I dont feel qualified to talk of the global situation (yet!) so address the issue with regard to Britain.
What will be the necessary adaptations to create new systems of provision in the future? What has tended to happen historically is that change has happened slowly over decades or even centuries with regard to alterations in the eco system and agricultural practice, and it has taken an act as significant as the Norman conquest to change the infrastructure of society and agriculture profoundly in a short period. The consensus is that the situation with regard to transition from oil is relatively imminent and this means that we have forced upon us a situation where significant changes in the amount of energy we have available to us need to be addressed in the short term.
As Darwin noted, it is not the most intelligent, nor the strongest of species that survive, it is the most adaptable.
Much of the emphasis has been on the local nature of provision as an answer to the shortage of oil for transporting food both by air and by road, which is logical but I think there will continue to be movement of goods by the rail network which is currently being modernised with plans for hugely expensive, (billions £) but probably necessary further high speed rail lines planned in Britain to match those in Japan and France. Food transported in this way should be more expensive, reflecting the actual cost of its movement as well as production but, as Noel pointed out in his lecture, trade will not cease, and there must be a safety net in place for years when in some areas the harvest may fail. The widespread provision of allotments immediately outside cities so that people can grow some of their own food seems likely, and there have been a number of tv programmes devoted entirely to growing food in the past few years which is, I think, no co-incidence.
As discussed recently it seems that a change in our diets to eating less meat and dairy and more in season vegetables will be necessary. Traditionally most people ate bread, cabbages and root vegetables in the winter with meat as a luxury, so the loss of mass production and oil produced herbicides, pesticides and nitrogen based fertilisers on the land and cheap imported food, will return us to a situation that we have survived in the past, albeit with a smaller population. It seems obvious that a far higher percentage of our income (whether that be local or national currency) must be devoted to food in the future. Other countries, such as France, have, in the past, spent 70% of their income on food and that seems a likely figure. Cheap food is not going to be an option unless you grow it yourself.
We will however still need animals such as sheep for the production of warm clothing and textiles in winter as well as manure, which may also be of use as fuel. If we heat our homes less we will need more clothing, and cotton is less efficient than wool and sheepskin for retaining warmth. Cotton has never been grown here so new varieties would have to be developed were this to be considered. Cotton is also a crop which is resource greedy to grow, particularly with regard to water, another factor which makes wool as viable.
I think we will, in the British climate, be able to grow sufficient, if a limited variety of foods on our farmland, even with the continuing increase in average temperature that we have seen in recent decades. With regard to keeping food fresh for short periods 'fridges could be replaced by cool boxes on the north side of homes which work well at current temperatures for 8 months of the year, and keep insects and rodents at bay. Underground ice rooms as used in the US could also be considered to store root vegetable crops such as potatoes and carrots for longer periods during the winter. The ice may have to be initially manufactured but would last many months if stored correctly and would therefore be far more energy efficient than current methods of cooling.
For people who fear change this will be a challenging maybe even miserable time but for those that can adapt it will be time to strengthen community life and trade for mutual support. There is a huge satisfaction in being self sufficient and we have lost that in the last century. It may be actually a cohesive and beneficial influence in returning to that type of society in the future, as mentioned by Nef's well being measures.
I do think there may be initial issues with regard to democracy and equity but only if the transition stage is grossly mishandled by the government. It seems to me they have begun to take the necessary measures to avoid a situation that could lead to civil unrest but that much more needs to be done particularly in terms of real education, so that everyone is aware, not only of the problems facing us but how life will change in real everyday terms and promoting the concept that this can be a positive rather than a threatening change. I also believe there should be some move towards a ruralisation of society, so that most people do have the chance to grow some of their own food.
The education in skills required to live in this new social structure should be swiftly recognised. I suggest that a diploma in sustainable horticulture (14-19) be added to those recently included in the national school curriculum, since it seems this must be useful in the future and could be literally vital.
Friday, 4 December 2009
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Week 10 Vegetarian diet and related issues.
There are very good reasons for giving up eating meat in order to reduce carbon emissions, not only is every pound of meat "grown" by the use of seven pounds of vegetarian food such as soya,barley, wheat and maize, so that it is simply not good economics with regard to feeding the population of the world but also unsustainable. Meat production also requires high volumes of water too. Then there is the question of the methane and other greenhouse gases produced by the animals as they grow. Additionally much of the cereals used in the production of meat for human consumption are not grown in the countries producing the meat but shipped in from developing countries, so that there are carbon emission issues in transporting the food to the animals. Also the closing of many local abbatoirs under EEC law has now meant that animals must be transported greater distances in order to be slaughtered, adding to carbon emissions, not to mention the misery of the animals involved.
