Wk 10 Consumer Goods

During the lectures there were some really interesting examples shown of smart technology used to produce more sustainable goods. The kettle and toothbrush ideas really demonstrated the problems that we face in designing these products, not to mention the wholesale change in attitude required by the consumer to these products.

I decided to look for other examples of attempts to make everyday products more sustainable and energy efficient. The first idea I came across was the Roly Poly Iron. The basic concept is that there is a counter weight mechanism, which allows the iron to roll back up,preventing the iron from being forgotten and burning clothes.

 

This product is still in development, but I think it would be interesting to also incorporate a switch activated by the counter weight mechanism which would turn off the power automatically when the iron rolls back up. This could possibly save energy. The possibility of using different materials for the heated plate may also be an option for reducing the reliance on stainless steel.

Another concept I came across which I found really interesting and a great example of a Eco-friendly products is the Bamboo speaker. It is a really innovative design, but also one which would appeal to the consumer because of its quirkiness and style. Basically it uses living bamboo plants as the sound box for the speaker, and is housed in a recycled ceramic container which holds the base of the bamboo and also the electrical equipment.

  

This idea is really quiet simple and with very little environmental impact and it is this type of product that will pave the way for more developments of this kind. It is highly marketable, and is very attractive to the consumer.

Another idea I came across is the idea of a personalised clock. This falls under the category of functionality over asthetic design. Do we  need a clock to look nice, or to tell the time? In this example there is  no housing to on the clock. It is minimalist in almost every way yet it serves its function, and has very low production cost and very little use of materials compared with our normal idea of a clock.

The challenge with this product however is that people want a clock that fits with the interior design of their homes and this can result in fashion over form being the main reason for the type of clock they buy. This is one of the many problems designers and companies face, it is easy with many products to make them more efficient and from less material. But often consumers will not buy them because they are not fashionable. The electric car is a good example of this attitude.

It is easy to see  how many products can be designed to use less material, have lower manufacturing costs and therefore a lower energy impact. The real problem however is that consumers want what is fashionable at the time. Functionality, and lifespan are rarely taken into account, and this is where the real problem lies. The system which is currently operating to provide consumers with there goods is one which uses planned obsolescence and low quality material in goods. It is not profitable for companies to produce high quality, long lasting goods. Until this is addressed then many of these designs will never be as common place as they could be.

Wk 9 Corporate Social Responsibilty.

The lectures on corporate social responsibility were very informative, but also very shocking at times. The poor records of some companies from attitudes towards workers rights to health and safety, and their environmental impact is truly mind-boggling. However it is important to remember that companies are a business. Business has one main aim; to make profit. Competition and the drive to make profit and control market share has resulted in many companies cutting corners on a monumental scale in the name of profit.

Hearing about the appalling conditions suffered by Foxconn’s chinese employees was an example of the appalling lengths companies will go to in the search for greater profits. An article from Huffingpost.com details the massive difference in working practices between Chinese and Brazilian Foxconn employees. With Chinese employees, earning approximately $269 per month, with 60 to 70 hour weeks and 5 days holidays per year. While Brazilian employees receive approximately $540 per month, a maximum 44 hour week and 30 days paid holidays per year.

The argument can be made that this is normal in China for working conditions like this to exist. However it does not make it right. Yet I still find it hard to blame companies like Foxconn entirely for situations like this. At the end of the day the company has only one main objective and that is to make profit. The company will move production to a company like China to save money on cheaper labour, less stringent waste policies etc. This decision will probably be made by a board of management who, if they do not make the most cost-effective decision, could lose their jobs. Moving down the ladder we find a factory manager who, if he does not squeeze what he can from employee’s, may lose his or her job, and down again to the employee on the factory floor who if found to be working slower than a company set limit, may lose their job.

