Follow this blog:
RSS

Father of LEED: Humans ‘blissfully unaware’ of coming climate crisis

By | June 10, 2011, 7:45 AM PDT

NEW YORK — Rob Watson stood up, strode toward the podium, turned 180 degrees on his heels, scanned the audience, let out a deep sigh, and said:

“We’re a little bit in denial about how bad things are.”

His voice, normally booming, trailed off, as his upper lip raised up in disgust with the words he just uttered. His gaze dropped to the row of people immediately in front of him. He let out another sigh.

It’s not the first time Watson has given this speech. As the chief executive of consulting firm EcoTech International but far better known as the “founding father” of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED ratings system, it won’t be the last, either.

But this time, he was talking to a boardroom full of corporate executives, analysts and press, in attendance for an IBM “Smarter Buildings” event at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In other words, people who could make change happen.

Which also means he was preaching to the choir. And the inherent lack of shock value in his words was killing him.

“Disillusionment is a very important thing we have to learn,” he said, shifting his weight. Our species is about to find itself in the wilderness with no excuses, he said, and we mustn’t forget how unforgiving nature is to things that don’t fit in.

“Nature is completely amoral,” he warned.

Smoothing his suit jacket, Watson pressed on. Likening the coming environmental reckoning as a “reality check” on par with the sinking of the Titanic, Watson said the global population were not unlike the passengers on that fated ship — in utter disbelief that the boat was actually sinking.

Refusing the “short term pain” of getting on a rickety lifeboat in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Suffering from the longer-term consequences of staying comfortable until the very last moment.

“Whether we like it or not, S.S. Business-as-usual has already hit the iceberg,” he said. “And we just don’t quite know it yet.”

“We are blissfully unaware.”

Sensing the melodrama of his analogy, Watson changed course, choosing a more comfortable metaphor for the business executives in the room.

“The business of the planet is supporting life,” he said. “What are we, as a subsidiary of Planet Co., doing to sustain life? We are impairing every other business unit to do its job. As a business owner, what do you do to underperforming assets? Get rid of ‘em.”

“If we don’t stop fooling ourselves, we’re in for a real butt-kicking.”

Part of the problem is that the green movement sees itself as “saving the planet,” Watson said. But it’s not the planet that needs saving — it’s us. Today, for every acre of land that is arable and fertile and productive, two acres are degraded — overgrazed, deforested and denuded, he said. Last year, 40 percent of the world’s coral reefs were in a “seriously degraded” situation.

Who’s fault is that? Ours, he said. Humans need to be saved from themselves, lest we perish from our own “fractal stupidity.”

“There’s no energy crisis on the planet,” he said. “Every day, the sun comes up and provides 15 minutes of daylight the equivalent of enough energy to power the world for an entire year. The only thing there’s a shortage of is how to harness that.”

Part of the problem: we incentivize unsustainable, environmentally-hostile activity. We penalize renewables with higher market prices. The market doesn’t like it? Too bad. Change the business model, and change the way people think, Watson said.

He rattled off a few statistics to underscore his point:

  • Three-tenths of 1 percent of world’s water is available to us. A small percentage of that is water we can actually drink.
  • World energy demand will grow by 50 percent in 25 years.
  • Thirty percent of U.S. CO2 emissions are from transport. Twenty-two percent are from non-materials industry. The remaining 48 percent are from buildings and building materials.
  • The carbon emissions problem is accelerating; we’re already at 100ppm/yr over pre-industrial times. 275ppm vs. 393 ppm.

“There’s a perfectly safe fusion reactor [93 million] miles from the planet. We know when it’s going to start up and power down,” he said.

He added: “The planet does not need you…there is absolutely nothing we can do to this planet that, in a million years — two ticks of a second to the planet — won’t be obliterated. We need to get over ourselves.”

It starts by using that most unique of human abilities: the capacity to plan. If we take this information and use it intelligently — instead of ignoring it — we can stop ourselves from being the “villain” and instead “be the hero in our own movie,” he said.

