...need some comic relief now and then...the Australian Youth Climate Coalition oblige in the lead up to the Australian Federal Election on 21 August 2010
...listen to the news anchor start giggling when the reporter begins to interview 'the elephant'!!
17 August 2010
Overdraft Notice Served on Earth: 21 August 2010
(OAKLAND, CA, USA) – It has taken humanity less than nine months to exhaust its ecological budget for the year, according to data from Global Footprint Network, a California-based environmental research organization.
Global Footprint Network calculates nature's supply in the form of biocapacity, the amount of resources the planet regenerates each year, and compares that to human demand: the amount it takes to produce all the living resources we consume and absorb our carbon dioxide emissions.
Its data reveal that, as of August 21, humanity will have demanded all the ecological services – from filtering CO2 to producing the raw materials for food – that nature can provide this year.
From now until the end of the year, we will meet our ecological demand by depleting resource stocks and accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
"If you spent your entire annual income in nine months, you would probably be extremely concerned," said Global Footprint Network President Mathis Wackernagel.
"The situation is no less dire when it comes to our ecological budget. Climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, water and food shortages - these are all clear signs that we can no longer finance our consumption on credit. Nature is foreclosing."
Learn more: www.footprintnetwork.org/earthovershootday
What is Overshoot?
For most of human history, humanity has been able to live off of nature's interest - consuming resources and producing carbon dioxide at a rate lower than what the planet was able to regenerate and reabsorb each year.
But approximately three decades ago, we crossed a critical threshold, and the rate of human demand for ecological services began to outpace the rate at which nature could provide them.
This gap between demand and supply - known as ecological overshoot - has grown steadily each year. It now takes one year and six months to regenerate the resources that humanity requires in one year.
Addressing Carbon Key to Balancing the Budget
Climate change is perhaps the most prominent sign of our ecological overspending. Our carbon Footprint (as calculated by Global Footprint Network, the amount of land and sea area it would take to absorb all the CO2 we emit) is the biggest part of humanity's Ecological Footprint, and is by far the fastest-growing. Our carbon Footprint has more than doubled since 1970.
During that time, it has increased at a rate more than three-times faster than the next-fastest growing portion of humanity's Footprint, built-up land. Carbon dioxide emissions now account for over half of human demand on nature. We are now emitting much more carbon dioxide than the natural ecosystems of the planet can absorb; thus it is building up in the atmosphere and contributing to climate change.
Earth Overshoot Day
Every year, Global Footprint Network calculates humanity’s Ecological Footprint – the amount of productive land and sea area required to produce the resources we consume and absorb our waste, including CO2 emissions – and compares that with biocapacity, the ability of ecosystems to regenerate resources.
Earth Overshoot Day, a concept devised by U.K.-based new economics foundation, is calculated from 2007 data (the most recent year for which data are available) and projections based on historical rates of growth in population and consumption, as well as the historical link between world GDP and resource demand.
Last year, Earth Overshoot Day was observed on September 25, 2009. This year, overshoot day is estimated to come more than a month earlier in the year. This is not due to a sudden change in human demand, but rather to improvements in the calculation methodology that enable us to more adequately capture the extent of overshoot. (For example, our latest data show the world has less biocapacity available, primarily in the area of grazing land, than previously estimated.)
"We would expect our estimates of overshoot to be, if anything, conservative." Wackernagel said.
"We know we are far from living within the means of one planet. The good news is, much of the technology we have to begin to address this problem is available and it is open source: things like compact urban design, energy-efficient housing, ecological tax reform, removal of resource subsidies, safe and affordable family planning, bicycles, low-meat diets, and life-cycle costing."
To calculate your own personal Ecological Footprint, and learn what you can do to reduce it, go to www.footprintnetwork.org/calculator.
About Global Footprint Network
Global Footprint Network (www.footprintnetwork.org) is an environmental research organization working to advance sustainability through use of the Ecological Footprint, a resource accounting tool that measures how much nature we have, how much we use and who uses what.
Global Footprint Network and its international partner network is focused on solving the problem of overshoot, working with businesses and government leaders around the world to make ecological limits a central part of decision-making everywhere.
To learn more about Earth Overshoot Day, visit www.footprintnetwork.org/earthovershootday
Pati Poblete
pati@footprintnetwork.org
+(510) 839-8879, ext. 320 (-0800 GMT)
Cell: +1 707-315-8431
Nicole Freeling
nicole@footprintnetwork.org
+(510) 839-8879, ext. 302 (-0800 GMT)
Cell: +(415) 577-9282
ECOLOGICAL LIMITS
While economies, populations and resource demands grow, the size of the planet remains the same. Since the 1980s, when global ecological overshoot became a consistent reality, we have been drawing down the biosphere's principal rather than living off its annual interest. To support our consumption, we have been liquidating resource stocks and allowing carbon dioxide to accumulate in the atmosphere.
Ecological overshoot is possible only for a limited time before ecosystems begin to degrade and possibly collapse. This can already be seen in water shortages, desertification, erosion, reduced cropland productivity, overgrazing, deforestation, rapid extinction of species, collapse of fisheries and global climate change. New consequences of overshoot are regularly being discovered, and others may only become apparent long into the future.
FAST FACTS
All data from Global Footprint Network’s 2009 National Footprint Accounts
- As of 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, the biologically productive area available on this planet was 1.8 hectares/person (4.5 acres), with no area set aside for wild species. Meanwhile, the average per capita Ecological Footprint was 2.6 global hectares/person (6.5 global acres).
- The amount of ecological resources and services that humanity requires has increased from slightly more than half of planet Earth’s biocapacity in 1961 to that of almost one and a half planets in 2006. (Note that biocapacity represents the rate at which the world's ecosystems are able to regenerate renewable resources, not the total stocks of these resources on Earth.)
- Moderate United Nations projections suggest that demand will grow significantly faster than biocapacity and that by the 2030s, the capacity of two Earths will be needed to keep up with our consumption. Staying on this course would quickly diminish our room to maneuver, and would put the well-being of many of the planet's residents increasingly at risk.
- The carbon Footprint, which accounts for the emissions from use of fossil fuels, is more than half of humanity’s total Ecological Footprint. Since 1970, our total carbon Footprint has more than tripled, from 2.9 to 9 billion global hectares. In that time carbon has also gone from being a smaller part of humanity’s total Footprint than cropland, to outstripping every other area of demand by a significant margin.
HOW EARTH OVERSHOOT DAY IS CALCULATED
Every year, Global Footprint Network determines global biocapacity - or the amount of resources nature is able to generate each year - and compares that with Ecological Footprint, the amount that humanity requires.
Earth Overshoot Day is calculated by comparing our demand (as calculated by the Ecological Footprint) against nature's supply (as calculated by biocapacity.) [world biocapacity / world Ecological Footprint ] x 365 = Earth Overshoot Day
This ratio shows that in just 233 days, we demand the biosphere’s entire capacity for the year 2009. The 233rd day of the year is August 21.
Note: 2010 Earth Overshoot Day is projected from preliminary assessments of 2007 data, and projections forward to 2010 of that data as follows:
- Biocapacity projections are based upon historical rates of biocapacity growth over the last five years.
- Ecological Footprint projections are derived by calculating the historical correlation between GDP growth and growth in the various Footprint components, and applying this to expected GDP growth in 2010 (as estimated by the International Monetary Fund).
HOW NATIONS COMPARE
Nations vary widely in their level of demand for ecological services. In some countries, the per capita Ecological Footprint is many times higher than the global average. In others, it is much lower - in some cases too low on average to provide for basic needs.
The average Ecological Footprint per person in the United States is 9 global hectares (22.5 global acres), the equivalent of about eight full-sized soccer fields.
The average Ecological Footprint per person in Germany is 4.03 global hectares (10 global acres).
On the other end of the spectrum are countries such as Pakistan, Congo and Haiti, which have an average Ecological Footprint of slightly more than one global hectare (half a global acre).
To view a bar graph of 150 countries, see www.footprintnetwork.org/EF_by_nation.
TERMS DEFINED
Ecological overshoot occurs when human demand exceeds the regenerative capacity of a natural ecosystem. Global overshoot occurs when humanity demands more resources and produces more waste, such as CO2, than the biosphere can regenerate and reabsorb.
The Ecological Footprint measures the amount of productive land and sea area it takes to produce all the resources a population consumes and absorb its waste, using prevailing technology.
Biocapacity is shorthand for biological capacity, which is the ability of an ecosystem to regenerate useful biological materials (resources) and to absorb wastes generated by humans.
Earth Overshoot Day, a concept devised by the U.K-based new economics foundation, (www.neweconomics.org), marks the day when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what the Earth can regenerate in that year. We maintain this deficit by liquidating stocks of resources and accumulating waste, primarily CO2 in the atmosphere.
Global hectares (acres) are hectares (acres) of land at world-average productivity.
13 August 2010
Wilberforce Award
Reposted from the Wilberforce Award website
'Dick Smith is one of Australia’s most recognised individuals. After a successful business career in retailing and publishing, Dick has become well known as a restless adventurer, making many pioneering and record breaking flights by helicopter, aeroplane and balloon.
He has also been active in public service having served as Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and later as chair of the Civil Aviation Safety Board. He led the National Council for the Centenary of Federation and served as an Ambassador for the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation.
Dick is a passionate supporter of environmental and conservation efforts and since 1995 has been Chairman of the Australian Geographic Society. Less well known is his work as a philanthropist. He is a supporter of many charities and individuals in need. In recognition of this he was honoured as Australian of the Year in 1986.
Dick has never been shy to take on controversial issues, from aviation safety to support for refugees and the campaign to return David Hicks to Australia.
Recently he has involved himself in another contentious issue- Australia’s population future. Concerned about our expected rapid population increase, Dick is calling for a national debate on what he considers to be the most important issue facing the nation.
It has become obvious to me that my generation has over exploited our wonderful world – and it’s younger people who will pay the price. Like many people my age, I’ve benefited from a long period of constant economic and population growth – we are addicted to it. But sooner or later this consumption growth will have an end. We appear to be already bumping against the limits of what our planet can sustain and the evidence is everywhere to see.
Right now I believe we could be sleepwalking to catastrophe because we are failing to both acknowledge that there are limits to growth in a finite world and to prepare for a more sustainable way of organising our economy. In the 19th Century, empires were built on the labour of slaves, and it was believed economies would collapse if slavery was abolished. But brave people like William Wilberforce fought to end the slave trade – and economies still flourished. We need brave people like Wilberforce today, and I want to encourage a new generation of clear-thinking and inspiring young leaders.
So today I am announcing Dick Smith’s Wilberforce Award – $1 million to go to a young person under 30 who can impress me by becoming famous through his or her ability to show leadership in communicating an alternative to our population and consumption growth-obsessed economy. I will be looking for candidates whose actions over the next year show that they have what it takes to be among the next generation of leaders our incredible planet so badly needs.
Candidates will need to have a firm belief that we can have a viable and strong world economy that is no longer obsessed with growth for its own sake, but instead encourages both a stable population and sustainable consumption of energy and resources. They must be able to communicate that we cannot continue to squander the resources that will be needed by future generations, and they must also be able to communicate a plan that offers an alternative to our growth addiction.
Like the Nobel Prize, you will not apply for the Wilberforce Award. Over the next twelve months I will be following the media throughout the world to see who is the most outstanding individual in not only making a significant contribution to this important issue, but who also becomes famous through his or her contribution to the debate.
One year from now I will announce the winner of the $1 Million Wilberforce Award. The Award will go towards advancing the momentum the winner will have already achieved.'