Other issues are probably more important even than carbon emissions with regard to the eating of fish. It is apparent that humanity has depleted the natural fish stocks of the oceans so greatly that we have probably reached the tipping point for the extinction of many species such as cod and tuna that have been staple foods for millions of people worldwide. However the fuel used in fishing, transporting and in particular refrigerating or freezing fish before sale must also be considered in the carbon emission debate, since they all add to the problem.
Poultry is less damaging than red meat since the birds grow pound for pound more quickly, and are often used to produce eggs beforehand (sometimes in appalling conditions) so that there are two foods with "first class" (containing more than 22 amino acids)proteins coming from one source. However for much of the year artificial lighting and heating is used to encourage higher egg yields which should be factored in.
This brings me to the point vegetarian or vegan? As someone who has not eaten meat for nearly 24 years I am aware of the many health benefits from vegetarianism. There is much evidence to show that avoiding "red" meat is generally a healthy lifestyle choice, not only because even lean meat is 30% fat but because there is evidence to show that there are considerable mental health benefits to not eating meat and particularly offal.
Vegetarians are said to be seven times less likely to show symptoms of mental health deterioration, including senile dementia and Parkinsons disease, though the exact cause of this has not yet been proved. It may be linked to the proteins which are found in animals and particularly organs such as the brain and which have been shown to cause symptoms ranging from loss of memory to CJD when eaten. (There is an ongoing study of natives of Borneo where cannibalism had some interesting effects on some of the population and where a resistant strain of people to the CJD type disease has resulted and this may provide more evidence of what exactly causes the mental health problems).
Personally I still eat eggs and some dairy products and have found when I didnt for a few days that I seemed to lack physical energy. It may be that I have to live at a slower pace of life as a vegan than I do as a vegetarian and this is an adaptation that could certainly be made and logically should be if the issues about growing red meat above are taken into account. My reasons for giving up meat in the 1980s were to do with health and animal welfare issues. For the same reasons I buy free range eggs and organic milk, but should really for the sake of the carbon issues probably give up both.
The main reason for not eating fish is so far as Im concerned less to do with carbon emissions at the moment than the fact that we are in danger of extinguishing for ever a source of protein that feeds many of the worlds poorest people particularly in Asia where there may be insufficient agricultural land to grow them more protein rich foods such as soya.
Other issues such as the destruction of the rain forest in the Amazon basin in order that beef cattle can be raised is one more ecological reason for giving up meat.
Yes I agree that meat should be given up, but I think there would be huge resistance, particularly in the United States where it is a staple, and also in the EEC. It may be that meat should become the kind of luxury food that lobster and caviar are now, so that it is so expensive few can afford it except as a celebration dish. If meat was eaten once a week rather than four or more times a week this would make a significant mainstream difference to all the above mentioned issues. For myself I should be considering giving up dairy to bring myself into the truly alternative camp.
I also believe were we, amongst the developed nations to ever reach the vegan stage basic nutritional advice should be given in schools so that people understand how mixing foods such as pasta with either peas or sesame seeds can provide sufficient levels of protein to stay healthy and active.
It is by no means obvious how to live well entirely on vegan foods, which has not been part of our cultural heritage for thousands of years, and additionally some of the highest protein vegetable foods such as cereals and legumes have issues of their own with regard to carbon emissions and the use of resources such as water (rice).
Food is a very complicated subject, not only with regard to carbon emissions/ sustainability but also health, animal welfare and cultural attitudes.
Other issues are probably more important even than carbon emissions with regard to the eating of fish. It is apparent that humanity has depleted the natural fish stocks of the oceans so greatly that we have probably reached the tipping point for the extinction of many species such as cod and tuna that have been staple foods for millions of people worldwide. However the fuel used in fishing, transporting and in particular refrigerating or freezing fish before sale must also be considered in the carbon emission debate, since they all add to the problem.
Poultry is less damaging than red meat since the birds grow pound for pound more quickly, and are often used to produce eggs beforehand (sometimes in appalling conditions) so that there are two foods with "first class" (containing more than 22 amino acids)proteins coming from one source. However for much of the year artificial lighting and heating is used to encourage higher egg yields which should be factored in.
