What Is Your Level Of Concern?

With all the recent reports on the state of the planet, I often wonder how concerned people are about all the unintended consequences to our brutal capitalist system, and our part in it as supporters through our consumeristic activities.

In my experience, the level of public concern ranges from totally concerned and feeling a sense of impending doom, to totally lacking concern due to a total lack of awareness of the enormity of our challenges.

There is one group I know of that is so concerned that the word is included in their name. That would be the Union of Concerned Scientists. 

Since 1969 they have been fulfilling their motto: "Science for a healthy planet, and a safer world." Their 200,000 strong membership consists of both private citizens and professional scientists, and they are one of the best hopes we have for turning this thing around.

What is this group of intelligent and aware people concerned about? Here is a partial list:

1. nuclear weapons/nuclear war
2. climate change
3. government interference in the scientific process
4. clean energy
5. toxic waste
6. nuclear energy
7. GMO foods
8. antibiotics in animal feed causing resistance in humans
9. consumerism

Yup, that is a partial list. There are so many things to be concerned about these days that it makes me wonder one thing.

When will the "Union of Concerned Scientists" be changing their name to the "Union of Very Concerned Scientists", or "Gravely Concerned", or "Seriously Concerned", or "Super-Duper Concerned"?

What, exactly, is their true level of concern in 2019, after a full 50 years of being simply concerned? Perhaps it is time for a name change to reflect the new reality in which things are changing faster and faster, and may require a new concern level.

If at their conception in 1969 they considered themselves to be "concerned", then surely by now they must be "Shitting Their Pants" concerned.

I know I am currently at "Majorly Concerned", and that is subject to an upgrade at any given moment, perhaps to "Wickedly Concerned", or "Unbelievably Concerned".

How concerned do you think the scientists should be?

You Can't Deny The Laws Of Physics

Another climate conference, another wasted opportunity. No doubt when COP24, taking place in the heart of Polish coal country, is over, it will still lack the commitments required. That is because what we really need is a system change.

Our current system is unsustainable, and we have known it for hundreds of years. It defies not only common sense, but also the laws of physics, to believe that infinite growth can happen in perpetuity in a closed system. Of course it can't, and therefore the denial found in all areas where the worst offenders live.

Today a small group of humans enjoy multi-planet lifestyles, while others are getting on a fraction of that, sometimes with a better quality of life. Our excessive lifestyles can only be supported by ecosystem degradation, the exploitation of the poorest among us, and by stealing resources from future generations. 

Consumer lifestyles not only defy any moral code, they also defy physics - you can't have 4.5 planet lifestyles for long when you only have one planet. 

The richest 10% of us (500 million people) are responsible for half of the climate-harming fossil fuel emissions. Those in the bottom 50% of wealth (about 3.5 billion people) contribute only about 10% of global emissions.

"Climate change and economic inequality are inextricably linked and together pose one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. 

Rich, high emitters should be held accountable for their emissions, no matter where they live.” 

- Tim Gore, Oxfam, head of food and climate policy

We need both local and global solidarity to avoid a climate catastrophe. However, the establishment is fighting hard to prevent such solidarity to form because it threatens profits and powerful individuals. 

Therefore, we can't wait for governments, or corporations, to save us. Individuals, especially those with high footprints, will have to take the lead on making the necessary changes that will make a significant difference right away. 

"If the top 10% of high consumption carbon emitters cut their carbon footprint to the level of the average European citizen, that would be the equivalent of a one-third cut in global emissions, even if the other 90 percent did nothing. 

I mean, a one-third cut in global emissions just from that 10 percent reducing footprints to the level of the average European citizen." 

- Kevin Anderson, professor in climate change leadership 

So who are the most important climate leaders? Unfortunately, not the ones currently nursing their denial in Poland. It is up to us. And while we do this thing together, we will be building the better world we know is possible.

R's For A New World

Has the invention of consumer capitalism made the world a better place? What do we have to show for it?

Walls, war, and warming. Business as usual will only get us more of these.

It is time to try something different, but the profit-based competitive system will not give up easily. That makes it even more imperative for us serfs to get up, stand up, and keep up the fight.



R's For A New World


Rethink.

Refuse.

Resist.

Rebel.

Revolution.

