As always the best leadership is by example, but do not expect the third world to follow.

I realize that this article is meant to be concerned with matters of design but the article itself is based on assumptions that are questionable at best. Assumerism in action!
We should note from the beginning that fear of "climate change" is misplaced. Climate has always been changing, is changing now, and probably always will be, so the words "climate change" are meaningless. "Global warming" is no better.
The purported four degrees Celsius (note spelling!) of the World Bank is based on nothing but plucking figures out of the air; for sure there is no basis for a "conservative prediction" that this 4°C rise will ever occur. There is no reason to believe their number. More credible sources say that the temperature rise (if any!) is more likely to be closer to 0.3°C. All talk of temperature rise is based on emissions of carbon dioxide gas. There is no scientifically valid reason to believe that CO2 emissions will have any but the most minor (if any) effect on temperature. The world stopped warming 16 years ago and could well be headed into a prolonged period of cooling if decreased solar activity continues.
Other fears are equally fictional; sea level rise, for example, will probably be much the same as in the past couple of centuries, around 8 inches (20 cm) per century.
By all means make a case for better design if you wish, but do not try to tie such a case in with fictional "climate change". These attempts to tie every aspect of life to a mythical "global warming crisis" becomes a laugh after a while.

IanM

Tim, I understand what you and Anthony are saying (and largely agree that we need to evolve to steady state economies and that these don't at all represent the road back to the caves!) but, despite the quote Anthony began with, I think this article is a bit subtler and more nuanced than that.

There's no denying that, so far, de-coupling hasn't been a great success. I suspect Amory Lovins is a bit optimistic, but equally the pessimism of The Conundrum (the kind of 'Jevons paradox alway happens and you can't beat it' argument) is also simplistic.

Maybe the point this article makes is that we haven't really turned the full potential power of design onto the problem. It's naive to get all excited about 'win/win' and glib slogans like that, but really intelligent design can produce some almost-miraculous results.

As someone working at the practical end of the problem, the great challenge I often run into is finding solid whole-of-life comparative impact data when trying to evaluate alternative products or processes. While most of the kinds of practical problems I wrestle with are perfectly soluble with a bit of expert analytical work, that work is often fairly complex, sometimes contentious (check out the books-versus-kindle debate as a great ilustration) and generally beyond the resources or skills of most of us.

But, if we were more able to trust that designers had already wrestled with these problems and built optimal solutions - i.e. minimal material use, last-destructive manufacturing processes, highest percentage of recycled materials possible used, maximum rechclability at end of life, those kinds of issues - it would make life a whole lot better, easier and more sustainable for all of us.

Felix - fair enough, what you say. It's just that I reckon that the urgency of the situation is so far greater than this article allows. The idea that good design builds in ecological values is excellent and you are correct to emphasise the way that this allows consumers of goods and services to not have to struggle with the eco-economics. However, realistically, do you think we have that much time available for such things to flow through?

Anthony - not really, but then again, I doubt we'll be able to stop the juggernaut in time so anything that reduces damage is probably still worth pursuing. Then again, I have to concede, there is always the danger of 'premature closure' - i.e. thinking that because you've bought 'green' products (which is worth doing) that you've actually fixed the problem (which you obviously haven't) - it's the reason I'm no fan of Earth Hour as I think it reduces the valency of the motivation to act, through an illusion of action, without really achieving anything. So I have to agree it's far from being clear.

Maybe the right view is to presume that we will simply have to move to a far lower impact, essentially 'steady state' economy one way or another, but that any genuine design improvements that we can achieve now are likely to stand us in good stead in both the transition and the final new economy.

Every reasonable person would prefer to purchase durable and functional products built with designs that emphasize long life, easy repair, modifiability for evolving technologies in the future, minimal life-cycle use of energy and materials and full recyclability. The main reason we don't see this in most products is the perverse motivational structure of capitalist economies, not a lack of thoughtful design. Merchants and manufacturers worship at the altars of planned obsolescence, manufactured demand, impulse purchasing and conspicuous consumption while giving token lip service to consumer value and low environmental impact.

The $64,000 question is how to convert the present set of perverse and dysfunctional incentives to ones that more accurately meet the real needs of society and minimizing the environmental impacts. How can industry realign it's priorities to best harmonize with these goals without damaging profitability, the quest for which is the dominant driver of the current system?

If you could buy one cell phone or laptop and just install upgrades as technology evolves, consumers and the planet would benefit but whole industries would collapse. We need to develop and road- test a new paradigm, but doing so without causing massive economic hardship will not be easy. Our whole culture revolves around wasteful unnecessary consumption and changing it will be the work of a generation. We should be working out the details of a post capitalist economy that preserves as much as possible the incentive structures of the work ethic and the profit motive while eliminating the irrational flaws and weaknesses these have led to.

Oh, dear. The old "no warming since [insert cherry-picked date here]" chestnut gets another airing. Those interested in the facts should look at http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html

You really should stop reading denial sites. The UK Met Office never said anything of the sort, in fact it had to come out and correct the record on what they had and hadn't said.

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

Mark, no one is denying any of this, they're just denying that it actually has any real meaning.

Dianna, I am wondering (this is not a rhetorical question) whether, in the long term, it is better to keep plugging away with my 1997 Pajero and continue to maintain or buy a new Mazda3 and change it every 5 -7 years. Which alternative is the best from an environmental perspective?

Climate Change.

It woz women who dunnit!

Burn the witches - oops maybe not, releasing all that CO2.

Hang the witches!

To limit the production of products designed to fail would, of course, require definitions and standards and, even regulations. All of which is the antithesis of increased profit.

