When are Bird Feeders Bad Feeders?

The unintended consequences of helping out where help may not be needed: your fav garden birds.

(Along the same line is humming birds, if you don't keep the feeder water clean and safe, you might be endangering all those hummers you were trying to encourage.)

Sustainability means doing the right thing, as well as making sure that you watch to see if things that you do, don't do what you thought they were designed to.

BBC - Does feeding garden birds do more harm than good?

Skeptical Science on a Skeptical Scientist: Patrick Moore on climate change

Is there really a debate as to whether humans are contributing to Global Warming?

This will take you some time, so if you are looking for a couple quick sound-bites, skip this entire post, and absolutely, skip the videos.

Dr. Patrick Moore was recently pointed out to me as a qualified scientist and a active skeptic of Global Warming. Read about Moore on Wikipedia. He was an active founder of Greenpeace, but left the greenie organization when they become too radical. He thinks that Greenpeace has moved toward more social and anti-capitalistic agendas, not so much the protection of the environment that Greenpeace was founded on.

Now he is very skeptical of many things, especially the man-made contribution to global warming.

Moore has become a PR guy for some of the most criticized companies and industries by environmental groups. Working, and consulting for 'the enemy' is not at all a bad thing. Being in the economic engine side of energy production, metals, etc., can give people detailed insight into complete solutions to major issues. But this does not seem to be how Moore functions; his interviews and books seem to actually be an extension of his job as a PR guy. See the criticism at the end of his Wikipedia page.

(Wiki note: The Wikipedia entry seem mature, with about 700 edits, 21 over the last 30 days and the most recent edit today. No editorial complaints. Note that there are no articles outside links to this page, so Moore does not seem to be the indisputable expert he might lead us to believe.)

There are many interviews of Moore that seem rational and reasonable enough on the surface: Hannity Feb 2014, and Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney pushing his book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout. But, don't watch these videos unless you are willing to go look that the scientific breakdown of what Moore has to say. Point by point, issue by issue.

This is a blog by John Mason (2012, Aug 25).
Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change:

Mason takes on the details of an interview in which Moore lavishes on facts, figures, assumptions and conclusions. And Mason breaks it down point-by-point with the best facts that exist today. Mason gives some of the best, and most factual, address of the issues associated with "Global Warming" and those who would say their "ain't no such thing". And he did it all without "sensationalist scare tactics".

When you are done, ask yourself: Who was the most shrill and panic? Who presented the facts with the most facts? Who's probabilities are most probable, give the facts?

This SustainZine blog does not devote much time to the debate over "Global Warming". Life's too short. There is global warming. Moore and Mason agree on this. Humans contribute to global warming. Moore says only a little; Mason (and the IPCC scientists) say humans contribute a lot to global warming. One of the last skeptical climate scientist Richard Muller, said that there was global warming and that humans are a major cause. Blogs here. Muller's research was funded by the Koch brothers.

This blog, however, focuses on Sustainability. Sustainability is good. Activities and business models that are non-sustainable are broken models. (Hah, you thought I was going to say "Bad".). A steady move toward 100% sustainability is not only a good plan, it is a sane plan. (Hah, you thought I was going to use the words "insane not to do so...".)

So let's get past this foolish debate and have real people and real companies start making real progress toward sustainability. If businesses and communities and individuals take long enough to get started on serious efforts to become sustainable, then governments will (start to) take charge.

What probably scares people more than Global Warming itself, actually, is that Governments far and wide will jump into the mix to "fix" things.

We especially like efforts that will save money, save time, save resources and reduce our impact on the environment. Usually, we "don't need no government" for that. (Actually that, not entirely true, but subject of another story.)

Responsible vs. Irresponsible.
You choose?

'via Blog this'

Chris McKnett: The investment logic for sustainability | Talk Video | TED

Chris McKnett: The investment logic for sustainability | Talk Video | TED:

Chris McKnett gives a wonderful talk on investing and the idea that all investors should start looking at ESG (economic, social and governance). The economic is obvious, profits. Social is the impact to people in general, and governance is corporate social responsibility (CSR).

Generally the research shows that there is no downside to being socially (and environmentally) sustainable. But in the long term, some of these companies that are irresponsible can be expected to lag behind.

Chris implies that as an investor it could be (?is?) irresponsible to invest in companies that are and continue to be non-sustainable. The point is that the downside risk is dramatically increased for non-sustainable companies and those that don't aggressively plan related to their non-sustainable ways.

Maybe an example would be having a lumber-based business where you are chopping down the trees. A sustainable plan would be to replant at the rate of usage. At a minimum, you should find another country with too many trees, so you can get past the inevitable lumber crunch on the horizon...

One of the beauties of this talk is that it focuses on just the financials of the sustainability issue. If big institutional investors started seriously considering the sustainability of their investors, then it would become front and center to all investments everywhere.

