#climateheating — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #climateheating, aggregated by home.social.
-
I can't wait to see Americans resisting by posting strongly worded things online about it
-
Dr. Emily Judd: "The impact of anthropogenic climate change is (and will continue to be) determined by the rate of change (meaning how quickly CO2 and temperature change) much more than the absolute temperatures, themselves."
cited by @hausfath there: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-skeptics-have-new-favorite 🧵
#massExtinction #massExtinctions #climate #climateChange #globalHeating #climateBreakdown #climateHeating #quotes #research #study #CO2 #emissions
-
Dr. Emily Judd: "The impact of anthropogenic climate change is (and will continue to be) determined by the rate of change (meaning how quickly CO2 and temperature change) much more than the absolute temperatures, themselves."
cited by @hausfath there: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-skeptics-have-new-favorite 🧵
#massExtinction #massExtinctions #climate #climateChange #globalHeating #climateBreakdown #climateHeating #quotes #research #study #CO2 #emissions
-
Dr. Emily Judd: "The impact of anthropogenic climate change is (and will continue to be) determined by the rate of change (meaning how quickly CO2 and temperature change) much more than the absolute temperatures, themselves."
cited by @hausfath there: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-skeptics-have-new-favorite 🧵
#massExtinction #massExtinctions #climate #climateChange #globalHeating #climateBreakdown #climateHeating #quotes #research #study #CO2 #emissions
-
Dr. Emily Judd: "The impact of anthropogenic climate change is (and will continue to be) determined by the rate of change (meaning how quickly CO2 and temperature change) much more than the absolute temperatures, themselves."
cited by @hausfath there: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-skeptics-have-new-favorite 🧵
#massExtinction #massExtinctions #climate #climateChange #globalHeating #climateBreakdown #climateHeating #quotes #research #study #CO2 #emissions
-
Dr. Emily Judd: "The impact of anthropogenic climate change is (and will continue to be) determined by the rate of change (meaning how quickly CO2 and temperature change) much more than the absolute temperatures, themselves."
cited by @hausfath there: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-skeptics-have-new-favorite 🧵
#massExtinction #massExtinctions #climate #climateChange #globalHeating #climateBreakdown #climateHeating #quotes #research #study #CO2 #emissions
-
"The water vapor holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7% per °C of warming"
https://youtube.com/shorts/6oEbGv3G034
#WaterVapor #ClimateHeating #ClimateExtremes #climate #ClimateScience #ClimateEmergency #ClimateCrisis #ClimateBreakdown #climatecatastrophe #ExtremeWeather #fossilfuels #Co2 #Co2Emissions #methane #GreenhouseGases #KeepinInTheGround
-
"The water vapor holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7% per °C of warming"
https://youtube.com/shorts/6oEbGv3G034
#WaterVapor #ClimateHeating #ClimateExtremes #climate #ClimateScience #ClimateEmergency #ClimateCrisis #ClimateBreakdown #climatecatastrophe #ExtremeWeather #fossilfuels #Co2 #Co2Emissions #methane #GreenhouseGases #KeepinInTheGround
-
"The water vapor holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7% per °C of warming"
https://youtube.com/shorts/6oEbGv3G034
#WaterVapor #ClimateHeating #ClimateExtremes #climate #ClimateScience #ClimateEmergency #ClimateCrisis #ClimateBreakdown #climatecatastrophe #ExtremeWeather #fossilfuels #Co2 #Co2Emissions #methane #GreenhouseGases #KeepinInTheGround
-
“Shell’s board has previously advised shareholders that the Follow This resolution was unrealistic and simplistic, that it would have no impact on mitigating climate change, have negative consequences for our customers, and was against the interests of the company and our shareholders.”
Your taxes individually have no impact on government budgets. Should you stop paying them?
#ClimateHeating #PetroleumIndustry #Disinformation #Policy -
“Shell’s board has previously advised shareholders that the Follow This resolution was unrealistic and simplistic, that it would have no impact on mitigating climate change, have negative consequences for our customers, and was against the interests of the company and our shareholders.”
