NIPCC and Climate Skepticism

First off - apologies for the hiatus. Its been many moon since my last post, but without further delay, here is the sixth installment which covers climate skepticism and one of its biggest players, the NIPCC.

As some of you may know, I rejoined the twittersphere early this year, primarily so I could continue pestering people about issues of climate change, environmental policy and sustainable development that interest me. I like to think of it as a mini extension of my blogging that provides shorter and more frequent pieces of info from a variety of sources that are relevant to the sustainable development game. You'll find me at @cfelice11. But the reason I mention twitter is because I recently found a website (which I tweeted about) that provides probably the most seemingly comprehensive anti climate change or climate change skepticism out there. It goes by the name of Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a nice little shot at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading climate change organization which I have mentioned several times in previous posts.

As stated on its web page, the NIPCC is "an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change." It continues by stating, "because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary." To add further clarification, "the NIPCC was created to provide an independent "second opinion" on the topics addressed by the initial drafts of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report", leaving little room for doubt about its true opinions to towards the IPCC. To put it bluntly, the NIPCC are climate skeptics who believe the IPCC is biased towards a larger government agenda that is misguided in their claim that human green house gas emissions are negatively altering Earth's climate. Biased? Government agenda? What negative consequences or ill intention could possibly ensue at the result of big governments warning about the dangers of human made green house gasses, and trying to restrict the levels of harmful pollution?

Firstly, reasons why I have given the NIPCC the time of day:

I always like to read what the opposition has to say on the issue, because at the end of the day:

1) Although it would appear the science is very clear on human kinds relationship with climate change, it is our fundamental right to question and speculate things as long as they are based in logic, reason and most importantly scientific fact.

2) I like to think that my mind isn't 100% made up about everything relate to climate change and global warming, and given enough logical, scientific and factual information, my opinions could be changed.

3) A lot of times, climate skeptics often just present themselves in the form of incomplete op-ed rants from the likes of those who think they are going to change the world's opinion by saying ''if climate change is real, why is winter still so cold?'' However, upon first impression, the NIPCC does attempt to provide a legitimate and scientific based approach to the alternative reasons for climate change.

Now, the reason why the NIPCC should be taken with an extremely heavy grain of salt:

The NIPCC is sponsored by three non profit organizations - CO2 Science, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and The Heartland Institute all with firmly outspoken objections towards the mainstream belief that human kind is responsible for climate change, that increased CO2 emissions have a negative effect on the climate and environment, or that we should do anything to reduce our impact on the environment. This support and influence does not make them an unbiased or partial source what so ever and completely undermines their whole efforts. 

For example, CO2 Science believes that the information regarding increased CO2 being harmful to plant and marine life is false, claiming that more CO2 actually improves plant growth and productivity while ocean acidification (the decreased pH level of the oceans caused by increased concentration of CO2) is both over exaggerated and inconclusive, claiming that it too could be beneficial to marine life. Although the benefits of increased CO2 to plant life do hold some truth, like everything, moderation is key. And in this case, the benefits of increased CO2 to plant production only work under specific, controlled conditions on a small scale, and only for certain plants. In addition, after a certain point, increased exposure no longer increases yield and will eventually DECREASE productivity and yield. Although the non-profit does not disclose its funding sources, it has been reported that CO2 Science has received a grant from ExxonMobil, who we all know does not have the fondest view of environmental regulations, limits on CO2 emissions, or climate change policy.

SEPP also draws similar conclusions, disputing the mainstream belief about climate change and ozone depletion. However, they are also the same organization that has disputed the 'science' used to establish the dangers of second hand smoking from tobacco. Its hard to take an organization seriously when they don't conform to something as fundamental as the dangers of tobacco. And, similar to CO2 Science, SEPP has also received funding from ExxonMobil. Coincidence? 