If we don’t, and climate change reaches “a tipping point,” we’ll no longer have the power to change things.

“We do not have recourse,” he said sternly. “We cannot negotiate with nature.”

But addressing the low-hanging fruit begins with more intelligent buildings.

“Green buildings are rocket science. Buildings are profoundly complicated. We need to be thinking of them as essentially spaceships. We need a space program for buildings,” he said.

The building of the future? Self-monitoring and reacting, with power plants, reservoirs, sewage treatment plants and even farms inside, according to Watson. Entirely self-sufficient and dense.

“People want green,” he said. “Green makes the most sense.”

But if politics and the status quo continue to trump science, humans are in for a rude awakening, he said.

“We’re going to be a bad biological experiment. Nobody’s going to shed a tear except maybe our relatives,” he said, reflexively gripping the podium. ”We can lead from any seat in the orchestra. Maybe the building sector [is it].”

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is the editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
35
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+7 Votes
+ -
This is an important message
Rob Watson has it exactly right. If we don't start paying attention to the natural processes that sustain our lives nature will slap us down hard for our hubris. It's probably already too late to avoid plenty of that but the sooner we get on it the less bad the ultimate wake up will be. You can deny global warming/climate change all you want but nature doesn't care, the Earth doesn't care. As Watson said humans are a wholly owned subsidiary of Planet Earth and we ignore that fact at our peril.
Posted by riverat1
10th Jun 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
Climate change denial is not the most serious issue.
Watson makes many good points. Unfortunately, cherry picking data like - "The carbon emissions problem is accelerating; we???re already at 100ppm/yr over pre-industrial times. 275ppm vs. 393 ppm." weakens his case, rather than strengthening it. This statement obviously depends on when you measure pre-industrial levels of CO2 because there have been many periods that were much higher than now, even before man existed. Ice ages have really low CO2 levels for example. Warm periods have very high levels and both as a function of plant respiration.

He also fails to note that climate change is a minor inconvenience compared to the current issues facing us regarding food production because of peak petroleum and peak phosphate fertilizers responsible for 95% of human food production in the context of a still growing and developing - exponentially resource demanding human population.

Serious declines in our food production due to the non-sustainability of critical food production components like fertilizers are far more likely to end mankind's over population sooner (some estimate in less than 30 years when phosphates run out) than climate change - although climate change will certainly complicate food production shortages.

Watson, like most environmentalist doesn't have the courage to just flat out state that we are breeding ourselves out of existence - certainly out of existence as we have known it in the last 150 years. Or, state that the only universal environmental solution to anthropic environmental problems and non-sustainability - is the reduction of the human population. Anything else is just a token effort. This is the over-whelming denial factor that will ultimately result in self-correcting solutions (as Watson points out) to the human over population problem - just like it does with every other species.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
10th Jun 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
You make some good points
But CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher now than they have been for at least 800,000 years (we know this from ice cores which show variation from about 180 ppmv to 300 ppmv over that period) and probably higher than they have been for at least 18 million years. The genus "homo" only evolved 2-3 million years ago so humans of any sort have never experienced such a high CO2 level. In the distant past when CO2 levels were much higher than now the Sun was not as hot as it is today. As the Sun ages it is slowly getting warmer.

BTW the "/yr" part of 100 ppm must be a typo or misstatement. It doesn't make sense.

But you are right about the population issue. My point was that if we don't do something about making our civilization more sustainable nature will take care of the problem for us in ways we probably won't like much.
Posted by riverat1
Updated - 10th Jun 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Climate change denial is not the most serious issue. You're right.
"Watson, like most environmentalist doesn't have the courage to just flat out state that we are breeding ourselves out of existence - certainly out of existence as we have known it in the last 150 years. Or, state that the only universal environmental solution to anthropic environmental problems and non-sustainability - is the reduction of the human population."

