The SNJ columnist Karen Eberhardt-Shelton was born in California but grew up in England.

She now lives in Stroud and is currently working on an education project called Learn, Think, Act and is hoping to develop an eco-community land trust.

Her thought-provoking columns will focus on how we all have to take responsibility for our actions and for our planet.

Shredding the whole – wasting the world as if there was no tomorrow.

WHEN you think how much of the earth is covered by cities, built-up metropolitan areas, what was required to build those cities and what it takes to keep them going.

Well, I don’t know how this beleaguered planet manages.

It’s almost as though anything aside from humans doesn’t exist – through the course of this non-stop growth and development, only rarely is there mention of the natural world, ecosystems, the myriad animal species, how they live, what they eat and so on.

Once an acceptable system becomes engrained in the overall picture, nearly everyone sticks to that path without challenging it, even obedient experts.

I defy this world view – it is narrow, false, harmful, and rife with “diminishing returns” in virtually every category.

It is not making the world a better place – it is doing the opposite.

What or whoever contradicts this established paradigm of growth and unending development is seen as a provocateur “contradicting prevailing wisdom.”

Yes, there is a positive opposite to all this, but even in a “green” town like Stroud, the overarching paradigm also focuses on growth and expansion, for the most part regardless of long term consequences and their knock-on effects.

Consumer-oriented humans produce all kinds of waste. Most of it is biodegradable, but what about the stuff that isn’t? The pragmatic option is to recycle it “Cradle-to-cradle” nature’s way.

Why build a huge new incinerator that would waste waste instead of reclaiming it for ongoing use? (Yes, Stroud as a whole is basically opposed to the invasion of a new incinerator, but links with the district and county council can easily override local common sense.) This hugely expensive, ugly, and Earth-unfriendly monster is intended to dispose of the daily debris perpetual growth and an ever-expanding population are responsible for. But its official supporters have their heads in the clouds and biologically, visually and economically are travelling in entirely the wrong direction.

Don’t we already have a nasty over-abundance of toxins, CO2 and a vast array of other pollutants and human “interferences” undermining the health of the entire ecosystem? Why proceed with a flawed technique so lacking in logic and rational consideration? Heat is wasted (only a small percentage of it used to generate electricity), the rubbish goes in, toxins come out, the visual impact isn’t something you’d want to impose on a dog, let alone local residents. There is an assortment of sensible alternatives already in place where the will to align with far-sighted alternatives has taken precedence. They’re less expensive too and would allow us to pat ourselves on the back for imitating nature’s techniques, instead of undermining them.

I admire Sue Oppenheimer for spending so much of her time chairing GlosVAIN (The Gloucester Vale Against Incineration), the kind of voice we should all be listening to, councillors included.

If the will is there, we can decide in the Earth’s best interests, not just our own. Deciding wisely will allow us a future, alternatively, sit back and watch the unravelling grow.