posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:28 AM
Carbon footprint, green movement, environmentalism, etc are all derivatives orbiting around the simple truth: a species that doesn't live in balance
with its environment is nonviable and at best
will drive only itself into extinction.
How many trees do we have to plant to overturn the toxicity and mass loss of biodiversity that occurred from the Fukushima disaster? There is no such
number, and the question is meant to reveal the fallacy of looking at improving our civilization through abstract terms like "carbon footprint",
because doing so doesn't call into question every aspect of our unsustainable culture. And we should question all of it.
It's as simple as this imo...most species on this planet have found a way to occupy an energetic and material niche. Their waste is someone else's
food and their very presence increases biodiversity and complexity of life. The energy that flows through their body and the materials that make up
it's life cycles are, for the most part, kept local and renewable.
Permaculture is the only thing I've come across that not only explains reality this way but shows us how to actually address the question of how we
change our methods of living to systems that are sustainable and cyclical. It's aim is to create design systems that mimic nature and to do this it
shows how to make multiple connections locally between living beings with a focus on each species' intrinsic qualities
. The more connections you can make locally between living beings with respect to those three categories the more secure and
sustainable the whole system is for all of its inhabitants.
A person who plants twice as many trees as is required to offset his/her carbon footprint will most likely still be turning on a light that is powered
by a non-local, unsustainable and toxic energy system. The current lexicon is misleading and this very same person will go to bed thinking they're
helping fix the world.
edit on 29-6-2015 by SlickMcFavorite because: (no reason given)