and the only EFFECTIVE way to reduce the human population is education and GOOD education at that. The kind that promotes and encourages critical thinking. Critical thinking should (in theory) improve all human endeavors, including procreation. Do you think that lady in Afghanistan would have 15 kids if she was educated and didn't have to contend with religious oppression? Same goes for the working class couple in Mexico who need their 8 kids to work side by side with them to survive. If all of the nearly 7 billion humans on this planet (save for the ones with severe mental retardation or those physiologically incapable of thinking critically) thought critically do you think we'd be burning fossil fuels or building and manufacturing the way we currently do? Probably not. Until education takes precedence over all other things we just have to sit back and enjoy our lives while we can. in my opinion religion is essentially the root of all evil for humanity. If you're convinced you're going to heaven when you die then why do you have to care about what humans do on this planet? And even if you're that couple in China who doesn't care about religion, but just needs to do whatever they need to do to survive, then why still would you care? You wouldn't. We're screwed and a lost cause. Humans are too easily manipulated psychologically and emotionally. We're too greedy and most of us are too apathetic to care. Instant gratification is the name of the game. In the first world we've been told countless times by the media we're going to die from this, that, and the other, so naturally most of us have become fatalistic... Have fun now, cause you're gonna die from cancer, hfcs, obesity, yadda yadda...

When education becomes the most important thing, we'll not be a lost cause, but until then... survive however you can and if you have the means to put a roof over your head, food in the fridge, and clothes on your body, then try to live and have fun...
Posted by wengriffin
Updated - 10th Jun 2011
-1 Votes
+ -
Population reduction strategies. We needs them.
If human populations are the greatest threat to human populations then what can be done about it? (aside from educating the masses) (For the record, I like the genetic engineering solution best... So if scientists decide to run with that one day, you heard it here first)
Geneticists could find a way to make 90% of the world's human population sterile at any given time... Entirely unlikely.??

But With 5375 operational nuclear warheads (as of '06), who needs genetics... Over 5000????? WTF??? why do we have so many?!?! And that's just in the US.??

Genetics would be very kind though... Nuclear annilation not so much. They need to disassemble them things...??

At this point it doesn't matter... Because even if we did disassemble ours, there's a whole bunch of other countries out there with them.??

Any other ideas???
Posted by wengriffin
10th Jun 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
The "educated" people ARE the problem
Actually, the poor people of this planet do not consume the vast majority of its resources. Between the US and Europe (roughly 10% of the world population), we consume around 45% of all resources. And we're the "educated" ones. Europe's population is slowly declining, and the US would also be declining if it weren't for immigration.

BTW, China's population will be reaching a peak in the next 10 years and slowly decline to around 800 million. This coincides with a massive increase in resources (for example, they are now the world's largest coal users). Your attacks on religion are also unfounded. The idea, for example, that people who believe that they are going to heaven after they die think they can trash this earth is simply not true. Many Christians, for example, happen to be environmentalists.
Posted by zackers
11th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
education
well I toldaly agree and the sad thing is our government keeps on slashing th funding for our education like it is not a worry to them stuped people means they can make them selves and other rich endevers richer and mostly talking about republicans if they had it thear way we would be ran like a therd world country
Posted by gage927
28th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Sustainable societies do exist ...
but they are few and far between.

I had never heard of any until I read Jarred Diamond's "Collapse". Not all of his examples are perfect and a bit of research turned up societies which he didn't include. However, all of these societies have one thing in common: The use of various methods of birth control to prevent the increase in population beyond sustainable means.

In many parts of the world, people have kids and then try to figure out how to get the resources those kids need. One of Darwin's contemporaries comment on this. Humans breed to exceed their available resources.

In sustainable societies, they figure out how to get the resources they will need before they have the kids. Modern technology has made birth control easy! All we need to do is change the way we think about it and resources.
Posted by mheartwood
11th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
@ both zakers and mheartwood.
Poor people are the largest population growth center on the planet. Educated people tend to have negative birth rates of around 1.5 children per couple. As seen in the US and Europe.

