Eco and Ethics: 2007

2007 - The Year of the Concept 'Climate Smart'

2007 was the year when the climate crisis awareness exploded and got exploited by the Swedish media. The media created the positive concept 'climate smart' but was used as a 'negative' means to make us consume even more. The 'climate smart' products and ethical aspects got shoved down our throats and marketed in almost the same way as other products. The values and words was forced upon us once again. There was a lot of talk but did we act on this information?

2007 was the year when Christmas sales rocketed in Sweden. It seems as if we talk about being 'climate smart' but actually aren't. I think people use the values while speaking to heighten their own egos, but generally they don't follow their own principles. This is how society in the western world works. We have have all been a part of this ethical creation. It is a paradox that we have more money than ever before but need to consume less as never before. Money is still king and I think that this won't change next year. If salaries increase, if people have even more money, they will probably consume more next year as well. Why not label ourselves as 'climate morons' right away, who are we kidding really?

Peak oil and CO2

Judging by the information I have access to (the media) I think we have reached 'peak oil'. This means that we have to start creating alternate sources for electricity and use more funds for research and product development. Oil is not the future. From what I have learned about other sources of energy is that there should be a mix of sources rather than developing one alternative. The different techniques have different pros and cons and the governments need to figure out which one as best suitable during the next couple of years.

When it comes to CO2 almost all research claims that CO2 levels (380 parts per million according to National Geographic) will increase a lot more in the future. 50% of today's C02 comes from the U.S., Europe and Japan so why are we lecturing other nations and parts of the world?

If scientists find a way to let out more heat from planet earth then this would be a good start. I would really enjoy if someone argued for protecting the universe from our heat emissions and waste. The waste and heat needs to go somewhere but I doubt that the media will be critical about dumping it all out in our universe. And if the media won't bother to write about this then a lot of us won't bother to think.

We constantly neglect our own thinking and thoughts. To much information about our climate makes me look the other way. I encourage everyone to take a step back and reevaluate the situation. No one should be forced to belong to the ethical framework of 'climate smart'.

'Climate control', 'climate smart', 'climate crisis', climate this and climate that. I care but I can't be bothered.

2008 - The Year of Panic and Fear?

Chiquita's Death Squads Kills And Tortures People

I read last thursday in Metro about some of Chiquita's activities in Colombia.

A number of colombian families have sued Chiquita because the company's death squads(!) have murdered and tortured their relatives.

The victims were killed and tortured by at least one of the infamous colombian paramilitary groups, the AUC, which receive funds(!) from Chiquita. Other victims have sued Chiquita because they might have been funding paramilitary groups since the 90's. Chiquita have also armed these groups with the goal to retain control over the areas where they cultivate bananas.

Chiquita have admitted that they have funded the AUC.

If you want to read more about the protection payments to paramilitary groups be sure to read the wikipedia article. If Chiquita have admitted that they have funded paramilitary groups then there is some truth to these claims.

Is Ecological Food Healthier Than Conventional Food?

I believe that ecological food is better for myself and the environment, but it is another thing to prove it. I am not a scientist nor do I have the expertise to read scientific material concerning ecological food. Where do I turn to get information? I turn to the media.

Now, the media are not obliged to report the truth. They report about what make money for them. How do I best interpret information I read in the media? What are my strategies to deal with texts in the media?

My initial stance is often critical, but not always. I read an article about ecological food today and I found myself liking what I just had read. Ecological food was claimed to be healthier than conventional food. I thought, ok, I believe that this might be the case. However, how exactly does the media present the information?

The articles I am concerned about were published by DN (Swedish newspaper) (concerning ecological food) & (concerning toxics in food.

How can I look at these articles with a more critical eye? I have started to read public blogs about what they say about the articles. I believe that it is a good idea to experiment a bit with your pressupositions and beliefs, to rock the boat a little. Thought experiments can be good when you want to get into other systems of belief. It might even make you more critical about something you otherwise find sound.

The problem I have with these articles is that it does not make any sense to publish information about preliminary results even if they are scientifical. Another thing that might be the case is that the European Union did not fund this research. Some even think that it might be a lame interpretation/translation taken from a press release. I find this to be very interesting when other people than the media question that which is published. I do not want the media to get away with shady journalism. I do not want to be tricked into believing things or to shape my expectations and stance with false information.