It is all in the name of cost effectiveness and increasing profit. A quick note to add to this is the use of cheaper materials and components shorter life spans to cut costs, but I’ll get back to this. We have left out one important factor in this chain and that is the consumer. We as consumers are right at the top of the chain which leads all the way back to the factory floor worker in China.

Without our demand for goods at cheap prices many of these factories would not be cutting the corners that they do. It is interesting to note that in developed countries like Ireland, we have a high level of social responsibility from companies. We would not accept these standards shown by Foxconn in a factory in Dublin or Cork. Yet it is the demand for Apple’s Ipad or Iphone by consumers in countries like Ireland that create the demand and therefore the acceptance of poor working practices and standards in less developed countries. It seems that the only winners are people in the developed countries and the companies supplying the products. Other than a tiny wage there seems to be no positive for these exploited workers.

As for the cheap materials and components I mentioned earlier, these result in a poorer quality product and a shorter lifespan. This leads to far more waste and a greater cost to the consumer in the long run, from buying products more often to servicing.

While it is clearly worthwhile to regulate and impose rules on companies regarding social responsibility I feel that we as consumers need to take our share of responsibility for this situation. It has happened with Fair trade food products, why not for everything else we as well??

Wk 8 Environmental Law and Public Policy

There have been many public debates recently regarding E.U treaties, as noted in the lectures, in recent times Ireland has seen controversy in this area. The Lisbon treaty from a number of years ago, and the Fiscal treaty bein put to a vote in the coming months. Environmental law from a European perspective seems to be a relatively new topic, having been only properly implemented in 1986. While it is obvious that there needs to be common law regarding the environment across the E.U there are some interesting points raised by the topic. Ireland’s turf cutting for example, which seems to have been largely ignored by government here for a number of years but has now become a topic of controversy again recently. This reminded me of an early topic discussed in sustainable development.

The link between a country’s development, i.e its economic growth and the impact that growth has on the environment was clearly demonstrated in last weeks lectures on economics. With less developed countries having a greater negative effect on their environment as they develop, until the point where that country is developed enough that it can ‘afford’ to pay greater attention to the impact the society is having on its environment.  This is often highlighted using extreme cases. Such as comparing the United States with India, where the levels of human welfare and levels of environmental protection differ vastly.

However,  I find myself asking the question; If there is a E.U wide policy regarding environmental law, can this hinder less developed E.U countries economic growth? It seems to me that there are cases for countries to use the processes of appeal available to them in the E.U.

Taking the original countries which signed up to te European Economic Community, two were already relatively large economies, France and Germany. There was no European environmental law applicable to many of the first members (including Ireland) until 1986. These countries therefore reaped the benefits of the E.E.C without the worry of implementing any but their own environmental laws. Countries who joined after this date however need to comply with these laws and could stifle their economic growth because of it.

In Ireland’s case it is argued that turf cutting is a tradition, and that it isn’t right for the E.U to attempt to stop us from carrying out traditions. But in this case I feel that the law is there for the right reasons to protect the environment and in that sense I feel we should comply with the law.  It is not something that will affect our economic stability, growth take away a large number of jobs.

I feel that in many area’s it has been excellent for Ireland to be a member of the E.U. Our improved infrastructure is a testament to that. We need to be able to adapt to change as a country and the loss of something as out-dated as turf cutting is a small price to pay for the huge rewards we have gained as members of the E.U. I feel that European Law has proved itself to be fair and just, having often overturned decisions made in our own courts.

I think that with the current crisis the euro zone finds itself in, many laws will be passed, environmental and economic which will favour the larger countries, while stifling growth and development in the smaller countries. This is why I feel that new treaties and laws need to be heavily scrutinised by smaller member states in the future, as they can and will have an effect on economic policy and law, and as already discussed, have a knock on effect on environmental law also.