This brings me to the point vegetarian or vegan? As someone who has not eaten meat for nearly 24 years I am aware of the many health benefits from vegetarianism. There is much evidence to show that avoiding "red" meat is generally a healthy lifestyle choice, not only because even lean meat is 30% fat but because there is evidence to show that there are considerable mental health benefits to not eating meat and particularly offal.
Vegetarians are said to be seven times less likely to show symptoms of mental health deterioration, including senile dementia and Parkinsons disease, though the exact cause of this has not yet been proved. It may be linked to the proteins which are found in animals and particularly organs such as the brain and which have been shown to cause symptoms ranging from loss of memory to CJD when eaten. (There is an ongoing study of natives of Borneo where cannibalism had some interesting effects on some of the population and where a resistant strain of people to the CJD type disease has resulted and this may provide more evidence of what exactly causes the mental health problems).
Personally I still eat eggs and some dairy products and have found when I didnt for a few days that I seemed to lack physical energy. It may be that I have to live at a slower pace of life as a vegan than I do as a vegetarian and this is an adaptation that could certainly be made and logically should be if the issues about growing red meat above are taken into account. My reasons for giving up meat in the 1980s were to do with health and animal welfare issues. For the same reasons I buy free range eggs and organic milk, but should really for the sake of the carbon issues probably give up both.
The main reason for not eating fish is so far as Im concerned less to do with carbon emissions at the moment than the fact that we are in danger of extinguishing for ever a source of protein that feeds many of the worlds poorest people particularly in Asia where there may be insufficient agricultural land to grow them more protein rich foods such as soya.
Other issues such as the destruction of the rain forest in the Amazon basin in order that beef cattle can be raised is one more ecological reason for giving up meat.
Yes I agree that meat should be given up, but I think there would be huge resistance, particularly in the United States where it is a staple, and also in the EEC. It may be that meat should become the kind of luxury food that lobster and caviar are now, so that it is so expensive few can afford it except as a celebration dish. If meat was eaten once a week rather than four or more times a week this would make a significant mainstream difference to all the above mentioned issues. For myself I should be considering giving up dairy to bring myself into the truly alternative camp.
I also believe were we, amongst the developed nations to ever reach the vegan stage basic nutritional advice should be given in schools so that people understand how mixing foods such as pasta with either peas or sesame seeds can provide sufficient levels of protein to stay healthy and active.
It is by no means obvious how to live well entirely on vegan foods, which has not been part of our cultural heritage for thousands of years, and additionally some of the highest protein vegetable foods such as cereals and legumes have issues of their own with regard to carbon emissions and the use of resources such as water (rice).
Food is a very complicated subject, not only with regard to carbon emissions/ sustainability but also health, animal welfare and cultural attitudes.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Week 9 Eco dreams....or survival instincts?
It depends entirely on whether the group in question is already motivated to some extent on whether group based approaches to sustainable consumption work in my view. Like the scandinavian eco villages which were studied during week 4, people who already share an ideal can support each other very effectively in groups. I consider that survival was once the motivation for homo sapiens to work together in groups/tribes and it is because this system works we live together in villages or tribes now, and do not live successfully on our own. Trying to manage any kind of existence without the support of others who have a vested interest in the whole group ethos surviving is extremely hard. Society recognises this in the help that is given through benefits to single mothers for example.
Therefore if the group is already pro sustainable consumption practices,(or anything else for that matter),working together will be far more effective than working individually towards that end. "Many hands make light work" and shared beliefs strengthen the community and increase its potential for success.
If however,there is not a shared ideal, the result would be quite different. It would probably become an irritant to members who did not agree with the concept being pursued and they might well become resistant to its process and would either opt out of it or even possibly sabotage it. Imagine living in a community with, for example, some powerfully expressed cult belief, if one did not share it!
There is also the point that groups that are living apart from and differently from other communities may become, like the Amish in the US, a kind of social island where they follow their own system for living but they do not in any way influence others to follow their example.
In conclusion group efforts are better than individual efforts, when there is some consensus, but it does not follow that the group's ideas will spread successfully to a wider community unless there is some clearly perceived benefit to be derived from it.
Therefore if the group is already pro sustainable consumption practices,(or anything else for that matter),working together will be far more effective than working individually towards that end. "Many hands make light work" and shared beliefs strengthen the community and increase its potential for success.
