 |
Points to Ponder
There is only one earth. If we mess it up where will we go?
Remember Acid Rain? It was a problem that no one believed at first. Then when there was physical evidence that it was a problem (our lakes were dying off up north), we were able to find a solution to save our lakes.
The hole in the ozone was "theoretical" until there was irrefutable proof that it was happening and massive action worldwide has helped with that problem as well.
For most scientists there is enough evidence that unnatural and accelerated global warming is occuring and that our ecology is in danger. We have 2 options 1) we do nothing and either it goes away because it was not a real problem in the first place or it destroys our world as we know it or 2) we can each take action. If we take action it may very well be that there was not a problem and our efforts would not have been neceessary but we end up with a cleaner place to live. There is very little downside don't you think?
Consumption is far greater in more developed countries (MDCs) than in the lesser developed countries (LDCs): e.g., MDCs with 16% of global population use 70% of world aluminum, copper, and nickel, 58% of oil, 48% of natural gas, and 37% of coal.
http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/geog/day/g310/4_1.htm - source for the following
From a global perspective Wakemagel??? and Rees (1996), for example, have documented the decline in the amount of ecologically productive land available on the planet. Now down to 1.5 ha per person, from more than 5 ha, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that North American requirements are now 4 ha and growing
Studies of the carrying capacity of the planet as regards water usage estimate that of the readily accessible fresh water sources on the planet, humans are already using 54%. Some studies estimate that given population growth projections, by the year 2025, this figure could be as high as 70%. This would have a severe negative impact upon the aquatic environments across the world. Clearly the current rates of usage are not sustainable.
As described above, the wealthiest nations use the most energy and consume the most resources. On the other hand the poorest nations cannot afford to renew potentially renewable resources. The poor become both the victims and a cause of environmental degradation and resource depletion. Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Executive Director of UNEP, speaking at the World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen on March 7, 1995, said: "Seen in the perspective of fulfilling their short-term needs, each decision taken by the poor has meaning. Whether it is consuming next year's seed com to stay alive, over-exploiting the soil cover merely to subsist or even cutting trees for fuel wood supply. For the poor these are the only means of survival."
Poverty eradication means addressing issues of habitat destruction based on current economic development models which require energy generation by huge hydro-electric projects and dams, large scale industry, overfishing, overcutting of forests, and agriculture that involves intensive export-oriented monocultures instead of diversified self-sufficiency. Environmental conservation not only depends on curbing resource consumption by the affluent, but also upon the eradication of poverty. And while the poor have no alternative means of survival, the affluent countries of the North have several alternative choices and Poverty is not only an outcome of national policies, but also the result of international business patterns, such as unfair terms of trade, wildly fluctuating commodity prices, pitting poor nations against each other for access to world markets etc. While the poor have no alternative means of survival, the affluent countries of the North have several alternative choices and models they can choose to pursue.
SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE USE THROUGH
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENTAnalyses of global patterns of resource consumption described above have shown that much of the responsibility for unsustainable resource use lies with the industrialized nations. However, businesses and non-profit organizations of industrialized nations, including governments, hospitals, universities etc. can conserve materials and use them wisely in three ways:
- They can reduce material use. This may require looking at process and product design to reduce redundancy and waste or recycling of end-products. Waste reduction and recycling will be explained in more detail in unit 5.
- They can buy renewable materials, such as wood from sustainable forestry, instead of from clear-cut forests.
- They can substitute materials that cause greater environmental damage in their extraction and/or manufacture with materials that have a lower negative impact on the environment.
Some industries, such as the mining, petroleum and coal industries are based on the rapid mining and exploitation of non-renewable resources. These industries cannot substantially reduce or substitute the raw material they use. The only alternative is to change the nature of their business; e.g. the petroleum and coal industry could reshape itself as an energy industry that markets more sustainable energy sources. Other industries, such as forestry and fisheries can more readily adopt sustainable practices for the wise use of natural resources that reduce the negative environmental impact of operations and also ensure their survival over the long term. As will be seen in this unit, this is an area in which organizations have not done much to reduce resource depletion. Clear-cutting of forests, extinction of fisheries, and pollution from fossil fuels continues at a faster pace than it has in the last few decades (UNEP, 1995).
