the definition of sustainability as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs is not a definition. It is a goal, an aspiration, but totally incoherent as a definition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissustainability is not about meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future. It is about the needs of humans who have successfully adapted to environmental changes to a point when their population has become unsustainable and their survival is committed to the biological imperatives of individuals and cultures. not of species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNature doesn't care.
Sustainability is not " development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Humans have successfully adapted to changing environments and have destroyed sustainable environments with the needs of ever increasing populations. The answer has always been to sustain individuals, groups, and cultures. We have no ability or incentive to sustain the human species,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand nature doesn't care.
CO2 - O2? - a comment about all or nothing!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to accept that too much is bad, too little is bad, and just right is good. We need to work on the "just right" concept. Just right can = sustainability.
One interesting implication of these definitions is that metal mining is highly sustainable. True, the ore deposits are depleted, but once the metals are in reduced form and on the surface, they are far more accessible to future generations, and at much lower energy cost, than they were as ores.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe myth that you do not have to lower your standard of living to be sustainable is itself a myth, especially since the growing population is so simply glossed over. On our earth, things are finite. I have a vision of everyone in a loincloth (halters will be too extravagant a use of resources) sitting under a tree (if it can be found), eating their bowl of rice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear power, I'm afraid is going to be essential despite our execrable performance re by-products.
First, to those on this forum who preach: "It's all hopeless, our species won't last, nature doesn't care (and then conclude): We've got to be as selfish and uncaring as possible and grab it all while it lasts! -- I say:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Your kind is going to be the first "trimmed" from the Human Tree. Your ignorance guarantees it.
2. Your "ideas" are all exclusionary, narrow, short-sighted and cynical. The article proposes the open-minded, creative and inclusive approach. Which approach do you think will win in the end?
As for the article, I quibble only about the treatment of population growth. "Too much of anything ain't good for ya." That is what wise parents tell their kids and that is a lesson for us all to keep in mind as we proceed toward a sustainable existence. I DO agree that more effective means of non-coercive population regulation is needed. But I don't "give up" like the author seems to do when he states that population regulation will come "too late." NOT too late if the other sustainability programs move quickly in conjunction!
I urge everyone to make people aware of this SANE explanation of the word, Sustainable. (Sustainable does not apply, of course, to right-wing ideology, nor to any ideology. Eventually, the windbag is emptied of air and stops making loud noise.)
Charles Budd: We live on a planet that had until recently a huge biodiversity. One species wastes are another species inputs, evolutionary processes created a balanced system. Don't stop thinking at the macro level, remember each of us is a whole universe for the micro species that dwell within.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince homo spaien started farming he/she developed ideas of good and bad life. Weeds suddenly became enemies, weeds increase the green area of the land and consume solar energy to generate organic matter to enrich the soil. Read: Peter Andrews books on managing land.
On the animal front we have become the dominant species in our size grouping. We now lack the species that control our numbers and consume our wastes to maintain the balance on our little planet.
Population is the principal cause of all our problems. Tackling the effects of this cause will not solve the problem. Remember every single individual of our species aspires to live the life of the rich and famous.
When I read articles like this I think of all the times I have attempted to convince school systems and school teachers that they should include Environmental Education in the schools. Nearly every time the response is always, "We don't have time for another subject. We are already mandated to teach this or that." To which I would always respond, "Environmental Education is not a subject...it is a method of teaching." That is what sustainability is too. It is a method of living, developing, governing, and making decision from personal to professional choices. Don't be diverted from taking personal steps forward because we continue to debate the word sustainability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgreenhouse effect. The most predominant issue is the population control. There has not been any effective method to control it. If you apply stringent measures, then comes the issue of fundamental rights, human rights etc. Change in the mindset of people would require more than just an appeal or teaching them of the values. People talk about global issues but indulge in local ones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere has to a shift in attitude to control and taper off the rising population.
Other means and innovations to make the environment more sustainable are welcome.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, although it happens to be related to greenhouse effect. The most predominant issue is the population control. There has not been any effective method to control it. If you apply stringent measures, then comes the issue of fundamental rights, human rights etc. Change in the mindset of people would require more than just an appeal or teaching them of the values. People talk about global issues but indulge in local ones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere has to be a shift in attitude to control and taper off the rising population.
Other means and innovations to make the environment more sustainable are welcome.
Did I miss something? Why is it important to only educate women when it comes to population control? Last time I heard, it takes two to make a child. Don't you think that statement is a little chauvinistic?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for nuclear energy, there is a reason why environmentalists are against it. Where are you going to bury the waste?? Why create another problem?
Did I miss something? Why is it important to only educate women when it comes to population control? Last time I heard, it takes two to make a child. Don't you think that statement is a little chauvinistic?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for nuclear energy, there is a reason why environmentalists are against it. Where are you going to bury the waste?? Why create another problem?
greentalk:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that emphasizing woman's role in reproduction seems unfair. However, I think the idea (right or wrong, we can discuss that!) is that women have greater impact on the cultures in which they live, and - provided - they have some "equality" with men, they can often either subvert the male impulse with contraception or simply "pressure him" to abandon the "more kids good" attitude.
You wrote: "Where are you going to bury the waste?? Why create another problem?"
Having some familiarity with nuclear engineering (that's not to say I have a related job or degree), I will say only that the problem isn't as bad as it's made out to be. For one thing: we Americans are totally blind to the nuclear power programs (and progress) in other countries. France gets 70% of it's electric energy from nuclear. Canada: has a completely different way of designing reactors which, for one thing, eleminates the massively expensive process of "sorting" the U235 (fissionable) from the U238. They... use "solid, natural alloy" uranium.
Right now: just a couple of "dump sites" exist: they are disasters waiting to happen and they're deteriorating (above ground) all the time. We're going to have a "nuclear accident" alright - it'll be because we haven't the "guts" to follow established disposal methods, letting this terrible stuff just sit around "stewing." That happened in the Soviet Union a long while back: they kept it secret because it was very close to being worse than Chernoble.
That and all the other nuclear accidents have been due to negligence, pure and simple. Negligence can be controlled, stopped.
We just can't continue hanging on these two horns of the same dilemma. One horn is that we're "afraid" and the other horn is that "someone gets careless." Fear and carelessness are not inevitable. Nuclear power... is inevitable.
BuckSkinMan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen women are treated equally throughout the world, perhaps your argument will hold true. I still think it is both a male/female issue.
