Can We Save Planet Earth? – watch on Google video.

Climate change is the biggest challenge facing the world, naturalist Sir David Attenborough has said. You can now watch his programme on just how we might change our behaviour as societies and individuals for the better of the planet and ourselves.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate change, Economics, Extreme weather, Films Movies TV, Food & Agriculture, Health, Media Resources, Nature & Conservation, Oil, Planning, Politics, Renewables, Schools, Sustainablity, Technology, Thinking outside the box, Wildlife. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Can We Save Planet Earth? – watch on Google video.

  1. lizseymour says:

    It’s amazing that people still need to be reminded–the world’s scientists are well aware of what’s going on. I don’t think technology will save us. What will save us–and I think we’ll make it through–is our ability to adapt. There’s a growing body of thought that says our current way of life is coming to an end, and good riddance….

  2. matt says:

    It’s a big topic, our very own survival as a species, or at least the belief that our population total can just keep on growing and growing.

    The Neanderthal survived through the last ice age. Not a bad prerequisite, except now we aren’t taking on the elements so much, but destroying the environment that supports us instead. Can’t get more stupid than that!

  3. inel says:

    Technology can help us adapt if we use it wisely. Unfortunately, most people think it is easier to stick with the old not-so-good tool you know than make the effort to learn about the new tool that is better.

    For example, in terms of my own resistance to change, it took me a while to get around to signing up for electricity from 100% renewables supplied by Good Energy and buy carbon offsets from ClimateCare. However, now that I have figured out how they work, I am happy that I am able to reduce my carbon footprint in this fashion and recommend those schemes to others.

    Furthermore, I have had a variety of commutes to work in the past few decades—ranging from daily carpooling, to daily bike riding, to driving solo roundtrips 90 miles, and flying to European capitals every week—and now I beat the lot of them by working online from home and walking or taking public transport to meetings. These are ways I can use technology to change my carbon footprint, and I am encouraged as I meet more people who are choosing to do the same.

    There are many energy projects that engineers are working on that the public are not yet aware of, but should look out for in the next few years to decrease energy use, improve energy efficiency. Meanwhile, part of habit changing should include taking advantage of what is already available today. Technology cannot help if people ignore it or do not adopt it!

  4. matt says:

    Inel, you are absolutely right to say technology = tools. The human’s use of tools has defined our ‘progress’ from cave man to skyscrapper dweller.

    It is amazing how resistant to change we can all be. I also acknowledge that in myself although I constantly badger myself to re-visit my decisions and work towards better approaches to what I do regards my carbon footprint.

    Some I just plain can’t afford so are waiting for lower price economics to kick in. It’s no mistake that hybrid cars are dime a dozen around Primrose Hill and less so in less wealthy areas.

    New technology also takes time to reach wider use because it’s difficult to bolt them on to current older technologies. The school my kids go to has had new water heating heat exchangers put in as part of a wider refurbishment to the boiler room equipment. Eighteen months later these extremely expensive heat exchangers are not working because they can’t handle the dirty old pipework that runs the heat around the school. I’m tempted to return to the old technology option, because it works!

  5. Pete Smith says:

    Yes, technology = tools. Not just hardware, but methodologies. One of the great breakthroughs was the idea that the world could be better understood in terms of a simplified systems model. This gave us scientific method, the division of labour and specialisation, which has developed to the point where nobody is capable of understanding their environment in a holistic way.

  6. matt says:

    Only the rich city boys can afford to ‘downsize’ away from their speculative specialization these days … to a farm in Devon rearing organic beef for their ‘friends’ London ‘society’ restaurants.

    Fishing has always been a specialization.

  7. Pete Smith says:

    Matt, once again I find it quite difficult to work out if you’re agreeing with me or not.

  8. matt says:

    I see your point about specialization leading to people losing other important skills but, we moved into the idea of specialization a long time ago. Watching Tribe last week with the Penan people showed this to be the case in their community as well. We pool our specializations as a society so as to enrich our experiences. Money earnt furthers this exchange.

    I think urbanization rather than specialization might be the reason we are now less ‘capable of understanding (our) environment in a holistic way.’

  9. Pete Smith says:

    “we moved into the idea of specialization a long time ago”

    Absolutely. Supports rather than disproves my basic point about the breakthrough technology of abstract thinking. I suppose the core technologies to support that would be language and then writing.

    “urbanization rather than specialization”

    Urbanisation is the ultimate form of specialisation.

  10. Pete Smith says:

    “A gimmick is a brilliant solution to a non-existent problem. A gadget is what you use to solve a problem you didn’t know you had. A gizmo is what you use to solve a problem when you don’t have the know-how or skill to do it yourself. A tool is what you use to get real work done.” – R.H. Ruana, member, American Bladesmith Hall of Fame

Comments are closed.