Sustainability

 

Sustainability

 

Throughout my forestry career, we spent a lot of time to figure out what the mean annual increment was because it varies with every forest. It was necessary to how much wood volume the forest puts on per acre per year, and to do that we had to gather a lot of data, so we set up plots placed randomly throughout the forest, the plots were circular and one tenth of an acre. We measured each tree’s diameter at breast height and its total height, enough information to read off the tree’s volume using official volume tables. We remeasured the plots every two years to build up a data base, but of course part of the equation was the actual forested area, not the total land area… aerial photos were used for that. Our plot-sites were randomly selected, but with recognition to the aspect (growth is different on north faces compared to south faces), and elevation (growth rates vary because of height above sea level). Finding the mean annual increment allowed us to calculate the annual cut… sustainable harvesting of the forest… taking only the volume that forest grows each year. This is not the only way of achieving sustainability, it can be done by area, or by incorporating several forests but basically you don’t want the situation as has been happening in places like Tanzania, where the wood resource is being harvested seventeen times faster than it is growing. 

 

When applying for ‘development’ funds for third world countries and even in job specifications for The Agency, sustainability ranked highly… but sustainability was in reality, a pipe dream. Firstly, the volunteer brings with them funding that the locals have zero chance of raising themselves and secondly, the co-worker, who the volunteer is supposed to train, are perceived have a ‘new-found ability’, which allows them to find other employment or as in my case, both were wholly capable anyway, but unable to carry on without funding, but they had the confidence to set up ventures of their own.

 

Somehow Net Zero Carbon (NZC) has been touted as the road to achieving that elusive thing… sustainability, the panacea to all our ills! To attain the mythical goal, trillions of dollars have been spent or are going to be spent on the supply of renewable energy, and so far, for all that expense, only a tiny proportion of the world’s energy is generated under its banner. How has that cured any of the world’s ills? It has only filled the bank accounts a lot of people, which has indeed added to the list of the world’s ills.

 

Let’s figure out why NZC is a goal… some scientists say extreme weather will increase if the planet warms by more than 1.5°C… which is nothing more than an unproven theory. There has always been extreme weather, and strangely they say ‘extreme weather’ not ‘extreme climate’, but the data is clear, deaths by extreme weather events have reduced dramatically over the past 100 years. Granted, the cost of storm damage has risen, but that’s because of inflation and because more people live in vulnerable places in more expensive buildings… but on the world scale, only a tiny percentage of the planet is affected at any one time, which indicates that it’s weather anomalies rather than climate… but let’s put the climate change and carbon dioxide aside for now.

 

The number of fatalities due to extreme weather world-wide ranges between 10 000 and 20 000 per year. Meanwhile over 5 million die from air pollution world-wide each year… so why aren’t some of the trillions being spent to clean the air? Most of the extreme air pollution is in developing countries, which could be the reason… but despite what you might hear, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and is not the cause of those deaths. But hang on, we’re not addressing the pollution in developed countries either, and there is plenty of it too, from sewage to refuse… couldn’t a trillion or two be spent addressing those issues? Sending plastic waste to Malasia or waste clothing to Ghana is hardly sustainable! Air pollution in India is one of the worst examples… yet they can send rockets to the moon, so is India’s air pollution due to a financial choice of government? There are six main causes of air pollution in India. Dust and construction 45%, waste burning 17%, transport 14%, electricity generation by diesel 9%, industries 8% and domestic cooking 7%. Tackling these issues would include culture aspects as well, because cremation on wood pyres is significant and while only 7% of the total is from cooking and home heating, the burning of dung and other nasties indoors causes respiratory issues because of the higher concentration without ventilation. Here’s where trade-offs are needed… natural gas electricity generation would be better, but the cost isn’t of the energy alone but the cost reticulation and cost of purchase. And if dung is returned to the soil, resulting vegetation might mitigate the dust to a certain extent… but it is possible to reduce dust? The other problem that needs targeting is illegal recycling of tyres to manufacture a low-grade oil and the fuel used in transport is blended and low-grade, but significantly cheaper. Basically, the whole issue is a conundrum that nobody seems willing to undertake, so the deaths continue.

