What do you think we should be doing to save the Arctic?

Posted by bex - 13 February 2012 at 10:46am - Comments

Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man recreated on Arctic sea ice by John Quigley

As I write, major oil companies like Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron are planning their moves into the Arctic to exploit its vast mineral resources. The five Arctic states are beginning the process of carving up the high north. Meanwhile, the ice keeps melting – we’ve now lost 75 per cent of Arctic sea ice in just 30 years. The global battle to protect the Arctic - from oil exploration, from industrialisation and from climate change – needs to be ambitious, bold and successful. So we’re asking you: what do you think we should we be doing to save the Arctic?

Last year, you helped to make sure that Cairn’s oil spill response plan was published – and exposed as deeply flawed. You challenged VW’s stance on climate change laws, dividing the car industry around this critical issue. You pushed to get the Arctic onto the UK’s political agenda by asking David Cameron what his plans were to protect the Arctic.

All of this has brought us a step closer to saving the Arctic. But as the high north grows more vulnerable to industrialisation, as the ice melts, as the oil companies move in and the geopolitical battles over its resources heat up, we need to step up our efforts to protect it – and quickly.

In the coming months and years we need to campaign boldly - and successfully - to save the Arctic. This is going to need a lot of help from you. So we want to know:

What do you think we should be doing to save the Arctic?

Comment on our blog, share your ideas on Facebook or Tweet with the hashtag #SaveTheArctic.

If you’re in need of inspiration, have a look at our Antarctica campaign, which eventually resulted in the signing of The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and the establishment of 'World Park Antarctica'.

Update: Scroll down to the bottom of the comments and click on the last page to view the latest comments.

Article tagged as: antartica, arctic, arctic drilling, climate change, climate impacts, take action

Comments Commenting is now closed

HAA! sorry about the spelling.

By patricia m - 16 February 2012 at 12:12am

I think its time to take different approach, everyone has heard so much about saving the arctic, polar bears etc. Its time to wake up the people that this has not affected or simply just dont care. A campaign called Save the humans or a certain city for example, make people understand that the more we loose the arctic the higher the seas become, we will eventually start to loose our homes too. This may attract the attention of people we have missed before.

By paul kearsley - 16 February 2012 at 12:41am

1 person agrees

We need to put pressure on the oil majors like Shell to stop them from getting permits to explore. Shell is the first major oil ompany to request drilling permits so, let's expose Shell publicly and start a public campaign to stop buying Shell petrol and products. If we can hurt them financially it will discourage others from going down the same path.

By Angelo Indovino - 16 February 2012 at 10:56am

I think we all need to be acting quickly and precisely and start off by doing what you did for the Antarctic but also targeting the oil companies directly now before they set up because rhen they will be harder to shift. I was part of an international environmental group resonsible from shifting an oil company from a section of the Amazon rainforest at Tambopata.

Governments also need to be on board as for the Canadian oil fields campaign but we need to hit harder even than that with hard hitting publicity which might decrease their share prices then they might take notice for starters. Wish I could be more constructive.

Ruth

By Ruth Irvine - 16 February 2012 at 4:29pm

We need to target not only politicians and big business but also communities as a whole - we don't need to stop using oil and minerals completely (that would be impossible) but much more carefully and responsibly. So a concerted and long-term effort to reduce the need for new resources in populations as a whole and at the same time recycle old ones more efficiently is required.

We also need to develop alternate power sources, especially solar, wind and geothermal. There are many unemployed people around at the moment who could be gainfully employed installing and maintaining solar panels etc, paid for by higher taxes on the oil and mineral companies.

But remember that we don't just use oil in cars - there are many other uses for it (fertilisers, lubricants etc) which we would still require the oil so stopping oil production completely is not feasible.

By Paul A - 16 February 2012 at 5:04pm

We need tp pursuade some one with influence, like Prince Charles, to get involved.

