R U an Aspiring Treehugger?

Treehuggers and environmentalists have been accused for being anti-progress or being hypocritical hippies. Hopefuls are quick to embrace supposedly beneficial activities, eg: buy only organic products, sign up for all sorts of petitions against animal cruelty, not buy products made in China, etc etc the list goes on, 

...while politicians, businessmen and traditionalists have been lambasted for being inhumane, unfeeling and unethical. 


HAY GUYS!! Do not fight! 


First off, let's understand the few kinds of environmentalists (courtesy of Alex Steffen):

"Light greens" see protecting the environment first and foremost as a personal responsibility. They fall in on the transformational activist end of the spectrum, but light greens do not emphasize environmentalism as a distinct political ideology, or even seek fundamental political reform. Instead they often focus on environmentalism as a lifestyle choice. 

"Dark greens" believe that environmental problems are an inherent part of industrialized capitalism, and seek radical political change. Dark greens believe that dominant political ideologies (sometimes referred to as industrialism) are corrupt and inevitably lead to consumerism, alienation from nature and resource depletion. Dark greens claim that this is caused by the emphasis on economic growth that exists within all existing ideologies, a tendency referred to as "growth mania". 

"Bright greens" emerged as a group of environmentalists who believe that radical changes are needed in the economic and political operation of society in order to make it sustainable, but that better designs, new technologies and more widely distributed social innovations are the means to make those changes - and that society can neither shop nor protest its way to sustainability.


In layman terms, Light Greens refer to the smaller specks who believe in internally "feeling good being a hippy", Dark greens are angry environmentalists, and Bright greens are just awesome.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 A few points to note about balancing progress and environmentalism:

1) Don't confuse novelty with progress

We all love the concept and idea of sustainable technology, be it architecture, day-to-day appliances or vehicles. But some of these inventions obviously subscribe to form over function. Looks cool with the word "eco" on it with a nice matte green coating and stenciled leaves, but does it actually work?

2) Take inspiration from the past and move on

As mentioned, we need not be like cavemen to be smart about our living. Mother Nature always has things to teach us, and we should reflect these ideas in our creations. 

3) Progress itself may be measured linearly, getting there isn't a single path...

...but it's a whole delta and network of people, no matter how small (specks like us!), regardless what kind of green you are, even non-greens, making the effort to contribute. A single decision to change any small action of yours ripples uncontrollably across continents and that tiny action might save or destroy something, someone out there. 

4) All things in moderation and balance

To fully understand the intention, effects and importance of sustainability, there are a few realms of patterns to consider before quickly going "green'"; personal (smallest), local, regional, national, continental and universal (largest). 

5) In any form of decision making...

...especially for environmental issues, it should always and/both and never either/or. How can we fully eradicate modernity, industrialisation and consumerism? Why not work with these to our advantage and find a balancing point? Things are never that simple in black and white. :(

Extremity is one of humanity's biggest weaknesses. Let's prevent it now. Yeahhh!

Amur Leopard: The rarest of wild cats

With only 30 - 40 remaining in the wild, the Amur leopards are listed in international, federal and regional levels as critically endangered and are in immediate danger of extinction.

Threats:

Poaching
There appears to be poaching of leopards as well as their prey species. Poachers include both poor local villagers and newly rich Russians, mainly from the city of Vladivostok, as well as Chinese nationals who illegally cross the border into Russia. Russian hunters kill many more deer than is officially allowed and Amur leopards are sometimes caught in snares as well. Since 2002, skins or corpses of nine Amur leopards killed by poachers have been found in Russia and at least two leopards have been killed in China.




Deforestation
The forests on which Amur leopards depend have slowly disappeared as a result of frequent fires. Local villagers start fires for various reasons, but mainly to stimulate the growth of ferns that are a very popular ingredient in Russian and Chinese dishes.




Inbreeding
Loss of genetic diversity in the small and isolated Amur leopard population may cause inbreeding depression (reduced numbers due to reduced reproduction, lifespan , and increased vulnerability to diseases). However, the results of research so far are inconclusive and additional information on the effects of inbreeding is needed before conclusions can be drawn.They have young every two years.




