For Frack sake!

Fracking [or hydraulic fracturing] as a technique of extracting natural gas has emerged as a threat to the natural environment - and it seems our governments think this is the right way to go to ensure energy security? The following is an interesting perspective on the 'fracking' approach. The film certainly provides an alternative view to the debate - perhaps a view that gas companies prefer us not to see. Enjoy :-)

GASLAND - A movie about the issues of fracking

OnlyOneEarth - Android App!

Just a quick post to say that the blog will now be available in Android App form and can be downloaded here:

Only One Earth Android App

More new topics coming soon :)

Rio+20: a conference for making vague promises

Twenty years ago the 1992 Rio Earth Summit helped to form landmark conventions on climate change and biodiversity, while offering commitments on social justice and the eradication of poverty. The summit itself was seen as a key moment in the quest for environmental protection and action, providing a high level of optimism with regard to the future of our natural environment, human welfare, and the ongoing fight against poverty. However, fast-forward twenty years, and the Rio Earth Summit seems to be a shadow of its former self. This time around it seems that more was at stake - but unfortunately less was achieved. The summit was deemed a huge failure by relevant environmental and conservation groups such as Greenpeace and the WWF, with the overall document outcome [termed 'The Future We Want'] being criticised by environmentalists and poverty campaigners.

Since the 1992 summit, global greenhouse gas emissions have increased by around 48%, population has increased by about 1.5 billion, and an astonishing 300 million hectares of forest have been cleared. Meanwhile, despite a reduction in poverty, the development gap remains unchanged and approximately one in six people are malnourished. Therefore, the environmental agenda is now arguably more important than ever before. Despite these issues, leaders from around the globe have seemingly once again failed to produce resolute decisions on a variety of important topics, with sustainable development remaining a theoretical concept resigned to fill pages of the environmental textbooks standing proudly on my bookshelf.

Perhaps a more notable point emerging from much of the summit coverage is the realisation that governments and decision-makers within our political system are now being influenced more than ever by corporations, businesses, and those individuals or groups with significant economic power. This complex political dynamic threatens our capacity for future action, as essentially these actors remain focused on profit and the economic value and results of all decisions. In this setting, effective environmental protection and action just cannot break free. Thus, as ever, economic progress and exploitation takes priority over environmental issues and the protection of the natural environment. However, once again my message will be clear for all politicians and corporations to hear: Our subsistence and development as a species remains dependent on a healthy natural environment. Put more simply, there are only limited amounts of pollution, exploitation, and harmful activities that we can sweep under our global carpet - and at some point our negligence will catch-up with us.

The Guardian - Rio+20

BBC - Rio+20 and corporate power

A quick thought

I recently had a conversation/debate with a good friend that works in the economic sector. We discussed the current economic situation and subsequently moved on towards our views on the environment [and its relative importance at this time]. It was interesting to see how we both held a different outlook when I put forward the idea that fundamentally, the protection of our natural environment should be a primary focus ahead of other factors such as economic growth and development. At this point, our different ideologies became evident. On the one hand, my friend claimed that stability, growth, and development should be prioritised in the current condition, while an improved lifestyle/quality of life should remain the future goal. However, I argued that the economic system as a whole is founded on the use of natural resources [industry, consumer items etc] and that if we continue on our current exploitative pathway, our unsustainable actions would eventually catch up with us. Thus, we should prioritise the environment and seek a more sustainable pathway of development that does not prioritise economic gains. In essence, not biting off the hand that feeds us!

In the end I could not help wondering that the prevailing view of "consumption first - environment second" remains the core ideology in society despite the apparent successes of the contemporary environmental debate. Ultimately, is our capitalist / consumer society really willing to change its ways?

Are you fracking serious?

Fracking is becoming a 'buzz' subject within the environmental realm. Although it seems to have the potential to provide a vast new 'untapped' resource of natural gas [e.g. shale gas and coal bed methane], the associated environmental costs related to this pathway cannot be overlooked. The process itself, often defined as hydraulic fracturing, is a technique of natural gas extraction that is being employed in well drilling. It involves the induced propogation of fractures in sub-ground level rock/shale strata by forcing or injecting water, sands, and chemicals under high pressure. Essentially, this causes fractures to form, in turn allowing natural gas to more freely flow from the well. Ultimately, this can occur through a vertical or horizontal fracking process, with the vertical process being used to extend the life of existing wells, and the horizontal process being utilised to exploit shale deposits containing natural gas that were previously inaccessible by conventional drilling techniques. Either way, it seems both the environment and local communities are feeling the effects of this dirty and unsustainable process.

