Climate

"One the other hand, continual change is characteristic of climate and of all complex systems. So a climate that is changing is nothing new. In order to understand whether the recent temperature changes are unusual, it is necessary to look at Earth's climate history over a longer time period than 150 years." (Robertson, 2014)

I have been echoing this view for years. Many of my friends who believe in climate change have accused me of being a skeptic. But that is far from the truth considering I should be under the title "External Skeptic" if I were to be called one. This is because I look at changes in the climate broadly and not from the onset of the industrial age: from 1860-present. This time frame only catches a phenomena. But when, as Robertson says, we look at the entire climate history of the earth, we are likely to find answers to the debates that have plagued past climate change theorists. Now it should be a forgone conclusion, from an external skeptical standpoint, that climate change does exist if we analyze the rate at which climates have shifted versus how they used to shift. The exponential increase affirms the conclusion that climate change is real. One example is personal for me. Recently, for Civic Engagement, my group sought to build an app to educate people about the importance of shellfish to maintaining a health ph-level in the earth's oceans. But due to recent increases in ph-levels, many shellfish cannot grow adequately to function how they used to function in the ecosystem, becoming easier prey for predators or dying before they become food, which has also drastically changed many food webs in the earth's oceans. This is a scary topic to address. If the animal most used to maintaining healthy ph-levels is dying out, what does that mean for every other animal, not just its predators, in the ocean? An apocalyptic situation. I think humans need to drastically decrease their emissions and their waste pollution if they want to continue to eat protein-dense animals such as sea fish without tons of mercury.


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yQuTjRh18-8/maxresdefault.jpg

How do we save our planet after the damage we've caused? I personally think that it begins with the individual. If we take the Humean approach to ethics and apply it to the ethics of keeping the planet from becoming a water world, then we all must be, as Robertson mentions,"Climate Neutral." "Climate Neutral is a term used to describe living or doing business in a way that results in an overall net climate impact of zero. Many people use the term Carbon Neutral to refer to the same condition of no net green gas emissions." (Robertson, 2014) This notion really does become a Friedrich Hayek-like/Humean principle of individual autonomy, where the individual will decide what is best for his/her personal needs and in doing so an economy or a universal ethic is created by contract between others. To do anything worth doing, I believe that is the way to approach climate problems. And to set the bar for zero net climate impact will be one step into the home of creating a better world. This starts with a plan.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Friedrich_Hayek_portrait.jpg

Just as Robertson claims,"Planning is an important first step in any activity, laying out a roadmap for the tasks ahead." (Robertson, 2014) Her use of roadmap reminds me of when I study for the LSAT, where Kaplan and many other helpful guides recommend getting used to making a mental roadmap so that when you answer a question you can go back to the main conclusions and premises with ease. I think this advice is very useful for changing climate change because, in my opinion, setting up a methodology and then putting it into a framework is how we as humans process important information and come to be attached to that information. Therefore, it is likely that if we make a plan and set it into action more people are likely to understand the issue, want to change the issue, and help you do so. What comes to mind is developing more companies that offer affordable electric cars (unlike Tesla) and finding ways to harness electricity without the use of Fossil Fuels.

Chapter 4 and the Earth Charter

"In all of the industrialized nations of the developed world, fertility rates are now at or below the replacement level. The population continues to grow, with almost all of the increase taking place in developing nations." (Robertson, 2014)

Not only does this quote reflect a very real situation but also a very sad situation. Roberson's quote also brings to the fore many moral and ethical questions that intersect with the study of sustainability. Why is war bad? How can the population steady itself out without such paradigmatic statistics (birthrates of developing versus industrialized countries)? Should developed countries allow this sort of policy for its own citizens? All of these questions are extremely scary to think about because they all brush their paint on competitive parts of the canvas of our world. In so doing, we tend to think about these questions from the sociological lens of in-group/out-group relationships. Should the United States not attempt to out breed a developing country who has not produced as many advances in science and technology? I cannot say that I agree because that is flat out disgusting, but it shows an interesting problem in the solution to our population growth problems. How do we stabilize the birthrates of developing countries? Robertson, with just cause, doesn't attempt to answer such specific questions because then she would be stepping into a moral spider trap of no escape. Does it mean more international restrictions on births as we saw in countries like China before its capitalistic policies began to unbind such legal wrappings? Or does it mean asking countries to comply and hoping that they do? To be sustainable means, then, to approach the population question through the lens of changing the conscious mentalities of every human being on the planet and this means beginning education at very young ages all over the world, most importantly in those nations where the birth rates are out of control. I think Robertson, then, misses some key areas of why developing countries have yet to experience a demographic transition. Does "social and economic progress hold(sic) the key to escaping from the demographic trap" (Robertson, 2014)? Poverty doesn't cause high birth rates... What it does is encourage high birthrates and therefore is a correlative mechanism with increased population. Providing education that changes the mental composition of those living in such a society, while providing economic opportunities that align with their particular worldview, will, in my view, enhance our options and spur, in some regards, developing counties toward their demographic transition periods. Social conditions will thus change along with psychological condition. I think the methodology, the social constructed method, misses some of the individualistic realities that we all face as humans and thus looks only at macro-progressions and macro-changes, and not necessarily individual or mico-changes in such societies.