Development projects
Southwest Primary is located close to the Russian borders with China and North Korea, making it an attractive area for infrastructure projects such as new railways, gas and oil pipelines and ports. In 2005 and 2006 the Zoological Society of London and other ALTA partners led a successful international campaign against a plan to build an oil pipeline terminal on the coast of the Sea of Japan in the leopard’s range.

A Necessary Evil: Sweatshop apparel

Some of us mean well and truly care about individual rights, freedom and being humane. However, to be globally conscious, "good intentions" is not enough. 

Good intention + logical thinking = win


One such issue which the writer has recently discovered is our contribution to slave labour or "sweatshops". To give a basic overview:

Sweatshops are factories or work-places which grossly "underpay" their workers to do exceptionally long hours of work in undesirable conditions. These are typically found in developing countries producing urban market demands such as apparel.

Like US and the Iraq war, too much "goodwill" may work against the Utopian ideal of a completely humane, ethical world. Before US became this developed today, they too, went through their own fair share of "slave labour".

Economists in fact, recommend more sweatshops to promote growth. Besides, a large percentage of workers willingly work at sweatshops with no complaint. Makes sense, since this job is way more desirable than say, trash-picking, prostitution and starving to death.

This makes the writer (and human rights activists) REALLY SAD

By simply boycotting, one is completely depriving choice in job market for the poor workers.

An example: Child laborers working in Bangladeshi sweatshops were victims of mass boycott in the US. As a result, more than 60% turned to child prostitution and the rest either starved or begged.


So it's subjective. Companies from various developing countries suffer from different plight. But for those who enjoy big brands, you might want to delve deeper into the production pipeline of your warez. It can be easily done by a quick Google. 

eg: F21

What we can do is EDUCATE the masses about this plight, know the background of our favourite brands and continue fighting evil bosses (such as Nike, F21,Walmart, GAP etc) from ill-treating their workers.


Fight responsibly, don't just boycott. 

The Last of a Rabbit Breed

Bryn the pygmy rabbit died in 2008, marking the end of her genetic line. This subpopulation lost its sagebrush habitat as the land was developed for agriculture. Key features of Bryn’s genetic material survive in hybrid pygmy rabbits; a breeding and reintroduction program holds out hope for her kind.

In an off-exhibit room at the Oregon Zoo, the staff was quiet, even reverent, as they brought in Bryn. She was one of two Columbia Basin pygmy rabbits left, and since both were old females, this was a solemn occasion.

A keeper placed her gently on my black velvet background, and I began to take photos. I stopped to watch her from time to time, but she didn’t move much. She wasn’t even scared. Nearly blind, missing half an ear, and with fur falling out onto the cloth, she seemed to have already given up.

The whole experience left me morose and extremely disappointed. We’d done it again, this time by converting sage habitat to agriculture in western Washington. Our photo session was one of the last chances Bryn had to be noticed. She died a few months later, and then Raphaela, the last of the breed, died as well. The Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit is now extinct, a passenger pigeon for the 21st century.

-Joel Sartore

Let's talk about Oral

For those who know the writer well, she's atrociously filthy. Sometimes, she defends her laziness with being "eco-friendly".  

The bunch of us who're used to waking up and brushing their teeth in darkness, you will, one day realise that your toothbrush ends up like like this very quickly: 

or worse... 

If one continues to brush their teeth with this damned toothbrush, your teeth will eventually have holes (like the writer) because screwed up toothbrushes with frayed bristles just can't reach places that a brand new toothbrush can. 

As a result, you throw the toothbrush away, adding to the already increasing pile of useless plastic trash. Plastics can be recycled and is cheaper than landfill disposal, but it also takes a significant amount of energy to do so. Might as well make your plastics last as long as they should. 

The lifespan of a toothbrush largely depends on methodology:

Less strength, more strokes.
Kurang kekuatan, lebih stroke!
少的力量，更招！
적은 힘이 더 스트로크!
少ない力、より多くのストローク！
Меньше силы, больше ударов!
Minna styrkur, fleiri högg!