And finally, The Heartland Institute is by far the most outspoken against the claims of human made climate change. They are a self declared Conservative and Libertarian think tank which focuses on free market policies, including free market environmentalism. This belief argues that "free market, property rights, and tort law provide the best means of preserving the environment, the environment, internalizing pollution costs, and conserving resources." In summary, the belief is that those parties effected by environmental damage should not be limited in their ability to compel polluters to compensate them. By design this would create large and unsustainable financial pressure on those polluting the most, deterring them from doing so and theoretically eliminating all pollution. This is an extremely idealist, free market fantasy which would (and does) fail in practice. It benefits neither the environment our the common good. In fact, for big polluters like fossil fuel companies and big industry to keep profiting, the environment and public health need to be exploited. Governments and the judicial system already have a difficult time as it is holding big polluters accountable for their actions. For example, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska is still settling long term damage claims 25 years after the incident, while Chevron also continues lengthy court proceedings to settle improper clean up of large scale pollution in Lago Agri, Ecuador since 1995. And these are just a few of many examples which can be found in the US and around the world. Again, although it does not disclose its funding, The New York Times and Greenpeace have both revealed that the Heartland Institute has received multiple donations from none other than climate skeptic funding favorite ExxonMobil.

Is this all just a coincidence? Clearly not. This is what it all comes down to. The most 'prominent' climate skeptic body, the NIPCC, is funded by three different groups, all of which have very firm climate skeptic stances, all which are politically motivated towards promoting anti climate change policy, and all which have received funding from exactly the people who stand to loose the most from climate change policy, limits to CO2 emissions and environmental regulations, ExxonMobil. Wu-Tang Clan said it best, Cash Rules Everything Around Me! Keeping the market 'free', avoiding government regulations, and letting the public think they have the power to hold companies like this accountable is exactly how to keep profits high, stakeholders satisfied and ones conscious free of any wrongdoing. 

Although I give the NIPCC credit for trying to tackle the issue of climate change by looking outside the greater known sphere of knowledge of climate change, and consider other view points, its 'professionalism' must not be mistaken for credibility. Given enough support and funding, anything can be made to look credible. And that is exactly what the NIPCC and its supporters do. They attempt is to draw the public away from the belief that human actions, through industrialization and fossil fuel consumption, are not directly related to a negative effect on Earth's climate. They focus heavily on sections such as "the benefits of atmospheric CO2" and the "resiliency of the biosphere" which implies that what we are doing is beneficial, or that its effect is nothing the natural world can't handle itself. They are taking things which do hold some truth, out of their natural context. CO2 is in fact great for the atmosphere. Its the reason we are able to support life on Earth and maintain a stable climate. But our massive increase in CO2 emissions, far beyond natural levels and in such a short period of time pushes the limits of what our Earth can handle. The biosphere is incredibly resilient. its able to adapt, re-adapt, change and evolve to different circumstances, weather patterns, climates, temperatures, species and so forth. However, our race, the human race, is far more invasive and destructive than anything the Earth has endured. Our rate of consumption and destruction extends far beyond the Earth's natural ability to replenish, heal or even adapt itself. We must remember that the industrial revolution occurred just over 250 years ago, yet in this time we have already significantly altered our natural environment and the climate which keep us alive.

It is extremely difficult to take climate skeptics such as the NIPCC seriously when they are not independently supported, when it is clear there are alternative objectives to their work other than to find tangible solution to the immense environmental and climate cahnge issues that we face.

In the end, the issue I have with climate skepticism, is that they are content with running a large scale experiment on Earth which the majority of experts believe will lead to negative consequences. They claim the science isn't settled on climate change, that there isn't enough scientific consensus, that its not worth the economic risk to place limitations on companies or industries that are heavy polluters, just because the earth might be a few degrees warmer in the next couple decades. I already find it hard enough to comprehend why people would be willing to risk living in  future where every worst case environmental scenario came true. But what boggles my mind is that they are willing to risk an outcome which could be far greater than these "climate alarmists" predicted, an outcome which we cannot remediate, mitigate or solve once it has reached a certain point. An outcome with no reasonable solution no matter how much money you throw at it or how much you cut back on emissions. And for what? For the sake of businesses and industries who might take a short term financial hit because of restrictions to the amount of CO2 they are allowed to produce, restrictions on how much damage they are permitted to do to the environment, plant and animal habitats, the amount of resources they are allowed to consume without replacing, or the environmental regulations they will have to comply to? Going back to a section from their website, they claim that because they do not work for any governments, they are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary. However they fail to mention their own biased towards the free market, corporations, industry and fossil fuel production, which has an even greater interest in seeing that government take no action on environmental regulations or emissions controls. Although the NIPCC claims to have the people and the planet's best interest in minds, its a lie. Their interest is in spreading disinformation, confusing the public, avoiding science, and disregarding facts and general common sense for the sake of corporate profit.