By Lesley Bowen - 16 February 2012 at 5:46pm

So what we're after is total lifestyle change for Western Nations.

Alternative development routes for Developing Nations.

International cooperation.

Stepping away from political models based on economics.

Total alteration of the global economic model, removing the driver to keep earning more (people, companies, corporations).

How we do that?

Don't know.

It needs to be all over the global media. Support from news companies, mainstream acceptance and air time, documentaries, discussion forums, lead stories in the press, mentioned in comedy, soaps - basically, acceptance and air time acorss the whole of the mainstream information feed.

Stopping the protrayal of sceptics and deniers as being on an equal footing as rigorous science.

All sorts of things.

How do we get there?

Build up pressure.

Convert the public image of campaigning as being done by a minority of extremists.

Combat apathy. Encourage engagement and action.

There are many things to do. How do we do them?

It will take energy, effort and comitment.

Start talking about it.

I met someone the other day who "doesn't believe in climate change". It's not like a ghost. It's not like Santa Claus. This thing's real.

By Sorry to be down on it - 16 February 2012 at 7:27pm

I think you should stress the loss of habitat (polar ice) for polar bears and their possible

extinction, because unfortunately people react more to the suffering of animals than to the loss of a way of life for the native peoples of the North.

By david berofe - 16 February 2012 at 7:47pm

It is a long term solution, the indigenous peoples of the world need to be supported and empowered to use their voices. Letters of support could be sent to see how Greenpeace could best help. What are their views? There are Arctic groups that Greenpeace could work alongside. Perhaps they already do so maybe this sort of activitiy could be increased.

It is not just up to the government of these countries/and greedy multinationals to have their say and way. Bare faced cheek! Indigenous people also need to be on the councils, in the seminars etc helping steer decisions.

Some indigenous Arctic people are represented and recognised by the UN - for example the Saami of Northern Sweden are on the Arctic Council. However, many smaller indigenous tribes in Russia and Norway are not officially recognised by the UN (there are some groups around the Barents Sea). It is a form of racial discrimination that they are not represented.

The UN Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination works to ensure effective participation in decisions that affect them and the regulation of resource development. And so liaison/communication with the UN may also be a way forward. My point is that these are shared issues and cooperation amongst groups will strengthen the cause.

Oil and gas surely partly belong the indigenous tribes of the Arctic. It is their guardianship and ancestry that has helped preserve these resources so they are available now. It is their food supply, their health, their livelihoods, their culture, their traditions etc that will be affected by oil exploration.

The big companies will eventually pull out because apparently it won't be that easy a task to get the oil, it will be too expensive or some great catastrophe (BP) may happen again. Incidentally, there are not the resources in the area to 'mop up' if such a thing was to happen. Undoubtedly, these people are the ones who are going to be left to pick up the pieces after. We need to support and encourage them to have a voice and support their participation now.

Interestingly, I have read today that Renee Zellweger is of Saami descent. Maybe some support from famous people such as her will help get more public support. I know Steven Seagal is also a supporter of these sorts of issues too - can't remember the name of the film but it was based in Alaska and the oil drilling industry.

By julie1542 - 16 February 2012 at 9:28pm

Everything said so far is relevant but has one big drawback. Everyone has seen Greenpeace do this or a version of this before. It might have succeeded on certain key issues, and there have been some amazing successes. But this issue is bigger than anything we have faced before. It is integral to the future survival of the globe with us on it. It cannot be allowed to go ahead.

So, when there is an all embracing black/white issue facing everyone whether they like it or not, the answer is to put it in front of everyone. This means directly bringing other organisations on side. All those already working for health, survival or fair trade. Chief amongst these are Rotarians.They are business groups located in almost every part of the world and are very influential. If Greenpeace could get the leadership on side (currently working with the odd £200m to rid the world of polio) it would bring on more mainstream organisations to call for an international moratorium on the Arctic, enforced by the United Nations.