The recent controversy regarding the water and household charges are good examples of this. The Irish people have had ‘free’ water for a long period of time now. However we are now being told that we need to pay for this water to ensure it is clean and safe to drink. As most people would freely agree this is a cost saving exercise by the government, and a revenue generating one in relation tothe household charge. These two policies are driven by the financial situation in Ireland and by influences from within the E.U to drive austerity measures within our economy.  I doubt that the revenue generated by these two charges is going to be invested in Environmental projects or protection in Ireland. As part of a democratic system like the E.U there will be postive and negative impacts, but it is important that we scrutinise laws and treaties properly. Often they may bein the interest of a few and not the greater good.

Wk 7 Energy Production and Economic Recovery: Viable solutions to our financial problems

‘Clean Energy Haven Hypothesis’

During our lectures we came across some interesting points such as the difference between GDP and GNP, the pollution haven hypothesis and other factors which show that there is a positive link between economic growth and environmental degradation in developing countries.

A theme I’ve tried to incorporate into all my blogs has been the effect that each topic we’ve discussed affects Ireland, and how if possible it could be used to positively influence how we do things both as Irish citizens, and as an independent state.

There were many points raised in the lectures which when applied to Ireland, seemed to me like we were going backwards economically, and socially. We are cutting Health care, education, spending on infrastructure and taxing people to the point where disposable income is at an all time low, and consumer confidence is almost non-existent. Leading economist have proved many times that austerity alone is not a successful method of economic recovery, it has to be done logically along with investment in key area’s. Also the fact that GDP seems to be our governments main concern, with little or no regard given to the Human development index, got me thinking that investment would be the way forward.

With this in mind I began to look at area’s where investment might work and the pollution haven hypothesis jumped out at me immediately. If developing countries encourage foreign investment by allowing laxer environmental controls, why could Ireland not strive for the opposite?

With proven clean energy methods, such as wind, hydro-electric and solar power widely available with little or no environmental impact why do we not invest more into them, instead of looking at fuels such as methane which require methods like  ‘fracking’ to extract them.

Ireland as a developed country can attract foreign investment already and has done so very successfully in the past. Our educated workforce, much improved infrastructure and attractive rate of corporation tax have all been factors. I believe there needs to be a shift towards clean energy to attract investment. While developing countries trade environmental protection for investment, from mining companies for example, we could encourage investment from renewable energy companies by encouraging the use of clean fuel sources.

A report by the IWEA (Irish Wind Energy Association) in 2009 estimated the potential employment from an increase in installed wind energy as being just over 10,760 jobs up to 2020. The 2020 target is set in line with an E.U wide agreement from 2007 for 25% of the E.U’s energy coming from renewable sources. Ireland’s specific target is 16%. But there is no reason why this could not be more, and therefore provide more jobs.

Germany for example currently employ 38,000 people in the wind power sector. This is mainly in the manufacture of wind turbine components. There is no reason why Ireland could not strive for similar levels.

We are constantly reminded that Ireland is an export driven economy and that this is one of the best hopes for economic recovery. It is really not beyond the realms of rational thought that Ireland could be a leading energy exporter. Not just simply electricity, but components and technology also. Direct investment by companies in the field would result in research taking place in  our college’s and universities, with the possibility of new technology being developed.

It is definitely something that the current government is looking at, but maybe not closely enough. I certainly don’t have all the answers, but the expertise is available in this country. Instead of a the ‘Pollution Haven Hypothesis’, Ireland could start its very own ‘Clean Energy Haven Hypothesis’

Related Links:

Irish Wind Energy Association

http://www.iwea.com/index.cfm?page=home

Ocean Energy in Ireland

http://www.marine.ie/NR/rdonlyres/86491414-3E7E-48E5-A0E1-287CA9191C61/0/OceanEnergyStrategy.pdf

ECB-IMF deal is a noose that will strangle economic recovery

byMICHAEL CRAGG and JOSEPH STIGLITZ

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0409/1224294304548.html

Wk 6 Agriculture and Energy

It was very shocking to find out just how much energy goes into food production. Most people would assume that something as natural as farming you have a relatively low impact on the environment and energy consumption, however that is not the case. But what does strike me as being typical from what I have learned over the last number of weeks is that food production is not necessarily to blame in its own right. But rather the pressure we as consumers have out it under.

For many years in Ireland, the only fruit and vegetables which were available to people were those that could be grown naturally in Ireland, had to travel a relatively short distance from producer to consumer, and that were in season. But as consumers we have begun to look for ever more ‘exotic’ food. The introduction of foreign restaurants has seen an increase in the variety of foods imported for both these restaurants but more importantly for supermarkets so people can cook these dishes at home.

As an employee of a major supermarket chain and former manager of the fruit and veg department of one of the larger stores in the chain I have first hand experience of this. One example of how these large super markets are contributing hugely is in the race for profit and to keep customers through the range of fresh fruit and veg they have available.

A good example of this would be baby corn. This vegetable is not traditionally grown here. Personally I am unsure if it would be present in any traditional Irish dish and is mainly sold as an ingredient in Asian dishes such as stir-fry’s. However while managing the fruit and veg department we received between four and six cases of this product every week. A case would contain 16 packets, at 250g per pack. Over 90% of this was simply sent to refuse every week, (not composted) as it had not sold before its ‘Display Until’ date. This amount’s to approx 18kg per week. The most shocking aspect of this is that for nearly 8 months of the year it was of South African origin. The company logic behind this being that at least if we have this product when no other supermarket chain has it, we will retain or gain customer loyalty. This is just one of many products which was stocked and subsequently binned in a similar fashion.

One question that is raised in my mind immediately is how it can be justifiable, to transport that amount of highly nutritious food away from a continent rife with starvation and famine, to simply sell in shops here. Worse again on the off-chance that someone might buy this product and if not to then just bin it?

This whole mindset raises many serious issues. Another being how any company can afford that sort of waste on an item? Or is it coming from a source of cheap labour and exploitation? We have brands such as the ‘Fair trade’ coffee to show us that there is no exploitation (or at least less so than would be the norm) of workers in developing countries. I have never seen this logo on any fresh produce however.

We as people really don’t ask questions as to where our food comes from. Often it has been flown thousands of miles to reach our country and transported via fossil fuel driven vehicles further to reach our plates. It would be interesting to see what the Carbon footprint left by the transport of food into a small country like Ireland would be, let alone would the U.K, with a population of over 60 million.

Other factors include the change in Ireland’s landscape over the last 2000 years. Where once this was an island covered in forest, it is now mostly grassland for pasture. What impact has this had on CO2 emissions since there are less tree’s to carry out photosynthesis as well as a dramatic increase in the number of cattle. The fact that cattle are large contributors to methane emissions, brought on by changes to their feed to increase production, only increases the problem. Similar situations are occurring in developing countries far bigger than Ireland, and at alarming rates.

It seems that the there will need to a change in mindset in the near future, regarding many aspects of how we live our lives everyday. From the food we eat, the vehicles we use to get around, to how we produce and use our energy. These and many more areas are interconnected in many delicate and incontrovertible ways. The expertise is out there, detailed studies have been completed and rational solutions put forward. But nobody seems to be listening.

Related Articles:

Food imports are a cause for concern

http://www.independent.ie/farming/news-features/food-imports-are-a-cause-for-concern-2174874.html

Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772&CR1=warning

Wk 5 Energy; Problems and Solutions.

From reading other students blogs, the topic of energy, particularly energy production and usage seems to have divided opinion among the class. As the module has progressed I’ve learned more about sustainable development, the environment, energy and climate change and how these are all related to one another. I’ve noticed how opinions and beliefs, including my own have also changed among the class. I have also kept a close eye on the news and I am beginning to really see that in these difficult economic times, the way to really convince people of the need for change is to not rely on their sense of social responsibility, but to appeal to where they can see a noticeable difference; their pockets.

With the cost of petrol having broken the €1.60 mark recently, I felt it might be worthwhile to investigate the savings people could make by looking at an individual case, but to also investigate some of the common opinions people have as to why petrol is so expensive. Visiting the website http://www.whatgas.com/ie gave me some useful information. The graph below show’s the price of petrol, (cent per litre) and oil (dollar per barrel).

The first thing that struck me is the discrepancy in price from around June 2010 to October 2010, the price of oil average’s $80 per barrel, whereas petrol rarely fall’s below 125c/L. The cost of petrol also rarely fluctuates over these months whereas there is a noticeable change in the oil price. Also the decrease in the cost of oil from April 2011 to June 2011, does not transfer to petrol; in fact there is an increase!

We can apply the figures to this very moment in the time. Currently petrol cost on average 160c/L in Ireland, with the cost of a barrel of oil at approx. $106.00 per barrel. If we were to mark these onto the graph against March 2011 we would see that the price of  of oil is only slightly different, (approx.) $105-$110 per barrel, petrol however is now at at (approx.) 160c/L compared to 140c/l for March 2011. This amounts to roughly an unchanged oil price, as opposed to an increase of roughly 14% in the price of petrol. This graph may not be fully up to date, it does however demonstrate the erratic nature of oil and fuel prices and that the price of oil is not the only measure which impacts the price of petrol. Government levy’s would be one example.

If we were to look at the cost then of an electric car, what sort of fluctuations would affect its running cost, and how would it stack up against a standard petrol car?

The accepted standard for mileage of Modern electric vehicles, (E.V’s) is between 100-160Km for 15kWh of electricity. For this blog we’ll average the distance achieved to 130Km. By using figures from the website http://www.moneyguideireland.com I calculated the average price from all suppliers and all price plans to be 14.64 cent per kWh. Therefore the average cost for 130km of travel with an electric car would be €2.20.

Comparing this to the cost of running a petrol car yields some interesting results. From the AA Roadwatch website, the cost per Km for a petrol car (band A engine capacity) is 10.5 c/Km. Therefore the cost of the petrol car fro a 130km trip is €13.65. This means it is just over 6 times more expensive to run a petrol car.

On average mileage of 16,000km per year this would represent a saving of approx. €1460 per annum!!

The only measure which would impact the E.V’s fuel cost is the price of electricity. This, again harps back to our dependance on oil and fossil fuels for energy production, but a move to increase the amount of energy produced by renewable forms would lead to more stable and possibly cheaper electricity prices.

I firmly believe that if the public were properly informed about this type of saving there would be an increase in the number of electric cars on our roads. It would lead to all kinds of changes in how we approach energy production and consumption. This same principal can be applied to other forms of transport in Ireland such as bus and rail. While haulage for example may not be suitable to this change, other options such as bio-diesel are available and can be produced here.

The country may be on its knee’s financially, but a structured plan of investment to change our infrastructure to accommodate renewal forms of energy and renewable fuels would generate employment. The knock-on effects would be less of a spend at the pumps leaving people with a higher level of disposable income, not to mention the saving from increased employment to the social welfare bill, and increased tax revenue from taxes paid by those people returning to work. A switch to renewable forms of energy would also see a decrease in energy cost’s and lead to further foreign investment.

If people are willing to change their views, fossil fuels and the means to get them such as fracking could be soon be a thing of the past. Change can only come from education though.

While we may not be able to solve the problem of fossil fuel reliance overnight, there are choices available that can have immediate impacts. The switch to recycling refuse has proven that education and an incentive promotes change.

In short, EDUCATION + INVESTMENT = CHANGE

Wk 4 Climate Change; Are we responsible, or part of a Millenia long cycle?

Having received some great lectures on climate change this week it has really piqued my interest. I had some previous knowledge of climate change but much of it was in anecdotal form from T.V documentaries, newspaper articles and internet sites, but nothing really presented in a step by step format.

