Environmentalist On A Mission

Monday, October 19, 2009

Films

Sunday, October 18, 2009

We have bigger houses, but smaller families;
more convieniences, but less time;
We have more degrees, but less sense;
more knowledge, but less judgement;
more experts, but more problems,
more medicines, but less healthiness;
We've been all the way to moon and back,
but we have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbour,
We build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever,
but less communication;
We have become long on quantity,
but short in quality.
These are the time of fast foods, but slow digestion;
Tall man but short character;
Steep profits but shallow relationships.
It's a time when there is much in the window,
but nothing in the room.
~Dalai Lama

Friday, October 16, 2009

Ecosystem services- a lesson about

I went to a preserved forest in Rannebergen, Göteborg, in a mission to guide a friend about ecosystem services. This is about what we did that day, but also a text how the relationship in nature carries the burden of human activites.

Imagine a forest and a small lake. It's fall and there is a low but bright sun in a blue sky. You see trees in different colours; red, green, yellow, you see bare rocks, you see grass and a small path. The water shine and move a little bit in the wind. This area is protected for more than the beauty.

The ecosystem
My friend asked me were the boundaries for an ecosystem is. I answered that an ecosystem can be a forest, a lake, the globe or just a stick on the ground. You can set the boundaries of what you want to measure, yourself. But you need three different thing to call it an ecosystem; producers, consumers and decomposers.

The producers uses the sun, water and carbondioxide to produce green mass in the process of photosynthesis, the producers also use this sugar itself and produce carbondioxide in the process to make fat or protein to store in the plant. Plants also need other nutritions for its growth, which can be found in the soil. The middle level of consumers do nothing else than eat the green mass. The decomposers break down both living and dead materia of producers and consumers and recycle it back as nutriens in soil, which the producers can use.

Energy flows in ecosystems
Small example of energy flow in a ecosystem; if 100% of the energy is in the producers, 16.1% is in the next step of the herbivores, 1.8% of the producers energy can be fund in the primary carnivores and 0.1% in the top carnivores (carnivores that eat carnivores, for example eagles or foxes) 24.2% can be found in the detrivores and decomposers. This tells us why it is much more energyconsuming to have an eating habit of meat instead of vegetables. When growing food for crops, as much as 90% or the protien and 98% of the calories, would disappear to the animals own metabolism, which is the answer to why the world is running out of farming land even if the technics and biomass/areal is bigger than ever.

From bare rocks to a forest

From the very first beginning everything is a bare rock. Liches are the first to colonize and they produce organic matter where small plants can colonize. Myccorhiza helps the grasses with the nutrient uptake. Acids from the nutrient decompose will release nutrients from the rocks and more nutrients (macro and micro nutrients like P and Ca) will be available for the plants. From more plants it will be a deeper humus layer and soon we have wooden plants. When woody plants are there, spruce can colonize easy, creating acid soils from needles and thick canopy layer that restrain microbes activity in the soil, creating a large undecomposed layer.

Temperature, water conditions, the angle of inclination, vegetation and its influence with shade and other specialties also effect the succession stages and rate. The ericaceous plants also thrive from the beginning and makes a shortcut in the succession stages. Not to forget is also the high usage of land in the southern areas of Sweden to compare to northern areas, were humans have force the system to go back to the grass conditions, when we make fields, pastureland and meadows. Areas like this are often nowadays left to "take care of its own", where the succession now (less than 100 years) can continue.

The myccorhiza
As much as 9 of 10 of the terresteral plants on planet earth live in a close relationship to soil fungi, a symbioses called myccorhiza. The symbioses gives a much larger connection to the soil and therefore acess to more nutrients. As a trade gift the fungus get sugar from the tree.

Myccorhiza is very sensitive to pesticides, fertilizer, packed soil and ground making. When fertilize a forest its important to remember the myccorhiza, because if the myccorhiza disappears because of more nutrients in the soil, other nutrients as the micro nutrients might be in shortness later, when no myccorhiza can help to "find it".

Three different myccorhiza is grouped after how they penetrate the plant root:

Arbuscular myccorhiza is formed by various types of plants, but environmental parameters that is related to its presents are low availability of phosphates and rich in nitrogen. Arbuscular myccorhiza can be found where the soil-pH is high and use mostly inorganic nitrogen.
Ectomyccorrhiza is formed by woody trees and scrubs and can be limited both from nitrogen and phosphorus. Soil-PH is neutral to low. The myccorhiza use mostly organic nitrogen, i.e can decompose organic matter by itself.
Ericoid myccorhiza can be found in arctic tundra and heathland because of the extremely low nutrient level in the soil. The ERM might be the reson for many plants to live here, when it have the unique abilities to obtain nitrogen and phosphorus from "raw" humus. Temperatur, soil-pH and water level is low. The result is a soil with a large amount of organic matter but no mineralized nitrogen as NH3 and NH4.

Soil
Worms, microbes, insects and bacteria break down organic material to nutrients. They can also break down pesticides and other pollutions from air and water.

The worms also mix organic matter with the soil, taking it from the top into the soil where other decomposers can help. Worms makes paths in the soil which helps plants to grown their roots and to get oxygen in the soil. They also makes the soil structure which decide the ability to hold water.

Plants shed their leaves, needles, flowers, fruit, and cones, animal shed hair, skin, feathers, pupal cases, exoskeletons and silk which the decomposers can tranform the nutrients again to other plants. The animals also produce excrements and uninary wasted that cointain nitrogenous compounds.

Water is fantastic!
The lighest is the ice (0 C degrees) and the heaviest water have a temperatur of 4 C degrees which mean, it is in a lake almost always some unfrosen water in the bottom for fishes to live in.

Transforming air to food
Nitrogen fixation bacterias can transform the nitrogen in the air (nitrogen is the most abundand gas, about 78% of the composion of air) to nitrogen that plants can use (from N2 to ammonium, NH3). Legumnious plants store the nitrogen in special roots and use nitrogen to the peas in the plant. Some trees also have nitrogen fixation bacterias. For example, tree species in the genus Frankia are used more and more in Agroforestry.