12 August 2010
Peak Population: Thoughts for Dick Smith
Sharon also blogs at Post Growth, along with Josha Nelson and Scott Gast, both of Seattle
With his documentary 'The Population Puzzle', Australian entrepreneur and adventurer Dick Smith has done something very brave, and very important, in working to break the taboo on speaking about population.
It is taboo because raises many sensitive issues around immigration, fertility - and of course, because it challenges the growth consensus.
In Australia, the population issue has often been emotionally charged, because of the role of immigration in Australia's population growth. The debate is thus easily hijacked from being a discussion about exactly what a sustainable population for Australia would be, and instead becomes mired in blame games and fuels the agenda of racist elements.
In relation to fertility, there is a high likelihood that any attempt to discuss the issue will be taken personally, or will be turned back on the person who dared intrude in one of the most personal and intimate areas of the human experience. If you have kids, you are a hypocrite. If you don't have kids, you won't know what you are talking about, or you're 'anti-children'.
Anything to shoot the messenger and keep the taboo in place.
Anything to avoid the discomfort of acknowledging the issue, its implications and what can fairly and humanely be done about it.
It is a highly emotive topic, but in fact addressing population is important precisely so we can ensure that everyone's kids – now and in the future – can have the best life possible.
And the growth consensus...
One of the main concerns underpinning the fuelling of growth in industrialised societies is how are we going to take care of an ageing population demographic – we need more people of working age to support the increasing ranks of elders who live longer, who often require more [and more expensive] health care, and often end up in high levels of dependent care.
Until the 20th century, when improved sanitation and medical care enabled us to live longer lives than any of our ancestors, humanity did not have this problem at this scale. It is a real issue. But is this grow-more-young-to-support-the old approach – a population Ponzi scheme – simply deferring, rather than tackling, the problem?
Alex Steffen of Worldchanging expressed this in his 2008 article on 'Peak Population':
www.worldchanging.com/archives/009107.html:
1) The longer population growth rates remain high, the more total people there will be on the planet when we reach peak population, so one of our biggest goals ought to be seeing to it by every ethical means possible that the wave of population growth crests sooner rather than later.
2) If we are successful in reaching peak population sooner, at a lower number of people, rather than later with more people, we will be much more able to confront the myriad interlocking crises we face – a comparatively less crowded planet is an easier planet on which to build a bright green future.
When that population wave eventually crests – and it will – how high do we want the wave to be?
We need to think more creatively about how to address this genuine social concern – how to care for our elders with dignity – but not by encouraging more population growth to defer an even bigger problem that will need to be addressed.
Let's not fool ourselves that 'Ponzi Demography' is the basis for the future of Australia - because it is absolutely not. It's a house of cards.
Ultimately tackling population means facing our addiction to growth.
Climate change is merely a symptom of the biggest conundrum facing humanity: the assumption that we can sustain the current 6.5 billion people on the planet on western industrial lifestyles when the planet – according to every source from the IPCC to Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – is saying its not coping now.
The 21st century question is not whether we can sustain more than six billion people on a western industrial model of development, but how to sustain the projected global population so that everyone has a good quality of life – of which material living standards are only a part - within the biophysical limits of one planet.
The problem is that the discussion of limits challenges the policy position of all governments – economic growth. It would be tantamount to political suicide right now to question this consensus. People need to understand the conundrum before decision makers (not just politicians) will have the legitimacy to address it, before people will demand it.
We need to be able to have an open and honest debate about this issue.
Dick Smith has used his personal 'currency' to help bring this issue into the mainstream of debate.
There is one thing I would offer to Dick Smith to strengthen his case, and that is to reframe his question:
'How many people can Australia support?'
A critical question, HOWEVER seeking an answer to the question will lead only to an endless spiral of further debate, because the answer can only ever be - 'it depends'.
How do Australians want to live? Because this will determine our demands on nature - how much water and energy we use, how much greenhouse gas and waste we generate, how much and what kind of food do we want to eat? What kind of houses do we want, how will we get around?
It is a hot air question.
It is also not helpful in an era of global economic trade, where our resources are exported to, and imported from, around the globe.
What is needed is a scientific approach. In the early 1990s, Bill Rees of Canada's University of British Colombia and his then-PhD student Mathis Wackernagel created the Ecological Footprint.
Ecological Footprint accounting compares human demand on nature with the biosphere's ability to regenerate resources and provide services. It does this by assessing the biologically productive land and marine area required to produce the resources a population consumes and absorb the corresponding waste, using prevailing technology.
This metric inverts the 'hot air' question and instead asks 'how much nature does it take to support Australians at current levels of consumption?'
It's measurable.
In the mid-2000s, Wackernagel founded the Global Footprint Network (GFN), a non profit based in California, whose objective is to:
'Supporting creation of a sustainable economy by advancing the scientific rigour and practical application of the Ecological Footprint as a measurement and policy tool, with the goal of making ecological limits central to decision making.'
GFN maintains a series of biophysical accounts for most nations, which track whether they are running an ecological deficit. These are published in the Living Planet Reports:
www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/publications
GFN's accounts - which use a conservative accounting approach, and are therefore an underestimate - show that humanity as a whole is already in overshoot (when demand on nature exceeds available supply):
www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_dayGFN are inviting national governments to work with them on strengthening the data for each nation's account through their Ten in Ten Program, designed to get 10 countries using the Ecological Footprint as a complement to GDP in decision making within ten years.
GFN work with national governments to use the Footprint to:
- Assess the value of their country's ecological assets
- Monitor and manage their assets
- Identify the risks associated with ecological deficits
- Set policy that is informed by ecological reality and makes safeguarding resources a top priority
- Measure progress toward their goals
Dick, can you encourage a partnership with these accountants of natural capital and our decision makers?!!
Here is the man you need to speak with:
Mathis WackernagelPresident
Global Footprint Network
email: info@footprintnetwork.org
web: www.footprintnetwork.org
You could also talk to Brian Czech and Rob Dietz of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy for assistance with communication approaches, framing debates and technical questions on transitioning from a growth economy.
email: info@steadystate.org
web: www.steadystate.org
10 August 2010
Turning Estates into Villages
Reposted in full from Monbiot, 9 August 2010
'How good planning can make us slimmer, fitter, safer and less lonely.
It took me a while to recognise what I was seeing. It was an ordinary campsite in Pembrokeshire: a square field with tents around the perimeter. But it had a curious effect on the children staying there. Young people who had seldom experienced daylight slowly emerged from their tents and were drawn towards the centre of the field. Bats and balls left on the grass mysteriously appeared in their hands. Children with no prior interest in sport started playing football, cricket and rounders. Little kids ran around with older ones. As children of all classes played together, their parents started talking to each other. It hit me with some force: we had reinvented the village green.
We are, to a surprising extent, what the built environment makes us. Academic papers show that many of the problems we blame on individual behaviour are caused in part by the places in which we live. People are more likely to help their neighbours in quiet areas, for example, than in noisy ones (1). A long series of studies across several countries, beginning in San Francisco in 1969, shows unequivocally that communities become weaker as the volume of traffic on their streets increases (2,3).
Other papers show that people’s use of shared spaces is strongly influenced by the presence of trees: the more trees there are, the more time people spend there and the larger the groups in which they gather (4,5). A further study shows that, partly as a result, vegetation in common spaces strengthens the neighbourhood’s social ties (6). In greener places, people know more of their neighbours, are more likely to help each other and have stronger feelings of belonging. Social isolation is strongly associated with an absence of green spaces (7).
One fascinating paper shows that crime rates are also strongly affected by vegetation. In housing projects in Chicago with equal levels of poverty, taking account of factors such as the size of the buildings and the vacancy rate, there’s a clear association between the absence of greenery and both property crime and violent crime (8).
Another set of studies demonstrates a relationship between urban planning and body mass index. Where settlements are dense (and therefore able to support public transport) and close to shops, work places and recreation places, people are more likely to walk and cycle and less likely to be fat (9). One paper shows that women living in mixed places (where houses and amenities are close together) have a risk of coronary heart disease 20% lower than women living in areas which contain only houses (10). Suburban sprawl is partly to blame for obesity.
Build loose suburbs carved up by busy roads and without green spaces and you help to create a population of fat, lonely people plagued by criminals. Build dense, leafy settlements with mixed uses, protected from traffic, and you help to create safe, fit and friendly communities.
In Sunday’s Observer the doctor Steve Field blamed public health problems squarely and solely on sufferers and their parents (11). It’s true that we must take as much responsibility as we can for our health. But Field, like most conservatives, ignores the social and political context, condemning people for problems they cannot tackle alone. He lambasts us for eating junk food, for example, while saying nothing about manufacturers who ensure that it’s as addictive as the regulations allow (12). He suggests that we should encourage children to get outside and play games. Of course we should, but if there is no safe place nearby in which they can do so we’re wasting our breath.
Here’s one picture of what a fit, safe and functional community might look like. There’s nothing either radical or new about it: similar developments have been built for centuries (and most have now been monopolised by the rich). Houses or apartment blocks are built densely around a square of shared green space. It is big enough for playing ball games, but without fixed goal posts, allowing both children and adults to define the space for themselves. It could contain trees; perhaps some rocks or logs to climb on. There might be a corner of uncut meadow, or flowerbeds or fruit bushes: the space will work best when it is designed and managed by the people who live there.
Most importantly, the houses face inwards, and no cars are allowed inside the square: the roads serve only the backs of the buildings. The square is overlooked by everyone, which means that children can run in and out of their houses unsupervised, create their own tribes and learn their own rules, without fear of traffic accidents or molesters. They have a place in which to run wild without collecting ASBOs.
There’s a council estate a bit like this across the road from my house. Whenever I pass through it on a dry day in the holidays, I see dozens of children playing there. On the other estates here you seldom see children out of doors, for the obvious reason that there is nowhere to play. Proximity is everything: if a park is far away, most families won’t go there (13). Walking across a city with a small child is no one’s idea of entertainment.
Those who need such spaces most are the socially excluded. Because of poverty, unemployment and poorer health, they leave their neighbourhoods less often than the affluent (14). But they tend to have the least access to green spaces. A study of Greater Manchester, for example, shows that wealthy parts of the city have tree cover of around ten per cent, the poor neighbourhoods just two per cent (15). Housing built around village greens need be no more expensive and no less dense: just better planned and better regulated.
Instead, whenever I visit a new estate, I see only lost opportunities: houses that turn their backs on each other; spaces that should be dedicated to playing reserved instead for parking; loneliness and exclusion built into the plan. We have allowed property developers and weak planning to define who we are and what we shall become. As the government launches a new scheme for ensuring that more houses are built (16), we must demand that it recognises a truth all these studies point to: that there is such a thing as society.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. This was first documented by S Cohen and A Lezak, 1977. Noise and inattentiveness to social cues. Environment and Behavior, 9, 559-572.
2. D Appleyard, 1969. The Environmental Quality of City Streets: The Residents’ Viewpoint. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35, pp. 84-101.
3. Subsequent work on this issue is summarised and reviewed here:
Joshua Hart, April 2008. Driven to Excess: impacts of motor vehicle traffic on residential quality of life in Bristol, UK. www.livingstreets.org.uk/news/uk/-/driven-to-excess
4. RL Coley, FE Kuo and WC Sullivan, 1997. Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29, 468-492.
5. S DePooter, 1997. Nature and neighbors: Green spaces and social interactions in the inner city. Unpublished master thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Cited by FE Kuo et al (see below).
6. FE Kuo et al, 1998. Fertile Ground for Community: Inner-CityNeighborhood Common Spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 6.
