Sometimes I wonder if politicians are creating more problems for the country in order to make opposing parties look bad.
There is a recent article about the Chalk River Nuclear Reactors in Canada that were originally shutdown by a regulating body and then restarted by parliament. Why? So that there would be enough isotopes for health care use. There was supposed to be an order for isotopes from Europe.
Does that make sense to anyone? If a nuclear reactor was not deemed safe by the regulating commission and thus shutdown, why would we start it up again for health care reasons? I think regardless of the situation, I think I trust the independent regulating body to know what they are doing.
In the end, it’s poor management of an environmental and health issue. Sure maybe I’m simplifying the issue a little but see for yourself — check out the full article over at the Globe and Mail.
Ran across this interesting brief video that talks about squatter cities in developing countries. If squatter cities are usually in the outskirts of major cities, will there be a time in the future when it will merge with the major cities? The other thing I wonder about are the environmental consequences of having cities grow via squatter cities. While wealth is accumulated within a city, is it healthy for humans to be living in such massive numbers in such a concentrated area? Is it healthy for wildlife for that matter?
Geekabout posted a really interesting article yesterday on the construction of the cities of tomorrow. We’ve seen examples of these in movies, old books about space stations and the general ideal visions that come to mind when thinking of the future. Many of these so called “cities of the future” are technically one large structure that is meant to hold hundreds of thousands of residents. While many believe that this holds limitless potential for the world as the population increases and we continue to build upwards into the sky, I am wondering if these “cities” will become more like gated communities or even act like countries as people migrate towards urban areas.
Check out the X-SEED 4000 - A proposed City of the Future?
Will there be public space in the future? Can we ensure the preservation of public space? I for one find these visions of future cities rather scary. Will people leave behind the outdoors, or be forced to remain within the city structure of the future due to the poor conditions of the earth? These are all interesting ideas to think about and discuss as we continue to debate the influence of human activity on the climate and our home planet.
I remember when I was in elementary school and the big topic of the day was recycling — everyday teachers, guest speakers and the school would continue to promote recycling. As a kid, I would run back home from school and tell my parents. The effect would last about a week and then recycling would be close to be forgotten.
My point is — how effective is such a survey — and does such a survey really effectively measure the concern that one has for the environment? I have to admit that as I grew up, I did not care much for the environment despite all the propaganda (aka. marketing materials, aka. information booklets) out there. It was not on my priority. How did the environment become a concern for me? When something valuable to me was threatened — my view of the sky and trees in the city. Some may laugh but I really enjoy seeing an open sky without condo or skyscrapers blocking my way. While I hated downtown because there just weren’t enough trees, I hated what I deemed as “clone housing” for threatening large inhabited natural pieces of land.
This led to my discovery of what was important to me–and what actually has an impact on what was important to me. I am sure that there are kids out there who are attuned and enthusiastic about preserving the environment but there are those like myself who will take their time to find out more about themselves.
How do we reach those kids who are like myself (way back when)? I guess we’ll need to find out what’s most important to them first. It’s the only way to reach people effectively — as individuals. We all have our own opinion on the environment and we each define what is important to ourselves. Until each of us looks at our environment from that standpoint, would we consider the area we live in worth fighting for?
This is an astounding visualization of how much space various retail or fast food chains take up in the world. While there is the argument of reducing the amount of space takes up, I have to admit that being accustomed to living in Canada, I really appreciate and like my personal space. Make sure you check out the full-sized image.
I ran across this after Smashing Magazine ran their Monday inspiration on visualizations. I just happened to notice something about retail space. Having worked in a number of retailers before, I can understand both the importance of having that space for your customers to shop and the appeal of large “big box” stores. I cannot and do not appreciate the amount of work required to keep the retail space relatively “clean” for customers — but more importantly I don’t appreciate the fact that valuable farmland around the large urban centers are gradually being developed into large parking lots and retail spaces. Every time I am driving with my family into the Greater Toronto Area, I continue to see some of the most fertile of land — perfect for growing food — being converted for commercial usage. I’m pretty sure that this is occurring elsewhere in the world as well as population growth increases and people disperse across an area.
From my perspective, that is a huge mistake. Commercial buildings should go on land that is not viable for farming because if we let the farmland be taken over by retail space, that is one piece of land that will lose its natural affinity for growing crops, even if we tear down the buildings and attempt to revive the soil. Of course … technology may change that.
My concern is that we continue to buy homes — houses and condos — built on fertile farmland and many don’t realize it. With regards to retailers, they are going where we as citizens and consumers are going and the only way to discourage them is to change our behaviour. Not surprisingly, Walmart takes up the most amount of land. Where else on earth can you find nearly everything you need or want in one store? Department stores? Pretty close. It is pretty scary when Walmart can take up that much good land.
The question is — how much of that land use to be farmland and if we convert the numbers to food units — how many people would we be able to feed?
It’s always interesting what companies are doing to be more environmentally friendly. Apple continues to distinguish itself for thinking different yet it hasn’t really pushed the threshold on being a tech company that is truly environmentally conscious.
The BIG news of today? Of course Apple fans will know — the introduction of the Macbook Air.
According to Macworld, there are a few things that Apple has done to be a little more green:
“Jobs offered information about the environmental goals behind the MacBook Air — it has a fully recyclable aluminum case, and is “the first” to have a mercury-free display with arsenic-free glass. All the circuit boards are BFR-free and PVC-free, and the retail packaging uses 56 percent less material than the MacBook packaging.” — Peter Cohen, Macworld
I think if Apple truly wants to think different, it should follow the OLPC.
“XO is fully compliant with the European Union’s RoHS Directive. It contains no hazardous materials. Its LiFePO4 or NiMH batteries contain no toxic heavy metals, plus it features enhanced battery management for an extended recharge-cycle lifetime. It will also tolerate alternate power-charging sources, such as car batteries.” — OLPC Laptop Features
I realize there are differences in hardware and software requirements but the OLPC was adhering to a much more rigid and strict set of standards — I can’t imagine following up on a couple of the innovations that the OLPC was working on would harm Apple. It’d actually really make Apple a leader not only in terms of UI and design, but also with regards to being proactive with regards to supporting the environment.
Learning to Support the Tree and Earth
