Super Trees & How MIT Predicted the End of the World
The first article I read was about how 'super trees' can help Houston (and other parts of the world) reduce pollution and other issues. Houston's health department partnered with a nonprofit called Houston Wilderness to plant these super trees. These trees were found using a study that rated trees based on their ability to help the climate. The top super tree was the live oak, which is the best at reducing carbon emissions, mitigating flooding effects, reducing heat, and reducing air pollution. The runners-up were American Sycamores, River Birches, Slippery Elms, Water Oaks, and Red Maples. These trees are now being planted in Houston's most polluted and flood-prone areas - some of which are near the ship channels in the Port of Houston. Right now, the program has planted around 10,000 trees around the ship channels so far, and it hopes to reach a total of 1 million trees planted by 2030. The government obviously does have a hand in this, since Houston's health department is partnering with Houston Wilderness, which is pretty great. Statisticians from Rice also helped determine which trees were the best, and which areas needed the most trees. As the project is still ongoing, it's hard to know whether Houston will actually reach that goal of a million trees planted in a decade, but it looks pretty optimistic to me.
My second article was about how MIT predicted the end of the world as we know it, and how someone determined that we are on track with that study. The MIT study that predicted societal collapse in the mid-21st century was published in 1972. A team of scientists created a model called a system dynamics model to study the risks of civilizational collapse. The study showed that there are 'limits to growth' that we will run into eventually, which means that society is on track for decline because we are overexploiting our planets resources. The Sustainability and Dynamic System Analysis Lead for KMPG, Gaya Herrington, created her own study at the end of 2020 based on that idea of limits to growth. The new analysis Herrington conducted takes into account 10 key variables, as opposed to the fie or six that the original World3 model considered. She found that of two scenarios (CT: comprehensive technology, and BAU2: business-as-usual), both of them show that we are on target for a halt in growth in a very short period of time from now. The data does not mean that humanity will die out or anything apocalyptical like that, but it does show economic decline, diminishing standards of living. The scenario that fit the least with the new data was the most optimistic one: stabilized world. I would say that government is definitely playing a role in this, just not the role it should be playing. I think that authorities and people in power all around the world should be looking farther into the future and trying to prevent whatever economic or social decline that will come after industrial growth.
Comments
Post a Comment