The bacteria help the soil to have a greater microbial activity which makes the soil able to hold more water and the soil is more fertile for other plants. Nitrogen fixation plants can be mixed to the soil, just grown before or toghether with other plants or as the bacteria Azospirillum sp that can colonize sugarcan and maize which in the future might get a much greater role when less artificial (which is an oil depended process) fertilizer is needed.

Examples of ecosytem services and the cost (trillion $ U.S)

soil formation (17.1)
recreation (3.0)
nutrient cycling (2.3)
water regulation and supply (2.3)
climate regulation (temperature and precipitaion, 1.8)
habitat (1.4)
flood and storm protection (1.1)
food and raw materials production (0.8)
atmorspheric gas balance (0.4)
pollination (1.6)
other services (1.6)

Together to a value of a total 33.3 trillion $ U.S (example from Costranza, 1997), but other numbers says a dubble value of the worlds annual GNPs of all national economies.

Other ecosystem services not mention above is barrier for diseases, control for natural disasters, inspiration, biomedicine, genetic resourses, social relationships, cultural diversity, spiritual and religious relations, cultural history, esthics, knowledge and education.

Did you know that:
-Tokyo use 2.14 times the whole area of Japan to the citys supply.

-One citizen need 220 000 to 250 000 km2 viable ecosystems

Humans having a hard time to understand that we are a part of nature. We think we are outside the system, "decoupled" from it

Elionor Ostrom- Nobel price in economy

For the first time a woman gets the Nobel price in economy and its Elionor Otrom, out from the Univeristy courses and into the debate! Elionor Ostrom wrote the book Governing the Commons, 1990.

Elionor Ostrom theories that focusing on how to share and think in long-enduring in a good way can be summary in eight principles;

First principle is that you have to have clearly defined boundaries that must be able to exclude other from access and appropriation rights. Without defining the boundaries of the common pool resources the efforts will be reaped by others who have not contributed to this efforts. Some rules that limiting the appropriation and/or mandating provision is needed. For example; a forest was divided in three parts; for protection, using for villagers and using for companies. Different rules for different parts.

Second principle; the rules have to congruence between appropriation and local conditions. Each society have their own rules that is needed for their systems.

Third is the principles of collective-choice arrangements. Most of the individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.

To do this the forth principles of monitoring is needed. Monitors are accountable to appropriators or are the appropriators. Who will monitoring the monitors? For exampe can a guard monitors the actions of the villagers. The activities of the guard are monitored by the executive committee of the forest council, this committee is itself monitored by the villages.

The fifth principles is about the graduate sanctions, the appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to assessed graduated sanctions by other appropriators, by officials accountable to these appropriations or by both. Then appropriators have made contingent self-commitments, they are then motivated to monitor other people´s behavior and in order to assure themselves that other are following the rules most of the time. For example the villages have to pay a fine if the break a rule, from the beginning the sanctions where there from the state, now its the local people and that works much better. The local people know what people are doing in the forest (if they use it or if they sell it) and therefore is the system self-organizing. People don't take to much cause they know about the monitoring.

The sixth principles is about the conflict-resolution mechanisms that means that if individuals are going to follow the rules over a long period of time, there must me some mechanism for discussing and resolving what constitutes an infraction.

The seventh principle is about minimal recognition of rights to organize so appropriations can enforce the rules by themselves; external governmental authorities does not challange local institutions and their devise.

The eight principle is about the nested enterprises, appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises. An empty space for rules at other levels, will produce an incomplete system that may not endure over a long time.

Let's hope from now that these principles can be used, a little bit more, more more!

Monday, October 12, 2009

How can meat and milk be so cheap?

Here in Sweden a liter of milk cost around a dollar/euro for one liter. A liter of oatmilk cost around 2 dollar. How is that possible? If you make a product from the prime product and not give it to cows (which have to get it, sometimes even from another farm, they have to cosume it, live and produce milk- several production stages that loose energy), how can that be twice the price to something complex as milkproduction?!

Farmers in Sweden have a thought time, acually they can't make it without money from the government. But what is it that government subsidize? What do we lose if we pay the real price for the products? A lot of buyers? Unhealthy people? Milk and meat is what the population needs? Is that why the govermernment subsidize it, to get a healthy population and a lesser need for healthcare? Or do they think about the open landscape? Are they conserned? Would we stand without any food if the price would be a little bit higher?- because the farmers have to quit because of less income because no-one buys it when its more expensive? What happen to the market prices rule? They are not here anymore because our availablity to buy goods from other markets (i.e other countries)?

In the other hand, a farming system that cost more money is the products from organic farmers. They are also poor and have to work all day long, all days a week but in the price they have all this things people wants when they arguing for eating meat and milk; an open landscape with grazing cows in the sunset on a small hill.

The Swedish meat consumtion increased by 50% from 460 to 706 kg carcass weight, between 1990 and 2005. Almost all GHG (green house gas emissions) in Swedish agriculture comes from meat production. A third of the households emissions of GHG comes from the food and almost everything from the meat consumtion. In a world wide perspective, the meat production stand for 18% of the global emission of GHG- THAT IS MORE THAN THE TRAFFIC!

So, what to do in the future?

It's not a very clever way of produce food when produce a cattle or a pig. Almost 90% of the food that you give to the animal goes to the animal to live. Left you have 10% of the energy or protein. So you grow food in only 1/10 of the field. What to do on the rest?!

Yes of course it's good if cows, sheaps and goats and maybe horses grazing the land. But that is not the whole picture of meat production any more. That is a romanticize way of looking at it or remember it. Meat production is about people working they ass of for nothing, a lot of animals in small cages inside a house with no sunlight , and the largest argument; a big waste of good food and available land!

