Posts Tagged sustainable development
Should the Terms Climate Change and Green Be Banned to Allow a Better Understanding of Managing a Planet
1) ‘Climate change’ is a problem. It is too simple a soundbite. It gives the illusion that if you say it, work with it or think you understand it all will be well with the world. Start moving away from ‘climate change’. Replace it with planetary management etc. Change the paradigm. Remember talking about climate change is about as useless as taking a car for an MoT road worthy test and only being concerned about the tyres. These may be OK for another 10,000 miles but you can still run into the back of a bus on leaving the garage because of not understanding the importance of defective brakes, suspension or steering. Climate change needs to be dropped back and more inclusive, accurate, useful and representative concepts need to be explored to.
2) ‘Green’. Get rid of this and put it in the trash bin with Climate change. Never ever use this term. If you can’t explain what you want to say without using ‘green’, then you don’t understand the subject well enough you are communicating. Remember green is the colour of a field of cabbages or a coat of paint. It is a superficial concept and leads people to believe they have an understanding of what lies below, if they just say ‘green’. There was once a political party called the Ecology Party. When it changed its name to the Green party I never bothered with it again. If you use the term ecology, people may be inclined to ask you what you mean by it. If you use green, they may assume they know what it means, and further and deeper communication opportunity is lost. No one has given the subject of contemporary mainstream economics a colour, such as purple. So why do it with ecology and its application to sustainable planetary management. Ban ‘green’ and allow effective dialogue, communication and understanding to begin.
3) Once we have banned terms such as ‘climate change’ and ‘green’ from our vocabulary, then we can start finding other more useful concepts for communication. We need to express the importance of our relationships with the planet, the environment, other organisms and other organisms. Ecology is the study of the inter-relationships of organisms and the environment. Ask yourself am I an organism. If you are, then ecology applies to you. Use cultural concepts to engage people with ecology. Say to a western media savvy audience, Have you seen Star Wars? Can you remember what ‘The Force’ is? Obi-Wan Kenobi, “It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together”, It also takes ecology out of a terrestrial context, eg the heavier elements for life could only have been produced in a supernova explosion. Consider other cultural concepts which may relate to ecology. Laws of Karma?
For me I would not kill off bio-diversity, I would kill off climate change and green. Then using the alternatives of communication, we can explain bio-diversity and all the other important concepts essential to the continuance of life.
Well it has been an interesting and full week. First having just moved into new premises, Celtic Lion would like to thank the kind donation of an internet connection. Here are some of the results.
Many know that having worked on the set up of the UK climate models which contributed to the 2007 Nobel Prize I have been critical of the way they were set up and the results. Change in the weather is a review of the media this week on the subject.
Stephen Hawking this week dismissed the need for God in the creation of the Universe. This is our response on the subject. Our highest ranked page of the week with over 100 views in the first 24 hours. It relates cosmology with sustainable planetary management. The contained links may be of interest.
Heard this artist on Radio 2 Steve Wright in the Afternoon. Beautiful voice, interesting background and lyrics.
Had a conversation last week about the mathematician John Nash, him of the Russell Crowe film Beautiful Mind. Here is an article from our sister site Applied Planetary Engineering, written in the ranting style of the Scottish blogosphere at the time. Again it is links within links, go as far as you want. some may not work as we have not checked for 3 years
Well it has been a big week for dog psychology for me with a guest staying. Here is our highest rated article on the subject and more. Part of Ruskin’s legacy Page 4. More than just psychology, it covers part of the history and ecology of Perthshire, so may be of interest outside the dog world. For those with dogs it may just help prevent you losing your dog.
And finally as a result of the correspondence as regards the above my friend sent me this picture. Cutest dog picture of the week. All say aahh.
Thanks, have a good weekend
Celtic Lion 07946 033503 firstname.lastname@example.org
Population is a major problem, but unfortunately it needs long tern planning to resolve. It has been left too late.
Every time I here about climate tipping points I have to say, no! These are climate only models that say things need to be done in 20 years or 10 years.
Climate models are a simplified abstraction from reality. Imagine taking your car for an MoT and they only check the tyres. You are told they are fine and will last another 20,000 miles. The next day you drive into the back of a bus. Because they didn’t check the brakes, and they were shot.
Climate models are as they say on the tin, climate only models and predictions. They are as the name says, restricted in scope. The danger is whole planetary ecological system collapse which will happen sooner than the climate only scenarios.
We need a strategy on 3 factors.
Reduced birthrates now to ensure reduced consumption in long term 40-50 years.
Resolve the climate issue so we know what it is doing and it relationship with ecological systems. Carbon trading will not be successful if there is a relationship between CO2 and increasing temperature and/or extreme weather. This is the 8-20 year scenario.
The most important is the ecological system collapse. All decisions of the G20 must be reversed. Consumption must decrease to preserve the ecological life support systems. Those who are old enough remember the Apollo 13 mission. When the life support systems malfunctioned, they shut down all none essential systems to reduce the demand on what remained of the capsules life support system.
Planets are the same just a bigger scale. And we have no other home or oasis to reach. We have to shut down demand on Earth’s systems now. Then restore the functioning up to preexisting levels. It is not just about carbon emissions. The planet is losing the ability to absorb carbon due to damage to ecosystems. Same with pollution etc.
Demand on ecological systems must be reduced immediately, otherwise recommendations on climate change or population control will be meaningless. As we as a planet will not get to the point in time when such policies have any beneficial affect.
Ecological, climate and population systems all need to be addressed. But if we don’t act now immediately on ecological collapse. Anything we do on climate or population will never have any benefit. The system will have collapsed long before, and us with it.
