Tag Archives: Sustainable Consumption

15. Food glorious food?

Our current (group) assignment involves ‘food insecurity’ and sustainability. It is worth 10% … and yet I have read and read and read and I could indeed, just keep reading.

We are almost to the final draft, which I will then go and make pretty (as is my want) but it is safe to say that we have sliced and diced this thing to bits … all puns intended. In all honesty, instead of the 2,000 word essay, what I want to submit is something like the following:

On sustainability:

Just stop buying crap would be a good start. Oh, and listen to our climate scientists.

On food security/insecurity, I would borrow heavily from Michael Pollan of The omnivore’s dilemma (and other books) fame:

‘Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants’.

but I would add:

Your food should grow or live as close to you as is practicable.

But of course this is far too simple for what is a really complex, multi-dimentional problem, but hey—I think it would be a damned good place to start 😀

As I have said, I have read so much stuff. For the purposes of a university paper, it has involved searching for and finding original research, and combining that with other papers, and segments from books. It is, after all, a piece of academic writing. I do struggle though to set limits as to what and how much I read, as the internet is both a blessing and a curse in the way you can find so much material. Mostly I am compelled to read it.

I cannot complain about my head being full—it is indeed a wonderful state.

What I have found to be truly inspiring is the material in TED Talks. I had known about TED Talks before I started studying, but I do turn to them, on the whole, for much more palatable information—most of the speakers are great entertainers as well as being very knowledgeable. A few gems I have watched recently on the topic of food and would recommend:

and just now, looking for, copying and placing these links I have found even more I think I need to watch (maybe today):

And just for fun, here is the graphic I made for our report—taken from some data (actually taken from two sources and melded). It shows the  results of a survey of university students: the amount of food they consumed from each of the five food groups is shown as a percentage, while the number of recommended daily servings from this group, is the big number at the top.

Food_icons

At the ripe old age of 53, I discovered so much about food groups and serving sizes and serves per population segment. And yes it is, or can be complicated—overly so, as also evidenced by the myriad diets on the market. It makes me think that Michael Pollan actually nailed it!

Advertisements

11. Stuff on the fly

Busy, busy, busy trying to read and keep up with things, but two items that came across my desk today that are worth adding (read: I need to get back to these/distribute to others):

… an excerpt (as supplied online):

What is your personal carrying capacity for grief, rage, despair? We are living in a period of mass extinction. The numbers stand at 200 species a day.[3] That’s 73,000 a year. This culture is oblivious to their passing, feels entitled to their every last niche, and there is no roll call on the nightly news.

There is a name for the tsunami wave of extermination: the Holocene extinction event. There’s no asteroid this time, only human behavior, behavior that we could choose to stop. Adolph Eichman’s excuse was that no one told him that the concentration camps were wrong. We’ve all seen the pictures of the drowning polar bears. Are we so ethically numb that we need to be told this is wrong?

There are voices raised in concern, even anguish, at the plight of the earth, the rending of its species. “Only zero emissions can prevent a warmer planet,” one pair of climatologists declare.[4] James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia hypothesis, states bluntly that global warming has passed the tipping point, carbon offsetting is a joke, and “individual lifestyle adjustments” are “a deluded fantasy.”[5] It’s all true, and self-evi­dent. “Simple living” should start with simple observation: if burning fossil fuels will kill the planet, then stop burning them.

And something on the positive end of the scale: something that could well make an immediate difference for researchers:

  • The rise of citizen science via the Climate Council (see: http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/the-rise-of-citizen-science). I had a look at and indeed downloaded the link to BOINC: compute for science to allow the idle power of my computer to be used to run programs by whichever project I choose (Oxford University are running the climate prediction project)There is a stack of projects you can lend your individual computing power to, including astronomy, cryptography, chemistry, epidemiology … the list goes on! (see: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/projects.php)

6. Population and consumption

I had a big win yesterday as I managed to find two of the three books I wanted in the library:

  • Confronting Consumption, Thomas Princen, Michael Maniates & Ken Conca [Eds]
  • The New Economics of Sustainable Consumption: Seeds of Change, Gill Seyfang

I was looking for, but did not find, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring which is the seminal work on environment and human impact on it written in 1962. It’s probably something I should buy anyways.

My head is in a bit of a spin, and comically, only after three weeks of doing this course I feel like I can and should try to change the world. I have NEVER felt like this before.

The lecture yesterday covered two main areas of concern: population and consumption. As a species we have been thinking about limits and population since the late 1700s and it seems from then until now, we still seem to apportion the ‘blame’ for ‘overpopulation’ on the unwashed masses—in the 18th century the church firmly blamed the unbelievers and today we do the same with ‘the Third World’ or developing nations. How crass.

As of this week, world population sits at around 7 billion souls. The projections for population growth are on a J-curve, are exponential so we will, as a planet, continue to grow and grow at an alarming rate. But what is the carrying capacity of the planet? There are many studies into this with a wide variation in opinion, but most scholars have agreed on a range of of 8–16 billion. But of those, let’s say we top out at 8 billion souls (and that is conservative), at what level can this population be sustained? The simple answer is that we cannot all be a Gina Rinehart 😦

I completed the Footprint Calculator exercise (see: http://footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/) and to sustain my lifestyle, it would take 2.1 Earths. This is a shock, as I have what I consider to be a smallish footprint—I work from home so I don’t use the car a lot (in fact going to uni to participate in this course is my biggest journey creating a bit of personal cognitive dissonance), we grow a lot of our own food, we keep chickens for eggs and recycling, have a substantial solar panel array (we feed into the grid), 4,000 litre capacity rainwater tanks for the soil garden, and a small but viable aquaponics system). Indeed it IS a smallish footprint, as most Western consumers would need 5–7 Earths to sustain their consumptive lifestyle.

So peeps…what the hell are we going to do about this?

It’s a tricky subject as we are so entrenched in this, our consumer society. I am a big consumer, and in the past, was an even bigger consumer. My reading this week is of the above books and probably other things I will inevitably find on the Net. So much of who we believe we are is invested in the possessions we have—and most of this is driven by corporations wanting to derive a profit through sales via the very persuasive advertising and marketing industries.

My interest in human behaviour—what motivates and drives us, and something which I could have spent more time on in my undergrad Psych degree, is being reignited in me.

As a closing note, two contrasting costs presented in the lecture:

  • cost for establishing clean water and sanitation for everyone on the planet = $9billion
    vs the money spent on ice-cream in Europe in one year = $11billion
  • cost for basic education for the whole planet $6billion
    vs the money spent on cosmetics in the US in one year $8billion

Oh, and in Australia, we spend more on our pets in one year (excluding purchase and vet bills—so focussing on food and toys and such) than we do on foreign aid.