7. ibid.
8. FE Kuo and WC Sullivan, May 2001. Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? Environment and Behavior vol. 33 no. 3 343-367doi: 10.1177/0013916501333002
9. Andrew Rundle et al, 2007. The Urban Built Environment and Obesity in NewYork City: A Multilevel Analysis. American Journal of Health Promotion, pp 326-334
This paper also summarises several similar studies.
10. Lee R Mobley et al, April 2006. Environment, Obesity, and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Low-Income Women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 327-332.e1. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.12.001
11. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/08/steve-field-patient-responsibility-health
12. See David A. Kessler, 2009. The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite. Rodale Press.
13. AE Kazmierczak and P James, 2007 cite research which suggests that ” for most people the distance between 500m and 1km is the furthest they would walk to a park”.
The Role of Urban Green Spaces in Improving Social Inclusion. www.els.salford.ac.uk/urbannature/outputs/papers/kazmierczak_BuHu07.pdf
14. A.E. Kazmierczak, P. James, ibid.
15. B Rudlin, and N Falk, 1999. Building the 21st century home, Architectural Press, Oxford, cited by A.E. Kazmierczak, P. James, ibid.
16. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10910048'
'How good planning can make us slimmer, fitter, safer and less lonely.
It took me a while to recognise what I was seeing. It was an ordinary campsite in Pembrokeshire: a square field with tents around the perimeter. But it had a curious effect on the children staying there. Young people who had seldom experienced daylight slowly emerged from their tents and were drawn towards the centre of the field. Bats and balls left on the grass mysteriously appeared in their hands. Children with no prior interest in sport started playing football, cricket and rounders. Little kids ran around with older ones. As children of all classes played together, their parents started talking to each other. It hit me with some force: we had reinvented the village green.
We are, to a surprising extent, what the built environment makes us. Academic papers show that many of the problems we blame on individual behaviour are caused in part by the places in which we live. People are more likely to help their neighbours in quiet areas, for example, than in noisy ones (1). A long series of studies across several countries, beginning in San Francisco in 1969, shows unequivocally that communities become weaker as the volume of traffic on their streets increases (2,3).
Other papers show that people’s use of shared spaces is strongly influenced by the presence of trees: the more trees there are, the more time people spend there and the larger the groups in which they gather (4,5). A further study shows that, partly as a result, vegetation in common spaces strengthens the neighbourhood’s social ties (6). In greener places, people know more of their neighbours, are more likely to help each other and have stronger feelings of belonging. Social isolation is strongly associated with an absence of green spaces (7).
One fascinating paper shows that crime rates are also strongly affected by vegetation. In housing projects in Chicago with equal levels of poverty, taking account of factors such as the size of the buildings and the vacancy rate, there’s a clear association between the absence of greenery and both property crime and violent crime (8).
Another set of studies demonstrates a relationship between urban planning and body mass index. Where settlements are dense (and therefore able to support public transport) and close to shops, work places and recreation places, people are more likely to walk and cycle and less likely to be fat (9). One paper shows that women living in mixed places (where houses and amenities are close together) have a risk of coronary heart disease 20% lower than women living in areas which contain only houses (10). Suburban sprawl is partly to blame for obesity.
Build loose suburbs carved up by busy roads and without green spaces and you help to create a population of fat, lonely people plagued by criminals. Build dense, leafy settlements with mixed uses, protected from traffic, and you help to create safe, fit and friendly communities.
In Sunday’s Observer the doctor Steve Field blamed public health problems squarely and solely on sufferers and their parents (11). It’s true that we must take as much responsibility as we can for our health. But Field, like most conservatives, ignores the social and political context, condemning people for problems they cannot tackle alone. He lambasts us for eating junk food, for example, while saying nothing about manufacturers who ensure that it’s as addictive as the regulations allow (12). He suggests that we should encourage children to get outside and play games. Of course we should, but if there is no safe place nearby in which they can do so we’re wasting our breath.
Here’s one picture of what a fit, safe and functional community might look like. There’s nothing either radical or new about it: similar developments have been built for centuries (and most have now been monopolised by the rich). Houses or apartment blocks are built densely around a square of shared green space. It is big enough for playing ball games, but without fixed goal posts, allowing both children and adults to define the space for themselves. It could contain trees; perhaps some rocks or logs to climb on. There might be a corner of uncut meadow, or flowerbeds or fruit bushes: the space will work best when it is designed and managed by the people who live there.
Most importantly, the houses face inwards, and no cars are allowed inside the square: the roads serve only the backs of the buildings. The square is overlooked by everyone, which means that children can run in and out of their houses unsupervised, create their own tribes and learn their own rules, without fear of traffic accidents or molesters. They have a place in which to run wild without collecting ASBOs.
There’s a council estate a bit like this across the road from my house. Whenever I pass through it on a dry day in the holidays, I see dozens of children playing there. On the other estates here you seldom see children out of doors, for the obvious reason that there is nowhere to play. Proximity is everything: if a park is far away, most families won’t go there (13). Walking across a city with a small child is no one’s idea of entertainment.
Those who need such spaces most are the socially excluded. Because of poverty, unemployment and poorer health, they leave their neighbourhoods less often than the affluent (14). But they tend to have the least access to green spaces. A study of Greater Manchester, for example, shows that wealthy parts of the city have tree cover of around ten per cent, the poor neighbourhoods just two per cent (15). Housing built around village greens need be no more expensive and no less dense: just better planned and better regulated.
Instead, whenever I visit a new estate, I see only lost opportunities: houses that turn their backs on each other; spaces that should be dedicated to playing reserved instead for parking; loneliness and exclusion built into the plan. We have allowed property developers and weak planning to define who we are and what we shall become. As the government launches a new scheme for ensuring that more houses are built (16), we must demand that it recognises a truth all these studies point to: that there is such a thing as society.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. This was first documented by S Cohen and A Lezak, 1977. Noise and inattentiveness to social cues. Environment and Behavior, 9, 559-572.
2. D Appleyard, 1969. The Environmental Quality of City Streets: The Residents’ Viewpoint. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35, pp. 84-101.
3. Subsequent work on this issue is summarised and reviewed here:
Joshua Hart, April 2008. Driven to Excess: impacts of motor vehicle traffic on residential quality of life in Bristol, UK. www.livingstreets.org.uk/news/uk/-/driven-to-excess
4. RL Coley, FE Kuo and WC Sullivan, 1997. Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29, 468-492.
5. S DePooter, 1997. Nature and neighbors: Green spaces and social interactions in the inner city. Unpublished master thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Cited by FE Kuo et al (see below).
6. FE Kuo et al, 1998. Fertile Ground for Community: Inner-CityNeighborhood Common Spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 6.
7. ibid.
8. FE Kuo and WC Sullivan, May 2001. Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime? Environment and Behavior vol. 33 no. 3 343-367doi: 10.1177/0013916501333002
9. Andrew Rundle et al, 2007. The Urban Built Environment and Obesity in NewYork City: A Multilevel Analysis. American Journal of Health Promotion, pp 326-334
This paper also summarises several similar studies.
10. Lee R Mobley et al, April 2006. Environment, Obesity, and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Low-Income Women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 327-332.e1. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.12.001
11. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/08/steve-field-patient-responsibility-health
12. See David A. Kessler, 2009. The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite. Rodale Press.
13. AE Kazmierczak and P James, 2007 cite research which suggests that ” for most people the distance between 500m and 1km is the furthest they would walk to a park”.
The Role of Urban Green Spaces in Improving Social Inclusion. www.els.salford.ac.uk/urbannature/outputs/papers/kazmierczak_BuHu07.pdf
14. A.E. Kazmierczak, P. James, ibid.
15. B Rudlin, and N Falk, 1999. Building the 21st century home, Architectural Press, Oxford, cited by A.E. Kazmierczak, P. James, ibid.
16. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10910048'
09 August 2010
Heading for a Cliff With Thelma & Louise
Who do you know who can help support the production, funding & distribution of this film?
Reposted in full from Growthbusters, 9 August 2010
'That’s my line in the opening tease for this recent conversation on Peak Moment TV. If I do say so myself, this is a good metaphor to explain how we’re fiddling around at the margins while we fail to recognize we’re participants in a growth-seeking system that has us locked on a collision course with limits to growth.
Janaia Donaldson interviews Dave Gardner on Peak Moment
I’m happy to share this interview produced by Janaia Donaldson and Robin Mallgren of Peak Moment TV. They gave me an outstanding opportunity to explain the what and why of my upcoming documentary, Hooked on Growth. If you want to understand what the non-profit GrowthBusters film project is all about, watch this interview.
Back to my Thelma and Louise metaphor: To elaborate, it’s as if we’re in a convertible roaring toward a cliff. The cliff is far enough in the distance we can’t make it out clearly. It doesn’t seem like an immediate danger. But as we get closer and begin to realize where we’re heading, what do we do? Instead of stopping or turning the car, we fiddle with the radio – change the volume, tune to a different station. We roll down the windows, dust off the dash, clean the mirror. But we don’t slam on the brakes or do a James Bond J-turn to quickly head in another direction. Heck, we don’t even gently change course.
Of course, I’m referring to modern society’s irrational, growth-addicted response to mounting evidence we have hit the limits of Earth’s ability to meet our needs and wants. We’re experiencing peak oil, peak water and peak food. We’ve passed peak soil, peak fish, peak biodiversity, and optimum climate. You get the picture.
NO, you don’t! None of us do. We are not behaving as if facing an emergency. I count myself among the irrational here. Trust me, I’m working on it, but I’m still navigating, living and working within the system that all evidence demands we leave behind. I still get in a car and drive several times each week. I still board a jet airliner from time to time. I confess! I even enjoy the occasional cheeseburger! At our best, mainstream environmentalists give away compact flourescent light bulbs, fight sprawl, and promote composting, carpooling and permaculture. While these are all good moves, at this stage of the game they will make about as much difference to the outcome as cleaning the mirror of Thelma & Louise’s convertible. They are not enough if we don’t change course. Why do so few of us address the systemic problems?
As I explain to Janaia in this episode of Peak Moment, my documentary Hooked on Growth attempts to answer that question.
A growing grassroots support network is helping produce, fund and distribute the film. With their help, and yours, Hooked on Growth will hit screens the first half of 2011. Check out the complete interview, and explore other episodes of Peak Moment. I love what Janaia and Robin are doing. And join us at GrowthBusters. Become part of a groundbreaking film project that will deliver a much-needed wake-up call. It was sad to see Thelma and Louise drive off that cliff. Let’s not join them.'
Dave Gardner is producing the non-profit documentary, Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity.'
06 August 2010
The Secret Life of Things: Eric Sun Undergoes Past Life Regression Therapy
Sourced from You Tube - animation by EcoInnovators
''Life Pscycle-ology' a humorous look at the life story of an unhappy mobile phone, who seeks therapy after his owner dumps him in favour of a new model. Free learning resources available at http://www.thesecretlifeofthings.com/
''Life Pscycle-ology' a humorous look at the life story of an unhappy mobile phone, who seeks therapy after his owner dumps him in favour of a new model. Free learning resources available at http://www.thesecretlifeofthings.com/
Nature Deficit Disorder
Sourced from The Word Spy, 5 August 2010
'nature-deficit disorder n. A yearning for nature, or an ignorance of the natural world, caused by a lack of time spent outdoors, particularly in rural settings. Also: nature deficit disorder...
