But what interested me about these articles was with prior reference to a book titled Critical Path by Buckminster Fuller I read over twenty years ago. Even in the 1950s this man believed human societies would soon “rely mainly on renewable sources of energy, such as solar- and wind-derived electricity”
He also hoped for an age of “omni-successful education and sustenance of all humanity”. But since that time all we have witnessed is overarching globalisation to increase human productivity and consumption. Maybe we have now reached a point in our lives where we recognise that this economically-
Fuller looked at balance sheets a little differently to the Fed and the IMF when he defined accountability as the ability to: “…live entirely within its cosmic-energy income instead of spending its cosmic energy savings account (i.e., the fossil fuels) or spending its cosmic-capital plant and equipment account (i.e., atomic energy)…a spending folly no less illogical than burning down your house to keep the family warm on an unprecedented cold midwinter night.”
He also believed in what is known as the “Malthusian catastrophe”
The doomsday apologist at the Guardian agreed with him: “…The graphs show, variously, population levels, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, exploitation of fisheries, destruction of tropical forests, paper consumption, number of motor vehicles, water use, the rate of species extinction and the totality of the human economy’s gross domestic product…Then, in the last inch or so…it veers steeply upwards, like a pilot banking after a cliff has suddenly appeared from what he thought was an empty bank of cloud.”
This is exactly the geometric progression, or exponential growth model, that Thomas Malthus was referring to in 1798 when he published An Essay on the Principle of Population, describing his theory of quantitative development of human populations. And yet we complain we have done nothing about this because we have not been “informed”
There are many nay-sayers in the opposite camp who don’t believe canary-in-the-
What is of huge concern here is that if this ice sheet were to vanish, global sea levels would rise by as much as seven metres, as ten percent of the world’s fresh water is frozen here. This event has seen glaciologists, seismologists and climatologists from around the world start to measure why the ice sheet is disappearing so fast.
But back to humanity’s futile attempts at pushing environmental and population concerns under the collective psychological carpet. What we have to bear in mind here is that just a one-metre rise in sea levels would require reinforced defences in major cities such as London and New York and would completely decimate low-lying countries all over the world.
What about those of us living a much more sedentary life behind the glare of a computer screen? You may be surprised to learn that computers emit much more CO2 than you think: the Climate Group estimated computers, mobile phones and their accessories accounted for the emission of 830m tonnes of carbon dioxide around the world (2007).
Yet how many of us are prepared to look beyond a vision of the future as a slightly more efficient version of the present? Even with the overwhelmingly disturbing data, most of us still believe we can continue to live our unsustainable existences without hinder or regret and that we can even extend this improbability to an additional three billion people.
The dichotomy is that while climate change theorists’ arguments resonate and teeter on the fulcrum of extinction, the world is still sticking to its “more growth” economic models. It is not that we can now claim we don’t know the environmental facts but most of us are not willing participants in giving up our cars and foreign holidays anytime soon. Economists and politicians continue to ratchet up economic activity and thereby individual consumption, so the same paradigm persists.
So, what will you be doing to cut your emissions? London's Tate Modern has already seen the launch of the 10:10 campaign, which is supported by The Guardian and asks individuals and organisations to sign up to cutting their carbon footprint by 10% during 2010. Activists, film stars, businessmen, institutions and artists were at the event.
Hopefully your response will not be to recite Monty Python’s dead parrot sketch in which the buyer of a Norwegian Blue complains about his newly-acquired parrot being “definitely deceased”, to which the owner replies that it’s not dead just yet: “He’s...he’
And it’s the fjords that have recently made such a distressing impact on our collective consciousness that we can no longer shrug our shoulders and leave this to the scientific community alone; we should also act individually to trim our consumption in the years to come.
So, how can us office-dwellers help?
• Smart computing can be used to combat climate change with the use of “virtual machines”, so that applications run on one server;
• Adjust central heating / air-conditioning levels so that it is not uncomfortable but not excessive, and only on when needed;
• Use energy-efficient lightbulbs, which could save as much as ten percent of total electric usage;
• Insulate your home and office;
• Eat less meat;
• Forget taking the car to the office. Either share one or take the bus/train. Think of the environmental benefits from not driving in slow-moving and polluting traffic, thus reducing traffic congestion, stress levels and the time saved not having to commute to an office;
• If you’re a car owner, buy a new one with low emissions;
• Productivity benefits from being able to work in a more relaxed and productive working environment;
• Recycle newspapers, compost food waste and dispose of glass, paper and plastics separately.
For the full list, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/
