Climate Change - What we can do

This is a tough one for me.

On the one hand, yes, I turn lights out behind me (mostly), recycle stuff and try to make my energy footprint as small and soft as possible etc (except for my obsessive gadget habit). But, then I watch a movie like Manufactured Landscapes and leave the theatre thinking, "Oh man, what a dope. I'm recycling paper bags and whole countries are vomiting metric buttloads of heavy metals and bunker crude into rivers and seas, and the West is creating a Great Barrier Reef of computer junk for poor people to breathe phosphorous from. What difference can I possibly be making?"

Then I listen to guys like George Monbiot and think, "Oh, great, we just have completely change the lifestyles of selfish, energy sucking nations and humans and all will be well. No problem."

On the other hand, I do believe in the power of grassroots change. So, that part of me is (probably foolishly) optimistic.

But, most days I'm feeling pretty down about this issue. The most effected countries and peoples are the poorest. The richest can insolate themselves from the effects of climate change until all the major global tipping points have been reached then, when it does hit them hard it will be too late.

Someone convince me I should be all sunshine and Skittles about this.

ok, I read your post and even decided to bypass the coffee in order to respond: you said it yourself: "I do believe in the power of grassroots change." Hang on to that! That's all you need. The apathy that's created when we think of how small our impact is in comparison to all the big bad things going on out there is the very thing stilfes the power of grassroots movements - and I think that apathy is very intentially perpetuated. Just don;t let yourself go there (of course everyone does from time to time, but allow yourself to believe in the ideal). When I think of the really wonderful changes that have taken place, they often are small in scope at first, and slow going. But those are the ones that are lasting. It's when people/governments/whatever feel that for change to occur it has to be wholesale that either nothing happens, or we have a war on our hands.
ok, time for coffee.

Great sans-coffee response. Let's talk more when you're full of beans :-) I'm not giving up, I just wish there was a more quid pro quo deal we could work out with industries and countries. Like, yes, I'll put a brick in my toilet tank, if you don't dump five tonnes of toulene in Beaver Creek etc. That seems fair. But, despite that faint hope, I'm growing my own vegetables organically and cycling whenever I can. But, you'll be prying my Internet tablet from my cold ... dead ... hands.

Don't believe a word Wayne says, he's totally proactive...if a little techno-addled. One thing that I think we could do is talk about the way we occupy space physically. I know that I am not the first person to propose this, but I do think there's something in it. During the George Monbiot video posted at www.therealnews.com he talks about people using the bus to get to work. He knows people hate it, but he sees it as the only way forward because our cities are so poorly set up for public transport. I agree. No one wants to spend 2 hours getting to work by bus as opposed to 1 hour by car. Our suburban houses are so far away from our places of work, that the only way we feel sane is by getting there as fast as we can.

With technology the way is it now, especially in terms of new media, there is no reason why we should all be headed for the same metropolis. Having said that, there is a belief (now a correct one) that all the good stuff happens in the metropolis. Out in the suburbs, people are bored, there's little opportunity to work, socialise, commune, apart from at the local 711 - and that's certainly not encouraged. The building of regional centres I think is the only way we'll stay sane and be able to reduce our environmental footprint. Stop piling into the one centre and make smaller ones. Make them cool places to be - music, arts, culture, employment. This has to be a concerted effort on all parts - business, creative people, governments.

Making regional centres a diverse, thriving place to be means people won't have to travel into the city 2 hours away to get to the good stuff. Business can utilise technology to communicate across offices, or just plain move out to the new centre. We can't all wish this to happen. "Cool people" follow "cool people." If these centres are set up to offer everything but the history of a city, then there's no reason they can't start creating a history of their own.

With rural living on the down low across the world, everyone's racing into the city for their little patch of ground. It's unsustainable and often disappointing for those that get there. Crime, poverty, the blot of gentrification against low-income people etc. We have to think ahead.

The building of regional centres should aim to have most people travelling a maximum of an hour to work by public transport - MAXIMUM. Better would be to live close enough to ride a bike or walk - but that's idyllic. We all have so much to do these days. Rather than dream of more hours in a day - let's just use them in a more ideal fashion. What do you think?

I like it!
And, interestingly, I was listening to an interview on CBC radio a few weeks back with a guy who, along with his family, decided to ditch the car entirely. I believe he lived in TO ... anyway, he thought the experience would be one in which they had to get used to a less satisfying way of life, but what he experienced was the exact opposite. Even though the decision was based in a desire to reduce their fuel consumption, after a very short period of time, they all felt all kinds of other positive effects ... For example: getting from A to B actually became something they did together, they had conversations and experiences with each other in those 'in between moments.' Also, they began to notice all kinds of consumption decrease - not just fuel. I guess when you have to take your groceries home on your bicycle or on the bus, you aren't going to just pick up a few extra items at Wal-mart on the way ... and of course this also meant they were spending less money, felt more physically fit, and all that other good stuff. Overall, it didn't leave me with the the sense that their lives were lacking anything - it actually seemed to be fuller and much more gratifying.
But, as you said, a certain amount of infrastructure needs to be in place, no doubt about it.