By their shear numbers the poor are a major factor in the over use of resources.
Posted by Hates Idiots
16th Jun 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
climate change has always been here before oil ever entered global change
this has been talked about many times with my wife and I talking about Global climate change. changing of the climate has always been changing before oil come around. Wars were started by global climate change as history books was written in the 1700s. it does not help to make pollution that will help make it worse. if mother nature going to get us it will happen no matter if it is oil concept or other natural things,
Posted by edward goodpeace
15th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
More Than Global Warming
Demand for natural resources is exceeding the supply. One of the reasons why the people revolted in Tunisia and Egypt was because the food supply got more expensive, part of the food supply was diverted into making bio fuels and this is continuing. Oil products are used to fertilize crops as well as used for pest control, oil is used to power the farming equipment and transportation of goods to the markets. Without a cheap and vast source of oil the agricultural industry will return to pre-industrial levels that can not support the current population much less the increase of population.

Then there are plant diseases that can wipe out crops. There is a wheat rust that can destroy huge swathes of planted wheat happening in Africa and Asia.

These are things that are happening now that may not be related to global warming. It seems that Malthus was right but mankind managed to improve crop yields enough to delay the consequences of over population. The human population is not sustainable for much longer.

I would prefer to be wrong about this, but more information is showing that things may go extremely bad in our lifetimes.
Posted by sboverie
10th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
You miss the point
I wonder at the nonsensical rubbish that is talked about everyone having to reduce their carbon footprint. Almost all suggested measures are only possible once. So when the population of the world rises what then? No where, except from a few enlightened individuals like "dduggerbiocepts" above, say what is really the truth. We have to reduce (probably at least halve) the earth's population from its level now. The longer we leave it the more we shall have to fall back and let starvation run its course. Who is going to believe that the world's population will miraculously stop rising? After all we just have seen a 64% decrease in neo-natal deaths in Bangladesh following the introduction there of more female medical staff and in any case the British Commonwealth accounts for one third of the world???s population and one billion of that population are presently under the age of twenty five! Just think. If the whole world could follow China's (rather ruthless) example and permit every couple only to have one child we would solve the world's warming problem in a generation. That's about 30 years. Makes you think.
Posted by corrigenda
10th Jun 2011
-4 Votes
+ -
wrong, wrong, wrong !!!!
there is nothing wrong with the earths human population. the food problem is in how we get what is grown to the people who actually need it.... meaning getting through all the damn GREED and corruption all throughout the food stream. Wether its from "kickbacks" to the big agro companies for shipping or the graft that is rampant when the ship docks at a poor country and it costs millions to get the food to the starving people cause the damn greedy ones want an exorbitant amount of monies for shipping fees.

getting the power sources in the industrialized world to switch over to "solar only" and doing that in even 20 years would be like the USA getting to the moon 3 years after Pres. Kennedy died instead of in 1969, when they did get their.

The industrial world is also broke!!!! thanks in part to republican thought where you DO NOT pay for things when u want them.. u pass on the bill to someone 20 years in the future.

Realistically, to achieve solar power in the world, and fix the food problem. we would need to STOP all wars in the world. NOT pay any CEO or politician in teh USA for a decade ( they are already Millionaires already) stop paying all subsidies in the USA, stop the manufacture of gasoline or diesel engines within 3 years and build a completely new transportation system in the industrialized world that doesn't use fossil fuels as a fuel source. Oh and Raise TAXES about 20%... that most certainly DOES include everyone who makes over $500,000.00 a year. ABSOLUTELY NO EXCEPTIONS !!!!! That tax money goes exclusively to paying off the US debt ONLY. and anyone stealing doesn't go to jail, they get a summary hanging in the city/town square!

I know most everyone will NOT like what i propose, but like was said earlier... the PLANET doesn't do lawyers. The planet works in Black and White. there are NO shades of grey NOR any negotiations or Compromise.
Considering the type of arrogant fools he was talking too in that meeting; i'm very impressed that he chose that strong of language to those idiot CEO's.
Posted by Acer18
10th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
How?
Some of what you say, Acer18, COULD (by some stretch) be the solution to our problems, but how do you intend to enforce all of these changes? The CEOs and politicians aren't just going to give up their salaries and it is unlikely that you could stop all wars. If you intend to make drastic changes, someone is going to have to regulate and enforce your changes.
Posted by ZHuber
Updated - 16th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Not going there.
You are wrong on so many levels I will not even touch it.
Posted by Hates Idiots
16th Jun 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Agree, but hard choices
I agree that reducing human population will help reduce the impact on global resources; but to reduce to half will require making really hard choices that would make Hitler and Stalin look like a saints. It is possible that nature will take of our problem for us and we wouldn't have to resort to letting people die from disease, executing even petty criminals or withholding food from entire nations.

The closest scenario is similar in thought to Hitchcock's "Life Boat". A ship sinks and the survivers are in a single life boat with the captain in command. Food supplies dwindle and there is not enough for everyone to eat, water is also not enough. The captain starts killing some of the passengers so that the survival of the rest is more assured. Oddly; a similar scenario is played out in the classic Star Trek episode "Conscious of the King".

I would rather have something like the black plaque thin out the global population; Europe after the plague was able to recover and begin a rennaisance.
Posted by sboverie
10th Jun 2011
0 Votes
+ -
The Black Death is not an answer
If you look closely at the history of the black plague, you will find that it took decades and even centuries to recover. There were two major plagues that destroyed Europe: one in the 6th and 7th centuries, and the other in the 14th century. Both killed roughly half the population.

Entire families were destroyed overnight. The survivors were traumatized for life. Food production, trade, and education broke down; people wandered from city to city trying to stay one step ahead of the disease. They had a hard time just getting rid of the bodies. The overall impact was far worse than any war Europe went through, including both World Wars.

I don't know why anybody would want to see that happen today. Even wars that break out because of resource shortages do far less damage.
Posted by zackers
11th Jun 2011
+6 Votes
+ -
Educate women!
The single thing that would help reduce birthrates around the world the most is to educate women. The places with the highest birthrates are generally places where women are not educated and held down largely due to cultural issues. Educated women know how to control their fecundity.
Posted by riverat1
10th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Preventing Climate Change
From a technical point of view, the source of energy to power mankind's future needs should be clean, cheap, safe, dense, with high-availability, without carbon emissions, and no radioactive wastes. The only energy that can meet all these requirements is the aneutronic fusion. http://www.crossfirefusion.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/overview.html
Posted by rbrtwjohnson
10th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Interesting relevant articles & population comment
I thought folks would be interested in the following links regarding 'ecological fusion' aka solar and challenges of feeding current and future generations. http://www.grist.org/solar-power/2011-06-09-solar-getting-cheaper-fast

WRT population control clearly it's crucial, but with resource consumption in the western world 10x per capita that of the developing world it makes a huge difference where it happens. From an environmental perspective birth control in the first world is way more effective than in the developing world where population impacts tend to be more local--and tragic--than global. http://revkin.tumblr.com/post/6396817492/on-feeding-7-8-9-billion

We will need to voluntarily, or not, make hard choices about controlling out population. Ironically the population most responsible for causing the planet's environmental degradation are the ones least likely to suffer from it in the short run.

If dduggerbiocepts and corrigenda are so fired up about population, perhaps they could consider voluntary euthanasia. After you...
Posted by kilrwat
10th Jun 2011
-1 Votes
+ -
THE ANSWER IS EASY?
you silly willy mad scientist types are a hoot! Just fling open those closet doors and declare your gayness to the entire universe, and we'll have a giant party that never stops under that big flaming disco ball in the sky and we'll dance! dance! dance! our bottoms off where no one ever dies they just dance off into the distance, the only law of the land is all fornication with members of the opposite sex is a sin against god and punishable by death and eternal hell fire.
Posted by bruce butkis
10th Jun 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Global warming
why do we neglect to include volcanic activity above and below the sea?