Your taxes individually have no impact on government budgets. Should you stop paying them?
#ClimateHeating #PetroleumIndustry #Disinformation #Policy -
“Shell’s board has previously advised shareholders that the Follow This resolution was unrealistic and simplistic, that it would have no impact on mitigating climate change, have negative consequences for our customers, and was against the interests of the company and our shareholders.”
Your taxes individually have no impact on government budgets. Should you stop paying them?
#ClimateHeating #PetroleumIndustry #Disinformation #Policy -
@Pollinators Though it's delicious, you're right, that it's worrying, that we can harvest root veg this time of the year. It's the same here. The beetroots we harvested last week should have been destroyed by frost by now.
Anyway, if the disaster of #ClimateHeating with all the negative impacts has a little plus side, I'm not going to complain about it. There is enough to worry. -
#climateheating and #fascism are concurrently evolving. The more migration is caused by unlivable climate conditions the more fascists endorse violence to maintain their extractive colonial life style. It deforms the political discourse as if harsher and more.violently guarded borders could change anything about climate heating. It's insanity and reminds me of the 1842 book "extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of.crowds" from Charles McKay
-
Danielle Smith really needs to resign as Premier of Alberta. This is yet another forehead slapper from the well-known dimwit.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/12/27/news/danielle-smith-picks-another-fight-feds
#abpoli #cdnpoli #ClimateHeating #DisorderedMind #CowBurps #ClimatePolicy #DanielleSmith #Cattle
-
Danielle Smith really needs to resign as Premier of Alberta. This is yet another forehead slapper from the well-known dimwit.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/12/27/news/danielle-smith-picks-another-fight-feds
#abpoli #cdnpoli #ClimateHeating #DisorderedMind #CowBurps #ClimatePolicy #DanielleSmith #Cattle
-
Danielle Smith really needs to resign as Premier of Alberta. This is yet another forehead slapper from the well-known dimwit.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/12/27/news/danielle-smith-picks-another-fight-feds
#abpoli #cdnpoli #ClimateHeating #DisorderedMind #CowBurps #ClimatePolicy #DanielleSmith #Cattle
-
Danielle Smith really needs to resign as Premier of Alberta. This is yet another forehead slapper from the well-known dimwit.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/12/27/news/danielle-smith-picks-another-fight-feds
#abpoli #cdnpoli #ClimateHeating #DisorderedMind #CowBurps #ClimatePolicy #DanielleSmith #Cattle
-
Danielle Smith really needs to resign as Premier of Alberta. This is yet another forehead slapper from the well-known dimwit.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/12/27/news/danielle-smith-picks-another-fight-feds
#abpoli #cdnpoli #ClimateHeating #DisorderedMind #CowBurps #ClimatePolicy #DanielleSmith #Cattle
-
How effective has science been in stemming global heating? The evidence is: Scientists are having exactly zero meaningful effect.
https://elifesciences.org/articles/83292
Now some say its time for scientists themselves to take direct action.
#GlobalChange #ClimateHeating #ScienceAdvocacy #Science #DirectAction #CivilDisobedience #Politics -
How effective has science been in stemming global heating? The evidence is: Scientists are having exactly zero meaningful effect.
https://elifesciences.org/articles/83292
Now some say its time for scientists themselves to take direct action.
#GlobalChange #ClimateHeating #ScienceAdvocacy #Science #DirectAction #CivilDisobedience #Politics -
How effective has science been in stemming global heating? The evidence is: Scientists are having exactly zero meaningful effect.
https://elifesciences.org/articles/83292
Now some say its time for scientists themselves to take direct action.
#GlobalChange #ClimateHeating #ScienceAdvocacy #Science #DirectAction #CivilDisobedience #Politics -
How effective has science been in stemming global heating? The evidence is: Scientists are having exactly zero meaningful effect.
https://elifesciences.org/articles/83292
Now some say its time for scientists themselves to take direct action.
