Week 11: Sustainable Metrics
In week 11 of ourdevelopment module we were introduced to Sustainability metrics. Sustainable metrics explains to use how the earth has a limited supply of resources and a limited amount of space to hold its inhabitants. During the week we looked at two different types of sustainable development: weak sustainable development, and strong sustainable development. Weak sustainability covers social-economic issues whereas strong sustainability is more about the environment and issues over our ecological footprint.
In my opinion our world is in the wrong hands!
When it comes to making decisions on the environment and our sustainability the people who get to make them are the politicians. They are the ones that have the final say when it comes down to it. What shocked me from the lectures the most this week was how politicians would make decisions based on a single page summary of a fifty or sixty page article and sometimes not even understand the details that are in the article. To me this just seems to be simply crazy. In my opinion I think that instead of the politicians getting the final say when it comes to the environment I think that an expert in this field should be appointed to make the decisions. If we continue to allow our politicians to have the final say we are going to continue to see the same results and mistakes being made as we are now. There is no way the world that we live in can continue to be sustainable if we keep making these decisions.
Week 10: Production and consumption
In week ten’s lectures we discussed the topic of production and consumption. This just another one of the huge problems that we face when it comes to the environment. The problem is that we are consuming a lot more than we need and at a rate that in the future will no longer be sustainable. The difference in a countries economic situation plays a major part in the amount of waste they produce. On average these days it’s believed that households have up to 700 more products than they did thirty years ago. In my opinion it is not necessary for people to have as many products as they do, but in saying that I don’t think that it is the general public’s fault but instead is the fault of the businesses that sell the products. Their main aim is to make as much money as they possibly can and are not worried about the environment and the waste they produce. Take for example the tactic of planned obsolescence that companies use.
Planned obsolescence in tactic that businesses use where by the project is designed intentionally with a limited useful life, and so the product no longer functions after a certain period of time which benefits the producer because it forces the consumer into purchasing again. How often do you hear people saying it will be cheaper buy a new one than getting it fixed when comes out computer or television or microwave.
.
These days people no longer try to fix things like they would have in the past as people have become used to getting rid of old products and because more often than not it is cheaper than repairing them. It certainly then does not help the situation that things are purposely designed not to last these days, which just adds to the problem of have to discard and buy new products.
Do it is not always cheaper to replace a broken product with a new one as there are other costs that come into products like the energy required to make it and the environmental challenges with recycling it properly. Electronics, especially, have all kinds of dangerous chemicals in them. For example, plastic cases arrive coated in fire-resistant chemicals called poly-brominated flame retardants, some of the most dangerous chemicals that around. In my opinion the best way to keep hardware out of landfills is to keep it working longer. That is why in order to counter the endless cycle of buying products that then break I think it is important to start encouraging people to start mending things that would normally be just thrown out and considered no good.
Week 9: Corporate Social Responsibility
In this week’s lectures we discussed Corporate Social Responsibility. Up until now I had never heard of this term and I was not aware that this was such an important thing for any business. There is no doubt but people are becoming more and more environmentally aware by the day and given the choice they will do the right thing. By this I mean if they have a choice of two products, one of which is produced in a more environmentally friendly way than the other they will choose the green product.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is defined as an idea that when companies are at their stage of planning, they take into account environmental issues, social problems and relationships with different stake holder groups. Being responsible does not just mean that businesses need to just fulfil any legal issues but it also means that businesses should try to increase investment in human resources and the environment which is a voluntary act. It is an act in which companies manage their relationships with different stakeholders who can have a positive impact on success for the business, meaning CSR should be seen as an investment in the business not just a cost.
Getting a CSR policy wrong can be a very damaging and costly mistake for a company to make. The management of the Corrib gas project by Royal Dutch Shell plc. is a prime example. Shell has been accused of mismanaging its relationship with the people of West Mayo following its failure to conduct proper consultations with local people about the installation of an underground high pressure pipeline carrying raw gas from an offshore platform to an inland refinery. There was general condemnation of the course of the pipeline and its proximity to people’s homes. The local people have implored Shell to examine the possibility of an off shore refinery, however they failed to do so. Instead of engaging with people and trying to assure them, they chose to implement and progress with the original plans. The matter has turned into a public relations disaster for Royal Dutch Shell, with extensive media coverage of protests, demonstrations and especially the jailing of the “Rossport Five” at their request. The project has undoubtedly damaged the reputation of Shell in Ireland and across the globe, and cost the company millions of Euro in legal fees, loss of revenue due to delays in construction and security costs.
Foxconn Technology Group is another example. It is the largest maker of electronic components and the greatest exporter in greater China. It is hard to believe that a company as large and global as Foxconn could be treating some of its employees as badly as reported in the media but in fact the reports proved to be even worse than initially reported. The appalling conditions suffered by Foxconn’s Chinese employees is an example of the inexcusable lengths companies will go to in the search for greater profits. It is when the wider world becomes aware of these cases that the companies can suffer damage to both their reputation, revenues and customer and business relationships. This can be the case simply by association with these companies. In fact, Apple Inc. has received bad press and media coverage because of its link to Foxconn.
.
.
