[careinke]

Thanks for that perspective, c. I'm not sure racist is the right term, but it is inevitably going to be somewhat arbitrary what date you set down. Invasives, though, are a major threat to species around the world, so I wouldn't take the issue lightly.

Oh I don't. Sometimes I wish for a time machine to go back and slap my wifes great grandmother for introducing English Ivy to the property. On the other hand, I read recently that English Ivy helps clean pollution out of the air, so they may be part of the solution for cites. I just haven't figured out what kind of solution they are in the country. So far, the only easy way I have found to control it is walking on it. The edge of our forest may end up with a cow or some sheep.

[dohboi]

Not sure what your point is, pstarr. Yes, of course, it is humans that are doing all this. And yes, some introduced plants have worked in positive ways in their new settings.

But are you claiming that plants and creatures that humans have introduced into totally alien environments have never caused any problems for the local ecosystems?

[dohboi]

Right, and there were no invasives before we brought them.

Humans are to blame.

Is there anything beyond that fairly obvious point that you are trying to get across?

I'm really just trying to get what it is you want to emphasize here. Is it that you think maintaining healthy, robust ecosystems in the first place is more important than preventing the introduction of aggressive alien species? Or that once we've both disrupted the ecosystem and introduced the invasives, it's a bit too late to get the horse back in the barn (or whatever other metaphor you choose)?

But if you just want to keep posting pretty pictures, that's fine. I'm enjoying them.

[Graeme]

From the article I posted on Top business sustainability trends of 2014, progress is being made in clean tech, supply chains, and circular economy. Like the article said:

Collectively, they are not moving far enough and fast enough, but they are moving in the right direction. These days, that deserves two cheers, if not three.

[careinke]

Look a climax forest! (Not really, the next step is wetlands). Amazingly it grew with No Commercial Fertilizers, No Pesticides, No Fungicides, No Herbicides, No Transgenic Alterations (GMO), No Tilling, and No Fossil Fuel use. Yet it still provides a variety of food, shelter, wild habitat, moisture retention, erosion protection etc. etc.

What a great model, maybe we should learn from it, and apply its lessons to human systems? OH I forgot, it's impossible and we are all going to die.

[Graeme]

The Secret Side of Business Sustainability

When it comes to making your business sustainable, there are a few different definitions. It could refer to long-term financial sustainability, or even cultural and social sustainability. But here, we refer to a business’s sustainability as its ability to operate in an environmentally friendly manner.

The key to sustainability, of any kind, is being mindful of ill effects in the future while still achieving what is required in the present. In environmental terms, this means a business being able to grow, profit and thrive as it should, while minimizing its footprint and the negative effect it has on the environment.

Now the concept of ‘greening’ a business is not a new one – there are plenty of environmentally friendly companies out there that engage in green practices every day, and have sustainability at the core of their business and work ethics. And it’s not difficult to come across all the usual advice for areas you can address to green your own business: energy saving technology, waste management and recycling, supporting sustainable technologies – the list goes on.

But, there are certain elements of virtually every business that can have a negative impact on the company’s sustainability, which many business owners often overlook. If you’re looking to improve your business’s sustainability, and reduce the effect it has on the environment, then you may want to consider investigating the following areas:

triplepundit

[careinke]

Actually Car, the climax forest will not support humans. The entire food chain is rather slow-growing, discrete, a combination of giant autotrophs (trees) and rather small secondary specialized understory autotrophs (small shrubs, ferns, mosses, mushrooms etc) that rarely fruit because of the shade. If the giant trees have fruit then they are inhabited by monkeys, sloths, porcupines, and their predators, heterotrophs like us. Do you want to compete with endangered animals?

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that particular forest would support humans. The point was, it offers some lessons to learn from.

Contrary to your hopes regarding food forests, such an environment has only supported a few scant human numbers/populations such as the (so-called) pygmies. Large animals thrive on edges, disturbances especially.

Not true, let me offer you two quick examples: In VietNam there is a 300 year old food forest, and Morocco has one that is still functioning over 1,000 years after establishment .

http://www.helladelicious.com/diy/2012/02/ancient-food-forests-morocco-and-vietnam/

Native Americans also used food forests extensively in some areas.
http://www.naturalnews.com/033002_food_forest_gardens.html#

Also, as far as I am aware, all forests have edges.

Your objections have some merit, but with the vast amount of information available today, and good design, they are easily overcome.

Finally, food forests are not THE answer to all our problems. It's just one tactic (although a very useful one) to help the post bottleneck generations.

[ralfy]

Is there another thread that discusses actual sustainability? I think this one is about sustaining businesses.

[dohboi]

What's wrong with living like or becoming 'so called pygmies'?

[dohboi]

They don't look particularly malnourished, to me.

[Graeme]

Nominate Your 2014 Sustainability Winners and Losers

Have you been grinding your teeth all year wishing you had a forum to tell it like it is on who is helping or hurting the adoption of sustainable solutions to economic growth and enhanced human health? Here is your chance! The following are some of my observations. But more importantly, post what you think in the comments section below this article.

