Showing posts with label sustainability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sustainability. Show all posts

Wednesday, 26 July 2023

would you eat people....

The science fiction film 'Soylent Green'...

This story is part of The Hollywood Reporter’s 2023 Sustainability Issue (click here to read more).In 1970, 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day. One of the more alarming predictions that day was from Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, who foresaw a future in which “population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” resulting in the starvation death of hundreds of millions.Hollywood took notice and released a string of eco-disaster films in the years to follow.

Soylent Green Food Twist: A Planet With Too Many People, a Dark Secret – The Hollywood Reporter

By 2022,[3] the cumulative effects of overpopulation and pollution have caused ecocide, leading to severe worldwide shortages of food, water, and housing.[4] New York City has a population of 40 million, and only the elite can afford spacious apartments, clean water, and natural food. The homes of the elite are fortified, with security systems and bodyguards for their tenants. Usually, they include concubines (who are referred to—and used as—"furniture"). The poor live in squalor, haul water from communal spigots, and eat highly processed wafers: Soylent Red, Soylent Yellow, and the latest product, far more flavorful and nutritious, Soylent Green.

Soylent Green - Wikipedia

Soylent Green (1973) Official Trailer - Charlton Heston, Edward G Robinson Movie HD - YouTube

The new documentary 'The British Meat Miracle'...

Gregg Wallace: The British Miracle Meat - Final Trailer - YouTube

Gregg Wallace: The British Miracle Meat begins in the usual way – with me reaching for the volume button, checking the running time (only half an hour – hurrah!) and wondering, yet again, why this man is shouting at me. This time it is about “THE COST OF LIVING CRISIS! NOW IT COSTS A PACKET JUST TO BRING HOME THE BACON! AND DON’T GET ME STARTED ON EGGS!”

Gregg Wallace: The British Miracle Meat review – this look at eating human flesh is a total curveball | Television | The Guardian

There is only one solution to the plethora of cookery programmes cluttering up the TV schedules, and that’s to eat Gregg Wallace

Wednesday, 31 May 2023

why giving a welsh park a welsh name is problematic - or not

Recently, one of the national parks of Wales changed its name:

Brecon Beacons: Park to use Welsh name Bannau Brycheiniog - BBC News

And this is why:

Brecon Beacons: Bannau Brycheiniog rebrand shows why names matter - BBC News

Here's a bit of help with the pronunciation:

Bannau Brycheiniog is pronounced: ban-eye bruck-ein-iog. It’s derived form the plural of “ban”, meaning “peak”, and “Brycheiniog” referring to the old kingdom of King Brychan. Its English translation means “The Peaks of Brychan’s Kingdom”.

Brecon Beacons name change explained: How to pronounce the National Park’s new Welsh name Bannau Brycheiniog

But not everyone likes it:

Business chiefs call for Brecon Beacons' English name to be reinstated over tourism fears | Daily Mail Online

Brecon Beacons National Park: Tories criticise renaming as 'symbolic' attempt to look 'trendy' | UK News | Sky News

Why associate a rapist with Brecon Beacons? | cambrian-news.co.uk

Unfortunately, this has become part of the so-called 'culture wars':

The new name, which took effect yesterday, has been imposed without consulting any of the thousands of local residents (or 4 million annual visitors) who so enjoy this breath-takingly beautiful landscape. It is purely the brainchild of an unholy alliance of virtue-signalling politicians and civil servants who appear to be prepared to spend taxpayers' money on the most lame of initiatives, as long as they can be passed off as contributing in some way to the sunlit uplands of 'net zero'.

HARRY MOUNT: Renaming the Brecon Beacons is a victory for woke philistines | Daily Mail Online

There’s nothing that imperialists hate more than Welsh people (or Irish people, or Scottish people) doing Welsh (Irish/Scottish) things in their own country. Throw in concern about the environment and you basically have what amounts to a genius marketing strategy, and right before the coronation of the former “Prince of Wales” as King. Note my use of quotation marks, because the last true Prince of Wales – that’s literally his name – Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf, died in 1282. These sorts of union-flag-waving English jamborees can make even the mildest Welsh person feel a bit queasy...

Bannau Brycheiniog: is this Welsh national park where Tory culture warriors will meet their Waterloo? | Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett | The Guardian

As covered by the EL Gazette:

Just when we thought it was safe to go back down the pub, the language wars have again broken out. This time it is the mighty ire of the English directed against a Welsh National Park...
The most common complaint is that it is “anti-English”. “The Welsh just want to have a laugh at us because we can’t pronounce it,” spluttered one commentator. Certainly the Welsh might enjoy the spectacle, just as English people collapse in giggles every time we hear an American trying to pronounce the word Worcestershire.

Wednesday, 15 March 2023

how is your country getting to a 'sustainable' future... and 'zero-carbon'?