Public Policy and EU Law
During this week’s lectures we discussed European Law and how the concept of the environment has changed throughout the years. Problems occur in trying to get policies that are successful across the board for a diverse group of nations that make up Europe, each with varied traditions, outlooks, cultures, and priorities specific to their region. When developing policy, governments initially consider scientific data, the potential positive and negative consequences of action/inaction, and how to develop the region as a whole, in a balanced way. Policies are then handed down to national governments, to implement into national law. Failure to implement policies can lead to various penalties.
For example in the past few years the EU has begun to reduce the amount of turf cutting that is taking place. In their opinion, peat land is becoming an increasingly limited resource and since Ireland contains a large amount of the peat land in Europe they feel that the bogs should be preserved. It is their fear that the impact on the environment of the cutting of turf can be irreversible. Peat land contains a wide diversity of animals and plant life, some of them only being found in peat land. The devastation of our bogs could well end up leading to the extinction of some local species. There was a time in Ireland when raised bog covered large amounts of Ireland but now because of turf cutting for domestic use and more recently for bigger sources it is believed that there is only about 1 per cent remaining. Also turf contains a vast amount of CO2 and when burned, the CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere. In my opinion I think that the EU was right to implement this law because what we were doing was simply not sustainable and why these rules were not implemented earlier is something I cannot understand. The increased amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is a huge problem that we face and by preserving our bogs we reducing the amount of CO2. During the Boom years in my opinion I think we had the chance to ban the cutting of turf completely as everyone seemed to be able to afford other methods of heating but instead we failed to do so and now are chance looks to have gone with people no longer able to afford oil and other heating systems. Again the end of 2013 arrives on our doorsteps it is estimated that Ireland and the EU will have closed 130 bogs across Ireland registered as Areas of Conservation (SACs). This means that people will no longer be able to cut turf from these bogs anymore. Although many people oppose this move, I think that it is the right thing to do because cutting turf is I am afraid no longer sustainable and is damaging our environment.
Week 7 – Economic Development and the Environment
During week seven we talked about economic development as well as the effect that economic growth has on the environment. Despite the topic of economics being something that we now here about everyday mainly due to the recession that we face, economics is something that I would not know much about, but I was eager to find out.
Climate change presents the greatest threat to sustaining high growth. In the past 100 years, the world economy expanded greatly, the global population increased from 1.6 billion to 6.5 billion and the world lost half of its tropical forests. Consequently, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are now 385 parts per million and rising fast. This is close to the 450 parts per million should beyond which it may be impossible to achieve the Cancun-agreed goal of limiting global temperature rise to 2° Celsius. That we need economic development to meet our biggest challenge we face of bringing 400-500 million citizen’s out of poverty is unarguable. Take a poll anywhere in a poverty stricken country today and if asked to choose, a vast majority these people would choose economic development over environmental protection every time. It’s not necessarily right, but it reflects the priorities as people see it. Wallets will win over the environment for a vast majority.
The fact that every country in the world wants to develop and get higher incomes in the face of mounting environmental destruction has increased the tension between fast growth and environmental protection. To be clear, sustained growth has been the most powerful means to reduce poverty, especially in China, India and elsewhere in Asia but this reduction in poverty has come at a cost for further generations. Developing countries are trying to grow a great deal, their average incomes are one-sixth that of rich nations. But in my opinion it is a bit rich for developed countries to impose measures on developing countries not allowing them develop the way they want to in order to preserve the environment when this is how the developed countries developed in the past. In my opinion we don’t have the right to force other countries to look after the environment, when they have bigger issues facing them, like poverty for example. I think, as developed nations, it is up to us to try and help developing nations to learn how to look after the environment, but it can’t come at the expense of helping them to get out of poverty. We need to share knowledge and technologies to help them get out of poverty, and look after the environment.
That we need economic development to meet our biggest challenge we face of bringing 400-500 million citizen’s out of poverty is unarguable. Take a poll anywhere in a poverty stricken country today and if asked to choose, a vast majority these people would choose economic development over environmental protection every time. It’s not necessarily right, but it reflects the priorities as people see it. Wallets will win over the environment for a vast majority.
Week 6
In this week’s lectures we discussed food production and the cost of producing our food. What really surprised me was the amount of energy that we waste on cold storage, transport, packaging, energy used by machinery to produce the crop and so on. For almost over fifty years, fossil fuels and fertilizers have been the main discoveries that have lead to the world being able to produce a lot more food. . The food-energy relationship has been a good one, but it is now entering a new era. The production of food is rising rapidly. At the moment the current world population is around seven billion but this looks set to rise by another two billion in the next fifty years requiring more carbon-based fuels and nitrogen-based fertilizers, both of which will only help to fund global warming, river and ocean pollution, and a host of other ills. At the same time, there are many nations that are trying to reduce their demands for energy, especially for fossil fuels.
But what I thought was one definite way that we could reduce the amount of energy we use was the amount of energy we waste on the transport of food. By cutting down on transport we would also be reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as well.. There’s a lot of talk about how many miles your food that you eat, and its ingredients, travel before it gets to your kitchen. But not all “food miles” are equal. Take air transport, it emits hundreds of times the greenhouse gas per mile that rail transport emits. Trucking emits over eight times more greenhouse gas than shipping across lakes.
For me the answer to our problem is to shop local. This would not only reduce our travel expenditure but would also bust our local economy. It is major challenge I think trying to get people to shop local but I think with the right marketing it could be done and be a huge help in terms of saving energy.
