Forest Carbon Sequestration and Carbon Offsets

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report in 2004 indicated that United States forests sequestered 10.6% of the carbon dioxide released in the United States produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas. America's urban trees sequestered another 1.5%.

Terrestrial carbon sequestration is simply a forest's or grassland's ability to take in and lock up atmospheric carbon dioxide during photosynthesis over a significant period of time. Many CO2 producing companies are now concerned and voluntarily trading carbon offsets or buying carbon credits.

Carbon offset credits are now being purchased from investment funds and carbon development companies who have registered the credits from individual sequestration projects. Forest related projects come in the form of stored carbon from the manufacture of wood products and the reforestation of harvested forests.

The figures of above show in detail that we are producing, whether in the USA or other developed countries, more CO2 than can be absorbed by the environment, such as forests and grasslands.

Carbon Offsets and Carbon Trading, on the other hand, is a bad deal for the environment for this is nothing but indulgences for the big companies to continue with “business as usual” polluting the environment and releasing harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

As I have said already several times, and not just me, Carbon Offsets, Carbon Trading, and such like, are a very bad idea that only allow the big companies and developed countries get away with emissions on the backs of the smaller companies and poorer and really poor countries.

Offsetting carbon, by means of planting trees, for instance, whether at home or abroad, and those trees then being allowed too become carbon credits for those companies that they can trade with to permit them continue with pollution and emissions and hence those “things” are nothing but another version of the old medieval indulgences that were sold by the Church.

Planting and growing trees and forests should be done for the sake of it and for the sake of the Planet and not with any indulgences in mind.

© 2010

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

Graduate hydrogeologist James Glover has won the The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) Young Members Award for his involvement in Mott MacDonald’s Water for Schools.

James conceived the Water for Schools initiative to help pass his knowledge on to the next generation. Since 2007, he has introduced real life examples and practical solutions to improve water and environmental awareness in two Cambridgeshire schools. Working very closely with these schools, he has integrated the concepts of water and environment across the school curriculum so that awareness is engrained from an early age.

The children have constructed rain gauges from soft drinks bottles in CDT, recorded daily rainfall, and then used the measurements in their maths lessons as part of a statistics module. This gave the children a greater understanding of rainfall, ownership of their education and increased their enthusiasm for otherwise theoretical subjects. In the long term, this means that they will be able to make better decisions in the future about water conservation and has created more interest in following science-based careers.

The initiative has now run for three years and has been successfully adopted as a permanent feature in the schools’ approach towards integrating water and environmental awareness in education.

James’s initiative has also contributed greatly to an enhanced CSR profile for Mott MacDonald, which in turn has led to new business development opportunities. As a result of its success, Mott MacDonald is considering launching similar initiatives in the Netherlands and in Bangladesh.

Judge Mark Etheridge, from award sponsor Jacobs, said: "Although each of this year’s entrants were of an exceptionally high standard, it was James's presentation that showed a continued long term commitment to the environment, community and CIWEM. James’ personal involvement with this initiative, mostly in his free time, has made a real difference to the education of children in his local community. In fact his sheer enthusiasm and sustained effort left the judging panel a little humbled."

James, who is currently project managing a £2million project for the Environment Agency on Reservoir Inundation Mapping, said: “I am absolutely delighted to receive the award and am thrilled that such an initiative is considered to be worthy of recognition by CIWEM. I feel that trying to pass on my knowledge and experience to children in local schools can really make a difference to their outlook on water and environmental issues. Educating and inspiring the children of today can only help in ensuring that our tomorrow is there for us all to enjoy.”

James will be presented with his award and a cheque for £1,000 at CIWEM’s Annual Dinner on 20th May at Drapers Hall, London.

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, CIWEM , is an independent professional body and a registered charity, advancing the science and practice of water and environmental management for a clean, green and sustainable world. www.ciwem.org

The CIWEM Young Members’ Award recognises the outstanding contribution to environmental understanding made by a young member of CIWEM and is sponsored by Jacobs.