Soil is being eroded by wind and flooding, and it is being degraded by the loss of nutrients due to intensive unsustainable agriculture. The loss of agricultural land may be one of the world's most pressing global problems (Stocking 1995). The outlook for agricultural land capability is particularly bleak in the developing regions. For sub-Saharan Africa, for example, it is estimated that agricultural land capability will decline from 1.6 ha per person to 0.63 ha per person by 2025 (Norse et at. 1992). In part this decline will occur due to population growth, but the population problem is severely compounded by the fact that soil is being eroded and productive agricultural land is being turned into desert (desertification). Other developing regions may be also be looking at similar declines in per capita agricultural land.
It takes somewhere in the range of 100 - 1,000,000 years for an agriculturally productive soil to develop
Soil loss can be avoided by adoption of the following practices suggested by the World Bank to mitigate soil erosion (World Bank, 1991):
- Avoid construction on steep slopes;
- Retain forest cover, stockpile and replace topsoil;
- Conserve prime agricultural land;
- Use good cultivation practices;
- Use mulch during construction;
- Rapidly replace vegetation on slopes;
- Construct siltation basins and;
- Use straw or filter fabric to protect waterways.
In forestry the best way to avoid soil erosion is to avoid clear cutting. Off road vehicles should not be used in areas which are vulnerable to soil erosion.
As of 1990 nearly 2 billion people worldwide lacked access to what the UN defines as clean drinking water and adequate sanitation services. The lack of these basic services led to an estimated 250 million cases of water-related disease annually, and between 5 and 10 million deaths, mostly of infants and small children (US Global Change Research Program, 1996). The world has been unable to keep pace with the problem
In less than 200 years the earth has lost 6,000,000 square kilometers of forest (IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1991).
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Contrary to what some might think, children of mothers who work outside the home tend to have healthier eating habits than those whose mothers are full-time homemakers, new study findings suggest.
These findings dispute the idea that obesity could somehow be linked to the breakdown of the family, including mothers who work outside the home and families who infrequently eat together -- an idea expressed by a prominent UK politician during a May 2004 BBC radio program. His comments were in response to a UK House of Commons Health Committee report on obesity.
"The stereotype of modern family life having a negative impact on children's diets may not necessarily be the case," study author Dr. Helen Sweeting of the MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit in Glasgow, UK told Reuters Health.
Previous studies on the topic have yielded inconsistent results, with some researchers finding that families with mothers who work outside the home tend to have less frequent family meals, and others finding that the mom's employment was not linked to adolescent meal patterns.
In the current study, Sweeting, and co-author P. West, analyzed surveys on health and lifestyle issues completed in the 1994-to-1995 school year by more than 2,000 students who were 11 years old and their parents.
Based on the survey responses, over half (56.8 percent) of the students were "less healthy eaters," meaning they consumed more fat, including cheese, chips and processed meats, than fiber, such as fruits and vegetables. About one third (32.3 percent) of the children were "unhealthy snackers," meaning they frequently consumed sweets or chocolate, crisps, fizzy drinks and other unhealthy foods.
However, less healthy eating and unhealthy snacking were not associated with whether children lived with one parent, both parents or within other family structures; or with less frequent or more frequent family meals, the researchers report in the April issue of the Journal of Human Nutrition & Dietetics.
Boys, children who lived in more deprived areas, and children of less educated mothers were more likely than their counterparts to have less healthy eating and more unhealthy snacking, the report indicates.
Having a mother who worked outside the home seemed to positively impact the children's eating habits, however. Mothers who worked part-time, and those who worked full-time outside the home were less likely to have children with less healthy eating habits than were mothers who worked as full-time homemakers, the researchers note.
When the researchers took socio-economic status into consideration, they found that children of mothers who worked full time outside the home were just as likely to be less healthy eaters as those whose moms were full-time homemakers. The mother's employment was not associated with children's snacking, however.
The findings imply that socio-economic status, as measured by the mother's educational level and the family's residence in a deprived area, "is much more important for children's dietary habits than aspects of family life, such as number of parents, family meals or maternal employment," Sweeting told Reuters Health.
SOURCE: Journal of Human Nutrition & Dietetics, April 2005.
|
|
Support Local
Business
|
