People

Why population hysteria is more damaging than it seems

   Much issue is made of population as we move through the twenty-first century. This issue is often linked to be synonymous with the issue of climate change: in order to solve one we must also deal with the other. However, perhaps this is a misguided attempt. For, why is a larger population necessarily bad for the environment? Sure, more people should lead to a direct increase in emissions, though this notion can be called into question when one examines the distribution of the greenhouse gasses. The "High-income nations...provided only 7% of population growth but 29% of growth in emissions. The basis of this argument is that, when the differences in the concentrations of emissions are considered, it becomes apparent the irrelevance of the population question. It doesn't matter the amount of people, but the amount of emissions. "The excessive focus on population is a dangerous distraction from the core problem, which is not how many of us there are but how we use the planet and share its resources." This seems logical; it is certainly, at the end of the day, about the amount of greenhouse gasses which we emit into the atmosphere, not how many people are emitting them. 
   However, it must also be considered that The actual requirements for a population to survive with a given amount of members are far more complex, relating mainly to the space needed for habitation (much larger than mere existence in stasis), and the availability of resources. Given substantial space, as population increases, there are less resources available for each individual. Population increases until a carrying capacity (K) is met, at which point population oscillates around the carrying capacity.

Additionally, the survival of humans relies heavily on the level of impact we have on the planet. This impact is demonstrated in the I=PAT (Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology) equation, developed in the 1970's by Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren. This equation describes how humans impact (I) the planet. The greater the three factors (P,A,T), the more impact humans will have on the environment. As population (P ) increases, humans use more land and resources, and pollution generally increases as a result. When affluence (A) increases, the environment is further impacted by higher rates of consumption, which lead to more environmental impacts, however, one could argue that affluence also can reduce environmental impacts if those affluent are inclined to use their wealth for the benefit of the environment. Finally, technological increases (T) can have a similar effect of affluence in increasing efficiency of the utilization of resources, however, with increases in P, the utilization of technology necessarily increases, greater impacting the environment. In order to continue our survival, we must control our impact on the environment, which will require the proper management of population, affluence, and technology. As these currently high population, low emissions develop, their emissions will increase substantially, and if the population problem is ignored until this point,  we will face a colossal issue when this comes to be.

Stayin' Alive

   UK Carbon Capture, Still Hanging On

   Carbon capture and storage, essentially filtering out carbon that is produced when creating energy, provides a potential aid in the reduction of emissions. However, as with most options present for reducing emissions, it is not without its issues. These issues have come to a front in the UK. The Brits have an impressive track record for CCS initiatives compared to much of Europe, though, the process has run into several roadblocks. In the face of the recent financial crisis and the reduced need for energy, the initiatives slowed down rapidly. An English attempt to incentivize the creation of new CCS projects ran into trouble as a result of these factors, and a competition transformed into "a process of attrition rather than competition." This considered, the UK still outmatched all of the rest of Europe for bids for CCS projects.

   The reality of the situation is that we are currently allowing economic shortfalls to determine our energy agenda. This is logical in the short term. But, when examined from a wider scope, we must consider that the costs of our ignoring sustainable means of energy production because of a decrease in our pocket cash. In the long run, it will be far more detrimental to allow sustainable policies to fall by the wayside.

Car Talk

 Revenge of the Electric Car

   Here is some good news for a change. Many are familiar with Chris Paine's documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? in which Paine presented the reprehensible actions of GM in regards to the first mass produced plug in vehicle, the EV1. As portrayed in Paine's film, "the auto industry and oil companies [ganged] up to destroy" the vehicle. All 5,000 cars ended up being repossessed by GM and were "sent to the crusher." 

   Though, Paine has a new film which presents the auto-industry in a kinder light. Revenge of the Electric Car displays the resurge of electric vehicles, such as Nissan's Leaf or GM's Chevy Volt. Over the recent years there has been a substantial return of such vehicles, now with over 15,000 on the road. From a sustainable perspective, this is certainly good news. The ability to rely on sources of transportation which are not driven by petroleum products is within our reach. And, while consumers desire the change mostly for the purpose of saving gas money and car companies are only matching consumer demand, the planet will benefit as a result. At this point, emissions reductions are a victory in any context, and if it allows the consumer to have money to spend elsewhere, it's all the better.

Local Eats

   Today, during a trip home to Murfreesboro, TN, I embarked on a journey to my town's farmers market to look at what local, organic foods my hometown had to offer. From freshly killed and frozen local chickens to decadent organic treats there was much to see, and I came back home with quite a few goodies. As we move toward a sustainable future, farmers markets and local-foods in general will be essential. 

   These means for change will contribute to the decentralization of the food system, which will in turn provide great benefits for our environment. Currently, our food system is horribly inefficient in terms of fossil fuels used per calorie of food. There has been a substantial shift in our food system toward a heavily fossil fuel dependent system. In 1940, we produced 2.3 calories of food for every calorie of fossil fuel. Though, we now produce a mere 1/10th of a calorie of food for every calorie of fossil fuel used. This is because of the huge fossil fuel costs in producing and transporting the food I eat; most of this cost could be eliminated were my food to come from closer, and if it were less dependent upon fertilizers and other fossil fuel dependent resources. The extremely high amount of fossil fuel required to transport food is unsustainable, and is contributing to the degradation of the environment. It is greatly due to the distance our food travels that the environmental costs of our food are so great. New means of buying the food we eat, such as farmers markets, will be key to this change.