2014 in review
2014 was definitely a year of conflicting results in terms of sustainability. Dishearteningly, the World Meteorological Organization reported a “carbon surge” in climate-changing emissions to 142 percent of pre-industrial levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change analysis raised an alarm that this carbon surge was approaching a point of “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”

2014 also saw milestone growth in the green economic revolution: American consumers, lead by the millennial generation, are buying into a green economic revolution that in 2014 generated trillions of dollars in global commerce and investments. But the question raised in 2014 is whether this green economic revolution will be a case of too little, too late.

So, with these conflicting results who were 2014’s sustainability winners and losers?

2014 Winners
2014 saw the emergence of real winners measured by their ability to advance a sustainable economy and environment. Here are four of these “sustainability winners:”

Solar. Solar’s 70 percent price drop was the sustainability story of 2014. Deutsche Bank issued a 2014 report projecting that this price decline pace will make rooftop solar price-competitive with utility-supplied electricity in all but three states by 2016. 2014 found homeowners in states like California and Hawaii reducing their electric bills by approximately 40 percent with zero onsite emissions from installing rooftop solar. 2014 also marked significant steps toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE) building designs driven by California’s adoption of ZNE building codes. Enabling this mega-shift was economies-of-scale implementation in battery and smart-building technologies that hold the potential to duplicate solar’s path to price competitiveness.

Organic food. Consumers cannot correctly define how a food is “organic,” but they are buying it at a record pace driven by their growing awareness of the link between industrial foods and the obesity/diabetes epidemic. The consumer’s tsunami shift toward healthier foods is driving down the sales of McDonald’s and Coca-Cola while propelling the stock values of Chipotle and Krogers to record levels.

CAFE regulations. The American consumer, along with China, are the two forces driving down the price of oil and pump price pain. Americans are buying more fuel-efficient vehicles in large part due to CAFE regulations that mandate higher “fleet” MPG results for automobile manufacturers. This increased fuel efficiency is reducing oil demand and forcing oil suppliers to slash prices to maintain marketshare. CAFE regulations are achieving their goal of reducing consumer costs and global warming emissions.

Elon Musk. 2014 marked the year Musk became the poster person for the green economic revolution. His vision for rooftop solar and electric cars has achieved commercial success. He is being joined by a growing number of CEOs with companies like Apple, Walmart and Ford that are using sustainable best practices to cut costs, grow product sales and reduce environmental impacts.

2014 Losers

triplepundit

[Graeme]

Sustainability 2015: the devil will be in the detail

My colleagues in the sustainability field and I have long hoped for the day when consumers, producers, companies and governments around the world would recognise and adopt the sustainability imperative. In many ways, that day is here.

Sustainability ambitions are soaring around the world. Many government initiatives to fight climate change and deforestation were announced this year, including a raft of new ones at COP20 in Lima. Companies increasingly integrate sustainability into their value chains and triple bottom line accounting into their corporate governance. Powerful emerging technologies hold the promise of new, powerful sustainability impacts.

But we still have a lot to learn about how to align our practices with these ambitions and getting the details of implementation right. Technology could help, but we have to learn to manage it effectively.

2014 saw the rise of drones as a commercial, non-military technology, collecting massive real-time data about forests, water resources and crops. This year, Rainforest Alliance worked to bring digital communications and data sharing to rural farmers so they can learn best practice from each other and provide feedback to companies on how their sourcing policies are working. Used correctly, this kind of data could help fight deforestation and water resource depletion, minimise agricultural chemical use, raise yields on existing cropland and spread sustainable practices.

We haven’t yet decided how to regulate these technologies, or who gets to control these big data streams. Some big companies are already figuring out how to capture and exploit farm monitoring data for their own profit. In The People’s Platform, Astra Taylor documents how the internet’s promise of democratisation and open access for all has been redirected towards making billions for a few giant gatekeepers at the expense of the commons. If we want big data to help scale up sustainable practices and choices, and serve the common good, we have to adopt policies to channel it in that direction. I hope 2015 will be the year we get serious about that.

2014 was a watershed year for recognising the critical role of forests, agriculture and land use in fighting climate change and protecting biodiversity. The UN Climate Summit and COP20 called for halving deforestation by 2020 and ending it by 2030. In terms of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, that would be like taking all the world’s cars off the road.

theguardian

[dohboi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAo7ky1kq-Q

Chris Hedges - "The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies" - Full Speech

One of the many takeaway lines: "The urban poor are in chains, and these chains are being readied for the rest of us."

And at about 46:30: "I do not know, in the end, if we can build a better society. I do not even know if we will survive as a species.

But I know these corporate forces have us by the throat, and they have my children by the throat.

I do not fight fascists because I will win.

I fight fascists because they are fascists."

At about 48:00:

"No matter how bleak things get, we always have a choice.

We can choose to be rebels, or slaves...and to rebel is to succeed."

"We must become a threat to the security and surveillance states and to its corporate overlords.

And we cannot become a threat unless we engage in actions that actively obstruct and destroy power."