To read more about the vast efforts to fund such anti climate skepticism, you can follow a specially dedicated Climate Skepticism section on the The Guardian Newspaper website. But for a quick look at one of the main/recent articles you can read "Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks".

The Simple Life: What Makes You Happy?

For this post I'm going to deviate from the more technical aspects of sustainability. Although government policy is a significant factor in how we are able to live our lives, I also believe sustainability is a mentality. It's one which starts with us, the individual. It comes down to the way they live, work, eat, travel, spend our time and prioritize ourselves. We can talk government policy and regulation about how to be sustainable, but at the end of the day it comes down to the way we as humans choose to live life. 

My Introduction to the Simple Life

Back during my time at Providence College, I enrolled in the class "The Simple Life of American Culture''. To be honest I chose the class for two reasons, I needed an elective to meet my degree requirements and I knew the teacher had an excellent reputation to engage and motivate students regardless of the topic. In retrospect, not the worst reasons for choosing the class. But, in the end I was very surprised at how much I took away from the course. It really opened me up to a whole philosophy and lifestyle of simple living. In some ways, it is the foundation for my interest in sustainability. It posed  many simple yet thought provoking questions about money, work, happiness, wants vs. needs,  ownership, government, community, social responsibility, consumerism and the value of the natural environment.

One lesson that really stood out to me was an exercise on time management, our dedication to work(money) and its correlation to our level of happiness. We spent a whole class period breaking down how we spend each day, analyzing which activities consume most of our day, which ones are necessary, which ones we do for pleasure, and which ones we do out of necessity.

Analyzing your Daily Routine: Are you Doing What Makes You Happy?

If you think about an average 24 hour day, lets say the average person sleeps 8 hours and works 8 hours. This already accounts for 16 hours (2/3 of your day). Sleep is obviously important for health and overall well being and work is necessary (traditionally) to make money to sustain ourselves within our current system. Then you have to think about all the other things in life that take up time like hygiene, nourishment and transportation/ commuting. They are simple, yet part of our everyday life, and they take time. If you give yourself 1 hour for hygiene, 2 hours for nourishment (including preparation and consumption) and 1 hours for transportation (based on the average daily commute for US workers), that's another 4 hours of your day. Leaving you with only 4 'free hours' for personal fun/growth/relaxation/enjoyment/family/friend time.

Living to Work, Not Working to Live

Unless you live to work, instead of the traditional work to live, those 8 hours of the day are not what you would consider personal enjoyment. You do it out of financial necessity and at almost any cost, to continue operating within the current system, in hopes that you'll have enough money saved for personal enjoyment and to live a 'happy life'.  After this realization, the lesson then turned to focus on maximizing or increasing ones personal time. The biggest area of potential improvement obviously came from work. The options are to either reduce your working hours or find a way to make your job something you truly enjoy. Confucius said, ''choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.'' Therefore, does it make sense to sacrifice 8 hours of your day so that you can only have 4 hours of time to yourself. In an ideal world we would all work less hours and give more priority to our own personal endeavors, but in the world we live, most of us have student loans to pay, rent/mortgages, children to provide for, along with bills for things like cars, food, medical and clothing expenses.  

Of course, some people may say that everyday things like cooking and eating are what they consider personal enjoyments. But the primary focus of this exercise is to step back and realize how our days, and consequently, our lives are broken down and spent. Are we really doing the things we want to do? Money (derived from work) is typically associated with a higher standard of living, thus a better quality of life and thus a happier life. 

Study hard and you will get a good job, get a good job and you will make a lot of money, make a lot of money and you will enjoy a higher quality of life and thus a happier life.

Traditionally, the prosperity and standard of living of a country and its people has been measured by its GDP (gross domestic product) and GDP per capita (per person). Although GDP per capita does not measure individual income, it assumes in theory that GDP per capita equals the GDI (gross domestic income) per capita. Therefore, a greater accumulation of wealth has been the most widely accepted means of a greater and increased standard of living.