If however,there is not a shared ideal, the result would be quite different. It would probably become an irritant to members who did not agree with the concept being pursued and they might well become resistant to its process and would either opt out of it or even possibly sabotage it. Imagine living in a community with, for example, some powerfully expressed cult belief, if one did not share it!
There is also the point that groups that are living apart from and differently from other communities may become, like the Amish in the US, a kind of social island where they follow their own system for living but they do not in any way influence others to follow their example.
In conclusion group efforts are better than individual efforts, when there is some consensus, but it does not follow that the group's ideas will spread successfully to a wider community unless there is some clearly perceived benefit to be derived from it.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Week 8 An Organisation to promote Sustainable Consumption...Green BBC
I'd pick the BBC because there are so many different channels on both television and radio where the message could be got out in diverse ways.
I'd ask them to include the eco theme in programmes of all sorts, with an emphasis on exemplifying, since my reading of the stats on Richard's graph on Wednesdays lecture gave me the impression that stronger than the community issue in encouraging people to change their behaviours towards saving energy was the desire to a) be like the exemplars (i.e. the players in the football club), b) to accept a message more readily from someone trusted (who in this case, however illogically was once again the members of the team).
So over the course of a licence fee paying year the whole organisation would turn out a programme every week (and a mini happening every day) with a different well known person supporting the eco message in as many different ways as possible, from a nudge in the few seconds of a programme introduction, to a programme taking an ecological view on issues such as green transport, recycling, solar and wind energy, insulation, food waste, permaculture, less packaging, lowering central heating, consuming less, growing your own food (they are doing this already) etc etc. There would be online websites to support with information and links to appropriate organisations. There would be a game show of some kind in which teams of celebrities and families would compete for improving their lifestlyes ecologically. Or a similar concept. The idea being to make the issues part of everyday life through constant exposure and a talking point in the same way it appears the X Factor and Strictly are in certain sections of the population at present and to have well known and trusted figures putting out the message and taking part in the behaviour for all to see.
I would be heavily reliant on "experts" in this field for advice on what the most likely vehicles would be for successful carrying of the message, but there should be no shortage of them at the BBC.
I'd ask them to include the eco theme in programmes of all sorts, with an emphasis on exemplifying, since my reading of the stats on Richard's graph on Wednesdays lecture gave me the impression that stronger than the community issue in encouraging people to change their behaviours towards saving energy was the desire to a) be like the exemplars (i.e. the players in the football club), b) to accept a message more readily from someone trusted (who in this case, however illogically was once again the members of the team).
So over the course of a licence fee paying year the whole organisation would turn out a programme every week (and a mini happening every day) with a different well known person supporting the eco message in as many different ways as possible, from a nudge in the few seconds of a programme introduction, to a programme taking an ecological view on issues such as green transport, recycling, solar and wind energy, insulation, food waste, permaculture, less packaging, lowering central heating, consuming less, growing your own food (they are doing this already) etc etc. There would be online websites to support with information and links to appropriate organisations. There would be a game show of some kind in which teams of celebrities and families would compete for improving their lifestlyes ecologically. Or a similar concept. The idea being to make the issues part of everyday life through constant exposure and a talking point in the same way it appears the X Factor and Strictly are in certain sections of the population at present and to have well known and trusted figures putting out the message and taking part in the behaviour for all to see.
I would be heavily reliant on "experts" in this field for advice on what the most likely vehicles would be for successful carrying of the message, but there should be no shortage of them at the BBC.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Week 7. (2) Corporate social responsibility (Radio 4)
November 3rd "You and Yours" on Radio 4 discussing issues on corporate social responsibility. This was indirectly linked to sustainable consumption, through issues raised in connection with CSR. Mike Barry of Plan A for M & S discussed how 80% of M & S customers wanted various issues to be addressed and the company felt it was necessary for that reason and also felt that such issues as dealing with waste and recycling were financially profitable. The company has a four point plan for dealing with CSR:-
climate change issues,
waste and recycling,
providing better wages for workers, (there are 2 million in the M & S supply chain,) in developing countries and
looking after the needs and expectations of their 75,000 retail workers.
Said that innovations had brought about real and sustained change and that customer expectations required that M & S be a market leader in this field.
Other small companies also phoned in, a food co-op from Manchester called Unicorn which said that its customer loyalty was dependent on its continuing "green" CSR packages, and another RBS which had a project in place where if workers gave money to charities the company tripled the donation.
