PERSONAL ACTIONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND POLLUTION

 My FACEBOOK site includes many entries about the current knowledge of climate change and controversies related to it.  Some of the information is depressing including  many predictions.  Is there anything we can do NOW to alter the course?  There are three separate problems that  come together and the solution to each one is different.  At least some of the climate effect is related to human activity,  so at least some of the solution must be changes in human behavior.

The climate problem is dramatic warming of the earth that is the result of the changes in atmosphere.  There is evidence that some of these changes are the result of the dramatic increase in use of fossil fuels that release CO2, methane and other substances into the atmosphere.  The solution to this includes: 1) finding and utilizing alternative energy sources to replace current human fossil fuel demands for energy. 2) Arresting and/or reversing atmospheric changes and their associated temperature effects.  and 3) Human adjustment to the changes already occurring that are not reversible.

( https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-08-27/worried-about-climate-change-you-can-make-a-difference-heres-how

The things I can do for climate change right now are reducing my "carbon footprint" including using less energy, and sourcing my energy from renewable sources.  A typical example might be using more energy at low usage times of others.   For example, the New Yorker talks about "moving slower" (not typical for New Yorkers) since the rate of speed of all transportation uses more energy.  

( https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/to-save-the-planet-should-we-really-be-moving-slower

This also includes modes of public transportation when many people are moved together at a reduced use of energy. 

( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/climate/buses-trains-ridership-climate-change.html

The idea of lowering your "carbon footprint" is not so clear.  An interactive checklist shows that the data for various personal changes is not always that significant.  It turns out that being "car free" and a diet without meat are more effective than lowering your thermostat, or car pooling.

( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/15/opinion/how-reduce-carbon-footprint-climate-change.html

Installing roof top solar panels on your home will certainly lower your electricity bill,  but it will not, by itself, in aggregate over many homes,  replace other sources of electricity.  Large solar, wind, and other projects must be funded to effectively replace demand,  and deal with storage issues.

( https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-06-29/can-rooftop-solar-alone-solve-climate-change-heres-the-answer-boiling-point    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/07/realestate/microgrid-solar-power-energy.html

 Climate changes do not impact all regions of the country equally.  Insurers now are able to rate houses and regions by their climate risk, and either give up writing insurance on risky homes,  or greatly increasing the cost.  This raises the question of why people choose to live in locations with high climate risk.  Some moved there without knowing.  Some cannot afford to move elsewhere.  But the long term consequences will not apply equally.

( https://firststreet.org/

 The following LA Times series addresses many of these and other issues.  Most important it keeps the issue in mind so that people can't use denial and avoidance to not deal with the unpleasant reality.  (People have been ignoring this since the 50s!)

( https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-08-15/climate-change-challenge

There are changes that must be done by large groups,  and this involves politics and political action.  A group of young people in Montana have sued the state about failing to protect their environment for future generations.

( https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/12/young-activists-held-v-montana-climate-change-first-constitutional-trial 

But at the federal level, many groups are in competition with each other for support,  rather than developing a unified voice.  

One of the effects of warming is a rise in sea level,  something that has already begun with the melting of arctic and antarctic ice.  There are two options:  spend impossible amounts of money to enclose shorelines over large areas (as in the Netherlands)  or move back away from the flooding regions.  Here again,  humans must decide what the best solutions are AS A GROUP.

( https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-09-21/does-california-have-what-it-takes-to-adapt-to-sea-level-rise-new-book-offers-hope-boiling-point

( https://bookshop.org/p/books/california-against-the-sea-visions-for-our-changing-coastline/19407155

 Fire in drying forests is another result.  Here the option is really only to get out of the way,  though some choose to rebuild in fire ravaged places (like Paradise CA).

Climate changes  also figure in increasing drought in sensitive areas, reducing the available water supply as a result.  

( https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03517-0

To complicate things, one scientist points out that the targets and goals set for reducing carbon levels are not realistic and that more gradual changes are all that are possible,  with ongoing problems in climate.  He does not say we should abandon efforts,  but that the magnitude of what is needed is not doable in the current time frames.  The climate will continue to change.

( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/25/magazine/vaclav-smil-interview.html

 The problem of pollution is a separate but related issue.  Human daily activities create extensive waste, both biological,  unused foods,  materials,  and the wastes of industrial production.  These pose problems of 1) magnitude/amount the amounts so great that disposing of them without other disruption is difficult. 2) Persistence: some current waste elements do not degrade back to component natural elements in fractions of human lifetimes,  so there is an untenable accumulation over time. and 3) Toxicity: many substances have long term toxic effects from which humans must be protected.