However we look at it though, there seems to be many problems facing humanity as the world's resources are slowly petering away. With population growth at an exponential level, our hopes for long term survival are slowly diminishing unless the world goes through a demographic transition holistically. What needs to be found is the root causes of why population increases and how we can all tackle such problems -- this is always up for debate.




"We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature." (Earth Charter, 1992)

Although this is in the preamble, these couple sentences struck a cord for me. Not in the political sense but on an individual level. I do not wish to create international constitutions that dictate the values of all, however, I think the idea is necessary to be a good person, to find an ethical foundation for our nature of being. If we do not, we are constricted to a nothing in our being that is fundamentally lacking any identity outside of the whole and of the predestined values already in place. Human history has seen many so-called crises. And humanity has always responded by creating documents like the Earth Charter. This is part of the ebb and flow of human society and how we are predisposed to think about the past, present, and future no matter how many theories of relativity attempt to tell us otherwise. So when we look at the internal, we find places in ourselves that literally combat the outside hysteria we find all over the place. In doing so, we project an image that may imprint itself upon many people we come in contact with and if they too embody those traits then we can find common ground to remain stoic in the face of unimpeachable danger. We can look at the world and then find something both individual and holistic. But this doesn't require us to break the bonds of that create a kinship group of like-mindedness. In fact, competition is key to our survival. It is in the way we approach competition that may need to change and this is what I believe the Earth Charter does -- in some areas -- and doesn't do extremely well. It aims to give us an image of a pseudo-religious cause that connects us directly with our planetary body, but it fails to realize that without some of these anxieties we may never travel beyond this planet and into the unknown reaches of our galaxy. This is why, although the Earth Charter is necessary, it doesn't necessary reflect some of the mechanisms that may spur further advances in some areas of our imagination. I wish it would because looking into space at night is one of the most beautiful things the eye can set itself upon. What it does extremely well is tell us that to be humble and to connect with everyone else around us is an extremely important thing. And I have to agree because mutual support is so important for the psychologically imperfect humans that we all are. One of my favorite short story collections by Italo Calvino puts both of these ideas center stage as the main character, qwfwq -- who is meant to be a paradox in time -- travels from earth to many other planetary bodies in search of emotions and companionship. This is a fundamental truth we should all hold dearly. It is a shame many of us don't.

Chapters 3 and 4: The Biosphere and The Human Sphere

"Matter and energy more through every kind of system in regenerative patterns that are cyclical. Cycles happen at all scales of systems, from the metabolism of a bacterium to the pumping of carbon around the planet to the recycling of fundamental matter in the great star factories of interstellar space." (Robertson, 2014)

Now these few sentences captures what is beauty about our lives and the earth that we encompass. We are all matter and energy. We all matter -- to use a pun. This is the beauty of living in cyclical experiences of life, that our emotions shift in circular ways just as our essence does. We are recycled when our life is over and we are given a memory which hopefully lasts beyond our own lives. This memory will be the subconscious imprints of our matter and energy, but it will also be the principles we live by and the acts we choose to do. The metaphor follows: we are stars in and of ourselves but also atoms in a wider galaxy. And when we realize that, to look at systems and the time frame in which those systems exist, we find our lives enriched and hope for the future because, as I wish to say, we have the chance to progress the lives of our relatives in the future by acting as one and understanding the natural world as one. When we understand this we will all be of the same sun that also gives life to a new lively spirit within humanity.



"Systems can be defined at many scales. At the scale of the entire planet there are four major systems, or spheres: rock, air, water, and organism. Ecologists call these the lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and the biosphere." (Robertson, 2014)

In this part of the chapter, Robertson does a great job of explaining the differences and similarities in each system and how they form a venn diagram as they begin to interconnect with the broader system of our planet. This idea reminds of the spheres of influence we discuss in the social sciences, especially when we are thinking about Cold War politics. Although this seems like a far reaching analogy, the notion that spheres begin to overlap and then inter mesh and connect is an important idea that we should all understand. In the cold War, many members of the UN had to side with the Left or Right blocs, to be on one side of the Iron Curtain. However, as time went on, countries were constantly attempting to create unique niches of their own and to play the game of politics. This led, slowly, to a unison in end goals which eventually also led to the loosening of communist thought in Russia (not entirely) and the opening up of diplomatic talks like SALT-1 and SALT-2, which, in turn, led to the eventual dissolution of right-wing hysteria in the USA -- for a time -- and the creation of a general election democratic formula in the voting system of Russia -- how effective is still debated about. In Robertson's discussion of the separate systems, the reader becomes entranced by the interconnection of it all and almost subconsciously forced to think about ways to protect such diverse and interconnected systems. I feel like this seems to demonstrate the nature of our moods too.