ZERO-CARBON

Let's start with 'zero-carbon'

So what does net-zero mean? Completely eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions? Not necessarily. The “net” part of net-zero means we can still emit CO₂, as long as we offset (or remove) those emissions from the atmosphere by the same amount in other places… Net-zero, carbon-neutral, carbon-negative … confused by all the carbon jargon? Then read this

When does ‘zero’ not mean ‘zero’? When it’s greenwashing, of course

Net-zero 2050-ism must not be allowed to give oxygen to the lie that we can continue business-as-usual, without radically changing our lifestyles and economies… In fact, what appears to be happening is that many corporations and, in some cases, governments are concealing destructive fossil-fuelled business under the cloak of promises to be net-zero carbon by 2050.

A powerful case was made by James Dyke from the Global Systems Institute at Exeter University that net-zero can be a dangerous trap that lulls the public into thinking that real action is being taken to address the emergency. In fact, what appears to be happening is that many corporations and, in some cases, governments are concealing destructive fossil-fuelled business under the cloak of promises to be net-zero carbon by 2050. He argues they are banking on unproven carbon removal technologies to compensate – in the 2040s – for increasing emissions in the 2020s…

When does ‘zero’ not mean ‘zero’? When it’s greenwashing, of course | The Independent

Here is an audio version of Dr Dyke’s piece in the Conversation:

They argue that they’ve arrived at the painful realisation that the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. It has also hastened the destruction of the natural world by increasing deforestation today, and greatly increases the risk of further devastation in the future. Why the concept of net zero is a dangerous trap – podcast

James Dyke wrote in this week’s i-newspaper about the devastating fires in North America: The heat dome proves climate change is not a distant threat – it’s here now, and it’s killing people and Media reaction: Pacific north-west ‘heat dome’ and the role of climate change | Carbon Brief

He has a book out next month:

Fire, Storm and Flood: The violence of climate change: James Dyke
An unflinching photographic record of the epic effects of a violent climate, from the earliest extinction events to the present.
Violent geologic events have ravaged the Earth since time began, spanning the vast eons of our planet’s existence. These seismic phenomena have scored their marks in rock strata and been reflected in fossil records for future humanity to excavate and ponder. For most of the preceeding 78,000 years Homo sapiens simply observed natural climate upheaval. One hundred years ago, however, industrialization stunningly changed the rules, so that now most climate change is driven by us.
Fire, Storm and Flood is an unflinching photographic record of the epic effects of a violent climate, from the earliest extinction events to the present, in which we witness climate chaos forced by unnatural global warming. It uses often emotional and moving imagery to drive home the enormity of climatic events, offering a sweeping acknowledgment of our crowded planet’s heartbreaking vulnerability and show-stopping beauty. headofzeus.com/books/9781800242982 Books – James Dyke

If we go to Exeter, “choosing politically-palatable policies to present as solutions that don’t actually work” suggests that:

City councillors had a very limited understanding of what reducing Exeter’s carbon footprint to sustainable levels would actually involve.” The ‘Net Zero’ Exeter plan has “profound flaws” – Vision Group for Sidmouth

The excellent Exeter Observer posted this on its Twitter pages last week, showing that a new ‘Roaring Twenties’ might not get us to any targets, zero or otherwise: @WMO report confirms “relentless” intensification of climate crisis @IEA expects post-pandemic economic stimulus to drive huge carbon emissions rise @GreenAllianceUK says UK emissions to overshoot 2030 target by 40%

Its editor retweeted a link to this piece from the Conversation: This article/thread is necessary reading for all those who still mistakenly believe that #NetZeroExeter groupthink/rhetoric/solutionism will save us

And here is the opening of that article, penned by Exeter University’s own James Dyke and colleagues:

The threats of climate change are the direct result of there being too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it follows that we must stop emitting more and even remove some of it. This idea is central to the world’s current plan to avoid catastrophe. In fact, there are many suggestions as to how to actually do this, from mass tree planting, to high tech direct air capture devices that suck out carbon dioxide from the air.
The current consensus is that if we deploy these and other so-called “carbon dioxide removal” techniques at the same time as reducing our burning of fossil fuels, we can more rapidly halt global warming. Hopefully around the middle of this century we will achieve “net zero”. This is the point at which any residual emissions of greenhouse gases are balanced by technologies removing them from the atmosphere.
This is a great idea, in principle. Unfortunately, in practice it helps perpetuate a belief in technological salvation and diminishes the sense of urgency surrounding the need to curb emissions now.
We have arrived at the painful realisation that the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. It has also hastened the destruction of the natural world by increasing deforestation today, and greatly increases the risk of further devastation in the future….

Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap

SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

The idea of ‘sustainability’ is very slippery – so much so that it has been used and abused until it means almost nothing: Futures Forum: The semantics of sustainability: ‘sustainable development’… or ‘sustainable growth’ … or ‘sustained economic growth’… or ‘development for sustainability’…

Interestingly, more and more businesses over the last decade have been considering ‘longtermism’ as a way to look afresh at ‘sustainability’: Unilever chief on long-termism and sustainability | Financial Times and Why We Need Corporate Long-Termism & Responsible Investment and The link between long-termism and sustainability | Investor Strategy News

However, not everyone is convinced – with the philosopher Émile P Torres writing in October 2021:

The point is that longtermism might be one of the most influential ideologies that few people outside of elite universities and Silicon Valley have ever heard about. I believe this needs to change because, as a former longtermist who published an entire book four years ago in defence of the general idea, I have come to see this worldview as quite possibly the most dangerous secular belief system in the world today. But to understand the nature of the beast, we need to first dissect it, examining its anatomical features and physiological functions. Why longtermism is the world’s most dangerous secular credo | Aeon Essays

Here’s another philosopher writing earlier this month. Nigel Warburton considers how the extensive use of neonicotinoids to provide us with cheap sugar is not a ‘sustainable’ approach to farming – and he’d prefer a ‘less exotic short- to mediumtermism’ instead of the idea of ‘longtermism’. Here are some excerpts from his recent piece:

The short-term fix that is bad for bees

Sugar is bad for us. We know this, but as a nation we consume a lot, whether in sweetened drinks, cakes, or other food. That’s why sugar farming is a big industry in the UK. In tropical and subtropical climates they grow sugar cane, but here homegrown sugar comes from beet. But beet suffers from yellow virus, a disease spread by aphids. Yellow virus can destroy a crop.

If you want to kill aphids, neonicotinoid pesticides are very effective. They act on insects’ nervous systems. Unfortunately, they also take out honey bees, bumble bees, and solitary bees as collateral. Even where the insecticide picked up in pollen or nectar doesn’t kill these bees, it can damage their ability to forage and reproduce. Wild flowers nearby can build up residues of toxins too. It’s a dangerous time to be a bee.

Yet the UK government… has decided to allow the emergency use of neonicotinoids on sugar beet, despite independent scientific advice warning against this… But the cost will be very high for bees. This is iatrogenic medicine, a treatment that leaves the patient in a worse condition because of side effects. This year’s crop will probably be OK, but the future of food farming in the UK will be jeopardised.

Many fruit and vegetable plants are dependent on pollinator insects. Bee populations are already in serious decline due to climate change, disease, and loss of habitat, but also because too many farmers have used toxic chemicals unwisely. The government’s short-termism here is disappointing…

Assuming the interests of the virus-spreading aphids and of the bees don’t count for much, and the consequent health-damaging effects on the population of cheap sugar production aren’t too great, then perhaps the government could argue on utilitarian grounds that this is the best way to maximise beneficial outcomes. But any analysis which takes a slightly longer view will show neonicotinoid use to be reckless short-termism. It will kill beneficial insects and so will damage food farming.

If we take a much longer-term view, a dramatic and perhaps irreversible drop in pollinator numbers would be a disaster not just for people living now, but for those who have yet to be born. There could be trillions of these before humans go extinct…

Recently, some Oxford-based longtermist philosophers, including Nick Bostrom, Toby Ord and Will MacAskill, revealed they are prepared to bite that bullet: they’ve argued in favour of giving a surprisingly large weighting to the interests of all those not yet existent people. I’m sceptical about aspects of their longtermism, particularly their confidence in the predictions they make about what is likely to happen in the distant future.

But we don’t need to join the longtermist philosophers with their concerns about the trillions of unborn people’s interests or make accurate predictions about future centuries to recognise that people living today will be seriously damaged by a massive reduction in numbers of pollinator insects. A less exotic short- to mediumtermism is sufficient to see how foolish it is to license neonicotinoid use.

We don’t know for sure what the distant future will be like, but a bee-light medium-term future is looming, and that is very disturbing. And for what? Sugar.

Everyday Philosophy: The short-term fix that is bad for bees – The New European

.

.

.

Tuesday, 14 March 2023

how green are electric cars?

What do you know about how 'green' electric vehicles are?

Would it be 'greener' to drive your old banger?

Yes: Geoff Buys Cars - YouTube

... successive scrappage schemes, launched during the 2008 financial crash and repeated several times since, spelled doom for many healthy, cheap cars because they were worth more dead than alive. ‘It was a scandal,’ he said. The death of old bangers | The Spectator

Measuring carbon footprints: old bangers vs new electric cars - Vision Group for Sidmouth

No: Is Keeping Your Old Car Better For The Environment? - YouTube

Maybe: What's the carbon footprint of ... a new car? | Environment | The Guardian

Futures Forum: VW... and making 'wholly opaque disposable vehicles' >>> rather than making vehicles which 'run for a long time and are easy to fix'

What are the issues here?


