Is ‘lifestyle change’ to be feared? 11

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Bud Dingler Posted 2:46 pm
   05 May 2009

   For the non science people it may come as a shock that a hypotheses such as CO2 causes a global climate change that has negative consequences is still that a hypothesis that is always being checked for validity and new data is collected. With that news flash in mind one might want to consider some of the recent "updates" on supporting evidence that if they continue will shatter the so called slam dunk proof that we should be worried about climate shifts. Whats laughable to me is that this theory of global warming has only been around for not even 2 decades but yet some rabid folks are ready to sell their souls to get on the cap and trade and what not wagon. Consider some of the FACTS presented here that may not support the theory. http://wattsupwiththat.com/http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.htmlThe rest of you can run for the hills if you want but I'm getting ready for a cooler then normal 2009 and beyond. (written from my cabin in northern MN where we had 4ft of snow in April and we still have snow cover)

   Permalink

2. 

   Zephaniah Posted 4:52 pm
   05 May 2009

   Dave, Nicely put!! Bud,  The Supreme Court ruled in Mass v. EPA in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Agency's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions [N.B. under the previous administration!This has now changed]  presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both “actual” and “imminent.”... the NRC Report itself—which EPA regards as an “objective and independent assessment of the relevant science,” 68 Fed. Reg. 52930—identifies a number of environmental changes that have already inflicted significant harms, including “the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of rivers and lakes, [and]the accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years . . . .” NRC Report 16. Petitioners allege that this only hints at the environmental damage yet to come. According to the climate scientist Michael MacCracken, “qualified scientific experts involved in climate change research” have reached a“strong consensus” that global warming threatens (among other things) a precipitate rise in sea levels by the end of the century, MacCracken Decl. ¶15, Stdg. App. 207, “severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems,” id., ¶5(d), at 209, a “significant reduction in water storage inwinter snowpack in mountainous regions with direct andimportant economic consequences,” ibid., and an increase in the spread of disease, id., ¶28, at 218–219. ... and rising ocean temperatures [that] may contribute to the ferocity of hurricanes. Id., ¶¶23–25, at 216–217.18 

   Permalink

3. 

   Barbara Ford Posted 7:04 pm
   05 May 2009

   Re: Lifestyle Changes... as someone who has been involved in a co-housing community for the past 1 1/2 years, I can attest to the positives in lifestyle change for the planet. Folks in my community have virtually all downsized, and are working together to share tools, skills, energy, and time to decrease our carbon footprints and increase our community connections. Sharing laundry facilities? Develop systems to help us all get our duds clean. Need the garden weeded? Many enthusiastic gardeners work in the common gardens while I (not a big fan of kneeling in the dirt) can whip up lunch for the work party (I love to cook). Need a tool? Ask in the parking lot, or send out an email- folks are always responding with generosity and care. Water concerns? We collect 24,000 gallons of rainwater a year to water the gardens in the summer. This plus we live on a bus route in a major city.Oh, and we have a permaculture farm too.Is there a down side? Well, you do need to consider how your activities affect the others close by, and we do make major decisions about the community together, but we still have our own living quarters, schedules, and lives. Not enough is being written about co-housing as a positive choice for the dreaded lifestyle change. 

   Permalink

4. 

   Alec Johnson Posted 9:32 pm
   05 May 2009

   As someone on the front lines trying to make Waxman-Markey real, I certainly appreciate support like this. Keep it up, Dave! I've started following your articles more closely. Brave truth-tellers like yourself are still far too thin on the ground. Of course this compliment pertains to the entire Grist site and staff as well. 

   Permalink

5. 

   hapa Posted 11:21 pm
   05 May 2009

   the timeframe isn't 70 years. or 40. or 4% per president for the next 5 presidents. but it's nice to pretend there's some automaticity and fairy dust involved.