Copenhagen should be about defining the best possible trajectory for this planet.
It must fail and should fail because it is flawed. Decisions are being based on those attending having one eye on reducing economic deficits. Caused by the very same Governments not even understanding how to run an economy. Having got that wrong they now want to run a planet.
Oh Birmingham had some safety problems at their Christmas light switch on concert. This was the standard for quality for medium sized music concerts.
During the planning of this concert we advised Greenpeace on how to take their Rainbow Warrior fundraising CD into a live event. The next year they took over as co-promotion of the Glastonbury festival. Scotland’s T in the Park being influenced by that. So the legacy of quality from this event still lives on.
For information on how music and associated events can be used as part of effective sustainable development etc, please contact us.
Good video from BBC related to ecological system collapse.
Contact Celtic Lion for our ecological services
Mr Justice Akenhead, ruled in the High Court London today, 29th July 2009 that Corby Council was liable “for their birth defects after their mothers were exposed to an ‘atmospheric soup of toxic materials’. In respect of an action regarding birth defects suffered by a group of children.
Is this good or bad news for the future of these children and the rest of the planet?
One of the issues of the the last 100 years has been the dumping of toxic waste of all kinds in many different places. This has occurred both on land and in the oceans. Without full regulation the extent is unknown.
One of the back stories to the pirate take over of ships off East African for ransom, is the claims that Somalia has been used so extensively for the dumping of toxic waste that due to the poisoning of the land and coastal waters, traditional incomes have been lost. Hence the need for ‘alternative pirate income’.
Other countries and corporations have been able to dump there to get round their own rules or costs involved in the disposal of waste.
Whatever the reasons or who has done the dumping or what has been disposed, both now and in the past, where ever it is on the planet. It has got to be cleaned up and all of it made safe.
The risk of contamination to the planets bio-sphere is immense. Heavy metals, radioactive and toxic chemical waste has to be cleaned up. If we are going to experience a change in climate, ecosystems must be able to respond. Additional stress due to toxins will most likely contribute to planetary ecosystem collapse. The extinction of most of the 60 million species of animal and plant and the deaths of 6 billion people.
With an obsession in the media and politics on just the nice simple soundbite of climate change, the real dangers to the planet have been missed. Synergistic, multi factor causation of the collapse of the earth’s ecological life support systems.
Linking over population, over consumption, pollution, species extinction, natural exploitation, social chaos, climate, war and conflict etc. This will occur far quicker than the ‘climate only’ scenario popularised in the media. Those involved in the climate change only problem, discuss the need for the reduction of CO2 emissions by whatever they decide by 2050.
The need for long term goal setting is vital in determining the strategy required to offset future predicted disasters. (Though in the case of climate change. Here I would prefer to avoid a discussion of will it won’t it, is it caused by man etc. A significant proportion of present political and economic work on this subject is based on my original work. Unfortunately against scientific methodology and even etiquette. Those who use my work do not cite me or refer back. Unfortunately a game of Chinese whispers have been played, the original meaning has been lost and the game will probably end in tears. Well death.)
Please contact me for a talk, effective strategy or other services.
In terms of climate change. It is appreciated that someone shouts a warning of a Tiger infront on a distant hill, but inadequate if the Rattlesnake behind is just about to bite you on the bum.
The most immediate and total threat is the collapse of planetary ecological life support systems (of which a changing climate is but an integrated part). Removing all toxic waste from the planet’s biosphere is a vital part of ensuring all our survival.
Looking at the Corby ruling, let us extrapolate. Let us not go into detail. Not having read all the evidence and submissions. I have to assume you haven’t either.
Would you agree that a council has been involved in cleaning up a steel works? Would you agree the court has ruled that in this project, the council has contributed to birth defects?
What would have happened if the council had not cleaned up the steel works? The contamination would still be on the site? (This is within the terms of reference of the court evidence).
Who would be responsible if the contamination was left on the site? Who would be responsible if the contamination then caused birth defects? It is a steel works. Does anyone drive a car made with steel? Does anyone have items at home made with steel? Does anyone work in a building made with steel? Has anyone been on a train, with steel wheels on a steel track?
What the intention is, is not to apportion blame but to look at the wider issues. Did the council know at the time the contamination could be linked with birth defects? if this information was available and known, were the council negligent in procedure in removing and transporting waste from the steel works?
What if the contamination was just left at the steel works and remained there until today?
These questions are relevant?
Prince Charles is quite rightly banging the drum, to get attention that we have 96 months to ‘save the planet’. Not quite correct as the planet will got rid of the parasite or virus called humans polluting and destroying it. In a 100 million years time once we have have gone and our mess processed and resolved by natural ecological systems. The planet may evolutionary give rise to another wiser race than ourselves, that will live with the rest of the life processes of the planet and take the course of evolution to the next stage.
A stage that we were too stupid and ignorant to attain to. Any memories in the cosmic mind will justifiably only remember us as ‘good riddance to bad rubbish’. A potential destroyer of worlds that had to be disposed of. We will be the toxin of life.
Where Prince Charles is incorrect is the time span. His 96 months is based on the climate only models. When we add the other factors mentioned such as over population, over consumption, pollution etc. The provisional whole Earth system model brings this down to around 42 months before the extinction of the human race and the deaths of 6 billion people begins together with the loss of all higher life forms on the planet.
Part of the essential strategy to prevent this is to clean up the entire planet of toxic waste.
Now to stop the deaths of billions of people and the extinction of most life on the planet, the courts have initiated a precedent. If one person dies, is injured or suffers birth defects. The project with a mission of saving 6 billion plus lives will be held libel by the courts.
Who will take the challenge and what are the moral issues involved?