 

Here we are on this planet charging through space and no matter how you think mankind ended up here, our survival is down to an environment that has suited us. And the population growth indicates that conditions are better now than they were 100 years ago… it’s fairly obvious that cold kills more people than extra warmth! Without us, the planet would have kept on its merry way, and without us it will carry on, no matter its condition. It is therefore sensible that we take good care of the planet for our sustainability… a key phrase that, the use of the word, sustainability really means, our sustainability. And ‘Saving the world’, means with a suitable habitat for human life. Because we have been good breeders, we manage an economy that is reasonably fit for purpose, otherwise society would collapse. So, we’ve identified three factors that make up sustainability; environment, economy and people.  What therefore is the role of Net Zero Carbon? Regardless of what alarmist might think carbon will do to the weather, carbon dioxide is key to the food chain, and more of it, as has been shown, the better, because it aids food production, which translates to the environment… green growth is just a part of the environment, nonetheless it creates habitat and biodiversity. There’s the trade-off… even if more carbon dioxide cause extreme weather, a buoyant economy can make resilience, but without food, it doesn’t take long before we die. Therefore, Net Zero Carbon will cause harm to the environment, and if it affects food supply, it cause harm to the economy, which will therefore negatively affect society too… bottom line? Net Zero Carbon will do nothing to enhance sustainability.

 

To keep the populus happy… whatever that might mean, and to be able to care for the environment… whatever that means, requires a robust world economy… again whatever that means. There was an adage that might not be exactly true, but true enough, which says: If third world countries want the same living standards as say, the USA, the resources of seven planets would be needed. Again, what exactly does that mean? There are some resources like oil and certain minerals that have the potential to run out, so obviously ways to make them last as long as possible should be a goal… and maybe we should learn to recycle some of them better. Are there any renewable resources? Manmade forests including bamboo are one… even though harvesting uses some resources. Animal products, like wool, hide and bone are others and agriculture crops like cotton, hemp and flax… in the search for sustainability, there have to be trade-offs because simple answers don’t exist.

 

Not only, but in the west, we have entertainers and sports people who are paid more than our brightest… on the other hand, intelligence isn’t necessarily as helpful as we would hope because intelligence does not equal common sense, and ideology gets in the way of critical or rational thinking… as we see in universities these days. A few years ago, I sat with someone who was learning English by watching television shows. Her favourite was a programme where entertainers allowed cameras into their home… there is only one word for what we saw; opulence! Not only was it the wanton consumption of resources, but there were multiple high-end cars, motorbikes, shoes or whatever. We all buy stuff we don’t need… and indeed doing so provides work for people and stimulates the economy… but there’s nothing sustainable about it. Our governments spend on wish-list stuff rather than core activities, some of which are left to rot.

 

Klaus Shwab and his WEF mob have an answer for this, which involves taking freedoms from everyone and keeping us from using natural logic and critical thinking. Worse, the United Nations seems to favour the idea… so we have to question what exactly is their role?  Anyway, with those wheels well in motion right now, it would be wise for the rest of us to come up with a better plan. Their plan is to control the populus through digital currency and brain implants, which is very possible… and sure, it could make the economy part of sustainability trio met. But the populus part of the equation would be more difficult, even though they have had practice through the Covid jabs and lockdowns. Take a look at our leaders… granted, it isn’t new, but we’re being told lies, blatant lies that those with minimum common sense really know aren’t true, but we seem to accept them, because nobody wants to stand up… the fire seems to have gone from our bellies.

 

One of lies is that the so-called renewable energy will bring prosperity… ref. the hail damage to the 3 300-acre solar farm in Fort Bent County. How are they going to dispose of those broken panels safely? They are made of cadmium, lead, arsenide, copper, selenium and if they are older, hexavalent chromium… all toxic materials. Currently recycling is not possible. Forgetting about the hail, and thinking about my forestry experience, I look at that 3 300-acre farm… say there are 2 500 panel per acre, that would mean there are 8.25 million panels in total. Panels have a lifetime of 25 years. So, if they establish 330 000 per year for twenty-five years, the staggered disposal volume-wise would allow time for recycling methodology to catch up…perhaps. But no solar farm should be allowed, without sensible disposal plans in place!

 

 It’s clear that to exist sustainably, which at some time we must do, (but there is yet time) our lifestyle has to change, mainly to keep in balance with the resources available to us. Obviously, where we are today, is through the use of inexpensive energy, which is also the key for poorer countries to improve their future prospects and maybe that means more trade-offs. One of the world’s problems right now, is illegal immigration, refugees or not, to which an unofficial response seems to be open boarders… the downside, among others is unwelcome cultures, attitudes and disease. The best response to that is for the people to be happy and safe in their own country… how? By making the United Nations fit for purpose, and utilizing funds that are otherwise wasted on green energy.

 

It will be interesting to watch the progress in my country; we have a newly elected government and one of their policies is a revised school curriculum where an hour each of reading, writing and maths on a daily basis is required. It’s a good start because those core subjects are the basis of logic and critical thinking… done well, there’s the real possibility that a generation or two down the track, true leaders will emerge who haven’t been corrupted by the idealism that has crept into our universities. We are missing those leaders right now!