How to get a job in the burgeoning RE industry when your job description doesn’t exist & other RE + SD bla bla…

An Oxfam paper published recently, A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? asserts the demands of the rich, not needs of the poor threaten the biosphere.

Humanity’s challenge in the 21st century is to eradicate poverty and achieve prosperity for all within the means of the planet’s limited natural resources. In the run-up to Rio+20, this discussion paper presents a visual framework – shaped like a doughnut – which brings planetary boundaries together with social boundaries, creating a safe and just space between the two, in which humanity can thrive. Moving into this space demands far greater equity – within and between countries – in the use of natural resources, and far greater efficiency in transforming those resources to meet human needs.

Worth a look…

George Monbiot also goes on to say about this report in his The Big Green Question post…

The space between these two lines is the “safe and just space for humanity to thrive in”. So what happens if everyone below the social justice line rises above it? Does that push us irrevocably over the destruction line? The answer, she shows, is no.

For example, providing enough food for the 13% of the world’s people who suffer from hunger means raising world supplies by just 1%.

Providing electricity to the 19% of people who currently have none would raise global carbon emissions by just 1%.

Bringing everyone above the global absolute poverty line ($1.25 a day) would need just 0.2% of global income.

In other words, it is not the needs of the poor that threaten the biosphere, but the demands of the rich. Raworth points out that half the world’s carbon emissions are produced by just 11% of its people, while, with grim symmetry, 50% of the world’s people produce just 11% of its emissions. Animal feed used in the EU alone, which accounts for just 7% of the world’s people, uses up 33% of the planet’s sustainable nitrogen budget. “Excessive resource use by the world’s richest 10 per cent of consumers,” she notes, “crowds out much-needed resource use by billions of other people.”

Some years ago while hob-nobbin’ with my colleagues in NL, we had a discussion on belief systems, especially where the influence of religion was/is concerned as applied to systems collapsing. The mechanism of competitive emulation was at the nexus of the discussion.

In determining motivations, archaeologists describe the interaction process of competitive emulation, as one where polities compete by displaying wealth and power as symbols of deterrence. Thereupon, more developed systems absorb or influences a less developed one due to cultural (er religious in this context), technological or economic influences.

Look at the case of Easter Island, the persistent underlying causes of human population growth and subsequent increase of human per capita energy and material consumption exacerbated changes in the energy flux density. There was probably an increase in pastoral practices as populations at that time sought to live in more mountainous regions. And with this increased activity, due to the grazing of livestock, the environment degraded. These conquests consequentially had an affect on proximate causes probably including the loss of habitat due to the human-induced over-harvesting of trees/forests, and the subsequent competition of competitive and invasive species. Essentially, Easter Island deteriorated, because it became devoid of trees/forests, erosion of soil ensued, habitats proceeded faster that then pace of natural regeneration due to the tinkering of anthropogenic needs, whereby the humans became extinct and the civilization collapsed.

Opportunities, knowledge, and experience due to diminished genetic diversity were lost/abandoned. Putting it more simply, without trees, the land died, and so did the inhabitants. It has become apparent that there was (probably) failure to reconcile evidence of the ensuing environmental destruction in a timely fashion to preserve ecosystems, probably because of (religious?) belief systems and requisite socio-political/cultural pressures to conform to the belief systems. Hubris of the humanities?

Indeed, today human-induced GHG exacerbations have affected climatology and probably contributed to escalation in (human) ‘undesirables’ like hurricane Katrina, for example.

Um, I am amazed by our short attention spans how little we pay attention to history and fail to learn from prior mistakes. Oh yeah, I f’got the 4 S’s — we’re slovenly, selfish, satiated and stoopid. And now I have a fifth S to offer–short-sighted.

This past month, I have been two a couple of seminars. One was on net zero energy buildings. The other was how the organization is creating opportunities for marginalized groups to get their homes installed with PV.

Presenters mention energy efficiency, but fail to mention nega-watts, er conservation. It’s as if they are touting energy efficiency, alone, will solve all our energy woes. I think they are creating a false illusion that the flow of electrons is infinite, and that we in the west can continue to consume, willy nilly, because technology is singularly being touted as a panacea.

Don’t get me wrong, I think using energy efficiency to meet more of our power needs, rather than building new, fossil fuel power plants, is good for consumers and good for the environment. But what about changing consumer behaviors, too?

Indeed, energy conservation has to do with consumer behavior. And yes, there might be some instances where adopting a newer technology might make more sense than practicing conservation alone. It’s becoming quite a habit for most consumers to be averse to practicing conservation after a more efficient technology becomes available, or is deployed. And it’s clear to me, that in the west, it’s always about more, more, more–not what’s enough to maintain a reasonable quality of life.

Over the years, the trend I have been witnessing is, consumers feel they can continue to consume more, because technology improvements allow them to do so. I think taking steps to cut energy use, consumption, will not only help protect the energy grid from disruption, but lower GHG emissions.

Perhaps governments need to do more to help by providing incentives, techniques and information that will foster more conservation behavior. It’s pretty clear people won’t change their behavior because they are informed. I think some positive feedback loop building is needed–involve individuals in campaigns, so they view themselves as part of a path to sustainability, so their personal level of commitment will increase. Perhaps using energy efficiency technologies to provide reinforcement for conservation e.g. sensors in homes that shut-off lights in a room after several minutes of inactivity. Perhaps it’s time to also create a shift in perceived social norms, so more folks will come around to exercising conservation behavior.

Ok, so the information is out there. Knowledge is gleaned. It’s the attitude that has to change, so the good intention becomes a behavior that results in conservation. A possible solution: the use of gamification comes to mind to aid in this process.