Friday, October 09, 2009

Ecological modernization vs Ecocities

THE TRANSITION TO A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY
-A DISCUSSION ABOUT ECOLOGICAL MODERNIZATION

Anna Rosengren
Society, nature and change, 2009
Department of Urban and Rural Development, SLU

Abstract
Society moves towards a "greener industry" which the concept of ecological modernization or sustainable consumption as some people call it, advocates. But the contradiction is found when consumption is based on capitalism and focuses at the developed countries. This report discusses the idea of ecological modernization, the environmental impact in production of goods, and the need of a trade in "non-resources" such as tourism, theater and nature. The theory about ecocities, a society where people live closer to each other and nature, and with less distance to the "daily needs" takes a lot of environmental issues in its light. Is it so, that ecocities is a solution to achieve sustainable development, where human population can experience and enjoy, rather than looking for "false needs"?

Keywords; ecological modernization, ecocities, consumption, non-resources

Introduction; Globalization vs capitalism
Globalization has given the world new thoughts and connects people like never before. In the same time, capitalism is spreading. Globalization is therefore something that you can either see connected with money or as a term when time and space becomes narrower (Giddens, 1998). Things that happens even in other parts of the world are soon your concern. With the globalization comes influences and lifestyles. Magazines and media tells us what's important. New industries that makes cheap goods increases. People buy new (cheap) stuff as often they can, because they can afford, and things break fast, because of worthless quality. People are also told that they should change theirs things to get the newest vogue. And all this is in the term of capitalism. We can now see the same trend spreading in the ”environmental friendly” arena, where even as this is so called environmental friendly goods, you are told that you should change, because of better, more environmental friendly goods. Things comes after a while and people have to change and buy new stuff. The resources from which we made stuff from have limits but the consumption is higher than ever. Carolan (2004) sum this like: "shopping is not sustainable in the long term even if things are more environmentally friendly than before".

The transition to a "greener industry"
Ecological modernization is a discourse which let the market help us to a greener world; “If consumers demand environmentally sound production methods and production, the market mechanisms will be forced to try to deliver them” (Sutton, 2007). Prof. Dr. Joseph Huber, one of the first used the term ecological modernization mean that the industrialization has to come to this phase; it is a natural transitional period in the industrialization (in Böhler, 2002). The first phase is the industrial revolution, the second is the building of the industrial society and the last and third phase is the necessary "ecologization" of the industry to get the environmental problems under control.

The term ecological modernization has been a theory for years, meaning tha the market will fix the environmental problems. People have been very concerned about environmental issues in late years, the field of climate change and the market for environmentally friendly goods has increased lately. The criticism about ”environmental friendly consumption” which were discussed some years ago, is now upfront again. Question is if we can buy this society to a better ecological place to live in? One advantage is surely that people free to start to think about environmental issues and people are free to make their own choices. But seen from another point of view, we can ask us questions as "do we need cars"? And we can continue with same sorts of question and say that the aim for a sustainable environment should be to create an "environment" for the people more than create an ”environment” where people are dependent on technology.

The transition to a sustainable society
The planet has its limits in contrast to the economic systems that are not closed, consequently, while the economy can grow in physical scale, the ecosystem cannot. And as the economy grows, it becomes larger in relation to the ecosystem (Carolan, 2004). The ecological modernization has the aim to give the society what they want and also have a good economy, but does ecological modernization allow for ecologically or socially sustainability? Herman Daly, a famous economists, argue that the sustainable society have three different properties; 1.It doesn't use renewable resources faster than they can renew. 2. It doesn't use non-renewable resources faster than they can be replaced with renewable. 3. It doesn't pollute faster than the natural system can break down the pollution (Hornborg, 2001). According to Satterthawaite (1997) this thought is much like the thought Daly mention; we have to recover control over consumption rather than set up new institutions to manage its consequences.

Theoretical perspective on pro's
Some things have to change and has to be more environmentally friendly. The catalyst on cars is one good example of ecological modernization, more use of wind energy is another. But these two are different; the first does not change our way how to look at the use of cars. The other examples give us a new way to look at energy- we can actually see when being produced (Böhler, 2002). Böhler also mentions that another way to explain ecological modernization is knowledge, if people learn how to recycle it's a good way to "ecologizate" the society.

and con's with ecological modernization
Mol & Spaargaren (2004) mean that the question is not how good ecological modernization is, but a focus should instead be on which consumption that is environmentally sustainable. But Carolan (2004) asks how consumption can be sustainable? Carolan argue that you have to consider both production and consumption when a product is produced, and continues that it is not only that the car use less gas, focus should be on the materials and time invested; you have to buy step by step better cars. After some time we have a lot of ”better” cars on the street. The production of all those cars has influence for the environment; resources are needed, transportation and the emissions to construct the car should count.

Ecological modernization is therefore about capitalism Carolan means, "if we have to change several times to get the most environmental friendly goods, the resources are gone despite of cleaner air". Herman Daly ask the question ”After you grow your way to an environmentally sustainable world, then what”? Daly said that US maybe already reach such a point that the environmental and social costs is increasing faster than the increasing production benefits. He also wants us to see three points after the first question; Growth in what? What is environmental sustainability? and Who is ”we” (Daly, 2007). Moreover, the ecological modernization are primarily a national concern, but environmental problems does not stop at national borders and some are global (Giddens, 1998).

Also interesting to see and one more thing that belongs to the globalization era, is that we let ourself to be deceived in that we save a lot of time, but the time we save is not saved in a broader perspective. The time is instead collected from a larger amount of working people (Hornborg, 2002). In the same time- more resources are used. Hornborg gives an example of the car, which should have the same speed as a bike if we consider all the time a person who owns the car invests in the car. The person must earn the money, get gas, search for insurance, waiting in traffic jam and so on. And even small things like a "coffee-to-go" is in a wider perspective, time consuming, when a larger group of people need to work, because you want the coffee-faster. This is one of the main point discussed in the idea of ecocities.