I hope for a simple living revolution that sees maximalism replaced by minimalism. And hate replaced with love. Dominion replaced with stewardship. Shackles replaced with wings. Poisons replaced with Nature's perfection.

No walls. No wars. No warming.

400 PPM CO2

Our atmosphere recently passed the 400 PPM CO2 level. It is a grim climate change milestone that must be addressed.

98% of climate scientists, every major scientific body in the world and increasingly the general public agree that human greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate.

Continuing to push the concentration of CO2 higher and higher is a very risky path to follow.

Increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy supply are good ways to lower levels of greenhouse gas production. More important, though, will be changes that lead to simple lifestyles with dramatically lower ecological footprints.

Civilization may depend on how we choose to live right now. We should not be planning for extinction, which is what doing nothing will result in eventually.

Zone of Survival Monday

Experts agree that the best survival zone is established inside a sturdy cave. Wow, talk about back to the future.

There are an infinite number of things we don't need, but only a limited number of things we do require. Those are the things that guarantee our survival.

Ensuring we have everything we need to survive and thrive has always been difficult. With current challenges, like extreme weather and extreme capitalism, it is getting more difficult.

In the short term it is possible to create a zone of survival with a minimal amount of things.

In able to respond to natural disasters, or any other situation that alters the way things work, every household should have an emergency kit/camping supplies containing the following essentials:

• Water
• Food/Cooking Supplies
• Warmth/Shelter
• Medications/First Aide
• Sanitary Supplies

In a longer term situation like persistent economic trouble, the fall of capitalism, or the collapse of civilization, one needs to consider a longer term plan. Hardly alarmist, any one of these scenarios is possible in the coming years considering where we are headed globally.

Creating A Zone of Survival

No

• Within 500 + kilometres of the coast and potential flooding from sea rising, tsunamis, and water-borne contaminants.
• Under 200 feet above sea level, or at high altitudes susceptible to solar radiation exposure.
• Close to volcanoes and super volcanoes (Yellowstone in northwestern USA).
• In an earthquake/seismic/avalanche/fault zones (North American west coast, or New Madrid Fault Zone in central, USA).
• In a river flood plain, or downstream from dams.
• Within 200km of a coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plant or waste storage facility.
• In a large city.

Yes

• In a rural area with an ample water supply, 
• Plenty of fertile land 
• Abundant forests.
• Close to or with small groups of like minded people.
• In an area with unspoilt nature close by.
• Somewhere with a mild climate.
• Far from large population centers.

After looking at these lists, Linda and I realized that there are very few places in North America that fit the bill, or at least ones that don't experience 8 or 9 months of winter and cold temperatures that will definitely affect survival rate.

But if you are equipped with the supplies, skills, and knowledge for simple, cooperative and self-sufficient living I think you will have an advantage over those reliant on crumbling corporate for-profit systems, regardless of where you are living.

Stay Where You Are

Nothing can lower your carbon footprint as much as staying where you are.

I hear a lot of people saying that someone should do something about global warming. I don't hear a lot of people saying that they are voluntarily eliminating non-essential travel.

Sometimes the best way to solve a problem is to stop participating in the creation of that problem, but that seems to be a novel concept for those who selfishly continue climate-harming behaviours while crossing exotic destinations off their 'bucket list'.

A small minority of voluntary staycationers are starting to speak out. There have been people polled in Europe that go so far as to suggest that taking a flying holiday is immoral and should be stopped altogether. It may sound extreme, but the problem we face is extreme.

Tourism is one of the world's largest and fastest growing industries, and it has a huge, rapidly growing carbon footprint that must be addressed before permanent damage is done to our planet's vital systems.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and environmental groups have singled out air travel as accounting for 60% of tourism greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, tens of thousands of commercial jet planes generate more than 600 million tones of CO2 per year. These numbers are projected to increase in the coming years, raising questions about what we are really doing.

Why are so many people flying more often and farther than ever before to do pretty much the same things they do while at home? Can the travel and tourism sector be considered a beneficial activity? Is the promise of zero impact Eco-tourism even possible, or is it all industry greenwashing to protect profits?

A 2007 paper titled Tourism Feels The Heat Of Global Warming concluded, "If the goal is to effectively decrease greenhouse gas emissions in the travel and tourism sector, there seems to be no way around curbing the growth of the industry." In other words, we will just have to stay home more often.