Aside: For the life of me, I do not understand why on this Earth a single family of four in the USA requires a 4,000 square foot LEED rated home.

I feel affirmed that I am not alone in my sentiments on climate instability/climate change and the inaction on the part of (wo)man to do their parts to take action to change behavior, to do their part to reduce emissions. And indeed, there are certain industries tethered to electricity production creating emissions that are so bad, that the impending effects from our consumerism-bent lifestyle are far beyond all our imaginations. Karen Barnes recently posted up on the Greenbiz.com web site: Accelerating the Glacial Pace of Consumer Behavior Change.

Karen asks the question, “So why aren’t we doing more if it’s not hard and if we see that consumer demand/desire for convenience is to blame for environmental problems?” She defers to a list of reasons posted by Cara Pike on her blog, “7 reasons why the public is not engaged on climate.” Highlights follow:

1. We’re facing an unprecedented risk: You know, the kind that’s hard for our brains to process.
2. The public is overwhelmed: It’s hard to know which voices in the cacophony to trust.
3. Fatalism has set in: people don’t know what can be done, and how to be part of the solution on an individual level.
4. Mighty Opposition: Big industries are spending big dollars to stave off the conversation and steer it in a way that benefits their interests.
5. Science isn’t 100 percent accurate: So although most scientists agree climate change is real, skeptics and deniers have latched on to their slight uncertainty as proof that the results are invalid.
6. The conversation hasn’t been about values: While facts are facts, facts don’t motivate people to change. Where’s the conversation about the moral imperative?
7. Not taking the long view: Again, something our brains aren’t good at.

I would like to challenge item 7 the long view perspective. It’s not that our brains are not good at it, it’s partially because of lack of a mostly unwitting and unwilling leadership, and due to a mindset that has become entrenched in instant gratification for decades. People in Amerika are also rather dummied down and desensitized from thinking critically. I think this is a lame excuse for not understanding that one can either invest something now, or invest a WHOLE LOT more later…

So what to do? For one, I say keep the message simple (K.I.S.S. == keep it simple, stupid). When my scientific colleagues spew, “Everyone needs to reduce their carbon footprint by 5% by 2050″, this doesn’t equate into action by the lay audience. I think when scientists/engineers make such pronouncements, they need to either back it up with a metaphor, story or example that will resonate with the less informed, confused. Here’s how I would offer a suggestion for behavior change to the former pronouncement…

If you have a short 5-7 mile one way commute to work, try the following, at least once/week for starters:

• Carpool — A great way for bonding with co-workers or making new friends. If you’re not the driver, great for minimizing stress, too.
• Bicycle — Great for clearing one’s mind before starting work. Great for stress management on the way home. Great for managing ‘border expansions/manifest destiny.’ Oh, and there is Gortex for year-round commuting purposes.
• Take mass transpo — And enjoy the ‘circus!’ or get some reading/studying done.

Seriously, that’s it! That’s all one has to do to reduce one’s carbon footprint by 5% by 2050.

I do not think it’s a big deal to practice time management, and sacrificing an additional 15 minutes, either way, to plan for implementing the aforementioned suggestions doesn’t require all that much pain. And on the flip-side, one can be come enriched in local culture, healthier (less stress from dealing with traffic if taking mass transpo, and ‘manifest destiny/border expansion management’ if bicycling). No excuses for divorcing oneself from the westernize slovenly, satiated, selfish, short-sighted, stoopid way of life and achieve a more sustainable path.

NB: I’ve always been an athlete, active, but I have been religiously practicing the suggestions above for over six years now, since I sold my VW Jetta. Nothing to it, to me. I’m healthier and have a better overall sense of well-being because of the lifestyle behavior changes I have adopted in my daily routine.

Wow, at the end of this month, October 2011, it is predicted the human population on Spaceship Earth will reach 7 billion.

I think the problem of consumption is more important matter to address than just the population explosion. The chatter I’m hearing is that ‘it’s not about us consuming, but it’s about those brown people reproducing’, right? Wrong. Blame the poor for the environmental crisis by attributing it to population growth. This however, should not be the singular, decisive factor. I understand the global average number of children each woman bears has fallen from 6 to 2.5 in the past 60 years.

I mean what about all the consumption behavior of these ‘white men’ who probably each consume much of the world’s resources in a short period of time in a day, than the average African consumes in a lifetime? I think we need to check ourselves in a VERY BAD way in the West and do better implementing more sound sustainable development practices.

I see adverts like this, and typically do not see in renewable energy (RE) industry countering and educating the public on misinformation dispelled on REs.

http://www.api.org/aboutapi/ads/upload/Million_Jobs_15.wmv

Sometimes major media networks make ‘feeble attempts’ to dispel the myths about fracking, CONG (coal, oil, nuclear, natural gas):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/25/ap/business/main20111346.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;5

How is the RE industry supposed to compete when it doesn’t seem to ever have the financial resources to counter balance this kind of infomercial? Well I tell you, Environment Minnesota (MN) has game!

Here’s what, in my opinion, is a PRIMO example of the type of media blitz RE industry needs to start adopting to compete with the CONG conglomerates. Way to go Environment Minnesota for facilitating this contest! I think the winner of this contest, SolarHotDish, has done a GREAT job creating a video that should lure and attract the consumerism mindset. You go SolarHotDish!!  I understand this was the winning film in Environment Minnesota’s short film contest! Ja, it’s polished, cool, sexy–just what a consumer wants.

This one is pretty funny, too. Clean coal is deeelicious!

I am a firm believer that we need to quit ‘poking holes’ in our ’spaceship’. Or as some  might prefer I more simply say, “We need to stop drilling.”

Consumerism WILL be the bane of human existence.