The documentary The End of Suburbia makes an excellent case for the consumption stupidity of living far from where you work. It argues that suburban neighbourhoods will be the ghettos of the coming decades as we pass the global peak oil point. It's a pretty bleak view, but, man it made me glad I live downtown. That said, I still commute into Toronto from Hamilton at least twice a week, so, I'm not feeling very smug. Well, until I look out the GO train windows and see the crawling ant parade of cars. Yesterday I had a video conference chat with a Real News consultant in New York. She was there, full screen and in stereo in my ears. It was great and I felt no need to travel to New York. Well, except for Katz's Deli.

Public transit does not have to be slow and bleak. The higher the percentage of the population that uses transit, the more frequent and safe the service. High ridership might also clear enough cars off the streets for free movement all day too. However, for most trips, a bicycle is still the fastest way measured door to door, and certainly by Ivan Illich's measure of that plus the time needed to pay for the ride. Add in the time saved by not needing a separate exercise program, and not developing sedentary diseases, and it gets even better.

Now, we even have the electrified velomobile coming out. This is a small pedal car that keeps the rider out of the weather, and, because it is also streamlined, is considerably faster than a bicycle. Riders can choose a high level of electric boost to avoid sweating if necessary, and keep up easily in traffic. There can be enclosed space for some parcels and a child seat. If they become popular, they could even drive straight on and off of commuter trains and subways. Even busses might accomodate them, if only in off-peak hours.

In cities where almost-empty busses circulate infrequently most of the time, at least the ends of the routes should be served by smaller vehicles. At those hours, there are always surplus taxis available to do the work, and if one should by chance fill up, another could be there within the usual variance in bus times.

There is a bike courier company in England that will undertake deliveries within other cities by using the trains, which works quite well. In India, hundreds of wallas carry individual lunches using bike and train combined. Public transit could be upgraded to include an automated courier service, delivering small containers anywhere on the system. Courier service is almost essential for many people who work at home, so improving it will help avoid commuting and make the suburbs productive. If the lawns turn to vegetable gardens, they might even survive.

Who or what is most responsible for climate change? Big industry, or everybody individually going about doing their domestic stuff?

Let's say that as we do our domestic stuff, the majority of our pollution is generated by the companies we patronize.

Hey Bob, do you have a picture of the velomobile? I'm intrigued. I can see a small enclosed bicycle...but it would seem to big and bulking to get on and off transport. As you can see from my profile, I love to ride a bike. I'd love to know some more info about this. On Hezvo's questions, I agree with you. We utilise the energy provided by the worst polluters in the world; so we're all in it together. As the energy companies work on a for-profit idealogy, if we reduce demand for these sources of energy, they'll have to cut production for fear of losing money. Is this too simplistic? Seems to work in my head.

There are many velomobiles at http://www.bentrideronline.com/Buyer's%20Guide/velomobileguide.htm . I've put a picture of my own velomobile, a big one with a child seat, as my image here, with details at www.microship.com/bobstuart/carcycle.html . I can roll or carry it almost anywhere a wheelchair can go, but for graceful use on public transit, I'm thinking of dedicated parts of the car and loading ramps. On a TTC subway car, I'd have a double or triple deck arrangement to improve the density. On a bus, the velomobiles might load into the belly, where Greyhound puts their luggage.

Overall, it might be better to keep the velomobiles on their own wheels, and give them a clear lane. Because they can't bunch up like pedestrians, bridges for bicycles can be built at 1/6 the load rating, so expressways for them could be put through existing cities as quiet, elevated roads without the disruption of regular highways. A steady 50 kmh should be realistic without added power tricks, far better than most urbanites enjoy, and still with turns of compact dimensions. Regulated on-ramps could facilitate merging into short trains to save energy. Progressively-flashed red and green LEDs would be paced by the drivers, eliminating guesswork and avoiding stop/start jams.

However, the Real News will probably be about conflicts with a corollary of vanished opportunities.

I've read a theory that catering to a small minority of fussy consumers has led companies into offering greener options to all, making careful consumers into major agents of change. Anything we can do to reduce demand is important - of course companies would loose if they delivered more than we ordered. Since nuclear power is the most expensive on the grid, every time you flick a light switch, you move the control rods in a reactor.

BTW, I was in time to combine this with my reply below, but would have had to start all over. . .?

Bike Lanes. We need more bike lanes. As a newcomer to Toronto, I have stopped riding my bike (as have many others I know), because I am so scared to do so. I choose to walk instead. But campaigning for more bike lanes is certainly a good place to start if we're looking for something productive to do.