For now, simply saying that women can say no or use contraception as the answer is not an option for many women. I am no expert in third world countries but I would think that contraception is not readily available. Then, you also have to factor in some facets of religions, which scourns against the use of contraception too. In third world countries, women can't just say no to men. They wil be beaten.
What about rape and the domestic abuse? How can women say no then?
I just think it is so much more complex then pinning population control on women.
Has the albedo of the earth changed in the past century or so due to the surface area of all the bitumen that has been spread over the land? How much heat do cities produce? Is CO2 the main greenhouse gas or is it H2O? Does all those iceblocks breaking off into the southern ocean actually make the sea colder as salty icy water is usually colder than ordinary ice water? Is it actually worth asking questions once science becomes dogma?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Planet's not doomed just us, like the dinosaur. Once we are gone the planet will have a big party.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas the Earth's albedo changed because of all the bitumen we spread over it's surface? Does the southern ocean become colder when all those iceblocks mix in a salt solution? Is water vapour a greenhouse gas? How much heat will our cities continue to give off even if we control thee CO2 in the atmosphere?. Is it worth asking questions when science becomes dogma?
Sustainability can be easily understood only by linking it to the term, "Carrying Capacity: the maximum population of a given species which a particular habitat can support indefinitely (under specified technology and organization, in the case of the human species)".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWilliam Catton Jr. "Overshoot The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change"; 1982 University of Illinois Press,
Dinosaurs were not sustainable? This is human arrogance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe consensus is that most dinosaurs were removed by the massive asteroid impact 65m years ago that destroyed 85 percent of all species. The dinosaurs that survived this 'KT extinction' live on as birds today - a span of 100m years. Even if you take the narrow definition of dinosaurs, the 'archosaurs' ('dinosaur' is only a popular name, not a scientific term) they lived for about 150m years in equilibrium with their environment. They ranged practically from pole to pole, were all sizes - from chicken-sized upwards and filled the whole range of ecological niches. They also out-competed the mammals (the first mammals appeared well before the first dinosaurs) so that mammals could only flourish once the dinosaurs had been removed!
Modern humans on the other hand have been on this Earth for only about 5m years and made such a hash of the world by fouling the environment and stripping it of irreplacable resources that it is unlikely that we will survive even the next few thousand years, let alone a million more.
Humans a successful species? Huh!
Conservation requires sustainability. Sustainability does not require conservation. This is a great fear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor some pointers to what is needed for sustainability, go here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/178
Sustainability. I believe things that adopt to changes will sustain. Just like energy transformation, it happens. As frost says life goes, nothing gold can stay, things that adopt to change will sustain. But only changes happen in forms, the subtle always sustains.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes! Finally, one article that gets everything right. Now to come up with the attractive compelling soundbite versions of those points. I especially like calling nuclear "sustainable" rather than the more emotionally loaded "green", and the point about government intervention being more important than individual action. For example, my house did not have the option of buying 100% wind power from a local utility until deregulation; and, of the small number of people who have installed Solar PV systems most would not have done so without mandated buybacks, rebates and tax credits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur ancestors were very sorry about sustainablity perhaps using other terms, however show cleverness developing scientific principles such as the thermodinamic laws, the second one relative to entropy which summarizes all about sustainability. A concept so often mentioned in recent years is synergy which I consider a sort of complement to entropy and efficiency. Few years ago I did finish an investigation trying to match all this concepts having developed an equation that unify all of them, including the gravitational law; this work can be consulted in the web through the main servers as "Synergy and Management".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do believe sustainability has been of concern long time ago however people of around sixteen - seventeen century place the matter in remarkable scientific terms such as the laws of thermodynamic, particularly the second one. Many other concepts are related to this important matter like efficiency and synergy. There is no doubt that the lack oh sustainability will drive our world to chaos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRaeleen at 02:26 PM on 03/10/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of Corn we need to use HEMP! YES, for fuel. . . and switchgrass, a native that grows fine without fertilizers, pesticides, etc ad nauseum, that are required for corn. Becoming further entrenched in using corn as a fuel resource is NOT a solution. It costs more environmentally and food crops are most important as food, not fuel. The hype and promotion of corn-based ethanol is a barrier to developing other renewable fuel resources.
BTW, Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa is the variety grown for industrial use in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere. Plants of certified industrial hemp species are not suitable for drug use. Sadly, the U.S. might be less puritanical about hemp if there were more understanding of basic botanical and physical differences.
Raeleen at 02:26 PM on 03/10/09
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of Corn we need to use HEMP! YES, for fuel. . . and switchgrass, a native that grows fine without fertilizers, pesticides, etc ad nauseum, that are required for corn. Becoming further entrenched in using corn as a fuel resource is NOT a solution. It costs more environmentally and food crops are most important as food, not fuel. The hype and promotion of corn-based ethanol is a barrier to developing other renewable fuel resources.
BTW, Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa is the variety grown for industrial use in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere. Plants of certified industrial hemp species are not suitable for drug use. Sadly, the U.S. might be less “puritanical” about hemp if there were more understanding of basic botanical and physical differences.
Sorry about the duplicated comment -- first time posting on this site.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDepending on one's definition of "sustainable" -- here is a STUDY IN SUSTAINABLE OPERATION.
Scoma’s Restaurant, San Francisco.
The restaurant is able to divert approximately 95% of its waste away from landfills each year…
Used vegetable oil is collected and filtered for use in our company truck. The remainder is donated to the Golden Gate Bridge to power their maintenance trucks and equipment.
http://www.scomas.com/?page=caring
At least several colleges are doing quite a bit to use biofuels, etc . . .
Think what a difference it would make if many more of these businesses (and all of us) practiced "living more lightly" and not wasting.
Of course we need to learn how to best use a full range of relatively untapped alternative renewable energy resources -- solar, wind, wave, geothermal, biomass from algae to cane to switchgrass and other cellulosic feedstock, and many more that are emerging. Nuclear and hydrogen also need to be considered, but the liabilities associated with these do limit applications. France has done great but does have problems managing the waste. So nuclear and hydrogen should be part of the long-term mix, but not take priority over other renewables that can be implemented more rapidly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMINDSETS are the hardest thing to develop. Socas Restaurant in San Francisco recycles everything, including processing grease etc into biodiesel to run its truck. (see previous post)
Cutting edge technology also includes, for example, a chemical engineer at UC-Berkeley who is applying bio-engineering pharmaceutical research to advancing practical cellulosic biofuels. Links: http://www.newsweek.com/id/42508 & http://www.jbei.org/fuels-synthesis/
PUBLIC COSTS and benefits are generally ignored by market forces. Renewables will be unable to compete on a level playing field with conventional generation until new policies are adopted to internalize the public costs of these fossil fuel sources. We need those policies, as well as economic incentives for different approaches – NOW.