I recommend that you all try to find other posts and articles about that which has been published in the media environment. It is important that you try and shape your way of thinking about what you read in the media or anywhere else. I believe that this view on the matter evolves your thought.

So, even if you like ecological food, you ought to look at the scientific material that is rewritten in the media and search for the right source and find the right approach to interpret the new information.

Green Dreams

Have you seen National Geographic's article "Biofuels: Green Dreams"? I read it in the paper version of the magazine. However, I think that the same article can be found here.

Abstract:

"Producing fuel from corn and other crops could be good for the planet–if only the process didn't take a significant environmental toll. New breakthroughs could make a difference."

Supply And Demand

I found myself looking for a certain protein bar today. I could not locate the product at first and I got frustrated. This might be because I did not have any lunch prior to today’s exam and when I came out from the exam, I needed something to eat before dinner.

Why did I get frustrated when I at first did not come across a certain product? And what happens the day this product does not exist anymore?

There are a lot of products at your local place for food, ethical and non-ethical – ecological and non-ecological, but most of them give you energy. There are fruits, sandwiches and other more nutritious altenatives but my mind told me to buy the protein bar.

This behaviour is part of the myth we are upholding every day. The myth is that we get happier if we consume more, and this myth is proclaimed throughout the media, most corporations and markets.

I really should pick whatever I want to eat. This is not a big problem. I bought this certain bar today (generally I try to eat more healthy and nutitious food), but the problem is that I create a need for this product, and when I cannot find it I have to settle for the next best thing. But what happens when I cannot find the next best thing?

We need to stop allowing the media and advertizing industry to call us consumers. We need to stop living in this myth that is around us and that is infesting our societies. People who KNOW how language works need to tell us to stop upholding this myth.

One day you will not find the products you bought the other day. One day you will not find your favourite protein bar and a year later you will not find your gallon of petrol. After that you will not find your new computer, you will have to look real hard to even get a hold of certain things that we – the western world – have created a need for. This need is upheld because we use our money to buy goods and products from a few big actors on the market.

How can we desperately cling onto luxury and commodities? I tell you why, our way of living is possible because the western world vastly exploit foreign regions and outsource dirty jobs to Asia and other remote parts of the world. We do not produce the majority of our products, we do not take care of our waste good enough and we spend more money on maintaining the myth than we spend on cancer research or battling the depletion of our natural resources.

Cash, dollar dollar bill ya’ll.

Fish For Dinner?

WWF has come up with a mini guide on which fish to avoid due to enviromental issues. This guide is meant to alert consumers on what fish to avoid and to try and make consumers change the market.

WWF urges us to avoid:

Lemon Sole
Shark
Halibut
Salmon (wild)
Marlin
Angler
Small Halibut
Stingray
Shrimp (tropical, farmed and wild)
Plaice
Long Flunder
Swordfish
Tuna
Codfish
Tounge (I do not know what this is)
Eel

For a more in depth and detailed version of their list please visit WWF or if you are swedish WWF.SE

WWF mission statement:

"To stop the degradation of the planet's natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by:

conserving the world's biological diversity
ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable
promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption"

A New Pesticide Has Been Introduced For Use On Swedish Strawberries

A new pesticide has been introduced for use on swedish strawberries.

The pesticide is called Signum and is introduced before the European Union even has finished its report and analysis. I wonder why the pesticide has been allowed during a period between 24th may and 18th october 2007 when the European Union's evaluation is not ready yet.

It even becomes more urgent to let people know about it since a danish evaluation has come up with the possibility that the pesticide can affect or even hurt yet to be born babies. What about our small children? What about older women and men? What about our environment? What about our water?

Astrid Mårtensson at the swedish chemical inspection has been involved in clearing this pesticide. One of her arguments as an chemical inspector (she has to be one when working at a chemical inspection right?) is that swedish farmers have to keep up with competition abroad. Wait a minute, shouldn't the chemical inspection look at what is best for the environment first of all, and stop focusing on the farmers' economies and market value?

This right here is why we need to distribute money to farmers who produce strawberries, as well as other things, as naturally as possible. Avoiding pesticides might be impossible in certain areas but surely not all of them, if they need financial help then I think they should be granted money if they have an ecological production. We cannot have a sloppy inspection, our chemical inspection should be stern but fair, and focus on our citizens health rather than the farmers' economical situation. I wish we have means to stop fungus or insects from ruining our products other than pesticides, however, there seems to be a long way to go before we can see severe changes. We do not need a sloppy chemical inspection, they need to be stern and fair and look at the whole picture instead of just focusing on the market.