End of Suburbia is certainly a good film. Many times when people discuss climate change, the topic of peak oil is neglected. Wayne, have you seen a new doc called "A Crude Awakening"? You can rent it at Blockbuster - very similar to End of Suburbia, but even better.

To add on what Geraldine was discussing I agree. Walkable cities and communities are key. We need to move to a geographical system that allows people to work, play, and live in the same community. The suburbs will become the Ghetto in the future - it is just not feasible anymore for people to live in such places.

We need to do EVERYTHING we can to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Experts like Lovelock believe it may be already too late to stop the avalanche affects that are kicking in. If you have seen the Inconvenient Truth or read the book, you know what is at stake. If you haven't, watch it or read it.

Sure, we should do all we can in our personal lives. I am living on 2 120-watt solar panels and use less than one small tank of propane ($12 worth) per month. Not everyone can do that but people could afford to convert to solar on a lease basis. Right now you can lease a solar system for the price of what you are paying now on electricity and your rate will never go up. I can't afford a Prius right now or I would have one. We should re-use and recycle everything we can. Check out freecycle.org if you don't know about it. Buy cars that have a long lifetime and keep them a long time. A lot of energy goes into building cars. I have an 11-year-old Toyota with 180K miles on it that still runs great. Minimize air travel. Traveling stand-by effectively uses no extra fuel because the flight is already committed.

Other things we must do:

Our businesses consume a lot of fossil fuel. We shouldn't forget about scaling back energy use in our business environment as much as possible.

Agriculture should move toward sustainable practices. This should be mandated by government, phased in. Pesticides and chemical fertilizers come from fossil fuel byproducts to a large extent. Use organic fertilizers which are now being wasted. Permaculture has a design methodology that works that could take us there, if we paid attention.

Government should mandate 75mpg average fleet mileage within the next 5 years for all vehicles, including light trucks and SUV's. This is achievable through plug-in hybrid technology. The plug-in hybrid technology allows us to mostly use our cars as electric cars around town and then run as hybrids on long trips. Cars like the Prius could get effectively 100mpg. Other cars like large SUVs could get around 50mpg. This is a very doable technology but would add cost to the vehicles. Along with the mandates there shoud be tax rebates for people who purchase these vehicles for the first 5 years, until the volume efficiencies and technological improvements fully kick in. For more info on plug-in hybrids, look at the video at http://fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=777

We should ramp up SUSTAINABLE ethanol production, using all byproducts. Byproducts can be used for animal feed (I'm a vegetarian but there are a lot of people who aren't).

Government should mandate higher efficiencies of appliances. EnergyStar should be a mandate, not optional, in the US. The EnergyStar requirements should be ratcheted up over time to make the minimum standard equal to the best energy performance on the market today.

Next, Government should use 1/10 the money being spent on the war in Iraq (after troops start coming home, nearly immediately) on a program similar to Richard Branson's Virgin Earth Challenge (http://www.virginearth.com/) and let's try out even the long-shot ideas. You never know until you try until something will work. I have a friend that is submitting 3 long-shot ideas to the Virgin Earth Challenge. Because they are long-shots they may not get an award but with a larger government superfund, we could afford to try everything (and can't really afford not to, if we care about our children's future).

The US government should limit its military activities to protecting our borders. This would be a huge energy savings, as well as money savings that could be better applied to solving the climate change problem, among others.

We should have carbon tax/carbon bartering system that works and is well-monitored to ensure there is no cheating.

If we do all this, we can cut our CO2 emissions by about 80% or possibly more.

In case we fail to correct the problem in time, sell any property you have that is not at least 50 ft above sea level immediately. You might be glad you did, in a few years. (I live at 4500ft elevation).

-Edwin

It is important not to dismiss any options -- rather to find creative ways to exploit them. Let's use our heads instead of our emotions.

David Blume is just coming out with a book on ethanol. He believes that ethanol is a viable solution. He has done some amazing things with Permaculture producing enormous amounts of food on very little acreage.. You can pre-order his book, Alcohol Can Be A Gas at http://www.permaculture.com

Ethanol certainly warrants further investigation. But we have to do it smart. We can't ship corn from the midwest to California to make ethanol. That's a crazy waste of resources. Corn isn't the only potential raw material. Much work is being done right now to turn cellulose into alcohol, and there are other crops such as sugar beets that have potential.

I do not believe ethanol is the total answer but may be one slice of the pie that gets us to fossil-free fuel. That's why I said we need to do EVERYTHING WE CAN. We need to push for plug-in hybrids.If we cut the fuel requirements by 60 to 70 percent, then the burden to produce enough ethanol is much less. If it is produced locally in a distributed fashion, the cost of transportation of the fuel will be inconsequential. We need to do things smarter. We need to jettison assumptions and think out-of-the-box.