By David Pollard - 17 February 2012 at 12:38pm

More pressure on governments and publicity to the people to get across the fact that all the more extreme methods of extracting oil and gas (eg deep sea drilling, arctic drilling, shale extraction, fracking) are not a solution to our energy problems, they only delay the time when oil and gas become too expensive to make commercial sense. Appeals to big business will not work - they are only looking at the bottom line; we need to change people's perceptions about what is valuable on this planet.

By cardiff_martian - 17 February 2012 at 1:17pm

STOP ALL MANKIND RUINING THIS WONDERFUL SPACE.

By MICHAEL CARPENTER - 17 February 2012 at 2:46pm

Greenpeace should declare the Artic to be a new country and get people to become 'citizens' of this country, and make a really idealistic constitution and stuff, and a flag and an anthem and everything else any other nation would have. This would be a really great campaign! =) <3

By TukTuk - 17 February 2012 at 5:53pm

I agree totally with Chris A.. The change has to come from us, from small things. I know so many people who do things like going out and leaving lights/central heating/TV on, boiling the kettle for one cup of tea... the list could be endless. I try to be extremely careful about all these things and have taught my kids to do the same but at times we are made to feel like we're weird and I have to keep reminding myself that it is the right thing to do because big changes come from small changes. Being less dependent on fossil fuels would be a great step forward. But at the bottom of it all is greed and greed is a very powerful force. We take for granted what we have, our Earth, and we abuse our resources without a second though. Our sense of responsibility seems to have disappeared. As usual, until something major happens people live in denial. (and even when presented with the obvious signs of global warming some people still manage to deny it is happening). this is all so saddening but at the same time it is also reassuring there are so many like-minded people who want to do something about it...

By Federica - 17 February 2012 at 9:09pm

How about if companies and governments make hydrogen cell powered vehicles and hydrogen pumps in garages available to the masses, at a price comparable to cars at present, therefore reducing the reliance on oil and the need to continually explore for new sources

By pondy - 17 February 2012 at 9:27pm

we should be doing as much as possible to prevent the arctic from being raped by oil companies as it is one of our last true wilderness places on the planet, and also a region being perturbed by these actions will never recover, to add to the current problems, im glad greenpeace is there as a real voice to stop this , as normal people feel almost helpless against these greedy subhumans

By mr m a gibson - 18 February 2012 at 12:35am

three things

1 it is corporations, with only one duty - to maximise profit - who are responsible. There needs to be a law change that forces upon them other goals.

2 it is demand which makes them go to the arctic. So Greenpeace must tackle this demand. Plenty of ideas in other posts.

3 I second what others have said a) this is a BIG defining issue and b) surely, with what is at stake, we can mobilise sufficient groundswell to change the debate? See the Occupy movement, who together with UK Uncut, have changed the debate around tax evasion and executive pay and bonusses, and corporate greed in a couple of years. They have struck a chord. Focus, in thuis case on what we stand to lose. Starting with wonderful wildlife, but ending with our own survival.

By Daniel W - 18 February 2012 at 12:41pm

Every single politician in the world needs to be behind this. They need to get together with Greenpeace and other global charities whose aim it is to save the planet and have discussions about what they are going to do. Then they need to take action together, as a team, immediately.

By Jo Dunne - 18 February 2012 at 4:52pm

On an individual level, publicise ways people can do there own bit to help.

On a national level, lobby the government to do as much as possible to get the country off fossil fuels and using renewables for all our fuel needs, and that includes pushing for electric or even compressed air-driven cars.

Maybe working with Good Energy and green car companies like Motor Development International along these lines could be helpful?

Also suggest pooling resources with as many like-minded groups as possible to create some kind of coalition to drive this forward.

Oh, and staying positive and believing it can happen always helps too.

All the best,

Cris

By Cris Ramis - 18 February 2012 at 8:02pm

There should be no further development in the arctic in the foreseeable future until we can ensure that no adverse effects will happen.