But not impossible.

Apologies for my shorthand.

It is esy to come up with a definition that will suffice in a cafe conversation. The challenge is to define the problem in a way that allows a good chance of prosecuting people who can afford the best of defence lawyers.

If something, such as a computer, is being produced for a market that is changing rapidly through rapid development of the science and technology behind its production and use, does it make sense to design it to last 20 years (and so require more resource input)?

It doesn't actually help to point out that much advancement in consumer-market computers is driven by online games and pornography. Attempts to ban those have been fruitless or even counter-productive and they will continue to drive change.

It is not that we are powerless against design for obsolescence, but simple bans are not likely to be of any use at all.

Some good suggestions, Chris. But not all have access to a power-point for their Prius and there remains the issue of where we source our electricity - at present primarily coal.

Interim measures include a variety of actions we can take. However, this remains difficult to implement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/nudging-people-sustainability-local-choices

Peter, I forgot one of our cars -- my 1st, which is on the road again with new seat cushions, etc. -- 1961 Austin Healey Sprite.

It's saved enough fuel in its 51 years of use to run one of our old Jags for a decade. Of course each of those Jags represents storage of about 5000lbs of iron & aluminum fabrication energy.
;]
It, like the VW, illustrates the regimen that car companies used to apply before computer-aided design tools -- use standard parts for different models.

The Sprite's BMC A series engine was the sued later for the Mini, had been used earlier for the Morris Minor, taxis, etc. The rear axle & brakes were used across manufacturers & models as well. The Brits & Euro folks had to make small, efficient, easily-maintained cars to offset the high fuel taxation. Nowadays each manufacturer and each model differs in even the most basic parts -- try to replace a headlamp for $2 today.
;]
Oh, and our Sprite is now worth 5x what it cost (if we paint it)!

Ian

"... The oceans ae ALKALINE ... "
Yep, good spot. However as Alex pointed out, the pH is dropping. Still alkaline but less so. Moving in the direction towards acid, even though it won't get there. So what term would you use to describe a process that is moving pH lower, towards a less alkaline state even if not actually reaching acidic? Perhaps dealkalinisation (or de-alkalinisation) perhaps?

A bit of a search in dictionaries throws up that acidification and alkalinisation are both defind as to render something acid or alkali. And any de- form is simply the opposite ofthat. There actually is no single word in the English language to describe the process/act of changing the pH of something in one direction or another but without changing it enough to cross the Acid/Alkali boundary (7.0)

So if I were to lower the pH of something from 8.5 to 8.4 then in aliteral sense I am not acidifying it because it isnot becoming acid. I am notreally de-alkalinising it because it is already alkali and remains that wy.

There is no English word to describe this. So what name is appropriate to describe a process that lowers the pH of the ocean, moving it in the acid direction, but doesn't actually take it over the threshold?

'Ocean mumblemumblemumble'?

Then again one could go with the common usage in English of constructing new words, or giving existing words new meanings when no existing word fits adequately. In which case the likely newmeaning one would apply would probably be...

... Ocean Acidification.

Then again we could consider...

...

Well then again we could consider the whole process an absurd exercise in pedantry and linguistic hair-splitting, An exercise that can only cause it's practioner to look foolish for their rather petty need to big-note themselves.

Ian

" the oceans would warm.....they aren't, actually....."

TOTALLY INCORRECT.

The oceans are warming just as much as ever. If you want to claim otherwise, you need to put up some evidence for that. And just a littlehint Ian. Citing just the data for 0-700 meters isn't 'the oceans'.

If you aren't using the data for 0-2000 meters, you aren't looking at the oceans.

O don't see Ian's original comment anymore, but he and other deniers have quibbled over terms like acidification before, despite their quibbling neing irrelevant,

pH is indeed the key. So if we say coffe "sweeteners" sweeten coffe, and if we only puit 1 pack in so the coffee isn't yet "sweet", is the seqeetener not a seetener?

The point is that the pH of seawater controls extraction by living organisms of the Caron they can use for theiur structures. Whne the pH flaas below about 8.0, there';s trouble. It's ow 8.1, it was 8.2 ~100 years ago. It is lowest in the N. Atlantic, and Nordic fisheries are already experiencing problems -- Ian can argue with them, if he has the nerve.
www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/md/dok/regpubl/stmeld/2008-2009/stmeld-nr-37-2008-2009-/6.html?id=560227
http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/p/global-extinction-within-one-human.html.

Anyone can Google ocean acidification, or read the scientific literature, if they have access. pH values on average are lowest they've been in ~300,000,000 years. Changes we've made in a few decades can't be followed by many life forms evolved for pre-industrial conditions.

Here, let's give Ian yet another try at reading some facts, eh?

http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#seaIce

And maybe someone can give Ian a little help in physical chemistry, so he can grasp how sea rise is partly due to warming water?

Don't fret Alex.Ian may have gone away but not to worry. An other day, another post.Ian will be back like the Everready Man, and just as repetitive.

Glenn, you are right on the mark when you say "there is no ethical way we can get population down fast enough for that to make much of a contribution to solving humanities converging crises any time in the next 50 years". It is the convergence of multiple crises which is likely to overwhelm our society and wreck what we in the developed West call 'civilisation'.

The question, then, is: does our civilisation deserve to survive?

So, if I said that murder was bad but then murdered somebody, would that mean that murder was now okay?

That's pretty much the way your 'reasoning' works.

Just because the World Bank is acting hypocritically, doesn't make the science wrong - it just makes the World Bank inconsistent, which is hardly a surprise.

What was, perhaps, interesting was that even they were forced to acknowledge the science.