AN APPROACH NO ONE HAS MENTIONED: “Plasma Gasification” or “Plasma Conversion” or “Plasma Arc Gasification/Conversion” of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). This is NOT incineration, it is molecular dissociation.
Caution: there are “look-alikes” that seem the same but are not, and there are methods that do partial conversion.
RIGHT NOW–one of the most consistent and universal byproducts of humans is trash. TRASH/MSW is being ignored, and limited capture of methane is a very limited way to use all the landfill stockpiles and continuing waste generation. MSW can be handled most completely and effectively, with a carbon-negative footprint, by conversion technologies instead of just shoving our waste out of sight. Out of sight comes back to bite!
GENERAL REFERENCES:
How Plasma Converters Work ~ http://science.howstuffworks.com/plasma-converter.htm
Green energy News ~ http://www.greenenergy-news.com/arch/nrgs2008/20080069.html
The Union of Concerned Scientists – USA. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/solutions/renewable_energy_solutions/
Wikipedia ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_arc_waste_disposal
INDUSTRY LINKS: GeoPlasma (part of the Jacoby Group) http://www.geoplasma
chaos
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisis what we are trying to avoid repeating , all right. or hell.
thanks for reminding some of us just how far from security we really are, and hope for the enlightenment of the masses,
(especially those fools with the "electric fill-in-the-blank" cars.
Locality is about all we have to put our faith in. And, try stopping them from going around the planet to fight wars-
None of the solutions are viable if the population continues to expand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone of the solutions are viable if the population continues to expand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMyth #9 is false. policy can effect population related energy use in 9 months, which is easily as fast as any alternative energy scheme can justify itself. Plus smoking can improve overpopulation in weeks. just as seat belt use can aggravate overpopulation in seconds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Nothing is sustainable in the long run," is of course so true, one needn't bother to substantiate it. Although many scientists acknowledge that some dinosaurs evolved into birds or crocodiles, sharks have survived and fish, such as the coelacanth, extinct for 46 years according to scientists, still feed native people in Indonesia, it still stands that nothing lasts forever. This argument reminds me of the time a TV show told people up front that the sun would not last more than about 5 million years, and people went out the next day in droves to cash in their life insurance policies. Hmm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the life expectancy of everyone approaches zero, in consideration of eternity. None of us will ever accomplish as much as the Creator. But then again, why would we want to? For most of us, going to school and work and volunteer activities and home and children and families, for those of us lucky enough for any of the above, suffice. They keep us busy.
The point is not whether recycling the bottle we use for water or root beer or milk will save the world today. I have a good feeling that one bottle has very little to contribute to any global crisis. The point is not whether reducing the amount of fuel we use will help the cave man. I have a feeling that would not matter to him one iota.
The end of everything is death (the debt that all men pay. Women, too). And five billion years from now, it probably won't matter to any of us any more. (Red Dwarf, anyone?) We can pretty much count on dying before then. Maybe even before any number of horrific consequences of waste or pollution.
On the other hand, I have worn doctor's masks before, in order to breathe without becoming ill, and not just because of cold season. Monuments in certain parts of the country erode due to acid rainfall. In short, pollution already exists and poses problems.
The question behind sustainability is not whether one person can save the world. Superman is a comic strip. The question is whether our actions matter at all. If they don't, should they? If we can't do everything, should we do nothing? If we are not G-d, should we all just cash in our life insurance, spend the money, and die?
Sorry to go off on you like this. I realize this is not what you were saying. I just hear this sort of argument, that humans do not have an effect on the environment, that pollution is already on the decline, and that environmentalists hate people, all the time when I go back east. Your opening remarks reminded me of that, and I just had to vent.
"Nothing is sustainable in the long run," is of course so true, one needn't bother to substantiate it. Although many scientists acknowledge that some dinosaurs evolved into birds or crocodiles, sharks have survived and fish, such as the coelacanth, extinct for 46 years according to scientists, still feed native people in Indonesia, it still stands that nothing lasts forever. This argument reminds me of the time a TV show told people up front that the sun would not last more than about 5 million years, and people went out the next day in droves to cash in their life insurance policies. Hmm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the life expectancy of everyone approaches zero, in consideration of eternity. None of us will ever accomplish as much as the Creator. But then again, why would we want to? For most of us, going to school and work and volunteer activities and home and children and families, for those of us lucky enough for any of the above, suffice. They keep us busy.
The point is not whether recycling the bottle we use for water or root beer or milk will save the world today. I have a good feeling that one bottle has very little to contribute to any global crisis. The point is not whether reducing the amount of fuel we use will help the cave man. I have a feeling that would not matter to him one iota.
The end of everything is death (the debt that all men pay. Women, too). And five billion years from now, it probably won't matter to any of us any more. (Red Dwarf, anyone?) We can pretty much count on dying before then. Maybe even before any number of horrific consequences of waste or pollution.
On the other hand, I have worn doctor's masks before, in order to breathe without becoming ill, and not just because of cold season. Monuments in certain parts of the country erode due to acid rainfall. In short, pollution already exists and poses problems.
The question behind sustainability is not whether one person can save the world. Superman is a comic strip. The question is whether our actions matter at all. If they don't, should they? If we can't do everything, should we do nothing? If we are not G-d, should we all just cash in our life insurance, spend the money, and die?
Sorry to go off on you like this. I realize this is not what you were saying. I just hear this sort of argument, that humans do not have an effect on the environment, that pollution is already on the decline, and that environmentalists hate people, all the time when I go back east. It hit a sore spot for me.
The time for solving our human population crisis without trampling on individual rights has long since passed. While I do not support mass suicide or worse, the one-child policy in China will soon seem like a walk in the park.......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems the mindset connected to many discussions of sustainability too often focuses upon the prospect of profiting financially from planning or implementing a program of sustainable action. I believe that moving toward a sustainable existence is an imperative which should not be delayed and progress toward sustainability should not be measured primarily or solely by profitability or even affordability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no doubt that fundamentally fraudulent myths abound in the environmental realm regarding - sustainability. Just as I am confident that myths abound respecting aspects of the "military-industrial-complex" or "organic" food or a host of other topics. The point being that we rely on imperfect information often deliberately fed to us in a manner so as to obfuscate what is the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest that the myths in these areas noted will endure and even grow and prosper until "we" - that's you and me - choose to demand and only accept full, open, honest, timely disclosure. And from experience, I have learned that to provide an environment wherein this type of disclosure can thrive is messy and time consuming, two attributes which government and most of academia find intolerable especially when "we" - the people decide what is true.