Revealing the inspiration behind his latest epic, Avatar, legendary filmmaker James Cameron recently described himself as a "nature geek", and said modern humans were suffering a degree of "nature deficit disorder". It may not be a medically recognised condition, but "nature deficit disorder" is a concept gaining traction with childhood and behavioural experts around the world. —Peter Ker, "More fertile imagination," The Age, March 20, 2010...'
05 August 2010
Dick's Population Puzzle
Excerpt from The Age, 5 August 2010
'...[Dick Smith' isn't one of the usual suspects; he's from the mainstream, a political agnostic, a poster boy for middle-Australian values and capitalism who could just as well serve as host on The Apprentice. Millionaire businessman and entrepreneur Dick Smith is an unlikely dissenter but on the evidence of Dick Smith's Population Puzzle, he's not a reluctant one.
His concern is that Australian and global population growth carries enormous risks, dangers that none of our political parties is prepared to address.
As Smith sees it, population growth is the thread that links myriad issues that the Australian public - if not its policymakers - has grave concerns about: urban growth, housing affordability, a stretched health system, environmental destruction and the impact that has on food and water supply and border protection.
Filmed over six months, Dick Smith's Population Puzzle follows Smith knocking on the doors of Australia's rich and powerful, attempting to get the issue on the agenda.
Some of those he petitions are pleased to see him; some aren't. Many disagree with his arguments but in raising the issue, he also teases out some sensitive matters that few are willing to embrace.
The documentary's maker, Simon Nasht, knows why the topic gets under the skin.
''We don't seem to be able to talk about immigration without getting sidetracked into a discussion about refugees, which is so tiny in the scheme of things as to be irrelevant,'' he says.
In the year to last December, overseas migration contributed 277,700 people, or 64 per cent, of Australia's 432,600-person population increase (the rest comes from ''natural increase'', which is births over deaths).
Nearly half of that increase came from short-term, non-permanent visa categories, mainly workers who are brought in to fill jobs where there are shortages.
Less than 10 per cent of the increase is the result of refugees but as Nasht contends: ''If you want to discuss immigration levels you are anti-immigrant.''
In any case, Smith argues for an increase in the refugee intake at the expense of other immigrants. He questions Australia's responsibility as an ethical global citizen when it recruits doctors from developing countries that have paid for their training and need them more than us. He wonders why we import workers while millions of Australians remain undertrained, under-skilled and undereducated.
More troubling for Nasht is that the discussion about population growth ''has been run through the vested interests of property developers, media companies who have a vested interest in more people, as do retailers, as does business in general.
''As Dick says, it's the easiest profit to make because you don't have to fight for more market, the market just gets bigger.
''Politicians love the idea of more taxpayers and Treasury estimates that half of our economic growth is just based on having more people. There's been a blind acceptance that Australia can keep growing forever.''
It's a massive social experiment and there's been no discussion about it, Nasht says. What makes the immigration debate so vexatious, Nasht says, is that it cuts across social and political lines and that for every benefactor of a ''big Australia'' there are just as many who will suffer.
Though many of Smith's arguments can be construed in alternative ways and some smack of exaggeration, his provocations have value and merit, Nasht says.
Smith's claim that Australia will run out of food and water should not be dismissed as alarmist, he says. Will we remain a net food exporter if our population increases and good farming land adjacent to Sydney and Melbourne is given over to housing, he asks. ''Some people believe these are serious issues that can't be ignored.''...'
04 August 2010
EU to Step Up Raw Materials 'Diplomacy'
'Materials diplomacy?' That sounds ominous...seems a resource constrained world is sneaking up on us faster than we think...
Reposted in full from EurActiv, 18 June 2010
'An EU expert group has identified 14 raw materials seen as "critical" for EU high-tech and eco-industries and suggested that the European Union's global diplomacy should be geared up to ensure that companies gain easier access to them in future.
"It is our aim to make sure that Europe's industry will be able to continue to play a leading role in new technologies and innovation and we have to ensure that we have the necessary elements to do so," said Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani, presenting the group's final report on 17 June.
The supply risks identified for the 14 critical raw materials highlighted in the report primarily relate to the fact that global production is concentrated in a handful of countries: China, Russia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Brazil.
The low recycling rates of these materials and the difficulty of substituting them with others add to their "criticality", the report said.
To guarantee that industry can access these essential raw materials, "we need fair play on external markets," said Tajani. Encouraging supply from EU sources, improving resource efficiency and increasing efforts to recycle were also highlighted in the report as ways forward.
Of the 41 minerals and metals analysed, the expert group listed the following 14 raw materials as critical for the EU: antimony, beryllium, cobalt, fluorspar, gallium, germanium, graphite, indium, magnesium, niobium, PGMs (Platinum Group Metals), rare earths, tantalum and tungsten.
The group cites forecasts indicating that demand for some of them might more than triple by 2030 compared to 2006 levels.
These materials are an essential part of both high-tech products and every-day consumer items, such as mobile phones, thin-layer photovoltaics, lithium-ion batteries, fibre-optic cables and synthetic fuels.
They also suggested that the list be updated every five years.
Promoting exploration within the EU and beyond
The experts recommend a number of policy measures to improve access to primary resources and stress the need to increase recycling and promote research into substituting and improving the efficiency of materials.
Policy measures to improve access to primary resources should cover "fair treatment of extraction with other competing land uses", promote exploration and extraction within and outside the EU and "ensure that exploration by companies is regarded as a research activity," the report says.
It also advises the EU to promote good governance, capacity-building and transparency in relation to the extraction industry in developing countries.
The European Commission and the African Union Commission agreed on 8 June to develop bilateral cooperation in the field of raw materials and work together on issues such as governance, infrastructure, investment and geological knowledge and skills.
Regarding trade and investment, the group advises the EU to consider shaping a new EU-wide policy on foreign investment agreements to "better protect EU investments in raw materials abroad".
The bloc should also consider the merits of pursuing dispute settlement initiatives at World Trade Organisation (WTO) level "to include in such initiatives more raw materials important for EU industry".
The EU filed a joint complaint with the United States against China at the WTO in June last year, accusing Beijing of unfairly favouring its industries by restricting access to nine types of key raw materials (EurActiv 24/06/09).
China, which is responsible for 95% of global 'rare earth' production (one of the 14 materials listed as critical to EU industry), plans to ban exports of some of them as of 2015. Beijing's plans are a cause for concern among manufacturers of high-tech products ranging from computers to electric car batteries and wind turbines (EurActiv 09/06/10).'
Reposted in full from EurActiv, 18 June 2010
'An EU expert group has identified 14 raw materials seen as "critical" for EU high-tech and eco-industries and suggested that the European Union's global diplomacy should be geared up to ensure that companies gain easier access to them in future.
"It is our aim to make sure that Europe's industry will be able to continue to play a leading role in new technologies and innovation and we have to ensure that we have the necessary elements to do so," said Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani, presenting the group's final report on 17 June.
The supply risks identified for the 14 critical raw materials highlighted in the report primarily relate to the fact that global production is concentrated in a handful of countries: China, Russia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Brazil.
The low recycling rates of these materials and the difficulty of substituting them with others add to their "criticality", the report said.
To guarantee that industry can access these essential raw materials, "we need fair play on external markets," said Tajani. Encouraging supply from EU sources, improving resource efficiency and increasing efforts to recycle were also highlighted in the report as ways forward.
Of the 41 minerals and metals analysed, the expert group listed the following 14 raw materials as critical for the EU: antimony, beryllium, cobalt, fluorspar, gallium, germanium, graphite, indium, magnesium, niobium, PGMs (Platinum Group Metals), rare earths, tantalum and tungsten.
The group cites forecasts indicating that demand for some of them might more than triple by 2030 compared to 2006 levels.
These materials are an essential part of both high-tech products and every-day consumer items, such as mobile phones, thin-layer photovoltaics, lithium-ion batteries, fibre-optic cables and synthetic fuels.
They also suggested that the list be updated every five years.
Promoting exploration within the EU and beyond
The experts recommend a number of policy measures to improve access to primary resources and stress the need to increase recycling and promote research into substituting and improving the efficiency of materials.
Policy measures to improve access to primary resources should cover "fair treatment of extraction with other competing land uses", promote exploration and extraction within and outside the EU and "ensure that exploration by companies is regarded as a research activity," the report says.
It also advises the EU to promote good governance, capacity-building and transparency in relation to the extraction industry in developing countries.
The European Commission and the African Union Commission agreed on 8 June to develop bilateral cooperation in the field of raw materials and work together on issues such as governance, infrastructure, investment and geological knowledge and skills.
Regarding trade and investment, the group advises the EU to consider shaping a new EU-wide policy on foreign investment agreements to "better protect EU investments in raw materials abroad".
The bloc should also consider the merits of pursuing dispute settlement initiatives at World Trade Organisation (WTO) level "to include in such initiatives more raw materials important for EU industry".
The EU filed a joint complaint with the United States against China at the WTO in June last year, accusing Beijing of unfairly favouring its industries by restricting access to nine types of key raw materials (EurActiv 24/06/09).
China, which is responsible for 95% of global 'rare earth' production (one of the 14 materials listed as critical to EU industry), plans to ban exports of some of them as of 2015. Beijing's plans are a cause for concern among manufacturers of high-tech products ranging from computers to electric car batteries and wind turbines (EurActiv 09/06/10).'
Beyond Decibels: Planning the New Sounds of the City
Reposted in full from the New Scientist, 2 August 2010
'City-dwellers may hate traffic noise and loud, late parties, but they enjoy a "vibrant calm" soundscape, says Trevor Cox, and we should cultivate it
I went on a "sound walk" in London in spring last year. Thirty people gathered near Euston railway station and then, in absolute silence, we meandered down backstreets, along major roads, through railway stations and ended up in Regent's Park. For 2 hours, we tuned into the city's soundscape. I had not expected to hear birdsong on a backstreet close to a noisy main road, and I was surprised to find that I enjoyed the sound of a lock banging against a bike frame as a cyclist rode by. Nor had I ever realised quite how annoying the sound of roller suitcases was until I heard travellers trundling their luggage into St Pancras station.
As an acoustic engineer, I found this walk a real ear-opener. Urban design is only really concerned with abating noise made by public transport or industry: the subtle and interesting sounds that can enhance cities are overlooked. With the internal combustion engine on its way out, though, the acoustic fog created by cars, buses and trucks will finally lift and other sounds of the city will emerge. Will we like what we hear? All those annoying sounds currently masked by traffic noise, such as humming ventilation systems and music escaping from pubs, restaurants and cars, will become more audible. It's time to work out how we want our cities of the future to sound.
In the past, researching urban soundscapes was simple. I would measure street noise in decibels, then canvass public opinion using a battery of tests borrowed from experimental psychology and combine the two. I might play a couple of city noises I had recorded and ask subjects to say which sound was more annoying. Since all that researchers wanted to know was the relationship between noise levels and people's responses, we tended to treat our subjects rather like lab animals.
Inconveniently, human response to sound is complicated and not captured well - if at all - by the decibel, except when noise is relatively loud and constant. Even so, crude decibels rule in planning regulations. Noise maps illustrate how bad this reductionist approach can get.
Worldwide, engineers use expensive computers to generate maps of the sound environment. These look so much like pretty, coloured road maps that some researchers joke it would be cheaper and quicker to colour in a map, using red crayons for busy roads and blue for quiet backstreets.
Take my house in Manchester, the heart of northern England. It appears on a sound map with a decibel value of between 60 and 64.9 decibels. Even with a PhD in acoustics I struggle to interpret this. How can the complex way sound varies during the day and between the seasons be meaningfully summed up by a single number? It also seems too large for the quiet back road I live on. Most importantly, it ignores important issues such as neighbour noise. This cannot be included on maps because there are no databases showing where inconsiderate people, players of loud music and raucous lovers live. Moreover, all this takes no account of a listener's perception: has years of working in acoustics made me overly sensitive to noise?