VIDEO CONFERENCING ERUPTION SUSTAINS AS VOLCANO COOLS

Eyenetwork ( http://www.eyenetwork.com ), a provider of videoconferencing services, is reporting a significant shift towards videoconferences by companies that used to rely on face-to-face meetings. A massive upsurge in client enquiries was predictably triggered by the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland, which grounded international flights. However, now that the ash is settled and planes are flying as normal, a higher than usual level of client interest in videoconferencing has been sustained.

Eyenetwork received a 300% boost in videoconferencing enquiries as soon as the volcano kyboshed flights. Now that there’s no disruption to air travel, bookings remain 30% higher and companies who could resume face-to-face meetings are sticking with the videoconferencing option, which is considerably cheaper than world-wide air travel and reduces carbon footprints. As many companies are realising, video conferencing works for everything from job interviews to court cases, product development meetings, brainstorming sessions and AGMs, and employees don’t need to waste time in transit that could be used for productive work.

When the volcanic eruption occurred, for the first time in history, people became aware that video conferencing was a 100% valid alternative to flying. On April 18, 2010, EU transport ministers suggested the use of video conferencing services and several aviation industry organisations booked Eyenetwork’s facilities. Companies in New York, London, Moscow and Paris accounted for the lion’s share of the ‘volcanic panic’ enquiries, with others coming from places as far apart as New Zealand and Brazil. Of the volcano-related enquiries, 62% were from those who were using video conferencing for the first time, 16% came from those who had tried it years ago but had forgotten about it or stopped using their own equipment and the remainder were from clients who use video conferencing frequently but not for all meetings. 65% of those who tried it for the first time said they were now considering using videoconferencing again.

Eyenetwork’s network of video conferencing facilities can be hired on-demand and by the hour. The company can facilitate video meetings in 125 countries and within any one of its 3,500 certified locations. From Kabul to Kalamzoo, Zaire to Zimbabwe, Eyenetwork has more than 14 years of experience in making meetings possible without flying.

Lisa Honan, managing director of Eyenetwork, comments: “It’s a shame that flights had to be removed for companies to realise the value of video conferencing but we’re not complaining! Thousands of business meetings were cancelled because of the volcano and many companies switched to our video conferencing facilities for the first time.

“Reports suggest that the grounding of flights saved an estimated 2.8 million tonnes of CO2. According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), business travel accounts for about 20% of global air travel emissions. If business travel could be reduced by a third, we’d see a resulting reduction in CO2 emission of approximately 120 million tonnes – roughly equal to the national emissions of France, Greece and Denmark combined. And that would make a huge contribution towards ‘saving the planet’, we think.”

Honan, whose company is founded on green ethics, believes that the environmental reasons for video conferencing will remain more compelling to businesses in the wake of the volcano. As well as reducing air travel, video conferencing lowers ground environmental impact by cutting business usage of taxis and cars. A taxi from central London to Heathrow airport, for example, emits about seven kilograms of carbon dioxide alone.

Honan says: “The financial cost of business travel is massive – it is the third-biggest budget item for many companies. As well as cutting travel costs, companies can avoid expensive hotel bills and employee expense claims by switching away from face-to-face meetings. Videoconferencing offers quality and reliability which is invaluable at CEO level where a company can’t afford to miss an important meeting because of a delayed or cancelled flight.”

Eyenetwork, based in Brighton, UK, was established in 1996, has run over 43,000 video conferences and has grown to employ more than 14 people. Today, the company has more than 3,500 world-wide video conference facilities in its network, covering 125 countries, and it can assist clients in eight different languages. All the video conferencing facilities are available for hire by the hour.

Source: Eyenetwork

Ending Consumerism

We must stop worshiping at the altar of consumerism and greed

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The way that we, most of us, today are living is totally unsustainable. It is a way of life driven by advertising-generated wants that are mistaken, for we are being conditioned in such a way, as needs.

Even our very governments urge us to consume more and more and at the onset of the recent recession we were “encouraged” to spend, spend, spend, in order to rekindle the faltering economy.