I fully acknowledge that myths abound in the environmental realm respecting - sustainability. I conclude that myths of a similar magnitude abound respecting aspects of the "military-industrial-complex" or "organic" food, livestock, farming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese myths noted with be sustained and even grow in part as a result of the manner in which we choose to provide - disclosure - which is piece meal and often very manipulatively presented.
Moreover myths flourish in an environment where "we" - the people - are deliberately excluded. From experience I am aware the DISCLOSURE process gets very messy and time consuming when "we" have a seat in these discussion and "we" decide when the truth is achieved. Messy and time consuming are two attributes which government and academia choose to avoid at all cost.
Myths abound and are fully sustainable when DISCLOSURE is controlled.
The word 'green' has been co-opted by many politicians and corporations as an advertising strategy, that's true. But there is also 'Green', which signifies a new political philosophy based on nonviolence, social justice, grassroots democracy and ecology. A growing number of Green parties around the world are working to turn these concepts into reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo while 'green' has been appropriated by the corporate world, 'Green' signifies a serious change towards a new worldview.
Less than 1% of primary energy consumed by a power plant is converted into light by a bulb. The rest is dissipated as heat. If we were really concerned by durable energy efficiency, we would light our homes using gas!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, if we were really concerned by durable energy efficiency, would insulate our houses properly and then heat them with light bulbs, especially in northern regions where we burn fossil fuels to heat our buildings. The so-called inefficiency of light bulbs makes them good heaters and reduces the need for other sources of heat. We would also collect the waste heat from the power plant itself and use that to heat our buildings. The opportunities for a more rational engineering of waste heat disposal are enormous and don't require the invention of any new technology.
"It seems the mindset connected to many discussions of sustainability too often focuses upon the prospect of profiting financially from planning or implementing a program of sustainable action. I believe that moving toward a sustainable existence is an imperative which should not be delayed and progress toward sustainability should not be measured primarily or solely by profitability or even affordability."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed. In fact, it shouldn't be measured in that way, at all. Sustainability can't include monetary profit, since that implies a growing economy and economic growth (like all material growth) is unsustainable. We need to figure out the best way to run a no growth economy. Only then will we be able to have an economy and sustainability at the same time.
My back yard veggie garden is sustainable, and humanureable, however distasteful that may seem to delicate oil spoiled American pallets! The Swedes boil up humanure to make bio-gas, which they sell, and offset oil imports with, and have a good fertilizing, soil building sludge left , safe for veggies! America poops all over itself, its lakes ponds, rivers and seashores, and cries for more imported oil - to make into fuel for cars, fertilizer for fields and to haul top-soil for yards! We waste, yes, let go for free! any bio-gas potential we know how to trap! from factory farm sewage, piggeries chicken factories and them pay through the nose for imported oil to run our trucks and cars and buses - Not so for the wise Norwegians - they bio-gas sewage and run buses with it! Sustainable, well, as long as they eat and poop it is! Nuclear exploitation will be in its infancy until no waste products are produced! It can be considered safe when the good folks of Chernobyl return home, and Foolproof when humans make no more errors - For now, it is one cascading set of human follies from Armageddon! Ask the folks at Chernobyl, they know! Additionally, Swedes and other nuclear countries can use the "Excess heat" Yankee reactors blow off in cooling towers, to de-ice roadways, heat city blocks, greenhouse food crops! Why does Yankee Doodle feel "entitled" to throw away half the power generated by this dangerous fuel? What special arrogance makes this possible? Is this a hang-over in engineering attitudes from the "Cheap Oil" days? China is about to flood our car market with cheap, (half-price) "Volt" like cars. By 2011 they expect to export them to the U.S.A. They already have contracts with Israel for export there. We missed the boat! Sustainable - our car manufacturing practices are not! Unfortunately we lose this round anyway! Any operation, that can be done continuously, like Solar Power collection, wind, wave, hydro, tidal and geothermal power collection fall into this category - Imagine a Solar Power station closed because the sun didn't come up! This is "Perpetual" power for humans! I know the capitalist mantra, "You don't get something for nothing" but in this case it is little more than propaganda and simply not true! Get over your brainwashing, give up nuclear for the expensive and dangerous venture it is and go "Perpetual", go Solar, wind, wave, hydro, and geothermal and don't look back! Life is getting better in the 21st Century for the enlightened!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy back yard veggie garden is sustainable, and humanureable, however distasteful that may seem to delicate oil spoiled American pallets! The Swedes boil up humanure to make bio-gas, which they sell, and offset oil imports with, and have a good fertilizing, soil building sludge left, safe for veggies! America poops all over itself, its lakes ponds, rivers and seashores, and cries for more imported oil - to make into fuel for cars, fertilizer for fields and to haul top-soil for yards! We waste, yes, let go for free! any bio-gas potential we know how to trap! and them pay through the nose for imported oil to run our trucks and cars and buses - Not so for the wise Norwegians - they bio-gas sewage and run buses with it! Sustainable, well, as long as they eat and poop it is! Nuclear exploitation will be in its infancy until no waste products are produced! It can be considered safe when the good folks of Chernobyl return home, and Foolproof when humans make no more errors - For now, it is one cascading set of human follies from Armageddon! Ask the folks at Chernobyl, they know! Adittionalyy, Swedes and other nuclear countries can use the "Excess heat" Yankee reactors blow off in cooling towers, to de-ice roadways, heat city blocks, greenhouse food crops! Why does Yankee Doodle feel "entitled" to throw away half the power generated by this dangerous fuel? What special arrogance makes this possible? Id this a hang-over in engineering attitudes from the "Cheap Oil" days? China is about to flood our car market with cheap, (half-price) "Volt" like cars. By 2011 they expect to export them to the U.S.A. They already have contracts with Isreal for export there. We missed the boat! Sustainable - our car manufacturing practices are not! Unfortunately we lose this round anyway! Any operation, that can be done continuosly, like Solar Power collection, Wind, wave, hydro, tidal and geothermal power collection fall into this category - Imagine a Solar Power station closed because the sun didn't come up! This is "Perpetual" power for humans! Iknow the capitalist mantra, "You don't get something for nothing" but in this case it is little more than propaganda and simply not true! Get over your brainwashing, give up nuclear for the expensive and dangerous venture it is and go "Perpetual, go Solar, wind, wave, hydro, and geothermal and don't look back! Life is getting better in the 21st Century for the enlightened!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recently had my own go at defining sustainability and came up with - “Sustainability is a balance between the financial, human, and environmental. It is about living your values and acting with integrity, responsibility and generosity. It is about being in a community of discussion, dialogue and action – because no person or company is an island and everything is interconnected.” There is more discussion about the definition of sustainability at: http://sustainablebrands.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/whats-your-definition-of-sustainability/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe Myth #9: if "sustainability is a population problem," then why is advocating mass suicide a "false solution?" In fact, it seems like the best solution to many of the ills that beset us. In addition to reducing environmental damage, it would also solve issues like expensive health care in geriatric societies. In fact, since green is the new religion, I can think of no greater act than to sacrifice yourself for your religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll this talk abut sustainability seems to overlook that the planet was sustaining itself before we got here and it will continue to do so after we're gone. I am more interested in sustaining the human race. We should be looking into getting of this 3rd rock from the sun before it is too late. One day, we don't know when, another really rock will collide with us and the point of our sustainability will be mute. it will be like pushing the reset button on the planet and everything starts over at the single cell leel. This is known as an Extinction Level Event and green or sustainabiloity won't matter. Get me the ability to get of this rock.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisre: G. Karst CO2 myth
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm very curious where you get your information. You state CO2 will produce more abundant life, which might be true after humans are no longer in the picture. As it stands now, I believe many of the world's ecologists are pretty much in agreement that our activities are destroying biodiversity at an unprecedented rate - similar to the rate of destruction.