Yet the crude noise maps we make drive policy. Advocates argue that they have been vital in making politicians take noise seriously. This must be a good thing: noise has many deleterious effects, ranging from sleep disturbance to increased levels of stress hormones in the blood, reduced performance in schoolchildren, and poorer wellbeing overall. Yet noise is still not high on the political agenda, despite reliable estimates that 54 per cent of the UK's population live in conditions exceeding daytime sound levels prescribed by the World Health Organization - 55 decibels for steady, continuous noise.
One problem with decibel measurement is that it does not differentiate between "negative" and "positive" sounds. Take the sounds made by a fountain in a town square, happy children in a playground or the cheerful toot of the Manchester tram - any one of which might exceed permitted sound levels. Increasingly, researchers have been pressing for these positive sounds to be considered within urban design alongside more traditional noise-control approaches.
This is going to be tricky because we cannot measure the sound level for a water feature in decibels and hope that this also captures the different responses of listeners. Babbling brooks, gushing fountains and pounding waterfalls all have very different sound qualities.
Many researchers approach this problem by embracing social science methods, setting up focus groups, going on sound walks, trying to capture the emotional response to sound. Others persist with computer algorithms to model people's reactions, gathering extra data, such as the listener's age and gender, to use in the algorithm to redress the inadequacies of the decibel. They might also measure the complex aspects of audio signals, such as the balance between treble and bass or whether it has a distinct tonal quality. To tap the moods evoked by given sounds, listeners are asked to fill in personality questionnaires.
As the complexity of these models grow, so does my feeling that there must be a better way. Consider a small, relatively quiet, urban square - an acoustic oasis. To design such spaces, traditional engineers quieten intrusions from traffic, rail and planes. Buildings, walls and baffles can all be used to block out the sources of noise and reduce intrusion.
Once we have abated the noise, though, what do we want to hear? The Positive Soundscape Project, funded by the UK's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, has given us pointers. This unusual interdisciplinary research came out in favour of what seems contradictory: a "vibrant, calm" soundscape. In fact, this makes good sense. A city thrives on vibrancy, so an urban square needs to have a sense of activity: the barista making coffee, the clack of high heels on the pavement, or snatches of conversations from passers-by. Yet we don't want this vibrancy to be so intense it becomes intrusive: it might be nice to have a busker in the square, but you don't want them playing in your face. Subtle changes in urban design alter how people use places and consequently the soundscape.
One of the major problems will be getting designers to use soundscape research. Beyond bare compliance with regulations, architects and planners receive little acoustics training. Sound is treated as an engineering constraint, and given as much consideration as, say, whether the street drainage system will work. Where does that leave the emotional response we have to sound (usually stronger than our response to guttering)?
No one wanders around the street with a beauty-ometer; people make aesthetic judgements without having any idea about the tangible "rules" underlying them. If we acknowledge that urban sound has an aesthetic, which I believe it does, we urgently need to know what governs it and then how designers can work with it. Similar to that of the visual world, it will be built on a complex understanding of cultural theory, sonic art, cognitive and social psychology, engineering, physics and the relationship between them.
Powerful technologies can also help in this exploration. One promising avenue is virtual reality with realistic sound, enabling soundscapes to be explored before being built. The fancy fly-throughs of virtual developments which are so popular with architects are too often silent, but researchers are working hard to rectify this.
Hopefully, by building an aesthetic of sound, using the best technology we can get our hands on, we'll be skipping to work through a positive soundscape before long.
Profile
Trevor Cox is professor of acoustics at the University of Salford in Manchester and president of the UK's Institute of Acoustics. He directed the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's Ideas Factory project "A Noisy Future?"'
'City-dwellers may hate traffic noise and loud, late parties, but they enjoy a "vibrant calm" soundscape, says Trevor Cox, and we should cultivate it
I went on a "sound walk" in London in spring last year. Thirty people gathered near Euston railway station and then, in absolute silence, we meandered down backstreets, along major roads, through railway stations and ended up in Regent's Park. For 2 hours, we tuned into the city's soundscape. I had not expected to hear birdsong on a backstreet close to a noisy main road, and I was surprised to find that I enjoyed the sound of a lock banging against a bike frame as a cyclist rode by. Nor had I ever realised quite how annoying the sound of roller suitcases was until I heard travellers trundling their luggage into St Pancras station.
As an acoustic engineer, I found this walk a real ear-opener. Urban design is only really concerned with abating noise made by public transport or industry: the subtle and interesting sounds that can enhance cities are overlooked. With the internal combustion engine on its way out, though, the acoustic fog created by cars, buses and trucks will finally lift and other sounds of the city will emerge. Will we like what we hear? All those annoying sounds currently masked by traffic noise, such as humming ventilation systems and music escaping from pubs, restaurants and cars, will become more audible. It's time to work out how we want our cities of the future to sound.
In the past, researching urban soundscapes was simple. I would measure street noise in decibels, then canvass public opinion using a battery of tests borrowed from experimental psychology and combine the two. I might play a couple of city noises I had recorded and ask subjects to say which sound was more annoying. Since all that researchers wanted to know was the relationship between noise levels and people's responses, we tended to treat our subjects rather like lab animals.
Inconveniently, human response to sound is complicated and not captured well - if at all - by the decibel, except when noise is relatively loud and constant. Even so, crude decibels rule in planning regulations. Noise maps illustrate how bad this reductionist approach can get.
Worldwide, engineers use expensive computers to generate maps of the sound environment. These look so much like pretty, coloured road maps that some researchers joke it would be cheaper and quicker to colour in a map, using red crayons for busy roads and blue for quiet backstreets.
Take my house in Manchester, the heart of northern England. It appears on a sound map with a decibel value of between 60 and 64.9 decibels. Even with a PhD in acoustics I struggle to interpret this. How can the complex way sound varies during the day and between the seasons be meaningfully summed up by a single number? It also seems too large for the quiet back road I live on. Most importantly, it ignores important issues such as neighbour noise. This cannot be included on maps because there are no databases showing where inconsiderate people, players of loud music and raucous lovers live. Moreover, all this takes no account of a listener's perception: has years of working in acoustics made me overly sensitive to noise?
Yet the crude noise maps we make drive policy. Advocates argue that they have been vital in making politicians take noise seriously. This must be a good thing: noise has many deleterious effects, ranging from sleep disturbance to increased levels of stress hormones in the blood, reduced performance in schoolchildren, and poorer wellbeing overall. Yet noise is still not high on the political agenda, despite reliable estimates that 54 per cent of the UK's population live in conditions exceeding daytime sound levels prescribed by the World Health Organization - 55 decibels for steady, continuous noise.
One problem with decibel measurement is that it does not differentiate between "negative" and "positive" sounds. Take the sounds made by a fountain in a town square, happy children in a playground or the cheerful toot of the Manchester tram - any one of which might exceed permitted sound levels. Increasingly, researchers have been pressing for these positive sounds to be considered within urban design alongside more traditional noise-control approaches.
This is going to be tricky because we cannot measure the sound level for a water feature in decibels and hope that this also captures the different responses of listeners. Babbling brooks, gushing fountains and pounding waterfalls all have very different sound qualities.
Many researchers approach this problem by embracing social science methods, setting up focus groups, going on sound walks, trying to capture the emotional response to sound. Others persist with computer algorithms to model people's reactions, gathering extra data, such as the listener's age and gender, to use in the algorithm to redress the inadequacies of the decibel. They might also measure the complex aspects of audio signals, such as the balance between treble and bass or whether it has a distinct tonal quality. To tap the moods evoked by given sounds, listeners are asked to fill in personality questionnaires.
As the complexity of these models grow, so does my feeling that there must be a better way. Consider a small, relatively quiet, urban square - an acoustic oasis. To design such spaces, traditional engineers quieten intrusions from traffic, rail and planes. Buildings, walls and baffles can all be used to block out the sources of noise and reduce intrusion.
Once we have abated the noise, though, what do we want to hear? The Positive Soundscape Project, funded by the UK's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, has given us pointers. This unusual interdisciplinary research came out in favour of what seems contradictory: a "vibrant, calm" soundscape. In fact, this makes good sense. A city thrives on vibrancy, so an urban square needs to have a sense of activity: the barista making coffee, the clack of high heels on the pavement, or snatches of conversations from passers-by. Yet we don't want this vibrancy to be so intense it becomes intrusive: it might be nice to have a busker in the square, but you don't want them playing in your face. Subtle changes in urban design alter how people use places and consequently the soundscape.
One of the major problems will be getting designers to use soundscape research. Beyond bare compliance with regulations, architects and planners receive little acoustics training. Sound is treated as an engineering constraint, and given as much consideration as, say, whether the street drainage system will work. Where does that leave the emotional response we have to sound (usually stronger than our response to guttering)?
No one wanders around the street with a beauty-ometer; people make aesthetic judgements without having any idea about the tangible "rules" underlying them. If we acknowledge that urban sound has an aesthetic, which I believe it does, we urgently need to know what governs it and then how designers can work with it. Similar to that of the visual world, it will be built on a complex understanding of cultural theory, sonic art, cognitive and social psychology, engineering, physics and the relationship between them.
Powerful technologies can also help in this exploration. One promising avenue is virtual reality with realistic sound, enabling soundscapes to be explored before being built. The fancy fly-throughs of virtual developments which are so popular with architects are too often silent, but researchers are working hard to rectify this.
Hopefully, by building an aesthetic of sound, using the best technology we can get our hands on, we'll be skipping to work through a positive soundscape before long.
Profile
Trevor Cox is professor of acoustics at the University of Salford in Manchester and president of the UK's Institute of Acoustics. He directed the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's Ideas Factory project "A Noisy Future?"'
Ecuador Will Not Drill In Amazon Reserve
Reposted in full from Planet Ark, 4 August 2010
'Ecuador signed a deal on Tuesday creating a trust fund to hold donations from Germany and other rich nations willing to pay the Andean country to refrain from drilling for oil in an Amazon wildlife reserve.
The plan, drawn up with the United Nations, applies to a 675-square-mile part of Yasuni National Park called the ITT section. Keeping oil firms out of the area would avoid dumping 410 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air, Ecuador says.
"This is a Ecuador's contribution toward combating climate change," Minister of Heritage Maria Espinosa told reporters.
Oil is Ecuador's chief export. The country holds the rotating presidency of OPEC this year.
Yasuni National Park, in the Amazon, is home to more species of wildlife than any other place on earth - it has more different tree types than exist in all of North America, plus a huge variety of monkeys, birds and other wildlife, scientists say.
The government is asking donor countries such as Germany and Italy to pay about $3.6 billion, or about half of what the country would get from exploiting the oil, in exchange for keeping part of the area untouched.
Only Germany has signed a deal so far, promising $50 million per year over 12 years. As outrage grows over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Ecuador says it has a stronger argument than ever for its jungle protection plan.
"The impact of oil exploitation does not always have a technological response. There are a range of risks that we cannot control, as the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico shows us," Espinosa recently told Reuters.
"Right now, this is an avant-garde project. Ten years from now projects like this will be the rule, not the exception," she said.
"We need new scenarios. We need post-oil economies. We need to create new models of production and consumption."'
'Ecuador signed a deal on Tuesday creating a trust fund to hold donations from Germany and other rich nations willing to pay the Andean country to refrain from drilling for oil in an Amazon wildlife reserve.