Today one of the most radical things you can do is be happily content to stay where you are. It may also be one of the most beneficial things you can do for others and the planet.

The Traveler's Dilemma

I have yet to see significant changes in the amount N. Americans travel

What do you do when you want to see friends, but they live 1500 km away? It is a simple living dilemma. Stay and we don't get to see valued co-conspirators, go and increase our carbon footprint.


The Offer

Recently our beautiful, generous mates in the next province over invited us to come and see them. Problem is, we live 1500 km away from each other.

How generous are they? They offered to pay for our air fare, our room and board for as long as we want to stay, and a car for our own personal use while we are there.

The Dilemma

In seven years we have only left Vancouver Island once, for my brothers wedding. Even then, the event was only two ferry sails from home. Other than that trip, we have kept to within about a 50 km radius of our home since moving here.

Our no-travel living is quite a change from our previous life of near-constant car travel. We enjoyed a life of adventure and discovery out on the open road during our leisure time, and daily commuting was a part of having full time jobs in the city.

But then we asked ourselves what our lives might look like in a post-oil world. We asked, "Where do we want to be when we make the change to a low-carbon lifestyle, and can't travel as easily any more?

Our answer was the west coast of Canada, a place we have long loved for its natural, semi-wild setting.  We moved, and stopped traveling. We didn't really plan it that way, it just kind of happened as we were  slowly entranced by our locality, and felt less of a need to be somewhere else.

Then there is the expense, and the amount of carbon produced while using fossil fuel dependent modes of transportation.

One of the big problems facing humanity right now is climate change caused by the intense use of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution.

A great deal of those emissions were produced in the transportation sector.

"The combustion of fossil fuels. such as gasoline and diesel to transport people and goods is the second largest source of CO2 emissions, accounting for about 31% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 26% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. This category includes transportation sources such as highway vehicles, air travel, marine transportation, and rail." - source

The Solutions?

As carbon is part of the problem, reducing carbon-intensive activity is part of the solution. So does this mean we can't travel to see friends any more? Visiting friends and family is the number one reason most people give for the purpose of their travel.

We would really like to see people, but they are all far away, and we can't easily walk, bike, or ride horses to traverse the distances between us, as much fun as that might be.

But the current offer on the table is so very generous and enticing.

We have the time, and they have the money. But can the planet handle our recreational, non-critical travel?

Do we miss our friends, or increase our carbon footprint? Should we stay, or should we go?

It's The Traveler's Dilemma. 

Reducing Food Waste

Monthly food waste for average American family of four  - click to enlarge

North Americans eat a lot of food. We also throw a lot out. In feeding ourselves we waste a whopping 50% of total food production. The average American family of four wastes 122 lbs of food per month, as outlined in the image above. That's a lot of food.

In the 1940's an average food budget took 30% of personal income. In 2007 only 13% of income was required. Cheap food is easier to waste. However, food is rapidly becoming more expensive.

I try to maintain a zero waste kitchen, not only to honour my food and the people who bring it to me, but also to maximize my food dollar. Mind you, running a kitchen takes time, and one must be constantly vigilant for rogue food just waiting to go bad.

Food has been getting less expensive since the 1940s...
until recently.

I like to indulge my taste preferences when I prepare meals, but most important is consuming what needs to be eaten in order to make sure food is enjoyed while it is fresh.

So rather than asking, "What do I feel like eating?" I ask, "What needs to be eaten?" By planning meals according to what needs to be eaten, I have cut down on food waste.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that recovering just 5 percent of waste food could feed four million people a day. A recent survey by the WWF found that 3% of the U.K.'s greenhouse gas emissions come from wasted food. This fumbled food accounted for 6% of the country's water consumption.

Cutting down our food waste may not solve world hunger and greenhouse-gas related problems, but it will go a long way to feeding more of us and taking a burden off our beleaguered atmosphere. And it saves you money.