A range of environmental issues have emerged in relation to fracking, but perhaps the most significant is the seepage of toxic chemicals and methane into groundwater aquifers, which in turn has a detrimental effect on drinking water sources for human consumption. Once again, it seems that politicians and energy departments are focusing on the economic benefits of resource exploitation, and still fail to consider the risks posed to the  natural environment, on which human life depends. Last time I checked - we can't drink bank notes!

Friends of the Earth [Scotland] - fracking

Risks to our food and water

The real story of fracking

7 billion and counting

Population growth is a complicated topic that has been debated and discussed for centuries by various authors including Thomas Malthus, Paul Ehrlich, and Julian Simon. In turn, the concept of population control provides an ethical and moral minefield that is difficult to navigate. As our global population continues to grow past 7 billion, a range of questions emerge with regard to food security, water scarcity, climate change, and biodiversity loss. Many important questions arise. For example; Will we continue to impact our natural environment at an alarming rate? Will we deplete the Earth of all its natural resources? Will we be able to sustain an increasing population in the face of salient environmental issues? Will our profligacy get the better of us? It seems only time will tell. However, perhaps the most important point that must be highlighted within the wider debate of population growth is the concept of resource allocation. If there is one thing we do know - it is that our Earth's natural resources are not shared equally. In essence, inefficient resource allocation has helped to generate a range of negative externalities that are likely to intensify over time without changes in socio-economic behaviour.

"The number of people does matter, of course. But how people consume resources matters a lot more. Some of us leave much bigger footprints than others. The central challenge for the future of people and the planet is how to raise more of us out of poverty while reducing the impact each of us has on the planet" [Kunzig, 2011]

Ultimately, we must consider what our primary question should be in the context of population growth and environmental sustainability; 'can the Earth sustain our increasing population' or 'can we as a collective society sustain our own condition'?

Robert Kunzig 2011 - Population 7 billion

National Geographic Special Series: 7 Billion

A new type of liquid gold?

For many years oil was often referred to as 'liquid gold' - a high value commodity we seemingly cannot survive without. However, as emerging water resource issues and problems of scarcity intensify around the world we are now forced to question our resource value system and consider the true tangible and intangible value of freshwater [just 2.7% of all water on Earth]. Water itself is an essential resource for life, subsistence, and good health, yet we still treat it as an unlimited resource to be exploited, while expecting the hydrosphere to absorb our damaging influences which further impact quality and availability over time. Ultimately, in order to attain a sustainable existence on Earth, society must learn the importance of frugality and restraint - and this is perhaps most relevant in the case of freshwater. Thus, as the end of the decade for water [2005-2015] edges closer and closer, the conservation and protection of our most vital resource emerges as one of humanity's most important socio-environmental challenges to date.

World Health Organisation - 10 facts about water scarcity 

UN - water for life 

Water Aid - liquid gold video  

What would you do?

A recent article considering the validity of conserving and protecting certain species posed the awkward question "should we give up trying to save the panda"? The topic is an interesting one. The article itself [attached in the link below], introduces the idea of conservation triage and puts forward an argument for and against a process of selective species conservation. It is possible to agree with both sides, however, it seems a key point is being overlooked. Should we continue to focus on altruistic representations, that seek to satisfy our desire for 'doing our bit', or should our primary focus instead be placed on changing our own damaging behaviour as a species that shares the biosphere. Ultimately we must decide if we would rather maintain our current lifestyles and 'business as usual' approaches of high consumption and resource exploitation, or if we will finally tackle the 'elephant in the room' - the issues of unsustainable human attitudes and behaviour. 

Viewpoints - should we give up trying to save the panda

Planet Home

The human impact on the natural environment cannot be ignored. In the ongoing search for socio-economic development we have shaped our landscape through various activities such as resource exploitation and industrial processes. Only by accepting and understanding our wide-ranging influence on the biosphere can we move towards a change in behaviour, which encourages protection, conservation, and ultimately a sense of long-term sustainability.

Please take a look at the attached link below. It is a film about our planet produced by Yann Arthus-Bertrand, which uses unique and spectacular video footage. It documents our influence on the natural environment, but also offers hope for change.

Home - a film by Yann Arthus-Bertrand

Hello Earth

Our journey for harmony with the natural environment is a long one. OnlyOneEarth seeks to highlight a range of environmental topics, while enabling a better understanding, encouraging debate, and generating an interest in all aspects of our natural world.

"Humankind has not woven the web of life.  We are but one thread within it.  Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.  All things are bound together.  All things connect"  -  Chief Seattle, 1855