The plan, drawn up with the United Nations, applies to a 675-square-mile part of Yasuni National Park called the ITT section. Keeping oil firms out of the area would avoid dumping 410 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air, Ecuador says.
"This is a Ecuador's contribution toward combating climate change," Minister of Heritage Maria Espinosa told reporters.
Oil is Ecuador's chief export. The country holds the rotating presidency of OPEC this year.
Yasuni National Park, in the Amazon, is home to more species of wildlife than any other place on earth - it has more different tree types than exist in all of North America, plus a huge variety of monkeys, birds and other wildlife, scientists say.
The government is asking donor countries such as Germany and Italy to pay about $3.6 billion, or about half of what the country would get from exploiting the oil, in exchange for keeping part of the area untouched.
Only Germany has signed a deal so far, promising $50 million per year over 12 years. As outrage grows over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Ecuador says it has a stronger argument than ever for its jungle protection plan.
"The impact of oil exploitation does not always have a technological response. There are a range of risks that we cannot control, as the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico shows us," Espinosa recently told Reuters.
"Right now, this is an avant-garde project. Ten years from now projects like this will be the rule, not the exception," she said.
"We need new scenarios. We need post-oil economies. We need to create new models of production and consumption."'
Australia Agriculture Faces Climate Upheaval: Scientist
Excerpt from Planet Ark, 4 August 2010
'Land available for agriculture in Australia, one of the world's largest food exporters, is in danger of shrinking because of climate change, a leading scientist said on Tuesday.
More grain was also likely to be grown in the north as climate change cuts production in the drier south with more marginal areas turned over to pasture, threatening Australia's position as the world's fourth largest grain exporter.
The country's mostly infertile and fragile soils made the agriculture industry particularly vulnerable to climate change, said Andrew Ash, director of the Climate Adaptation Flagship project of the government-backed research organization CSIRO.
"We've had a fairly strong drying trend over the past 12 years or so and we think now there is a climate change signal associated with that," Ash said in a telephone interview after an address to the World Congress of Soil Science in Brisbane.
He said major changes in land management were needed to keep the 60 percent of Australia's land mass now used for agriculture from shrinking.
"It is more likely that we will see some cropping areas at the margins shrink," he said, while other areas would expand in regions that now have high rainfall, such as parts of Victoria, but which are expected to become drier. This might make these areas more suitable for cereal crop production, he said.
Australia is also expected to become warmer in the coming decades, further limiting water availability to crops and run-off for rivers and dams, particularly in the south, as well as escalating the risk from bushfires.
This would also affect soils because they help in the cycling and storage of water, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus as well as carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.
Ash said technological changes such as the breeding of more heat-resistant crop varieties and the use of degradable plastic sheeting to protect crops in the early stage of development could offset the negative impacts of climate change.
"We will eventually get to the point in some farming regions, even with the new technologies, that there will have to be some larger land use changes," said Ash.
"Probably the clearest example of that at the moment, with the drying of southern Australia and the reduction of water availability, people are starting to look at northern Australia," he said.
That could mean more areas planted with wheat, cotton and other crops such as peanuts in the north, offsetting falling production further south.
But while the north has a distinct wet season, which could provide water for irrigation, Ash said there were constraints such as soil quality so only a relatively small amount of northern Australia would be suitable for cropping.
The country's agricultural production has long suffered severe swings in climate and scientists expected even greater extremes in the coming decades...'
'Land available for agriculture in Australia, one of the world's largest food exporters, is in danger of shrinking because of climate change, a leading scientist said on Tuesday.
More grain was also likely to be grown in the north as climate change cuts production in the drier south with more marginal areas turned over to pasture, threatening Australia's position as the world's fourth largest grain exporter.
The country's mostly infertile and fragile soils made the agriculture industry particularly vulnerable to climate change, said Andrew Ash, director of the Climate Adaptation Flagship project of the government-backed research organization CSIRO.
"We've had a fairly strong drying trend over the past 12 years or so and we think now there is a climate change signal associated with that," Ash said in a telephone interview after an address to the World Congress of Soil Science in Brisbane.
He said major changes in land management were needed to keep the 60 percent of Australia's land mass now used for agriculture from shrinking.
"It is more likely that we will see some cropping areas at the margins shrink," he said, while other areas would expand in regions that now have high rainfall, such as parts of Victoria, but which are expected to become drier. This might make these areas more suitable for cereal crop production, he said.
Australia is also expected to become warmer in the coming decades, further limiting water availability to crops and run-off for rivers and dams, particularly in the south, as well as escalating the risk from bushfires.
This would also affect soils because they help in the cycling and storage of water, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus as well as carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.
Ash said technological changes such as the breeding of more heat-resistant crop varieties and the use of degradable plastic sheeting to protect crops in the early stage of development could offset the negative impacts of climate change.
"We will eventually get to the point in some farming regions, even with the new technologies, that there will have to be some larger land use changes," said Ash.
"Probably the clearest example of that at the moment, with the drying of southern Australia and the reduction of water availability, people are starting to look at northern Australia," he said.
That could mean more areas planted with wheat, cotton and other crops such as peanuts in the north, offsetting falling production further south.
But while the north has a distinct wet season, which could provide water for irrigation, Ash said there were constraints such as soil quality so only a relatively small amount of northern Australia would be suitable for cropping.
The country's agricultural production has long suffered severe swings in climate and scientists expected even greater extremes in the coming decades...'
03 August 2010
Steady As It Goes Is Fast Enough
Reposted in full from the Brisbane Times, 3 August 2010
'Approval of an expansion of Melbourne's boundary is the death warrant for the city's 12 green wedges. When it came to the crunch, our green lungs were regarded as dispensable.
Amendment VC68, which passed through Victoria's parliament last week, not only sanctioned a 43,600-hectare extension of the urban growth boundary into the green wedges. It also showed how easily future expansion could be approved in a society that puts growth before everything else.
The green wedges were established to protect "rural and agricultural uses, natural resources, landscape, heritage, open space, and conservation values". In other words, they were there to provide recreation and food for the people of the city and the protection of scenery. The Brumby government's action indicates that, in its view, these have a lower priority than growth.
The Victorian government is not alone in its pursuit of virtually unfettered economic growth.
Other state governments, the federal government and the Coalition promote economic growth.
Further afield, China and India are the most prominent of developing nations following the West's example.
Yet there is a clear alternative to endless economic growth — the Steady State Economy.
First outlined by philosopher John Stuart Mill in 1848, this vision is now backed by a rapidly growing worldwide movement. The Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy was founded six years ago and is now active on every continent. Indeed, Greens leader Bob Brown mentioned this new vision for our world at the party's campaign launch last week.
In the Steady State we will no longer base our lives on consuming an ever-increasing amount of non-renewable resources such as coal and oil, but will live within our ecological means. Our populations will be in balance with the resources that are sustainably available. It will also be a fairer world where there is equal access to services for all, as well as the freedom that will develop from a much closer relationship with the environment.
This clear philosophy shows up the disconnect between the Victorian government's actions. It says it is concerned about climate change and wants to begin phasing out Hazelwood power station, while at the same time it is paving the way for a massive increase in the demand for every kind of energy from expanding Melbourne's population. Does the government understand the relationship between supply and demand, or is it so committed to growth that it does not care?
Who is to blame for this disaster? The environment movement put up a strong fight to protect the green wedges but it was overwhelmed by the development interests that benefit from a Big Melbourne. The problem is that defensive trench warfare is not enough. What happens on the ground is determined by whatever society as a whole is prepared to accept.
The real failure of the environment movement and our politicians is that they have not developed an alternative vision for our country. Instead we have an all pervasive development ethos powered by a default vision of endless economic and population growth. To avoid a never-ending series of attacks on the environment and a failure to connect the dots, we must make the idea of developing a sustainable vision a top priority for all Australians. At least the Greens have recognised this.
Geoff Mosley, a former chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation, is Australian director of the Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. His book Steady State – Alternative to Endless Economic Growth will be published in October.'
'Approval of an expansion of Melbourne's boundary is the death warrant for the city's 12 green wedges. When it came to the crunch, our green lungs were regarded as dispensable.
Amendment VC68, which passed through Victoria's parliament last week, not only sanctioned a 43,600-hectare extension of the urban growth boundary into the green wedges. It also showed how easily future expansion could be approved in a society that puts growth before everything else.
The green wedges were established to protect "rural and agricultural uses, natural resources, landscape, heritage, open space, and conservation values". In other words, they were there to provide recreation and food for the people of the city and the protection of scenery. The Brumby government's action indicates that, in its view, these have a lower priority than growth.
The Victorian government is not alone in its pursuit of virtually unfettered economic growth.
Other state governments, the federal government and the Coalition promote economic growth.
Further afield, China and India are the most prominent of developing nations following the West's example.
Yet there is a clear alternative to endless economic growth — the Steady State Economy.
First outlined by philosopher John Stuart Mill in 1848, this vision is now backed by a rapidly growing worldwide movement. The Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy was founded six years ago and is now active on every continent. Indeed, Greens leader Bob Brown mentioned this new vision for our world at the party's campaign launch last week.
In the Steady State we will no longer base our lives on consuming an ever-increasing amount of non-renewable resources such as coal and oil, but will live within our ecological means. Our populations will be in balance with the resources that are sustainably available. It will also be a fairer world where there is equal access to services for all, as well as the freedom that will develop from a much closer relationship with the environment.
This clear philosophy shows up the disconnect between the Victorian government's actions. It says it is concerned about climate change and wants to begin phasing out Hazelwood power station, while at the same time it is paving the way for a massive increase in the demand for every kind of energy from expanding Melbourne's population. Does the government understand the relationship between supply and demand, or is it so committed to growth that it does not care?
Who is to blame for this disaster? The environment movement put up a strong fight to protect the green wedges but it was overwhelmed by the development interests that benefit from a Big Melbourne. The problem is that defensive trench warfare is not enough. What happens on the ground is determined by whatever society as a whole is prepared to accept.
The real failure of the environment movement and our politicians is that they have not developed an alternative vision for our country. Instead we have an all pervasive development ethos powered by a default vision of endless economic and population growth. To avoid a never-ending series of attacks on the environment and a failure to connect the dots, we must make the idea of developing a sustainable vision a top priority for all Australians. At least the Greens have recognised this.
Geoff Mosley, a former chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation, is Australian director of the Centre for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. His book Steady State – Alternative to Endless Economic Growth will be published in October.'
'Conflict-Free' Electronics Bundled in Financial Reform Law
Reposted in full from Greenbuzz, 27 July 2010
'Nearly unmentioned in the discussions of the financial reform bill is a measure that will affect large swaths of the U.S. economy and that seeks to remove "conflict minerals" sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo from products sold in the United States.
The Washington Post reported late last week that the 2,300-page financial reform bill contained a provision focused on eliminating the use of four materials that are commonly sourced in war-torn Congo: Gold, tin, tungsten and tantalum.
The country has been embroiled in a horrific war since 1994 that has killed an estimated 5 million people, and led the nation to be dubbed "the rape capital of the world."
The materials included in the financial reform law are commonly found in electronics, but the provision's impacts will go much further: It applies to any publicly traded U.S. firm that uses gold or tin in its products.
"This is a law that is going to affect virtually the entire U.S. manufacturing sector," Rick Goss, vice president of environment at the Information Technology Industry Council, told the Post's Mary Beth Sheridan.
The article continues:
The issue got tied to the financial reform bill largely because of [Republican Senator Sam] Brownback, who had previously introduced legislation on "conflict minerals." He sought to attach an amendment to the bill, and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn), chairman of the banking committee, supported it, congressional staff said. In the end, Brownback voted against the overall bill, but his amendment survived.