Ecocities
Rutherford (2004) gives us the number that eighty percent of the american population now live in metropolitan regions. The fact is that half of the worlds population now live in the cities. Ecovillage, garden city and green building's and roofs are all concepts that tries to make cities more green or make the cities more ecological sustainable. The theory about ecocities presented from Register (2006) is in my opinion one of the most interesting, and takes all other theories under its wings. Register start his book with this sentence; ”They [the cities] needs to be reorganized and rebuild upon ecological principles”, where the main point of ecocities is the narrow living, meaning that you build higher houses, and in the same time using a smaller area to actually build the city, the 3-dimensional- thinking, meaning that you are not limited to walls and roads- there are space in behind and the closeness to all what you need; the stores, the health center, the nature. Main idea is that you don't have to take your family away from the city to do anything. ”Transportation is what you do when you're not where you want to be” says Register. Building an ecocity will also give other perspective about ourselves and the surrounding;

”While it probably won't rid the world of greed, ethnocentrism, and violence, building a nonviolent city that respect other life forms and celebrates human creativity and diversity is consistent with solving those problems”(Register, 2006).

This is also something far away from the concept of "sustainable cities" which usually is an attempt to focus on renewable energy. According to Myllylä and Kuvaja (2005) urban areas in South often fail when it comes to the basic idea of social structures, which are often taken for granted in the discuss about sustainable cities. They mean that to build an ecocity you have to consider locally defined development agendas, local resources and challenges, also take equity and social justice in resource allocation as much as use the word sustainability as a motivation and transparent administration, efficiency and flexibility in service provision and co-operation between authorities.

The mixture of thoughts
Register mean that we can build ecocities with existing technology, but we need to expand our knowledge. The ecocity is not only about the buildings, it is also a lot of knowledge which should be collected about native plants, the water condition, and weather for example. To increase the economic, buildings can have multiple uses propose, schools and office can be used in the evening for other activities (Register, 2006). The concept of ecocity is about information and service instead of selling cheap products. In the city, people will meet and communicate and enjoy life. To do that, it has to be a lot of green places and a lot of meeting places. Register mean that if we want a sustainable world, we have to change our view of this world. We have to see ourselves, slow down and make more things for our own goodness. But in practice, how can we motivate the process against the ”false needs”, meaning buy stuff we don't need to our direct surviving (as food, water, shelter and human contact)? Stefan Edman (2005) says that to come to environmental sustainability, we have to change our minds about how we look at the world; we have to do things more than just buy things. He wants to see a society which also invest in non-resources consuming; like culture, health care sector, education, better health and domestic services. He also argue that a higher proportion of service consumption are, in principle that the use of resources in absolute terms can be reduced, that mean a net profit for the environment and health. Discussions and workshops, meetings and movies, theater and sports are more interesting in that view. In the ecocity there is room for activity between people, and there is also room for relaxing and meetings in cafes and squares. In the ecocity, people care about each other and the nature around them (Register, 2006).

Rebuild the feeling in the city
From a personal point of view, I often wonder why people don’t have plants on their balcony? Or on the roofs? People would love that- I know- but they don’t do it because of the “environment”. We have to change the view of how a city has to look like. People are moving from nature, to a stage there we want all kind of different things. The ”false needs” is deeply concerned about our view of the surroundings. If we instead build a community where people see nature all the time (and other people), where we see the surroundings live and die, as the seasonal nature here in North Europe- we would understands it better and can in the same time also understand that we need the nature outside our gardens, balcony and parks. People should have an environment so they can act in a better way. If we want an attitude change that also works in practice, the society have to rebuild people’s surroundings. It has to be easy to recycle, go by train, walk in the cities and to be a part of nature. We have to rebuild cities that are narrow and easy to live in. Because if there aren’t any recycles bin- people wouldn’t recycle, if it's not a store in the corner- we have to go to the big market outside the city, if there are no space to bike, lock your bike or it ”feels” insecure with a lot of cars around- you don't use the bike in town (Satterthawaite, 1997). This is for the environment in the city. But in the same time you got the feeling of connection to your part of the city. The ecocity view is that you should enjoy where you live. And if you do that, you only consume things you need and enjoy.

Interconnect ecological modernization and non-resources
To sum this up; ecological modernization can be said to be useful in some parts of a sustainable community, but then, in that we need more green technology and not a capitalism which is based on environmental friendly things. A combination of knowledge is essential where disciplines from a wide range of institutions have to make things together; university students have to practice more in the society, so they learn how to do it later and to get their network; rejected people, meaning people that now are in the social care, have a part in this society; old people can have something meaningful to do. Everyone should count, young as old, sick as healthy. This can only be done if we consider what people actually need in their lives, and base consumption on experiences instead of things. If we do that, with some help from the ecocity theory, we can reach a society that is equally in the economic, ecologic and social aspect. Meaning, shaping a society which is sustainable.

References

Böhler, T., 2002. Ekologisk modernisering- en modefras eller ett hållbart argument? In Bruum, Humanekologiska perspektiv på människans tillvaro. Nya doxa, Nora.

Carolan, M.S., 2004. Ecological Modernization Theory: What about Consumption? Society & Natural Resources, 17(3), p.247-260

Carolan, M.S., 2004. Ecological Modernization and Consumption: A Reply to Mol and Spaargaren. Society & Natural Resources, 17(3), p.267-270.

Daly, H., 2007. Can we grow our way to an environmentally sustainable world? [Internet resource] Available at: https://webmail.student.his.se/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://growthmadness.org/2007/09/03/can-we-grow-our-way-to-an-environmentally-sustainable-world/ [accessed 7 october 2008]

Edman, S., 2005. Bilen, biffen, bostaden. Hållbara laster- smartare konsumtion. Statens offentliga utredningar SOU 2005:51, Stockholm. Available at: http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/04/59/80/4edc363a.pdf [accessed 7 October 2008]

Giddens, A., 1998. The third way. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Hornborg, A., 2002. Människans försörjning- Teknologi, ekologi och ekonomi i ett globalt och historiskt perspektiv. In Bruum, Humanekologiska perspektiv på människans tillvaro. Nya doxa, Nora.

