Although I'm trying to cut back on random internet searches (to moderate success) I've allowed myself internet news, blogs, and my crossword puzzle.
Recently I went to Huffington Post and saw an article on the environment. The article basically summed up the UK MET office's findings that, without radical change in CO2 output, there's only a 50/50 chance that we can prevent global catastrophe by 2100. Now, we can argue about what catastrophe is, when it will hit, if it will hit, why it will hit, but overall my take on environmental concern is that we NEED TO DO SOMETHING.
The article avers that if the upcoming revision to the Koyoto Treaty does not ensure a worldwide reduction in CO2 output by 3% annually (and we're currently operating witha 3% increase in CO2) temperatures will certainly rise above 2C, the limit for healthy production of crops world wide. The article continues to predict degrees of temperature from 2.6C to 7C by 2100 depending on a timeline for CO2 reduction. What it failed to demonstrate, however, is the expected year that CO2 will increase to 2C if efforts to reduce the affects of global climate change are not implemented.
Do I believe the U.S. should decide to cut CO2, absolutely. I believe we should have a carbon tax for companies and individuals. Yes, our economy is struggling, but it's the perfect opportunity to reboot the system. But expecting businesses to make the change and then individuals seems a bit counterintuitive to me. All effective changes in U.S. policy have come from grassroots movements that drive large scale policy change.
According to the Earth Policy Institute and another organization I can't remember the name of (but know a scientest working there personally), to reduce enough CO2 necessary to produce a significant effect on global climate change, the U.S. actually needs to reduce CO2 emmisions by 80%. While individuals can only change a small portion of that percent, a movement of people could have a lasting impact.
If you can't imagine giving up 80% of your current use of energy combined (heating, cooking, showering, washing clothes, lighting the house, driving, buying boxed or canned goods, or taking vacations) it's not surprizing. Our entire way of life is dependant on energy. Even if we try to make changes that decrease energy consumption we end up using energy. Replacing a gas guzzler? Think of the energy used to create a new hybrid. Energy Star appliances, new windows? All good, but also have a production cost.
There is no way on God's green earth that we're going to be able to reduce CO2 by 80% by 2015 or by 2025 or 2035 for that matter. Pessimistic? I tend to think it's actually a case of realism.
What will happen is eventual famine due to the desertification of key areas of food production land. One article I read suggested that even with a reduction in CO2 the areas that we live in will feel more like areas 350 miles south of their current locations. Without change it will be more like 600 miles south. That would make Indiana's temperature (where I spent my high school years driving through corn fields) the same as in Mexico. While crops can and will grow in these conditions, fewer crops will grow and types of foods will need to change. The area in Mexico, however, will likely see increases in temperatures that will severely restrict crop growth. Food prices will increase with demand causing even those living in food giving areas to struggle financially.
My answer is food activism. Sure there are a lot of ways we could go with this problem, but I believe that changing where we get food has the largest single influence on CO2 emissions. If you buy locally produced foods, especially foods that are not processed or packaged and that are in season, not only are you eating healtier, but you're saving transportation costs, production costs, storage costs, and all the costs involved in recycling or moving garbage.
Changing our own demands for energy will hopefully affect the organizations that produce energy or energy using products. Need less, gain more. The only problem with that is fitting that all into the American Dream.
2 comments:
We're trying. Not terribly successful yet, but we're trying. I finally found a farmers market that doesn't require a 40 minute drive, and there's a "for lease" sign near one of their fields now...I think they're trying to develop that area, which means bye-bye farmland. Pout. Maybe the sign isn't for *all* of the land...or maybe the recession will keep office/warehouse development in check for a while....
And I keep trying to find a way to fit a veggie plot into our backyard. Too hilly, too many drainage problems, not an easy task. There's a community garden in our town where I could rent a plot for a year, but its a 15 minute drive away, and I know that with the added commute time, I won't have time to get there often enough to do more than plant a weed field and waste seeds....
*sigh*
In the mean time, I'm stuck buying California strawberries, Chilean grapes, and bell peppers from Isreal(!) while living in the middle of the fertile midwest!
I know. A lot of people are trying. It's just so difficult. The infrastructure isn't in place to do the things we want to do.
I don't know if you've already looked at the website, but www.localharvest.org has a guide to CSAs, Coops, and farmer's markets nationwide. I don't know if it will help or not, but it's worth a look.
I can't find a reliable CSA here so I've gone with Boston Organics. They try to get as much local as possible and deliver their foods to your house via bicycle. You can give them a key and they'll even bring it inside for you.
As for your back yard, you could try terracing like the Mayans. Probably involves a bunch of work, but it could look really cool when it's done.
Anyway, drive on. You're a part of a green revolution every time you look to see where your fruit comes from. There are people who haven't even thought to look.
Change is slow, but we've managed to make changes in the U.S. before so I have to believe we can do it again.
Post a Comment