Archive for the 'Environment' Category

Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust

Published
by
Ben Balbo
on June 18, 2008
in Environment
. 9 Comments

Meaning: We come from dust; we return to dust.

Except we don’t really, do we? Sure, people who get cremated turn back to ash, but that’s hardly environmentally friendly. The act of cremation is an energy inefficient CO2 spewing act - the last chance for members of our modern society to pollute this world.

You might think that a traditional burial might be better, but people who get buried do not return to that from which we came in at many levels. Your body is embalmed (preserved) and placed in a coffin that typically takes a very long time to decompose. It’s unlikely your body will be returned to the soil before your grave site is upturned to add another body, unless someone is nice enough to pay for another 100-year lease.

There is a light at the end of the tunnel to an environmentally friendly light at the end of the tunnel. Erm.

Natural burials are, as you’d imagine, natural. The way they were done way back when your great-great-grandmother wasn’t even a twinkle in her mother’s eye. You’re not embalmed. You’re not placed in a coffin. You’re not buried in a cemetery.

Instead, you’re placed in a shroud that biodegrades very easily. You’re buried in a plot in a forest - a bush cemetery if you will. Sometimes you’re buried near trees, sometimes a tree is planted on top of you. Your body will start returning to the earth very quickly.

I for one will be rewriting my Will to ask that my body be disposed of in the most environmentally conscious way possible. That might mean a bush burial, or perhaps some better alternatives will be available when I die.

Would you do this? If not, why not? I can’t see any negative with this approach, but would love to hear your thoughts.

That’s just unaustralian!

Published
by
Ben Balbo
on January 21, 2008
in Environment and Rant
. 13 Comments

There’s this web site that asks people to add their 2 cents to the discussion on climate change. For reasons I won’t go in to, I will not be mentioning this site by name, nor giving you a link to it, but I wanted to share a comment I found on it.

Most of the comments include concerns about the future of the planet, the next generation of humans, and all things green.

Cameron F of Victoria, Australia, has a different opinion, pointing out that it’s “UnAustralian that we can’t water our plants & wash our toy’s [sic]“. Cameron adds “Over 100 years of drought and the best the government can do is turn us against our neighbour’s [sic] hosing their garden”.

The apostrophic abuse aside, is this person serious? Are they taking the piss? I seriously do hope so.

We live in a society that is driven by consumer greed, fuelled by corporate marketing. It is desirable to own a big car. We buy power hungry electronic goods and leave them on standby because it’s more convenient than switching them off. We buy carbon credits instead of a more economical car, green power or an efficient washing machine because it makes us feel like we’re doing our bit. Convenience is bliss - screw the planet!

People! We only have one planet, so why are we doing our best to destroy it? Until we learn that the environment is not there for us to rape and that we have a duty to look after our planet for future generations, we will continue to head down a path towards an environmental catastrophe.

Selfishness, greed, death and destruction of living organisms for your own gain - these are unaustralian.

Have you ever met any of these types that think the planet is here to serve us, that we deserve big cars, that chucking that perfectly good 4 year old TV into the tip and buying a new one is acceptable? I’d love to hear your stories…

Are you one of these consumer hungry, planet depleting types that feels compelled to comment on this topic and persuade me that I’m wrong? Chime in!

Save energy while searching the web…

Published
by
Ben Balbo
on October 15, 2007
in Environment
. 0 Comments

SearchThere’s this thing happening today - it’s called the Blog Action Day, in which bloggers around the world are being asked to post something about the environment. It’s a cute idea, and I’ve been meaning to mention Blackle for a while now.

Lots (and lots) of people have Google as their browser’s default home page. Google’s pages are on a white background. White is the least energy efficient color to display (all colours on) for CRT (the big deep monitors, not the more recent flat ones).

Blackle is Google on a black background. So when you search using Blackle (and assuming you have a CRT monitor), you’re saving a teensy weensy bit of electricity. All these teensy weensy bits could add up to something more significant.

Of course if you’re using a newer flat (LCD) screen, its back light is always on, so this point is moot.

(Photo courtesy of mcleod at stock.xchng)

Memo humans: stop breeding like bunnies

Published
by
Ben Balbo
on June 8, 2007
in Environment
. 3 Comments

It seems someone over at The Age concurs with my sentiments that the world is ever so slightly overpopulated. While humans cull species that overpopulate the world (kangaroos, rabbits, foxes, etc), the author of Memo humans: stop breeding like bunnies suggests more humane ways to reduce the population of the human species.

“…cut our population here and overseas and blind Freddy could see that we’d consume far fewer natural resources, reduce waste and pollution, and improve everybody’s quality of life…”

The article also draws attention to political issues with population, which I’ve tried not to dwell on previously, but links in to a recent change to Australia’s superannuation rules that mean people get more, and more are eligible for pensions. This news, after scare stories that the baby boomers will create an economic crisis when they start drawing their pension, seems a little backward, but makes perfect sense when you realise that the current generation retires later and saves more than the previous generation did.

On a related note, I heard an economists describe once how spending money to deal with the environmental issues the world is facing would not affect the economy as politicians would have you believe - it would not reduce the economy - it would simply reduce the rate of growth of the economy.

Carbon Footprint and Population

Published
by
Ben Balbo
on March 28, 2007
in Environment
. 5 Comments

A comment on my post “Why I don’t want kids” mentions the impact our daily activities have on this world. That reminds me of a conversation I ha with someone a while ago. A US TV show took a suburban family and calculated that if everyone in the world lived the way they do, they would need 12 planets to provide the resources required. This family was then sent to live with a group of extremely environmentally aware people. They had only installed their first solar-panel just after the family arrived.

After a week (or so) of living with them, it was calculated that to live the environmentally friendly way would require 1.8 planets to provide the resources required.

This made me think: if living as environmentally aware as possible requires 1.8 planets, then how are we ever going to address the current imbalance? Of course we could try to repair the planet at half the rate we’re damaging it in order to bring that number down to just under 1 planet, but there’s something more fundamental than that.

This planet wasn’t designed to support 6.5 billion people. If the value of 1.8 above is correct, then this planet cannot naturally sustain more than 3.6 billion humans.

The numbers here are for illustrative purposes only. The quoted number of planets required to sustain a given style of living are based on information from a friend whose memory might or might not be reliable. The population this planet can support is dependent on many other factors, including other animal populations.