The simplest answer is don't use things that pollute.  The less you use,  the less goes into landfills or is burned.  Fashionable clothing that is discarded after it goes out of style,  intentionally, to sell more fashion,  is a great example and landfills in Africa no longer accept this waste from developed countries.  Some of the problem is persistence: the manufacture of clothing with fabrics made of artificial fibers does not degrade back to natural substances rapidly, or at all.  So "recycling" is a misnomer for some substances and plastics.  They must be burned or continue to interfere in the soil.

( https://learn.eartheasy.com/guides/the-best-eco-friendly-alternatives-for-the-plastic-in-your-life/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/21/climate/plastics-recycling-trash-environment.html

PFAs are toxic long lasting substances involved in production of plastics and other materials that are distributed all over the earth at this point, are toxic to humans, and will not degrade for centuries.  They are slowly being eliminated legally but not yet everywhere.

Oddly, in a world with a high level of food production,  many are starving everyday,  and not just in under developed countries.  The effective and adequate distribution of food to avoid hunger does not occur in the US, the country with the highest GDP and collection of wealthiest persons.   And vast amounts of food are discarded every day both before sale as less desirable,  or after partial consumption.  This is a dramatic offense against nature, farming, and those who are starving everywhere.  And it contributes to pollution!!!

Ocean creatures are increasingly suffering from illnesses and disabilities because humans allow coastal waste to drain into the oceans with poor processing or none.  Making the seas our human toilets is just another form of pollution, with consequences on sea life,  and eventually back on humans.

Hiding behind these two problems is the issue of population: The human population of the earth is expanding at a rate that is not realistic for long term occupancy of the planet.  This problem impacts on the others.  The demand for energy is directly related to the  human activities that require energy input.   The production of pollution is directly related to the number of polluting humans and the types of pollution they create.  But the problem of population has two other features that are unique. The "demographic profile" of numbers against age in different groups is not the same.  Humans have finite productive lives,  so, as the profile ages, the local region of productivity is reduced.  The population becomes, in effect, non-productive and consuming.  The other issue of population is the apparent inability of human populations to adjust their birth-rate to accomodate space for other animals and plants.  The increasing numbers take over more and more earth-space for human needs and leave less for other species.  From the human economic viewpoint,  this is simply "survival of the fittest",  but from an evolutionary perspective,  other species are part of a broad ecologic evolutionary pattern,  and the excessive dominance of humans threatens to distort or damage this pattern.

( https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2019-4-july-august/mixed-media/human-race-sleepwalking-oblivion-nick-brandt

THE SHORT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION POSED AT THE START IS THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL CAN DO A LOT TO MODIFY CLIMATE CHANGE,  BUT UNLESS ALMOST EVERYONE MAKES THESE CHANGES THE EFFECTS WILL BE NEGLIGIBLE.  AND THE COST OF MAKING THE CHANGES IN ECONOMIC TERMS, AND IN PERSONAL COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE ARE VAST.  IT DOES NOT SEEM POSSIBLE FOR ADULT HUMANS IN DEVELOPED NATIONS TO ACCEPT THE DRASTIC ECONOMIC AND LIFESTYLE CHANGES THAT ARE NEEDED. (The illusion of solving the problem by buying an electric car ignores how the car gets charged!)

ENVIRONMENT: A PERSPECTIVE ON CONSERVATION

The internet and news sources are flooded with messages about environmental disasters and the need for donations to support this or that organization that is helping to solve the problems.  Some are serious organizations,  others scams, and they attempt to address different, sometimes contrasting, solutions to the identified "problems".  It would help to have a common definition of the problem(s) and related sub-problems.  The most general goal is ensuring that earth maintains a physical state suitable for the continuation of life.  As humans we modify this to: conservation means maintaining the earth so that it allows for the survival of humans.  This is more specific than the first as pointed out by Dunn (A Natural History of the Future) who documents the extensive non-human life forms that also inhabit the planet. 

This task has several features:

Managing climate: changes in climate alter the distribution of plants, animals, and humans, and if extreme may cause mass extinctions or severe population loss.  The recent changes in climate are associated with increased carbon dioxide production from extensive combustion of carbon containing fuels, and other sources.  It is impossible to "prove" this association experimentally since monitoring climate change is not a recurring event.  Various indirect measures suggest that the association is valid,  but freon was emphasized in the 1990s ("hole in the ozone layer"), and significant changes in freon and related gasses did not alter the rate of change.  Use of fossil fuels for energy production is associated with a variety of other events that alter the planet in other ways. Changes in climate have recently focused on average temperature increases which change the relative climate zones for plant and animal life,  and also alter weather patterns. The current distribution of climate zones is recent in earth's history with several cycles of ice ages in the past millions of years.  Humans survived the most recent "ice age" but comparable data about survival of high temperature cycles is not known.  Predictions regarding the effects on life of melting of the polar ice caps and other dramatic climate changes are speculative due to a lack of records of previous events.  Reasonable speculations about the impact of the potential rate of climate change are possible, but must be updated with changes in measured effects.  It is tempting to believe that world wide reductions in use of fossil fuel will slow or reverse climate trends, but the data to support this can only occur in conjunction with actual changes.  The extent to which humans can modify earth's climate is unknown. 