How green are electric cars? | It's Complicated - YouTube

Here's the latest: How 'green' are electric vehicles? - Vision Group for Sidmouth

Follow the money:

Heartland Institute, which has received almost $800,000 from oil major ExxonMobil, according to the oil giant’s corporate donation disclosures, published an article last year saying “EV buyers should be aware that they may be contributing to the pursuit of “blood minerals” to achieve their efforts to go green. Why your electric car may not be as green as you think, from batteries to production

Is it Ethical to Purchase a Lithium Battery Powered EV? – The Heartland Institute

Lithium's in the news: Lithium - Google Search

With a report from Amnesty International: Child labour behind smart phone and electric car batteries

And news from Cornwall: How lithium reserves in Cornwall could fuel green industrial revolution - YouTube

Finally: Cleaning up the Clean Energy Transition: Lithium Mining's Environmental Challenges - YouTube

.

.

.

Saturday, 26 June 2021

anthroposcenery

Singapore’s refurbished Changi Airport now features the world’s tallest indoor waterfall… Known as the ‘City in a Garden’, Singapore is already famous for its Gardens by the Bay, which contain a grove of human-made ‘super trees’ that actually mimic the processes of photosynthesis and rainwater collection through the use of photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight into energy. In this sense such innovations fit more broadly into what is known as ‘biomimicry’, or the process by which scientists, architects and others imitate natural processes as a solution to human-centred dilemmas or inventions. Architecture is at the forefront of this movement.

STRUCTURE magazine | Engineering an Icon

But while such imitation is generally viewed favourably, it also suggests that for nature to be viable and appreciated in our digital age it must merge with the technical worlds of machinery and architecture. What we are witnessing is a fusion of the Anthropocene, a new geological era defined by human actions, and scenery, an anthroposcenery, in which nature, ever more unpredictable in the wake of human-driven climate change, is transformed and repackaged as heavily choreographed scenery for the ‘well-being’ of humans inhabiting the cityscape.

The New Anthroposcenery – Arena

“At the apex of Jewel’s glass roof is an oculus that showers water down to the center of the building. The Rain Vortex will be the world’s tallest indoor waterfall, transforming into a light and sound show in the evening. Additionally, rainwater is funneled into the waterfall and harvested for building services and landscape irrigation systems. At peak conditions, water will flow through the oculus at more than 10,000 gallons per minute.”

Safdie Architects

Solarpunk architecture at the Singapore airport : solarpunk

Jewel Changi Airport – YouTube

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


Jewel Changi Airport – Buro Happold

The current surge in ‘green buildings’ grows out of the solarpunk movement, whose vision promotes a nature interwoven through metallic cityscapes, endorsing a chimerical city that brings the best of nature to the city and gives the metropolis a green makeover. Solarpunks are much more optimistic (if not dangerously utopian) about the future than, say, cyberpunks. One of the aims of the solarpunk movement, it seems, is to keep the dystopian cityscapes of Blade Runner and The Fifth Element at bay. The worlds depicted in those films were unapologetic in their abandonment of wilderness in favour of unending metallic fortresses, bleak yet visually striking. In Cinema and Landscape, Christina Kennedy and colleagues write that The Fifth Element was ‘an extension of the stereotypical city of today: a thoroughly complex and artificial environment, that maybe even despite all of its problems, can be stunningly beautiful’. Both films feature characters cut off from nature, a feature that we, the audience, are to view with concern. An antidote to this abundance of steel is now given in the form of the ‘sustainable city’, or the ‘green city’, a hybrid creation that is meant to function as a well-oiled ecosystem.

Tim Beatley envisions what he calls ‘biophilic cities’, arguing that in the endeavour to green our cities, planners focus on everything but nature. His view emphasises nature: ‘Biophilic Cities acknowledge the importance of daily contact with nature as an element of a meaningful urban life, as well as the ethical responsibility that cities have to conserve global nature as shared habitat for non-human life and people’. Beatley’s sentiments carry a distinctly Romantic feel in their plea to humans to harness a ‘meaningful’ relationship with nature. He writes that because humans ‘coevolved with the natural world’, cities need to make room for green spaces and make daily interactions with nature possible, but while we may have coevolved with the natural world and other animals, that evolutionary trajectory has long since deviated into destruction and self-idolatry.

The New Anthroposcenery – Arena

.

.

.

Saturday, 24 April 2021

greenwashing fashion

We like to donate our old clothes to charity - but where exactly do they go?

Julian Epp, writing in the Nation, follows the trial - and then asks a few awkward questions: click on the link for more from an excellently researched piece:

.

Greenwashing Fashion

These days, sustainability is on trend. But the trend cycle of fast fashion isn’t sustainable.

Around 15 million garments per week flow through Kantamanto, one of the largest secondhand clothing markets in the world. The shopping center is located in Accra, the capital of Ghana, and is stocked with once-donated clothing that arrives in hundred-pound bundles, mostly from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada. Retailers take out substantial loans to purchase the bundles, hoping to find worthwhile garments in sellable condition. Yet almost half of what is bought is thrown away.