Not necessarily all about sustainable consumption, but surely evidence of "Seeds of change" within the business community with regard to New Economic type innovations becoming embedded and changing lives for the better, profit not the only aim.
climate change issues,
waste and recycling,
providing better wages for workers, (there are 2 million in the M & S supply chain,) in developing countries and
looking after the needs and expectations of their 75,000 retail workers.
Said that innovations had brought about real and sustained change and that customer expectations required that M & S be a market leader in this field.
Other small companies also phoned in, a food co-op from Manchester called Unicorn which said that its customer loyalty was dependent on its continuing "green" CSR packages, and another RBS which had a project in place where if workers gave money to charities the company tripled the donation.
Not necessarily all about sustainable consumption, but surely evidence of "Seeds of change" within the business community with regard to New Economic type innovations becoming embedded and changing lives for the better, profit not the only aim.
Week 7 Algae fuel option from San Diego, "the Houston of California"
This week I've heard, (on radio 4), a brief report on the development of algae for producing a bio fuel that is taking place in San Diego,California. After the usual interview with a truck business owner in Texas, who said that if any taxes are put on "gas" unemployment is bound to result, (no mention of the environmental issues long term for everyone!), there was a change of scene to a San Diego laboratory where huge vats of green algae were being stirred. I hope, (but think it unlikely) that this process was solar powered since it was taking place 24/7. An on site scientist, explained that he was convinced that fuel produced from the algae could be in use instead of conventional oil within ten years, with an estimated five years for the production of a prototype vehicle.
My thoughts? Firstly the processing seemed to be very expensive in terms of growing and processing the algae, (water resources, ambient temperatures, and extraction of the oil) and although the algae used carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while growing (so improving the situation re emissions) it seems unlikely that these will not then be returned when the oil is either processed or used, not to mention from the vat stirring if this is carbon fuel driven.
It seemed as if replacing the transport fuel was all that was really being considered here. While clearly short of data on some issues (such as the emissions, if any, and the costs of production on the environment in the processing) there seemed to be no emphasis on ecological issues, only on the fact that once in use the world need not fear the end of carbon fuels. It is probably replacing one problem fuel with another which has different but still significant issues attached to its production and use. I hope the water at least could be re-used time and again in the production process.In other words this seems another mainstream attempt at greening the current situation. At least the fuel was not(yet)using land previously growing food resources for people,(as with some other bio fuel crops).
Ive always hoped the solar cell technology we have could be improved so that solar powered vehicles would run during daylight and in sunshine would store energy for trips in the dark. They might only travel at 30mph but for the many people who use cars predominantly in cities for work, school trips and shopping this could work well. Public transport would be the option for longer trips, and the infrastructure of this does need to be improved and broadened as already mentioned. (Wk 6)
My thoughts? Firstly the processing seemed to be very expensive in terms of growing and processing the algae, (water resources, ambient temperatures, and extraction of the oil) and although the algae used carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while growing (so improving the situation re emissions) it seems unlikely that these will not then be returned when the oil is either processed or used, not to mention from the vat stirring if this is carbon fuel driven.
It seemed as if replacing the transport fuel was all that was really being considered here. While clearly short of data on some issues (such as the emissions, if any, and the costs of production on the environment in the processing) there seemed to be no emphasis on ecological issues, only on the fact that once in use the world need not fear the end of carbon fuels. It is probably replacing one problem fuel with another which has different but still significant issues attached to its production and use. I hope the water at least could be re-used time and again in the production process.In other words this seems another mainstream attempt at greening the current situation. At least the fuel was not(yet)using land previously growing food resources for people,(as with some other bio fuel crops).
Ive always hoped the solar cell technology we have could be improved so that solar powered vehicles would run during daylight and in sunshine would store energy for trips in the dark. They might only travel at 30mph but for the many people who use cars predominantly in cities for work, school trips and shopping this could work well. Public transport would be the option for longer trips, and the infrastructure of this does need to be improved and broadened as already mentioned. (Wk 6)
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Week 6 Green Taxes
The "green fiscal commission" have advised taxing heating bills in order to double their current costs and to continuously increase the tax on new cars each year by £300 until it has reached £3,300 by 2020. Petrol and diesel would also to increase 10% a year so that they will have trebled in price by 2020.
I suspect someone has been reading my week 4 blog on practical measures!
I suspect someone has been reading my week 4 blog on practical measures!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