#GlobalChange #ClimateHeating #ScienceAdvocacy #Science #DirectAction #CivilDisobedience #Politics -
How effective has science been in stemming global heating? The evidence is: Scientists are having exactly zero meaningful effect.
https://elifesciences.org/articles/83292
Now some say its time for scientists themselves to take direct action.
#GlobalChange #ClimateHeating #ScienceAdvocacy #Science #DirectAction #CivilDisobedience #Politics -
Maybe it wasn't a great idea to elect a wholly owned subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry to run Alberta after all.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jonathan-wilkinson-danielle-smith-argument-incoherent-1.7053644
-
Put another way: Scientists call for the overthrow of the vested interests working to burn down the planet for profit.
-
"I know! Let's hold our meeting in a corrupt major oil-producing state! They'll be shamed into reducing production!" they said.
That worked really well.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67513901
#Oil #ClimateHeating #COP28 #GretaIsRight #BlahBlahBlah #FlamingBullshit
-
#World facing ‘hellish’ 3C of #ClimateHeating, #UN warns before #Cop28 | #ClimateCrisis | The Guardian
-
#Climate-heating gases reach record highs, UN reports | Greenhouse gas emissions
World Meteorological Organization sees ‘no end in sight to the rising trend’, largely driven by fossil fuel burning
#ClimateCrisis #Environment
The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/15/climate-heating-gases-reach-record-highs-un-reports -
This is very frightening. In their response to the climate crisis, our leaders are children playing with matches.
-
The preference for "sunny warm days" is part of the human psyche (our ecological niche)
The UK Met Office also expresses this natural bias to praise "fine weather"
Heat is a more straightforward way to explain why heating the planet's biosphere (climate heating) is so dangerous. That danger becomes more pronounced the hotter a country's average weather is - as #ClimateHeating is increasing that average temp.
But, think of a fridge. As heat shifts, that can also cause colder extremes
-
#ClimateHeating therefore #ClimateChange solutions (proven to work. But, only if we do them!)
The sooner we stop burning carbon, eating meat (methane emissions) & start restoring natural habitats, the sooner the planet's systems will sequester the legacy atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions (having a planet-cooling effect)
Hey, if the solutions were vote winners, the majority would have chosen them already.
Although, greenwash hasn't "helped" 🤔
-
A Rich *Industrial* Society (RIS) isn't primed to mitigate #ClimateChange
RIS is primed to use more resources repairing the damage &, for example, constructing more flood defences.
So, in RIS, construction methods generally emit huge quantities of greenhouse gases which cause more #ClimateHeating, which causes more climate change, which causes RIS to respond in Business-As-Usual (BAU) ways
An evolutionary arms race against the PLANET'S biosphere in which BAU losers (crash)
Plan G 🌳🐛🐬🍓🌦️🚲
-
Zachary Labe [email protected]
Is a #climate #scientist trying to visualize the signal from a lot of noise. Zachary's graphics do a brilliant job of visualizing the data on, for example, #Arctic sea ice volume https://zacklabe.com/arctic-sea-ice-volumethickness/
#ClimateEffects of #ClimateHeating #FossilFuels #WoodFuels (AKA #biomass ) #AnimalAgriculture
-
Probably obvious to many here but anyway : The discourse around 1.2 degrees, 1.5 degrees or 2.7 degrees of warming or about other climate heating related numbers is pretty abstract. How about "Are you fine with food shortages and soaring food prices or would you rather support a radical reorientation of environmental, traffic and fossil extraction policies?" #climateheating #foodcrisis
-
Organized Traffic is a fundamental civilizational endeavour .... It's at the center of #climateheating and violence .... technology believers only want to discuss the "how" traffic can be improved but not the "why" are we so eager to get away from where we are? Anthropology as the science closest to dealing with origins of traffic question .... In "the art of not being governed" telecom and transport machinery enclosed the planet on its current heating trajectory .... circa 19th century
-
The digital copyright regime established in the last three decades contributes to #climateheating as it produces a centralized "Super-Highway" internet infrastructure and prevents #regionalism .... Most digital goods could be available from some nearby 10ks of devices, with some local high storage mixed in, if we had further developed p2p tech that already existed 15 years ago. Instead we got YouTube, Spotify and Netflix and the writers guild going on #strike ...