By Lisbet - 19 February 2012 at 9:32am

To be honest, I reckon the only way we're going to save something as important as the Arctic (or the Antarctic for that matter) is to fight for it in an international effort. Sadly it seems only money talks in this world and unless we're willing to put our bodies on the line, profit-driven business will see plenty of "possibilities and oportunities" in this, as yet, undepleted part of the planet. We must act collectively and in solidarity with all actions, no matter how radical.

By Anonymodecus - 19 February 2012 at 7:25pm

We could do the following things:

-put pressure on administration that poople do care. Let's get as many letters signed as possible how we feel about the dissapering Artic situation, or $700 bilion dollars paid to the banks as a bailout when the financial crisis happened, but what about the environment? once the Artic is gone is gone we can not produce a new one.God knows what the consequencies gonna be-this should be the main line.

-Scientist and Greenpeace should contact big TV channels such as BBC to inform the public about the current situation and ask the governments and World leaders what they will do about it

-do a follow up-after certain time check what have been done, question again

By Norbert79 - 19 February 2012 at 10:56pm

We need to talk with the Inuits and all indigenous peoples of the Arctic. They are most directly affected by any developments in the Arctic.

By Sue Harris - 19 February 2012 at 11:01pm

They are bigger than you, have more angles of attack and care not for your safety; Its a nice thought that you can organise the worlds largest national park - i'm not sure how the rangers are going to stop anything other than flak.

By Peter Riley - 20 February 2012 at 11:58am

Can't we create a World Park Arctic? If the Antarctic can be saved then so can the Arctic! Tell the politicians to do the right thing.

By dotdean - 20 February 2012 at 4:11pm

1 Keep protesting about global warming to stop further ice melting.

2 Declare an Arctic Wildlife Reserve for all sea areas north of the Arctic circle (or 70 degrees North).

3 Get help. Work with other environmental groups; together you are much more powerful. Share the work. Aim for 50 or 100 million supporters. Surround (Occupy) the parliaments of all countries in the northern hemisphere.

4 Get to the conscience of people within the big oil companies and governments.

5 Get the support of all nations whose coastlines and communities are currently being innundated by rising sea level.

6 Suggest alternative energy strategies to Arctic oil.

7 Get media attention.

8 Get organised.

9 Get on with it!

By Norman Pasley - 20 February 2012 at 6:23pm

We must be drastics, I think we have to make a huge walk near the U.N. base so they can understand our message, we must protest on the entire globe about the actual state of the Artic, we can ask governments to put limits on the entire Artic Circle to keep it safe... We can stand against everyone if we focus on this problem, invite every activist in the world to be loud and protest!!!

By Michelangelo Grieco - 20 February 2012 at 9:20pm

The Artic must be protected along with the rain forests and oceans. The acid produced from carbon fuel is a serious threat and we should be putting all our effort into alternative sources of energy.

By Robert Savery - 20 February 2012 at 11:23pm

I agree with the previous contributor who suggests making it a world park.I also think it would be good to go into schools and educate children about what we are losing ...its their future after all...and possibly some tv advertising I know it's mega expensive but there ara a lot of people out there who get most of their information from the box

welsh woman

By welsh woman - 21 February 2012 at 11:56am

Why are Greenpeace so afraid to even DISCUSS human overpopulation.

What is the use of guys hanging onto actic drilling rigs by their fingernails when they are AFRAID to talk about overpopulation?

Big, brave Greenpeace eh!

By Anonymous487 - 21 February 2012 at 7:43pm

A previous contributor commented that Greenpeace was the problem, not the solution.

I could not have put it any better than that.

By Anonymous487 - 21 February 2012 at 7:47pm

It is obvious that the world has to begin to reduce our use of fossil fuels, and it seems the only way that is going to happen is to "let them" become scarce so that we will scramble for alternatives [i.e. renewable energy].