Surely the heating of the oceans must be primarily due to under sea volcanic activity & not significantly due to co2. produced by us.

Although there is no excuse for adding to the problem and we must reduce our contribution to global polution
Posted by TonyTrenton
13th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: TonyTrenton Global Warming
Now THAT is the inconvenient truth....the undersea activity and the pacific rim becoming more active. Just one volcano puts out more CO2 than all of us put together. Amazing isn't it when something like this becomes a religion of faith that cherry picks only the data that supports their faith. Not to mention, follow the money...no one seems to stop and think...where and how this guy makes his money.....
Posted by GregGold
13th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Volcanoes!? Sorry but you are wrong!
In normal years volcanoes output of CO2 is estimated to be 69-319 million tonnes per year. Human output from burning fossil fuels is about 29 billion tonnes per year which is around 100 times the volcanic output or more. The CO2 output of underwater volcanoes is balanced by the carbon sink of the newly formed ocean floor they produce so underwater volcanoes contribute almost nothing to atmospheric CO2.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-basic.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Volcanoes have little to do with heating the ocean or the air. If you do the calculations about how much heat they add to the environment it amounts to a rounding error compared to the amount of energy coming in from the Sun. The incoming radiant energy from the Sun that gets absorbed by the surface of the Earth is re-radiated as infrared energy that CO2 is able to capture. That is the biggest part of what causes climate warming presently.
Posted by riverat1
Updated - 13th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Volcanoes and Methane?
It seems that not enough has been investigated about the effects of vulcanism on global warming.
The effects of metane that is 20-50 X greater than CO2 and is continuousley being released by bovines and the bacterial breakdown of organic material. Don't forget the tri-normous amounts of methane released from ocean depths as methane ice is disturbed. This methane gas is not absorbed into the water. as it is hydrophobic. It rizes into the atmosphere.
These non human related influences are obviously orders of magnitude greater than our human contributions to global waming.
Posted by TonyTrenton
Updated - 5th Aug 2011
+2 Votes
+ -
Climate Change Denial?
I want to know which humans were around at the onset and recession of the last 4 iceages to cause then deny that climate change was occurring? Oh thats right there really weren't any. Anthropomorphic climate change is a myth and a hoax foisted on the rest of us by people who want to run and control other people's lives as they know better than anyone else what to do. All these same arguments were made by the same kind of people a century ago when the earth's population was approaching 2 billion.
Posted by randall.wilkinson@...
14th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Binary thinking
You suffer from the binary thinking that so many on your side do. You think that just because humans didn't factor into previous climate changes they couldn't possibly be doing it now. Sorry but no matter how much you want it to be the world isn't that simple. If global warming is all a political scam then it shouldn't be that hard to disprove it scientifically. I'm still waiting for scientific evidence that seriously challenges the current consensus on climate science. Instead I get arguments that it's all a political plot by the left to take over the world. Get real!
Posted by riverat1
14th Jun 2011
-1 Votes
+ -
Read the facts of the reality of what we have done to mess.
One, list all the major world disasters that took place in 2010.
Two, list the same for the first five months of 2011.

Now try and find any year in the past 5,000 that had the same or a grater number of major world disasters.

Add to this the major world problem on using steel in our building. We, mankind in our know it all way have created one of the world major disasters. The earths great magnetic fields have been changed for ever as we dig more iron to make more steel to build more building far from the iron mines.

How many runways at the airports of the world have new magnetic heading? Now you know why. But also why the magnetic North pole is on a fast trip to Russia

Scary is it not, when you really start to compile the facts of what man kind has done in the last 100 years.

Do you really think mankind will be here in another hundred years.

