Okavango Challenge

A recent edition of BBC Radio 4’s "Analysis" program started with a interesting angle on the carbon emission / global warming angle: [quote]

————————————————————–
""ROWLATT: A couple of years ago I was given a very
unusual job. I became the BBC’s Ethical Man. My
family and I were asked to spend an entire year
exploring what we could do to tackle global
warming. We gave up the car, stopped flying for a
year, turned down the thermostat - everything we
could think of to cut our carbon emissions. Because I
thought that was what tackling global warming was
all about. But the more time I’ve spent talking to
people in the green movement, the more I’ve come to
suspect that cutting carbon emissions isn’t the top
priority for all green campaigners. What worries me
is that the political objectives of some greens seem to
override their interest in solving global warming.
Solitaire Townsend runs a city PR firm, but one
which specialises in communicating a single issue:
sustainability.

TOWNSEND: I was making a speech to nearly 200
really hard core, deep environmentalists and I played
a little thought game on them. I said imagine I am the
carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand. We can get rid
of all the carbon in the atmosphere, take it down to
two hundred fifty parts per million and I will ensure
with my little magic wand that we do not go above
two degrees of global warming. However, by waving
my magic wand I will be interfering with the laws of
physics not with people – they will be as selfish, they
will be as desiring of status. The cars will get bigger,
the houses will get bigger, the planes will fly all over
the place but there will be no climate change. And I
asked them, would you ask the fairy to wave its
magic wand? And about 2 people of the 200 raised
their hands.

ROWLATT: That is quite shocking. I bet you were
shocked, weren’t you?

TOWNSEND: I was angry. I wasn’t shocked. I was
angry because it really showed that they wanted
more. They didn’t just want to prevent climate
change. They wanted to somehow change people, or
at very least for people to know that they had to
change.""
———————————————————-

So, what would YOU wish for? Ask the carbon fairy to wave her wand or keep going with the religion?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt
.
EDIT @ Paul B -

You really shouldn’t throw out phrases like "strawman argument" when you clearly have no idea what they actually mean.

A "strawman" argument is when you falsely misrepresent someone else’s position and then proceed to attack that misrepresented position instead of the real argument.

In the quote above there is no other argument being made as it is presented as a hypothetical or counter-factual thought-experiment to explore what really motivates people.

Don’t you have a village missing you at the moment?
.

Paul, it’s a thought game, there is no debating it, I’m going to wave my wand and make the atmosphere as perfect as it use to be back in the day before CO2 started destroying the earth, hehe…

The question is would you accept this benevolent gift to solve the problem or would you turn it down because you feel it won’t solve the problem. If scientist came up with a way to suck CO2 out of the air at a super cheap and effective way and we could bring CO2 levels to any level we wanted would you be satisfied that AGW was solved?

Either you are subconsioucly parroting Townsends conclusion or you really feel the problem isn’t CO2 but people that need to be fixed as he suggest.

What are some issues facing alternative energy, effects on the environment (positive/negative), sustainability, stakeholders…

This is not homework, i am doing research, and ive already found some, but i need more. If you find that info on a website, please include the website. Thank you very much for your help.

Its been 20 years since we first started pioneering wind technology for alterative energy, and yet with the problems of cost, wasted real estate, the ruining of the landscape asthetics, transmission line medical reports, and the fact that wind just doesn’t blow all the time (30% of the time at best locations) we have about 1% of the power we need produced by it.
Solar is also limited due to sun availability with alot of the same transmission line problems but would be better as a supplemental system installed on each building. Problem is they silicates in making the panels can be expensive and most cities that started a reimburstment program ended up lacking the funds to keep the program going.
Nuclear is a good option for stationary power but with the lacking push to actually build these plants, mostly due to Congress being slow to react and do what is right, a new plant hasn’t been built in years. The drawback would be radioactive waste to which the only solution thus far has been the government paying certain entities to keep the materials in safe containers.
Tidal generators are still in the process of being designed and tested but none are operational on an electrical grid to my knowledge.
Hydrogen fuel cells sound nice but water vapor contributes to warming far more than C02, so even though Global Warming is a hoax, those supporting this hoax should be more irate about hydrogen hybrid cars.
Biodeisel is a good solution, and with companies able to make it from Algea rather than food substances, it could be a great alternative. These kind of fuels generally have 30% less power than gasoline but work well.
Coal has come a long way from the Sulfuric Acid causing plants of the past but Congress here again has been ruling against new plants being built by legislating them into extinction. The USA is abundant in coal yet the politics of us actually becoming energy self sufficient is clashing with the reality that we could if the politicians just got out of the way. There hasn’t been a new plant built in decades.
Geo-Thermal is good and a great green source of energy, but it requires the right geography to allow one to take advantage of it.

in that issue i need to have how it affects stakeholders, a case study , visuals, sustainability and how it affects the environment.
thankyou
in that issue i need to have how it affects stakeholders, a case study , visuals, sustainability and how it affects the environment.
and i only have this one day
i know i says one week but ya.

thankyou

Check out the Bonefish and Tarpon Trust website. http://www.tarbone.org/ They are a great outfit that is trying to ensure that bonefish, tarpon and permit, the so-called grand slam of flats fishing down south, will be readily available for generations ahead.