In fact, the powers-that-be even regarded people who wanted to save and live more frugally as bad as terrorists.

Frugal living and low impact living should not be equated to terrorism. Nay, it would become and be the norm of living. We are doomed otherwise and I am serious here.

We must reduce our impact on the resources on the Planet, on the gifts of Mother Earth, for many of those that we use at such a high rate are finite and others are overexploited and not given time to recuperate and recover, such as, for instacne the oceans' fish stocks.

The majority of us in the developed countries of the world are exploiting Nature's gifts and not just that; we also exploit – directly or indirectly – the poor in the developing world, as they are exploited to produce cheap goods to feed our consumer greed, and this is “even” the case in China.

Goods are produced by those poor laborers, who in China also may include prisoners, who are forced to “slave” for companies producing good for export, more often than not under conditions that are against all health and safety rules in the developed world.

No wonder, therefore, that China can produce goods cheaply and this cheap production exploits environment and people alike.

The costs to both are not factored in to the prices charged and neither do consumers have much choice.

Ninety percent, if not even more, of all of our computers, and probably ninety-nine percent of all computer components are made in China, for instance. So you and I have no choice and this must change.

The problem with “cheap” goods, including computers, and not all are “cheap”, from China is also that obsolescence of about two years maximum seems to get factored in only, and this not just, as in computers, as obsolescence cause by Microsoft changing operating system and older PCs hence become “out of date”. Little of this happens as to obsolescence through operating system with all versions of the Linux operating system.

Obsolescence is also factored into the product hardware so that, in a time not so far away, the user will have to buy a new one.

This is, also, not just thus with computers but with almost everything out there and not only electronic equipment.

When I was a child things were very much different and goods were still produced to last somewhat and we could, I am sure, get back to such kind of production.

While this would – oh gosh – make things somewhat more expensive they would – and I guess we just could not have that – pay for themselves though by not breaking down and, if we made goods in such a manner again that they could also be repaired – of what a horrible thought and yes, yet another dangerous “r” word – it would be better still.

Far too few things, nowadays, can be repaired and it is the same for toaster as for boots and shoes.

Waste is being factored in for the very start in almost everything but does this really have to be thus?

Consumerism, obviously, as we all know, I am sure, is not just fueled by the fact that things do no longer last. As I have said already, advertising induced wants perceived by people as needs is equally to blame too.

Do people really “need” a new cell phone every six months or so just because a new one has come out with more bells and whistles attached too it? I seriusly doubt that that is a need.

To me a cell phone, for instance, is that... a mobile telephonic communication device and while the possibility of SMS is nice and they all, nowadays have that, I do not need to, and do I want to be able to, read my emails on the move. I rather deal when them later.

And the same is true for so many other products where people think, because advertising tells them so, that they need a new version.

The old adage of the Americans was a good one that said “if it ain't broke, don't fix it” and that should also apply to things in the setting of “if it ain't broke and it works then you don't need a new one”.

While I may want a new one simply because the new one has this or that additional feature that I might like to have it certainly is not a need. And it is this misconception of needs and wants that is fueling the consumerism that is harming Mother Earth and other people.

Time for a rethink...

© 2010

Thrifty – Book Review

Review by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Thrifty
Living the Frugal Life with Style
Marjorie Harris
232 pages Paperback 7.7 x 5.7 x 0.7 inches
Published by House of Anansi Press (May 1, 2010)
ISBN: 978-0887848322

This book definitely touches a nerve and the author, Marjorie Harris, speaks to my soul with much of her writings in the book, as this is the same guidance that I received as a youngster, such as, among others, not to buy on credit but to save up for things. Makes you appreciate the things much more, I think.

None of it is rocket science though it would appear that the majority of people have entirely forgotten all of it.

Already the cover of the book makes one think of an era when and where thrift was the norm and no one thought of spending just for the sake of it and there was very little waste of anything.