that occurred 65 million years ago.
Not sure what CO2 levels are just right for human breathing, but I'd prefer to breathe at the current levels rather than test the waters at higher levels, which my kids will have to do anyways. As for SIDS - from what I've read the cause is still unknown. Not sure you can pinpoint this on CO2 deficiency since there are a lot of risk factors and death rates from SIDS are different among races. Again, where are you getting your information?
Lastly, I wouldn't put my money on the last two or even ten years of data. You might, as other scientists are doing, want to take a look at the long-term trend. Looks like it's going up to me. Maybe we ought to quit arguing and get off our greedy butts and do something about it... instead of leaving a legacy of problems for our kids to solve.
Scientists are devided about 50/50 for and against global warming. Check where their paychecks are coming from and you will see why this is so. No one wants to lose there jobs and there aren't many independent ones that would consider it because of blackballing in their particular field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is also the matter of where you do your research specially these days, and the diference between primary and secondary research. You can find plenty of material out there to back either position. But you have to look at the raw data and make your own conclusion and throw away anything Al Gore has published and the sources he used to come to his conclusion. He is not even a Scientist.
Bottomline: Sustainability is Nature's Law. Humans have exceeded in all fronts the Earth's capacity to sustain US! And, as with all populations, Nature will reduce our numbers UNLESS WE FIRST REDUCE OURSELVES!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever the word is used or defined, human sustainability on Earth is no longer possible. That's what I think. Solutions require a consensus which, among world 'leaders,' seems unattainable. To wit: the ongoing debate on global warming, climate change, environmental degradation and even social decline! It goes nowhere while everything else goes down the drain!
THE MYTH WITHIN MYTH No. 9.
Which ought we to honor, the individual's 'right' to reproduce or society's 'right' to remain viable? The parents' right to conceive or the child's right to a good life?
As it exists now, civilization cannot sustain a population of 9+ billion when, visibly, it can not sustain the 6.5 billion we already have.
Presently, we add 70 million new people per year to our numbers. As the rate of increase rises exponentially and the domino effect takes over, this will inevitably catapult civilization towards social decline and the collapse of ecosystems faster than is already happening. Where then human rights?
So-called human 'rights' are the luxuries and privileges of stable societies, gifts guaranteed by law and order. Indeed, they are the hallmark of civilization itself. But notice their fate when conditions change and priorities shift whenever the Rule of Law no longer rules. Where then are they, our RIGHTS?
Procreation, the 'right' to reproduce, ceases to be a right of individuals when its exercise threatens the viability or even well being of the whole! This is so with ANY 'right': mine stops where yours begins! And neither remains such where Society is at risk.
No aspect of 'civilized' life will remain viable, much less sustainable, regardless of technology or ways and means employed to make it so, when human population and its activites go beyond the planet's carrying capacity. Ecology 101!
Seems common sense to curtail the exercise of a few individual 'rights,' voluntarily or otherwise, to ensure the viability of the whole. Particularly when, if we don't, it'll be done unto us! Like it or not!
Clue: Iran took ten years to do just that! It reduced birthrates and total numbers to levels the country could sustain without outside dependencies.
Bottomline: Sustainability is Nature's Law. Humans have exceeded in all fronts the Earth's capacity to sustain US! And, as with all populations, Nature will reduce our numbers UNLESS WE FIRST REDUCE OURSELVES!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever the word is used or defined, human sustainability on Earth is no longer possible. That's what I think. Solutions require a consensus which, among world 'leaders,' seems unattainable. To wit: the ongoing debate on global warming, climate change, environmental degradation and even social decline! It goes nowhere while everything else goes down the drain!
THE MYTH WITHIN MYTH No. 9.
Which ought we to honor, the individual's 'right' to reproduce or society's 'right' to remain viable? The parents' right to conceive or the child's right to a good life?
As it exists now, civilization cannot sustain a population of 9+ billion when, visibly, it can not sustain the 6.5 billion we already have.
Presently, we add 70 million new people per year to our numbers. As the rate of increase rises exponentially and the domino effect takes over, this will inevitably catapult civilization towards social decline and the collapse of ecosystems faster than is already happening. Where then human rights?
So-called human 'rights' are the luxuries and privileges of stable societies, gifts guaranteed by law and order. Indeed, they are the hallmark of civilization itself. But notice their fate when conditions change and priorities shift whenever the Rule of Law no longer rules. Where then are they, our RIGHTS?
Procreation, the 'right' to reproduce, ceases to be a right of individuals when its exercise threatens the viability or even well being of the whole! This is so with ANY 'right': mine stops where yours begins! And neither remains such where Society is at risk.