 I was very interested in the Milankovitch Cycle and how detailed it was, and I asked myself the question; Is what we’re doing having an effect on our climate, or are we just passing through a certain stage of this millenia long cycle?

Is what we do to the planet even having an affect in a long-term way or are we simply like ants trying to scratching at the Earths surface?

Also, dendrochronology was discussed in the lecture. I had read previously of evidence found in tree rings dating from the years 535-536 A.D shows an incredibly severe change in climate over this period which was out of sync with what is accepted as the normal climate of the time. It has been suggested that a massive volcanic eruption or meteor strike caused large amounts of debris to enter our atmosphere resulting in unseasonal weather, resulting in crop failure and famines worldwide.

Still, a massive volcanic eruption or meteor strike? These are idea’s for disaster movies and books! Can we as humans have a similar impact?

Mount St Helens, Washington 1980

Something which was mentioned in the lectures but not elaborated on in great detail was the melting of the Permafrost, and how this could affect climate change, and also how it can prove we are having an impact on our climate and possibly irreversibly so.

 Permafrost

 Permafrost or cryotic soil is soil at or below freezing point for two or more years. It can store carbon as peat or methane. The most recent work investigating the permafrost and its relevant carbon storage estimates that 1400–1700 Gt (gigatons) of carbon is stored in permafrost soils worldwide. This amount of carbon represents more carbon than currently exists in all living things and twice as much carbon as exists in the atmosphere.

There is evidence of natural permafrost melting which will release carbon into the atmosphere as methane. These natural melts would fall in line with certain changes in the planet’s climate which take place such as with the milankovich cycle.

However recent studies have shown that there is an increase in the amount of permafrost melting and it is thought that this is related to the green house effect and not a natural change in climate. This would also cause a knock-on effect whereby the increased melt leads to increased release of methane into the atmosphere and hence, greater global warming. Methane has a heat trapping effect 20 times greater than that of carbon dioxide.

A study released by the British Antarctic Survey found that in the past 800,000 years methane had never tipped 750 parts per billion (ppb), but is now 1,780 ppb.

This is outside the accepted time scales of the milankovitch cycle and the climate change that occurs during theese cycles.

Personally, I think this points to a number of reasonable assumptions. Firstly, some climate change happens naturally and there is very little humanity can do about it. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, humans have changed the face of the earth far more than any other species over the last 10,000 years, and our actions are clearly having an effect on our climate which has not occurred naturally before. While our impact may only be miniscule in the grand scheme of a 40,000 year cycle the evidence is pointing more towards our actions having an effect outside of the normal cycles of the earth.

I believe it is time that we looked at this seriously, and made efforts to address the problem of climate change before it is too late. We may have no effect in the long run, but I’d rather be safe than sorry!.

 

Wk 3 Critical Thinking: Blink and you might miss it,,,,

Critical thinking is something I thought I had a decent idea about.

Turns out I was wrong! My idea of critical thinking was to sit down and   think logically about a particular idea or problem, weight  up the pro’s and con’s and come to a conclusion on that basis.

Well,,, that is right in one sense, if your dealing with a written argument.   But I     never realised all the hidden detail, arguments and suggestions that can be hidden in the fine nuances of the English language, and how the use  of a single word or phrase can have a profound affect on the reader. Even more importantly on the listener, if your dealing with the spoken word.

Some of the greatest and most inspirational speeches ever made have been completely lacking on detail and specifics, yet have a deep and emotionally uplifting effect on the listeners.

Take for example a scientific paper, published in a scientific journal. The scientist who has compiled the report must use correct terminology, facts and figures, and scientific evidence to support his or her arguments. The paper after all is being read mostly by their peer’s and experts in the same field. If however this same scientist wrote an alternate version of the paper for say, a national broadsheet paper and another version for a tabloid, then the approach and tone can different greatly between each article. They are free to use sensational language or even fear tactics in the newspapers to stir up support for their opinion much more so than they could in the scientific journal.

