Empiricism @Empiricism_Reloaded@social.cleverlibre.org

@atomicpoet @fediversenews

Although, be aware that there is a difference between not understanding a subject or technology, and intentionally aiming to misinform the readers due to some underlying political or economic agenda.

@Bargdaffy @MichaelEMann @msnbc

I don't care what your personal agenda is (neither does the planet's climate)

The linked-too essay clearly explains what needs to happen if humans are to have a chance of mitigating climate change. And that's much more than "only" stopping burning carbon-based fuels (all of them, in general).

To be clear, I'm not saying that many people on social media will actually want to live in a sustainable society - many people want to continue consuming resources at an unsustainable rate (I include you in that analysis - so you're done then? denial won't mitigate climate change either).

The general obvious solution (for the honest amongst us) https://qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/110511036586999020

Title – One Planet #Sustainability

The essay will describe how a population of people (society) can develop a society that is relatively sustainable (e.g., virtually zero Greenhouse Gas emissions). To be clear, this essay is not stating that humans will want to transition toward a sustainable society. In other words, for various personal reasons (psychology. e.g., political & economic ideologies), people may not want to live in a sustainable society. Or for various political reasons, they may not be able to. However, this essay is stating that populations of people can live sustainably (should they want to & the political context permitted them to).

Generally, for human societies to transition towards a sustainability culture (e.g., lifestyles), people, in general, will have to vastly reduce the amount of resources and power they're consuming. The Our World in data website - Per capita greenhouse gas emissions: how much does the average person emit?" provides an indication of how the amount of resources and power that people consume is not evenly distributed (generally, wealthy people consume more resources and power, for example, more consumerism - therefore cause more Greenhouse Gas Emissions) https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions

A sustainable society must fundamentally not pollute its environment at levels that are unsustainable. A sustainable society must not be dependent on finite resources. For example, “fossil” fuels (that are not technically fossils) have a limited supply. Metal has a limited supply, there is only so much metal that can be mined. There is a limited supply of "fossil" fuels that can be extracted. Extracting fossil fuels or mining for metals causes ecological degradation (& also burns fossil fuels, therefore causing greenhouse gas emissions, to extract, process, and transport the fuels and metals)

Cities have been constructed and powered using the energy derived from burning fossil fuels and mining for resources in general. A time is approaching when the amount of fossil fuels available will start to decline (e.g. when peak oil is reached) and when climate change causes many lands to be inhabitable (e.g., frequent heatwaves, droughts, forest fires, floods, sea level rise, etc). Scientists have been warning for decades that burning fossil fuels is causing the atmosphere to warm, which in turn is causing climate change.

Generally, sustainability means humans collectively must not be degrading (damaging) the ecology of their environments (or more broadly the planet's biosphere).

Unfortunately, human societies are collectively severely damaging ecology. For example, destroying or degrading natural habits due to mining for resources such as metal or crude oil. Crude oil is then separated (distilled) into materials (fractions) such as diesel, gasoline, kerosene, gases, etc. These materials are then used as fuels that when incinerated pollute the air (atmosphere, more generally)

However, humans could choose to live a relatively sustainable way of life.

To quote The One Planet Council "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to this more sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

"More sustainable way of life" is a slightly misleading phrase because most people in developed countries presently, and temporarily, live an extremely unsustainable way of life (hence the requirement for a massive change toward sustainable development).

There are methods to live sustainably. However, these methods need to generally replace the unsustainable resources and power demands of unsustainable lifestyles (societies) if they're to be effectively sustainable. The following information explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring ecology (e.g., wildlife). A practical and easily implementable, win-win solution that's based on the science of AgroEcology (not that evidence-based reasoning will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). The following information also explains by referencing practical, relatively easy-to-follow and do guidance, on how to use resources and generate power relatively sustainably (not that reason will prevent the unreasonable from arguing against reason). That generally means reducing how much resources and power societies use. In other words, focusing on resource and power efficiency. The present dominant economy wastes huge amounts of resources and power-producing products that nobody actually needs (that people could live comfortably without)

Before this essay references the general solutions to sustain a form of human society (a sustainable culture), this essay will acknowledge the institutional practices that are making it appear impractical, and difficult, to mitigate climate change.

There are many well-intended people in #business & #politics that are thinking about ways to try & mitigate #ClimateChange (greenwashes aside as their dangerously useless). People's personal circumstances, e.g., managing a company, can make the challenges of mitigating their business's climate impacts overwhelming (& impractical). Cooperation is the right approach (we are all in this together) to mitigate ecological degradation. Competition is the wrong approach.

More generally, operationally, there are two approaches to mitigate climate change, the top-down approach (e.g., government or management) or the bottom-up approach (e.g., local communities). Ideally, both approaches would be symbiotically in unison (But, human psychology...so)

People are in different circumstances. However, there is an increasing number of people that, IF the policies were in place, would have a huge positive impact on mitigating ecological degradation, therefore, lessening the impacts of climate change. To quote the One Planet Development Council (OPDC) "This forward-thinking planning policy provides a genuinely affordable and sustainable way for people to live and work on their own land, bringing social, economic, and environmental benefits" (see reference section. 1.)

That OPDC statement is somewhat misinformation - land isn't affordable for many people (however, I digress & that's a political problem).

