What has to be done if we are really serious about climate change
What has to be done if we are really serious about climate change
We need to act locally
Governments and media would have everyone believe that by cutting carbon emissions the issue of global warming would be solved. However, countries like China and India which are major contributors to carbon emissions are not taking the same attitude. They are exempted. Wind power is killing wildlife, electric vehicles are increasing carbon emissions through electricity consumption (most electricity is still generated by fossil fuels), and solar power is best for micro-environments, as large fields of solar cells actually adds to the warming of micro-climates.
Acting to reduce global warming requires a multi-dimensional approach. However, governments and activists seem to follow this one-dimensional carbon reduction track. This is not going to solve global warming by itself, as the warming of the Earth’s surface, has many variables.
Here is a list that governments and climate activists can consider to manage climate change. Its better to take what action one can locally, rather than turn climate change into an international political issue.
Some issues that need consideration are discussed below.
Rediscovering local eco-systems
Over the last 200 years, human development has destroyed many of the Earth's natural eco-systems. Localized eco-systems supported early communities and shaped their way of life. Deforestation, agriculture, mining, urbanization, and transport systems have compromised self-supporting and co-dependent natural eco-systems, which provide life needing resources such as water, and shape micro-climates.
Local natural eco-system are unique to a specific area. They contain the geography, soils, drainage, water resources, and forests to support sustainable co-dependency of flora and fauna. Human settlements traditionally utilized these eco-systems for life and survival until the end of the 19th century, when the technologies from the industrial revolution changed the way people lived.
There needs to be an intense effort to rediscover these local eco-systems and where possible rehabilitate them. The world's biological diversity is quickly disappearing which will have massive consequences to the stability of the planet's aggregate eco-system and civilization itself.
The development of civilization has been the biggest threat to these eco-systems. The belief that humankind can mould and control nature is a fallacy. Government planning and development and corporate motivation for profit has done irreparable damage. Smart societies are not those doused with technologies, but those who knew how to blend settlement into their local eco-systems.
Over urbanization
In 1800, only 2 percent of the world's population lived in urban areas. Urban population has grown from 751 million in 1950 to 4.2 billion in 2018. This is 55 percent of the world's population. According to the United Nations, this is projected to rise to 68 percent by 2050. Although, some cities are decreasing in population, China, India, and Nigeria are experiencing rapid urbanization.
In contrast, world rural population is now close to 3.4 billion, and is expected to peak in a few years. World rural population is expected to decline to 3.1 billion by 2050, according to the same United Nations report.
Rapid urbanization is bringing with it a number of undesirable environmental effects. Increasing urban sprawl is creating urban heat islands (UHL), causing excessive heat during summers, and creating milder winters. Cities reflect heat back out into the atmosphere at 15-30 percent less than rural areas. This means that cities are warmer by 0.6-1.3 degrees centigrade, than rural areas. Urbanization is also creating poor regional air quality, resulting in haze and pollution troughs across cities and surrounding regions.
Urban areas not only affect weather patterns, form water run offs, and lower water tables. These water tables and water runs offs also become carriers of pollution.
In addition, energy consumption in urban areas is much higher per-capita than rural areas. Mega-cities are resource-wise unsustainable and require energy inputs from far outside city limits. As has been found over the last 18 months, mega-cities provide special public health issues, where infectious diseases rapidly spread, leading to long-term lockdowns, causing adverse community, health, and economic effects. The economic costs of saving lives under lockdown public health strategies, is much higher than for rural areas, where low population density is a prime-defence against the spreading of infectious diseases. Many of these mega-cities developed in the 1960s and 70s were structurally cement based, which is starting to decay. In the near future, massive capital will be required to renew them.
Urbanization is an issue which requires much more study within the areas of public consumption, energy use, regional climate change, and public health. In the climate change study, this area has received very little funding, compared to other areas. There are strong arguments for revisiting the policies of decentralization, from what we are seeing with urbanization at present.
Decentralization: The return of communities
De-urbanization presents the perfect opportunity to redefine the concepts of community, enterprise, employment, technology, and economy. It is also an opportunity for humankind to learn how to co-exist with long tossed-off natural eco-systems. Establishing sustainable communities is a way to utilize cheap, currently existing, and appropriate technologies to develop communities, rather than capital intensive Industry 4.0 technologies out of reach of micro-entrepreneurs.
Decentralization is a valid development strategy within many parts of the world in underdeveloped, developing, developed, and post-developed nations. Creating new community micro-economies is also a chance for the world to break away from hyper-consumerism and dependence on oligopolies controlled by multi-nationals, which have brought much corruption to commodity supply chains.
New communities can go back to re-establishing craft and skilled based industries. Staples such as dairy, eggs, vegetables, fish, sea-food, poultry and meats can be produced and traded by family businesses. This could be achieved with an emphasis on developing small scale appropriate technology for micro-production. Villages in specific natural eco-systems will develop a regional comparative advantage in value-added specialties based on food and produce. Crafts and trades including clothing, shoes, furniture, and metalworking can return with education provided by guild-based vocational skills and apprenticeships once again. Savings cooperatives can be promoted to operate independently from the banking grid controlled by a restricted number of banks in each country.
Alternative methods of power generation will be needed to fossil fuel electricity production. However, the conventional 'green' generation methods, solar and wind power are very disruptive upon local eco-systems and micro-climates. Other methods need to be considered. There are now new and safer small scale nuclear technologies available, which leave much smaller physical footprints as 'green' alternatives.
Going back to smaller communities will reverse the rural-urban migration patterns of the last 70 years and help decongest already over populated mega-cities around the world. Changed consumer patterns will assist in alleviating lifestyle causes of global warming. Jobs will become enriched where craft workers will take pride in producing whole products with their hands. Community based family enterprises will diversify the nature of capitalism today, making entrepreneurs stakeholders in their local economies.
Its better to begin our efforts where we can achieve something ourselves. We need to act locally.
Subscribe Below:
A couple of points here to add, if I may:
- The biggest source of pollution, the military, is NEVER factored into the equation. Everything is blamed on the small people. But yes, as Dave says, those who consume but do not produce anything for the world, the fat landwhale fefails and manginas, would not be missed. The right way to live is to live close to nature. The bedouin and other "first nation" people's know this. They have paid the price of this current world, but we should be living like them, without all this technology we have no control over. Let's start by culling the WEF members and supporters, Gates et al.
- India and China, if we are to be fair, should be allowed to pollute the world the same way the British and other colonial powers including USA have done for a century of industrialization which brought all the wealth that has made them fat and ugly. How can the same be denied to others? Otherwise, give the fair share of that wealth to India and China every year and also help them to go to the latest greenest as you have done. And that includes ANZ, and much of western Europe.
we need to cut the World's population in half, it will be 10billion by 2040 and the World can't support it. We need a better pandemic to cull 1 billion, not 10 million. Global worming is caused by population growth and all the increased population will be in developing countries who will want the same lifestyle as the West - not possible with limitations on resources.