To a logically thinking person, if handed all three articles and given a proper chance to assimilate the information, would draw much different conclusion from each piece. Critical thinking top me, is something which anyone can apply if given sufficient time and information.

I’m interested in the spoken word and how you apply critical thinking to a well performed speech. Take for example this famous speech by Mario Savio, in 1964:

In it he talks about the ‘machine’ and how we can stop it. We are not told who or what the ‘machine’ is, but it is an inspiring speech, his use of body language, tone and the emotion he conveys in the speech makes it easy to just get behind his point of view and support him, it almost bypasses our reaction to critically think about the situation, through an emotional reaction.

There is on the other hand many great examples of people who through years of experience have learned to deconstruct arguments even if they are taking place during an interview. There’s not as much time to assimilate the information being given by the interviewee and vague, sometimes blatantly untrue answers can be given. This type of language was famously described by one former Taoiseach as “Waffle”.

This famous interview by Jeremy Paxman of Michael Howard shows this quite clearly; with the interviewee obviously trying to avoid giving a straight answer to a simple question. Jeremy Paxman however recognises this and forces the issue repeating the question numerous times.

This is just an example of someone thinking on their feet and deconstructing an argument. This can however work in the opposite direction with an interviewer often leading the interviewee in a particular and “forcing them into a corner” to give a certain type of answer or sensational soundbite. A great satire example of this is in the movie ‘In the loop’ where a British M.P is forced into making a comment by the show’s presenter on early morning radio, stating “War in unforeseeable” and the consequences this statement has.

The point I’m trying to get across is that often it is easier to critically think about an argument presented in a newspaper, book, or article since we will generally have time to assimilate nd logically think about the information being presented, Aswell as recognising the tactics and ploys the writer is using to convince us. It is not however, as easy to do when listening to interviews with politicians, speeches given at political rallies or even the point of view a lecturer may try to get across during a lecture.

This is not something that is easy to do by any means, but after looking at critical thinking more and taking into account some of the techniques shown to use for making succesful and unsuccessful arguments, I feel that I am much better prepared to tackle all manner of media information, and to take my own views from them. I also feel I will be better prepared to deliver my own college reports in more convincing and logical ways.

Wk 2 Eco Friendly? Or Eco-Babble!

The idea of a having a society which is able to live in a non-damaging and non-intrusive way with its environment and natural settings has always fascinated me. There are many examples of tribes and people who have done this successfully throughout history. The Native American Indian for example is often used as example of a people who lived as one with nature. Or are they?

Take for example the Dire Wolf, a now extinct species of wolf which was much larger than the wolves we know today. It was commonly found in North America until approximately 10,000 years ago. One view as to why these large predators became extinct was the introduction of man through migration to North America. The theory being that man saw this wolf a its main competitor for food and systematically hunted it to extinction.

Canis Dirus-Dire Wolf

Now take for example the Buffalo, it is often assumed that these animals were revered by the Native American however there is evidence of incredible waste by the hunters of these great beasts  shown by one of their more successful hunting techniques, as described by the Crow Indians; “driving buffalo over embankments”. Where large numbers and often entire herds of buffalo would be driven over cliffs etc and then slaughtered. Often ten times more animals than they would eat in a year!

This seems very contradictory to the idea of American Indians being at one with nature does it not? If the Native American is a direct descendant of the migrating humans who caused the extinction of the dire-wolf, where are the lessons they learned?

My point is not to try to undermine the beliefs that these people have or that they do not live a life in harmony with nature but to simply point out that things are not always as black and white as people often like to think. Or even different shades of grey for that matter, but many different shades of many different colours!

Was the Native Americans belief in living as one with Nature a direct result of the mistakes made by their ancestors? And is it possible that had they remained the top predator of buffalo without discovery by North and South America European powers, would they eventually have found better ways of hunting the buffalo?

