Hi.

This is a post I wanted to make already a few days ago. Because I read an article about a big recycling plant in Germany which is that huge and innovative that there is not enough waste in Germany to run it profitable. So they are obliged to buy the waste from the neighbouring countries. This highlights the statement Mr. Williams had made about the “big business” of this industry. I think that this also shows the shift in thinking. Waste has a value now, mainly because of the rising raw material prices. And this is really important. If waste becomes more and more valuable, the reuse of resources is higher and we move towards one of the goals of natural capitalism: zero waste (or the less possible). Unfortunetaly, this is not yet the case in Naples…

Nina

Hallo everybody,

today in the morning we talked about the consequences of global warming like for example the rise of water surface which will make a lot of people in India homeless.

In this moment I remembered an idea I heard some years ago called “floating home”. This is no longer an idea, today -it became reality.

The first time I heard something about this kind of house in a report about the Netherlands where they tried to find a solution for their future problems.

In Germany this solution seems to become a new lifestyle but I guess it is still important to understand how this idea looks like in reality.

Because of my bad English I would like you to look at www.floatinghomes.de – and no panic the language of this German website is English. You will find three types of houses and their descriptions along with some pictures (for more pictures: www.stern.de/wirtschaft/immobilien/immobilien/:Floating-Home-Das-Haus-Wasser/563968.html).

In Dubai, you can find another example for new biosphere creation.

www.guide.theemiratesnetwork.com/living/dubai/the_palm_islands.php

I know that these islands are only for rich people but this fact also shows us that we are able to create new biosphere for ourselves.

But I’m not sure if this example is positive or negative for the environment. First of all, this isn’t a natural place so there is no natural ecological system. And another point is that we take away a part of the ocean and we don’t know yet if this will entails other negative consequences.

Finally these are some new ideas explaining the fact that we are able to find solutions for everything if we want!!!

Good evening

Esther

Hello everyone,

some days ago I discovered a report about the exploding prices of recycable waste in German TV. It really surprised me, when I heard that the price for glas, paper, metal or even toxic waste – newly referred to as “second-hand ressources” – has increased up to 100% in the past year due to the increasing demand! 

Apparently companies – at least the German ones –  have recognized that it brings them a competitive advantage, if they recycle waste and use it within their production line and I am quiet happy to see this evolution.  One possibility to use this waste, as mentioned in this report, was to transform it into energy by for example burning it. This provides companies a competitive advantage, because they have an energy source which is cheaper than oil for example and which is unlimited.

By searching more information about this topic, I also discovered a very interesting film entitled “waste = food” and I really appreciated the idea that the question is not how to reduce waste, but how to produce even more waste,  waste which serves as “food” for nature or other industries. This very new way of  adressing ecological production may perhaps be the ultimate solution to the waste problems in our world. If everything we produce, will serve as a natural fertilizer on fields or as a ressource for producing other goods we would perhaps have to close all the waste deposits, our nature would be clean and we could use less environment-destructing oil, gaz or chemical fertilizers. Wouldn’t this be great?

Well, perhaps my vision is a very optimistic one and will never become reality, but despite this, I think that if governments achieve to promote recycling as advantageous in economic terms, even the most environmentally ignorant companies such as Exxon or Gazprom would take off on the road to a cleaner and more sustainable world.

Wish you a great evening and see you tomorrow!

Sarah

I found some interesting news on “Umweltschutz-news.de”, a German environmental homepage. It refers to the coming EU climate survey and says that it is almost too late for climate protection. If the temperature rises by 2.2 degrees, there will be a persistent drought in Portugal, in Italy and – I’m sorry my Spanish friends – in Spain. Around 100,000 people will die of heat, 100 billion Euro loss of income in their national tourism branches and entire countries or parts of them will be underwater.

Indeed the EU commission decreed its nations a 20% decrease of CO2 emission until 2020. If every county participates an effect will be perceptible with a delay of 20 – 30 years. Surprisingly for some, the German industry tries to “sabotage” this resolution and threatens the EU commission with a stop of investments, if German companies are compelled to do more for climate protection.

I guess, in their opinion, they have done enough in the past. Furthermore the corporations lost a little of their competitive advantage to foreign competitors. Perhaps, they want to see other countries’ industries follow or to go forward, in particular those which are affected first by disasters.

On one hand I can understand their querulousness, especially during the period when the German economy was in a crisis. Although this is really “short-term-thinking”, we have to consider that companies are threatened by closing down and thus, livelihoods are in danger. But on the other hand some countries have to take a leadership position, like we mentioned on Monday. Not in terms of taking the whole responsibility, but to act as a role model. And if the corporations cannot accept these arguments, there is another important reason for them: It is cheaper to conserve our environment, than disposing pollution.
And sooner or later they will pay!

Reading the chapter of the studyguide dealing with politics made me think of the commitment of the German government to SD. So I had a look on the website of the ministry of environment . Don’t be too scared, that the site behind the link is in german, all other links on this site are in English (and French).
SD issues in general are not discussed in public. The politicians only deal with several aspects. So I try to list a few of the things that the government had done recently.
1) In the beginning of 2002, the cabinet has approved a draft bill amending the Environmental Audit Act with a view to ensuring high standards for EU environmental audits.
2) The government changed the tax system to a more ecologic way. So the tax rate on gasoline and electricity rose. The reform takes place in several steps each with a time lag of several years.
3) The government (which is a coalition of “greens” and socialists) decided to abandon the production of electricity from nuclear power and made up a plan for the shutting down of the concerned power plants. This step was largely and controversely discussed in public!
4) Prior to the World Summit on SD in Johannesburg, the government approved the national sustainability strategy as Germany’s contribution to the summit. Again unfortunately I did not hear of this before I did read it today….
The four mentioned points above all come from the website of the ministry for environment, but you are invited to have a look at the websites of the ministry of Economics and Labour, the ministry of consumer protection, the ministry of health and social security, and particularly the ministry of economic cooporation and development.
As mentioned earlier, from my point of view, the issues dealt with by the government are not discussed enough in the public. If you’d ask people on the street about efforts their government is taking concerning SD, I bet they won’t have big things to answer. They’d probably complain about the tax reform mentioned, because they are concerned by that (increasing gasoline prices). So according to this article in the studyguide which says, that “Europeans appear to be leading the way at this point in time”, I’d say that might be right in comparison to the United States or Australia (the two single “industrialized” nations, that did not sign the Kyoto protocol). To be critically, as mentioned in the textbook, too, politicians tend to do greenwash, even more than companies. I have to admit, that I can’t tell you something about the progress and effects of the actions taken by the government. But maybe if you find out something, you can tell me.