Climate Crisis Q&A

One of the most respected news sources in Sweden has recently published an article dealing with some of the questions readers raise in the global warming debate. DN relies on the following sources: Nature, Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – all filtered through IPCC. I thought that it would be interesting to do a quick rundown of the latest Q&As related to global warming and environmental issues. I am going to provide very short answers because I am not in the mood to elaborate, if you want the full answers I suggest you go and look through some of the sources mentioned above. Although I have short answers I try and give you the overall notion of the answers.

Why do you just let one side state their opinion? There are researchers who do not believe that mankind affects the climate.

All published sources that DN relies on are sources that almost all share the same view and has passed through IPCC. One of IPCCs functions is to collect and present the paradigm-like views and research.

Have you seen “The Great Climate Swindle” documentary?

Apparently one of the sources in the film; Carl Wunsch is extremely misquoted and has in an open letter declared that he was tricked by the producers of the documentary. So from DNs point of view it is not a decent form of documentary partly because of this and what it supports.

The results from satellites and weather balloons do not support the climate researchers arguments supporting today’s leading perspective on global warming.

The results used to bug the researchers but it was because of the analyses. The problem has been dealt with.

The planet has been warm before if we look throughout its history.

Yes of course. Researcher Milutin Milankovic both believes and shows that earth’s motion around its axis have three different cycles. These variations affect the temperature on our Earth. Then you have other contributing aspects such as the amounts of snow and ice, the oceans' temperatures and sediments that contain a lot of ‘stuff’ which when released into the atmosphere contribute to raising the temperature on our planet.

Today’s global warming is due to variations in the sun’s radiation.

No, the sun’s radiation can only explain a small part of the global warming.

I do not have the energy to deal with the last question in the article; I suggest that if you understand Swedish you should read it yourselves instead. When I look back on what I have written and the overall mood and the way I declare what the news source has published then I can see a lack of inspiration from my part. This is due to several things.

My concern is that the different ‘perspectives’ seem to leave out the good stuff from their oppositional point of views. Surely all data on anything ‘environmental’ should be a part of the explanation on why the planet is becoming warmer. Shutting down some views and supporting others can make us miss essential stuff or give us an attitude that we should brush aside everything that has not been allowed by the IPCC. This attitude which is gained by choosing sides and make us force it upon other people is dangerous. It becomes environmental bullying - science and religious aspects merge into a ready made package. Science has to rid these elements out of its nucleus structure, otherwise we will yet again see science diminish and we will face The Crisis of the European Sciences.

Animal Mass Extinction Thought Experiment

I was talking with a thoughtful friend the other day, one whom I have come to know through philosophy studies. We discussed the possibility that some species may face mass extinction in the future and if or why mankind should do anything about it. He especially pointed out some oddities concerning mankind’s values in relation to animal mass extinction.

First of all let us take a moment and engage ourselves in a thought experiment: Species number one, a monkey living in a remote area of Africa faces extinction. Species number two, a cranky spider roaming about in Australia also faces extinction. Let us presume that mankind have the resources to save one of these species from mass extinction. The initial questions I now ask are: Which species should we save? Why should we save that particular species rather than the other? What are the good arguments for saving that species?

Did you choose to save the monkey? How did you make your decision? What were your good arguments? I did not mention that the spider in my example might be more beneficial to the environment and ultimately to mankind. Let me rephrase the questions. Should we really try and save species at all? How do people intend to choose between saving a particular species rather than one that is either unknown or seen as a hazard to the environment?

Man is not the measure of all things – animals have faced mass extinction long before man even appeared on the scene. Even if we blame ourselves, tell people that we are trying to save species for generations to come or proclaim that the entire eco system will collapse if certain species die, there is no way we can ‘make it right’ and do natures job for her. We do kill animals, we do pollute and threaten eco systems but why choose to tell the world that we ought to save a certain species and then ignore hundred and thousands of other species? Perhaps we should not try to save certain species. We should instead try and save ourselves by dealing with our problems and face reality.