Oil will not become scarce for many decades if we allow more exploration. Our best hope now is to not allow, by whatever means possible, new oil wells. Besides, all the new wells are in places that entail greater risks such as offshore, and especially in the Arctic ocean where a BP type spill could leak for months in winter when such leaks might be impossible to deal with due to ice cover.

It is a bluntheaded way "to let the oil run out", but this is a capitalist world and capitalists operate in blunt ways. Only when the price is outrageous and there are shortages, THEN we will embrace more responsible energy sources.

The Elites who control the world now are blinded by their greed to the point where we, the 99%, will have to SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES. It might be "willfull blindness" on their part, but it seems they really believe their fantasies such as AGW denial. You see, if global warming is real, they all their wealth is "ill gotten gains" and their egos won't allow that to be true. In saving the 1% from their neurosis, we, the 99%, save ourselves and the ecosystems of planet earth.

By Karlin Klavin - 22 February 2012 at 5:29am

If all legal challenges fail and Shell starts drilling make sure there are cams everywhere, so in case of any incident there are pictures. Let the whole Planet observe this operation. Everyone with a website should put a life video feed on his page. Document every move and try to interview all workers and contractors at least once per week. Ask what they are exactly doing, how they feel, what car they are driving and whether they consider their job as risky. Install underwater mics and cams and show how fishes and whales react to the drilling sound. Check every thing floating on the water whether it was thrown away. Follow the mud stream and detect leaks. Once Shell finds oil follow the chain and tag all products made of and/or publish them in the net.

The Arctic has only oil for three years of global consumption, it not worth to destroy this habitat for plastic bags.

By arcticio - 22 February 2012 at 1:18pm

What can we do.?!!
First of all, we ourselves should decrease our part in the polution en global warming.
For example. By leaving our car at home and using public transport if its possible. We should not travel by plane for holidays. Eat more bio-products. Do not vote on politicians that do not support clear ecologic policy. In our shopping behaviour we should be more alert en knowing what we are buying and what these product cost. Not in money but in waste.
In fact, the point is that all off us must sacrify comforts of the modern live and exchange that for the benefit of the living earth.
We must change our behavior to change our so called leaders, to change our world, to save the artic.

greatings John Nellen
excuses for my bad english

By John Nellen - 23 February 2012 at 2:53pm

Maybe change how people respond to their environment on a basic level initially through community spirit and co-operation. Small ideas can grow big. Establish pilot schemes in town/city centres to grow vegetables/herbs in all the unused gardens of which there ARE many. To reduce carbon footprint ( reducing amount of oil consumption ), improve environment ( aid the earths atmosphere ), encourage community self sufficiency (would be cohesive for neighbours - improving relationships and reducing isolation ) through interaction....swapping of veg. Any left over could then be sold to public/local cafes/independent restaurants etc. Such a scheme at grass roots level could work.

By heva - 24 February 2012 at 5:13pm

first of all, thank you for doing all this! you have got a power, because you have been around for so long time now, have got the passion, heart, commonn sense ;and importaingly you have got a lot of us - wild life supporters!i feel terrible being aware of all this and have got nothing much as one person to fight against it! this must be stopped! what's the matter with all the huge companies, who don't think of anything else than just their profit!!! but they forgot that they don't own the arctic seas, it belongs to all of us....and to all marine life and whales and seals and thurtles and shrims....etc etc! why antarctida cannot be fully protected? let it be just on it's own without us people making a mess there???? one large national park, where nature can have time to recover and will together save the sweet innocent polar bears - maybe! i thinks only this can help!

By Karin08viva - 26 February 2012 at 7:29pm

I SOO agree with greenmon above that social media and connecting with young people is crucial! But honestly, there are many people -including myself- who in their daily lives forget or tend to forget the issues we are faccing. And it's not because they/we don't care obviously!! But because it's hard enough being a human being...so we need to have up in our faces every single day that something needs to be done! To be reminded about the connections of our consumation and pollution and how our wellfare in the Western society is because other people are suffering/not having enough money, food etc in other parts of the world. It's obviously all connected.