World Happiness Report: A Nations True Value

But recently, an alternative form off assessment has come from the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, the World Happiness Report. This study which just released its 2nd annual edition, takes a more practical approach to measuring a country's social and economic development, by addressing the national well-being. Many are in favor of this method as it is believed to reflect the true level of satisfaction among a certain nation's people while demanding that policy be more closely aligned with what really matters to people as they themselves characterize their well being, and not just the material wealth of the nation as a total average. 

Where as the the US and China traditionally dominate the number one and two spots for total GDP, the 2013 World Happiness Report has granted Denmark the 'happiest' country followed by Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands and Sweden respectively. In fact, according to this report's criteria, the US ranked 17 in the world, while China found itself at number 93. The rankings system built upon the factor of GDP per capita, but also included much more important factors: healthy life expectancy, perception of corruption, freedom to make life choices, social support, and generosity. 

The Danish Model

So what makes the Danes so happy? A couple of articles here, here and here explain their general outlook on life. A few things remarkably different about the Danish perspective on life are their views of money, work, ability to take control of ones life, social care, and value of education- to name a few. 

1. Empowerment- Danes feel empowered to be able to change something in their life if they don't like it.

2. Freedom of choice- Danish society doesn't focus on judging other peoples lives which allows them to choose the kind of life they want to live.

3. Wealth- Money is not as important in the social life compared to Britain and America. Danish people prefer to spend their money on socializing rather than large personal possessions. 

4. Class differences- Society is not created for the upper class. Nearly all things are catered to the middle class. There is a sense of contentment, which is key. There is little of the mentality of 'keeping up with the Joneses' or a 1% vs 99% debate. 

5. Social spending- Danes spend a considerable amount on state services (social welfare) which is derived from high taxes. This adds to the normalization of income and a much stronger middle class. Thus people choose their occupation based on what they like, not based on earning potential. 

6. Work- employment is at 73% with less than 2% of employees working long hours. 

7. Free time- Danes have the most leisure time per day of any country at 16.06 hours (including sleep).

8. Education- 99% high school graduation rate and reasonable price of university education. 

Like I said ,these are just a few examples, and Denmark is of course a very unique case. However the main point I would like to reinforce is their views on wealth, working hours and time spent on leisure activities. Its no surprise that they rank first in happiness when they also rank first in most leisure hours. When the emphasis on accelerated consumption and accumulation of wealth is no longer stressed, people have the time and freedom to explore their personal interests. When your not competing with society's expectations of success, accomplishment, and happiness you are free to create your own interpretations of these ideas.

Although many people may be concerned with Denmark's seemingly very liberal and socialist approach to social welfare, government control, taxes and economic development- it cant be denied that a country of much happier citizens provides a much more sustainable future of content, productive, prosperous, healthy, educated and successful individuals, and thus country.

I hope to explore this topic more and to further delve into the unique example of Denmark for other instances of sustainability, including their progressive energy policy and renewable energy targets. 

IPCC Report WGI AR5: The Need for Public and Political Action

NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR: First, let me apologize for the lag in time between the last post. One of the things I promised myself when creating this blog is that I wouldn't become a flash in the pan blogger (*cough* Ben Smith) who goes absolutely nuts for the first few weeks as if I've never known a life outside of blogging, and then just completely drop off the radar without as even as much as a explanation. Well fear not my 16 or so followers- Sustaining Sustainability lives on! Contrary to popular belief, (f)unemployment is a busy lifestyle. Searching for a job is just as demanding as actually having one. But I digress. Without further ado...

Anyone who knows anything about climate change is familiar with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC for short. Founded by Lester R. Brown (author of Plan B 4.0), the scientific intergovernmental organization was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to assess the risks of anthropogenic climate change, its environmetnal and socio-economic consequences, and how we can either adapt to these consequences or mitigating their effects.

Before we move on, I would like to address: the fact they were willing to ''adapt to the consequences'' that had occurred back in 1988 rather than mitigate or solve them, is worrying. If such organizations as the WMO and UN believed, 25 years ago, that there were man made consequences of climate change occurring that were already out of our technological grasp of fixing, what does that say about our current state of affairs? Continuing on...