We should ask ourselves if it is really more important for us that certain species survive than what it is for the environment. We do not have the resources to save all the animals that affect the eco system, our values are not entirely rational when we choose our rescue missions and we inaccurately heighten our capacity as benefactors to the environment. We face a grim future, we are staring it right in the eye and we cannot really ‘feel’ its consequences. The efforts are missing the bigger picture – we might have to let certain species go nonetheless because they face extinction with or without us helping them to survive. Governments should deal with problems concerning the environment on a large scale rather than politicise it. However, I am not saying that we should stop researching about the environment and species locally, but we have to ask ourselves about our own values and arguments when we engage in such activities.

Now let me come back to the thought experiment and try to make some witty comment about it. I would want to save the spider, because a cranky spider can be much more interesting to look at when it is indeed cranky. It is more likely that it may be easier to save because one might be able to breed it in labs placed in the spider’s natural environment. It is probably a great benefactor around the country side, scaring people and stray cats as it roams about. The monkey is simply too hard to keep alive, it will cost so much money, time and effort. It will keep on eating leaves on trees that we need now when we are going to breath less of our much needed oxygen in the future. If we have evolved from monkeys, then evolution has moved on for a reason regardless of what we know about it.

My point here is that I call for a re-evaluation of one’s handed down values. Transcend these values by asking yourself the right questions, your answers will lead the way to a new individual understanding, once there you will be ready to adopt values in accordance with your new found understanding.

Al Gore's Political Past

"All Gore does not care about the environment" wrote one of Metro's columnists today. I figured that the column looked promosing and gave it a go.

How do you cover up something? Well, the easiest way is to get a blanket and flick it over the thing you want to cover up. A more complicated immaterial object or notion such as "pride", "political persona" or perhaps something that might be called 'truth', would require a more fancy cover up than your ordinary blanket.

Let us presume for a moment that the overall truth of this column, it’s historicity, is somewhat accurate or in some way meaningful. Let us conduct a little thought experiment, just for kicks, drop your guard for a minute and receive some written environmental punches from Gore’s political past. Under Gl Aore’s vice presidency his responsibility for environmental issues led to:

* The bald people who own the companies that chop up forests in the U.S. were allowed to cut down the oldest trees in forests, once protected by law and then sold the lumber below the market price probably to, let me take a wild guess, rich companies that produce fancy furniture.

* The people who breed cattle got their pasture expenses lowered. Making it easier to breed, slaughter, and send the stuff to starving fat people all over the U.S… let us try and make CO2 levels drop again, why don’t we produce more meat, more meat! Build meat castles from the damn cows, move the castles to the Hamptons and order some decent American rich folk move in. The deal comes with your customized private moat.

* The government - you know the official name for that place with the old men who run political tings – made it easier for the sugar industry in Florida by giving them more money. A lucrative synthetic business that live on making consumers addicted… They obviously need more money!

* The sugar industry is ruining the everglades, but hey, it’s just a big swamp with dangerous gators, very very dangerous, and they smell too. The hell with it. It does not have anything to do with the environment!

* The national parks where animals and plants once could be animals and plants and just do plant business or whatnot, those parks were opened up for legal hunting and fishing. Well, those pink salmons are in the way so they had to make it legal so more people would go there and litter and consume! The bears were doing a poor job. They are just incompetent and lay around all winter doing nothing.

* When researchers asked for money to do research on solar energy, their funds were decreased. The sun will never die! someone said. It's an absolute truth, handed down by the almighty Bob, the bloke from the other research department, the one with the fancy logo, which would get the deal and do me a movie about the environment and bet on the CO2 thing, all just to cover up me ever writing this article.

Now for you who have seen the film, the one where Gore talks about a decent goal, a thoughtful arrow indicator on where we are heading and how we are polluting the world – his political background completely shatters any impact or credibility it could have produced (atleast for someone). It becomes Gore’s protective shield against what people can accuse him of, it is his get out of jail free card, since environmental politics in the U.S. still is controversial and could hardly be mentioned in a room with hardcore industrial guns. The film can be seen as a cover up, it definitely gets a new expanded meaning with the background of his.

How much does your past affect what you strive for or believe in now? A big deal I reckon, especially if one’s past gets covered up or lost in the very political speech of the present stance.
The cheap shots and lame attempts of irony in this article will not cover up the focus of this article – but nevertheless… What is there left, when one now speak truths and uphold other truths but in the past have caused other truths that are in direct conflict with the very truths you tell, which also effect the fuelling of our doom?

