Comments on: Recap: The Way We Green Panel Discussion

By: The Way We Green Workshops at MasterMaq's Blog

The Way We Green Workshops at MasterMaq's Blog — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:22:46 +0000

[...] can read my recap of last month’s expert panel here. Don’t forget you have until August 20th to complete the online survey. Stay tuned to [...]

By: Jas Darrah

Jas Darrah — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:35:20 +0000

Good work on the summary! Opinions are great for stimulating debate.
Thanks for getting more people involved in this discussion – one that will shape how we will behave for generations. And thanks for pointing to the new Survey http://TheWayWeGreen.ca and the ability to comment on all papers referenced in the debate.
The input from experts and Edmontonians of all interests willo be incorporated into a plan that will guide City decisions and affect behaviours of all residents for years to come.

By: Mack D. Male

Mack D. Male — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 05:21:06 +0000

Thanks for the comment Matt, and for the links! I will definitely have to do some more reading on the subject.

I guess I just always have Malthusian economics in the back of my mind when the unchecked population growth argument arises. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population

By: Matt Dance

Matt Dance — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:59:16 +0000

Mac, as always, good notes! I appreciate the overview with a note of the ‘message’ that the panel was trying to achieve. I agree with the vast majority of your assessment as well. There are two things I would like to note, however. I notice that the panel did not talk about consumption – I think that consumption is a driver to our level of sustainability, and it is a major hurdle. The natural step as a business model fails if the business tries to reduce consumption (the Ikea model, not the Interface Carpet model)

And, I DO think that absolute population is a big deal given how we currently live for two reasons:
1. From http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06fob-wwln-t.html?scp=7&sq=risk&st=cse

In reference to risk analysis and the BP oil spill “These are precisely the kinds of events that are hard for us as humans to get our hands around and react to rationally,” Robert N. Stavins, an environmental economist at Harvard, says. When an event is difficult to imagine, we tend to underestimate its likelihood.

I think population is important because the downside is so huge. As a risk, we cannot simply state that just because population has never been an issue that it, therefore, will not be a future issue. BP fell into that assessment trap and their liability is going to be in the billions. The potential consequences if we are wrong on the population front potentially include resource shortages (in Alberta water is looming as we live in an arid environment).

Population is also an issue in Edmonton because we import much of our consumption from other places. In my mind this is equivalent to exporting waste. If a TV is make in Korea, Korea has to deal with the industrial pollution associated with its production. Heavy metals, industrial emissions, etc. If in Edmonton we demand more TVs, because we have more and more people living here, then there is more ‘export’ of these pollutions. This is unjust. Furthermore, we are already running into conflicts between uses in the mountains (bears and people in Canmore – a Gap in Banff…in a National Park?!?!). Until we can live with a MUCH smaller ecological footprint, I think that population density and absolute population are of equal importance.

Have a look at: http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/05/population-growth-india-vatican

By: greening the city | an urban environmentalist

greening the city | an urban environmentalist — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:34:15 +0000

[...] greening the city by Jöns update: Mastermaq has a much better recap [...]