Caitlin Fitzsimmons

Recent Activity

• 

  Caitlin signed the petition | 3 months ago

  Nippon Paper Group: Please stop using woodchips from native forest
• 

  Caitlin commented on the article | over 2 years ago

  Why I Choose Streets Over Shelter

  Interesting point. In the UK squatters actually have quite a lot of legal rights. If a building is empty for a certain amount of time then squatters have the right to stay in it, as long as they don't damage the property. You actually need a court order to evict them, you can't just call the police. eg. http://www.timeout.com/london/big-smoke/features/6233/Meet_the_Mayfair_squatters.html
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/28/london-squatters-mayfair-mansion

• 

  Caitlin signed the petition | over 2 years ago

  Please, Congress move schools away from junk food
• 

  Caitlin commented on the article | over 2 years ago

  Face It: Cutting carbon means curbing consumption

  Margaret, I'm sorry that you feel that I was picking on you about Charlie's comment. That wasn't my intention. For the record, I'm not actually 'arguing' about anything. I'm contributing to a discussion. The cause of our problems is not one thing or another, ie population OR consumption, individuals OR corporations. It's all of those things. If I raise one point, it doesn't mean I'm trying to shout down all the other points.
  
  The reason I raise population as an issue is because I don't feel that it gets enough attention. We're not just talking about the current population - we're also talking about population growth and the fact that it's likely to climb from 7bn to 9bn by 2050. I really feel that we need to reverse this trend as well as changing lifestyles in the West and using technology to create cleaner energy and better waste management. Any efforts to manage population are hampered by religious opposition and lack of women's rights in many countries but it doesn't mean it's not important or worth trying to change.
  
  The current population is already quite a burden on the planet, even in poor countries where the problem might manifest in deforestation rather than the pollution from flat-screen TVs and SUVs. I've travelled quite extensively in the developing world. That said, I agree with you that we can't suddenly reduce the population in any fair and humane way and we need use both technology and basic principles of justice and fairness to support the current population.
  
  I also agree with you that the behaviour of some corporations and the general trend of increasing corporate control of all aspects of life, including food and water supplies, is a big problem. Like I said, it's not one thing versus another. Population is not THE problem, but it's part of it, and it needs to be part of the solution too.
  

• 

  Caitlin commented on the article | over 2 years ago

  The Vatican Thinks Obama is Anti-Family

  I think you mean that bishops are bound to church-proscribed celibacy, rather than monogamy.

• 

  Caitlin commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Face It: Cutting carbon means curbing consumption

  I have sympathy for you and people in your situation - life can be tough when you are broke. I've certainly been there.
  
  I don't want to tell you how to live your life but IMHO I think you can still do your part to help curb climate emissions. It feels good to take proactive steps to green your lifestyle, even if you are not the biggest culprit in terms of causing the problem. You would also be setting a good example to others and hopefully inspire them to follow your lead. Hopefully you'll do your health and wallet some good at the same time as helping the planet.
  
  Many green measures are also frugal ones - for example, using long life bulbs and curbing electricity use, growing vegies or buying from a box scheme rather than plastic-wrapped industrial produce from a supermarket, cutting down or cutting out meat in favour of plant-based protein such as legumes, cooking from scratch and using up leftovers, mending clothes to prolong their life, and walking (or cycling if you own a bike) or taking public transport wherever possible.
  
  It's worth considering that food production is one of the single biggest contributors of climate emissions so making wise choices about the food you eat is one way you can really make a difference. Also consider disposal of food you can't eat - if it goes into landfill then it rots anaerobically and emits methane gas whereas if you properly compost it then you'll be improving the soil and sequestering carbon at the same time.
  
  By the way, gas prices in the US are still low by global standards and we really do need to wean ourselves off our cars. If you can lobby your policy makers to make US cities more pedestrian and bike friendly or improve public transport, that would be a big help.
  

• 

  Caitlin commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Face It: Cutting carbon means curbing consumption

  Margaret, I'm not sure what Charlie meant or what he thinks. But what he SAID was that there would be fewer wars and less disease and famine if the population was lower. He didn't say that a lower population would be a welcome side benefit of wars, disease and famine. Some people probably do think that but it's not the argument he was putting forward here.
  
  Emily, you are right that humans have been going to war for millennia but the scale and intensity of the wars has been increasing. Also many wars are are a result of competition for resources such as water and this probably will only increase with a higher population as well as the impact of climate change.

• 

  Caitlin commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Face It: Cutting carbon means curbing consumption

  Ha ha!
  
  You are right in a sense. The lump of rock we call Earth will still be here, spinning in space, long after we are gone, regardless of how many flat-screen TVs we buy.
  
  However, it may no longer be capable of sustaining life.

• 

  Caitlin commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Face It: Cutting carbon means curbing consumption

  Margaret, I totally agree with you about women's rights, however I think you've misread Charlie's comments. He wasn't promoting famine, disease and war as solutions to help us reduce the population; he was saying that these are problems that would be significantly reduced IF we had a lower population.

• 

  Caitlin commented on the article | almost 3 years ago

  Face It: Cutting carbon means curbing consumption

  It must depend how you measure it. China is now the world's largest single carbon emitter. You could argue that that they are primarily making stuff for export to the US and Europe but most people count these emissions as belonging to China, especially since the factories are not particularly clean or efficient.
  
  Indonesia is the world's fourth most populous nation. It's a developing nation and very crowded. It's also one of the world's biggest carbon emitters, mainly from forest fires (which are often deliberately lit to clear land, resulting in deforestation and loss of species diversity).
  
  We are all in this problem together and we need to act decisively on both fronts. Also it's not just about today's population and consumption - there's also the fact that the global population is still growing, and people in the developing world are starting to develop consumer societies.