Mol, A.P.J., & Spaargaren, G., 2004. Ecological Modernization and Consumption: A Reply, Society & Natural Resources, 17(3), p.261-265.

Myllylä, S. & Kuvaja, K., 2005. Societal premises for sustainable development in a large southern cities. Global Environmental Change, 15, p. 224-237

Register, Richard. 2006. Ecocities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC
Availaby at: http://books.google.se/books

Rutherford, R.H., 2004. Regreening the Metropolis: Pathway to more ecological cities. New York Academy of Sciences, 1023, p.49-61

Satterthawaite, D., 1997. Sustainable cities or cities that contribute to sustainable development? Urban studies, 34(10), 1667-1691

Sutton, P.W., 2007. The Environment. A sociological introduction. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Saturday, October 03, 2009

The Film | The Age of Stupid

The Film | The Age of Stupid

Shared via AddThis

Monday, September 28, 2009

Cities as living organisms

Cities can be viewed as living organisms which need clean water, food and transportation of waste from the city. But a city is not a well designed organism. We live closer to each other but the need to carry us increases. We rarely produces food or resources in the city itself, although the need for them increases. People living on less space, but their need for space at other locations, their ecological footprint is far much greater. This is unstable in a world with a growing population.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Communicate the future of mankind

I'm not a pioneer in this kind of things. I'm not even enough realistic for the serious people, not enough radical for the activist people. And neither it's my work to tell others what to do.

To know how to create a future society, we have to ask the people in the society what to do. What do they need? What is worth to fight for?

Environmental communication is about this, to make the people tell us what's important for them- not to tell them what's important -listening, before telling".

Every society struggle with different kind of things. If you have money, your problem is probably that you think you can do whatever you think you should do. SHOULD DO. Not what you selves wants to do, yes you think you have a free will, but have you? And if you are poor, you may just want this too. Dreaming of doing what the "rich people are doing".

How can we find the things we want to do, read again should do, in a good way also for the environment? We have to see what people really want to do. Needs. Not desires.

It's just about communication. Everything is. We communicate always even if we don't think so. We just have to. It's the society. How do you know where to eat if you don't communicate? You know it because you know the symbols on the signs. You know so much. Even if you don't think about it. Our society is in our minds.

If you go to another country that is quite similar to the society you are use to, you will see the difference in their way of thinking and maybe see how your own society is working. I got a feeling of this when I was in San Francisco for seven weeks in two different periods. I got the question how I like the city, and I said (very stupidly); "Yes.. you have restaurangs [like us], but everything is different into them, here.." I felt so bad after saying this, because it's not like I been in the same country, same city for my whole life, but in US everything was different. If felt being ignored or like they just didn't care.. which leads to my impression that American people are like you think they are; proud, not easy in feelings and they just fight for they own. In a Swedish way this would seem to be very egoistic. But for them- it work cause the environment is like that- they have to fight- or you will be in the street doing nothing. We- quiet Swedish people should learn a little bit. If we want something we should say so. But I also think that we Swedish people and also European people have something even more important, and that is passion and caring about other people.

It's what all is about- the best from the two worlds; we have to see what the people want and try to implement it in the best way for them, and as a result; the best for human future.

Why care when you can do other things?

Every human in this globalization world is affected by media and commercials, if not directly, by others. We just cares to much what other people do, to do something by our selves. This pants is not good to have in this place, this shoes can't be put with this socks.. Or my behavior is not as it should be, I should "behave"...

Of course we don't have time to be environmental correct. Maybe if the magazine says so. If the clubs, bars, restaurants do so. If our closest environmental do so. But why should we think our self? Why should we care? We have other things to think about. To fit to the society for example..

Information is not enough. We have known about the consequences for a long time. . But we just don't have time for it. We have to live in the society. To be correct..

Read the link to Herman Daly

One world. 6.8 billion people

One world. 6.8 billion people. 100 000 newborn every day. Who think in realistic thoughts that we can buy whatever we want and don't think about the consequences? What the fuck is happening in this world right now?
We are talking about finances crises but that will be OK. We just have to buy more. And more. And more. But people! Wake up! This is one world with a limited resources ground!

Cheap crap stuff is now in every store. Its even better if its just crap, so people can buy new thing again soon. It's perfect for the fashion in clothing. Who wants to have the old fashion any way? Better to let it be crap, so we can change faster.

I have an electric fireplace from the 80's and it working great. My grandma had a dishwasher that I guess was more than 30 years old, perfect until recently. They change it and the new dishwasher brooked down, two years later. A small piece was broken and it was cheaper to by another, new dishwasher.

The fashion to eat meat have increased by 50% in Sweden in the latest 15 years (http://stallom.se/2009/09/17/vill-du-kora-bil-eller-ata-kott/) and (http://www.sik.se/archive/pdf-filer-katalog/SR794.pdf). How is that even possible? Do we have that much land to give to the animals, when we in the same time are talking about a world in hunger? The debate about energy is also present here. An animal use 90% of what it is eating by itself- to warm up itself. If only 10% of the food that an animal eats goes to produce meat- it is needed a high proportion of plants. But that's the fact. In Sweden 70% of the agricultural land (not pastureland included) is used to produce/farm food for animals and we import soybeans to give to the animals.. with an loss of 90%, its not so well investigate, when soybean are perfect even for humans to eat..
And then we don't talk about other impacts from meat, for example cut down rain forest and destroy climate. What to do then? Buy more stuff? Eat more meat?

Reality please!

Economy and/or reality

Come on all economist.. Can we think in a sustainable way for instance? A little bit in a more realistic way? The economics isn't all about stuff.

We change the government party here in Sweden, and now they will lower the taxes. For some, its great. But they do it because they want the Swedish people to have more money to buy things for. What kind of things?