Tips For Reducing Food Waste

• If you live within walking or biking distance to a good grocery store try buying smaller orders more often. Fresher food and less spoilage results, although it could also lead you to replace your cavernous fridge with a Euro-sized model.
• Be vigilant - don't let food hide in your fridge/freezer. Keep tabs on your precious stocks.
• Use your freezer to extend the life of foods. A full freezer runs more efficiently.
• Save the boiling water from making vegetables for soup.
• Cleaned vegetable scraps/peelings can be used to make vegetable stock. Save up scraps in a container in the freezer until you have a few cups worth to boil up.
• Use all leftovers. For me leftovers are the ultimate fast food.
• Give food away instead of throwing it away. Is there someone around that would appreciate any food you will not be eating? A baker neighbour of mine had a major cheesecake failure that he could not sell, and was going to toss it. I asked for it. It didn't look like it should, but it tasted perfectly great. 
• Try gleaning. The term traditionally refers to the act of picking up grain in the fields after the harvest is over. It is used more widely now and could refer to food rescue of any type - picking apples in an orchard after harvest, grocery store dumpster diving, or gathering cast away produce after a farmers market.
• French documentary film maker Agnès Varda made an amazing film about gleaners in modern day France.
• Not as extreme as dumpster diving, you can get produce for a big discount before it hits the dumpster. Most grocery stores sell imperfect produce in a special area, and amazing deals happen here. I get large bags of mushrooms for 50% off, then make mushroom stock to freeze that can later be made into soup or sauces.
• Any organic material that is not eaten can be composted in a pile or worm bin, then used as fertilizer in your vegetable garden.

What are some of your favourite ways to reduce food waste?

Gaga's High Carbon Footprint Meat Mess

Lady Gaga's meat dress is a meaty mess. She is certainly not the first person to wear a meatkini, or a little meat dress. It has been done before, and with pretty much the same result - people are getting all weirded out.

I don't really get it, though. It is ok to kill a cow, butcher it, then sear its flesh and eat it with gusto. But put a few slabs of the same meat on your body and it is somehow repugnant. Why?

Is it because this fleshy fashion statement has such a high carbon footprint? It must be - what else could be wrong with it? Especially if you throw the garment on the BBQ after and feed it to your friends and family.

No, what must twist people out is the massive green house gases (GHG) that meat couture involves. Careful calculations show that the creation of Lady Gaga's MTV Awards meat dress produced 140 lbs of CO2 equivalents. Yikes! That is the same CO2 production as driving a small car 200 miles.

Included in the 140 pound calculation is the 20 - 40 oz. of cow farts and belches exuded by the cow that the small amount of 'fabric' for the dress came from. It should be noted that methane has 23 times the global-warming potential than CO2. The 140 lbs also includes GHG produced by growing the 100 pounds of plant protein required to grow the amount of meat required.

This, I conclude, is what everyone must be so upset about in the whole meat dress debacle. Curious about how things might be different if Gaga's wardrobe went vegetarian, I calculated what kind of a carbon footprint a fashionable veggie dress would have.

I crunched a few numbers and came up with a ballpark figure of between 4 to 5 pounds of C02 equivalents for a 100% meatless dress.

Get with the program, Gaga. Real ladies are concerned about their carbon footprints. Better start working on your vegkini and little brussel sprout dress for the next photo shoot or awards ceremony.

When Is Your Turn On the Heat Day?

On recent evenings while walking the hood, I see wood smoke emanating from houses snuggling down for the night. Leaves are beginning to fall, and migrating birds are on the move. That can only mean one thing - it will soon be time to turn on the heat in our home.

Forty to fifty percent of global energy demand is used for heating and cooling, and they contribute about the same percentage of greenhouse gases. The WorldWatch Institute reports that worldwide in 2005, half the energy use in buildings went toward space heating. The amount of energy we use to heat our homes is huge. But keeping comfortable has its environmental costs.

In my part of the world using electricity for heat is common, as is using wood. Our electricity is largely hydro-powered, but dam and reservoir complexes have their own impacts. Most North Americans rely on coal, gas, or nuclear power plants to maintain indoor comfort. Unless you are generating renewable heat energy, your home heating is adding to the atmosphere's carbon load.

In a recently published study by the C.D. Howe Institute, reviewed by Victoria Hollick,  comparing Canadian  alternative energy programs and sources, the study concludes that "the lowest-cost and highest-value programs are the renewable heat and power technologies, which include solar air heating, solar water heating, solar electricity, wind and biomass." Using solar energy for space and water heating is one of the most efficient and effective ways to reduce our carbon footprint.

