In an earlier blog post, I defined business as some sustainable activities that will benefit the community, not only the customers only. Since this is not the common definition, in recent years a new term, social entrepreneurship, has become popular that matches closer to my definition.
I feel this is a good development and hope that this model will overtake the typical profit orientated models/concepts of business. When the main purpose is profiting, then many people would do illegal, immoral, detrimental activities if profit can be gained. In my definition, business activities are inherently beneficial to others.
Also, becoming more desired are green activities due to the love of our home, the Earth. In a world where there are still many profit centered businesses, it is helpful to have a popular theme where social entrepreneurship businesses can focus on to achieve, at the minimum, sustainability.
If interested to know more about the successful businesses that have been started by many visionary social entrepreneurs, check out the social entrepreneur blog that aims to empower green and social entrepreneurs.
By the way, businesses are also getting smaller with the advancement of technology. Home business should be suitable for many people to start out from, and I might be interested in this upcycling idea.
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Monday, December 7, 2009
Cheap, fast and also with other advantages
This is a good option to commute:
I like the Strida folding bike except the price :(
Another alternative, cheaper but less flexible way is to own two cheap bicycles to be used at the two ends of your Bus/MRT route.
I like the Strida folding bike except the price :(
Another alternative, cheaper but less flexible way is to own two cheap bicycles to be used at the two ends of your Bus/MRT route.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Solar = environmental friendly?
I read about some solar powered bicycles here. When compared to most other energy source, solar is very green and safe. However, here we are comparing it with ... something even more natural -- food derived energy. Instead of just ride a bicycle, why manufacture additional parts that eventually will become rubbish.
Friday, January 16, 2009
We know SwissKnife, now we have SwissBike.
Finally, full-size bikes, with full-size performance bike that can be folded is here! I first read about it at Drive and Cycle: An innovative concept for commuting.
SMRT and LTA, please ... increase the allowable size to encourage more people to use these bikes! Anyway, users can always put it into the bag and carry it on to the trains :)
Good news! I saw Singapore flag in the International Dealers page and it links to digiNEXX.
PS: This is NOT a sponsored post.
SMRT and LTA, please ... increase the allowable size to encourage more people to use these bikes! Anyway, users can always put it into the bag and carry it on to the trains :)
Good news! I saw Singapore flag in the International Dealers page and it links to digiNEXX.
PS: This is NOT a sponsored post.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Live naturally
Quoted from the article, Expert: obesity, global warming could be fought together
For me, I find gyms very strange. We invent many different gym equipment to train different muscle systems, that have become too loose and slag due to the use of our other inventions such as cars, escalators, lifts, remote control, etc.
Even in using bicycle, which has been my main mode of transport for many years, my leg has become much weaker in walking tasks. Mind you, cyclists walk much lesser distances than drivers because we can conveniently park our bicycle very near to our destination.
“We need to build the physical activity back into our lives,” he said. “It’s not simply about bike paths, it’s about developing an urban habitat that enables people to live healthy lives: ensuring that people can meet most of their daily needs within walking and cycling distance of where they live.”It was quite a long time since I've found something closely match with my blog title. We are smart to invent many things. However, the smartest invention is what we have been feeding all these years... still our own biological body, by our creator/designer.
For me, I find gyms very strange. We invent many different gym equipment to train different muscle systems, that have become too loose and slag due to the use of our other inventions such as cars, escalators, lifts, remote control, etc.
Even in using bicycle, which has been my main mode of transport for many years, my leg has become much weaker in walking tasks. Mind you, cyclists walk much lesser distances than drivers because we can conveniently park our bicycle very near to our destination.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Loving thy neighbors
If it were expected that soon a neighbor apartment will suffer from construction defects, such as leakage from pipes, intermittent electricity supply, tiles cracking, walls shaking, etc..
Would caring neighbors assist them by showing them ways to be minimally affected by these defects, and how to live in such conditions?
How about inviting them to our place until another suitable permanent place is found?
Now, if some places on earth are expected to be very badly affected by global warming (or ice-age?? whatever..), shouldn't people move to better locations a wiser option than stubbornly sticking around?
Anyway, does anybody really owns any piece of land?
In the report, UN: Poor Need $86 Billion in Climate Aid,
"Half the cost, $44 billion, would go for "climate-proofing" developing nations' infrastructure while $40 billion would help the poor adapt how the live to cope with climate-related risks, says the panel's report. The other $2 billion would go to strengthening responses to natural disasters."
Humans usually adapt, but not always. The nomads way becomes applicable if a living environment would become too unsuitable for living.
Would caring neighbors assist them by showing them ways to be minimally affected by these defects, and how to live in such conditions?
How about inviting them to our place until another suitable permanent place is found?
Now, if some places on earth are expected to be very badly affected by global warming (or ice-age?? whatever..), shouldn't people move to better locations a wiser option than stubbornly sticking around?
Anyway, does anybody really owns any piece of land?