The excess clothing waste piles up in the streets, on the beaches, and in dumpsites around Accra. One landfill in Old Fadama sits next to a river and is over 30 feet tall, containing mostly secondhand clothing from the market. The water near the dump is toxic, causing the surface to ripple and bubble as if it were constantly raining. Some of this foreign clothing flows into the sea, wrapping around itself and other waste to create tentacles up to 25 feet long. These tangled masses put local fishermen in danger, ensnaring their boats’ motors and weighing down nets, which can leave them stranded or capsized. Clogged gutters from the clothing waste lead to flooding and standing water, even after only a light rain, increasing the risk of cholera and malaria for those in the community.

Why is there so much secondhand clothing? Increasingly, it’s built into the way we dress: fast fashion, the trendy, mass-produced clothing that can be made quickly and at low cost, has had disastrous consequences for the planet, while making the industry more profitable than ever. In 1960, around 95 percent of American clothing was made in the United States. As this labor began to be outsourced overseas, brands were able to cut costs while substantially raising production levels. By 1989, The New York Times coined the term “fast fashion” in reference to the 15-day period between an idea’s inception and when the physical garment hit the racks. The Times described the target market as “young fashion followers on a budget who nonetheless change their clothes as often as the color of their lipstick.”

Since then, fashion has only gotten faster... Thanks to fast fashion, the average person purchased 60 percent more clothing in 2014 compared to 2000, while each garment was kept for only half as long, according to a study by McKinsey & Company.

Liz Ricketts, cofounder of the OR Foundation, a charity that advocates for alternatives to the current wasteful fashion model, has been observing the secondhand clothing trade and its impact on Ghana for a decade. Fueled by colonialism and unsustainable business practices, the production of waste has only been increasing. “I saw how the acceleration of fast fashion was creating a toxic disposable culture across the entire industry,” Ricketts told The Nation. “Not just at the fast fashion level, but at every price point and at every segment of the industry.”

.

Here's an example of 'greenwashing' - where promises are made but there's no guarantee of anything happening:

Maisie Williams x H&M - YouTube

Maisie Williams Joins H&M as ‘Sustainability Ambassador,’ But Both Face Greenwashing Claims

.

With a handy definition from the Green Queen:

.

Greenwashing In Fashion Is On The Rise, Here’s How To Spot It

There’s been an increasing amount of buzz around the terms ‘sustainable’, ‘eco-friendly’ and ‘natural’, in everything from fashion to food. Unsurprisingly, this comes at a time when we’re all becoming more conscious of what we buy. In particular, the rising interest in sustainability amongst Millennial and Gen Z consumers, coupled with their increase in purchasing power, is influencing businesses to take notice. However, rather than truly going green, certain brands are taking the greenwashing route instead. It’s tough enough for fashion folk to navigate the greenwashing maze, so naturally, it makes everyday consumers confused! Read on for how you can spot and avoid fashion’s ‘fake news’ trap.

In a nutshell, greenwashing is a tactic that companies use to ‘appear’ more sustainable than they actually are. This could mean making false claims about green production practices or even purposefully being vague with facts. The term has been around since the 1960s, but American environmentalist Jay Westerveld popularised it in 1986.

How do I spot it?

Greenwashing can come in many forms. Here’s a few indicators you can look out for...

Greenwashing In Fashion Is On The Rise, Here's How To Spot It

What Is Greenwashing In Fashion And How To Spot It | British Vogue

.

Here's a great overview from Forbes:

.

Some Of The Favorite Greenwashing Tactics Of Clothing Companies

The fashion industry has proven to be adept at spin. It has an enormous environmental footprint, using up more energy than aviation and shipping combined. Thankfully, the public isn’t always gullible. One survey of EU citizens found that 81% don’t trust clothing products’ claims to be environmentally friendly.

But the abundance of information from all sides makes it hard to sort through the exaggerations and the understatements. Here are a few of the ways that clothing companies attempt to portray themselves as more sustainable than they really are, according to the recent “Fossil Fashion” report of the Changing Markets Foundation...

Some Of The Favorite Greenwashing Tactics Of Clothing Companies

.

Finally, again from Catherine Erdly writing in yesterday's Forbes:

.

Earth Day 2021: Independent Fashion Brands Challenge Industry Greenwashing

At the current rate of growth, by 2030 annual global apparel consumption could rise by 63% - the equivalent to more than 500 billion additional t-shirts. 

Environmentally, this is unwelcome growth from an industry that already has "a far-reaching impact on the natural environment, from the extraction of raw materials to the production, distribution, wear and disposal of clothes" according to the British Fashion Council's white paper on Fashion and the Environment.

With the stakes, and the environmental impact, growing ever higher, a group of independent brands across the fashion, rental and vintage market have come together on Earth Day 2021 to raise awareness of sustainability issues in fashion.

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) make up half of the businesses in the fashion eco-system...

Earth Day 2021: Independent Fashion Brands Challenge Industry Greenwashing

.

.

.

Friday, 9 April 2021

solarpunk 2021

This is an aesthetic movement – which has become a cultural and political one.

And it's gaining a lot of interest – and a lot of ground, in many different spheres.

This is where it's at now:

.

SCIENCE FICTION – BUILDING UTOPIAS:

.

Here's a view from a book-lover's website:.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SOLARPUNK GENRE

Emily Wenstrom Mar 23, 2021

While a great deal of science fiction involves gloom, doom, and cynicism about humanity’s fate (Apocalypse! Dystopia! Grimdark!), there are bright spots of optimism within the genre. Meet solarpunk.

WHAT IS SOLARPUNK?

The overall vibe of the solarpunk genre is often described as inspired by Art Nouveau, Victorian, and Afrofuturist motifs. Illustrations of solarpunk landscapes often look hypermodern, light, airy, and colorful, but can also be rich in elegant detail. Most of all, everything is so, so green. Just covered in leaves. 

Along with this visual style, the spirit of solarpunk is one of craftsmanship, egalitarianism, and optimism where technology can be put to work to solve our greatest problems.

The first mentions of solarpunk trace back to the late 2000s, but the sub-genre became more widely recognized thanks to the Tumblr of Miss Olivia Louise, who frequently posted images that reflect what’s become recognized as the solarpunk aesthetic, and had a post in this style and explaining it go viral in 2014.

An Introduction to The Solarpunk Genre | Book Riot

.

With a new book just out:

Arizona State University’s Free Solarpunk Anthology is All About Optimistic Futures

.

HI-TECH – LO-TECH:

.

Here's the perspective from “the online community for startups and tech companies“:

.

SOLARPUNK IS A TUMBLR VIBE. IT’S ALSO A PRACTICAL MOVEMENT.

Stephen Gossett February 2, 2021 Updated: March 24, 2021

The sunny, internet-born aesthetic continues to evolve online. What does that mean IRL?

Scan the #solarpunk hashtag on Tumblr or the 30,000-plus-member r/solarpunk subreddit and you’ll likely encounter several examples of a certain subgenre of architectural rendering: dramatically geometric towers dotted with rooftop forests or tree-sprouting condos, far easier imagined than built. Or you might see the 3D-art cousin to such renderings — grander and greener still.

So why, when I ask Jay Springett — longtime co-administrator of solarpunks.net — about what solarpunk looks like in practice, does he talk about an old phone box that was converted into a seed library?

That wouldn’t be out of place in a solarpunk story,” Springett said. “But also it’s real life”

The humble example gets to the true crux of solarpunk. It centers ecological responsibility, and it maintains a fundamentally DIY impulse — community-minded, self-sustaining and, importantly, hopeful.

Over the last six or so years, solarpunk has graduated from an aesthetic to something more akin to a practical movement, but it began in earnest primarily as a visual vocabulary and literary subgenre of science fiction. The “punk” suffix places it in a sci-fi lineage that includes dieselpunk, steampunk and cyberpunk, but the vision and iconography of solarpunk is dramatically different.

In fact, Solarpunk is often framed specifically in opposition to cyberpunk. Blade Runner and its brethren envisioned a dystopian singularity and, as Springett has noted, were rooted in the anxieties of the 1980s — urban decay, monolithic corporatism and, in sadly xenophobic streaks, Asia’s growing influence. Solarpunk, on the other hand, imagines a world in which today’s existential threat — the climate crisis — is either resolved or being approached with camaraderie and adaptive ingenuity.

In fiction, protagonists might be working to rewild an Australian suburb in the near future, or competing factions in a devastated landscape might be uniting to disseminate sustainable innovations. Cover art often favors the lush greenery and plant-like curves of Art Nouveau. It’s not all unmitigated harmony — this is fiction, after all, with narrative tension and dramatic obstacles. Still, a resolute sense of optimism pervades.

In the words of preeminent solarpunk thinker Rhys Williams, solarpunk stands “against a shitty future.” The planet is on the clock, and there’s just no time for fashionable pessimism, it implies.

Because the climate anxiety the literary subgenre engages is so palpable in the real world — “science fiction is really about now,” as Margaret Atwood has said — solarpunk has come to encompass a practical movement and subculture too. It considers how technology, sustainable agriculture and reoriented social and economic systems might help communities grapple with a world besieged by climate threats.

Like solarpunk the aesthetic, solarpunk the movement can seem almost collagist in its wide-ranging scope. Renewable energies, solar power, rainwater harvesting, DIY community gardening, decentralized technologies and more all fit into the framework — though never uncritically. Any ethically sourced, community-focused solution that might stand resilient in the face of natural or manmade disaster will likely get a look.

...

What Does Solarpunk Look Like in Practice? | Built In

.

With a view from a website whichchronicles technological progress by highlighting the breakthroughs, players, and issues shaping the future“:

Solarpunk Is Growing a Gorgeous New World in the Cracks of the Old One

.

SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE:

.

Here's how it looks from the “Red, Green and Blue” website:

.

