25% of the world’s population consumes 58% of the energy, 45% of the meat and fish, 84% of the paper, and 87% of the vehicles

 ©Chris Jordan

People in the Highly Developed Countries start to embrace a type of consumption, known as voluntary simplicity, which recognize that individual happiness and quality of life are not necessary linked to the accumulation of material goods. People who embrace voluntary simplicity recognize that a person’s values and character define that individual more than how many things he or she owns. Little commitment at an individual level can lead to a big step to save the planet for future generations.    

 The United States, Europe and Japan must live within the planet’s limits by controlling their use of natural resources, for obvious ethical reasons a decent civilization with human value must tolerate that "10 million die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases." A rich family in the United States or Europe must not waste food at dinner table while one sixth of the world population is malnourished.We are today 6.6 billion people living on the planet and several millions people would be added to the world in the 21st century. 

The United Nations states that "nine planet Earths would be required to absorb the world's carbon if every person had the same energy-rich lifestyle as people in developed countries." Not only overpopulation, and the unbalanced global demography is at blame when one-third of the world’s population, approximately 2 billion people, live in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia and, they account for less than 4% of the total worldwide consumption expenditures. 

The solution; a green economy in developed and developing countries that would encompasses many sectors, such as local small scale agriculture, green building, new innovative technologies and sustainable business opportunities that will  boost a new job market economy while reducing the carbon footprints of the wealthiest, preventing it to consume the world’s limited resources.

References:

State of the World 2004, Worldwatch Institute. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1043

United Nation. Millennium Development Goals http://www.mdgmonitor.org/goal1.cfm

Micropower; smaller, cleaner and cheaper

 Yann Arthus Bertrand

Micropower, also known as distributed generation (DG), is a growing sector of the energy market that holds great promises for locally decentralized generation. This clean technology creates power with fuel cells, solar panels, microturbines, generating electricity from many small energy sources and help avoiding economical, logistical, safety, health, and environmental problems of large power plant. Additionally, a centralized power source can substantially reduces the economic and environmental cost of electrical services and lead to a new economical system based on improving human health against global warming.

In addition, our increasingly digital dependence, decreasing quality of infrastructures and the intensification of storms make us vulnerable to disruptions of power, a more distributed and decentralized network of small systems can reduce the problem. Furthermore, micropower systems can make a huge difference in the developing world, where “power poverty” is an important economical and political unsustainable problem, nearly one third of humanity, have been left utterly powerless by the centralized model. In developing countries micropower has the potential to allow people to develop “stand-alone village systems” with no more need for expensive grid extension.

Micropower is challenging the “bigger-is-cheaper” concept and is an available and accessible solution to global warming and the global economical crisis. The promising sector of small new electric clean source companies in both the developed and developing world, venture capital and microcredit models are being used to finance micropower, helping [startup] companies "survive their revenue-losing early years and enabling potential customers to surmount the high first cost of the new technologies”.

A radical societal shifts can occur when the large scale electricity model struggle to find economic and ecological solution. Historians remind us that technical systems are formed at the intersection of technologies and values.

The video shows an independent solar house with the option to sell the exceed energy back to the company…

References:
Worldwatch Institute. Micropower: The Next Electrical Era. Seth Dunn, July 2000. From http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/EWP151.pdf
Micropower Council. Promoting the small-scale generation of sustainable energy.  http://www.micropower.co.uk/welcome.html

The Story of Bottled Water

Can nature be priced?

 

© Swimmer off Blue Bay, Island of Mauritius, Republic of Mauritius

Yann Arthus-Bertrand

Can we find an appropriate value for life? Can we express our own lives in economical terms? 

The main critic of cost-benefit analysis (CBA); the traditional economical formula to measure economical wealth, applied to the environmental and social issues, is limited. It is impossible to measure in dollar amount biodiversity or people's lives.

Human evaluation, in a monetary sense, must reflect the best value in terms of aesthetic and spiritual assets since its not because something or someone has no market value that we should let them die. An example is the case of the sick child, the market logic won’t be applicable in looking for his treatment however, we  must save the child. For natural resources such as access to water, pure air and soil, it means for the people with no access to them; death, people do not die of lack of incomes but they die for not accessing vital natural resources. 

Another monetary evaluation; the method of contingent variation (CV), used when pricing a specie or the aesthetic value of ecosystems does not understand that maintaining biological diversity includes improving the health of all ecosystems and that even the most unpopular insects is part of it. The perfect demonstration is the value of pest. For example pest, who wants to save pest? yet, if we exterminate insects, for example, the suppression of 68 herbivore species are link to the distortion of some insects and parasitoids. An ecosystem is a circle of life and eliminating one of its species is jeopardizing the entire ecosystem.

