I'll keep posing here once in a while, but my new site is
www.forestfloor.ca
Hope you'll visit!
Friday, September 11, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Answering the question
So a few posts back, I said that someone asked me on an environmental forum, why yet another blog was going to do anything to help the environment. So, I'd like to answer that question. I've thought a lot about it, and here's my answer.
Not much, for now. But it keeps me thinking, and it's an opportunity for me to write, which is something I've always liked to do. It also keeps me on top of current events, and learning more about our environment. I also get to share the things I've learned with other people, who might also be interested. Will this blog save the world? No. But my only aim is to keep thinking and keep talking about things, and maybe that might lead to something... You never know.
It's funny because posting on forums is a dangerous thing. The reactions to my blog were about 50/50. Some people liked it, some people just killed me about it. I was very objective about the whole thing, and it was actually a cool experience to be criticized. I took some of the criticisms with me and tried to make this better. I started forestfloor.ca, which is more news oriented and gives a better first impression. I'm just going to keep at it though, so there will be more to come!
Not much, for now. But it keeps me thinking, and it's an opportunity for me to write, which is something I've always liked to do. It also keeps me on top of current events, and learning more about our environment. I also get to share the things I've learned with other people, who might also be interested. Will this blog save the world? No. But my only aim is to keep thinking and keep talking about things, and maybe that might lead to something... You never know.
It's funny because posting on forums is a dangerous thing. The reactions to my blog were about 50/50. Some people liked it, some people just killed me about it. I was very objective about the whole thing, and it was actually a cool experience to be criticized. I took some of the criticisms with me and tried to make this better. I started forestfloor.ca, which is more news oriented and gives a better first impression. I'm just going to keep at it though, so there will be more to come!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
There are always 2 (or 3, or 4...) sides to every story
There are a number of conflicting views on the environment, and what we should and should not be doing about the damage. There are also conflicting views on the amount, and severity of the damage. Here's the first group:
The nay-sayers
There are some people who completely reject the notion of climate change. There are a few very questionable conspiracy theories, a few "head-in-the-sand" approaches, but there are a few people who have scientifically backed their skepticism of humankind's effect on the planet. These are the arguments we're going to be looking at in the nay-sayers section, even though this blog's political stance is yay-sayer.
I read a 1997 interview of Dr. Malcolm Ross where he talks about "junk" or "politically correct" science, which is conducting scientific experiments in the interest of supporting political purposes. Here, he is specifically discussing global warming.
Ross says: "The idea that humans have significantly enhanced global warming is by far the most massive abuse of science that I ever have seen." When asked what he thinks the effect will be on the economy, and he says it will be "devastating". He goes on to say "To those who believe that industrial economies as we know them are at the root of all that is wrong with the world, curtailing industrial activity in the name of protecting public health and the environment makes a certain amount of sense. But the real consequence of all this will be to harm public health and the environment. Wealthier is healthier."
~~Now, what are we going to do with this? This dude is very credible. He is a scientist who is conducting the kinds of studies that we're getting our information from. I've heard this point of view before, as I'm sure you have as well. There are concerns about the economy. People are also skeptical of these apocalypse theories (in this case, global warming) because we've heard them before.
Ross says that "the prediction of disastrous global warming is used to justify a policy of centralized control of the world's energy resources"- is it? I also read an article today that was talking about government's focus on climate change, while loss of wildlife habitat and biodiversity are becoming ignored issues. There are legitimate (or at least valid on some level) criticisms, and that is why this topic is so interesting to talk about, because it's hard to know the complete story. I hear radio programs, read articles, books, and watch films, all of which may compliment, or completely contradict one another. It's hard to get a sense of it first hand, unless you spend your life traveling for research and experimentation. The only other way, and the way I am choosing, is to research... and is that research ever difficult figure out. There is so much involved! And there is so much uncertainty. We have never been in a situation like this, so there is an incredible amount of speculation, hypothesis, and insecurity involved.
I think the secret is to keep talking about it, keep it on our minds. That's how we'll make a change for the better.
If there's one thing we can always count on, it's change. All this wasn't going to last forever, so moving forward is the only logical step. I'm excited about the prospect of cleaner air and more efficiency.. and less stuff. The Sierra Club was talking about this thing called the "Electranet" which is something I've never heard of yet.-- "An energy internet that links homes to a smart grid powered by clean energy. The electranet can reduce electricity consumption through a national transmission network that supports large-scale renewable energy and local energy generation that frees homes and businesses to produce their own energy."
I mean, is this going back to Ross' feared centralized source of power? And what about biodiversity? It all matters, but at least we're thinking about it.
Tomorrow's post will be jobs/industry/economy vs. environment.. or something like that.
I've tried to make this post more news-oriented than the last ones. It might be lacking personality, but let me know what you thought of this! I advertised on a forum, and got a comment that made me think. He said, what is one more blog going to do to help the environment... I think that's a really good question, and I'll think about it tonight and have an answer to that tomorrow.
All the best to everyone!
The nay-sayers
There are some people who completely reject the notion of climate change. There are a few very questionable conspiracy theories, a few "head-in-the-sand" approaches, but there are a few people who have scientifically backed their skepticism of humankind's effect on the planet. These are the arguments we're going to be looking at in the nay-sayers section, even though this blog's political stance is yay-sayer.
