In the last few decades, sustainability has become a major buzzword. While the term sustainability itself has several different meanings, since the early 1980s the term has been used to describe human sustainability on Earth. The United Nations defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In this way, sustainable development represents some of the most pressing and important matters concerning environmental, economical, and sociopolitical health. With new public interest in sustainability, sustainable development degree programs at institutions for higher learning have become an ever more prominent choice among young students.

Colleges and Universities around the world foster forward thinking minds interested in building a better future for our world and our race. Sustainability as a college study cultivates individuals who are educated on important environmental issues that drastically affect our social and economic lives. Students in these programs are well versed in the issues of global warming, renewable energy, environmental policy, sustainable agriculture, and more. Because of the nature of sustainability as a concept, a thorough understanding of sustainable issues cannot be gained through the study of one single discipline. For this reason, sustainable development degrees combine curriculum from many different fields within both the social sciences and the natural sciences. Students in these programs will complete coursework in economics, political science, engineering, and much more.

A sustainable development program seeks to educate students in all of the necessary fields to create a well-rounded individual versed on multitude of issues in sustainable development and prepared for active service in the industry. Students address the fundamental issue of how to move toward a trajectory of sustainability that will enable future generations to gain further progress in human well-being as well as ecological well-being. In addition to addressing the fundamental concept of sustainable development, students within these programs gain the skills they need to become innovators within the field.

Sustainable development degrees are available at all levels of higher education, existing at a bachelor’s level, master’s level, and as a separate PhD program at some institutions. Columbia University offers an undergraduate major in Sustainable Development that involves coursework in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Earth Science, Engineering, Economics, Politics, Anthropology, and Statistics. This particular program prepares students for careers with professional organizations across public, private, and non-profit sectors as well as graduate programs if desired. Columbia University also offers a PhD program in Sustainable Development through the School of International and Public Affairs. This program provides rigorous studies in sustainable development followed with in-depth research in the area. Students completing this doctoral program are prepared to educate the future generation with the necessary skills and insight to face the most challenging problems of future human welfare.

With sustainability being such a vital topic for our society today and for the generations to come, official sustainability degree programs in our schools for higher learning are a huge step forward. The first step towards creating a better future for ourselves and our planet is generating public discourse on the topic and educating the current generation about the important issues at hand. With vigorous programs dedicated to sustainable development and sustainable development education, great strides can be made to ensure a more promising future.

By-line:
Mariana Ashley is a freelance writer who particularly enjoys writing about online colleges. She loves receiving reader feedback, which can be directed to mariana.ashley031 @gmail.com.

By Rob Plastow

Bees are widely considered an integral part of the world’s ecosystem. They are perhaps the most universally loved insect and are as synonymous with the summer time as clear skies, blossoming flowers and the garden shed.

Their importance is such that a quote attributed to Albert Einstein states the entire existence of humankind relies on bees survival: “If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination… no more men!” This observation makes the fact that bees appear to be dying out all the more worrisome.

Nobody is quite sure exactly why bee populations have begun to plummet but there are a few reasons that could be considered contributory factors. The first is disease from mites and virus infections which have spread quickly throughout bee populations. Changing weather patterns are also an issue. Global warming has made summers wetter than before and contributed to the time of year bees can go searching for food; this has unbalanced bees foraging routines. Loss of habitat could have also encouraged the demise of bees. An example of how the environment is changing to the detriment of insects is highlighted by the fact that flower-rich grasslands in England have declined by 97% over 60 years.

Perhaps the most controversial issue regarding the decline of bees, however, are insecticides, pesticides and their alleged culpability. Recent findings by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) show that neonicotinoid pesticides, used on millions of acres of crops across the country, harm honeybees even at extremely low doses.

Many people are therefore speculating a direct causal link between pesticides and the strange annual recurrence of colony collapse disorder. Every year since the first reporting of this disorder in 2006, large waves of the honeybee population have begun to die with some beekeepers reporting losses of up to 90% of their hives.

Another new and strange phenomenon is the behaviour of bees that have begun to seal off various pollen filled cells in their hive. The bees’ behaviour could perhaps be explained by scientists who found that, upon testing these cells, the sealed areas contained high levels of toxins and pesticides. That bees are sealing themselves off from pollen could suggest their disdain for pesticides and their sentience of something being wrong.

Entombing was first noticed in a scientific paper from 2009 but the topic has been brought back to prominence with the continual drop in bee population and the USDA’s recent findings. This has led to many calling for the ban of certain pesticides to protect the world’s bee population.

The latest report by USDA has lead to many questions about the uses of insecticide in the future but whether this leads to any type of ban is unknown. What these findings mean for the future of bees is also uncertain but one fact is clear. There are currently 250 known species of bumble bee but, at the current rate of decline, this number may soon decrease.

Author Bio

Kieron Casey is a BA (Hons) Journalism graduate writing on behalf of Equanet. He is a green minded vegetarian who blogs on a number of issues including the environment, IT Solutions, education and entertainment.

There’s a lot of waste, a lot of fossil fuels and nowhere near enough renewables. The following year, 2010, saw record temperatures recorded by NOAA, NASA and the MET Office. Other than the inertia of business as usual and the power of the oil and gas lobby, there is no reason why the richest country in the world has such a poor energy policy.

Let’s hope that one day in the not so distant future, we can use this image as a baseline with which to see some much needed progress and a good helping of political backbone.

Click it to see a bigger pic on grist.com

To find out more, just watch the video:

One of the studies focuses on an event that can easily be recalled to memory by people in the UK of voting age, and can potentially make connections in the mind between then, now and climate change in a way that heretofore would have mostly resided in speculation. In doing so, it helps to make global warming more tangible, albeit still ever elusive and complex.

Back in 2000, I used to walk to college everyday from my then home of the Quay in Exeter, Devon. One September afternoon I clearly remember getting drenched in a downpour that had been a part of a spate of rain that had caused the River Exe to burst its banks. Much of the Exe Valley between Exeter and Tiverton was flooded and the rising of the Exe also caused the Quay itself to become a good few feet under water.

I had never, and to this day still have not, experienced quite the drenching I got that day walking through fast flowing streams over the city’s concrete and tarmac. I soon became so wet that I quickly reached the point of no longer caring as there was no where on my body left to be drenched.

At the time I remember cursing the increased amount of roads and concrete that may have led to increased run-off and therefore contributed to the floods but my thoughts did not immediately point the blame towards climate change. Weather is not climate, and in the middle of that down pour as much as I may have pondered the connection, such a claim could not be made.

Whilst watching the reporting and coverage of floods, hurricanes and other weather events that have had considerable impact over the decade since, I have often wanted to know if they are indicative of changes caused by global warming. Freak floods, heatwaves, droughts, increased numbers of events and so on seemed to be pointing towards climate change in my mind but that is not to say there is a demonstrable link between the two – climate science is anything but black and white.

Could it have also been that with the arrival of 24 hour news channels and my increased use of the internet for news and information, I and many others like me were and are, simply finding more information and being bombarded with coverage that in earlier years would have gone unseen or unheard?

So this week’s news came as welcome relief for my ponderings over a decade ago whilst drenched on my walk home from college.

The first study in the much discussed issue of Nature highlights how human induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the observed intensification of heavy precipitation events in the Northern Hemisphere. The second shows that it is ‘very likely’ that global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions substantially increased the risk of flood occurrence in England and Wales in the autumn of 2000, in which I only got soaked whilst many others suffered severe damage to their property and homes or their health.

The researchers in the latter study used several thousands of computer modelled sequences to determine whether increased CO2 levels affected the probability of the event occurring. They looked at scenarios with and without human induced greenhouse gas releases and found that in 9 out of 10 cases their model results indicated that twentieth-century anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased the risk of floods occurring in England and Wales in autumn 2000 by more than 20%, and in two out of three cases by more than 90%.

Not only I am glad to know that climate modelling and science is getting better, but I’m hopeful for how the study may change the way insurers, policy makers and leaders are going to have to think about climate change adaptation from now on when they deal with assessments of risk, probability and responsibility.

If the results of these two studies add to their understanding of global warming, as they have to mine, as a real and direct threat to today’s world and not just some distant future, perhaps they will help us move forward with speed and help us avoid getting caught in a storm.

Following on from his book Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet this video is of Tim Jackson at TED earlier this year.

By Rob Plastow

With everyone packed up and back home from the recent talks on biodiversity in Nagoya, some have been telling the media of what a success it was. Others, such as George Monbiot have been a little more taciturn in laying on the praise. In fact, in a recent article he actually shouted very loudly the other way; that it had been a con.

As boisterous in his headlines as ever, the actual substance of the piece is a reminder to other journalists to be more critical and patient. Although heralding a great success, many writers, Monbiot asserts, have been too eager to rehash the official press release and overlook the absence of any formalised agreement, which remains to be released.