About two months ago, the IPCC released the first of three working group reports as part of its 5th Assessment Report on Climate Change. The first report is titled Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis and provides one of the most comprehensive and relevant scientific studies about the human made effects of climate change. The remaining working group reports will be released in March and April of 2014 respectively, followed by a synthesis report in October 2014. In addition to the technical summary of Working Group I, the IPCC has also released a Summary for Policymakers, which provides an alternate summary of the findings, complete with small highlighted boxes throughout each section, which draw concise conclusions and summaries about the findings for the 'busy' policy makers. None the less, its a useful resource for quickly understanding the key facts about this often overwhelming and complex subject. 

Even more relevant, earlier this month, I was fortunate enough to attend a workshop in Brussels organized by my former unit at the European Parliament- The Science and Technology Options Assessment Unit (STOA) which brought in 8 members of the IPCC to discuss the findings of this report. This unique, first hand explanation was attended by the IPCCs Head and Deputy Head of the Technical Support Unit of WGI, along with 6 IPCC Lead Authors (LA) and Coordinating Lead Authors (CLA) of WGI AR5. As well as summarizing their findings and discussing the implications, the event allowed for EU MEPs, various experts and even the general public to address the IPCC authors with questions comments, skepticism and praise.

Working Group I covers many crucial climate change areas including ''changes in temperature'' (surface, troposphere, stratosphere and ocean), ''changes in energy budget and heat content'' (aka- global warming resulting from radiative imbalance), ''water cycle changes", ''drivers of climate change'', and ''causes of radiative forcing'' among many others. What I found most striking was actually putting a face to the name of the IPCC, its researchers and authors. Most people have heard of the world renowned organization and its work, but I guarantee you 99.9 out of 100 people wouldn't be able to pick them out of a line up to save their lives. Although I did heard one attendee state, ''I work in the environmental sector and these guys are like my celebrities. I just had to come see them.'' I guess she was the 0.1 of a person.

But what is clear from reading this report and hearing the authors defend their work in person is something we've all been warned would occur for the past couple decades, "warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.'' Further, ''each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983 - 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years.''

One of the best questions posed to the authors related to the significance of these findings compared to past trends, "what's to say this period of highest warmth is significant? There must have been a 'highest period' in the past, but why is this particular peak a concern for us." Simply answered, the authors noted that since the industrial revolution, we have developed a much more significant infrastructure, with greater industrial advancement, resource consumption, and population growth. These records are surpassing historical trends to the likes we have never seen. These trends are not typical to the natural cycle of Earth's peaks and troughs. Therefore the implications are also greater. Severe weather events are occurring more frequently with much more difficulty in adapting to them(e.i. the recent typhoon in the Philippines). Food and water security is no longer an issue of the impoverished or developing nations, its a global issue which even the most advanced and well off nations are having to deal with.

The take away message from this report and these findings is that climate change is a holistic issue. It's caused by very few man-made factors but effects the natural environment and complicates man's existence in a wide variety ways. But its awareness needs to be spread beyond the confines of small government workshops among scientists and politicians. These are issues that effect the common man, therefore they are issues that common man should be properly informed about. Workshops, town hall meetings, public hearings, seminars, conferences and even educational courses should be offered to inform the public on what the issues are, what is needed to tackle them and the consequences of ignoring them. For the EU in particular, with the upcoming 2014 European elections, the time has never been more ample to invoke public awareness. Bringing these issues to the forefront of the political agenda and demonstrating the public's desire to see these issues addressed could significantly alter the political action in the 2014 elections, creating a wider, firmer stance on climate change mitigation. This sort of action would only favor the EUs policy agenda, as it currently holds many commitments to climate change, emissions reductions, renewable energy share and energy efficiency for 2020 and 2050.

Environment, Economics, and Society - The Sustainable Development Trifecta

In order to prevent this blog from simply become a glorified encyclopedia page about sustainable development, and of course to keep you (the reader) somewhat interested, I'm hoping this post will be the last 'strictly explanatory' posts about sustainable development. One can talk theory about anything for days, but without practice or real world examples and experience, theory is just that- theory. My goal is to develop these posts into more engaging, open platforms for readers to discuss and debate the issues I put forward, using examples of real world sustainable development practices.

