Upcoming Events

International | Environment

no events match your query!

New Events

International

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

Anti-Empire

offsite link The Wholesome Photo of the Month Thu May 09, 2024 11:01 | Anti-Empire

offsite link In 3 War Years Russia Will Have Spent $3... Thu May 09, 2024 02:17 | Anti-Empire

offsite link UK Sending Missiles to Be Fired Into Rus... Tue May 07, 2024 14:17 | Marko Marjanović

offsite link US Gives Weapons to Taiwan for Free, The... Fri May 03, 2024 03:55 | Anti-Empire

offsite link Russia Has 17 Percent More Defense Jobs ... Tue Apr 30, 2024 11:56 | Marko Marjanović

Anti-Empire >>

Human Rights in Ireland
A Blog About Human Rights

offsite link UN human rights chief calls for priority action ahead of climate summit Sat Oct 30, 2021 17:18 | Human Rights

offsite link 5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights

offsite link Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights

offsite link Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights

offsite link Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Lockdown Skeptics

The Daily Sceptic

offsite link It?s Not ?Advocate For?. It?s ?Advocate? Wed Jun 12, 2024 17:00 | Will Jones
It's 'advocate', not 'advocate for'. Just because an error is common, doesn't stop it being wrong. And no, you can't 'advocate against'; that's an oxymoron. Can we at least get our words right, pleads Will Jones.
The post It’s Not ‘Advocate For’. It’s ‘Advocate’ appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link How Jacinda Ardern Left New Zealand on the Brink of Blackouts ? But Starmer Wants to Copy Her Wed Jun 12, 2024 15:30 | Will Jones
Sir Keir Starmer is standing by a pledge to ban new drilling in the North Sea, despite New Zealand abandoning a similar policy made by ex-PM Jacinda Ardern amid blackout fears.
The post How Jacinda Ardern Left New Zealand on the Brink of Blackouts ? But Starmer Wants to Copy Her appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Cochrane?s Race to the Bottom Wed Jun 12, 2024 13:26 | Dr Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson
In 2020, the Cochrane Collaboration delayed its review of face masks and NPIs for six months while pushing out on-message rapid reviews based on low quality evidence. It still won't admit it was wrong.
The post Cochrane’s Race to the Bottom appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Mark Steyn Takes Ofcom to Court Saying Regulator Killed His Career Over Covid Vaccine Claims Wed Jun 12, 2024 11:10 | Will Jones
Mark Steyn, the former GB News presenter, has taken Ofcom to court accusing it of "killing his career" after he questioned Covid vaccines on air, with the regulator saying his programmes caused "harm to viewers".
The post Mark Steyn Takes Ofcom to Court Saying Regulator Killed His Career Over Covid Vaccine Claims appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link The Race Politics of Gardening Wed Jun 12, 2024 09:00 | Steven Tucker
The politically correct have long fretted that concerns to promote native plant species in gardens mask a fascist agenda. This is absurd, says Steven Tucker. Is nothing safe from Leftist politics?
The post The Race Politics of Gardening appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Lockdown Skeptics >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link How to justify NATO's aggression against Russia, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Jun 11, 2024 06:57 | en

offsite link Soros/Biden vs. Netanyahu/Trump, by Alfredo Jalife-Rahme Mon Jun 10, 2024 09:24 | en

offsite link Declaration on the Protection of National and Political Rights and the Common Fu... Sat Jun 08, 2024 12:13 | en

offsite link Joe Biden presents the "Israeli" peace offer Fri Jun 07, 2024 14:35 | en

offsite link Voltaire, International Newsletter N°90 Fri Jun 07, 2024 14:35 | en

Voltaire Network >>

Cuba Flies Lone Flag for Sustainability

category international | environment | other press author Thursday October 11, 2007 23:10author by Tech1.0 Report this post to the editors

According to a new study on ecological sustainablity published in New Scientist, Cuba is showing the way on life in a post-oil world.

(from last week's New Scientist - I'm publishing this in the inter-national public interest...)

"We don’t need environmental evangelicals to tell us that sustainable development is a good idea. Yet, if that is our goal, we are heading in the wrong direction - with the exception of Cuba. So says the first study to examine the ecological impact of changing lifestyles around the globe.
sustainability.jpg

We don’t need environmental evangelicals to tell us that sustainable development is a good idea. Yet, if that is our goal, we are heading in the wrong direction - with the exception of Cuba. So says the first study to examine the ecological impact of changing lifestyles around the globe.

An international team led by Mathis Wackernagel of the Global Footprint Network looked at how the living conditions and ecological footprints of 93 nations have changed in the last 30 years.

They used the ecological footprint (EF) index, a tool devised in 1993 by Wackernagel and William Rees, his PhD supervisor at the University of British Columbia, Canada. EF quantifies the area of land required to provide the infrastructure used by a person or a nation, the food and goods they consume, and to reabsorb the waste they produce, using available technology. This value can then be compared with the resources that are actually available to people on a regional or global scale. EF has become a popular index, and was used recently, for example, by conservation group WWF to calculate that two more planets would be needed to support everyone in the world in the manner of the average UK citizen.

