Month: April 2021

When the world is becoming environmentally degraded by current human practices, isn’t it time to change the way things are done?

Is it arguable that the Five Dimension business case model, pays lip service to the environment and sustainability?

Isn’t it time for evolution and to upgrade this with a new development?

Why not change it to add a sixth dimension to the model?

Obviously, its only a concept idea and needs worked up and defined, but the sixth could be sustainability, bringing important scoring to the mix in a dimensional headline role not at the rear where it currently resides.

Would a sustainability dimension, add points weighting to projects that have minimal product life cycle emissions, for example?

Would a sustainability dimension, stop chimney stacks from wood-powered or other combustion power stations polluting the air, by forcing it into a capture system, perhaps utilising the output in the process?

Would this extra weighting prefer funding for businesses and projects to those who have a clean and sustainable act?

Would this then generate a paradigm shift in business case options toward a sustainable greater good?

Shouldn’t preferred options in a business case always be something that minimises waste, preferably a circular economy solution and be something that could be sustained? To clarify sustained, continued forever?

Would this equal more costs and less profits for big business, but also increase employment opportunities and spread the wealth in a world with increasing income inequality?

Would this work towards a sigmoid growth curve for sustaining the future generations?

Has a benefit analysis been completed for changing the Five Dimensions to Six dimensions?

Is the escalating and insidious pervasion of nanoplastics into human bodies a bigger threat to human health than Covid-19?

Collectively, Honeybees are smart capitalists.

They survive, by utilising the interest from the natural capital, in form of nectar and pollen.

In doing so leave enough behind to increase their capital and therefore receive more interest the following year, which would normally give them sustainable growth and increase habitat, thus biodiversity.

The literature shows exponential decay curves in fish stocks, increasing CO₂ and steam emissions (greenhouse gases), increasing land, sea and air pollution, biodiversity degradation, all of which is linked to human activities.

Humans are even killing the smart capitalist honeybees, who are part of the solution to the environmental issues caused by humans.

Are human beings smart capitalists?

An old saying “Experience is a tough mistress, punishment first, lesson after”

There are people alive today, able to testify, that a punishment from nature is often swift, tremendous and crushing.

Are there robust methods in place to stop pollution entering the oceans and seas?

Is ocean life and/or biodiversity being killed faster than it can recover and/or evolve?

If all fishing is stopped for a set period of time, will fish and other sea dwelling flora and fauna multiply to numbers that match pre-industrial fishing levels?

If said flora and fauna did reach those levels, would they consume most of the plastic and other waste in the seas during the no fishing period?

If said flora and fauna were allowed a full life cycle to live and die and sink to the bottom, would they take the plastic they have swallowed down with them to become sediment at the bottom of the oceans thus capturing plastic waste and carbon?

If captured plastic waste at the bottom of the ocean, has been removed from the upper levels of the seas, would the oceans now be clean and stocks fully replenished?

If, while the fishing ban was in place, robust measures were introduced and enforced to prevent the same destruction recurring, would this allow a fishing/ocean sigmoid curve to be achieved?