In the time when a dollar a day was the standard pay and credit something that you could not get anyway, unless you were one of the big wigs, you had to save up if would wanted something.

It was a month's wages for a cowboy to buy a pair of boots and for that very reason they were, like his saddle, cared for lovingly and repaired and repaired again.

You saved for what you wanted and needed. Credit, as said, was not available to mere ordinary mortals; it was only something for the rich.

The book is divided into 7 chapters and they are:

  • The Thrifty Citizen

  • The Frugal Fashionista

  • The Frugal Foodie

  • The Thrifty Gardener

  • The Thrifty Traveller

  • The Top 20 Tips for Living the Frugal Life with Style

thus providing something for everyone and even though the fashion section, for instance, is aimed, basically and primarily, at the female, men too can gain some ideas and insights.

All chapters, in fact, provide great ideas and much food for thought, especially for those that may have forgotten the lessons of their parents and grandparents and those that never have had those lessons.

“Thrifty - Living the Frugal Life with Style” is, in my opinion, a great food for thought book and manual of ideas for living a more simple and frugal life without, actually, sacrificing quality of life.

© 2010

Full Disclosure Statement: The GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW received no compensation for any component of this article.

Calling ‘cleantech’ start-ups to the Low Carbon Start Up Fest in Bath

Opportunity for cleantech start-ups to present to investors

Bath , UK - Cleantech start-ups are gathering at the Low Carbon Start Up Fest in Bath on Friday 14th May to present to potential investors, partners, and fellow entrepreneurs. Companies presenting so far include: Adfina, Carbon Voyage, New Earth Energy, Xsilon and Zenex.

Simon Bond, director of the event, said: “The challenge of climate change has unleashed a wave of high-growth potential technology start-ups looking to address new ways of generating sustainable energy and exploit better ways to make energy go further. The Low Carbon Start-Up Fest is an exciting opportunity to showcase ventures from this sector each looking to raise between £250k and £5m in the next 12 months.”

Companies interested in presenting at the Low Carbon Start-Up Fest can apply by completing a short Expression of Interest form available form www.lowcarbonsouthwest.co.uk. There is no fee for companies selected to present and they will also benefit from free of charge publicity in the Low Carbon Technologies Report and Low Carbon South West YouTube Channel

Low Carbon Start-up Fest is on Friday 14 May 2010 and is supported by Greenbang.com, Cambridge Wireless and the Bristol Environmental Technology & Services network. Registration and coffee from 9am Presentations from 9.30am to 12.30pm, followed by lunch and networking. Delegate places can also be booked via www.lowcarbonsouthwest.co.uk

The Low Carbon South West network has been established by the University of Bath to build an active community in this sector and establish impactful links between companies and universities. Low Carbon South West makes it easier for companies, entrepreneurs, investors and researchers to meet and exchange ideas and opportunities.

Source: NeonDrum

Full Disclosure Statement: The GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW received no compensation for any component of this article.

Big Box waste! What can we do about it?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

H&M and Wal-Mart have begun – claiming though that it is not policy and pigs fly – to destroy usable garments before trashing them, presumably so that people do not go and dumpster dive for the free clothes, in the same way as big food chains pour bleach on perfectly edible baked goods that they are throwing into the dumpsters at the end of the day.

A little digging revealed that at least the latter is a pretty common practice. But why would retailers go to such lengths to destroy irregulars and day old food?

The most common justification seems to be curbing liability for, according to an article on TampaBay.com:

“Stores have good reason to discourage Dumpster divers: If you get hurt while scavenging, the store could be in a lot more trouble than you. In 1992, two 9-year-old boys died from exposure to toxic chemicals after playing in the trash bin at Durex Industries plant in Tampa. A Durex executive pleaded guilty to a charge of storing waste illegally and had to pay each boy’s family $400,000.”

While that might explain the practice to some extent, liability is no “good reason” at all. In Britain we have been told that the practice with the bleach on baked goods is to discourage people taking the sandwiches and such and if they happen to get ill from them suing the company.

Again a very shallow excuse for if I happen to take a sandwich out of a dumpster on the day they were thrown out and I would get ill from it then there should be a ;lot of customers from the store that too will be ill; the food then would have been bad even while it was still being sold.

The excuse with regards to possible litigation is a fake.

Why do they not donate the clothing or food to charitable organizations that need it? That would not only help keep divers out, but it would divert those resources to folks who really need them. Stores could even brag on their donations. The crazy PR payoff seems like it would be more than worth the effort of coordinating with a local Salvation Army or food bank.

It is not like this food that is being thrown away into the dumpsters is rotten. The same TampaBay.com article mentioned earlier quotes a grocery store spokesman:

“If you’re smart – and they sound like they’re smart – you can use our own standards against us,” says Sweetbay spokesman Steve Smith. “Food safety is No. 1 at any retailer. Because of that, we will always put expiration dates that are before when the product actually would expire. You are always going to give yourself some padding.”

This means that, in the main, the food in the dumpster is probably safer than some of it that you may have in your larder.

The only conclusion one can come to is that these businesses rather throw away these goods because it is easier than donating them and destroying them so no one can get them for free.

The thing that gets me is the mentality that it is OK to waste food and clothing in this way, when a store or chain does this but when we waste things that way we get yelled at by the government. There is absolutely no good reason to waste food when folks are hungry or destroy garments when people are cold.

All of this is very much a harsh reminder that we live in a total throw-away society and one with double standards at that. The ordinary citizen gets yelled at and preached at when he is wasting food or what-have-you but then stores destroy perfectly good food and other goods.

When I was a child the local grocers, greengrocers, bakers and others would give away stuff at the end of the day and such, and the same with market traders, the fruit- and the vegetable merchants. Today that is, in fact, against the law in Britain. You can, however, gather then from the waste storage before the dustmen arrive and take them. They are not allowed to give the stuff to you, though. Crazy? I think so.

I have also been told by someone who used to be a manager at a large electrical goods chain that any item that has a damaged box, however, slightly, has to be thrown out into the dumpster and destroyed, regardless whether this is a $3,000 TV or a $30 radio.

So, what can we do, as concerned customers?

Maybe next time you are at a grocery or clothing store that you frequent, you could try politely asking a manager how they handle their waste. If stores see that their customers care about this sort of thing, they might think twice before dousing that trash bag in bleach. The trick here, maybe, is to ask in a way that does not come off as being preachy, just concerned. Framing the question like, “I have a crazy question for you…” might be a way to go.

Whether it is going to make a difference is a different sstory and question but maybe the wallet can do the talking.

I have come across a stupid policy at some places before when I wanted to buy a coffee machine. The machine I wanted was there on display but I was told as they had no more in the stock room that was it; they did not have any. So I said: “But I am happy to buy the display one...” and was told that they could not do that as it had been out of the box and hence there was no guarantee that everything was with it. Duh? Then sell it to me at half-price and I won't come and complain if the manual is missing or such. But, no... They rather throw it out and destroy it.

We must somehow find ways to change this attitude...

© 2010

Real Bread Maker Week

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

As reader will have gathered by now it is Real Bread Maker Week from May 1 to May 9, 2010 (which is a little more than a week, I guess) and I, certainly, are participating in that I am putting my bread machine to good use.

If you have a bread machine sitting around at home I encourage you to get it out and use it to make your own bread. You will not regret it.

Having to admit that I bought a bread machine only recently from Lidl, the discount store, for less than thirty GBP, I am more than glad that I did and am certainly not regretting it one bit.

It is a little bit of a learning curve to get the mix of the ingredients right, such as the amount of water to the amount of flour and all that but I am getting it down to a fine art by now.

While, theoretically, you should be able to walk away from it and leave the machine to do it entirely on its own I do like to make sure that, after the final mixing after the first final raising circle and before the final one, that the dough is leveled out in the tin. This is to ensure a good shaped loaf.

May years ago I used to make bread entirely by hand but when one does not have the time and space either then a bread machine is the best alternative and one that works brilliantly and – and this is important – much cheaper and with much less energy usage than could ever be done in an oven.

In fact, while writing this article a loaf of bread is in production and in the final stages of being finished.

May people tend to claim that such bread – made in such a machine – does not keep well but I must say that I am keeping loaves successfully for about a week using a bread bin and food keeper bags from Lakeland.

So, don't let your bread machine gather dust and make some real bread for you and your family.

Real Bread Maker Week may only last till May 9 this year but that does not mean that you should stop after that time and, for some reason, I am sure that once you got the hang of making bread in that way you will not want to and you will not want to go back to the bread from the supermarkets.

All breads, other than homemade ones, will contain a variety of flour improver of one kind or the other and preservatives, many of which may not be too healthy for us.

So let's hear it for real bread and the Real Bread Maker Week.

© 2010

Reinventing the glass bottle

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

When you think that you have seen it all as regards to fleecing the “green” consumer and the environmentally conscious along comes this; a range of glass water bottles which sell for from US$18-US$22. Am I crazy or is it everyone else?

The new Metro line of glass water bottles from “Be Truly You” are, so the company, designed to help folks “fall in love with their tap… all over again.” And they continue to state that the glass bottles are 100% recyclable and fit right into a regular sized cup holder. Every glass bottle is 100% recyclable and, as will all glass containers, infinitely.

Unlike plastic, glass does not lose quality in the recycling process, and that is why I could quite happily go along, and in fact do, with using a good solid glass bottle in which to carry my tap water for drinking, instead of buying bottled water, when the bottle finally has to go to the recycling center. However, I do find the prices just a little more than extortionate.

This even more so seeing that anyone with but an ounce of sense and can repurpose a Snapple lemonade glass bottle or a glass Ketchup bottle for the same use. I do! Those bottles come for free with the product and why waste them.

Even the fact that the founders of the company, “Be Truly You”,Heather McDowell and Ann Caiola, are donating $1 from each Metro bottle sold to the UNICEF Tap Project, cannot in any way justify the prices quoted for those bottles sold by that company.

With all the rip offs going on under the “green products and services” umbrella it is not surprising that so many people of the lower income brackets think that they cannot possibly go “green”.

That belief of those people, however, is not correct and going “green” should not be something that should cost you lots; on the contrary, it should be able to save you money.

You do not have to buy into the green consumerism, and you do not have to either in order to do your part for Mother Earth.

The truth is that we are replacing one side of consumerism with another and this was never the idea, I am sure.

When it comes, for instance, to the idea of such water bottles from glass there is no need – none whatsoever – to spend 18 bucks of more on one when, as I have said, you can simply repurpose and upcycle a Snapple lemonade bottle or a Ketchup bottle to do exactly the same, and that for basically zero dollars.

It is time, I think, that we all woke up to the truth that there are people out there who would like to take us to the cleaners. And it is also time that we stood up and refused to be fleeced.

I am well aware of the fact that there are things that we cannot make ourselves and cannot make through repurposing, upcycling and such, I do feel that the finger must be pointed though when there is someone who is jumping on the green bandwagon with but the thought of making lots of money out of such simple things such as these.

So, before you go out and buy such a bottle think as to whether you cannot repurpose one that you have.

You want a label that proudly states the fact that you are using tap water? The create one on the computer using free clipart and word processor, and stick it to the bottle, or be creative and paint it on. But don't spend nearly twenty buck on one.

Copyright © Michael Smith 2010

Let us build a new society

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

We need a new kind of society; a society where people matter and also Mother Earth.

But, this new kind of society must be a society that is based on voluntarity and not on government degree. Government decree and enforcement will not and cannot achieve anything on that level. It has been tried and failed miserably. Other means might, however, work.

With the economic system of the world nigh in tatters we should reevaluate our way of life, especially those of us in the developed world, and look at establishing a new society to be copied around the globe and a new economic system where people and the environment count first and foremost and come before profits. For both the sake of the Planet and of the people we need a new society, one that is less exploitative, one where people and Mother Nature are being considered first and foremost.

Often it is said that we need to have a revolution to get a new society and that we should and must abandon mass production for this and many other points of modern life. I really do not, entirely, see why this has to be thus.

Often those that live in squatter communities and such like think that the entire society can be reorganized like that but can it?

Squatter- and similar -communities and the modern day monastic societies, whether religious or not, are a more or less close-knit operation that does, sadly, no longer exist in the greater society.

However, I do think that a new society can be built, one that respects all.

The generosity and mutual aid that can be found, in most cases, i n squatter communities and other such, once did, in fact, to a great extent, exist in the greater society too and that not just in the extended family and clan.

In the days gone by everyone knew their neighbors, whether in the countryside or in town, and they all, in general, looked out for one another.

In villages it would have been rare, for instance, to find that a family would be allowed to starve and children to go hungry while the neighbors ate. But today we have become so insular, all of us, in the main that this no longer happens. Then again, you no longer dare to care for your neighbor's children just so as not to be branded something.

However, in order, to once again extend such a system to the greater society will mean that real personal bonds must be formed between members, especially if we would hope to have decent behavior without the use of police and laws.

It must be said that today, sadly, relationships based on trust and generosity rarely ever extend beyond the small circle of our close friends and family, and maybe some mutual aid associations that we may belong to.

The sense on community that exists in alternative communities is largely absent in general society.

Even amongst the Romani People, the Gypsy People, the People to which I ethnically belong, where people, clan and family was once everything and no one wanted today things are much the same as in the outside world and the same attitudes of “I am alright Jack, so f*** you” prevail and that, sadly, even amongst clans. This is a great shame really but has much to do that clans have been forcibly split up and such.

However, it could be brought back if all but wanted but it definitely can be recreated in small groups for starters.

The question is as to whether mutual aid and free exchange of skills and goods could be expanded from a small scale, as presently, to actually replace capitalism and the state and that is where I have my doubts, at least for the moment.

It can be done, I should think, in so-called Transition Towns and -Communities. Whether it can be done on a larger scale is what remains the question.

First “prosperity” squeezed out the need to rely on neighbors and the small shopkeeper who recognizes you – and that was a nice time – and have been replaced by anonymous, even though they do wear name tags – supermarket- and other sales assistants who do not know you, in most cases, and who also don't really care. Now we have self-service checkouts and we live automates lives and fear those around us.

Banks prefer you to use their ATMs for everything and charge you now even in many cases if you use their counter service, even if you happen to bank at that branch.

We do no longer, at least not in the apartment complexes and streets in towns and cities, and even in the suburbs, know the names of our neighbors and hardly even exchange the time of day with them.

We have no idea what they are good at or what skills I have that they might find useful.

Can we change this? We certainly must try and hopefully succeed for we will never have any such change if we do not try and we must begin now.

We may have to rediscover not just the old ways and implement them. We must, if it is regards to governing, use ways of people who have, or at least once had, a functioning internal system of mutual aid and a system of policing their own. A good example would be the old way that the Gypsy lived, in extended families and clans and governed themselves, and if we all lived in small societies of that kind, then larger society too could work.

What I am trying to say with the above is that if we returned to live in small self-governed groups, such as the extended families and clans of the Romani People are, or, better, were, and those groups then linked together, this could create a larger society of a new kind that could work.

While I am saying a “society of a new kind” it really is a return to something old, very old indeed, and we can find such societies back in the very old days everywhere and, yes, they did work.

Many of the often called “primitive” societies could, in fact, be the model of a new society of ours on a worldwide level. Starting in our own localities might be a beginning though or by starting communities where such can be done.

From there it then, hopefully, would spread around the country and then further.

While this all may sound extremely Utopian it is my belief, and that, I gather, of many others, that unless we do find a new approach to doing things we may not be able to survive as free beings.

Just some food for thought and maybe something we could all think about and come up with some ideas.

© 2010