The new law requires American companies to submit an annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing whether their products contain gold, tin, tungsten or tantalum from Congo or adjacent countries. If so, they have to describe what measures they are taking to trace the minerals' origin.
The law does not impose any penalty on companies who report taking no action. But the disclosures must be made publicly on firms' Web sites.
"The consequence is a market-driven one. Consumers can make their choices. Do they want their electronic products to be funding gang rape in central Africa? I don't think most Americans would want that," said Rory Anderson of the World Vision humanitarian group, which has been pushing for the legislation.
The issue of responsible sourcing of materials has been on tech companies' radars for some time.
In 2009, the Center for American Progress launched a "No Blood for Gadgets" campaign focused on conflict materials, and electronics companies have long focused on the greening of their supply chains.
Hewlett-Packard, for instance, showcased its efforts on scouring its supply chain of conflict materials at the 2009 BSR conference, and in 2008, the company released green supply chain guidelines for suppliers and top-level global enterprises alike to work toward transparency in supply chains. Later that year, HP also named its largest suppliers as part of its CSR report, an unprecedented move in the secretive IT industry.
Conflict materials are not just a problem for the electronics sector; jewelry retailers have repeatedly worked on cleaning up the supplies of sometimes "dirty gold" in the marketplace.'
'Nearly unmentioned in the discussions of the financial reform bill is a measure that will affect large swaths of the U.S. economy and that seeks to remove "conflict minerals" sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo from products sold in the United States.
The Washington Post reported late last week that the 2,300-page financial reform bill contained a provision focused on eliminating the use of four materials that are commonly sourced in war-torn Congo: Gold, tin, tungsten and tantalum.
The country has been embroiled in a horrific war since 1994 that has killed an estimated 5 million people, and led the nation to be dubbed "the rape capital of the world."
The materials included in the financial reform law are commonly found in electronics, but the provision's impacts will go much further: It applies to any publicly traded U.S. firm that uses gold or tin in its products.
"This is a law that is going to affect virtually the entire U.S. manufacturing sector," Rick Goss, vice president of environment at the Information Technology Industry Council, told the Post's Mary Beth Sheridan.
The article continues:
The issue got tied to the financial reform bill largely because of [Republican Senator Sam] Brownback, who had previously introduced legislation on "conflict minerals." He sought to attach an amendment to the bill, and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn), chairman of the banking committee, supported it, congressional staff said. In the end, Brownback voted against the overall bill, but his amendment survived.
The new law requires American companies to submit an annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing whether their products contain gold, tin, tungsten or tantalum from Congo or adjacent countries. If so, they have to describe what measures they are taking to trace the minerals' origin.
The law does not impose any penalty on companies who report taking no action. But the disclosures must be made publicly on firms' Web sites.
"The consequence is a market-driven one. Consumers can make their choices. Do they want their electronic products to be funding gang rape in central Africa? I don't think most Americans would want that," said Rory Anderson of the World Vision humanitarian group, which has been pushing for the legislation.
The issue of responsible sourcing of materials has been on tech companies' radars for some time.
In 2009, the Center for American Progress launched a "No Blood for Gadgets" campaign focused on conflict materials, and electronics companies have long focused on the greening of their supply chains.
Hewlett-Packard, for instance, showcased its efforts on scouring its supply chain of conflict materials at the 2009 BSR conference, and in 2008, the company released green supply chain guidelines for suppliers and top-level global enterprises alike to work toward transparency in supply chains. Later that year, HP also named its largest suppliers as part of its CSR report, an unprecedented move in the secretive IT industry.
Conflict materials are not just a problem for the electronics sector; jewelry retailers have repeatedly worked on cleaning up the supplies of sometimes "dirty gold" in the marketplace.'
Labor Promises National Food Strategy
Reposted in full from ABC News, 3 August 2010
'Labor will develop a national food plan if re-elected to government, Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has announced.
Last month an ABC Online investigation revealed there are concerns over whether there needs to be more regulation of foreign ownership of farms, as other countries are increasingly looking to Australia to buy up productive agricultural land.
Mr Burke says the national food plan would investigate food security, quality and affordability.
"This is a first for Australia and will integrate all aspects of food policy by looking at the whole food chain, from the paddock to the plate," he said.
"Even though we export 60 per cent of what we grow, we need to ensure that our country's food security is protected in the years to come.
The Greens are in favour of a national food plan, while the Coalition is in favour of more monitoring of foreign purchases, but does not want a register.
Mr Burke says the plan will include a consultation process with key industry players such as the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Food and Grocery Council, CSIRO and Woolworths.
It will be funded through money already provided for in the Budget under the Regional Food Producers Innovation and Productivity Program.
The sale of agricultural land is exempt under the rules of the FIRB unless the sale exceeds $231 million.'
'Labor will develop a national food plan if re-elected to government, Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has announced.
Last month an ABC Online investigation revealed there are concerns over whether there needs to be more regulation of foreign ownership of farms, as other countries are increasingly looking to Australia to buy up productive agricultural land.
Mr Burke says the national food plan would investigate food security, quality and affordability.
"This is a first for Australia and will integrate all aspects of food policy by looking at the whole food chain, from the paddock to the plate," he said.
"Even though we export 60 per cent of what we grow, we need to ensure that our country's food security is protected in the years to come.
The Greens are in favour of a national food plan, while the Coalition is in favour of more monitoring of foreign purchases, but does not want a register.
Mr Burke says the plan will include a consultation process with key industry players such as the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Food and Grocery Council, CSIRO and Woolworths.
It will be funded through money already provided for in the Budget under the Regional Food Producers Innovation and Productivity Program.
The sale of agricultural land is exempt under the rules of the FIRB unless the sale exceeds $231 million.'
02 August 2010
Economics Dumbed Down
Reposted in full from the Centre for Policy Development, 25 July 2010
'Given the distortions in the Opposition’s rhetoric on economics, it’s worrying that polls consistently show voters rate the Coalition so highly on economic management, writes Ian McAuley
Notice something strange in the opinion polls? Essential Media polling has surveyed Australians on a number of specific issues, asking which party they would trust to handle various issues. On education, jobs, industrial relations, housing affordability, climate change and the environment Labor easily scores ahead of the Coalition.
Yet on the question “management of the economy”, the Coalition still leads by a comfortable margin.
There is a strange contradiction in these figures. If economic management isn’t about ensuring high employment and harmonious labour relations, conserving scarce environmental resources, keeping housing affordable, and investing in education, what is it about?
The answer lies in the rhetoric of the Opposition, for whom “economic management” has come to mean keeping a balanced budget. Counter-cyclical economic management to stave off the recession suffered by most other countries has been framed as “reckless spending”. Spending on infrastructure can be sacrificed in the interest of bringing the budget back to an early surplus. And a responsible market-based policy to put a price on carbon is called a “big new tax”.
This dumbing down of the economic debate is serious. Most seriously it has frozen us into inaction on climate change. Rather than seeing environmental sustainability as a basis for economic sustainability, we have come to accept the notion that meaningful action on climate change requires economic sacrifices – as if we place no value on our (and the planet’s) environmental resources.
Budgetary management is but one aspect of economic management. Most economists agree that over a business cycle recurrent government expenditure should be balanced by tax and other income. Similarly, economists do not have a terror of public debt: what counts is the use of that debt. If it is used to finance current consumption then that is reckless, but if it is used to fund productive infrastructure then our economy is strengthened. If anything can be called “reckless” it is a policy which puts a “balanced budget” ahead of investment in productive infrastructure. (Imagine how shareholders would respond if a public company were to cut its capital expenditure and reduce its debt to zero.)
Already in this election campaign the Opposition has exploited this puerile construction of “economic management” to stymie carbon pricing and to devalue even the Government’s paltry infrastructure spending. The blame lies not only with the Opposition, however; political parties are opportunistic and to expect any different behaviour from the Opposition would be as naïve as to expect sailors to practice celibacy on shore leave. The Government too must take some blame, for it has had three years to explain economic policy to the electorate, and has failed to do so.'
'Given the distortions in the Opposition’s rhetoric on economics, it’s worrying that polls consistently show voters rate the Coalition so highly on economic management, writes Ian McAuley
Notice something strange in the opinion polls? Essential Media polling has surveyed Australians on a number of specific issues, asking which party they would trust to handle various issues. On education, jobs, industrial relations, housing affordability, climate change and the environment Labor easily scores ahead of the Coalition.
Yet on the question “management of the economy”, the Coalition still leads by a comfortable margin.
There is a strange contradiction in these figures. If economic management isn’t about ensuring high employment and harmonious labour relations, conserving scarce environmental resources, keeping housing affordable, and investing in education, what is it about?
The answer lies in the rhetoric of the Opposition, for whom “economic management” has come to mean keeping a balanced budget. Counter-cyclical economic management to stave off the recession suffered by most other countries has been framed as “reckless spending”. Spending on infrastructure can be sacrificed in the interest of bringing the budget back to an early surplus. And a responsible market-based policy to put a price on carbon is called a “big new tax”.
This dumbing down of the economic debate is serious. Most seriously it has frozen us into inaction on climate change. Rather than seeing environmental sustainability as a basis for economic sustainability, we have come to accept the notion that meaningful action on climate change requires economic sacrifices – as if we place no value on our (and the planet’s) environmental resources.
Budgetary management is but one aspect of economic management. Most economists agree that over a business cycle recurrent government expenditure should be balanced by tax and other income. Similarly, economists do not have a terror of public debt: what counts is the use of that debt. If it is used to finance current consumption then that is reckless, but if it is used to fund productive infrastructure then our economy is strengthened. If anything can be called “reckless” it is a policy which puts a “balanced budget” ahead of investment in productive infrastructure. (Imagine how shareholders would respond if a public company were to cut its capital expenditure and reduce its debt to zero.)
Already in this election campaign the Opposition has exploited this puerile construction of “economic management” to stymie carbon pricing and to devalue even the Government’s paltry infrastructure spending. The blame lies not only with the Opposition, however; political parties are opportunistic and to expect any different behaviour from the Opposition would be as naïve as to expect sailors to practice celibacy on shore leave. The Government too must take some blame, for it has had three years to explain economic policy to the electorate, and has failed to do so.'
New Climate & Energy Policies Could Create 2.5 Million Jobs, Hold Down Energy Costs
Reposted in full from Warmer Bulletin e-news, 30 July 2010
'New greenhouse gas emissions and energy policies at the Federal level could generate as many as 2.5 million new jobs and $134 billion in economic activity in the United States while keeping energy costs down, according to a new report from the Center for Climate Strategies, published with Johns Hopkins University.
The report is based on economic impacts of climate policies developed by 16 states and calls for adoption of 23 specific policy approaches that have the potential to reduce pollution, are cost effective, and improve energy, health, environment, and economic development."
Several states have pioneered creation of comprehensive state climate action plans in recent years," said Tom Peterson, President and CEO of the Center for Climate Strategies.
"Our analysis provides the first clear indication of what would happen to the economy if such programmes were adopted at the Federal level."
"These results may sound surprising to some, but detailed analysis shows opportunities for well chosen policies to expand the economy" according to Dr. Adam Rose of the University of Southern California, a principal author of the study.
"The Center for Climate Strategies report findings substantiate that advanced climate actions are essential to establishing a stable and strong economy, using clean energy sources, including renewables and nuclear power, as the primary drivers, long into the future," said former EPA Administrator and New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, Co-Chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy).