The Politics of Sustainability

Political Benefits of Championing 'Green' Policies

   There is a serious issue in politics as it relates to climate change. This issue is that the impending doom we face from climate change is essentially ignored by most politicians. Why is this? Likely because the nature of the danger we face is still regarded as being impending, not present (an untrue assumption). However, research performed by Stanford public opinion expert Jon Krosnick serves to show that staying silent on the issue may in fact be detrimental to a politician's success.
   His research displays that "Democrats who took 'green positions on climate change won much more often than did Democrats who remained silent," and that "Republicans who took 'not-green' positions won less often than Republicans who remained silent." Krosnick's findings imply that it may indeed be politically beneficial to advocate for the issue, and that the American public is finally beginning to give climate change the attention it will require to move toward implementing solutions.

Hunger

A Smarter Way to Fight Hunger

   World hunger is one issue that the planet faces which has come to completely baffle me. How is it that, while we live in a society our population can't seem to stay away from excess calories, there are still countless individuals who are unaware of from where their next meal will come? Sure, there is a large amount of aid from the U.S. and other countries, but, when their is still widespread famine and starvation in the world with plenty of food to feed everyone if it was evenly distributed, there seems to be a large problem. Pedro Sanchez has examined this issue, and has some answers. 

   The general means by which the U.S. provides food aid is to buy the food, ship it to a country, and then distribute it. This, as Sanchez points out, is highly not only highly inefficient, but does nothing to help a local economy aside from briefly sustaining its constituents. Sanchez illuminates that the average cost of buying, shipping, and distributing a tonne of maize in an African country is $812. This is, compared to other methods of food distribution, grossly inefficient. Two other options present much more effective means of change. The first option is to buy the maize locally and distribute it to locations where it is most needed. For this option, a tonne of maize will cost around $320, less than half of the normal cost. Furthermore, to truly maximize the impact of our aid, a third option is available. This option entails providing the support and resources (seed, fertilizer) to produce a tonne of maize. This would cost $135.

   It is obvious that there are better ways of maximizing every dollar we spend, and much of the theory backing this approach is entailed in the adage "give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." It is long overdue for our approach to shift away from the band-aid of providing food in the short-term to an approach that emphasizes agricultural development. It is only when these changes are made that we will finally be able to make strides toward a universally well-fed world.

Individual Responsibility for Climate Change

John Nolt

   Dr. John Nolt, a professor in the philosophy department at UTK, author of various books and articles, and the man who (co)spearheaded UTK's 25 year energy plan, lectured on "Individual Responsibility for Climate Change" at UT recently, and I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend. I must say I was particularly excited for this lecture because, as a prospective philosophy major myself, I was intrigued how a philosophy professor would tackle the issue of climate change, which ordinarily is dealt with solely by those within the sciences.
   He began with his thesis, essentially that the potential harm for climate change is so great and the need for emissions reduction so urgent that where the use of greenhouse gas emissions should be halted as expediently as possible. This seemed a logical enough statement; it is backed by all of the data and research that has been done on the subject, and could come straight out of any IPCC study. As he continued, he laid out several points which led to this conclusion. These are the (generalized) conditions which Dr. Nolt utilized to build his argument:
-Climate change will kill/harm lots of people
-Harm relates directly with emissions
-Individual contribution to emissions important
-This contributes to an unjust domination of posterity by current affluence
-Emissions are, unless necessary, morally inexcusable
-Emissions should be halted
   I quite enjoyed the utilization of such a philosophical approach toward this issue: building a case based on premises which, if true, lead to the stated conclusion. The first few points are fairly standard, and can be shown to be accurate with any research on the subject. Though, the examination of the issue as a dominator:subordinate relationship connecting the population of today with our posterity was a new formation of the argument against emissions. It is understood that we of today have a responsibility to ensure at least the possibility for generations which will exist when we no longer do so to survive. However, Dr. Nolt posed the argument in a very endearing way: that we of today not only have a responsibility to help future generations, but that if we do not, we are acting unjustly. This shifts the perspective of the argument entirely; the general consensus of the population of today is that anything we actively pursue for the benefit of future generations is generous benevolence on our part, purely altruistic. Though, with the other view, it is merely acting justly, and to act otherwise would be a serious ethical issue.
   This point was the key point which allows for the moral implications of the argument. It now appears that to not stop all unnecessary emissions immediately would be a grossly unjust action toward the world of the future. Dr. Nolt presented the issue through a primarily ethical lens, rather than an empirical display of the dire effects that climate change would have on us, an argument still based on appeal to one's self interest. The talk was informative and enlightening, and I hope that this mantra can be spread to allow more to see the moral implications of our driving Hummers and otherwise creating greenhouse gasses unnecessarily. It certainly opened my eyes to the effects that every decision i make will have for millennia to come.