Until such a time that our infrastructure changes to accommodate renewable solutions, most of us will be using conventional methods for space heating. One way to reduce the impact of these old technologies is to limit our use of them. My household has started to track "Turn On The Heat Day" as a way to see when our carbon footprint is about to increase. It makes us aware of our personal contributions to a changing biosphere.

When we were in the north Indian town of Mussoorie, nestled in the foothills of the Himalaya, there was no Turn On The Heat Day at the guest house we were staying at. Days were warm, but evenings could see snow and our room was quite cool. Don't take your coat off.

We quickly got the hang of it, though. Stay in the sun until it sets, then don the warm clothing. Keep it on till bedtime, then jump into bed with a couple of large water bottles filled with hot water. It was a minimalist approach to our heating needs and worked rather well. It made us think about our energy use back home in Alberta, also in the foothills of a major mountain range.

Since then we have made Turn On The Heat Day a fun challenge that marks the turning of the seasons (as does Turn Off The Heat Day). When the day comes depends on many variables, location, weather conditions, and personal preferences. I imagine my sister, up on a mountain side in the Kootenays has already had her Turn On The Heat Day. Out here on the coast it might be a few more weeks. We will wait and see. But as we found out during a winter storm and extended power outage, there are things that we can do to keep warm without cranking the thermostat.

In December of 2006 the coast of B.C. was hammered by the worst wind storm since the 1960's. It knocked down thousands of trees and power poles, and we were without power for 4 days. Our unit's temperature sank to single digits, and bed was pretty much the place to be at any time. Out of bed, full outdoor clothing kept us warm, as did our down sleeping bags. We spent time in our bedroom (a smaller space) with a candle burning, and with our body heat, were quite comfortable.

I am not advocating winter house camping for the masses, but point out that small changes adopted collectively make a huge impact. See how long you can delay Turn on the Heat Day. Get out the sweaters and wool blankets. Trust me, it's fun. Once you have had your day, and your heat source is up and running for the season, see if you can get by using it less. If a space heater will suffice, use it. Turn the thermostat down a couple degrees. Throw less wood into the fire. Exercise indoor more often. A warm body is a tremendous furnace.

If possible, work toward the installation of a solar powered unit for your home. This winter I will have a small solar-powered system for our unit on the west coast. It will be useful during storm season, but we intend on using it as often as overcast winter days allow. It could power our computer and lights, as well as a small space heater.

When was your Turn On The Heat Day? Have you had it yet? I would like to hear from you regarding when your day was, and what you might be doing to delay it, shy of indoor camping. Have fun, and stay warm.

This Planet is Toooo Hot

The planet is choking, and if we don't get off fossil fuels soon we are going to kill it. Quite a shame, really, because it is a most excellent planet. Safely orbiting in the Goldilocks Zone, it has provided a space for life to flourish for a long time.

Our atmosphere is a fragile, thin protective blanket. It can not absorb endless amounts of waste that result from our insatiable desire for comfort, convenience, and entertainment. What if our planet, by our actions, becomes toooo hot, and is no longer a Goldilocks planet?

There is no doubt that massive change needs to take place to avert disaster. The time to make leisurely changes passed us by in the 70's, back when the establishment was dabbing pepper spray into the eyes of hippies and "eco-terrorists". Even the term "environmentalist" has been tarnished by the growthanistas that would like to continue raping, pillaging and dumping to their profits content. It is time for us to join the global cause and come together for our mutual benefit.

As painful as some may view the inevitable, developed countries are going to make the largest contribution to change simply by practicing conservation, mostly through the reduction of wants. Personally, I see this as a wonderful opportunity for us to restore balance to a system that has become grossly wobbly at the top and threatens to topple if regular people stand by and allow it to happen.

Will the economy rebound? Who cares? It never worked in the first place. Ignoring and disregarding the unpleasant results of our quest for more is where we went wrong. Situations now confront us with those results whether we acknowledge them or not. It could be global warming, it could be your local stream or lake that no longer supports fish. The current global economic trouble is the best chance for change we have had in generations.

The old order would like to crank up the tattered treadmill of the old economy, but it is broke. We built that system, we can build a new one. Thankfully, such endeavours have begun. Solar power projects, wind energy, and a newly compliant G8 willing to lead the way. If we are to meet the target of an 80% reduction by 2050, we are all going to need to hook into this project.