Timothy Cox Fort Worth Texas Protecting resources of our natural environment - 4 views
started by nybagelres on 25 Sep 14
started by nybagelres on 25 Sep 14
started by nybagelres on 25 Sep 14
started by nybagelres on 25 Sep 14
In short, it is about protecting, it is ourselves! That is why ecology is no longer a long time, a simple naturalistic aesthetic concern, animal lovers or green countryside! No humanist can not ignore the environmental question. And the way things are going, the question itself touches any selfish wish to maintain some semblance of health (or life!) Past three decades ...
A new situation
This question arose because the weight of the activities of our species on the globe has become considerable. Just fly over it ... Timothy Cox fort worth texas The planetary ecological questions, touched our ancestors, few and hardly consuming only enough food.
Advances in knowledge have greatly reduced our mortality (giving a population explosion) and to more fully exploit the resources. So much so that this operation must now be highly principled, if we do not want to quickly leave behind a desert.
In our hands, our living environment has become brittle. Living beings are connected in a complex way so that we do often have unintended consequences. The application of too much manure on the fields has led, for example, the disappearance of many fish in the rivers. Why? Because driven rainwater fertilizers, there was some algae proliferate (by eating them) which have depleted oxygenation of the bottom (by making shade) background where some fish need oxygen ...
As insecticide to protect our crops, poisons not only the pest, but the predators that feed on them, and many other living things, this resulting in serious disturbance in the ecological balance ... Or, Timothy Cox fort worth texas more simply: by catching too many fish, there are less and less. In rejecting too much waste, air and water are becoming unhealthy. The link between global pollution and some epidemics (cancer, allergies ...) is now scientifically established.
For years, scientists are sounding the alarm.
Our bodies are designed to live in a very specific environment, the change is not without risks ...
The problem of global warming, for example, does not lie in an increase in the average temperature of a few degrees, which in itself seems pretty nice (except maybe the extension of tropical diseases far ...) It is the instability of the climate beyond a certain threshold, a runaway who we could completely escape. Most of the CO2 is absorbed by the oceans now, but when they will reach saturation (absorption capacity is not unlimited), nothing will be absorbed, and warming will skyrocket. And it is not clear where the threshold ... Timothy Cox fort worth texas The icecaps also limit global warming, not only for its fusion, but also by the reflection of light on its surface is white. Once it has melted, this balance will be broken ...
Venus has substantially the same characteristics as ours (size, distance to the sun). The weather is just a little different because of the details of his story, no doubt. There is over 400 ° C on average (by the greenhouse effect), and the atmosphere is loaded with sulfuric acid. Even a spacecraft can not stay ...
Global management
The first thing is obvious: we must rationally manage the ecosystem. It is necessary to monitor the impact of our actions on our environment, and change them if necessary. We can not live in the unconsciousness of our actions.
Everything is connected, which is done in one place has consequences elsewhere. The natural environment is a common space for all. This management must be done globally, in a concerted and coherent.
Therein lies the difficulty, because we are many and, basically, it is the behavior of everyone who is involved. Each consumption contributes to the plunder of resources and pollution. I take my car, I pollute; I increase the heating, I pollute. I buy my newspaper, I pollute etc.
Obviously, the goal should not be to not pollute. Because, in the end, when I breathe, I reject CO2: I pollute! The goal is that global pollution is such that the air is breathable, clean water and fertile soil. It is necessary and sufficient for the consumption of each resource does not exceed its natural replacement rate. This is to maintain a certain balance, and for that, necessarily, overall consumption should be limited.
But how?
Moralize consumption
If it is absurd to associate guilt with lower consumption, it is necessary to limit the total consumption of a given resource, and therefore, each individual consumption. It is not necessary to consume as little as possible, just to meet a certain ceiling. If no one accepts such a limitation, it is deadlocked, the ecological disaster is certain.
Today, for the individual, the temptation to consume more and more, is very important. The respective shares of global pollution is generally ridiculous, hence less guilt. In addition, the majority of men are affected more a principle of immediate satisfaction that any moral injunction. And we are so many ...
It is clear that a purely ethical incentive is insufficient.
