Dialogues on Sustainability, Leadership and Resilience
CO2 … the cholesterol of the climate discussions?
I came across the attached article by Walter Jehne “Biology_of_Global_Warming”. I felt that I finally understood what Nichlas Ihren meant when he wrote “This is the reason why I think we are too obsessed with action and visible results. They make us feel as if we are about to solve the problem, when the reality may be the opposite. This is also the reason why I believe far more systems understanding is needed” in the discussion “Addressing root causes of global challenges” here on Open World Café.
That discussion was very important to me. It made it clear to me that CO2 had become “the cholesterol of the climate discussion” (read: a measurable unit, which in larger concentrations typically appears together with other life-threatening problems. A measurable unit that we zoom in on and try to decrease, thus distracting us from the real problems/solutions).
Based on a systems approach, Walter Jehne argues that reforestation is a more obvious response to climate change than CO2-reduction. Not just because of the trees’ ability to convert CO2 to O2 (which most of us can relate to), but also because of several other complex biological and physical processes (in particular the interaction with the earth's water cycles) that have a much greater effect on the climate.
With that (and COP15) in mind, I’m thinking: Instead of “just” working with a financial instrument like CO2 quotas (which in my opinion will only end up moving the problem around and potentially create more inequality in the world) why don’t we make every country responsible for planting trees corresponding to their CO2 emmissions ... and in addition follow Burghard’s suggestion in the above mentioned discussion on OWC to “make it international law (…) to plant at least two trees for every tree cut”.
I’m not an environmental biologist or an expert on international law, but what I do know from my career in the field of business intelligence is, that you get what you measure – nothing more, nothing less. If we end up agreeing on reducing CO2-levels of 20% in 2020, then that’s what we’re going to get … but like the president of the Maldives said at a panel discussion at COP15 “You cannot bargain with nature”. This is not a bargaining situation - we need to do much more!
I’ve always loved the following quote from Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple Computers: "When you start looking at a problem and it seems really simple, you don't really understand the complexity of the problem. Then you get into the problem, and you see that it's really complicated, and you come up with all these conveluted solutions. That's sort of the middle, and that's where most people stop .... But the really great person will keep going and find the key, the underlying principle of the problem-and come up with an elegant, really beautiful solution that works".
I hope that the world doesn’t stop at the superficial or convoluted solution. I hope that Walter Jehne is right, and that there is an elegant, really beautiful solution to the climate problems the world is facing.
For me, at this point, it seems obvious that there should be an international agreement linking CO2-emmissions and deforestation to a demand for reforestation. But then again, I’m not an expert.
That discussion was very important to me. It made it clear to me that CO2 had become “the cholesterol of the climate discussion” (read: a measurable unit, which in larger concentrations typically appears together with other life-threatening problems. A measurable unit that we zoom in on and try to decrease, thus distracting us from the real problems/solutions).
Based on a systems approach, Walter Jehne argues that reforestation is a more obvious response to climate change than CO2-reduction. Not just because of the trees’ ability to convert CO2 to O2 (which most of us can relate to), but also because of several other complex biological and physical processes (in particular the interaction with the earth's water cycles) that have a much greater effect on the climate.
With that (and COP15) in mind, I’m thinking: Instead of “just” working with a financial instrument like CO2 quotas (which in my opinion will only end up moving the problem around and potentially create more inequality in the world) why don’t we make every country responsible for planting trees corresponding to their CO2 emmissions ... and in addition follow Burghard’s suggestion in the above mentioned discussion on OWC to “make it international law (…) to plant at least two trees for every tree cut”.
I’m not an environmental biologist or an expert on international law, but what I do know from my career in the field of business intelligence is, that you get what you measure – nothing more, nothing less. If we end up agreeing on reducing CO2-levels of 20% in 2020, then that’s what we’re going to get … but like the president of the Maldives said at a panel discussion at COP15 “You cannot bargain with nature”. This is not a bargaining situation - we need to do much more!