Managing pollution: a variety of chemical substances,  and polymer substances (plastics) have increased dramatically  in usage and disposal in the last 100 years.  These substances now clutter large areas of land, buried landfills, and drift in rivers and ocean gyres.  Micro-plastics have entered the food supply as a result of the distribution.  Many of these substances are produced by modifications of fossil carbon sources.  Pollution due to the creation and modification of radioactive materials as weapons or energy sources is another source.  Pollution has toxic effects on life, including humans, that are different from the effects of climate change.  The extent of human pollution is more easily measured and evaluated for impact.  The relative lack of emphasis on the seriousness of pollution reflects the strong economic impact of altering the production of polluting substances, and the change in lifestyle.  Organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund, and Natural Resources Defense Council try to evaluate and monitor more serious pollution events,  and governments identify "toxic superfund sites" retrospectively to remediate.  There is little effort to prospectively evaluate and prevent toxic production.  Each individual has the potential to impact the economics by reducing or refusing the consumption of toxic products.  So far this has not been a powerful effect, partly due to ignorance of the dangers and partly due to the convenience of these products.

Managing Ecology: Everywhere on earth there are places which once had limited or no human development and now are  urban or semi-urban human environments.  Three factors drive this process: 1) the increase in the number of humans, 2) the economic advantage of urban environments, and 3) the potential protective effects of group living.  These factors have been in play since the "dawn of civilization",  but have greatly accelerated with the dramatic increase in human population, especially in under-developed countries, and the economic advantages.  The changes are offset by destruction of the natural ecology, concentrated pollution, and dangers of human proximity.  This issue is rarely understood as an issue of ecology, and  instead is discussed as "extinction of species", lack of water supply, pollution of rivers, homelessness, and etc.  "Civilization" seems to include the failure of every aggregation of humans (and other species) totake into account its needs for living space, water, etc.  The concept of the individual possession and ownership of land interferes with the understanding the ecologic responsibility of the group (called the "tragedy of the commons" in economics). The planner Soleri proposed urban environments that were somewhat attuned to size and ecology, and was largely ignored.  This problem is evident all across the United States,  but has become dramatic and profound in China were the aggregation of a dramatically larger population for increased economic production has created unsustainable urban environments.  There are too many people on earth distributed unevenly in dysfunctional patterns.  Water supply, pollution, crime, and transformation of land into concrete and structures all combine to alter the human experience.  (There is research on the ways in which rats and other animals coexist in these environments.)

The ecology of plants, animals, and foods.  Urbanization and farming create several confusions about ecology.  "Farming" means that the natural distribution of plant life in a region is altered to favor "food plants" with high nutritional value.  Smaller animals are farmed,  and larger ones are hunted or "ranched" to produce food.  The animals are bred to be better food sources,  and reducing their survival in the natural environment, because of protection on the farm.  Agriculture  made urbanization possible.  But the boundary on modifying animals and plants for food production is unknown, and many important genetic features have been lost, except in residual unmodified plants and animals life.  The relationship between humans and other life forms on farms can be conceived as "short survival zoos".  Plants and animals on farms are maintained for human benefit and sacrificed for human needs.  The original concept of hunting animals for food which required a balanced active interchange is lost.  The remaining "hunting" in most countries, including the US, is limited to defined regions and seasons, where hunters with limited experience crowd together to prove their "atavistic integrity" not the appreciation for the sacrifice of the animals.  In this context,  worrying about the "extinction" of wild species,  and preserving them in isolated game preserves disrupts both the human ecology of the region and the animal ecology.  The struggles of the Santa Monica Mtns near Los Angeles to manage its mountain lion population is an example.  Coyotes have successfully preyed on farm animals for centuries, and now have invaded more urban settings where pets and other foods are available.  They represent the dynamic interaction between humans and animals in a dysfunctional competition.

Making decisions about conservation requires involvement of human groups,  and so the conflicting interests of different stakeholders create political conflicts.  This should not be a problem.  The resolution of conflicting goals is necessary to balance different objectives.  However it does not appear that this has been possible in the US, and in much of the rest of the world.  The strong economic and political influence of the producers and refiners of fossil fuels and other commodities constantly opposes the efforts for conservation that address the possible role of fossil fuel combustion in climate change.  This is paradoxical. The perspective of the earth's total resources says that the store of sources of fossil fuels is finite, and many sites are depleted. The convenience of fossil fuels as a portable energy source gives them long term value.  It seems obvious that the current use of fossil fuels should be regulated and limited not just because of pollution, but also because they must be preserved for future generations. This is an obvious world wide need, but it is generally ignored because the businesses extracting and refining fossil fuels is determined to maximize current profits, and because  countries that nationalize oil production are desperate to sustain this revenue.  This perspective has shifted in the Arabian Gulf oil states who recognize the waning value of their deposits, and are trying to build alternative economic resources.  Whether they succeed is unknown, but many other oil producers who are more greedy have less perspective. 

Electric cars provide a related paradox.  Automobiles, and other internal combustion vehicles, contribute a significant contribution to the current carbon dioxide and other pollution that contribute to climate change.  Various estimate about the importance of their role have been calculated.  Trapping this pollution with catalytic converters is the current solution, an expensive and incomplete one because of cost and depletion.  The proposed alternative was producing cars that run on electricity without an internal combustion engine,  and many golf carts already do that,  using a conventional lead acid battery.  To engineer a vehicle with faster speed and longer range required major changes in the electric motor, and in the battery storage.  These engineering problems have been partially solved,  but do they offer a significant improvement in control of pollution?  A Google search on this question produces conflicting answers as it should.  Renewable energy sources do not account for sufficient charging for current vehicles, let alone an electric fleet for the entire country.  The promotion and rapid acceptance of this alternative was not based on calculations reflecting the entire population and energy sources but only on the reduction in vehicle emissions,  which is total.  Intelligent conservation decisions require the political will to make sophisticated calculations, and avoid letting economic decisions drive the process.  California, which suffered the effects of auto pollution earlier than other states, put in more stringent emission controls, and taxed gasoline to reduce driving, which has mildly improved air pollution, and given rise to its image as a "green" state.  But California produces one third of the oil produced in the United States, how green is that?

Several proposals have come forward to address the issue of land and ecology.  The biologist Wilson proposed the "half earth" solution: to maintain half of the earth's land and sea for biodiversity (https://www.half-earthproject.org). Another concept put forward by biologists is the 30x30, to preserve one third of the land by 2030. (https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/thirty-percent-protect-best-biodiversity-on-earth/) There are several problems with these proposals, beyond the difficulty in getting them enacted world wide.  The academic biologist's notion that the wild places of the world protect biodiversity ignores the reality that certainly two thirds of the current world (not including the deep seas, except by pollution) has already interacted with humans for thousands of years.  This approach amounts to declaring a third or half of the world as a giant zoo or game preserve, and then encouraging its study by designated humans (biologists).  It is humorous to see how blind these proposals are to the self serving interests of those who propose them.  It makes much more sense to understand the human/nature interface and a complex blended zone with different levels of interaction.  In New York, Mumbai, rural Colorado, and etc animals and humans have coexisted for hundreds of years,  and altered their environments together.  Defining "zones of human engagement" and mapping regions for less human engagement is a solvable task which is already underway and creating its own problems.  The Nature Conservancy has purchase land for protection against  human development in many areas.  How much development should be permitted?  If this is contractual, when is protection more important, and when development? The Conservancy (and other organizations) have struggled with this.  The problem is most acute in National Parks, but is seen in other special places as well.  Every American National Park was once a tourist site-seeing attraction and disrupted in some way.   The National Park designation protected the site, and in many cases reversed some of the damage,  but increased the attraction and demand significantly.  Many National Parks now limit total visitors, require reservations, or create other barriers to use.  The trade off between preserving the environment and allowing the experience is increasingly difficult.  Yet these are the natural jewels of our country, and should be available to visit.  It is a difficult choice.  And state parks, national forests, and other "natural regions" have  less intense but similar demands.  How do we set aside regions of the world to not be overrun by human presence and human development, yet allow human participation and experience?  This dilemma is not easily resolved.  If you travel to a popular and dramatic ski area, or to the outskirts of a major National Park, you will see the expensive vacation homes of wealthy individuals who have acquired and built a chance to reside as near the public land as possible. (Or in ski areas, as near to the privately developed region as possible.)  If this process continues special places will be surrounded by "necklaces" of private development that isolates and destroys the context of the place.  This has already been completed in many areas.  Someone visits a beautiful place, and says I want to have a place to visit here all the time,  buys land and builds the house.  (It started long before the Rockefellers created the places that became RockResorts!)  The tragedy of the commons keeps bumping into real estate development!

There is no one size fits all.  The politics of conservation require balancing difficult trade offs for future generations. This is a maturity and political sophistication lost on many current leaders.  The decisions cannot be based solely on greed, nor can they be based on speculative preservation of what one group decides is best for everyone.