Timothy Cox fort worth texas Everyone can see that, statistically, the very fact of this failure, there is virtually no chance that the overall pollution is significantly reduced by simple isolated individual initiatives. Everyone motivated to reduce its consumption can not be to preserve the global ecosystem, but will be covered at most a mark of respect, or relief from his conscience (I've done my part) ...
Thinking that action or twenty gestures to the planet are able to have a significant impact on the dynamics of current destruction is extremely naive.
Measure consumption
A more realistic solution would be to introduce a concrete incentive to reduce consumption. An economic incentive.
For example, those who exceed a certain threshold of material consumption could be subject to hefty fines proportionate to the overshoot. This solution, based on a simple price increase (green taxes), has the merit of not penalizing the poor and not to condemn the consumption itself (we have seen that it is the excess is harmful ) ...
Such conduct by law (and not only by morality) would be more effective. The mental aspect is not decreased, on the contrary, those who want to preserve the environment would do what it takes to this knowing that this time, his action will not be in vain, Timothy Cox fort worth texas because actually followed by the largest number This ... is the whole point of the law and the collective rules: they are justified by a moral majority aspiration, which could not be met by purely individual initiative.
It is easy to estimate the share of consumption in each operation and global pollution (although there is still some vagueness).
It would be enough to associate each product purchased a specific ecological cost (in addition to its monetary cost). This cost would be proportional to the quantities of material and energy used in its production and distribution. It would also take into account the pollution generated not only by its production and distribution but also its consumption and waste treatment induced. The possibility and the cost of recycling would also be considered. Unit: Eco (?)
Everyone would pay and for the pollution they are responsible. The ecological cost of collective consumption would be fairly shared among members of the community in question (or better distributed democratically from within through it).
Penalize overconsumption
A settlement is not enough, of course: everything must be done to enforce it.
This ecological cost could easily be collected in real time for each person (by computer). A warning would be sent to those that are approaching dangerously a certain rate in order to encourage them to reduce their material consumption. At the end of each year (or any other convenient time), fines would be collected, corresponding to the excess of the annual quota allowed (same for all).
Each could easily control its environmental cost, at every moment ... to avoid exceeding the ceiling from the control period.
Note that this system is quite flexible since it is possible to exceed the quota (for a fee): no risk of ending up with the inability to eat. So that the over-consumption of each is offset by under-consumption others, it could be encouraged by a reward (funded by fines).
To discourage over-consumption by the wealthy (who can adjust their own monetary income ...) can be added non-monetary sanctions beyond a certain passing.
This device can be adjusted in light of the average consumption obtained for each resource ...
Currently, the ecological cost of commercial products is not known. It is therefore not even possible to have an environmentally friendly way for those who want it. The label organic relates mainly to the non-use of synthetic products in agriculture, which is only a tiny part of the problem, which are more or less questionable ...
Unless we radically change the economic system, such a measure (a cap of consumption) seems unavoidable for any political wishing solve the environmental problem.
Its major drawback is the need of a device control and significant repression ... There should be some product traceability, control all transactions, and if one is a bit of a perfectionist: all productions, distribution and consumption ...
However, the implementation of such a system is feasible (without perfectionism). Devices states are now under many such checks, but for other purposes. We are drowning in a huge body of laws for the utility more or less doubtful, * the implementation of such a system would be beneficial overall.
The problem that remains is the inevitable persistence of fraud. The latter will she be sufficiently contained by controlling the cost is reasonable?
One can certainly think of a fair law and ecologically justified are instantly more followed, but the bottom line is this: the tendency to over-consume.
Rather than submit to temptation and punishment, why not just save them from temptation?
Why not tackle the root of evil?
Change lifestyle
Thus, one could reduce the incentive to consume.
For example, by reducing advertising ... It is moreover itself consumes energy (packaging, leaflets ...)
The dominant mode today life grows overconsumption.
The exclusion, loneliness, lack of meaning in many professions, stress, grow to be desired for many goods and services (involving material consumption) as to compensate for his unhappiness.
Whole based on private property system, many goods are not as acquired for their specific purpose for a sense of power, belonging, freedom or security. Individualism resulting from that system that the use of many goods that could be shared (car, tools etc.), is not, resulting in increased production (and waste).
The need to get to the store incentive to buy other things, the seller arranging that this is the case, in order to maximize sales ... Given the logic of the economic benefit, some goods are even made deliberately perishable!