But for now I will present to you the sustainable development Venn diagram (or trifecta). If you Google sustainable development, image results will give you a whole slew of charts and diagrams similar to the one below. Some more simple, others far more complicated. Personally, I find this to be the clearest interpretation of the sustainable development matrix because not only does it shows the intersection where sustainability is carefully achieved, but also the alternative development scenarios that are encounter if you were to neglect one of the other spheres. 

As mentioned in the previous post highlighting the Brundtland Report, it is important to recognize that the environment does not exist as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions, and needs. We cannot make changes or advancements in economics or society without having an impact on the natural world around us. The environment is where we live, and development is what we all do within this environment to progress our situation. There are actions, and there are reactions, and it is impossible for our human activity not to have an impact on the natural world. 

Even more important, sustainable development does not advocate solely for the protection of the environment. It is of course a reaction to the recent trend of natural resource depletion, unregulated consumption, pollution, and climate change; but it ties together both the concerns for the carrying capacity of Earth's natural systems while recognizing the social challenges of humanity like poverty and hunger alleviation. The challenges that each sphere faces are not mutually exclusive and neither are the solutions. As the diagram shows, neglecting one sphere creates an incomplete development strategy which will eventually come to a developmental stand still or worse, collapse.

But in order for development to exist at all, there needs to be a fundamental focus on the consumption patterns of Earth's renewable sources. For a steady state economy to be achieved along with environmental equilibrium, our consumption needs to be equal to Earth's ability to replenish the source. Consuming more, as we are now, leads to unsustainable environmental degradation. Consuming less than the replenishable rate will create environmental renewal, although good for the planet, will slow the pace of human growth and development. As a result, we would no longer be able to meet many of the basic needs required of such a large and growing population, with such a high standard of living .

To put the current unsustainable consumption trend  into perspective, the Global Footprint Network just announced August 20, 2013 as 'Earth Overshoot Day', or the approximate day in which our resource consumption for the year has surpassed the planet's natural ability to replenish itself. According to these estimates, our demand for natural resources and CO2 sequestration are equivalent to 1.5 Earths, a worrying estimate given our accelerating rate of population growth and economic development.

                          

Although other factors are often included in the sustainable development model like politics, culture, and ecology, these can often be considered sub-categories of the three main spheres; environmental, economic, and social. But to realize the strong link between these three areas is to realize a potential for powerful answers to many of our biggest global challenges. Our way of thinking about issues of environmental conservation, economic stability, class disparity cannot be looked at as isolated issues with unique and singular answers. We need a non linear approach which address the root of all these issues so that common solutions can be formed and steady, yet sustainable progress can be made.

The Brundtland Report: Sustainability's Birth

Sustainable development is a relatively new concept. It's accepted that it first received international attention in 1987, in the United Nations' Our Common Future: Report for the World Commission on Environment and Development. Better known as the Brundtland Report, it was Gro Harlem Brundtland who was tasked with establishing and chairing the commission.

I wanted to start my first real post about sustainable development by highlighting this report by the Godmother, if you will, of sustainability, for everyone to know what its goal is, how it should be framed, and the action we need to take to create solutions.

1. Definition

Whether it was intended at the time, Brundland's interpretation of sustainable development in 1987 still functions as the most accepted definition of the term. But by defining the term, by putting this complex objective into a single sentence, it has given governments, scientists, and even the world something to work towards. Laid out for everyone to see, it tells us what sustainability is and why we should care.

Sustainable development is the ability to "meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." It seems straight forward, simple even. Take what we need, but don't jeopardize the future of humanity by surpassing nature's ability to naturally replenish itself. Food, water, and most man made products are derived from natural sources. But over exploitation of these resources and damage from pollution and climate change all threaten the quantity and quality of these sources. Similarly, our energy is heavily dependent on non renewable resources which all have limit supplies. Fortunately, the technology already exists for us to make significant changes to our consumption patterns, but if these trends continue at the current rate, future generations will be left with a debit that they cannot settle.