Why “Solarpunk” Gives Me Hope for a More Sustainable Future

Minimum Viable Planet” is a weeklyish commentary about climateish stuff, and how to keep it together in a world gone mad.

BY SARAH LAZAROVIC | Published on February 6th, 2021

One of my most oft-repeated climate maxims is “paint the positive future.” We need to visualize what a sustainable, decarbonized world looks like if we’re going to get people excited about climate action (cue jazz hands and zero-carbon fireworks). But while there are a few great examples hither and thither, these positive visions of the future are not as plentiful as they ought to be...

The point of solarpunk is to start telling that new, creative story. Illustrating a world where humans don’t live in opposition to nature, and where we also don’t forfeit the advancements of modern life, but instead flourish in harmony with the environment. The air is clean because we’ve decarbonized. The soil is healthy, people are healthy, communities are healthy. Food tastes better. People are happier. Technology facilitates life without undermining it. There is no fascism, racism, or autotune. The whole world is thriving to a catchy beat. (And everyone is dancing all the time. OK, that part’s just me.)

My solarpunk is a mix of kibbutz, absurdist art, rooftop gardens, mangroves, and Mary Poppins. But seeing my daughter’s epic Minecraft creations (a waterfall inside the house?), I realize how limited I’ve been in envisioning this positive, sustainable future. In-home renewable hydropower waterfalls for everyone. And fizzy water on tap. Can the future please have carbonated drinking fountains?

Why “Solarpunk” gives me hope for a more sustainable future | Red, Green, and Blue  

.

Here's a piece from a freethinking science and tech website – with lots of links:

What Does a Solarpunk Future Look Like? | Freethink 

.

IT'S HAPPENING INTERNATIONALLY:

Future Fiction propone un contest sul Solarpunk – InfoNerd

Taller Online: Introducción al Solarpunk - La Opinión de Zamora

Technologie s dračí tváří. Solarpunková utopie pro dnešní svět – A2larm

.

And it's happening in a place near you NOW:

Arts project to set out how St Helens could look way into the future | St Helens Star

.

.

.

Sunday, 28 March 2021

how to recycle a building

We can ‘recycle’ our buildings, with a look at what’s happening in Switzerland on the BBC World Service:

.

People Fixing the World

How to reuse a demolished building

Is it possible to construct a new building, just by reusing materials from homes and offices that have been knocked down? That’s the dream of a pioneering Swiss architect Barbara Buser, who trains specialist treasure hunters to track down everything from window frames to steel beams for her buildings. People Fixing the World finds out about her latest project, which is made of 70% reused material. We ask whether Barbara’s approach, which has a much lower carbon footprint than building with new material, can take off around the world.

People Fixing the World – How to reuse a demolished building – BBC Sounds

.

Here’s Barbara Buser’s company in Switzerland:

baubüro in situ

.



Last year Barbara Bauer won a prize:

Artist, curator and architects win the Swiss Grand Award for Art – SWI swissinfo.ch

.

Urban mining is the future of the construction industry:

“We have no choice. Our resources are waning. Some materials just won’t last forever.”

The recyclable building site of the future – SWI swissinfo.ch

.

.

.

Sunday, 21 February 2021

planting trees on roads

The council at the city of Sheffield didn't seem to like trees on its streets:

Futures Forum: "Sheffield's tree massacre": How locals have battled to protect Europe's greenest city

But it makes good sense to plant trees right next to roads:

3 Reasons Why It is Important to Install Trees on the Roads

Benefits of Roadside Plantings

But what about planting trees on urban streets?

The group Treeconomics put this report together a couple of years ago:

GBU - Street Tree Cost-Benefit Analysis - 2018.pdf

Our mission: Sustainable treescapes for everyone

It is the goal and passion of Treeconomics to work to understand how trees improve our urban spaces, making them better places to live.

Home - Treeconomics

As used in the Sid Valley, Devon:

Sid Valley i-Tree Eco Survey - Treeconomics

Arboretum Towns.pdf

THE GUARDIAN 15 August 2015 Patrick Barkham wrote: “Our ‘urban forests’ can make us healthier, wealthier and happier”. …Trees on British streets lack any government department or national body to look after them.”

Tree Report | sidmoutharboretum.org.uk

Other places are embracing tree-planting - in a very new and clear context:

"The UK government has committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. As part of our overall response to this, Surrey County Council has committed to facilitate the planting of 1.2 million trees – one for every Surrey resident – by 2030."

And the council has put together a programme to make that happen - by encouraging people to plant trees next to roads:

Planting trees on the highway - Surrey County Council

For example:


Let’s fill our streets with trees - Start With Local

But, still, it's a challenge - which can be met, as the Start with Local group points out:

Street-trees can be expensive

Planting trees in streets can be expensive. Funnily enough, the tree is itself the cheapest component – a 3-4m high tree should cost your council £60-70, depending on species. The initial watering of a street-tree over 3 years is a massive £200-£250. Planting a tree in a grass verge may cost £100 but do so in a hard surface and you may be looking at £250, and more if you then get into engineered trees pit and tree guards. So, on average Defra estimates it costs about £600 to plant a street-tree. No wonder we’re not seeing a renaissance in street-trees, quite the opposite.