It's clear that the world is going more organized and more and more institutional, which is great in a way when it's creating a lot of jobs. But the great organization is not so much about other but things. Information trading, spreading, marketing, subworkers in a chain with to many companies. They just want us to buy things, and that means more stuff. STUFF!. We have all what we want already! We don't need more stuff. We need a society where people can live. And what a society need is; health care, educational centers and schools, culture, social things. We need a society where people can relax and have great fun!

Not worry about the latest trend in shoes or pants. This society now, makes me sick and the planet sick, cause we just have a limited amount of resources. But who cares?

Monday, September 21, 2009

San Francisco one month later

Reading a book. "To play a fool" from Laurie R. King. Everything is happening in San Francisco and the streets and the people, the mood feel familiar. The book told me that "it's hard to build away the bay and the hills here" "-Yes, San Francisco is domed to never be a modern city". In this way a modern city seems to be a city with high buildings and nothing more than walls and street down down there.
I would like to say that we are going back to (with all this modern thinking about green cities and green neighborhoods) the "old" city again cause we have to. The city was growing to fast. Without the human spirit and without a thought that humans should live there. But the city is for the humans. So we have to build.

San Francisco is great in that way, with soo many big parks in the city. But a bit too many cars too. And a lot of other problems.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Lack of nature where nature should be, is not nice

Lack of nature where nature should be, is not nice. You can see that it should be there but what happen?

I have a neighbor, a family actually, two doctors with two kids and two dogs and a big 2-floor- house. The house have two windows to the sun, the rest is a bathroom, and this old windows with colors that you can't see threw. To have more light, this family decided to take down three big oaks (probably more than 200 years old). Clever? They are doctors...

I see a hill with a gymnasium school at the top. Now they took away all the trees at the hill. But why? It just look awful. And you don't have to be an ecologist to understand that the trees do some good things there at the hill. Holding both water and soil together.

There is a daycare center next to the bus stop here and they are doing something very strange; blast away a rock, the kindergarten have to be flattened out. Can we do something better with our tax money???!

Friday, August 28, 2009

Beautiful cities

Wild nature and human building construction. Soft and hard. Sky and skyline meet stones in different shapes.

Cities are beautiful, and if we are building in a right way it can almost be dreamlike.

Cars, cars, cars

It's easy to walk in San Francisco for sure, but the city is build for cars with straight roads (with an small exceptions of Lombart steet!) and highways in different levels (!) at entrences and exits from busy roads. Where does everyone goes? Where do they come from? Do they need to take their car?

If you take the bay bridge over to Oakland and later to Berkeley you will see the highways in different levels, and maybe you would think as me- "is that a bridge for a railway?" -"no it was for cars" ""is that a bridge for a railway?!" "-no its another for cars" "that one then?!!!" and you look again and you see a truck 50 meter up in the air.

An unsustainable situation

Also.. when I walk here I see things that people in cars doesn't care of ( they should have their eyes on the road), and I just realised that many of both ugly buildings and spaces are just ugly cause noone (that any care about) walks there anyway. It's just the cars, everywhere, and they don't look.

Green and people friendly Göteborg, Sweden

3-dimentional Göteborg, Sweden

Parks, squares, plazas, fountains or just places to sit- benches. Göteborg is built on hills that give different levels and spots for walking, like stairs between the houses and where you can have a coffee one stair up.

With a climate that allow sitting in the sun outside in the city only half a year (and a lot of rainy days then) Göteborg have so many places for that purpose, which makes me wonder why other cities that have hot days with sun (more than three times a week, half a year) every week, year around doesn't have it.

And I guess it is because there is no space for it when the street for the cars have to be there.. no?

History and future of high big buildnings in Sweden

Common in Sweden and mostly parts in Europe is the high, big buildings, not sky scrapes but a big house to live in, its smart- it save space and give more space to green spots. A lot of them comes from 1965-75 when the Million Programme built one million apartments (25% of the apartments today) to save the housing situation in Sweden at that time. The main goal was to build (a lot of) equally high standard apartments for medium class people. And in the same time a lot of (smaller often in wood) historical houses was destroyed and made space for the new ones. Nice kitchen with refrigerator, bathrooms with water closet and baloneys in every apartment was luxury. Also closeness to schools, library, nurseries, playground and common spaces was one part of the plan.

The largest neighborhood with those kinds of houses lays outside the city center and are nowadays for the low income and with a high percentage of immigrants, specially in certain areas where almost everyone is an immigrant, what also make the situation worse with more and more crime and high racial segregation in the suburbs.
Many of the houses are now old, cheap to live in and not high status. They have to be rebuild which would give a great opportunity for jobs right now and also to fix some of the social problems that these neighborhoods have. In the same plan, they would plan for more common space, green areas and activities for the people.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Sustainability is also about economy and social problems

When talking about sustainability, most often it is about the environment, or the ecological sustainability. But for reaching that you have to consider both economic sustainability and social sustainability in a close working network with the nature. The parts can't live alone.

Solving environmental problems must be the focus in a very close future, without a healthy surrounding mankind can't live. Environmental problems are, unfortunately, always abstract, huge and normally seen as luxury problems. Something that people with (time), money and new technology should work with. That is not the real picture.

Economy and ecology are often two opposites sides that with a first look seems to works against each other. It costs to invent green technology and clean emissions. And most of all, as an consequence of a capitalistic way of looking at the world, when resource are non-ending, a wealthy environment is nothing to even count on. This is exacly what the environmental problems is about!
If you then talk about a sustainable economy, that is something different. This will also think about the consequences of the environment or the ground base for everything; the sustaiable economy knows that resources are not never-ending, so if we want to have a stable economy, or a economy that don't have to move around in the world to find more resources, the only way would be to take care of the resources we already have in a good way! We don't have more than this earth to find our resources.
Resources can also be seen as the people in an society, that have a need for things and services. Therefore social sustainability have to been seen as an equally to the other two, and here you have something to work with.