I end this article by borrowing a catchy phrase from Henry Rollins... Dear Al Gore, You put the Mental in EnvironMental.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Great Global Warming Swindle by Martin Durkin for Channel 4 is a documentary on the subject that I have written a lot of posts about for a while now, namely global warming. However, this is a fundamental counterweight for a lot of views held by the environmentalists, media and scientists that still push the CO2 explanation on global warming. This is a must see for all of you who are willing to change your viewpoint in a radical way.

"Are you green? How many flights have you taken in the last year? Feeling guilty about all those unnecessary car journeys? Well, maybe there's no need to feel bad.

According to a group of scientists brought together by documentary-maker Martin Durkin, if the planet is heating up, it isn't your fault and there's nothing you can do about it.
We've almost begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

But just as the environmental lobby think they've got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming."

Channel 4

Are We Changing Planet Earth?

If you have not watched the BBC documentary "Are We Changing The Planet" then I suggest that you see it and tell your friends about it. Are.We.Changing.Planet.Earth.BBC-ONE
Be sure to check "An Inconvenient Truth" as well. It is very important that you spread the information on to people just like yourself, the earth's environment is changing fast and radically and I think that it is going to be essential for mankind to immediately adress this and make changes during the years to come.

An Inconvenient Truth

If you have not seen "An Inconvenient Truth" yet then you should make it your top priority to watch it as soon as possible. Head over to Climatecrisis to learn more about what you can do for the environment, you should focus a considerable amount of attention on the ten things you can do. Read the PDF here.

Politicians got a wake up call from scientific data on global warming.

World leaders urged to act on global warming study

Here are some paragraphs that I have gathered from the article: World leaders urged to act on global warming study

"PARIS (Reuters) - World governments should take heed of the most wide-ranging scientific assessment so far of a human link to global warming and agree prompt action to slow the trend, the chairman of a U.N. climate report said on Monday."

"The report draws on research by 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries and has taken six years to compile. It is unlikely there will be major changes between the draft and the final conclusions, according to diplomatic sources."

"Thirty-five industrial nations have signed up to the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, capping emissions of carbon dioxide."

"The United States pulled out in 2001, arguing Kyoto would cost jobs and wrongly excluded developing nations from goals for 2012. Still, President Bush said last week that climate change was a "serious challenge"."

"The draft report says there is at least a 90 percent probability that human activities are to blame for most of the warming in the past 50 years. The previous report, in 2001, rated the probability at just 66 percent. "

"The U.N. report, the fourth of its kind, is expected to foresee temperatures rising by 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 8.1 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2100, with a "best estimate" of 3C (5.4F) rise."

U.S. needs to improve ethanol transport

Just days after Bush had opened his mouth on the issue of ethanol, the head of a U.S. ethanol industry group said on Tuesday that "The United States will need to make big improvements in shipping ethanol from the U.S. heartland -- perhaps even building pipelines from the Midwest to the coasts -- to transport the fuel to markets".

Logical move. Stategy: when a government leader (or any politician who has somekind of influence on democratic practice and economy) say something positive about something you are researching or marketing, you proceed with a decleration that it will take resources to develop an infra structure or just that you strategically want to be a part of the scientific advancement. The logical move is thus a political outcry calling for money. Here is the article from Reuters.com / Science:

U.S. needs to improve ethanol transport

...the industry has fallen behind.
...rail and trucking must be improved.
...I don't think you could do it without some sort of government help.
...shipping ethanol on new lines dedicated fully to ethanol could ease environmental concerns because the fuel, unlike oil or gasoline, is quickly biodegradable.

Bush to address global warming in annual speech

This article on global warming comes from Reuters.com /Science: Bush to address global warming in annual speech.

By reading this article I find that the U.S. on the record will promote a new approach when it comes to issues related to global warming. What the government then does off the record is a completely different thing, however foreign politicians have probably talked some sense into Bush. Here are a few interesting things taken from the article:

Bush has not:

...dropped his opposition to mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions.

On the issue of global warming, Bush has:

...pushed a series of initiatives aimed at encouraging the development of alternative energy sources such as hydrogen and ethanol.
...called U.S. addiction to foreign oil a serious problem that required more spending on new technologies.
...acknowledged last summer that humans exacerbate the problem.

After a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel Bush said he was commited to:

..."promoting new technologies that will promote energy efficiency, and at the same time do a better job of protecting the world's environment."

Speculation:

...the possibility that Bush will unveil a shift on climate policy.

Eco and Ethics