I think nuclear power should be a last resort. The current laws in the US don't permit the advanced kind of nuclear power plants (pebble reactors) currently in production in South Africa and being tested by China. These plants have a lot less problems with waste disposal and the risk of blowing up is negligible. Why doesn't the US allow them? I suspect it is because of the vested interests of the current nuclear industry and also the fact that these new plants cannot create weapons-grade fuel for nuclear weapons. I am sure the military-industrial complex would not be too happy about that. So the question is -- is it worth being a purist about nuclear energy, ignoring possible new technologies that would be safer and more cost-effective, and risk a 20ft or 40ft rise in ocean levels which would wipe out our coastlines and most of Florida?

Don't assume you are going to be burning coal by plugging in your hybrid or electric car. Yes, there is a large percentage of coal-burning plants right now but this will be changing. If we have a system of carbon taxes and carbon credits, those plants will become more expensive to operate. Companies like NanoSolar (nanosolar.com) are starting to crank out solar panels on PRINTING PRESSES. This company is heavily funded by Google. This has the potential to revolutionize energy production in this country.

Another development that is going to have a big impact is improvements in lithium ion batteries. Already there are factories on every continent cranking out batteries that have a lifetime of 3000 cycles, and can be built with very low-cost materials, avoiding expensive metals like cobalt. China has already converted their factories and will probably be soon flooding us with these inexpensive batteries. Electric cars that have a 300-mile range and don't cost an arm and a leg may be just around the corner. Electric cars are much cheaper to build than hybrids if you have a source of cheap batteries. It will probably take 5 to 10 years for the price to come down to levels realistic for cars. That's why we need plug-in hybrids NOW.

I don't hold out much hope for hydrogen as a transportation fuel for the foreseeable future, due to its difficulty in transporting. It could be used as a "battery" in large stationary tanks at solar power generating stations where the excess power in the form of hydrogen could be reburned to produce electricity during nighttime.

Let's take away the oil industry subsidies, tax carbon, and give the money to those who are developing clean fuels. The situation is not hopeless if we ACT.

-Edwin

STOP BREEDING. Having more than two kids nowadays can be considered an eco-crime, ESPECIALLY if you're American.

Seriously, population control should be paramount. This means birth control education, people remaining child-free, and a dramatic social shift in how people view families and raising children. Its not an obligation or even a 'good thing' to have kids nowadays. Take care of the people already here instead.

Don't take it from me, though. David Attenborough said it first. Check out 'The Selfish Green' forum for the whole series of quotes.

I always have such a hard time with the overpopulation/stop having children argument. It is not that I disagree and in fact I am completely aware of the issues with rising populations. But what I find hard (like many activists) is that idea that I should never have children. For those of us with healthy family lives, wonderful partners and lots of love and nurturing inside us it is difficult to imagine not having children. However, the way I have combated this recently is by way of adoption. I myself have not adopted of course, but it certainly seems the right move for the future.

I agree that we need a dramatic social shift in the way that people think - because everyone feels obliged or excited to have children, they need to be convinced in a rational manner why they should probably not have them. We do have to take care of those we already have here, and that's why adoption is a viable alternative for those who do have the urge to have kids. There are so many children in need of love and a good family...

Just some thoughts...

The question "....what WE can do" is not easy to answer, since "WE" consist of quite a collection of human beings in different position within the World socio-economic state. During the past century or so, the main idea of the "economy" consisted of exploitation of EVERYTHING , from other people to the nature resources, with the ONLY goal of increasing one's MONETERY wealth. The mantra of the power brokers was:
"You either GROW, or you die !",, or "The winner is the one who DIES with the GREATEST number of 'toys'"!
As long as this idiotic concept of "we must grow" continues , nothing else will suffice to stop the further degradation of Earth's bisosphere. As long as various URBAN regions continue to be "developed", so
that the most valuable regions of the land are covered with parking lots, big box "shops", multiple lane highways , and so on, NO other actions on "our" part will suffice to save us from the collapse.
Therefore, in my view, and Herman Daly's and Brian Czech's , and others , we MUST replace the present "economy" based on continuous GROWTH, with the Steady State Economy - STABILIZED at the Carrying Capacity of each region where people live, and instead of insisting on growth, we insist on IMPROVEMENT through inovation and within the STABLE population and consumption. I'd like to hear some responces to this idea - which is long overdue. Freedan28

Hi Dan
right, this nonsense has to go, and the root of this nonsense is called: intrest. Making money without producing anything in return. So as a first step towards that goal, i`d sugest we all go to the bank and take our money out. Without intrest, this system collapses down to a day by day scenario, away from piling money for an uncertain future. And this is something anybody can do, i live without a bank acount for more than 15 years. Just stop giving your money to the banks. Ponder the implications if millions would do that, it sure would start change.