Five Dire Green Myths Causing the Greatest Global Harm

Fantastic article Treehugger, I know about 4 of them but the overpopulation really hit it home for me. My wife and I plan to have only one child or to adopt. Having a child in Europe or the USA should be considered as a moral issue for the state of the planet.

Point five is arguably the most important of the myths to debunk with the public. Getting people to think about even the smallest habits, and make incremental changes now, will prepare them for the more drastic changes down the road that we will all likely have to make.

That first step is also one of the hardest steps for many Americans to make... they've been bred, taught, and advised by advertising and peer pressure, to ignore it. And those who ignore the first little steps will certainly balk at the big steps later.

As usual, make it about money... make them see how much cash the little steps can save them... and they respond faster. The things that cost people more up front, are much harder to appreciate, and may require some creative financing to get the point across.

Good piece except for #3. This 'myth' seems to have a lot more truth than the blurb written here, even according to the sources cited. Sure, first-world-ers out-consumer third-world-ers, and are more responsible for the over-consumption of global resources, now one third past sustainable and rising. But unless you believe that we all need to return to stone age living standards, the way forward for the developing world is, however sustainable and enlightened, going to involve more resources per capita if it is too improve. That means we all have to have fewer babies, here, there and everywhere, as well as consumer less and recycle more. Frankly, the world cannot afford for the third world tp have a '50s US-style of economic boom even if birth rates fall after industrialization. It doesn't have enough bio-resource slack. Also, the refugee and immigration inflows from the third world to the first should be factored into the population growth rate equation.

"it is patently false that wind turbines are a serious threat to flying birds."

I will concede that there are more dire threats to birds than wind turbines as is pointed out here and elsewhere. However I don't think you can say that turbines are not a "serious threat".

Simply because other human activities kill MORE birds than wind turbines it doesn't make turbine kill-contribution any less important.

Perhaps it is not significant enough to outweigh the benefits of wind power (for now) however it is significant enough to keep in mind and to not dismiss so easily as there some real negative impacts of wind turbines.

@ Brendan

A sustainable lifestyle doesn't need to be one of lack or "stone age living standards." Neither does it need to be one of increased global per capita consumption. If the developed world began to consume sustainably - say, households in America stopped throwing out on average half the food they buy - while the developing world raised living standards and began to industrialize, perhaps a balance could be reached.

The developed world needs to show a way forward for the developing world which is both sustainable and desirable. This will require living within our means, not below them.

I loved myth number three. Though others will probably disagree with me.
It's not just third world meets industrial.

Big families usually use thrift stores and hand me downs. They usually don't use private jets for vacations.

It's how the big populations live not just on population.

The problem I have with #3 isn't the the underlying problem that first-worlders consume too much (true), it's that the reality is that some resources simply cannot be easily shared, such as freshwater, which is far more important for life than oil (the usual barometer for how much first worlders overconsume).

The last one isn't a myth. I'm not going to stop doing everything I can to help the environment and reduce my impact, but if we can't stop these big movements towards a desolate future, no amount of CFL bulbs is going to make the air breathable, and no amount of organic food is going to stop the mad and hungry crowds.

It drives me nuts when people talk about "clean coal." Saying clean coal is like saying tasty dog poop.

Thanks, but I think you meant "guerrilla marketing" not gorilla marketing.

I'm inclined to agree with four of these points. However, in regards to GM foods, I would say that their superior crop yields have great potential if used in developin countries. As interior African nations have relatively little access to imported foods, they rely largely on their subsistence farming, but they are also more susceptible to drought and crop failures. GM foods often have higher yields but also can be modified to be resistant to certain strains of bacteria and such that harm crops. GM crops, if used in these areas would have increased yields and better feed the population. Contrary to what the article says, farming in these areas DOES depend on things other than access, education, etc. It depends on their environmental and soil conditions., which are likely to worsen as global warming progresses. Thus, GM foods could better position developing nations to grow better and more food for themselves.
Furthermore, the reason many of these developing countries do not grow GM foods is because of the ban in Europe. They fear that growing GM foods would cut them out of the market.
I would have replaced the GM myth with the myth about food-based ethanol, afar more disasterous myth (and one for which GM foods are used). Corn based ethanol poses a real and plausible and frightening danger to the world, while GM foods, if used wisely, could only help.