Assessing the economic value of ecosystem services by using dollars does not require that it be bought and sold on global market places, thus, dollar figures can be used as an indicator that has a concrete representation for people. It is easier to mobilize media, people and politics with figures such as; in 1997, the value of the global ecosystem was estimated at $33 trillion, compare with the 2009 world’s GDP was $58,141 trillion. However, placing value on ecological services and natural resources can be good for alerting and saving in the emergency in where we are now.

Another approach, to value nature is the “travel cost method”, to measure recreational attribute of National Parks for example. The method can reflect actual choice by consumers and might help pricing, assessing and saving natural resources used by humans for recreational benefits. Furthermore, biodiversity is disappearing at an unprecedented rate. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife estimates that more than 500 U.S species have gone extinct during the past 200 years, thus, the discussion on the dollar value placed on the global ecosystems and environmental services can and must be debated until an alternative solution could emerged and save the environment from an economically predicted destruction. The value of ecological services and their importance in policy making decision must be a global and urgent preoccupation and until global awareness on the vital threat of destructing the environment is becoming our number one preoccupation.

We all agree that nature must not be seen as a free good any longer, as an example is the fast depletion of the world fish stock. It is not possible to pollute the own source of our subsistence any longer. Another example, our drinking water, which is a limited vital supply where we dump our pesticides and wastes. The cost of pollution is real and can be estimate in dollar value “but it has been individuals and governments to bear the costs associated with those effects ”. These costs must be measured in a monetary sense and being included in the cost-benefit analysis. In economical terms these externalities must be internalized because before having a debate about valuating nature with a classic economical approach, this economical method must be accurate and must take into account the real cost of our pollution. 

The real paradox of the debate is that if more ecological consideration and sustainable scientific solutions can be applied to industries and economical activities, the stage of the biodiversity and important natural resources would in a better shape and our economical situation as well. 

References:

Taking Sides: Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues, 13th Ed.
Publisher: McGraw-Hill. Paperback
World Bank. World Development Indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators?cid=GPD_WDI
Berg, L.R., & Hager, M.C. (2009). Visualizing environmental science (2nd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hummers and other SUVs are hurting our children

To illustrates how cars should be more efficient and regulations changed and reinforced; the Hummer H2, an expensive car, less safe than standard cars because of high center of gravity weighing 6,400 pounds that puts the Hummer into the category of truck, for which a tax deduction may be taken on its purchase if the vehicle is to be used for business, Hummer owners are able to deduct about $38,000 from their taxes. However, the H2 releases about 40 pounds of smog-causing pollutants for every 15,000 miles driven. 

Polluters should pay for their pollution. The Hummer driver must pay a higher share than the drivers of a fuel efficient cars. About 70% of our oil consumption is used for transportation and need political strong and comprehensive initiatives to be changed. Obama new objectives announced in its States of the Union’s speech, and want to bring reforms. The first step for a strong reduction in carbon emissions is to give incentives for more efficient cars.

The future of America dependent on a clean energy and if we are ready to fight oil consumption, SUVs and Hummers must be out of the market, CAF standards reinforced and hybrid drivers should be rewarded.

8.5 million jobs in the clean-tech sector, what are we waiting for?

Nationwide, the American Solar Energy Society estimates, that 8.5 million jobs in the clean-tech sector, are projected to grow to 40 million by 2030 with the right policies.

Green and sustainable economic projects are beneficial for the economy especially for job creation. Critics say that a clean economy is expensive, yet, the clean sector creates more jobs than our old dirty economy green investment project can advance a full employment agenda because it will create about 17 jobs for every $1 million in outlays, whereas spending the same $1 million in the oil and coal industries creates about 5.5 jobs—i.e., the job-creation effect of green investments is more than 3 times larger than  for fossil fuel production.  

Furthermore, sustainable development in America would create local jobs which would profit the American people and not foreign interests. The oil industry spends only “80 cents of every dollar” in the United States, and the rampant negative effect of globalization on the labor market with 20 to 30 % of all US jobs in the range of 30 million to 40 million are ready to export U.S jobs to cheap labor countries. 

Additionally, local economies reduce poverty and have a positive social impact on the entire society. Sustainable development is not a far utopia but a real and financially solid initiative “we spend about $600 billion a year in the oil, natural gas and coal sectors. Transferring, for example, 25% of those funds into energy efficiency and renewable energy projects can jump start a new sustainable economy. 

Local green jobs would benefit people directly encouraging employment in a sustainable manner “the 1990s to 2000 job growth was driven by the irrational Wall Street dot-com frenzy. By contrast, a green investment program can underwrite a durable full employment economy precisely because it is environmentally sustainable and morally just”. A change in the economy must be encouraged by strong government intervention in economic policies by investing and subsiding sustainable programs, “as a tool for fighting the recession, green projects can inject more money into the economy as quickly as possible. In this way, a $100 billion green investment program would create on the order of 1.7 million new jobs." 

