Biosphere Bigger than Bailout

The financial crisis is swarming media and minds across the planet. The immense scale and impact of this crisis is widely comprehensive to many people, as it tends to hit where it hurts, and do so with an unprecedented immediacy.

However, an EU-commisioned study offers a comparison between the current financial crisis and the ecological crisis. It is painfully clear that the ecological crisis tips the scales in terms of cost and impact.

Led by a Deutsche Bank economist, the study puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5 trillion. A figure that is "... not only greater but it's also continuous, it's been happening every year, year after year,"

If the economic crisis can accomplish anything, it will assist in broadening people's perspective and turning attention towards the real value and impact of the much larger, and ongoing, ecological crisis.

Photo by Morgan Maher

Comments

True Cost.

Submitted by Sancho23 on Tue, 10/14/2008 - 11:20.

I first heard the term "true cost" from Robert David Steele and I think that if the true cost of all of our human activities were calculated and displayed for all to see on the internet we would have a shift in consciousness over night! It's too bad that our "leaders" don't understand something unless there is budget allocation statements for them to read! Bastards. . .

Black Light in the Attic Podcast w/Serpicody & Sancho

http://blacklightattic.podomatic.com

"True Cost?"

Submitted by EntangledRoots on Tue, 10/14/2008 - 14:38.

What is a "true" cost? Usually, when someone uses these words I immediately become skeptical. Typically, the use of "true cost" just represents a subjective preference or opinion that someone is attempting to substitute as an objective cost. Although costs may be able to be measured objectively, they are subjective in nature. I would certainly like to know how the $2-$5 trillion figure was reached. What factors are being considered in this cost? Who's costs are they? From the BBC article: "The first phase concluded in May when the team released its finding that forest decline could be costing about 7% of global GDP." How was this measured? Were benefits measured too? Did they take into account all forest loss? Did they take into account all forest growth? What underlying assumptions ultimately formulated the study? Until that information can be displayed, none of us have any reason to believe that said $2-$5 trillion cost is anything more than an arbitrary number.

i agree

Submitted by fattmyers on Thu, 11/20/2008 - 16:36.

Sometimes we as seekers of truth and wisdom need to remember the most important process in finding TRUE fact and that is RESEARCH YOUR SOURCES. I mean 2-5 trill is kinda a big grey area, it just sounds huge. Anywho i appreciate your input.

Mahalo,

fattmyers

Shrink wrap

Submitted by Philip Heying on Tue, 10/14/2008 - 16:24.

The evidence for an ongoing environmental catastrophe is pervasive, right under our noses. While empirical studies from authoritative figures and institutions are welcome in confirming what common sense could be attending to, one has to wonder why we remain so complacent. I am totally bewildered.

"How was this measured?" -For heavens's sake, just take a look at the mess that is right in front of your eyes! Please.

How arbitrary is your daily household garbage multiplied times six and a half billion?

Aren't you glad you're not an amphibian, without the means to detach yourself from the consequences of your shrink wrap?

Catastrophe? Where?

Submitted by EntangledRoots on Wed, 10/15/2008 - 17:35.

What I see is a whole lot of people seeing what they want to see and disregarding any empirical validity that does not fit in with their worldview. I am equally skeptical of catastrophists and deniers, and, while I cannot speak for others, I certainly do not take a passive or complacent role in studying environmental issues. My initial response to studies like this used to be to accept their catastrophic claims, but once I finally started examining all the data and methodology, I discovered that projections of environmental catastrophe were unfounded. I have learned from my mistake.

I ask questions like, "How was this measured?" because I am not willing to accept such consequential assertions of truth, especially not from those in "authoritative" positions, without reason and evidence.

So far, I have yet to be convinced that global environmental catastrophe lies in our future.

Canadian Election

Submitted by mythagocheese on Tue, 10/14/2008 - 21:36.