It is an interesting concept that can be transcribed to society today. It is now commonly accepted that the burning of fossil fuels is detrimental to the environment, however we still do it. There is a shift towards more environmentally friendly vehicles, international agreements regarding CO2 emissions, and countries such as China investing massively in renewable energy sources. Yet we still burn enormous quantities of fossil fuel and release CO2 into our atmosphere to meet our energy demands. In what way are we different to the Native Americans driving buffalo off a cliff? It is the quickest means to our ends after all!

It is incredibly worthwhile to strive to develop our societies in more Environmentally responsible ways it is important that a quick fix approach is not adapted or for people to assume that our problems can be fixed overnight. Just like the Native Americans we will have to engage in a learning curve.

People often talk about Wind power as the way forward for Ireland to export energy and to curb our reliance on foreign oil and fuel imports. But the argument is often lopsided and not properly researched. Airtricity is an example of how successful this can be in Ireland. But too often people lean on this one example.

From an Irish perspective I feel there needs to be a greater investment into properly structured research in this area. When a proper study is completed, of the combined power generation which Ireland could possibly create through not only wind, but also tidal, solar and hydroelectric power then we can move forward. Only then can this be presented to the public in an understandable and entirely accurate manner.

We have seen the response of Irish people towards the buying of cars with the new tax systems put in place regarding lower CO2 emissions. Also through the growing popularity of geothermal heating systems and rain water harvesting systems for homes. As it stands our capacity for the generation of renewable power has not been properly quantified or properly communicated to the public and what it could mean for them.

The Eco-babble needs to stop and once it does then we can truly start to take a step towards an environmentally sustainable society where Ireland could possibly be world leaders in renewable power generation, management and export. The Irish public is not stupid. It may take a “What’s in it for me?” attitude during these stressful economic times, but if it make sense they will buy into it. There needs to be research and a plan put together by experts in the field, not just hearsay and conjecture from Environmental activists, or the “Not in my back yard approach!” from the ordinary person.

Its time to stop herding the buffalo off the cliff and try building a well thought out, strong and sturdy pen to herd them into, maybe then we can keep some for future use.

Wk 1 Sustainable Development and the String Theory

Unfortunately I missed the first lecture, and so I decided it would be best to do some reading up on sustainable developement. I had no idea what it really entailed. Other than a vague notion that it had something to do with developing infrasture in an environmentally and socially reasponsible way, I wasn’t sure what it really meant!

One of the first concepts I came across was ‘String Theory’ and how all aspects of life are interconnected, social, political environmental issues all impact greatly on each other and how we as ordinary people fit into the grand scheme of things.

Having read some theory I looked into some recent major events in world history and tried to see how sustainable development may have impacted on them.

For example it can be argued that the second invasion of Iraq by the United States of America was simply a political decision takin solely on the United States reliance on foriegn oil exports from the middle east. While this war was dressed as a war of liberation for the Iraqi people there are interesting questions raised by it.

If the U.S had a more proactive approach to the use of renewable energy sources, as one of the largest comsumers of oil the dependance of that country on foriegn imports of oil would be decreased. If this was the case it could be said that tensions between the U.S and the middle east would not be at the level they are now. The motor industry in the U.S is one of the largest in the world. Environmental and econimacally friendly vehicles are not as popular there. A change from fossil fuel based transport to electric vehicles could have an untold difference on U.S oil consumption.

From this argument we can clearly see the link between the ‘ordinary americans’ outlook to motoring, the countries continued reliance on oil, its political motivations for starting a war, and the environmental impact continual reliance on fossil fuel based transport has on global warming.

From an Irish point of view our reliance on foriegn oil was highlighted during recent conflicts in Libya.

As I said earlier I looked into this idea and felt like I was going in the right direction after reading about the string theory and how everything is interconnected. Hopefully after a full semester of sustainable development I will be more confident discussing these types of issues and be able to deliver accurate and cogent arguments in the future.