AND I do believe all the minor and major revolutions we already see in the world are starting points... I believe it's only the beginning of what we will see and what will come!

And as some other mentioned putting pressure on goverments is one of the solutions.

By Pleplo - 27 February 2012 at 8:12pm

By Andrew Youd - 28 February 2012 at 2:21pm

This is amazing I am on a GREENPEACE site participating in a discussion about saving the Arctic, and how BIG OIL is to blame, and in the top right hand corner of the screen I am being offered a car-sticker. HELLO is there anyone there? Car sticker. I don't have a car. Why not? Because BIG-OIL is only going into Africa and the Arctic and screwing everywhere over to put petrol in your tanks.

Surreal. Do you get it?

By Andrew Youd - 28 February 2012 at 2:27pm

I agree that the wider public will be motivated far more by high
profile celebrities than by the tragic facts of the campaign. It was
good to have Lucy Lawless on board as it meant the story was spread.

I know there's already a lot of dumbing down in outreach, but things
like animations really work. (I saw a whole year of grumpy, resentful
sixth-formers transformed and engaged by the brilliant Barbie/Ken vid).

By xini - 28 February 2012 at 10:34pm

We dont actually need this resource for transportation... the fact that it has been exploited along with with the people, keeping the masses misinformed as to better more sustainable ways is actually just disgusting.. and now the global machine runs hard consuming massively... the time to change our ways is right now. All of this destruction and pollution is not worth temporary gain... i wish more people would wake up to this reality....WE HAVE THE POWER IN WHAT WE CHOOSE TO CONSUME.. i refuse to drive or fly untill we have implemented better trasportation technology.... i am clompletely locally based and ride a mountain bike everywhere, dont buy anything trasported more than 20 miles... i believe more people need to do this... boycott these corporations and inform the masses, localize your living untill they have implemented sustainable technology... this subject is worth laying ones life down, changing ones ways so masively, Become selfless.

By Dallon Vose - 3 March 2012 at 12:45am

i strongly agree with this statement but i eat shit

By james o'shaunessy - 9 March 2012 at 11:45am

Le rechauffement climatique est principalement du à la pollution de la litosphére et de la stratosphére engendrée par l'activité illicite humaine. Il y a un demi siécle environ que ce phenoméne s'est déclaré. Les conséquences sont evidentes dans ces evenements qui se manifestent au niveau de l'Arctique. Sauvez l'Arctique necessiterait un effort colossal de la part de les pays du monde.Mais alors ces derniers sont devenus dépendant et ont perdu leur identité soit qu'ils fuient toute responsabilité concernant ce probléme. Les autres , soit les ONG et publiques communiquent dans la confusion et le desespoir à cause des obstacles et des crises sociales qu'il subissent .

Reste donc un espoir , un dernier espoir : juin 2012 rio de janero

By oucible - 11 March 2012 at 6:30pm

Translation of the last french comment

Global Warming is mainly due to pollution of the lithosphere and the stratosphere caused by human activity illegal. There are about half a century that this phenomenon is reported. The consequences are obvious in these events that occur in the Arctic. Save the Arctic would necessitate a massive effort on the part of the country's world.But then they have become addicted and have lost their identity they are fleeing all responsibility for this problem. The remaining NGOs and communicate in public confusion and despair because of the obstacles and social crises that face.

Remains a hope, a last hope: June 2012 Rio de JANERO

Annuler les modifications

By oucible - 11 March 2012 at 6:36pm

The main problem - as with anything else - is people. We are the consumers - the exploiters - the propogaters - the weak link in the chain of life. Lose about 6 billion human beings and things just might be ok - for a while - but then given our human nature - it wouldn't be long before we would just just begin the whole destructive cycle all over again - - -

By Gene Sengstake - 12 March 2012 at 7:14am

I'm glad that I've found this www.greenpeace.org.uk web site. I'm so surprised by your way of thinking and writing. Have you thought about writing a book?