No aspect of 'civilized' life will remain viable, much less sustainable, regardless of technology or ways and means employed to make it so, when human population and its activites go beyond the planet's carrying capacity. Ecology 101!
Seems common sense to curtail the exercise of a few individual 'rights,' voluntarily or otherwise, to ensure the viability of the whole. Particularly when, if we don't, it'll be done unto us! Like it or not!
Clue: Iran took ten years to do just that! It reduced birthrates and total numbers to levels the country could sustain without outside dependencies.
Bottomline: Sustainability is Nature's Law. Humans have exceeded in all fronts the Earth's capacity to sustain US! And, as with all populations, Nature will reduce our numbers UNLESS WE FIRST REDUCE OURSELVES!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever the word is used or defined, human sustainability on Earth is no longer possible. That's what I think. Solutions require a consensus which, among world 'leaders,' seems unattainable. To wit: the ongoing debate on global warming, climate change, environmental degradation and even social decline! It goes nowhere while everything else goes down the drain!
THE MYTH WITHIN MYTH No. 9.
Which ought we to honor, the individual's 'right' to reproduce or society's 'right' to remain viable? The parents' right to conceive or the child's right to a good life?
As it exists now, civilization cannot sustain a population of 9+ billion when, visibly, it can not sustain the 6.5 billion we already have.
Presently, we add 70 million new people per year to our numbers. As the rate of increase rises exponentially and the domino effect takes over, this will inevitably catapult civilization towards social decline and the collapse of ecosystems faster than is already happening. Where then human rights?
So-called human 'rights' are the luxuries and privileges of stable societies, gifts guaranteed by law and order. Indeed, they are the hallmark of civilization itself. But notice their fate when conditions change and priorities shift whenever the Rule of Law no longer rules. Where then are they, our RIGHTS?
Procreation, the 'right' to reproduce, ceases to be a right of individuals when its exercise threatens the viability or even well being of the whole! This is so with ANY 'right': mine stops where yours begins! And neither remains such where Society is at risk.
No aspect of 'civilized' life will remain viable, much less sustainable, regardless of technology or ways and means employed to make it so, when human population and its activites go beyond the planet's carrying capacity. Ecology 101!
Seems common sense to curtail the exercise of a few individual 'rights,' voluntarily or otherwise, to ensure the viability of the whole. Particularly when, if we don't, it'll be done unto us! Like it or not!
Clue: Iran took ten years to do just that! It reduced birthrates and total numbers to levels the country could sustain without outside dependencies.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=top-10-myths-about-sustainability : you mention global warming and water pollution " " we will change the climate .... . poisonous by-products into streams, oceans " but today is april 25, and the temp is 26 f. not corn weather, a sci am scientist wrote me "don't overdo it" when i mentioned cooling. i am removing pollutants from the columbia river, the yellowstone, missouri, and mississippi rivers, and many small streams which flow into puget sound and pacific ocean. i reverse global warming by restoring plankton to ocean dead zones. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=++++++++++glen+hemerick.+hi%2C+tuesday%2C+i+released+phytoplankton+from+mo%27s+pier+into+your+dead+zone&btnG=Google+Search
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOBSERVATIONS CONCERNING POPULATION INCREASE:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe interaction of immunization, antibiotics, water treatment, cheap feel good factors, religion and conception control:
Observation 1: setting is middle age first world (Europe).
A reasonably fed woman would birth 5-10 times (even if only living until 30's).
Survival to age of further reproduction is approx 2.1 (slow population growth proves this).
"Babyhood" diseases accounting for the major decimation.
Observation 2: same setting but with water treatment and more importantly (cheap) IMMUNIZATION.
Same birthing rate .
Survival to age of further reproduction is approx 3-4
Observation 3: same setting but with antibiotics, the pill and the rise of women-power:
Birthing and survival is approx 2-3
Observation 4:
In an unstable, insecure society the best, most stable, "pension system" is children.
Good education is best method to secure society.
Observation 5:
Superstitious religions (all) consider fun sex to be immoral and dirty.
Observation 6: and some personal conclusions: setting Africa, South America
Major first world aid (especially from the USA) consists of cheap ($0.50) "5 in 1" neonate immunization and antibiotics.
Who does not want to help poor little helpless infants etc. (feel good)
Other aid is cheap (surplus) food (which aids fertility) and now (one time cost) good water wells etc.
Conception control PROGRAMS are expensive and "will encourage more unholy sex"
Education with sex education is as above.
Religious education is a feel good. THIS IS MORALITY
Rationality index (for the above) is about equivalent to a belief in myths.
I do not doubt the sincerity of most religious people
I LEAVE YOU TO DRAW YOUR OWN BRAVE RATIONAL CONCLUSIONS
(much of the above was pointed out to me in South Africa by Dr Maurice Schepers from Belgium)
Scientific Un American is what you ought to call this magazine. If you listen to the heart of everything you just talked about in this article you are basically saying America is wrong. You also LIE about a few things you said the Republicans attacked Obama for saying proper tire inflation could save gas.. That is not true as we Republicans know that a tire that is properly inflated will increase gas mileage over one that is not... This is NOT what Obama said. Obama said "WE COULD SAVE ALL THE OIL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT GETTING FROM DRILLING IF WE JUST INFLATED OUR TIRES" That is a flat out lie even if every car on the road had tires that were not inflated properly. YOU PEOPLE AT THIS MAGAZINE ARE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST TO SAY THE LEAST!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen there is the comment of
"but we will change the climate in ways that could very likely impose huge burdens on future generations. How misleading you are as you throw in the word likely to cover the ass yet most people who read this will take it as fact!!!! You and I know it's BS, we also know that the man made global warming argument in 2009 is like arguing over the existence of GOD ...... YOU CAN NEITHER PROVE NOR DISPROVE THE OTHER.... You can only have faith in what you believe!!!
