Viewing entries in
The Environment
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has laid out a range of scenarios for what might happen to the planet, atmosphere, biosphere, and human society over the course of the next century. These scenarios are based on different “Representative Concentration Pathways” (RCPs), each with its own story line about population growth, economic activity, land use patterns, energy use, lifestyle, climate policy, and mitigation efforts.
Just 10% of Americans currently say that human-caused climate change is not happening or is not about to happen. Climate change “dismissives” are a vanishing species. Disagreement is mostly about how fast, how much, possible effects and what the best course of action is.
Sometimes when I sound a note of hope about climate change, others seem irritated or even angry. As if hope negates strong measures, and unless we take strong measures, the situation is truly hopeless. As if hope engenders complacency. But hope can spur action, especially hope tempered by a sense of urgency and an understanding that sacrifice is also part of the equation.
My last post ended on a note of optimism: continued economic growth, cultural change and technological development can go a long way in ameliorating climate change, and the effects thereof. In short: with economic development, empowerment of women, intensification of sustainable agriculture, and urbanization, human populations plummet and wild habitat expands. ...
In “Self Comes to Mind”, Antonio Damasio writes of the homeostatic range associated with the well-being of living creatures. Venture too close to the periphery of this range and you get pain. Inhabit the middle and you get pleasure. ... Now compare the concept of the homeostatic range to the idea of homeostatic balance. Homeostatic balance is a perfectly respectable concept meaning a condition of equilibrium. But my interest is in the “use value” of the word ‘balance’: what it is meant to evoke and accomplish...
Ignoring possible human suffering and death caused by climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts is no different than drone pilots disassociating from the effects of their bombing runs. Of course, sometimes drastic – and lethal – measures are justified. But trade-offs are involved – and if you care about human life, trade-offs must be seriously considered.
We know that a lot of people will die because of the havoc wreaked by climate change. The (WHO) estimates that between 2030 and 2050, climate change will cause roughly 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress.
Climate change action priorities, simplified version: reduce green house gases, protect habitats, protect wildlife and protect humans. For this post, I’m going to focus on protecting humans – operationalized as reducing the extra deaths caused by climate change. A huge factor in reducing climate-change related deaths is economic development. Specifically, as GDP increases, mortality rates decrease. Mean death rates fall by 15% for every 10% increase in GDP. And we’re not just talking about old people getting a couple extra years: on average, a 10% increase in income means a 5% fall in infant mortality.
"Climate change could kill more than 500,000 adults in 2050 worldwide due to changes in diets and body weight from reduced crop productivity, according to new estimates. The research is the strongest evidence yet that climate change could have damaging consequences for food production and health worldwide." - Springmann et al (2016)
This chart is from the USDA Economic Research Service. It shows that US farmers consider the environmental effects of agricultural production, e.g., soil erosion and the loss of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides to water, and have adopted conservation practices to mitigate these effects. Use of such practices has increased substantially over the past 20 years.
“The human mind comprises evolved intuitions that shape and constrain cultural preferences. In the case of GMOs, folk biology, religious intuitions, and emotions such as disgust leave the mind readily seduced by representations of GMOs as abnormal or toxic.”
- Blancke, S., F. Van Breusegem, G. De Jaeger, J. Braeckman, and M. Van Montagu. 2015. Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends in Plant Science 20:414–418.
In a previous post, I calculate ground vehicle CO2 emissions using the following formula: number of miles driven per week * weeks in a year) / average vehicle fuel efficiency * pounds of CO2 emitted per gallon, which is about 20 pounds ...
Life cycle analysis is a “systematic approach of looking at a product's complete life cycle, from raw materials to final disposal of the product. It offers a 'cradle to grave' look at a product or process, considering environmental aspects and potential impacts.” (Life Cycle Analysis: A Step by Step Approach, 2009, Aida Sefic Williams).
For much of the last century, buying stuff has meant driving to a store, at least for most Americans most of the time. According to the federal government, “shopping and errands” accounted for 35.4% of all household vehicle travel in 1990 – more than double that of 1969. But the trend is reversing: in 2009, shopping and errands accounted for just 30.7% of household vehicle travel.
According to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, the EPA has found a clear level of concentration of the pesticide imidacloprid in which things start to go badly for the local honey bee population: "If nectar brought back to the hive from worker bees had more than 25parts per billion of the chemical, 'there's a significant effect,' namely fewer bees, less honey and 'a less robust hive,' ... But if the nectar chemical level was below 25 parts per billion, it was as if there were no imidacloprid at all, with no ill effects, Jones said. It was a clear line of harm or no harm, he said."
The last post included ideas on reducing emissions in freight transport. This and the next few posts will be about reducing the carbon footprint of personal vehicle travel. How much CO2 do cars actually emit?
Reducing emissions from transportation is mostly a matter of reducing demand for transported goods, improving fuel efficiency and improving transportation efficiency – that is, moving the same amount of cargo (e.g., people and things) with fewer trips and fewer vehicles. We’re going to start with freight transportation. This includes shipping, rail, and road transport.
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the US are: • Electricity production (31% of 2013 GHG emissions), mostly from burning fossil fuels, especially coal and natural gas. ...
In a recent online poll of 1,009 individuals, over 60% of each age category said they prioritize life experiences over possessions. Whether “experiences” are more damaging to the environment than possessions depends on the experiences and the possessions.
Is it possible for human societies to achieve or maintain a high standard of living without causing significant environmental harm? As a first step in this exploration, I’m going to define a high standard of living as a situation where the basic needs of the population are taken care of and about 50% of income can go to discretionary spending.