Thanks, but I think you meant "guerrilla marketing" not gorilla marketing.

On point one, I agree GMO only really serve the seed companies and from a view point of avarice. The problem of GMO plants is that we do not have enough information on what cross pollination will do, well actually we have an idea. In any case, unless more controlled study is done we risk more then we gain.

The single scariest GMO feature has a scary name, it's the terminator gene. This is a GMO plant whose seeds are duds they will not germinate. The question I have raised is, is the terminator gene passed on by the pollen? If it is we are in trouble folks, think about the result of cross pollination.

The other problem I have is with the insecticide gene, not for harming humans, but what if the common honey bee or other pollinating insects are effected? No pollinating insects, means no pollinated plants, means they all have to cloned and then there will be a food shortage for real.

I'm into the ideas of Jacques Fresco of the Venus Project and Future by Design, and Paul Raskin of the Tellus Institute.

The problems of poverty, starvation, homelessness are not ones of limited resources. These problems are due to artificial scarcity promoted by the monetary system and the political system. The monetary system makes things scarce because you need money to acquire the resources you need to do anything. The political system makes things scarce because in order to do anything of any meaning in the USA you need permission to do it which is authoritarian. They obstruct by enslaving people with taxes, and say don't worry we will solve these problems just pay your taxes and shut up.

Case in point, about 24 years ago there was a world wide event called live aid, to raise money and awareness about the people starving in Ethiopia. They raised a boat load of money and sent a boat load of food and clothes over there and what happened? It all sat at the docks and rotted because of politics, this punctuates the problem. Those Ethiopian people were starving because of politics, not because of famine or a political famine, today in this modern world famine should be a thing of the past. In the US the fast food industry throws away enough food to feed most of the starving homeless in our own country. Why can't the fast food companies give this food to the homeless? Politics, we wouldn't want to make these starving people sick from eating a sandwich that's 2 hours old and filled with bacteria.

The way to solve all these problems is to re-engineer our society, The resource based economy is one of the most viable ways of achieving the ability to scale. Getting rid of the monetary system and do something radical only use as much as is needed to sustain a high standard of living for everyone. So a shift will need to take place where money is no longer going to buy what we need because what will buy resources is need if you don't need it you shouldn't get it. Food, Clothing, Shelter will be top priority for all of the people of earth.

The value of human life - all human life - will be the most valuable thing. No more will people be slaves to the clock and trade their precious minutes for money. No longer will we work to make a living, but be living to work. People who today are miserable because they can make a living in the field they love won't have to work in areas that don't give then joy because the money isn't in it. We should be free to pursue happiness with out obstruction, and no worries about having it taken away.

If money wasn't an issue and politics wasn't an issue, then we would have tapped the dry rock geothermal that the USA has. I think the last estimate I saw was 2,000 terawatts could be generated worldwide annually which is more then 100 times what is used now.

Sorry for the lack of citations, I welcome corrections.

some links:
www.tellus.org
www.thevenusproject.com

Coal fired power generation consumes 2.5 litres of water per Kw/h. I expect this is the same for any steam based generation (nuclear). Another reason why it doesn't make sense, especially in my dry continent. Clean coal is still thirsty coal.

Fred Pearce, in a blog for Yale Environment 360, points out that population growth has dramatically decreased over the past few years.

http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2042

”A generation ago, the world fertility rate was around six kids per woman. Today it is 2.6, which is getting close to the level needed just to maintain the current population long-term. Allowing for girls who don’t make it to adulthood, that is around 2.3.”

This trend to slower population growth is indeed good news. But we still need to focus on CONSUMPTION. As countries increase their standard of living, consumption of the earth’s resources increases at an alarming rate. And who are we, (the “developed nations”) to tell those people living in poverty, that they can not improve their quality of life.

The earth can not support a universal standard of living, equivalent to what is now enjoyed by the developed nations. We must make significant reductions in our carbon footprint, reduce our standard of living - return to a simple, slower pace of life. Technology alone, will not solve this issue.