However, rather than just measure consumption, Wackernagel and his colleagues wanted to measure how close countries are to developing in a sustainable way. The problem is that “sustainability” is an elusive concept. “Nobody dares to say what it actually means,” Wackernagel told New Scientist. “We believe we provided a robust measurement.”

For each nation with reliable data, they calculated how many planets would be needed to support the global population if everybody adopted that nation’s lifestyle as it was in 1978, and in 2003. They then expressed each figure as an Earth-equivalent ratio (EER) and plotted each value against the nation’s corresponding UN Human Development Index. The index is a score of between 0 and 1, and is a function of a country’s average life expectancy, adult literacy, level of schooling and per capita GDP.

To develop sustainably, the researchers assume a country must have an HDI of at least 0.8 and a maximum EER of 1 (see Diagram). A lower HDI would mean a nation is not developing adequately, while a higher EER means it is gobbling up too many resources.

By looking at each country’s historical trajectory, a clear pattern emerges. People everywhere have a better lifestyle, but their footprint is growing at a rate proportional to their wealth. Developed countries in particular have done very little to reduce their impact. Only one nation, Cuba, is developing sustainably, and probably not for long (Ecological Economics, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.017). “Cubans have high life expectancy and literacy, and were forced into a smaller footprint because of the oil embargo,” says Wackernagel. “But they are now economically more successful, and will tend to use more resources.”

Critics point out that EF calculations do not take into account issues such as pollution from certain toxic chemicals, and place too much reliance on others, such as carbon footprints, which may be alleviated by the invention of new technologies. Even so, “it’s a broad indicator of the direction things are moving, and it’s an excellent tool for communicating to the public and decision makers,” says Jan Vernon, who reviewed the validity of EF for the UK government.

The study, therefore, carries a credible message: we have all moved away from sustainability, and the world has entered ecological overshoot. “We have not taken sustainable development seriously,” Wackernagel concludes.
"


New Scientist link
http://tinyurl.com/3bdju5

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/index.php

http://www.wwf.org.uk/researcher/issues/footprint/index.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Measuring sustainable development — Nation by nation (sciencedirect)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.017

and for more on this theme check out the fascinating documentary below,

The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil

http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index.php
http://globalpublicmedia.com/articles/657

Related Link: http://tinyurl.com/3bdju5
author by Eamonpublication date Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:49author email oreamon at yahoo dot co dot ukauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Of course to qualify this it must be stated that one of the reasons that Cubans may not leave such an ecological footprint is because they cannot afford- to a large degree- travel within the island and certainly not internationally. The equivalent of 20 US dollars a month leaves little for leisure travel and many recreational activites that the developed world can afford and that can harm the environment. Perhaps this is a factor in them 'showing the way'.

author by Tech1.0publication date Fri Feb 15, 2008 23:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Eamon, I'm sure the constraining of consumption is a factor. But as Monbiot points out in Heat, ( http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/11/07/heat/ ) air travel will need to be constrained practically completely anyway, as there's no way it can continue as it is.

Cuba is an example of an efficient delivery of a wide range of public services within what the Earth can take. Due, largely, to its unfortunate history it is not an example in terms of democratically reaching a sustainable solution. But that doesn't stop us from examining how such a human-development vs consumption result can be generated for the Earth as a whole.

Personally I think it shows a possible solution although ideally coupled with more participatory mechanisms....

Protecting the Environment in a Participatory Economy
http://www.greens.org/s-r/34/34-18.html

"....The crucial difference between participatory planning and market economies in this regard is that the participatory planning procedure generates quantitative estimates of the costs and benefits of pollution while markets do not. Consequently, even “good faith” efforts to internalize the cost of pollution through taxes or permits in market economies are “flying blind,” and opportunities for “bad faith” intervention are ever present. Estimates from “contingent valuation surveys” and “hedonic regression studies” are less accurate than the indicative prices for pollutants that are generated automatically by the participatory planning procedure. Moreover, because everyone knows estimates based on surveys and studies are unreliable, it is possible for interested parties in market economies to challenge estimates they find inconvenient. Interested parties frequently finance alternative surveys and studies that arrive at predictably different conclusions regarding the damage from pollution and benefits from environmental preservation.

Since, unlike participatory planning, market systems generate no “objective” estimates that could serve as arbiters, debates over the size of pollution taxes in market economies invariably devolve into a cacophony of “he says, she says.” The participatory planning procedure described above, on the other hand, provides credible estimates of the damage done by pollution because the above procedure makes it in the interest of pollution victims to reveal the extent of the damage they suffer truthfully as a byproduct of simply participating in the planning procedure. ..."

 
© 2001-2024 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy