“When you are surrounded by something so big that requires you to change everything about the way you think and see the world, then denial is the natural response. But the longer we wait, the bigger the response required.”
- Paul Gilding, The Great Disruption

Luckily, Gilding seems to hold faith in the possibility of the world responding. According to a recent article in the New York Times, he is an eco-optimist who believes “we will change at a scale and speed we can barely imagine today, completely transforming our economy, including our energy and transport industries, in just a few short decades.” Convinced that his expectation is realistic, Gilding simply argues:

“We either allow collapse to overtake us or develop a new sustainable economic model. We will choose the latter. We may be slow, but we’re not stupid.”

Personally, I tend to reside in Gilding’s camp. The accusation of our species being slow to change is one I will not argue. We’ve had plenty of time to improve our ways, as individuals and as a species, but that time has been wasted by the majority. Of course, whether or not you choose to see this as a sign of the species as a whole being stupid is up to you, but I’m holding out a little more towards a general ignorance.

The bigger question to me though is whether or not you have to have at least a small bit of optimism left in your heart to continue fighting for the world, even when it seems you’re fighting against it. Is it possible to continue pushing for change when you start to believe it isn’t going to come?

“Animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals. Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning] fossil fuels.”
- Professor Edgar Hertwich, lead report author

UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet – guardian.co.uk

The fact that the UN would conclude that a meat-free diet would help curb our effects on the environment should not come as a surprise to many of you, but I do suggest looking into the research further. The UN reported similar findings previously in regards to greenhouse gas emissions from cattle, and their methods were disputed. So, if you have the chance, it never hurts to check the source to form your own opinion.

Although the link referenced in the Guardian piece appears to be broken currently, I believe these articles are connected:

Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production (report, PDF) – UNEP

Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production (flyer, PDF) – UNEP

Whether or not the report ends up being disputed, it is great to see more coverage on the harmful effects our food choices (as well as other areas of consumption) are causing on the world around us.