Myth #5 is spot on. Baby steps do work if you keep at it. My journey towards a sustainable lifestyle has been testament to that. I started off doing small things around my home, like CFL swaps and energy efficiency, then started reducing food miles by growing my own food and getting chickens. Then a transport change to a hybrid vehicle and finally solar PV and solar hotwater for my house. Over the course of my journey, I have influenced so many people, so much so that I have created a local groundswell of like-minded people who are now starting to think, act, and live a little more lightly on the planet!

the problem with myth #3 is that it doesn't contain a karate kid reference.

You can blame whomever you want, too many people is too many people. Whether it's politics, resources, whatever – this population is not sustainable given our current approach. Who knows how many people the planet can sustain, it all depends on how we "use" it.

i am sure this will interest lot of folks.

Agreed on all points but #1. Not a myth. Sorry.

The myth is that it is the ONLY solution to world hunger. It's a part of the solution, as is water conservation, poverty reduction etc etc.

Not that I will ever change the mind of someone on here, but here goes: Something I get sick of saying, as a dietitian, a scientist, and an ethical vegetarian. GM foods are not evil, and the fact that a company like Monsanto hasn't done the right thing in many respects doesn't make the actual technology evil. Sure we need better control & better regulation, but GM crops are a part of our future.

Oh and don't start a serious conversation about science with a quote from Prince Charles. Homeopathy. No.

I think myth number 5 is a very important one. It really hits a bigger point. There is a cultural change the needs to occur in our society. We are all about throw away, mass-consumption. I find myself drawn into it on a daily basis. Stopping at Panera rather than cooking at home, shopping for christmas gifts. Wanting a new computer, when the one I'm typing on can do everything I need it for. Myth 5 is all about the baby steps it takes to impact the way we think about every decision we make. I love it!

Great Article. I have to say that #5 is the best point of all. To the logic of some dieters, the broken cookies have no calories; and in a similar train of thought we think that little things don't count.

Concerning Myth #4: Even if birds are not killed by the wind turbines, the fact is that bats are killed.

Bats are very important ecologically and economically for agriculture. Many people do not realize this fact. Large flocks of bats in Texas have been observed by radar intercepting hordes of flying agicultural pests moving up from Mexico to Texas and the Midwestern U.S.

The placement of wind farms in Texas, as is being planned, might very well prove to be an agricultural disaster. Of course, I guess we could always simply rely on MORE pesticides.

here's another myth: that remote power plants and lengthy transmission make wind and solar more "affordable." just like Big Coal, Big Oil and Big Gas, Big Solar and Big Wind just externalize most of their costs onto the planet, ratepayers and taxpayers. that's how we get deforestation, bleached coral reefs, global warming, oil spills, benzene poisoning, etc. externalizing the costs, privatizing the profits.

and now, that's how we get TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF A VERY EFFECTIVE CARBON SINK - THE MOJAVE. the desert is not a failed ecosystem - its a very critical, but fragile one, and it is under siege by Big Solar and Big Wind who are gonna dynamite, bulldoze, pave, poison, deplete aquifers and otherwise screw our planet, while INCREASING GHG emissions, and bleeding ratepayers dry. ratepayers who could otherwise have all that money to get panels on their own roofs!

solar resources are only incrementally higher in the deserts of CA than they are in the urban load centers, so why are our "leaders" re-centralizing and re-monopolizing our energy grid to favor Big, Wilderness-Killing Power plants in an era of sun and wind? could it be for MONEY? it's hard for Big Energy to take 100% of the money and manipulate supplies and pricing if WE have panels on our roofs and can SELL clean power we don't use. Look at OPEC today. cutting supply to try and jack up the price. Enron, Sempra - they ALL do it, and just because they have fake halos because they destroy our planet with wind turbines instead of nuclear waste, they are greeted as heroes.

so, what do you do when Big Energy wants ALL the money and power? first thing, is trick the populace into thinking its "good for the planet." then pretending like it's our only choice (because rooftop solar is "too expensive" because it doesn't externalize any costs). then they hand over the cash in an envelope, and voila! you get a map like this one, which is a real plan to destroy CA and greenwash it all:

http://tinyurl.com/4xujjn