Everything is very close connected to each other. A society have to take care of its residents to take care of the environment, and it can't be too expensive.
We have different solutions for different kind of people. Very wealthy people can do recycling and buy new cars or buy better houses, but how many in the world is that? Sweden and Scandinavia, Japan are maybe some. But even in these countries there are also a big portion of non-rich people that can't do anything at all for their situation. The environmental problems is not the biggest problem. That is to survive.
And even if you are wealthy you don't have to care about the environment, maybe you don't know or maybe you don't- what? Care? Have the energy? The knowledge? It's about a lot. Mostly, environmental problems lays in the environment close to you- if it's not an easy way bike or to take the bus or recycle you would not do it!
And if this is the problem even for wealthy people, how can we then tell people that don't have food for their day to be more environmental sustainable?

It's not fare to blame anyone in this situation. We have to build the right environment for people. So in the short run- we have to clean the environment to fix the social problems to even have an economy. So where should the money come from in the first place?

And WHO would fix it?

Curitiba (link to the right) is a good example of how to make things happen a bit faster and cheaper than in other cities. Because in Curitiba they had big problems with unhealthy people. And it's not only here we have to act right now, everything is connected in this world. There is no self-suficient societys left in the wealthy world, so if you can't see the environmental problems or the health problems or poor people that's because your goods are produced somewhere else.

A very good example of a solved environmental problem is the Mediterranean Sea. When tourists started to go here, the hotels had their sewer right to the ocean. This wasn't so clever, because the tourists came to swim in the sea and didn't want to swim in their feces, so problem was solved quite easy, beacause if they didn't have a nice ocean they didn't have any costumers and then no money.
This is how it's works and should work. Unfortunately a lot of people do swim in feces and also live in it, but noone cares because they are not costumers with money.

If you see as much to the social, economic and ecological side to archive the future for people, that is a future that will be a good solution in the long term; and that is what sustainability is about.

Back in San Francisco

Tool library, bicycle co-op, vegan cheese on your pizza, supermarkets with only organic vegetarian food. And in the same time; poverty. People living outdoors with theirs stuff in a shopping cart, people on the streets talking to them self, a barefooted man with an open wound, like a hole in his foot.

America is the country for both poverty and "new" thinking, as environmental correct food, "better" cars, sharing of thoughts, participation in decisions and a lot of organizations to make a different in all kind of things, like wealth, environment, art etc
-but really does it make a difference?

I come from a very calm country where almost everyone have a place to stay, where the government help people that needs help, and also where people have a medium sense of being environmentally correct. Where almost everything is "lagom" (just right, no more, no less). I see the things here in San Francisco as a bit confusing when people seems to work so hard but they have all theirs problem anyway. More confusing to see all this poor people that nobody even care to give some coins to when the normal thing is to see things in millions of dollars (not kronor... its like everything have to be 10 times more extreme all the time).

When I walk around here, I think about how easy it is to come from a wealthy country/city or even neighborhood and to say; it's just this we have to do; we have this good solution for how to make things better (e.g sustainable development). How easy it seems to be; "we just have to make this", we just have to cut the emissions here", or " if we just do like this".

BUT people, hey! Take the subway to West Oakland and see the empty streets there, and all the empty, dry backyards, or just take a round around the streets and SEE people. What in the world should we do to make things happen to these people?

Conclusion is; it's not about money at all, everything is just about will.

Monday, July 13, 2009

New "City forest" in Alingsås, Sweden

I was on my way to Skövde, but I forgot my key so I went off the train in Alingsås, and why not take a walk and see the new neighborhood there?

"Stadsskogen" - the city in the forest is built right now, first people have moved in in some of the new buildings.

It will be a small village, but a part of the city center, close to nature and the lake Mjörn. 1000 housing and 3000 people will be living here, in houses and apartments. Ultimately, the "City Forest" will include a range of public venues such as shops / crafts, restaurants, cafes, plazas and playgrounds, all belonging to the image of a living city. It is also planned for children and the elderly, and school in the area.

Some houses have been here for decades. I wonder what they say now, when they will live next to high building and close to other people.

The main point is to have the nature close, with small paths, water and "wild" nature close to the houses. With my stubbornness "never walk the same road twice" I tried out the forest when I walked down a non-completed road. It was quite "wild"- I guess it was mainly cause they are cutting trees for the views and the feeling of nature..!

The buildings are so-called "passive houses", which requires almost no heating. The smaller houses have "smart" solution architecture, with small windows to north and bigger to the south for "free" radiator. All material is as far as possible environmentally friendly sound.

Here is a garage under the dirt, the entry was hiding in a corner so everything look like a small hill. The roof will probably be a "green roof" with special plants to reduce heat and water.

Take a look at the little film about City Forest under "links"- quite cozy!

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Received awards for environmental solutions in Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, Sweden

Some people call this city for the most beautiful in the world. Water, old buildings, squares, public transportation (mainly subway and buses) and environmental projects. So what happen in the Hammarby Sjöstad, the sustainable neighborhood? I took the subway-tvärbanan-walked there one day, guessing my way, were in a good mood and had my camera without any sim-card, so no pictures. But it look modern, lawn very shortcut, some flora in the seashore and they have their own ferry.
This district has received awards for it's environmental management.

*Environmentally good materials for the buildings
*Renewable energy from solar energy, fuel cells (better batteries), district heating, electricity and biogas from the waste from the area
*Waste water supply biogas production which is used for gas cookers, buses and cars
*Bicycle paths
*Few parking lots

What's wrong?
Straight streets built for cars, no people. Can they meet somewhere? There is a lot of restaurants and cafés in the area, but I couldn't see any ordinary stores like stores for food, small business for local people and so on. The neighborhood feels very empty.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

It's not only about climate change

The disaster planet earth is facing, and then all of us ontop of it, is not only climate change. Instead it's about several different things. It seems as some people think that this planet have enough resources to feed and give production to every one of the 6,8 billion people in this planet. Sure, we know that is not possible. We just have too many problem to deal with.