In the report, UN: Poor Need $86 Billion in Climate Aid,
"Half the cost, $44 billion, would go for "climate-proofing" developing nations' infrastructure while $40 billion would help the poor adapt how the live to cope with climate-related risks, says the panel's report. The other $2 billion would go to strengthening responses to natural disasters."
Humans usually adapt, but not always. The nomads way becomes applicable if a living environment would become too unsuitable for living.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Is it our fault?
Not all thinks global warming is due to human. Furthermore, is global warming a disaster to be or can be avoided? Or is it just natural changes? Have there been people who try to stop the temperature from rising during summer and vice-versa during winter?
Quoting from an article:
----------
But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.
...
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.
He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
----------
On matters about science, who would you listen more to, a scientist, or a politician's movie?
Quoting from an article:
----------
But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.
...
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.
He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
----------
On matters about science, who would you listen more to, a scientist, or a politician's movie?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Warm or cool, which is more terrible?
I found this in an article:
---------------------
One of Gore's climate-change "deniers," Robert Giegengack, chairman of the department of earth and environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania, says: "In terms of (global warming's) capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10."
Of Gore's claim that temperatures are increasing solely because man-made CO2 is trapping the sun's heat, Giegengack says: "That's plain wrong. . . . It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. It's hard for us to say CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2."
R. Timothy Patterson, a professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales. . . . It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada."
---------------------
Although it seems that the credentials of the recent anti-global warming documentary are not so good, I think many arguments in it are valid. When we don't have energy, what could we do? When we have too much energy, we may direct them into proper channels.
---------------------
One of Gore's climate-change "deniers," Robert Giegengack, chairman of the department of earth and environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania, says: "In terms of (global warming's) capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10."
Of Gore's claim that temperatures are increasing solely because man-made CO2 is trapping the sun's heat, Giegengack says: "That's plain wrong. . . . It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. It's hard for us to say CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2."
R. Timothy Patterson, a professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales. . . . It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada."
---------------------
Although it seems that the credentials of the recent anti-global warming documentary are not so good, I think many arguments in it are valid. When we don't have energy, what could we do? When we have too much energy, we may direct them into proper channels.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Global warming? Yes, but...
Recently watched a documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that admits global warming as true, but disagree that it is man-made and/or CO2 caused. I think these few arguments, if correct, are significant:
1. CO2 produced by human is < 1%, while the main contributor is the ocean.
2. CO2 levels correlate with global temperature over millions of years, but lagging behind by few hundreds years, which implies that CO2 level is the affected by global temperature.
3. This is the most important but non-scientific reason: it has become politically correct not to go against the claim that Global warming is caused by man-made CO2.
[However, I should also point out that the producer may not be that trustworthy after checking him out on the wikipedia.]
In buddhism, there is this concept of wu-chang, meaning non-constant, or ever changing. To me, constant or without change is as if dead. Even our body temperature fluctuates. How would one expects global temperature to be constant? Thus, global warming is probably just as natural a phenomenon as the 4 seasons in a year, but not a problem to be prevented.
Another article I read suggested that as the river water level rises as the ice on top of high moutains melts, it will affect the communities residing in the vicinity, and cost them their land and homes. The time frame was reported as a "short" 40 years. It seems to me that human communities are assumed to be stupid to remain there for 40 years waiting to be drowned. It seems to say that human "owns" the land and therefore nature is wrong to take their "possessions" from them.
Nevertheless, I am not suggesting that we ignore all the good recommendation to reduce pollution, conserve resources, and etc. However, we should not go to the extreme to deny the poor africans and yet to developed regions to use electricity, and therefore cannot develop and remain having poor quality of life.
1. CO2 produced by human is < 1%, while the main contributor is the ocean.
2. CO2 levels correlate with global temperature over millions of years, but lagging behind by few hundreds years, which implies that CO2 level is the affected by global temperature.
3. This is the most important but non-scientific reason: it has become politically correct not to go against the claim that Global warming is caused by man-made CO2.
[However, I should also point out that the producer may not be that trustworthy after checking him out on the wikipedia.]
In buddhism, there is this concept of wu-chang, meaning non-constant, or ever changing. To me, constant or without change is as if dead. Even our body temperature fluctuates. How would one expects global temperature to be constant? Thus, global warming is probably just as natural a phenomenon as the 4 seasons in a year, but not a problem to be prevented.
Another article I read suggested that as the river water level rises as the ice on top of high moutains melts, it will affect the communities residing in the vicinity, and cost them their land and homes. The time frame was reported as a "short" 40 years. It seems to me that human communities are assumed to be stupid to remain there for 40 years waiting to be drowned. It seems to say that human "owns" the land and therefore nature is wrong to take their "possessions" from them.
Nevertheless, I am not suggesting that we ignore all the good recommendation to reduce pollution, conserve resources, and etc. However, we should not go to the extreme to deny the poor africans and yet to developed regions to use electricity, and therefore cannot develop and remain having poor quality of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