Amazing a flash of brilliance in world dim with and devoid of thought. The light it flickers and the wind blows cold, yet there is hope however if these people get there way we will be in a second dark age!!!! To think the same people who are behind this are the ones who's newly anointed leader said, "We will restore science". It kind of funny when what he really means is we will replace actual scientific research with PC politically motivated Science and then vilify those who seek the truth as non believers, or deniers. We must keep up the fight and with a rational intelligent debate and I would like to thank you for putting everything that I know in my head into words!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ignorance is unbelievable and the fact you are talking about SOLAR FARMS only proves it. Think about this for a minute what is sustainable about a solar farm? Do you have any idea how much wildlife you would have to destroy to build a solar farm capable of powering S Cali alone? The answer is already right in front of us in the case of solar and it's a local solution. Giant panels in one location make no sense. The answer is to use them on site at the business or residence. The technology is already here. The only problem is most people are not willing to shell out the 20 to 50 thousand it would cost to outfit their home now if only the gov would push this idea which would foster much needed competition in the manufacturing causing the price to drop. Like I said you just go on believing that this is about saving the planet or whatever you think just know that for people like Algore and B Obama it's ALL ABOUT THE BENJI's $$$$$$$$$ Why else do you think the only solutions they talk about involve large wind or solar farms??? Answer regulation and taxation... If everyone who had a home in the areas of the country that get a fair amount of sun had solar on the premise what do you think would happen to utility $$, Labour unions who dominate the utilities and all the tax money they can levy from it. Think about it???? THIS SMELLS OF MONEY ... Sad part is the people who really do care about the environment seem to get suckered in by smooth talkers like GORE AND OBAMA time and time again...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne more point ..... If the men like Barack Obama are so concerned about the carbon output of the US why do we not declare Sunday a national holiday making it law to close on Sun... Imagine all the carbon we could reduce... Then they could push for one day of the week to be a vegetarian day after all if you believe the reports on this stuff the meat industry is one of the largest producers of carbon. So lets all back off on the burgers one day of the week not so hard is it? Not to mention it would be a true bi partisan move as the religious right would love these ideas too!!!! Then why don't we encourage all the mall's and auto miles in the country to shut half their lights down at night.... See there are all kinds of things that make common sense we could do with little or no impact on taxes or the size of government. Just more evidence of how this IS ONE BIG SHAM ON THE PART OF POLITICIANS!!! They do not care like we do and their solutions are mostly phoney. THEY WANT MORE CONTROL AND MORE MONEY $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ IT'S AN AGE OLD THING WAKE UP PEOPLE.... Politicians will always tell you what you want to hear so that you will give them more money and more control.. It's in their nature to secure re election and feed the megalomaniac the lives inside most of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it when people provide logical arguments in oposition to your dogma you denigrate them. Free speech and the ability to express ones opinions seems to be anathema to environmentalists and climate chnage worshipers. If you can refute an arguments respectfully with facts - zip it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLemonick says that population isn't the main problem: It is THE single greatest problem. He worries about stepping on peoples' feelings! How absurd. Nature is the ultimate population Nazi! She doesn't care about your race, creed or color. As Henry Kendall said, "We can bring about population stabilization graciously or nature will do it brutally." To pretend that we cannot or must not stabilize population is sophistic at best and dangerous beyond anyone's comprehension. www.frostywooldridge.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLemonick's statement that we cannot take command of our birth rate because we will step on our emotional sensitivities shows a total disregard for reality. We can use International Family Planning to bring populations into balance with birth control gently and with honorable results. To continue to allow 18 million people to starve to death annually--shows an absurd lack of common sense. The US needs to implement a "US Sustainable Population Policy". We need to bring our population levels in line with our carrying capacity. Simplest solution, since the US female has averaged 2.03 children since 1970, we need to bring immigration down to near zero. Frosty Wooldridge www.frostywooldridge.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo repeatedly state that CO2 is a pollutant is to repeat a myth that has no scientific basis. CO2 (increasing) is vitally required to continue producing sufficient food bio-mass. That and warmer temperatures are the ONLY hope that we may have a sustainable world population. Your maligning of our most valuable plant food is truly a disservice to all Mankind. We may be about to learn what cooling trends will do to our crop yields. It will not be pretty. SciAm will have to shoulder some responsibility for this misdirection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really enjoyed your article. I believe that sustainability extends to every area of our lives, from what we eat to how much sleep we get. It's all about balance. I've started my own blog to raise awareness and ideas for a sustainable planet Earth at http:/www.bluegreeneverywhere.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent summary. I am still frustrated by the acknowledgement and then dismissal (as in unsolvable) of the population problem. The fact is that we are now past the point of sustainability with the current population. How is it that accepting another 2 billion people in ten years can be dismissed? Resource fishery populations are down by 90% worldwide. How is this not a major catastrophy requiring immediate global attention? Do we have to wait for these fisheries to go EXTINCT? Population growth has been the driver for the pyramid scheme called Capitalism. Now that population growth will be severely curtailed by environmental limits, has anyone thought about the impact on global financial markets when this driver is done? Sustainability also needs to be assessed for global financial markets and how the world will realign itself to the end of exponential growth rate-based valuations. These are the two biggest elephants in the room that no one talks about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for posting your comment. I couldn't agree more. This is one of the elephants that I talk about in my post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead "The Two-Mile Time Machine" and then respond with facts instead of hysterics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the predisposition of our species to consume as much as possible (read Ronald Wright and numerous others), addressing population is not a false solution. At present, we enable growth in many other countries by providing a safety valve through immigration. At the same time, most of those immigrants magnify their ecological and carbon footprints by a factor of four or more. Halting immigration (along with providing education and contraception to women), and letting the natural birthrate run its course here, would help countries to finally deal with high birth rates, and would most certainly help in the reduction in consumption we are seeking. How can we hope to reduce total consumption if we just keep adding consumers, especially in high consumption countries?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Sustainability" is all too often just a catchy buzzword to hide our incremental and inexorable destruction of this planet. The more of us there are, the faster that will happen.
The author states the solution: with only 100 million or so on this planet, virtually all the other issues will go away. If we keep on our present course, it is certain that massive collapse will provide us with that opportunity, unless of course we use our so-called intelligence to mitigate that collapse. Evidently, larger and more complex brains should never be confused with intelligence, or wisdom.
Sorry, but you are mixing so many different contexts that your statements have become almost meaningless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact: CO2 levels today far exceed CO2 levels for anytime in past HUMAN history, and, are completely out of sync with all known NATURAL causes. Ref: The Two-Mile Time Machine. A historical and scientifically validated source of accurate CO2 levels dating back over 500,000 years.
Fact: CO2 is a green house gas. That it also spurs plant growth cannot mean that it is ONLY a good thing to increase CO2. The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperatures, alters weather and current patterns, resulting in drastic changes to the environment (soil, rain, ph) that if it happens too quickly, simply kills the species in that climate zone. Example: Bark Beetle infestations have decimated major (almost 90% destroyed) areas of the Canadian forest lands central to east. This due to the lack of cold winters that normally kill the beetle.