I read a 1997 interview of Dr. Malcolm Ross where he talks about "junk" or "politically correct" science, which is conducting scientific experiments in the interest of supporting political purposes. Here, he is specifically discussing global warming.
Ross says: "The idea that humans have significantly enhanced global warming is by far the most massive abuse of science that I ever have seen." When asked what he thinks the effect will be on the economy, and he says it will be "devastating". He goes on to say "To those who believe that industrial economies as we know them are at the root of all that is wrong with the world, curtailing industrial activity in the name of protecting public health and the environment makes a certain amount of sense. But the real consequence of all this will be to harm public health and the environment. Wealthier is healthier."
~~Now, what are we going to do with this? This dude is very credible. He is a scientist who is conducting the kinds of studies that we're getting our information from. I've heard this point of view before, as I'm sure you have as well. There are concerns about the economy. People are also skeptical of these apocalypse theories (in this case, global warming) because we've heard them before.
Ross says that "the prediction of disastrous global warming is used to justify a policy of centralized control of the world's energy resources"- is it? I also read an article today that was talking about government's focus on climate change, while loss of wildlife habitat and biodiversity are becoming ignored issues. There are legitimate (or at least valid on some level) criticisms, and that is why this topic is so interesting to talk about, because it's hard to know the complete story. I hear radio programs, read articles, books, and watch films, all of which may compliment, or completely contradict one another. It's hard to get a sense of it first hand, unless you spend your life traveling for research and experimentation. The only other way, and the way I am choosing, is to research... and is that research ever difficult figure out. There is so much involved! And there is so much uncertainty. We have never been in a situation like this, so there is an incredible amount of speculation, hypothesis, and insecurity involved.
I think the secret is to keep talking about it, keep it on our minds. That's how we'll make a change for the better.
If there's one thing we can always count on, it's change. All this wasn't going to last forever, so moving forward is the only logical step. I'm excited about the prospect of cleaner air and more efficiency.. and less stuff. The Sierra Club was talking about this thing called the "Electranet" which is something I've never heard of yet.-- "An energy internet that links homes to a smart grid powered by clean energy. The electranet can reduce electricity consumption through a national transmission network that supports large-scale renewable energy and local energy generation that frees homes and businesses to produce their own energy."
I mean, is this going back to Ross' feared centralized source of power? And what about biodiversity? It all matters, but at least we're thinking about it.
Tomorrow's post will be jobs/industry/economy vs. environment.. or something like that.
I've tried to make this post more news-oriented than the last ones. It might be lacking personality, but let me know what you thought of this! I advertised on a forum, and got a comment that made me think. He said, what is one more blog going to do to help the environment... I think that's a really good question, and I'll think about it tonight and have an answer to that tomorrow.
All the best to everyone!
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Letter template- more recycled unbleached paper on the shelves, please!
Here's a letter template I've been sending. If you like it, it's yours! Feel free to edit, change, etc.
Dear
I am interested in seeing environmentally friendly paper products at my local stores. I am aware that a growing number of companies are manufacturing eco-friendly products, but I have noticed a lack of eco-friendly paper alternatives on the shelves at grocery stores, drug stores, and stationary supply stores. As you know, people are becoming conscious consumers, meaning that they are careful about where they are spending their money. The primary concerns for conscious consumers are environment, human rights, animal rights, and health. Paper pulp depletes our earth's forests considerably. An additional environmental concern is the release of dioxins when paper pulp is bleached. Dioxins are among the chemicals that destroy our ozone layer.
I think it would be a prudent business decision to offer an alternative, unbleached brand of paper products that are made from 100% recycled paper. It is difficult to find such an environmentally friendly paper alternative at the stores I regularly shop at, which is why I think getting them on the shelves is an excellent opportunity.
I hope my feedback has been helpful. Please contact me with any further information.
Thank you,
Dear
I am interested in seeing environmentally friendly paper products at my local stores. I am aware that a growing number of companies are manufacturing eco-friendly products, but I have noticed a lack of eco-friendly paper alternatives on the shelves at grocery stores, drug stores, and stationary supply stores. As you know, people are becoming conscious consumers, meaning that they are careful about where they are spending their money. The primary concerns for conscious consumers are environment, human rights, animal rights, and health. Paper pulp depletes our earth's forests considerably. An additional environmental concern is the release of dioxins when paper pulp is bleached. Dioxins are among the chemicals that destroy our ozone layer.
I think it would be a prudent business decision to offer an alternative, unbleached brand of paper products that are made from 100% recycled paper. It is difficult to find such an environmentally friendly paper alternative at the stores I regularly shop at, which is why I think getting them on the shelves is an excellent opportunity.
I hope my feedback has been helpful. Please contact me with any further information.
Thank you,
Friday, September 4, 2009
Ad feature
I decided to add an advertisement feature to my blog, so that maybe I could find some way to earn a bit of an income. I like some of the ads that are posted, but I find it really funny that they placed ads for magazines! I definitely don't want to advertise for magazines (as per my post below), so I'm working on having those blocked. Sorry for the mix up! This will be worked out very soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)