As an angry activist, it's rare to find a topic that is considered taboo in the environmental community. However I find that even the most radical and honest environmentalists don't seem to address the issue of population.
I've touched on it a bit before but it's a sensitive issue. We all believe that it's a basic human right, and it is...
However, our basic human right to reproduce has meant that resources for many of us already here have become scarce. Whose right prevails? The right to clean water and food or the right to reproduce? Because we're getting drastically close to having to choose.
China implemented a one child policy years ago that has had disastrous effects on baby girls however this is a country that values its boys for taking care of their elders in their adulthood.
The point is, and trust me I rarely give China environmental kudos, is that China recognized that overpopulation was becoming a serious issue and took drastic action because it required it.
Although the chinese population began to decline, the success was debatable because it resulted in a male population that completely outnumbered the female population. However, recently China has implemented a 2 child policy with positive results.
Here in North America, the issue of overpopulation isn't even a second thought. Large families are celebrated on television and even encouraged with the media's obsession with pregnancy.
Restrictions on how many times we can reproduce seems drastic, authoritarian, and oppressive. But the human race has a track record of only thinking in short term and the world's population continues to grow at an alarming rate.
Want me to prove it? Since starting this post the world's population has increased by 3,000 people and I write fast. The Population Media Centre has a population calculator that I garuntee will unnerve you in a few moments.
Seriously, when the smartest human being on the planet is saying that we need to consider fleeing earth to survive, I'm thinking we should probably start paying attention to the problem.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Links & Tidbits
Man who has lived without money for 2 years.
Banksy's Brilliance.
Where are humans getting such high levels of BPA? Shopping.
1.7 million people want the dolphin slaughter in Taiji ended.
Harper looking to use tax dollars to bring Fox News to Canada?
The Tokyo Two will finally be getting a trail date for exposing illegal whale meat on Sept 6.
Banksy's Brilliance.
Where are humans getting such high levels of BPA? Shopping.
1.7 million people want the dolphin slaughter in Taiji ended.
Harper looking to use tax dollars to bring Fox News to Canada?
The Tokyo Two will finally be getting a trail date for exposing illegal whale meat on Sept 6.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Surrounded by Monsanto
Last year I wrote a post on Monsanto and GE Foods, a subject I find myself talking about quite frequently.
It's an interesting subject that I'm always eager to talk about and usually surprised that people know so little about.
As a follow up I found this article on one man's attempt to completely banish Monsanto from his life for a month. How difficult could it be? How difficult should it be to banish associations from any company for a month? When does a corporation have too much power? (Probably more often than not.)
Many consumers and advocacy groups feel that mandatory labeling of GE Foods would prompt consumers to stop purchasing GE Foods and therefore reduce Monsanto's power. As of 2008, the BC Government said that they agreed with labeling GE Foods but didn't feel that a bill in which 15,000 citizens supported would do the job (see my 2008 post).
It's an interesting subject that I'm always eager to talk about and usually surprised that people know so little about.
As a follow up I found this article on one man's attempt to completely banish Monsanto from his life for a month. How difficult could it be? How difficult should it be to banish associations from any company for a month? When does a corporation have too much power? (Probably more often than not.)
Many consumers and advocacy groups feel that mandatory labeling of GE Foods would prompt consumers to stop purchasing GE Foods and therefore reduce Monsanto's power. As of 2008, the BC Government said that they agreed with labeling GE Foods but didn't feel that a bill in which 15,000 citizens supported would do the job (see my 2008 post).
What's the latest update? Well labeling of GE Foods has been mandatory for many years now in the European Union, Japan, and Australia and is still being demanded by many people in the United States and Canada, although with no plans to make it mandatory (an action that more than 80% of Canadians support).
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Today's Water Crisis (and tomorrow's)
I once read that this planet doesn't have a food shortage problem, it has a food distribution problem. If you've read any of my other posts you'll know that one of the distribution problems is that the majority of grains and soy grown on this planet goes to feeding livestock that we ultimately consume. We could create much more meals with the grains and soy itself than the meat we produce.
The same can be said for water. Although the inevitable water crisis hasn't achieved the same sort of social relevance yet as global warming, it is just as important and just as scary.
The world's population is expected to increase up to 50% in the next 50 years and we aren't able to offer clean drinking water to those that currently inhabit the planet. In addition, the world's clean water supply continues to become privatized at an alarming rate.
Water is expected to be seen much like oil is today, with shortages and crisis affecting our economies and our health except unlike oil there are no alternatives to clean water. Today's corporate superpowers are currently battling it out to purchase and privatize what will inevitably become our most important scarce resource.
The effects can already be seen today as one report found "you pay more for water in a slum in Manila than in a flat in London."
How did this happen? When did water become a product that can be owned and not a natural resource that is entitled to everyone? It reminds me of Monsanto, who was able to copyright and own 'life'. The blame can be shared by our complacency, citizens sold out by their governments, or corporations with unstoppable greed that have taken advantage or our laws. The blame is likely shared by everyone but the fact remains that life on this planet (ourselves included) absolutely depends on clean water- and you'll have to be able to afford this privilege.
So what are the solutions? An obvious one is for us in more developed countries to be less wasteful with our water and to invest in more sustainable technologies (capturing rainwater). We need to seriously question who will be benefiting from the privatizing of water and sooner or later we are going to have to address the population problem. We can argue our basic human rights about procreating but the science doesn't change-there are too many of us and we're using up resources faster than we can replace them. But I'll leave that for another blog post...
FLOW is a great documentary that examines this issue and offers some eye opening facts here.
You can find out more about water and the effects of privatization here.
The same can be said for water. Although the inevitable water crisis hasn't achieved the same sort of social relevance yet as global warming, it is just as important and just as scary.
The world's population is expected to increase up to 50% in the next 50 years and we aren't able to offer clean drinking water to those that currently inhabit the planet. In addition, the world's clean water supply continues to become privatized at an alarming rate.
Water is expected to be seen much like oil is today, with shortages and crisis affecting our economies and our health except unlike oil there are no alternatives to clean water. Today's corporate superpowers are currently battling it out to purchase and privatize what will inevitably become our most important scarce resource.
The effects can already be seen today as one report found "you pay more for water in a slum in Manila than in a flat in London."
How did this happen? When did water become a product that can be owned and not a natural resource that is entitled to everyone? It reminds me of Monsanto, who was able to copyright and own 'life'. The blame can be shared by our complacency, citizens sold out by their governments, or corporations with unstoppable greed that have taken advantage or our laws. The blame is likely shared by everyone but the fact remains that life on this planet (ourselves included) absolutely depends on clean water- and you'll have to be able to afford this privilege.
So what are the solutions? An obvious one is for us in more developed countries to be less wasteful with our water and to invest in more sustainable technologies (capturing rainwater). We need to seriously question who will be benefiting from the privatizing of water and sooner or later we are going to have to address the population problem. We can argue our basic human rights about procreating but the science doesn't change-there are too many of us and we're using up resources faster than we can replace them. But I'll leave that for another blog post...
FLOW is a great documentary that examines this issue and offers some eye opening facts here.
You can find out more about water and the effects of privatization here.
This Week's Links
Hi Everyone,
The last few weeks of summer have been hella busy. So I'm going to cop out of a post by posting links to people who are actually writing!
How some nations are shooting themselves in the foot by supporting Japan in the IWC.
Seriously people.
Updates on Lucy.
How can people that make chocolate be bad?
The last few weeks of summer have been hella busy. So I'm going to cop out of a post by posting links to people who are actually writing!
How some nations are shooting themselves in the foot by supporting Japan in the IWC.
Seriously people.
Updates on Lucy.
How can people that make chocolate be bad?
Friday, August 13, 2010
Amazing Whale Photos
Sorry, been busy and haven't had time to write a post. In the mean time, feast your eyes on these amazing underwater photos!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/7940987/Photographer-has-close-encounter-with-pilot-whales-in-the-Strait-of-Gibraltar.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/7940987/Photographer-has-close-encounter-with-pilot-whales-in-the-Strait-of-Gibraltar.html
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Future?
And now to mix things up, some positivity!
Here's a cool video of rush hour somewhere in the Netherlands:
Here's a cool video of rush hour somewhere in the Netherlands:
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Roadside Zoos
There are very few things that anger me more than roadside zoos. The argument of education is laughable when animals are seen in deplorable conditions. It's nothing more than a selfish, ignorant, and archaic form of sadistic entertainment.
And that's putting it nicely.
In fact I think these attractions are detrimental to our morals and values as a society. These types of attractions completely contradict what we say we value as a society (well most of us say we do). We have laws against animal abuse for domesticated animals and push for conservation and animal habitat preservation from our governments but then attractions are legal and popular enough to remain open?
Cherokee's Archaic Conditions for Caged Bears
Peta has a letter that you can send to North Carolina officials regarding that zoo here.
It's not just our American friends who continue to operate roadside zoos, WSPA has had a campaign to end them in Ontario for years. They've also got a link and a letter template for Ontario officials here.
If there's anything you do today to invest in your karma, then send a letter. Or if you feel like visiting one and chaining yourself to cage...that will help too.
And that's putting it nicely.
In fact I think these attractions are detrimental to our morals and values as a society. These types of attractions completely contradict what we say we value as a society (well most of us say we do). We have laws against animal abuse for domesticated animals and push for conservation and animal habitat preservation from our governments but then attractions are legal and popular enough to remain open?
Cherokee's Archaic Conditions for Caged Bears
Peta has a letter that you can send to North Carolina officials regarding that zoo here.
It's not just our American friends who continue to operate roadside zoos, WSPA has had a campaign to end them in Ontario for years. They've also got a link and a letter template for Ontario officials here.
If there's anything you do today to invest in your karma, then send a letter. Or if you feel like visiting one and chaining yourself to cage...that will help too.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Biomass Burning
Burning Biomass to meet energy needs and reduction standards in North America has become quite popular in recent years.
For a quick refresher, burning of biomass is different than biomass. Biomass involves obtaining energy from a living or formerly living thing (plants, gas or fuels) which includes obtaining energy while the living organism is alive.
Burning of biomass is exactly what it sounds like- obtaining energy by burning formerly living things. Most commonly wood.
A quick google will show that burning of biomass has grown in popularity in the last 20 years, with many organizations and governments advocating this 'environmentally friendly' method of energy production.
However my issue with biomass burning is the same with corn ethanol fuel or nuclear energy. I feel that people who advocate it fail to encompass the entire process when labeling it as 'green'.
Treehugger has a great article on the plans for increasing biomass burning in North America and the many effects it will have on us environmentally- 120 new plants are planned in the US which means 46,000 square feet of forest will have to clear cut. The piece also goes into detail as to why the method is being embraced by power plants, small capital investments but enough to meet emissions reductions requirements.
Yes burning of biomass will reduce emissions... but that is one benefit to an entire process.
I do think that biomass burning is an improvement but it's really just a small improvement to an industry that needs drastic changes and soon.
For a quick refresher, burning of biomass is different than biomass. Biomass involves obtaining energy from a living or formerly living thing (plants, gas or fuels) which includes obtaining energy while the living organism is alive.
Burning of biomass is exactly what it sounds like- obtaining energy by burning formerly living things. Most commonly wood.
A quick google will show that burning of biomass has grown in popularity in the last 20 years, with many organizations and governments advocating this 'environmentally friendly' method of energy production.
However my issue with biomass burning is the same with corn ethanol fuel or nuclear energy. I feel that people who advocate it fail to encompass the entire process when labeling it as 'green'.
Treehugger has a great article on the plans for increasing biomass burning in North America and the many effects it will have on us environmentally- 120 new plants are planned in the US which means 46,000 square feet of forest will have to clear cut. The piece also goes into detail as to why the method is being embraced by power plants, small capital investments but enough to meet emissions reductions requirements.
Yes burning of biomass will reduce emissions... but that is one benefit to an entire process.
I do think that biomass burning is an improvement but it's really just a small improvement to an industry that needs drastic changes and soon.
Last Chance to Save the Tigers?
Sorry another youtube link today, but these animals are so freaking majestic and beautiful I couldn't resist;
Countdown to Zero... Thoughts?
New movie coming out called 'Countdown to Zero', looks interesting but hasn't this been an issue since the Cold War?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)