Suggested policy adoptions would focus on creation of new clean energy sources for heat and power; improved energy efficiency and industrial processes; transportation and land use improvements; agriculture and forestry conservation; and expanded recycling and waste energy recovery under a national framework.
Assuming full and appropriately scaled implementation of all 23 actions in all US states, the resulting greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions would surpass national GHG targets proposed by President Obama and congressional legislation, and would reduce US emissions to 27 per cent below 1990 levels in 2020, equal to 4.46 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (BMtCO2e).
"This report is the first solid economic data based on what is already underway at the state level to address climate change and energy use," said Kathy Wagner, Director of Governmental Studies at the Johns Hopkins University's Washington, DC Center, which published the study.
The Center for Climate Strategies was established in 2004 and is a nonpartisan 501c(3). CCS works with 40 states and several regions across the United States, and in Mexico and China, to develop and advance comprehensive climate and energy policies and actions.
The Governmental Studies programme of Johns Hopkins University's Washington DC Center periodically publishes timely reports of pathbreaking work that can better inform ongoing policy debate.'
'New greenhouse gas emissions and energy policies at the Federal level could generate as many as 2.5 million new jobs and $134 billion in economic activity in the United States while keeping energy costs down, according to a new report from the Center for Climate Strategies, published with Johns Hopkins University.
The report is based on economic impacts of climate policies developed by 16 states and calls for adoption of 23 specific policy approaches that have the potential to reduce pollution, are cost effective, and improve energy, health, environment, and economic development."
Several states have pioneered creation of comprehensive state climate action plans in recent years," said Tom Peterson, President and CEO of the Center for Climate Strategies.
"Our analysis provides the first clear indication of what would happen to the economy if such programmes were adopted at the Federal level."
"These results may sound surprising to some, but detailed analysis shows opportunities for well chosen policies to expand the economy" according to Dr. Adam Rose of the University of Southern California, a principal author of the study.
"The Center for Climate Strategies report findings substantiate that advanced climate actions are essential to establishing a stable and strong economy, using clean energy sources, including renewables and nuclear power, as the primary drivers, long into the future," said former EPA Administrator and New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, Co-Chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy).
Suggested policy adoptions would focus on creation of new clean energy sources for heat and power; improved energy efficiency and industrial processes; transportation and land use improvements; agriculture and forestry conservation; and expanded recycling and waste energy recovery under a national framework.
Assuming full and appropriately scaled implementation of all 23 actions in all US states, the resulting greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions would surpass national GHG targets proposed by President Obama and congressional legislation, and would reduce US emissions to 27 per cent below 1990 levels in 2020, equal to 4.46 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (BMtCO2e).
"This report is the first solid economic data based on what is already underway at the state level to address climate change and energy use," said Kathy Wagner, Director of Governmental Studies at the Johns Hopkins University's Washington, DC Center, which published the study.
The Center for Climate Strategies was established in 2004 and is a nonpartisan 501c(3). CCS works with 40 states and several regions across the United States, and in Mexico and China, to develop and advance comprehensive climate and energy policies and actions.
The Governmental Studies programme of Johns Hopkins University's Washington DC Center periodically publishes timely reports of pathbreaking work that can better inform ongoing policy debate.'
US Food Waste Worth More Than Offshore Drilling
Reposted in full from the New Scientist, 30 July 2010
'More energy is wasted in the perfectly edible food discarded by people in the US each year than is available in oil and gas reserves off the nation's coastlines.
Recent estimates suggest that 16 per cent of the energy consumed in the US is used to produce food. Yet at least 25 per cent of food is wasted each year. Michael Webber and Amanda Cuellar at the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas at Austin calculate that this is the equivalent of about 2150 trillion kilojoules lost each year.
That's more than could be gained from many popular strategies to improve energy efficiency. It is also more than projections for how much energy the US could produce by making ethanol biofuel from grains.
Dairy foods and vegetables are the greatest culprits, with around 466 and 403 trillion kilojoules lost as waste each year, respectively (Environmental Science and Technology, DOI: 10.1021/es100310d).
The numbers are likely to be conservative, the team says, as they are based on food-waste figures from the US Department of Agriculture from 1995 - the latest available. Since then food prices have dropped and waste is likely to have increased. What's more, the figures do not take into account waste on farms and from fishing. Estimates suggest between 8 and 23 per cent of fish caught worldwide are by-catch, and are often thrown dead or dying back into the sea.'
'More energy is wasted in the perfectly edible food discarded by people in the US each year than is available in oil and gas reserves off the nation's coastlines.
Recent estimates suggest that 16 per cent of the energy consumed in the US is used to produce food. Yet at least 25 per cent of food is wasted each year. Michael Webber and Amanda Cuellar at the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas at Austin calculate that this is the equivalent of about 2150 trillion kilojoules lost each year.
That's more than could be gained from many popular strategies to improve energy efficiency. It is also more than projections for how much energy the US could produce by making ethanol biofuel from grains.
Dairy foods and vegetables are the greatest culprits, with around 466 and 403 trillion kilojoules lost as waste each year, respectively (Environmental Science and Technology, DOI: 10.1021/es100310d).
The numbers are likely to be conservative, the team says, as they are based on food-waste figures from the US Department of Agriculture from 1995 - the latest available. Since then food prices have dropped and waste is likely to have increased. What's more, the figures do not take into account waste on farms and from fishing. Estimates suggest between 8 and 23 per cent of fish caught worldwide are by-catch, and are often thrown dead or dying back into the sea.'
27 July 2010
Naming the Nameless
This is exactly what Jamie Oliver found out in the Food Revolution in America - kids would not relate to (eat) a food unless they knew what it was (they knew french fries, but not potatoes!).
Reposted in full from Monbiot.com, 16 July 2010
'The results of our competition to name England’s threatened species are stunning.
It’s the most successful exercise in crowd-sourcing I’ve ever seen. We asked our readers to solve a problem, and they’ve done far more than that: they have created something beautiful.
The problem is this: that it is hard to persuade people to care about something they can’t pronounce. English species are disappearing at the rate of two a year. But many are vanishing unnoticed and unmourned by almost everyone, partly because we have no cultural connection to them. Scientific names, which are given in Latin or ancient Greek, are essential to proper classification, but to most people they are cold, incomprehensible and offputting.
Common names are the point at which nature and culture intersect. They allow us to engage with animals and plants which, especially if they are small and unobstrusive, might otherwise be hard to connect with. As you can see from the roaring success of books like Flora Britannica, the nexus of nature and culture is a source of constant public fascination.
So, in a column in March, I suggested that Natural England should launch a public competition to name the nameless species in danger of extinction(1). It took the suggestion up and, working with the Guardian and the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, drew up a list of ten threatened or endangered species with an identity problem.
The idea lit a fire in the public imagination. Though the timetable was very tight, we received over 3000 entries, and the standard was stunning. Judging the competition was very hard, as in every case there were at least half a dozen names that deserved to win. Not only were they practical and distinctive, many of them also captured the magic and mystery of England’s wildlife.
There was a tension between the aesthetic value of some of the entries and the need to choose names that would last: meaning that they were likely to be adopted by specialists in the field. One of the winners, for example, was the scabious cuckoo bee, which, while a good, solid, practical name – it’s a cuckoo bee which feeds from scabious flowers - was less imaginative than some of the alternatives. But the specialists on the panel felt that this one would stick, while, for example, the jester cuckoo bee or the red scrounger would not.
But in other cases we allowed ourselves to be carried away. All of us loved Mab’s lantern, which is now the name of a mysterious beetle with yellow spots like the distant glow of a lantern on its back. I fought for the sea piglet, which is a wildly inaccurate term for a little deepwater shrimp, but captures something about it which feels just right. It resonates with those other marine invertebrates with mammalian names: the sea mouse and the sea hare. No one was in dispute about the skeetle: a compact, whizzy little name which exactly matches the animal it describes.
As for the overall winner, I find I can’t get it out of my head. The beetle lives only at Windsor, eats the grubs of other beetles and has a thorax that looks like a heavy black hood. In just two words, the queen’s executioner captures its nature, appearance and place, and creates an air of malevolence that guarantees this name will stick(2).
The competition has been so successful that we’ve begun, tentatively, to discuss the idea of running it annually, asking people to name another ten species every year. Please tell us what you think.
As for me, there are now ten more British species I care about. I knew and thought little about Usnea florida, Haliclystus auricula or Megapenthus lugens. But the witch’s whiskers lichen, kaleidoscope jellyfish and queen’s executioner: those are worth fighting for.
1. www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/03/15/the-naming-of-things/
2. You can read the full list of winners and runners-up here:
www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/news/2010/170710.aspx
Reposted in full from Monbiot.com, 16 July 2010
'The results of our competition to name England’s threatened species are stunning.
It’s the most successful exercise in crowd-sourcing I’ve ever seen. We asked our readers to solve a problem, and they’ve done far more than that: they have created something beautiful.
The problem is this: that it is hard to persuade people to care about something they can’t pronounce. English species are disappearing at the rate of two a year. But many are vanishing unnoticed and unmourned by almost everyone, partly because we have no cultural connection to them. Scientific names, which are given in Latin or ancient Greek, are essential to proper classification, but to most people they are cold, incomprehensible and offputting.
Common names are the point at which nature and culture intersect. They allow us to engage with animals and plants which, especially if they are small and unobstrusive, might otherwise be hard to connect with. As you can see from the roaring success of books like Flora Britannica, the nexus of nature and culture is a source of constant public fascination.
So, in a column in March, I suggested that Natural England should launch a public competition to name the nameless species in danger of extinction(1). It took the suggestion up and, working with the Guardian and the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, drew up a list of ten threatened or endangered species with an identity problem.
The idea lit a fire in the public imagination. Though the timetable was very tight, we received over 3000 entries, and the standard was stunning. Judging the competition was very hard, as in every case there were at least half a dozen names that deserved to win. Not only were they practical and distinctive, many of them also captured the magic and mystery of England’s wildlife.
There was a tension between the aesthetic value of some of the entries and the need to choose names that would last: meaning that they were likely to be adopted by specialists in the field. One of the winners, for example, was the scabious cuckoo bee, which, while a good, solid, practical name – it’s a cuckoo bee which feeds from scabious flowers - was less imaginative than some of the alternatives. But the specialists on the panel felt that this one would stick, while, for example, the jester cuckoo bee or the red scrounger would not.
But in other cases we allowed ourselves to be carried away. All of us loved Mab’s lantern, which is now the name of a mysterious beetle with yellow spots like the distant glow of a lantern on its back. I fought for the sea piglet, which is a wildly inaccurate term for a little deepwater shrimp, but captures something about it which feels just right. It resonates with those other marine invertebrates with mammalian names: the sea mouse and the sea hare. No one was in dispute about the skeetle: a compact, whizzy little name which exactly matches the animal it describes.
As for the overall winner, I find I can’t get it out of my head. The beetle lives only at Windsor, eats the grubs of other beetles and has a thorax that looks like a heavy black hood. In just two words, the queen’s executioner captures its nature, appearance and place, and creates an air of malevolence that guarantees this name will stick(2).
The competition has been so successful that we’ve begun, tentatively, to discuss the idea of running it annually, asking people to name another ten species every year. Please tell us what you think.
As for me, there are now ten more British species I care about. I knew and thought little about Usnea florida, Haliclystus auricula or Megapenthus lugens. But the witch’s whiskers lichen, kaleidoscope jellyfish and queen’s executioner: those are worth fighting for.
1. www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/03/15/the-naming-of-things/
2. You can read the full list of winners and runners-up here:
www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/news/2010/170710.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)