Fact: We need Oxygen to live. Fact: Too much Oxygen kills us.
I hope you can see that the issue is not just CO2 and its direct effect on plants.
Bark beetles have decimated Canadian forests because we provided excellent habitat for them by planting huge tracts of only one kind of tree (the kind that matures quickly, of course). Forestry monoculture is the main culprit, not global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMyth 6 mentions our standard of living. The Global Footprint Network states that we already need more than one planet to support us, and further population growth will only make that worse. Our current level of economic activity is depleting resources, draining aquifers, killing off other species at an unprecedented rate, and leaving increasingly persistent and toxic pollutants throughout the planet. No corner is safe from us. At the same time billions of people in developing countries are attempting to achieve the same standard of living. Somewhere, something will have to give. The conceit that we will not have to lower our standard of living, while keeping the same or higher population with even more people competing for the same resources, is absurd -- but pretty typical groupthink among those who don't wish to address the real problems, and especially those who live in developed countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou clearly do not understand the difference between a specific effect, CO2 on plants, and a global effect, CO2 raises temperatures and alters climates. The former, in its limited way, is absolutely true that increased CO2 increases plant growth, the latter, in the global perspective, ensures that climate change will cause mass species extinctions and hugely affect our ability to feed ourselves by driving large increases in deserts (already underway), and by stressing existing plant systems into migrating to ever smaller regions that provide their "global" requirements for survival.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this99% of the climate scientists on this planet agree on this point and have the brains to perceive more than the most trivial relationship.
Read The Two Mile Time Machine and explain to me how you consider the current levels of CO2 as anything other than a man-made modern (last 50 years) phenomenon.
You clearly do not understand the difference between a specific effect, CO2 on plants, and a global effect, CO2 raises temperatures and alters climates. The former, in its limited way, is absolutely true that increased CO2 increases plant growth, the latter, in the global perspective, ensures that climate change will cause mass species extinctions and hugely affect our ability to feed ourselves by driving large increases in deserts (already underway), and by stressing existing plant systems into migrating to ever smaller regions that provide their "global" requirements for survival.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this99% of the climate scientists on this planet agree on this point and have the brains to perceive more than the most trivial relationship.
Read The Two Mile Time Machine and explain to me how you consider the current levels of CO2 as anything other than a man-made modern (last 50 years) phenomenon.
You clearly do not understand the difference between a specific effect, CO2 on plants, and a global effect, CO2 raises temperatures and alters climates. The former, in its limited way, is absolutely true that increased CO2 increases plant growth, the latter, in the global perspective, ensures that climate change will cause mass species extinctions and hugely affect our ability to feed ourselves by driving large increases in deserts (already underway), and by stressing existing plant systems into migrating to ever smaller regions that provide their "global" requirements for survival.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this99% of the climate scientists on this planet agree on this point and have the brains to perceive more than the most trivial relationship.
Read The Two Mile Time Machine and explain to me how you consider the current levels of CO2 as anything other than a man-made modern (last 50 years) phenomenon.
Not true. The mono-culture has existed far longer than the beetle infestation, which has, coincidentally occurred during the last decade of the fastest increasing temperatures. Again, you overlook facts attempting to support your position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRon, you need to check your facts. The monoculture is a human product, to cater to human economic needs. That may not fit with your own personal world view and your need to always be right, but it is nevertheless true. And, by the way, your comment that it is central and eastern Canada that is affected is also dead wrong. The pine beetle infestation is a western Canadian phenomenon, and has been ongoing for millenia. We have simply made it worse by providing optimal conditions for beetle reproduction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words, Ron, trying to use beetle infestations as an example of the supposed effects of global warming is nonsense, as these sorts of infestations have been ongoing for millenia, and have waxed and waned over the years. So, do you have anything better?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI encourage you to read the information at http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Forests/Canada/BC/Beetle/ if you are truly interested in this issue. Biodiversity is the key, as always.
Problem with myth 10:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael D. Lemonick has completely destroyed any credibility with his statement that the use of corn ethanol would take food away from the table. I live in a corn ethanol location and environment. The only people or animals having less food on the table are the oil corporations. THEY are the ones blocking the market to the pump! We live in the middle of corn country and we got ONE E85 pump in about 300 miles square!
Sorry, but at the risk of sounding like a nut, I live here and I KNOW BETTER! Look! Taking hydrocarbons out of corn product DOES NOT REMOVE THE FOOD VALUE !!! Okay?
The cows and the people can still eat or consume any one of the five by products from the process!! I can't believe you still call this rag 'Scentific' American, when all sense has obviously gone out the window!!
Just one of the products of ethanol production is corn meal/starch. How is this NOT food. I get so tired of stupid liberal city dumb butts who can't even grab their behinds with two hands, let alone have an unbiased truthfull scientific thought!
I just can't help it! I'm mad!! I am all for sustainability on energy, and I'm willing to go with the CO2 theory as long as people have correct scientific discipline, and we get off foreign oil. How long do you think free thought and scientific reason is going to last without logic in the field?!?!?
Very disappointing that this article is no longer freely available. I was using this link in a wikieducator course and will now have to delete it. I strongly encourage Michael D. Lemonick to provide this as an open educational resource. The future of our species will benefit from this besides modelling sustainability in providing this free of charge. I assume you live comfortably enough that you do not need to make money from this!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am extremely disappointed that this article is no longer available free of charge. I was using the link in a wikieducator open educational resource course and now have to delete it. I assume that Michael D. Lemonick lives comfortably and doesn't need to charge reads for this article. Therefore it would be great to see it available as an open educational resource modelling sustainability and collaboration. Thanks :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes,it is so much true and valent Article about earth ,these 10 myths is really not exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis post is from:
<a href="http://www.english-lc.com">English Learning Center</a>
Yes,it is so much true and valent Article about earth ,these 10 myths is really not exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis post is from:
<a href="http://www.english-lc.com">English Learning Center</a>
http://www.australianblogs.com.au/dir/politics-government/say-no-carbon-tax-australia
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.australianblogs.com.au/dir/politics-government/say-no-carbon-tax-australia
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally frightened! Everything is very open and very obvious clarification of issues. It contains truly information. Your website is very useful. Thanks for sharing. Looking to the fore to more!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://www.ghostpapers.com">Term Papers</a>