-
Don't fight climate activists but fossil fueled industrialism and their rich proponents!
Damn it.
It's really an utter and complete joke how national states and corporate elites are speeding toward and through the unfolding #climateheating crisis trying to maintain their power and riches. A few adjustments in two or three decades are not cutting it, not even close!
Just read the damn writings on all of the walls. And don't be surprised if more and more people subscribe to #eattherich -
It was the best of times. It was the worst of terms and conditions.
terms: #enshittification
conditions: #climateheating -
Title – One Planet #Sustainability
The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to).
Generally, for human societies to transition towards a sustainability culture (e.g., lifestyles), people, in general, will have to vastly reduce the amount of resources and power they're consuming. The Our World in data website - Per capita greenhouse gas emissions: how much does the average person emit?" provides an indication of how the amount of resources and power that people consume is not evenly distributed (generally, wealthy people consume more resources and power, for example, more consumerism - therefore cause more Greenhouse Gas Emissions) https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions
A sustainable society must fundamentally not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted. Extracting fossil fuels or mining for metals causes ecological degradation (& also burns fossil fuels, therefore causing greenhouse gas emissions, to extract, process, and transport the fuels and metals)
Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and mining for resources in general. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change.
Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).
Unfortunately, human societies are collectively severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. Crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)
However, humans could choose to live a relatively sustainable way of life.
To quote The One Planet Council "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to this more sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
"More sustainable way of life" is a slightly misleading phrase because most people in developed countries presently, and temporarily, live an extremely unsustainable way of life (hence the requirement for a massive change toward sustainable development).
There are methods to live sustainably. However, these methods need to generally replace the unsustainable resources and power demands of unsustainable lifestyles (societies) if they're to be effectively sustainable. The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution that's based on the science of AgroEcology (not that evidence-based reasoning will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). That generally means reducing how much resources and power societies use. In other words, focusing on resource and power efficiency. The present dominant economy wastes huge amounts of resources and power-producing products that nobody actually needs (that people could live comfortably without)
Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.
There are many well-intended people in #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.
More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)
People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)
That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).
However, to reiterate and rephrase so as to be more accurate "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to a sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).
Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and #climatology (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).
The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)
Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)
In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.
To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas) #psychology
Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.
1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate
3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/
#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy
#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution
-
Title – One Planet #Sustainability
The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to).
Generally, for human societies to transition towards a sustainability culture (e.g., lifestyles), people, in general, will have to vastly reduce the amount of resources and power they're consuming. The Our World in data website - Per capita greenhouse gas emissions: how much does the average person emit?" provides an indication of how the amount of resources and power that people consume is not evenly distributed (generally, wealthy people consume more resources and power, for example, more consumerism - therefore cause more Greenhouse Gas Emissions) https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions
A sustainable society must fundamentally not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted. Extracting fossil fuels or mining for metals causes ecological degradation (& also burns fossil fuels, therefore causing greenhouse gas emissions, to extract, process, and transport the fuels and metals)
Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and mining for resources in general. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change.
Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).
Unfortunately, human societies are collectively severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. Crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)
However, humans could choose to live a relatively sustainable way of life.
To quote The One Planet Council "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to this more sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
"More sustainable way of life" is a slightly misleading phrase because most people in developed countries presently, and temporarily, live an extremely unsustainable way of life (hence the requirement for a massive change toward sustainable development).