I know that everyone in America has pretty much heard of the infamous Renewable Power vs. Fossil fuel debate. Most people realize that oil and other fossil fuels are vastly being depleted through the many different machines that require Fossil fuels to run. But what most people don’t understand is that this energy source is very limited. So much in fact that in the next 50 years, globally, we are expected to run out completely. To make matters worse, the human population is expected to skyrocket to nearly 10 billion in the coming decades. Now I don’t know about you, but to me this means we need to be more effective and focus on more specific targets with power. I believe Urban Power efficiency will become one of the top priorities in the future. With the expanding cities can only mean more power usage and more pollution. Reducing this increase of pollution sits at the top of switching to clean power. Another driving force is the demand for more energy. It is quite evident that the more people, the higher the demand for energy. We need an exponentially increasing amount of resources to compensate for the population increase. Lastly, sustainability is a major issue that needs to be incorporated into any future power plans. This subject includes a whole array of sub points such as cost effectiveness and ecological footprints. Some energy systems are noticeably cheaper than others but have more detrimental effects on the environment. The limiting factor here is, when does the health of nature overcome the expenses of energy? It is only a matter of time before engineers, scientists, and the human population finally integrate Urban design into every corner of their lifestyles. It all comes down to, is it worth it? Do the ends justify the means? Do we shift our energy systems to uncertain Renewable energy, or keep our trustworthy Fossil fuels?

I think the first step is to start using energy efficiently. there are so many ways in which people (ESPECIALLY Americans) can reduce energy usage. this would lower our energy needs exceptionally in the future.
I think that renewable sources of energy are fantastic ideas but the current political and social climate is not doing them any favors. Either people are adverse to them, or they are pushed into market before they are ready. I think they need to emerge naturally, rather than trying to implement unproven technologies, which often damages their reputations.
I think the first step to energy sustainability is to use less, as i said. Nuclear energy is a good modern alternative which while not renewable, doesnt pollute that much. the days of chernobyl are behind us. its a safe technology, as is the storing of the wastes until we have something to do with them. The most immediate renewable source i think is wind which has already been implemented (in my opinion too fast.) Hydroelectricity has already been implemented to its maximum i think so that really isnt an option. I think once solar cells become mainstream and technology gives them the practicality and price to be usable they are going to power our long term future.
as for cars, I think hydrogen/electric is the clear Utopian goal but for now biofuels (NOT CORN BASED ETHANOL, that was just a bad idea) will supplant some fossil fuels. I think that this option should stay around for people like me who enjoy our cars, its a clean alternative and provides all the thrills if not more than a fossil fuel powered engine.

has anyone seen any designs recently (cars,fridges,tables,benches etc) that are built for sustainability and also made with green issues and natural disasters as the inspiration to the design?maybe the materials used are 100% recylable/recycled?energy efficient designs?anything on those sort of lines really.any help (and links) would be much appreciated.joe

check out popularscience website they recently ran an article of 100 best inventions in 2009. they have a ‘green’ section just for those sorts of ideas.

Extinction is a huge threat to many species, and this is often due to poaching. For science class I have to think of a creative and smart solution to this problem. Any help?
The solution must be
S pecific
M easurable
A chievable
R elevant
T imely

Poaching? Let’s talk about something more immediate.

Encouraging people to eat low on the food chain would go a long way towards species protection, since so many ecosystems are being destroyed by the livestock and fishing industries.

Cattle Ranching Biggest Driver of Amazon Deforestation (from Greenpeace):
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/cattle-mapping

Surely you can measure the amount of beef on a person’s plate, and reducing that amount is as achievable as individual choice.

I agree that poaching also need to be addressed, but this involves issues of poverty, economic injustice, ignorance, cultural indifference, greed, and political corruption, all of which are tough to SMARTly quantify.

I am supposed to conduct an environmental audit of a business in my community (I have selected GraceKennedy Ltd http://www.gracekennedy.com/ . I will be looking at the corporate office.) I need to identify 4 environmental issues associated with (i.e. caused by or impacting on) the organization. For each issue, discuss the environmental implications and consequences for sustainable development. To show the impact on sustainability I must highlight how future prospects are at risk. I am supposed to suggest corrective measure for negative impacts identified. For each issue, I need to assess whether relevant environmental laws are being adhered to or not.

The Problem? I cannot think of any environmental issues associated with (caused by or impacting on) GraceKennedy. I would love to hear your suggestions.

Thanks in advanced.

Grace Kennedy has two divisions investments and foods.

The corporate office for such an organization will have the typical environmental issues that any office environment will have. e.g. paper (use and recycle), energy (electricity for lights computers etc, gas for heat, etc.) Energy efficiency can be increased with specialized lights (fluorescent, LEDs etc), even with light switches in each office so the lights are turned off when it is empty, etc. Obviously energy efficiency can be increased with higher efficiency heating systems, insulation, double or triple pane glass windows, etc. You have the disposal of office wastes, etc.

Now for typical corporate offices the above may not be covered by many environmental laws or regulatations. It might be covered by building codes with energy efficiency, etc. Think also about energy star (epa guidelines for efficiency — which while not binding are suggestions)

I do not know if the food divisions have any research at the corporate office.. if so you can have issues with kitchens (even spilling grease down the sink can be an environmental issue) then you have the impact of disposal of wastes (even food wastes have potential environmental impact.. think of chicken poop on chicken farms … but there is a lot of waste in cooking and high BOD in effluent from food manufacturing. ("BOD" is biological oxygen demand which when released into a sewer has to be treated or it depletes the oxygen content of the lake or stream where the water is released and kills fish by suffocation)…

The laws would be local POTW (publicly owned treatment works) .e.g., the laws that cover the local sewage plans and they are usually called "pretreatment regulations".. especially in commercial kitchens and industrial users…

What are your recommendations as to how the issue of child soldiers should be managed, in order to promote ecological sustainability in the future what can individuals do?
I need help with this for an assignment, I am totally stuck because I can’t see the Sudanese government or anything carring about people in the western world prtesting and striking!
PLEASE HELP!

FIRST As reprehensible as having children fighting in war….. there is no practical way to stop it. We can not stop drug trafficking / use…..how are we going to stop other countries from using children as pawns in war.
SECOND The previous poster suggested direct intervention …. I would point outthat historically whenever we intervened in the internal affairs of other countries no matter how good our intentions….it not only cost us the lives of our young soldiers…. not only cost us massive amounts of money…. not only cost us friends and support around the world…. BUT almost never turns out good
What makes you think we can march into another country and tell it’s people what they can and can not do….. without paying a horrendous price now or in the future
THIRD Direct intervention does not work…..sanctions do not work…. preaching falls on deaf ears…..about thge only thing we can do is provide humanitarian aid ……and sanctuary
Our humanitarian aid must not have a hidden agenda or caviots

BTW I saw a child in Vietnam that had 21confirmed kills……and he was 12

—————
A policy making biofuel usage mandatory and the plan to issue biofuel subsidies is a refreshing news either for producers, distributors or buyers. It gives hopes for the sustainability and enhancement of this type of energy for our country’s energy security.

Yes. Lose the "a" before "refreshing" and "either for" as well.

With trade deficits, deficit spending, and failing credit markets the current level of imports is no longer globally sustainable but free trade in raw material markets is critical to the heart of global production. Given the fact of shared liquidity it seems to be in the mutual interest of shared sustainability that the WTO make a new trade agreement on certain finished goods to save the world economy by limiting their export. This would assure the liquidity of consumer states to earn money and help support producer states such as China and India by promoting the consumer to support their economy. These items could be simple things like no exporting tires under 40" or aluminum assembled products weighing more then 500 lbs. This approach would allow the trade deficit bubbles that caused a drop in GDP both in America and China to deflate creating growth liquidity from a diplomatic agreement with the WTO with mutual benefit.

The falsehood of full free trade can be explained by going to WalMart, looking at unemployment, and the level of charged living on credit. The restrictions on exports should be agree upon by the world government to support long term stability in trade markets. The people who fail to recognize the fact of failed trade policy are a danger to global sustainability and require re-education in economics. The real issue it hand is a one sided trade market and a over borrowed consumer market. This crisis was caused by a over supply of goods from some states and a under supply of liquidity in job markets in other states. Lower labor leads supply over demand and the over supply causes inflation created from credit markets making them crash. The worst part of a dry labor market is that weaker commerce faults the growth of the wealth index in these states up to 50%. If a states wealth index does not grow with the balance of the world economy their business liquidity will lower with it causing implosion of business financial markets from high consumption levels.

The fact is that tariffs are coming weather you like them or not because the world economy no longer can sustain the borrowed liquidity from low production and high consumption. Borrowing the infrastructure of Asia is unsustainable with no outside production and if the WTO does not act Asia’s economy will implode inside of 2 years from now.

It is amazing to find someone that is so knowledgeable as you. The missing piece is the one world government. Our economy must be destroyed to get us to submit to a change to a "Global" government. You, as I, believe in "fair trade" over "free trade". If we had required a balance of trade, in the past, we would not be in the financial disaster that we are in today. We need tariffs to protect and re-establish our manufacturing and services economy. Our politicians have their heads in the wrong place. They oppose tariffs. Canada is our only true fair trading partner. It is no wonder that our "political leaders’" ratings are so low. They are the responsible party, not the WTO.