Remanufactured cartridges: Cartridge World, West End, Brisbane, AU

Sometimes I wish I knew something before I did something... You know, like prices for remanufactured cartridges in Cartridge World before I went there in the rain hoping to save some money.

Well, I paid $65 for remanufactured Brother TN-2150. To compare that with prices on EBay: you can get genuine remanufactured Brother TN-2150 there for $21.95+$9.95 delivery, and genuine new one for $63.20 with free delivery (both sellers have feedback >1800 with 99.8% positive).

New cartridges in Officeworks however cost $113 for one and $199 for twin pack.

So if you are in Brisbane and want to do good but for some reason dislike online purchasing, Cartridge World is for you. For those who are familiar with EBay, buy your cartridges online and choose sellers with positive feedback who operate for a long time and specialise in cartridges.

Sometimes I think that for some products it'd be great to make a notice of a label how much time it requires to make this thing, and how much materials have been used, not in grams/tons, but in something more funny/understandable. Wouldn't it be harder for some people to throw something away if they knew that 4 man-hours had been spent collectively for making that stuff, and that somewhere in it 17 forks/25 tennis balls/two t-shirs are hiding?

Porteous, J 2009, “Guardians of the electric reef.” ECOS 147 February-March, pp. 10-11.

The article tells about the project of coral reef restoration, currently conducted in Pemuteran, Bali (Indonesia). It uses low voltage electrical currents to create a layer of white crystallised limestone substrate on a surface of submerged metal reef structures (Biorock® technology), accelerating the formation and growth of the skeletons of corals and other shell-bearing animals. The structures become rapidly colonised by different coral reef organisms, including fish, crabs, clams, octopus, lobster and sea urchins. Two enthusiastic authors of the project have involved the local community in it, converting locals from poachers to conservationists.

The project shows a practical method of coral reef restoration, applicable in other parts of the world as it requires only sea water and energy. The problems of method which I see are: 

• the constant consumption of electricity by the installations, so the reefs should be close enough to the shore, and preferably energy from renewables should be chosen, 
• the point targeting – you need one cable for one structure, so restoration of massive structures like Great Barrier Reef seems unfeasible.
  

I see the structures more as creation of artificial habitat for marine species, which usually use natural coral reefs as habitat. Isn't it the creation of a kind of submerged zoo? According to the website of the Global Coral Reef Alliance (http://www.globalcoral.org/) once the power is switched off, weeds start to overgrow corals and outcompete them eventually. What if nobody can care anymore? This is unfortunately is not a long-term solution, rather suitable for preserving remained corals before the really long-term way will be found.

However I should admit significant value of the project for the community: Biorock corals attract tourists, and locals have got a source of revenues other than poaching and unsustainable fishing.

The original article is available via ECOS magazine website.

This post is a reprint of the original assignment for ENVM7202 Course, UQ, Semester 1 2009.

Ross, A. “Modern interpretations of sustainable development,” Journal of Law and Society 36, issue 1 (2009): 32-54

Exact meaning of sustainable development remains unclear: different definitions, broad interpretations, but allthey can be divided into 2,5 groups:

Currently states shift towards using SD as a guiding ethics for creation of legal frameworks, from man vs. nature to man as a part of the nature. SD as a material consideration only suggests sustainability as a worthwhile objective, SD as a legal rule provides procedural requirements for achieving sustainability and therefore delivers it. So to achieve sustainability, the principle of SD should be incorporated into legislation as thoroughly as possible, to be not only moral obligation, but be officially required.

I see the problem of applying the concept of SD, even being incorporated into legislation, in the fact that developing countries tend to solve their urgent problems first, and when it's famine, natural disasters, or epidemics, and as far as basic needs of their citizens are not satisfied, sustainability will not be reached (the pyramid of Maslow is invincible). SD is achievable in countries without serious tensions, but if they are there, it's much harder, if not impossible. Hungry people don't care about the environment. Food, water, shelter, then goes environment.

This post is a reprint of the original assignment for ENVM7202 Course, UQ, Semester 1 2009

Lines, W. J. and O'Connor, M. Overloading Australia: how governments and media dither and deny on population. Canterbury, NSW: Envirobook, 2008

Australia is overpopulated (sustainable population is 8-12 million versus current 21 million (July 2008). The reasons are high level of immigration and high level of reproduction (1.6% annual population growth by mid-2008). Despite the warnings of environmentalists and some of government's advisers (e.g. Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut etc.), the government and media continue to support the belief that AU can sustain much more people: more people mean more taxes for the state and more consumers for companies. Property development businesses support politicians and force them to boost “growth-at-all-costs”.

Although the book is written a bit in a spy mania manner, it is very convincing. Everybody want to consume on a rate he/she can afford (somebody consumes even more!). The history of international environmental law tells that developing countries eager to develop despite the possible ecological consequences to increase the quality of life for their citizens (Stockholm – Rio – Johannesburg conferences show the consecutive shift of priorities from conservation to development). I assume that given the strong incentives (penalties + benefits + opportunity of contraception, i.e. cardinal), most people can be persuaded (or forced) to limit their family, especially in urban areas, where they don't need so much working hands. It will be easier than to force them to limit their lifestyle (especially when it's almost nothing to limit – India, Africa etc.).

This post is a reprint of the original assignment for ENVM7202 Course, UQ, Semester 1 2009

Hannon, B. “How might nature value man?” Ecological Economics 25 (1998): 265-279.

The aim of the article is to estimate quantitatively if the humanity is a burden for the Earth by means of calculation of so-called Gross Ecological Product (net outputs of the system multiplied by their ecological prices) with and without the presence of humans in the system of its production. If GEP rises with the presence of humans, then their existence is beneficial, if it falls, they are the burden.

The ecological prices of inputs and outputs are unified by transformation of their physical units into common energy units. According to the article, people can influence the GEP by the following ways:

• change of ecological prices (e.g. increase of vegetation cover decreases EP, reduction of vegetation life increases EP, increase of livestock increases EP (they consume vegetation cover));

• change of dissipation rate (e.g. extraction of minerals increases non-replaced dissipation rate);

• change of the amount and distribution of the metabolic costs (e.g. increase of area for vegetation and livestock increases MC, increase of sunlight consuming by one plant due to fertilizers increases MC), or

• combination of ways above.

The ways of influence on GEP reminded me about the I=PAT formula, where I is population impact, P – population size, A – per-capita affluence (or sometimes consumption), T – environmental damage caused by production of one consumption unit [1]. Reduction of dissipation rate reflects the reduction of technological impact of production, increase of population increases metabolic costs as far as every person depends on the sunlight for his/her growth (vitamin D3 is produced by the organism as a result of UV-exposure and is necessary for bone creation), change of consumption affects ecological prices. However I like the concept of GEP more than calculation of population impact, because the former provides the base for comparison (obviously, not only humans destroy ecosystems, the question is do we encourage the total destruction by being here), although it takes a huge amount of time to obtain the data for computation.

[1] G. C. Daily and P. R. Ehrlich, “Population, sustainability, and Earth's carrying capacity,” BioScience 42, no. 10 (1992), 762.

This post is a reprint of the original assignment for ENVM7202 Course, UQ, Semester 1 2009.

What to write?

Does it make sense to post here the notes about my study? Some courses require writing reflective journals, a kind of notes about what's been read for the particular topic. I could repost them here. Is anybody interested?