I’ve always loved the following quote from Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple Computers: "When you start looking at a problem and it seems really simple, you don't really understand the complexity of the problem. Then you get into the problem, and you see that it's really complicated, and you come up with all these conveluted solutions. That's sort of the middle, and that's where most people stop .... But the really great person will keep going and find the key, the underlying principle of the problem-and come up with an elegant, really beautiful solution that works".
I hope that the world doesn’t stop at the superficial or convoluted solution. I hope that Walter Jehne is right, and that there is an elegant, really beautiful solution to the climate problems the world is facing.
For me, at this point, it seems obvious that there should be an international agreement linking CO2-emmissions and deforestation to a demand for reforestation. But then again, I’m not an expert.
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Christer Soderberg on -
Excellent! I love the metaphor using cholesterol levels! Thank you!
-
Permalink Reply by Margottina Verch on -
Jacob,
here, here! Well said! You know what this reminds me of? We have these ridiculous commercials here in the states where people need to lower their cholesterol, so they try to do it by eating oatmeal or oat based cereal every day for a month. Really? While it may have some immediate effect, who is going to eat Cheerios every day for the rest of their life? Not this girl!
Instead of examining/modifying their lifestye with respect to their entire diet, working out regularly, and re examining their relationship with their body, they are going to drop 30 points in one month, and then what? And if their cholesterol is bad, what else have they got going on? I'm guessing their arteries and blood pressure are not so hot. We clean our air with trees, but what about our oceans? What about our landfills? What about our overall treatment of our planet?
I also appreciate what you said about us yeilding only what we measure and holding each nation accountable for it's respective emmisions! I don't want to just be out of the red. We should be deep into the black and not teetering near teh edge. To use your cholesterol analogy again, sadly, some patients are satisfied taking a pill for the rest of their life, and not making the necessary changes needed to lower their cholesterol and more importantly, improve their health. They figure if they can get their level into the "safe" range, its all good. Their habits affect their children and spouses (assuming they have them) and perpetuate the cycle, often. I don't want people to go on with bad habits just because they think the trees being planted will cover the debt, so to speak.
I agree that we should have international laws that require nations to reforest in step, or better, with their emmsions, but, which country(s) do you hold accountable for the deforestation of rain forests for palm oil? Do you hold the host nation accountable? Or is it the nations who purchase the palm oil? Is it both and how do you divide the resonsibility? What about countries like Mexico, where foreign companies set up factories and churn out pollution? I think about the Chinese in Africa, extracting oil. They have no accountability right now.
I love trees, more so than wind turbines, but I think we need to plant trees and set up turbines. And don't tell me people can't afford electric cars. Billions are spent on plastic surgery and other non essentials (precious stones, lavish vacations, etc.) all around this globe. The elegant thing would be to stop living as if we are entitled to our luxeries and demand the same from our leaders. If you know how many Americans are obese and suffer from lifestyle related health complications, (like high cholesterol) you know this is a formidable goal. Maybe a global carbon footprint tax should be assessed for all citizens based on their lifestyle choices? The funds collected could pay for trees to be planted and education programs? Look out all you jet setters, factory farmers, and Suburban drivers! Cha-ching!
Support Our Projects
Donations go to Open World Foundation and its projects, i.e. Replanting a Rainforest. For more information visit:
www.openworldfoundation.org
www.replantingarainforest.org
Badge
Photos
Open World Café Rio
by Christer Soderberg Added May 31, 2010 at 10:34pm 1 Comment
Replanting a Rainforest - FAF Lot 2 - Photo Updates
by Christer Soderberg Added March 20, 2010 at 9:05pm
Replanting a Rainforest - FAF Lot 2
by Christer Soderberg Added November 19, 2009 at 1:27pm
Helena's 27+ Party
by Christer Soderberg Added November 10, 2009 at 3:49pm
© 2010 Created by Christer Soderberg.
Powered by 
.