2. Actions and Consequences

Brundtland made a clear distinction that the report was not to be limited to only addressing 'environmental issues' because the term would assume that it was only the environment that had some sort of problem which needed fixing. But she clearly states, "the environment does not exist as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions, and needs..." This is important because terms like 'environment', 'economics', and 'development' are often relegated to sub categories, giving them limited focus by which solutions can be made. They are in fact heavily interrelated, and every action created by development or society has an equal and opposite reaction to the environment. The 'environment' is where we live, and 'development' is what we all do to improve our situation within that environment. What is crucial to this whole process is ensuring that development occurs at a rate and method by which we can continue to operate in the future. The actions must not become so great, that we are no longer able to deal with the consequences.

3. Call to Arms

If you read the forward by her on page six, the first objective in formulating ''a global agenda for change'' is ''to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond''. Although extremely ambitious, the report marks one of the first comprehensive efforts to put sustainable development on the map, and address it as a global issue which requires the need for multilateral solutions. In order to develop real progressive solutions for sustainable development,  Brundtland advocates for a level of motivation and co-operation similar to that of post WW2 which helped to re-establish the international economic system. This 'call to arms' mentality for mobilizing change is still being preached today. Lester R. Brown, a pioneer of global environmentalism warns throughout his book Plan B 4.0, "success depends on moving at wartime speed, restructuring the world energy economy at a pace reminiscent of the restructuring of the U.S. industrial economy in 1942 following the attack on Pearl Harbor." Whether its 1987 or 2009, the approach remains the same - for radical change to occur, a globally mobilized effort built on multilateral solutions, cooperation from various institutions and governments, and unified objectives need to be established.

This document is unique in that it address many of the same issues, makes many of the same conclusions, states many of the same facts, and recommends many of the same strategies as those being brought forward today, proving that a lot of work still needs to be done, but the core objective has remained the same. The Brundtland Report should serve as the beginners guide and then some, for anyone wanting to know about sustainable development, the challenges it faces, and the direction it needs to go. You will find many similarities between the themes in this text and those being circulated today by present day political and scientific experts.

Blogging Bandwagon

So, this is what it has come to, blogging. It seems like everybody and their mother is starting a blog, spending ones free time posting about the likes of baking recipes, the political situation in the middle east, conspiracy theories, experiences as a first time mother, or nicholas cage movie reviews. Take your pick, I typically follow or read blogs on a regular basis, but I'm almost 106% certain every topic and sub topic has been beaten to death with opinions, comments, and viewpoints from all spectrums and expertise. Im not going to look, but I'm sure I'm not the first person to rant about this on a blog, or even come up with the title, 'Blogging Bandwagon'.

But here it its, for what its worth, Cristian Felice's first and hopefully only blog. I promise to try my darndest to not become one of those people that constantly tries to plug my blog on all forms of social media, phishing for views and comments, but I cant promise anything. After all, its only day one and who knows, I could be susceptible to the blogging bug. These are uncharted waters we're testing.

So what is this blog about you ask? Well, this where I might surprise some of you:

I care about the environment.

Thats right, I've said it. I care about the the trees, the animals, the water, the air, and most importantly you- one of 7.108 billion people on earth responsible for the most destruction this planet has witness by any one species. Equally as significant is our ability, moreover our responsibility, to ensure this planets protection and sustainability.

Its no secret or theory, humankind is responsible for a significant amount of global warming, adverse climate change, over consumption of natural resource, environmental pollution, ecological destruction, and species extinction. But even if you don't care about all that, know this, the path we are headed on is unsustainable even for human existence and if immediate and decisive action is not taken, we are compromising the planet's and our own future. But the environment as a whole is too expansive and complex of a topic for just one person to address.

What I'm really passionate about, what motivates me - sustainable development. That is what this blog will cover, the challenges we face, solutions we require, and mentality we need to adopt if we are to alter the path we have laid for ourselves. I will cover the basics of what sustainability and sustainable development is and its relevance. I will address how governments in the developed world are addressing the issue in order to secure their own future's food, water, and energy supplies. I will also cover the developing world which has an equal level of responsibility despite their disadvantages, to uphold the sustainability model. I will try to take lessons and examples from all levels and extremes, from the countries who are nearing 100 renewable energy supplies, to the urban gardeners in recession riddled cities who are growing their own food in abandoned plots.

At the end of the day, despite your political views, social, or economic status - I hope you are able to take away something beneficial from these posts, or at least allow yourself to think about things in a different light.