Psychologically, one's teeth feel cleaner using strength. However, it's not necessary - your bristles part faster, reducing its durability and utility. Instead, dirt can be better removed from your teeth with increased, light repetition of strokes. 

Your toothbrush bristles can therefore last 5 times longer without compromising the cleanliness of your teeth.

---

Toothbrushes that are already dead and overstaying their welcome (aka useless for your mouth), don't throw them away just yet!

Use it for clearing up grime in crevices, hard-to-reach areas (eg: corners in your toilet shower)

Also use it to appease your little furry friends and remove loose fur. They love it (tested and proven) behind the ears, under the chin, around the neck. 

Toothbrushes are also good for grooming Spartan warriors.

Try it with your friends today!

Why we are important even as specks...

... and not rely on the big daddies to do everything.

Clearly from the previous post and many other examples, science, politics and finance do not work well with the environment. It's been like this for decades and will always be, until proven otherwise by our leaders, whoever they might be.

Like many other modern science discoveries, the ideologies are brilliant, eg: Biology 2.0, human genome mapping. We can say the same about geo-engineering. In the right hands, these solutions can work wonders. However...

It's not just about moral obligation or ethics to save the environment, it's about placing our total trust and leaving our Earth in the hands of obsessive scientists and greedy politicians/investors who really don't care for the betterment of our species and planet.

In the meantime, we can do our part as tiny specks to preserve and protect what we already have. 

The Earth's state is an exact mirror of humanity.

We can only hope the our future leaders and geoengineers will provide all due transparency to the public before they start treating our Earth as a massive lab experiment instead of appreciating it for what it is.

A shoutout to those who've been consciously making the effort to be more eco-friendly! You guys make a difference!  

Can carbon sequestration be an alternative?

My dear bald friend-with-awesome-boat-who-taught-me-alot-of-awesomesauce-stuff Shannon pointed out that the use of plastics and other non-biodegradable materials could eventually be a better way of controlled carbon capture as opposed to letting natural materials decompose in the open.

Stored carbon can thus be sent to coal plants for separation at a location close to natural spots which encourage conversion of CO2 to biomass (such as forests, oceans etc).

In summary, this solution of carbon sequestration does NOT reduce our carbon output, but mitigates large quantities of carbon to be converted by nature before it reaches the atmosphere. 

In comparison, this seems to be the simple way out of things as modern humans can consume as much as they do without guilt (SO LAZY), as opposed to meticulously cutting down on individual lifestyle choices which actively contribute to global warming.



ALAS! WHERE R TEH LOOPHOLES

1) These plants are incredibly expensive to run. 

2) In order to convert energy, water and oxygen (lolwut) is mixed with the coal to create CO and hydrogen. Hydrogen is used as fuel, and CO is converted to a concentrated stream of CO2. One quarter of the energy produced is used to run the plant itself.

3) Even more energy is required to compress CO2 into liquid to be injected to the ground and stored. This takes 20% of energy yielded.

So far, 45% of the energy produced from this method is used just from running the plant.

4) After injecting into the ground, the highly compressed CO2 and its surrounding terrain must be closely monitored to prevent deadly leakages which can kill thousands.

5) Earth's crust is not the best container for gases. This is not a long-term solution... even space under the crust will be exhausted before we know it.

6) There is so far, no proof for this method's potential. Urgent action is needed now to battle climate change yet it's moving on slowly...

7) Investors and government grants are pouring in money for this unproven technique. This is biased and prevents other viable energy methods from getting their fair share of funding for the betterment of our planet.

- source



I quote from Treehugger:

All this talk of carbon sequestration can basically be seen as a delaying tactic, as a way to get government support and to keep the operation and construction of coal power plants more socially acceptable. It's the equivalent of saying: "Don't bother us, we're working on it!"

"Sustainable technology" plans are great! But NOT an excuse to be an irresponsible consumer. True story, bro.