lunes, 19 de diciembre de 2016

What is appropriate technology for self-reliance?




Building a self-reliant community requires decisions on what types of technology to use. Some technologies require energy or specialized knowledge that can be easily lost. Even a simple blender is just a paperweight without a source of electricity.

So which technologies should be cultivated?

The answer lies on an old term: appropriate technology. The dictionary defines the term as:
Technology that is suitable to the social and economic conditions of the geographic area in which it is to be applied, is environmentally sound, and promotes self-sufficiency on the part of those using it.
Sounds right up our alley! During the energy crisis of the 1970s there were a host of books written about the topic while we struggled with it. When the price of oil crashed in the 80s, those books vanished off the shelves. This is an unfortunate development, because the lessons of the appropriate technology movement can be applied directly to resilient communities.

Now the term is mostly used when talking about technology advances that are introduced in the third world. For instance, teaching people how to use cooking stoves with chimneys out of local material to eliminate smoke from the home is an example of appropriate technology.

Factors for appropriate technology

Appropriate technology is more of an idea of how to approach technology rather than a set of tools. We use technology in order to solve problems in our lives. What makes a technology appropriate depends on the following factors:
  • Small scale – The community shouldn’t have to rely on heavy industry or corporate wealth to use it.
  • Anyone can use it – the technology shouldn’t require a lot of training to use. The knowledge to use the device should not be concentrated in a small group or single individual.
  • Cheap to use and make – If it’s too expensive or difficult for the community to make, then it’s not appropriate.
  • May use more labor than you’re used to – Fossil fuel use has helped us trade off human labor for the energy locked in coal and oil. To get away from these, that energy will have to be replaced by human power or more sustainable sources of energy.
  • Energy efficient – It can’t require too much energy to use than the local community can provide.
  • Controlled by the community – An important one. If the technology is controlled by a corporation or a non-local government then there is no way that community can use it for their own best benefit.
  • Environmentally friendly – Needless to say, if the use of the technology causes too much damage to the local environment then it’s not good for the community.
Appropriate technology allows us to find the best ways to do things without involving ourselves in the mechanisms of industry, corporations, government, etc. However, there is no one set level of technology that is appropriate. It all depends on the environment, the people in the community, and which tools they have access to.

Examples of appropriate technology:
  • Earthen construction – Cob, earthbag, rammed earth, cement stabilized earth, and other earthen construction techniques are popular in the alternative construction field because the material is literally dirt cheap and can be locally sourced. Each one has its own advantages and disadvantages. Cob is the simplest but requires ready access to straw. Rammed earth is fast but it requires specialized forms and a way to ram the earth solid. Take a look at these 15 ancient house designs for real world examples.
  • Electric fans – We may be used to centralized air conditioning, but we’ve lived for centuries without it. Fans do not require that much electricity and can create a cool space for living. If a community cannot maintain a central air unit, a good step-down would be to switch to simpler electric fans. Building screened porches is a step further down, but just as effective if you build it large enough to use. Take a look at old Southern homes and how they used their screened porches.
  • Organic agriculture – Gaining the ability to grow your own food without needing chemical fertilizers or water utilities is an excellent way to see how appropriate technology can work in your life. A compost pile, the core of organic agriculture, could even be considered the ultimate expression of appropriate technology.
  • Water – Humans have dug wells for millennia to get water, but getting the water out of the ground quickly is a challenge. Specialized tasks like this do need special tools, but there are companies that are making hand-drills that can go down 50 ft or more for finding water. Getting water out of a deep well is easy with a hand- or bicycle-powered hand pump. Take a look at this video for an example.
  • Human waste processing – An unexpected problem that a community has to face is how to handle human waste. Plumbing and septic tanks are difficult to install, and outhouses can cause environmental damage over time. One fascinating way to handle waste is through composting. For a whole free book on this, check out The Humanure Handbook
Many of the technologies that go into self-reliant communities have to fall under appropriate technology guidelines to remain sustainable. If a core component of a technology needs a resource that only the government or an industry can provide then there is always a chance you could lose it.

Examine any technology you are thinking of learning or buying in light of these principles and you’ll be thinking in the right direction for helping a self-reliant community thrive.





miércoles, 16 de noviembre de 2016

Documental: Before the flood


Before the flood es un documental presentado por el mediático actor Leonardo de Caprio, que trata de analizar el impacto del cambio climático, sus causas ligadas al estilo de vida occidental y posibles soluciones. Es una buena obra de divulgación, aunque no toca las partes más escabrosas del problema, ni profundiza en la insostenibilidad del modelo actual y su ya casi imposible de evitar colapso.



miércoles, 9 de noviembre de 2016

El modelo rural español no permite la supervivencia de los pueblos




La España vacía, como denomina el autor Sergio Molina al mundo rural español, ha sido incapaz de crear un modelo que le permita sobrevivir. Ante la galopante despoblación y el auge de las ciudadesalgunos creen que con más subvenciones y subsidios se va arreglar. Más estado no es la solución al problema.

El modelo de economía subvencionada (agricultura y ganadería) y hostelería y turismo esta agotado, no logra retener población. Faltan ideas y gente dispuesta a llevarlas a cabo.

Buena parte de la población residente en los pueblos de la España vacía dependen de las subvenciones, subsidios y puestos de trabajo estatales. Una vía de solución se debe de basar en "permitir" la innovación en el mundo rural, sin burocracias y creando "espacios" con normativas locales que pueden ser distintas a las estatales o autonómicas.

Desde hace años estamos trabajando en este campo. Adjuntamos una selección de nuestras propuestas:





miércoles, 10 de agosto de 2016

Huella ecológica y Overshoot Day




“No tenemos sueños baratos”, dice el anuncio.

Pensar que la humanidad puede llegar a vivir como los que mejor viven en Luxemburgo, demandando servicios ecológicos que no serían capaces de proporcionar 19 Tierras enteras, no es un sueño barato; es una quimera que puede llevarnos a vivir en muy poco tiempo la peor de las pesadillas.

La abundancia que aparentemente se observa en los países de mayor desarrollo se debe a una sobreexplotación de los recursos naturales que procede de (1) limitar el desarrollo de los países más pobres y (2) de explotar más allá de lo tolerable, el hasta hace muy poco rico, fértil y diverso planeta Tierra. Si la primera de estas dos razones demuestra una más que evidente falta de solidaridad entre estados y sociedades, la segunda es una clarísima ausencia de compromiso para con las generaciones venideras. Ambas son producto de una muy extrema cortedad de miras.

En no pocas ocasiones se ha llamado la atención sobre la inminencia del colapso civilizatorio en el que nos adentramos y de su irreversibilidad, apuntando como causa los severos daños que la actividad humana producen sobre el medioambiente y la explotación de recursos críticos más allá de su capacidad de renovación de un planeta que querámoslo o no, es finito. La sobreexplotación de recursos se refiere a la atmósfera, los ríos y lagos, los océanos, el suelo y especies vivas.

Se han propuesto acciones que permitirían minimizar este impacto y preservar la integridad de los recursos de los que nosotros mismos y los demás seres vivos que habitan la Tierra, dependemos. La reducción de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero y muy especialmente del CO2, a través de una drástica disminución del consumo de combustibles fósiles y, eventualmente, de la descarbonización de la sociedad, se ha marcado como objetivo prioritario. Pero no es suficiente. Se necesitará también frenar la deforestación del terreno, proteger de la erosión las tierras cultivables y preservar la biodiversidad del planeta. Se necesitará también detener el crecimiento de la población.

Queda, por último, incrementar la equidad, tanto entre sociedades como dentro de una misma sociedad. No está claro que la inequidad sea un factor relevante a la hora de explicar el colapso de las civilizaciones, pero es seguro que lograr amplios niveles de igualdad no solo es una cuestión de justicia. Es, ante todo, el modo más efectivo de impedir la violación de los derechos humanos por parte del Estado, el fin de la impunidad y la garantía de que, en su probable deriva hacia el colapso, las sociedades sean menos propensas a sufrir formas de gobierno totalitarias.

Extractos de la entrada No tenemos sueños baratos





lunes, 1 de agosto de 2016

Informe de Science sobre las consecuencias de la pérdida de biodiversidad


Un último informe publicado en la prestigiosa revista Science alerta de la pérdida de biodiversidad alarmante que está sufriendo el planeta a pasos de gigante. El estudio (El primero en estimar la pérdida de la biodiversidad de las comunidades ecológicas a escala global), realizado por investigadores del Museo de Historia Natural de Londres (UCL) y el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (PNUMA-WCMC), ha analizado datos de cientos de científicos de todo el mundo; alrededor de 2,38 millones de registros sobre las 39.123 especies y en 18.659 lugares, con unas conclusiones alarmantes que pueden afectar e influir en el equilibrio de la sostenibilidad de las sociedades humanas y en el funcionamiento del ecosistema.



Para que tengamos una idea general. El límite de seguridad establecido está fijado en la pérdida de aproximadamente un 10% de especies con respecto a las cifras previas al uso humano de la tierra. En ese caso se mantendría alrededor de un 90% de las especies propias de una determinada zona. El mapa elaborado por los investigadores para ilustrar la pérdida revela que la biodiversidad se sitúa entre el 85% y el 88%, de lo que se extrae que ha caído al menos entre un 12% - 15%.

La biodiversidad se está perdiendo en todo el mundo, pero algunas áreas están particularmente más afectadas. El siguiente mapa muestra las poblaciones de especies autóctonas como porcentaje de sus poblaciones originales. Las zonas azules son los límites de seguridad propuestos, y las áreas rojas son más allá, las más afectadas en perdida de especies:




Según datos referidos por la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza que están disponibles en los informes de los Indicadores de Desarrollo Mundial existen casi tantas especies de plantas amenazadas como la cantidad combinada de peces, mamíferos y aves que están en peligro. 

Si a este estudio, añadimos el informe formalizado por la Comisión Europea en el que se constata que el 80% de los bosques originales que cubrían la Tierra hace 8.000 años han sido talados, fragmentados o dañados, por la mano del hombre. Estamos ante un momento delicado de la vida del planeta cuya respuesta ante tal tesitura debe de ser global como en el caso del cambio climático (Recordemos el COP21) dejando de lado las posibles discrepancias existentes entre países. Esto es una cuestión que afecta a todos y a todos los niveles.

Los científicos del estudio aseguran que… “En muchas partes del mundo, la situación está llegando a un punto en que probablemente será necesaria la intervención humana para mantener la función de los ecosistemas

Aunque a veces es difícil entender que somos parte de una cadena en equilibrio que no se puede romper, en un ecosistema que todo encaja a la perfección y que la “rotura” de ese equilibrio nos afecta de forma contundente queremos intentar explicar el por qué es necesario mantener la biodiversidad y sus ecosistemas en perfecta armonía.

Cuando se producen desastres o “perdida” de un ecosistema – en la mayoría de veces - por la actividad humana, tiene una repercusión en la productividad de plantas, fecundidad del suelo, calidad del agua, química atmosférica, y muchas otras condiciones ambientales globales, que por último afectan al bienestar de las sociedades humanas y la reducción de la pobreza. Estos procesos ecosistémicos son controlados, tanto por la biodiversidad, como por la identidad de las especies de plantas, animales y microbios en una comunidad. Las modificaciones por acciones humanas en una región pueden trastocar las funciones ecológicas que sostienen la vida, tanto a nivel local como abarcando amplias zonas, atendiendo a su importancia.

Aunque todos los factores son difíciles de explicar, creemos que en la siguiente imagen se puede clarificar los efectos de forma clara.



Debemos de recordar que es vital para la salud y el sustento alimenticio de las personas. Los organismos vivos, animales, plantas y microorganismos interactúan para formar redes complejas e interconectadas de ecosistemas naturales y hábitats que, a su vez, aportan “servicios ecosistémicos” de los que depende toda la vida.

Aunque la tecnología puede sustituir algunos “servicios ecosistémicos” y amortiguar su degradación, muchos no se pueden reemplazar. Así que ya no es una cuestión de sí deberíamos proteger la biosfera, es ya una necesidad.

Publicación original




martes, 5 de julio de 2016

Corriente de chorro y meteorología extrema



Humans have had to cope with extreme weather events throughout their history. However, the data shows that the number of certain types of extreme events is on the rise in recent decades. For some types of extremes, such as heat waves, droughts and extreme rainfall events, this is an expected outcome of global warming. Other consequences have surprised climate researchers, such as changes in the jet stream and planetary waves in the atmosphere that have been linked to some unprecedented recent extreme events.

Stefan Rahmstorf obtained his PhD in oceanography at Victoria University of Wellington in 1990. He has worked as a scientist at the New Zealand Oceanographic Institute, at the Institute of Marine Science in Kiel and since 1996 at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. His work focuses on the role of the oceans in climate change. 

In 1999 Rahmstorf was awarded the $ 1 million Centennial Fellowship Award of the US-based James S. McDonnell foundation. Since 2000 he teaches Physics of the Oceans as a professor at Potsdam University. Rahmstorf served from 2004–2013 in the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) and was one of the lead authors of the 4th IPCC Assessment Report.

Dr. Rahmstorf has published over 100 scientific papers (30 in leading journals such as Nature, Science and PNAS) and co-authored four books. Available in English are Our Threatened Oceans (2009, with Katherine Richardson) and The Climate Crisis (2010, with David Archer).




lunes, 4 de julio de 2016

La visión del científico Carlos de Castro sobre el fin del sistema: decrecimiento y capitalismo verde




Documental grabado por el blog "Y la cabra tiró al monte" en Villafranca de Duero (Valladolid) con el profesor Carlos de Castro Carranza, un especialista en limites de crecimiento y sostenibilidad, así como modelización de sistemas de energía a escala mundial. Su gran pasión son los árboles. Ha dedicado años a investigar la hipótesis Gaia, defendiendo que la biosfera es un organismo vivo. En 2001 ya advirtió del colapso del sistema en su primer libro “La revolución solidaria”. Tras escribir varios ensayos sintió la necesidad de llegar a más gente y se paso a la novela. “El Oráculo de Gaia” es un ejercicio de ciencia ficción a partes iguales, una prospección de lo que podría ser nuestro futuro si seguimos por este camino.

Nos interesa saber en que momento nos encontramos quienes optamos por retornar un modo de vida más rural y más local, en contraposición con nuestro modelo de vida urbana y consumista. Resulta bien curioso hablar con una mete científica de energías renovables, de capitalismo verde, de decrecimiento, de sostenibilidad, de autosuficiencia, de la vuelta al campo, de soberanía energética y en definitiva de nuestro sistema.



Más enlaces sobre ecología





sábado, 2 de julio de 2016

Documental: Navetierra, el primer earthship en Latinoamérica




La primera vivienda earthship de Latinoamérica, comenzó su construcción durante los primeros días de Enero de este año y
 ha sido impulsada por los actores Mariano Torre y su mujer, Elena Roger, integrantes de la Fundación NAT (Naturaleza Aplicada a la Tecnología), además de contar con el aval del intendente de Ushuaia, Federico Sciurano.

Michael Reynolds, creador del concepto earthship, forma parte de Earthship Biotecture, una organización dedicada a fomentar este tipo de edificaciones a nivel global, eligió esta ciudad en el "fin del mundo" como un símbolo de "una nueva relación entre el ser humano y la tierra, que no sea tan destructiva".

Como parte del proyecto, el arquitecto realizó en la ciudad la primera "Academia Internacional de entrenamiento para la construcción autosustentable", destinada a 50 alumnos seleccionados por él y a un grupo de 10 fueguinos interesados.

El Proyecto

La vivienda ha sido levantada por más de 60 personas (provenientes de diferentes partes del mundo) a través del reciclaje de 333 neumáticos, 3000 latas de aluminio, 5000 botellas de plástico y 3000 botellas de vidrio. La construcción consta de dos volúmenes cilíndricos de 50 metros cuadrados y un armazón de cristales que permite que la vivienda mantenga una temperatura constante de entre 18 y 22 grados, ahorrando energía eléctrica. 

Los constructores cuentan que la sostenibilidad del proyecto se define en base a la refrigeración y calefacción mediante masa térmica (evitando la utilización de combustibles fósiles) y la construcción con materiales naturales y reciclados, además de integrar la recolección, filtrado y limpieza del agua de la lluvia, el tratamiento de las aguas residuales, la producción sostenible de frutas y verduras, y el abastecimiento energético por medio de energía eólica y solar.

La actriz y cantante Elena Roger –promotora de la “Nave Tierra”- ha comentado: "Para nosotros es más que importante llevar a cabo este proyecto porque vemos que las ciudades están completamente saturadas y creo que Ushuaia está a tiempo de revertir eso. Esta construcción demuestra que podemos aportarle al planeta en vez de saturarlo".

Adjuntamos un bonito documental sobre el proyecto: Navetierra - Earthship Ushuaia






viernes, 1 de julio de 2016

Open source initiative to make affordable eco-housing widely accessible


Imagine an expandable module home that grows with your budget and can grow your own food. All at a fraction of the cost of traditional home construction. This Kickstarter campaign has it. Open Source Ecology.



Open Building Institute (Open Source Ecology) lanza una campaña en Kickstarter para hacer la inversión de documentar en código libre, gratis para cualquier persona, el proceso constructivo de una vivienda modular, autoconstruible y autosuficiente. La vivienda es la mayor inversión financiera de una familia a lo largo de su vida y el principal sumidero de energía y causante de contaminación de todos los elementos de nuestro modelo de vida. Innovar en la vivienda es atacar la mayor del problema.





miércoles, 22 de junio de 2016

The sustainability commons: using Open Source Design to address climate change




June 8, 2016

A growing movement that combines open source design with sustainability is creating an exciting alternative to profit-driven, proprietary sustainability products. As we face urgent issues like climate change, the ability of open source communities to quickly and inexpensively create solutions makes increasing sense.

One project that clearly recognizes this big opportunity for impact is POC21, an international innovation network whose participants create open-source, sustainability-related products like the 30$ Wind Turbine, Aker (open source urban gardening infrastructure), and Faircap (open source portable water filter). Co-organized by Ouishareco-founder Benjamin Tincq, POC21 has brought together hundreds of designers, makers and organizers to “prototype the fossil free, zero waste society.”

Shareable connected with Tincq to talk about the urgent need for open and distributed design and fabrication, why this movement provides an exciting alternative to traditional production methods, and the need to find a sexy term to describe open source, sustainable product design.

An open approach to design and production will allow for the biggest teams possible to create solutions in as little time as possible.

Shareable: There’s an urgency here, as we face so many pressing planetary issues, to come up with solutions fast. Why is open source design essential for sustainability? How can open sourcing designs and projects help address global warming, inequality and other priority issues?

Benjamin Tincq: I think there are at least four layers of why we need an open approach to solving the wicked problems of our times, including energy and climate, zero waste, biodiversity, democracy, etc.

1. We need the biggest team possible to create the solutions for wicked problems in very little time, which means not having everyone reinventing the wheel every time, but instead sharing knowledge and inventions into a common pool for humanity that everybody can build upon. This superior innovation capability is basically what the whole FLOSS (free / libre / open source) community has demonstrated in software.

2. Open design and open hardware can be seen as the ultimate "anti-planned obsolescence strategy," or a "zero waste design" principle, if you prefer. Documenting the fabrication processes, materials and tools—ideally using standards as much as possible—will enable a longer product longevity, and easier repair. This is something that the OSCE Days (Open Source Circular Economy Days) is bringing awareness about.

3. The re-localization of manufacturing that goes along with distributed fabrication will save tons of carbon through shorter and local supply chains instead of shipping parts and products all over the globe in large containers. This long-term evolution is clearly articulated by the Fab City Network instigated by Tomas Diez, which grew out of the experiment in Barcelona aiming to re-localize at least 50% of fabrication in the next 40 years in urban centres.

4. This new production model can eventually drive a shift from the consumer mindset to the prosumer mindset, which enables citizens to better understand how products are made, lets them meet the producers in their city, and maybe even contribute to the design and production process themselves. This way, people are less likely to just buy, use and dispose of their things, but will instead care about what they use and make.

Entrepreneur Elon Musk, practically a living legend by now, has opened all of Tesla's patents. Why is this important? Who else is doing the same?

It is important because it sends the message that moving away from intellectual property to allow others to build on your platform is not only a fantasy for utopians and radicals, but can also be a viable business model for entrepreneurs. Tesla's interest lies in the fact that by opening its electric vehicle technology, it will become a standard that will grow the market for the batteries and recharging stations they also provide.

In the automotive industry, we also see companies like Ford and Toyota experimenting with opening some components, but not entire vehicles so far.

"Moving away from intellectual property to allow others to build on your platform...can be a viable business model for entrepreneurs." —Benjamin Tincq

On the other hand, Cradle-to-cradle production certification started as a proprietary system, and from what I understand, that limited its potential until the founders turned it over to an NGO to manage. Can you talk about that?

I am not super familiar with it, but, to my understanding, Cradle to Cradle is a biomimeticapproach to the design of products and buildings that are regenerative by design. It is indeed sad that the methodology is protected, and it is certainly is a big hurdle to its development. However, similar approach and techniques have been developed in the biomimetism, circular economy, zero waste and sustainable design communities, so I don't think is much of a problem now. It's like holacracy: since the brand is protected, you cannot [use the name], but many people know similar principles and can apply them anyway.

I’ve heard this space referred to as the sustainability commons. Do you use that phrase? Is there a better one that's being used to define this intersection?

This is the first time I’ve heard the term "sustainability commons.” It sounds good but I am not sure it will speak to everyone since the "commons" concept is still not very mainstream, but used more by academics and experts.

What you are refering to is the intersection of distributed fabrication (local production and open source designs) and sustainable product design that will ideally translate into social enterprises aiming to tackle sustainability challenges with open technology. I would call that "open sustainable production," but that's not super sexy.

What would you say to those who don’t support the open design mindset, who feel like it’s important to patent their innovations?

I would tell them to take some time to think if they would not benefit from including a much larger community into their R&D process, and if their business model really depends on patenting their technology. Technology is everywhere and it is becoming more and more a commodity (except maybe for very advanced ones). The value will be more and more in intangible things such as the brand and the ecosystem, the know-how and the services, the relationship with the partners and the ecosystem, the network and the platform.

A key struggle today is to find investors who are ready to support social entrepreneurs that do not have intellectual property and are building their inventions in open source. There are still too few of them because very few investors understand how value lies in things other than the IP itself. It is slowly changing though.

Is there a balance between retaining intellectual property ownership and opening things to the sustainability commons? For instance, with a photo, I can give it a Creative Commons (CC) license, which enables people to use it in the manner I’ve decided. Are there similar licenses in the open design movement?

In Open Hardware, you can use a combination of software licenses (GNU GPL, MIT License, etc.) and Creative Commons for the designs, but CC does not really protect the fabrication process itself—only the blueprint file. For the processes, there are specific open hardware licenses like the TAPR OHL and CERN OHL licenses. They are more robust but less well-known, so the CC version can also have the "community advantage" in the way that everybody understands the spirit of it.

All of these licenses allow for the use, reproduction, modification and redistribution of the product blueprints. What they lack though are restrictions on materials. For instance, it would be great to have a license that says: "You can modify this table and distribute your new version, as long as you use local, sustainable wood".

What are the key challenges the sustainability commons movement faces? How are they best addressed?

Looking back at the 12 prototypes that have been developed at POC21, which are all great ideas, none of them has really moved into the scaling phase yet. The most advanced of them is probably Faircap, the open source portable water filter, which recently raised funds from the U.N. Innovation Fund and has found manufacturing partners.

I think for open hardware sustainability to scale and become a serious alternative in the cleantech scene, we need to address two main issues in parallel:

The first one is providing better access to capital investment that cares about the impact more than the profit. I believe there are many interesting models to look at in the Impact Investing scene, such as longer fund lifetimes, capped returns, or revenue participation instead of equity (avoiding the "exit imperative" in which investors put money in startups with the only goal to sell their shares for a much higher price).

I am currently working on creating such a fund that would be focused on open and decentralized technologies for social and environmental impact. It will also be able to mentor the social entrepreneurs on finding the right, viable business model for their sustainable tech.

The second one is raising the bar in terms of "dealflow quality," to speak like an investor. This means developing more polished and finished products, with user experience in mind—something we called "sexy like Apple, open like Wikipedia" in our vision for POC21—and a clear development/scaling strategy. We are working together with the Open State team, OuiShare's partner in crime for POC21, on a project that aims to help in this area as well, but the concept is still too early-stage at this moment so I cannot say more.

What are some of your favorite sustainability commons projects?

Well as a start, all the POC21 projects were great. I'm really looking forward to how Faircap(a water filter), SunZilla (a portable solar generator), Solar OSE (a solar concentrator for steam generation), AKER (snap together garden kits), Bicitractor (a bicycle tractor), Open Energy Monitor (energy monitoring tools) and Showerloop (a real-time water filter for showers) will develop in the future.

Others include OSVehicle , a modular, open source, electric car platform; L'Increvable, an open source washing machine made to last 50 years; Smart Citizen Kit, an open source technology for political participation; Fairphone (though it's not exactly open yet), a modular, ethically-made, open smartphone; Wikihouse, an open source building system.





lunes, 6 de junio de 2016

El problema de la despoblación del mundo rural


Unas jornadas sobre despoblación en el Parlamento Europeo ponen de manifiesto el fracaso absoluto de los planes e inversiones públicas sobre este problema, llegando al la conclusión que la solución debe partir desde la propia sociedad civil, ya que el resultado de las políticas actuales ha sido nefasto. Algunos datos que se han aportado en la jornadas muestran que Castilla y León pierde 25.000 habitantes al año y perderá 200.000 en el decenio 2013-23 siendo la Comunidad más envejecida de Europa.

Entradas relacionadas