The problem with non-sustainable business practices is that they always, always, have negative externalities associated with them. And we all bear the costs of their negligence.

'via Blog this'

Sustainability Business Success Hinges on CEO Mindset Change · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader

Sustainability Business Success Hinges on CEO Mindset Change · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader:

"Some 67 percent of CEOs in the study believed business is not doing enough to address global sustainability challenges. . .  While 84 percent believed business should lead the way in addressing those challenges"

Sustainable Leaders... Seems like something that Hall and Knab were talking about in their 2012 article/chapter.

For businesses and business leaders (CEOs) not to take an active roll in sustainability would be, well, irresponsible (Hall & Knab, 2012).

Reference

Hall, E., & Knab, E.F. (2012, July). Social irresponsibility provides opportunity for the win-win-win of Sustainable Leadership. In C. A. Lentz (Ed.), The refractive thinker: Vol. 7. Social responsibility (pp. 197-220). Las Vegas, NV: The Refractive Thinker® Press.
(Available from www.RefractiveThinker.com, ISBN: 978-0-9840054-2-0) 

'via Blog this'

The Wonk Gap - NYTimes.com -- its the lie not the truth that is telling.

The Wonk Gap - NYTimes.com:

Rotary International has a 4-Way test that starts with "Is it the truth?" In all we say and do ...

If the facts that are presented are not truthful, then whatever follows in the arguments are bogus. Who benefits and why can not meaningfully be determined.

Stated differently, often (usually?) based on a careful organization of the facts, the best decisions are self-evident.

So what does Dr. Paul have to say about outright denial and miss information on the right? He points out the healthcare costs have actually been tame in recent years. Current estimates of the future costs/savings are actually better the GAO had originally estimated. Until recently, healthcare costs had been increasing at about 10% per year over the last 30 some years. All evidence is that these costs are much tamer, just over inflation, for the last few years. And that is prior to Obama care really kicking in.

I know! I'm surprised too, because Obama care doesn't do nearly enough to address out-of-control healthcare costs as I would like to see. But shifting people out of the emergency room as the primary care, has got to save tons of money.

Klugman points out how obvious and untruthful some of the information is that continues to be propagated. At least on PBS, you will find a serious analysis of the issues and usually a fare representation of both sides.

Why would anyone anywhere continue to accept consistent untruths and even blatant lies?

I like to hear what I want to hear. But I need to hear what I don't want to hear. As long as it is factual.

Counter factual is, will, counterproductive, to say the least.

Good article Dr Paul. It is too bad that the right people won't read it. And the people who do read it, probably won't apply the concept of truth-in-information-sources to their own media noise.

We all need to unfriend sources who promote bogus information, and let them talk to empty space. Only then will we have meaningful solutions to replace meaningless bickering.

'via Blog this'

Holding back the oceans... The Cost of Energy... Compounding and getting worse.

Holding back the ocean (via The Cost of Energy)

The inevitability of sea level rise (emphasis added): Small numbers can imply big things. Global sea level rose by a little less than 0.2 metres during the 20th century – mainly in response to the 0.8 °C of warming humans have caused through greenhouse…

---

U.S. National Debt Clock Now and Then (2016)

If you haven't visited the US national debt clock recently, you should do so. www.usdebtclock.org

As of January 1, 2013, the US Federal deficit has now exceeded the size of the annual US economy as measured by GDP: $16.4T vs. $16.3T, respectively.

But the hidden feature of our deficit that your friendly congressman will not discuss is the HUGE unfunded mandates that are looming large while congress putters around. The unfunded mandates are fully 7 times our current annual GDP. We're talking Social Security of course, that that is only have as big a problem as the unfunded Drug plan. And both of those collectively are only half of the Medicare unfunded deficit! Ouch! The total unfunded is $122T (or more of course).

An example is thinking of Social Security as a pension plan. The IRS requires a (publicly traded) company to put in enough money to reasonably cover the pensions that they currently promise. But our federal government has "borrowed" every single dollar ever put into the Social Security. And even if they hadn't, there's not enough money there to pay for the retires that we all have promised to pay. And of course, the problem gets bigger and worse every day.

The compounding effect of not dealing with these issues, makes the problem exponentially worse over time.

So, while the federal government is fiddling in D.C., the real problems -- and solutions -- of country are being postponed.

When fiddling and can-kicking becomes an Olympic event, you can only imagine how hard it will be to beat the US Congress. Might have to split them into two teams so there will at least be a contest for the final match.

Oh. Wanna have a look at the future, based on various forecasts, check out 2016/2017:
U.S. National Debt Clock 2016:

Social Irresponsibility: National Debt
'via Blog this'

The next crisis: Sponging boomers | The Economist

The next crisis: Sponging boomers | The Economist:

The math is ugly. This is a great article that summarized some really big key issues that arise from the generational move of the Boomers into retirement. BoomAge could be the syndrome.