   Permalink

6. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 12:02 am
   06 May 2009

   In every aspect we see people struggling to get gains from a 20th century system that has ended.Investors still look to the DOW.   And planners to archaic living structures.I disagree that high density, high energy consumption cities are the future.   Being close together does not always mean having accessibility to the necessities of life.   Case in point, it's much easier for me in the exurb of Kent, to jump in my car, drive 1/2 a mile to a warehouse size supermarket and load up on food and goods for a week.Energy stored everywhere and generated by everyone?  The answer could be Hydrogen.  I see the "Hydronet" as akin to the Internet, prior to Netscape.   The highway has already been built.   And people can add to it with solar and wind generators...or just use it locally.
   Ownership...of land...by the average person, will increase their ability to produce and consume as locally as possible, with trips to nearby centers for larger goods.   With ownership and wealth comes the ability to abandon the "job" and to generate income in the home...reducing travel overall.
   These changes, made possible by H2 generated without CO2 through the Nocera process will propel change.    Change will come when a family of 4, fed up with the city, sees 2 acres of land in Agraria (beyond Exurbia) for sale in a liveable township, for little or no money.   A New Homesteading will occur. 

   Permalink

7. 

   Javaman Posted 6:30 am
   06 May 2009

   Thanks for your opinion, but realistically, oil is running out. period. just take a look around your immediate area and tell me one thing, just one thing, that isn't souly dependant on coal or oil. I bet you a $1000 you can't. Now remove oil and coal from the equation regarding our "lifestyle", I predict colossal change. magic bandaids and techno fixes are fine and dandy but if you don't have 1) a way to smelt metal or 2) a way to lubricate metal parts, we in a word are f*cked.welcome to the world of tomorrow. it's going to be a lot slower and not as much useless cr*p.

   Permalink

8. 

   PermieWriter Posted 8:51 am
   06 May 2009

   We certainly improved our lifetyle when we moved from a rural area (two cars used daily, big house with electric heat) to an urban area (public transit, small house with gas heat). I think that Richard Register ("Ecocity Berkeley") has the right gesture about how to make human civilization carbon-negative and more human.

   Permalink

9. 

   Charles Komanoff Posted 9:33 am
   06 May 2009

   Very good post, David. Particularly What people fear are not lifestyle changes but abrupt decreases in quality of life. People fear losing what they’ve got. I've been wrestling with the "L" (lifestyle) word for decades and am thrilled to come across something insightful.

   Permalink

10. 

    TD0C Posted 1:15 pm
    06 May 2009

    I'd been wondering if environmental regulations, requirements or even laws on constitute a good approach to force lifestyle changes on people. I'd say it might not be the best idea, but at least it worked. I mean even if they don't bear the fruits right now, I'm sure the future generations will benefit.
    I'm talking about things like South Australia's ban on plastic bags. We've been used to consuming shopping plastic bags since forever, but if our kids are not familiar to the idea and such frivolous lifestyle, the level of consumption will definitely decrease.  

    Permalink

11. 

    Anya B.D. Posted 6:04 am
    12 May 2009

    In response to L.T. and the commend on how dense cities don't = more efficiency:Density in itself doesn't necessarily make an area more sustainable, but MIXED-Use density with a variety of transportation options (bus, walking, bike, etc) does.  Vehicle Miles Traveled, and therefore CO2 output, is most strongly influenced by proximity to daily services/work, and the availability of non-motorized infrastructure and competitive public transit.  And public transit can't have the ridership to support it without density.  And, density transferred from sprawling suburbs leave more green open space and farmland, and require significantly less new infrastructure to be built, which obviously has some significant resources savings associated.  There are plenty of wonderful books that give much more information, which I encourage you to read, as well as talking to people who have first hand experience with sustainable city planning.And while on that note, yes, old school planning segregated uses and favored automobiles and parking, but for the past couple decades, things have been changing.  Sustainable cities through appropriately mixed-use density with housing and transit options is becoming the focus.  Most graduate programs in planning partner with sustainable systems (LEED buildings, landscape architecture, lifecycle analysis of builidng materials, etc).  In fact, Sierra Club called Planning the #2 most influential career for addressing climate change.What we need in order to take these principles into true sustainability on the ground is the public to support officials and planners who want to change zoning codes and investment strategies to priorities green infrastructure, public transit and walkable mixed use.

    Permalink