By Gas - 13 March 2012 at 5:12pm

It is about adding the scientific term of ECOSON with an explanation to global wikipedia. Would you recommend some literature ?

Thank you : Erik

Vorschlag den Begriff des ECOSON global in Wiklipedia zu erlaeutern

Ueber den zeitlosen Wert des Energiesparens sowie den Schutz von Ressourcen

Wissen Sie, was ein ECOSON ist ? Mir war das bis vor kurzem vollkommen
unklar. Sie muessen etwas lesen, bevor der Sachverhalt vollstaendig
erfasst werden kann. Es gibt einige Themen, die haben die Gemueter der
Menschen schon vor Hunderten von Jahren bewegt. Man kann davon
auszugehen, dass die Frage nach Moeglichkeiten Energie zu sparen auch in
der Zukunft ein wichtiges Thema sein wird. Dies ergibt sich aus einem
menschlichen Grundbeduerfnis nach Waerme. In alten Zeiten haben wir zum
Beispiel Holz fuer ein Lagerfeuer zum Heizen verwendet, aufgrund der
Erneuerbarkeit gerade dieser Ressource kommt Holz auch in einer weit
entfernten Zukunft noch als Brennstoff in Betracht. Bereits jetzt wissen
wir, dass unser Uran sich in 20 bis 30 Jahren erschoepfen wird, ein
vollstaendiger Abbau ist auch fuer Kohle, Mineraloel, Gas, alle nicht
erneuerbaren Ressourcen zu kalkulieren. Die Schaffung eines nachhaltigen
natuerlichen Gleichgewichts ist immer noch eine der schwierigsten
Aufgaben unser Kultur aus Verbrauchern. Viele unserer Gewohnheiten uns
mit Ausstattungsgegenstaenden des taeglichen Bedarfs zu versorgen
schaedigen unsere Umwelt irreversibel. Ein Bewusstsein fuer die
Lebensweise unserer Vorfahren haben wir nicht mehr, nahezu niemand ist
heute noch in der Lage, im Einklang mit der Natur den Winter zu
ueberleben. Selbstverstaendlich erwartet keiner eine sofortige
Rueckbesinnung auf Verhaltensweisen und Heizgewohnheiten der Antike. Die
Frage der optimalen Verringerung unseres Energieverbrauches zum Schutz
unserer Nachfahren jedoch ist derzeit eine der wesentlichsten Fragen
unserer Politik. Aus den sich vollstaendig erschoepfenden Reserven
vieler Laender ergibt sich bereits jetzt die Notwendigkeit unter dem
Gesichtspunkt des Rassenerhalts unsere Verbrauchsgewohnheiten
anzupassen. Die wesentliche Frage nach Moeglichkeiten unseren Bedarf an
Energie zu reduzieren ist eine Frage der Intelligenz und eine der
Flexibilitaet. Wie kann man seinen Bedarf an Energie bis auf Null
reduzieren ? Frueher ging dies doch auch, und in anderen Laendern
benoetigen die Menschen ebenfalls keinen Strom, sie haben aufgrund der
Waerme des Klimas teilweise nicht einmal Haeuser, dementsprechend hat
man dort zum Beispiel keinen Kuehlschrank und nahezu ueberhaupt keinen
Energieverbraucher. Bestimmt waere ein in der Schule durchgefuehrter
Vergleich bezueglich des allgemeinen Aufwandes unserer Lebensfuehrung
sinnvoll. In anderen Laendern wurde der Vergleichswert ECOSON
eingefuehrt. Diese Bezugsroesse misst den wesentlichen Einfluss einer
Person auf unsere Ressourcen. Wie tief ist das Loch um Erz fuer
Metallgegenstaende zu gewinnen, die der Mensch im Laufe seines Lebens
verbraucht ? Wieviele Baeume werden abgeholzt um den Holzverbrauch fuer
Moebel und anderes zu befriedigen ? Wieviel Uran, Kohle, Oel, Gas und
andere Stoffe werden gefoerdert und wie konkret sind die sichtbaren