Those age 65 or older are expected to consume about $333B more in benefits/services than they paid in taxes. No worries, let's let our kids and grandkids take care of that bill.

And the bad thing about doing nothing (gridlock and more) is that it simply delays the solution and compounds the impact.

Some really cool (ugly really, but interesting) stats are the impact that inflation has had on the US national debt. The young, with debt, benefit from inflation. Older, with savings, get hit. The voting and politically active retirees will increase by almost 10% to 26% of the voters and will have time to push for services, benefits and low inflation.

Social Irresponsibility: Debt, Population, Inflation, Politics, gridlock, Boomers, Boomage

'via Blog this'

DOW's Solutionism. !:-)

Dow Solutionism:
This is a very cool concept from DOW.

Solutionism... Kinda a cure for consumerism, where it's all about how much you can consume in your lifetime.

Maybe this should be one of the cures for consumerism, one of the great Social Irresponsibilities?

Interesting idea. Work backwards from each problem -- and the associated solutions to them -- into helping address the root cause of the original problem.

Generally we tend to symptom solutions, not real solutions.

Pretty cool ads for greening up the Olympics as well.:-)

Solutionism. I like it.
www.DOW.com/Solutionism/
'via Blog this'

Social Irresponsibility: Energy and the cost of carbon

These are all part of a dramatic change in the way that we view carbon emissions.


There are three things that are prominently in the news about carbon emissions and addressing them in June of 2012. These are all part of a dramatic change in the way that we view carbon emissions.

1. Australia is opening up a Carbon Tax at $23 per ton. They are adjusting from the mistakes of Europe when they started cap and trade at too low a price. Undermining the whole process.
2. In the meanwhile, Texas is opening a market for carbon. The Oil capital of the US is also the largest Wind producer of electricity.
3. California credit allowances jump in price dramatically.

Generally there are three ways to address the issues associated with externalities caused by carbon emission (and greenhouse gas emissions)

1. Voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR). Look at Shaklee corporation and Microsoft. Shaklee, a health and nutrition company, is the first company to be certified climate neutral in April 2010. In the meanwhile, Microsoft intends to be carbon neutral by the end of 2013.

2. Cap and Trade exchanges. Texas and California.

a.   Texas is opening a market for carbon. “Bad joke, or perhaps an oxymoron”, right?  Nope, it is the Texas Climate & Carbon Exchange. The Oil capital of the US that produces about 1m barrels of oil per year is also the largest Wind producer of electricity (producing about 6.5m GHw/hr in 2010, nearly twice as much as Kansas). This is one of several exchanges, with the most notable one in the us operating in California.

b.   This headline from Reuters: “California carbon allowances (CCAs) for delivery in 2013 closed at $16.75 per tonne on Thursday, up $1.10 from one week ago on a growing belief that the shutdown of a California nuclear power plant will boost carbon emissions due to higher fossil fuel use.” A 7% jump was followed by $20+ call options that anticipated future CCAs rising aggressively in the future.

3. Tax Mechanism.
“The carbon pricing scheme will impose costs on big polluters, which will result in higher end prices for certain products. Treasury estimates that an average family will pay $9.90 more per week in the first year of the scheme’s introduction.” But 9 out of 10 households will get some level of reimbursements “ through personal income tax cuts and increases in pensions and allowances, as well as other measures”. This will already take effect from May-June 2012. Check out the Household Carbon tax estimator for Australia:  

a.   What is the Carbon Tax? (Australia):  http://www.carbontax.net.au/category/what-is-the-carbon-tax/ A $23 per ton initial tax on heavy polluters.

b.   How will this Carbon Tax affect me? (Australia): http://www.carbontax.net.au/category/how-will-the-carbon-tax-affect-me/

c.   Discussion (Australia). Australia is one of the worst (developed countries) for carbon footprint per capita. Unlike Canada (cold) this is partially because of the sprawl of the country and the abundance of fossil fuels. The tax is directly on the producers of carbon (starting with coal) and this tax is applied directly to those impacted. Those households impacted can spend the money any way they want.  The more accurate costs of dirtier energy (coal and oil) will serve to shift prices to cleaner energy.

So, what does this mean? It means that in lots of places and within lots of organizations (and governments) there is a movement toward addressing carbon emissions. Even the glacial movements in the US are starting gain speed, much like the melting glaciers themselves are.


A market mechanism like Australia's seems like an good approach. There is not a massive initial gift of credits to the coal-burning companies. The government doesn't take all the money and run. The market is given an opportunity to improve the costing to accommodate the externalities of fossil fuels.


Let's see how that plays forward? 


Coming soon to an eBook store near you: Social Responsibility by the www.RefractiveThinker.com.