No debate on jobs and the economical situation should take place without debating a new green and sustainable economy. Today, we have a major problem with the job market but we have also the solution with a green collar market. Similarly, we have enormous challenges with environmental degradation and we have a large workforce ready to be employed. The remedy is available for a better environment and a better job market; we have the solution to our problems. For the new economy to emerge the Federal government must invest in the public and private sectors to stimulate new environmental activities. 

The change for a green and sustainable economy in America is not only going to create millions of jobs but also would help people to live a meaningful life. This belief requires a deep change in human behavior as people must purchase and uses fewer items. In addition, renewable energy efficiency and, cap on fossil fuel consumption would help to improve social and environmental justice. It would give us clean air and water and would break our dependence on foreign oil. Environmental sustainability is a concept that must become our economy, philosophy, policy and a way of life. 

References:

Hazell, Stephen. "Green Collar Revolution." Alternatives Journal 35.6 (2009): 8-11. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 
OLLIN, ROBERT. "DOING THE RECOVERY RIGHT. (Cover story)." Nation 288.6 (2009): 13-18. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 
Walsh, Bryan, et al. "Why Green Is the New Red, White And Blue. (Cover story)." Time 171.17 (2008): 45-57. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.

Business-NGO partnerships; hope for a sustainable future

The WWF - Johnson & Johnson partnership is a vivid example of a successful collaboration; the company profit from a public image and drive eco-conscientious consumers, while WWF accomplishes a step toward sustainable future supporting companies that cares for the health of other.

A new business universe can emerge from a sustainable innovative economy. WWF Climate Savers program is a group of leading corporations worldwide, working with World Wildlife Fund to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  A strong commitment as emerged between Johnson & Johnson Companies and WWF to reduce green gas emissions and let to the WWF’s Climate Savers initiative with 15 other major international companies committed to reduce their total emissions of carbon dioxide by over 10 million tons per year (WWF, 2010). 

Climate Savers companies were among the first to recognize that climate change posed both risks and opportunities to businesses and leading corporations to establish ambitious targets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions voluntarily. By increasing efficiency, Climate Savers companies are saving hundreds of millions of dollars, proving that protecting the environment is also a sound business practice. This collaboration is a plus for Johnson & Johnson’s image; the company has been publicizing its CO2 reduction goal around the world.  J&J covers buildings, “equipment, management practices, maintenance practices, and operational practices developed a comprehensive set of energy efficiency best practices. ”

In addition,  J&J is participating in the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification program for existing buildings with its world headquarters building serving as a pilot project.  J&J invested in on-site renewable generation with the installation of 4 solar systems; in California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Brazil. In his Texas operations has 15% wind power (10.6 million kWh/year).  

Business-NGO partnerships may represent an alternative to partnerships between multi-billion dollar global corporations and local community groups. NGOs increasingly need to work with businesses in order to realize their organizational goals in a globalized economy especially when innovative projects, fair trade practices and micro-credit are representing an incredible potential for the developing world. 

However, NGOs must keep independent guidance in order to respond appropriately to concerns about the social and environmental impacts of their products and production processes. 

References:

WWF. Companies commit to saving climate. http://www.jnj.com/connect/caring/environmentprotection/.  

Climate Savers: Elements of Fulfillment Strategies.  Johnson & Johnson. http://www.worldwildlife.or/climate/featuredprojects.html.  

Carbon emissions reduced by the economic slowdown while climate negationists pollute Congress

Emissions of carbon dioxide fell 6% in 2009 and were at their lowest level since 1995. The economic slowdown and a shift from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas to produce electricity, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, have contributed to the decline. 

Meanwhile, Mr. Cuccinelli, a Virginia’s attorney general, a right-wing conservative/Tea Party is suing the Environmental Protection Agency over its ruling that carbon dioxide and other global warming gases pose a threat to human health and welfare, describing the science behind the agency’s decision as unreliable and unverifiable.

In reality, in human urban areas, up to 90% of CO is emitted by motor vehicles. There is a terrestrial dimension to air pollution that we can’t ignore any longer. Human well-being is better served by controlling the accumulation in the atmosphere of carbon monoxide than to let air pollution ruining people's health, the environment and altering global climate, for the wealth of few lobbyist in Washington.

Mass Killing; dead infant dolphins in the Gulf

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declared that an unusual mortality of dolphins in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida was observed since the spill.

The death toll along 200 miles of shoreline has climbed to at least 82 death since the spill, about 15 times the normal mortality rate for dolphins along the Gulf Coast this time of year,

This increasing number of dead infant dolphins is completely without precedent.  Not mentioning the unfrequented beaches of Alabama, blocked by BP and far from media coverage where dead infant dolphins are left in the sand. How could we believe that tons of oil and dispersant can be just disappearing?