However, to reiterate and rephrase so as to be more accurate "The One Planet Council provides a bridge between applicants and local planning authorities, with guidance and tools to support anyone making the transition to a sustainable way of life. https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

Well-intended policymakers that want to mitigate ecological degradation therefore climate change will do well to develop policies that enable people (that want to) to grow food sustainably whilst also restoring nature (win-win). Generally, One Planet Development Policies need to be vastly scaled up. As the effects of climate change become more severe, we will need more people that are living in ways that grow food locally, increase biodiversity, and generally live a low-impact lifestyle (that's in everyone's interest).

Therefore, I urge policymakers, or social influencers in general, that are not confined by the business-as-usual paradigm (paradox), to review the One Planet Development Policy (OPDP) & cooperate with one another to mitigate climate change. For example, of an urgently required revision to the OPDP - according to the medical (e.g., epidemiology) and #climatology (i.e., climate science) evidence, burning biomass (e.g., wood fuel or biofuel) is not sustainable, therefore renewable, source of energy (when scaled up). Furthermore, prolonged exposure to wood smoke inhalation (e.g., over the years) increases the probability of developing diseases (which negatively impacts health and work-related costs. i.e., more resources and power for the health system). Furthermore, wood smoke, or tobacco smoke inhalation is harmful to the fetus during pregnancy (i.e., wood smoke is pollution. See reference section. 2.) Therefore, the OPDP should be revised to consider clean air and relatively low-energy methods of heating water such as heat pumps (making use of thermal heat energy within a relatively low electrical energy system).

The OPDP should also be revised to meet the requirements of the ecological landscape of any area. For example, the types of foods (predominantly plants & fungi as ruminants such as sheep & cows emit methane) that can be grown in a region. Also, the time scales involved to improve the soil condition (fertility) will vary. Many areas of land have soils that have been severely damaged by industrial forms of farming (e.g., overgrazing, insecticide [poisons], and mechanized machinery such as tractors that decrease soil fertility. See reference section. 3.)

Business As Usual (BAU) is a climate paradox (that's why it seems difficult (BAU is fundamentally human-as-usual psychology). BAU has been full of “what about?” excuses (people) that have caused the outcome that the window of opportunity to mitigate severe climate change is closing fast. Many ecological landscapes are generally in extremely poorly managed conditions. Many people are still burning carbon-based fuels (this form of society simply can not be sustained)

In summary, One Planet Development – Just do it already! The One Planet Development approach will also buy time for relatively large businesses and society, in general, to adapt.

To reiterate, this essay has not stated that humans will want to or be able to (due to business-as-usual politics) transition toward a sustainable society. The essay has referenced the practical guidance that humans can live in a relatively sustainable society. I have made this distinction explicit because the agents that are inferring that transitioning towards a sustainable society is difficult are greenwashing (i.e., for their own personal reasons they don't want to live in a sustainable society. e.g., monetary & lifestyle agendas) #psychology

Website References that include multitudes of interdisciplinary science and or further reading.

1. One Planet Development Policy https://www.oneplanetcouncil.org.uk/

2. Doctors and Scientists against wood smoke pollution. https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate

3. The Soil Association. https://www.soilassociation.org/

#sustainable #culture #AgroEcology #renewableenergy #Degrowth #CircularEconomy

#unsustainable #society #economy #politics #FossilFuels #WoodFuel #BioFuel #climate #ClimateHeating #ClimateChange #ForestFires #droughts #FlashFloods #SeaLevelRise #OceanAcidification #PlasticPollution

@Bargdaffy @MichaelEMann @msnbc

Though not if fossil fuels (carbon-based fuels), for example, in power stations or for heating people's homes, were replaced with wood fuel.

"For the same amount of energy, burning wood emits more CO2 than coal." https://www.dsawsp.org/environment/climate

@JustinDerrick

Good idea https://empiricalperspective.home.blog/2023/06/08/one-planet-sustainability/

@Bargdaffy @MichaelEMann @msnbc

Stopping only burning "fossil" fuels would not be enough - if humans continued to burn carbon-based fuels (e.g., biofuels or wood fuel).

Therefore, STOP burning carbon would be the appropriate book title.

Also, don't burn books because they also contain the element carbon.

@Bargdaffy @MichaelEMann @msnbc

I am considering writing a book about how to mitigate climate change. But, not many folk would read it because it would explain the solutions ;-)

@ricardoharvin

This is the beginning of the #PolyCrisis that decades of inaction regarding not mitigating ecological degradation is causing.

However, people will naturally react more to real-time events (rather than to scientific warnings aimed at preventing those climate heating-related events).

Therefore, we should encourage any politician or business person that is now reacting & aiming to mitigate climate change (better late than never). And it's never too late. Though later - has made mitigating climate change a more urgent challenge.

@ai6yr

I do find it a sign of their ignorance when even those people that accept that tobacco smoke is harmful, don't put 1+1 together and accept that all smoke inhalation is harmful.

Go figure!

Inhaling woodsmoke is more harmful than tobacco smoke.

Lung Cancer Pathogenesis Associated with Wood Smoke Exposure (Delgado et al., 2005).
https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.128.1.124

Use of wood stoves and risk of cancers of the upper aero-digestive tract: a case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/27.6.936

@alexwild

We can't solve climate change by burning more fossil fuels.

However, I like the idea of getting fossil fuel execs to pay for the damage their climate change gaslighting is causing.

@artesianspring @MichaelEMann @msnbc

Well, let us take them at their word. If they truly believe it's a "hoax", their worldview will increasingly go up against that small thing called reality.