Just voted in the Canadian Election. Results aren't in yet. But i voted for the Green Party. The reason why i voted for the Greens is because i try to make a decisions with the Earth in mind. The Earth is the most important thing we have. More important then the economy. Why do i say that? If we have no Earth we have no economy, simple as that.

Is there a purple party that...

Submitted by vivifidal on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 03:55.

can make decisions based on whats best for some other planet than Earth which is quite possibly FUBARed at this point so we can get a head start on the new place and maybe not wear it out so quickly?

Spread your branches

Submitted by Morgan Maher on Wed, 10/15/2008 - 18:03.

EntangledRoots:

You don't need to be "convinced that global environmental catastrophe lies in our future"

Because a global environmental catastrophe is occuring in the present.

***

Between May 2000 and August 2006, Brazil lost nearly 150,000 square kilometers of forest—an area larger than Greece—and since 1970, over 600,000 square kilometers (232,000 square miles) of Amazon rainforest have been destroyed.

At the current rate, in two decades the Amazon Rainforest will be reduced by 40%.
http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

***

Industrial logging has become the most extensive land use in Central Africa, with more than 600,000 square kilometers (30%) of forest currently under concession.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5830/1451

***

And those are just two things I found quickly, there's plenty more "evidence" - I even hesitate to call it evidence, it's as plain as day, there is no debate, there is no case, there is no court.

I'm one of the most opitmistic people I know, but it's just impossible and downright irresponsible to ignore the current ecological "happenings". You don't have to believe everything you read - but my suggestion is to find a way to take all this crisis and cry and use it to fuel your own fire and build some kind of personal, and community orientated, symbios with the planet.

It doesn't matter who's accurate or who's crunched the numbers or what exactly is going on. The bottom line is this:

Do you want to live in a gray, toxic, boring, suffocating, dead world?

Or do you want to live in a green, lush, magical, healthy, fresh world?

...of course.

So get to work.

My Mistake

Submitted by EntangledRoots on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 01:03.

I apologize, because I recognize that I was using the words "environmental catastrophe" irresponsibly. I was thinking in terms of the cost to humans, not necessarily the explicit damage being done to other species. In my mind, I was framing my criticisms in the context of the article (which was attempting to demonstrate economic, i.e. human costs).

Although I have struggled to grasp a clear understanding of what is happening in the rainforests (largely because the statistics are all over the place), the present rate of loss is most certainly too rapid. What is actually interesting is that (from what I've found) the preservation of rainforests in the form of harvesting nuts and berries is more profitable than forms of deforestation. Unfortunately, the demand for it is relatively small in comparison to... say, the meat industry.

Do I want to live in a gray, toxic, boring, suffocating, dead world? Of course not. Although I don't think human beings (or the ecosystem for that matter) would ever let that happen, I am overwhelmingly in favor of preserving the environment and I throw in the extra buck for ecologically friendlier goods and services when I use them.

Thanks for the response. I hope this was a clarification for both of us.

:)

Submitted by Morgan Maher on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 04:22.

Thanks for the response.

What is actually interesting is that (from what I've found) the preservation of rainforests in the form of harvesting nuts and berries is more profitable than forms of deforestation. Unfortunately, the demand for it is relatively small in comparison to... say, the meat industry.

In regards to the above, there is an understanding that one of the best, most effective ways to help the planet is to eat a vegetarian or vegan diet, since yes, the meat industry causes serious damage to the ecosystem (in the form of clear-cutting forests for cattle etc).

While I do think the planet will do just fine without humans, or without so many humans - there certainly are certain humans around who are letting the crisis happen. This is being done by identifiable forces. However the ecosysten is, in many ways, trying to help us out, reaching out to people to form thriving, mutually beneficial relationships, symbiosis, shared survival, and so forth.

It's just that now we, individually and as a species, need to step up in a big way.

Thanks again for the clarification.

Historical collapses

Submitted by ST Frequency on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 10:12.

Hi Entangled Roots,

I appreciate your desire for more-than-passing info on these sorts of things. You wrote:

"Do I want to live in a gray, toxic, boring, suffocating, dead world? Of course not. Although I don't think human beings (or the ecosystem for that matter) would ever let that happen..."

If you'd like some compelling research on how, indeed, human beings have denuded their environments throughout history (to their own demise), check out Jared Diamond's book Collapse. It is exhaustively data-based and should provide exactly the perspective you are wanting.

Cheers,

Thanks for the info

Submitted by EntangledRoots on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 11:31.

I will check it out.

one more thing...

Submitted by Morgan Maher on Wed, 10/15/2008 - 19:03.

$2-5 trillion is nothing.

At best it's an ultra conservative number. The forests are invaluable, and asigning a monetary figure here is generally for the benefit of those who don't know any better or for whom money talks.

Just imagine someone or some group who, during these times of financial transition, figuring out that they can lose millions or billions by investing in unstable old ways (ie deforestation) or make trillions and trillions by investing in thriving green ways.

hmmmm I think this sort of thing is called a no brainer...

I've never really understood money...

Submitted by vivifidal on Fri, 10/17/2008 - 03:59.

when people ask me for it I give it to them, but it mostly doesn't make sense, I do some things and ppl give it to me but those things are not better than other things I do, money is insane and it smells funny when you burn it...

Although I don't think

Submitted by jph_wacheski on Sat, 11/29/2008 - 11:26.

Although I don't think human beings (or the ecosystem for that matter) would ever let that happen, I am overwhelmingly in favor of preserving the environment and I throw in the extra buck for ecologically friendlier goods and services

History and current events are replete with Human Beings not only letting this happen but actively fighting against reason to do so,. I find it so strange that many people express that same idea that 'people would not let that happen' or state that they do not see the eco-collapse,. one only needs to travel a bit with their eyes open to see these things first hand,. look at the rate of extinction of species, and the closing of fisheries as the stocks are depleted,. "would not" imlies the future this has been going on for a long time,. it truly baffles me to hear people express these views.

As far a throwing a few bucks at 'eco-friendly' product; this is largely a lost leader, the net is filled with so called green sites flogging all sorts of consumer goods,. this is still consumerism, and in many cases conspicuous consumption. We need to be building local interconnected Permacultural human scaled food, housing and energy systems,. and ending the dissconected consumerism of the past,. . before the whole planet goes the way of Easter Island.

remember when we used to play? iterationGAMES.com

Yes and worth repeating...

Submitted by Howard Switzer on Sat, 12/20/2008 - 14:58.

We need to be building local interconnected Permacultural human scaled food, housing and energy systems,. and ending the disconnected consumerism of the past,. . If it was "manufactured" it probably isn't green. Not that we necessarily need to stop all manufacturing but it does need to be majorly scaled down and very picky about what, with what and how. Thank you

a-gain

Submitted by irie member on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 11:59.

grow your own house

http://www.arborsmith.com

man-you-fact-sure(thanks, howard... you're right) your own house. a STEP in the right direct-ion.

http://www.terreform.org/projects_habitat_fab.html

** willow tree dome**

Salix babylonica 'Pendula' ?

or populus euphratica ?

-weave the branches into a lattice

-plant the tips... build earthen walls to facilitate this if necessary

-when branches have thickened and grafted together, the original trunk may be removed and a hole carved in the middle for a chimney, or left intact.

-"An extract of the shoots can be used as a rooting hormone for all types of cuttings. It is extracted by soaking the chopped up shoots in cold water for a day"

- http://www.ibiblio.org/pfaf/cgi-bin/arr_html?Populus+euphratica

plants for a future http://www.pfaf.org/index.php

wow

Submitted by Casey on Thu, 02/12/2009 - 12:44.

That is really cool. I would love to live in a grown home. I live in Wisconsin at the moment. What kind of insulation against the cold and wind would I have? What happens when the leaves fall in the winter?

We should learn to dare danger and death, mortify the flesh, and acquire the capacity to endure all manner of hardships. -Gandhi

email_address@excite.com