There are methods to live sustainably. However, these methods need to generally replace the unsustainable resources and power demands of unsustainable lifestyles (societies) if they're to be effectively sustainable. The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution that's based on the science of AgroEcology (not that evidence-based reasoning will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). That generally means reducing how much resources and power societies use. In other words, focusing on resource and power efficiency. The present dominant economy wastes huge amounts of resources and power-producing products that nobody actually needs (that people could live comfortably without)
Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.
There are many well-intended people in #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.
More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)
People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)
That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).
However, to reiterate and rephrase so as to be more accurate "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to a sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).
Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and #climatology (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).
The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)
Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)
In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.
To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas) #psychology
Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.
1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate
3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/
#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy
#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution
-
Title – One Planet #Sustainability
The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to).
Generally, for human societies to transition towards a sustainability culture (e.g., lifestyles), people, in general, will have to vastly reduce the amount of resources and power they're consuming. The Our World in data website - Per capita greenhouse gas emissions: how much does the average person emit?" provides an indication of how the amount of resources and power that people consume is not evenly distributed (generally, wealthy people consume more resources and power, for example, more consumerism - therefore cause more Greenhouse Gas Emissions) https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions
A sustainable society must fundamentally not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted. Extracting fossil fuels or mining for metals causes ecological degradation (& also burns fossil fuels, therefore causing greenhouse gas emissions, to extract, process, and transport the fuels and metals)
Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and mining for resources in general. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change.
Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).
Unfortunately, human societies are collectively severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. Crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)
However, humans could choose to live a relatively sustainable way of life.
To quote The One Planet Council "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to this more sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
"More sustainable way of life" is a slightly misleading phrase because most people in developed countries presently, and temporarily, live an extremely unsustainable way of life (hence the requirement for a massive change toward sustainable development).
There are methods to live sustainably. However, these methods need to generally replace the unsustainable resources and power demands of unsustainable lifestyles (societies) if they're to be effectively sustainable. The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution that's based on the science of AgroEcology (not that evidence-based reasoning will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). That generally means reducing how much resources and power societies use. In other words, focusing on resource and power efficiency. The present dominant economy wastes huge amounts of resources and power-producing products that nobody actually needs (that people could live comfortably without)
Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.
There are many well-intended people in #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.
More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)
People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)
That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).
However, to reiterate and rephrase so as to be more accurate "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to a sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).
Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and #climatology (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).
The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)
Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)
In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.
To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas) #psychology
Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.
1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate
3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/
#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy
#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution
-
Title – One Planet #Sustainability
The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to).
Generally, for human societies to transition towards a sustainability culture (e.g., lifestyles), people, in general, will have to vastly reduce the amount of resources and power they're consuming. The Our World in data website - Per capita greenhouse gas emissions: how much does the average person emit?" provides an indication of how the amount of resources and power that people consume is not evenly distributed (generally, wealthy people consume more resources and power, for example, more consumerism - therefore cause more Greenhouse Gas Emissions) https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions
A sustainable society must fundamentally not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted. Extracting fossil fuels or mining for metals causes ecological degradation (& also burns fossil fuels, therefore causing greenhouse gas emissions, to extract, process, and transport the fuels and metals)
Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and mining for resources in general. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change.
Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).
Unfortunately, human societies are collectively severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. Crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)
However, humans could choose to live a relatively sustainable way of life.
To quote The One Planet Council "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to this more sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
"More sustainable way of life" is a slightly misleading phrase because most people in developed countries presently, and temporarily, live an extremely unsustainable way of life (hence the requirement for a massive change toward sustainable development).
There are methods to live sustainably. However, these methods need to generally replace the unsustainable resources and power demands of unsustainable lifestyles (societies) if they're to be effectively sustainable. The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution that's based on the science of AgroEcology (not that evidence-based reasoning will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). That generally means reducing how much resources and power societies use. In other words, focusing on resource and power efficiency. The present dominant economy wastes huge amounts of resources and power-producing products that nobody actually needs (that people could live comfortably without)
Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.
There are many well-intended people in #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.
More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)
People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)
That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).
