Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
The 50 Things That Will Save the Planet (PDF)
Environmental Agency, United Kingdom
We’ve seen plenty of ‘How you can save the world’ lists over the years. There’s nothing wrong with them – lots of good tips on how to live a greener life, from hippos in toilet cisterns to hanging out the washing.
But cynics will say they’re being sold a dummy. How are a handful of greener gestures from a few conscientious souls really going to save the planet?
So here’s a slightly different tack. What are the 50 things that really could save the planet? (Or, to be more precise, will save the planet. Environmentalists can’t possibly afford themselves the luxury of pessimism otherwise we’d never get out of bed in the morning.)
We put this question to a range of leading environmentalists – from businesses, NGOs, the media, think tanks and our own organisation. Then we added up the results.
They are a revelation. A genuine mix of the political, technological, philosophical, social and domestic. There are plenty of things you’d expect to see in there, but not necessarily where you’d expect to see them. And there are some surprises, too.
But the overall message is clear. It is in our gift to stop harming our planet. We understand the problems we have created and how to begin undoing the damage. So let’s do it.
(17 November 2007)
Much more interesting than the usual list of “green things to do.”
About the Environment Agency: “”We are the leading public body for protecting and improving the environment in England and Wales. It’s our job to make sure that air, land and water are looked after by everyone in today’s society, so that tomorrow’s generations inherit a cleaner, healthier world.” (website).
The PDF is also available through the Guardian.
UPDATE (Nov 3)
Leo Hickman of the Guardian assesses whether they got it right.
Acts of Non-Consumption and the Riot for Austerity at Community Solutions
Sharon Astyk, Casaubon’s Book
…the Riot for Austerity is a remarkable and powerful project, and one, I think, that demonstrates the sheer possibilities of personal transformation.
It started out as a political gesture by Miranda over at SimpleReduce (the rules and FAQ for our project can also be found there simplereduce.wordpress.com/) and me, thinking that if we could prove it was possible for people in the rich world to reduce their consumption by 90% in each category, we could answer the politicians who say that it is politically impossible to do what is necessary to stop global warming with the words “We did. Others can.” We hoped to live our lives using only a fair share of the world’s resources as a model.
But it became, almost immediately, something more than that. Instead of just a political gesture, it became a way of life, first for a few hundred people, and now nearly a thousand all told in 14 countries. We have a support group at yahoogroups, imaginary pie parties and sleepovers, and hundreds of people to ask any question you can from “How do I get to Ashtabula on public transportation?” “How do I engage my church community with this project?” “How much food can urban dwellers really expect to grow?” to “How do I make my shaving razors last longer?” and “What do you do about reusable menstrual supplies?” (The Riot is about 65% female, so don’t ask that last question unless you really want to hear the answer ;-))
The Riot is different from other environmental groups because we’re not mostly talking about buying high tech gadgets or expensive solutions. Oh, I’m sure there’s some of that, but mostly the question is how to transform our lives now, today, with what we have – and how to keep living this life year in and year out.
(1 November 2007)
Welcome back to Sharon, who took a well-deserved rest from blogging. -BA
Open Access to Research Funded by U.S. Is at Issue
Rick Weiss, Washington Post
A long-simmering debate over whether the results of government-funded research should be made freely available to the public could take a big step toward resolution as members of a House and Senate conference committee meet today to finalize the 2008 Department of Health and Human Services appropriations bill.
At issue is whether scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health should be required to publish the results of their research solely in journals that promise to make the articles available free within a year after publication.
The idea is that consumers should not have to buy expensive scientific journal subscriptions — or be subject to pricey per-page charges for nonsubscribers — to see the results of research they have already paid for with their taxes.
Until now, repeated efforts to legislate such a mandate have failed under pressure from the well-heeled journal publishing industry and some nonprofit scientific societies whose educational activities are supported by the profits from journals that they publish.
…[Supporters] point to the growing number of scientific journals that have switched to the open-access model, in which expenses are covered not by subscriptions but by fees charged to scientists whose work the journals publish. Such costs are usually covered by scientists’ grant money.
Scientists assert that open access will speed innovation by making it easier for them to share and build on each other’s findings.
(1 November 2007)