"Countries in the industrial world have passed through a period of population growth demographers call the demographic transition that occurs as countries move from one stage of development to the next. Preindustrial societies are characterized by both high birth rates and high death rates. As a society moves toward industrialization, death rates fall as food production and medical care improve while birthrates temporarily remain high. As education, social, economic conditions improve, birth rates fall and population growth stabilizes." (Robertson, 2014)

This is very logical and follows the Malthusian Cycle with some more intense research that pinpoints some of the macro-trends in human societal development and decline. The idea that this trend is somewhat natural is a very interesting conception. In fact, it leaves me wondering if, once there are more people around you, you are less stimulated to seek to build a family of your own. Of course I cannot prove such a statement, I can still think it. In my personal experience, as an introvert, I am less likely to be active in social situations that include more people than I am comfortable being around; this leads me to seek asylum away from everyone even when there are like-minded people to support me and my conversation topic. Can we extrapolate this idea into the idea that the building of a family begins with two individuals communicating? If there are too many situations in which someone doesn't feel comfortable meeting someone else, then they may be unlikely to have children -- if this phenomena continues for years and years. Thus, the population slowly declines. Is this one of the solutions to long term sustainability goals? It seems like Robertson would implicitly agree.

Chapters 1 and 2: Sustainability and its History

"Each tree, meanwhile, is part of a forest -- a community of trees, soil, water, and atmosphere. The forest, long-lasting yet constantly changing, is part of a web of interactions that connects it across miles to great planet-scale cycles and across thousands of years to the forests that came before and those that will come after." (Robertson 2014, 4)

Robertson's comment about the all-encompassing systems of nature, especially of the forest, bring back memories from childhood, of growing up in the golden hills and oak dense forests of Northern California's dry climate and also images of my summer times in the state of Washington, the Evergreen State, where thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Douglas Firs and other northern climate trees thicken the hillsides and valleys. I remember hiking up snoqualmie pass with my grandfather and uncles, enjoying the smell of pine, the sound of rapids in the river, and the buzz of the honeybee.  It is hard to believe such an environment is constantly changing and evolving. And that it is our job to sheperd it to sustain it. This is not only a daunting task but it is the only way for us to survive into the future. We must realize the issues of Carrying Capacity and seek long lasting ways to be one with our environment and introduce jobs that will change our industries to work in unison with nature. If we don't, the beauty of the forest and the emotions I feel when looking back at those summer memories, will mean nothing.




"The third 'E' represents equity, that is, social equity or equality (Edwards 2005, 23). Equity includes freedom from unhealthy living conditions and equal access to food, water, employment, education, and healthcare. Equity means providing opportunities for all not just a privileged few, to grow and flourish in their own way." (Robertson 2014, 6)

This is where 'Sustainability' fails its readers. It makes a priori claims without proving the theoretical realism with observable experience. Furthermore, the book is careless with language. This part of my blog will be dedicated to the absurdity of the statement above. First, I will start off by reciting Black's Law Dictionary's definition of Equity: Fairness; Impartiality; evenhanded dealing; 2, The body of principles constituting what is fair and right; natural law. (Garner 1996, 272) This definition requires further explanation. First of all, the book subtly puts a political bias into its language when it synonymizes equity and social equity with equality. According to the definition of equality, for instance, is the right to be equal in power, achievement, or excllence (Oxford English Dictionary). This creates a subtle semantic divide between the two concepts, especially in practice. For example, an Equity Court does not determine whether someone is being paid the same for the same job. Rather, they decide whether the conditions of the job allow for an equality in pay. This distinction is taken for granted in Robertson's book. In fact, she discusses Social Equity as equal to equity which is equal to equality. This type of non sequitur argument over generalizes the implications she sets forward to present. One example of this is the fact that social equality has a different definition than social equity. Despite her lack of contextual and semantic analysis, Robertson also loses focus when she discusses the "privileged few" in terms of equality. This sort of social critical theory has little place in her analysis because it contains polarizing dialectics that do not represent the unity that should be involved in arguments for sustainability. Hence, instead of saying not just for the privileged few, she could say "Equity means providing opportunities for all" so "that they may grow and flourish in their own way".  It isn't that hard to not push for a political side in discourse if you wish to respect everyone. Because when you don't, you provide impetus for your readers to demonize certain people and become less critically aware individuals, instead descending into the marshes of justice as ideological singularity.








"The chemist Ellen Swallow developed the concept of human ecology, an approach in which humans are not seperate from nature or managers of nature; they are part of nature and work within it." (Robertson 2014, 12)

Although I can agree with Swallow's argument, again, Robertson isn't sensitive with her language. In fact, she makes it seem as though Swallow was the first to realize this when, in fact, many Christians who believed they were given "dominion over the land and sea" also believed in the same concepts. In fact, they inextricably tied the movement of other planets and the sun to their own bodies in such a way that there was a singularity of essence in the universe (i.e. the pre-cartesian worldview of Embodied Cognition). I don't understand how someone who claims that everyone should have a broad understanding of many different disciplines would be insensitive to historical reality. The natural world was a part of the body, the soul, and the heavens. This idea stems from ancient Greece and it carried over up until the Enlightenment. Robertson should be aware of this and be more sensitive with her verb usage. Instead of saying developed, she could've easily said "re-introduced", which reflects historical reality and is more consciously aware of the language used in her narrative. This would give students a more realistic image of ideas and how they can be used to change the world, in my honest opinion.