However, the event of most significance from the conference will in my eyes be the release of the reports from TEEB, a UN-backed study into the economics of eco-systems and biodiversity. Not because it solves anything, but because of how it affects the playing field of business and environmentalism. It is not the destination ultimately hoped for, but a step away from where we are now.

Up until now the corporate world and the legal system that has been so painstakingly weaved around it has categorised environmental degradation, pollution and biodiversity as externalities. They are external costs caused by internal actions in the pursuit of continued economic growth and therefore do not affect profits. As corporations are legally bound to produce increased growth for their shareholders but have no legal responsibilities to protect the environment or positively benefit it in anyway, you can see why nature has been losing out on the balance sheets.

To tackle this TEEB has sought to quantify nature in monetary terms. The idea being that if nature is measurable in terms pertaining to those who destroy it, a business case can be made to preserve it. Conservationists would then most like to see ecosystem services such as water cleaning, oxygen production, and climate regulation priced out of any business’ budget and thus preserved.

On the other side of the fence large consultancy firms will be rubbing their hands in anticipation of all the fees they can muster in helping governments and companies to price ecology and its services. However, in providing a framework for cost-benefit analysis between destroying and keeping the natural world they will have their work cut out. How do you measure nature? And is it not in business’ interests to price nature in a threshold where it is not permanently out of harm’s way as the conservationists would like?

In answer to this is TEEB and their reports within which think they have come up with a valid way of pricing nature. This has been the crux of their work over the past several years and it will be enlightening to see how this develops. The final report will be published as a book in the new year but briefings are available on their website.

The commodification of nature can be seen as a simple and effective way of internalising environmental costs and measuring nature and the services that keep us all alive.

And yet I’m sure a lot of environmentalists outside of the business world will see it as sad that this very anthropocentric policy is viewed as nature’s best chance. From even a slightly eco-centric perspective this development is symbolic of the dominance of neoliberal ideology and the corporate hegemony that makes arguments of any kind, other than the economic, redundant.

Greens like Monbiot have been raising ethical questions about nature’s intrinsic value, arguing against its commodification on the basis that that defeats the purpose – nature has value in and of itself, not just in its use and benefit to humans. The ideology behind TEEB, it would therefore appear, is the same ideology that has caused the ecological crisis in the first place.

A further criticism of TEEB and the talks at Nagoya, as welcome as they are, is that without any legal obligations to transform economies the world over, who’s to say any of this will catch on? I have a feeling that in order for it to progress it will have to be profitable and indeed for it work consistently and effectively it must. However, without thorough consideration and provisions of issues of power and inequality, environmental economics may end up being very similar to classical economics, albeit with the trading of nature’s services by man as well as his own.

But what it is important to note is the step change; a move away from the status quo towards something else is appearing. Although within this ‘new’ environmental economics encouraged by TEEB, the environment is still a subsystem of the economy, perhaps, we can hope for more in the future. It may be that through its development, experience may lead to the understanding that the economy is in fact a subsystem of the environment, and not the other way around. This is a rather large jump from the present position as noted in Monbiot’s article and a perspective taken since the 1980s by ecological economists, but may be a step in the right direction.

TEEB may well be nature’s best bet in the business world but the business world must realise it has no other world to live in other than the natural one. Essentially, ecosystem services and biodiversity are priceless but if measuring them in terms of money means we have them around long enough for economists to truly learn this, than so be it. It would be far more regrettable to do nothing at all.

by Roger Harrabin

http://news.bbc.co.uk

This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office.

The UK’s weather service projects that, unless there is an exceptionally cold spell before the end of the year, temperatures will be up on last year.

Climate sceptics had pointed out that the temperature rise appeared to have stalled in the last decade or so.

That was caused in part by the Pacific La Nina current, which cools the Earth.

But the influence of La Nina declined in the spring and the Met Office project that, barring a very cold December, this year will be the fifth warmest on record.

Other sources say it could even be the third warmest.

The last ten years have been in the top 15 warmest on record. And this summer the UK enjoyed temperatures higher than the long-term average.

Although the Met Office was pilloried after forecasting a “barbecue summer”, it was their rainfall forecast, not the projected temperatures, that was wrong.

Next year we will see the influence of the warming El Nino current, and the Met Office says there is a 50% chance that global temperatures will hit an all-time high.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm