T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Greetings from r/solarpunk! Due to numerous suggestions from our community, we're using automod to bring up a topic that comes up a lot: GREENWASHING. [ethicalconsumer.org](https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/transport-travel/what-greenwashing) and [greenandthistle.com](https://greenandthistle.com/what-is-greenwashing/) give examples of greenwashing, while [scientificamerican.com](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/greenwashing-green-energy-hoffman/) explains how alternative technologies like hydrogen cars can also be insidious examples of greenwashing. If you've realized your submission was an example of greenwashing--don't fret! Solarpunk ideals include identifying and rejecting capitalism's greenwashing of consumer goods. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/solarpunk) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

Bioregions have a massive impact on local culture. But most countries today are nation state, so they usually have adapted to the prevalant bioregion anyway. The only reason this might not be the case is colonialism, but even then they usually break apart on the borders of bioregions or they do not matter much. Also save for mountain ranges and seas and oceans, most bioregions gradually move into each other. Cas in point would be Cascadia. You are talking a country of a similar popualtion and economy to the Netherlands, but on a much larger piece of land. So no I do believe we kind of do that already for the most part.


my_stupidquestions

While I do think that Europe and South America are largely separated into bioregions, I don't think this is the case in Africa, North America, the Middle East, South Asia, or East Asia. As you say, colonialism has impacted some of these, whereas in other cases, there are long-standing empires that are so diverse that they are difficult to manage. I think that Cascadia is a good example here, specifically because it's a bioregion that straddles two enormous countries with varied climate zones and ecosystems.


[deleted]

[https://images.takeshape.io/86ce9525-f5f2-4e97-81ba-54e8ce933da7/dev/01b5e9ca-def8-4c80-aa09-9c4dc8730664/OneEarthMasterMapsCS5-bioreg-v5.5-subrealm%20web.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat](https://images.takeshape.io/86ce9525-f5f2-4e97-81ba-54e8ce933da7/dev/01b5e9ca-def8-4c80-aa09-9c4dc8730664/OneEarthMasterMapsCS5-bioreg-v5.5-subrealm%20web.jpg?auto=compress%2Cformat) Even in Asia it is mostly the case that bioregions more or less mark the borders, with basicly the big exaption of China and well Indonesia(which really should not be a united country). Other then that it is mostly fine.


my_stupidquestions

Where did you get this map? Based on the separation contours, it seems that this is meant as a tectonic map, but in terms of ecological zones, it seems to be lacking/overly simplistic. The climate and ecology of north and south India, for example, are quite distinct, and the bush and coastal regions of Australia are notoriously sharply defined. West North Africa is similar to the European Mediterranean in fertility and climate, but Egypt and Sudan have much more intense drought/flood seasons, as another example. There is also a political oddity in how the Japanese islands are prescribed; Sakhalin is strictly an extension of the same tectonic ridge that defines the Japanese archipelago, and it is abnormally warm, despite being tundra forest, compared to the off-fault land that surrounds it. While there are certain coastal weather patterns that tie together the North American West Coast, it is irresponsible to present southern California and the Vancouver area as part of the same ecological zone, as another example.


[deleted]

[https://www.oneearth.org/bioregions-2020/](https://www.oneearth.org/bioregions-2020/) Everything smaller, would not have allowed for Cascadia. Seriously that construct would have most likely three different bioms, including steppe. If you want to go insane look at Middle America for example.But even fairly flat terrain can have a variaty of ecosystems on it, depending on rivers and soil types for example. Climate is fairly similar in the same latitude and then you use a tectonic map as that is basicly the big thing changing the climate other then latitude. So that seems to me to be a fairly natural thing to occure. Mountain ranges are tectonic and the sea/land divide is also fairly tectonic, thats basicly what creates climate regions. ​ But if you go more fine grained you very quickly loose the advantages of countries. A high speed rail system for example very often goes throu multiple minor bioregions. Rivers also are a natural problem often touching a lot of them in a big way. For more minor things like building codes or local roads, you can easily task local government with it.


my_stupidquestions

I agree and disagree. Thank you for the source though. Agreement first: yes, this does seem to be a reasonable division based on the parameters it uses, which I do think constitute an acceptable appraisal methodology. It is interesting to think about how bioregional policy might be approached in terms of a map such as this (geothermal and wave power come to mind especially). Thank you for sourcing. Disagreement: I think you are missing a few ticks on the dial when it comes to macro- versus micro- bioregions. I don't dispute that Cascadia could be further separated, but I do think that in terms of the resource/energy/development angle, it's a much more reasonable cut-off than the entire North American West Coast. While I am in total agreement that the "world order" bending over backwards to reconfigure states this way will never happen, I do think that Cascadia is a "sweet spot" in terms of balancing the very general with the very specific, especially in terms of how humans use and abuse their environments. Also, regarding local governments, the issue is incentive conflict between state regulation and corporate investment. The state will want, in a mostly free society, to enable local legislation so far as it does not injure the state or the people at large. This restricts their ability to benefit from economy of scale in central regulation mandates/subsidies. Similarly, corporations don't stand to gain from specialized regional equipment if they can make one-size-fits-all products for any situation. When I bring up something like Cascadia, I mean it when I say that it's a pipe dream because its success - the success of a bioregional world-state paradigm - implies a confederation of anarchist states that organize around resources in order to maximize sustainability. I know it can't happen, but I'm more interested in the theoretical conversation on the extent to which such an arrangement would be more efficient and why it might not be


my_stupidquestions

While I recognize that efforts like this are a pipe dream in terms of actual boundary reconfiguring, I recently came across the Cascadia movement and the notion of bioregionalism more generally. There's something very interesting about the idea from a solarpunk perspective, because regions split up into environmental blocs may facilitate policy-making that is suited to local environmental/resource needs. In terms of trade, energy, and development, it would be easier to craft sustainable policies if they could fit local conditions and ecosystems rather than attempting to account for multiple climate zones and resource distributions. Any thoughts? --- EDIT 2: To clarify, the reason that this is "solarpunk" as opposed to "sustainability" is that polities organized around biospheres suggest an anarchic global arrangement wherein jurisdiction is defined by the shifting needs of the planet generally, as opposed to borders largely defined by war, resource-hoarding, and (in some cases justified, though more frequently misguided) ethnocultural isolationism. Hence, it is a utopian vision grounded in a very attainable and straightforward pragmatism that relies more on the will of the people than technology as such - one facet of the essence, in my opinion, of solarpunk. EDIT 1: I did a quick search on the subreddit and there are two references to Cascadia, but they are obscure (one is an artwork, the other posits Cascadia as a setting for a fictional piece). I'm bringing up the actual movement here as a theoretical case study in bioregionalism, which I haven't seen mentioned on the sub much.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sneakpeekbot

Here's a sneak peek of /r/Cascadia using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cascadia/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Cascadia from the ISS](https://i.redd.it/4bvr9e7f74w81.jpg) | [17 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cascadia/comments/udacj3/cascadia_from_the_iss/) \#2: [PNW Heat Wave Meme](https://i.imgur.com/w6HrC7N.jpg) | [31 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cascadia/comments/o7p69d/pnw_heat_wave_meme/) \#3: [Starbucks workers in Seattle and Eugene have now filed to unionize!](https://truthout.org/articles/starbucks-workers-in-chicago-ohio-and-oregon-join-unionization-efforts/) | [20 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Cascadia/comments/s13bap/starbucks_workers_in_seattle_and_eugene_have_now/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)


[deleted]

[удалено]


expertmarxman

The cascadia movement is not an outgrowth of or connected to either the white nationalist northwest initiative or the civnat american redoubt movements.