Auswirkungen, dies ist die Frage nach der Tiefe und dem Durchmesser des
Loches. Sind diese sichtbaren Auswirkungen nachhaltig, hinterlassen Sie
gegebenenfalls bleibenden Schaden in der Natur und in welcher Form
koennen wir sicherstellen, dass auch fuer unsere Nachfahren noch genug
bleibt ? Die Verschwendung jeder nicht erneuerbaren Ressource, die
Umformung unserer Erze zu minderwertigem verrostenden und nicht
recyklierbarem Stahl, die Foerderung von Chemikalien, die Ausrottung von
Arten und viele andere Gesichtspunkte sind zur Erfassung und
nachhaltigen Harmonisierung der sichtbaren irreversiblen Auswirkungen
unseres Konsumverhaltens auf die Natur zu pruefen und neu zu
ueberdenken. Unsere Schulen haben die wichtige Aufgabe uns ein
Verbrauchverhalten zu lehren, welches bewusst zur Verringerung
irreversibler Schaeden beitraegt. Konkretes Beispiel ist der
vollstaendige Ersatz von Metallgegenstaenden, welche auch aus Holz
verwendbar sind, dies ist eine sehr lange Liste. Die Klaerung der Frage
unter welchen Voraussetzungen der Betrieb unserer Haeuser, mit Heizung,
elektrischer Energie, Wasser, Gas, Oel und anderem ohne Verbrauch nicht
erneuerbarer Rohstoffe in ein natuerliches Gleichgewicht integriert
werden kann bedarf der Hilfe von Wissenschaftlern und Lehrern, da uns
die Auswirkungen unserer Lebensweise zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt ueberhaupt
nicht bewusst sind. Ein ECOSON verursacht also konkret ein Loch mit
einem Volumen von..., verbraucht ein durchschnittliches Volumen an Holz,
konsumiert eine bestimmte Zahl an Litern von Oel, Gas sowie eine
Kubatur an Erzen, verschmutztem Wasser und so weiter. Wenn ich mein
Verhalten als Verbraucher verbessern moechte, benoetige ich eine solche
Liste, dann kann ich an mir arbeiten. Wie ich in auslaendischer
Literatur gesehen habe, wurde diese wissenschaftliche Groesse ECOSON
bereits erstellt, sie ist nur auf Wikipedia noch nicht eingepflegt.
Koennen Sie mit Quellenverweisen helfen ?

Stand : 13 Maerz 2012

Erik Kaiser

--Erik (Diskussion) 17:08, 13. Mär. 2012 (CET)

By ErikKaiser - 13 March 2012 at 8:29pm

Spread the word around to the president and the house and senate that the money from drilling for oil in the arctic will not be going to American pumps, but will be sold overseas. That should get the public to do an about-face right away. We don't need drilling in the arctic. We need the polar bears, whales, seals, sea birds, walruses, and fish in arctic.

By Piggyface - 16 March 2012 at 6:38pm

I think we should melt all of the Arctic ice, and then take every last drop of oil and every last bit of resource from the arctic and leave it in ruins. We only see it from space whats the point in trying to save it?!?!?!?!?!?

I think your a bunch of sad bastards that don't have anything better to do with their sad little lives.

FUCK THE ARCTIC AND IT'S ANIMALS....... WHO FUCKING CARES ABOUT THIS ISSUE(apart from sad bastards)

By Martin Hunt - 17 March 2012 at 6:51pm

The Arctic should be thought of and handled with the utmost respect. Politicians and companies should realise that they are in privileged positions, and that they should use their power wisely on behalf of the rest of humanity.

By Camilla O - 21 March 2012 at 11:00pm