Robbie Preston
Posted by Saw-whet
14th Jun 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
That is called a red herring
As any intelligent person could tell you, its only in the last 100 years that we have documented world disasters, so no matter how many there were before that we would not know. The claim that there are more in the last 100 years than in prior centuries is in fact ridiculous. Scientists have examined the client record to thousands of years in the past, and have discovered that the last 100 years is ... nothing unusual.. when it comes to weather disasters at least (floods, heat waves, droughts). If anything there have been fewer than in prior centuries. So, dont mistake a lack of reporting with a lack of events.
Posted by abear4562
15th Jun 2011
+3 Votes
+ -
Finally!
Re: That is called a red herring
Posted by abear4562 Jun 15, 2011 @ 9:39 AM (PDT)

Finally, someone who sees sense.

It's amazing to me that folks just don't get this. There aren't more tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc., there are just more people populating the areas that prehistoric and ancient peoples avoided through common sense.

"The ground shakes violently - we won't hunt there"

"Strong spirits (tornadoes) live there and are angered when we camp, we will go around it"

It's possible some legends are made up of the stuff of earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and tsunami.
Posted by Outre
17th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
We are the top preditor & too successful a species.
Somewhere someone is eating it and turning it into human protien. The exponential human population growth will be stopped by nature. and it won't be pretty. That is guaranteed.
Posted by TonyTrenton
5th Aug 2011
-1 Votes
+ -
Father of Leed Missing Critical Data
With the greatest respect for objectives, Leed buildings have missed critical data as well as others. Buildings and their energy consumption or emissions depend on the function of the building envelope. The building envelope is supposed to function within regional temperature extremes with the point being they have precise temperature requirements.

Building code also warns us about solar radiation. If we don't use the right finishes on the exterior of the building or use shade to protect buildings, the building will be radiated. Solar radiated buildings are generating heat close to boiling temperature in some cases. Here is what we missed in the calculator and Leed Buildings have the same problems and considerations. http://www.thermoguy.com/blog/index.php?itemid=61
Posted by Thermoguy
16th Jun 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Unfortunately...
...the group he was talking to could care less.

???The business of the planet is supporting life,??? he said. ???What are we, as a subsidiary of Planet Co., doing to sustain life? We are impairing every other business unit to do its job. As a business owner, what do you do to underperforming assets? Get rid of ???em.???

Why would a obscenely rich magnate care if the "flyovers" (average citizens) are taken out by the planet? They've been busy little bees islands and buying up hardened shelters with twenty to fifty years of stockpiled goods.

They feel they'll be the "elite" of the world who "deserve" to survive and anyone else will be their "serf subjects".

They do not care, it was not "he was preaching to the choir." in that they care so much. Their lack of response was to indicate their lack of enthusiasm for his "message" to be understood by the general public.
Posted by Outre
17th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
fascinating thread....
....of a wide variety of theories and solutions, personally and collectively constructed in this thread. Just a few observations and suggestions here:

-there is much common ground between folks who believe that the root(s) of our current dilemma is due to excessive population/carbon emissions/consumption patterns/rich-poor/educational/human rights disparities. We can debate about the differences all we want, but at the same time, there is much to be gained by recognizing that common ground at the same time and building on it.

For instance, decreasing personal and collective carbon footprints could potentially directly benefit the environment, reduce the consumption disparities between the haves and have-nots, require better educational systems, which would hopefully result in a reduction in human rights abuses and improve the plight of women.

It would also require folks getting off their computers more and actually working toward building our communities and neighborhoods toward more sustainable ways of doing things. Are you willing to spend 10 hours/week actually doing these things outside of the computer world? If we all did this, the effect would be noticeable. What are you waiting for?
Posted by klassman6
18th Jun 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
population
why dont the u.s and other countrys only allow a women only to have 2 children and that is it make it a law that they have to be fixed and theas days thay have the tech to alter genns to have a boy and a girl. trying to distinguish fossel fuels well good luck on that fight thear is to much money to be made in the fossel fuel indastry but it will help for the people to fight for the right to keep the world we live in clean and breathable the word is getting thear alot stronger than ever befor so I have faith in the world to do the right thing eventualy just hope it isnt to late when it finaly happens
Posted by gage927
28th Jun 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!