How to create a step-change?

At Start with Local, we’re working on a scheme to support the mass planting of street-trees – Trees for Streets...

Let’s fill our streets with trees - Start With Local

And here's the scheme, starting Easter 2021:

Trees for Streets - Let's fill our streets with trees

.

.

.

Thursday, 10 December 2020

will innovation or government save us?

Today’s big read in the Guardian looks at the difficult questions around new technologies and finite resources:    

The curse of ‘white oil’: electric vehicles’ dirty secret | News | The Guardian

.

These news pages have looked at how potentially ‘dirty’ batteries are:

Cobalt in your car battery: the ethics of mining minerals – Vision Group for Sidmouth

.

Even if the sources are relatively local:

West Country lithium – Vision Group for Sidmouth

.

Earlier in the year, Michael Moore caused controversy with his latest documentary questioning ‘alternative technologies’:

This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It’s too little, too late.”

‘Planet of the Humans’: a new documentary – Vision Group for Sidmouth

.

We are facing a conundrum, then:

Do we tackle a growing environmental catastrophe with ‘techno-fixes’ or do we look to more fundamental changes?

.

The Futures Forum blog has looked at these issues over the years:

On the one hand, the techno-fix:

Futures Forum: The techno-fix … Can we engineer our way out of environmental catastrophe? Or … Can we ‘design for the real world’?

[And with a comment posted only today here:] Futures Forum: Techno-promises unfulfilled >>> Where did the future go?

Futures Forum: Our core ecological problem is not climate change. It is overshoot, of which global warming is a symptom. And technology won’t save us.

Futures Forum: Climate change: Are proposals to repair the climate offering “scalable technological fixes” or “climate despair”?

On the other, fixing the system:

Futures Forum: Climate change… and the possibility – or not – of “decoupling” economic growth from environmental impacts

Futures Forum: Climate change… “Clean growth is a safe bet in the climate casino”

Futures Forum: Climate Change: and growth on Radio 4

Futures Forum: Climate change >>> This Changes Everything >>> 

.

The real question, though, is whether free-market innovation or the government is going to provide the solutions:

Center for a Stateless Society » Reclaiming the Public

Conservatives don’t hate climate science. They hate the left’s climate solutions – The Washington Post

Futures Forum: Climate change: “Conservatives don’t hate climate science. They hate the left’s climate solutions”

.

There are two new books for your Christmas stocking which address these questions.

.

Firstly, there is the contention that free societies produce innovation – from Matt Ridley, aka Viscount Ridley, disrupter, former chair of Northern Rock, and a ‘master raconteur’:

Innovation, he argues, is not mere invention: to take off, an invention needs to become ‘sufficiently practical, affordable, reliable and ubiquitous to be worth using’.

Frances Cairncross – Secrets of the Wheelie Suitcase | Literary Review | Issue 487

Asks RIchard Dawkins:

Why should fiction be more gripping than books about what really happened? I don’t know, but Matt Ridley certainly bucks the trend. “How Innovation Works” (Fourth Estate) warms to the “bottom-up” theme of his earlier “The Evolution of Everything”, moving on to the history of human inventions. No, not inventions, evolutions. Forget the “lone genius” theory. The steam engine, television, the light bulb, even the water closet – innovation after innovation evolved many times independently around the world. Fascinating stories by a master raconteur.

Books of the year | newstatesman.com

With further enthusiasm for his analysis:

How Innovation Works by Matt Ridley review — forget lightbulb moments | Saturday Review | The Times [paywall]

How Innovation Works by Matt Ridley review: the real mother of invention? It’s not necessity | telegraph.co.uk [paywall]

Saying yes slowly is what’s hampering progress today | The Spectator

.

On the other hand, another book fresh off the press pushes for the same sort of interventions we have seen over the current health crisis:

In “Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency”, Andreas Malm begins by asking why capitalist governments have seemingly been willing to pitch the world into recession to fight Covid, while they have been so resistant to calls to cut carbon pollution sharply. After all, Malm muses, “no champion of radical emissions cuts has ever asked people to submit to something as unpleasant as a lockdown.”

Book Review: Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency | Climate & Capitalism

This is by Swedish academic and activist Andreas Malm:

Andreas Malm | jacobinmag.com

Andreas Malm | The Department of Human Geography | keg.lu.se

And there have been several reviews of his latest work:

Malm mines the initial states of emergency imposed by governments in 2020 responding to Covid-19 for insights and lessons in contrast with the very different responses to the more serious climate emergency.

Capitalism can’t be curbed with carrots – Tempest

Global fever | theecologist.org 

.

.

.