Air pollution (smog, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, ground level ozone etc. causes mainly from production and traffic)
Soil erosion (removement of trees and plants, monoculture agriculture, changed waterlevels and directions, change of flow)
Water shortage (soil losses their water-holding characteristics by removement of covering plants, agriculture with intense irrigation, lowering of groundwater level and change waterways i.e cities, industry, cotton production, parks, golf, water games etc)
Nutrients availability in soil decreases (monoculture agriculture, overuse of of fertilizers)

Two questions; Is this something to work with in a global way or is it for local projects? And are the solutions about the physical things, as low-energy, passive buildings, biogas cars, organic cotton, or the way of thinking and doing?

What can we learn if we open up our minds and think more in the ecological way? (i.e in this sentense not meaning buying organic/sustainable goods but instead take a closer look at the meaning of the word ecology; as the study about distribution and abundance of population in interactions with the environment)

For human population or the ecology of humans that would mean; why do we live where we live; what do we need around us in such a place? Can we be their for a longer time? Can the population grow in the specific area? How big is the area? Is it expandable?

Is it even possible to have an society which take those things under consideration? A community based on knowledge in ecology, the ecological city in balance with nature? Do we have to build new cities to manage that? Or can we rebuild houses/neighbourhood's/areas/villages/big cities?? Is it impossible to rebuild whole cities in balance with nature? Small project starts here and there, with small areas with "sustainable" neighbourhood. How can this be enough? Sunpanels on houses, some trees in town and streets without cars. What about the whole spectra, with the whole society and problems to that? What about consumption for instance? What about our ecological footprint? Is it possible do decrease it if we live in such a city? How can we manage to handle the environmental disaster that is close to come?

To argue about climate change is real or not is just a waste of time. We don't have time if it's true, and if it's not, all those small projects now running is a necessity for all the other problem we face.

Last,

Do we need more landarea to expand production (that would be in another planet), do we need more transports (international trade) or do we need (the first real) ecocities that are based on the balance of human and nature, which take care for people and nature and thinks about the consequenses even in the future?

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

A perfect example of an ecocity area in Malmö, Sweden?

The Western Harbour (Västra hamnen, Malmö, Sweden) is a mix of housing, cafes and small restaurants, shops, schools, squares, closeness to the ocean and opportunity for other people to go and enjoy.

The buildings is both big (as Turning Torso, 54 floors) and small (with 2 floors), and have different appereance. Between the buildings. water flows and water loving plants have been planted. Not planted as in organised parks but instead a bit messy as nature should be.

One of my favourites was also the little greenhouse with tropical plants, right next to a restaurant so you can go in there and eat in windy days and the open storm water system.

From the beginning a dirty industry area, now one of the most attractive areas to live in. An area which also allows other citizens to use the seafront. Maybe not so much a city as a residential area, but it's very very close and it has potential to be more.

A touch of Amsterdam

Windshield and a greenhouse in the same time

Creativity

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Urban area, old Christiana gardening and bicycles in Copenhagen, Denmark

Yes, you can feel that you are close to the ocean, you can see that they have their rebuilding programs and they also have huge project for the environment.

Copenhagen have been rewarded as "the most liveable city in the world". In 2006 Copenhagen Municipality received the European Environmental Management Award, the price was for the holistic environmental long-term planning. Copenhagen also have the largest market for organic food, 45% in the municipally sector and 36% of the inhabitants bicycle to work, schools and university.

But Copenhagen, where is the cosiness? Where is the squares and the fun?

I didn't have the feeling of connection between different areas in this city. It was a bit tricky to find things, everything felt in the back of something else.

When arriving from the airport, I saw an area of new buildings, something that almost have some of the elements for a ecocity. I decided to walk there the next day, even if I didn't know what or where it was.

I found it, and it turned out that it was a new area next to the water. It was a rainy day, very cold and windy and right before this neighborhood there was a huge mall, I walked thought it to warm myself. And was a bit confused over what was going on here.The white buildings was quite nice. On the other side I met this grotesque building (first picture) where every apartment seems to have their own balcony behind glass. In the base of the building was nothing! Just asphalt. I guess it was a underground system with a parking house.

Even if the new area has lot of greenspots, closeness to water (bathing and boats) and a long and narrow park along the water, it felt very boring. With no people at all (because of the rain? the newish feeling, or the contruction? everyone in the mall?!), straight and lifeless squares, a lot of paths but not cosy (enough).

You can see green spots in Copenhagen, but when you walk there it hard to find it. In Christiania, for example, it's still some gardening and green spots, houses with green corners and some special apperience.

Christiania is just a remnant of what it have been. But we found some cosy spots. Small houses, small gardens and a lot of green...

I also like the bridge between the houses!

Also, this building with greens- made a special appearence of this road in Copenhagen.

Sunday, June 07, 2009

Terrasse house and green spots in Warsaw, Poland

Warsaw with Ecocity elements?

One example is that a quater of Warsaw is greenspace! Which many, today, are nagged in the edges when building new houses. Best way to hinder that is to build compact and high like in the innercity of Warsaw.

Another thing that I observed was the greenspace infront of the central station; the grass was not only ordinare grass as in lawn, instead a mix with small green plants, especially Plantago spp, it looked more like a landscape than a small park or a lawn- very nice and "wild". Also higher plants lived here, made different levels and colors of the "lawn".

When visited the Palace of Arts and Culture we aslo saw this building with terrasses and a small green house in the top? (tried to zoom in first picture above), and you can also see corridores with trees and green space in this city (last picture).

I guess that Warsaw having a lot better transit network (trams, buses, subway), more green areas and more rebuildning than many many other cities. Since joining the European Union 2004, Wasaw had experienced the biggest economic boom in its history. What will the consequences be in a soon future?

Pages