However, to reiterate and rephrase so as to be more accurate "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to a sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).
Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and #climatology (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).
The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)
Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)
In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.
To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas) #psychology
Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.
1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate
3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/
#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy
#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution
-
Title – One Planet #Sustainability
The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to).
Generally, for human societies to transition towards a sustainability culture (e.g., lifestyles), people, in general, will have to vastly reduce the amount of resources and power they're consuming. The Our World in data website - Per capita greenhouse gas emissions: how much does the average person emit?" provides an indication of how the amount of resources and power that people consume is not evenly distributed (generally, wealthy people consume more resources and power, for example, more consumerism - therefore cause more Greenhouse Gas Emissions) https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions
A sustainable society must fundamentally not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted. Extracting fossil fuels or mining for metals causes ecological degradation (& also burns fossil fuels, therefore causing greenhouse gas emissions, to extract, process, and transport the fuels and metals)
Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and mining for resources in general. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change.
Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).
Unfortunately, human societies are collectively severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. Crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)
However, humans could choose to live a relatively sustainable way of life.
To quote The One Planet Council "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to this more sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
"More sustainable way of life" is a slightly misleading phrase because most people in developed countries presently, and temporarily, live an extremely unsustainable way of life (hence the requirement for a massive change toward sustainable development).
There are methods to live sustainably. However, these methods need to generally replace the unsustainable resources and power demands of unsustainable lifestyles (societies) if they're to be effectively sustainable. The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution that's based on the science of AgroEcology (not that evidence-based reasoning will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). That generally means reducing how much resources and power societies use. In other words, focusing on resource and power efficiency. The present dominant economy wastes huge amounts of resources and power-producing products that nobody actually needs (that people could live comfortably without)
Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.
There are many well-intended people in #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.
More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)
People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)
That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).
However, to reiterate and rephrase so as to be more accurate "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to a sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).
Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and #climatology (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).
The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)
Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)
In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.
To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas) #psychology
Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.
1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate
3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/
#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy
#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution
-
Title – One Planet #Sustainability
The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to)
First, it will be necessary to broadly define what is and what is not a sustainable society. Fundamentally, a society must not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted.
Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change. Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).
Unfortunately, human societies are severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. The crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)
However, humans could choose to live sustainably if they were prudent enough (in general).
The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason)
The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason)
Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.
There are many well-intended people in #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.
More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)
People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)
That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).
Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).
Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and #climatology (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).
The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)
Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)
In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.
To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas) #psychology
Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.
1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate
3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/
#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy
#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution
-
Title – One Planet #Sustainability
The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to)
First, it will be necessary to broadly define what is and what is not a sustainable society. Fundamentally, a society must not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted.
Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change. Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).
Unfortunately, human societies are severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. The crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)
However, humans could choose to live sustainably if they were prudent enough (in general).
The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason)
The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason)
Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.
There are many well-intended people in #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.
More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)
People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)
That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).
Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).
Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and #climatology (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).
The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)
Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)
In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.
To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas) #psychology
Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.
1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/
2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate
3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/
#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy
#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution
-
Since this post received no boosts, I thought I'd better edit it so as to dial down the message somewhat + I added a photo of a #sports #car (the #tech affect)
A photograph of a landscape in #Cumbria , #England that will be hammered by droughts (summer) & floods (generally autumn) as the effects of climate change intensify.
But, the fewer greenhouse gases people emit today & tomorrow, the less #ClimateChange will "hammer".
#ClimateHeating isn't a holiday in a hot country.
-
The challenge to stop human-caused #ClimateHeating is a challenge to mitigate the misinformation & disinformation of the #corporate sector (& associated sociopolitics)
For anyone that is concerned about #ClimateChange & let's be honest - there are many adults that are not ($), reducing #Greenhouse Gas Emissions is mission-critical.
Worst-case scenarios are trending toward worse-case realities.
What must be done? #CarbonTax and transition towards 100% Clean energy. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435117300120